Search the Community

@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!

Much of nonduality teaching is through negation. "In logic, negation, also called the logical complement, is an operation that takes a proposition P to another proposition "not P"" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negation Even the very word non-duality means not two, implying oneness but actually zero is also not two and three is also not two, so intellectually it becomes confusing. There is also the problem of the subconscious mind having trouble with dealing with negations, such as: "try not to think about a pink elephant". And in a more general sense it becomes even trickier: what is not chocolate? That's vanilla, one might think, but strawberry is also not chocolate, and an iPhone is not chocolate and so on. My practice on the other hand is free from negation. It states what is, instead of stating what is not. That's much easier for the mind to deal with. The practice can be summed up as contemplating the hypothesis: Both past and future are changeless.

No, you are just making unwarranted assumptions here ...I wasn't raised studying Advaita Vendanta at all...I just happened to mention it because it relates to my own awakening I had long before I even knew what it meant....AV means the end of knowledge, the end of a sense of I exist as a separate person. Ironically it's a knowledge that takes you to your true-self which is the end of your assumed ownership of any knowledge into the natural non-knowing knowing state that is everyone and no one... VA literature is pointing you back to your original source, aka the unborn born...it's the entrance into Nonduality...the Non-dual Self. I was raised in the material paradigm too. Knowledge of yourself is a relative aspect of the Absolute Not-Knowing Knower...,but this material world made no difference to me, it didn't make it any harder for me personally as I've already explained to Leo. Awakenings can happen to anyone at anytime if that's what life evolves in that person to happen, and it will happen only when it's meant to happen and not one second before...A person seeking enlightenment can seek and seek and seek for the rest of their lives until they are on their deathbead, and still never get it...but if it's meant to happen, it surely will, so it's not something that can be forced, it ususally comes univited.. well it did for me around the age of 7 .. Material and non-material reality are identical...because there is no such reality as a non-material -material world..they exist as one in the exact same moment now ....HERE there is not-knowing(aka non-material) known (aka material reality).....HERE Knower and Known are always one in the same instant, else how is anything known at all....So after enlightment chop wood carry water...carry on with ordinary living, no further inquiry is nescessary, because the realisation that there is no one to become enlightened and that enlightment is your natural state has dawned on you. There is nothing deeper to find because all dimensions and everything and every conceivable world of every permutation and every conscious state that could possibly be imagined are all existing simultaneously right now anyway...there is nothing outside of the consciousness arena because it's infinite and boundless. All Leo does is what a lot of nonduality speakers do ..and that is they just repeat what has been said thousands and thousands of times before by other awakened people over eons, it's all the same rehashed message made to sound new...it's bascially just about listening to your own echo that bellows as and through your sensory listening organs for all eternity...just like all sensations, and emotions and feelings...listening to the sound of words with meaning is just another sensation no one is experiencing...aka YOU...IT'S ALL YOU AKA GOD It's as deep as it is shallow. But the one thing you cannot know on the relative human level is the Absolute because you already are the ABSOLUTE On the human level you can only know what you have personally experienced directly, you cannot know what you don't know. You can become aware of what you didn't know and then know it now...but you can never know the Absolute. For what is not-known will eventually become known, but what is unknowable can never be known.

Some hardcore nonduality people might find my following Christ/Jehova/Allah/Krishna/Buddha/Evolution practice to be duality. And there is truth to that, so what can be done is to see both one's personal volition and the following of the whole movement of life as one process. That's oneness! And nonduality.

That's all you have to remember..to remember here now that in your next incarnation you will not remember anything of your old stale life and that your new life will be all fresh and waiting for you to discover and fulfill your natural curiosity. In the life you have now..what you don't know cannot hurt you. Knowledge is the suffering, it's knowing you exist...because when you don't exist, there is no suffering. Human Babies and animals don't suffer because they have no knowledge of themselves existing, they are existence but they have no sense of self to whom suffering arises. It is only when knowledge is born does the poison that is knowledge enter the ignorance and innocence of existence being. You can have the bliss of ignorance and innocence now while in life, you don't have to wait until you die to end suffering. The end of knowledge is the end of suffering. Advaita Vedanta is the end of knowledge. And that's all suffering is, but ultimately there is no you that ever suffered, the real you has never suffered...it takes a shift in conscious thinking to see that. As for Nonduality.. it is not for the faint of heart, it can make you feel lost, disassociated with life and other people, suicidal, and depressed, because it blows away the very foundation of your very existence the way you believed it to be, it's not for everyone. The brave will have the courage to jump into the abyss and embrace it with both arms, but for others, that thought will be terrifying, while it's a blessed relief for some ... if it's causing the feeling of hopelessness and despair, best leave it well alone and get back to ordinary living...and to remember you live only once as your unique never to be repeated character, so it's like what are you going to do with that one chance you have to dance your unique dance in this incarnation? it's your call. Make it miserable or happy...it's your conscious choice in every moment.

Leo also said he doesn't want to preach to a choir of freaks and nondual assholes, and yet he is quite happy to do so...do you see the weird irony in that ? ..in that he is only talking to himself. Also, do you think preaching to the non - nondualists about nonduality are going to understand a single word he is saying when he practically is speaking from an Absolute context? ...and then he has the audacity to call the nondualists on his forum snobby assholes when they put their two pence worth in. Seems like a very confused mind-set to me.

Do you not see the shit that comes out of the mouth of the knowledgeable one...Leo is preaching nonduality in a dualist context, the only context available, and I'm assuming he does this because he wants others to see and know to ''get'' this shit too.... but then gets all high and mighty when someone gets it ...so the question is, now that we ''get it'' does that make us a nondual snob? Leo is two faced, he comes across as an amazing speaker on his videos, but on the forum, he's sloppy...just sayin...imho There's no such thing as an invalid criticism ...that's like saying oh I didn't mean to spill the milk, lets just put it all back in the bottle again and that'll make it better...well it too late for that.

Many forum members are native English speakers and, as you suggest, could probably clean up some of their grammar so their posts are more easily understood. Yet for many forum members, English is their second or third language. We have a globally diverse community here. Learning proper grammar in a second/third language can be really challenging. I'm at an intermediate level of Spanish and my grammar is no where near optimal - I make a lot of errors. I'm very grateful for the patience and understanding that native Spanish-speakers have had with me. And I can't even imagine trying to communicate self-actualization and nonduality in a second/third language. I have a lot of admiration for those that do.

I came into this world KNOWING I was both the Devil and God. Other people have confused me all my life. tsuki calls me a repressed saint and Leo calls me the Devil. Why do I create other people? Why is confusion better than being alone? I think the only kind of people who pursue nonduality are the type that HATE surprise parties. Then you get rewarded with the realization that life is just ONE BIG SURPRISE PARTY THAT YOU'RE THROWING FOR YOURSELF. At least there's cake.