Oppositionless

Same with priests

Because God with low consciousness is stupid! Yes it's all God and God is infinite intelligence but where do you think infinite intelligence comes from? Do you think it's just a given? NO! Intelligence has to be evolved through a brutal process! You have to go through hell to get to heaven! God doesn't create evolution by natural selection because he's an asshole. He creates it this way because he has no choice! There is simply no such thing as a free lunch in the universe. Furthermore, God is the ultimate masochist. All these crappy lives that you say are created by God, ARE GOD. edit: I take some small amount of solace in reading near death experience accounts. I sincerely hope that people who experience nothing but pure hell in this world can have some peace on the other side, but I dunno, seems like a consolation prize when you aren't looking at the big picture. edit edit: For most people you can improve, but there will always be that 1% that simply can't. They do all the personal development work in the books and get nothing for it, and that's a tragedy. But in the big picture, I think we're all being pulled to something beautiful. And you don't even have to look that far, just look at how much living conditions have improved in only the past 100 years. This process is exponential , takes billions of years to get going, but once it does it happens really fucking fast.

Morphic Resonance makes so much sense that science can't explain it! It goes way deeper than telepathy in case you haven't noticed that yet. This plus Leo's two booklist books on evolution completely overhaul the outdated Neo Darwinian paradigm. imo there are at least two ways of understanding God. God as both the ground of being present at all times, and God as the Magnetic Attractor at the end of time. evolution is like water flowing down a stream to the ocean. You can't say for sure it's entirely random, but you can't say for sure it's entirely directed either, it's a little bit of both. That's why dinosaurs were so successful despite not evolving crazy intelligence. Greater intelligence is an atttactor, but how it plays out is largely up to chance.

Yes I should clarify when I say "Just Die" what I mean is do something so extreme you have no choice but to die. Not just sit on your ass for 20 minutes a day or even contemplate all day . If you do something sufficiently hardcore (and there are levels to that, 7 day meditation retreat vs Leo's 30 days of 5 meo dmt) it would be hard not to die.

Just Die. It's that simple.

I agree with that , both psychedelic breakthroughs and hardcore meditation make it such that destruction is not an option. It's deconstruct or die. Or, die or die . And you can either go with it willingly or kicking and screaming, in the end the result is the same.

I think one reason it might not take off is, some people might just get good at meditation, but not have a desire for truth. Good at sitting still but not particularly interested in understanding reality. It might have a lot to do with spiral dynamics and the fact that historically monks have been mostly blue, not yellow or turquoise. one of the things I missed most at retreat was being able to approach truth from an intellectual angle. But now it's informed by a little more silence which is quite nice.

@Twentyfirst nondual teachers seem to think God is stupid , mundane , and ordinary . Because of course God is . But God is also very intelligent, loving , and personal. You're in a constant relationship with a part of yourself you haven't integrated yet . And you integrate that and the next thing manifests as the Other.

@Leo Gura I find that when I was in high school, combat sports were what I needed. It was the hardest thing I ever did , wrestling, the only thing that has come close is 7 day Zen Sesshin. pushing yourself to the limit, that's how you realize God. But deep down im a pacifist so I recognize if I was built differently wrestling would be much easier than Sesshin. i finally realized Love on Sesshin. God is literally fucking Love. It's too good to be true but it is.

Yes profound fucking suffering . When there's nothing to do with sit but yourself deconstructing is the only way to survive . The hatred in my heart before retreat was so immense. I have literally seen through it and realized it is completely fucking IMAGINARY i literally wanted to kill this fucking person and now I have deconstructed . I got insight into Love. NONE OF THIS MATTERS it's a joke :)))) If God is Love and Suffering exists, how could that be anything but a joke? But you're creating it because you're tricked into it, by yourself.

Stop being a pussy and go to a hardcore meditation retreat . I just got back from a 7 day zen sesshin . Meditation works if you work it.

Indeed we are all evil, that is one of the things Jesus was right about

Jesus teaches that you are evil

🔄 Mirrored Patterns Across the Spiral Blue represses female sexuality to preserve order. Green suppresses masculine sexuality to preserve safety. Both stages unconsciously reflect historical wounds—but each overcorrects in a way that perpetuates imbalance, just in different costumes. 🧠 The Integral Realization Recognizes that eros is archetypal, not gendered or moralized Embraces masculine and feminine energies as sacred polarities, not political threats Sees the shadow in both: Blue’s fear of chaos → repression Green’s fear of power → castration “Mature eros doesn’t dominate or disappear. It stands in presence and sees the divine in the other.” Would you like a visual diagram showing these mirrored dynamics across Blue and Green? Or would you like help scripting a post or article from this insight?

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.

What's got you worried?

People taking epistemic solipsism to create metaphysical solipsism . To me epistemic solipsism just shows how important faith is. Faith affirms others are real. God is the one suffering, so I guess that makes God the ultimate masochist .

Why stage green idealizes stage purple And a counterexample: I saw an interview with papa new Guinean who said if his son was gay, he'd kill him GPT 4o Excellent observation—and it gets right to the heart of one of Stage Green’s blind spots: its romanticization of pre-modern cultures, particularly Stage Purple (tribal, animistic, kin-based societies). 🌱 Why Stage Green Idealizes Stage Purple Reaction Against Modernity (Orange/Blue) Green arises after Blue’s dogmatism and Orange’s materialism. It views rationalism, industrialism, and colonialism as dehumanizing and soul-killing. In contrast, it sees tribal and indigenous cultures as authentic, connected, harmonious. Projection of Values Green projects its own ideals—egalitarianism, ecology, inclusivity, community—onto indigenous and ancient cultures. It assumes these cultures were naturally peaceful, spiritually advanced, and inclusive, even when that’s not always the case. Noble Savage Myth (Jean-Jacques Rousseau Redux) The idea that people were pure and moral before civilization “corrupted” them. This myth fuels Green’s reverse hierarchy, where the oldest is seen as the wisest. ❗ The Counterexample: Harsh Realities of Stage Purple “I saw an interview with a Papua New Guinean who said if his son was gay, he’d kill him.” This is a perfect and sobering counterexample. Stage Purple is not inclusive by Green standards: Group cohesion is paramount—and that often means enforcing strict roles and traditions. Deviance is punished severely, especially when it threatens tribal norms. Homophobia, gender rigidness, superstition, and violence are common and normalized in many Purple societies. Stage Purple isn’t “evil”—it’s simply pre-individual, pre-modern, and focused on survival through loyalty.

I think you're right that just because we have a word for something doesn't mean it exists in this world, I'm just suggesting that for reality to be infinite that there is a world where anything than can be imagined exists. Otherwise it wouldn't be infinite .

Non solipsism doesn't contradict Oneness. The consciousness is a rippple on the Absolute, the formless is absolute oneness , the individual is a manifestation of formless oneness.

What's the distinction between an potentiality and an actuality? If all is imagined, then I don't see any real distinction at all.

Yeah I think the Absolute is more primal than mind.

Reality is infinite so everything you can imagine exists.

The ancients descended to the most primal cosmic oneness, the future humans will ascend to infinite consciousness.

If people want to go around believing that their loved ones are lifeless phantoms then they can enjoy , I choose sanity.