A few thoughts on your metaphysical claims, Leo

[Monster Energy]

Okay, Leo. I want to try to explain why I hesitate with some of your conclusions, not to dismiss them but to understand the path you take from experience to philosophy.

I absolutely believe your experiences are genuine. It’s clear you’re not making them up. What I’m more curious about is how you interpret them.

You often describe moments of total certainty, and I know how powerful that can feel. But that’s exactly why I’m cautious, because the sensation of absolute clarity isn’t rare. It can come from ecstasy, psychedelics, psychosis, meditation, euphoria, depression… basically any extreme mental state.

The feeling itself isn’t the issue. It’s the step that comes after.

The leap from “I experienced this” to “this is how the entire universe works.”

That’s where I can’t quite follow, because experiences are private while your conclusions are universal. It’s like going from a diary entry to a physics textbook without anything in between.

When you say “consciousness is everything,” it sometimes sounds as if your personal sense of totality has to be the fundamental structure of reality. But how do you know it isn’t just the mind doing what the mind always does when pushed to its limit: creating a sense of meaning, coherence, narrative?

That’s one of the mind’s most basic functions.

I’m not saying your interpretation is wrong. I’m just saying it is an interpretation.

For me there’s a difference between a powerful experience and a theory about reality, and that’s where I wonder if you’re jumping too quickly. Not out of bad intention, but because the experience itself is so overwhelming that it almost demands a cosmological explanation.

I can respect that. I just need more steps between the points to follow along.

That’s all.

 

[tuku747]

I can say, from experience, that experience, or direct gnosis, is a more powerful and truthful than any theory of everything I've since come up with since then. It's as if you are the ultimate theory of everything itself. When you realize that you are the way reality works, you stop doubting yourself in favor some truth beyond your own understanding (like a God which lords over you) and instead, assume God's role. It is the infinitely high frequency (aka, The Present Moment) which all things emanate from. When your awareness is at such a high frequency that you are no longer able to maintain a lower frequency sense of self with which the higher frequency is reality to you, you realize that you are, and have always been, the highest frequency (what is, right now), then you see that all of reality is emanating from you, and reality becomes much more fluid dreamlike. Reality is the direct realization of this.

Edited yesterday at 09:08 PM by tuku747

[Monster Energy]

25 minutes ago, tuku747 said:

I can say, from experience, that experience, or direct gnosis, is a more powerful and truthful than any theory of everything I've since come up with since then. It's as if you are the ultimate theory of everything itself. When you realize that you are the way reality works, you stop doubting yourself in favor some truth beyond your own understanding (like a God which lords over you) and instead, assume God's role. It is the infinitely high frequency (aka, The Present Moment) which all things emanate from. When your awareness is at such a high frequency that you are no longer able to maintain a lower frequency sense of self with which the higher frequency is reality to you, you realize that you are, and have always been, the highest frequency (what is, right now), then you see that all of reality is emanating from you, and reality becomes much more fluid dreamlike. Reality is the direct realization of this.

I’m not disagreeing with the experience itself. I’m disagreeing with the conclusion you draw from it.

A powerful moment where your sense of self collapses doesn’t automatically mean you’ve discovered the structure of the universe. It just means your usual identity wasn’t operating, and your mind filled that space with whatever concepts felt most meaningful at the time.

People in extreme states regularly feel like they’re God, or the source, or the center of reality. The experience is real to them, but the interpretation is still a human interpretation.

So I’m not saying your moment wasn’t important. I’m saying it isn’t automatic proof that reality works exactly the way it felt in that moment.

That’s the only thing I’m pushing back on.

 

[tuku747]

5 minutes ago, Monster Energy said:

I’m not disagreeing with the experience itself. I’m disagreeing with the conclusion you draw from it.

A powerful moment where your sense of self collapses doesn’t automatically mean you’ve discovered the structure of the universe. It just means your usual identity wasn’t operating, and your mind filled that space with whatever concepts felt most meaningful at the time.

People in extreme states regularly feel like they’re God, or the source, or the center of reality. The experience is real to them, but the interpretation is still a human interpretation.

So I’m not saying your moment wasn’t important. I’m saying it isn’t automatic proof that reality works exactly the way it felt in that moment.

That’s the only thing I’m pushing back on.

 

You are the way reality works. That's the ongoing realization. You are the ultimate "theory of everything."

Edited yesterday at 09:28 PM by tuku747

[Monster Energy]

4 minutes ago, tuku747 said:

You are the way reality works. That's the ongoing realization. You are the ultimate "theory of everything."

That statement is still coming from the same mind that had the overwhelming experience. It’s the narrative you built afterward, not the event itself. The experience may have felt like totality, but the interpretation is still a belief you formed about it.

 

[tuku747]

Just now, Monster Energy said:

That statement is still coming from the same mind that had the overwhelming experience. It’s the narrative you built afterward, not the event itself. The experience may have felt like totality, but the interpretation is still a belief you formed about it.

 

Of course, if we're speaking of experience that's unavoidable.

[Monster Energy]

3 minutes ago, tuku747 said:

Of course, if we're speaking of experience that's unavoidable.

But that’s exactly my point.

If it all comes from experience, then you can’t use the experience itself as proof that your interpretation is the final structure of reality. The experience happens to you. The meaning you attach to it is still yours.

 

[Human Mint]

Nice way to cut yourself from God.

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Monster Energy said:

That’s where I can’t quite follow, because experiences are private while your conclusions are universal.

You are assuming experiences are private.

"Private" is a fiction. There is no privacy, only Truth.

Quote

When you say “consciousness is everything,” it sometimes sounds as if your personal sense of totality has to be the fundamental structure of reality. But how do you know it isn’t just the mind doing what the mind always does when pushed to its limit: creating a sense of meaning, coherence, narrative?

The only way to know is to become infinitely conscious. Actually do it.

It IS the mind. Infinite Mind. Thus nothing else.

Quote

I’m not saying your interpretation is wrong. I’m just saying it is an interpretation.

If it was an interpretation you would be correct. But it is not an interpretation.

I am talking about actual Absolute Consciousness. You are overlooking that possibility.

Open your mind to the existence of an actual Absolute. Not a theory or a guess. And not an experience!

Quote

For me there’s a difference between a powerful experience and a theory about reality, and that’s where I wonder if you’re jumping too quickly.

I am not talking about theories, nor am I even talking about powerful experiences, I am talking about Truth.

Truth does not exist for you as a real thing yet. You think Truth is a concept.

All I'm saying is TRUTH exists. And you don't yet fathom this possibility. You think I am talking about cool experiences or ideas.

Ideas can always be wrong. That is correct. Which is why we do not care about ideas. We are seeking Truth instead.

Consider: an experience of Infinity actually IS Infinity. So the mere experience of it proves its absolute reality. If you are experiencing Infinity you can't be wrong about it. In the same way that if you are seeing red that means red exists. You can't be wrong about red existing since you see it.

This is a common oversight, but skepticism cannot apply to direct experience. That is a misuse of skepticism. If your ass feels cold it is absolutely true your ass feels cold. And this is not a trivial matter.

Edited 22 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Hojo]

There are 3 states

deep sleep - conciousness

Dreaming - awareness / conciousness

And waking - deep sleep /awareness / self reflection.

Truth is when you aware you are conciousness.

The retarded deep sleep state is happening right now and the dreaming state is happening right now. And self reflection is happening right now.

Like being lucid dreaming you are aware you are creating a dream there is a higher state called turyia where you are aware you are narrating your current life. And your pov is the only thing in existence. So if your entire life was a dream that means its just an infintely long dream happening in infinite layers. Going from deep sleep to dream to waking, over and over again. You can wake up from this life and its another dream that you pretend you aren't narrating to higher and higher levels. And it makes logical sense somehow.

Theres something hiding from reality dreaming it up.

When you dream your dream is talking about your waking and when you go higher this life was talking about your higher levels of dream.

The truth is that the retarded deep sleep state is dreaming life from a point of view not objective reality. Objective reality is the retarded deep sleep state. Theres no such thing as objective reality until you see it and you see its nothing and there's no one and nothing there. So the universe is entirely first person.

The next highest level of dream is deep sleep/ dreaming/ and self aware with nothing there except what you dont know you are.

Edited 22 hours ago by Hojo

[Ramasta9]

Good points, and that's where Discernment, Embodiment, Inner-Realization, comes into play. Words, teachings, and experiences are pointers, not Truth itself. The Key is not to take what anyone says as truth, rather Know Truth, which naturally reveals what is genuine and what is illusion.

Leo's work and depth is undeniable. One thing that can make such teachings even more powerful is modeling humility. That even profound experiences benefit from personal verification, discernment, and practical integration.

By balancing insight with human responsibility, followers can cultivate their own inner-realization safely.

 

[Monster Energy]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You are assuming experiences are private.

"Private" is a fiction. There is no privacy, only Truth.

The only way to know is to become infinitely conscious. Actually do it.

It IS the mind. Infinite Mind. Thus nothing else.

If it was an interpretation you would be correct. But it is not an interpretation.

I am talking about actual Absolute Consciousness. You are overlooking that possibility.

Open your mind to the existence of an actual Absolute. Not a theory or a guess. And not an experience!

I am not talking about theories, nor am I even talking about powerful experiences, I am talking about Truth.

Truth does not exist for you as a real thing yet. You think Truth is a concept.

All I'm saying is TRUTH exists. And you don't yet fathom this possibility. You think I am talking about cool experiences or ideas.

Ideas can always be wrong. That is correct. Which is why we do not care about ideas. We are seeking Truth instead.

Consider: an experience of Infinity actually IS Infinity. So the mere experience of it proves its absolute reality. If you are experiencing Infinity you can't be wrong about it. In the same way that if you are seeing red that means red exists. You can't be wrong about red existing since you see it.

This is a common oversight, but skepticism cannot apply to direct experience. That is a misuse of skepticism. If your ass feels cold it is absolutely true your ass feels cold. And this is not a trivial matter.

You’re stepping over something important. You dismiss “private” as if the word itself were a misunderstanding, when the subjective sense of privacy is not a fiction. It’s a phenomenological reality. I have direct access to my qualia in a way I simply don’t have to yours. That doesn’t refute the Absolute. It only means the path to it still passes through a nervous system that is necessarily limited.

 

“Become infinitely conscious, then you’ll know.”

 

That’s the part I’m not taking for granted.

You’re using your experience as the standard for what counts as knowing.

But saying “you’d agree if you had my experience” isn’t an argument, it’s a circle.

 

When you insist that what you’re talking about is not an interpretation, the issue is that everything expressed in language is a form of interpretation, even the claim that something isn’t. This doesn’t mean you’re not pointing to something profound. It simply means the statement “this is not an interpretation” is itself a linguistic move rather than a demonstration.

 

Regarding the idea that I’m overlooking the possibility of an actual Absolute, I’m not overlooking it. I’m acknowledging that the human mind is extremely skilled at turning overwhelming experiences into ontological proclamations. That doesn’t make you wrong. It simply means the risk exists, and the risk deserves to be acknowledged.

 

When you say that Truth doesn’t exist for me yet as something real and that I still treat it as a concept, I understand what you mean. But treating Truth as a concept doesn’t mean I’m denying its potential absolute nature. It means I’m unwilling to jump from experience to ontology without examining the jump itself. There is a difference between “this felt absolutely true” and “this is absolutely true for reality as a whole”.

 

And when you claim that if someone is experiencing Infinity they can’t be wrong about it, you’re merging two different layers. First, introspective certainty, the sense that something is absolute. Second, metaphysical certainty, the claim that what feels absolute is universally absolute. The first is undeniable. The second requires argument, not just intensity.

 

The experience of infinity proves that you felt infinite.

It doesn’t automatically prove the structure of the universe.

Certainty is real. Interpretation is optional.

 

“Seeing red proves red exists.”

 

Seeing red proves the experience exists.

It doesn’t say anything about the metaphysics behind it.

You’re mixing the feeling with the explanation.

 

Skepticism applies to the conclusions you draw from experience, not the experience itself.

Your moment may have been real to you, but the interpretation is never untouchable.

 

To sum up, I am not dismissing your experience, Leo. I’m not even dismissing your conclusion. I’m questioning the idea that it cannot be an interpretation, and I’m not willing to collapse epistemology into an act of willpower. Mystical conviction and philosophical rigor serve different functions, and neither can replace the other.

 

[Monster Energy]

3 hours ago, Ramasta9 said:

Good points, and that's where Discernment, Embodiment, Inner-Realization, comes into play. Words, teachings, and experiences are pointers, not Truth itself. The Key is not to take what anyone says as truth, rather Know Truth, which naturally reveals what is genuine and what is illusion.

Leo's work and depth is undeniable. One thing that can make such teachings even more powerful is modeling humility. That even profound experiences benefit from personal verification, discernment, and practical integration.

By balancing insight with human responsibility, followers can cultivate their own inner-realization safely.

 

I appreciate the sentiment, but “just know Truth for yourself” can easily become a poetic way of avoiding the hard part.

Discernment isn’t a mystical instinct you unlock, it’s a discipline. It requires doubt, reflection, and sometimes the humility to admit that even profound experiences can mislead us.

Real inner realization comes from questioning our own certainty, not celebrating it.

 

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Monster Energy said:

You’re stepping over something important. You dismiss “private” as if the word itself were a misunderstanding, when the subjective sense of privacy is not a fiction. It’s a phenomenological reality. I have direct access to my qualia in a way I simply don’t have to yours. That doesn’t refute the Absolute. It only means the path to it still passes through a nervous system that is necessarily limited.

It doesn't mean that at all.

You are assuming and imagining others.

You ARE imagining private/public. You invented that.

I choose not to imagine such things.

Quote

“Become infinitely conscious, then you’ll know.”

That’s the part I’m not taking for granted.

You’re using your experience as the standard for what counts as knowing.

But saying “you’d agree if you had my experience” isn’t an argument, it’s a circle.

There is no argument for Absolute Truth.

It is, and nothing you think matters at all.

Quote

When you insist that what you’re talking about is not an interpretation, the issue is that everything expressed in language is a form of interpretation, even the claim that something isn’t. This doesn’t mean you’re not pointing to something profound. It simply means the statement “this is not an interpretation” is itself a linguistic move rather than a demonstration.

You need to be intelligent enough to see that words are pointing beyond themselves.

I am not demonstrating or proving anything to you. I am telling you something beyond human comprehension.

Quote

Regarding the idea that I’m overlooking the possibility of an actual Absolute, I’m not overlooking it. I’m acknowledging that the human mind is extremely skilled at turning overwhelming experiences into ontological proclamations. That doesn’t make you wrong. It simply means the risk exists, and the risk deserves to be acknowledged.

No, you are not understanding the seriousness of what I am saying.

You are trying to outsmart me. That is a mental game. It has no bearing on Truth.

Quote

When you say that Truth doesn’t exist for me yet as something real and that I still treat it as a concept, I understand what you mean. But treating Truth as a concept doesn’t mean I’m denying its potential absolute nature. It means I’m unwilling to jump from experience to ontology without examining the jump itself. There is a difference between “this felt absolutely true” and “this is absolutely true for reality as a whole”.

It certainly seems that way to you.

That's why Awakening is required.

Quote

And when you claim that if someone is experiencing Infinity they can’t be wrong about it, you’re merging two different layers. First, introspective certainty, the sense that something is absolute. Second, metaphysical certainty, the claim that what feels absolute is universally absolute. The first is undeniable. The second requires argument, not just intensity.

Actually, no. You are inventing that distnction without being conscious that all distinctions are imaginary.

There is no difference between feeling and ontology once your consciousness is high enough.

You are overlooking Unity.

Quote

The experience of infinity proves that you felt infinite.

It doesn’t automatically prove the structure of the universe.

Wrong.

Truth is not an interpretation.

Truth is the structure of reality. Rock bottom. No filters.

Quote

“Seeing red proves red exists.”

Seeing red proves the experience exists.

It doesn’t say anything about the metaphysics behind it.

Again, you assume a difference between the two. Obviously there is no difference in Unity.

Quote

Skepticism applies to the conclusions you draw from experience, not the experience itself.

I am not telling you conclusions.

Quote

Your moment may have been real to you, but the interpretation is never untouchable.

No.

I am conscious of Absolute Truth. Absolutely.

There is no interpretation. I AM Absolute Truth.

Quote

To sum up, I am not dismissing your experience, Leo. I’m not even dismissing your conclusion. I’m questioning the idea that it cannot be an interpretation, and I’m not willing to collapse epistemology into an act of willpower. Mystical conviction and philosophical rigor serve different functions, and neither can replace the other.

You are thinking. And all your thoughts are illusions.

Your very doubt of me is self-deception and you are stuck in it like a chicken in an egg.

You are not appreciating how seeious this is. You still think you can think your way around here. 

NO!

ALL of your thinking is childish horseshit. 

Nothing personal. None of your mental games work on Truth. Truth is invincible.

With Love 

Edited 10 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, Monster Energy said:

Discernment isn’t a mystical instinct you unlock, it’s a discipline. It requires doubt, reflection, and sometimes the humility to admit that even profound experiences can mislead us.

You are describing wisdom, not so much discernment.

Edited 12 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Monster Energy]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It doesn't mean that at all.

You are assuming and imagining others.

You ARE imagining private/public. You invented that.

I choose not to imagine such things.

There is no argument for Absolute Truth.

It is, and nothing you think matters at all.

You need to be intelligent enough to see that words are pointing beyond themselves.

I am not demonstrating or proving anything to you. I am telling you something beyond human comprehension.

No, you are not understanding the seriousness of what I am saying.

You are trying to outsmart me. That is a mental game. It has no bearing on Truth.

It certainly seems that way to you.

That's why Awakening is required.

Actually, no. You are inventing that distnction without being conscious that all distinctions are imaginary.

There is no difference between feeling and ontology once your consciousness is high enough.

You are overlooking Unity.

Wrong.

Truth is not an interpretation.

Truth is the structure of reality. Rock bottom. No filters.

Again, you assume a difference between the two. Obviously there is no difference in Unity.

I am not telling you conclusions.

No.

I am conscious of Absolute Truth. Absolutely.

There is no interpretation. I AM Absolute Truth.

You are thinking. And all your thoughts are illusions.

Your very doubt of me is self-deception and you are stuck in it like a chicken in an egg.

You are not appreciating how seeious this is. You still think you can think your way around here. 

NO!

ALL of your thinking is childish horseshit. 

Nothing personal. None of your mental games work on Truth. Truth is invincible.

With Love 

Leo, I understand that from your vantage point my questions look like “imagining others,” or playing mental games, or being trapped in some epistemic chicken-egg situation. But you’re presenting all those claims as if naming them makes them true. Choosing not to imagine distinctions doesn’t eliminate them, it just means you’re declaring your perspective to be the universal template.

 

You keep telling me that any distinction I make is imaginary, while simultaneously insisting that your own distinction between Truth and illusion is not. If all distinctions collapse in Unity, then yours collapses too. If they don’t, then mine is at least worth addressing instead of dismissing.

 

And when you tell me that nothing I think matters, or that all thought is childish nonsense, that isn’t a revelation, it’s a tactic. It turns dialogue into submission. If the only acceptable position is to stop thinking and agree, then what you’re offering isn’t awakening, it’s obedience.

 

You say this is beyond human comprehension, yet somehow still communicable through blunt certainty. You say there is no argument for Absolute Truth, yet you insist your words describe it accurately. If you truly occupy a perspective where language is incapable of misrepresenting reality, that itself is a claim that deserves scrutiny. Not rejection, not acceptance, but scrutiny.

 

I’m not trying to outsmart you, and I’m not trying to win. I’m trying to understand. And part of understanding is not surrendering my capacity to distinguish between an experience and the metaphysics derived from it. Feeling something as ultimate is not the same as demonstrating that it is ultimate.

 

You say that once consciousness is high enough, feeling and ontology are the same. That might be true for you, but the fact that you tell me it’s true doesn’t make it true for me. If awakening is required, then the point is not that I agree with you, but that I verify something for myself. And verification requires more than repetition. It requires the space to think, to doubt, to examine.

 

You accuse me of being stuck inside a mental egg, but cracking the shell by force doesn’t hatch a chick. It kills it. Growth has a rhythm. Insight has a process. And questioning isn’t the enemy of Truth. It’s the way we avoid confusing forceful conviction with clarity.

 

I’m listening to you, Leo. I’m taking you seriously.

But taking you seriously doesn’t mean I turn my mind off and call it enlightenment.

 

With love

and with my autonomy intact.

 

 

[Monster Energy]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

You are describing wisdom, not so much discernment.

You’re right that what I described overlaps with wisdom, but wisdom without discernment is just pleasant sentiment. Discernment is the part that keeps us honest. It’s what stops insight from turning into ideology, and experience from turning into dogma.

If anything, wisdom grows out of discernment, not the other way around.

 

[Leo Gura]

@Monster Energy Obviously maintain your autonomy and have your own Awakening. That is all.

The only answer to your questions is Awakening. You will not understand until then.

You are asking about the ultimate nature of reality and God. There is zero wiggle room in this domain for arguments. There is only one right answer: INFINITY.

I hope you get it some day.

Edited 9 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Monster Energy]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Monster Energy Obviously maintain your autonomy and have your own Awakening. That is all.

The only answer to your questions is Awakening. You will not understand until then.

You are asking about the ultimate nature of reality and God. There is zero wiggle room in this domain for arguments. There is only one right answer: INFINITY.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

I’ll keep exploring these questions in a way that feels authentic to me, and I trust that whatever clarity I reach will come from my own process, not from trying to force a conclusion.

Thank you for the exchange.

Wishing you well.

 

 

[Leo Gura]

@Monster Energy Yes, yes. Question however your mind needs it. Don't believe me.