Fake Spirituality Examples Mega-Thread

[PurpleTree]

1 minute ago, Breakingthewall said:

What says essentially?

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

Just a few days ago

[Breakingthewall]

@PurpleTree I just read your thread about tony Parsons and that. Reality is nothing, reality is conciousness....it's very obvious that they are relative definitions that are being built in the relative paradigm right? 

Obvious truth: you are, right? Then you are the reality. 

This mean nothing conceptually, you have to open yourself to what you are. Obviously if you are the reality you are essentially absolute, that means that you are the reality without relationship with anything else. That means that in relation with anything else you are a relative circumstantial reality.

That is, there are two perspectives: one relative and one absolute. If you want to place yourself in the absolute perspective, you must understand that it is not a perspective, since "perspective" implies an observer. You must be one with yourself. Allow all the barriers that are necessarily built in the relative perspective to dissolve and open up to yourself absolutely.

Here, words end and actions begin. You either do it or you don't. There is nothing to talk about this, since it is absolute, and talking is relative, just as thinking is.

Then any teaching should be about what those barriers are and how dissolve them, not about what reality is. Reality is you and it's absolute, nothing else can be said 

Edited July 23 by Breakingthewall

[PurpleTree]

2 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

@PurpleTree I just read your thread about tony Parsons and that. Reality is nothing, reality is conciousness....it's very obvious that they are relative definitions that are building in the relative paradigm right? 

Obvious truth: reality is you. You are right? Then you are the reality. 

This mean nothing, you have to open yourself to what you are. Obviously if you are the reality you are essentially absolute, that means that you are the reality without relationship with anything else. That means that in relation with anything else you are a relative circumstantial reality.

That is, there are two perspectives: one relative and one absolute. If you want to place yourself in the absolute perspective, you must understand that it is not a perspective, since "perspective" implies an observer. You must be one with yourself. Allow all the barriers that are necessarily built in the relative perspective to dissolve and open up to yourself absolutely.

Here, words end and actions begin. You either do it or you don't. There is nothing to talk about this, since it is absolute, and talking is relative, just as thinking is.

Then any teaching should be about how dissolve the barriers, not about what reality is. Reality is you and it's absolute, nothing else can be said 

Nonono there is no you.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

15 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

I honestly don’t understand what you’re saying. How do you know we don’t go "deep” or whatever alone? I mean same with psychedelics, you go it alone.

I think the sentiment behind the communication was that the forum is good for information, concepts and ideas. But ultimately spirituality and the truth is one's own internal practice. Away from the forum is where the work is. 

Great place to learn, but without genuine  self insight and practice nothing is being verified. Further to this, often the debates devolve into ego battles, rather than genuine attempts to resolve understanding. Sort of working in the opposite direction 🙃

I could be wrong in my interpretation of @CARDOZZO here. 

[PurpleTree]

@Breakingthewall I agree with some of the stuff that you said but there’s no knowing of this because knowing also implies a knower and known. So then it’s just this. Unknowable.

[Breakingthewall]

11 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

@Breakingthewall I agree with some of the stuff that you said but there’s no knowing of this because knowing also implies a knower and known. So then it’s just this. Unknowable.

Knowing is relative to anything, the absolute is not unknowable because "knowing" is relative; it means nothing out of the relative. You can open yourself to your true nature; this means ceasing to be "you" and becoming your true nature. "You" is the structure that knows, perceives, and understands.

[Leo Gura]

Quality videos are important. No one is claiming the video is a replacement for work. You watch the video then you work it.

Meditation alone will make you stupid. Proper theory is required. There is much more to this work than mindless meditation.

And the forum is not for work, the forum is for relaxing from the work. You can't work 24/7.

Edited July 23 by Leo Gura

[Breakingthewall]

29 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

Nonono there is no you.

Depending of how you define "you". If you define as something relative to anything else, you could say that in essence, absolutely, the "you" is just an appearance in the sense of its circumstantial, but if you erase all the barriers, the reality is and you are that

[PurpleTree]

8 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Knowing is relative to anything, the absolute is not unknowable because "knowing" is relative; it means nothing out of the relative. You can open yourself to your true nature; this means ceasing to be "you" and becoming your true nature. "You" is the structure that knows, perceives, and understands.

And you are liberated?

[Sugarcoat]

1 hour ago, PurpleTree said:

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

Just a few days ago

I should make a thread: don’t confuse normal duality with ultra narcissistic duality (me) 

[Breakingthewall]

27 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

And you are liberated?

You could say yes, in one sense and not the other. Liberation happened many times, I understand the mechanics of self-closure, but it's quite subtle, with many nuances. At times, lately when I've been sober, everything is diaphanous, open, and total, maybe 2 minutes. But my structure, the self, still has quite a bit of impurity, so these openings are brief. If, for example, two days go by without this happening for at least an instant, my reality becomes dense again. Then I think, let's see if I can make everything open up, but it either happens or it doesn't.

What's clear is that if you want this (and you do, since everything else is pale and lifeless without this opening), you must equalize your structure. This happens naturally. You perceive behaviors as impossible, disgusting, and they gradually disappear. The essential thing is openness, but that doesn't mean that the human must not flow. The form still exists; it just must be equalized. How? Only intuition can tell. Reality flows. When people says: I'm enlightened, absolutely liberated, etc...well, where is someone like that? I don't know any. It's not so simple. For example reading al Allahj , a Sufi, I perceive radical openenss 

Edited July 23 by Breakingthewall

[PurpleTree]

8 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

You could say yes, in one sense and not the other. Liberation happened many times, I understand the mechanics of self-closure, but it's quite subtle, with many nuances. At times, lately when I've been sober, everything is diaphanous, open, and total, maybe 2 minutes. But my structure, the self, still has quite a bit of impurity, so these openings are brief. If, for example, two days go by without this happening for at least an instant, my reality becomes dense again. Then I think, let's see if I can make everything open up, but it either happens or it doesn't.

What's clear is that if you want this (and you do, since everything else is pale and lifeless without this opening), you must equalize your structure. This happens naturally. You perceive behaviors as impossible, disgusting, and they gradually disappear. The essential thing is openness, but that doesn't mean that the human must not flow. The form still exists; it just must be equalized. How? Only intuition can tell. Reality flows. When people says: I'm enlightened, absolutely liberated, etc...well, where is someone like that? I don't know any. It's not so simple. For example reading al Allahj , a Sufi, I perceive radical openenss 

It’s what some call “me-ing and being” i think

[UnbornTao]

On 7/22/2025 at 3:22 AM, Oppositionless said:

Real

 

[Breakingthewall]

40 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

It’s what some call “me-ing and being” i think

Bit nuanced. When we say "being," it's usually Eckhart Tolle's idea: being here and now without mind, undefined, flowing, pure becoming. Openness is something else; it is what gives rise to being because nothing limits it. The dissolution of the limitation of being in the here and now, in which even in total silence there is separation between perceiver and perception.

It would be the essence of reality, the openness to ultimate nature, which could be defined negatively as the absence of limits and which is perceived as totality, unlimited and diaphanous, which implies everything, the total absence of lack, absolute plenitude because there are no limits, absolute depth; it is everything, and you are that. The word would be total. 

If you are in a meditative state, without mind, everything is silent and calm but it's still closed . Openness means unfathomable depth, the openenss to the totality, to its vitality that arises due the limitlessness, and then it's obvious that you are that, there is no difference between you and the total, it's one.

You can't be like that all time at work or meeting your friends,.it's something that happens in some moments 

Edited July 23 by Breakingthewall

[Jehovah increases]

 

Edited July 24 by Jehovah increases

[Harikrishnan]

 

[Cheese]

On 2025-07-20 at 4:18 PM, Ash55 said:

Russell brand Comes to my mind


This girl lol

 

My account has been inactive for over a year, I just logged in to comment on the above video.

I partially watched this and it got me awestruck. Never have i seen a person achieving delusion  to its completion in human form. I do not know if I should feel pity or disgust. The spiritual word sallad has been generously laced with mayas dew. The viewcount and traction towards such talks are concerning but not surprising.

 

[Cheese]

How deep does self-deception and fantasy go?

presenting: The biggest Spiritual ego-lift that (never) happened.

 

"On January 30, 1987, Sri Chinmoy lifted a weight of 7,063¾ pounds using only his right arm. It was an achievement that challenged the limits of human possibility and it shook the world of weightlifting."

“If I ask my mind whether I can lift 7,000 pounds, immediately it will say, ‘Impossible!’ ... But when I am in the heart, with the heart and for the heart, there is no such thing as impossibility because of the heart’s oneness.” — Sri Chinmoy

https://www.srichinmoy-reflections.com/miracle-lift

 

Quoting a forum post from a photographer about the lift, unfortunately it was in caps lock:

WHEN IN ABOUT 1985 HE STARTED LIFTING WEIGHTS, HE DECIDED TO USE PHOTOGRAPHS

OF HIMSELF DOING `SUPERHUMAN FEATS' OF STRENGTH, AS YET ANOTHER VECTOR

OF HIS DRIVE FOR PUBLICITY, FOR WHICH HE HAD AN INSATIABLE APPETITE.

IF HE DID NOT SUCCEED IN LIFTING THESE RECORD AMOUNTS OF WEIGHT, IT

WAS NOT FOR LACK OF TRYING, INDEED HE DID LEGITIMATELY SUPPORT FAIRLY

IMPRESSIVE AMOUNTS OF WEIGHT FOR A MAN OF HIS AGE; HE WOULD STRUGGLE,

FOR EXAMPLE, WITH TWO HANDS TO GET A 100 POUND DUMBELL ABOVE HIS HEAD,

AND THEN HOLD IT BRIEFLY ALOFT WITH ONE HAND. SOON I WAS ASKED TO COME

TO HIS HOUSE, WHERE HE WOULD INDICATE FOR ME TO DRAW CLOSER TO

HIM...`Good Boy' HE WOULD SAY( I AM PARAPHRASING HERE) ,` IS IT NOT

POSSIBLE TO MAKE THIS THIS LITTLE PIECE OF THE MACHINE LOWER? YOU CAN

SEE IT IS ALREADY LIFTED....BUT FOR THE PRESS?.............SO THAT

THEY CAN SEE CLEARLY???'.... WELL, HE STARTED ASKING ME TO DOCTOR THE

PHOTOGRAPHS OF HIS LIFTS MORE AND MORE TO MAKE IT APPEAR AS THOUGH HE

HAD LIFTED HIGHER AND MORE IMPRESSIVELY THAN HE ACTUALLY HAD. BECAUSE

OF THE FACT THAT THE WEIGHTS HE WAS TRYING TO LIFT WITH ONE ARM BEGAN

TO GET PROGRESSIVELY MORE UNREALISTIC.. AND INCREASING EXPONENTIALLY,

I WOULD HAVE TO AIRBRUSH IN.. OR OUT, BITS OF APPERATUS AND ADD

SHADOWS WHERE THERE WERE NONE, GIVING THE ILLUSION OF A LIFT

EVENTUALLY I WOULD WORK MORE AND MORE CLOSELY WITH THE

PHOTOGRAPHERS....UNTIL I BECAME, MYSELF, ONE OF SEVERAL PHOTOGRAPHERS.

AS THE WEIGHTS INCREASED I NO LONGER HAD TO AIRBRUSH. AS PHOTOGRAPHERS

WE LEARNED HOW TO MAKE IT LOOK AS IF WEIGHTS HAD BEEN LIFTED. WE WOULD

SHOOT FROM A LOW VANTAGE POINT SO AS TO MAKE IT LOOK AS THOUGH THE

WEIGHTS HAD BEEN SLIGHTLY ROLLED UP THE BEND ON WHICH THE WEIGHT WAS

CRADLED. NOW THE STORY OF THE 7,OOO POUND LIFT THAT NEVER WAS......

AND THE TURNING POINT FOR ME.. NO MORE DENIAL. THAT DAY, ( I CANT

REMEMBER IF IT WAS DAY OR NIGHT?), ABOUT 15 PEOPLE WERE SUMMONED TO

HIS HOUSE..

 

INCLUDING A HANDFUL OF PHOTOGRAPHERS. ON THIS OCCASION I WAS JUST A

WITNESS AND NOT A PHOTOGRAPHER. THE APPARATUS, A METAL FRAME WITH TWO

U-BENDS CRADLING THE WEIGHT AT SHOULDER HEIGHT STOOD THERE. THE

BUILDERS OF THIS WELDED MONSTER WERE SCURRYING AROUND CHECKING THE

FLOOR FROM THE BASEMENT WHICH HAD BEEN REINFORCED WITH STANDING METAL

BEAMS.

 

BARE IN MIND NOW THAT SRI CHINMOY HAD SAID ON AT LEAST ONE OCCASION,

THAT HIS FEATS OF STRENGTH ON EARTH WERE AS NOTHING COMPARED WITH WHAT

HE WAS DOING IN THE INNER WORLD....

 

SO SRI CHINMOY STOOD UP, WALKED AROUND THE WEIGHT, ROLLED HIS EYES IN

MEDITATIVE REVERIE....THEN TOOK HIS GRIP ON THE BAR. HE CRIED OUT, HIS

FACE TURNED RED.. ALL THE DRAMA OF GENUINE EFFORT, EXCEPT THAT THE

WEIGHT DID NOT BUDGE, DID NOT EVEN TREMBLE, IT WAS AS IMMOVEABLE AS

EXCALIBER. SHORTLY WE WERE WATCHING THE VIDEO TAPE. SRI CHINMOY WAS

THRILLED.....AS HE PLAYED IT AT THE APPROPRIATE MOMENT, HE GLEEFULLY

SHOUTED "THERE! DID YOU SEE?!'. CAME A DEAFENING SILENCE, AND THE TAPE

WAS REPLAYED. `LOOK! DID YOU SEE?!' THIS TIME RANx AND A FEW OTHER OF

THE GIRLS, POSSIBLY A FEW BOYS TOO, ENTHUSIASTICALLY AGREED, YES,

THERE HAD BEEN A LIFT. THEN THE VIDEO TAPE WAS PLAYED AGAIN AND A FEW

MORE PEOPLE WERE WON OVER. THEN AGAIN AND AGAIN. EVENTUALLY SRI

CHINMOY WAS REDUCED TO ACTUALLY EYEBALLING INDIVIDUALS, ALL BUT

PLEADING FOR THEM TO COME ACROSS. IT WAS ACTUALLY QUITE

SWEET/PATHETIC. TALK ABOUT RETAIL POLITICS!

 

 

Edited yesterday at 04:38 PM by Cheese