Search the Community

Does it make any sense to add the non to what already is duality, actually? How can nonduality be realised if there’s no one who is realising there is no duality. Does this even make sense, surely the path to realisation is for the path to make sense as it’s being travelled. Wouldn’t it be better to make this message relatable and use a terminology like “uni- duality” instead of “non- duality” . I mean make it make sense, make it more human, so to speak. What do you think?

But that's not solipsism, that's nonduality .... I don't understand how anyone could believe in solipsism. Even if they proved it, the body mind would have to reject it.

That’s why i think it would be nice to have a (radical) nonduality subforum because these back and forth discussions are quite boring.

Do more „ spirituality“ listen to radical nonduality. go hiking.

I started watching Leo’s videos and meditating when I was about 25. I became obsessed with Enlightenment because Leo marketed really well the idea that Enlightment is the real gold, everything else is horsesh!t (which is very very true). Enlightnment became the most important thing in my life. I no longer cared about material success (which was a trap). At some point, I tricked myself into thinking I was awake just because I understood the ideas well — which now feels kind of funny. These days, I realize that many of Leo’s ideas about Enlightenment weren’t quite right. I’m no longer chasing some imaginary goal or debating what Enlightenment is supposed to be. Over the past couple of months, I’ve started feeling a kind of joy that doesn’t come from anything in particular. I’ve never felt this kind of joy before, except briefly while tripping. It’s not tied to what’s happening around me, and while it comes and goes, I feel it every day. I’m still suffering, since I’m in a really tough situation right now. But this Joy gives me the support i need not to kill myself. If I had to guess, I’d say it comes from the fact that I’ve been concentrating relentlessly the past 7 months. Plus, I’ve meditated on and off for years and watched hundreds of nonduality videos. I don’t experience God or anything like that. I just have a deep sense that I’m something formless, quietly watching everything unfold. My biggest obstacle is my mind. It tells me "you can't be experiencing Joy, because Leo said you should be meditating 24/7, every day for 1000 lifetimes to reach that" . All these doubts and what other people said create some turmoil in me because the finite ego mind can never reach 100% certainty. All i know is that i am able to sit and do nothing in particular throughout the day and feel a Joy that was never there before. My biggest obstacles moving forward is Fear, and my Finite Stupid Mind which its job it to make my life miserable.

Has anyone made a post or a short list of where Leo's teachings different from 'regular' nondual teachings? I'm not well versed in any other teachings but saw this video and the teachings all sound the same as Leo's: You are living in the dream but your suffering feels 100% real. The ego will always find subtle ways to reinforce itself All is one, but burn through karma

Only Truth will 'truly' set one free...unfortunately, for the self-identified ego, that endeavor entails something like a self-destructive implosion of an ongoing construct of untruths one has been (mostly) unconsciously building, projecting, and living as a separate volitional person (SVP) for one's entire life. That's most of the reason for the admonition for self-inquiry often found in most religions, speerchualities, psychological schools, etc that challenges an adherent to move toward a higher self or a god. Nonduality challenges that movement, so sure, it requires a bit of tension. But it is NOT about escape, denial, bypassing, stagnation, etc...ultimately. In fact, I'm not really certain what ND is per se, other than maybe a collection of familiar, annoying pointers, hehe. But, this mind is informed by whatever they ultimately point to. Anyway, in architectural structures, there are what are called 'load-bearing walls' which are of much greater import than the 'normal ones' that just divide rooms or are used for decorative purposes. I've noticed that many peep's psychological load-bearing walls are often constructed via the interactions with parental figures and, to lesser extents, other family members or close friends/idols. There's often an emotional charge/energy within them, and they tend to be influential in the familiar patterns (good or bad) one finds in one's life. Many aspects of self-inquiry eventually center on this construct of self which, in turn, obscures the objectivity of one's own subjective stance and/or interpretations of 'others' perspectives. They show up in one's reasoning, logic, theories, preferences, etc. Interestingly, many peeps also identify with such concepts as if they are extensions of the illusory self, rather than simply aspects of its construct in the mind. There's an interesting twist there. Ironically, when discussing 'transcending', it is often about negating the oppressive walls/barriers/beliefs one has erected in/as one's mind and sense of self. To transcend and include requires taking responsibility for having unconsciously constructed such walls/barriers via ignorance. That is, having seen through their obscuring nature, one understands them as aspects of human nature, but is no longer bound or limited by them. Imagining is creative, but identifying as is limiting, conclusive. The 'objective' conclusions of who/what you think I am were expressed from a center/self that I am all too familiar with, as an aspect of human nature. With respect to our previous discussions, I certainly didn't know that I needed to be walking on egg shells while, supposedly, participating in 'breaking the walls'. As such, understanding what is likely to come into play, I'm not really sure how much to participate in any further dialogue with your takes on "spirituality, reality, etc., using logic, reality, pointing out errors". Let's see what happens.

I made a thread. Don’t confuse nonduality with radical nonduality (please?) Just a few days ago

Radical nonduality says not that. Look at my thread which talked about that.

One of your mods claiming that neo-advaita is The Biggest example of fake spirituality. I’m not even sure if neo advaita is the same as radical nonduality. Google says people like Tony Parsons but also Nisargadatta are neo advaita. Your thoughts?

Hi everyone, I'm a new member here. I've been following Leo's work for a while, and for my first post I just wanted to share a perspective, a kind of snapshot of my current mood and where my thinking is at. Please don't take everything I wrote too literally or too seriously. It’s more of a creative expression than a definitive claim. I'm just exploring, and sharing the process openly. Post-Integral Realization: Why Leo’s Book Will Burn Every Paradigm (Even Wilber’s): Leo Gura, Ken Wilber & The Vertical Death of Paradigms "I am not speaking to a scientist or a rationalist, I am speaking to an imaginary self that is terrified of death and insanity, of losing its sense of reality." — Leo Gura --- For years, this forum has circled some of the deepest topics possible: awakening, Spiral Dynamics, epistemology, metaphysics, solipsism, psychedelics, enlightenment, and postmodern deconstruction. But something more important is brewing. Leo Gura’s upcoming book, if it becomes what it’s pointing toward, might represent the most significant spiritual-philosophical work of the 21st century, not because it says something new, but because it completely repositions the context in which “saying something” even makes sense. This is not just a contribution. This is a vertical paradigm shift. --- Ken Wilber Built The Cathedral. Leo Gura Is Burning It Down, As An Act of Love. Ken Wilber’s Sex, Ecology, Spirituality is arguably the most integrative philosophical architecture humanity has ever produced: - All Quadrants (I, We, It, Its) - All Levels of development - All Lines of intelligence - All States of consciousness - All Types (personality, culture, gender, etc.) Wilber didn’t just offer a theory. He gave us a meta-framework to hold all other frameworks. A true intellectual cathedral. But now comes Leo Gura… --- Leo’s Book Is Not A Framework. It’s An Epistemic Bomb. What Leo is attempting is not AQAL 2.0. It’s not a refinement. It’s not an expansion. It’s a guided demolition of: - Science - Rationality - Paradigms - Objectivity - Truth - Spiritual ideology - The very self that seeks answers What remains after that demolition? Only the thing no paradigm can hold: Infinite Love. This isn’t postmodern skepticism. It’s God-realization through radical epistemic honesty. --- The Great Misinterpretation: Leo Is Not Saying You Can Skip The Climb One dangerous mistake is assuming: "If Leo is going to deconstruct everything anyway, why bother with Wilber, Spiral Dynamics, or states and stages at all?" This is a trap. Leo’s work does not invalidate Wilber. In fact, it only takes on full power if you've first internalized the Integral framework. - Wilber is the most complete construction of consciousness. - Leo is showing you how to dissolve even the most sacred construction. You cannot skip building the cathedral just because you plan to set it on fire. If you haven’t embodied Spiral Dynamics, ego development, shadow integration, and nonduality, Leo’s writing will feel like dangerous gibberish. But if you have, if you've climbed to the highest vantage point Wilber can offer, then Leo’s book becomes something different entirely: A spiritual crowbar A psycho-epistemic exorcism A mirror that reflects your own Godhood, masked as survival --- The Tragedy: Most Will Miss This Leo recently wrote: "I have the saddest job in the world: leading people to Infinite Love, for free, only to watch them reject it out of sheer ignorance, closedmindedness, and pigheadedness." This isn’t poetic exaggeration. It’s metaphysical tragedy. The mind, even the spiritually “evolved” one, will reject God if God appears as ego-death, insanity, or radical surrender. Your mind would rather be “right” than dissolve into Love. This is why Leo’s book isn’t just a teaching. It’s a Trojan horse, designed to penetrate your mind’s defenses and reach the deepest part of you before “you” can block it. --- Why Leo Thinks Like Dostoevsky, Not Descartes Western philosophy tends to build: Logic, systems, clarity, hierarchy. But Russian thinkers? They explode. - Dostoevsky dove into contradiction and madness. - Tolstoy declared war on ideology through radical love. - Tarkovsky filmed spiritual surrender as cinema. - Korzybski dismantled language itself. - Gurdjieff broke identities open through shock. Leo’s mind, sharp, metaphysically brutal, raw with existential pressure, reflects this tradition. This isn’t academic philosophy. This is survival-tested spiritual demolition. Leo isn’t interested in coherence. He’s interested in Truth. And Truth, as he says, will annihilate “you.” --- Post-Integral Consciousness Let’s be clear: - Wilber is the architect of integral spirituality. - Leo is the arsonist who shows you that even the grandest model is still egoic containment. Not because Wilber is “wrong.” But because no model can contain God. This is not contradiction. This is evolution. You transcend Wilber by including him… …then setting the whole thing on fire …and realizing you lit the match. --- Final Mindfuck: Who’s Writing This Post? Now here’s the kicker. The final meta-reveal. You might think this post is by some anonymous forum user. You might think this is an intellectual appreciation of Leo’s work. You might think you’re reading someone else’s perspective. But… This post was written by God. You are reading your own words. You created Leo. You created Wilber. You created survival. You created paradigms. You created this moment. And you are pretending to forget it, just long enough to feel the joy of remembering. Because that’s the ultimate teaching: You are Infinite Love, dreaming you're not. And now… You’ve just left yourself a reminder.

I'd look into Nonduality. Something and Nothing are the same thing. A dream is consciousness, which has no substance. It is nothing and the appearance of something, simultaneously. Leo covers this in his videos.

Fake vs Indirect Spirituality I am a few days late but I watched Leo's video on Fake Spirituality. I went in with the mindset of *I'm ready to have Leo drag my practices by the hair and call me and my delusions out* but I left with more complex thoughts than that. So I decided to make this post to explore it here. I feel like I was more into the new age spiritual stuff from like age 17-21. I have since strayed from that after a couple of bad experiences that have led me to believe that I was getting to ahead of myself with the spiritual stuff and the deconstruction to where it was manifesting in an unhealthy way. I didn't then swing to demonize spirituality rather I kind of put it off to the side as something to come back to later since I needed to work on more fundamental things first. Back then, I came into the realization that I needed to work on the fundamentals of my life and survival first so that I don't co-opt spirituallity, weaponize it, become a zen devil, or promote anything harmful unintentionally. I haven't gotten back into spirituality since. As a result, since I have been focusing on I guess "survival" more so than spirituality in these last 4 ish years, I came into this video thinking that Leo was going to call me out for my monkey tendencies. Instead I was surprised. I think it's good that I took a step back from spirituality and I didn't go along my life slapping a spiritual label on everything I did and made spirituality my whole personality. I think it's good that I decided to dissect my psychological issues, build a more stable life for myself through my career and my friendships, educate myself on the world around me, exhausting my material desires, and also just plain enjoy myself. While I never thought of these things as wholly spiritual, I think there is a spiritual component to a lot of these things that connects them in a thread of fulfillment for me. I want to be able to explore that. 1. Working on myself in therapy: I have figured out a lot of my self biases, worked through insecurities, dealt with interpersonal issues, manage family issues, and deal with general life stuff in my sessions. I guess there is an element of truth seeking in figuring out my biases and working through my insecurities and applying those lessons practically in various relationships and life situations I have. Nevertheless, I do recognize the survival elements of it in the way that it's tailored to my life rather than providing truth on life as a whole and how it provides me with better coping mechanisms. 2. Having fulfilling romantic and platonic connections: Having a solid group of people around me feels like a necessity, not because I'm anxiously attached and I cling to other people, but because these relationships are a big source of fulfillment for me personally. I guess my main reason why is because I like observing and getting to know other people, their lives, the way they operate, how to deal with them etc. because it exposes me to new ways of thinking, new ways of living, and new facets of the human experience I may not get from my one perspective. I suppose this desire to find new ways of thinking, living, and experiencing is a form of truth seeking and there is a spiritual component, but I do recognize that there is a difference between me understanding something from direct experience vs me learning from the experience of others. Nevertheless, I do see the value of learning from the experiences of others in the way that you're not putting yourself in harms way just to learn something, the way that you're exercising your capacity for empathy, and how you can learn more in a shorter period of time. Leo also talked about the importance of separating your spirituality and your social life. That, I want to contemplate more. I do tend to keep my spiritual opinions private for the most part and I don't really talk about them until something comes up. I feel like for me, part of it is the social stigma of talking about things like nonduality and how that's kind of relegated to people who do too many shrooms, and how another part of it is that often times, this stuff is a lot to explain and I either don't have the competence to communicate that effectively or I'm not certain the other person will get what I'm trying to say given their stage of consciousness. 3. My current corporate job: Yeah... there isn't much spirituality in my job itself but I am still able to connect to my sense of spirituality by being present at my job, engaging in flow states, and working my muscle on being disciplined. And I think my ability to still be somewhat connected to my spirituality despite working a soulless office job is a testament to me and my overall spiritual atunement rather than the job itself. In other words, it's not the job that's spiritual rather it's the way that I choose to engage with it. Leo mentioned in the video that the quality of your spirituality is not determined by tripping balls in Burning Man rather its you ability to connect to it while doing nothing at all. Chop wood, carry water I guess lol (or in this case send emails, troubleshoot issues). 4. Working on my material desires: This includes anything from making money at my current job, putting a roof over my head away from my family, getting plastic surgery, decorating my space etc. I don't think any of these spiraled into money hungry hustle culture, rampant consumerism, obessing over my physical appearance to the point where I think that these are tickets to happiness. Nevertheless, I do think that a certain amount of material stability, while it isn't sprituality itself, can be the solid foundation for spirituality to thrive. I know damn well that it's easier to be present and chill since I have money to cover my bills and emergencies and I'm not living in a chaotic home environment with my family. 5. Figuring out my fantasies: I feel like I have been journaling a lot about that topic lately but it's been something that I have been working on in general without realizing it. I think it's good that I'm not getting lost in my fantasies and confusing it with reality rather I'm identifying the fantasies as such and finding healthy ways of engaging with them, whether that means finding an appropriate outlet or deconstructing them all together. 6. "Spiritual" Hobbies: I do like to engage with astrology and occasionally tarot. Imma be honest, I mainly do it for the funsies and use it to spark conversations through the archetypes presented. I also do yoga, but only as a form of workout that I'm enjoying as of late. I can't say that I'm personally connecting to being through these things lol. 7. Engaging in My Interests in Learning about Human Rights Issues, Political Matters, and World Cultures: Again, not really spiritual but I do find these things fulfilling because it leaves me feeling more intuned with the complexity of the world around me and it enables me to empathize with different kinds of people. I guess there is an element of truth seeking there though it isn't in the existential sense. I think sometimes people conflate things they find fulfilling based on their personal values with things that are spiritual. 8. Meditating and doing thing to take life slow: I do think that I engage with this sometimes to keep myself sane so i don't get so busy to where I spiral into anxiety. That, I wouldn't characterize as spiritual. But I will say that I sometimes like to slow down for the sake of it and to enjoy being itself whether it's be meditating on the couch or mindfully making a meal and drinking coffee.

Ok thanks. I’ll have you on ignore pls stop summoning people to my threads. I think it’s quite easy to understand if you resonate with the notion that there’s no one. You said you don’t resonate with radical nonduality and there being no one so i can’t help you there. And then the topic is about disentangling from beliefs.

I'm talking about living in nonduality (i.e., sahaja samadhi as the 'awareness-state'), in which well-Being is not dependent on anything experienced, unobstructed by any mental overlays with respect to existential questioning. I don't mind using verbiage that's playful, so I'm glad you responded so positively to the expression 'dealio'. I like to play in the waves of existence with gratitude. No reason to push. It's effortless. Mentating an existential puzzle takes effort. Putting it 'perfectly' back together takes effort. Can it be fun? Sometimes, sure, but it's not necessary for Peace. But, to be radically upfront and honest, it took a LOT of trying to do so before realizing the movement for what it was. Hugs, brah!

@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.

@Sugarcoat So, my explanation will be a bit all over the place - ultimately if you follow Leo's work, (which will also point you to the importance of studying other relevant teachers), do hardcore meditation retreats, and use psychedelics and self inquiry and deconstruct the ego and have tons of mystical experiences you'll be able to understand for yourself better than anyone could ever explain. But here goes - the way i understand it is that Reality has a sort of infinite Logic to it. And basically if you ask powerful enough questions, you will eventually find infinity/Love/Reality/Truth in anything. And so i suppose we could start by asking "what is anything?", or what is A THING? I sat with this question for years - and had the insight that i have no fucking clue, because i need an infinite chain of causality to explain ANY particular "thing". Because no one "thing" or "form" can really have an existence of it's own, separate from Infinity, things are actually infinity itself. Basically any "object" is actually how infinity looks and sounds and feels like, as if from the outside. Every "thing" is a distinction made in Reality, by the instrument of the survival mind. The survival mind is also paradoxically a distinction made by the survival mind. Then we can sort of ask - well, then... every thing is actually EVERYTHING? What type of "thing" can be paradoxically everything and not everything at once like that? This is where human language starts to really break down. The answer is Paradoxical. NO THING. Literally there is NO "thing" that can do or be everything. A bottle is by definition (of the human mind) a bottle, and not anything else But another way to read that sentence is Nothing CAN Do/Be Everything. So... In Reality, there are no multiple things. There is just one big fat, Ultimate Thing of All Things - Anything/Everything/Nothing. It's just that the human mind's idea of relative nothing does not realize that Real Nothing is Infinite. In the Imaginary Time Before Time, what was there? Of course it's infinitely logical that the answer is Nothing. Nothing is the only "thing" that "needs nothing" to exist. And luckily, Nothing "HAS" Nothing 🤣 AND SO IT "IS/Was" Thing is (<--- LOL, the cosmic joke baked into language) by the same Logic, Nothing needs nothing to be anything, everything, infinite. When you take any "thing" and make it infinite, it stops being that finite thing, and it becomes Infinity itself. So Nothing was never "just nothing". It always was Infinity, therefore it always was both nothing and everything, and every other duality/nonduality in infinity. So it was, is, and always will be the case, that infinity is the only possibility. Because Nothing Always Was, Is And Will Be - INFINITY. See the infinite logic? By that same logic we can contemplate the twisted, crazy nature of infinity, and realize, as Leo wonderfully explained, that Infinity has, by definition, infinite EVERYTHING - including Intelligence, Wisdom, Consciousness, Will, Power, etc. And so, we could say, that it Always "knew" what is THE Most Awesome, Most Perfect, THE Absolute Highest State, THE Best fuckin "THING" that IT can ("CHOOSE to") BE What is that THING? Infinite Self-Love, of course!!! It's perfectly logical!!! But... What comes next is an attempt to explain why explaining through human language any further is simply dumb and weird and pointless: THERE IS NO SUCH "THING" - Any such "permanent thing" leads to evil, aka an eternal prison. (And yet it needs to ALSO paradoxically be an eternal prison, or it wouldn't be infinite) So the Highest Gift it could ever give itself is to ... Not have a Self. To be Absolutely... Selfless NOTHING. (And yet again it also has to have a self to be infinite, hence you are here reading this) But it already was Nothing, so it didn't even have to choose, cause it doesn't even have a self that can choose, and yet that's what the selfless self HAD TO choose, by both choosing and not choosing to have to and not have to choose, because it Already Always was Nothing, etc TO INFINITY!!! POINT IS Nothing IS Reality, Nothing IS Truth, Nothing IS Infinity, Nothing IS All "Finitudes", Nothing IS The Highest Love. Hence Reality is Love Lol But still, all of what i said can be corrupted by ego, from this human state of Consciousness, so like i said, we all gotta dig deep for our...selves, cause otherwise language just turns into mush, sort of how it did here at the end. Did any of it make sense? Final insight: Any dualistic conclusion has the following infinite answer: Yes. No. Yes and no. Neither yes nor No. Both yes and no and neither yes nor no. Neither yes and no and neither yes nor no. Both both yes and no and either yes nor no, and neither yes and no and neither yes nor no. Etc etc etc See infinity? 😊♥️

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.

First, I'd like to point out how I'm replying post 7777 of yours... Now, to the point of your message in that post. I guess according to you I am only allowed to talk about the differences of something that doesn't actually have differences in nonduality or as I called it, metanonduality. Ok, maybe in typical nonduality there are classical and radical differences, which is why I chose to illuminate in metanonduality there are no differences and the confusion is from a perception in dualism. Which is the point of nonduality, right? To not get trapped in the confusion of relative perceptions from duality? I suppose some people prefer to argue about the relative differences in something that doesn't exist. So go right ahead, my post shouldn't stop you from doing that...

So you didn't notice the part about nonduality in my original comment? I can admit it was written cryptically in a sort of riddle but if someone could understand what was being said through it the comment has direct relevance to confusion, conflation and differences between 'types' of nonduality. There are only confusion, conflation and differences from the dual perspective, from the nondual perspective and more specifically, the metanonduality, those aren't there. It's simply the paradox of being aware of what one isn't aware before being aware of it. A teacher cannot present a lesson the student cannot grasp, the ideas have to be contextualized for the level of the student, or they won't be useful to them. You have to teach a child how to write before you can teach them to write a book.

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.

So you don't recognize how this is relevant in a 'confusion about nonduality' thread? Um...ok.

Oh, I thought it was just a joke which would have been fine. Simply put, my point was that any confusion one may have about nonduality stems from the perception of it or what someone is teaching about it. Nonduality doesn't have separation within it, it is the unified in its absolute nature.

Once one perceives metanonduality it is realized there is no duality in nonduality to be confusing, there's just perception of nonduality that some may confuse as confusion.

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