Osaid

Is it true that you're trusting that something is true? Is it true that you're holding or thinking that something is true? No, those would be beliefs.

Right. Certainly I use the word "grass", but there is an "actual phenomenon" beyond the word. There isn't actually something called grass. The word only points to something which is ineffable. It is ineffable because it exists by itself. The actual observation of it excludes everything else. It's very similar to how I can use my physical hand to point at the moon, but the finger is clearly not the moon. Similarly, words and knowledge seem to actually be "mental pointers", they don't define or illuminate what they point at any more than a finger does. It would be knowledge. It differs because it is knowledge. There would be the word "grass" and all the associations with the word with all of its properties. But the actual thing that this knowledge is "about" has no association. Knowing a chair is quite clearly a different process compared to the existence of a chair. You can be in a room which has no chairs and still say "I know what a chair is". A blind man can do this as well. That seems very hard to do. From my POV all distinctions arise from language/thoughts/words. Without that there's nothing distinguished at all. The body can move around and do its thing, but that all happens by itself in one movement, it doesn't actually need something else. I do suspect there is a kind of "intuition" or "knowing" which doesn't require separation which is actually inherent to awareness or observation itself, though. You are likely referring to that. Emotion is like that. It does seem that all words are made up, and that therein all the objects we perceive are "man-made" or learned over time. But the stranger and trickier aspect I noticed is that this conclusion is itself made of words, and so the insight runs into a kind of "dead-end". It loops in on itself. Catch-22.

No. "Same as before" would be a present thought. Like "tomorrow". Right, it's totally independent. But when we open our eyes we think it isn't, lol. I think the entire realization was that knowing is symbolic. You definitely do not need to know or symbolize anything to see "grass". It's just a given. There's the thing by itself, then there's the "knowing" of it which introduces something else. When you say "this is grass" it's as if what you're perceiving is put into a relationship, but it was very clear that there isn't actually any relationship. You can invent any sound or image or symbol or thought that you want, like "cat" or "this isnt a cat" or "this is grass" and you will not get closer to knowing what anything is, because what actually exists is not symbolic or relational. You could say "grass" or "rock" or "phone" and it would "slip off" of what you're perceiving in a way where it's very obvious that you don't actually know anything about what you're perceiving.

Yep. Basically always conflated with sexism/misandry. Too many bad actors unfortunately.

You can check Marriam-Webster too if you want ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's the definition:

It's a misunderstanding. That is not feminism, it is misandry. Someone can claim to be something and yet be another thing. In actuality, feminism is about equal rights for all genders. It has nothing to do with the statements made about men in the OP.

"What something is" seems to require something other than what is. The question itself seems to be mistaken. I had a strange experience where I could clearly and factually see that we don't know anything. All notions were void and essentially seen as complete nonsense. Greatest day of my life. Visually everything stayed the same (no substances involved), but at the same time everything felt/seemed very different, like very playful and "alien". Thoughts would pop up like "grass" and yet it was obvious it wasn't actually describing anything, the notion that it was seemed completely ridiculous. All ideas and descriptions were like sounds or images popping up with no relation. When people talked it was obvious what they were saying doesn't exist. I think this is always true and it's just a matter of "tapping into it" right now.

Yeah I think it's a matter of philosophy, not even science or diet. Materialism is often conflated with science when it isn't. Trying to argue science or diet naturally ends up in circles.

Also the OP is an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy that they're trusting. There's nothing to really argue against other than "I'm putting my faith and trust in something other than me" as like a philosophical position, which isn't really diet-related.

I tried to follow the RDA and I'm pretty sure it's actually impossible to meet the whole amount through whole foods without overconsumption or eating like 3 meals in one day. It's physically a struggle. Idk if I'm autistic for actually trying to follow the guidelines, but it don't work. The best is meeting about half of what they recommend daily, I think. That being said, you'll know if it works by how you feel when doing it.

It's very strange, but "here" ends up being truer than the why. Why is in hindsight. Here is what spawns it. Gotta change priorities from intellect to presence. As soon as you try to dissect what exists it's already in pieces.

Difference is form, like humans and entities. "Physical" and "non-physical" is already two forms, and therefore isn't the same as "non-physical".

I think that's a harsh assessment. It's just saying that everyone and everything is already non-physical.

Interesting. Do you take questions?

Did God have to earn truth? Is "earning truth"...in alignment with...truth?

True. The middle statement about finding it out for yourself is true, but it's clearly not understood by the person preaching it, evidenced by all the other statements. There is an oscillation and contradiction happening which leads to confusion and a pressure to stay. That is true. I've been there before, though. "I'm out" because it was a prison made by my own belief system about reality. Is there pressure in that regard? Definitely. But I don't see it being explicitly enforced. Like, for example, if someone got banned for saying Leo isn't an authority, that would probably make for a cult. It's clearly saying "you're not allowed to think or act like I'm not an authority". Right now, the pressure is just a psychological projection coming from the beliefs of the members. Kind of like someone who feels pressured to stay in school or college. Is that the fault of the school or college? Debatable, because it's not really explicitly enforced. It's given as loose advice from a teacher, like "you should stay in school if you wanna be smart" or "you should keep following me if you wanna awaken".

Yes. A strong pressure to stay or conform. I don't really feel any pressure to stay or conform myself to anything here. I kind of forgot the site existed until a while ago. In a cult, leaving, or trying to be different, will feel like a big risk. It will invoke fear because others in the cult told you that you should fear leaving. Other members might even threaten or extort for leaving. You'd feel guilty at the consideration, or like you're making a big mistake, and usually other members will try to invoke this mindset in you. In certain cults, even the way you sit or speak is scrutinized if it isn't like the other members.

There has to be a hierarchical structure with a single leader at the top. All depends on maintaining this hierarchy. The leader employs psychological manipulation in order to maintain this hierarchy. This maintenance usually involves the promise of special knowledge or some special future goal where you can be involved. The maintenance of a hierarchy like this is inherently narcissistic, because the person at the top always holds more power. This also inherently leads to a need for manipulation, like hyper-conformity and isolation. I would say, the simultaneous occurrence of all of these traits would create the foundation for a cult. All the different manipulation methods, like hyper-conformity, isolation, "us vs. them" mentality, etc., fits into this "psychological manipulation". This psychological manipulation is indicative of narcissism, and it is the same manipulation a clinical narcissist would use to manipulate others. And it is the same psychological manipulation humans have used to exploit each other throughout history. We can say that the tendency to exploit other humans is what "narcissistic traits" are. That being said, the leader is often a clinical narcissist themselves. This definition from Google is pretty succinct as well: I would assume and hope so, but I'm not sure. In regards to narcissism, I'd hope psychologists have a basic idea of what NPD and narcissism is, since it's their job or whatever. I think the DSM is for maintaining the standards in that regard. Oh nice. I didn't read that, and I agree for the most part. Indeed, the idea of a hierarchy and someone at the top of consciousness is inherently delusional and isolating. Definitely a cult dynamic. I don't think Actualized.org is authoritarian enough yet, though. I also don't think a real non-dual teacher would actually say they have more consciousness or something like that. Yeah, they "point", but pointing isn't enough for a hierarchy, that would be your own assumption or projection onto the teacher which does commonly happen. It's kind of like if Newton had the apple hit his head, then he had the insight about gravity and tried to tell everyone, then everyone started to think "hes above me and has better consciousness or genetics" or something. Which is completely irrelevant to gravity, lol.

Yeah, but I'm saying that's actually detrimental. You have to be strict with definitions. Truth is most people misuse the term narcissist. If I gave credence to that common crowd, no one would know what a narcissist is. Then it would seem like everyone is a narcissist, or everything is a cult. By your definition, much would seem like a cult. I do think the server is a cult. Even if some moderators are fair, they're still reporting back to a leader that thinks people need to die. So it seems like the psychosis spiked a high degree of paranoia/narcissistic traits, if it's true that it was psychosis and not actually calculated from a more sober state. Fair. If you really wanna bring cults into your critique, you could highlight cult dynamics and the potential for it to turn into a cult, and then what you need to know to prevent that, etc. etc.

Still applies. It could be a subtle way of saying "I don't really want you here" under the guise of some spiritual procedure. But still, it's a way of instilling conformity. It's based on the approval of some leader. I see the parallel, this would be a cult dynamic in the sense of instilling conformity. I think Leo made it pretty clear around this time he didn't want more "non-dual talk" or something like that. Or rather he might have phrased it as "Neo-Advaita" to make it lose credence. I feel like he cooled off with this energy though. Meh. It makes the term "cult" lose practical or significant meaning. I view it the same as someone calling someone a narcissist out of outrage. Is Actualized.org perfect? Hell no. But we need to be clean with our terms otherwise no one knows what anyone is saying. That's a horribly weak definition though haha. It's important to have good definitions, otherwise you will fall prey to cults more easy. It's like if someone defined a crocodile as "a green animal" vs. "a green water-dwelling animal with dangerous teeth". Both are technically correct, but one is more dense and practical.

Sounds like it. Particularly the "you have to leave if your energy is deemed bad" aspect. That would fall into purposeful isolation and conformity. Also the "us vs. them" mentality, among other things. I would say it's quite similar to the DSM, especially because of the narcissistic leader. One cult dynamic doesn't make a cult. One narcissistic trait doesn't make a narcissist. But if you check quite a few, then it fits the structure of one. Most people don't understand this stuff unless they've personally been through it or thoroughly researched it for whatever reason. Or both. I think most people probably see one cult dynamic in some aspect of society and just loosely say "omg it's a cult bro". Very similar to how if you brag about something someone might say "stop being a narcissist bro".

If a cult is "excessive admiration towards a single group leader", which seems to be the standard definition, then I think deception and manipulation is inherent in maintaining a hierarchy like that. The word cult is apt, but like many other psychological terms, it is co-opted and slung around for shallow insults by the majority, which causes it to lose its meaning. The most powerful words have lost their meaning in this way, like God, justice, love, etc., because using such words is an easy way to appear powerful.

Sure. Science is always useful, but always impeded by misinterpretations of it, which is what spawns materialism.

Everything is pure consciousness. Changing brain chemistry just makes it more obvious. Misinterpreted as "becoming more conscious", but I digress. Lower DMN activity is a correlate because there's a lowered ability for self-referencing, kind of like being drunk.