Search the Community

I don't know. And I haven't done a thorough research on it yet but so far it seems to me like this: There are 3 main positions: 1. Those people say that it is very dangerous. They also say Kriya yoga and kundalini yoga are very dangerous and should not be done. They also say that psychedelics are even more dangerous and don't bring you (true) enlightenment. They recommend techniques that seem very very indirect. I suppose they are just dogmatic and have no deep and broad understanding of nonduality 2. Those say that kundalini awakening can be dangerous if it doesnt happen the right way. They do recommend practicing kriya yoga to prepare the body for the kundalini awakening but ONLY with a guru. They take the traditional approach. They say it takes years or decades and should only be done with a guru and then it is possible that you have a kundalini awakening and then it will be not dangerous . 3. They say the kundalini awakening can be very tough if the body is not yet ready and one is not yet spiritually mature. So they recommend yoga to prepare the body. One definitely doesn't need a guru. And they say that the kundalini awakening is more certain to happen (than the others say) and can happen much more quickly. Now, what does dangerous mean? ln the handful of books I read related to the topic and little online research I have done so far, dangerous means that you can have very severe kundalini symptoms. But I haven't yet found one serious source which says it can kill you. In the internet are of course some horror stories, but as with psychedelics use, you must look at the context. When someone knows nothing about spirituality and nonduality and one's body hasn't been prepared whatsoever with yoga or something similar, and one has a spontaneous kundalini awakening or goes to someone who awakens it right away then this is similar to when a teenage takes a high dosage of 5me0-Dmt half drunk on a party with his friends. I am not totally sure yet, but what I would suggest is, that when you have the theoretical foundation, that is you are mentally mature and you prepare your body gradually with yoga, the chance of it killing you is under 0.01%. You will of course have kundalini symptoms nevertheless. And they are severe according to how unprepared your body is. But as long as it doesn't kill me, I would be fine with those symptoms. So when is your body ready? intuit it. Gradually adopt more and more powerful techniques but only if you feel ready. I have read Stevens book and Gamanas books. I would say kriya supreme fire is the most powerful technique. Gamana says you can do it after already some few months of kriya yoga and then over the months and years of practice you do it for longer and longer durations, up to an hour once you are very experineced and already had a kundalini awakening. I have been doing kriya yoga for 6 months but because I just want to be very very safe, I haven't yet added it to my routine. I will wait perhaps 2 more months and when I feel ready I will add it and very slowly increase the duration (number of rounds). You have been doing kriya yoga for 1 year so I guess, in case you feel ready, you can add it now. If I remember right, Leo added it much sooner, but he is also more spiritually advanced. Definitely buy Gamana's book on kundalini, even if his techniques seem too dangerous to you, it is still worth it because it includes interesting background knowledge on it. But if you want to be yet more safe, then do the approach which position 1 and 2 suggest. Does anyone of you think the kundalini awakening itself can kill you right away?

I have not experienced any darkness from it. Just pure God & Love. Interesting how that is. It seems to affect people very differently. It really unlocks the power of one's imagination, so whatever darkness exists in you may become manifest. Yeah, I read about it. Seems like a wacky cult-like organization. But they sure did pick a great chemical to start a religion around DPT will completely unlock one's imagination, so whatever religious imagery one believes in will become manifest. Or if you believe in pure nonduality, that will become manifest. On DPT I was actually able to integrate and understand all of the world's religious imagery simultaneously. It was an awesome degree of total integration which cannot be accomplished via ordinary thought. It was like a multi-dimensional integration and simultaneous understanding of all symbolic systems ever invented by mankind. All human symbolic understanding is relative and arbitrary. Yet all of it can also be meaningful to the one holding it.

@Tom T Sounds about right. But it can be useful to see that spirituality is more than just nonduality.

So this is a question directly for Leo, but I would definitely appreciate any input from people deep on the journey. So: after doing all of this enlightenment work and the back to back 5MeO awakening experiences along with this new psychadelic that you haven’t revealed yet, what are the effects on your day to day consciousness? What is your consciousness and experience of sober reality like compared to before your journey for enlightenment & spirituality? Also, If one wants to attempt to investigate reality and nonduality as deeply as you have, what should they expect in terms of perceptual (5 senses) experience in life?

@Sev How can you be sure that the pesticides in your salad aren't giving you cancer? Most psychedelics have been used by many thousands of people safely. In fact they are healing substances. Some research chems are known to be dangerous, but not the one I'm talking about. Of course if you want 100% guarantees then don't take anything ever, including your tap water. I would be more worried about the food you eat giving you cancer than that psychedelics will somehow poison you. When you take a substance you can generally feel if it is healthy or not. Some substances feel dirty and you don't even want to redo them. Alexander Shulgin personally synthesized and tested over 100 new psychedelics on himself. So it's not like I am the first person testing this stuff. It's all been tested long before me. I am merely picking out the cream of the crop for purposes of nonduality. Imagine inventing 100 new psychedelics and testing them all on yourself! The first human to ever try them! Now that's terrifying. Shulgin lived to 88.

This substance seems better suited for that goal. It tends to penetrate deeper than 5-MeO-DMT. 5-MeO-DMT it just a bit too fast, it tends to come and go. This new substance seems to rewire the brain more. Or at least I'm able to use my will/intention to tell it to rewire me. This requires more testing to see what could come of it. Seems like a promising tool so far. I can see this being a tool to purify a lot of baggage, thus leading to better embodiment in everyday life. I see a lot of potential in it if used properly with the right intentions by an experience student of nonduality/spirituality. Of course I don't know how well it works for other people. I just know it works great for me.

Yeah, although just because something isn't explicitly banned does not mean it's totally free and clear. Research chemicals are a sort of grey area. It activates more energy in the body than 5-MeO, causing a desire to vibrate parts of your body. The nonduality is so profound the body want to go into a sort of cosmic orgasm, shaking loose decades of egoic baggage. Yeah, it's tricky. The truth must always be denied by devils.

@Aakash Nonduality is the truth for you perhaps. Now I have had a couple nondual experiences. They have definitely changed my mind for good. But what is true for me in this moment? Does nonduality even exist for me now? Besides my memory and thoughts/ideas its not there. Whats true for me at this moment is nowhere close to nonduality. ? What a crooked life we live.

@Inliytened1 Aahaha great thats what i'm talking about baby Non duality equation is x = illusory therefore X does not equal Y , Y = god duality: nonduality equation is X = Real Y = real (the duality pairing_ therefore X=Y ! they are exactly as real as eachother

I wrote this extremely detailed response in another thread, and thought I would like to share it with the rest of you because the nature of mathematics is a very tricky one that many people fall prey to. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mathematics is fundamentally about relationships first and foremost; numbers are a way to express those relationships. Hold out your finger. Let's call that "one." Now hold out another finger. Great. Let's call that "two." So now we have "two fingers" held out. But you see, this example necessarily RELIES on you defining a single finger as being "one." If you do not tell yourself first and foremost that a finger = 1, you COULD NOT say that two fingers = 2. What if I defined my hand as "one?" Well, I could put out both hands and say "I have two hands." But again, I COULD NOT say that two hands = 2, unless I first said that a hand = 1 This is important, because what counts as "one" changes depending on the thing you are attempting to describe. In the first example, 1 = a finger. In the second example, 1 = hand. This should tell you immediately that any numerical description you make of ANY PHENOMENA must be grounded in what you determine is equal to "one." The problem is, you can call ANYTHING "one" to suit your needs. I can call my hand 1, but you could come along and argue with me that it's actually 5. Nobody is right or wrong in this case, because our "unit" (the thing we call "one") is different. For me, the unit is a hand. For you, the unit is a finger. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Immediately, the question you should have is this: "what allows me to call something 'one?'" Well, you might think "I can just point to stuff and call it whatever I want, duh," but it's actually extraordinarily complex. The reality is, we can label anything as anything, so nothing is stopping us from calling things "one." However, the label "one" would have no meaning unless it was purposefully defined against its opposite. "one" means NOTHING unless there was such a thing as a "not-one." So you see, every time you call something "one," you are accounting for the possibility of a "not-one;" be it "two," "three," or "four." So when I label a single finger as "one," for that to have any meaning, I have had to already manifest a "two" without even considering any other fingers. Why is that? Well, how else could it be? If I label my finger as "one," without accounting for a "two," then calling my finger "one" has no meaning or utility. I might as well call it "potato" or "wioehtgoiasgjgioaweo." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So to recap: Mathematics is a study of relationships. Numbers facilitate this process. In order to describe something numerically, we must first define a "unit." Otherwise, it is impossible to do numerical mathematics. A "unit" only has meaning insofar as we view phenomena as "not-one." So here's the kicker: You actually DO NOT know that 1+1=2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You must first ask yourself "what is one?" "what is addition?" and "what is two?" You CANNOT know "1+1=2" unless you can answer these things. As we have shown, "one" is a completely relative term. What counts as "one" is decided either on a whim or by a specific human motive. That means that there is never a "one" for you to find somewhere out in the world, as it is ALWAYS a label your mind must assign. "But Rend, what about the spiritual gurus who say that all is one? Couldn't I find that out in the world?" Heh, they say that because it is what is communicable. The "oneness" that nonduality entails is nothing like the quantity "one" in mathematics. Furthermore, because we've shown that a "unit" only has meaning insofar as we view phenomena as "not-one," this tells you that ALL NUMERICAL DESCRIPTIONS are grounded in you personally viewing phenomena as fragmented. For example, who's to say I'm holding out 5 fingers? How do you know that it's not just 1 hand? What's a finger anyway? Isn't it just a part of the hand? So it's all just one big hand... there are no fingers... but wait, isn't the hand just a part of your arm? Etcetera. You realize the only reason a "finger" exists is because you said it did? There is no "finger" there. Or is there? it's hard to tell. The point is, you call things "one," "two," or "three" only because you are able to distinguish and categorize. What if your distinctions and categories are wrong? What would you label as "one?" How do I know I'm not deceiving myself when I say "I have 10 fingers?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So this should send warning sirens in your epistemology radar (what, you don't have one?) already. We thought we knew that "1+1=2" But we cannot even say what "1" is without appealing to a whole host of complexities. And the more we define and categorize, the more we must defend and rationalize. It's a vicious cycle. Here's the reality. You can't say what "one" is. No matter what you point to, it's all in your mind. Even if you say that "'one' is a mental construct! I've got it! I know what it is! Beat that, Rend. It's all mind-stuff, see? It doesn't have to be physical but all you did was give physical examples." you're wrong, and you don't know what "one" is Because, you see, now you have to explain to me what "mind" is. HAHAHAHA good luck. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So the wise thing to do here, really, is to admit that you do not know when you really dig deep. The problem is most people do not dig deep. You can do this "deconstruction" process with literally ANY piece of "knowledge" you think you have. Your knowledge feels so solid, like a mighty oak tree, until you realize there are no roots on this tree. Now, that doesn't mean that you should give up on knowledge altogether, nor does it mean knowledge isn't useful. Knowledge is SUPER USEFUL! In fact, that's all it really is! Utility. 1+1=2 is super useful when you're counting your possessions, for example. So you want to "know" these things insofar as they serve your well-being, while simultaneously being cautious that ultimately you really just don't know.

@CreamCat Time for the math class that everyone needs but nobody gets ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mathematics is fundamentally about relationships first and foremost; numbers are a way to express those relationships. Hold out your finger. Let's call that "one." Now hold out another finger. Great. Let's call that "two." So now we have "two fingers" held out. But you see, this example necessarily RELIES on you defining a single finger as being "one." If you do not tell yourself first and foremost that a finger = 1, you COULD NOT say that two fingers = 2. What if I defined my hand as "one?" Well, I could put out both hands and say "I have two hands." But again, I COULD NOT say that two hands = 2, unless I first said that a hand = 1 This is important, because what counts as "one" changes depending on the thing you are attempting to describe. In the first example, 1 = a finger. In the second example, 1 = hand. This should tell you immediately that any numerical description you make of ANY PHENOMENA must be grounded in what you determine is equal to "one." The problem is, you can call ANYTHING "one" to suit your needs. I can call my hand 1, but you could come along and argue with me that it's actually 5. Nobody is right or wrong in this case, because our "unit" (the thing we call "one") is different. For me, the unit is a hand. For you, the unit is a finger. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Immediately, the question you should have is this: "what allows me to call something 'one?'" Well, you might think "I can just point to stuff and call it whatever I want, duh," but it's actually extraordinarily complex. The reality is, we can label anything as anything, so nothing is stopping us from calling things "one." However, the label "one" would have no meaning unless it was purposefully defined against its opposite. "one" means NOTHING unless there was such a thing as a "not-one." So you see, every time you call something "one," you are accounting for the possibility of a "not-one;" be it "two," "three," or "four." So when I label a single finger as "one," for that to have any meaning, I have had to already manifest a "two" without even considering any other fingers. Why is that? Well, how else could it be? If I label my finger as "one," without accounting for a "two," then calling my finger "one" has no meaning or utility. I might as well call it "potato" or "wioehtgoiasgjgioaweo." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So to recap: Mathematics is a study of relationships. Numbers facilitate this process. In order to describe something numerically, we must first define a "unit." Otherwise, it is impossible to do numerical mathematics. A "unit" only has meaning insofar as we view phenomena as "not-one." So here's the kicker: You actually DO NOT know that 1+1=2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You must first ask yourself "what is one?" "what is addition?" and "what is two?" You CANNOT know "1+1=2" unless you can answer these things. As we have shown, "one" is a completely relative term. What counts as "one" is decided either on a whim or by a specific human motive. That means that there is never a "one" for you to find somewhere out in the world, as it is ALWAYS a label your mind must assign. "But Rend, what about the spiritual gurus who say that all is one? Couldn't I find that out in the world?" Heh, they say that because it is what is communicable. The "oneness" that nonduality entails is nothing like the quantity "one" in mathematics. Furthermore, because we've shown that a "unit" only has meaning insofar as we view phenomena as "not-one," this tells you that ALL NUMERICAL DESCRIPTIONS are grounded in you personally viewing phenomena as fragmented. For example, who's to say I'm holding out 5 fingers? How do you know that it's not just 1 hand? What's a finger anyway? Isn't it just a part of the hand? So it's all just one big hand... there are no fingers... but wait, isn't the hand just a part of your arm? Etcetera. You realize the only reason a "finger" exists is because you said it did? There is no "finger" there. Or is there? it's hard to tell. The point is, you call things "one," "two," or "three" only because you are able to distinguish and categorize. What if your distinctions and categories are wrong? What would you label as "one?" How do I know I'm not deceiving myself when I say "I have 10 fingers?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So this should send warning sirens in your epistemology radar (what, you don't have one?) already. We thought we knew that "1+1=2" But we cannot even say what "1" is without appealing to a whole host of complexities. And the more we define and categorize, the more we must defend and rationalize. It's a vicious cycle. Here's the reality. You can't say what "one" is. No matter what you point to, it's all in your mind. Even if you say that "'one' is a mental construct! I've got it! I know what it is! Beat that, Rend. It's all mind-stuff, see? It doesn't have to be physical but all you did was give physical examples." you're wrong, and you don't know what "one" is Because, you see, now you have to explain to me what "mind" is. HAHAHAHA good luck. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So the wise thing to do here, really, is to admit that you do not know when you really dig deep. The problem is most people do not dig deep. You can do this "deconstruction" process with literally ANY piece of "knowledge" you think you have. Your knowledge feels so solid, like a mighty oak tree, until you realize there are no roots on this tree. Now, that doesn't mean that you should give up on knowledge altogether, nor does it mean knowledge isn't useful. Knowledge is SUPER USEFUL! In fact, that's all it really is! Utility. 1+1=2 is super useful when you're counting your possessions, for example. So you want to "know" these things insofar as they serve your well-being, while simultaneously being cautious that ultimately you really just don't know.

It's due to an enormous lack of motivation after going deeper into nonduality. No matter what way I look at it, I just can't see any point in pouring effort into anything now. All I want to do is just mindfully do nothing.

Brilliant. The first half showing the ridiculousness of materialism is especially strong. However, I think in the last half you jumped too quick on nonduality. You should get a channel banner!

Yes I'm very familiar with almost all of Rupert's system and explanations. The 'yoga meditations' are really modern repackaging of teachings from Kashmir Shaivism. If you look at a classic , practical nonduality text like Drik Drishshya Viveka; there are 2 kinds of samadhi explained there. Internal samadhi(disidentifying from the ego and being established as one's true Self) and external samadhi(seeing that this so called universe is nothing but one's own Self). Now my take on this is actually the opposite of what these instructions 'seems' like in the surface. It gives an impression like there are 2 distinct parts one needs 'do', complete 100% to finally call it a finished project. But really this is not the case. The external and internal Samadhies; even though they sound like 2 different things, really lead to the same destination. At the point of Samadhi/Being/Absorption, there is no inside-outside or me-world duality anymore. You can verify this for yourself. When you are absorbed in Being/Awareness, you never feel like ''Oh I've completed the first half and now I need to jump outside and integrate the world now as well''. You'll also notice this trend if you read classic scriptures like Vivekchudamani, Drik Dhrishshya Viveka, Aporakshanubhuti, Atma Bodha etc. These texts goes pages after pages long, going into pinpoint discrimination and scrutiny between the Real(Self) and the unreal(ego/phenomena)...to finally establish the infallible supremacy of the Self. Now when this long, arduous process is done, do they go into this seeming 2nd part as similarly long process? No! Instead, the entire universe is reduced within few verses and proclaimed as nothing but the Self. So the universe and all phenomena are unreal as 'things' but are real as only Awareness/Self. So in the end, the bottomline is that one needs to sink into Being. Doesn't matter if one is going through the external yoga path or internal extinction path. These 2 distinctions are there simply for a teaching or mapping out purpose for the seekers. But he who sees a solid, firm distinction between the two as if they are two separate processes has mastered neither. Rupert understands this very well and he usually encourages his students to experiment with both to see which ones hits on the money more. @Consilience Thank you for the compliment and sharing your understanding. Blog? maybe one day. After I've demonstrated this truth once and for all for myself and get a deeper understanding of whats really going on here. I don't wanna delude people ...You are like the 21st century Jesus Full of cryptology and bold claims haha Anyway I'll just leave a little prayer for the 18 million cancer stricken ''egoless enlightened'' folks all over the world every year

@herghly Excellent. Here’s a resource that has about 1,000 worldwide. There are many free meditation, yoga, nonduality, etc, opportunities to be found at Meetup.com as well. Directory for inner engineering retreats. Find yourself a solo retreat. Worldwide Reiki classes & treatments directory.

@Shadowraix Thanks for elaborating. I see what you’re saying. I’d go the other route though, and see how the dualistic mindset is recreated. I feel the memory utilization would only perpetuate the emotional release, a mental status quo of sorts. After the purification, nonduality is eventually the norm. I would say the memory is only a thought, and repetition is counter productive. I can see how different approaches work for different people though. That’s just one.

@Shadowraix Not sure I follow / understand you. Can you elaborate on how remembering an experience helps grasp nonduality?

The enlightened nonduality warlord Dang he should have born 1500 years ago in Arab ?

In addition to lukewarm Christianity I have found many other spiritual teachings, such as nonduality, to be lukewarm in the sense that they are still trapped in a global ego view with all its limitations. Interestingly I have found the really "big" teachers such as Eckhart Tolle and Sadhguru sometimes hinting at a larger reality. They have to keep their teachings very much within the global ego since that's their main and huge audience. On the other hand we have New Age teachings with all kinds of fantastic claims. Some of the claims are probably true but there is a lot of woo woo information too. And at the same time mainstream science has to keep their theories consistent with their past findings, and that's a good thing, but it's also very limiting and a slow process. And then there are people like Ken Wilber who have a lot of good ideas about the bigger picture but still are too trapped in the global ego. What I predict will happen in the coming years is that we will see an integration of all those kinds of teachings and an actual emergence of higher realities.

Oh but according to Leo we’re not allowed to have nonduality wars...are we? Leo said it...

There is no one in the nonduality realm..get it right.

Oh My god I'm probably going to be accused of starting a nonduality war now...where is the oh peace and love...there’s just no hope for this self expression..sigh...

I get nothing out of Leo that is not my own knowing reflected back at me. the opposite is also true not false it’s wrong to assume otherwise when preaching nonduality to the masses it’s not wisdom to give half baked ideas...that’s not helpful..it’s confusion

How is the animal mind able to compute universal consciousness? If you say that the human ego has evaporated, then judging by the brain processess occurring during a breakthrough experience of universal consciousness then the brain is obviously still activated. Now the brain is an apparatus which constitutes animal consciousness which is why it has evolved in such a way to help process the phenomenological field and develop specific faculties, to promote its survival. So how the fuck is it able to deal with universal consciousness without exploding or at least taking some damage? Judging by the law of nonduality where all distinctions collapse, is human consciousness actually just a subset of universal consciousness. Is human consciouses only realized into universal consciousness by the transcendence of being human. Or is it that the egoic ownership of one's consciousness dissolves in such a way that it is able to free float and permeate through an infinite field of exploration resulting in universal consciousness.

Of course, this is a key issue which so many people get wrong. Most people are unconsciously acting out either an individualist dogma or a collectivist dogma without realizing that these are two mutually-interdependent forces which must be carefully balanced. See video: Aztec Nonduality, where I discuss the central importance of balance. A big part of conscious politics is recognizing that delicate balances must be struck between capitalism & socialism, individualism vs collectivism, freedom & limitation, and status quo & progress. None of these can be taken as absolute goods. Any philosophy or ideology which takes an absolutist position on any one of these is misguided, Tier 1, and will ultimately fail. Yin and yang must be balanced. But not necessarily down the middle. Balance is a complex and dynamic process, not the mid-point between any two positions. LOL, that was such a great episode!