Criticism of Leo: I don't think he understands Islam

[UnbornTao]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

You are being too flippant about how much culture and survival forces shape people's understanding of Reality.

If you lived in the Middle East 1500 years ago, you would in for a rude awakening indeed. These people were hardly more developed than chimpanzees. And you want them to give you some kind of pure spiritual textbook that can compete with today's work?

By that logic, neither Jesus nor Buddha would have existed. Or, alternatively, we would have far more enlightened people today, proportional to humanity's accumulated knowledge. One could argue that contemplation was actually easier in ancient times, with far fewer distractions. Consider the contrast between the average Western lifestyle today and that of a monk in a monastery.

Unless you're talking about intellectually constructing new worldviews, the requirement for direct consciousness has remained constant throughout history. The accumulated "content" or knowledge does not change that fundamental requirement. Perhaps there's a reason we don't see many figures like Plotinus or Heraclitus today. If they were born now, they'd likely spend their days scrolling TikTok rather than reading Kant - and even reading Kant wouldn't guarantee understanding.

The Dark Ages emerged after the Greeks, demonstrating (perhaps) that this dynamic is not linear. Also, the ancient skeptics would demolish the average person's reasoning today - and that was thousands of years ago.

The common ground is this: a lack of authentic experience applies equally to the average person today as it did in past eras. Knowledge alone cannot alter this fact.

And you can be a profoundly awakened "barbarian." Experiencing what's true does not depend on cultural context or environment. Development and "what is" are not the same thing.

---

"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"

- T.S. Eliot

What a tryhard.

[Jodistrict]

I think it is exactly the opposite.  People were more likely to wake up in the past.  We are  handicapped because we are so locked into our minds, continuously distracted, and are spoiled with too much comfort.  Having minds full of information doesn’t give you any advantage.  We aren’t fully embodied.  People in the past were in contact with nature.  The ancient Rishis of India realized non duality thousands of years ago, even before Buddha.  Of course, we are talking about a very small number of enlightened sages waking up in a sea of ignorance.

[gengar]

On 15/01/2026 at 9:54 PM, Leo Gura said:

The way God actually works is, the lesser Jihad is nonsense

Let me contest you on this with a recent quote of your own.

Quote

But your finite mind will be as afraid of this as physical death because the finite mind will be nullified. You will exist as absolutely nothing. Whether you return from Infinity is unknown. You will not know if you will return. You may not, and that is the risk of union with God. As soon as you feel yourself getting pulled into Absolute Infinity you will probably freak out and quickly snap yourself back into finite material duality. Your mind will not allow a full union with Infinity because that is truly its death. It will feel like you are about to kill yourself just by merging with Infinity.

Isn't willingly going out to war just this; knowing that you will probably die and not come back to this earth? you have to have ultimate faith and push through the fear of death, losing attachment to your own ego in the same way? Isn't the ultimate test of ego to be willing to be torn apart by Maya? How is the lesser Jihad nonsense? 

You yourself criticized Buddhists for being apathic to the world and retreating into their meditative lives without really living in the dream and exposing themselves to the hardships of life. 
 

 

On 15/01/2026 at 9:54 PM, Leo Gura said:

This is called being charitable. I steelman Islam. You are strawmanning it.

Are you really steelmanning it, or twisting it to fit your own bias? I would argue the latter. You agree with Islam's glorification of the Infinite God and it's staunch monotheism, but you disagree with it's morality (and the Idea that God has a morality). Therefore your self-bias picks out the elements you like and pretends like that is the "real religion" and the rest was just thought up, when for them it was all the same. 

The morality of Islam is second in importance to them only to the strict Monotheist ontology and cosmology, and you can't even separate it from it. If there is only one God to please who will either torture you or give you bliss, following any other idol or finite desire becomes absurd. 

A buddhist would also make the same claim as you, that God has no morality; but he would also say that Reality itself sends you into agonizing situations and places because of your own Karma. If God/Allah is reality itself anyway, and reality sends me to heaven or hell not because of a separate judgment, but just "because the way things are"/Karma, aren't those two premises exactly the same? You have preached for a "good life" in exactly the same way. If you live the Good life, that will give you satisfaction, and the bad life won't. How is that any different ontologically from saying God punishes or rewards you, if God is life/reality anyway?
 

[gengar]

17 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

By that logic, neither Jesus nor Buddha would have existed.

 

Well the funny thing is, Jesus was crucified by his people. They tried to do Mohammed in the same way, but he fled with his best mate to Medina and only then became the political leader and warlord history knows him as. What's the quote again, "You either die a hero..." yeah.

Buddha abandoned his newborn child and wife in the middle of the night, never to return, in search of Truth. Is that the pinnacle of morality for you? Plus if everyone did that, society would collapse and we would all be eaten by animals.

People like you take the question of morality for granted. It's so much more complex than the pacifist slave morality that new-age hippies take to be the standard. Morality is the at the intersection of survival and consciousness. 

If an army came tomorrow to murder you and your family and rape your daughter, and you would flee as a pacifist hippie, I would deem you an immoral coward. If you fought to the death to protect them or to buy them time to flee, sacrificing yourself in the process, I would deem you a moral hero. Now thats some jihad for you.
 

[Leo Gura]

19 minutes ago, gengar said:

Let me contest you on this with a recent quote of your own.

Isn't willingly going out to war just this; knowing that you will probably die and not come back to this earth? you have to have ultimate faith and push through the fear of death, losing attachment to your own ego in the same way? Isn't the ultimate test of ego to be willing to be torn apart by Maya? How is the lesser Jihad nonsense? 

Dude, no! War has nothing to do with Awakening. War is the biggest distraction possible from truth-seeking.

Quote

You yourself criticized Buddhists for being apathic to the world and retreating into their meditative lives without really living in the dream and exposing themselves to the hardships of life. 

I have no problem with asceticism. It is not suitable for most, but for some it is perfect.

Quote

Are you really steelmanning it, or twisting it to fit your own bias? I would argue the latter. You agree with Islam's glorification of the Infinite God and it's staunch monotheism, but you disagree with it's morality (and the Idea that God has a morality). Therefore your self-bias picks out the elements you like and pretends like that is the "real religion" and the rest was just thought up, when for them it was all the same. 

I will cherrypick the hell out of religion because it is so corrupt and confused. I only pick out the truth.

I am telling you how to do Islam properly. If you don't want to believe me, okay, have fun finding God your way.

Once you are conscious of God, it's very obvious what will move people to God and what is a distraction. I tell you guys the most direct methods to God. Because I want you to reach God as soon as possible.

Edited 5 hours ago by Leo Gura

[gengar]

On 15/01/2026 at 10:12 PM, AION said:

The equivalent for scientists would be that scientists would try to look like Albert Einstein

funnily enough, most of them do and have an aesthetic amoration with "scientist clothing" which reflects their stance that non-quantifiability is ultimately an illusion. 

[AerisVahnEphelia]

Islam like all others religion is basically mental illness.
 

Bunch of delusional garbage, find god and stop this non sense.

[gengar]

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Dude, no! War has nothing to do with Awakening. War is the biggest distraction possible from truth-seekimg.

You are misconstruing my point. War for the ego is death and Awakening is as well; I'm just saying, both kill the ego, and the ego has to be willing to never return. How do you not see the similitude?
The moments before ego death are when the ego is lost in the most extreme paranoia and falsehood, clinging to life. at the moment of death, Truth is revealed. Isn't that just how death works in a real war?

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I have no problem with asceticism. It is not suitable for most, but for some it is perfect.

You did mention that you have a moral disagreement with it, that it's a cowards way to live, since you let society rot, while Christian saints for example did much for the rat-like people. 

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I am telling you how to do Islam properly. If you don't want to believe me, okay, have fun finding God your way.

Again, you're mischaracterizing my point. I'm of the stance your way is superior and more true (obviously), but as someone who has studied a lot of religions and the game theory behind them, You are not doing them justice (both in the bad and the good of them) by just cherrypicking elements for your own gain. Ironically Mohammed did the same thing with Jesus. Thats the point I'm making, You're not doing justice to reality by just picking some random elements from religions and making a collage out of it (some which aren't even authentic like the lesser jihad/greater jihad distinction), sure its cool art and it adds to your own mystical school of ideas but again, you're just doing the same as Mohammed did with Jewish and Christian source material. Again, it's cool and mind-opening, but it does muddy the waters about really analyzing what religions are about in both their truth and falsehood. 

Wouldn't you agree that to do "Islam properly" and find God, you'd need some kind of moral compass? The path is an illusion but only the fool doesn't walk it? how is that different than saying God rewards some behaviour and God punishes other? God is reality right?

I just feel you should be more meticulous and detailed about these manners. It's one of the only criticism I have of your style. I get that it's also a feature, but it's too much at this point. Detailed discussion of philosophy is needed.

It's also worth noting that you often mistake criticisms of your posts in a very black/white way. I'm making detailed nuanced points here but you immediately took it as a denouncement of your entire position.



 

Edited 5 hours ago by gengar

[gengar]

10 minutes ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

Bunch of delusional garbage, find god and stop this non sense.

Your stance reveals an unconscious radical individualism; that it is up to the individual to find God and distance himself from society. But that is not a universal solution; If everyone did it, society would collapse. which is why religions had to exist. 

Jesus found God (in some sense) and people made a religion out of him. Why? contemplate that. I've been doing it for years and still haven't found the final answer. the interplay of survival, truth and religion is so much more complex than you'd initially think.

Edited 5 hours ago by gengar

[AerisVahnEphelia]

1 minute ago, gengar said:

Your stance reveals an unconscious radical individualism; that it is up to the individual to find God and distance himself from society. But that is not a universal solution; If everyone did it, society would collapse. which is why religions had to exist. 

Jesus found God (in some sense) and people made a religion out of him. Why? contemplate that. I've been doing it for years and still haven't found the final answer. the interplay of survival, truth and religion is so much more complex than you'd initially think.

my stance reveal whatever you wanna imagine about it.
 

[gengar]

@AerisVahnEphelia Also note that you do seem to have an aesthetic fascination with religious symboblism like being a "facet of the dream of God". Notice that you find that beautiful. You didn't just think that up by yourself, you are taking from thousands of years of religious art tradition that always has tried to marry art with the metaphysical and the divine. Don't just denounce it as bullshit. It's much more than that (although of course a lot of it is straight up bullshit)

[gengar]

2 minutes ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

my stance reveal whatever you wanna imagine about it.
 

Why the passive agressive tone? i'm just giving a bit of spice to the discussion. seems that nobody actually wants to delve into the matter of the philosophy here.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, gengar said:

You did mention that you have a moral disagreement with it, that it's a cowards way to live, since you let society rot, while Christian saints for example did much for the rat-like people.

That was one way of looking at it. Not the only way.

There is truth in that asceticism is in a sense too easy because not dealing with people is much easier than dealing with them well. Begging for food when you could just make your own food is a kind of wrongness.

But asceticism is also valid if done properly for proper reasons.

It's a nuanced issue with various facets to it.

Edited 3 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, gengar said:

Wouldn't you agree that to do "Islam properly" and find God, you'd need some kind of moral compass?

Obviously it doesn't help to go around murdering people.

Moral compass just means consciousness. Just by being conscious you become moral. Moral rules interfere with being conscious of whatever is right in a situation.

Morality is not complicated. Be conscious, loving, and selfless. There is all the moral rules you need.

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, gengar said:

really analyzing what religions are about

I am not doing that. I am focused on what is required to connect with God.

Obviously religion has many other survival factors. Islam is also about law. But I don't care about those things.

Obviously I am not doing scholarship of Islam here. If you want a scholarship of Islam, don't ask me. Scholarship is not a kick in your ass to reach God.

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura

[gengar]

19 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Obviously it doesn't help to go around murdering people.

Moral compass just means consciousness. Just by being conscious you become moral. Moral rules interfere with being conscious of whatever is right in a situation.

Morality is not complicated. Be conscious, loving, and selfless. There is all the moral rules you need.

I'd argue it is actually more complicated than that since many times, you have to do things like killing in war to protect your family. Are you going to argue against Ukrainian soldiers that they have to be conscious and loving, or that they have to kill and destroy the enemy? which is more moral?

Was Gautama Buddha moral for abandoning his wife and infant child forever in search of Truth? Or is it more moral to sacrifice truth-seeking for selfless activities like caring for your family, but being stuck in societies falsehood till you die?

You are reducing morality to what is good between people, when morality is more than that, it is about what the good life is. You have an unconscious assumption of what Nietszche would call slave morality, it's what we have been brought up with in our liberal time. I'd invite you to contemplate that morality is more complex and deep than you reduce it out to be.

[gengar]

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I am not doing that. I am focused on what is required to connect with God.

Obviously religion has many other survival factors. Islam is also about law. But I don't care about those things.

Obviously I am not doing scholarship of Islam here. If you want a scholarship of Islam, don't ask me. Scholarship is not a kick in your ass to reach God.

It's not about the scholarship but about missing crucial details about religions and they affect society and understanding of God.

But I digress. I wanted to ask you, why do you believe Mohammed's claims that his insights were channeled? why wasn't it just made up from his own insight? and if it was channeled, why does it contain so much falsehood, like you claim, yet also much truth, like you also claim?

How do you think channeling works, do you think there's actual distinct spiritual entities out there doing the work, or a more nebulous channeling from infinite intelligence? if the latter, why would there be so much falsehood in channeled teachings like that? because the time isnt ready for it?

[Leo Gura]

@gengar What I said about morality does not mean you cannot do intelligent self-defense.

If your nation is invaded you can use your consciousness and love to defend yourself and people within reason.

When I say love and selflessness that does not mean turn the other cheek and take abuse with no boundaries.

Love also means love for yourself. You don't need to only love others at your own expense.

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

30 minutes ago, gengar said:

But I digress. I wanted to ask you, why do you believe Mohammed's claims that his insights were channeled? why wasn't it just made up from his own insight? and if it was channeled, why does it contain so much falsehood, like you claim, yet also much truth, like you also claim?

How do you think channeling works, do you think there's actual distinct spiritual entities out there doing the work, or a more nebulous channeling from infinite intelligence? if the latter, why would there be so much falsehood in channeled teachings like that? because the time isnt ready for it?

These are tricky issues which I don't have clear answers to.

I have no idea if it was really channeled or not. I just report the story as given to us. We will never know how it was really done.

However channeling works, one's corruption and cultural biases will defintely get embedded in it. Channeling is not some pure source of truth.

You should note that the Quran was not actually written by Mohammad, it was assembled by his devotees after his death. There was never a single continuous text that Mohammad wrote. You have no idea how much of the Quran they made up and polluted with their corruption and lack of awareness.

The notion that the Quran was written by Mohammad himself is already false.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[UnbornTao]

@gengar I don't see why you'd bring up morality in response to my post above. As far as I'm concerned, it's irrelevant to the main point, which is that the goal - experiencing the truth - stands on its own.

Culture, environment, and other factors obviously play an important role in our lives, yet they don't alter that requirement. This kind of ignorance is neither culturally derived nor culturally remedied, because it is existential. The human condition remains unaffected by extraneous factors such as technology and the like. 

Perhaps it's a bit like thinking that our accumulation of knowledge over the years could somehow grow the human body a new foot - or something along those lines.

Edited 2 hours ago by UnbornTao