Search the Community

Knew you were gonna say that. Took years to get that nonduality is all that is, and there is no reincarnation, and yet I’m talking with ‘dead’ people standing right in front of me, which are much more ‘real’ as in vivid etc, than ‘regular real’, so to speak. The issue with communicating this goes back to the thoughts. When you’re reading what I’m saying thoughts arise, and the direct experience pointed to can’t be thought. But can be experienced. The movies Interstellar and The Arrival are more or less about this.

TITLE: Scared to transition to enlightenment, nonduality, awakening, etc.? (PNSE)

I’m rollin with that new Buddha Will, where first they gotta find me, and then I get all my shit back. You can do it guys! Don’t give it up till you’re absolutely sure it’s me! Nonduality’s so damn funny I can’t even withstand it. Death & loss are obviously thoughts, and of course there is no thought or thought attachment. This is an appearance only ‘within’ the spheres. The humility of the recognition that the mind can not go where it has not been is priceless invaluable and meaningless. It’s all about being in the right state.

I think it's most telling to recognize that even concepts, when taken to their extreme limit (as with CTMU), still "point" in the same direction as nonduality. This is obviously not the same thing as realization, but if you're a regular guy exploring your worldview and unsure if there's any "truth" to be found in nonduality, this is a nice hint. It's easy to forget that it takes a lot of "faith" to embark on the spiritual journey, which at the beginning can feel like it's just another rabbit trail into deluded territory (which admittedly is one of the huge benefits of psychedelics).

@WokeBloke There is neither an "experiencer" nor "something which is "experienced" by the experiencer. There is only experience - although even that is saying too much, because "experience" can only be know by contrast of non-experience - which also doesn't exist (Nonduality). let me try to illustrate this, but it's crucial that you read the explanation afterwards, otherwise this might seem rather abstract. Imagine a sphere, the inside of which is covered with mirror substance, so that it is completely self-reflecting within itself. Now imagine this mirror would also be self-illuminating so that you could now see something inside of this mirror sphere. Now imagine that the mirror is conscious (it is aware of what is going on inside of itself). Now imagine this mirror would not only be a smooth sphere anymore, but shape itself (on this inside) into the forms of this world. Of what would the mirror be conscious, other than "of its own consciousness"? Nothing of course! The "reflection" of the mirror (experience) is identical with the "mirroring of" itself (the experiencer). There is no experiencer apart from that which is experienced. There is literally only ONE self-illuminating, self-knowing consciousness. Sight is, but nobody who sees. Sound is, but nobody who hears. The conception of an "experiencer" is nothing but a grammatical convention: For example: "I hear sounds." I - the experiencer hear - the connection between experiencer and the experienced sounds - that which is experienced Now I want you to notice, that either both "I" and "sounds" or "I and "hear" are completely unnecessary for describing the experience. "Hearing sounds". This is a completely redundant expression, because OF COURSE you would "hear" sounds. Are the sounds which are not heard? You could say "I hear" or "there are sounds", because both describe the exact same thing. Or you could even say "hearing" or "sounds". Which again, will describe the exact same thing. "I experience experiences." Again, completely redundant. There is only experience, and it is 100% independent of any "experiencer", making the notion of "something being experienced by" entirely redundant as well. Consciousness is not conscious "of" anything. Consciousness is everything. The mirror and the reflection are identical.

I've been compiling a list of insights I've had around “neediness” and relationships. In particular, I feel that neediness has become a bit of a bad word on this forum, so I wanted to shake things up a bit. Some of my influences in writing this were Dr. Marshall Rosenberg (Non-Violent Communication), Teal Swan and Charles Eisenstein. You may wish to check out their work if you resonate with what I've written here. Would love to hear what you think! **Note** I will be using the word “need” is a colloquial way that is synonymous with the word “want”. **Note 2** This advice should be read with extra discernment by those with anxious attachment style or enmeshment trauma. It's also not for people in abusive or codependent relationships. If you're in these situations, please honor your needs and consider leaving. I am mostly concerned here with helping move people from independence to interdependence. 1. Non-Neediness vs non-neediness We can think of capital Non-Neediness in a Absolute spiritual sense. God is without self and form, yet simultaneously is all things. It is without lack, including even the ability to lack. Therefore we could say God needs nothing. It is Complete. From this perspective, all needs are in fact imaginary, as life itself is a thought in the Mind of God. You as this ego are a thought. We can think of lower case “non-neediness” as more of a relative non-neediness. If I just ate a huge meal, I don't need food at that moment. If I just slept 8 hours, I don't need to sleep more. Needs in this category are generally finite and satiable. They are the needs we are mostly concerned with. We can tap into the Absolute perspective of Non-Neediness, which grounds us. It's sort of a “checks and balance” to living as this finite form. But as a finite entity, perfect non-neediness is impossible to achieve. Even if we are only imagining our neediness. Which brings me maybe the single most important point in all of this... 2. All human relationships are based on meeting needs Asking people to be totally non-needy in relationships is asking people for the impossible. We cannot not have needs in relationships. In fact, if there are no needs being met, then there is no relationship at all. Needs create relationships. If I truly need nothing from you, and you need nothing from me, there is no reason for us to have a relationship. *note* don't confuse this with a “harsh pragmatism” that sees the world purely from a utilitarian perspective. Your needs actually go far beyond this. Contribution is a need. Love is a need. 3. You cannot meet all your needs on your own This may be the most controversial piece of this post. We are often taught in spiritual circles to love ourselves, be sovereign, be whole and complete, and to not be attached to anything. Peace comes from within. But these truisms can easily get misconstrued. Not only is it impossible for you to meet all your basic survival needs on your own (food, shelter, clothing, etc), I am going to go one step further. You cannot meet all your emotional needs on your own. People who love themselves and who feel whole and complete do not just sit in a room loving themselves. It's because they love themselves that they seek out and meet their needs. Which often involves others. Self-love includes having others meet your needs, not excludes it. **Note** yes, at the highest levels of nonduality where the distinction of “self/other” collapses, this line gets blurry and nonsensical. But it is still practical to make this distinction for our purposes here. 4. You can either meet your needs consciously or unconsciously There are two choices regarding your needs: a) Meet your needs consciously and deliberately or b) unconsciously manipulate your way to meeting your needs. There simply is no option to be non-needy. Often when people talk about being non-needy, they are only doing so as a strategy to meet their needs. They've learned that when they act not-needy, they (sometimes) get their needs met. When we meet our needs consciously, we can often build synergistic and win/win scenarios with others. We actually become psychologically healthier and can avoid many of the toxic elements of neediness. When we manipulate and go unconscious, it often falls into lose/lose scenarios. Our neediness becomes more toxic and damaging to others. 5. Clarity of needs is key What do we really need? Much of the toxicity of “neediness” comes not from having needs themselves, but on poorly answering this question. We mistake what we really need all the time. We may think we need a mansion, the latest gadget, or another partner. The potential list of what we could think we need is endless. And due to a lot of trauma and social programming, this list is often thoroughly misguided. If we due not distinguish what our true needs are vs what we have been unconsciously programmed with, that is a recipe for disaster both individually and collectively. What I've found is that most of my real needs are incredibly basic. They tend not to be flashy. Simple things will do just fine. So while it is possible that this clarity will reduce the number of needs you have or tone them down, that is NOT the goal. We are not seeking to get rid of needs. We are seeking clarity, and to let the needs fall where they may. If a surrendering is needed, it will then take place naturally once proper clarity is found. 6. Commitment requires neediness To commit to a relationship with someone is inherently needy. When we are non-committal and prioritize optionality, it allows us to keep things non-needy. No one is investing too much. We can always change our minds. But when we commit to someone, we are investing. It is no longer non-needy. And yet, the strongest and most fulfilling relationships are based in equally strong commitment. Commitment in a relationship allows for repair when inevitably the relationship struggles. 7. People want to be needed This one also goes a bit against the grain. We are told to be non-needy because no one wants to feel pressured. Better to play it cool. And certainly there is some truth there. Coercion or making demands is usually socially unpopular. But in our attempts to play it cool or maybe be seen as “alpha”, we often overlook an obvious point. People want to be needed. To be needed means you are valuable or desirable. It makes people feel like they are bringing something to the table, even if it's just being themselves. 8. Needing people is where you will find your greatest joy There is a real payoff from isolation that must be acknowledged. That payoff is that you will stay safe. Alone, there is no conflict. No differing agendas or opinions. No one who can let you down or hurt you. No one who can break your heart. No one who can judge you. You can more easily feel into who you truly are, away previous cultural programming. And in this, there is a certain safety. It's important to not demand the part of ourselves that desires this safety to give that up. If that is you, stay safe as long as you need. But eventually some of us will inevitably ask ourselves, is safety our highest priority? Could we maybe redefine safety not as avoiding conflict, but as including it? Could we be safe while still in the jungle that is relationships? Because that is where the most fun is. The complimenting and collaboration of unique forms IS part of the point of being alive and in this world based in duality. But this requires that we NEED each other. And all the vulnerability that goes along with that. 9. Our social problems come from a lack of meeting needs Why climate change? Why homelessness? Why racism? Why pandemics? These are, of course, extremely complex problems. A full discussion of this is beyond this post. But I will offer one lens here to view these problems, which is a lack of us truly meeting our own needs as well as others. When these shadow needs run unconsciously, it can create havoc socially. It is true that win/win scenarios can be good for those involved but bad for the collective. For example, a corrupt government official and a CEO who work out a deal that is good for both of them, but bad for the country. However, even in a case like this, the problem is that not ENOUGH needs are being taken into account. They are not accounting for the needs of the whole country, just for a small percentage of people. 10. Telling the truth and honest dialogue requires addressing needs If you do not feel that a person you are talking with is taking into account your needs, you will not listen to them. And that goes equally for the person talking to you. But when everyone's needs are known and on the table, and people feel these needs are being taken into account, it's amazing the dialogue that can open up. We sometimes like to hit people over the heads with the “hard truth” of our opinions. This often never goes far in convincing people, and then we blame them for being closed minded. But often in these scenarios, there are no needs being taken into account by either party. We have to understand that giving harsh feedback is earned through trust and relationship. And this can only occur if needs are being addressed. 11. Intimacy requires neediness If I don't know what you need, then I don't understand you. And if I don't understand you, we don't have intimacy. So we must know what this person you are in a relationship needs. This causes the person to feel seen, understood, and builds trust. And while intimacy is certainly more complicated that someone knowing your needs, it is nonetheless a necessary prerequisite.

Nonduality isn’t a concept. The very word says not two, and a concept would make two. Christianity also points to nondual, but rather than stating what isn’t, ‘Christianity’ suggests what is. But to you, nonduality & Christianity are indeed concepts. Assuming of course, you in and of itself isn’t purely conceptual.

I was noticing how, when I am in a trip, I am telling myself - oh this is the loss of self, non-dual part. But yet - I am believing, intuiting, and imagining that to be the case. I tell myself "this is me losing myself, I am not this, not this, not this, I am no where, the universe is imagined, if I am the universe, I am imagining myself." We feel like, oh this is what I am thinking, this is what I am telling myself I am seeing, so it must be the case. It in a way seems just as delusional as say a religious person being headstrong in the man in the clouds as "I have experienced God/Jesus so it must be the case." Similarly, one can say - "I have experienced nonduality so it must be the case." Both are believing what they think to be describing reality. The non-dual one logically makes more sense as one can see, I am not separate from reality but rather am reality and part of it and everything makes up reality so it is all non-dual. Christianity one is a harder buy as there is the counter-argument that it was all made up by people. Well, non-duality one can say, even that concept was made up by people too. I guess that is why "the truth" is not any idea or cannot be spoken as the truth is just what is, the truth is itself, rather than a concept as non-duality and Christianity are. But even saying something as "the truth" is a concept as well... It is just weird how we have the non-dual experience and the thoughts that come to us or visuals that we see - that we take them so seriously and use them so strongly for our basis for understanding reality. It is like - oh yes this is it - this is the answer. But I just feel weird at how easy I am accepting what I am seeing and how much I am just not questioning it. I guess one thing is that it is hard to imagine any other way other than what I have seen - and because I have not seen anything else, I am just going with what I have.

There is an addiction to wanting to imagine what else to think about in terms of ego, spiral dynamics, infinity, nonduality, reality, etc. It is like the mind keeps on making up problems and scenarios to keep it busy and give it something to do, something to value, etc. as it is here in this infinite realm - to keep it occupied when there isn't anything happening other than the imagination/context it is creating. We are imaging scenarios and get lost in those and forget about infinity and then see the meta of the scenario and go back to infinity and the back and forth pendulum of falling asleep and forgetting and then waking up and remembering. The mind is curious for more - like hungry for food, craving to be mind blown. The mind wants to create more theories and claim more epiphanies for understanding reality when one may never be able to fully understand it but yet it does so anyway. The imagination is like an imagined escape from the imagined responsibilities of the imagined work/social/survival game.

You got it pretty well there. You’re imagining that there is past and future, while there’s nothing but the present. Yet if we get more intricate, the persistence or stickiness is the claiming / identifying, such as I’m imagining. To ‘unstick’ that belief, imagine whatever, then purposefully don’t, and notice it isn’t making any difference. Roll with just ‘the present’, or even better… just… This. “This” is helpful in regard to gettin out of concepts about This, and recognizing ‘it’ IS This. When you add ‘moment’ it’s time, ‘every moment’ is more so, and to realize there is no change sort of requires realizing there is no time. Notice you are not, as you say, ‘imagining the past & future all the time’. You’re imagining it right now, or not at all. The thought about ‘all the time’, is a thought which arises now or not at all. Also notice, whatever could be meant by logic or understanding, it isn’t in a past or future, and it arises ‘in’ the present only as the thought, that there is, logic or understanding. As in, when you attempt to point to it you can not. Then revisit the ‘stickiness’ of claiming and connect those two dots. Don’t expect to ‘think’ realization. Contemplate it, then let it go. For good. Gone. That way the realization can arise where it was so to speak. There’s no experience of “we’re imagining”. You imagine that. Time doesn’t give anything because time is a thought. If it’s given, notice really, you’re givin it. No ‘thing’ gives illusion of anything, you are, or you are not. There is no possibility of imagining the difference of past or future, because there truly is not a past or future. That’s a thought, like logic or understanding, and not an actual comparison of anything. What is meant when we say the eternal now, is nothing, no thing, not a thing, nothingness, nonduality, not two. Meaning makes two. Thought makes two. Those won’t do.

@Fearey Thanks for sharing! I'm not sure what you're referring to as Teal. In the Integral Theory map, Teal is the alt term used to describe SD Yellow. So it wouldn't make sense to go from Coral to Teal? I'd suggest looking into STAGES which is a synthesis of Integral Theory and Susanne Cook-Greuter's stages of adult ego development. STAGES includes the MetaAware tier (5.0+) and goes into detail about each stage. Attached are two PDFs that you might find helpful to read. One is an overview of STAGES and the other is a deep dive into the later stages and how they map with nonduality and the Buddhist maps of Enlightenment. In STAGES, a rough outline could be: 4.5 Strategist = Yellow 5.0 Construct Aware = late Yellow / early Turquoise 5.5 Transpersonal = Turquoise 6.0 Universal = late Turquoise / early Coral 6.5 Illumined = Coral (but again, Coral isn't even really a thing, so it's hard to name this a true stage at this point in time) The_STAGES_Matrix_Roadmap_GEN_10-18.pdf Here's a link to the more in-depth PDF: https://www.integral-review.org/issues/vol_16_no_1_churchill_and_murray_integrating_adult_developmental_and_metacognitive_theory.pdf

Non-duality is saying that everything is One and pantheism is saying that everything is God. Are both of them actually pointing to the same thing but just using different terminology?

Integrating nonduality/God consciousness into everyday, 'mundane' life is where it's at. Awesome post ?

Just watched it in one sitting. The show itself was pretty good, but holy shit (no pun intended ), this whole scene was absolutely perfection. I was actually surprised that I heard a straight-up nonduality monologue in a mainstream netflix TV show.

Because neutrality has an opposite. Love doesn't. Love is both neutrality and bias. Love = Nonduality Edit: depends on what you mean by "neutral". If you mean "total non-discrimination", then that is the Love!?

Right, perhaps I don't understand this yet then. I do understand that everything is nothing but not that, for example, the perception of red is the entire infinity. I do understand distinction is a product of the mind, and can understand this function ceasing and the difference between all things vanishing. But I can't understand the unique perceptions not still being there. Just so I can understand your viewpoint, if a person falls asleep and has a dream, would you say every separate object in the dream is = to the entirety of mind? I understand the concept that it would indeed be the entirety of mind because the entire landscape in a dream is singular, but I can still perceive difference within the dream (in spite of the fact there are no separate objects in actuality just a single image projected by mind), so I think of it as appearance of duality inside nonduality. How does your understanding differ?

I know. And what I'm telling you is... that's precisely why you're not fully Awake. Complete the circle: the finite IS the infinite. If you think there is a difference between the finite and the infinite, you're stuck in subtle duality, not nonduality. It's very fucking sneaky.

Normal religion: it's all about what you believe. Nonduality: it's all about what you experience. Funnily enough we still have the same oneupmanship about who's got the best or deepest level

Neo Advaita -- enlightenment teaching -- Mooji, Akilesh (Sifting to the Truth) and also anyone else who teaches self inquiry. Nonduality -- there is no such thing as nonduality, but the term refers to what is pointed to (the unknowable), via exposing the dilemma of seeking, by the boundless non-communication which speaks to no one and comes directly from unknowing, and it's recognized there is no one separate from wholeness, and there's no intention in the communication -- Tony Parsons, Jim Newman, Kenneth Madden, Andreas Muller, Anna Brown, Mei Long, Ariana Reflects, Lisa Cairns, Tim Cliss, Richard Sylvester. Totally and utterly different.

How comes? As far as I can tell, if all objects of perception are removed (which isn't actually possible) there would be no experience ever. What would be experienced if there were no apparent things to experience? Nothingness can't be perceived in absence of an apparent something. You can say there is no subject and object when seeing red, e.g. that there is just seeing, but I think that is a pairing. I can't verbalize why because I know what it is like to "become" the perceived objects, but I think that is just recognition of absolute nonduality STILL taking place in an apparent duality. Dreams are also duality within nonduality. You could never see a landscape in a dream if you weren't seemingly located somewhere in the dream, which is then dual even though we know it is all manufactured by a singular mind. I see multiplicity of any kind as an apparent duality.

@RMQualtrough Awakening has nothing to do with the human mind. the human mind is an imagination within Consciousness just like a chair. And things like chairs are not dependent on a human mind. Existence = Consciousness. If it is not within your consciousness right now then it doesn't exist. There is only one Consciousness. God can't split Itself. I guess with nonduality you are referring to the formless Godhead/Singularity. You as God can 'experience' that. God = Consciousness. God can be conscious of Itself. Before birth doesn't exist.

@GreenWoods The dreamed up things are objects right? And these objects are finite. That is why I enjoy the waves in the ocean metaphor. The object arises and falls away back into void. We do witness this happen first hand when a thought arises as an object and then falls back into void. The human mind will always be an object in duality. If you remove all contents of the human mind, experience through that lens ceases entirely. I would say perceptions are unique. I don't know who came up with "bubbles" but perceptions can connect together to form larger "objects" it seems... Obviously all of your sensory perceptions are not identical but are perceived in the same space. BUT you cannot telepathically know the contents of my mind right now. Because these objects are unique expressions right? It would be impossible to "experience" nonduality for obvious reasons. It would be impossible for experience to exist without extreme limitation and finitude. To see red you have to perceive red, and that perceived red cannot be ANYTHING ELSE but itself... Which out of an infinity, is insanely limited. Like throwing a dart into the galaxy and hitting some random atom within the entire universe, but even more limited than that. I don't believe that any amount of God-consciousness could allow the human mind of Leo to suddenly be able to see through my eyes. Because the moment there is an object like the mind it is limited to being itself like how red is red in absence of blue green etc. When the object ceases it is just destruction of object back into void. Wake up after anaesthesia and the object returns and with it, inherent limitation. The human mind will always be a finite limited object and always be in duality. The appearance of duality is eternal. It's an impossibility to bring your human mind with you when the non-experience of nonduality is achieved, so you just have some sort of general anaesthetic effect... There's not really a "you" anyway so I can't accurately say "you" were in nonduality before birth, and same upon death. But from the perspective of the human mind it is like that I think.

If you haven't seen 'Midnight Mass' on Netflix I highly recommend it. Starts slow, but it all comes together masterfully. This is a conversation that happens at the end (spoilers obviously). For a show about fanatical Christianity, this powerful speech at the end is quite on-the-nose Nonduality. Just goes to show that Nonduality is truly becoming mainstream and part of the collective-consciousness. As the character is dying: ‘What do I think happens when we die? Speaking for myself...myself...myself. That's the problem, that's the whole problem with the whole thing, that word, “self”. That's not the word, that's not right. How did I forget that? I thought I'd despair or feel afraid, but I don't feel any of that. Because I'm too busy in this moment remembering. This body is mostly just empty space after all and solid matter, it's just energy vibrating very slowly. And there is no me. There never was. I'm no longer breathing and I remember. There is no point where any of that ends and I begin. I remember I am energy, not memory, not self. My name, my personality, my choices, all came after me. I was before them and I will be after. And everything else is pictures picked up along the way. Fleeting little dreamlets. And I am the lightning that jumps between. I am the energy. And I am returning, just by remembering. I am returning home. It's like a drop of water falling back into the ocean, of which it's always been a part. All things, everyone who's ever been, every plant, every animal, every atom, every star, every galaxy, all of it, that's what we're talking about when we say God. The One. The cosmos, and its infinite dreams. We are the cosmos dreaming of itself. It's simply a dream that I think is my life every time. But I'll forget this. I always do. I always forget my dreams. But now, in this moment, I remember. The instant I remember, I comprehend everything at once. There is no time, there is no death, life is a dream. It's a wish, again and again and again, and on into Eternity. And I am all of it. I am everything. I am all. I am that. I am you.'

I would say we don't enjoy deep sleep because enjoyment is an experience which can't happen in absolute nonduality, I think we enjoy the feeling of refreshment upon waking. I also don't really think there are realms the human mind can go to given it's main location of origin is within this particular dream, which I don't think we have control over. Rupert has a video on that called something like "there's no choice in infinity". If the entire top down nature of things is altered, I find everything stays the same. Yes a human self is a brain made of atoms and neurons etc but the nature of those things is mental? So the brain is just what the human mind looks like. Destroy that and it is reduced back into energy etc which presumably has no subjective experience? So God-self can't see through us anymore but sees through others as it is doing currently. Yeah there has to be other to have experience. Without duality experience is impossible. Rupert also has great dream analogies to show that, and also some which explain well why it could not just experience infinity and can only experience things via finitude and limit. It occurs to me that to experience red for example, limit is completely necessary because you can't see red unless the red is NOT seen by the viewer as being blue and green and yellow etc. Red itself is limited to one singular thing. I think this is a necessary and natural element of infinity, rather than intelligence etc. I think that because the void has no property at all, it is literally nothing (AKA infinity AKA all potential somethings), so must experience things like intelligence inside duality. I actually found far more insight in dissociative dualistic states of being, than in the states where I am everything. It was when subject and object became distinctly split rather than merged that I could know what the subject was. And it was like the mirror looking back at nothingness you described, it can't ever be seen but can be known via the somethings. I didn't see infinity there but knew total nothing. Infinity is more a thing I felt when having psychedelic induced out of body experiences (no form for the brain to attach consciousness to so it becomes sizeless and locationless). When a human mind wins the game it doesn't exist anymore haha, and this is an absolute inevitability all of us face. The game never ends! There's no enlightenment because there is infinite duality for all eternity! Without "self", there is no entity to win the game or be enlightened, rather the object (a morphing collection of experience called the human mind) just stops being "imagined" by the void... That is what I'm thinking anyway.

There's no such thing as enlightenment tbh. It's not possible for duality to ever end because you can't seperate something from nothing, and it's not possible to experience actual nonduality. If "Leo" is fully enlightened he's still here experiencing me and every other living (experiencing) thing in every plane of reality, just as is the case already right now.