Seek and ye shall find. That's the whole trick.

[kavaris]

Oh oh. This gets our minds twisted up into a knot like lemniskos like, its a puzzle for the mind, right?  For there was something else i was tryin to express, which was "how simple" we believe things are, as a result of seeing things *simply*, like... Starting from this first.. Think of "mindfulness". It assumes that there werent already "mindful" qualities within; spirituality assumes we werent already spritual/or more spiritual, and philosophy assumes we hadnt established some seed of philosophy without explicitly mentioning it as a philosophy. You can continue that with everything else. or ill ask the ques., "What else can just *be*, without there requiring a thing to fill it in with the paint bucket tool? What else are we creating, and, is it adding to that which already *is*? Can there even be a *thing* without there being *mistakes that were made* in the process leading up to?... Like, its very complicated when you are looking at it like that, since everything would often, more than likely, require *mistakes made* in the process leading up to, like, its not so *simple* when you really dig into it is all. Thats usually followed then by "its not that hard", like, but that lasts for like 5 seconds until you realize thats b.s., as its exceedingly complicated once you start asking questions, which is all you can ever do right? To be sitting silent is to ask the question of, whether or not a truck isnt driving through your wall, like... We dont just sit in quiet, we actively engage the stuff of mind

Edited Monday at 08:00 AM by kavaris

[UnbornTao]

Is this basically saying "people see what they want to see"?

If so, couldn't agree more!

[Joshe]

A different tact with AI-assistance:

---

The frame that says "I have no frame, I just want truth" is the hardest one to see. It's the final boss.

Most frames are visible enough to question. "I'm a Christian" - you can see that's a frame. "I believe in materialism" - you can see that's a frame. You know you're standing somewhere.

But "I just want truth" or "I have no frame, I just see what's real" - that one hides itself. Because it looks like the absence of a frame. It feels like neutrality. It presents itself as the thing you get after you've removed all frames.

So you never question it. Why would you? It's not a position - it's just "being honest" or "seeking truth" or "seeing clearly."

But it is a position. You selected "truth" as your orientation. You preferred it. Experiences reinforced it. Accumulation happened. Now it's invisible.

The reason it's the "final boss" is because every other frame can be seen and dropped. But the frame that says "I drop frames and just see truth" can't see itself as a frame. It's disguised as the solution to frames.

It's the one that survives every other deconstruction - because it looks like deconstruction itself.

So you strip away belief after belief, framework after framework, and feel like you're getting closer to raw reality. But the thing doing the stripping - the orientation toward "truth" - is never examined. It's the last one standing, pretending it's not standing anywhere.

---

If you seek "reality without frames", you will find a state of consciousness that feels like "reality without frames". This is universal. 

Edited Monday at 11:40 PM by Joshe

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Explain what you mean by 'orientation toward truth', and 'conceptual frame' ?

These are going to mean different things to users.

Be sure these two things can be equivocated - to me they are not the same.

To me; a frame adds structure to what is seen as a content-full lens, like a set of assumptions/filters that interpret experience. But 'orientation to truth' or 'I want truth' doesn't appear as a structure to reality. I see it as a constraint on inquiry. It could also be viewed as an orientation to falsehood in an effort to reveal and deconstruct.

I do understand and agree with the OP. We hunt for feathers, we will find feathers. More feathers than anyone not looking.

But I will need to see a really good breakdown of the above 2 terms. Orientation to truth appears to answer questions about evaluation, no? Making this a frame seems like a stretch, as frames answer questions about reality. And therein lies the confusion - a simple difference in understanding of terms might be the issue.

Edited Monday at 11:56 PM by Natasha Tori Maru

[Joshe]

@Natasha Tori Maru If it filters experience and shapes what you find, it's a frame. 

You didn't invent surrender, deconstruction, etc. Where did these ideas come from? You encountered them. You liked them. You engaged with them. They accumulated. And now they're dominant in your reality. 

Did you simply discover what is true about reality or did you flesh these things out until you saw them in high-definition? Even if it's some of both, the mechanism is still a frame.

This is not to say the frame doesn't comport with reality, just that it is a frame. The mechanism that got you more in line with reality is a frame.

This is also not to say you can't experience without a frame. It's to say the moment you recognize it as frameless, you've framed it. And the moment you say "I have no frame", you're saying that from a frame.

What's more, the more serious you are about having no frame, the more entrenched in a frame you are.

You can claim your frame comports with reality. You can claim you prefer it. But "I have no frame" isn't an option.

Also, I'm not speaking from authority here - this is the first time I've unpacked my intuitions on this topic this much, so I'm open to correction. 

If you're trying to figure out what I'm getting at with all this, it's:

If you discovered truth => you have access others don't -> hierarchy, authority, "others will understand when they go deeper".

If you fleshed out a frame until it became dominant -> you trained into a preference -> others could train into different things -> no special access, just different orientations/preferences.

In other words, your truth orientation isn't special. I'm trying to collapse hierarchy.

The whole spiritual authority game depends on "I discovered what's actually true." Even if the frame comports with reality, you can't know it does with certainty. 

So, if accepted, the implication is humility is mandatory, certainty is a mistake, and "I see what's real" is almost always bullshit.

I feel a portion of this is like preaching to the choir but hopefully there is something new. 

Edited Tuesday at 04:53 AM by Joshe

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, Joshe said:

@Natasha Tori Maru If it filters experience and shapes what you find, it's a frame. 

All good then, as the Truth relies on no frame or interpretation

I think you make comment on accessing truth. Which I think has been expounded upon. But I cannot remark on the rest of the reply as I am stuck at the prior inquiry regarding terms.

I think I return to 'the truth cannot be spoken'. Or perhaps, Truth is not contained in words.

Won't stop people trying 

Mistaking the pointer for the thing itself etc

Edited Tuesday at 05:41 AM by Natasha Tori Maru

[Natasha Tori Maru]

If you mean to point to 'all seeking carries a frame', well, yes. That is a given 

[Joshe]

37 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

All good then, as the Truth relies on no frame or interpretation

Would you say "truth relies on no frame" is a frame? 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

22 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Would you say "truth relies on no frame" is a frame? 

The truth itself (whatever that is) or the path to it?

[Natasha Tori Maru]

I think you are trying to bring nuance to seeking, but I cannot see anything new being added to the biased nature of humanity.

I almost feel like I want to link all the videos on bias and how they expound on this point, but I understand this would be a disservice because you have implied you are touching on something new. 

The problem is - I view all human seeking having inherent bias. Which is also something Leo talks about so much I sometimes want to punch him lol

So this is a form of agreement over and over. 

I think some of the AI additions have confused the matter, only because AI likes to rotate around to different points that don't always string together in rhythm. More just random shotgun fire of points.

Edited Tuesday at 06:28 AM by Natasha Tori Maru

[Natasha Tori Maru]

All statements or positions regarding truth can be a frame.

'the self' is a frame

This is why it is bias. And why no self is a thing. 

[LambdaDelta]

2 hours ago, Joshe said:

authority

Key word and a summary of the entire thread right there. "To the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail" is a similar proverb. Forget Love and all that fluff for now, that can come later. Just like everyone else, regardless of the level of consciousness or any which arbitrary metric, you have the final say on the beliefs and values you hold, whether you call those truth or opinions or something else, and how you react to and relate to 'frames' presented by others (assuming you believe others exist in the first place). That's simply authority. It can be externalized, such as accepting/rejecting someone's authority on a particular matter, or trying to project yours onto others (the so-called 'spiritual authority game', which can just as well be political, scientific, etc.); but it's really an internal, inalienable faculty. Colloquially, the ultimate authority in reality is known as God. Take it at face value with all the cultural baggage, reject it altogether, or reinterpret it into something in-between based on your personal experiences — any choice requires employing your authority. Authority is used as unconsciously as consciousness, one is not more fundamental than the other. 
You exist, right? On whose authority? Existence, Consciousness, Authority, Reality, Truth, etc. are identical. 
Since "Seek, and ye shall find" is so universal, consider that it could also mean that there's nothing that cannot be found (everything exists, a.k.a. Infinity), and that whatever anyone finds could be the same thing appearing as different forms. And after all, isn't a reality where everyone finds exactly what they want the most loving and perfect way a reality could be?

[Leo Gura]

@Joshe Be careful. You are starting to get lost.

If you don't correct course it will get worse, until up becomes down and down becomes up for you.

Truth exists. Truth is not whatever you want. Truth does not care what you want. What you're talking about is not truth-seeking but human mind games.

Edited Tuesday at 09:14 AM by Leo Gura

[Joshe]

On 2/3/2026 at 4:10 AM, Leo Gura said:

@Joshe Be careful. You are starting to get lost.

If you don't correct course it will get worse, until up becomes down and down becomes up for you.

Truth exists. Truth is not whatever you want. Truth does not care what you want. What you're talking about is not truth-seeking but human mind games.

I'm not scrambling for higher ground or to see the nature of reality more clearly. But if I were doing that, I would admit it was a preference and not some cosmically significant mission. I wouldn't put myself or my mission on a cosmic pedestal.

That's YOUR game, not mine. The point of this entire thread was to make clear it is A game - one people are choosing and importing cosmic significance into it. You've built a palace and called it the most important palace.

The second point of this thread was to highlight the ego mechanics that defend that construction. 

You can't see you've constructed your entire frame. You think you're outside all frames. And I'm the one who can't see?

You imply there is only one way and that I'm getting lost in finding it. What makes you so arrogant to say such a thing? The hidden assumptions in these statements alone reveal your specific errors and ego, which I'm happy to elucidate if you're interested.

I've labored pretty hard to dismantle these ideas, and I can't do it. So, with arms wide open, I welcome anyone here to.

If this post was confusing, it's most likely because the ideas herein are absolutely dangerous to a spiritual ego. If you thought I was merely talking about "bias" or some such other simple ass idea, that was likely your ego protecting itself.

Your spiritual identity's days will be numbered if you see what I'm saying here. 

@Leo Gura You think you have the key to the universe but there is no key - only doors we imagine into existence. And you have imagined an impenetrable fortress of cosmic significance. Your throne is actually a chair lol. And that's ok. 

"Awakening" is just a form of tourism. Scrambling for higher ground is a mere preference - a quest for exotic mindscapes - not very different from a traveler's quest for exotic landscapes. The only difference is in the feeling. Neither is more significant than the other.

Your holy mission is a cognitive hobby. Tadaaa! 

Deconstruct that shit bro. 

This doesn't reintroduce nihilism. It just makes you have less ego. Could be your next level up lol.

As always, I'm open to any of my ideas being wrong.

Edited 7 hours ago by Joshe

[Joshe]

On 2/3/2026 at 3:57 AM, LambdaDelta said:

Key word and a summary of the entire thread right there. "To the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail" is a similar proverb. Forget Love and all that fluff for now, that can come later. Just like everyone else, regardless of the level of consciousness or any which arbitrary metric, you have the final say on the beliefs and values you hold, whether you call those truth or opinions or something else, and how you react to and relate to 'frames' presented by others (assuming you believe others exist in the first place). That's simply authority. It can be externalized, such as accepting/rejecting someone's authority on a particular matter, or trying to project yours onto others (the so-called 'spiritual authority game', which can just as well be political, scientific, etc.); but it's really an internal, inalienable faculty. Colloquially, the ultimate authority in reality is known as God. Take it at face value with all the cultural baggage, reject it altogether, or reinterpret it into something in-between based on your personal experiences — any choice requires employing your authority. Authority is used as unconsciously as consciousness, one is not more fundamental than the other. 
You exist, right? On whose authority? Existence, Consciousness, Authority, Reality, Truth, etc. are identical. 
Since "Seek, and ye shall find" is so universal, consider that it could also mean that there's nothing that cannot be found (everything exists, a.k.a. Infinity), and that whatever anyone finds could be the same thing appearing as different forms. And after all, isn't a reality where everyone finds exactly what they want the most loving and perfect way a reality could be?

I think you see one of the main points at least, so thanks for that. 

The fact that you can get on a spaceship and go look under rocks on Mars and find stuff there, I'm not sure how that is "most loving or "perfect". For me it's magical and wondrous, but I'm careful what I import. I could see how someone might inquire into it with "love" as a hypothesis for why such things are possible (and I have). But I think that would be a choice to frame it that way, not a discovery that it is that way. And if you did discover it and experience it as such, how could you know you didn't just train your consciousness into it? 

This thread isn't about me though. It's about deconstructing spiritual ladders.

[Leo Gura]

@Joshe As I told you, you have gotten lost.

What you are saying is not the work, it is self-deception. But you are already lost enough that you will not listen to me.

I warned you guys many times how self-deceptive this work is.

Every year there is another guy on here thinking he's too cool for school, thinking he has outsmarted these teachings. No you haven't.

I am here precisely to keep people on track from this kind of thing. But I can only help you if you are willing to learn. I truly am here to help you, not to play ego games with you. But I can only say that so many times. I hope it is understood.

I have seen dozens of people here over the years think they have outsmarted the teachings, and they were all wrong. Don't become one of them.

Edited 7 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Natasha Tori Maru]

On 03/02/2026 at 5:27 PM, Natasha Tori Maru said:

The problem is - I view all human seeking having inherent bias. Which is also something Leo talks about so much I sometimes want to punch him lol

 

53 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

What you are saying is not the work, it is self-deception. But you are already lost enough that you will not listen to me.

I warned you guys many times how self-deceptive this work is.

Well, the more specific words 'self-deception' were used, which can overlap as bias (although, more precise) so I will not punch you with my noodly girl-arms 

[AtmanIsBrahman]

@Leo Gura What are the most common ways that people go wrong thinking they have outsmarted the teachings? And how do you avoid treating actualized.org as a belief system while also avoiding falling into delusions?

[LambdaDelta]

1 hour ago, Joshe said:

I'm not sure how that is "most loving or "perfect"

Simply because it's universally accommodating, without exclusions/exceptions. Essentially SD stage Green values of inclusivity and diversity raised to absolutes. Perhaps the notion of consistency under the following definition can be of help: 
"agreement or harmony of parts or features to one another or a whole
specifically: ability to be asserted together without contradiction"
That's a fundamental property of Infinity, from there it's not too difficult to also make the logical connection to Beauty, Integrity, and so on, but past a certain point explicitly communicating such things doesn't work properly and even does harm. I could go on a whole spiel here using a parent-child analogy that incorporates love, bias, sovereignty, and this and that, but in the end you'd (not unwarrantably) call that a frame and frame it as a Q.E.D. for your original point. 
 

2 hours ago, Joshe said:

For me it's magical and wondrous, but I'm careful what I import

That is fine, everyone has some aspect/facet of reality they struggle with. For me Love and 40+ others are crystal clear by now, but Miracle is still elusive; though it's obviously there, experientially I only see Certainty save for rare occasions. 
 

2 hours ago, Joshe said:

And if you did discover it and experience it as such, how could you know you didn't just train your consciousness into it? 

Can only speak for myself, but I didn't start this journey looking for love, not consciously anyway. The word wasn't even in my vocabulary really. When Leo presented the idea it didn't exactly resonate emotionally or logically, all I did was remain open to it. Long story short, after enough inquiry it became undeniable, if nothing else then simply from a consistency standpoint. I had a love for understanding, but didn't understand what love or understanding is; then it turned out that Truth and Love are identical. So it's not like I wanted love to be true, I wanted the truth, whatever it may be, and got love as a bonus. Pretty sure that's how it goes for a lot of autistic guys, love is not a matter of wishful thinking for us, and can even cause some repulsion initially. Notice that you frame the definition of spirituality in your OP from a traditionally feminine perspective ("Ask this community what spirituality is for and they'll say equanimity, peace, love, presence"). 
 

3 hours ago, Joshe said:

You can't see you've constructed your entire frame. You think you're outside all frames. And I'm the one who can't see?

Your deconstruction as presented here is a frame too, you know. 'Outside' implies duality and therefore wrong, you need to realize that you are the frame and always have been, always will be. But it's tricky since 'you' is too vague, language as a whole is. Nothing anyone says or does can induce this realization; at best it can serve as some food for thought, and more often than not lead to further deception and distraction. 
 

2 hours ago, Joshe said:

This thread isn't about me though. It's about deconstructing spiritual ladders.

When a deconstruction is not thorough enough, it will result in more construction. Making the relative into an absolute while sitting in the relative domain is a big oversight. Nobody's disputing that at the end of the day all the truth-seeking and awakening is a preference/bias/hobby, this fits perfectly well into the larger point. Bottomless delusion is the point, that's the whole structure of reality. Truth is the mechanism of delusion (short ver.: Truth is delusion). Truth being too sacred to deconstruct is a projection, if it's true it will withstand all deconstruction. And it will, because there's nothing there to deconstruct. See if you can deconstruct that. But tread lightly. Maybe give How Your Mind Interprets Reality another watch, it is often overlooked. 

P.S.: your posts read much better without AI.