Stop confusing nonduality with radical nonduality (please?)

[SOUL]

4 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

But to be enlightened is a conscious phenomenon and it comes from a dialectical process.

I say than Jim Newman’s way to present things isn’t efficient for my structure.

Well, to be clear, it's an awareness phenomenon. We may come across some teaching or discourse that can trigger us to become aware of something we previously weren't aware of. This is what some call 'awakening' and the absolute form of awakening that some people call 'enlightenment'. 

It isn't a reasoning process of dialogue between opposing viewpoints to resolve truth through rational examining of contradiction. It is transcending that dialectical process, realizing there is no dualism of contradiction to examine. On a relative level is where this takes place, on an absolute level it's not relevant.

The trigger isn't the point...life is a trigger without a warning, which is why few 'awaken' through its devices.

I hope this clarifies.

[Eskilon]

Life is unfair, for real.

Most of you guys live in Europe, which means you can play willy-nilly with 5-meo and get it delivered at your house like it is candy. Meanwhile where I live it's illegal😭.

But you guys keep yapping here instead of blasting off with the frog

[PurpleTree]

7 minutes ago, SOUL said:

Well, to be clear, it's an awareness phenomenon. We may come across some teaching or discourse that can trigger us to become aware of something we previously weren't aware of. This is what some call 'awakening' and the absolute form of awakening that some people call 'enlightenment'. 

It isn't a reasoning process of dialogue between opposing viewpoints to resolve truth through rational examining of contradiction. It is transcending that dialectical process, realizing there is no dualism of contradiction to examine. On a relative level is where this takes place, on an absolute level it's not relevant.

The trigger isn't the point...life is a trigger without a warning, which is why few 'awaken' through its devices.

I hope this clarifies.

Egosactly.

And i would say (although i don’t know)

That seeing through the me (which no one can do) is seeing through the dialectic.

Because the me is seemingly the dialectic, the process and so on.

[Sugarcoat]

Just now, Eskilon said:

Life is unfair, for real.

Most of you guys live in Europe, which means you can play willy-nilly with 5-meo and get it delivered at your house like it is candy. Meanwhile where I live it's illegal😭.

But you guys keep yapping here instead of blasting off with the frog

Bruh what country you talking about. I live in Sweden and it’s illegal asf. I got a hold of it but my parents found it and threw it away lol. 
 

How could they throw away such precious stuff, they don’t value exploration of infinity like i do 😭

[SOUL]

38 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

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 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.  

Edited Thursday at 06:30 PM by SOUL

[PurpleTree]

Just now, Sugarcoat said:

I got a hold of it but my parents found it and threw it away lol. 

Lool. 

[Eskilon]

2 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

I got a hold of it but my parents found it and threw it away lol. 

Should've hid it better😭

[SOUL]

15 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

Egosactly.

And i would say (although i don’t know)

That seeing through the me (which no one can do) is seeing through the dialectic.

Because the me is seemingly the dialectic, the process and so on.

I guess 'seeing through the me' can really be explained as transcending the observer-oberved dualism as the final boss of the game to get to the metanonduality level some call 'god realization'. 

Although, to proclaim 'I am god' is the meification from a subjective perspective of something that in its actual metanondual form has transcended that subjective-objective or observer-observed state.

One abiding in it wouldn't be inspired to say that because it doesn't exist in it.

 

Edited Thursday at 06:28 PM by SOUL

[Sugarcoat]

16 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

Should've hid it better😭

Yes omg. I literally put some of my stuff inside a foam roller thinking I was smart and once when I wasn’t home my dad wanted to borrow my foam roller and they found it😭😭😭

[PurpleTree]

4 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Yes omg. I literally put some of my stuff inside a foam roller thinking I was smart and once when I wasn’t home my dad wanted to borrow my foam roller and they found it😭😭😭

You were probably like noooo mom i need this for my enlightenment

[Salvijus]

37 minutes ago, SOUL said:

 

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.  

Your original comment doesn't engage with the threads purpose which was to distinguish classical advaita from radical advaita. 

It’s like someone says:“ Let’s not confuse apples and oranges, they’re very different kinds of fruit.”

And someone replies: “Well, confusion itself arises from how the mind categorizes experience, not from the fruits.”

You're technically correct but it's sidestepping the actual purpose of this thread of clarifying the differences between the two things that people are conflating. 

Edited Thursday at 06:53 PM by Salvijus

[Sugarcoat]

13 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Your original comment doesn't engage with the threads purpose which was to distinguish classical advaita from radical advaita. 

It’s like someone says:“ Let’s not confuse apples and oranges, they’re very different kinds of fruit.”

And someone replies: “Well, confusion itself arises from how the mind categorizes experience, not from the fruits.”

You're technically correct but it's not it's a completely different topic... Idk... 

All replies doesn’t have to be perfectly perfectly in alignment with original post in my view. It can be a valuable contribution that gives another (in this case more meta) perspective 

Edited Thursday at 06:59 PM by Sugarcoat

[SOUL]

1 minute ago, Salvijus said:

Your original comment doesn't engage with the threads purpose which was to distinguish classical advaita from radical advaita. 

It’s like someone says:“ Let’s not confuse apples and oranges — they’re very different kinds of fruit.”

And someone replies: “Well, confusion itself arises from how the mind categorizes experience, not from the fruits.”

You're technically correct but it's a different target 🎯. 

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...

 

[Sugarcoat]

1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

But to be enlightened is a conscious phenomenon and it comes from a dialectical process.

I say than Jim Newman’s way to present things isn’t efficient for my structure.

It’s not for everyone. It doesn’t penetrate my self either LOL

[Sugarcoat]

25 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

You were probably like noooo mom i need this for my enlightenment

They don’t get it. 
 

 

[Sugarcoat]

Radical Non dualist Jim Newman once said “killing babies doesn’t matter”

Thats true non duality guys. 
 

Case closed.

🫡

Edited Thursday at 07:12 PM by Sugarcoat

[Salvijus]

12 minutes ago, SOUL said:

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...

 

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. 

Edited Thursday at 07:09 PM by Salvijus

[PurpleTree]

2 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

*radical* Non dualist Jim Newman once said “killing babies doesn’t matter”

Thats true non duality guys. 
 

Case closed.

🫡

edited don’t conflate the two, thanks.

4 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

They don’t get it. 
 

 

My moms actually took lsd but only like twice.

[Sugarcoat]

4 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

 

Like Sugarcoat sayed people can say valuable things even if its unrelated. 

I didn’t say it was unrelated maybe not just 100% perfectly perfectly aligned

[Sugarcoat]

4 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

edited don’t conflate the two, thanks.

My moms actually took lsd but only like twice.

Edited

My mom religious and against all drugs . She don’t wanna become god she wanna believe in god