Search the Community

This is a very thought provoking video about how some of us may have given radical nonduality more attention than it deserves for anyone interested.

I agree with Tim when he said that nonduality is unliveable for the human. He mentioned that others do exist and you know darn well they exist and is why you lock your doors at night or when you go on holiday, in case you come back to find squatters taking over your property. I thought that saying others do exist was a very relevant point that I agreed with.

Beautiful, thank you. But now I'm still curious, which specific critique/s of nonduality in that video, did you agree with or find relevant in some way ?

@Mellowmarsh I'm not done yet, but I felt to comment on what I've picked up in the video so far: Critiques from the speakers: - there's a kind of fundamentalism in the way nonduality describes reality. (I didn't hear them mention radical nonduality yet.) - excessive focus on self negation or self denial, ie there's no one here etc - Tim says for him it's more about affirming you rather than negating you, ie the individual with all it's quirkiness actually comes more to life. My comments so far: For me radical nonduality is just like a doorway really, it woke me up to the fact how much I have been identifying with conditioned thoughts as literally being me. It simply got me to see what's here, what's always been here, which can't be named, because it's not a concept. I can't deny that certain aspects of self have fallen away. But personality doesn't fall away. Although there are changes in behaviour. I'm definitely not going around telling people that they don't exist. And I agree with Tim, one actually becomes more alive. As far as the fundamentalism part goes, I think listening to Jim types and Emerson types is actually a good combo. Emerson is very much about unfolding and a freedom from any ideas about freedom etc. I wanted to post underneath the video: please can you have Jim or Emerson on your show, would be interesting. So I found it a bit ironic that she only allows subscribers to comment. (I found the same with James Swartz (Vedanta teacher) who's doing all these critique videos about various spiritual teachers, including Leo, but only members can see those videos. It's like if we wanna have a proper conversation, we need to have a two way thing.)

Imagine trying to avoid yourself. That’s not a liveable experience, obviously. Nonduality has had its day,the very thought of it has to be the most stupidest idea ever conceived by the human mind. Even the invention of a mind is bizarre, it’s all weird and there are no answers or even questions anymore because silence and unknowning is the only true reality. Knowing anything is still met with the problem of who knows that will NEVER be known. We have no other choice but to live as though we know. The lie must be true.

Try not to take this too seriously. I openly admit I’m just a parroting idiot repeating stuff I’ve read somewhere as if I believed it. I’m a poser. No big deal. And no I don’t think I’m special, but at the same time it’s true, not many people grasp what non duality is pointing to, my god even you must agree with that, how many people have you met in your lifetime who fully understand nonduality?

I often shift from duality to nonduality for various reasons. Most of you probably do too.

Nonduality should enhance your duality experience, not negate it. Many use nonduality as a way to escape from duality. If only it worked.

Yes, thanks, it’s literally just a discussion about integration that’s all. It’s not necessarily in conflict with the overall principle of nonduality. It’s actually a very refreshing conversation.

Cool, just checking PS: Don't let anyone tell you that "nonduality cannot be described". Of course it can be described. In fact, the word itself is already the description: Nonduality = that which does not include / is the opposite of duality. So it very obviously is a relative perspective (aka. philosophy), regardless of how much nondualists generally like to profess that it isn't.

No, I don’t disagree with the teachings as such, I see the teachings for what they are, insofar as no word can describe radical nonduality, or, every word describes radical nonduality. We can only theorise as to the nature of reality, and can also grasp the illusory nature of knowledge is only ever pointing to it’s own illusion.

@Hyperion I know and see what you mean, and I agree with your overall principle. However as stated in the video. Nonduality is an empty principle that cannot be lived by actual life forms identified with the concept of “human being” albeit illusory being. This illusory sep self still has to be recognised as being very real.

Most of the original radical nonduality speakers (Tony Parsons, Jim Newman, Tim Cliss etc) will say: there is no you, mind is illusion etc, and then they just leave it at that. This brick wall approach is helpful for some, but I can see that many people are just left frustrated. (I have literally seen some of the online meetings getting zoom bombed lol.) Emerson has found a way to practically demonstrate that mind is illusion. (See minute 6 to around minute 11 as an example) Language is the veil that is lifted in seeing through the illusion of the sense of a separate me. I like to call this radical nonduality 2.0 not because the original message has changed. It's simply an evolution in the way that it is being transmitted. (The revolutionary thing about this, is that Emerson has found a way to make nonduality accessible for people who have literally no spiritual background.)

I don't think I ever said this reality is an illusion and there is another reality that is more real. "Right now is the reality" Yes I think we still have miscommunication with the separate self thing. (certain aspects have fallen away here) I like this video by Leo, radical nonduality basically says the same. All there is is This/God, remove all backstories.

Well said. 😎 The thing is, only 1 out of 5 million people ever fully grasp the concept of nonduality. So it’s perfectly normal for the remaining people who don’t grasp its meaning to fully reject it, even fight to the death to defend their defencelessness. That’s why most people choose to stay asleep, it’s more comfortable and familiar.

Not at all, not being condescending, not my thing. I just notice that over and over you seem to imply that radical nonduality etc is somehow in denial of reality. Quite the opposite is true. When the sense of a separate me falls away rapidly, life actually feels more intense, in the sense that emotions are experienced more raw, ie less resistance, like a baby crying freely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hjQaDn2GVk&t=7s @Mellowmarsh The part that stood out for me was when she said: "I just don't have a life anymore." ie there's just Life. Now wonder it's called radical nonduality

Do you guys ever wonder if you're agreeing with Leo because Leo's right or because Leo said it? I have this problem sometimes. It's not because I don't introspect to see if I'm believing or actually conscious of something. Rather, it's because Leo is so right about pretty much everything that I end up wondering if my mind was subconsciously influenced by actualized.org content to adopt the same conclusions. Or alternatively, it could be because reality is what it is and anyone can reach the same conclusions if they do truth seeking correctly. Some things Leo is right about: Oneness, nonduality The limits of science and the myth of science Identifying rationalism Academic philosophy being bullshit Ideology, Conformity, the social matrix God existing, and what God is Solipsism (nonduality has to solipsistic, in case you didn't catch on) Cognitive and ego development The ego and self-deception The weird thing is that as I do this work, I arrive at many of the same conclusions as Leo. Of course I already had heard about them, but my understanding becomes much deeper. The only issue is that I could be deceiving myself by using actualized.org as a sort of paradigm and then falling for confirmation bias. I think the only solution to this is more introspection, removing beliefs, and contemplation. But it's still not easy. It's important to be aware of the drawbacks of actualized.org. The content is really good, insanely good, inhumanly good. But the cost is that you're exposed to the most profound insights before actually doing the work that is needed to get there, and as a result you have the potential to reach higher peaks of consciousness but also to get bogged down in a very advanced form of a paradigm.

Rebrand it as radical non-nonduality, and I'll gladly sign up.

@Wilhelm44 Have you ever heard of Suzanne Chang? She’s got a super radical nonduality vibe to her videos. I like listening to her views on nonduality.

I think thats the poetry guy 🙂 Im talking about Emerson nonduality channel on youtube. See the video in the OP (watch from minute 6 to around minute 11 to get an idea of how he works with people. Loads of one on one sessions on his channel. It's like radical nonduality 'coaching', for lack of a better word.)

@Carl-Richard lets say a normie was curious about this nonduality stuff, which inquiry questions would you use to let them see through the illusion of the sense of a separate me ?

Thanks, you too, took some time for integration😊 found something interesting in the mean time, (see post in spirituality section titled "radical nonduality 2.0) Blessings to you, i wanna say sister, but that would make you sound like a nun😄

No worries. And no, I am definitely not trying to parrot or appease Leo in any manner. I've raised points against Leo on many of his opinions, topics, and blog posts in this forum whenever I've disagreed with him, and I continue to do so. I've been both correct and wrong. My last goal is not to think in this forum, haha. One of the main reasons I'm here is to expand my understanding. I'm just debating, and these topics aren't necessarily the least tricky, which is why I like having discussions about them. - I'll try to be a bit clearer, but basically, there is no "compartmentalization" from God's POV. This is tricky to imagine because you're mostly using your human POV, which has clear distinctions between imaginary vs. real. You need to distinguish things that are more real, meaning things that have a sensory impact on you, from fleeting, inconsistent thoughts. But from God's POV, if God must experience evil, aka "have evil within itself," to fully be itself, then God would have to somehow experience it. However, evil doesn't really exist in this realm because it's all just one mind. There is no "other." Again, that's the point I was making about nonduality. Nondual literally means no Other, no otherness. So... how would it do that? What would be the fundamental "mechanic" of God even being able to experience Evil? So the only way for God to experience "evil" would be to somehow "lower it's conciosuness/delude" itself or "forget" that it is God for some temporarily finite period of time so that it can experience it. I don't know if you've ever seen that image of the universe holding a mask. I'll put it here. God needs to create some kind of "frame" or "limit" around its consciousness to even perceive evil. That frame is you, and everything else is a limited being within it. If you had no frame, bias, or point of view, there would be no separate things to perceive, only God God God God God, all of it, without distinction. That is why awakening sometimes involves your vision having transparency, pure whiteness, pure darkness (blackout); the collapse of all distinctions. There is no separate observer imposing boundaries on experience. Even scientifically, if we stripped away categories, reality could be reduced to particles and fields interacting. Atom interacting with atom, field interacting with field, over and over again. You’d basically see the brown/universe thing around everywhere (just referring to the image/graph). In order for God to even experience some sort of “pain,” it would need to fool itself, put on a “mask,” figuratively speaking, AKA impose a “fake limitation/frame” onto itself to see a temporary "fake" separation between itself and the other. It would then temporarily delude itself into thinking that it is not itself interacting with itself, but that it is some other actual "OTHER REAL" entity that is actually harming and hurting it. And since God, “as it says, so it is,” has no mind/reality distinction, when God creates this “illusion,” it is not separate from reality. And that “middle experience” of a mask is what we essentially call human life/ego. It's not necessarily "creating" evil. It's more like God limiting its own consciousness and compressing it into a human experience where concepts like evil, suffering, and harm can even exist. Otherwise, God would simply experience everything as one whole, without a separate "other" to experience those things happening to. Hence, it can't even conceptualize or see "Evil". - From God’s POV, it’s kind of like planting a prank on yourself or planning a surprise for yourself. How could you ever fool yourself? You can’t. The only way you could is if you somehow temporarily forgot, in which case it would become a genuine surprise or deception. How can God experience anything that requires “otherness”? It can’t. It never actually can with its full consciousness, because “otherness” isn’t real or true. So the only way it can do it is by “lowering its consciousness,” forgetting, fooling itself. That’s why evil is often called “low-consciousness behavior.”

I'll try my best to explain this. God is, by definition, God. If God were something else, then God wouldn't be God. The definition of God, as you will realize through contemplation, awakening, etc., is that God is fundamentally all, or that which has no "other." There is nothing outside of itself. It is all-encompassing. So God isn't merely a "creator"; God is everything. It is everythingness. If you agree with this definition, then you can follow the logic from there. For God to be all, to be everything, it is in a bind that is self-defined: it has to contain both the finite and the infinite. It has to be capable of containing both limitation and unlimitedness, and it has to create limitations without bias. Why? Because if God were limited by any bias, then God would be limited by that very bias. For example, if I define a set as the set of all prime numbers, then I have to include all prime numbers. If I leave one out, then it is no longer the set of all prime numbers. It would be the set of all prime numbers except 7. So everything has to exist without any fundamental bias. If God were biased toward creating a world without evil, then God would not be everything, because God would be limited by the exclusion of evil. If God is the set of all that exists, and you remove something because "that cannot be God," then God suddenly isn't God anymore. It becomes something that does not include that thing. You could therefore say that the only thing that "limits" God is the fact that God has to be itself, or everything. In other words, God cannot be biased toward one part of existence over another, because then it would cease to be everything. It has to take in everything and be everything. That's the first reason. The second reason is that the notions of good and evil, as well as pain and suffering, are extremely tricky. You could technically argue that you commit "sadism" every time you kill an insect, every time you choose not to help a homeless person, or even when you put your own body through pain by forcing your muscles to grow stronger. Evil and suffering exist as long as you agree to the rules of existing as a finite self. Every single moment of your life, you could theoretically end your life and exit this particular bind, but you don't want to because you want to continue living. As long as you are attached to existence, form attachments, and want things to be a specific way, you will inevitably experience some degree of pain and suffering. Take the classic example of a gazelle being chased by a lion. Both animals simply want to survive and feed their families. Who does God give the bias to? What should the animals be fed on? Are you going to commit "genocide" against the grass and nature too? How do you decide what gets eaten alive and what doesn't? If you're a game developer, I'm sure you can understand this yourself. It's incredibly difficult to satisfy everyone's preferences. Every time you reject a feature request from a player, for example, you could argue that you have caused some degree of disappointment or pain for that player. And this problem continues at every level: whenever one thing is given preference over another, something is necessarily excluded or denied. Bias is fundamental to all of this. Bias is also what separates duality from nonduality. Why should one thing be one way and not another? Why prefer this over that? How do I define what is evil for me and what is evil for you? What is good, and what is evil? Who gets to decide that? The moment you prefer one thing over another, you introduce a distinction. You are saying that this should be one way rather than that way. In that sense, preference itself creates a form of duality. As long as you're attached to being alive and to existing in a particular way, you'll experience pain and suffering whenever reality doesn't conform to that way. Who says you're entitled to comfortable weather all the time? Why can't nature suddenly become extremely cold and bring another ice age? Is that evil being done to you? From another perspective, you're imposing your preferences onto nature by expecting it to behave the way you want. From a nondual perspective, there is no fundamental basis for preferring one part of reality over another, because there is no ultimately separate "other" to stand in contrast to it. TLDR; Pain, suffering, evil, and sadism exist because God is, by definition, everything. For God to be God, it must encompass both the infinite and the finite. Once you enter the finite realm, pain, suffering, and "evil" exist depending on the perspective of the observer. It is "evil" to paint over a beautiful masterpiece, but it can also be good because it creates space for a new masterpiece. It is "evil" to die from cancer or disease, but from another perspective, the body and its cells fought to survive for as long as they could, and harmful genetic traits may not be passed on. It may seem "evil" that God doesn't simply give you a harem of beautiful women who exist solely to please you, but from the perspective of those women, it is good that they are not reduced to objects existing only for someone else's desires. It is "evil" to age and lose your energy and vitality, but it can also be good because you eventually return nutrients to nature and make room for new, novel lives to emerge. The moment you accept the finite world, you accept these issues, because a finite thing is defined by certain conditions it needs to thrive, be happy, and exist. If you could genuinely be happy with anything, you wouldn't be bound by those conditions. In that sense, you wouldn't be defined as finite, but as infinite. If you were completely fine with losing a leg, you wouldn't be defined by the normal human attachment to having an intact body. People will call you an "abnormal human" just for that. Evil, suffering, and sadism exist precisely because you are not a bot. Because if God were biased in any way, then as the creator, God would have to behave according to that specific bias, imposing an even greater limitation on you than the limitations we already experience.