Search the Community

@Scholar Firstly, you can call direct experience whatever you want, I am using the term in the broadest way I can so don't overthink it, it's like nitpicking over me saying "can I have some food" and you say "I don't know CAN you". By Direct experience, I essentially mean what Leo G means by "Actuality" and what Meta Sage means by Pure Awareness. Are you going to deny this self-evident experience you're having right now? The whole point was to establish a starting position that conceivably everyone can agree on, so try to interpret my words correctly by not focusing so much on the specific nuances of the terms I happened to use and instead try to grasp at what I'm trying to get at. The terms Direct experience and pure awareness and Actuality are 'marker' words or hints for the meaning that corresponds to that which we could all agree is the case at least for our own selves. Secondly, I am against using OR, which I know to be a Maxim and I'm aware of its primary uses, etc. I was simply showing how one could hypothetically use OR to support idealism over materialism. I am personally against the usage of any kind of rationalist methods to come to an understanding of idealism as true. I personally think phenomenology is better suited a technique for gradually raising one's consciousness to the perceptions of self-evident truths that we simply lack lucidity of, like idealism for example. Thirdly, when it comes to synthetic apriori statements like the kind you just made (whether you are aware of that or not), statements like, "any principle you will establish....." are being made out of lack of awareness of the true nature of language, logic and the so-called apriori necessary truths. I implore you to go on Google and search for a PDF document explaining Later Wittgensteins recontextualization of logic and apriori truths in terms of 'normative grammar', it is very enlightening and I think this will help you get around these issues. Fourthly, I also advise looking into what the Buddhist sage Nagarjuna had to say about conventions and ultimate reality. There's a lot of useful insights and i won't go into here (including 'tetralemma', '2 truths doctrine', etc.) But I will say this, you don't have to abandone the use of conventions, this includes uses of language and even logic. In true nonduality fashion, you're going to instead seek the way to using conventions (ie; useful fictions) skillfully to your advantage in life while also not letting them control you (via being vexed philosophical problems and paradoxes or being compelled to accept certain conclusions of logic because you believe logical rules actually exist independent of your mind and will, etcetera). Hopefully this too can help produce some clarity for "getting around these issues". Good Luck!

Hi Cameron, I think you ask some really good questions. Not only can these questions reveal insights into relative personal and social constructs, the questions can also reveal insights into nonduality. I think some of the confusion may be due to mixing absolute and relative perspectives - which I will do my best to explain. . . It's easiest to start from a nondual perspective: that is - Everything is One. So there is no distinctions between "me" and "you". No distinctions between "masculine" and "feminine", no distinctions between "male" and "female". If Everything is One, all of those distinctions dissolve. As a metaphor, imagine Everything is Blue. Then there is no "Blue vs. Not Blue". If Everything is Blue there is no Not Blue for comparison. We would need to create a distinction - that one thing is Blue and another thing is Not Blue. As soon as we enter into this relative arena, things get tricky. . . Who decides what counts as blue or not blue? What if scientists say a specific wavelength of light is blue and philosophers say blue is a personal experience of perception? What if one society defines blue one way and another country defines blue another way? And what about "sort of blue-ish" - at what point does it count as "blue" and how decides? . . . So these things can get messy. We can say "Everything is One, there is no reason for all this blue business". Yet at the same time, blue is part of the human experience. Similarly: sex, gender and sexual orientation can all deconstruct down to One - there is no sex, gender or sexual orientation. From there, we can create personal and social constructs. We can create simple constructs or complex constructs. Yet notice how these are relative constructs that all deconstruct back down to absolute nothing. So why even create such constructs? Because it's part of the relative human experience. It also has practical value in navigating through society, yet at a deeper level it is part of who we are and how we interact with others. We are both One and unique individuals. We can contemplate gender from both personal and societal perspectives. These two are integrated, yet can also be in conflict. How you personally consider "masculine" and "feminine" may differ from some societal constructs on what "masculine" and "feminine" is. Or, personal and societal constructs can be aligned. Likewise, how you identify as "masculine" and "feminine" may differ from how fragments of society judges you as being "masculine" and "feminine". This is all due to relativity. There is no one universal objective definition. . . Understanding this will allow new space to explore. As you mentioned, we can define male and female "sex" based on genitalia and genetics. The male sex has XY chromosomes and a penis, while the female sex has XX chromosomes and a vagina. This would be a scientific definition based on physical features. This would also have practical value in society. If a male sex person is having pain in their testicles, they would look for a doctor that specializes in diagnosing male sex issues. Defining the sexes based on genitalia is generally straightforward, yet there will be some exceptions. For example, there are rare inter-sex individuals with genitalia that is hard to distinguish (for example, a tiny penis/clitoris hybrid). As well, there are some individuals that have had surgery to remove a penis. Yet these are relatively rare cases. Are designation that male sex = penis and female sex = vagina still has practical implications - we can deal with the exceptions on a case by case basis. For example, in medical school we may learn male sex anatomy and female sex anatomy and the professor may mentioned that there are some exceptions - such as intersex and briefly cover that situation. If a student wanted to specialize in intersex medicine, they would take entire courses in that area. Gender designation enters a much more relative word. Here, it's not so easy to say "Male gender is A" and "Female gender is B". Now we are getting into personal identity and this introduces phenomena of self-value, self-expression and self-survival. Once we enter this arena - the fight is On Like Donkey Kong. There will be people that want to define male/female gender based on their own self interest and others that want define it differently because they have different self interests. Therefore, there will not be a universal definition that anyone agrees on. So some people say, gender should be based on how a person identifies. Another person may say "No! That would mean there would be 30+ different genders people are identifying with!!". So society is working things out and evolving. The old, conservative construct is that gender is the same as sex. A person with a penis is the male gender and a person with a vagina is the female gender. Yet this is a very simplistic binary construct. There is also "masculinity and femininity". These are additional features. By the old, conservative view - Male sex = Male gender = Masculine and Female sex = Female gender = Feminine. This is an overly simplistic binary construct that was the mainstream consensus for centuries. . . Over the past 40 years, much of society has questioned this binary construct leading to a a higher evolved construct that is more complex. People have asked "What a minute. . . what does masculine and feminine even mean? Aren't males and females mixtures of masculine and feminine? Can a male sex person with a penis have more feminine features than masculine? If so, should we call them the male gender or female gender". This has led to a spectrum in which some cis-gender males are hyper-masculine and other cis-gender men have more feminine energy (perhaps 60% masculine, 40% feminine). Some of the male sex (with penis) have much more feminine energy (perhaps 70% feminine, 30% masculine). These male sex individuals relate more to the female gender side of the spectrum and are trans-gender female. . . More recently, some individuals do not relate stronger with either male or female designations and are nonbinary. These new, more complex constructs are at a higher evolutionary level, yet there will be backlash. There will be traditional men and women that want to maintain the older binary construct of Male sex = Male gender = Masculine and Female sex = Female gender = Feminine. They will feel very threatened by new gender expressions they see outside of their norm. Many of these conservatives will feel so threatened that they will fight to maintain the old constructs.

Exactly! The Final Duality of nonduality vs. duality is collapsed. Duality is nondualistic Lol

@VeganAwake Yes, I agree with you regarding awakening and absolute. I am pointing toward the unification of duality and nonduality. Yet 99.9999% of people are immersed in duality - so what you are pointing to would have greater relevance the vast majority of times. One must first see the distinction between dual and nondual, before they can drop the distinction between dual and nondual.

This is nonduality. There are no separate selves or "both of us" Only I.

You are using an idea of “direct experience” to elevate experience/ideas to higher truth. Notice the obsession to go “beyond infinity”, to extraordinary levels on SD - coral, teal, ruby, whatever. To rank the conscious levels of all forum users, moderators, Leo and nonduality speakers. To post insights only you have received and to gain admiration on the forum. Notice how your threads and posts have become more and more dramatic that attracts attention. As soon as you say “my direct experience was. . . “ it is no longer direct experience - it is contextualized experience that is occurring within direct experience. Direct experience is Now - whatever contextualization you give Now is a contextualized experience. Yes, there are no words to describe the ineffable. It’s not about the words. It’s the relationship with what the words are referring to. You don’t seem willing to look at the attachment/identification to experience. Presenting experience, images and ideas as “direct experience” does not grant immunity. I’m sure you have had insights that are difficult to put in words. Yet as of now, it is a tangled mess lacking clarity.

@shahryar coz, again, there is deep correlation between being mystic/guru/cleric/passive meditator,contemplator and having highly feminine/hermoprodite nature. whats the problem with them being gay is because being gay is just result of person becoming too absorbed by the biggest gay - devil. which means that this person failed its main task in life which is to 'not to become' absorbed by devil. and also being gay is evil. its not about their biological desire, its rather about that they, clerics, are passive receivers of infinite idol's commands/energy. passive receivers are what women are. and so they, clerics, are like woman who is receiving energy from their object of worshipping. clerics are passively receiving from idol. they are passive receivers coz they have highly feminine nature, it means that they like to be submissive to someone beautiful. like their idol - devil/great being. it all sounds equal to being gay - passive, submissive, receiving energy, worshipping beautiful blue boy playing on flute - doesn't it sound gay enough? maybe they are not all gays in orientation, but they are gays metaphysically. they are metaphysical and ontological gays. spiritual gays! there is one jewish kaballah teacher, he teaches about how to reunite with devil, he calls devil as creator. and he says that creator makes him to feel sexually aroused. and this guy is respectable 60 years old sage. and he is fully ok with having mystical arousal with Satan itself. and he is okay with telling that to the whole world. he is clearly lost his conscience because none of clerics i listed above have any conscience left. and face is just expressing whats hidden in their filthy hearts which are filled with blissful love to blue pretty boys playing on flutes. they want their separate selves to disappear in ecstatic mystical union with blue boy. thats what all nonduality and mysticism is about. devil is not metaphor, because infinite intelligence is devil. and infinite being is devil, and infinite possibilities is devil. devil is totally everything. nothing exists besides devil. only devil is.

@Rujan Mehar Bajracha I was 16 when I was introduced to actualized.org by the meditation guide video. It's been 1.5 years. No problem to be young. Don't make huge decisions and choices based on nonduality yet. We tend to get immature when we see truths in young age. Remember you can work on this for dacades starting from now. Don't rush it.

Yes, it's in duality but duality is also magical if you appreciate duality with an understanding of nonduality. It's in that place where they meet and intertwine where enlightenment as experienced by humans and magic happens. Creativity is channeling, it's just includes its more gentler forms. Harry Potter, Star Wars and the Matrix aren't powerful pointers to the nature of reality for nothing. They didn't become wildly popular for nothing. They were a creative message from God send to us in a fun package. Have you ever been in a deep flow state, when it felt like the creation was just creating itself or the story was just writing itself or like you weren't the one running the race or playing the game? There's no limit to how powerful and all consuming those flow states can get.

This is my first review on the Actualized.org forum. I really feel compelled to share my honest opinion about this course, and Sadhguru, for those considering this course. A bit of background; I am a long-time spiritual seeker, who began with Vipassana meditation ( Goenka), in 2001. I did many ten-day silent retreats, initially did extremely well, but got burned out and quit vipassana after 14 years. In 2008, I took up Bikram yoga, and today I practice the Ashtanga Primary series. In 2016, I began working with an outstanding nonduality teacher (recently retired) who introduced me to the teachings of Ramana Maharshi and recommended a multi-faceted approach. In less than 16 months, I experienced Nirvakalpi Samadhi. I see myself as having undergone great positive changes, and mental purifications. I experience an inner peace and joy that I would not have thought possible. At this point, it feels like I am sweeping out the corners, so to speak, in dealing with the residual vasanas. I feel it is important to share all this, to give context to my review of the Inner Engineering Course. I took the Inner Engineering Course in April 2018, on the advice of a friend. I had been curious about Kriya yoga. I immediately felt it was increasing my energy. About eight weeks after the course, I went through an incredibly challenging period with an adult child, who was in critical condition in hospital. I was surprised at the degree of mental clarity I had during this crisis. This is the thing I can honestly say has been the most noticeable benefit; increased mental clarity. Also, sleep quality has improved and sleeping on average about an hour less per night. I've been impressed enough with the results of this course, that I am now planning to take another traditional Kriya course, but not with Sadhguru's Isha foundation, for reasons I'll explain later. Sadhguru makes a lot of big claims about the power of this course to change people's lives. From what I have seen, having taken the course and volunteered at two other courses, Sadhguru seems to be attracting a lot of new people to the spiritual path, and I think this is great. I appreciate the fact that Sadhguru understands that a lot of people need to focus on improving their physical and mental health, and this is foundational to spiritual growth. I think this aspect is sorely missing in the Western Buddhist community ( Zen and Vipassana), where the emphasis is all on sitting for long periods. I've recommended the course to eight other people. Half have not kept up their practice, and only one seems to have gotten similar benefits to me. An observation I'd like to share; There is a big difference between Sadhguru, and the Isha Foundation which is run by volunteers. There is definitely an element of fundamentalism/ cultishness among many of the Isha volunteers. I would say the Isha Foundation is at Stage Blue in Spiral Dynamics, whereas I agree with Leo, that Sadhguru is Stage Turquoise. This has been challenging for me to reconcile. However, I am now thinking that Sadhguru is attracting Stage Blue / Orange people into the yogic path, and perhaps the way things are set up, is what these people need. One other issue I'd like to mention. Sadhguru has trained a number of teachers to conduct the Inner Engineering Courses. He is teaching some large numbers of people in big venues, and his trained teachers are teaching perhaps- 40-80 people in various places around the world. If you go to a course offered by one of his trained teachers, all of the Shambhavi Kriya instructions will be presented by videos of Sadhguru. One thing I had a big problem was the fact that the teachers are required to memorize word for word, a one-hour introductory talk at the beginning of the course. It comes across very weird. They are also tightly scripted every time they address the class throughout the course. A number of students I've spoken with find this aspect highly disconcerting. It's as if Sadhguru doesn't trust his own, hand-picked, devoted teachers to speak with their own words - every single word needs to be memorized. Ironically, Sadhguru says he has been invited by the Prime Minister of India to give input on reforming India's education and says a big problem with India's education policies are the emphasis on memorization, rather than real learning! In spite of this 'negative criticism', I really think Sadhguru is doing great things and is a positive force in this world. A few months ago, I found a series of Kriya books on Amazon, by SantataGamana, which I would HIGHLY recommend. I've decided not to keep going with ISHA courses at this point because I would rather pursue a traditional route. I will be getting initiation this coming weekend with Himalayan Yogi Nath Guru. Still, I am grateful for the benefits I have gotten from Shambhavi Kriya.

There is something beyond the words. In terms of SD, immersion and analysis of words is stage Orange. At green and above, non-intellectual modes arise. Imagine observing a painting. There is a nonverbal relationship between observer and painting. A type of essence. There is communication. Now imagine a scientist observing the painting and saying "you are analyzing the ink on canvas". If we try to tell the scientist there is an emergent property beyond they ink and canvas, he won't "get it" because he is contracted within his paradigm. It's not about analyzing the pointer. That would be like saying there is nothing else to analyze but the ink and canvas of a painting. There is a nonverbal essence to the painting. It's not really an "anaylsis". It's a different mode of being. Imagine the scientist saying "You don't understand. I am pointing to something ineffable. Look here. Look how this part of the painting is 30% blue ink, 40% red ink and 30% green ink. Notice that the artist used a broad brush for this portion of the green ink.". . . It would be clear that the scientist is still contracted within a paradigm. He doesn't quite "get" the emergent property of the painting. Now. . . imagine the artist who created this painting. Imagine the artist try to describe the ineffable essence through words. Compare this to the scientist trying to describe what the ineffable essence of the painting is. These are two very different orientations. Do you think an artist could tell the difference between the creator of the work and the scientist? Of course. It's not about the words, it is about how the words are used. There is a conflation between nonduality/duality and absolute/relative going on here. It is not the words, it is the underlying conflation. The realization and knowing of this does not come intellectually. You have repeatedly spoke of the attainment of peace/bliss and the cessation of suffering. If there is no one to attain peace/bliss and no one to be free of suffering - *who/what* is it that attains this peace/bliss and becomes free of suffering? If Enlightenment is both the presence and absence of suffering, why seek the cessation of suffering? If peace is suffering, why seek peace through the cessation of suffering. You are already peace while suffering - why seek peace outside of the suffering? The motivation is the secondary question. There is a prior to that, which you skipped. . . Have you directly experienced pure peace/bliss while experiencing awful suffering? This is the most important orientation expressed so far because it is so direct. This is a place of immense consciousness expansion into deep levels. If you don't think peace is suffering, then you are within a contraction of conditional peace. This is where the direct experience is so important. There is the knowing of absolute peace of suffering. The absolute peace of pain, anxiety, panic and terror. This is realized at a deep level because it is fully transcendent of the person/human. It's not the words. It is the knowing of the peace. This is not serotoninluv trying to describe what absolute peace is like through words. This is absolute peace trying to express itself through words. There is unconditional eternal peace Now, regardless of what is happening. If one places conditions on this peace, they will not come to know this peace. For example, if a being is suffering they may think "this is suffering, not peace". This will block them from the deeper realization. You keep returning to thoughts and analysis. There are modes beyond thinking and analysis, that you don't seem to be aware of. Here, you are not picking up on the post-intellectual modes being conveyed. I am not saying you are wrong. I'm saying there is something that you are missing. . . Imagine a person that speaks Arabic fluently. Do you think this person could recognize a Norwegian tourist that does not speak Arabic? What if this person says "No, no! I'm actually Arabic and speak Arabic. Here are a few Arabic words. . ." Do you think the native Arab would be able to recognize this? Of course. It would be completely obvious because he has the direct experience of being Arabic and is fluent in Arabic. He is not a farmer from rural Canada imaging what Arabic is like. These are very different orientations.

Okay so you think what I am saying is duality saying what non-duality is like, which you are doing through words. I hope we are not disagreeing on this. But then you say- "You seem to think I am analyzing the pointer, which I am not. " , which I don't think is authentic, because in this forum there is nothing else but the words I am writing. You have nothing else to analyze but the pointer, however you are saying there is something else to analyze. And also you have written the reason why you think I come from a source of duality , you say- For example, you have written a lot about attaining peace/bliss and the cessation of suffering. *Who/what* attains that peace/bliss? To "whom/what" does suffering cease? You seem to have a subtle underlying personal/human framework that I don't think you are aware of. This is the reason why you think I am duality talking about nonduality. ( I hope we are not disagreeing on this) I don't need to talk about - who, what, whom what, when I am talking about bliss, to show that I am talking about nonduality. If I was an enlightened person, it doesn't mean I wouldn't be talking with the words 'you' 'I' etc. Buddha's suttas are full of those words. In case you might be wondering, I do not attach my isness with my ego. There is no one to attain bliss, there is no one to attain peace. But still, I will talk using 'you' and 'I'. It doesn't directly mean I am talking from duality. I don't know where you learned that using language that way indicates duality. Also don't say you are not looking at the pointer. There is nothing else but the pointer in this forum. I literally have. Enlightenment is the presence and absence of suffering Absence of suffering from the perspective of duality, is the motivation. That's what motivated Leo to start this entire project. If you say this isn't the case, I disagree. That's what started the Buddha legend. I don't think peace is suffering. From nonduality, there is no one desiring the end to suffering. From duality, the ego is desiring. Ego finds suffering painful . The sense which you have got by interpreting the words I have written the way you think the meaning has been conveyed.

I understand that. I have a lot of experience in nonverbal zones. You seem to think I am analyzing the pointer, which I am not. I know the distinction between dualistic terms used to point and that which is being pointed to. There is a difference between nonduality trying to express itself in dualistic terms and duality trying to express what nonduality is like in dualistic terms. It is not your words you use as a pointer, it is more about the realization that you are holding the pointer, rather than omniscience holding the pointer. This is just my sense: there is an essence about your posts that is conflating - it has aspects of both. I'm not concerned about the words used. I'm concerned with the source of those words and the filter through which those words pass. For example, you have written a lot about attaining peace/bliss and the cessation of suffering. *Who/what* attains that peace/bliss? To "whom/what" does suffering cease? Who/what decides what is "suffering" and what is "peace"? You seem to have a subtle underlying personal/human framework that I don't think you are aware of. For example would you agree that "peace is suffering?". Not at an intellectual level, through direct experience. Have you directly experienced pure peace/bliss while experiencing awful suffering? If so, what is the motivation to seek conditional peace/bliss? If peace is suffering, who/what desires to end suffering? And why? Why seek the footsteps of wise enlightened beings when you have access to the same source as them? Tapping into that source transcends all spiritual literature and sages - because it is the source of all spiritual literature and sages.

@Serotoninluv You are interpreting and misinterpretating the message that I am trying to convey with the words that I am using. You find many contradictions within the words that I am using. But fundamentally my message is non-dual. You cannot make interpretations or judgements by the words that I am using. I am not in disagreement with your version of spirituality, but you are making judgements about what I am saying using the words that I am using, but those meanings which you are making out from my words (which you have written in your answer) is not what I am conveying. I will give you one example- you said - Notice how you have made a distinction between the ant and "enlightenment" and the "cessation of suffering". The words I wrote might look like I did that. But I haven't made any distinction, I am just trying to convey a message which can easily be looked like there is duality in there. But really there isn't. If we are to analyze the same way you are analyzing to Buddha's suttas or Leo's vid then even there you will find many duality and distinctions, but his message is non-dual and so is mine. The reason you are having a problem with what I am writing is because I don't know how to write in a way that indicates non-duality which makes you go "okay, this is nonduality" . But my understanding is not of the kind which you think I have based on what I have written and your interpretation of it. But what I write is irrevelant. The words I am using and how you are interpreting word by word is irrevelant. What is relevant is the message that I am conveying, which some people may grasp rightly, some wrongly. What is relevant is the experience that I am pointing towards.

@Synchronicity Thanks, that makes sense. Could you/would you be able to teach others in this reality how to perceive reality/realities/infinity like you do? Also, have you ever heard of anybody else having this ability? Most 'enlightened' persons I've researched, they all got there by having an awakening. But, you've always been like this, which seems to be more 'advanced' (for lack of a better description) then anyone else I've heard of. So wondering if this is a one of kind occurrence. Most Nonduality/Spiritual teachers can only access nonduality/god-head/no self/infinity temporarily through meditation, psychedelics, etc. Would you say you are nonduality/god-head/no self/infinity all the time?

Because the perfection of nonduality includes duality, "you" come back from a no self experience, the ego comes back and you have to integrate what you now understand. You also see the perfection and joy in doing mundane survival tasks.

Distinction vs non-distinction is itself a distinction. From a dualistic perspective, enlightenment seems like nonduality. Some type of One no-self state. This can be an extremely profound awakening, yet the nondual vs. dual duality breaks down as well as we go full circle. It's whatever the case may be. For a time, the subjective experience may seem like flipping back and forth between dual and nondual, yet this breaks down. There is something transcendent to that.

Nonduality (not two). Infinite = unconditional / any ‘yearnings’. “Not directly aware of” = unconscious of. Unconscious = reaction, reacting. Conscious = creation / creating. White wants white, is white not already white? Maybe white wants to experience a rainbow, any rainbow, every rainbow, and to create with white. Inner being, sensation, is simple. A thought “complex”, implies “complex”. Complexity is found in thought & concept, even thought & concept about sensation. Actual sensation, direct, is singular and simplistic.

@mandyjw I look at consciousness similar to the way the universe formed. There was a big bang that resulted in massive clouds of hydrogen/helium. Via gravity, they coalesced into matter "packets". They continue to collapse under their own weight until the ignite into a star. Since I believe that consciousness is a fundamental building block, I believe that as matter comes together to form "objects", it is also coalesced consciousness, which then "ignites" into differing levels of awareness. This is how I see that everything has some varying degree of consciousness (animism). There is nonduality in that there is one consciousness but there are various levels of consciousness having individuated awareness (duality). Animism would say every cell in your body has some degree of subjective consciousness but you also have subjective awareness but on a different level. Also, your city, which you are a part of, has its own subjective awareness along with the planet, etc, etc.

@Matt8800 I noticed that there are birds, stones and trees involved in nearly every religion or myth that points to nonduality. I was wondering if you had come across this or had any thoughts about why this is?

This is pantheism, all pagans doctrines are pantheistic. They take Being for God. All schools within Hinduism are essentially pantheistic. While Bible and Quran is monotheism, it says that Allah is separate from essence of life, separate from universe, from reality, from experience and separate from absolute infinity. In other words, He is separate and not-identical to that which is absolutely everything and which is boundless. Thats impossible since infinity is all there is, but thats the message of Quran, and core of God's providence - the impossible - Supremacy over absolutely everything. Allah is winner over absolute infinity. Islam is doctrine of non-identicalness while all Nondual metaphysics are based on identicalness. And Quran calls that 'essence of life and universe' - or God/Gods of pagans - Quran calls that as Iblis or Apollos or Diabolos. Devil. The Great Being. In other words Islam says that the essence or substance of reality is diabolic, it is devil itself. The great ITSELF or SELF of Nondual doctrines is Devil. For instance, there is hadith that says to diligently blow your nose after waking up in the morning, because during your sleep Devil has occupied large parts of your nose. Or there is hadith like that - Satan is living even inside your veins/blood flow. Or there is hadith - music is Satan's language. And as we know Being is Music. Someone said here that there is only music in reality. Or there is hadith - flute is forbidden coz its Satan's whistle. And as we know Krishna is playing on flute. Greek gods like Apollon is playing on flute. Essentially all Hindu and Greek and Egyptian etc. pantheon of gods are nothing but masks of Being. And all avatars and incarnations that came to restore dharma are also avatars of The Great Being. Because Iblis wants for eternal law of universe to be eternal forever. Coz Being's only purpose is to be and to be to infinity. While Abrahamism came as revolution against universal order. Thats why ISIS is fighting the global world order. While someone sweet like Dalai Lama wants to keep peace and status quo. Because dalai lama is agent of Being, of Universe, of Iblis. What does it mean? It means that Substance of Existence or Essence of Existence is infernal, its based on metaphysical error. And since all is one, and its total, thus all is devil. And Allah has intentionally made error, and then made human to fix that. The true purposes why is it so are beyond our understanding I guess. But why human call that Devil or essence of life as God? Because Devil is light, bliss, he is goodness, he is beauty, harmony, peace. Thats attributes of Being. Of Lucifer. Devil is GOOD itself. It is Idea of Good itself. So naturally when human achieves enlightenment and realises his union with oneness, he is in very good state of being. Everything seems good. And he naturally thinks that 'oh well, thats what God is all about. Something good as that cannot be evil, and it is definitely what we are here for, and it is what all the religious noise is all about. Ohh, I got it know, I am so happy I found God, now I can be sure that I am safe and on the side of truth'. Hehe, nope, the core of error is found in Quran - 'What you think is Good is actually Evil, and what you think is Evil is actually Good'. Meaning that Good is only there for seduction and as means for sacrifice, be it low kind of pleasure or highest kind of spiritual good. And as analogy - ISIS and Dalai Lama - ISIS is Evil itself in the eyes of masses, while Dalai Lama is the Goodness itself. But if we use Quranic logic then reality switches upside down. So we can't bridge different doctrines. Because they are not talking about same thing. While Sufis are also pantheists, mystical path is always pantheistic. So we can't unite all paths within one religion either coz they are not talking about same thing. Christianity is same to Islam in its core, but many latest mystics, saints, theologians, priests, monks, many fallen into idea of good trap and have based their teachings on 'God is Good' idea. Idea of Good is the strongest and trickiest and the main hook through which Devil catches us in his warm hands. Not to see such obvious and mutually exclusive contradictions while comparing Quran with Nondual doctrines is a sign that there is imperative of nonduality here, there is desire to make everything to fit into comfortable nondual bias. Clearly scriptures are saying different things and contradicting each other to large extent, why not to notice that striking difference and whats the source of this strange idea of uniting everything under the same paradigm? thats a question that needs answer.

It has happened for me naturally after 10-20 years of energy work and releasing blockages. The bliss in my body is euphoric. Sometimes there are pains as the Kundalini hits a blockage. No, I am not spiritually pure. I still think lustful. I still masturbate. I still eat meat. I may use DPT to gauge where I am at, but not as a crutch. I am not doing Kundalini Yoga. More like Bhakti Yoga, or the path of love. Is this a path towards enlightenment, doing what we love? I am not that good at meditation. The nonduality knocks me out like 30 times in a month. At least I think it's nonduality. I can't go into that state with my same awareness. Who else here is experiencing a Kundalini awakening? What are your experiences, and how can I allow the bliss without worrying that I will be overwhelmed by the bliss?

When I'm meditating, there will be a point where there's an increase in energy, and it knocks me out. On the other side it feels like I'm beside myself and not myself. There is a connection to other things that I can feel. It is euphoric. But I only stay in that state for a few seconds before I snap out of it. In that state, I am hypersensitive even to my dog's fur brushing up against me which can make me nearly jump. Is this a state of nonduality? I don't remember much when I come back from it, but it feels like home. I notice I have no thoughts of my own in that state. I am just observing.

@IndigoGeminiWolf For me, visuals are distracting. I much prefer headspace without visuals. You may want to try another psychedelic with less visuals. For example, 5-meo has no visuals and is very nondual for most people. Shrooms and LSD can work to, yet they can have all sorts of extra storylines. Ime, 5-meo is the clearest. These thoughts are just based on my experience and observations: it seems humans (including me) are conditioned to perceive in duality and it takes work to decondition this into nonduality. Imagine only seeing one side of a coin your entire life and then learning there is another side of the coin. Glimpses of that other side is a huge awakening. Seeing and experience the other side of the coin (nonduality) can give contrast to the first side (duality). I think this is an important stage. Then, we can realize nonduality and duality are two sides of the same coin. I would de-emphasize ideas that nondual experiences should be dramatic - like flopping around like a fish in a jungle. They can certainly be dramatic, yet they can also seem simple and obvious. I would also balance the idea that nondual experiences are something to work toward with nondual experiences are Now. Ime, a balance between both are important. If someone becomes to future oriented, they will miss out on Now (in which all nondual experiences occur). You have likely already have had forms of nondual experiences. . . . Have you ever been in "the flow" while playing a sport, musical instrument or creating art? A "flow" in which time and "me" dissolved and there was simply pure presence of the moment? Have you ever had a moment of such love that there was no "me" and the "other"? There was simply love? Have you ever been awestruck by the beauty of nature that "you" and time stopped for a moment and there was simply awe and awareness of what is? . . . These are all forms on nondual experiences that most people have brief glimpses of, yet then quickly "snap out of it". They might be like "whoa, what was that?". Perhaps they dismiss it and get back into story mode. . . "Wow, I was in the flow! But I should have passed the ball". "Whoa, was that a moment of love? I wonder if she felt it too? What if only I felt it? What if I lose it?". "Wow, the Grand Canyon is amazing! I need to get a good picture to post on Instagram". . . Notice that each nondual glimpse is brief and the personal "character" quickly returns back to the conditioned dual state. . . A key is to recognize nondual glimpses you already have. Become aware of them (without intellectualizating about it). Over time, these nondual glimpses can extend. Ime at early stages, I would say thinking was the #1 block toward nondual experiences. Thoughts themselves appear Now just like everything else. Yet thoughts are alluring and they can mesmerize a person into a dualitstic illusion. Nearly all me early nondual experiences were nonverbal and there was not engagement with thinking. There may have been some stray thoughts, but they didn't have the power of engagement. A few thoughts, would pass by, similar to the sound of bird chirps passing by. . . Then I wold "snap back" into thinking mode. . .

@Serotoninluv I did DMT and Ayahuasca about 15-20 times in the past. I smoked the DMT and drank the Ayahuasca. Never experienced nonduality I don't think. It didn't feel like love. It was bizarre and I was trying not to give into astonishment. I did go into hyperspace though, but I still didn't feel oneness or anything. I even took THH sublingually before smoking the DMT to amplify its effects, and still didn't have a nondual experience. Though it was powerful.