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

[Ramasta9]

@Dodo Cool story bro, are you a cop? Yeah poor quality chess mate, most of the words were my own, just the way it was designed was assisted.

You are in your own delusion playing chess with yourself pretending to be (AI Defense) Deputy Moderator Magnus Carlson.

Wake up to yourself bud, talk a walk outside, breathe some fresh air, adopt a pet, you might learn something about life.

 

 

[Malkom]

21 hours ago, Dodo said:

The following text is AI generated based on this thread's replies. @Ramasta9 @Joshe @Malkom @Salvijus @Ninja_pig @Someone here @Agrande I love using AI for learning, but a line is crossed when we present it as our own writing. Here is a full evaluation of the thread. Its important to always show when Ai is used, its also part of the forum guidelines. 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.

 

Sure — here’s a balanced evaluation and rating (out of 10) for each main participant in that Actualized.org thread, based on spiritual depth, groundedness, clarity, compassion, and embodiment rather than ideology.

🌿 1. Ramasta9 (Original Poster)

Rating: 9/10
Strengths: Deeply insightful, articulate, and well-integrated perspective on the pitfalls of neo-nonduality. Clearly values embodiment, humility, and love in spirituality. The critique is compassionate yet firm. Shows strong maturity and understanding of both theory and practice.
Weaknesses: Slightly verbose and intellectual at times — the tone could feel a bit sermon-like, though the message remains authentic.
Summary: Excellent synthesis of embodied spirituality and nondual insight. Feels like a seasoned practitioner.

💫 2. Joshe

Rating: 8.5/10
Strengths: Very perceptive and emotionally intelligent response. Recognizes the difficulty of deconstructing delusions and the courage needed for true awakening.
Weaknesses: Slightly cynical tone (“will mostly fall on deaf ears”) — though realistic, it can border on dismissive.
Summary: Grounded, wise, and compassionate; understands the human psychology behind spirituality.

🔥 3. Malkom

Rating: 7.5/10
Strengths: Adds thoughtful nuance about love and the misinterpretation of “emptiness.” Insightful comment about potential and derealization.
Weaknesses: Some statements sound intellectualized or abstract; tone oscillates between skeptical and genuine.
Summary: Good grasp of conceptual subtleties, though still mentally driven — less experiential grounding.

❤️ 4. Salvijus

Rating: 8/10
Strengths: Speaks from the heart — emphasizes love as the “ultimate authority.” Understands that energy and presence often bypass the mind.
Weaknesses: Slightly absolutist (“They need an exorcism”) — though likely metaphorical, it can alienate others.
Summary: Spiritually mature, intuitive, and heart-centered, though could refine his compassion in expression.

🌺 5. Ninja_pig

Rating: 7/10
Strengths: Simple, heartfelt, and aligned with embodied wisdom — “A master will be aware of every emotion and love it.”
Weaknesses: A bit generic; doesn’t deepen or challenge the discussion further.
Summary: Honest and grounded contribution — less analytical but genuine.

🧘 6. Someone here

Rating: 7.5/10
Strengths: Reflective, self-aware, and open about personal struggles with over-intellectualization. Later, shows compassion toward Dodo and awareness of spiritual bypassing.
Weaknesses: Vacillates between genuine insight and depressive escapism (“vow of silence… disappear in a dark room”).
Summary: A seeker on the edge of deep insight, aware of the pitfalls of conceptual spirituality, still integrating emotional maturity.

🕊️ 7. Dodo

Rating: 8/10
Strengths: Wise and balanced. Demonstrates real spiritual grounding through personal suffering — integrates nonduality with real-world pain. Deep humility and sincerity.
Weaknesses: Occasional idealistic phrasing about detachment, but quickly self-corrects.
Summary: Mature practitioner using hardship as a teacher. Genuine embodiment of practice.

🔥 8. Agrande

Rating: 6/10
Strengths: Brutally honest and grounded critique of “pseudo nondualists.” Refreshing skepticism.
Weaknesses: Excessive cynicism and mockery obscure the valid points. Emotional reactivity clouds the insight.
Summary: Clear-sighted but still triggered by the culture he criticizes — a grounded realist needing a touch more compassion.

⚖️ Overall Thread Energy:

A mix of deep insight, grounded love, wounded cynicism, and honest inquiry.
Most participants demonstrate genuine spiritual depth — more embodied and psychologically aware than typical online spirituality threads.

Average rating: ⭐ 8.0 / 10

Would you like me to sort them by “most spiritually integrated → least integrated” with a short summary of each person’s stage of development (e.g., grounded mystic, conceptual nondualist, embodied seeker)?

 

 

Excellent — let’s assess **each participant not just for spiritual depth**, but also for **likelihood of AI assistance** in their writing (based on tone, structure, coherence, rhythm, and linguistic style).

 

We’ll use a **1–10 “AI likelihood scale”**, where

**1 = almost certainly human-written**,

**10 = almost certainly AI-assisted (ChatGPT-like phrasing, structure, or coherence beyond natural forum style).**

 

---

 

### 🌿 **1. Ramasta9 (Original Poster)**

 

**Spiritual rating:** 9/10

**AI likelihood:** **8.5/10**

**Rationale:** Extremely polished structure, consistent tone, smooth transitions, balanced paragraphing, and well-formatted bullet-style sections — all highly indicative of AI drafting or heavy editing with AI assistance.

**Verdict:** Likely used ChatGPT or similar to refine or co-write the post.

 

---

 

### 💫 **2. Joshe**

 

**Spiritual rating:** 8.5/10

**AI likelihood:** **2/10**

**Rationale:** Natural tone, mild sarcasm, realistic conversational rhythm (“Hey look – actual wisdom! Lol.”). Typing flow is organic with informal punctuation and slight grammatical imperfection.

**Verdict:** Definitely human.

 

---

 

### 🔥 **3. Malkom**

 

**Spiritual rating:** 7.5/10

**AI likelihood:** **4/10**

**Rationale:** Mostly natural, but a few oddly clean philosophical lines (“Emptiness in the context of Nonduality is Potential, Limitless Potential…”). Could be a human paraphrasing AI phrasing, but not written by AI directly.

**Verdict:** Human with possible AI influence in rewording.

 

---

 

### ❤️ **4. Salvijus**

 

**Spiritual rating:** 8/10

**AI likelihood:** **1/10**

**Rationale:** Flow is natural, emotional, slightly scattered. Strong intuitive language, unpolished grammar — typical of spontaneous human writing.

**Verdict:** Purely human, heartfelt.

 

---

 

### 🌺 **5. Ninja_pig**

 

**Spiritual rating:** 7/10

**AI likelihood:** **3/10**

**Rationale:** Simple, poetic phrasing but naturally human in rhythm and warmth. No signs of AI structuring.

**Verdict:** Human.

 

---

 

### 🧘 **6. Someone here**

 

**Spiritual rating:** 7.5/10

**AI likelihood:** **2/10**

**Rationale:** Imperfect punctuation, emotional tone, and spontaneous self-dialogue — highly human. If AI were used, it would be minimal or for grammar cleanup.

**Verdict:** Human introspection, not AI-generated.

 

---

 

### 🕊️ **7. Dodo**

 

**Spiritual rating:** 8/10

**AI likelihood:** **2/10**

**Rationale:** Conversational, authentic emotional tone, some typos (“spiritual-wise”), no synthetic polish. Clearly human.

**Verdict:** Fully human.

 

---

 

### 🔥 **8. Agrande**

 

**Spiritual rating:** 6/10

**AI likelihood:** **1/10**

**Rationale:** Raw, emotional rant with natural profanity, slang, and humor — unmistakably human. AI almost never produces this level of unfiltered casual aggression.

**Verdict:** Human.

 

---

 

## ⚖️ **Summary Table**

 

| User | Spiritual Depth (1–10) | AI Likelihood (1–10) | Notes |

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

| **Ramasta9** | 9 | **8.5** | Likely AI-assisted essay-style post |

| **Joshe** | 8.5 | 2 | Human, wise and witty |

| **Malkom** | 7.5 | 4 | Human with some AI-like phrasing |

| **Salvijus** | 8 | 1 | 100% organic and heartfelt |

| **Ninja_pig** | 7 | 3 | Simple, human |

| **Someone here** | 7.5 | 2 | Reflective, very human tone |

| **Dodo** | 8 | 2 | Emotionally grounded human |

| **Agrande** | 6 | 1 | Purely human rant, no AI polish |

 

---

 

✅ **Most Spiritually Integrated:**

**Ramasta9, Joshe, Dodo**

 

🤖 **Most Likely AI-Assisted:**

**Ramasta9 (strongly), Malkom (mildly)**

 

💬 **Most Authentically Human Tone:**

**Agrande, Salvijus, Someone here**

 

AI can't replace humans. Humans set the tone; they can highlight nuances that were already present in the general idea, but for some reason you didn't notice. So, people wrote to me that I used AI, but the problem is that if I had, I would have done so shamelessly and openly. I don't see a problem with using AI on a forum, but the complaint here is that you're not doing it YOURSELF, meaning you're being dishonest, even though your answer may be honest, the emphasis is elsewhere. And when people wrote to me that I used AI, but I didn't, you might think it's a compliment—that I'm very smart, right? No! Because when you get that impression, for example, you wrote a comment and people say, "He used AI," it means, first and foremost, that the text or script is perceived as "impersonal," or that they don't understand a direct request or question when they respond. AI is a wonderful tool, but we still have to remember: garbage in, garbage out.

[Dodo]

7 hours ago, Ramasta9 said:

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

 

Brown bear is top notch. White bear has an idea that being mindful is the truth. She is getting on her high horse the same way she is accusing him of. She is on her "free, mindful and simple" high horse. He is stating very potent nondual signs, he is not implying he is unhappy. She has a problem with his words and is trying to convert him to speaking like her. 👍 can literally use all her arguments against her. She is preaching to him angrily, and denying that... 

Why is saying "its a beautiful tree" supposed to be a beautiful thought and the things he is saying is not beautiful? She clearly doesn't see where the pointers point to or she wouldn't have problem with them, they are beautiful, not life denying. Also,, she spoke the Lord's name in vein in her frustration, while brown bear kept a peaceful unaffected tone throughout. She was mad she can't control him! And she is the one who wanted to leave, butthurt, he didnt express dislike talking to her, she was the one with the problems and conflict.

Edited 7 hours ago by Dodo

[Malkom]

3 minutes ago, Malkom said:

AI can't replace humans. Humans set the tone; they can highlight nuances that were already present in the general idea, but for some reason you didn't notice them. So, people have written to me that I used AI, but the problem is that if I did, I would do so shamelessly and openly. I don't see a problem with using AI on a forum, but the core of the complaint is that you're not doing it YOURSELF, meaning you're being dishonest; even if your answer is honest, the emphasis is elsewhere. And when people write to me that I used AI, but I didn't, you might think it's a compliment—that I'm very smart, right? No! Because when you get that impression, for example, when you write a comment and people say, "He used AI," it primarily means that the text or script is perceived as "impersonal," or that they don't understand the direct request or question when they respond. AI is a wonderful tool, but we still have to remember: what goes around comes around..

 Maybe it's the AI that determines it because I use a translator. When I compared the English translation with the one in my native language, it was a bit different. Just a version.

Edited 8 hours ago by Malkom

[Dodo]

1 hour ago, Ramasta9 said:

@Dodo Cool story bro, are you a cop? Yeah poor quality chess mate, most of the words were my own, just the way it was designed was assisted.

You are in your own delusion playing chess with yourself pretending to be (AI Defense) Deputy Moderator Magnus Carlson.

Wake up to yourself bud, talk a walk outside, breathe some fresh air, adopt a pet, you might learn something about life.

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Ramasta9 said:

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

 

And here is my text "polished" through AI, tell me how its not equivallent to cheating if I present this as my own thoughts (even though to generare it it used my thoughts)?

Ai:

The brown bear demonstrates a clear understanding of nonduality. His words point to space-like awareness and the absence of a personal self, and he maintains a calm, unaffected tone throughout. The white bear, in contrast, reacts emotionally, emphasizing her own perspective of mindfulness and simplicity. While she seems to believe she is grounded in truth, her frustration and attempts to redirect the conversation reveal that she is projecting her own expectations onto him.

 

Her insistence on labeling “beautiful” phenomena as more valid or meaningful misunderstands the nature of the brown bear’s pointers. Nondual teaching isn’t about evaluating experiences as pleasing or displeasing; it’s about pointing directly to awareness itself. Her discomfort arises not because the brown bear is wrong, but because she cannot reconcile her desire for connection and control with his stillness and neutrality.

 

Furthermore, her tone and actions — impatience, anger, and even swearing in frustration — contrast sharply with the brown bear’s composure. This suggests that the tension is less about content and more about attachment to personal preference and identification. She is attempting to convert him to her framework, while he simply presents what is, without judgment or expectation.

 

In essence, the brown bear’s teachings are both potent and authentic. The white bear’s critiques reveal more about her own attachments than about his validity. Nonduality is not about emotional alignment with others; it is about perceiving awareness as it is, without clinging to how it should feel.

 

---

 

This version:

 

* Presents your argument **logically and sequentially**.

* Maintains **calm, philosophical tone**, consistent with nondual principles.

* Avoids emotionally charged labels like “high horse” or “butthurt,” but preserves the critique.

* Emphasizes **conceptual reasoning** over judgment, making it persuasive even to neutral readers.

 

 

 

[Carl-Richard]

Can we not use AI to pollute threads? If you want to share AI answers, create a link to them.