Xonas Pitfall

@Leo Gura I don’t necessarily disagree, but I do feel that what we’re aiming for here is to understand the 'truth.' There are definitely things that are more or less "true", for example, Christianity vs. atheism, atheism vs. non-duality, etc. Some pointers to reality are clearer or more accurate, purer than others. When someone is giving teachings and making strong, bold statements, it feels a bit like a cop-out to then say, 'Please remain open...' If, from the start, it had been said, 'I am unsure what the answer is or what other possibilities exist; test it for yourself, this is about going on an exploration,' then there would be no issue with that. But this started with very bold, strong statements, hence why I was bringing up contradictions. Leo often says things like, 'No one is awake more than I am. No one on this forum is awake.' These are pretty bold statements that aren’t very open-ended or exploratory 😅 One of the main things that attracts Leo (and many of us) is finding 'the answers.' That’s one of the main things he talks about in his videos: understanding consciousness, revealing life's biggest questions. So, there’s definitely an aspect of seeking answers and truth, or as close to the total answer as possible. Suddenly shifting to, 'Oh, it's about openness and endless exploration,' after making bold statements with clear passion about revealing "the truth" doesn’t quite sit right. Hope that makes sense!

@Leo Gura Thank you! I suppose a little suggestion for the blog or future videos: it would be awesome to get an update on the supplements video from a few years ago that you made! That one was incredibly useful and taught me a lot! Really appreciate it!

@Leo Gura Sneak peek as to which ones?

@Breakingthewall Sure, but I'm still not quite sure what's being said here. The original question or problem was about multiple gods, infinity, and solipsism. By defining God as infinity, you’re essentially saying that all is infinity. So, unless you're claiming there’s something “outside” of this infinity that is putting a limit on it, then nothing novel is being added. God is still infinity, and all is God, Oneness, Solipsism. Yes, it’s infinite in nature and ever-unfolding, but still, nothing exists outside of it, which was my original point. Therefore, you cannot claim there are infinite absolutes "outside" of God, only within or as it, expressing itself infinitely. Hopefully, that makes sense? I am not denying that infinity has infinite unfoldings and expressions, but they are still just that: infinity expressing itself. It’s not necessarily some other substrate or origin.

@Inliytened1 No, that's not what I mean. The logic I'm referring to is tautological, not the typical reasoning used in science. A tautology is a statement that is true by definition or by its logical structure, meaning that it’s true in all possible scenarios because of the way it's phrased. It doesn't need to rely on outside evidence or "other" observations to be verified. It's a statement where the truth is built into the language itself. For example: "A blue tree is a blue tree." This is tautological because, no matter what, it’s always true. The subject (a blue tree) and the predicate (is a blue tree) are exactly the same thing. There’s no new information being added, and no need for external verification. The truth is contained entirely within the logic of the statement. It’s true by definition, not by reference to any outside reality. Why tautologies are self-evident: They follow a structure where one part of the statement essentially repeats or reinforces the other part, leaving no room for contradiction or alternative possibilities. In logical terms, a tautology is true in every possible situation because it can't logically be false. "All bachelors are unmarried men." (It’s true by definition because being unmarried is part of the concept of a bachelor.) This is how one can come to understand God: by asking, What is God? What does being God imply? What are the "properties" of God, one could say? God is All. "All" must include both the finite and the infinite. Therefore, God must encompass everything, as God is infinite. God must have always existed, since to be infinite is to be ever-present in all things, everywhere, at all times. By the nature of being All, God cannot be bound by time, space, or any limitations. God defines time, space, or any limitations. If God is infinite, then God is both transcendent (beyond the physical realm) and immanent (present within everything). God would also be unchanging, as anything that changes cannot be infinite; it would be limited by time or space. Since God is the source of everything, all things would inherently have some connection to God, whether consciously recognized or not. God must be eternal, as eternity is a property of infinity; something that is infinite cannot cease to exist. All of these are simply implications of "infinity." For example, if I say, "Jeremiah has all pink nails," that implies her thumb, pointer, middle, ring, and pinkie nails on both hands are pink. Similarly, if I say, "God is infinite," that implies a range of qualities: Oneness, Solipsism, Truth, Love, Omnipotence, Everpresence, and so on. As mentioned, one of the properties of God is Omnipotence and Everpresence. God is the source of distinctions, finitude, and limitations. By pure logic, this means that any limitation or boundary that exists must have been created by God. This reasoning follows a type of logic more akin to "I am, therefore I am", a self-evident, self-determined truth, rather than typical human rationality. I believe Chris Langan makes a good point in this regard here:

Hahahahahaha ❤❤❤

@Razard86 Most likely!

@Inliytened1 But there would be. It's the logic of God and (non)duality. For example, length only occurs if there is a separation between two points so that you can measure from one object to another. Otherwise, you just get infinity in all directions, which is essentially infinite length. Now, sure, can you create alternative realities where lengths are measured in centimeters, millimeters, elephant stomps, golf carts, alien ⠋cryptic ⠋⣁⡞⠁language, etc.? Yes, of course, but the universal principle of needing two separate points to define length remains, no matter which reality you go to. The same applies here. You can imagine infinite absolutes and countless more infinities, but the fundamental principle remains: for a separation to occur, there must be a separate 'boundary' or something 'separating' the difference. And the key question is: what is that space made of? Vacuum? How did that appear? Intergalactic alien fluid? Who created that, and what's the substance of it? How did that come to be? If you say God made it, then it's God, God separating Himself into gods. This still falls heavily into duality. "Each their own entity" still means there is an 'end' to one and a space between the 'start' of another. Again, the question is: what's separating the two? Hence, repeating the same question. As I acknowledged above, I accept the notion that within God, there can be infinitely many absolutes separate from each other, but not outside of God. That is false.

@Inliytened1 It really doesn't have to be that difficult or complex. If you are saying 'not different,' then you can say 'Absolute' or 'Complete' (meaning it contains both the self and the other absolutes); a non-dual perspective. In either case, you can call that absolute singular or solipsistic once you 'group' them all. And if you are speaking from a dual perspective, then you're saying it's either one or many.

This alone is a contradiction. 'Different reality' already implies separation, which means division, or 'otherness.' Again, the only way this works is if the 'sovereign' gives up his sovereignty and fragments himself into multiple absolutes as part of a 'dream' or 'illusion.' Any other way is contradictory, as you'd still have to answer the question: what is separating these 'absolutes' or the 'dreams'? The answer will always be God, as He is the ultimate sovereign. So, you'll always end up with God separating God into gods. It's inescapable by pure logic.

No worries! I was just criticizing (with love, teehee ) Leo's replies. They could’ve been better when asked about this subject, at least the ones I quoted in the previous posts. But if this is what he actually means, then I have no issues whatsoever. There are no contradictions. Exactly! I suppose, as stated, you don't have to use the word 'One' if people feel like it's too exclusive of the multiple absolutes and all the finitudes within it. 'Whole,' 'completeness,' and 'infinity' work pretty well.

@Breakingthewall @Inliytened1 I guess 'Total,' 'Absolute,' 'Whole,' or 'Complete' are better words, but I'm not sure. Either way, words are pointers. I think we agree on the same thing to an extent, at least as I'm reading it!

@Water by the River Correct! I do think there is some merit or need to explain this: God is a Self that has no Other. That’s the ultimate 'limitation' or issue with God: He cannot be an Other or ever meet an Other, so He keeps looping and creating infinite Others. Hence, why Love is so precious to us and God. It feels like God is this infinitely moving object that follows this exact loop: This is how God works, it seems. So I assume the 'infinity of gods' episode was trying to illustrate this loop properly about God, but just failed to address the fact that it’s still solipsistic, and there is an absolute, singular God.

@OBEler Exactly, I agree with this! That's exactly why I pointed it out in Leo's reply. I asked this: Leo replied: If he did mean what you wrote, then I feel like it could’ve been written much better. For example, like you said: This way, you are clarifying that God is still the absolute, and that there is no 'other,' which is consistent with solipsism. Everything that’s happening is within the shared dream where God has given up His infinity and omnipotence, so there could be multiple Gods' connections, love, and shared dreams.

But do you see the contradiction in that statement? Again, just based on pure definitional or tautological logic: Leo said it himself: God is a Self that has no Other, nothing outside of itself (this makes sense definitionally and by implication, since infinity holds everything within itself, so it makes sense that nothing can be outside of it, since it holds everything, leaving nothing left out). So if you say: That's impossible. Because then the question is: what's the boundary between them made of? Do you understand my question? If I have an apple, air, and another apple, the boundary or separation between them is that "space of air", amongst other things, it is separate from the two apples. But if you have everythingness or an absolute and another everythingness absolute, what's separating them? Since they both are like black holes sucking everything into themselves, and by definition, they must be all infinity, eventually, they must include each other into oneness, aka God, which has nothing separate from itself. Am I making sense?

This alone is a definition, haha: 'God is a Self with no Other.' Everything can be defined, even God, but not in the sense of an 'actual' definition or limitation. Instead, it's about providing better sentences, definitions, and pointers to it. Even if it's something unknowable and infinite, you can still call it that and provide a better pointer than, say, the Christian definition or 'pointer.' This is the contradictory part: you can "reach" "other" gods, which implies something 'outside' of God, with a boundary that must be 'reached' and then united with. Now, again, if you are just telling me that God can create illusory limitations for itself and fool itself into becoming infinite gods, but in the end, all of those boundaries are illusory and there is only God, nothing outside of God, nothing unknowable and unreachable, then I agree. But if you're saying there are other absolutes outside of God, that completely contradicts the logic. What is the boundary made of if not God? If it isn't God, then what is it? If it is God, then you have God separating God into other gods, which are all still God, so it's all illusionary and one. My critique of Leo was that he should’ve been clearer in his language when making the replies, or else it can seem contradictory if not clarified further.

? I’m really sorry, but this genuinely makes very little sense. If, by definition, God is a Self that has no 'Other,' it means that everything is Himself. Sure, God can create illusions and fool Himself with them, but the Absolute must contain all, be aware of all, and have everything reachable and knowable to it; otherwise, it invalidates the very definition of what God is. The Absolute cannot have anything that is filtered or has any boundaries between Him, because all of those boundaries must be imaginary, as they are all Him. The only way He cannot see these boundaries as Himself is if He has fooled Himself, or if the definition of God is wrong.

But why then say it like this? If the former is true, then wouldn’t it be better to say: "Infinity spawns many absolutes which have no contact with each other, though they are all still contained within the final, ultimate absolute. I am just trying to illustrate how twisted infinity can be, and how it can spawn other versions of infinity within itself." This way, you sound much more coherent, and your teachings feel more credible, as they follow logic (and obviously, I’m not talking about rigid scientific logic, but a more tautological, definition-based logic). If you say there is a potential of infinite Absolutes that cannot communicate with each other, you are violating the fundamental argument that God is the Self with no Other, as you are creating Others that are separate absolutes not contained by God (the Self), which again makes the definition of God incoherent. I accept the premise that the Self and Other are contained within God, but anything outside or unknowable/unreachable to God invalidates its very definition.

Good boy!

Exactly. "Something" or the absolute or oneness must encompass all of it. It's like a set of all infinite sets. You can include: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9} Then all numbers between 0 and 1, Then the interval between 0 and 0.00000000000001, Then all infinities, and then infinities + 1, Then infinities + infinity, And then the set that holds all infinities, Then multiple infinite sets that contain infinite sets of infinities, And then infinitely many sets that contain infinitely many infinite sets. Yet, all of this is still "contained" or captured by one whole reality: the absolute set, which is God, or Omega. Maybe...

But this is still not debunking solipsism, correct? I think this is the confusing part. It’s still all made of God, and inside of God, whether that’s infinite gods, they still have to be 'mini' gods or a second order of the absolute, no? Otherwise, the logic collapses. There has to be an infinite "object" that encapsulates all, even if it holds other infinities within itself.

How do you understand it?

What does the infinite sovereign minds mean in the context of God? This confuses me.

Very interesting watch!

Yes! Although I’m not sure if it's unconscious or conscious. The reason I have the energy to write all this out is because I’ve seen it far too many times with people I’ve considered highly intelligent. The issue of ingrained misogyny and gender wars is so deeply embedded that it seems to be highly persuasive, even for independent thinkers. I think I was just shocked to see it (Leo included). I’ve known both men and women, and I can tell you these were extremely independent, almost disagreeable thinkers who refuse to succumb to the status quo and unoriginal thought. Yet, they still have and believe in these worldviews, which slip into their psyche through the arguments they make and the comments they pass. That’s when I realized this isn’t necessarily an issue of independent thinking; sometimes these things are just so deeply ingrained that it’s hard to break free from them. You need heavy reframing and alternative arguments to break out of them. So my guess is that Leo likely has a lot of these unconscious biases, and maybe he’s also attracted to a specific type of "feminine" woman, which filters his perception. I also find it funny that men often ignore or claim that women they’re not attracted to are “not feminine” and are instead more “masculine.” It’s a strange double standard. I know plenty of men who are masculine but whom I’m just not attracted to or who aren’t my type. I remember Leo talking about one of his girlfriends who was neurodivergent or had Asperger’s (I think?), and he called her “masculine” because she wasn’t overly dramatic or emotional, and it was one of his most functional and calm relationships he has ever had. That’s a funny remark to make, "Oh, she’s not going too crazy, so she must be more like a guy!" I don’t know where this stigma came from that any woman who isn’t emotionally unstable or who can think rationally is somehow more “manly.” If you subconsciously believe this, then, of course, you’re going to think men are the more stoic, truth-seeking ones. There are obviously a lot more points I’ve brought up above, but Leo’s arguments in both of those posts were extremely myopic. It’s also funny how he completely neglects the fact that most of the people he called untruthful, biased, and narcissistic in his blog were not women at all. And his dear friend Trump… well, of course, we completely forget about these men, they aren’t "real" men. But if a woman acted like Trump, she’d be a true woman, right? She’d only do what she "feeeeeeeels like doing," such a drama queen breaking up with Elon on Twitter... tsk, tsk, tsk! My hope is that the more powerful arguments and reframing strategies I (We) find, the easier it will be to break down this deeply ingrained issue. That's why I think parodies can be a great tool for this: if you can poke at egos and show them how silly they can be in a way that makes them realize it themselves, you might start to see a few lightbulb moments here and there. But who knows, shrug shrug! Men are just as emotional and deeply ingrained in their egos as anyone else. Trump, Andrew Tate, tyrants, and narcissistic world leaders are perfect examples of what happens when masculinity goes too far. The difference is that when women are irrational or emotional, it’s more overt; we see them cry, whine, be hurt, or vulnerable, which makes it more recognizable. With men, it's often more covert because they aren't "allowed" to express their emotions as openly. Instead of seeing a guy cry when he's rejected, you might see him do a complete 180 and call the woman a slut or a bitch, or act like she wasn’t good enough for him anyway. Instead of admitting loneliness, he might start a Reddit or 4chan red-pill movement. Instead of admitting he feels powerless and wants to feel superior, he creates a whole ideology where his race, gender, or beliefs are supreme, and everyone else should be suppressed, subjugated, or worse. He so desperately clings to finding some rational argument to justify it, trying to make it seem "objective, sensible, reasonable, and rational." Even Leo's posts are a perfect example of this, so much writing justifying his bias. Essentially, since emotions aren't overtly allowed for the masculine, they have to find ways to covertly or indirectly express them, often using other "masculine" tools like rationale, anger, domination, fighting, and status games to validate and justify their emotions. This pattern is something I see everywhere, all the time. It really feels like we’re forgetting that we’re all human, with fragile egos. Ego follows emotion. How is it that men suddenly seem like these alien creatures, detached from it all? It’s absurd. Just as you said, exactly! It’s honestly hilarious how men will openly say, "Oh, just appeal to my ego, teehee ;-)," and even take pride in it, giving tips to women like, “Show him respect, cater to his ego.” They’ll overtly admit they love their egos being stroked, yet still somehow believe this won’t cloud their judgment or put them in a biased state. And then they turn around and claim masculinity is all about pure rationality and unbiased truth-seeking. Leo himself said, "Ego is the little devil on our shoulder." It’s almost like they’re completely blind to how much their ego influences their perceptions. Catering to the ego makes "logical" sense in terms of survival. But survival, in the spiritual or enlightened sense, isn’t about feeding the ego. It’s actually about letting go of it, transcending it, and embracing things like love, compassion, beauty, and the pursuit of purity. All these things are often stereotypically feminine. But for some reason, they keep getting brushed aside. I think this is where a lot of the "flaw" happens: men are seen as more rational in terms of pushing their survival agenda, and to the ego, this seems like the most rational, smart, pragmatic, and truthful thing to do. But again, we are forgetting that spirituality is not about the ego. So, you cannot claim that what the ego finds to be true is the actual truth.