Ahbapx

Are you referring to boundaries as if they are not mistakes but features that enrich life by being contrast? If so, I agree. if not, I can't even relate or understand.

I don't understand how those are related to my point. I don't think I have a problem with that. My original response to you was made because I thought you were implying that ALL boundaries actually don't exist, and you assign the core cause of time and space or change to the non-existence of ALL boundaries. My personal opinion is boundary and non-boundary are the fundamental aspects of existence, so they are both needed. Although equating them can have benefits, I think the harms are greater.

Thank you although I am not sure what "THIS" is.

I guess you misunderstood. When did I even say people don't exist? or when did I say you should tell them? never. I am saying it doesn't matter if you make a distinction or not if you set a boundary or not, God is always unaffected. It doesn't matter if there is a boundary or not, God is God. My core message was equating non-existence to existence without differentiating them with new terms can lead to delusion.

@Bazooka Jesus

Yep. it was fun.

You literally said my approach doesn't work when it comes to spirituality. so, you implied my approach was wrong without even noticing how it contradicts your own claim. Also, that is not how spirituality works either. Absolute has to encompass subjective, if a subjective framework results in a binary result, meaning not 0 but 1, that has to be also 1 from the absolute perspective. For example, If I make a game, write the rules myself, and you play my game to win, you have to abide by my rules to win the game, if you claim that there is no right or wrong way to play it, you are just living in your own fantasy and not in reality. So, yeah... you were wrong.

So you are saying I made a mistake? Ha! That would be a hell of a contradiction between you and your AI guru. Jokes aside, clearly you didn't get my point because this is exactly how most spiritual teachers base their answers, Notice, my question was not even about anything related to spirituality, enlightenment, or non-duality, yet it chose to answer it through the spiritual framework because it is how it is trained. And the whole spiritual-guru identity is exactly similar, they just answer almost everything from the same framework.

No point in responding to you anymore since you don't even try to distinguish between awareness, awareness of awareness, and self-awareness. I am talking about simple awareness, yet you still think that binary code is not the process of awareness. All the best to you.

brutha what are you even talking about ?!

And? that doesn't ring any bell at all for me, why would that be important at all?

Sure, I agree that most "enlightenment" definitions are BS. Such as Positing enlightenment as a single endpoint rather than an ongoing process of deepening wisdom, ethics, and human flourishing over a lifetime. That being said, What if you are rejecting an "enlightenment" definition defined by a specific person that addresses a specific realization that has a significant impact on one's life? are we still talking about the same enlightenment?

That doesn't mean that much to me because as far as I can see almost nobody can agree on what one's true nature is, at least it would be useful to see what is the person's definition.

It should be mandatory to define used terms before writing anything... What enlightenment are you talking about?

as long as the ratio of benefits outweighs the harms, it is better that they are not perfect. Otherwise, you would have no challenge to improve at all.