I initially wrote this down somewhere else, but I think it could serve as a helping hand for new people on the forum who aren't too familiar with non-duality, God, The Absolute, relativity etc.. Here I'll mainly present what I like to call "the Relative-absolute fallacy", which is in my opinion a very fundamental problem behind a lot of confusion around spiritual questions. It's obviously a well-known concept by most people here already, but I think it can beneficial to formalize it for some people:   Similar to Ken Wilber's "Pre/trans fallacy", which is about conflating pre-rational views with trans-rational views, the Relative/absolute fallacy is about conflating relative perspectives with The Absolute perspective. This is the main source of confusion in the forms of spirituality that deal with the implications of non-duality (Oneness). An alternative name would be "the Dual/non-dual fallacy". Non-duality is most widely known through the conceptualizations of the eastern mystical traditions of Buddhism and Hinduism, but it has been known by mystics from all types of religions through the ages.  There are generally two levels to the fallacy: 1. The first level is the conflation that happens when you don't have knowledge about the distinction between the relative and The Absolute (dual/non-dual). This applies to pre-rational religious people (Wilber). The way that traditional religion interprets various holy texts is itself a good example: For example, Jesus' descriptions of God's non-dual qualities in the Bible are interpreted through a dualistic lens and conceptualized as an external being that is separate from its creation. Non-duality posits that God is infact not separate from its creation, and therefore you are God. 2. The second level happens when you do have knowledge about the distinction between relative and absolute (but it's obviously not complete knowledge). This applies to (aspiring) trans-rational people (people who emerge out of a rationalist mindset and adopt a spiritual mindset). A common example is to think that because nothing really matters, morality doesn't matter, and therefore it's fine to for example hurt other people. This is to conflate "the relative" with "The Absolute". From The Absolute perspective, yes, nothing really matters (or everything matters equally), but morality can only ever be defined "relative" to a certain value system in the first place. By taking the absolute perspective, you're deliberately stepping outside of all value systems. "It's fine to hurt other people" would be a moral statement, which means you're actually invoking a relative perspective. One way to know when you're stepping out of The Absolute and into the relative is the moment you start discriminating and creating preferences in a deliberate manner: hurting other people > not hurting other people; nothing matters > everything matters; me > other people etc..   What can you do to avoid running into this trap? Well, truly the only answer is more spiritual practice (and careful use of psychedelics). However, a good rule to have when you're confused about something would be to ask yourself whether you're conflating the relative and The Absolute. Remember that these things can only be "understood" in a trans-rational sense, through direct experience, not merely through deduction. Rationality on its own is not sufficient to grasp the significance of non-duality, but these tools can hopefully still help to clear up some confusion when trying to deal with the conceptualizations of non-duality