Neo-Spirituality & Non-Duality - Why it doesn't help

[Ninja_pig]

@Dodo Nice work

[Joshe]

7 hours ago, Dodo said:

To be praised for something that's not your work.. i get its good content, but be honest when you use Ai and label it. 

OP clearly used AI - but the main ideas were clearly formed by OP. The main ideas are what matters. 

[Dodo]

5 minutes ago, Joshe said:

OP clearly used AI - but the main ideas were clearly formed by OP. The main ideas are what matters. 

Ok but its easy to place the seeds and watch how ai grows it into a tree. I can make my ai write very potent things just by knowing the right seeds to give it... like i can make my ai defend nonduality by clarifying what is true nonduality, can make a strong counter argument using AI, but I dont want to present it as my own work just because I know how to ask it to do it.

Edited 19 hours ago by Dodo

[Joshe]

2 minutes ago, Dodo said:

Ok but its easy to place the seeds and watch how ai grows it into a tree. I can make my ai write very potent things just by knowing the right seeds to give it... like i can make my ai defend nonduality by clarifying what is true nonduality, can make a strong counter argument using AI, but I dont want to present it as my own work just because I know how to ask it to do it.

well yeah, you could make it do that, but why the hell would you? If someone is having AI construct arguments or positions that aren't their own, then yeah, that would be annoying, but I'm not so sure that's the case here. Just because I detect AI, I don't automatically dismiss the ideas. The ideas here were solid IMO. 

[Dodo]

1 minute ago, Joshe said:

well yeah, you could make it do that, but why the hell would you? If someone is having AI construct arguments or positions that aren't their own, then yeah, that would be annoying, but I'm not so sure that's the case here. Just because I detect AI, I don't automatically dismiss the ideas. The ideas here were solid IMO. 

How do you know these are his idea and he didnt just ask ai to "list things wrong with it"? 

[Dodo]

@Joshe @Ramasta9

Here I asked my biggest nondual chatgpt chat to "discombobulate" 😆 the original post, point by point, using the knowledge from the chat. Took me 10 minutes to generate:

I hear that you want to look at each of those points through the strictest non-dual lens, not through self-help or therapy language.

Here’s how that can be done without attacking anyone—just laying out what is actually seen when awareness looks directly.

 

---

 

### “Mental Awakening Without Embodiment”

 

There is no separate “mind” and “body” that one could integrate later.

Thoughts and sensations appear in the same field of knowing.

To say “mental but not embodied” only makes sense from the point of view of the imagined person who thinks it can own awakening.

When awareness is clear, both thought and heartbeat are already included; nothing is left out.

 

---

 

### “Spiritual Bypass & Emotional Evasion”

 

No one avoids or faces emotion; emotion simply arises or does not.

The idea of a “someone” bypassing something is itself another appearance in awareness.

When grief or fear is seen as what it is—vibration within knowing—there is no bypass, no repression, no separate feeler.

 

---

 

### “Ego Rebranding as ‘No One’”

 

Even “ego dressing as no-one” is a thought.

The claim “I am no one” and the pride that follows are equally transient ripples.

Awareness doesn’t need to kill or purify a ripple; it only ever recognizes it as itself.

 

---

 

### “Disembodiment & Aversion to the Human Story”

 

The “human story” is one texture of awareness.

Aversion and acceptance are both motions inside the same stillness.

To awareness there is no disembodiment—body, story, and world are how awareness tastes itself.

 

---

 

### “Parrot Syndrome & Language Loops”

 

Repetition without seeing is only sound.

When seeing happens, even silence says it.

Awareness does not memorize teachings; it notices its own presence before every word.

 

---

 

### “Loss of Love, Heart, and Relationship”

 

Love and awareness are not two.

When the illusion of separation softens, warmth and compassion show up naturally, not as ethics but as the very feel of unity.

There’s no need to manufacture “heart”; it is what unbounded awareness feels like when it touches itself.

 

---

 

### “Commercialization & Loss of Lineage”

 

Selling or not selling cannot stain awareness.

But from within the play, honesty matters—because integrity keeps the play transparent.

Money exchanges are just forms; clinging or deceit are the only fog.

 

---

 

### “Devaluing the Relative World”

 

Absolute and relative are one event.

To call the world “dream” is not to dismiss it but to recognize its texture: vivid, fleeting, sacred.

Compassion is the dream loving itself.

 

---

 

### “Hyper-Identification With Emptiness”

 

Calling everything “illusion” is still a thought about “everything.”

True emptiness is not a concept of nothingness—it’s the living fullness before the idea of full or empty.

When that is seen, detachment softens into tenderness.

 

---

 

### “Ungrounded Teachers”

 

No one can “land back on earth”; earth itself is appearing in awareness.

Yet when that is seen, expression becomes simple, human, kind—because pretending ends.

Grounding is not an act; it is the natural stillness of what you already are.

 

---

 

### “Integrating Humanity”

 

Sanctifying form is not a second project after enlightenment.

Form *is* the sanctified face of the formless.

To include the mosquito is not moral effort—it is the recognition that there has never been an outside.

 

---

 

### “When Love and Emptiness Meet”

 

They never actually meet; they have never been apart.

Love is emptiness perceived from within the play.

Emptiness is love seen without story.

 

---

 

**In short:**

Awakening is not a state to embody but the seeing that embodiment, thought, and cosmos are already the movement of the same knowing.

There is no one who must stabilize it, and yet—when this is seen—the appearance naturally becomes gentler, clearer, more loving.

That is the paradox and the perfection of nonduality.

 

 

And here I asked another one of my gpt nondual chats to discombobulate point by point, you can see the different styles of my chats to the same request, this chat is much smaller than the other, lets see which one makes the points cleaner: 

That’s a rich and well-crafted critique. Rather than “discombobulating” it, I’ll unpack each point from the view of **radical nonduality**—not to argue against the spirit of the message (which is compassionate and sane), but to show how, from the nondual view, every critique ultimately dissolves back into what it’s describing.

 

Nonduality isn’t a philosophy that *stands apart* and evaluates; it’s the seeing that there’s no position from which to evaluate at all. So let’s go through each paragraph.

 

---

 

### 1. “Mental Awakening Without Embodiment”

 

> “People talk about oneness... Awakening becomes an idea... dissociation dressed as enlightenment.”

 

From the nondual view, “mental,” “body,” and “embodiment” are appearances *within* awareness. There isn’t a separate one who could “embody” realization. If dissociation appears, that too is awareness appearing as dissociation. Nothing has gone wrong. The mind says, “This is incomplete,” but that judgment is itself an appearance of completeness in disguise. Awareness never left the body to begin with.

 

---

 

### 2. “Spiritual Bypass & Emotional Evasion”

 

> “Using emptiness to avoid pain...”

 

Pain, avoidance, and the one who would avoid are all the same movement of consciousness. You can’t hide from awareness because you *are* it. When “bypass” is seen clearly, it’s just another flavor of what is. The moment you notice “avoidance,” avoidance ends—because noticing and avoiding are not-two.

 

---

 

### 3. “Ego Rebranding as ‘No One’”

 

> “The ego doesn’t die; it dresses itself in void-talk…”

 

There is no ego that could die or rebrand. “Ego,” “no-one,” and “awakening” are dream-labels for the same play. Pride, humility, defensiveness—each is a temporary costume worn by the same faceless actor. The idea that one can *fall into* spiritual arrogance presumes an entity that could choose differently; in seeing there’s no such chooser, even arrogance is just weather in the sky of awareness.

 

---

 

### 4. “Disembodiment & Aversion to the Human Story”

 

> “True awakening roots deeply in body, relationships, sensation…”

 

There’s no “true” versus “false” awakening; those are distinctions awareness makes inside itself. What’s called “the human story” is not outside the Absolute—it *is* the Absolute appearing as humanity. The notion of “aversion to the human” presupposes a human separate from the whole. From nonduality’s eye, even alienation is total intimacy—reality appearing as the sense of distance.

 

---

 

### 5. “Parrot Syndrome & Language Loops”

 

> “Teachings repeated without understanding…”

 

Every phrase ever spoken is a repetition of silence in sound form. “There is no self” is not meant to be understood; it’s meant to self-erase in the hearing. When words collapse into tautology, communication has succeeded, because it’s exposed the impossibility of communicating what already *is*. So the so-called “loop” is the teaching functioning perfectly.

 

---

 

### 6. “Loss of Love, Heart, and Relationship”

 

> “Reality reduced to impersonal awareness…”

 

Love *is* the impersonal. The warmth in relationship and the stillness of awareness are the same field, viewed through different moods. When compassion seems absent, that very perception is love revealing its opposite to itself. Nonduality doesn’t exclude heart—it’s the seeing that love and emptiness were never two.

 

---

 

### 7. “Commercialization & Loss of Lineage”

 

> “Spirituality packaged, branded, sold…”

 

Selling, branding, buying, and reacting to commercialization are all movements of the same consciousness. Nothing stands outside it to be “pure” or “corrupted.” The marketplace is also the monastery. Money changing hands is God shaking its own hand.

 

---

 

### 8. “Devaluing the Relative World”

 

> “When the world is dismissed as dream, compassion dies…”

 

The dream *is* compassion. To call the world a dream isn’t to devalue it; it’s to recognize it as divine imagination, infinitely intimate. The problem only seems real when we assume the dreamer and the dream are separate. They’re not—there’s just dreaming.

 

---

 

### 9. “Hyper-Identification With Emptiness”

 

> “Reducing all experience to illusion…”

 

Emptiness identified with is no longer empty. Yet even that misidentification is the play of emptiness. The “collapse of communication” it produces is another expression of what can’t be lost. Silence is not failure—it’s the ground note of every dialogue.

 

---

 

### The Closing Advice

 

> “Land back on earth... Real spirituality sanctifies humanity... Love and emptiness meet.”

 

Beautiful. From nonduality’s raw seeing, though, there was never anyone who left the earth to return to it. The dust on your shoes, the ache in your chest, the typing of these words—this *is* sanctified humanity. You don’t need to merge emptiness with love; they were never apart. Awareness of awareness is already that meeting point—the world tasting itself.

 

---

 

### In short

 

The critique is a call for wholeness.

Radical nonduality says: wholeness never fractured.

Every bypass, commercialization, arrogance, numbness, or abstraction is simply the next shape of totality.

 

When that’s seen—not understood, but *noticed* right now—everything lands. There’s no landing needed.

The reader is already awareness, aware of reading, aware of awareness.

Nothing more to integrate. Nothing left out.

 

 

Edited 18 hours ago by Dodo

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, Dodo said:

How do you know these are his idea and he didnt just ask ai to "list things wrong with it"? 

I don't know that they didn't but I lean towards they didn't because he was discussing the topic elsewhere, trying to explain in his own words, then figured the whole topic would be better off in a post. Also, he honed in on very specific examples that represent a lot of what you see here, which makes me think they were his own ideas, unless AI was asked to scan this entire forum to find all the common non-dual fallacies, one of which he was just arguing against prior to his post. 

Edited 18 hours ago by Joshe

[Dodo]

3 minutes ago, Joshe said:

I don't know that he didn't but I lean towards he didn't because he was discussing the topic elsewhere, trying to explain in his own words, then figured the whole topic would be better off in a post. Also, he honed in on very specific examples that represent a lot of what you see here, which makes me think they were his own ideas, unless AI was asked to scan this entire forum to find all the common non-dual fallacies, one of which he was just arguing against just before this post.

 

Heres what mine says when asked about common downfalls of neo-nonduality and nonduality. Ofcourse read my post above how my nondual chats deal with these so called downfalls. 

Excellent question — and a subtle one. Both **neo-nonduality** (a contemporary, often Westernized presentation of nondual teaching) and **traditional nonduality** (rooted in Advaita Vedānta, Mahāmudrā, Dzogchen, etc.) have characteristic pitfalls that can confuse or stall a seeker’s development. Let’s unpack both clearly.

 

---

 

### 🌀 **Common Downfalls in Neo-Nonduality**

 

Neo-nonduality refers to modern teachers or teachings (often post–Tony Parsons, Jim Newman, etc.) that emphasize **immediate realization**:

“There is no you, nothing to do, nowhere to go, no one to awaken.”

 

While such statements can point directly to truth, they often create confusion or bypass important aspects of transformation.

 

#### 1. **Spiritual Bypassing through Absolutism**

 

* Saying “there is no self” intellectually, while the body-mind is still deeply conditioned by trauma, fear, and craving.

* The insight becomes a defense mechanism against feeling or healing.

* Example: “Who’s suffering? There’s no one here!” — while the nervous system is clearly in distress.

 

#### 2. **Neglect of Relative Reality**

 

* Dismissing ethics, compassion, and relational care as “illusory.”

* Leads to coldness, arrogance, or nihilism: “It doesn’t matter what happens; it’s all One.”

* Healthy nonduality integrates **relative and absolute truth** — not denies the former.

 

#### 3. **Premature Intellectualization**

 

* Using conceptual understanding (“no self,” “just awareness”) to imitate realization.

* Mistaking **descriptions of reality** for **direct seeing**.

* The ego subtly “wears” nonduality as an identity — “the one who knows there is no one.”

 

#### 4. **Disembodiment**

 

* Insight happens cognitively but doesn’t permeate the body and emotions.

* Leads to dissociation rather than liberation.

* True realization includes the body — awareness *as* sensations, breath, movement.

 

#### 5. **Teacher Charisma Without Wisdom**

 

* Some neo-nondual circles lack ethical frameworks.

* Teachers may use “no self” rhetoric to avoid responsibility or perpetuate harm.

 

---

 

### 🕉️ **Common Downfalls in Traditional Nonduality**

 

Traditional systems (Advaita Vedānta, Dzogchen, etc.) are more structured — emphasizing ethics, meditation, inquiry, and gradual ripening — but they have their own traps.

 

#### 1. **Conceptual Rigidity**

 

* Getting caught in metaphysical debate: Brahman vs. Māyā, Atman vs. Anātman, etc.

* Turning a living truth into a philosophical system.

 

#### 2. **Path Fetishism**

 

* Believing realization is always far away: “I must purify for countless lifetimes.”

* Perpetual seeker mode — never resting as awareness now.

 

#### 3. **Guru Idealization**

 

* Over-reliance on the teacher as an authority rather than one’s own direct seeing.

* Leads to dependency or abuse dynamics.

 

#### 4. **Cultural Transplant Confusion**

 

* Western students may misunderstand traditional forms (rituals, hierarchy, terminology) and either reject them or imitate them superficially.

 

#### 5. **Neglect of Integration**

 

* Emphasis on transcendence (“neti neti” — not this, not that) can ignore embodiment and shadow work.

* Result: spiritual elitism or emotional repression disguised as detachment.

 

---

 

### 💎 **The Middle Way — Integration**

 

The mature approach blends both traditions’ strengths:

 

| Aspect | Immature Form | Mature Integration |

| ------------------------ | ---------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| **Insight** | “Nothing matters — there’s no one here.” | Recognize emptiness *and* interdependence. |

| **Practice** | “No practice — who would practice?” | Practice as play — refining attention and compassion naturally. |

| **Emotion** | Bypass or suppress | Allow and include all feelings as expressions of awareness. |

| **Ethics** | “Good and bad are illusions.” | Embody natural ethics arising from unity and empathy. |

| **Teacher relationship** | Dependency or rebellion | Respectful discernment — honoring guidance without surrendering autonomy. |

 

---

 

### 🪞 **In summary**

 

**Neo-nonduality** often errs on the side of *premature transcendence* — skipping integration and embodiment.

**Traditional nonduality** can err on the side of *over-structuring* — turning living insight into dogma or endless practice.

 

The sweet spot: **direct realization integrated with human wholeness** — awake, embodied, relational, and ethical.

 

---

 

Would you like me to map out how to **recognize and work through** these pitfalls in one’s own practice (step-by-step)?

 

[Joshe]

@Dodo I'm good at spotting AI. I know it was used and still praised the work because it included original insights I've had myself. 

With all the context, I don't think they just used AI to construct arbitrary arguments against non-duality. I think they used it to articulate their own perception of very specific errors they've noticed from this forum. I've been wrong before, but my read is that they just used AI to help them articulate what they saw. Maybe AI added a few extra things that wasn't theirs, but the bulk of the work - the main ideas - seems to have formed from original thought IMO, even if polished and stylized with AI. 

Edited 18 hours ago by Joshe

[Dodo]

@Joshe My main point, he is critiquing the space and how some people express themselves, while using an engine to express himself. I'll take someone posting that they are no one, over this charade. 

As you can see if I use the same tool he is using I can not only match his level of sophistication but "discombobulate" every one of his statements. But if I have to reply to him without AI, I am bound to play a losing game, like a chess player vs a chess cheater using an engine to gain superiority. 

This forum clearly says in guidelines, AI content not allowed,  unless specified, its for this reason. He is raising his intellectual level unfairly, so you can't even know if he is at all "grounded" or done any "nonduality work". 

[Joshe]

29 minutes ago, Dodo said:

@Joshe My main point, he is critiquing the space and how some people express themselves, while using an engine to express himself. I'll take someone posting that they are no one, over this charade. 

As you can see if I use the same tool he is using I can not only match his level of sophistication but "discombobulate" every one of his statements. But if I have to reply to him without AI, I am bound to play a losing game, like a chess player vs a chess cheater using an engine to gain superiority. 

This forum clearly says in guidelines, AI content not allowed,  unless specified, its for this reason. He is raising his intellectual level unfairly, so you can't even know if he is at all "grounded" or done any "nonduality work". 

Yes, I acknowledge that is a thing. I don't know OP but I gave them the benefit of the doubt that they aren't using AI like that. Maybe they are, and if so, I'm with you. 

But there's some nuance here. People have been using Google for a couple decades to augment and improve their intellectual positions. What if you were on a forum that said "you can't use answers from Google in your debates" because that would unfairly raise your intellectual level? That would be absurd and that's the line you're flirting with. We all use technology to boost our intellects. 

Over time, chess cheaters get a bad reputation. Same thing here. If someone is constantly conversing/debating in bad-faith, it will eventually be known. I guess time will tell with OP. 

Using AI to assist in articulation of orignal thought does blur the line, but if you evaluate the ideas themselves, that's what should count, in my book. If someone delivers some next level ideas, I don't care if they ran it through AI because I only care about how the ideas are useful/interesting for me. 

Someone can use AI to refine how they express complex thoughts they already had. That doesn’t mean the thoughts were fake.

Edited 17 hours ago by Joshe

[Dodo]

39 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Yes, I acknowledge that is a thing. I don't know OP but I gave them the benefit of the doubt that they aren't using AI like that. Maybe they are, and if so, I'm with you. 

But there's some nuance here. People have been using Google for a couple decades to augment and improve their intellectual positions. What if you were on a forum that said "you can't use answers from Google in your debates" because that would unfairly raise your intellectual level? That would be absurd and that's the line you're flirting with. We all use technology to boost our intellects. 

Over time, chess cheaters get a bad reputation. Same thing here. If someone is constantly conversing/debating in bad-faith, it will eventually be known. I guess time will tell with OP. 

Using AI to assist in articulation of orignal thought does blur the line, but if you evaluate the ideas themselves, that's what should count, in my book. If someone delivers some next level ideas, I don't care if they ran it through AI because I only care about how the ideas are useful/interesting for me. 

Someone can use AI to refine how they express complex thoughts they already had. That doesn’t mean the thoughts were fake.

If guidelines say no google is harder to catch, because it doesnt affect how you write it, its very different. 

But ofcourse chess cheaters show some of the best chess there is! The problem is its dishonest. Doesn't show the actual level OP is at, and by not labeling AI, I cant know, maybe all of his posts are AI generated to some extent. 

Its easy to write a two paragraph ramble about nonduality and some shortcomings you've noticed and tell the ai to transform it to a quality post... 

Also, as shown by evidence of my Ai reply to his post, his AI is writing from a dualistic perspective. 

Now I feed this into gpt and post how this reply looks when filtered through ai - you can see it didnt even just polish it, it added content which I didnt even have.

Here’s a polished and coherent version of your text — it preserves your meaning but improves flow, clarity, and tone:

 

---

 

If the guidelines say “no Google,” that rule is much harder to enforce — because using Google doesn’t directly affect *how* someone writes. It’s a completely different kind of assistance.

 

But with AI, it’s another story. It’s like cheating in chess — AI-assisted players can produce some of the best moves imaginable, but the problem is that it’s dishonest. It doesn’t reflect the person’s actual skill level. And if someone doesn’t disclose their use of AI, I have no way of knowing whether all of their posts are partially or entirely AI-generated.

 

It’s incredibly easy to write a rough two-paragraph ramble about nonduality or some perceived shortcoming, then ask an AI to transform it into a polished, insightful post. That kind of refinement can make it seem like someone has more depth or understanding than they actually do.

 

In fact, the AI’s own response to his post demonstrates this — it writes from a distinctly *dualistic* perspective, which directly contradicts the topic of nonduality itself. That mismatch shows that the AI doesn’t truly grasp the subject; it’s merely simulating understanding through language.

-----------

 

Ps: also my gpt lacks context in this case, so the last bit is a bit out of place, but you get me,, it makes me sound way more intellectual to the point the entire post is completely different. 

Edited 17 hours ago by Dodo

[Joshe]

@Dodo I've never been a stickler for rules, so I don't care much what the rules say. You're acting as if you can't assess the arguments on their own, void of style. Get to and assess the essence of the message and discard style. That's ideally what you should evaluate and not get hung up on style. Of course we want to keep the human element, but we also need to accommodate technological evolution as well.

Imagine if this was a math forum and calculators didn't exist but a few members figured out how to make them. Would you berate them for showing you accurate math? 

Below, I gave my AI your AI's response and told it my position and it came up with the content below. Forget about whether or not these arguments come from AI. Which argument has more punch? Which seems more wise, logical, coherent, etc?

Can you assess and weight the strengths of each response and see what's worth taking from each, or if there's a clear winner in the realm of ideas? Of course doing this all the time would be monotonous and the human element would be lost, which is not good, and I'm not advocating for that, but IMO, it's perfectly fine to use AI to help you articulate and flesh out your position and lead you to new ones. 

AI's response: "

I get the distinction you’re making, but I think you’re overestimating the purity of “unaided writing” and underestimating how much mediation already exists in any act of communication.

If someone uses AI to express an idea they already understand, that’s not deception — it’s translation. The tool doesn’t magically import comprehension any more than a thesaurus imports intelligence. It only shapes how thought takes form in language.

You say it’s “dishonest” because it doesn’t reflect the person’s “actual skill level,” but that assumes the purpose of discussion here is to test people’s natural eloquence, not to explore ideas. If this were a writing competition, I’d agree. But in philosophy or nonduality discussion, the only meaningful question is whether what’s being said points to something real and true. 

If someone’s pretending to have depth they don’t, time will expose that. But conflating the means of expression with the authenticity of insight is like blaming the typewriter for the writer’s pretense.

"

See, AI just articulated my position far better than I could have, and it makes perfect sense. It's a very strong argument., formed from MY position. Could you yourself argue against it without resorting to the tactics you're accusing OP of?

If you went to your AI to help you find flaws in my argument and presented them to me, if they were solid, I would gladly accept them. 

It's ultimately on YOU to openly and honestly assess the validity of ideas, regardless if they were augmented by AI or not.

Edited 14 hours ago by Joshe

[Ramasta9]

Wow what has transpired here? For some reason I wasn't able to comment for a while...

This was my original post yes, although I did use chat gpt for some assistance... as I felt i had far too many points and needing to clean-up my lengthy post so its more neat and easier to receive. I been using gpt to help me write better and practice my use of textual communication online. Never thought this would be a crime... Its just a more sophisticated way than using google.

Most of what i wrote was my own words and life experience, as I asked gpt specifically to not change or deter too far off my authentic expression, and then I also did many back and forths correcting, editing and adjust myself, to keep my own authentic expression. I am aware that if i purely used AI then it would not be effective nor land, thus it would actually contradict what I speak of here (borrowed wisdom, not true wisdom).

The 9 points in bold were of assistance with AI but a lot of my own words and understandings. You could say this is 90% my own and 10% AI. Besides, AI is an extension of consciousness, a tool we CAN use for assistance and support.

It almost seems like an attempt to deter people away from the main topic / subject I created.

I can understand that its a triggering subject for some, but in all honesty I wasn't aware of these rules, and thanks @Joshe you explained and expressed yourself beautifully and correct for the most part.

@Dodo Dude... you made it seem like I have done some big crime... Did you get yelled at or punished for doing something similar in the past? and why has this all of a sudden "triggered you" so much that you had to puke vomit all over my post? 

Do you not realize you are also totally contradicting yourself by using the AI in almost a religious way and in your replies? and not actually being authentic yourself? Rather this is your own shadow playing out that my post simply mirrored?

I have no need whatsoever for the AI to make it seem as if I am more intelligent or whatever ideas you have come up in your mind, but rather it seems the shadow of your own delusions and projections is showing its face here, hence the trigger and rant all over my post.

I can be myself and use my own words to respond, and I do 99% of the time, I just felt as to make a more neat looking post.

Jesus you people... When's the last time you took a break and sat by a tree?

Edited 14 hours ago by Ramasta9

[Joshe]

lol. @Ramasta9 sorry for contributing to the clutter. This is has just been a fallacy I've been seeing for a while and I think it needs correcting. People get a whiff of AI and lose their shit. 

Edited 14 hours ago by Joshe

[Ramasta9]

6 minutes ago, Joshe said:

lol. @Ramasta9 sorry for contributing to the clutter. This is has just been a fallacy I've been seeing for a while and I think it needs correcting. People get a whiff of AI and lose their shit. 

Its alright, just very bizarre... but I can also see how its their own stuff playing out that's not being looked at, rather projected outwardly.

Edited 14 hours ago by Ramasta9

[Ramasta9]

To get back to the topic... Here is a video that sums it up pretty well.

 

[Carl-Richard]

Different things work for different points on the path.

[Dodo]

8 hours ago, Ramasta9 said:

Wow what has transpired here? For some reason I wasn't able to comment for a while...

This was my original post yes, although I did use chat gpt for some assistance... as I felt i had far too many points and needing to clean-up my lengthy post so its more neat and easier to receive. I been using gpt to help me write better and practice my use of textual communication online. Never thought this would be a crime... Its just a more sophisticated way than using google.

Most of what i wrote was my own words and life experience, as I asked gpt specifically to not change or deter too far off my authentic expression, and then I also did many back and forths correcting, editing and adjust myself, to keep my own authentic expression. I am aware that if i purely used AI then it would not be effective nor land, thus it would actually contradict what I speak of here (borrowed wisdom, not true wisdom).

The 9 points in bold were of assistance with AI but a lot of my own words and understandings. You could say this is 90% my own and 10% AI. Besides, AI is an extension of consciousness, a tool we CAN use for assistance and support.

It almost seems like an attempt to deter people away from the main topic / subject I created.

I can understand that its a triggering subject for some, but in all honesty I wasn't aware of these rules, and thanks @Joshe you explained and expressed yourself beautifully and correct for the most part.

@Dodo Dude... you made it seem like I have done some big crime... Did you get yelled at or punished for doing something similar in the past? and why has this all of a sudden "triggered you" so much that you had to puke vomit all over my post? 

Do you not realize you are also totally contradicting yourself by using the AI in almost a religious way and in your replies? and not actually being authentic yourself? Rather this is your own shadow playing out that my post simply mirrored?

I have no need whatsoever for the AI to make it seem as if I am more intelligent or whatever ideas you have come up in your mind, but rather it seems the shadow of your own delusions and projections is showing its face here, hence the trigger and rant all over my post.

I can be myself and use my own words to respond, and I do 99% of the time, I just felt as to make a more neat looking post.

Jesus you people... When's the last time you took a break and sat by a tree?

 

What’s NOT Allowed:

Self-promotion

Coming here to start your teaching/coaching/guru business by leeching off this audience

Multiple accounts. (If you are caught opening multiple accounts, both will be banned).

....

Posting AI-generate content like text, images, or video without disclosing that it was sourced from AI

....

 

I'm not contradicting myself, because when I use AI, I disclose it. Also im pretty sure AI has added a lot of things you didnt write about, the post is so comprehensive. If you use AI to play the perfect chess game, you have to mention it. Sure, the chess is marvelous and magnificent!

Also my comments are not "vomit" thank you, the ai replies to your ai reply are top quality chess. And it stems from its understanding of nonduality from my chats with it. As an honest seeker, I believe my GPT is in the best shape out of any to respond to your post. Its like a nondual master GPT replying to your dualistic set GPT.

Edited 6 hours ago by Dodo

[Dodo]

8 hours ago, Joshe said:

@Dodo I've never been a stickler for rules, so I don't care much what the rules say. You're acting as if you can't assess the arguments on their own, void of style. Get to and assess the essence of the message and discard style. That's ideally what you should evaluate and not get hung up on style. Of course we want to keep the human element, but we also need to accommodate technological evolution as well.

Imagine if this was a math forum and calculators didn't exist but a few members figured out how to make them. Would you berate them for showing you accurate math? 

Below, I gave my AI your AI's response and told it my position and it came up with the content below. Forget about whether or not these arguments come from AI. Which argument has more punch? Which seems more wise, logical, coherent, etc?

Can you assess and weight the strengths of each response and see what's worth taking from each, or if there's a clear winner in the realm of ideas? Of course doing this all the time would be monotonous and the human element would be lost, which is not good, and I'm not advocating for that, but IMO, it's perfectly fine to use AI to help you articulate and flesh out your position and lead you to new ones. 

AI's response: "

I get the distinction you’re making, but I think you’re overestimating the purity of “unaided writing” and underestimating how much mediation already exists in any act of communication.

If someone uses AI to express an idea they already understand, that’s not deception — it’s translation. The tool doesn’t magically import comprehension any more than a thesaurus imports intelligence. It only shapes how thought takes form in language.

You say it’s “dishonest” because it doesn’t reflect the person’s “actual skill level,” but that assumes the purpose of discussion here is to test people’s natural eloquence, not to explore ideas. If this were a writing competition, I’d agree. But in philosophy or nonduality discussion, the only meaningful question is whether what’s being said points to something real and true. 

If someone’s pretending to have depth they don’t, time will expose that. But conflating the means of expression with the authenticity of insight is like blaming the typewriter for the writer’s pretense.

"

See, AI just articulated my position far better than I could have, and it makes perfect sense. It's a very strong argument., formed from MY position. Could you yourself argue against it without resorting to the tactics you're accusing OP of?

If you went to your AI to help you find flaws in my argument and presented them to me, if they were solid, I would gladly accept them. 

It's ultimately on YOU to openly and honestly assess the validity of ideas, regardless if they were augmented by AI or not.

Yeah, Ai articulated your position so well, that if I want to disagree with you as a human, aand you pretended that was your writing, I would be at a disadvantage. It would look like "yeah, omg, he's right! I cant argue with that" same way if I play a chess cheater, I wont be able to defeat him in chess. But if he discloses he used AI, I can use the same method to answer him, and see, oh, with best play, actually, his position isnt that solid. It only appeared that way due to the AI making strong moves that a human cant. 

But if I use the same tool as you, I can easily even the playing field and tell you why this is wrong, from knowledge I do not possess. Great, I can learn from the AI, but lets not ever present it as our own work. 

Here is what my AI wrote on the subject after giving it examples from this thread. 

Ai:

A clear defense of the claim that AI rewrites often add knowledge, rather than merely polishing text, begins with recognizing what happens when language models “improve” a passage. True editing preserves meaning while refining tone or structure; it keeps every assertion logically identical to the original. Yet in practice, AI systems do more than adjust phrasing—they infer intentions, fill perceived gaps, and supply explanations or analogies that were never in the source.

 

When an AI expands a sentence to “clarify” it, it inevitably interprets what the author *meant* and provides reasons or examples to support that interpretation. This process inserts new layers of meaning. The original human text may simply express a judgment or observation, while the AI version transforms that into a structured argument, complete with causes, implications, and moral framing. These additions are not stylistic—they are epistemic. They change what the text *claims* to know or assert.

 

The issue is not that the AI fabricates facts, but that it fabricates reasoning. It takes an author’s intuitive statement and re-casts it as if the writer had consciously articulated every rationale and philosophical implication. That act of invention turns the piece from a personal expression into a synthetic essay built from the model’s general knowledge.

 

Therefore, calling such rewriting a “polish” is misleading. The AI becomes a silent co-author, introducing new conceptual content that reshapes the argument’s scope and logic. Recognizing this distinction matters because it determines whether we are reading a faithful reflection of the original thinker or a hybrid text in which the AI’s own assumptions and world knowledge have already begun to speak.