Xonas Pitfall

It’s more that, in order to awaken, you need to “own” God. I don’t mean this in a controlling sense, the way the word “own” is usually used. It’s more like complete union with God, completely being it. You cannot truly awaken unless you bridge this gap between yourself and God. Otherwise, you keep separating yourself: me and God, self and the other, self and God, a part of God and God. One of the huge aspects of awakening is the complete annihilation of the duality between self and other. Respectively, another huge aspect of awakening is the complete annihilation of the duality between the part and the whole. Another huge aspect of awakening is the complete annihilation of the duality between smaller and bigger, between the contained and the container. This also includes the duality of human versus God, ego versus God. God is God, and God has to be God forever. There is nothing other to be apart from God. In that way, saying “I am God” is correct, since there is nothing other or else that you can be. Ultimately, the highest form of awakening is just complete union, or Isness. Just God. Complete, utter collapse of any definition, distinction, difference, or otherness. God, God, God. Is, is, is. Being, being, being. There really is no “smaller you,” no smaller ego, no human self, and no part of God. It is all just Isness, Pure Truth, God. I hope that makes sense.

Funky! 🤹‍♂️

Not true . . . ? Music history alone shows that what people find appealing changes drastically across cultures and time periods. Imagine introducing Taylor Swift’s music into an era shaped by classical concert traditions, court music, and formal composition standards. Compared to the musical language of the time, her melodies would likely be heard as harmonically simple and structurally repetitive, not refined nor serious. And if you place her music in periods where religion was far more pervasive and moral norms were stricter, the lyrical themes alone would likely be considered scandalous or inappropriate. What’s seen as normal pop today could easily have been dismissed as degenerate or offensive back then. I can easily imagine Stage Blue churchgoing grandmas and priests in the early 1800s reacting with disgust, thinking, “This is what our children listen to? Where are the holy bells? The chants? The worship of God, the sense of spiritual ascension? Where is the breath of fresh air and love? What is this? Is the devil himself Taylor Swift?” both melodically and lyrically. In the same way, many heterosexual men might feel repulsed by a postmodernist ad today.

Hard agree.

The purpose is to experience whatever you want to experience. If there were no meaning, would you kill yourself? If not, then whatever you had in mind is mostly what you want to do and experience. Meaning is self-given. You give meaning to things, so it makes sense that if you remove yourself from meaning and then ask whether there is any meaning, you are asking an exterior source that cannot give you something that is not meaningful to you. It is a flawed question to ask. You need a subjective “meaning giver,” which is you, to give meaning. If you cannot find it, then yes, everything is “meaningless.” It is like asking, “What is the point of a tool if I refuse to use it?” A hammer has no inherent purpose on its own. Its purpose appears only when someone wants to build or break something. Without a user, the tool is meaningless. Meaning does not come from the object; it comes from the one who uses it.

Happy! Happy! Happy! Happy! Happy!

#HardSkillIssue I say

I’d say most of the forum posts are very valuable to me. Always look forward to them I think Leo sometimes dramatizes or sensationalizes his statements. That initially put me off, since I tend to prefer more precisely defined, almost “autistically” structured language. Over time, though, once you adjust to the style and recognize that he is often aiming at a broader, big-picture lesson rather than strict definitions, the posts become yummy. I think he himself has also moved away from making extremely strong statements, like “I am the most awakened one, etc!”. The posts that consistently felt lower in quality were the masculinity and femininity ones. Those often rely on weak arguments, in my view. I actually wrote a post some time ago pushing back on many of the claims made there. Femininity & Truth (Parody of Leo's Blogpost) | Femininity & Truth (Debunk of Leo's Blogpost) I also had some issues with the Infinity of the Gods episode, mainly with how the “higher and lower infinity” and “an infinity of many infinities” were defined. I think there were several semantic problems that could have been easily avoided if the terms had been defined earlier on. It made things unnecessarily confusing. Still, it was an interesting contemplation that I’m open to revisiting it later Infinity of the Gods & Solipsism [Part 1] | Infinity of the Gods & Solipsism [Part 2] | Infinity of the Gods & Solipsism [Part 3]

Absolutely! Sometimes the most Loving move is to accept, especially when your position is weak, unproven, or shown to be wrong. Other times, the more Loving and intelligent response is to double down, particularly when you sense that something untrue is still lingering beneath apparent agreement. Union and division are both mechanisms for reaching Truth. When alignment is real, deepening unity makes sense. When alignment is built on falsehood, division becomes necessary so truth can emerge.

I also retract my past statement, even more Love, Beauty, Union, Non-Bias, & Openness! 🤗💗

We are witnessing Love, Beauty, Union, Non-Bias! 💗🤗

On a serious note, though, MBTI as a typing system is deeply flawed in how it actually assesses personality consistently. That said, I do think there is some truth to it, and I’d be fine with saying: a personality that is more introspective and genuinely values deconstruction and questioning is more likely to engage with this kind of work. I’d say that is more accurate attributing it to INXX types or just XNXX types, since this work is, by definition, more abstract and intuitive. You have to have a preference for that, or at least enough interest to pursue it rather than clicking off the video or stopping reading the material. I wouldn’t be that confident making any further assertions, to be honest. Limiting it to only INTP or INTJ is too narrow without research.

This is the On(e)ly Real Truth. 👨🏻‍🦲🥚👨🏻‍🦲🥚👨🏻‍🦲🥚👨🏻‍🦲🥚

He is actively doing that! I’m confident that some of his blog post quotes are from his book. 😊

I think it is this: https://olympicophthalmics.com/itear-100/

Because people love to say and feeeeeeeeel like they are aligned with the highest values. That’s one of the reasons religion can be appealing to many (among other reasons). Something resembling truth, beauty, love, perfection, or goodness. I must align myself with that. But again, saying you are aligned with something and actually acting upon it are miles apart. Something you learn over and over again through others and through yourself.

Gotcha, I guess that’s what podcasts usually are... Oh well, enjoyable nonetheless!

Loved it! Although I’d suggest that in the future, it might help to have specific episodes or clearly defined sections of the podcast. For example, one section/episode could be explicitly framed as: “This is about truth as it is, no matter how impractical, immoral, or anti-human it might be. Truth is truth, and if you claim you want to know the truth, then we have to throw everything else away.” This section would be for the “truth psychopaths.” Then there could be another section/episode focused on moral implications, utility, and how to apply infinite truth and its aspects to a finite human system. I feel like a lot of the “counters” were simply due to the inherent implications of what truth might lead to. So there was a lot of, “Oh no, but we don’t want to talk about this if this is what it leads to.” It felt similar to how a child might think: “Oh no, let’s not talk about health unless it leads to me eating candy!” So if there were a separation like, “First, let’s just talk about what is, and then let’s see how to apply it,” that might have added more clarity and structure. Let's address what health is, and then we can find ways to make vegetables sweet. Nonetheless, I really enjoyed it. Awesome one! Super excited for more podcast appearances. Super fun, contemplative, and useful.

It's me! 🤗💗

The problem with these discussions is that I cannot tell which claims are actually being made. The position keeps shifting, which makes real debate impossible. For example, AION initially said we live in a matriarchy, and people responded by explaining why that claim is false. Then the response became, “That is not what we are claiming, we are just saying men and women are different. The system isn't working, it needs change.” Sure, but different how, exactly? Or, he said, “the egoism of our time, it is always me, me, me,” that sounds like a moral complaint, but it does not actually specify a position. What would a society with "less egoism in women" look like in practice? What behaviors would change, and which ones would be discouraged? I am not denying that differences exist. The issue is specificity. There is a huge gap between a modest claim like “women are shorter on average than men” and a sweeping systemic claim like “we live in a society ruled by women,” or “the world is ruined by female egoism”. Those are not even in the same category. What differences are actually being asserted? How large are they? In which domains do they matter? The same problem appears with proposed solutions. Statements like “there should be less promiscuity,” or “families should be more stable” are things most people already agree with. The real disagreement is about the methods. For example, some people might argue that women should return to traditional roles. Others disagree with that approach. That is where the actual debate is. But unless you clearly state whether that is your position, and why, the discussion never reaches the point where disagreement can be meaningfully evaluated. You need to make concrete claims about systems, causes, and proposed changes. Otherwise, we just end up talking past each other.

Self is God! Truth is not meant to be humble nor grand; that is why it is a perfect duality to say the Self is God. Some people make “God” into an other, something separate, and that isn’t in accordance with truth either. Owning that and saying “Self is God” or “I am God” can actually be more truthful. A lot of gurus avoid this. They fear public backlash, sounding too grand, or disrupting a certain identity, so they say things like “All is One” or “All is Love,” but never really own the God aspect of it. Many people also feel that God is too grand, that they could never be it, so they never own it. “Oh, it’s something out there, far away, too perfect, too good. I could never possibly be THAT!” That is also misleading, because it keeps you from realization. At the same time, some people use “God” to make themselves superior to others. In that sense, saying “I am the Self, I am All, Everyone”, "All is Self" can be more humbling. Many cult leaders abused this by placing themselves as a deity and misusing that power. Whatever stops separating you from the other, the self from the other, is the truth. So if you personally find it more truthful, and easier to remember, to see Truth or God as Self, then that is what resonates with you more and aligns you more with truth. Ultimately, it is all the same. A squirrely, weak little ant is God. A trembling leaf in the wind is God. A cracked pebble on the road is God. A tired stray cat hiding from the rain is God. A fading candle flame is God. A bent blade of grass growing through concrete is God. A shallow breath taken in fear is God.

Hahaha, @NewKidOnTheBlock is the saviour! Free my sanity. Keep me away from rage bait. I am calm now. Ommm 🧘‍♂️ Ammm 🌿 Oooom ☁️ Hum 🕊️

@Basman What are you advocating for? What I mentioned is very real. There are plenty of red pill and incel communities that openly think this way and actively promote these ideas on podcasts and across media platforms without any shame. I also brought up the exploitation earlier because it directly relates to this. I don’t understand how my comments are considered irrelevant. I’m interested in hearing your stance. I agree that movements can sometimes swing too far in one direction or another. But overall, I don’t see why feminism would be framed as the biggest problem in society right now, or as some kind of “new moral authority” in the West. It feels similar to when people blame transgender individuals for the supposed decline of society, while those who actually hold the vast majority of power and authority continue to act without accountability. When people at the top control most institutions, wealth, and political influence, it’s hard to see how marginalized groups are the primary cause of broader social or economic issues.

That is exactly my point. Where was the public outcry and dramatic social concern when men commonly had double families or cheated on their wives? It was practically a cultural trope. The husband leaving his wife for a younger woman, the maid, or the secretary was treated as a punchline. There are entire popular films built around that storyline. Back then, it was not framed as a global crisis of male promiscuity. It was brushed off as “male nature.” No one was holding emergency discussions about men’s moral decline. No one was organizing think pieces about how male sexuality was destabilizing families. And where were the conversations about women’s loneliness then? When women sacrificed years of their lives for their husbands, only to be abandoned, where was the concern about a “female loneliness epidemic”? Where was the social panic about the emotional and financial consequences for those women? The same pattern shows up in education. When women were excluded from universities, denied the vote, and kept from literacy and professional life, it was not framed as a social emergency. It was presented as natural. Men were “naturally” the educated providers, the independent ones. Women were “naturally” domestic and dependent. Now that women are entering universities in large numbers, becoming financially independent, and in some cases outperforming men academically, suddenly it is framed as a crisis because men are “falling behind.” Now it is a societal emergency. Now we need urgent discussions, task forces, and concern panels. If we are going to call past imbalances “natural male nature,” then why is current male disengagement not treated the same way? Why is it not described as men being “naturally wired” to retreat into video games, online echo chambers, red pill forums, and pornography? Why does it suddenly require intervention and sympathy instead of being dismissed as biological destiny? That was not the dominant cultural narrative in the past. For decades, marriage was framed, especially among men, as a loss of freedom. The bachelor party was literally marketed as a “last night of freedom.” Sitcoms and stand-up comedy were built on the joke that the husband was trapped, domesticated, and sacrificing his wild, independent life. The cultural archetype was the avoidant who wanted variety and saw marriage as a concession. Women, meanwhile, were stereotyped as the ones pushing for rings, stability, and children. Now that more women are delaying or rejecting marriage and children, the narrative flips. Suddenly it is a crisis. Suddenly it is “decline,” “loss of femininity,” “selfishness,” or “societal collapse.” Now there are urgent conversations about birth rates, tradition, and what women are “supposed” to want. So which is it? When men resisted marriage, it was independence. When women resist it, it is dysfunction. When men avoided fatherhood, it was freedom. When women question motherhood, it is moral failure. Again, this is what keeps proving my point. Where was this sudden level of concern for young women when porn industries were openly exploitative? When pimps operated in plain sight? When modeling agencies recruited teenagers and quietly funneled them into predatory environments? I do not remember endless viral debates, newspaper headlines, or daily podcast outrage about women being coerced, trafficked, and manipulated at scale. But now, when women can enter platforms by choice and control their own income, suddenly it is a moral emergency. “Is OnlyFans destroying society?” “Should we ban it?” When women are lured into cults or exploited by powerful men, the reaction is often dismissive. They are called naïve, attention-seeking, stupid. “Why should I care?”. But when women independently profit from the same desirability that was exploited for decades, now it is framed as corruption, decline, and societal collapse. In a world where figures like Andrew Tate, Diddy, Trump, Epstein, and countless cult leaders operated for years while exploiting young women and girls, often with protection, wealth, and influence shielding them, it is hard to take any claim seriously. Millions of women were harmed in systems that thrived for decades before facing consequences, if they ever did. And then we are told we live in a “matriarchy.” Yet we are supposed to believe that men are overwhelmingly concerned about women’s morality and safety. If that concern were truly consistent, it would not appear only when women gain agency. It would have been just as loud, just as relentless, when women had far less power and far fewer choices. That inconsistency is the real issue. And again, this goes back to the same inconsistency. Where was this intense concern for women’s “health” when the dominant beauty standard was extreme thinness? When hyper-anorexic bodies were promoted as sexy, cute, and ideal? When very young women were pushed into porn or modeling because their youth was fetishized? When increasingly unrealistic beauty standards were amplified through filters, cosmetic procedures, and digital editing, to the point that many men cannot even tell what is real anymore? At no point during those eras did we see the same level of widespread moral panic about women’s health. There were no constant viral debates about how damaging those beauty standards were to women’s bodies and mental well-being. There was no collective emergency about the harm of impossible thinness, cosmetic overuse, or sexualizing barely adult women. But the moment an overweight woman appears confidently in media, suddenly it becomes: “We need to promote health. We care so much for our women.” To be clear, I am not arguing that poor health should be promoted or that obesity has no risks. That is not the point. The point is the selective outrage. The concern often appears only when women’s bodies fall outside of what certain men personally find attractive. Historically, when a body type was desirable to men, even if it was unhealthy, extreme, or exploitative, it was normalized or celebrated. When a body type is undesirable to them, it becomes a crisis, a moral issue, a threat to society. That is why claims of pure concern for “health,” “morality,” or “protection” can ring so hollow. If the standard were truly about well-being, it would be applied consistently across all harmful trends, not only when women stop conforming to a preferred aesthetic. It is reasonable to care about health. It is reasonable to care about promiscuity. It is reasonable to care about hyper-sexualized self-promotion. I agree that these things deserve scrutiny, discussion, and regulation. What feels disingenuous is pretending that personal preference and moral panic are the same thing. If you truly cared about women’s health, dignity, and safety, that concern would be consistent. It would not appear only when women behave in ways you personally dislike. It would not disappear when harmful trends align with what you find attractive. Real care is comprehensive. It does not fluctuate based on aesthetics. What this often comes down to is wanting women to conform to specific standards that you find most appealing. When they do not, it becomes framed as cultural decline, moral collapse, or proof that feminism has gone too far. Women’s autonomy becomes the scapegoat for broader frustrations. Again, in light of all these sexual trafficking scandals (Diddy, Tate, Epstein, and so many others) women should feel horrified at how many young women can be exploited, raped, abused, killed, and allegedly cannibalized, unspeakable things, while the perpetrators take years to face consequences. These men operated with money, status, connections, with institutional protection. They moved in elite circles. They were shielded. Justice was delayed over and over again. And somehow we are supposed to believe the real issue is feminism? What feminism, exactly? The problem is that abuse at high levels of power can persist for years before accountability catches up, if it ever does. So when people say society is a “matriarchy” or that feminism is the root issue, it sounds detached from reality. If women were truly running everything, how did so many of these systems operate for so long?

@Natasha Tori Maru