Salvijus

It's inspirational.

I've learnt an interesting thing how forgiveness, gratitude and hopefulness work together like one unit. It works like a vehicle that drives on a highway to God. Forgiveness is foundational to move forward in life, otherwise it keeps us bound to things and it creates like a yo-yo effect. You think you're moving outwards, then stop, spin a a bit, and are drawn back. Gratitude is a tool to become receptive to life's gifts and blessings. It's about affirming and claiming God's grace for yourself. And as you do so, that flow of energy expands and begins to manifest through you in a ever greater manner. Hopefulness is the fuel and the spark that propels you forward. It activates God's creative power within you. It's like a doorway or a portal. A small doorway can only pass small object through it. A medium doorway can pass medium size objects. But a unlimited doorway impedes nothing to pass through it. All of God's creative power can begin to manifest through you. Greater miracles/synchronicities begin to take place. "Where is your creative self? Deep down within, in some reclusive corner of your being? Have you given it gratitude? Have you unfettered it through forgiveness? Have you brought it the fuel of life, the light of spirit in the form of hopefulness? Think about carefully, for your creative self defines who and what you are."

Learning to accept others would result in true self acceptance.

I've been doing recently a similar course that involves cultivating forgiveness, gratitude, hopefulness and truthfulness in a systematic way. Nice to see you changing a tune.

@SOUL 🙏

@SOUL 🧠 What does "jumping levels" mean? It refers to a shift in the level of abstraction, perspective, or logical depth in a conversation — often without explicitly acknowledging that shift. Instead of staying with the immediate, practical, or concrete level of discussion, someone jumps to a meta-level — a higher, more abstract reflection about what's underlying the discussion itself. --- 🔄 In context: Original level (Level 1): > “Let’s not confuse classical nonduality (Rupert Spira) with radical nonduality (Jim Newman). They are very different paths.” ⬇️ This is a concrete, specific distinction between two spiritual approaches. Jumped level (Level 2): > “Confusion itself isn’t in the teachings. It’s in how we perceive them. Once you see that, there's no real confusion at all.” ⬆️ Now we’re no longer comparing teachings — we’re talking about the nature of confusion itself, philosophically. --- 📊 Analogy: Changing the dimension of a discussion Imagine someone’s playing a chess game and says: > “You shouldn’t move your queen there, it’s too risky.” And the reply is: > “Chess is just a human invention. None of this is real.” That might be true at a philosophical level, but it’s not useful if the conversation was about actual strategy within the frame of the game. --- 🧘‍♂️ Summary: > “Jumping levels” means switching from talking within a framework to talking about the framework itself — from the content to the context, from distinctions to the mechanics of making distinctions. It can be wise or annoying — depending on timing, clarity, and intention.

I ran through Ai the situation aswell. It's no different than the apple and orange example I gave. Or for example: " let's not confuse modern abstract art with traditional realism — they come from totally different intentions.” Reply: "Confusion only arises because we try to interpret art with fixed concepts. True art is beyond classification." ✅ Thoughtful. ❌ But sidesteps the actual comparison of art styles. Or: Fiction vs. Nonfiction “These are two different genres. Let’s not mix them up — one is imagined, the other is factual.” Reply: “The idea of fiction or truth is itself a mental distinction. Everything is just a story the mind tells.” ✅ Philosophically valid. ❌ But not helpful in sorting a library or understanding the difference.

The final outcome feels really good. So that's a good sign. I feel the light.. Maybe Im addicted to that feeling of light.

Seeing no differences is indeed the purpose of nonduality but the thread is not called "what's the ultimate purpose of nonduality" Your comment is indeed interesting and adds an interesting perspective but it's just odd and out of context imo. Like Sugarcoat sayed people can say valuable things even if its unrelated. Honesty i have no idea how i got here and why im pointing this out.

Your original comment doesn't engage with the threads purpose which was to distinguish classical advaita from radical advaita. It’s like someone says:“ Let’s not confuse apples and oranges, they’re very different kinds of fruit.” And someone replies: “Well, confusion itself arises from how the mind categorizes experience, not from the fruits.” You're technically correct but it's sidestepping the actual purpose of this thread of clarifying the differences between the two things that people are conflating.

It's a thread about the confusion and conflation and differences between classical (Rupert spira) and radical type of nonduality (Jim Newman) . You're talking about the nature and mechanics of confusion in general which is a completely different topic imo.

It's still confusing what that has to do with anything in this thread personally.

Apparently to my own surprise chatgpt says it was a coherent verse. Ggwp.

I smell a nothingburger

I've explained already why spirituality that doesn't sharpen awareness and discernment can't lead to genuine insight into no self. That is the reason why I distinguish the two ways in the way that I do.

Oh okay. Yea, that's true. They shouldn't be confused. The difference between them is one of legit and false afterall.

I've addressed it by saying Rupert spira's nonduality is the true way and radical nonduality is a fake spirituality.

🙏

Enlightened means one who speaks the truth. How did you conclude I speak bullshit before examining my words?

There still is correct reasoning and incorrect reasoning. Like 2+2=4 and not 3. I ask you again, how did you conclude I'm wrong about everything before examining the reasoning I gave?

How did you conclude I know nothing if you haven't examined if my reasoning is correct or not?

It's probably more complex then that but yea.

You're jumping to unbased conclusions about me. Instead allow the validity of my reasoning determine whether it was written by a blind person or not.

Yes that would be the first enlightenment in Rupert Spira's map.

I also say 2+2=4. Are you going to dismiss me here too based on what I've said before?