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

[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]

On 6/30/2026 at 10:58 AM, 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.

Broadcasting what? I'll add 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.

The main point is that you can pretend to know something you really don't and not be conscious that this is what you're doing. Contrasted to the exercise above, which essentially asked you to imagine yourself lying deliberately, you can do basically the same thing as an unconscious self-manipulation, not knowing that you're fooling yourself.

Edited July 1 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.

[Inliytened1]

26 minutes ago, Elliott said:

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.

That is not really the essence of the issue the issue is the immature behavior and pompous, arrogant attitude.  But i don't want to beat a dead horse i think he's been raked over the coals enough.  Time to move on

But awakening really is not the issue and I will say this - there are others out there, albeit rather few relatively speaking, but most fly under the radar.  But one could be your next door neighbor and you would never know. 

Edited June 30 by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

2 hours 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.

Another awakened person can usually intuit it.  Leo is a fascinating example though because there is no way he could have known to teach some of the stuff without being awake..it would seem impossible to me.  But this whole more awake stuff is silly.  When you and your buddy wake up from your respective dreams in the morning do you say to each other..i am more awake than you!! No.you both have awoken from your dreams.

[Elliott]

12 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Another awakened person can usually intuit it.  Leo is a fascinating example though because there is no way he could have known to teach some of the stuff without being awake..it would seem impossible to me.  But this whole more awake stuff is silly.  When you and your buddy wake up from your respective dreams in the morning do you say to each other..i am more awake than you!! No.you both have awoken from your dreams.

You don't know what he even means by "I am more awake than everyone", awake means something different to everyone, he may just mean no one has experienced what I have which is likely true, just as he's not experienced what others have. You're just talking past this and assuming you know what he means.

[UnbornTao]

On 6/30/2026 at 1:00 PM, Inliytened1 said:

Another awakened person can usually intuit it.

That may be. What's in question is the claim, though. People rarely tell the truth, and again, you can lie to yourself without knowing it.

I can take some drugs, go through some experiences, and claim to have had "awakenings"  - among other things. And I could convince you, too.

Edited July 1 by UnbornTao

[Elliott]

28 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

That is not really the essence of the issue

It is, if Leo is the most awake, then all these arguments fall apart. Obviously.

[Carl-Richard]

11 hours ago, Elliott said:

You don't know what he even means by "I am more awake than everyone", awake means something different to everyone, he may just mean no one has experienced what I have which is likely true, just as he's not experienced what others have. You're just talking past this and assuming you know what he means.

Even if he thinks awakening is sucking poo water through his nostrils, he has no idea whether he is the best in the world at that. This is a general problem of epistemology of having worldwide 100% knowledge and if you can't see that, you're honestly sucking poo water through your nostrils.

And if he means "I'm the best in the world from my perspective", or "I'm the best in the world at doing my own very specific thing that nobody else does down to each individual hair on my scrotum because they are not me", to say that makes no fucking sense. You see, some statements just make no fucking sense despite how much you want to twist and contort them.

You're making it incredibly difficult for me to not just constantly scream "sociopath" every time I read anything you write because it's so shifty and groundless and fake. But here you go.

Edited July 1 by Carl-Richard

[Elliott]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Even of he thinks awakening is sucking poo water through his nostrils, he has no idea whether he is the best in the world at that. This is a general problem of epistemology of having worldwide 100% knowledge and if you can't see that, you're honestly sucking poo water through your nostrils.

And if he means "I'm the best in the world from my perspective", or "I'm the best in the world at doing my own very specific thing that nobody else does down to each individual hair on my scrotum because they are not me", that makes no fucking sense. You see, some statements make no fucking sense despite how much you want to twist and contort them.

What if he believes he's the only one, period. You're stuck in the Cartesian plane.... black and white thinking.

Edited June 30 by Elliott

[Joseph Maynor]

9 hours 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.

I'm having a hard time parsing this honestly.

[Osaid]

9 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

That is not really the essence of the issue the issue is the immature behavior and pompous, arrogant attitude.

Yeah, total red herring.

It's like, "yeah maybe Bentinho was doing all that freaky stuff, but maybe he's still the most awake??" It's entirely unrelated to the thread topic of cult behavior and narcissism.

Anyways, it does seem that not a lot of people seem to care about this, hence the shifty behaviour and red herrings.

[Elliott]

44 minutes ago, Osaid said:

Yeah, total red herring.

It's like, "yeah maybe Bentinho was doing all that freaky stuff, but maybe he's still the most awake??" It's entirely unrelated to the thread topic of cult behavior and narcissism.

Anyways, it does seem that not a lot of people seem to care about this, hence the shifty behaviour and red herrings.

It's the entire basis of your argument.  

Try to make the argument without using that.

We're a cult because_______

Leo is the leader?

Everyone parrots Leo?

 

Leo is obviously a narcissus because _______

He dismisses others opinions?

He was rude to me?

 

Hell, even @Carl-Richard agrees with me

 

 

Edited June 30 by Elliott

[Osaid]

14 minutes ago, Elliott said:

It's the entire basis of your argument.  

It's one thing to be the most awake being, it's another thing to behave narcissistically on a forum. They are not mutually inclusive. I don't need to pry into the validity of every one of Leo's claims to point out objectively narcissistic behavior which everyone can see. This is the difference between evaluating the structure of something over the content.

For example, when a cult leader says they are "sent down by God", you don't need to go off and validate that statement in order to identify it as a cult. That misses the point.

You can bite the bullet and say "maybe he is the most awake and so he should be able to behave narcissistically". That's fine. That's your hill to die on. That's what he would want you to believe. And you will continue to follow him until you consider a different possibility.

[Elliott]

12 minutes ago, Osaid said:

It's one thing to be the most awake being, it's another thing to behave narcissistically on a forum. They are not mutually inclusive. 

So Leo can say he's the most awaken being ever, he's the only true epistemic ninja, etc. and not be a narcissus?

[Osaid]

3 minutes ago, Elliott said:

So Leo can say he's the most awaken being ever, he's the only true epistemic ninja, etc. and not be a narcissus?

Well, I don't know if he is a diagnosable narcissist. I'm ambivalent on that since I don't know him well enough. I do think he objectively emits a lot of narcissistic traits on the forum as a direct result of his views on spirituality, with him being the most awake and all of that.

It'd probably be useful if you check this post:
 

 

Edited June 30 by Osaid

[Elliott]

Just now, Osaid said:

Well, I don't know if he is a clinical diagnosable narcissist. I'm ambivalent on that since I don't know him well enough. I do think he objectively emits a lot of narcissistic traits on the forum as a direct result of his views on spirituality, with him being the most awake and all of that.

It'd probably be useful if you check this post:
 

 

Narcissus is a specific thing, it doesn't mean a mean person in power that puts others down, the term for that is "dick".

[Osaid]

Just now, Elliott said:

Narcissus is a specific thing, it doesn't mean a mean person in power that puts others down, the term for that is "dick".

I don't know about Narcissus. Familiar with the fable, but not deeply. I'm talking about narcissistic traits and NPD.



Seems like a cool plant, though.

[Elliott]

5 minutes ago, Osaid said:

I don't know about Narcissus. Familiar with the fable, but not deeply. I'm talking about narcissistic traits and NPD.



Seems like a cool plant, though.

You just said you weren't diagnosing him. Narcissus is a narcisist(clinical diagnosis). You narcissus.

 

Edited June 30 by Elliott