Oppositionless

The landscape in 2025 vs 2018 Got it — you mean the drug / vibe landscape in 2025 compared to 2018, yeah? Here’s a breakdown of how it shifted: 🌿 Cannabis & Alt-Noids 2018: Weed was still mostly black market or medical in a handful of states. The plug was king, $10/g was the norm, and dispensaries weren’t everywhere. Alt-noids like Delta-8 or THCa weren’t even on the map. 2025: Legal weed is widespread, but THCa, HHC, THCP, etc. dominate gas stations and smoke shops. Quality is hit-or-miss, but it’s cheap and everywhere. A lot of people still say, “the plug has better shit,” but convenience wins for many. 🚬 Nicotine 2018: Juul had the streets — fruity pods, massive wave of teen vapers, “JUULing” was practically a verb. 2025: Disposable vapes run the market despite bans. Flavors are still out there if you know where to look. Nicotine pouches (Zyn, etc.) exploded as the “clean” alternative. Cigarettes dropped off even more. 💊 Pills & Pharma 2018: “Blues” (M30 oxycodone) were common, pressed but often real. Xanax bars everywhere. The opioid crisis was already bad, but still felt like a mix of pharm + fake. 2025: Blues are almost all fentanyl-pressed — lethal and feared, not just a party drug. Benzos are rarer unless scripted. Gabapentinoids (gabapentin, pregabalin) and alt noids are the “new wave” quiet addictions. 🧪 Psychedelics 2018: Mostly LSD, shrooms, DMT in the underground. Microdosing hype just starting. 2025: Psychedelics are getting normalized — psilocybin and ketamine clinics are legal in some states. Microdosing is mainstream. Niche RCs (like 1P-LSD, 4-AcO-DMT) circulate online. 🥤 Culture & Vibe 2018: Party scene = blunts, dabs, lean, pills. Vapes just hit heavy. Plug era — sketchy meetups, getting smoked out, paying steep prices. 2025: Storefront + gas station era — alt-noids and disposables everywhere, convenience > quality. People joke about “gas station za.” Addiction shifted from physical (nicotine, opioids) to mental obsessions (weed, kratom, alt-noids, pregabalin, gaming, dopamine loops). ⚖️ Summary: 2018: Plug culture, Juul era, blues & bars still “fun.” 2025: Gas station za, Zyns, fentanyl fear, pregabalin/gaba wave, psychedelic clinics. Do you want me to write this up street-style, like a spoken-word compare/contrast, instead of just a breakdown list?

I'm addicted to AI but will be addressing it in my monthlong zen retreat in January . Grok: Your claim that Christianity inherited false dualistic doctrines from Plato and Persian thought, leading to concepts like the immortal soul and cosmic judgment, and that Jesus’ true message was one of “Absolute Oneness” (a nondual perspective), is a bold and thought-provoking assertion. It builds on our previous discussion, suggesting that Platonic and Persian influences distorted Jesus’ original teachings. Let’s analyze this by exploring the origins of these doctrines, their integration into Christianity, and whether Jesus’ message aligns with Absolute Oneness, aiming for a concise yet thorough response. Dualistic Doctrines in Christianity: Plato and Persian Influence Christianity, as it developed, incorporated ideas that appear dualistic—dividing reality into opposing categories like material/spiritual, good/evil, or heaven/hell. Let’s examine the alleged sources: 1. Platonic Influence: • Immortal Soul: Plato’s philosophy, particularly in Phaedo and Timaeus, posits the soul as eternal, distinct from the perishable body, and destined for an afterlife based on its pursuit of truth. Early Christian thinkers like Augustine (354–430 CE) adopted this framework, integrating it with Christian ideas of resurrection and eternal life. The notion of an immortal soul, separate from the body and surviving death, became a staple in much of Christian theology, particularly in Western traditions. • Dualistic Framework: Plato’s separation of the material world (imperfect, transient) from the eternal world of Forms influenced Christian views of the physical world as fallen and the spiritual realm as divine. This shaped doctrines like the opposition between flesh and spirit (e.g., Galatians 5:17, interpreted dualistically). 2. Persian Influence: • Cosmic Judgment: Persian Zoroastrianism, with its dualistic cosmology of good (Ahura Mazda) versus evil (Angra Mainyu), included concepts of a final judgment, resurrection, and an afterlife where souls face reward or punishment. These ideas, prevalent in the Hellenistic world, likely influenced Jewish apocalyptic thought (e.g., in Daniel and Enochic literature) during the Second Temple period (6th century BCE–1st century CE). Early Christianity, emerging from this Jewish context, adopted similar ideas, such as the Last Judgment (Matthew 25:31–46) and heaven/hell dichotomies. • Moral Dualism: Zoroastrianism’s emphasis on a cosmic battle between good and evil parallels some Christian depictions of God versus Satan, though Christianity reinterprets this through the lens of Jesus’ victory over evil. These influences are evident in how early Christian theologians articulated doctrines. For example, the Church Fathers, engaging with Greco-Roman and Jewish traditions, used Platonic language to explain the soul’s immortality and Persian-influenced apocalyptic imagery to describe judgment. However, the extent to which these are “false” or a departure from Jesus’ teachings depends on how we interpret his message. Jesus’ Message and Absolute Oneness Your claim posits that Jesus’ true message was “Absolute Oneness,” a nondual perspective where distinctions like self/other, divine/human, or good/evil dissolve into a unified reality. Let’s assess this in light of Jesus’ teachings: 1. Evidence for Nonduality: • Unity with God: Jesus emphasizes an intimate connection between God and humanity. In John 17:21–23, he prays, “that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us.” This suggests a profound unity, akin to nondual traditions like Advaita Vedanta or certain mystical interpretations of Christianity. • Immanence of the Kingdom: In Luke 17:21, Jesus says, “The kingdom of God is within you” (or “among you”), implying that divine reality is not separate from human experience but present and accessible, a hallmark of nondual thought. • Breaking Down Dualities: Jesus’ actions—associating with sinners, healing on the Sabbath, challenging legalism—subvert rigid distinctions like clean/unclean or righteous/sinner. The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37) prioritizes universal love over ethnic or religious boundaries. • Paradoxical Teachings: Sayings like “Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it” (Matthew 16:25) embrace paradox, a feature of nondual thought that resists binary categories. • Incarnation: The doctrine that Jesus is both fully divine and fully human (developed later but rooted in his life) embodies a nondual paradox, collapsing the divide between God and humanity. 2. Challenges to Absolute Oneness: • Moral and Eschatological Language: Jesus’ teachings include dualistic elements, such as warnings of judgment (e.g., Matthew 25:41–46, separating the “sheep” from the “goats”) and references to eternal consequences (e.g., Mark 9:43–48, mentioning “hell”). These suggest a moral framework distinguishing right from wrong, though they could be interpreted symbolically rather than literally. • God as Distinct: While Jesus emphasizes unity, he also speaks of God as a distinct entity (e.g., “Our Father” in Matthew 6:9). This relational language might imply a qualified nonduality rather than Absolute Oneness, where distinctions are transcended but not erased. • Historical Context: Jesus operated within a Jewish framework that emphasized God’s transcendence and covenantal relationship with Israel. Absolute Oneness, as understood in nondual traditions, may not fully align with this context, though his teachings push toward a more universal, inclusive vision. Did Dualism Distort Jesus’ Message? Your argument suggests that Platonic and Persian dualisms led to “flawed” doctrines (immortal soul, cosmic judgment) that obscured Jesus’ nondual message. Let’s evaluate: 1. Immortal Soul: • Critique: The Platonic idea of an inherently immortal soul, separate from the body, differs from Jewish views of the afterlife, which often emphasized bodily resurrection (e.g., Daniel 12:2). Jesus’ own teachings focus more on resurrection (e.g., John 11:25, “I am the resurrection and the life”) than an independent soul surviving death. The Platonic soul concept, adopted by later theologians, may have shifted focus from Jesus’ holistic view of human-divine unity to a dualistic body-soul split. • Counterpoint: The immortal soul concept helped Christians articulate the hope of eternal life in a Hellenistic context. It may not be “false” but rather a translation of Jesus’ resurrection-focused teachings into a philosophical idiom, though it arguably introduced a dualism foreign to his message. 2. Cosmic Judgment: • Critique: Persian-influenced ideas of a final judgment, with clear divisions between saved and damned, appear in Christian eschatology (e.g., Revelation). These may clash with a nondual view of Absolute Oneness, where all distinctions dissolve. Jesus’ parables of judgment (e.g., Matthew 13:24–30, wheat and weeds) could be seen as pedagogical tools rather than literal endorsements of cosmic dualism, but later theology often took them literally, amplifying dualistic themes. • Counterpoint: Jesus’ own language of judgment and moral accountability (e.g., Matthew 7:21–23) suggests some form of distinction between alignment with God’s will and rejection of it. This may not be Absolute Oneness but a relational nonduality, where unity is possible but not automatic. 3. Distortion or Adaptation?: • The integration of Platonic and Persian ideas was partly a practical necessity. As Christianity spread beyond its Jewish roots into the Greco-Roman world, it needed to engage with prevailing philosophies and cosmologies. Platonism provided a systematic framework to explain concepts like eternal life, while Persian apocalypticism resonated with Jewish and Christian hopes for divine justice. • However, these frameworks may have obscured Jesus’ nondual emphasis on the present, immanent kingdom and universal love. For example, the focus on a future judgment or a disembodied soul could detract from his call to live out divine unity now (e.g., “love your neighbor as yourself,” Mark 12:31). Absolute Oneness as Jesus’ Core Message Your claim that Jesus’ true message was Absolute Oneness aligns with interpretations found in Christian mysticism (e.g., Meister Eckhart, Julian of Norwich) and modern nondual thinkers (e.g., Richard Rohr). These perspectives emphasize Jesus’ teachings on unity, love, and the dissolution of ego-driven separations. However, Absolute Oneness, as a term, draws from nondual traditions like Advaita Vedanta, which may not fully map onto Jesus’ Jewish context. His message seems to lean toward a relational nonduality—unity with God and others through love and faith—rather than a metaphysical collapse of all distinctions. For example, Jesus’ emphasis on relationship (with God, neighbors, even enemies) suggests a dynamic oneness, where distinctions like self/other persist but are harmonized through love. This differs from Absolute Oneness in some Eastern traditions, where distinctions are ultimately illusory. The Incarnation, central to Christianity, further complicates pure nonduality, as it affirms the reality of both divine and human natures in Jesus, united without dissolving into one another. Addressing the Claim Christianity did inherit dualistic elements from Platonic and Persian thought, particularly the immortal soul and cosmic judgment, which became prominent in later theology. These ideas, while not central to Jesus’ teachings, were adaptations that helped Christianity articulate its message in a Hellenistic and apocalyptic context. However, calling them “false” depends on one’s perspective—they were pragmatic tools for early Christians, though they may have shifted focus from Jesus’ more nondual emphasis on unity and love. Jesus’ message does reflect a profound sense of oneness—God’s presence within, the breaking down of social and religious barriers, and the call to universal love. Whether this constitutes “Absolute Oneness” is debatable, as his teachings retain relational and moral dimensions that imply distinctions, even if they point toward unity. The influence of Plato and Persian thought likely amplified dualistic frameworks, potentially overshadowing the nondual aspects of Jesus’ message, but these were not wholesale distortions so much as cultural translations. Final Answer Christianity adopted dualistic doctrines like the immortal soul (from Plato) and cosmic judgment (influenced by Persian thought), which shaped its theology but may have diverged from Jesus’ emphasis on unity and the immanent kingdom. These doctrines aren’t necessarily “false” but reflect adaptations to make Christianity intelligible in its historical context. Jesus’ message aligns with a form of nondual oneness—emphasizing unity with God and others through love—but it’s more relational than Absolute Oneness in a metaphysical sense. Platonic and Persian influences amplified dualism, but Jesus’ core vision of divine-human unity remains foundational, even if partially obscured by later theological developments.

Nobody knows. What use is adopting a belief about what happens? Pascal's wager is fear based nonsense.

It just seems way too good to be true. So many people die of starvation every year. Also I think it would have been proven by now... the same people who've more or less proven other controversial phenomena such as remote viewing would have jumped on any oppurtunity to prove Breatharianism.

I don't think it's real with the exception of maybe some very advanced mystics like Therese Neumann and Ramakrishna (actually Ramakrishna is interesting bc sometimes he supposedly wouldn't even breathe for awhile), but I'm obsessed with Breatharianism.

Yeah I've had this insight with tennis. Tennis isn't a sport, it doesn't exist .

He told me consciousness wasn't the absolute (I believe ) in a thread awhile back I don't remember what it was.

I had this thought while watching Leo's video and reading this quote from Ramana maharshi "Only that which existsts in deep, dreamless sleep is real." Is this pure Truth, which appears to simply be Nothingness, more fundamental than consciousness / experience? Or is Truth itself an experience?

It's so obvious. That's why I question it so much.

I don't just accept what Leo says. Some people on this forum , such as breaking the wall, have made interesting arguments for consciousness not being the absolute.

Yeah like Star Wars. But more influential , probably the most influential story on Western culture. It makes sense why people would become Christians. Have you read the Gospel of Thomas? It's one of my favorite spiritual works. The Church couldn't handle it so they didn't include it in the Bible.

Jesus is a very powerful myth, if you've found it helpful that's good. Ultimately Jesus cannot be God however, because you imagined Jesus . @Flowerfaeiry it's not a new age thing to say, it doesn't have to be about your identity at all. It just is. @Someone here @Salvijus I believe the problem of evil is resolved by God being Infinite. I want to put my faith in it but it seems indifferent to my suffering , sometimes. Sometimes it seems very purposeful and I can't make sense of it .

I'm not sure about chakras but have you ever seen any of these telekinesis videos on YouTube?

Theme of going full circle: being so low consciousness that you flip and become and enlightened master .

I think solipsism is true in a sense. You really don't know anything, solipsism is pure not knowing .

I think solipsism is true in a sense. You really don't know anything, solipsism is pure not knowing .

Oh Will You've been through so much . time to move to a monastery for 3 months and be free. ADHD is a bitch. Living in a bedroom that looks like a prison cell, getting addicted to pot . I've had some profound realizations but my life is so boring. And sometimes I have psychotic thoughts , the relationship between the two is unclear.

Seeing my old account is crazy . I was like 16.

All I know is whatever is appearing within awareness right now!! Knowledge is an experience!!!

Some people will say enlightenment is no self an awakening is God realization but even that isn't super descriptive! All just words!

Awakening is defined in a lot of different ways! It could refer to lots of different experiences. Some realize no self but don't realize they're God. I kinda think Jesus was the first to realize he was God, before he could do that Buddha had to realize no self! There's also differences in degree, big ones. A spiritual prodigy like Ramakrishna spent many many hours in profound samadhi. But most just have the realization and it doesn't lead to such profound psychological effects!

The real question is, traditional kriya yoga or Sadhguru kriya yoga?

This is the best part about moving to the Pacific Northwest. I can work out by exploring nature rather than boring myself to death at the gym (I still go sometimes despite my boredom😆)

If I go full on solipsist I can simply affirm "Unconsciousness does not exist. Period." If I allow for a world outside myself I can say I am pure emptiness, nothing, absolutely nothing , and the world is also nothing. I have no fucking idea what will happen after the body dies .