A Disturbing Truth About Spiritual Teachings

[UnbornTao]

When someone like Ramana talks about consciousness and such, they're referring to something different from a trip, state, or experience.

The likelihood that Leo is labeling an experience or state change as 'consciousness,' 'infinity,' 'awakening,' and similar terms is high.

The difference in stance on drugs between him and some of these guys may point to this fundamental misstep - hence the resulting nonsense about absolute mice, aliens, and so on.

I remember believing in this and calling my breakthrough trips "Awakening" this and "Awakening" that. But then I got over it - after a few years. They are simply experiences, however novel, powerful, healing, awe-inspiring, loving, "enlightening", or terrifying they may be. I also understand the self-aggrandizement aspect of it.

This is why it's said that this path is potentially (or virtually guaranteed to be) deluding. You would be barking up the wrong tree, but unfortunately, dogs get easily distracted by fireworks. Be honest and move on - this is my suggestion.

Edited Wednesday at 03:19 PM by UnbornTao

[Sincerity]

@UnbornTao 1. Do you agree that there are different states? That awareness of what is can be more expanded, more contracted, etc.?

2. If there are different states, then what is state referencing? State of what?

3. And then, can it be that some states "put" you in better seeing of what is? And in some your seeing is more limited? So then why deny what you understood from a higher state, especially when you can accurately recall how & what it was?

I'm really trying to understand what the fundamental difference in your worldview is. And what it's based on.

Edited Wednesday at 02:47 PM by Sincerity

[Leo Gura]

6 hours 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 merely a function of depth.

If your Awakening is shallow you remain a person, if it is deep you become God.

By definition, Union is Identity. You can't be in union with God but not identical to God.

The Christian position is logically incoherent and cluess of what Union and Identity are.

Again, this is merely a function of depth, not any fundamental disagreement. This is a debate over minutia.

My view includes and transcends the Christian view because my consciousness is deeper.

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, zurew said:

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

That's right. Of course I understand God better than any fucking Christian. Because if you understood God you wouldn't be a Christian.

Can I prove it to you? No.

You will understand I was right once you sufficiently Awaken. And it could not be otherwise.

Edited Wednesday at 06:29 PM by Leo Gura

[zurew]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That's merely a function of depth.

Is there any possible claim where that couldnt be said?

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

By definition, Union is Identity. You can't be in union with God but not identical to God.

Thats just not engaging with how they use that word and you are just begging the question against them there.

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

My view includes and transcends the Christian view because my consciousness is deeper.

Interesting, because if we go with what you just said earlier about their view being logically incoherent , then  your view includes logically incoherent things.

[AtmanIsBrahman]

14 minutes ago, zurew said:

Thats just not engaging with how they use that word and you are just begging the question against them there.

It seems like this is just a disagreement about how words are used.

[zurew]

10 minutes ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

It seems like this is just a disagreement about how words are used.

Identity is really complicated.

There are many different theses for identity and its easy to equivocate in between them.

Just because under one sense of identity a view seems logically incoherent that doesnt mean that the view is actually incoherent if a different sense is used. Thats why I said that he is just not engaging with how they use the word.

Its basically an uncharitable and lazy move.

Edited Wednesday at 07:02 PM by zurew

[Leo Gura]

28 minutes ago, zurew said:

Is there any possible claim where that couldnt be said?

Yes. Lack of depth often leads to misunderstanding and flat out wrong conclusions.

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.

Quote

Thats just not engaging with how they use that word and you are just begging the question against them there.

I am not going to waste my time micro-analyzing Christian ontology. They don't deserve that much respect because they are epistemic perverts to begin with.

Quote

Interesting, because if we go with what you just said earlier about their view being logically incoherent , then  your view includes logically incoherent things.

Of course my view includes that humans are incoherent.

Edited Wednesday at 07:05 PM by Leo Gura

[Lunatic]

@UnbornTao

    “Ultimately, what is real can’t be seen or heard or thought or grasped. You’re just seeing your own eyes, hearing your own ears, reacting to the world of your own imagination. It’s all created by your mind in the first place. You name it, you create it, you give it meaning upon meaning upon meaning. You add the what to reality, then you add the why. It’s all you.” (Katie and Mitchell 2007, chap. 14)
    “Even if you experience all the levels and dimensions within one thought, all the veils and loops of it, not even the deepest knowledge has meaning. Anyone can step into it at any level, and it would be true. There is nothing that isn’t true if you believe it, and nothing that is true, believe it or not.” (Katie and Mitchell 2007, chap. 52)

 

[Joshe]

It's supply and demand. 

Spiritual narratives stabilize the self, solving many serious problems at once. They make people feel:

• special
• purposeful
• enlightened
• morally superior 
• connected to ultimate truth
• part of a cosmic story
• And more

Belief's main function is stabilization. Most people, including intelligent ones, are very willing to adopt sets of beliefs if they're packaged coherently and can stabilize the self. Stabilizing the self is what's most important. Most seekers aren't really after truth. That's just post-hoc rationalization 99% of the time. 

The supplier must tend to the fact that the demand largely consists of unconscious stabilization needs and not a need for truth. This seems a hard thing to balance for an integrous teacher. Serving stabilization is antithetical to many of the truths an integrous teacher would want to teach. But if you don't serve ample stabilization, your audience will look elsewhere.

Edited yesterday at 03:18 AM by Joshe

[zurew]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes. Lack of depth often leads to misunderstanding and flat out wrong conclusions.

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.

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Because they don't have the epistemic foundation.

What is precisely the epistemic foundation that you have that they lack that would save you from being deluded ?

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course my view includes that humans are incoherent.

Thats an interesting reinterpretation of what was said there.

Christian mystics can also have that view about other people, but earlier you didnt imply that, what you implied was that their view was logically incoherent and at the same time that your view includes their incoherent insights.

Its either the case, that your view includes the thing that you take to be false (which wouldnt make much sense) or it is the case that christian mystics actually disagree with you and there is a substantial disagreement surrounding identity.  Now, you can label  "minutia" if you want, but you cant claim that you guys are just on board on all the main things - unless you want to claim that disagreeing about identity is just minutia.

 

But in any case, we can search for other disagreements with other mystics and spiritual people, the point was to check how you navigate these disagreements and it still seems to be the case that your reply is subject to the exact same epistemic issues.

I will repeat this again - its still the case that you dont have direct access to their awakening and your judgement relies on making inferences.

If a christian mystic would tell you that they started with the mickey mouse awakening and then they transcended  that with a christian awakening, then you wouldnt have any satisfying reply to that other than just reversing their claim (where christian awakening is below  and transcended by the mickey mouse one).

[Leo Gura]

@zurew You are lost debating this at the level of concepts.

How about you actually Awaken and then you will laugh, knowing how right I was.

I have given you the most accurate descriptions of God imaginable. And yet you sit there and nitpick it like an overpriced lawyer.

There is only one way to know I am right, by Awakening. That will never change. No one will ever understand me who isn't profoundly Awake.

Edited yesterday at 06:55 AM by Leo Gura

[zurew]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

There is only one way to know I am right, by Awakening.

Some of the criticism are such that having an Awakening doesnt solve those issues.

Its an internal critique of mystic epistemology and appealing to awakening is precisely not the thing that can solve the issue. Its not about not having access to some truth, its about the process by which you acquire that truth.

Those comments apply to you, thats why you making your comment about me and others to get to your level is non-responsive to the presented issues.

Even if all of us would get to your level, that still wouldnt give a response to the issues I brought up. 

 

Look, its fine to say that thats the best epistemology one can go with -  whats not fine to say is to pretend that there isn't any epistemic issues there and its also no okay for you to make absolute statements about how developed other mystics are.

Edited 23 hours ago by zurew

[UnbornTao]

On 3/11/2026 at 2:40 PM, Sincerity said:

@UnbornTao 1. Do you agree that there are different states? That awareness of what is can be more expanded, more contracted, etc.?

2. If there are different states, then what is state referencing? State of what?

3. And then, can it be that some states "put" you in better seeing of what is? And in some your seeing is more limited? So then why deny what you understood from a higher state, especially when you can accurately recall how & what it was?

I'm really trying to understand what the fundamental difference in your worldview is. And what it's based on.

Your questions were partly answered by my response above. Experience is everything you're aware of. Drugs provide you with an experience, shifting your state of mind. While high, you go through perceptual phenomena, subjective states and such, and you always inevitably come down.

What remains is usually a story or memory of what you think happened while on the substance.

Having to recall a past experience might already be pointing at the nature of this disparity. I don't know about you but I find that our ability to recollect is nothing short of unreliable and biased. Besides, it's a conceptual activity. If you believe that drugs increase consciousness, you're most likely referring to cognition.

Notice how they're taken in the hope of getting enlightened - as a pill that will bring awakening to you - much like drinking coffee in order to experience the effects it has on you. You weren't awakened prior to taking them. This lack of prior contrast as to what is meant by "enlightened" is crucial here. Without it, the stage is set for mischief under those circumstances - which is what I did with my psychedelic experiences, and what many here seem to be up to.

Edited 18 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Leo Gura]

@zurew Don't forget that everything I say is also relativisitic.

I expect anyone consuming my communications to have a deep grasp of relativity.

And no, I will not explain it to you here. You figure it out.

These are advanced communications with relativity taken for granted.

Edited 18 hours ago by Leo Gura

[zurew]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Don't forget that everything I say is also relativisitic.

If thats the case and you admit that, then I dont have issue with what you said.

[Leo Gura]

50 minutes ago, zurew said:

If thats the case and you admit that, then I dont have issue with what you said.

Not in the way you think.

I still know God better than a Christian.

Find out for yourself.

Edited 17 hours ago by Leo Gura

[zurew]

I think i know what you are talking about.

By Relativity you dont mean a flat plane , you mean an ever deeper, possibly never ending hierarchy of transcend and include views.

What you dont want to admit though, is the possibility that there are higher level christian or whatever else views compared to the mickey mouse one.

For the sake of the argument people can grant here that the y axis for consciousness is something metaphysically legit and not just an epistemic tool to make sense of things. And I can even grant for the sake of the argument that you managed to transcend some low level christian views and low level other religious views.

From none of that follows, that there arent higher christian or other religious views that actually transcends your mouse.

Edited 15 hours ago by zurew

[Sincerity]

7 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Drugs provide you with an experience, shifting your state of mind. While high, you go through perceptual phenomena, subjective states and such, and you always inevitably come down.

The same can be said for meditation.

7 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Notice how they're taken in the hope of getting enlightened - as a pill that will bring awakening to you - much like drinking coffee in order to experience the effects it has on you.

I don’t hope to awaken. I just do.

Also, the same can be said for meditation and anything one does, basically. Yes, you can do things to experience effects from doing that thing.

7 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Having to recall a past experience might already be pointing at the nature of this disparity. I don't know about you but I find that our ability to recollect is nothing short of unreliable and biased. Besides, it's a conceptual activity.

Memory is something deeper than „just conceptual”. It’s a profound thing.

Yes, memory can be faulty. But you can also have clear memory and remember some things well. It depends on you.

* * * * * 

I don’t feel you answered my questions regarding 1) there being different states and 2) state being an „attribute” of what. I feel like you avoid the simple truth that you are always in some state. State is inescapable. And dismissal of „experiences”, while it has a grain of truth to it, is also a bias and blindness of sort. All „experiences” affect you permanently, at least to a degree. And it’s also a bias to seek something permanent. Personally, I don’t seek „enlightenment”, I don’t hope to be done one day - I just love taking one step at a time. It’s a fascinating journey and I’ve had great success on it. I experience its fruits every day.

At least that’s my impression. But honestly, I can’t help but feel like you’re deliberately covering your eyes from seeing some things. Well, maybe it’s just me.

[UnbornTao]

@Sincerity Go over this thread again: