Stop confusing nonduality with radical nonduality (please?)

[Sugarcoat]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

If I had access to nuclear launch codes, the first thing that would make me pull the trigger is people saying being intellectual is a problem.

As long as you’re comprehensible , some intellectuals aren’t really to a broader public, it’s like they don’t even try

[SOUL]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

If I had access to nuclear launch codes, the first thing that would make me pull the trigger is people saying being intellectual is a problem.

Did I say being intellectual is a problem? 

I thought it was a clever way of saying it.

Also the point of the thread isn't a problem....it's not actually a problem, it's a preference and you elucidated it quite intellectually.

Edited Thursday at 07:49 PM by SOUL

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, SOUL said:

Did I say being intellectual is a problem? 

I thought it was a clever way of saying it.

It usually follows.

[Eskilon]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

being intellectual is a problem.

It is, in certain contexts. Because intellect is not truth nor does it lead you to it.

Edited Thursday at 08:53 PM by Eskilon

[Carl-Richard]

31 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

Because intellect is not truth nor does it lead you to it.

If you're unable to make fine distinctions or use logic, that certainly doesn't help you, with anything, except being a dimwit.

Edited Thursday at 09:24 PM by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

9 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

If you're unable to make fine distinctions or use logic, that certainly doesn't help you, with anything, except being a dimwit.

I think he's just saying that you can't clip your nails with a hammer - that's all.

I mean, you can, but it won't be pretty.

Edited Thursday at 09:25 PM by UnbornTao

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

I think he's just saying that you can't clip your nails with a hammer - that's all.

I mean, you can, but it won't be pretty.

Spiritual practice happens in the relative. Logic, distinctions, happens in the relative. If you're a dimwit, you will struggle with those things, unless your intuition and karma carries you. If you're a person living in a world that otherwise requires you to be intellectual (the West) and you're also advanced spiritually, it's expected that you will be above average in intellect.

Edited Thursday at 09:30 PM by Carl-Richard

[Eskilon]

13 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

If you're unable to make fine distinctions or use logic, that certainly doesn't help you, with anything, except being a dimwit.

Making fine distinctions and using logic is what everyone else is doing. One could say its the source of devilry. So no, it doesnt just help you haha

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Spiritual practice happens in the relative. Logic, distinctions, happens in the relative. If you're a dimwit, you will struggle with those things, unless your intuition and karma carries you.

I think you're reading too much into it. Take Zen, for example. The purpose of koans is pretty much to short-circuit the "logical mind" and hopefully prepare the student to make a leap beyond mind - and even beyond perception.

Edited Thursday at 10:57 PM by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, Eskilon said:

Making fine distinctions and using logic is what everyone else is doing. One could say its the source of devilry. So no, it doesnt just help you haha

I don't think distinction itself is conceptual, much less intellectually-based, although you can certainly make them within the intellect. It seems to be more closely related to awareness.

Those are important tools, too, so I don't think they should be dismissed. Again, a tool is used for the purpose it was invented for, and only to the degree it can serve that purpose - if it works. You can also use a tool for something it can't accomplish, but that's on the person misapplying the tool.

Edited Thursday at 10:45 PM by UnbornTao

[Carl-Richard]

3 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

Making fine distinctions and using logic is what everyone else is doing. One could say its the source of devilry. So no, it doesnt just help you haha

Notice that people who are intellectually disabled do not engage in spiritual practices. Where does intellect stop being important?

[Sugarcoat]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Notice that people who are intellectually disabled do not engage in spiritual practices.

Because spirituality is a mental construct 😅

[UnbornTao]

16 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

If you're a person living in a world that otherwise requires you to be intellectual (the West) and you're also advanced spiritually, it's expected that you will be above average in intellect.

Perhaps - but this is conflating things. Becoming conscious isn't dependent on intellectual prowess, contrary to what we might think. The latter doesn't hurt, though. Whether you are intellectually above or below average is secondary to enlightenment - even irrelevant, up to a certain point. Also, intelligence isn't restricted to the intellect, in case that's assumed. What a practice can do at best is ballpark your efforts and allow you to control your mind, so in that sense it depends on what's required of the participant.

Apparently, Nisargadatta was semi-illiterate, and Ramana attained his profound enlightenment as a teenager (not that this means they weren't or couldn't be intelligent). They lived in the East but the point still stands. Without attributing their awakening to some external source like intuition or karma - which essentially boils down to “chance” - what really occurred is that they got it. And everyone can get it - regardless of circumstances. It isn't likely, but it is possible. Obviously, being stupid doesn't help in any way, but again, I'd rather not limit intelligence to the intellect. One can be highly intellectual and stupid at the same time. What's being said, essentially, is that a nail clipper and a hammer each has a different use.

Now I'm probably the one who's reading too much into it.

Edited yesterday at 02:02 PM by UnbornTao

[zurew]

- Someone uses lanugage in a technical way  and says that using language this way isn't a bad thing

reply:

"it can be bad in certain context" (very deep and wise objection that couldn't possibly be brought up in any other context)

"its problematic because it isn't truth and it wont lead you to truth" - where was it implied that being intellectual or using language this way will alone lead you there?

 

"My objection is that if your goal is truth then being intellectual is problematic because it wont lead you there and even though this objection applies to its negation as well (being anti intellectual and non-intellectual wont lead you to truth either), I still think this objection has to be brought up"

Edited Thursday at 10:17 PM by zurew

[SOUL]

I wasn't trying to suggest anything too significant with the use of the word intellectual, other than I thought the way the point was made was clever and succinct in an intelligent way...sometimes too much is read into everything.

[SOUL]

Quote

This comment "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." was a reply to "Stop confusing nonduality with radical nonduality. Nonduality is like Rupert Spira being aware of awareness, consciousness being aware of itself, look at me i‘m Rupert Spira i wear glasses 🤓 and have a British accent i‘m so woke. Here is what you can do to become more aware. Radical Nonduality is like Tony Parsons and Andreas Müller, there is nobody, bo meaning, nothingness being everything. Look at me i‘m nothing 😎 there is nobody who can do anything. ". Does this address it in some way?

Quote

The comment you shared seems like an attempt to clarify or add nuance to the distinction between nonduality and radical nonduality, but it might be a bit more abstract than directly addressing the specific points in the original comment.

In the original comment, the distinction between nonduality (as understood by figures like Rupert Spira) and radical nonduality (as presented by Tony Parsons and Andreas Müller) is drawn in terms of perspective. The commenter seems to be poking fun at how nonduality is sometimes presented in a kind of "look at me, I’m enlightened" way, while radical nonduality emphasizes the idea that there is no individual self, and therefore no "one" who could claim to be enlightened or even aware.

The response, “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,” seems to be suggesting a meta-level insight. It implies that when one sees beyond the dualistic concepts (like the distinction between nonduality and radical nonduality), there is no real confusion in nonduality itself—only a confusion of perception. This could be an attempt to point out that the idea of "confusion" comes from misperceptions or mental constructions about nonduality, but nonduality itself is not inherently confusing.

In essence, the reply is addressing the idea of perception and confusion, perhaps suggesting that the “confusion” mentioned in the first comment arises from the conceptual mind, not the true nature of nonduality or radical nonduality.

So while the response might not directly tackle the specifics of Rupert Spira vs. Tony Parsons, it seems to point towards the idea that these distinctions—however well-intentioned—are still part of a mental framework that creates confusion about nonduality. It’s less about addressing the specifics and more about challenging the whole concept of confusion in the context of nonduality.

Quote

The reply comment addresses the original comment by attempting to clarify the concept of nonduality and resolve the perceived distinction between "nonduality" and "radical nonduality." The original comment contrasts figures like Rupert Spira, associated with a practice-oriented nonduality (awareness of awareness, self-conscious consciousness), with Tony Parsons and Andreas Müller, linked to radical nonduality (no self, no meaning, nothingness). It frames these as separate approaches, with a somewhat mocking tone.

The reply suggests that the confusion arises from perceiving a duality (a split) between these two interpretations of nonduality. It argues that "metanonduality" (a term possibly coined to point to a deeper understanding) reveals no actual duality within nonduality—implying that distinctions like Spira’s practice-focused approach versus Parsons’ and Müller’s "nothingness" are illusory. The reply posits that there’s only the perception of nonduality, which some mistake as confusion due to their framing of it as dualistic (e.g., self vs. no-self, practice vs. no-practice).

In essence, the reply challenges the original comment’s dichotomy by asserting that both perspectives are expressions of the same nondual reality, and the confusion stems from misperceiving nonduality as having opposing forms. It doesn’t directly engage with the humorous or mocking tone but reframes the discussion philosophically to dissolve the apparent conflict.

I asked chatgpt and then grok....these are the replies.

 

Edited Thursday at 11:29 PM by SOUL

[Eskilon]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Notice that people who are intellectually disabled do not engage in spiritual practices. Where does intellect stop being important?

Just like a rocket who got to the moon had to drop some of it`s structure to get there, the human has to drop the intellect to develop itself spiritually and eventually awaken. You need intellect to get off the ground but once you get off you need to drop it in spiritual pursuits. 

Intellect it`s a bridge that has its purpose but needs to be droped to realize certain things. A mean, not the end.

[Salvijus]

8 hours ago, SOUL said:

This comment "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." was a reply to "Stop confusing nonduality with radical nonduality. Nonduality is like Rupert Spira being aware of awareness, consciousness being aware of itself, look at me i‘m Rupert Spira i wear glasses 🤓 and have a British accent i‘m so woke. Here is what you can do to become more aware. Radical Nonduality is like Tony Parsons and Andreas Müller, there is nobody, bo meaning, nothingness being everything. Look at me i‘m nothing 😎 there is nobody who can do anything. ". Does this address it in some way?

I ran through Ai the situation aswell. It's no different than the apple and orange example I gave. 

Or for example:

" let's not confuse modern abstract art with traditional realism — they come from totally different intentions.”

Reply: "Confusion only arises because we try to interpret art with fixed concepts. True art is beyond classification." 

✅ Thoughtful.

❌ But sidesteps the actual comparison of art styles.

Or:

Fiction vs. Nonfiction

“These are two different genres. Let’s not mix them up — one is imagined, the other is factual.”

Reply: “The idea of fiction or truth is itself a mental distinction. Everything is just a story the mind tells.”

✅ Philosophically valid.

❌ But not helpful in sorting a library or understanding the difference.

Edited yesterday at 08:03 AM by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

@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.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 08:36 AM by Salvijus

[Carl-Richard]

12 hours ago, Eskilon said:

Just like a rocket who got to the moon had to drop some of it`s structure to get there, the human has to drop the intellect to develop itself spiritually and eventually awaken. You need intellect to get off the ground but once you get off you need to drop it in spiritual pursuits. 

Intellect it`s a bridge that has its purpose but needs to be droped to realize certain things. A mean, not the end.

A.k.a. intellect is useful for spiritual practice. And if you were a dimwit, you wouldn't make this subtle distinction between practicing and dropping the practice.

The act of meditating itself is the biggest game of 4D Chess, partly because you have to deconstruct the intellect itself, partly because meditation is meant to be effortless but you're also seemingly making an effort. But having a duller intellect doesn't help with that. You also have to deconstruct the dull intellect, and that's a task when you're essentially dealing with an unruly mule on top of having to deconstruct it.

Being a worse Chess player, again, just means you have to rely more on intuition, karma, and luck, as in cases like Nisargadatta Maharaj @UnbornTao. Yes, it's indeed possible to awaken spontaneously without any practice, without any insight or knowledge virtually into anything. But if you don't want to be a literal leaf blowing in the wind, you should not create a blockage against using your intellect. You cannot afford shooting yourself in the foot the very least bit. You're incredibly privileged to have a mind that doesn't just break into nonsense when it encounters a slightly difficult problem.

Edited yesterday at 11:19 AM by Carl-Richard