Hey everyone, I've been consuming Leo's content for a while now, and I want to start by saying: I agree with like 90% of what he teaches. The deconstruction of rationality series? Absolutely on point. The stuff about survival, self-deception, the limits of science, the importance of direct experience over belief - all of it resonates deeply. I've done the work. Psychedelics, contemplation, years of reading philosophy and theology (especially Eastern Orthodox mysticism, which I think has some seriously underrated insights on these topics). So this isn't coming from a place of "Leo is wrong and I'm right." It's coming from a genuine puzzle I can't resolve. Here's where I get stuck: the solipsism episode. Leo says: "You are the only conscious thing in existence. There are no other minds. You are God, completely and absolutely." I've had experiences where the boundary between self and other dissolves. I get it. The partition feels artificial. Everything seems to be "me" in some expanded sense. I'm not denying that experience is real. But here's my question: Does the dissolution of the boundary between self and other prove that I AM the totality? Or does it just show that both self and other participate in something infinitely larger than both? Let me put it differently. When Leo says he has "absolute consciousness" and is "conscious of everything," I want to ask: how do you verify the non-existence of what lies outside your current field of awareness? To say "there's nothing outside my consciousness" seems to require you to have already checked "outside" - which is a contradiction. My alternative interpretation: What if the experience of boundary dissolution is real, but the interpretation is off by one step? Instead of: "The boundary dissolved, therefore I am everything" What about: "The boundary dissolved, therefore I participate in something infinitely larger than my previous sense of self - but that something is still infinitely larger than my expanded self" In other words: God IS us (from God's perspective), but God also transcends us infinitely. We are not God, but we are made in God's image - our consciousness is the finite version of the infinite. It can expand, approach God, but that approach is itself an infinite journey. There's always more. Why does this matter? If Leo's version is true, then "awakening" is essentially recognizing a static fact: you were always everything, you just forgot. The journey ends. If my version is true, awakening is entering an infinite process of expansion. There's no ceiling. Theosis (to use the Orthodox term) is eternal growth into God, not absorption into a blob where distinctions disappear. A few concrete questions: Leo, here's where I genuinely get stuck, and I'd love to hear your take: When you say you became "absolutely conscious of everything" and verified this many times - how do you distinguish between "I experienced the actual infinite and I AM that infinite" versus "I experienced an expansion so vast that I couldn't perceive any limits, but what lies beyond those limits still exists"? A fish that expands to fill its entire ocean won't perceive the sky. But the sky is still there. The absence of perceived exterior doesn't necessarily prove the absence of exterior - it might just mean the exterior is beyond current perception. Here's an alternative interpretation I'm playing with: maybe we don't perceive "outside" precisely because we're not supposed to. If our barriers dissolved completely, we'd mix with other entities, lose our distinctiveness, get "stained" by everything else. So we have barriers - necessary ones. This makes us, in a sense, always experientially alone. Islands. Enclosed. But that doesn't mean other islands don't exist - it means we interact indirectly, through a shared matrix that is itself a portion of God (not the totality). The solipsistic intuition would then be a misreading of a real phenomenon: we feel alone because we ARE enclosed. But enclosed doesn't mean "only." You've said other teachers (Tolle, Spira, etc.) thought they reached the end but hadn't - you went beyond their position of "we're all part of a larger God's mind." Fair enough. But then: what rules out a "beyond" to your "beyond"? If they were wrong about having reached the ceiling, what makes you certain you've actually hit it? I ask this not as a gotcha, but because the mystical traditions I trust most (Maximus the Confessor, Gregory of Nyssa, the hesychasts) are extremely careful here. Even in the highest union with God, the human remains human. They call it "distinction without separation." Not theological timidity - but recognition that if the finite actually BECOMES the infinite, there's no more relationship, no more love, no more journey. Just collapse into undifferentiated unity. Your model feels like collapse to me. Mine feels like infinite adventure - always more Source, always more Light, always further to go. But I'm genuinely open to being wrong. What am I missing? Looking forward to the discussion.