A Disturbing Truth About Spiritual Teachings

[Leo Gura]

@lostingenosmaze Mickey Mouse is now public domain. So Disney can go suck a donkey.

[cetus]

16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@lostingenosmaze Mickey Mouse is now public domain. So Disney can go suck a donkey.

@Leo Gura @lostingenosmaze Let's not forget about Minnie here too.

 

[VeganAwake]

Sounds like a personal behavior issue.

Nobody is forcing anyone to believe anything.

But I get what you mean 🤷‍♂️

 

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

So was mine.

Problem is there was no argument. Unless your argument is just "you don't understand, you need to experience the thing to know it's not personal illusion".

[Leo Gura]

@Carl-Richard There is no argument for my deepest Awakenings. There aren't even words.

Whereof one cannot speak

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ

Edited 10 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Carl-Richard]

@Leo Gura You know what would be absolutely terrifying? Instead of these pussyfooted confused interviews with no-name podcasters, picture a panel of your harshest critics that have watched you for 10+ years and just spend time grilling you one by one with their most well-prepared questions. Or just a one-on-one with one of them. Just a wild thought I had before hitting up the sleep dimension.

[zurew]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Whereof one cannot speak

The issue isn't that you cant explicate the content of the awakening, the issue is the inferences that you make from there and your refusal to acknowledge that those are potentially faulty interpretations and inferences.

People can mirror your epistemology, do all the drugs as you did, do all the spiritual practices as you did, read all the books as you did and then have different awakenings or have the same awakenings but infer/interpret different conclusions.

You dont really have any satisfying answer or deep epistemic tool when those issues are brought up other than a dismissive "you are not on my level".

And when asked given all the facts (given the mirrored epistemology and different conclusions) how do you reach the "you are not on my level yet" conclusion rather than the "I have a serious epistemological issue here, given that I really have no epistemic tool in my hand to figure out whether I am wrong or whether the other guys are wrong" then you dont really have anything of substance to say about how you get there.

 

I can also put it this way so we can skip the you being special special move - Imagine cloning you a 1000 times (exact same life journey , genetics, completely mirrored epistemology and drug usage and spiritual practices) and then each clone of you has a slightly different  conclusion than you (a conclusion that is incompatible with yours).

What can you actually tell to those clones about why they are wrong and what epistemic tools can you appeal to  or use in such a situation?

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, zurew said:

You dont really have any satisfying answer or deep epistemic tool when those issues are brought up other than a dismissive "you are not on my level".

I am developing a deep body of work to guide people there. It takes me time.

I'm not just boasting about my states. I plan to guide people there.

I will explain how to reach insane levels of consciousness.

Edited 6 hours ago by Leo Gura

[UnbornTao]

9 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Don't hate on any of it! Hate leads to THE DARK SIDE.

No division! Only unity and wholeness 

I love you guys teheehe

It's pushing a narrative that isn't true and is misleading.

A loving stick, even when it is disliked.

[zurew]

42 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I'm not just boasting about my states. I plan to guide people there

Thats fair, but whats the reply to the epistemic question about the clones?

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

What can you actually tell to those clones about why they are wrong and what epistemic tools can you appeal to  or use in such a situation?

Look, it's not complicated. You can have hundreds of different kinds of Awakenings. Techncially every Awakening is a unique state of consciousness. However, this doesn't contradict anything I say.

God/Truth/Love/Inifinity remains true for everyone.

You are getting various angles on the same elephant. People are arguing over minutia.

Edited 5 hours ago by Leo Gura

[zurew]

it is complicated, because your position isnt just the consensus mystic position.

You affirm things that most spiritual leader dont affirm and my question is precisely related to those differences.

 

You dont just say that you guys agree, you want to say that they are wrong and that you are more correct about certain aspects and im pushing you to give an explication how you defend that in a substantive way without begging the question.

Edited 5 hours ago by zurew

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, zurew said:

it is complicated, because your position isnt just the consensus mystic position.

You affirm things that most spiritual leader dont affirm and my question is precisely related to those differences.

 

You dont just say that you guys agree, you want to say that they are wrong and that you are more correct about certain aspects and im pushing you to give an explication how you defend that in a substantive way without begging the question.

Those differences are relatively minor and relate to issues of depth.

God/Truth/Love/Infinity should be affirmed by any proper mystic. If not, they are self-deceived.

There is no non-question-begging way at this level of depth. Infinity is Absolute Truth.

You can have various perspectives on Infinity. You can have a lot of shallow views of Infinity. You can have many partial aspects of Inifnity.

Edited 5 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@UnbornTao I'm joking around 

[UnbornTao]

2 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@UnbornTao I'm joking around 

Got it.

[zurew]

20 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Those differences are relatively minor and relate to issues of depth.

There is no non-question-begging way at this level of depth. Infinity is Absolute Truth.

I dont think those are just minor differences, especially when you bring in christian mystics for instance. They will affirm things that you definitely wont.

The question begging issue comes up when you try to explain those differences by appealing to depth.

Each mystic can say that "we agree on absolute truth,but here is a set of things we disagree on and our disagreement is explained by none of you guys reaching the level of depth as I did".

How do you check which one had a deeper awakening or a deeper insight?

And then whatever the answer to the question above, why cant each one say the exact same thing?

Edited 5 hours ago by zurew

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, zurew said:

I dont think those are just minor differences, especially when you bring in christian mystics for instance. They will affirm things that you definitely wont.

Like what?

Everything I say covers Christian mystics and transcends them.

Quote

How do you check which one had a deeper awakening or a deeper insight?

Dude, you can't get around this issue.

There is no authority outside of you. This isn't a bug.

You are looking for an external source of Truth, which cannot exist.

Quote

And then whatever the answer to the question above, why cant each one say the exact same thing?

Anyone can claim to be right. And only you can know who is truly right.

Some will have a deeper consciousness and understanding than others. You will only know to the depth of your own consciousness.

How do you know which mathematician is the best? By becoming the best one yourself and knowing it is you.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[zurew]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Everything I say covers Christian mystics and transcends them.

If by transcend you mean something that is compatible with their view but provide a more holistic picture, then no.

For instance:

Under some of their views mystical union is participation in God, not identity with God. They believe the human person remains a person even in union with God.

But in any case, even if the were the case that all mystics agreed on the same set of facts , you still can have disagreements about levels  (which one is deeper compared to the other ).  But Im not convinced that there is an agreement on the facts,  and it isn't just that they wouldn't categorize mickey mouse the same way as you do, some of them wouldnt even consider mickey mouse as something legit that needs to be put on a level hierarchy and some of them would reject that there is even a hierarchy in the firstplace.

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Dude, you can't get around this issue

Thats not your conclusion, your conclusion is that you are correct.

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Some will have a deeper consciousness and understanding than others. You will only know to the depth of your own consciousness.

Given your epistemology you will never know, because all you know is your current perspective about depth that can be undermined at any given moment by a deeper awakening later.

Your very idea about how much depth your insight have is depended on a comparative epistemology that can be undermined later. You never know whether your next insight will completely restructure and reorder your hierarchy of previous insights.

You have 0 clue about the level of depth others have, you make inferences based on your awakenings, but you have 0 clue whether yours is deeper or theirs. 

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

How do you know which mathematician is the best? By becoming the best one yourself and knowing it is you.

The fact that you interpret it as "best" shows how you think about this question. You treat it as a race, where you can be better than others rather than just treat it as an epistemic question related to the issue about investigating fundamental truths about reality.

Comparative questions are easy to answer once the conditions are agreed upon and set by which we can compare things and if it is the case that we have access to the variables that contain information about said conditions.

Here you have an issue with agreeing on the conditions (about what deeper even means) and then you have a further issue (that you dont have, when it comes to the math question) - namely, that you dont have access to the info about the conditions (you have no direct access to who had what awakening and who has what level of insight)

 

 

 

-----

None of this necessarily undermines your claims about reality, the purpose of this whole thing is to question your certainty in your claims and specifically in the idea that you got it more right than other mystics.

Edited 2 hours ago by zurew

[Purple Man]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

 

Under some of their views mystical union is participation in God, not identity with God. They believe the human person remains a person even in union with God.

 

That´s certainly a distinctive element in Christian Mysticism. Perhaps Meister Eckhart is the one who went the deepest, to the point of speaking about an unmanifested, totally transcendent Ground, common to man and even God Itself, which indeed looks like the Absolute Consciousness or the Void frequently mentioned in this forum .

[UnbornTao]

13 hours ago, Eskilon said:

I want infinite horniness awakening. I want to be always ON and ready to do mischief!!

You don't have the genetics, the epistemic background, or the right attitude required for that Awakening™️. No one here has that Awakening - except Me.

Edited 40 minutes ago by UnbornTao