zurew

its also important to repeat that moderators are not getting paid for any of this. I understand that you wouldnt want a person in your team (who is again there to provide service for free) to make a public thread like this about you, but I personally wouldnt want to be an employee or part of a team where the group leader can publicly diss me and I am not allowed to do the same or to raise concerns publicly about his public behavior.

Most of the interactions with Leo are public here including the ones where he publicly disses and dismisses people (including moderators). No private or special facts were leaked here that wasnt already avalaible to anyone who frequently uses or visits this forum. If you think its not okay to do this kind of behavior publicly without a bunch of qualifications where you include and outline all the positive things about Leo before you include the negative things, then you surely also have issue with Leo dissing and dismissing people here publicly (unless you think that its reasonable to apply a higher standard for moderators than what you apply to Leo)

I think its worth to bring some attention back to the fact about how little is being asked from Leo and from the community here (regardless whether you agree with the operating definition of cult used by me or by other people who call this place a cult) It also seemed to have been the case, that even most people here who disagreed with the label, they mostly agreed desriptively with the underlying issues that were outlined here and they also agreed that it would be cool if those things would be resolved - but I personally havent seen any of them bring up these issues to Leo or bring Leo's attention to these issues, and I think thats quite clearly a collective failure. The defenses provided here were almost never that the provided data and facts arent true or that they arent problematic - the defense was that the problematic facts arent sufficient to satisfy your working definition of a cult. It also worth to bring attention back to the fact how disagreement was largely handled here. After agreeing with you that the things that you outlined are problematic, those same members want you to leave the group rather than collabing with you and putting pressure on the leader to make a change about things that everyone agreed are problematic and whose resolution would make everything better.

Let me rephrase my original question then - lets say your friend was in posession of all the background facts that you have about Leo right now. Do you think that, given this additional info that your friend's assessment of Leo's previously presented replies and behavior would be significantly and more positively recontextualized?

@Thought Art If a friend showed you the same kind of evidence about another spiritual leader whose responses and behavior were essentially identical to Leo's, do you think you would view that leader's statements in a similar way, or do you think that you might interpret them differently?

What do you mean? @UnbornTao was specifically asking for video evidence there and Leo responded to him. Do you think Leo makes a difference between turning into an alien and between turning into an alien in front of the camera in his reply there ? Look: But regardless, I havent seem him admitting anywhere that he was wrong about it and at best you can only say in light of the linked thread, that Leo didnt respond to the video stuff that @UnbornTao was asking about there (under the most charitable interpretation of Leo's reply you can possible go with there - if you want to maintain your position that Leo didnt make any additional claims beyond his initial claim about him having an ability to turn into an alien in front of the camera)

I dont think so

The video evidence was uploaded here 2 millennia ago, actualized.org members were just too unconcious to see it and to recognize it.

In that case my bad

Completely normal and reasonable crashout especially given the fact that I qualified multiple times "under my light" and that you can have your own definition and in the other thread I said that I take cult to be a cluster concept and hence I take it that there are multiple different configuration of facts that can make something a cult and hence multiple different definitions are possible and reasonable.

Its probably relevant and important to provide this for people who wants to make their assessment about actualized.org Look through some of the ban list and the context there and how reasonable those responses and bans were by Leo. Flyboy Axiom , spiritual memes, vladorion The Mystical Man Arcangelo, Gesundheit2

I definitely wont engage with you, because I dont think you are a good faith actor. I told you what you need to do if you want me to answer, until then im good.

its your job if you want to engage with me to do at least the bare fucking minimum to try to not misrepresent my positions and to actually engage with what I say.

Right, lets see how you can possibly make yourself look good/reasonable there. This is your opportunity to make yourself look reasonable and make me look silly for reacting the why I did by providing a plausible story to account for all the following facts. After you provide us a plausible story that explains the following facts, after that I will answer your question - the fact that you had literally nothing to say about Leo making himself to be an exclusive authority on what definition of cult ought to be used by everyone on the forum and that everyone else is disqualified from thinking anything different from that and why you only and explicitly had issue with me asserting my definition , even though I qualified it multiple times and implied multiple times that you are free to use a different definition and that you dont have to use mine and the other fact about why you taught that Leo not explicitly making any 2026 threads or comments about him being the most awake person on Earth ,only just that he is the standard of epistemology, that that distinction was somehow relevant to point out and was relevant to the allegedly good faith line of questioning that you were doing when you were making your own level headed assessment whether Leo's actions and statements were reasonable or not. Also explain the fact why you asserted and told me "ohh you are making up your definition now" rather then actually engaging with it and laying it down why you disagree with it, if you think you were being good faith there. If you concede that your "ohh you are making up your defintiion now" comment wasnt in good faith, then I dont know why you acted so surprised to how I reacted.

Cool, given that definition, there arent any cults as long as there is no member in the group who ever feels pressured by the leader regardless what statements the leader makes and what behavior the leader exhibits. Even if the leader explicitly and implicitly asserts to be the authority on literally everything and asserts that he wants to control your whole life, he wont be a cult leader.

No you rather act passive agressive and you dont engage in good faith and pretend that you are not asking questions to get an answer and to make a trap and to end it with your passive agressive remarks like the way you did in the other thread where you said "omg im so scared that I cant leave". Given that you were too lazy to read 2 lines from the start , and that you demonstrated multiple times that you cant summarize accurately what my position is on this, even though I literally fed all the relevant info to you and walked you through my line of thinking and answered more of your questions in more detail and specificity that what Leo will ever do to you on any issue, let alone related to this specific issue and and then you ended with the "omg are you just making up your own definition what a cult is" implying that thats a special issue that you suddenly have now, with a straight face, while ignoring the fact that I showed you that Leo (you know the leader of this forum and the guy who has more than a million subscribers on youtube) arbitrarily made himself to be to be the exclusive judge on what definition of cult ought to be used by everyone here and you had 0 comments and issue with that is just fucking perfection my guy, I dont know what else you expect me to do or what else you expect me to tell you related that delicious performance. If you think that its too retarded or that its too much to ask from Leo to stop making definitive comments about other people's awakenings and to stop completely undermining their ability to make that judgement themselves then go ahead my guy, you do you and you can freely use whatever different definition you want to use.

Thats super duper cute that you suddenly have an issue with that but you had nothing to say when Leo wanted to tell everyone what 1 definition ought to be used by everyone. Notice that Im not telling you that you have to use my definition or my norms. Its also cute that you dont recognize the difference between the responsibility that a forum member has and what a forum leader has, who has more than a million subscribers on youtube. (But again im not even saying that I have some special priviledge that Leo doesnt have, but even that would be appropriate for me to imply under my lights, because he obviously has more responsibility than a random forum member).

If they are telling other people and correcting other people about how conscious those people are or what awakening they must have have had without any qualification and without making it clear that their judgements might be wrong and without completely undermining the judgement of those people - in that case yes, under my lights , they are cult leaders as well.

I dont know what the answer to that question is because thats a metaphilosophical issue but I know for sure that if you let the leader to be the exclusive norm/judge itself, that in that case he will automatically create a cult or at the very least he create an environment in which cult dynamics will prevail. But there is a relevant difference even there - there is a difference between giving norms and being the norm itself - a mystical tradition can lay down a specific theory about spiritual devleopment and can give you certain details about how to recognize for yourself whether you managed to rise to those given states or whether you managed to get to that given level of development or not and between the leader being the exclusive and explicit judge who tells you and corrects you about how conscious you are (despite the fact that he has no fucking access to what awakenings or experiences you have had up to that point). And of course, you can have a problematic mix bag , where the leader provides you a set of principles or standards meant to help you evaluate things independently. But then, when someone uses those same standards to reach conclusions that conflict with the leader’s own views, he dismiss their judgment, question their competence in applying the standards, and or implicitly place himself above the very framework that he previously encouraged others to use. So ,the original norms remain in place in theory, but they are selectively overridden whenever they challenge the leader's preferred conclusions. But before you or anyone else tries to imply that im asking for something impossible from Leo, Im not. The criticism is not that he needs to solve this impossible issue (that he needs to solve all problems around epistemology and spirituality and philosophy so that he can find the correct norm and that after that he needs to explicate the ineffable), the critcism is that given the problematic epistemic nature of this issue and given the fact that he has no fucking direct access to the content of your experience and your awakening, that he shouldnt run around and pretend to be an authrority on any of this. Its not so hard to just shut the fuck up about making claims about what level of consciousness other people managed to acess or its not so hard to qualify your judgements related those things without implying that your are the only correct person to make a proper judgement on this and without undermining the ability of literally everyone else in the Universe who wants to make that judgement for themselves. And then my advice for complicit actualized.org members is to find your balls and to not be spineless and complicit about this and around this. Dont make excuses for Leo and dont open up your asscheeks so that Leo can take free advantage of you and so that he dictate to you whatever the fuck he wants without any limits, but to stick up for yourself and to actually do what he allegedly wants you to be - be sovereign - act sovereign and use your sovereignty. Relativizing this issue and not calling out Leo for this is exactly the thing that will make it so that cult dynamics will prevail on this site (irrespective of whether Leo is malicious or not ).

I think you missed a cute relevant context there - "Im the standard of epistemology" was literally replied to establish authority over what should and should not be considered a cult. He didnt just say that you are wrong about cults, he implied that he is literally the proper foundation from which it can be accurately assessed what should and should be not considered a cult. There is a difference between saying "I disagree with you and I think im right" and between saying that "you are so mentally impoverished that you cant even begin to understand what standards or methods are needed to judge whether something is a cult or not, so let me be that standard and dicatate and control all of that shit" Again this goes back to there not being any independent norms and standards from him - He wants to be standard that tells you your level of development, he wants to be the standard that tells you whether you are wrong or not , he wants to be the standard that tells what is and what is not cult, he wants to be the standard that can tell you whether he himself is a cult leader or not etc.

Sure if you are looking for an explicit phrase where he explicitly claims to be the most conscious being in the universe, then I cant show you that, what I can show you again is the general sovereingty undermining attitude where he consistently places himself above you and others. Not sure what this establishes though and also not sure what the practical difference is between saying that im the most conscious being in the universe and im am the standard of epistemology. You seem to implying that a lack of recent thread created by him implies that he doesnt hold to the exact same sentiment anymore ,even though again I can show you many 2026 posts where he disses other actualized members and where he implies that other teachers wont get you to where he can get you and where he specifically target other gurus and tell you that they are wrong or not advanced enough. (Osho, Daniel Ingram, Ralston) etc.

Nope

Doesnt seem to be the case based on his past behavior. Usually when people asked him questions related to this without immediately throwing the cult leader accusation at him ( when he made his "Im the most conscious being in the universe and all of you are dumb" threads), then he usually wasnt very talkative or expressive other than dissing people in his usual way for not understanding why he is the most conscious. For instance given the "LEO" thread, you can go through and reverse back and check each thread from which those quotes originate from and you can check whether my summary is accurate about Leo's behavior or not.

Yeah because Leo surely takes his time to directly respond to questions and to directly lead you to the specific posts that gives you relevant context to get an underlying understanding about the things that we talk and debate about. (like we are talking about context thats literally just on this page, not about you needing to watch 10 thousand hours of videos) I also never said that you cant disagree or that you are dumb for disagreeing, what I have and had issue with is you being non-responsive and not engaging with whats being said and with you shooting down charicatures and then pretending that thats substantive or responsive to what was said. If thats your takeaway after allegedly reading through all the material I linked you and all the things I directly responded to you, then go ahead. And if you think and can say with a straight face that what you said there is a good faith summary of what I said, then go ahead.

It perfectly adds up , you do understand that even if it were the case that I didnt have any single disagreement with him - that fact would compatible with me wanting him to handle disagreements in a different way with other people who has a different view on spirituality ,right? But I do have some disagreements with him - I told you explicitly there that I have issue with his epistemology and what his general approach is to any kind of disagreement where the topic is about something that he cares about. The main criticism is a principled criticism about disagreements - namely that you cant disagree with him on anything that he cares about without him implying that you are dumb or impaired in some kind of way (for a specific example - take a look at his response for instance to the cult accusation, he used the exact same kind of boring dissing tactic that he uses in other instances as well - where you are necessarily treated as someone who is dumb or who lacks something) There are dozens of examples where he will claim that the reason why people disagree with him on spirituality is because they are dumb or dont undersatnd something or lack something. The other criticism of mine is related to him being the most conscious being - the criticism is not that I know definitively that he isn't the most conscious being in the Universe, the crticism again is credence and epistemology related - namely that he isn't justified in believing that to be the case (he admitted multiple times, that he inferred that to be the case) and hence I attack his credence in that belief that he uses as a main foundatioun from which he can handwave literally all criticism and undermine the validity of all differing opinions in literally all domains that he cares about. And before you say "yeah but a bunch of other spiritual leaders behave that way " - I dont grant that to be the case, a bunch of them dont claim to be the most conscious being in the Universe and dont imply that they cant be wrong and that all differing opinions must come from misunderstanding or from people being dumb or unconscious - but the ones that do qualify for such a list of things thing - for those I would be happy and not reluctant to say that they are cult leaders and that their followers are in a cult. But then again - read motherfucker, everything is literally layed out here in front of your face just on this very page.