Search the Community

Full enlightenment is a paradoxical state, so of course one label doesn't do it justice, but the point is not to have an accurate map but to embody the state. You can have a "more" accurate label of "nonduality with duality" or as Ramaji says "transcendental duality" (i.e. attempting to capture the paradox) but it's still just a label, a map. Until you experience the state, it means little. So of course, non-duality is a relative label, i.e. compared to the empirical ego, "body-bounded-me vs. the rest of creation" mundane duality, it is an experience of non-duality. All labels are dualistic by nature, since you can append a minus/not symbol to any label. So you can put a "not" in front of whatever map tries to capture the paradox. You know you've arrived at full enlightenment when you begin to experience what can best be described as a "paradoxical, total-let-go state." So, take labels for what they are: they are not transcendental and universal absolutes, but rather useful tools for certain contexts. Yes - ALL labels, including critiques of labels with attempts at "better" labels.

Just because a thing isn't explicitly on a ban list doesn't mean they will treat you kindly if they catch you with it. That's not how the law works. The law is rarely clear, simple, or black and white. Which is just another example of nonduality. It's too hard for governments to make absolute distinctions because all distinctions are fluid and ever-evolving.

It's silly hairsplitting. Enlightenment is oneness. Nonduality is oneness. Oneness is an absolute which includes manyness within it. True Oneness does not create a division between oneness and manyness, nor does it preclude such a division from being made by those minds who wish to make it. In other words, relativity. If you look at the world looking for oneness, you will see it. If you look at the world looking for manyness, you will see it. Because your mind creates the world you see.

@skywords Re-examining the meaning of meaning? That seems a little too deep. Meaning is simple, it is exactly what it is. I guess Leo pushes for nonduality though, which if you look at meaning calls it into question. But it is not the meaning of meaning in question, it is whether or not you bother with the meaning, as well as what meaning you're looking for. In a sense then I guess you're investigating the meaning of meaning, but it is not my message. I'm saying that I am self. I am meaning. I am purpose. I am will. That is what I am. What you can be too. But then, it's a different directionality of nonduality than leo is going, because he says you are the watcher and I say I am not that. Metaphysics? Metacommunication? I'm saying that there is no substance to that. I am that substance, which is found in physics. My body and my brain are who I am. The experience of consiousness is what I see, and I am what is being seen. At least as long as it remains in my agency, for I am not the floor that holds me here. I don't even have any proof that it exists except its consistency. The consistency of me is who I am, and that is right here this body that I touch. You may say, oh but what proof do you have that that is there and I say, yes, that's not the point. I don't suddenly become infinite consiousness because I don't have proof that I exist. I think therefore I am. I am here, now, present in this mind, active in this body. There is nothing more or less to me than my direct experience.

This is a huge problem with imbalanced masculinity and the delusion of independence, which came to light here in a big way when Obama said "You didn't build that." Sex or cannibalism? It was all only ever metaphorical. Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Also "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner as the outer, and the upper as the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male shall not be male, and the female shall not be female: . . . then you will enter [the kingdom]." It was all only ever about nonduality.

Sounds like the more typical progression of realizing who one really is, the truest nature of Self, that ‘self’ is actually Self, and that all matter is too. @LfcCharlie4 Explanations are relative. Fun though. Those two words are synonymous, or not. The only contingency, difference, or distinction ultimately, is that there isn’t any. Neither are “it”. Linguistically speaking, if nonduality means “not two”...then you could put any word you want after it, and it is “not that”.

"Plan" is a dualistic notion. It doesn't hold up well in nonduality. But if we're using that word loosely, the plan is Love.

@dyslexicFcuk There is nothing wrong with logic and reason, yet keep in mind that logic and reason are components of greater expansion. If we were talking about the mechanics that power a car, staying within logic and reason is no problem. Yet when you venture into nonduality and ask that everyone constrain themselves to logic and reason, it just won’t go over very well. That is like asking French people to have a discussion about French culture, yet they are not allowed to mention Paris, the Eiffel Tower, the French Alps, French food or the French language. And they are not allowed to mention any event before the year 2009. These restrictions are so extreme, that it becomes impossible to have a discussion about French culture. The discussion would be distorted and way off the mark. . . Similarly, trying to limit a discussion of nonduality to logic and reason creates a distortion of nonduality and will be way off the mark.

@Beginner Mind If you want to keep trying to cognize something that cannot be thought, then checkout Leo's videos: What is Consciousness? What is God pt 1 and 2 What is Truth? Understanding Duality Series I'm sure there's many others but these are important off the top of my head. If you want a robust mental framework of nonduality then you have to do some serious research. There are many nuances and subtleties that are in the hours of video content that Leo has created. Read some books about it too. And of course all of this is pointless without spiritual practice and mystical experience.

@remember What we are doing here with nonduality and spirituality is seeing through the ultimate duality of good and bad. It is the mechanism itself of judgement existing within ourselves, it is that separation itself that is seen through. Judgement and separation is self destructive and any cause it decides to take on it will ultimately destroy as well. If you love animals, love. Love the future world you want to see with peace and respect for all beings. If you split your energy, if you love the animals but not the animals who eat other animals, you give away all your power. You were never separate from any of it.

LOVE ITSELF IS CREATED MEANING! That's what THIS is!!! OF COURSE it's possible to see love in something as mundane and everyday as numbers. If you deny meaning you also deny love behind creation, if you get stuck on the meaning you also miss the love. Like the nature of nonduality, meaning itself cannot be accepted or denied, it is you.

Related Essay, Jeff Foster https://www.lifewithoutacentre.com/writings/the-birth-and-death-of-fundamentalism-in-nonduality-and-advaita-teachings/

If "There As Only Change" ~ Then, EVERY Paradigm Here As Procrustean: "Right ~ Wrong" Or Just CHANGE? What If Nonduality As Merely Change? What If "Truth" As Merely Ongoing Change? What If "Awareness" And "Love" And "Enlightenment" Become Merely Change? And Change As Neither "Right" Nor "Wrong" But Merely One Change Changing Into Another Change?

I would first recontextualize inquiry. Conceptualizing is great in a certain context. Yet so is playing soccer, climbing trees, painting and self-inquiry. These are just different states of being. The conceptual mode can often be a dominant force. At times the analytical mind can act like the drunken guy at the party that no one can get rid of. I imagine watching a beautiful sunset with my gf. She turns to me, gazing in my eyes and says “I’m so happy to be sharing this moment with you”. I then go into conceptual mode and ask her “Who is sharing? Who are you? Are you separate from me? The nondualists would say there is no “you”. That “you” is simply a construct of the mind. And what is a moment? To have a “moment”, we must create a timeline with a past and future, yet this timeline is just an artificial construct and in actuality, there are no moments.”. . . This would totally ruin the post-conceptual essence of sharing the sunset with her. . . Such occurrences go on and on. Last night I was hiking and sensed resonance with a tree. As soon as I started conceptualizing it, it was gone - in a flash. . . Once I got glimpses, of post-conceptual phenomena, I wanted more. Yet I needed to realize that conceptualization was getting in the way. Yet for me, trying to repress it created immersion into a conceptualization vs a non-conceptualization conflict. I found it much better to simply let go of it. The conceptualizing mind may through a fit and want to be the center of attention - just let it be in the noise in the background. Tell your mind that in this moment, we have bigger fish to fry. I find any practice that quiets the mind to be helpful. Yoga, time in nature, listening to nonduality speakers, meditation, sensory deprivation tanks etc. For example, while walking in nature the question “What is genuine?” may arise. Books and theory is unnecessary. It’s actually a distraction. Everything needed to inquire “What is genuine”, is all around me as I walk through nature. All I need to do is allow the conceptualizing thoughts to drift off into the background and observe what is right now. Various essences and insights will arise and then disappear. No grasping or attachment. Later that night, I return home and conceptualize for an hour or so, and that’s fine too.

Peace I've been reading these forums for a while and I'm grateful for discovering this community. I think I've grown a lot from it. So thank you all for your contributions. I wanted to ask about apostle Paul as I've not seen anything about him here. He seems fully convinced that Jesus died for our sins. He says things like "I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I but Christ who lives in me, and the life that I now I live I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law then Christ is dead in vain." He also says "As by one man sin came into the world, and death by sin; so death passed onto all men for that all have sinned..." and "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." And one more, "if you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you shall be saved. For with the heart man believes, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Okay so, how could this be? This is also the teaching he died for, and he spread his belief very effectively. When I read his letters, I see that he is wise. I enjoy his first letter to Corinth and seeing how he deals with the issues that come up there. When I ask how could this be I mean, why is insisting on a lamb sacrifice philosophy? Is he simply implanting Judaism into the new movement that began around the man Jesus so as to keep its spirit alive? He was a radical pharisee, and persecuted the church initially until he had a conversion on the road to Damascus. His Jesus isn't the enlightened man who is like the Buddha before him, or Lord Krishna, who ultimately has the same message as these; he makes Jesus our saviour and says a confession with the mouth is for salvation. Salvation from the wrath of God which is his righteous anger against our sin, which we have because of our sinful nature, which we have because of Adam who first sinned. This is not nonduality, which makes me sad, it also implies the fruit was real and literal and that man's condition is fallen until he is redeemed and the Holy Spirit enters him; which is another entity outside of us who must fill us. These ideas are well expressed by him and his letters have the tone of sincerity and reason as far as I can tell, but it also puts him at odds with a lot of spirituality from other systems, whereas I find that with almost all other systems nonduality is the principal underlying whatever else is being said. I struggle to imagine that he of all the wise men has it right and therefore it will in fact come down to a judgment day where all that counts is if you gave your life to Lord Jesus and accepted his grace by faith: "for you are saved by grace through faith, and that not of yourselves it is a gift from God, not of works lest any man should boast." What are your thoughts?

I doubt it's the second one. The only way to be in permemnant nonduality state is to be in permenant meditation. One has to become the meditation itself, has to merge with his system that he follows. It has permiate every second, every breath of your life. Then it becomes permenant transformation. Like mooji says, I'm not seperste from my teaching. I am the teaching, I and my teaching is the same thing. Jesus sayed something similar, He sayed "I am the way and the truth and the life.'' Same thing like mooji. Papaji was asked: "you always talk about being vigilent, but do you have to be vigilent? Papaji: To my very last breath" But there is a stage beyond effort. Where you don't have to try to be aware. You're just yourself always. But you don't reach this stage without going through the first one.

@Angelite When I first read the Qur'an I had a great dilemma because it tore into the main beliefs of Christianity, and well. Jesus is a man here (held in honour) and he was not crucified, those two claims bump into Paul (specifically regarding the crucifixion, as far as I can tell it isn't obvious that Paul is trinitarian, that seems to me to be a misreading by the church. Paul always seems to me to distinguish between God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.) It was when I came to the Qur'an in my journey that my orthodox Christianity came crashing down. It is verse after verse of plain sense and threat of fire. A Furqān as you say. Here is a sample of how he damages Christianity: "That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";-but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not." Sura 4:117 "O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: far exalted is He above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth." Sura 4:171 "In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary." Sura 5:17 "They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode." Sura 5:72 "For it is not consonant with the majesty of Allah, Most Gracious, that He should beget a son." Sura 19:92 I found it easy to come to monotheism or let's say unitarianism from trinitarianism, but I struggled so long with what is said about the cross and what it is meant to mean seeing that, at face value, the Qur'an and New Testament are at odds. It's easy to think that Paul was not a trinitarian; he was a devout jew and they would never accept that God is three in one, for them God is just one and this is absolutely fundamental. But as for the cross, this is his whole teaching! "Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,..." That verse in Qur'an saying Jesus wasn't even crucified is the only verse dealing with the crucifixion; in about 50 words Muhammad rejects Paul's entire ministry. If he wasn't even crucified then what is Paul going on about? And all of Christianity since? As is my habit I tried to reconcile them; I am an idealist in that I believe that the people who have guided mankind spiritually should surely, surely all be saying the same thing but in different ways according to time and culture. My attempt to reconcile them led me to gnosticism, which also says Jesus wasn't really crucified (certain sides of gnosticism that is), and gnosticism took me to Plato and the neoplatonists, and they took me to a knowledge of the One, which is equivalent in essence to nonduality. The gnostics say that the true teachings of Christianity were always taught in secret, and communicated in veiled form from the time of Jesus, so that only the wise and discerning could understand it. This saying from Paul they use to show how he had a hidden message that wasn't expressed publicly in his letters: "...However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." So in some sense Islam initiated me into the esoteric and mystical, which sent me upward to the high Unity, the One and Only, and I'm grateful to the prophet of Islam (even though he intimidates me.) Even with Islam though I needed Sufism or else I would've had to run from him, and I did until I found Sufism. With Sufism I can extrapolate the same spiritual sense without being frightened by Muhammad's dominant personality into keeping Sharia, which I think is time-bound and cultural. He is a warrior and his text is a fiery law.

Actually, wisdom is associated with age,...wisdom an accumulation of knowledge through sensory experience (acquired through sight, sound, taste, touch, smell, and thought),...wisdom is the highest and most lofty ideas of that ego experience. Wisdom literally means knowledge accumulated through philosophic or scientific learning. In other words, wisdom points to the highest and most lofty ideas of ego consciousness, whose sole purpose is to sustain itself. Wisdom is to make the best use of knowledge,...yet to realize enlightenment means to let go of all knowledge. Knowledge is acquired through thinking/the Head-mind,...mental inertia,...the truth arises from gnowledge/the Heart-Mind. An Awakened being has no use of wisdom. Gnowledge or prajna is not tied to age or human experience. LfcCharlie4 says he posts from Direct Experience,...however I'm not reading that in your posts,...all I'm getting is lots Conditioned Experience that pivots from hope or anticipation for future status. "In terms of experience of reality" - LfcCharlie4. YES!!! Let's discuss that. "The senses do not grasp reality in any way" Socrates There is no denying that LfcCharlie4 has had "multiple awakenings, as I am personally sick of seeing teachers who aren’t finished seeking, the world is full of enough of them." Fortunately I'm not a teacher for you to seek your disgust upon. To me, teaching would be among the most dishonest of positions. "The purest teachings usually come from teachers who are not surrounded and supported by followers or an organization. Books of a pure teacher never had a wide audience." Dr. Stanley Sobottka If your (LfcCharlie4 )Letting Go is contingent on your definition of absolutely everything, then your definition of absolutely everything must not include very much. I've not once said as you argue that I have a "superiority complex" or saying I'm a "tier two thinker ." Nevertheless, seems I've tweaked your mental inertia more than just a bit. Of course your fall-back position is that you "have a life to live,:...an excellent Tell that your awakenings are all within the lower 6 substance levels,...and that's great,...I'm not belittling your shifts from SD 4 to SD 5. I simply don't relate with that stuff,...like when your meet a couple with young children and all they resonate with is their children's activities and dreams. And that's great you want to "build a business and become a teacher who gives transmissions,"...I recall the day when I realized that nearly all "transmissions" from Lineage Holders since the 13th century were BS. Nine months after my first awakening (of which I'm not referring to SD 9), I retired,...the Universe was not here for me (to build a business and become a teacher of transmissions) but I was here for the Universe. That's what Absolute Letting Go is about. Something more akin to Somerset Maugham's Razor's Edge or Gurdjeiff's All and Everything. Twenty years old is a great time of life,...at 19 I read an awesome (IMO) quote that fully altered my then perspective about things,...."Soon we all will die; our hopes and fears will be irrelevant” - Padmasambhava I didn't want to wait until death to potentially be relevant. So at 19, began focusing on the nature of hope and fear. "In order to obliterate the mind that grasps appearances as real, and to realize the true way of things, without hope and fear, shall give rise to bodhicitta." Jigme Lingpa, The Dakini's Laughter Ego loves to focus on not having fear,....but what sustains fear is hope,...and ego adores hope. True spirituality focuses on the liberation from hope. hope n. from ME. hopa, an expectation. 1. expectation of something desired; anticipation of some future event. 2. a guess or belief. 3. that which gives hope; a substance or object hoped for; an expected payoff. Is there a more dishonest, perniciousness word than hope? No matter what level we wish to view it from, hope is false. Hope is an anticipation of the future; thus it must arise from a predisposition, a belief, and attachment to the past. Hope implies lack,...how else could we possibly define it? Hope is for something we think we don't possess. How could hope ever be expressed through an Open-Mind or Open-Heart ? The belief of hope is a barrier that obscures the present. If our attention is on seeking hope, how are we to ever experience the immediacy required to be in the Present? “the highest goal is being devoid of hope and fear…. And when all hopes and fears have died, the Goal is reached.” Tilopa Ego likes to believe that "consciousness" is individual, separate from all other "consciousnesses." The relative reality is that the body (which is NOT part of the Whole) has levels of Conscious Awareness. As Easterners say, we are not in our bodies, our bodies are inside us. I agree that Ramana and Nisgardatta are interesting reading,....I consumed such interesting fellows in my youth,...not for seeking,...but as how they explained their experiences. Many, many have unfortunately adopted the paradigms of Advaita or Nonduality,...belief systems that will keep one in the 3rd density - 6th density Loop. I don't know what SD Stage Friedrich Nietzsche was at,...perhaps a high functioning Yellow (SD 7),...however, this quote of his is a gateway is Turquoise (SD 8).... "Whoever has the blood of theism in his veins, stands from the start in a false and dishonest position to all things."

@Schahin It’s a thought, an idea, “imagining”. It’s an idea of a “how”. Like all words, it means, & ‘it’ doesn’t mean...whatever you think and believe, or don’t. ”How” is dualistic. “How X... Y’s” Nonduality - “not two”. God’s not imagining anything. Just forgetting. “Here I kind of try to wrap my head around these paradoxes, sure with a rational mind these paradoxes aren't too be answered but I hope to hear at least one satisfying answer which could explain it to some point.” This is how the falsity of a “you” is kept going. You can also let it go. ♥️ And the feelings, when you let go. Let them go too. ♥️♥️ “Wash yourself of yourself” ♥️♥️♥️

Be careful. The mind wants to quantasize and measure. Only loosely use your mind concerning concepts about meditation and nonduality and god. Be much better to smoke some high quality DMT. I realised something very cool one time...truth is like a very strong detergent, and your mind is like clothing. You will wash the strong detergent In and out of your clothes to clean them. You wont let the detergent stay in your clothes or it will eventually dissolve the fabric. Truth should wash into and out of your mind. As truth comes into your mind passively and back out...what is the most pure will remain. Creating concepts about truth will eventually dissolve your progress.

@Ero What do you mean by "spiritual practices" I research and read about spirituality and meditation and nonduality daily throughout my days as well.

Hmm... the term nonduality just does the best job of communicating the idea of oneness, unity, etc. but no its not that I'm sad if something is " not nonduality"; let's put the term aside and come to the meaning, the meaning is that all is one, that everything is united, that there is unity at bottom in all the diversity. If it is not this way then... If man and woman are not human... Without the unifying quality things move away, separate, are divisive by nature. Without unity it is also impossible to know anything or love anyone. I mean if unity was not a principle. If oneness was not definitive of things. And if it is, but not in the case of God, then all the problems which would arise if it wasn't in any other case would arise with God. Again, if man and woman are not also at once human, the differences would be all, and we would be separate, even opposite. If God is separate from anything at all that would mean that howsoever you define God you must give the opposite quality to the other thing. If God is good, and is separate, all else is evil. If God is good and is one with everything, goodness then is the quality of everything. So I personally prefer to share in the qualities of the highest good and would love it if everything else was of that same quality. It is sad to me if it is not this way. The alternative is the upward effort to becoming good, but how is that possible if I'm already evil? If God is not me, and he is good, and there is duality but not nonduality at bottom, then I am evil and so is anything else that is not God. How then can the evil be good? By becoming God seems the only way. These are the results of God being something other than me myself. All systems which I've studied seem to speak of this, except Paul's. His lamb sacrifice to me does seem to answer the disparity and close the gap, by putting a mediator between God and man, as he says: "there is one God, and one meditator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." He says we give up our nature which is evil, because it is seperate from God's, which is good, and we accept Christ's nature as a gift which then reconciles us to God.

Thanks for your post. I'm very new to the Bible. Me considering myself Christian is a new thing for me. I've just finished my first book of the bible from start to finish (Gospel of John). The rest of the Bible I only know through various versus I've collected along the way. In a few months time I would probably have been better placed to contribute to this. I'll be interested in what others say. I was just curious as to the above quote from you. Why would someone be sad if something "is not nonduality?", genuine question. Not a trolling comment. I'm really interested if you don't saying?

@Highest you don't seem to have fully grasped nonduality yet. That's ok, keep being Your post could also be an egoic reaction to the implications of 100% responsibility of your life, so you created an imaginary division between yourself and God to skirt around it.

”Is it wise to divide Spirituality from other aspects of life?” Collapse all. Nonduality, “not two”. Spirituality is an idea. Other aspects of life is an idea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1YqgPAtzho https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ztlIAYTCU “Grasp” those, and then let that idea go too. These are the fingers. What is the moon?