Carl-Richard

Don't want to become a liberal use case of the ban button?

Why did you de-mod yourself?

So it's not constant? Which attachments were one of the last ones you had to let go of? Is your sense of self completely dissolved? Does it fluctuate throughout the day? What is the state of your ego identification?

How is the state of non-doership? Experience of time. Experience of thoughts (are they active when at rest, are you thinking about stuff when at rest, and if so, what are you thinking about?). Was there a process of letting go of attachments, of shedding identification? Was there a point of dissolution of self and/or cessation of sensory phenomena? How would you describe your experience of objects in your visual sensory field before and after the enlightenment?

I mean, you can dissuade them if you don't want them to commit suicide. But pointing to very general and abstract individual beliefs they hold to explain their proximity to suicide is a game of statistical whack-a-mole. Is the belief in an afterlife causing suicides? What about the belief that nothing happens after you die and it's just a blank nothingness? What about reincarnation? What about "everything is love"?

It's the exact opposite. Lying to them and saying "no no no, life is not a dream in any way, forget about it" is not meeting them where they are at.

If you actually read what Nahm wrote to SoonHei in the quoted PMs, he pointed to the idea that you can't really use "life is a dream" to conclude that taking your life is a preferable action over simply honoring life, and that acting in such a way would be based on a misunderstanding. And remember, people in the "Leo runs a cult" videos want to draw the same connection that you're doing now, that even engaging on the idea that "life is a dream" is already too far and is causing suicides. It seemingly doesn't help to actively dissuade someone against suicide without simultaneously lying that "no in fact, life cannot be said to be a dream in any way, forget that you ever thought that, forget that we ever said that".

They could be at the right moment in their life where they are open to a non-dual epiphany and whatever they seem to be doing in their life doesn't really seem to be making them feel fulfilled anyway and they make that connection. The transition to non-duality is always in a sense orthogonal, so throwing it at almost all and any situation could be warranted based on that point alone. I discovered non-duality when I was extremely dysfunctional and you would've probably argued I needed some kind of standard psychological intervention/teaching instead (and I was actually looking in that direction prior to that), but that didn't seem to change the fact that my life became quite different after that point.

Sometimes the best advice is the one you didn't think that you needed Again, you're assuming a lot about each individual situation. Non-duality can be quite helpful. Or else he probably wouldn't have spammed it at seemingly every opportunity he could. I personally like to pretend that entertaining people's delusions about them asking the correct questions that deserve an answer is a worthwhile game to play most of the time. But some don't.

Haha woah 🫨

Non-duality is in this weird in-between position in that it could be simultaneously very helpful and not depending on how far you want to go for it. And it can actually help with quite a few many things. That's why you can throw it at things endlessly. And that can be annoying if you're not receptive or you keep seeing it being thrown at people and they're not receptive. It's not like there is a Search function on the forum or you can look through Nahm's posts on his profile or anything. He has over 20k posts, surely you'll be able to find one problematic thing that you can support your "suffering" argument with.

Yes, Ulax gave a hypothetical. But we're talking about Nahm's actual statements, correct? So maybe we can talk about some of those. As for the hypothetical (and I'll show you why hypotheticals alone aren't always so fun), I actually don't think that hypothetical would be the biggest sin depending on the situation. If there were 10 'practical advice' comments and then Nahm turns up and drops a non-dual bomb (n-bomb), I probably wouldn't care very much, depending on how it's done of course. And we're actually assuming getting a job is necessary and that having a non-dual epiphany and perhaps joining a monastery is out of the picture. Sure, again, it can be annoying that it doesn't seem to directly answer the question, but that's 'annoying'.

Ulax giving that hypothetical might've been Ulax's point but when I interpret you p-hacking in your discussion tree, that's highly annoying for me. I didn't even address his point so I don't know what you mean by "intellectually analyze your way out of". Hypothetically, you can give non-dual advice in a way that is harmful, yes. Anything particular you had in mind?

What a p-hacked statement. The initial statement was "giving life advice". Now you're assuming they're in some kind of dangerous and unstable situation, when "life advice" also obviously includes things like "should I say this on a date?" or "should I buy this non-stick pan or this other non-stick pan?". You're loading emotion into the argument and now you made it seem more significant than what it was initially when you brought it up. If you want to talk specifically about that particular scenario (giving non-dual advice to "suffering" people), feel free to pull up actual quotes and we can judge rather than you playing a p-hacking game for your amusement.

And what's your position on the issue?

There is saying non-dual things in response to asking for life advice, and then there is actually giving bad life advice. If he did give non-dual responses when people were asking for life advice (and I think he did that), yes, I think that can be annoying. What is even more annoying though is having a real life practical back and forth with a person and then they suddenly jump to non-duality for some reason, or they try to delegitimize your argumentation by using non-duality. I believe Nahm was benevolent in this way, in that he didn't use it as some defense mechanism or escape hatch in an argument. He just genuinely from the get-go reminded you of the non-dual perspective and left it at that. And it's not like he pestered you with it constantly in a thread, was my impression. He would usually leave a comment, short, sweet, and that would be it unless someone engaged. The way things are done is sometimes just as or more important than what exactly is done.

I predict your definition of "religious people" is not very well thought through.

Elliott will now look up two statistics and three quotes.

Thanks Freddie Mercury. Oh wait, you're on my ignore list 🫢 🤫

"Yo ego is reacting to this post yo" ✌️🫱🫲🫰👏🙌🦆

Alien grass? Show us where the alien touched you. We'll meet the alien and touch base. Being social, grounded? What about being alien, elevated? A Lion can be an aLien if you wish hard enough. Wish on an alien star on an alien planet.

This form of argumentation is called meta-argumentation and it never addresses any substantive points being made but only goes for describing general traits and characteristics that can apply in a thousand different situations. I don't engage with that because it's not engaging with the conversation in any meaningful way that I can learn more about this particular situation rather than hearing things I've heard a billion trillion times before.

Well then 'heil Hitler bitch' I'm a full on Nahmzist ✋️

The only friend I made along the way was an imaginary friend with Down's syndrome telling me it's ok to be dumb in a forum filled with absolute drooling reta- I'm sorry: schizotypal otherwise mentally functionally average thereabout outstanding citizens of a 'not-a-cult' i.e. a 'new religious movement' which is the same as a cult but you will get banned if you say it's a cult. Last time I use the word "cult", I swear, swear on my cult-Bible. Plz no ban mr. Leonidas. And yes: warning to not talk about the contents of the video and use your mind too much because you will risk ending up as a banned member of the non-****/NRM forum. 🤐 And I'm actually being serious about that; read the last PSA thread.