Search the Community

soon good words here: https://www.reddit.com/r/nonduality/comments/uei7t4/using_intellectual_understanding_to_bypass/

@Thought Art heh. to answer your question, being is more than consciousness. Well, that depends on how you definie consciousness actually. god is and always will be a name. This makes it less than consciousness. Vocabulary has implicit meaning, and the meaning of god is... welll.... "That which is greater" .... and nonduality just isn't that. I see god as less than.... the indescribabeably, because god cannot escape its implicit meaning. I do not believe in any god, including this pointer nonduality thinkers use to point to what has better pointers to point to it. Leo basically worships god by self actualizing, and that is perfectly good for him. I do not pretend to know his experience or Truth; I only comment on my own, and compare it to his teachings so that you might see something you might not have realized on your own. Truth... Truth is as unknowable as it knowable. take that as you will. on infinity... it was one video, I'm pretty sure he said or implied that there was no more to experience than all of everything. And how exactly is any conscious being going to know that? they can't. Infinity is unbounded, and Leo definitely bounded it with his words. I stopped following him because of it. I had already been on the fence, for the words he used to talk about.... whatever..... just kept getting more and more namelike, and less and less a guidepost. But, that is only my opinion, again, take as you will. as foryour last question, I already answered it. oh wait, there's a hidden question after that. Yes of course I'm greater than Leo, but that does not mean he is not greater than I. Greatness is incomparable, really. Leo will never have what I have, and never have what you have, and you will never have what your brother has, everyone is greater in their, idk, truth, or whatever. actuality. it's just incomparable and uncombineable. it is seperated by our limitation as the experiencer of the present moment. Truth.... it is already gone as soon as we have it, idk, that kind of points to the possibility that we will never get it. sure, Truth can be described as.... thisness.... but Truth, it is... well... infinite, and to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if Unkowable existed beyond Truth, or if Truth existed beyond Unknowable, or maybe they are synonymous... lol I feel like I'm naming things, but my naming things is fundamental to.... who I am. Leo naming things (which, I only know that he has named god) just.... doesn't really fit what he pursues. calling it god is arrogance in my oppinion. god is unknowable, not actuality. like, I can see how one can say that like, godliness is actuality, but by definition we cannot look upon the face of god. Or at least one definition of it. We cannot speak its name. This does not make god.... well... anything. God is unknowable. That's like "undefined" in coding language, lol. Naming something god quite ironically is as arrogant as it is ignorant. Wait, those things aren't opposites, heh. As long as Leo names it god, the religious folk will feel objection to his words. I truly believe this is one word he should abandon, one pointer that fundamentaly fails to accomplish what Leo pursues by creating Actualized.org. lol I meant to make a quick reply, but it ended up meandering all over the place. Again, take it as you will, it is only meant to show you an alternate understanding of thisness. fundamentally, thisness is the same thing, for any of us, or is it? how can we tell the difference between the two?

Then I shall expand in the form of a Q and A. You are welcome to ask me any question from what I've stated thus far regarding the instrument and the process of creation. Yes. Nonduality does not mean the absence of form/appearance and diversity. Nonduality simply means that all is one.

I am interested in hearing more. I guess for me, even if the "life is a dream" paradigm may raise more questions, that doesn't mean I have to reject that paradigm as being a potential possibility. I can see that the creation is slightly different. For the dreamer god, the creation is a dream and imagined with the physical world being dreamed. For the nonduality god, there could still technically be a physical world or it too could be all in the mind. Yes I see that with non-duality, we are the Earth and it really isn't death but rather transformation of the self with the self.

Now you have to understand that realising nonduality and realising the process of creation, literally what you're doing now as every moment is a moment of creation, that these are two different things: Nonduality and Creation. And your question seems to be leaning more on the latter - the process of creation. In discussing creation, I'm not particularly fond of the “Life is a literal Dream” explanation, simply because it overlooks and negates a lot for the person who is interested in learning of the process of creation which deals essentially with meaning, as you have slightly come to notice in your ASC. Yes, existence is something like a dream in relation to nonduality but this is simply because it hardly matters what and how you think of it, for in nonduality all is literally One. However, with regards to the process of creation, the “life is a dream” paradigm won't get you anywhere. In fact, all this paradigm does is make you care less in realising creation, especially if it is introduced to you as ‘the answer’ rather than a question of exploration. To me, with regards to creation, this is not even an answer because it just raises more and more questions like.. why is God asleep in the first place.. and just leads to a lot of mental masturbation rather than actual progress. In the process of creation, there is something called the mind/body/spirit instrument that I'd like to introduce to you should your interest hold. This instrument is the literal tool of creation. The part that is responsible for the “coming up with visuals” is the mind-instrumental, the mind is form-maker. I'll only continue here if you want me to. This is another reason why I am not so resonant with the dream paradigm because it only leads to confusion and potentially distress. How will the dream paradigm account for your awareness and my - the person who is responding to your thread - awareness? It cannot, for it has already negated the possibility/actuality of the other-self. The reason, in terms of the process of creation, there exists a other-self is because the bubble of consciousness, as most will put it, the sphere of consciousness is capable of crystallization to the point where the POV no longer appears to be one life perspective but several. So, instead of a perfectly smooth bubble, you can imagine here a diamond like structure to consciousness and each of us is particularly focused on of the many sites/sides of this crystallised unity. But, these sites/sides of POVs are not limitations, as the dream paradigm has led you to believe, they have never been limitations for as the psychics of this world have, and will continue to, prove to you.. these POVs can be breached. Even the word “breach” is peculiarly misleading since there has never been any boundaries in the first place - only focuses/foci - the words “cross over” are more appropriate. Me.. you.. we are all One. If you realise or awaken to a truth, the whole bubble has awakened and realised that same truth. When I give you advice, I am essentially giving myself advice.. what looks like a conversation in this material level is essentially but a thought in the crystallised sphere of consciousness.

Nothing is necessary because the question arises out of an illusory-like experience of separation where meaning, purpose & value seem real. Awakening reveals the questioner or individual within the body isn't real. Nonduality is already everything without a second. No real you or me....no real separation....boom nonduality! ❤

This question is entangled with false ideas. First off, this very existence is already a nondual one, no matter what or who you imagine to be “the observer”. Nonduality is the Knowledge Itself, all knowledge (of appearance; of existence; of all finitudes) is, in truth, but one Knowledge. Secondly, where there is appearance, there is life. The observer is only an idea produced by the life itself, it is not absolute. Knowledge is however Absolute, for it is timeless and limitless. So long as there is knowledge of anything, there is knowledge of everything, for all is one. Life/Existence is already nondual. So you see, the question of necessity is itself unnecessary here since all is already one.

In nonduality is the appearance/existence of life necessary or just what happens? Theoretically could there just be rocks, planets, light, heat etc. without an observer or the presence of intelligent life?

He's rather confused because he grasps solipsism intellectually from the human perspective. Notice how he says "A solipsist believes that my finite mind is all that exists", the truth is that there is no finite mind at all. There is only an infinite mind pretending to be finite, which is a possibility Spira seems to be unaware of as he hasn't realized solipsism. However, it seems that he does comprehend nonduality correctly at least to some degree. And as such, he understands that materialism is nonsense also.

In my experience, IFS and "nonduality" are both necessary as far as holistic spiritual work. Here's the problem: IFS alone is very nice, but it's a delusion to think you can ever properly integrate the parts without dropping ego attachments. The ego construction means an inevitable preference and prioritizing of certain parts due to attachment. And nonduality is very nice, but without IFS you have not integrated, so you're in a let-go state but with many of the same issues that you had prior to enlightenment. It is best to do BOTH, otherwise your results will be limited.

@Reciprocality no, it's not the possibility of awareness that I'm questioning. It's precisely its presence that I'm questioning. To say it is present because it is necessary is to subject it, and I think we can agree that awareness, literally the pre-sent, transcends all that mental faculty. Well I'm having trouble with your logic too, friend. At this point it's coming off rather circular as an argument. I mean.. something that exists must be necessary, simply because it exists? What you're literally saying is this: Existence = Necessity. Of course this will leave room for no miracle because then there's nothing to question other than the implications of the logic. If Existence = Mystery then there is substance, rather than empty belief. What is so wrong if we encounter a duality with this lens? We are simply questioning the aspects of reality as they present themselves. No point in shying away from this for the sake of nonduality.

So I hear and agree with everything you've stated thus far, except for this post right above ?. The problem is I'm not fully acquainted with the concept of ego, so I try to avoid it. I agree with you here, strip away all identities and what remains is nonduality itself. Only question is can there be a intuition of such a modality if I may call it that? I can tell that you use the term imagination rather conventionally. I'm only wondering if it can ever be possible for you to try to broaden this in a sort of all-encompassing was. Otherwise you leave no choice but to agree with you that the absence of imagination does include the possibility of a something remaining. I mean what if imagination cannot be absent? What if there was something like a metaphysical (or multidimensional) imagination were reality suddenly has levels to its realness? This may very well sound ridiculous but only until we enter the realm of dreams. This, by the way, was the approach I was willing to take in proving to you that all is imagination without actually “killing you".

Why? So that it can make sense? ? But that's exactly what I'm saying, though. However, of course, when I say this, it will come across as the most meaningless statement one could make rather carelessly and dry. You say that there is a priori intuition of those things outside consciousness that we may define as (X), and that it is through the sensibility of space that we can learn of their presence and imagine their identities into reality thus rendering the (X) identifiable. This is how I've come to understand you thus far. Now, what I'm saying (from a mystical pov) is this: There - here - is only Knowledge. This knowledge is not the knowing of things (X) or information, no. This knowledge is nonduality complete - it is knowledge of the knowing of the knowing of the knowing for infinity, and never the knowing of a what or who or why and etc, no. Thus, knowledge is knowledge. It is nonduality, it is whole, and it is here, with us and within us, it is the absolute. To awaken to this requires no reasoning or induction of any kind, it merely requires a mere moment of silent observation. Is this not obvious enough? If I were to ask you, “How do you know that you exist?” won't the most honest and yet simplest response be, “I know, because I know.” ? Is this not the truth? You know that you exist because you know in the first place? See.. Knowledge is the first place; it is, in fact, the first and last; it is, in truth, the only place. Thus so, there is nothing outside of existence, for there is nothing outside of Knowledge. Then, from this Knowledge, arises that dormant serpent which you have constantly referred to as intuition, what the Indians call “Kundalini”, what my people call uMbilini, and what the religious scriptures call “Lucifer” which literally translates to 'The Lighter', or 'Light Bringer', for it is this very intuition that awakened Adam and Eve in their edenic, nondual, nature of consciousness. Intuition is secondary to Knowledge.

I guess part of the confusion is- if there was blackness/nothingness/no phenomena from the start…there never would have arisen an ‘I’ thought or a forum discussing nonduality or a galaxy. These “things” prove there is THIS. If there’s just groundless nothing the “proofs” of THIS don’t even arise-and we’d be none the wiser because we’d never know about it either. I’ve grasped these ideas before and been in the flow but sometimes confusion sets in again. I guess I should just focus on this current moment- if there’s THIS now (proven by me sitting in a chair) then there has always been THIS.

You could say that if phenomena never arose, and there was merely this “blank slate”, well then you could say that it (the nothingness) would be the only thing that matters, for what is matter other than that which we care to be aware of? See the real question here is: Would there be an awareness of anything if you, Creator, cared about nothing? And it is not that there would never be awareness of nonduality, no. There would never be any enlightenment of what it means to be you, Creator.

What if phenomena never “arose” and there was just a blank slate forever and ever(blackness/nothingness) with no consciousness or awareness. Would it ultimately not matter because regardless of what appears there’s only THIS? I know there’s only THIS but if there was just nothingness forever then there would never be conscious awareness of nonduality or THIS (which I guess doesn’t matter). Trying to work this out internally and it’s confusing the heck out of me. Any pointers or advice to clear this up is welcome. Thanks

Okay see.. this is why I needed to know what you meant by consciousness. See, for me, there is a difference between awareness and consciousness. I'm saying that there is no anything without consciousness, including “structure to reality”, for consciousness, if I may describe poetically, is that great magician that makes the impossible quite possible. And what is the impossible? The impossible is there - here - being a you and a me, the impossible is there being the existence of worlds and world makers, and innumerable finite objects in these world's, the impossible is the opposite of nonduality, it is the Maya - or what people have chosen to call “the dream”. Awareness is a relative term, because according to me, everyone is in the know. So awareness has to do with spiritual growth, one becoming aware or awakening to an aspect of Maya, then another aspect, and another and another. Generally, what people refer to awareness, in their own terms, is actually relatability. Simply because one cannot relate, the other-self will say s/he is unaware. Simply because the other-self can relate and possesses sufficient intellect to demonstrate this relatability via language - one will say,“S/he is awakened” or “enlightened” Otherwise, whatever the other-self says to one's self it will sound like nothing but mumbojumbo nonsense. This is what day-to-day communication is like, isn't? So awakening or awareness is quite relative in my sentience, it all depends on spiritual growth. The true priori that you regard to, I will say is Knowledge itself - simply knowing that there/here is knowing, this is complete, this is whole, this is nonduality. There is no other.

We share the same soul or we are one soul. Rather than saying that other minds/bodies/spirits don't exist and everyone else is being imagined? Of course, this is only in the context of soul referring to that all-encompassing essence of all existence. In discussing consciousness, there is no reason why one should negate the self or other-self, and individual freewill, for the sake of reconciling the diversity of the universe with the notion of one God. Why can't God be diverse, why can't s/he divide and multiply as much as s/he wants while retaining nonduality? In this world we can clearly see everyone working to actualise their personal dreams/visions/ideals, so why can't creation be a co-creation? Are you not your own individual? Do you not have history, do you not have ancestry? Have you walked and struggled no journey in order to reach where you are now? So why say you have no self? And am I not also my own individual? Why should one of us be a dream for the other to be a God? I just don't get it.

Love feels good because it IS Good. Good can't be a quality we assign to ourselves because there is no self separate from anything else. Nonduality, no good/bad, no self/other. You are experiencing the discord of judgmental thoughts about self and other and future. If I fear paying a fine in the future, I don't listen to that fear now, it's aversion. So I lie out of that avoidance. Then because I still won't feel what I'm feeling, I think I'm bad for doing this and feel guilt and regret. That guilt and regret feels bad because I, Self Love, never look back on myself and feel lacking. I only ever look forward.

Wouldn't be so sure about that. In fact, let me rant a little bit here. I would bet my left nut that there are more people here on the forum and in Leo's following who think they're awakened, but are actually delusional solipsists who believe their finite mind to be the whole of reality because their un-integrated spiritual ego has totally corrupted the mechanism by which they sought/seek Truth, namely what they perceived to be "direct experience", but which, because of the corruption, is not at all direct experience, but a perception of reality filtered and (mis-)interpreted through the finite ego-mind (I've talked about this extensively yeterday in Someone Here's post) that then proceeded to inflate itself and latch itself onto "experience". That's what I honestly believe and I feel very sorry for all the people (and yes, there are no other people), who, like myself, had (and some still have to, some will have to) go through this absolute hell of solipsism because a) they weren't ready for it (not yet sufficiently integrated), thus their mind/ego corrupted what was supposed to be insight into the nature of No-Self & nonduality b) the use of language is absolutely crucial, and on this forum, a lot of people just don't give a f*ck about how they comunicate these dangerously powerful ideas to others, with Leo leading the way (although I think he's working on that, so props where props are due) and people parroting him, because they think it sounds cool and awake. If it's a "tough pill" for you to swallow, then sorry, you're still missing something. A tough pill to swallow is probably a sign that, yes, you got something right, but in a wrong way. And if you're lonely, you're not awake either. We're all alone together. No f*cking wonder that big spiritual egos would dismiss the importance of no-self. Rant over.

Exactly! Solipsism is a kind of Monism... the Monism of the finite mind. Totally agree. Actually, yes, that's precisely what Leo says. He says that his mind is all there is. Well there you have it, that's why no-self is crucial. That's how the ego corrupts insights and turns nonduality into solipsism.

it's just all an appearance in consciousness, you could really just leave it at that, all self-referential selves and imagined seperates are emerging because of attachment. of course if you directly experience an experience of no center to a self it will make a lot more sense. issue is, when you try to understand this conceptually you are in the framework of having a felt-perception of a center (again because of attachment that you are stuck with) it's purely getting manufactered in mind, maybe that can trigger awakening but it kind of falls route to nonduality people who get trapped in framework levels of understanding, solipism definitely has depth to it in direct experience. the question is really if you actually awoken to it, how you shift perspective in these seemingly emerging appearances of seperate selves and take new actions in life that's where the money iz at

The bodies can talk to each other back and forth no problem. The illusion is the experience that there is a real YOU over there in that body and a real ME over here in this body.(Duality) The bodies are completely empty, there isn't a real living individual inside of them or anywhere for that matter. (Nonduality) ❤

Neo-Advaita types. Like Jim Newman and Tony parsons . If you listen to certain nonduality/Advaita teachers who are on the scene at the moment, you may get the impression that there is something terribly wrong with having a personal ‘story’. Having a thought-created story about yourself, your past experiences, your relationships, your feelings, your desires and hopes and fears, and so on – in other words, being a living, breathing human being – is a clear sign of delusion and duality. And you need to wake up from this mess! If you go to a public meeting held by a teacher of ‘radical Advaita’, and they invite questions, and you start talking about something personal – for example, the death of a loved one, an addiction you have, a painful event that happened in your past – they will tell you that you are ‘stuck in your story’, or ‘lost in the dream of time and space’ or they will simply say you are ‘still a person’ and ‘haven’t woken up yet’. The fact that you ‘told a story’ shows that you are still coming from duality – you are still identified as a seeker, stuck in the personal. Once you ‘get it’, you will no longer tell personal stories. You will exist in the eternal Now, and know nothing of your past.

@justfortoday thanks for this amazing post❤.could you answer a question for me? 1)do other characters of mine have imformation/knowledge about this dream that i don't? For example- when I go to school.how is it that my dream character teacher knows more about this dream world than I do when the teacher isnt even conscious and doesnt have thoughts and feelings of his own? How is he able to give me practical advice (eg-how to solve a math equation or how to speak french) Why is it that you justfortoday seem to have more understanding of awakening nonduality and spirituality than me? Justfortoday is a dream character(with out thoughts,feelings consiousness) I am imagining right? Have I dreamt up that justfortoday is posting on the actualized forum and has more knowledge about awakening than me?If so should I follow your advice? And if you say "yes" am I not just dreaming up that you said Yes? I could have just as easily dreamt up thay you would say "no" right? How can i know if something that is unconscious,unfeeling and unthinking is telling the truth? And what about the opinions I think people form of me? Am I dreaming up those as well? For example I feel as if you(justfortoday) will think "what a stupid question ineedanswers has asked.ineedanswers must be really dumb". Since I am dreaming you up and dream characters dont have feeling/thoughts do you even have the ability to form a opinion about me?