Search the Community

@Princess Arabia To respond to your topic, emotions are just stimuli in our mind to instigate behavior. It's just that people also overlay a binary concept of good/bad over the top of them that may not really exist. Although, it isn't necessarily a clear cut binary people employ, there's often alot of gray or mixed areas where the same emotions have both positive and negative conceptions about it or are inverted depending on circumstances. Even many of the 'nonduality' crowd uses a binary to describe their experience, though it seems like a contradiction. This isn't to criticize them but it just shows how ingrained in the psyche it is to frame experience and stimuli in this way. I can admit as I cultivate well being and there are expression dynamics from that I recognize it's also a nod towards this same type of framing, though it is less moralistic than the good/bad or right/wrong implications can be.

@Reciprocality Interesting, the first thought that occurs to me is that the notion of nonduality comes into play. We could consider Einstein's Theories of Relativity and the nature of time, quantum physics' theories of Entanglement, Newton's theories of actions/reactions, and, of course, all of the philosophical notions of social connectedness. That's all I got. Maybe this could be an example of the separation: Existential fear is about something that does not exist, so in effect, it is something about nothing. Say whaaa'

They're usually not. 99% of self-proclaimed truth-seekers (even on this forum) are just larping. They don the aesthetic of "truth-seeker" simply for the existential comfort and security that this identity provides. Real truth-seeking is like drowning naked in the middle of the Atlantic ocean at night with unseen creatures of the dark lurking beneath you, and no humans, no land, no warmth, no light to grasp onto. And then willingly plunging deeper into that lonely, vulnerable, cold without any guarantee of ever coming back... only then is the REAL light revealed, but you can easily tell that none of these folks would dare go there. Their whole ""global awakening"" is a cute fiction on stilts to avoid the real abyss - and thus the real love and light eludes them. I would be HIGHLY suspicious of any youtube persona that claims to deliver spiritual insight - ESPECIALLY if they have any new age or Buddhist roots in their rhetoric/mannerisms. Dead givesaways of larpers: "vibration, frequency, reality-shifting, timelines, manifestation, 5D, numerology, astrology, law of attraction, law of assumption, no-self, nonduality, jhanas, nothingness, reincarnation, lifetimes, spirits, entities" and so much more. And who am I to cast such judgement upon these kind, sincere people who do genuine good work in the world? I'm just a guy who has glimpsed the Abyss: The total collapse of the Entire Universe - held together by a single, tender, Self-Aware thread of Infinite Intelligence, gawking at its own majesty and magnitude, not yet ready to cross to the other side. And every day I avoid this truth just as much as anybody else. You could say that the very fact that we are alive today on earth as humans is in every sense a temporary defiance of Truth - but Truth is so Absolute that it merges with this defiance, and thus here we are today in Absolute Reality - The most Perfect Gift that Consciousness could give itself, made of itself unto itself! And so, with all of this context and reference experience, it's patently clear to me when I see my fellow souls donning a spiritual costume to avoid the heat death of the universe (aka Truth). After all, I too do the same. They're me.

You guys don't pay attention to my sig. I'm above all that crap . None of you understands true liberation .when you reach this state you no longer engage in spiritual dick measuring contests about who's awake and whose a madlad. These sorts of questions do not even enter your mind . They don't make sense .they are utter foolishness. And you guys think you're awake and you engage in nonduality wars with each others about who's awake ? I just have to lmao .

1) It's quite advanced relative to how the average human thinks. It's not advanced relative to something like nonduality or Spiral Wizardry. 2) PM is not a practical worldview for normies. PM is for intellectuals, not regular people. PM does not help normal people survive.

It's made of mind/consciousness, which is nothing. A dream is made of nothing. But it's still something, because here it is. It's nonduality. Something and nothing are the same thing. It's nothing, experiencing something.

I think he wrote a blog post about how he has a different understanding of conscoiusness. I could be absolutely wrong about this, but i think he said that in Buddhism they experience nonduality by confronting the void as they go down (?) in consciousness and his method is more like becoming more and more conscious. As you can see, i cant really recall how he said it. He also talked about recently how human enlightenment is conformist. I hope im not misquoting him too bad or giving false meaning to what he said, it would be nice if he @Leo Gura answered this, im curious too. If it is about how he had many deep enlightenment experiences that goes beyond any spiritual teachings, i dont doubt him, but i would just like to say that there is no way to tell how far other masters went. It could be that they could not communicate it or did not see it reasonable to try. Leo took down his solipsism video too and as far as i know his most serious communication about his alien consciousness experience was a forum post.

He's just talking about nonduality. Nonduality and solipsism are two different things.

That small audio doesn't reveal everything sadhguru thinks about this topic. There is a video where he very directly calls solipsism false and makes fun of it. I'm just stating facts. In that audio he is simply talking about nonduality. Nonduality and solipsism are not the same.

thanks guys mostly great answers I was wondering about nonduality/all is one and jesus teachings etc grew up non religious was listening to this recently probably will listen to some of these later

1. Only Leo can speak of Leo's view truthfully. 2. The subject of your question is consciousness, which will always be problematic to talk about. The logic what humans use to think and communicate is based on making distinctions. By saying that the apple is red, you imply its not blue or orange. You cannot apply logic to Infinity, because it has all the colors. Ultimately you will never be able to communicate Truth. Which does not mean that you cannot be skillful at pointing at it, or that all models of reality are equally accurate, but it will always be inherently flawed. This is just something you have to keep in mind. 3. Here is what ChatGPT said about eka-jiva-vada: At first glance the ideas are similar, but you could probably point out some differences in the communication of them, which will lead to meaningful differences of interpretation or not. An easy mistake is taking things literally. Here is an example. ChatGPT said: "Essentially, the entire universe and all other beings are perceived by this one jīva within its own consciousness." Whereas Leo would say consciousness IS all there is. See the difference? Is it meaningful or just difference in communication ? You can take something like the exceprt above and apply logic to it and you can dissect it infinitely and get lost doing it. Thats where Leo would say to take 5-MeO and see for yourself. 4. Leo's approach to solipsism is based on direct experience. Basically it says that you cant experience any other coinscousness other than yours. Which would be compatible with the idea of nonduality. But for me it seems like solipsism has more implications to it ? This is where my knowledge ends for now. So the main take here is you cant "understand" consciousness with logic. Logic is for pragmatic matters and communication.

I feel inspired to write about the phenomena of transcending, integrating and their relationships. We could explore each as it's own realm. As well, we can explore relationships between the two. The below idea caught my attention. It was from @Snader in the "What is a Woman?" thread. This is very "fertile" soil. There are many types of seeds we could plant and grow. This idea could be the start of a class within philosophy, biology, psychology, nonduality, Zen Buddhism, Shamanism or Quantum Mechanics. I'm actually going to 'integrate' this quote in my first day of my neuroscience course. We can create various relationships with the above concept. For example, there is a mindset that would step outside of the concept and theorize about the concept - adding more detail and/or expanding the edges. Another mindset would be operating within the concept. As well, we can combine the two mindsets. For example, we could describe a piano and keep adding details and components. As well, we could go within and play the piano. Both have value. . . And we could integrate the two: for example we could add / describe a new component, then play the piano and ask "Can you hear the impact our new component had on piano performance?" Contracted mindsets have value, as does expanded mindsets - as does the integration between the two. Most mindsets tend to become contracted and rigid. By default, they perceive through a particular lens. This can have value in focusing cognition, increasing mental stability and making decisions. It reduces uncertainty and ambiguity. Yet it is also limited. It dives within "truth A". There is value in that, yet the price paid is that it doesn't integrate another "truth B" as well, it would be unable to synthesize the two "partial truths" into "truth C". . . Ime, most mindsets default to contracted mindsets - so I spend a lot of effort to expand minds. In the reverse situations (most minds default to expanded states), I would put a lot of effort into contracting minds. An example a contracted social construct that we default to involves expertise. The first day of my neuroscience class, I ask "What would an expertise of Schizophrenia look like". I then show the following images: 1. Chemical structures of neurotransmitters and a biochemist. 2. Neural networks and a neuroscientist and a neuroscientist. 3. A whole brain and an image of a psychiatrist. 4. An image of a psychologist discussing behavior of schizophrenia. 5. A social scientist addressing schizophrenia within the context of social structures and cultural norms. 6. A woman who has schizophrenia. I briefly describe each and ask "Which one is an 'expert' in schizophrenia?". This question has no "right" or "wrong" answer. At first, the class feels like they must choose one and get uncomfortable. . . And that's the point. Each of the above is an "expert" in schizophenia in a different form. Each of those forms have value and there is value in diving deep into one of those forms and dismissing the others. For example, the biochemist may get hyper focused on the biochemistry of neurotransmitters and dismiss all the other forms. This contracted, zoomed-in mindstate could lead to breakthrough discoveries at the biochemical level that wouldn't be possible in a more holistic mindstate. Yet the understanding becomes limited to that "category". Now we relate to the original quote above. . . if a mind contracts within a perspective - something of value is gained, yet something is also lost. The biochemist would have difficulty relating the biochemical level to the societal level. How does the altered binding affinity of dopamine in someone with schizophrenia relate to the social dynamics of someone with schizophrenia living within a particular society? . . . We could get even more expansive. . . How does the biochemistry relate to various cultures and various cultural histories? . . . And even more expansive. . . How does the biochemistry of dopamine relate to historical interpretations of schizophrenia and how does that history relate contemporary psychological theories of schizophrenia? . . . As we expand further, more possibilities enter. There becomes less structure and detail. Most minds become specialized and dwell within one area. There is value in this as many discoveries come from highly-focused contracted mindstates. However, the mind is unaware (or unappreciative) of other forms of understanding. This is a barrier to communication (and one reason A.I. will become a high-level form of "cognition"). I have a biochemist colleague that is brilliant at the biochemical level (waaay beyond my level of understanding). Yet he lacks awareness and curiosity of other forms of understanding. (And there a various reasons for this). As another example, I have a friend who is a brilliant psychologist. Yet our conversations can go very deep yet are within the realm of psychology. When we speak of mental conditions such as schizophrenia, she has a subconscious belief that there is a "normal" range of mindstate (of which she is within) and an "abnormal" mindstate that the "other" person with schizophrenia is within. She has brilliant psychological theories, yet lacks the direct understanding of what altered states of consciousness are 'actually' like. . . On many of my psychedelic trips, I entered "insanity zones" and now have an understanding of what "insane" mental states are like. As well how "abnormal" is also "normal". If I try to relate this to her, she keeps perceiving that through a psychological lens and contextualizes that within a psychological framework. As well, an orientation of the mind limits fluidity and perspective (which has both upsides and downsides). For example, my psychologist is strongly oriented toward helping people overcome difficult mind conditions, such as PTSD, anxiety disorders and panic attacks. This has a lot of practical value; most people with uncomfortable states want to heal and "get better". Yet her mindstate also limits the "realms" she has access to. . . For example, last week I was with her and a friend who started about his recurrent anxiety. I was in a minspace of exploring the "essence" of anxiety. Like we could explore the "essence" of love or sacredness. There is no dynamic of "good" or "bad". There is no dynamic of "we need to heal and get past the anxiety". That mindset introduces a subconscious vibe that there is "something wrong" with your anxiety that we need to address and move beyond the anxiety so you can be a healthier person. . . That orientation has enormous value at the personal level, yet is also very limited. . . For example, I began speaking about the "essence" of anxiety, integrating my own experience. . . Speaking about the energetics of being on the edge of "spiraling down" and what that is 'actually' like. As well, different forms of anxiety and how those forms interact with other feelings and social interactions. . . My psychologist friend had some overlap with this exploration, yet kept pulling toward psychological theories and healing. For example, she kept reoriented insights about the nature of anxiety to how we can use those insights for healing and moving forward. Again, there is a lot of value to that at the personal level, it's just a different "realm" that she is contracted within. Feel free to add any feelings, thoughts, insights or questions you may have about these ideas.

@Snader Thanks for sharing your experience and insights. I appreciate the introspection and curiosity. No. Making decisions is hard for me since I'm constantly looking at pros / cons, partial truths, different possibilities, different perspectives etc. . . I'm a terrible manager. . . I think my colleagues can sense this and don't put me in positions where I'm a decision-making leader. . . I contribute in other ways. I'm actually quite satisfied with my career. I have a lot of autonomy and lots of space to create. . . A few thoughts on range and constraints: -- Being in a science department, there are standard courses like Cell Biology, that have a history of content. As well, teachers have an obligation to teach students knowledge and skills that will be on graduate exams, graduate / medical schools and practical things in those careers. For core courses, there is generally a body of accepted content - I have flexibility in how I teach that as well as sprinkling in things such as life skills, memory etc. . . I have a lot more space in my upper-level courses to go bigger-picture and integrate. Yet my forms of integration is beyond integrating different disciplines within academia. I love all that stuff, yet I also want to bring in more that isn't standard academia. For example, I've brought in meditation exercises into my classes. This raised some eyebrows in my department, yet I explained to them the importance of self awareness, social awareness and meta-cognition in the bigger-picture of learning. . . I also have an exercise using Zener cards to integrate concepts like: direct experience, intuition, energetics, unique abilites as well as science components, such as statistical analysis of the data we gather. I got some pushback at first, yet I framed it with buzzwords like "hands-on", "experiential learning", "engagement" to teach statistical tests. Then my collogues thought it was brilliant (since I didn't believe in the "whoo, whoo" stuff. . . I'd also like to add things like shamanic breathing and chanting - yet having had the guts to yet (as well, most students are receptive). . . Lastly, I feel the need to hold back on explorations of consciousness. I feel comfortable speaking about things like lucid dreaming and flow states of consciousness, yet I still need to speak about psychedelics from a relatively shallow level. I've done over 150 trips and my level of understanding of psychedelics and various conscious states is equal to, or higher, than my level of science understanding. I'm one of the few people with a high level of expertise in both psychedelic/conscious states as well as science. One of few people that could integrate direct experience, psychological dynamics, mysticism, creativity, nonduality, neuroscience, genetics, evolution, social science, energetics, critical thinking, empathy and on and on. I can do this to some extent, yet I have to hold back. -- I'm constrained with where students are at. . . In an environment like a spiritual retreat, nonduality lecture or concert - people go because they are interested, want to learn and want to participate. Yet in a classroom environment, most students don't fully want to be there. Many students have low attendance, show up late and are disengaged. The majority of Gen Z has an extremely short attention span and part of my job is being an entertainer to keep them engaged. And it's draining to constantly compete with their cell phones for attention. . . And it just takes a one "bad" student to create all sorts of problems, which can be an emotional drain. I spent months creating a First Year Seminar titled "SuperNormal" abilities. Unfortunately, one student was a sold narcissist that soured the energetics in the class and caused all sorts of problems. That one student ruined many aspects of the course. . . Lastly, many students do not have the capacity or interest in much of what I do. For example, not able / interested in things like introspection and mind expansion. Some students don't think abstractly and I have to constrain myself, such as my use of metaphors. -- With that said, there are a small percentage of students that really connect with me and I have a big impact on them. A few students have unique skills of metacognition, systems thinking etc and felt like they never fit it. I'm the first one that can see this and "speak their language". Stuff they thought was a disorder, yet I get excited and say "That's a thing!!! I've known people in Zen Centers that spent years trying to attain that". . . They take every one of my classes, come to my office to chat about things that are "out there" that they can't speak to anyone else about. . . A couple years ago, I started a group called "Transcend and Integrate". It's a select group by invitation only for students with certain abilities. We meet in a secluded location and have a free flow conversation about things not discussed or revealed with "normal" people. . . For about 1% of my students, I have a deep life-changing impact on them - such as discovering core aspects of their nature / ability. . . This is so rewarding to me, that it balances out a lot of headaches. -- When I started teaching, I wasn't aware of my "thing". If you know yours, I would be mindful of how that fits with the environment. For example, one of my core components is integration. I work at a liberal college that prides it's identity on "multidisciplinary". Yet it's at a very surface level. For example, "inter-disciplinary" to my colleagues and administrators are taking set of required courses in various disciplines. Yet psychology is in one building and just talks in a psychology box, Religious studies is another building and speaks within a religion box, Biology in another building, etc. . . That is a surface level of integration. It would be like having a guitar player in one building, a piano player in another building, a drummer in another building and calling it an integrated jazz band. . . Deeper integration is having all the instruments playing together to yield emergent properties. . . Zooming Out and being contracted in an area has value, yet so does Zooming Out and synthesizing. I'm the only one that is really good at this in my department, which is good and bad. On the good side, I'm "that guy" my colleagues come to for questions and help. I've helped them create new course materials and to look at things from different perspectives. I like contributing in that way. For sure. Here, I think Myers Briggs is useful. I'm on the extreme end of "introverted". As well, the "S" or "I" is also a big factor. "Sensing" is toward concrete thinking and what's actually present here and now. Things like construction work. . . "Intuitive" is toward internal abstraction and imagination of things that aren't physically present. Most people are "S". . . I'm on the extreme end of "I", which can make communication difficult. And also agree with being alone. . . During the covid isolation lockdowns, my extroverted friend struggled hardcore. Yet I loved it. I didn't have as many social obligations and I had more time to explore consciousness on my own without people thinking I was "anti-social".

It seeme like you've achieved a new level of awakening..a radical level of God realization that no human has ever achieved..and that none of those nonduality Buddhist rats have even dared to consider..you're sexy and you know it.

My absolute favorites would be: https://m.youtube.com/@samvaknin/videos And https://m.youtube.com/@EmersonNonDuality/videos And here is a list of others: https://www.youtube.com/user/conscioustv/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/NewThinkingAllowed/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/RebelWisdom/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/scienceandnonduality/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/AubreyMarcusPod/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/SimulationSeries/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/CloserToTruthTV/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/timferriss/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/metaRising/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/SpiritualawakeningNetplus/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/AaronAbke/videos https://m.youtube.com/@AaronDoughty44/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/MindvalleyTalks/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/CosmicSkeptic/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/TomBilyeu/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/higherbalance/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/ThinkingAllowedTV/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/VishuddhaDas/videos https://m.youtube.com/@DrBrianKeating/videos https://m.youtube.com/@DrJamesCooke/videos https://m.youtube.com/@NextLevelSoul/videos https://m.youtube.com/@seancarroll/videos https://m.youtube.com/@SimplyAlwaysAwake/videos https://m.youtube.com/@yourmatetom/videos German channels with >50.000 viewers which talk about psychedelics+nonduality+mysticism who almost definitely would love to have a conversation/an interview with you (in english of course): https://m.youtube.com/@ManuelHaase https://www.youtube.com/c/FlowFinder/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/highermind/video

I didn't understand your argument but I will respond anyways. Without contrast it is impossible to know anything. Left exists only in comparison to what is not left. Nonduality exists only in comparison to duality. Realization of oneness is impossible without twoness. But oneness and twoness are one in the end. And also two.

There is actually. Without duality, nonduality would be inconceivable. If blue was the only thing that exists, knowledge of blue would be impossible. God needs duality to know himself. Duality is fundamental to existence.

Nondual Monism & Nonduality visualized: Koan: Why are you the only game in town?

I have linked from timestamp 9:46, where he talks about the Orthodox church. You might find similarities with Nonduality, sounds a lot like Neti-neti / not this not this / self inquiry. Sounds a lot like truth, and not just trying to manipulate people into joining their religion out of fear of punishment or promise of rewards. It seems very honest. When people deny Christianity altogether, they might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The bathwater being the egoically corrupted interpretations of Christianity, and the baby being the true Christianity.

From the teachings of A.H. Almaas What is Ontology? Diamond Approach Teachings About: Ontology Activities Don't Have an Ontological Presence This is a very important difference. It means that emotions don't really exist except in the sense that activities exist. They are activities, and activities don't have an ontological presence. Essence, on the other hand, is not an activity. As we saw in chapter 1, essence is a presence, and its basic quality is its existence as an ontological actuality, as a “suchness.” An emotion is an activity that starts and ends, whereas essence is a presence. An emotion is like the movement of water, the activity that is the motion. The motion of water is not the water. Water can be still, without motion. Essence, on the other hand, is like the water. It exists whether there is motion or not. Essence with the Elixir of Enlightenment, pg. 26 Ego is a Structure or a Structured Process Whereas the Pearl is an Ontological Presence The pearl is the real, complete, balanced, and rounded personality that psychologists believe they are talking about when they are discussing the ego. We must remember that the ego is a structure, or a structured process, whereas the pearl is essence, which means the pearl is an ontological presence. We call it the personal essence because among all the essential aspects it alone is personal. It is experienced as having a personal flavor to it, in contradistinction to impersonal. All aspects of essence, even love and kindness, are impersonal. But the pearl is personal. And this is its miraculous quality, totally unexpected and unfathomable. Some people interested in inner development try to become objective and impersonal, to move away from identifying with the personality. The personality is personal, and so the personal feeling is mistrusted and avoided. However, the pearl beyond price feels personal without being the personality. It has the capacity to make a personal contact with another human being and still be free, totally unconditioned, free from the past and its influences. Essence with the Elixir of Enlightenment, pg. 162 Essence is an Embodied Presence, an Ontological Actuality There are other classes of mental experience that are customarily regarded as the experience of essence when in fact they are not, such as the experiences of insight and intuition. In psychotherapy, for instance, one might have an insight about oneself, about others, or about the nature of reality. It often occurs as a flash of illumination and is accompanied by a sense of expansion and certainty. Such insights can provide valuable information and affective satisfaction. Still, the experience of insight is not itself essence, not yet. An insight is an event, and essence is a presence. An insight is an experience of understanding a specific truth, whereas essence is an embodied presence, an ontological actuality Essence with the Elixir of Enlightenment, pg. 21 Essence Reveals Itself as the Ontological Nature of All Existence This essentialization can include all aspects. So the soul’s action can be intelligent, compassionate, clear, steadfast, etc., in a total and full way. And this action can be physical, expressive, or mental. She is presence of essence, but also a dynamic living presence whose morphogenic transformations express the pure perfections of true nature. In this transformation the soul has progressed from the stage of the human soul, the attainment of the second journey, to the stage of the angelic soul, or the essential soul. The second side of the development of nonduality in the journey in presence has to do with essential presence manifesting its ground of true nature. Essence here reveals itself not only as the ontological nature of the soul but as the ontological nature of all existence, all manifestation. True nature begins to reveal its omnipresence, disclosing that it is the ground and nature of everything. This appears as true nature revealing its boundless and formless dimensions that transcend the limited boundaries of the ego-self, even the individuality or personhood of the soul. The soul does not experience herself here as an individual soul, but as a boundless and nonlocal presence that transcends all spatial extensions, as eternal nowness that transcends all time, and as a mystery that transcends all determinations. She is all and everything, she is Reality. The Inner Journey Home, pg. 225 It is Possible to Experience Ourselves as the Actual Ontological Presence that We Are Our experience of ourselves can be transformed from identifying with our mental self-images to having awareness of less contingent, more fundamentally real aspects of the self. It is possible to arrive at a place where we can experience ourselves as the actual phenomenon, the actual ontological presence that we are, rather than as ideas and feelings about ourselves. The more we are able to contact the actual presence that we are, the less we are alienated in a superficial or externally defined identity. The more we know the truth of who we are, the more we can be authentic and spontaneous, rather than merely living through concepts of ourselves. Among the many methods that shift the quality and depth of experience, those used by religious and spiritual traditions are more effective in contacting deeper dimensions of the self, with a more thoroughly developed understanding of these dimensions and their significance for living life than those used by the newer science of psychology. However, psychology has contributed powerful new knowledge about the human being that allows us to systematically work through the barriers to these deeper levels of self, especially the barriers to integrating these levels into one’s identity. In particular, the current understanding of narcissism is very useful for the process of inner realization, the process of learning to contact and appreciate the deeper levels of our nature and allowing these dimensions to actually affect our identity The Point of Existence, pg. 7 Ontological Presence It is possible to arrive at a place where we can experience ourselves as the actual phenomenon, the actual ontological presence that we are, rather than as ideas and feelings about ourselves. The Point of Existence, pg. 7 There are 8 or 9 more excerpts here https://www.diamondapproach.org/glossary/refinery_phrases/ontology

Mooji basically teaches nonduality, and that too in a western atmosphere. I don't think he will insist on moral rules and stuff related to sex as that would drive away most of his western disciples, and would be liberal with them. Mental health issues and depression amongst western nations is very high and high health care expenses involved ensures that most westerners does not get the treatment they require, and hence it is possible that some of his disciples may be having mental health issues , but is finding peace and tranquility in Mooji's presence and his teachings. It is said that being in a Buddha's presence can bring about healing through increase in prana/chi.

I would either go for Ken Wilber's books (spirituality) Huberman lab podcast (personal development) Emerson nonduality (ending spiritual BS)

Maybe (real) You is the octopus, Alien, what Not,…, already? In a totally obvious way, if certain illusions of duality and separation are cleared away? Fascinating. What does Nonduality and Oneness actually mean and imply? Which apparently is supposed to always be true , or the case? Oh well, just forgot, we are sometimes a little bit selective here, and are not always aware of this Absolute Truth. Some minor or major illusions of separation and duality sometimes interfere. But nothing that some substances can not temporary, at least partly, clarify a bit. Partly. Temporary.

Alien Consciousness does not contradict nonduality. It's just a step beyond it.

Animals have self-preservation instinct. That's identity. You must have a sense of self in order to relate to the sense of other. Without the sense of self you're in nonduality. And you can't function. You're just absorbed into everything motionless samadhi. Coma. Whatever you wanna call it. You couldn't even maintain the body for long in that state. You'd go mahasamadhi.