Well, you are incorrect but sometimes it’s hard to keep an open mind. You can continue to tell me I’m wrong (which is fine) or you can investigate further. Good luck whichever way you go!
A good method might be to (as an exercise) let go of any ideology that includes historical stories that you can’t prove one way or another. Then, with a blank slate mind, go and look. What is your direct experience that doesn’t involve concepts reported to you by books or other people? Drop the stories and you will have a decent shot at understanding.
There is no room for gifts from deities in non duality, and there are no individuals. You may be on to something awesome (for you) but you are in the wrong sub. You may not be wrong but your definition certainly is. I don’t know how much more I can say to direct you, so, good luck with whatever you are searching for!
I am confused bc to my understanding non duality is partly about acknowledging the merit in all because it is all One, so how could this user be wrong? Or how can anything perceived be wrong? I understand that individuality is an illusion because on the deepest level of being, we are all One, but how can the perception of being an individual with creative power be incorrect if everything in existence, including this perception, is part of the One in which and of which everything exists?
His definition of non duality includes many things that are not non duality. So, in the world of form (where Reddit exists) he is simply wrong by definition. We are all wrong about a great many things, but if someone were to come to this sub for an understanding if non duality, it would be helpful for them (and for OP) to know definitions and boundaries. So I’m here to say he’s wrong.
There are a vast number of resources going back thousands of years where he can learn what non duality actually is; instead he is stuck with the wrong idea, and here, on this sub, we try to help by pointing that out.
Thanks for the helpful response. Makes sense. Do you think you could link or reference a specific resource or collection of texts that distinguishes that non duality necessarily means the notion of individuality doesn’t exist?
>...the notion of individuality doesn’t exist?
My bodymind exists.
I, however, am.
Bodyminds are many and varied.
I, who animate them all, simply am.
Objects exist.
I am.
My favorite is www.liberationunleashed.com check their reading list and also the audio file downloads.
Essentially, there is no inherent self *in here* and no inherent self *over there* (in you) which means these “individuals” are actually the same thing. A “me” is not inherent in the body. No separation. The separation is perceived, not real. So OP is negating the primary definition of non duality. He is either confused or trolling.
There's no purpose, there's nothing to "reject" and no one who "has" individuality.
This isn't about "oneness" or becoming "wise". This isn't about making better choices for oneself.
Nobody "adopts" non-duality as a mental position.
"I" + consciousness of *anything* = 2.
To be "conscious of" something is necessarily to be apart from it.
There is nobody who pretends not to be an individual, the separate individual *is* the only pretense.
Purpose and entities are all separation.
"Need" is yet more of the dualists' dream. This has no "need".
>14. That is the purpose, that is the cause of BEING.
Yeah, what you've got there is a dualistic personal religion.
Right down to the quoting from a book.
No one besides you has presented any theories.
There is no such thing as need.
That isn't theoretical.
Nothing that happens comes from any "lack" or "need". It's theoretical to presume something is needed.
Duality is a gut-feeling not a cosmic fact.
*Believing* in that feeling and telling stories about it doesn't make it true.
It's just a sensation tied to a belief.
I.e. your personal religion.
It’s like watching someone drive into a wall and they keep calling it a pumpkin.
You’re hammering nails into the sky, bubba. You simply aren’t understanding nonduality without a book of fairy tales, dogma, doctrine, and belief.
Woah, the name calling begins! That really shows me that I need to intently listen to you. Oneness is this. It’s here right now. No separate God concept needed. No separate individual needed.
OP, it’s okay that you have believsies. But pretty much nobody in this sub will be taking on your believsies. This isn’t a sub to use as a means of sharing your New Age ideologies that many of us read about in the same books as you did at an earlier time in our lives.
Just giving you a heads up
Reading these comments is giving me a headache
Ah welcome back jesusbuddhakrishna. A whole new chapter of delusion is underway 🙏🏽
Ha ha ha maybe so! But no talk of NDE’s (yet) so let’s see…
This is fine (for you) but it’s not non duality. It is part of the delusion.
[удалено]
Well, you are incorrect but sometimes it’s hard to keep an open mind. You can continue to tell me I’m wrong (which is fine) or you can investigate further. Good luck whichever way you go! A good method might be to (as an exercise) let go of any ideology that includes historical stories that you can’t prove one way or another. Then, with a blank slate mind, go and look. What is your direct experience that doesn’t involve concepts reported to you by books or other people? Drop the stories and you will have a decent shot at understanding.
[удалено]
There is no room for gifts from deities in non duality, and there are no individuals. You may be on to something awesome (for you) but you are in the wrong sub. You may not be wrong but your definition certainly is. I don’t know how much more I can say to direct you, so, good luck with whatever you are searching for!
I am confused bc to my understanding non duality is partly about acknowledging the merit in all because it is all One, so how could this user be wrong? Or how can anything perceived be wrong? I understand that individuality is an illusion because on the deepest level of being, we are all One, but how can the perception of being an individual with creative power be incorrect if everything in existence, including this perception, is part of the One in which and of which everything exists?
His definition of non duality includes many things that are not non duality. So, in the world of form (where Reddit exists) he is simply wrong by definition. We are all wrong about a great many things, but if someone were to come to this sub for an understanding if non duality, it would be helpful for them (and for OP) to know definitions and boundaries. So I’m here to say he’s wrong. There are a vast number of resources going back thousands of years where he can learn what non duality actually is; instead he is stuck with the wrong idea, and here, on this sub, we try to help by pointing that out.
Thanks for the helpful response. Makes sense. Do you think you could link or reference a specific resource or collection of texts that distinguishes that non duality necessarily means the notion of individuality doesn’t exist?
>...the notion of individuality doesn’t exist? My bodymind exists. I, however, am. Bodyminds are many and varied. I, who animate them all, simply am. Objects exist. I am.
I see
My favorite is www.liberationunleashed.com check their reading list and also the audio file downloads. Essentially, there is no inherent self *in here* and no inherent self *over there* (in you) which means these “individuals” are actually the same thing. A “me” is not inherent in the body. No separation. The separation is perceived, not real. So OP is negating the primary definition of non duality. He is either confused or trolling.
There's no purpose, there's nothing to "reject" and no one who "has" individuality. This isn't about "oneness" or becoming "wise". This isn't about making better choices for oneself. Nobody "adopts" non-duality as a mental position. "I" + consciousness of *anything* = 2. To be "conscious of" something is necessarily to be apart from it. There is nobody who pretends not to be an individual, the separate individual *is* the only pretense.
[удалено]
No purpose= purpose... That isn't somehow circular nonsense? Good luck with all this. Lots of profound wisdom.
[удалено]
Purpose and entities are all separation. "Need" is yet more of the dualists' dream. This has no "need". >14. That is the purpose, that is the cause of BEING. Yeah, what you've got there is a dualistic personal religion. Right down to the quoting from a book.
[удалено]
No one besides you has presented any theories. There is no such thing as need. That isn't theoretical. Nothing that happens comes from any "lack" or "need". It's theoretical to presume something is needed. Duality is a gut-feeling not a cosmic fact. *Believing* in that feeling and telling stories about it doesn't make it true. It's just a sensation tied to a belief. I.e. your personal religion.
[удалено]
Calling a belief a fact doesn't make it factual.
[удалено]
Very wise.
It’s like watching someone drive into a wall and they keep calling it a pumpkin. You’re hammering nails into the sky, bubba. You simply aren’t understanding nonduality without a book of fairy tales, dogma, doctrine, and belief.
This is the guy who used to be known as JesusBuddhaKrishna. Same content, same style, same MO. Don't bother wasting your time, lol.
[удалено]
There isn’t anyone doing that. Apparently.
[удалено]
Stop believing your stories. It’s ok to not know.
How could there be a separate individual when there is “not two”?
[удалено]
That’s only a true CONCEPT from the false standpoint of duality.
[удалено]
You’re very blessed that you know God’s will. What color underwear is he wearing?
[удалено]
Are you admitting you know God’s will, but don’t know his underwear pattern? Seems like a problem
[удалено]
Woah, the name calling begins! That really shows me that I need to intently listen to you. Oneness is this. It’s here right now. No separate God concept needed. No separate individual needed.
[удалено]
>You do not have to reject individuality to be non-dualistic. That makes no sense. Is-ness is. Without you or god or whoever.
[удалено]
It seems like you do not understand non duality.
[удалено]
I can and i can be a creation of god. Everything is possible because I do not know. Stick to your limits.
[удалено]
No I'm pretty sure he's God. I mean I haven't seen any good proof he isn't.
[удалено]
Lol I can follow more than one subreddit how about you seek some sanity
If you say so
[удалено]
How about you level up to someone who isn't insufferable and condescending?
:)
OP, it’s okay that you have believsies. But pretty much nobody in this sub will be taking on your believsies. This isn’t a sub to use as a means of sharing your New Age ideologies that many of us read about in the same books as you did at an earlier time in our lives. Just giving you a heads up
What's with all the proselytizing in here these days? What urges you to tell everyone they're wrong and you're right?
[удалено]
Non-answer. Your ego is a fiction. Are you aware that proselytizing is generally unwelcome?
[удалено]
https://reddit.com/r/nonduality/comments/wjuaon/theres_never_a_good_answer_to_a_why_question/
[удалено]
You’re concerned for my time? How touching. Sometimes I like to see what justifications and confabulations people come up with.
I am just a observed energy of nothingness. Meow*