Jump to content

is leo delusional, or is it buddhism?


nuwu

Recommended Posts

@Devin

 

Thought is you believing separation, yes the Light is always shining, but when you believe there is more to get, you ‘throw it out’ for a belief that there is something you need to get, understand, do, or be. 
 

Ten thousand tears,

One Belly Laugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Devin said:

The light shines either way

The ego is not your friend.

 

5 hours ago, Devin said:

what they teach… should not be the end goal.

What Buddhism says is very differeny than what you’re saying Buddhism says. “What they teach” isn’t an end goal#exitthevan. 😉 

5 hours ago, Devin said:

Realize what is thought, but also realize believing thoughts are bad(need for cessation) is a thought. Thoughts are not bad.

Buddhism doesn’t suggest thoughts are bad, nor that cessation is a need because thoughts are bad. Who says that? Clearly cessation just isn’t for you. 

5 hours ago, Devin said:

Therefore there is always "more". You all are looking at an "end", a concept.

Nothing actually ends because the separate self of thought, suffering, is illusory. Without the thought activity of separate selves there is the clarity of infinity. Again, just two apparent words pointing to the same. 

4 hours ago, Devin said:

So then by that logic cessation of thought doesn't matter because "there's no end, there's no "more"".

End, logic and more are thoughts. Check perception and sensation for any actuality of ‘these’.

4 hours ago, Devin said:

You're describing an end, otherwise why do we need cessation of thought?

There already isn’t anyone who needs cessation of thought. 

That is the activity of thought. 

4 hours ago, Devin said:

Seriously you all are falling short, you're believing a concept.

There already isn’t anyone who’s falling short.

That is the activity of thought. 

4 hours ago, Devin said:

Thoughts are not bad!!!

No one is saying they are!!! 🙏 

4 hours ago, Devin said:

It's not liberation it's just cessation. Just another feeling, there's nothing to be liberated from, there's no one to be liberated

Cessation isn’t just another feeling. 

The mind can not be where it has not yet been.

4 hours ago, Devin said:

There's nothing wrong with thought, believing thoughts, any thoughts, being unawake. There's nothing wrong with it, it's just an experience

You're fixated on joy, love, peace... Meaning you're afraid of fear, pain, and suffering. As your man Leo would say, "that ain't awake."

Awareness, or, wakefulness is infinite. There isn’t any thing which is or isn’t awake. Awareness can veil itself with the activity of thought which is itself and dilute itself to such an extent as to purport to be the knower of infinite awareness, a thing which knows awareness is this other thing, and thus the knower of what things are and aren’t awake. But things aren’t awake and awareness isn’t a thing. This is panpsychism, the ego’s so to speak new attempt to ‘bring infinite awareness down to it’s levels’ by believing there is a separate self which knows levels of infinite awareness. 

 

Fear is an emotion. The aren’t separated selves (which are afraid). 

3 hours ago, Devin said:

come with me, and you'll see, a world full of pure imagination....

 

3 hours ago, Devin said:

You don't need to come with me, that would be thinking of an end. Like buddhism. It's just an invitation.

A lot of misinformation on Buddhism.

3 hours ago, Devin said:

 

You're living completely unconscious if you're just seeking joy and peace (thought cessation) everyone is doing that already

 

You think you're awake because you know you have it? No, that's a thought as well

There is no you / separate self. Consciousness is infinite. The infinite that keeps being claimed to be bad, have ends, etc. 

Only consciousness is conscious. 

 

‘Living completely unconscious’ is an oxymoron. 

2 hours ago, Devin said:

what you all are pointing to as awake, I think falls short

See the moon. How could what is infinite fall short?

Who knows this? 

“The knower”?

A “thinker”?

2 hours ago, Devin said:

Joy and peace is great, but there's more

‘More’ is exactly as it appears. Nothing is hidden. 

1 hour ago, Devin said:

Exactly, why leave out falling short?

 

It's falling short clearly by not including "falling short"

Thoughts aren’t bad, and acknowledging a thought is just a thought isn’t falling short… bad and falling short are just thoughts, as simple & self evident as is experienced. 

1 hour ago, Devin said:

I mean the opposite actually, to me Buddhism is saying you "need ...". I'm saying you're fine, either way actually, it's all just experience; thought, no thought, reality, imagination, joy, love, misery, suffering, hate, anger.

“To me, enlightened one is saying you need…”

                                                                              🧐 

1 hour ago, Devin said:

 

Thought is believing separation yes.

But that doesn't mean it's bad!!!

What’s with the thoughts aren’t bad campaign? Running for office or something? 

1 hour ago, Devin said:

They want to END suffering, how is that not wanting an END

The separate self never began, but the illusion seems persistent. 

1 hour ago, Devin said:

 

Suffering is not bad, it's just an experience

 

They want finite!!!!

 

Taste the rainbow, there's more than just the color joy.

 

 The ego is not your friend.

🤍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Devin

 

I never said anything was bad, all I am saying is that if you believe it, rather then feel it, you will forget What You Really Are. Remembering is Direct. 

I am not specifically talking about any system. 

 

Are you implying bad is bad? 🙃

 

😂 Love ya

 

Edited by Loop

Ten thousand tears,

One Belly Laugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phil said:

Awareness can veil itself with the activity of thought

 

w-why is ego considered identical to thoughts? it doesn’t matter how many layers of concrete or abstract understandings consciousness gives shape to, isn’t it all part of truth? conceptualisation does not imply attachments.

 

i still meditate and seek selflessness, but as far as i can see, there are blind spots in advaita/buddhism that deserve to be explored. such as having a clear understanding of the end goal (even if we say the end is an illusion, in practice our experiences will be radically different). if we are going back to where we came from, what’s the point? using concepts to prevent the exploration of other concepts is not a solution to this. eventually, this would also be useful in mainstreaming spirituality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Phil said:

Because ‘it’s’ never actual.

 

what's the difference between perception and abstraction? aren't they both the same substance (imagination)? why would more or less direct forms of understanding even require a sense of self? i don't share the opinion of @Devin that the ego isn't problematic, but buddhism and advaita may or may not provide the full picture of what we should do with our consciousness, conveniently omitted by the "it's impossible to know" rhetoric. we actually don't know if it really is impossible to know either. the sense of self only limits the expansion and freedom of awareness, but it doesn't change its substrate. we are it. if leo has been aware of states potentially beyond ego games, it's intriguing. i don't think we should be scared of exploring the realm of possibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@fopylo @nuwu

1 hour ago, nuwu said:

what's the difference between perception and abstraction?

An abstraction would be ‘you can perceive thought’. It’s a general overview, vs a more acute inspection into what’s actual. 

 

1 hour ago, nuwu said:

aren't they both the same substance (imagination)?

Are you imagining they are? 

 

1 hour ago, nuwu said:

why would more or less direct forms of understanding even require a sense of self?

What’s meant by a sense of self? 

 

1 hour ago, nuwu said:

i don't share the opinion of @Devin that the ego isn't problematic, but buddhism and advaita may or may not provide the full picture of what we should do with our consciousness, conveniently omitted by the "it's impossible to know" rhetoric.

we actually don't know if it really is impossible to know either. the sense of self only limits the expansion and freedom of awareness, but it doesn't change its substrate. we are it. if leo has been aware of states potentially beyond ego games, it's intriguing. i don't think we should be scared of exploring the realm of possibilities.

Advaita means not two, or ‘not second ness’. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leo has the Feminine and Marriage in his shadow.  Buddhism is a Divine Feminine teaching primarily.  He also has the human in his shadow on some level, although he appears to operate from the human Masculine a lot.  Leo likes to think he embodies the Divine Masculine and he thinks that is the be all end all of integration work.  He's a specialist pretending to be a generalist in my opinion.   He's gonna crap all over Buddhism and No Self because he has the Feminine in his shadow.  This is similar to the Divine Feminine crapping on the I who has the Masculine in her shadow.  I am God might seem like an abomination from the Feminine who has the Divine Masculine in her shadow.  Most people can't see around these kinds of wars of specialists pretending to be generalists.  The generalist is integrated and transcended -- they're both free and entangled paradoxically.

Edited by Joseph Maynor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you ask a dozen Buddhists what Buddhism is about, you might get a dozen different answers. 

 

"Philosophy of non-clinging" -- Christopher Titmuss

 

"My religion is Kindness"

-- Dalai Lama

 

There's a Buddhist sutta where Buddha says he emphasizes in his teaching suffering and the end of suffering. 

 

Note suffering is a translation from Pali of the word, dukkha. Dukkha has also been translated as stress. 

 

There's also a sutta of the two arrows. One arrow is physical pain, the other mental. The worldly feels both arrows, the instructed only feels the first arrow. 

 

Equanimity is in many Buddhist lists and should be developed. So this whole ending suffering could be drastically reduced thru the practice of equanimity. So suffering doesnt have to disappear -- you just handle it. 

 

Does Buddhism concern awakening? Phil quoted a piece in this thread where Buddhism certainly is. 

 

But what's your definition of awakening? For many nondualists, it's realizing No-Self (or non self). Well gee thats Anatta and was literally the first teaching of the Buddha (whose name literally means one who is awake). 

 

Many people if asked who is enlightened might point to the Dalai Lama. 

 

Buddhist meditation is not about stopping thoughts or even  concentration. You won't find in the suttas (Early Buddhism) any concentration practices. No mantras, for example. No trances. 

 

If you look at the Satipathanna sutta where the Buddha lays out meditation -- a method the Buddha calls  "a direct path to liberation" you'll find its more a roving meditation. Breathing, 4 foundations, the Elements, Death, Impermance, 7 Factors of Enlightenment...

 

It's meditation, being mindful, and practicing for Insight. As U Tejaniya says, Awareness alone is not enough. 

 

 

See Analayo Excellent Guided Meditation here 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.” ― The Buddha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Is Leo delusional or is it Buddhism?"

 

Gee. Let me take a stab at this one lol... - This is Leo Gura we're talking about here right who claimed to be God in his Awakening in Real Time video, omniscient, and could cure diseases (yet was so silly he didn't edit out being puzzled whether his camera was recording or not!). 

 

How do you know if someone is legit or delusional? 

 

One way is come back in a few years and see how they are doing. Delusional teachers have to reinvent themselves, find something new and improved, to sell their students. 

 

For example, Daniel Ingram in his first edition of his "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha" , claimed to be an Arahant. An Arahant is wayyyy up there -- like a Buddha really. His book is very technical and mappy and inspired a lot of young, western males. 

 

So what do we find in his second edition? That Daniel has taken up Magick! But of course! It's brilliant really because there's no vetting possible. Daniel in an interview with Guru Viking says he's had to battle some (presumably evil) magicians -- and it's like a boss fight in World of Warcraft. Daniel tells of how he used magick, in a dream, and made a rock disappear from his hand. In the second edition, Daniel now has a chapter warning of fairies. Okayyy. 

 

So early Leo was more aligned with Buddhism and now he's not...Leo is now Leo. But of course. 

 

Leo read a few books on Buddhism. Leo didn't spend years on Buddhist retreat, was never a monk, didn't get a degree in Buddhist studies. Leo in his videos regularly and consistently got Buddhism wrong. Leo never had a teacher. Leo in other words is hardly an expert, never was, and dont know shit. 

 

A lot of gurus go the Ingram and Gura route. They may start out sounding fairly sane, maybe some quirkiness, a few red flags (expert on everything, narcissism, big ego) but often eventually their house of cards falls. To explain it requires more delusion. Outside enemies. Demons. 

 

See Heavens Gate. Jim Jones. Keith Raniere. Osho. Etc etc. 

 

 

 

 

 

“If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.” ― The Buddha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think at some point you gotta learn to think for yourself and trust yourself.  There are many teachers, but how many teachers are learners?  It’s like each part thinking they’re the whole thing and all the parts are doing this and there’s no sense of a working with.  It’s just a doubling down of a bunch of teachers talking past each other.  There’s a real danger in identifying as a teacher because you kinda stop listening and your ego gets invested in your teachings. This includes everyone even those who don’t think they have a self.  It’s good to step away from reaching for a while sometimes.  Let that teacher persona dissolve a bit.  Rediscover the joy of learning and being open to different things again.  You’re perfectly fine and will live without your teachings to feed your ego and to chest beat (like a gorilla) around others.  A lot of this is chest beating disguised to be something else.  What matters is how’s your life going?  If you’re gonna engage in chest beating, at least be original about it.  Your teachings should authentically come out of you.  Prepackaged teachings are just models to guide you as an example in birthing your own insights.

Edited by Joseph Maynor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please feel free to use the Emptying section of this forum to clear up confusion around anything specific that a teacher has said and make the intention of your discussion less about the right or wrongness of the teacher themselves. We aim to do our very best to apply the principles in the guidelines of this forum to everyone, regardless of whether they are present on the forum or not. If we are talking about any one specific, teacher, politician, member, etc, the focus should be questioning the specific comment, viewpoint, action or policy, not the person themselves. 

 Youtube Channel  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By clicking, I agree to the terms of use, rules, guidelines & to hold Actuality of Being LLC, admin, moderators & all forum members harmless.