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

[Natasha Tori Maru]

40 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Lady, you don't know how this forum is setup.

I don't need to, I have total control over my eyes, what they read and where they go.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

49 minutes ago, zurew said:

This special privilege-giving attitude alone goes against the core "you shouldn't idolize me and should only focus on the work" teaching. This is why most of us here have emphasized this multiple times. That there is the teaching, and then there is what goes down in practice. 

There is so much mixed messaging from Leo around this, I am not surprised the continued repetition has worn some users rationality down.

Treating someone as “special” or above normal standards contradicts the very message that person teaches.

We should not elevate a person above the principles they promote. Judge the ideas, behaviour, and evidence. Not the status of the individual.

[aurum]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

You have this premise - "I manage to successfully verify some of the claims he said" - and then from there you want to get to "therefore I believe he is justfied to behave the way he does, and therefore this Leo dude is justified in believing that he is the most awake person in existence"???. Thats a big fucking jump there.

It's a big jump because that's obviously not how I think about it.

I don't know how exactly Leo sees himself. Does he even think of himself as a "person" at all? Who knows.

He obviously thinks extremely highly of his awakening, but it's not unwarranted.

Maybe there are people alive with a better understanding than him on God, but I don't know any.

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Also to give my personal opinion on this—I think you are insane for this. You shouldn't give such special privileges to anyone. The ethics you are okay with should not be dictated by anyone, regardless of how spiritually awake they are or how asymmetric the knowledge difference is. (And yes, Leo has made such comments and justifications in the past where he implied multiple times that the cognitive undermining and "Im the most awake" rhetoric he used was necessary to help the "closed-minded" awaken)

It has nothing to do with ethics.

It's more like I'm sometimes willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he might know something I don't.

For example, I don't know about Alien Awakening. But I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt there might be something there and will test it.

This is just called trust.

Yes, you obviously you still need to maintain your own autonomy. But you can actually build trust when someone has demonstrated they deserve it over a period of years.

Every healthy relationship also requires some trust.

And you are closed-minded, so I'm not going to fault him for hitting you over the head about that. 

1 hour ago, zurew said:

This special privilege-giving attitude alone goes against the core "you shouldn't idolize me and should only focus on the work" teaching. This is why most of us here have emphasized this multiple times. That there is the teaching, and then there is what goes down in practice. 

I don't idolize him, and I do focus on the work.

This is whole thread is the most I've thought about Leo in a long time. I would prefer to just move on, but I felt I should address it since this thread was blowing up.

1 hour ago, zurew said:

And to be very clear on this -  All of this comparative "who is the most awake" shit is inferentially justified and both you and Leo know this. And both you and Leo know that such inferential comparative judgements are subject to be wrong (especially , again, when you dont have access to all the data that you make your claims about)

Sure, fine.

1 hour ago, zurew said:

And as an additional point to all of that, the Relativity (where there are ever-deeper awakenings and previous shit gets recontextualized by additional shit) alone should make Leo much more reserved about making "who is the most awake" claims. You have no clue how your next awakening will recontextualize your understanding of the awakening hierarchy/scale. All of this shit is retrospectively justified and retrospectively recontextualized (again, even if I grant that the Relativity frame is not just epistemic and conceptual but that it is actually robustly metaphysical).

Sure, as long as you don't expect me to think Relativity means you get to gaslight me with your nonsense and I have to consider it "equally valid".

Turns out understanding things is possible.

[Miguel1]

This is not good. We should clear this

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, aurum said:

It's more like I'm sometimes willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he might know something I don't.

For example, I don't know about Alien Awakening. But I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt there might be something there and will test it.

This is just called trust.

Yes, you obviously you still need to maintain your own autonomy. But you can actually build trust when someone has demonstrated they deserve it over a period of years.

Alien Awakening to me is simple. It's when you take Terrence McKenna style "realizations"/hallucinations/ideations and explain them from the perspective of a narcissist who thinks they're the best in the world.

That said, "I could be wrong", just like I could be wrong that Leo is probably not the most awake person in the world. But this is what it seems to me. Just like you can give "benefit of the doubt" based on observations of his past behavior, you can also do the opposite.

Edited 9 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Elliott]

5 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I don't need to, I have total control over my eyes, what they read and where they go.

Then quit giving incoherent advice

[Elliott]

3 hours ago, Miguel1 said:

This is not good. We should clear this

1,000 posts of logically inconsistent harassment led by a schizotypal and a ASPD.

Edited 8 hours ago by Elliott

[Natasha Tori Maru]

14 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Then quit giving incoherent advice

You don't have to take it. 

You don't have to read it 🙂

[Elliott]

1 minute ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

You don't have to take it. 

You don't have to read it 🙂

You don't understand how the site works. Please leave me alone.

Edited 8 hours ago by Elliott

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, Elliott said:

Ya, you still don't understand how the site works. Please leave me alone.

Sure I do! No problemo. 

[Human Mint]

13 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Human Mint thinks Trump has never admitted being wrong even though he has.

Last scandal with the red card says otherwise... He didn't even bothered figuring out the rules, just go by feel.

But here it just happen to be that some of you agree on the same critique, even though your entire worldviews are quite unique. After reading the critiques of every single one of you I understand your positioning doesn't appear just because one single Leo's claim, it is a product of a particular sensemaking choice.

You can keep criticizing, I am not against that. For one I think is healthy beyond right or wrongness. The only thing I want to say is you can be wrong too. You may at some point in your life come to a realization that matches what Leo says, and at that point you're probably not gonna be interested in arguing about it, but more invested in making sense.

[Joshe]

On 7/5/2026 at 5:58 PM, Elliott said:

He's human, doing something very difficult and novel. You want him to be a god, some people pleaser is not going to forge into novel territory, he would stay in comfort like a Rupert Spira. Novelty comes with discomfort, from many directions, someone engaged in this is usually not going to be exceptionally pleasant, if he cared about being pleasant he would focus more on that than his novelty.

When I watch Leo denigrate people and then when I watch people ignore it like nothing wrong is happening, that’s what triggers me. I don’t want anything from Leo - he is what he is. Just like I don’t want anything from Trump. I just want the people to wake the fuck up and see who their leaders really are. What I want is for the community to stop just watching the abuse and sweeping it under the rug like you’re doing here. It should be called out. And one should keep a running tally of how many times Leo denigrates someone else or another group. His messaging seems a 45-45-10 split between denigration, grandiosity, and some semblance of caring about something other than himself. You’re free to ignore these patterns and you’re free to turn them into things they’re not because you’re biased, but if you track reality, you don’t easily ignore it. 

When you realize the absurdity of some of Leo’s position and his immaturity, he comes down off your pedestal. He’s no longer worth “looking up to” and you lose your ability to simply trust what he’s saying. You become less biased and stop taking him at his word. 

Again, I don’t want anything from Leo. He can be an ambitious asshole like Michael Jordan or whatever, don’t care, lost cause. What I want is for people to have some goddamn self-respect and every time Leo denigrates someone, he should be denigrated himself, mocked, and ridiculed for it rather than people sweeping it under the rug and apologizing and being subservient. Because that’s how you correct bad behavior. But I’m aware that’s adjacent to asking Trump supporters to see what they refuse to. 

What do you think is the reason for all these negative Leo threads? Could it be Leo’s karma coming back to bite him in the ass? Could it be that you don’t just get to denigrate people freely without it coming back around? 

Edited 3 hours ago by Joshe

[Elliott]

57 minutes ago, Joshe said:

When I watch Leo denigrate people and then when I watch people ignore it like nothing wrong is happening, that’s what triggers me. I don’t want anything from Leo - he is what he is. Just like I don’t want anything from Trump. I just want the people to wake the fuck up and see who their leaders really are. What I want is for the community to stop just watching the abuse and sweeping it under the rug like you’re doing here. It should be called out. And one should keep a running tally of how many times Leo denigrates someone else or another group. It’s a seems a 45-45-10 split between denigration, grandiosity, and some semblance of caring about something other than himself. You’re free to ignore these patterns and you’re free to turn them into things they’re not because you’re biased, but if you track reality, you don’t easily ignore it. 

When you realize the absurdity of some of Leo’s position and his immaturity, he comes down off your pedestal. He’s no longer worth “looking up to”. 

Again, I don’t want anything from Leo. He can be an ambitious asshole like Michael Jordan or whatever, don’t care, lost cause. What I want is for people to have some goddamn self-respect and every time Leo denigrates someone, he should be denigrated himself, mocked, and ridiculed for it rather than people sweeping it under the rug and apologizing and being subservient. Because that’s how you correct bad behavior. But I’m aware that’s adjacent to asking Trump supporters to see what they refuse to. 

He doesn't denigrate people for their beliefs, ignorance, or opinions, he denigrates them when they challenge him with poorly thought out remarks, it's a very important distinction. If people posted more maturely, and I don't mean in a pseudo intellectual way like Carl and zurew do, they put thought into how their comments are written and sound but they put very little thought into the substance of their comments, if people posted more maturely I see no reason why Leo would be abusive like he is, he let's people post all sorts of concepts that are counter to his teachings. It's either be harsh to people, admittedly he should be less harsh and reactive than he often is - but he's human, or fucking ban EVERYONE. I'm sorry but people need harshness a lot of the time, they will just mentally masturbate without it, that's obviously not what Leo intends for Actualized.

I have no faith in his God, Alien, or Psychedlics by the way, I don't subscribe to them at all. I'm an atheist that has never done drugs nor ever will. I believe spirituality is personal and takes infinite forms.

Edited 3 hours ago by Elliott

[aurum]

6 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Alien Awakening to me is simple. It's when you take Terrence McKenna style "realizations"/hallucinations/ideations and explain them from the perspective of a narcissist who thinks they're the best in the world.

That said, "I could be wrong", just like I could be wrong that Leo is probably not the most awake person in the world. But this is what it seems to me. Just like you can give "benefit of the doubt" based on observations of his past behavior, you can also do the opposite

Okay, suit yourself.

There will be no learning with taking that frame.

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, Elliott said:

He doesn't denigrate people for their beliefs, ignorance, or opinions, he denigrates them when they challenge him with poorly thought out remarks, it's a very important distinction. If people posted more maturely, and I don't mean in a pseudo intellectual way like Carl and zurew do, they put thought into how their comments are written and sound but they put very little thought into the substance of their comments, if people posted more maturely I see no reason why Leo would be abusive like he is, he let's people post all sorts of concepts that are counter to his teachings. It's either be harsh to people, admittedly he should be less harsh and reactive than he often is - but he's human, or fucking ban EVERYONE. I'm sorry but people need harshness a lot of the time, they will just mentally masturbate without it, that's obviously not what Leo intends for Actualized.

Hard disagree. Leo denigrates everything, all the way down to music. He once said he and his gf were listening to some "cheap pop music", lol. 

The Expansive type develops so-called "standards" not from benign ambition, but from the need to be better than others. You can look into Karen Horney's work on the Expansive solution if you'd like to bring Leo into focus. I saw the shape of the Expansive type in Leo before discovering Horney, which is what led me to discovering her work. 

Type this into your AI: In Karen Horney's work, what purpose does "high standards" serve for the Expansive solution?

And this: In Karen Horney's work, why does the Expansive type denigrate things and people?

This is the root: 

Remember, Leo's favorite book is/was "Mastery"

That's just a taste. Again, I saw these shapes in Leo before I ever found Horney. Her work largely converged on everything I was tracking. 

It comes down to being able to track what's actually happening in reality. 

Look into the "idealized self" if you want to understand these types who think they're "all about the work". 

Edited 2 hours ago by Joshe

[Elliott]

42 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Hard disagree. Leo denigrates everything, all the way down to music. He once said he and his gf were listening to some "cheap pop music", lol. 

The Expansive type develops so-called "standards" not from benign ambition, but from the need to be better than others. You can look into Karen Horney's work on the Expansive solution if you'd like to bring Leo into focus. I saw the shape of the Expansive type in Leo before discovering Horney, which is what led me to discovering her work. 

Type this into your AI: In Karen Horney's work, what purpose does "high standards" serve for the Expansive solution?

And this: In Karen Horney's work, why does the Expansive type denigrate things and people?

This is the root: 

Remember, Leo's favorite book is/was "Mastery"

That's just a taste. Again, I saw these shapes in Leo before I ever found Horney. Her work largely converged on everything I was tracking. 

It comes down to being able to track what's actually happening in reality. 

Look into the "idealized self" if you want to understand these types who think they're "all about the work". 

That's actually not contrary to my position, that's the "human" reference I use. Thank you for the reference I will read up on that, not because of the connection to Leo, just seems interesting.

He can want more from people from multiple motivations at once and for different circumstances, my previous post was geared toward other users, how you can better use the forum. I agree, his lashing out is from insecurity as well, but, BUT, insecurity is EVERYONES primary motivation for most things, it's the same coin as Steve Jobs or Michael Jordan's accomplishments. You're not going to have a person being gentle and trudging through new frontier, that would be god like.

Edited 1 hour ago by Elliott

[Joseph Maynor]

2 hours ago, Elliott said:

I believe spirituality is personal and takes infinite forms.

This is the elephant in the room.  This is why arguing about spirituality never ends.

[Joshe]

42 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Thank you for the reference I will read up on that, not because of the connection to Leo, just seems interesting.

No problem.

42 minutes ago, Elliott said:

insecurity is EVERYONES primary motivation for most things, it's the same coin as Steve Jobs or Michael Jordan's accomplishments.

Not if you've done "the work", lol. Isn't this what "deconstructing" is about? To see your invisible structures and to transcend or drop them? Or do we consider that not fundamental to "the work"? For me, it's fundamental. 

Leo's denigration is structural. The need to be above others is structural. The inability to own error and fallibility is structural. The "high standards" masquerading as instruments for a cosmic trajectory is structural.

You can say "but this is normal and it's the way your life energy activates and sustains a pursuit". And that's true, but what I'm doing is deconstructing it. I've deconstructed my own shit, and as a result, lost a lot. I'm no longer ambitious because I found the unconscious root from which ambition grew. I don't like that I no longer have much ambition. Seeing the truth cost me that. I consider this kind of work fundamental, not something you can just put on the back burner and go looking for God, although I may be wrong. 

You can't build a brand on "doing the work of deconstructing the ego" and then not deconstruct your own. Or maybe at some point "transcending the ego" got put on the back burner and exotic states took front and center. 

But my main point is not how Leo wants to live and run his business. If everyone here showed self-respect, didn't let Leo get away with denigrating them and if 5-10 people routinely chimed in with "not cool" when Leo denigrates someone, as opposed to just staying silent, and if the sycophants were rightly mocked, then Leo's behavior wouldn't be as big of a deal to point out IMO. Although it would still warrant some light mocking, lol. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Joshe

[UnbornTao]

17 hours ago, aurum said:

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

This is the actual red line of this debate.

It's worth taking a serious look at the self-fulfilling nature of beliefs.

When people say they've 'personally verified it,' be wary of that, and dig into what has actually been said.

You start with the idea and run with it, perceiving everything through the filter of your own mental content.

If I say that what I've personally verified is different from your own system of beliefs relative to this body of work, what are we really doing?

[UnbornTao]

10 hours ago, Miguel1 said:

This is not good. We should clear this