Search the Community

@Homo Lucens Being sort of argumentative for fun and the sake of the convo....I’d offer that I have directly ‘experienced’ (been / and am) consciousness during sleep, without anything at all serving as something to be conscious of , and that his reference to consciousness basically equating to reflection, or the knowing of knowledge, specifically involving the brain - that consciousness requires something to be conscious of - is missing a deeper dive into the fundamental self, and the heart of nonduality. It strikes me as there’s a possibility there is ‘scientist’ bias at play.

I think he died. Basically I asked this question here because I wonder how he said such a thing but the discussion about nonduality here are more that it is not determined and god creates it every moment and the future is not certain yet

This is what I’m pointing at. You have created a construct that has practical purpose. I’m not denying that. Your construct involves profound mastery attained through discipline and consistent practice. What I’m pointing at is the use of this relative construct as absolute. When you write “IS”, you are creating a relative and presenting it as an absolute. It’s like saying “a IS b” without realizing that “a” is also not “b”. When you create a construct of “embodiment” there is automatically “non-embodiment” to contrast embodiment with. There are many such dualistic opposites in your writings: embodiment vs. non-embodiment, psychedelic vs non-psychedelic, temporary vs. permanent, awakening vs non-awakening. All of these constructs collapse into Nothing/Everything. The human mind loves to construct, yet becomes attached to such constructs. I doubt you would be able to discard all of the constructs you have written about as if they were an old newspaper. This would be liberation. To be liberated from any construct, including spiritual constructs like embodiment, insights, meditative states, enlightenment etc. . . What you write about has relative value. Training to become an Olympic gold medalist in the decathlon also has relative value. Yet in the absolute, it has no more relevance or more ISness than bird chirps. Regarding psychedelics. . . one thing psychedelics (especially 5-meo) do is dissolve dualities. One can observe the deconstruction of dualities to nonduality and the reconstruction back to duality. Deconstruction to Nothing and re-construction to Everything. Such that Nothing = Everything. Not in theory. In embodiment. Knowing. Permanent embodied knowing. Eternal. . . . I meditated over 20,000 hours without any drugs. Then I tried 5-meo and it blew away all the meditation. It’s not even close. And not just the peaks, the embodiment. When I was shown Mu and infinity, that realization never left. I can’t unsee it. I also did 24 consecutive days of 5-Meo in which a consistent nondual consciousness manifested. There was no difference between 5-meo and no 5-meo. No difference between meditation vs non-meditation. There was continuous singular nonduality. When duality finally reappeared, the contrast between nondual and dual was striking. So striking that I went into an insanity zone because my mind couldn’t handle it. And then the duality between dual vs nondual collapsed. This has been embodied and permanently accessible Now. . . Perhaps the previous 20,000 hours of meditation and 500+ hours of psychedelics provided structural support to embody the realization. I don’t know what would have happened without that previous experience. And perhaps this description doesn’t qualify as deep insight, permanent, embodiment or enlightenment within your construct. Which is fine. All constructs are relative, including the one I describe. And in the absolute, all the deep deepness I describe is no deeper than a butterfly pollinating a flower. Not in theory, in knowing that comes prior to theory. ? ?

@Raptorsin7 Enlightened/mystical experiences are difficult to predict or create there are so many variables. Even people that have dedicated their entire lives to teaching awakening cannot willfully transmit it to another. Consider people that spend years in therapy. The counselor may know the person’s block, yet is often unable to stimulate that in the patient, such that the patient has an “Ah ha!” realization and “gets it”. In a way, it’s like getting struck by lightening. It’s rare, yet we can increase our chances. We could climb to the top of a hill during a thunderstorm and hold up a metal rod to the sky. If that person was wearing a rubber suit, the odds would go down. Similarly, there are various methods to help induce getting struck by spiritual realization lightening. If someone is meditating drunk, I would say the chances go down. If someone was obsessed with getting revenge on someone, the odds go down. If someone is ocd worrying about failing a chemistry exam, the odds go down. I knew a recovering alcoholic who told me about his last drink. He took his seven year old son out boating to go fishing. He drank for hours and got sloppy drunk. His son fell out of the boat and was struggling to get back in. The drunken father was yelling and slipping as he sorta tried to get his son back in the boat. Then he had a moment of clarity. He said it was like an out of body experience in which he clearly saw himself and his son. He saw the fear and struggle in his son. Not just fear of drowning, also the fear the son had of the drunken father. He observed himself in relation to his son. No rationalized bullshit, justifications, defenses, avoidances etc. He saw clearly for a moment and it stuck. He said he snapped back into him and no longer felt drunk and was now on a new path. That was his last drink. I met him 20 years after that incident and he said he still remembers it like it was yesterday. Timeless and transcendent. His relationship with his son was transformed and he started to help other alcoholics to recover. . . . This is a rare event, yet it happens. How and why does it happen? We don’t know. Was it divine intervention? Or perhaps trillions of inputs that came together at that one moment to create a “big bag” awakening. . . . The closet we have at his point to stimulate such awakenings is psychedelics. They greatly increase the chance, yet the odds are still relatively low on a single trip. There are so many factors. Yet as we learn more about the mechanism of psychedelics that number will increase. @SoonHei Great video. I haven’t come across Paul. He expresses nonduality well. Thanks ?

Gotcha ? You seem to suggest an external god as you say “developing itself”. What is “itself”? As well, you say god is magical “beyond just IS”. I’m not sure if you are creating dualistic categories or trying to describe facets of One diamond. I think your questions have been getting deeper and more advanced over the past month or so. As you go deeper into nonduality and into the collapse of dual/nondual, intellectual concepts won’t be center-stage anymore. It will provide structural support. Nonverbal things like intuition, empathy, beingness, essence, presence, knowing, Now etc will become more impactful.

So great to have this said. There is a growing number of religious folks on this forum. I was a lifelong Atheist (40 years). The moment I learned of Nonduality I gave it up of a belief of truth. You have to unlearn everything. Hardcoded beliefs only get in the way.

If a ten year old, in relative terms of consciousness, experienced an alien, that experience has the potential to be terrifying, and life altering, and bring about a lot of suffering and fear - sending them down the emotional scale. Consider the same ten year old, now fifty, but having assimilated & actualized maslow’s pyramid, spiral dynamics, self realization, the emotional scale, collective & cosmic consciousness, and the actuality of nonduality - now knowing the illusory nature of fear, self doubt, and the world, and the actuality of love - seeing an alien. Now consider the alien which makes it from pretty f’ing far away, to earth, knows all of this already, and much more, and likely did not actually traverse space & time to ‘make the journey’ “here”. Consider the vibrational match at play, in terms of relative consciousness, as access. Then imagine, you are that fifty year old, and pretty much anyone you tell of your encounters with aliens, is closer to the ‘ten year old consciousness’, than the ‘fifty year old consciousness’. Nonduality is not two, not a question & answer, and so it is prior to concerns of ‘whys’ (nonduality is the “why”). So the alien, and the ‘fifty year old consciousness’, would already be on the same ‘nondual page’; One, same Self. No intent to harm, no fear of being harmed. Concerns are not prior, one who has not inspected their own a priori’s, is nondual, but in not yet knowing this, is reacting, living from fear & concerns, harming, in defense of “their separate self”. The ignore-ance of self, creates tendencies & intention of these things, and is already violence. An alien wanting to visit this, is like an ant wanting to attend a stomping party. They’d probably just pass on it. In appearance there will always be ‘ten year old’, and ‘fifty year old’ consciousness, and therefore there will always be consciousness which appears to consciousness as, “alien”. The consciousness of the population raising, technology, humanity & compassion, understanding - along with it, and we’ll eventually go somewhere far, and when we arrive, we will see that we, relatively, are the aliens.

No one is saying that this is your imagination or choice of perception. Before you can treat a wound you must acknowledge that it's there. Then you treat it in whatever way is necessary based on the severity of it, but the actual healing happens on its own. Keep in mind the analogy that Leo used in his most recent video. Enlightenment is not a single mountain that you can climb, it's a whole fucking mountain range. You've been going around comparing your progress with your wife's and others here based on the high mountain you're sitting on the peak of, not realizing that others have explored different parts of the mountain range that you were ignoring as unimportant the whole time. This is not the time to throw nonduality out the window, but it is time to scan the horizon and finally come down from the peak of that single mountain you've mastered and explore the rest of the range.

I appreciate that all of you are trying to comfort me, but this is not just my imagination, or choice of perception. We went to couples therapy session and I had a shouting contest with the therapist, he said that I'm using emotional violence against my wife, that I treat her like a dog, that I will start hitting her in a year and that we should get a divorce. He was scared that I will hit my wife after we leave the session and reassured her that he will help her if she calls him. THIS WAS A FIRST SESSION! Either he's being serious or this is an incredibly cruel scare tactic to get me to cooperate. I was observing how I manipulate others in how he was manipulating me. I am projecting my misogyny onto my wife and using pop-psychology to "fix" her. I have no concept of boundaries and personal space and I am using nonduality to justify it. I am treating people instrumentally, as a way to get my needs met. I have authority issues. And all of this happens when I lose my temper and I get angry A LOT. This is fucking dangerous. I'm a loaded gun ready to go off.

First of all, solipsism is a conceptual scheme, a philosophical system. This is very different from actuality. In this sense solipsism is a fantasy whereas nonduality is actuality. Map vs territory. This is a HUGE difference. Don't underestimate this. Secondly, solipsism is not even a good map. It does not recognize the truth of no-self and the truth that you are God. Solipsism is still dualistic in that it denies the reality of others by upholding the reality of the ego-self. Nonduality makes a more radical move. It denies the reality of all individual selves, especially oneself. If other people are unreal, you as a person must also be unreal. If you are unreal, then what are you? Solipsism doesn't answer this ultimate question. The part that solipsism gets right is that ultimately you are all alone. But what are you? You are not a finite being, as solipsism assumes. But when you finally realize that you are an infinite being, you will also realize that you are both alone and together, because infinity includes all dualities. You are so ONE that you cannot even distinguish oneness from twoness! Unless you do

Ehh... so then how is nonduality you teach, different from solipsism? I don't get it, you are basically saying it's not solipsism yet only my mind exists?? Sure it does feel like solipsism. Like nothing exist, neither ever was existing outside of my mind I remember in one of my trips right before I entered total unity, I was thinking about Martin Ball and his advice for symmetrical body posture etc. and suddenly in one moment all distinction between me and Martin collapsed, and it literally felt like I was Martin Ball and I've been talking to myself all this time. It just so happens that I was thinking about him at the time so he was present in my consciousness when it all melted into one. But for example, Leo Gura for some reason was completely absent from my conscious experience at the time. Does it mean there literally was no experience of being Leo Gura at the time because he was absent from MY mind? I don't assume that

If YOU is the only being, that IS the universe. Full Stop. That's it. Nothing = Everything. Notice how the ego won't accept that and adds in dualistic somethings about "others", "you" and "me". The ego loves to say "Yea, yea - I understand all that nonduality stuff, but. . . ". And then starts adding in dualisms. This boils down to "I am". When you ask "If I am the only being in the universe", the personality Shaun is identifying to that "I am". It is seeing itself as separate from other "things". There is a transcendence of Shaun in which there is One Everything. Yet that realization would mean the dis-identification as Shaun and the ego will fight like heck to prevent that from happening. From the ego's perspective, that is death. For these solipsistic thoughts to have personal relevance, there needs to be identification to a construct of a person - in this case shaun. Without that personal identity, the solipsistic thoughts are merely appearances with no more relevance than appearances of birds chirps.

Solipsism is the idea that only my mind is sure to exist. Nonduality is that only my mind exists. One is just an idea, the other is fact and they are both the same. Now, if I'm the only being in the universe, why do you tell other users on here that they are also the only being in the universe and are all alone? Surely, you should only be addressing me? Why do you tell people that you don't exist and they are imagining you? I ask a lot of my friends if they exist and they look at me like I'm mad and strongly assert that they do indeed exist.

@Shaun It's very simple. If you are a student of nonduality you should know by now that nonduality means oneness. How can you pursue oneness while maintaining the notion of twoness (self vs other)? You are not conscious yet of the implications of ONENESS. It means... you know... that everything is ONE! Which means you are the only being in the universe. This does not contradict Rupert Spira. You're just not understanding yet the full implications of Spira's teachings. Don't confuse oneness or nondualty with solipsism. Solipsism is not radical enough to be true. And yet, you are all alone. Technically, the duality between aloneness vs togetherness collapses. But when this happens your ego will perceive it as solipsism. If you're not careful you will reject/deny this important insight of God's existential aloneness because you are so attached to the idea of there being others.

You in your limited state will have a personality, likes and dislikes and resonate with certain things and people. If you are open spiritually you may resonate with certain energies, and certain energies may lead you to have experiences and those experiences can have profound effects on the course of your life. Nonduality, is the reason why this can occur, and it happens where nonduality and duality merges. Remember that because of the nature of nonduality you cannot separate it from duality. That can be a tricky thing to "understand". That's why you can appear to have had past lives or to be contacted by certain nonphysical personalities. However you could say that oneness is the background through which everything is occurring.

This is a Nonduality forum, so the answers you're going to get are that you are God, you are Jesus, you created the bible, you imagined it all, you are all that there is imaging it all.

Spiritual teachers who have read A Course in Miracles seem inclined to accept the possibility of a different form of reality. Neale Donald Walsch writes in his Conversation With God books about highly evolved beings. Advaita nonduality teacher Roger Castillo, who has talked about ACIM, hasn't experienced a different reality yet but says he is open to the possibility. Eckhart Tolle, who is a fan of ACIM, writes in The Power of Now: "Our collective human world is largely created through the level of consciousness we call mind. Even within the collective human world there are vast differences, many different "sub-worlds," depending on the perceivers or creators of their respective worlds. Since all worlds are interconnected, when collective human consciousness becomes transformed, nature and the animal kingdom will reflect that transformation. Hence the statement in the Bible that in the coming age "The lion shall lie down with the lamb." This points to the possibility of a completely different order of reality." - The Power of Now, chapter 9

Welcome to the forum Itp! You ask a wonderfully inquisitive question. Your question is at the interface between objectivism and relativeism. It is a major jump up in consciousness. In SD terms it is going from Orange to Green/Yellow. I can explain it logically, yet keep in mind that there is logical understanding as well as embodiment. Embodiment often comes through direct experience in which the person just "gets it", deeper than thinking. You question combines duality and nonduality, which can cause confusion. You start off with nonduality, then switch to dualistic relativity. Let's consider the four different constructs we can create: 1) Pure Dualistic: The vast majority of people are in a pure dualistic mindset and will subconsciously have the following construct: There is a difference between dreaming experience and awake experience. As well, there is a difference between ethical behavior and unethical behavior. Such a person will subconsciously believe that dreams are illusions and awake is real. They will also subconsciously assume that things like violence is unethical and things like honesty is ethical. The problem with this construct is that the person assumes there is an objective reality of dream vs. awake and ethical vs. unethical. They are not conscious that these are relative constructs they are creating (and society creates). I would estimate 85% of the world's population is locked into this orientation. About 13% of the population has rudimentary awareness of relativity and about 2% have a fairly solid understanding. 2) Pure Nondual: There is no difference between dreaming experience and awake experience. As well, there is no difference between ethical behavior and unethical behavior. It's all just ISness. Here there is no difference between sleeping and awake or between violence and peace. This is an advanced conscious state. I would estimate that only about 1% of the population has a solid theoretical understanding of this and has had some nondual direct experience that they recognized and integrated. Yet I would estimate that only about 0.0001% of the population has deeply embodied this. The challenge with this orientation is that is runs counter to the pure dualistic perspective described above. Humans will strongly resist this pure nondualistic perspective because it involves the dissolution of all dualities including right vs wrong, sense of self, personal survival etc. A subjective nondual experience can be blissful and liberating - yet it can also be very scary and threatening. . . A second complication is that humans live in a relative world and 99.9% of the world's people are spending the vast majority of their time within subconscious dualistic constructs. It would be very difficult to function and survival while always being in a nondual state of consciousness. Imagine trying to function in society with no sense of ethical vs. unethical. No sense of up vs. down. No sense of dream vs. awake. It would be very difficult to function. Those at more advanced stages often talk about "flipping" between nondual and dual conscious states. (Yet this itself is also a dualistic construct). 3) Dual/Nondual Hybrid: There is a difference between dream and awake (dual), yet no difference between ethical and nonethical (nondual). Such a person would distinguish between when they are dreaming and when they are awake, yet would not distinguish between things dishonesty/honesty, violence/peace etc. I think this would be more of a thought experiment and not relevant to your question. 4) Dual/Nondual Hybrid: There is no difference between dream and awake (nondual), yet a difference between ethical and nonethical (dual). This is the framework of your question. Notice how you start off saying "what if there is no distinction between dreaming experience and awake experience". That is a nondual construct. . . Here comes the big jump in consciousness, fasten your seatbelt. . . Notice how you subconsciously assumed that there is a difference between ethical and unethical (violence). There is an underlying assumption that this difference is objective. The big jump in consciousness is to realize that this difference is not objective, it is relative. You are creating it. Societies create it. This underlying question led to your question "Is he *supposed to*. . . ". . . *Supposed to* is reflective of a mind that is assuming there is objective ethics and is unaware of relativity. This is a very very common assumption. This first step is to consciously realize this intellectually, yet the much deeper realization is the post-intellectual embodiment, which is much more difficult to obtain. . . Many people may say "Yea, yea, I know it's all relative. . . but what about. . .". They may intellectually recognize relativity, yet their underlying orientation is objectivism. So there highest conscious answer to your question is there is no answer. You can create any of the above constructs you want. You create your own reality. . . However, we live as a person in a relative world and some constructs are more practical in life. If I were to build a practical construct regarding your question it would look something like this: If someone is dreaming about suffering and violence that is reflective of underlying psychological issues at the human level. The mind and body may become distressed by such dreams. This could interfere with there waking life. It may cause problems in their relationships and at work. It could be a signal that the person has psychological issues they need to work through for personal development toward a healthier life. However, I wouldn't judge the violent dreams as ethical or unethical and I would not judge or sham the person for having them. If they asked me for help, I would try to empathize and help them.

Yes there is suffering from the perspective of the person. Humans have constructed a thing called "suffering". Different humans have different suffering constructs. For example, a common construct of suffering is that the mind and body experience intense physical/emotional pain and don't want to feel this physcial/emotional pain and there is a strong desire to be free of the physcial/emotional pain - yet an inability to be free of it. That is a human construct of suffering. It has practical value when humans are discussing their experience. When someone tells me they are suffering - I use this type of construct to relate and communicate with them. When you say their is *nobody, nothing* then how can there be suffering? You just said there is nobody to suffer, nothing. Is a bowl full of nothing suffering occurring in nobody wind? From a trans-human perceptive, we could say that there is a "thing" that the human calls "suffering" that appears in a "thing" the human calls It's mind and body - in which the human identifies as being "me". If you say it's "the suffering before nonduality is revealed" - then we are now immersed back into the perspective of the person. Which is fine. So overall, is it happening or not? Both. Illusion = Reality and Reality = Illusion. Non-happenings = Happenings and Happenings = Non-happenings. This is a deeper level in which the duality between dual and nondual collapses. Yes Nothing wrong with philosophising about duality and mechanisms of happenings. Confusion and inner turmoil arises when there is conflation between absolute and relative. As well, when there is a belief/assumption that relative is absolute. From the perspective of a doer, there is choice. From the perspective of no-doer there is no choice. From the perspective of intention and meaning, suffering is meant to happen. From the perspective of no intention or meaning, suffering is not meant to happen. You are getting into causation, determination and choice again. Your answer depends on how you create constructs of causation, determination, doer and choice. We can create all sorts of constructs, just like we can construct all sorts of sand castles. Creating constructs can allow insight and we can create more elaborate constructs. Nothing wrong with that - that's what humans do. Yet the inner turmoil comes with the seeking energy of wanting to create a construct that is objectively and universally true and permanent. Just like a child will experience inner turmoil if they want their sandcastle to be grounded and permanent. At the end of the day, all sandcastles will get deconstructed by waves. And all constructs get deconstructed to Nothing. . .

Of course this will be the next big realization But still you know what I mean with I suffered or he suffers right? It is the appearance as you say of suffering. It is not me suffering actually. B That is the core question, there is no doer, nobody, nothing but still the appearance suffering appears for some of "us" while for "others" not (sorry I didnt now how to explain it here without using pronouns, but yiu know what I mean right) its the suffering before you realized nonduality, it was actually happening as a part of being or wasn it? :)) Lets say I would be tremendously suffering mentally right now writing this, someone could say no that is not true but somehow it still is? Transcendence is important but philophising about duality and its happenings is not wrong either is it? So the questions remains, is it meant for the appearance of suffering to occur or does the "doer" have a choice here (even if there is no doer, but you understand right?)

Notice how you say *I* suffered, rather than suffering appeared. There is an "I" dynamic that can be transcended. Again, notice how you say *I* tried to end the suffering. It's fine to talk at the level of the personality, yet there is transcendence of that. To me, it seems like you keep reaching out for that transcendence, yet can't quite take the plunge. Who/what is this *I* that is suffering and trying to end it's own suffering? Is it a story of *I*? Is it the brain suffering? The body? . . . So far, you have said "I know *I* doesn't exist, yet you know what I mean". . . If you don't get clear on the "you know what I mean part", you will be swimming through muddy waters. Notice how you default back to your pre-conceived assumption and construct. Using the framework of a psychological self is fine if you want to talk about suffering in the context of a psychological self. Yet you are using the framework of a psychological self and reaching toward transcendence of that psychological self. You've said multiple times "where we obviously don't exist" - and then you speak as if we do actually exist. To me, it seems like you are reaching toward nondual transcendence of the psychological self, yet you are still clinging to the grounding of a dualistic psychological self. Eventually, the duality of nondual vs. dual collapses - yet you seem to be trying to skip a step. From the nonduality, there is no god experiencing through us. You said yourself: "where we obviously don't exist". So Everything is God. There is One God. Not god experiencing ourselves. Just God. No ourselves. . . To me, this seems to be the next big realization which comes through direct experience.

How to reconcile romantic relationships with nonduality?

A hand cannot grasp itself. But it is itself. God knows itself by being everything that is. Isness & knowing collapse into one, as you'd expect if you assume nonduality. The reason it must be this way is because knowing is finite. So it cannot encapsulate infinity. By definition, infinity is that which cannot be encapsulated because it is endless and all encapsulations are part of the thing they are trying to encapsulate. It's like you're trying to put all of reality into a cardboard box. But what you're not realizing is that the cardboard box you're using is part of reality itself. So to succeed in putting reality in that cardboard box you'd have to fit your cardboard box inside your cardboard box. Which is obviously impossible. This is what I call the self-reference problem. Which is why reality/Truth cannot be grasped with thoughts.

Do more contemplation on what nonduality and by extension nondual consciousness entails. Warning: it includes the very thing you are trying to pick at. By becoming enlightened you would become what you declare extremist.

I can say that I am not distracted by thoughts involving time (past and future)--that is the realm of the separate 'me'. So I'm very present, but other than that no special powers or abilities are granted. It's surprising how little changes (but everything is totally different at the same time). The same basic thoughts and feelings and actions are there, but without anyone invested in them. I'm not sure how helpful concentration is on its own, really. It felt like the single-minded determination was helpful here, but it's hard to say. The illusion is so convincing and so enticing that concentrating on self inquiry and direct experience should be helpful in seeing through the illusion. Still, someone could stumble upon an awakening (for example, I met a woman who at 6 years old tried to think about what 'nothing' was and had an awakening experience). I highly advise seekers to follow their gut. It's good to 'get' nonduality intellectually (if that's part of your path), but your flow, your path, is sort of given to you through your 'heart'. It's intuitive. In a way, liberation is about authenticity--following the natural impulses and thoughts that arise, and not the ones that we 'think'--those are shoulds and shouldn'ts and are part of the illusion. Mind itself is not the problem, but some ways of thinking are the problem and it can be hard to separate them. Try to be sensitive to your intuition--your path could be completely different and it's all good.