Let's clear this up

[Lotus]

1 minute ago, Phil said:

That I am a teacher is a belief. That I am not a teacher is not a belief.

How's one a belief and the other one not? The content of a belief can be anything.

[Phil]

3 minutes ago, Lotus said:

How's one a belief and the other one not? The content of a belief can be anything.

If you’re not believing I’m a soccer ball, there just isn’t that belief. 

[Lotus]

10 hours ago, Phil said:

If you’re not believing I’m a soccer ball, there just isn’t that belief. 

Oh, yeah, that makes sense. 💡

Perhaps the word order in the previous quote confused me.

[Phil]

18 hours ago, Serenity said:

The ego is an illusion. Therefore there is no identity to have.  And there is no teacher.

The PM with Leo to an external eye look insane, because it point to the deepest truth there is: no self.

Phil tried to help Leo see through the limitations of his own ego. Leo is not enlightened. He is attached to his role as a teacher and administrator of Actualized.org and it was probably the very root cause of the rift.

This is the way I interpret it now. At first glance, I thought it was weird too. Especially because of the framing, and the lack of general context given to the exchange.

Now that I read it again, I see it totally differently. But like every conversation I have with Phil, it takes deep effort to "see" and realize what's being said there.

Indeed. There is no ‘knower’, ‘rememberer’, ‘arbitrator’ etc of The Truth. 🤍 As was already said, there is no ‘avoider of the Truth’, etc. There isn’t that “second you”, there is thought attachment, believing of thoughts, and therein lies the ‘separate self’. 

A comment could have been made in reply to a comment, just like any other comment on any other forum. But instead it seems a whole narrative was weaved about a separate self, guy, teacher, etc, etc, “Nahm”.