A Disturbing Truth About Spiritual Teachings

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

You guys keep beating a dead horse.

Some people aren't smart enough to pick their battles 💀

Energy investment 

[AtmanIsBrahman]

I've been reading the discussion, and I think one important question is, What is understanding? 

There has to be some way that awakening, enlightenment, or becoming conscious of truth is happening

@UnbornTao Is understanding an experience or not? 

Maybe what you mean by experience is anything that is not the absolute, but that still leaves some questions open: Are you actually conscious of the absolute? What is the difference between an experience and understanding? Since understanding is always something you experience, how is it not an experience?

[zurew]

3 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Impossible to know.

Its not impossible.

You can just run the convo periodically again and see how he responds to it.

If he responds with something similar to "I am the most awake, and everyone else is still full of shit" then from that you can safely infer that he still holds the exact same attitude and position.

Edited 6 hours ago by zurew

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, zurew said:

Its not impossible.

You can just run the convo periodically again and see how he responds to it.

Ah! I meant - impossible to know if it was genuinely taken on board, considered, and rejected. Or if it was simply speed read over and no attempt was made to understand. 

I do agree there are some ways to deduct it though 

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Ah! I meant - impossible to know if it was genuinely taken on board, considered, and rejected. Or if it was simply speed read over and no attempt was made to understand. 

I do agree there are some ways to deduct it though 

Okay, then we dont disagree.

[Miguel1]

On 11/03/2026 at 9:02 PM, Leo Gura said:

It it possible to have an Awakening but then get very deluded about it. As a Christian might do. Because they don't have the epistemic foundation.

I once read a theory somewhere that Christianty was born because a bunch of people walked back and forth through woods that had bushes emitting DMT in gas form 

[Sincerity]

10 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

It is something perceived, thought, imagined, felt, sensed, intuited, or conceived - in other words, invented.

You don't experience anything else. And everything is equally invented then - which checks out. I acknowledge that even my awakenings to the Absolute are "invented", in that they are still limited, even if being recognitions of higher-order compared to the daily state.

But be honest: you are speaking of something that transcends experience. Based on what? Are you there? Are you enlightened? And if not, then what are you talking about? You are just repeating beliefs (probably from Ralston) and not approaching it from genuine beginner's mind.

I said that I won't comment on "enlightenment" as it's described by you because I don't know about that. That is epistemic humility. What are you talking about?

I trust that if enlightenment exists, the truth-seeking process would guide me to it if that's in the cards for me. In whatever way is needed - through drugs or not. It doesn't matter. But again, this enlightenment isn't a goal of mine, especially since I don't know whether it exists. That, to me, is the proper attitude. One I can be confident in because I'm not believing/assuming anything per se.

And so far I was guided to profound God-realizations and other awakenings. That I have no intention to dismiss as "just temporary experiences bro". You learn things throughout the journey, you discover them over and over, and they start permeating you. To me, this is literally just how life works.

10 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

If you begin to make headway in differentiating between experience and something that isn't - or that perhaps transcends experience (even if just as a notion) - or in seeing that experience is relative, then you'll start to get the gist of it. A grandiose experience of feeling one with the universe is still an experience. Experience is also your whole life - again, everything you're aware of.

Or, you know, you can re-see dozens of times that experience is God. And it's not just about "a grandiose experience". It's not just "relative". Again, to me, you are in denial. You insist of something beyond experience (which is probably just your belief), and reject the validity of anything else - even though everything else is literally every moment. One you're writing from right now. And anything you'll ever see or understand will come from it.

Now is God. Experience is God. Sorry, but it must take some huge mental gymnastics to reject your own recognition and go on a path of opposition to that. Because "I conceived it, so it's not true". Because that was just an "experience". Because it's "relative". In favour of believed "enlightenment". To me, these are like defense mechanisms invented to keep you from embracing God.

I am trying to respond to your precise points. And I truly think that I understand your perspective better now. But I don't agree with it. I've walked my path and came to my own understanding (so far). What you're saying simply doesn't resonate.

You're saying that everyone around you should listen. But are you? Honestly. Are you open as you think you are?

@UnbornTao I don't feel like you're usually responding to my precise questions and points. So to recap:

1. Where are you getting the notion of "enlightenment" from, "something that transcends experience"? Did you conceive it yourself, or did you take it as a belief? Are you enlightened? If not, what gives you the right to confidently talk about something that you're not living?
2. Define what seeking truth is to you.
3. Are you listening? Are you open?

Edited 2 hours ago by Sincerity

[Sincerity]

6 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Some people aren't smart enough to pick their battles 💀

Energy investment 

It's been worth my time. I don’t feel jaded with this discussion at all.

I see better now what the major philosophical difference is. Which draws a contrast between the two perspectives and helped me recognize my own understanding better. I see more clearly what the other side thinks and I have a more informed opinion on that now (because I understand him better).

And now that I understand it better, I can basically know these arguments forever. So I won't have to repeat the full conversation and I won't have to worry that I might be closed-minded and rejecting something that I don't understand. My conscience is clear.

Edited 2 hours ago by Sincerity

[UnbornTao]

7 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Sometimes messages are not acknowledged, and do not always need to be, for them to still be received. 

Impossible to know.

I'm not sure what you mean. To be clear, I've already surpassed the reverential phase. It might take some time, though.

If you want another cult for a change, listen to Adi Da.

These guys are brought up for a reason. You already believe Leo, so at least give them a chance.

Edited 2 hours ago by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You guys keep beating a dead horse.

The dead horse is 'listening'.

Because it seems to me that you're burying your head in the sand on this topic.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, Sincerity said:

It's been worth my time. I don’t feel jaded with this discussion at all.

I see better now what the major philosophical difference is. Which draws a contrast between the two perspectives and helped me recognize my own understanding better. I see more clearly what the other side thinks and I have a more informed opinion on that now (because I understand him better).

And now that I understand it better, I can basically know these arguments forever. So I won't have to repeat the full conversation and I won't have to worry that I might be closed-minded and rejecting something that I don't understand. My conscience is clear.

Not directed at you.

Appeared to me, from my perspective, you just tried to understand more here ╮⁠(⁠＾⁠▽⁠＾⁠)⁠╭

[Sincerity]

8 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Not directed at you.

Appeared to me, from my perspective, you just tried to understand more here ╮⁠(⁠＾⁠▽⁠＾⁠)⁠╭

Okeydokey. 

[UnbornTao]

@Sincerity Who here has seriously taken up both stances? Most of you believe Leo, and the hope of a pill to awakening is all too enticing to neglect or seriously question, despite what is said by people who know what they're talking about (I know you have your excuses not to listen to them, but come on). I've done the drugs. But I no longer do the "fantasy" involved here, which I used to believe in. Again, I also confidently believed in it and conjured up stories about my "awakenings." Not anymore. I could've convinced people and talked in such a way so that you believed I was more awakened than I actually was. And gullible people would confuse the assertiveness for the reality - or lack thereof - of it as long as it affirmed their own dispositions. And you'd have believed me. You'd have loved it, in fact. You'd have felt warm and cozy and validated in your worldview, part of a community reaching out for "the truth."

Whatever is true and the case at any level. Again, it starts by calling things by their name. What exists? What is taking place? What is factual? What is memory? These are questions that point at the pursuit of the truth. What are lying and misrepresentation? What are fantasy and wishful thinking? What is a cult? What is anything? This contrasts with what we think or feel about these matters.

I'm pointing out this gap or disparity because it seems people here tend to ignore it. But it's too big of a gap. You've already noticed my reluctance to provide a simplistic view of the world for the mind to piece these things together and so have the feeling of understanding. But yes, I'm not enlightened now. It's a possibility of directly grasping one's nature, and I base it on my past realizations. Right now it could be said that it is a conceptual placeholder. It's not an experience. Why do you think I keep repeating this? Because it's still overlooked and goes over one's head. Direct consciousness isn't a function of the brain.

Without the fantasy, no one here is either really, from what I can tell. Maybe Leo might have had a few enlightenments, but I don't know. He likes to think of himself as more awake than what comes across to me. I know this is a weird thing to say and that most will probably not get where I'm coming from or why I'm saying that to begin with, especially given that the only things they have for making that assessment are the words, behavior, and expression of someone (to which their reactions are ones of liking and feeling good, which doesn't help). If you ask, I'll respond with 'magic', 'intuition', or just paying attention.

Bringing this up here is a waste of time. Thanks for warning me  @kieranperez I probably should go the same route as you.

Edited 4 minutes ago by UnbornTao

[Willy Phallicus]

If you dont believe in or trust the drugs then do it without the drugs.  Its possible. 

Edited 47 minutes ago by Willy Phallicus
spelling

[zurew]

On 2026. 03. 12. at 7:34 AM, zurew said:

You gonna have a bunch of issues with that kind of reply and thats just confirms the issues I pointed out about the epistemology that you rely on.

If lack of that depth means just what you said there, including the idea that one is even wrong about what depth their insights have ,  then that means that whatever conclusion you have right now is potentially subject to what you just said above and you have a strong argument against you having high credence in any of your insights (including in the mickey mouse one).

And we are not just talking about the content of the awakening being partial or flat out wrong, but also about your ability to judge how deep that given insight was.

Just to keep this thread alive - Can anyone (who buys into Leo's frame) give a substantive reply to the issue that I brought up there?

1 Main issue is about the credence you can have about your current deepest insight and the second is about what claims you can even make about the mechanism of consciousness if all of those are perspective and depth based.

If the claim is that not all of that is depth and perspective based, then the next question is about how do you justify that (at least to yourself) and in that case you just dont buy into Leo's frame.

I want people here to  track why I say that this problem cannot be solved by more awakening (if you buy into Leo's frame, where you can delude yourself with partial awakenings and where you take it that more depth can completely restructure your depth perception - about how deep a given past insight was and your idea about what is ultimately true).

If the claim is that Christians can delude themselves by a given awakening because of the lack of depth (and they lack the ability to percieve how their awakening lacks depth), then you can also delude yourself about your current awakening and about the depth of your current awakening.

 

To my understanding the only way you can dodge this problem is either if you ditch the y axis and say that there is only comprehensive awakening or if you maintain the y axis but you make the claim that there is some end to the y axis where you can have an actual comprehensive awakening, where the previously mentioned problems wont apply anymore.

There you gonna obviously have an issue about "how do you know that you had a comprehensive awakening" , but at least your frame in that case will allow you to give a response to the problems I just raised.

Edited 5 minutes ago by zurew

[Jirh]

On 3/9/2026 at 11:50 AM, AtmanIsBrahman said:

The conclusion: a pure teaching is possible but it does nothing for you and is dangerous to society.

That's is a deeply wrong and dangerous belief.

Spiritual attainments are real and their benefits are real. You can stop suffering, you can find love, you can improve your life, these are all true statements that don't contradict spiritual advice.

The only danger spirituality poses is to falsehood. A life that's built on lies will not even remain neutral, it won't just "do nothing for you". It will be undermined and threatened and ultimately unraveled by the truth.

And I hear you that there are a lot of lies in people and in society, but there's also truth. That truth remains unshakeable.