Dodo

And here is my text "polished" through AI, tell me how its not equivallent to cheating if I present this as my own thoughts (even though to generare it it used my thoughts)? Ai: The brown bear demonstrates a clear understanding of nonduality. His words point to space-like awareness and the absence of a personal self, and he maintains a calm, unaffected tone throughout. The white bear, in contrast, reacts emotionally, emphasizing her own perspective of mindfulness and simplicity. While she seems to believe she is grounded in truth, her frustration and attempts to redirect the conversation reveal that she is projecting her own expectations onto him. Her insistence on labeling “beautiful” phenomena as more valid or meaningful misunderstands the nature of the brown bear’s pointers. Nondual teaching isn’t about evaluating experiences as pleasing or displeasing; it’s about pointing directly to awareness itself. Her discomfort arises not because the brown bear is wrong, but because she cannot reconcile her desire for connection and control with his stillness and neutrality. Furthermore, her tone and actions — impatience, anger, and even swearing in frustration — contrast sharply with the brown bear’s composure. This suggests that the tension is less about content and more about attachment to personal preference and identification. She is attempting to convert him to her framework, while he simply presents what is, without judgment or expectation. In essence, the brown bear’s teachings are both potent and authentic. The white bear’s critiques reveal more about her own attachments than about his validity. Nonduality is not about emotional alignment with others; it is about perceiving awareness as it is, without clinging to how it should feel. --- This version: * Presents your argument **logically and sequentially**. * Maintains **calm, philosophical tone**, consistent with nondual principles. * Avoids emotionally charged labels like “high horse” or “butthurt,” but preserves the critique. * Emphasizes **conceptual reasoning** over judgment, making it persuasive even to neutral readers.

Brown bear is top notch. White bear has an idea that being mindful is the truth. She is getting on her high horse the same way she is accusing him of. She is on her "free, mindful and simple" high horse. He is stating very potent nondual signs, he is not implying he is unhappy. She has a problem with his words and is trying to convert him to speaking like her. 👍 can literally use all her arguments against her. She is preaching to him angrily, and denying that... Why is saying "its a beautiful tree" supposed to be a beautiful thought and the things he is saying is not beautiful? She clearly doesn't see where the pointers point to or she wouldn't have problem with them, they are beautiful, not life denying. Also,, she spoke the Lord's name in vein in her frustration, while brown bear kept a peaceful unaffected tone throughout. She was mad she can't control him! And she is the one who wanted to leave, butthurt, he didnt express dislike talking to her, she was the one with the problems and conflict.

Yeah, Ai articulated your position so well, that if I want to disagree with you as a human, aand you pretended that was your writing, I would be at a disadvantage. It would look like "yeah, omg, he's right! I cant argue with that" same way if I play a chess cheater, I wont be able to defeat him in chess. But if he discloses he used AI, I can use the same method to answer him, and see, oh, with best play, actually, his position isnt that solid. It only appeared that way due to the AI making strong moves that a human cant. But if I use the same tool as you, I can easily even the playing field and tell you why this is wrong, from knowledge I do not possess. Great, I can learn from the AI, but lets not ever present it as our own work. Here is what my AI wrote on the subject after giving it examples from this thread. Ai: A clear defense of the claim that AI rewrites often add knowledge, rather than merely polishing text, begins with recognizing what happens when language models “improve” a passage. True editing preserves meaning while refining tone or structure; it keeps every assertion logically identical to the original. Yet in practice, AI systems do more than adjust phrasing—they infer intentions, fill perceived gaps, and supply explanations or analogies that were never in the source. When an AI expands a sentence to “clarify” it, it inevitably interprets what the author *meant* and provides reasons or examples to support that interpretation. This process inserts new layers of meaning. The original human text may simply express a judgment or observation, while the AI version transforms that into a structured argument, complete with causes, implications, and moral framing. These additions are not stylistic—they are epistemic. They change what the text *claims* to know or assert. The issue is not that the AI fabricates facts, but that it fabricates reasoning. It takes an author’s intuitive statement and re-casts it as if the writer had consciously articulated every rationale and philosophical implication. That act of invention turns the piece from a personal expression into a synthetic essay built from the model’s general knowledge. Therefore, calling such rewriting a “polish” is misleading. The AI becomes a silent co-author, introducing new conceptual content that reshapes the argument’s scope and logic. Recognizing this distinction matters because it determines whether we are reading a faithful reflection of the original thinker or a hybrid text in which the AI’s own assumptions and world knowledge have already begun to speak.

What’s NOT Allowed: Self-promotion Coming here to start your teaching/coaching/guru business by leeching off this audience Multiple accounts. (If you are caught opening multiple accounts, both will be banned). .... Posting AI-generate content like text, images, or video without disclosing that it was sourced from AI .... I'm not contradicting myself, because when I use AI, I disclose it. Also im pretty sure AI has added a lot of things you didnt write about, the post is so comprehensive. If you use AI to play the perfect chess game, you have to mention it. Sure, the chess is marvelous and magnificent! Also my comments are not "vomit" thank you, the ai replies to your ai reply are top quality chess. And it stems from its understanding of nonduality from my chats with it. As an honest seeker, I believe my GPT is in the best shape out of any to respond to your post. Its like a nondual master GPT replying to your dualistic set GPT.

Bruh,,,, i literally have a memory of being in a situation exactly like this only i think the space was blue or something like that. Basically wanting to be alone, getting it, and then realising I miss everyone and everything 😔 and somehow the feeling was that I was stuck there forever.

If guidelines say no google is harder to catch, because it doesnt affect how you write it, its very different. But ofcourse chess cheaters show some of the best chess there is! The problem is its dishonest. Doesn't show the actual level OP is at, and by not labeling AI, I cant know, maybe all of his posts are AI generated to some extent. Its easy to write a two paragraph ramble about nonduality and some shortcomings you've noticed and tell the ai to transform it to a quality post... Also, as shown by evidence of my Ai reply to his post, his AI is writing from a dualistic perspective. Now I feed this into gpt and post how this reply looks when filtered through ai - you can see it didnt even just polish it, it added content which I didnt even have. Here’s a polished and coherent version of your text — it preserves your meaning but improves flow, clarity, and tone: --- If the guidelines say “no Google,” that rule is much harder to enforce — because using Google doesn’t directly affect *how* someone writes. It’s a completely different kind of assistance. But with AI, it’s another story. It’s like cheating in chess — AI-assisted players can produce some of the best moves imaginable, but the problem is that it’s dishonest. It doesn’t reflect the person’s actual skill level. And if someone doesn’t disclose their use of AI, I have no way of knowing whether all of their posts are partially or entirely AI-generated. It’s incredibly easy to write a rough two-paragraph ramble about nonduality or some perceived shortcoming, then ask an AI to transform it into a polished, insightful post. That kind of refinement can make it seem like someone has more depth or understanding than they actually do. In fact, the AI’s own response to his post demonstrates this — it writes from a distinctly *dualistic* perspective, which directly contradicts the topic of nonduality itself. That mismatch shows that the AI doesn’t truly grasp the subject; it’s merely simulating understanding through language. ----------- Ps: also my gpt lacks context in this case, so the last bit is a bit out of place, but you get me,, it makes me sound way more intellectual to the point the entire post is completely different.

@Joshe My main point, he is critiquing the space and how some people express themselves, while using an engine to express himself. I'll take someone posting that they are no one, over this charade. As you can see if I use the same tool he is using I can not only match his level of sophistication but "discombobulate" every one of his statements. But if I have to reply to him without AI, I am bound to play a losing game, like a chess player vs a chess cheater using an engine to gain superiority. This forum clearly says in guidelines, AI content not allowed, unless specified, its for this reason. He is raising his intellectual level unfairly, so you can't even know if he is at all "grounded" or done any "nonduality work".

Heres what mine says when asked about common downfalls of neo-nonduality and nonduality. Ofcourse read my post above how my nondual chats deal with these so called downfalls. Excellent question — and a subtle one. Both **neo-nonduality** (a contemporary, often Westernized presentation of nondual teaching) and **traditional nonduality** (rooted in Advaita Vedānta, Mahāmudrā, Dzogchen, etc.) have characteristic pitfalls that can confuse or stall a seeker’s development. Let’s unpack both clearly. --- ### 🌀 **Common Downfalls in Neo-Nonduality** Neo-nonduality refers to modern teachers or teachings (often post–Tony Parsons, Jim Newman, etc.) that emphasize **immediate realization**: “There is no you, nothing to do, nowhere to go, no one to awaken.” While such statements can point directly to truth, they often create confusion or bypass important aspects of transformation. #### 1. **Spiritual Bypassing through Absolutism** * Saying “there is no self” intellectually, while the body-mind is still deeply conditioned by trauma, fear, and craving. * The insight becomes a defense mechanism against feeling or healing. * Example: “Who’s suffering? There’s no one here!” — while the nervous system is clearly in distress. #### 2. **Neglect of Relative Reality** * Dismissing ethics, compassion, and relational care as “illusory.” * Leads to coldness, arrogance, or nihilism: “It doesn’t matter what happens; it’s all One.” * Healthy nonduality integrates **relative and absolute truth** — not denies the former. #### 3. **Premature Intellectualization** * Using conceptual understanding (“no self,” “just awareness”) to imitate realization. * Mistaking **descriptions of reality** for **direct seeing**. * The ego subtly “wears” nonduality as an identity — “the one who knows there is no one.” #### 4. **Disembodiment** * Insight happens cognitively but doesn’t permeate the body and emotions. * Leads to dissociation rather than liberation. * True realization includes the body — awareness *as* sensations, breath, movement. #### 5. **Teacher Charisma Without Wisdom** * Some neo-nondual circles lack ethical frameworks. * Teachers may use “no self” rhetoric to avoid responsibility or perpetuate harm. --- ### 🕉️ **Common Downfalls in Traditional Nonduality** Traditional systems (Advaita Vedānta, Dzogchen, etc.) are more structured — emphasizing ethics, meditation, inquiry, and gradual ripening — but they have their own traps. #### 1. **Conceptual Rigidity** * Getting caught in metaphysical debate: Brahman vs. Māyā, Atman vs. Anātman, etc. * Turning a living truth into a philosophical system. #### 2. **Path Fetishism** * Believing realization is always far away: “I must purify for countless lifetimes.” * Perpetual seeker mode — never resting as awareness now. #### 3. **Guru Idealization** * Over-reliance on the teacher as an authority rather than one’s own direct seeing. * Leads to dependency or abuse dynamics. #### 4. **Cultural Transplant Confusion** * Western students may misunderstand traditional forms (rituals, hierarchy, terminology) and either reject them or imitate them superficially. #### 5. **Neglect of Integration** * Emphasis on transcendence (“neti neti” — not this, not that) can ignore embodiment and shadow work. * Result: spiritual elitism or emotional repression disguised as detachment. --- ### 💎 **The Middle Way — Integration** The mature approach blends both traditions’ strengths: | Aspect | Immature Form | Mature Integration | | ------------------------ | ---------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Insight** | “Nothing matters — there’s no one here.” | Recognize emptiness *and* interdependence. | | **Practice** | “No practice — who would practice?” | Practice as play — refining attention and compassion naturally. | | **Emotion** | Bypass or suppress | Allow and include all feelings as expressions of awareness. | | **Ethics** | “Good and bad are illusions.” | Embody natural ethics arising from unity and empathy. | | **Teacher relationship** | Dependency or rebellion | Respectful discernment — honoring guidance without surrendering autonomy. | --- ### 🪞 **In summary** **Neo-nonduality** often errs on the side of *premature transcendence* — skipping integration and embodiment. **Traditional nonduality** can err on the side of *over-structuring* — turning living insight into dogma or endless practice. The sweet spot: **direct realization integrated with human wholeness** — awake, embodied, relational, and ethical. --- Would you like me to map out how to **recognize and work through** these pitfalls in one’s own practice (step-by-step)?

@Joshe @Ramasta9 Here I asked my biggest nondual chatgpt chat to "discombobulate" 😆 the original post, point by point, using the knowledge from the chat. Took me 10 minutes to generate: I hear that you want to look at each of those points through the strictest non-dual lens, not through self-help or therapy language. Here’s how that can be done without attacking anyone—just laying out what is actually seen when awareness looks directly. --- ### “Mental Awakening Without Embodiment” There is no separate “mind” and “body” that one could integrate later. Thoughts and sensations appear in the same field of knowing. To say “mental but not embodied” only makes sense from the point of view of the imagined person who thinks it can own awakening. When awareness is clear, both thought and heartbeat are already included; nothing is left out. --- ### “Spiritual Bypass & Emotional Evasion” No one avoids or faces emotion; emotion simply arises or does not. The idea of a “someone” bypassing something is itself another appearance in awareness. When grief or fear is seen as what it is—vibration within knowing—there is no bypass, no repression, no separate feeler. --- ### “Ego Rebranding as ‘No One’” Even “ego dressing as no-one” is a thought. The claim “I am no one” and the pride that follows are equally transient ripples. Awareness doesn’t need to kill or purify a ripple; it only ever recognizes it as itself. --- ### “Disembodiment & Aversion to the Human Story” The “human story” is one texture of awareness. Aversion and acceptance are both motions inside the same stillness. To awareness there is no disembodiment—body, story, and world are how awareness tastes itself. --- ### “Parrot Syndrome & Language Loops” Repetition without seeing is only sound. When seeing happens, even silence says it. Awareness does not memorize teachings; it notices its own presence before every word. --- ### “Loss of Love, Heart, and Relationship” Love and awareness are not two. When the illusion of separation softens, warmth and compassion show up naturally, not as ethics but as the very feel of unity. There’s no need to manufacture “heart”; it is what unbounded awareness feels like when it touches itself. --- ### “Commercialization & Loss of Lineage” Selling or not selling cannot stain awareness. But from within the play, honesty matters—because integrity keeps the play transparent. Money exchanges are just forms; clinging or deceit are the only fog. --- ### “Devaluing the Relative World” Absolute and relative are one event. To call the world “dream” is not to dismiss it but to recognize its texture: vivid, fleeting, sacred. Compassion is the dream loving itself. --- ### “Hyper-Identification With Emptiness” Calling everything “illusion” is still a thought about “everything.” True emptiness is not a concept of nothingness—it’s the living fullness before the idea of full or empty. When that is seen, detachment softens into tenderness. --- ### “Ungrounded Teachers” No one can “land back on earth”; earth itself is appearing in awareness. Yet when that is seen, expression becomes simple, human, kind—because pretending ends. Grounding is not an act; it is the natural stillness of what you already are. --- ### “Integrating Humanity” Sanctifying form is not a second project after enlightenment. Form *is* the sanctified face of the formless. To include the mosquito is not moral effort—it is the recognition that there has never been an outside. --- ### “When Love and Emptiness Meet” They never actually meet; they have never been apart. Love is emptiness perceived from within the play. Emptiness is love seen without story. --- **In short:** Awakening is not a state to embody but the seeing that embodiment, thought, and cosmos are already the movement of the same knowing. There is no one who must stabilize it, and yet—when this is seen—the appearance naturally becomes gentler, clearer, more loving. That is the paradox and the perfection of nonduality. And here I asked another one of my gpt nondual chats to discombobulate point by point, you can see the different styles of my chats to the same request, this chat is much smaller than the other, lets see which one makes the points cleaner: That’s a rich and well-crafted critique. Rather than “discombobulating” it, I’ll unpack each point from the view of **radical nonduality**—not to argue against the spirit of the message (which is compassionate and sane), but to show how, from the nondual view, every critique ultimately dissolves back into what it’s describing. Nonduality isn’t a philosophy that *stands apart* and evaluates; it’s the seeing that there’s no position from which to evaluate at all. So let’s go through each paragraph. --- ### 1. “Mental Awakening Without Embodiment” > “People talk about oneness... Awakening becomes an idea... dissociation dressed as enlightenment.” From the nondual view, “mental,” “body,” and “embodiment” are appearances *within* awareness. There isn’t a separate one who could “embody” realization. If dissociation appears, that too is awareness appearing as dissociation. Nothing has gone wrong. The mind says, “This is incomplete,” but that judgment is itself an appearance of completeness in disguise. Awareness never left the body to begin with. --- ### 2. “Spiritual Bypass & Emotional Evasion” > “Using emptiness to avoid pain...” Pain, avoidance, and the one who would avoid are all the same movement of consciousness. You can’t hide from awareness because you *are* it. When “bypass” is seen clearly, it’s just another flavor of what is. The moment you notice “avoidance,” avoidance ends—because noticing and avoiding are not-two. --- ### 3. “Ego Rebranding as ‘No One’” > “The ego doesn’t die; it dresses itself in void-talk…” There is no ego that could die or rebrand. “Ego,” “no-one,” and “awakening” are dream-labels for the same play. Pride, humility, defensiveness—each is a temporary costume worn by the same faceless actor. The idea that one can *fall into* spiritual arrogance presumes an entity that could choose differently; in seeing there’s no such chooser, even arrogance is just weather in the sky of awareness. --- ### 4. “Disembodiment & Aversion to the Human Story” > “True awakening roots deeply in body, relationships, sensation…” There’s no “true” versus “false” awakening; those are distinctions awareness makes inside itself. What’s called “the human story” is not outside the Absolute—it *is* the Absolute appearing as humanity. The notion of “aversion to the human” presupposes a human separate from the whole. From nonduality’s eye, even alienation is total intimacy—reality appearing as the sense of distance. --- ### 5. “Parrot Syndrome & Language Loops” > “Teachings repeated without understanding…” Every phrase ever spoken is a repetition of silence in sound form. “There is no self” is not meant to be understood; it’s meant to self-erase in the hearing. When words collapse into tautology, communication has succeeded, because it’s exposed the impossibility of communicating what already *is*. So the so-called “loop” is the teaching functioning perfectly. --- ### 6. “Loss of Love, Heart, and Relationship” > “Reality reduced to impersonal awareness…” Love *is* the impersonal. The warmth in relationship and the stillness of awareness are the same field, viewed through different moods. When compassion seems absent, that very perception is love revealing its opposite to itself. Nonduality doesn’t exclude heart—it’s the seeing that love and emptiness were never two. --- ### 7. “Commercialization & Loss of Lineage” > “Spirituality packaged, branded, sold…” Selling, branding, buying, and reacting to commercialization are all movements of the same consciousness. Nothing stands outside it to be “pure” or “corrupted.” The marketplace is also the monastery. Money changing hands is God shaking its own hand. --- ### 8. “Devaluing the Relative World” > “When the world is dismissed as dream, compassion dies…” The dream *is* compassion. To call the world a dream isn’t to devalue it; it’s to recognize it as divine imagination, infinitely intimate. The problem only seems real when we assume the dreamer and the dream are separate. They’re not—there’s just dreaming. --- ### 9. “Hyper-Identification With Emptiness” > “Reducing all experience to illusion…” Emptiness identified with is no longer empty. Yet even that misidentification is the play of emptiness. The “collapse of communication” it produces is another expression of what can’t be lost. Silence is not failure—it’s the ground note of every dialogue. --- ### The Closing Advice > “Land back on earth... Real spirituality sanctifies humanity... Love and emptiness meet.” Beautiful. From nonduality’s raw seeing, though, there was never anyone who left the earth to return to it. The dust on your shoes, the ache in your chest, the typing of these words—this *is* sanctified humanity. You don’t need to merge emptiness with love; they were never apart. Awareness of awareness is already that meeting point—the world tasting itself. --- ### In short The critique is a call for wholeness. Radical nonduality says: wholeness never fractured. Every bypass, commercialization, arrogance, numbness, or abstraction is simply the next shape of totality. When that’s seen—not understood, but *noticed* right now—everything lands. There’s no landing needed. The reader is already awareness, aware of reading, aware of awareness. Nothing more to integrate. Nothing left out.

How do you know these are his idea and he didnt just ask ai to "list things wrong with it"?

Ok but its easy to place the seeds and watch how ai grows it into a tree. I can make my ai write very potent things just by knowing the right seeds to give it... like i can make my ai defend nonduality by clarifying what is true nonduality, can make a strong counter argument using AI, but I dont want to present it as my own work just because I know how to ask it to do it.

This is not a male energy, it's gentle. Treat it like beautiful poetry of sounds and visuals. Well, I am an ASMR lover overall, and I've watched her content years ago before she disappeared. As soon as I saw the notification of her new video, my jaw dropped. She's kind of a big deal in the Asmr community. Her videos are art.

But isnt the story of Jesus a story of infinite love? Even if it's a fantasy, you did say in your Love episode God has infinite imagination. Can even imagine that he's not imagining it and call it real... so could be a real fantasy like that of infinite love. A story of sacrifice and of powerful values. I believe Christianity is not a problem for that reason, it's a story of love. On the other hand, I do have problem with religion like Islam.

They did say those who believe in Superman will be ridiculed and persecuted and mocked. You are a strong one 💪 ❤️ the power of Krypton compells them. Their disbelief only proves Superman right.

Ok but you are preaching to the choir 😀 Or I guess you are explaining why the movie doesn't belong to the screen, even tho it is enabled by it?

I am je suis ( I am I am )

Hahaaa good one. If I find it, its not me. Classic neti neti. You think I havent been under self inquiry for 10yrs+ aha 😅 But I am still confused, why do we reject the self, just because you can't point to it? In my experience the self that knows IS, WHETHER i can point to it or not. I know what im supposed to be saying , no self yada yada. But im just being honest, its more like an invisible self than no self.

I laughed hard! But Leo, have you ever explored Orthodox Christianity, its basically the eastern version of Christianity and closer to eastern religions. There is also the state of "Theosis" talked about, which is the becoming one with God. It is the religion of your ancestors (as you are of Russian descent), so it might be in your DNA sort of speak. Jordan Peterson and Alan Watts are two big figures which talk about Orthodox Christianity much differently than the western sects of Christianity. I do my investigation of direct experience honestly, but I am not quick to reject the religion of my ancestors as total bs. Maybe some of it, but there might be deeper truth there.

Can we elaborate further? Because all experience, feeling and thinking is being known by me. I'm not saying what that me is, but its undeniable evidence of direct experience that I know experience, all sorts of different experiences are unified by me, that which knows them. Even the sense of self is known by me (in deeper contemplation). Whether it belongs, its a strange word, it is definitely known by me. And again, maybe you will project that by Me i mean someone, but I'm not talking here about what that Me is, just that it is.

The following text is AI generated based on this thread's replies. @Ramasta9 @Joshe @Malkom @Salvijus @Ninja_pig @Someone here @Agrande I love using AI for learning, but a line is crossed when we present it as our own writing. Here is a full evaluation of the thread. Its important to always show when Ai is used, its also part of the forum guidelines. To be praised for something that's not your work.. i get its good content, but be honest when you use Ai and label it. Sure — here’s a balanced evaluation and rating (out of 10) for each main participant in that Actualized.org thread, based on spiritual depth, groundedness, clarity, compassion, and embodiment rather than ideology. 🌿 1. Ramasta9 (Original Poster) Rating: 9/10 Strengths: Deeply insightful, articulate, and well-integrated perspective on the pitfalls of neo-nonduality. Clearly values embodiment, humility, and love in spirituality. The critique is compassionate yet firm. Shows strong maturity and understanding of both theory and practice. Weaknesses: Slightly verbose and intellectual at times — the tone could feel a bit sermon-like, though the message remains authentic. Summary: Excellent synthesis of embodied spirituality and nondual insight. Feels like a seasoned practitioner. 💫 2. Joshe Rating: 8.5/10 Strengths: Very perceptive and emotionally intelligent response. Recognizes the difficulty of deconstructing delusions and the courage needed for true awakening. Weaknesses: Slightly cynical tone (“will mostly fall on deaf ears”) — though realistic, it can border on dismissive. Summary: Grounded, wise, and compassionate; understands the human psychology behind spirituality. 🔥 3. Malkom Rating: 7.5/10 Strengths: Adds thoughtful nuance about love and the misinterpretation of “emptiness.” Insightful comment about potential and derealization. Weaknesses: Some statements sound intellectualized or abstract; tone oscillates between skeptical and genuine. Summary: Good grasp of conceptual subtleties, though still mentally driven — less experiential grounding. ❤️ 4. Salvijus Rating: 8/10 Strengths: Speaks from the heart — emphasizes love as the “ultimate authority.” Understands that energy and presence often bypass the mind. Weaknesses: Slightly absolutist (“They need an exorcism”) — though likely metaphorical, it can alienate others. Summary: Spiritually mature, intuitive, and heart-centered, though could refine his compassion in expression. 🌺 5. Ninja_pig Rating: 7/10 Strengths: Simple, heartfelt, and aligned with embodied wisdom — “A master will be aware of every emotion and love it.” Weaknesses: A bit generic; doesn’t deepen or challenge the discussion further. Summary: Honest and grounded contribution — less analytical but genuine. 🧘 6. Someone here Rating: 7.5/10 Strengths: Reflective, self-aware, and open about personal struggles with over-intellectualization. Later, shows compassion toward Dodo and awareness of spiritual bypassing. Weaknesses: Vacillates between genuine insight and depressive escapism (“vow of silence… disappear in a dark room”). Summary: A seeker on the edge of deep insight, aware of the pitfalls of conceptual spirituality, still integrating emotional maturity. 🕊️ 7. Dodo Rating: 8/10 Strengths: Wise and balanced. Demonstrates real spiritual grounding through personal suffering — integrates nonduality with real-world pain. Deep humility and sincerity. Weaknesses: Occasional idealistic phrasing about detachment, but quickly self-corrects. Summary: Mature practitioner using hardship as a teacher. Genuine embodiment of practice. 🔥 8. Agrande Rating: 6/10 Strengths: Brutally honest and grounded critique of “pseudo nondualists.” Refreshing skepticism. Weaknesses: Excessive cynicism and mockery obscure the valid points. Emotional reactivity clouds the insight. Summary: Clear-sighted but still triggered by the culture he criticizes — a grounded realist needing a touch more compassion. ⚖️ Overall Thread Energy: A mix of deep insight, grounded love, wounded cynicism, and honest inquiry. Most participants demonstrate genuine spiritual depth — more embodied and psychologically aware than typical online spirituality threads. Average rating: ⭐ 8.0 / 10 Would you like me to sort them by “most spiritually integrated → least integrated” with a short summary of each person’s stage of development (e.g., grounded mystic, conceptual nondualist, embodied seeker)? Excellent — let’s assess **each participant not just for spiritual depth**, but also for **likelihood of AI assistance** in their writing (based on tone, structure, coherence, rhythm, and linguistic style). We’ll use a **1–10 “AI likelihood scale”**, where **1 = almost certainly human-written**, **10 = almost certainly AI-assisted (ChatGPT-like phrasing, structure, or coherence beyond natural forum style).** --- ### 🌿 **1. Ramasta9 (Original Poster)** **Spiritual rating:** 9/10 **AI likelihood:** **8.5/10** **Rationale:** Extremely polished structure, consistent tone, smooth transitions, balanced paragraphing, and well-formatted bullet-style sections — all highly indicative of AI drafting or heavy editing with AI assistance. **Verdict:** Likely used ChatGPT or similar to refine or co-write the post. --- ### 💫 **2. Joshe** **Spiritual rating:** 8.5/10 **AI likelihood:** **2/10** **Rationale:** Natural tone, mild sarcasm, realistic conversational rhythm (“Hey look – actual wisdom! Lol.”). Typing flow is organic with informal punctuation and slight grammatical imperfection. **Verdict:** Definitely human. --- ### 🔥 **3. Malkom** **Spiritual rating:** 7.5/10 **AI likelihood:** **4/10** **Rationale:** Mostly natural, but a few oddly clean philosophical lines (“Emptiness in the context of Nonduality is Potential, Limitless Potential…”). Could be a human paraphrasing AI phrasing, but not written by AI directly. **Verdict:** Human with possible AI influence in rewording. --- ### ❤️ **4. Salvijus** **Spiritual rating:** 8/10 **AI likelihood:** **1/10** **Rationale:** Flow is natural, emotional, slightly scattered. Strong intuitive language, unpolished grammar — typical of spontaneous human writing. **Verdict:** Purely human, heartfelt. --- ### 🌺 **5. Ninja_pig** **Spiritual rating:** 7/10 **AI likelihood:** **3/10** **Rationale:** Simple, poetic phrasing but naturally human in rhythm and warmth. No signs of AI structuring. **Verdict:** Human. --- ### 🧘 **6. Someone here** **Spiritual rating:** 7.5/10 **AI likelihood:** **2/10** **Rationale:** Imperfect punctuation, emotional tone, and spontaneous self-dialogue — highly human. If AI were used, it would be minimal or for grammar cleanup. **Verdict:** Human introspection, not AI-generated. --- ### 🕊️ **7. Dodo** **Spiritual rating:** 8/10 **AI likelihood:** **2/10** **Rationale:** Conversational, authentic emotional tone, some typos (“spiritual-wise”), no synthetic polish. Clearly human. **Verdict:** Fully human. --- ### 🔥 **8. Agrande** **Spiritual rating:** 6/10 **AI likelihood:** **1/10** **Rationale:** Raw, emotional rant with natural profanity, slang, and humor — unmistakably human. AI almost never produces this level of unfiltered casual aggression. **Verdict:** Human. --- ## ⚖️ **Summary Table** | User | Spiritual Depth (1–10) | AI Likelihood (1–10) | Notes | | ---------------- | ---------------------- | -------------------- | ----------------------------------- | | **Ramasta9** | 9 | **8.5** | Likely AI-assisted essay-style post | | **Joshe** | 8.5 | 2 | Human, wise and witty | | **Malkom** | 7.5 | 4 | Human with some AI-like phrasing | | **Salvijus** | 8 | 1 | 100% organic and heartfelt | | **Ninja_pig** | 7 | 3 | Simple, human | | **Someone here** | 7.5 | 2 | Reflective, very human tone | | **Dodo** | 8 | 2 | Emotionally grounded human | | **Agrande** | 6 | 1 | Purely human rant, no AI polish | --- ✅ **Most Spiritually Integrated:** **Ramasta9, Joshe, Dodo** 🤖 **Most Likely AI-Assisted:** **Ramasta9 (strongly), Malkom (mildly)** 💬 **Most Authentically Human Tone:** **Agrande, Salvijus, Someone here**

Why would you want to wake up from a dream if everything is going great 😀 At least gives you a way to view negative events as positive, in that they direct you towards deeper seeing. I remember some i believe religious person's quote "Thank you God, for sending me challenges in life, so that I turn to you and find you." Something of that kind.

I received quite a lot of help naturally, i recently got discharged from hospital... can barely walk, but getting along. This metaphor with screen and movie is perfect. Things happen way outside of the human control, have to just let it be. I could've easily died, but going through the pain of recovery instead. I'm not trying to make a story out of it, but noticing the screen out of which even this is made, so that I am not creating any mental suffering. Using the pain as base metal that I turn into gold (pain into consciousness/knowing) as Eckhart Tolle put it once, if I am not mistaken.

Spiritual helpers, entities, chakras - distraction, distraction, distraction. Im in the gym of being aware of awareness.

i believe this stems from the belief in materialism, as in, that matter is the building block of reality. People enmass ignore consciousness, all I can do is remind people consciousness is all that is real. The stories we tell are secondary, and we cant change some things even if we wanted to. What we can do is surrender and accept what is, and act from there. Im sure what you point out is true to some extent but there is also other stories happening which are not that. There are many humble and/or amazing people out there and groups of people doing good in the world also.

Yes you quote the part which praises you as right and ignore the part which shows you as wrong. Classic feeding of the ego. If you will talk absolute truth, you cant be running away like that when challenged. Anyway, enjoy your circlejerk/echo chamber Im not on about description, Princess was denying the reality of consciousness and I was in discussion with her about the difference between concepts (aka dream/illusion) and something which is beyond the dream, namely consciousness. To me she is God denying. This leads to the next, I dont think its for any one single mind to know where the rollercoaster is going. What we can do is to be here as the knowing and to allow experience to be - its already happening. Noticing the knowing takes the sting out of bad situations, because your identification has shifted. Lets also mention that one ant cant know where the colony is headed, thats on whole other level.