Salvijus

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?

@PurpleTree Good reasoning is enough validity onto itself.

There are instructions to build muscle There are instructions to increase fat There are instructions to sharpen the awareness and discernment. Unless the awareness is sharpened to the point where it can discern the eternal from transient, there is no enlightenment, there is no genuine insight, there is only nondual self gaslighting.

The only way to have an insight into no self is if awareness penetrates all transient existence. That's why following instructions that rise awareness is essential. Without that you just have a nondual nothingburger.

bingo

You just have to become really really delusional somehow.

What is thought provoking is that there are many examples of enlightenment people being religious. Perhaps an epistemologically perfect person would still perceive religion as valid? I personally would argue that yes, that is indeed the case.

So you're saying there are people who are not perfectly enlightened among religious groups. Okay, I'll give you that.

Well you don't know that. Therein is your epistemological error.

If I understood you correctly, you say religious people are epistemologically blind. Which is itself an epistemological error from your side. If you meant something else than sorry.

Assuming all religious people have no epistemology is an epistemological error itself.