Search the Community

I think you are biased against science and AI. Science for a lot of good reasons because the amount of effort to make a name for yourself and change the status quo in the scientific community is immense. That doesn't mean that nonduality or mystical teachings invalidate the scientific method and that you can credibly make arguments that fall outside of it. AI I think it's because it threatens your status as an intellectual since a lot of the concepts in your videos come from synthesizing thousands of hours reading books which can now be achieved by LLMs. You're been very dismissive of its potential to produce intelligence and even though you have some good points on it, I think you are fundamentally biased on it. If you put more time mastering AI it would push the quality of your work to the next level. I think it also probably stems from your health issues and specifically your low energy since keeping up with all the AI news and stress testing the new models that come out continuously to get them to produce high quality insights takes a lot of energy. I similarly find myself having procrastinated on my learning of AI to help my life's work and I think it's due to some very real mental blocks that I see in myself, you and others both on the forum and in society at large. I think it's fine to have limitations but when you speak with absolute certainty on things that AI fundamentally cannot do then you lose a bit of credibility since often times I've found it's already either false or it seems quite likely that in 1-2 years it will undoubtedly have reached that level let alone in 1-2 decades. There are valid concerns to have with overhyping that techbros do but the potential and benefits of the technology have already started to bear fruit so I think it's a good time for us to wrack our brains to pull further benefits from it for the community and world as a whole! That's why I made this thread, to focus on practical benefits that this community's users can derive from AI instead of either fear-mongering on it or hypothesizing on future applications without actually using it productively daily.

You don't believe in the nonduality teachings talked about by Leo? Monogamy is an invention of society to stabilize itself, it doesn't point to any spiritual truths. You have a shared connection with every woman and man on earth. To think that you can only have an eternal connection with one person is a bit silly. I think you're indoctrinated if you believe that you can't find a lot of intimacy, respect and even love in anything but a monogamous relationship. @SimpleGuy Regardless of if casual sex appeals to you, working on your social life is still quite important. The average man is lonely and isolated and has not much impact in society. You can work on all of these things and have very little sex or you can build up your social capital and have a lot of sex along with it. A lot of the men on the forum are quite sheltered so that will reflect in their opinions but if we push the concept further; the benefits of having social capital go much beyond sex.

The downstream effects of love, connection, oneness, unity, nonduality and recognition of God conciousness are huge. I think you correctly identify one of these downstream effects in how we relate to each other - in how we express love, connection and pleasure through sex.

Consider that focusing on nonduality is cherry picking and the context is missing, particularly purification. Take ancient texts more seriously. This forum as a whole has a bias towards intellectualization.

You're funny, I like you too. Solipsism and radical nonduality are probably quite similar. And Leo says you're imagining everyone.

This is a prime example of misunderstanding. Nonduality does not argue that self must disappear, nonduality is the understanding that there’s often a misunderstanding of what the self is and is not, and it’s the misunderstanding that “falls away” and not that the actual self must disappear. Assuming there is a self that can actually disappear would be like assuming there is a self that can experience it’s own absence, which it can’t. It cannot even experience its own presence either because that too is ownership, and a false claim. Self is totally present without a second. That’s what nonduality means. Self is here to stay, what “falls away” is the idea the self can be claimed or owned. When there’s no thought of a “my” self…..then what remains is Nondual self or Nondual consciousness, unbounded and unlimited by thoughts taking ownership of.

Non dual consciousness is not about eliminating opposites, but rather living in the creative tension of a "both/and" reality instead of an "either/or" trap. The self is a thing, so there’s actually no such thing as nonduality because nonduality is not a “thing”

I have no earthly idea what that is even supposed to mean, lol. Reality can only (seemingly) experience / be conscious of itself when it (seemingly) splits itself up into observer and observed, subject and object, here and there, then and now, this and that, light and dark, Yin and Yang. So again, no duality = no perception / experience / consciousness of reality. (This is btw also expressed in the Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. "Father" = nonduality/formlessness, "Son" = duality/form, "Holy Spirit" = the recognition that Father and Son are two sides of the same coin.) But of course, as I always point out: The above is a model of reality, not reality itself. Where people get hung up is when they confuse the description for the "thing" itself.

Was that a perception of Being from within Being itself, not in a dualistic subject-object relationship, but in oneness, in nonduality, in unity, in Love?

This is a quote from Ramakrishna. He wouldn’t even allow most of his disciples to study nonduality, because they weren’t pure enough. The ancient gurus of India understood that humans are very impure, and purification has to come before truth. So, for most people – find an image of God and worship.

I became directly conscious of one aspect of God. I had the realization before that God is peace, which I have talked about earlier, but yesterday I experienced directly another facet of God. It is something that can be described by many names: absolute existence, ultimate power, ultimate magnificence, ultimate glory, and might. All of these aspects became directly clear in my mind recently, not merely as philosophical concepts or ideas that I had intellectually understood, but as something I had directly experienced and glimpsed for myself. Previously, I had glimpsed the peace of God through meditation. it was a glimpse of a profound peace that seemed to transcend the usual fluctuations of the mind and the changing circumstances of life. Through meditation I recognized that peace is not merely something the mind experiences under favorable conditions like chilling on the beach drinking grape juice…but rather it is something much more fundamental to reality itself. It is literally inside my being . Like literally inside my physical body .I had come to understand God as peace through this experience, although I knew that my understanding was still incomplete. Yesterday, however, I experienced something different through a “religious experience “I glimpsed another dimension of the divine. I experienced ecstasy, glory, absoluteness, magnificence, and overwhelming power. It was as though another aspect of God had become directly apparent to my consciousness. Whereas my previous glimpse had been primarily associated with peace, this experience revealed something that could be described as the absolute greatness and majesty of existence itself. And this has a terrifying flavor to it rather than peaceful or quiet. It is also GOOD. It is so good that it is terrifying. It is so good You want to run away from it because of how good it is lol . These two experiences have made me realize that God cannot be reduced to a single attribute or description. We may call God peace, but peace might be only one aspect of the divine reality. We may also speak of God as absolute existence, infinite power, ultimate glory, magnificence, or the very ground of being. And actually god is all names . But some of them hit closer . The important distinction for me is that I am no longer considering these ideas exclusively at the level of intellectual understanding. I have had glimpses of what I interpret as different aspects of God through direct experience. Although these glimpses were brief and my understanding remains incomplete, they have had a profound effect on my conviction regarding the existence of God. I am beginning to understand that there is a significant difference between believing in God because of philosophical reasoning and knowing God through direct experience. This brings me to the question of atheism and the limits of philosophical arguments for the existence of God. I do not think that atheists can be convinced of the existence of God by philosophical arguments alone, such as the intelligent design argument, the fine tuning argument, or the ontological argument. These arguments do provide rational grounds for believing in God, and I believe they point toward the existence of a divine reality. However, philosophical arguments and direct experience operate at different levels. An argument can lead someone to consider the possibility that God exists, but it cannot necessarily produce the direct realization of God in that person’s consciousness. Someone can study arguments for God’s existence, understand their logical structure, and even acknowledge that they have considerable philosophical force without undergoing any corresponding spiritual transformation. A person may understand the concept of peace without ever experiencing profound inner peace. Similarly, someone may understand the arguments for the existence of God without ever having a direct experience of what they interpret as the divine. When you have glimpsed God directly, however, the question takes on a completely different significance. God is no longer a philosophical proposition to be debated. The question becomes grounded in something that you have personally experienced. I say that I know with 100% certainty that God exists, I am referring to the conviction that arose from these experiences. Before these glimpses, I could think about God, contemplate philosophical arguments, and explore different religious and spiritual traditions. But after experiencing what I interpret as the peace, ecstasy, glory, absoluteness, and magnificence of God, my conviction became much more immediate and personal. I am not claiming that I have completely understood God or that I have attained the highest possible spiritual realization. In fact, I would say the opposite: what I have experienced so far has been only a glimpse. I have touched something that seems profoundly significant, but I have not yet fully understood its nature, its implications . But the threshold I passed is I am no longer approaching the question of God solely through speculation or philosophical argument. I now have personal experiences that I can contemplate, investigate, and attempt to understand more deeply. My task is to refine my understanding, and discover more . The next major challenge for me is to reconcile these experiences of God with Advaita Vedanta. Advaita Vedanta teaches that ultimate reality is Brahman, the nondual absolute, and that the deepest truth of the individual self, the Atman, is not separate from Brahman. The apparent separation between the individual self and ultimate reality or the self of all of existence is ultimately overcomed through The realization of nonduality . It reveals that reality is not fundamentally divided into two independent existences: a separate individual self on one side and an ultimate reality on the other…Yet my experiences have also presented God to me as peace, glory, absolute existence, ultimate power, and magnificence. I want to understand Does the divine appear to consciousness through different aspects, while its ultimate nature remains beyond all descriptions? Can the personal God and the impersonal absolute be understood as different ways of approaching the same ultimate reality? And if so, how precisely does Advaita Vedanta explain this relationship? Above all, I want to understand how these glimpses of God fit into the larger question of existence and consciousness. Is the peace of God inseparable from the glory of God? Is the personal experience of divine magnificence ultimately reconciled with the nondual realization of Brahman? And can the direct experience of God lead to a deeper understanding of the truth that Advaita Vedanta attempts to express? These are the questions I want to pursue from this point onward.

Which is why I don't understand your problem with radical nonduality. On the one hand you say the self is this real structure. On the other hand you say the self is surrendered when opening to God. Are we not basically saying the same thing, ie no self is the doorway.

Dude. I am well aware of the ineffable nature of God. Moreso than you understand. Just because I use words well does not mean I think my words encapsulate it. You are trying to make this about words and lack of understanding the Absolute. But that's not what this is about. You are the one here who is lacking direct consciousness of the Absolute. It is completely obvious to me what the Absolute is. But then there's much more Awakening beyond that. Again, getting the Absolute is easy. I don't speak about enlightenment because there is something higher. Buddhism and nonduality are not enough to understand God. You frame this issue as psychedelics granting inferrior understanding of the Absolute, but you are mistaken in that. They grant higher understanding than any human tradition you are copying. You are not going to understand the Absolute better through Buddhism than through 5-MeO-DMT. Not gonna happen.

There is no such thing as an absolute perspective. All perspectives are by definition relative. You can describe nonduality/formlessness/timelessness and call that description the "absolute perspective", but that so-called absolute perspective is still going to be relative. And it is no more logical or illogical than the opposite perspective (which focusses on duality/form/time).

Agreed. I don't think anyone is advocating stepping in front of a bus. (I think this might be many people's misunderstanding with regards to radical nonduality. It is somehow viewed as being in denial of life. And yet it actually leads to a more intense experience of life. The no self thing is just a doorway in my opinion. Less filters, less resistance etc.) You could also be violently hit over the head during a dream (virtual reality) at night, and when you wake up and realize it was just a dream it's as if it never actually happened. Similarly, from the perspective of "that which has no opposite because it is all that there is" nothing has happened.

Radical nonduality is not a big deal. It's just the immediacy of what's always already the case. The cool thing I'm discovering now, is that instead of trying to feel through heavy feelings, simply to make a subtle shift in focus, and notice how this immediacy is already receiving it all with love.

I don't think I ever said this reality is an illusion and there is another reality that is more real. "Right now is the reality" Yes I think we still have miscommunication with the separate self thing. (certain aspects have fallen away here) I like this video by Leo, radical nonduality basically says the same. All there is is This/God, remove all backstories.

Well said. 😎 The thing is, only 1 out of 5 million people ever fully grasp the concept of nonduality. So it’s perfectly normal for the remaining people who don’t grasp its meaning to fully reject it, even fight to the death to defend their defencelessness. That’s why most people choose to stay asleep, it’s more comfortable and familiar.

Not at all, not being condescending, not my thing. I just notice that over and over you seem to imply that radical nonduality etc is somehow in denial of reality. Quite the opposite is true. When the sense of a separate me falls away rapidly, life actually feels more intense, in the sense that emotions are experienced more raw, ie less resistance, like a baby crying freely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hjQaDn2GVk&t=7s @Mellowmarsh The part that stood out for me was when she said: "I just don't have a life anymore." ie there's just Life. Now wonder it's called radical nonduality

Rebrand it as radical non-nonduality, and I'll gladly sign up.

@Wilhelm44 Have you ever heard of Suzanne Chang? She’s got a super radical nonduality vibe to her videos. I like listening to her views on nonduality.

I think thats the poetry guy 🙂 Im talking about Emerson nonduality channel on youtube. See the video in the OP (watch from minute 6 to around minute 11 to get an idea of how he works with people. Loads of one on one sessions on his channel. It's like radical nonduality 'coaching', for lack of a better word.)

@Carl-Richard lets say a normie was curious about this nonduality stuff, which inquiry questions would you use to let them see through the illusion of the sense of a separate me ?

Thanks, you too, took some time for integration😊 found something interesting in the mean time, (see post in spirituality section titled "radical nonduality 2.0) Blessings to you, i wanna say sister, but that would make you sound like a nun😄