Drama Alert! Another YTber is calling us a cult! 😈☦️

[UnbornTao]

I don't think people really know how to tell a pretender from someone who's not - in "spiritual" matters, at least. 'State' really isn't the anchor or point of reference that some people make it out to be either. It might be that direct consciousness isn't a function of state, and that state is rather secondary.

With some effort, as an imagination exercise, I bet that you yourself, knowing that you're ignorant (your secret is safe with me), could make yourself look a certain way, by producing certain impressions and coming across in a particular way, that would make people think of you as 'awakened' or similar. You could even make this assessment of yourself unknowingly.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

18 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

I don't think people really know how to tell a pretender from someone who's not - in "spiritual" matters, at least. 'State' really isn't the anchor or point of reference that some people make it out to be either. It might be that direct consciousness isn't a function of state, and that state is rather secondary.

With some effort, as an imagination exercise, I bet that you yourself, knowing that you're ignorant (your secret is safe with me), could make yourself look a certain way, by producing certain impressions and coming across in a particular way, that would make people think of you as 'awakened' or similar. You could even make this assessment of yourself unknowingly.

What would be the point in even broadcasting it? All the cards are laid bare with the intent to do so alone.

[UnbornTao]

23 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

What would be the point in even broadcasting it? All the cards are laid bare with the intent to do so alone.

I'm not sure I understand what your question is. Broadcasting what? I'll say that people have an agenda, and rarely, if ever, is it to be plainly straight about their experience. That's generally not why we talk to others at all. In this context of some form of personal desire sourcing interactions, sharing one's experience just as it is - with no other agenda behind it, rare as it is - is rather useless.

And you can pretend to know something you really don't - and not be conscious that this is what you're doing. So, as opposed to the exercise above, which essentially asked you to imagine yourself lying deliberately, it's also possible to do basically the same thing as an unconscious self-manipulation. Not knowing that you're lying - to yourself, mainly.

A bit all over the place.

Edited 1 hour ago by UnbornTao

[Wilhelm44]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Few things:

Im skeptical about such an ability, and anyone can claim to have it.

Im pretty sure that if we were to ask Razard how he knows he has this ability and how he knows its accurate, he wouldnt have a satisfying answer. Im also pretty sure that he hasn't verified its accuracy using a relatively large sample size. (but I can be wrong).

For instance: what do you do if you have two people who claim to have this ability , but they give contradictory answers about Leo's awakening? (For example @Razard86 - do you think Leo is more awake than you and that he is more awake than literally everyone in the Universe?)

 

The other point is that even if I grant that you can determine who has what awakening, that alone still doesn't justify the claim that you are the most awake. That claim presupposes a specific norm by which different awakenings can be ranked and compared. (You could probably have two people with this ability who disagree about how different awakenings should be evaluated and ranked).

Another issue is that, depending on how this ability works, there may be constraints on how many people you can evaluate or "tune into". For example, if evaluating someone requires consuming a certain amount of information about them beforehand, that requirement would necessarily limit the number of people you could assess. (You wouldn't be able to read or watch videos about every single person on Earth, let alone every being in the universe)

---

The claim that "you shouldnt make definitive statements about other people's awakening" still stands, even if I grant that all of the above has been resolved. As long as this ability is fallible in any way, you shouldnt make definitive statements.

But even if I grant, for a moment, that this ability is infallible, that you can actually assess all beings in the universe, and that you've identified the perfect and most accurate standard by which different levels of awakening can be properly ranked, that still wouldn't make asserting the claim fine. (At most, that would address only one small part of the epistemic critique. It would still leave unresolved epistemic issues such as the failure to heal people, the failure to transform into an alien on camera, and several other epistemic problems. [And that is before we even consider the non-epistemic critiques]).

There isn't any trivial deduction from "I have this infallible ability, and I am the most awake being in the universe" to "therefore I should frequently assert that fact and use it to bully and or undermine other people." (unless he can provide a credible explanation for why this tactic or rhetoric is necessary, why it is more beneficial than detrimental to the forum's users, and why alternatives would be less effective)

Fair enough

[Elliott]

What people do you guys think might even be more awake than Leo? This is the center of the arguments here. I think even the historical teachers were frauds, let alone today. The philosophers only saw through the contradictions, the gurus only saw one lane. How do you even know what Leo means, even if he's not the most awake there's no way you know what he means, lol.