Search the Community

The author gives beautiful descriptions of nonduality. He is not wrong and there is no need for defense. His pointers are great for revealing nonduality. Another way to describe it. . . imagine being conditioned your entire life to see a coin as "heads or tails". This is a duality of heads vs. tails. To point to nonduality, we might say "There is no tails, there is no heads. It is all one coin". A person who has been conditioned their entire life to see heads or tails would have a very difficult time seeing this. Then they may realize "Ahhh, it's all the same coin!!! It's all One!!". This is a major nondual breakthrough and it is true - it is all one coin. Yet the mind operates in opposites and will create a new duality: "The coin is one. It is not heads/tails". Now we have "one coin vs. heads/tails". This too breaks down. It is all one coin and heads/tails. . . The reason we push so hard toward nonduality in the beginning is because the mind is conditioned and grounded in duality. . .

The author gives beautiful nonduality pointers. Part of me wants to stop right here and just say they are beautiful nonduality pointers. Another part of me wants to take it a step further. Looks like this part wins out. . . Realizing the contrast between duality and nonduality is a profound awakening that few people realize. Yet it creates a new duality (dual vs. nondual) that also collapses. "In Truth, in the Absolute, in All That Is, there is no evolution, no progress, no becoming better, no becoming. All is as it is. The idea that the world is in bad shape and that the present point in history is pivotal and that something has to be done, is as old as the human mind; it has always seemed thus, at every point in 'human history.' In truth everything is in perfect balance; the world never gets better and never gets worse, although to the apparent individual instruments it may seem that it does." This is a great teaching toward deep and profound nondual realizations. This is a really important step and I can't see how someone can skip this step. Everything he says is true, yet it creates a new duality: If the Truth is All That Is, how can there be no evolution? How can there be no progress, no becoming better? The Truth is All That Is. The Truth is Everything - which includes evolution and no evolution. The above passage can knock someone off their conditioned grounding - a person may believe there is evolution, progress and becoming better. Orienting a person to see the opposite of that is a profound awakening: no evolution, no progress, no becoming better. The human mind is conditioned to perceive in opposites and will embrace this new opposite: no evolution, no progress, no becoming better. . . This is a deep awakening few humans realize. Yet there is more. . . This new duality of opposites also breaks down. . . There is evolution and no evolution, there is progress and no progress, there is becoming better and no becoming better. . . This is the deeper insight, yet people first need to see the contrast between duality and nonduality before realizing the collapse of duality vs. nonduality. Once someone realizes the contrast of duality and nonduality, that ladder is discarded and the deeper level is revealed. . .

First of all, thank you! Exactly! That's the issue... @Gili Trawangan Thank you! I found it: @AncestorOfAisle6 Easier said then done Even after the panic attack I broke through to full on Nonduality however I came back from it. And here I am... afraid that my body dies and I cannot come back to live and love this dimension of Life. @Serotoninluv I've felt the resistance and it's icky. Every breakthrough before that was smooth sailing. Only this one was rough and rapid. I am aware of the two sides inside of me. It took "me" by surprise how radical the shift is... so the ego puts up a fight. What would be your pointer to resolve this?

I agree with nonduality and there's truth to it which I have directly experienced. Leo, unfortunately, has twisted it into some sort of sick and twisted solipsism which he then uses to brainwash people and destroy their lives. For example, he will say this to those who disagree with him "I am just an illusion that you're imagining. Wakey wakey!" This is just childish and silly.

Hi guys, I've play many many games in my life but after all these games I feel like very few are profund in spiritual way. I searching for games that include topics like: Nonduality Acceptance of death Nihilistic point of view Point of life Unconditional love There are some of I played: Planescape: Torment SOMA The Talos Principle I would really appreciate any suggestions!

Nonduality is the truth, duality is an illusion.

Nonduality is not a belief. Bad trips on DMT are no different really than good trips. A bad trip is nothing more than the tripper getting scared of his own shadow. If you take too much DMT too fast you will scare yourself, of course.

@Daffcio Nonduality Acceptance of death Nihilistic point of view Point of life Unconditional love "KOTOR 2." & "Dishonored."Ticks all of the points. "Metro 2033". Sort of does as well. "Metal Gear Solid" on the PSX if going more retro. As a cult conspiracy classic I liked the first Deus Ex Game. The whole thing is a conspiracy, the intro & the cover on the game. And the endings. There's certain choices in the game that alter the story arc slightly, that are interesting. It's funny that most people aren't even aware of it on YouTube, videos of it. "Warcraft II" probably impaired my spiritual growth.

The Witness brought me to Rupert Spira. Although at first, I thought that nonduality was bs, I had the feeling that there was more to it.

@Loving Radiance All of the above. Wild, no? As a map...somewhat in order but not at all necessarily....Forgetting self, creating “self”, delusion, suffering, longing, deconstruction of delusions, thriving, unification / realization of actuality / no self, healing, purification, Self Realization, intuition, meta-cognitive awareness / infinite intelligence, infinite intuition, collective consciousness, meta-collective consciousness, cosmic awareness, cosmic infinite intelligence, cosmic awareness, nonduality, not knowing, ____________.... Maybe that’s a tiny bit helpful, to consider really, any chronological order, since it seems like all your ‘plates are in the air’ currently. Again, just a “map”, a consideration.

Yeah, but a lot of foolish people have done mushrooms without realizing their full significance. So that means little. They have to be done in the right way with a proper theoretical understanding of nonduality. An ideological or closedminded person doing mushrooms won't gain much from them, and could in fact go deeper into delusion. The irony is that the very thing JP needs most now is stage Green compassion and community support.

Well done by Science & Nonduality An amazing sage who lived a very simple life in a small little house/apartment in a city in India that touched the lives of many.

Finger pointing to the moon. Some of you guys here are like donkeys looking in a mirror but just not getting it. No amount of pointing can help you. You must sit down and do the work, not debate nonduality on a forum. You will never get it by debating it on a forum. Get it?

@Matt8800 Ooooohhh... good thoughts and good question. Your post triggered a feeling that God wants to experience everything and know himself fully... through limitation. Yes, all the paths are limiting, but yet in that limitation because of the nature of nonduality.... they aren't. The potential in studying with an open mind ALL religions and traditions as much as one is able to, just seems exciting to me. It's a newly afforded luxury to us, the ease of which this generation can go about doing just that is unprecedented. I was lucky to have a lot of freedom to explore Christianity as a child. I enjoyed studying it, I contemplated Jesus's words and truly tried to understand what he was saying. When I started reading Eckhart Tolle the insights of Jesus's words started falling into place. It was like a seed that had been planted. The pointers aren't the same but the thing they are pointing at is.

@Scholar Firstly, you can call direct experience whatever you want, I am using the term in the broadest way I can so don't overthink it, it's like nitpicking over me saying "can I have some food" and you say "I don't know CAN you". By Direct experience, I essentially mean what Leo G means by "Actuality" and what Meta Sage means by Pure Awareness. Are you going to deny this self-evident experience you're having right now? The whole point was to establish a starting position that conceivably everyone can agree on, so try to interpret my words correctly by not focusing so much on the specific nuances of the terms I happened to use and instead try to grasp at what I'm trying to get at. The terms Direct experience and pure awareness and Actuality are 'marker' words or hints for the meaning that corresponds to that which we could all agree is the case at least for our own selves. Secondly, I am against using OR, which I know to be a Maxim and I'm aware of its primary uses, etc. I was simply showing how one could hypothetically use OR to support idealism over materialism. I am personally against the usage of any kind of rationalist methods to come to an understanding of idealism as true. I personally think phenomenology is better suited a technique for gradually raising one's consciousness to the perceptions of self-evident truths that we simply lack lucidity of, like idealism for example. Thirdly, when it comes to synthetic apriori statements like the kind you just made (whether you are aware of that or not), statements like, "any principle you will establish....." are being made out of lack of awareness of the true nature of language, logic and the so-called apriori necessary truths. I implore you to go on Google and search for a PDF document explaining Later Wittgensteins recontextualization of logic and apriori truths in terms of 'normative grammar', it is very enlightening and I think this will help you get around these issues. Fourthly, I also advise looking into what the Buddhist sage Nagarjuna had to say about conventions and ultimate reality. There's a lot of useful insights and i won't go into here (including 'tetralemma', '2 truths doctrine', etc.) But I will say this, you don't have to abandone the use of conventions, this includes uses of language and even logic. In true nonduality fashion, you're going to instead seek the way to using conventions (ie; useful fictions) skillfully to your advantage in life while also not letting them control you (via being vexed philosophical problems and paradoxes or being compelled to accept certain conclusions of logic because you believe logical rules actually exist independent of your mind and will, etcetera). Hopefully this too can help produce some clarity for "getting around these issues". Good Luck!

Hi Cameron, I think you ask some really good questions. Not only can these questions reveal insights into relative personal and social constructs, the questions can also reveal insights into nonduality. I think some of the confusion may be due to mixing absolute and relative perspectives - which I will do my best to explain. . . It's easiest to start from a nondual perspective: that is - Everything is One. So there is no distinctions between "me" and "you". No distinctions between "masculine" and "feminine", no distinctions between "male" and "female". If Everything is One, all of those distinctions dissolve. As a metaphor, imagine Everything is Blue. Then there is no "Blue vs. Not Blue". If Everything is Blue there is no Not Blue for comparison. We would need to create a distinction - that one thing is Blue and another thing is Not Blue. As soon as we enter into this relative arena, things get tricky. . . Who decides what counts as blue or not blue? What if scientists say a specific wavelength of light is blue and philosophers say blue is a personal experience of perception? What if one society defines blue one way and another country defines blue another way? And what about "sort of blue-ish" - at what point does it count as "blue" and how decides? . . . So these things can get messy. We can say "Everything is One, there is no reason for all this blue business". Yet at the same time, blue is part of the human experience. Similarly: sex, gender and sexual orientation can all deconstruct down to One - there is no sex, gender or sexual orientation. From there, we can create personal and social constructs. We can create simple constructs or complex constructs. Yet notice how these are relative constructs that all deconstruct back down to absolute nothing. So why even create such constructs? Because it's part of the relative human experience. It also has practical value in navigating through society, yet at a deeper level it is part of who we are and how we interact with others. We are both One and unique individuals. We can contemplate gender from both personal and societal perspectives. These two are integrated, yet can also be in conflict. How you personally consider "masculine" and "feminine" may differ from some societal constructs on what "masculine" and "feminine" is. Or, personal and societal constructs can be aligned. Likewise, how you identify as "masculine" and "feminine" may differ from how fragments of society judges you as being "masculine" and "feminine". This is all due to relativity. There is no one universal objective definition. . . Understanding this will allow new space to explore. As you mentioned, we can define male and female "sex" based on genitalia and genetics. The male sex has XY chromosomes and a penis, while the female sex has XX chromosomes and a vagina. This would be a scientific definition based on physical features. This would also have practical value in society. If a male sex person is having pain in their testicles, they would look for a doctor that specializes in diagnosing male sex issues. Defining the sexes based on genitalia is generally straightforward, yet there will be some exceptions. For example, there are rare inter-sex individuals with genitalia that is hard to distinguish (for example, a tiny penis/clitoris hybrid). As well, there are some individuals that have had surgery to remove a penis. Yet these are relatively rare cases. Are designation that male sex = penis and female sex = vagina still has practical implications - we can deal with the exceptions on a case by case basis. For example, in medical school we may learn male sex anatomy and female sex anatomy and the professor may mentioned that there are some exceptions - such as intersex and briefly cover that situation. If a student wanted to specialize in intersex medicine, they would take entire courses in that area. Gender designation enters a much more relative word. Here, it's not so easy to say "Male gender is A" and "Female gender is B". Now we are getting into personal identity and this introduces phenomena of self-value, self-expression and self-survival. Once we enter this arena - the fight is On Like Donkey Kong. There will be people that want to define male/female gender based on their own self interest and others that want define it differently because they have different self interests. Therefore, there will not be a universal definition that anyone agrees on. So some people say, gender should be based on how a person identifies. Another person may say "No! That would mean there would be 30+ different genders people are identifying with!!". So society is working things out and evolving. The old, conservative construct is that gender is the same as sex. A person with a penis is the male gender and a person with a vagina is the female gender. Yet this is a very simplistic binary construct. There is also "masculinity and femininity". These are additional features. By the old, conservative view - Male sex = Male gender = Masculine and Female sex = Female gender = Feminine. This is an overly simplistic binary construct that was the mainstream consensus for centuries. . . Over the past 40 years, much of society has questioned this binary construct leading to a a higher evolved construct that is more complex. People have asked "What a minute. . . what does masculine and feminine even mean? Aren't males and females mixtures of masculine and feminine? Can a male sex person with a penis have more feminine features than masculine? If so, should we call them the male gender or female gender". This has led to a spectrum in which some cis-gender males are hyper-masculine and other cis-gender men have more feminine energy (perhaps 60% masculine, 40% feminine). Some of the male sex (with penis) have much more feminine energy (perhaps 70% feminine, 30% masculine). These male sex individuals relate more to the female gender side of the spectrum and are trans-gender female. . . More recently, some individuals do not relate stronger with either male or female designations and are nonbinary. These new, more complex constructs are at a higher evolutionary level, yet there will be backlash. There will be traditional men and women that want to maintain the older binary construct of Male sex = Male gender = Masculine and Female sex = Female gender = Feminine. They will feel very threatened by new gender expressions they see outside of their norm. Many of these conservatives will feel so threatened that they will fight to maintain the old constructs.

Exactly! The Final Duality of nonduality vs. duality is collapsed. Duality is nondualistic Lol

@VeganAwake Yes, I agree with you regarding awakening and absolute. I am pointing toward the unification of duality and nonduality. Yet 99.9999% of people are immersed in duality - so what you are pointing to would have greater relevance the vast majority of times. One must first see the distinction between dual and nondual, before they can drop the distinction between dual and nondual.

This is nonduality. There are no separate selves or "both of us" Only I.

You are using an idea of “direct experience” to elevate experience/ideas to higher truth. Notice the obsession to go “beyond infinity”, to extraordinary levels on SD - coral, teal, ruby, whatever. To rank the conscious levels of all forum users, moderators, Leo and nonduality speakers. To post insights only you have received and to gain admiration on the forum. Notice how your threads and posts have become more and more dramatic that attracts attention. As soon as you say “my direct experience was. . . “ it is no longer direct experience - it is contextualized experience that is occurring within direct experience. Direct experience is Now - whatever contextualization you give Now is a contextualized experience. Yes, there are no words to describe the ineffable. It’s not about the words. It’s the relationship with what the words are referring to. You don’t seem willing to look at the attachment/identification to experience. Presenting experience, images and ideas as “direct experience” does not grant immunity. I’m sure you have had insights that are difficult to put in words. Yet as of now, it is a tangled mess lacking clarity.

@shahryar coz, again, there is deep correlation between being mystic/guru/cleric/passive meditator,contemplator and having highly feminine/hermoprodite nature. whats the problem with them being gay is because being gay is just result of person becoming too absorbed by the biggest gay - devil. which means that this person failed its main task in life which is to 'not to become' absorbed by devil. and also being gay is evil. its not about their biological desire, its rather about that they, clerics, are passive receivers of infinite idol's commands/energy. passive receivers are what women are. and so they, clerics, are like woman who is receiving energy from their object of worshipping. clerics are passively receiving from idol. they are passive receivers coz they have highly feminine nature, it means that they like to be submissive to someone beautiful. like their idol - devil/great being. it all sounds equal to being gay - passive, submissive, receiving energy, worshipping beautiful blue boy playing on flute - doesn't it sound gay enough? maybe they are not all gays in orientation, but they are gays metaphysically. they are metaphysical and ontological gays. spiritual gays! there is one jewish kaballah teacher, he teaches about how to reunite with devil, he calls devil as creator. and he says that creator makes him to feel sexually aroused. and this guy is respectable 60 years old sage. and he is fully ok with having mystical arousal with Satan itself. and he is okay with telling that to the whole world. he is clearly lost his conscience because none of clerics i listed above have any conscience left. and face is just expressing whats hidden in their filthy hearts which are filled with blissful love to blue pretty boys playing on flutes. they want their separate selves to disappear in ecstatic mystical union with blue boy. thats what all nonduality and mysticism is about. devil is not metaphor, because infinite intelligence is devil. and infinite being is devil, and infinite possibilities is devil. devil is totally everything. nothing exists besides devil. only devil is.

Yes, it's in duality but duality is also magical if you appreciate duality with an understanding of nonduality. It's in that place where they meet and intertwine where enlightenment as experienced by humans and magic happens. Creativity is channeling, it's just includes its more gentler forms. Harry Potter, Star Wars and the Matrix aren't powerful pointers to the nature of reality for nothing. They didn't become wildly popular for nothing. They were a creative message from God send to us in a fun package. Have you ever been in a deep flow state, when it felt like the creation was just creating itself or the story was just writing itself or like you weren't the one running the race or playing the game? There's no limit to how powerful and all consuming those flow states can get.

There is something beyond the words. In terms of SD, immersion and analysis of words is stage Orange. At green and above, non-intellectual modes arise. Imagine observing a painting. There is a nonverbal relationship between observer and painting. A type of essence. There is communication. Now imagine a scientist observing the painting and saying "you are analyzing the ink on canvas". If we try to tell the scientist there is an emergent property beyond they ink and canvas, he won't "get it" because he is contracted within his paradigm. It's not about analyzing the pointer. That would be like saying there is nothing else to analyze but the ink and canvas of a painting. There is a nonverbal essence to the painting. It's not really an "anaylsis". It's a different mode of being. Imagine the scientist saying "You don't understand. I am pointing to something ineffable. Look here. Look how this part of the painting is 30% blue ink, 40% red ink and 30% green ink. Notice that the artist used a broad brush for this portion of the green ink.". . . It would be clear that the scientist is still contracted within a paradigm. He doesn't quite "get" the emergent property of the painting. Now. . . imagine the artist who created this painting. Imagine the artist try to describe the ineffable essence through words. Compare this to the scientist trying to describe what the ineffable essence of the painting is. These are two very different orientations. Do you think an artist could tell the difference between the creator of the work and the scientist? Of course. It's not about the words, it is about how the words are used. There is a conflation between nonduality/duality and absolute/relative going on here. It is not the words, it is the underlying conflation. The realization and knowing of this does not come intellectually. You have repeatedly spoke of the attainment of peace/bliss and the cessation of suffering. If there is no one to attain peace/bliss and no one to be free of suffering - *who/what* is it that attains this peace/bliss and becomes free of suffering? If Enlightenment is both the presence and absence of suffering, why seek the cessation of suffering? If peace is suffering, why seek peace through the cessation of suffering. You are already peace while suffering - why seek peace outside of the suffering? The motivation is the secondary question. There is a prior to that, which you skipped. . . Have you directly experienced pure peace/bliss while experiencing awful suffering? This is the most important orientation expressed so far because it is so direct. This is a place of immense consciousness expansion into deep levels. If you don't think peace is suffering, then you are within a contraction of conditional peace. This is where the direct experience is so important. There is the knowing of absolute peace of suffering. The absolute peace of pain, anxiety, panic and terror. This is realized at a deep level because it is fully transcendent of the person/human. It's not the words. It is the knowing of the peace. This is not serotoninluv trying to describe what absolute peace is like through words. This is absolute peace trying to express itself through words. There is unconditional eternal peace Now, regardless of what is happening. If one places conditions on this peace, they will not come to know this peace. For example, if a being is suffering they may think "this is suffering, not peace". This will block them from the deeper realization. You keep returning to thoughts and analysis. There are modes beyond thinking and analysis, that you don't seem to be aware of. Here, you are not picking up on the post-intellectual modes being conveyed. I am not saying you are wrong. I'm saying there is something that you are missing. . . Imagine a person that speaks Arabic fluently. Do you think this person could recognize a Norwegian tourist that does not speak Arabic? What if this person says "No, no! I'm actually Arabic and speak Arabic. Here are a few Arabic words. . ." Do you think the native Arab would be able to recognize this? Of course. It would be completely obvious because he has the direct experience of being Arabic and is fluent in Arabic. He is not a farmer from rural Canada imaging what Arabic is like. These are very different orientations.

Okay so you think what I am saying is duality saying what non-duality is like, which you are doing through words. I hope we are not disagreeing on this. But then you say- "You seem to think I am analyzing the pointer, which I am not. " , which I don't think is authentic, because in this forum there is nothing else but the words I am writing. You have nothing else to analyze but the pointer, however you are saying there is something else to analyze. And also you have written the reason why you think I come from a source of duality , you say- For example, you have written a lot about attaining peace/bliss and the cessation of suffering. *Who/what* attains that peace/bliss? To "whom/what" does suffering cease? You seem to have a subtle underlying personal/human framework that I don't think you are aware of. This is the reason why you think I am duality talking about nonduality. ( I hope we are not disagreeing on this) I don't need to talk about - who, what, whom what, when I am talking about bliss, to show that I am talking about nonduality. If I was an enlightened person, it doesn't mean I wouldn't be talking with the words 'you' 'I' etc. Buddha's suttas are full of those words. In case you might be wondering, I do not attach my isness with my ego. There is no one to attain bliss, there is no one to attain peace. But still, I will talk using 'you' and 'I'. It doesn't directly mean I am talking from duality. I don't know where you learned that using language that way indicates duality. Also don't say you are not looking at the pointer. There is nothing else but the pointer in this forum. I literally have. Enlightenment is the presence and absence of suffering Absence of suffering from the perspective of duality, is the motivation. That's what motivated Leo to start this entire project. If you say this isn't the case, I disagree. That's what started the Buddha legend. I don't think peace is suffering. From nonduality, there is no one desiring the end to suffering. From duality, the ego is desiring. Ego finds suffering painful . The sense which you have got by interpreting the words I have written the way you think the meaning has been conveyed.

I understand that. I have a lot of experience in nonverbal zones. You seem to think I am analyzing the pointer, which I am not. I know the distinction between dualistic terms used to point and that which is being pointed to. There is a difference between nonduality trying to express itself in dualistic terms and duality trying to express what nonduality is like in dualistic terms. It is not your words you use as a pointer, it is more about the realization that you are holding the pointer, rather than omniscience holding the pointer. This is just my sense: there is an essence about your posts that is conflating - it has aspects of both. I'm not concerned about the words used. I'm concerned with the source of those words and the filter through which those words pass. For example, you have written a lot about attaining peace/bliss and the cessation of suffering. *Who/what* attains that peace/bliss? To "whom/what" does suffering cease? Who/what decides what is "suffering" and what is "peace"? You seem to have a subtle underlying personal/human framework that I don't think you are aware of. For example would you agree that "peace is suffering?". Not at an intellectual level, through direct experience. Have you directly experienced pure peace/bliss while experiencing awful suffering? If so, what is the motivation to seek conditional peace/bliss? If peace is suffering, who/what desires to end suffering? And why? Why seek the footsteps of wise enlightened beings when you have access to the same source as them? Tapping into that source transcends all spiritual literature and sages - because it is the source of all spiritual literature and sages.