ZD's Mistake

"Levels" are indeed of the experiential, relative realm. If there is an experience of levels, that experience itself is not being imagined....you experience what you experience. The world of distinction, or "relative" experience does not equal actual "duality"...and so long as that is seen, there is no need to deny or denigrate experiential content as being "purely imaginary/not actually appearing."





No. Again, this is where you go wrong ZD. Defined objects/things DO appear...you are not imagining that relatively speaking, experientially speaking that there is a me and a you...that there is a defined, appearing boundary between a lamp and the desk it sits upon. The very fact you can denote a lamp from the desk speaks to the appearance of distinction/boundary. If not for an appearance of distinction, you'd not be able to distinguish a lamp from a desk. Apparent boundary/distinction does appear.....what does not appear, but mind "imagines" is appearing, is "fundamental/actual separation"....also known as: independent, fundamental separate "existence" in it's own right.




Yes. There are no "inherently existent".....fundamental/existential divisions/separation between apparent distinct objects. That though does not negate or deny that distinction does appear and is an elemental facet of the experiential realm. Without distinction, there can be no experience.




False. Again, this is the point where you go wrong. You are denying that distinction and boundaries/limitation does appear and is an integral facet of the experiential/relative realm. When you declare appearing boundaries/distinction to be purely, imagined only....you declare apparent/relative distinction itself to be not so.

You are so clearly, erroneously conflating relative, apparent distinction with fundamental/existential separation. The two are not the same. Relative distinction does not need to dissolve in order for the Truth of fundamental separation to dissolve. The mistake was in erroneously conflating the two...THAT IS the mistake of imagined separation. You have taken the appearance of distinction and placed it under the umbrella of "not so." You are denying relative, experiential content.

The world of distinction does not need to dissolve in order to realize fundamental Oneness. Your ontology requires the dissolution/negation of apparent boundaries that allow you to make distinctions such as the one between a lamp and a desk, in order to arrive at the Truth of Oneness. Distinction never was and never will be the obscuring factor. Distinction need not disappear for the Truth of fundamental Oneness to shine through. The relatively experienced lamp that is distinct from the desk in no way threatens the Absolute Truth of fundamental Oneness.

You are vilify and denying relative distinction as you insist it is imagined.




No. To use language to communicate, to represent abstractions and symbols, does NOT require one to "imagine fundamental/actual separation." The invoking of distinction is not the same as imagining, an existent, fundamental separation. Abstractions and symbols and the language itself we use to talk about life experience...about the world, involves distinction....apparent boundary, but apparent distinction/boundary, is not the enemy. It's only when that apparent distinction is mistaken for actual, fundamental boundary/inherent existence in it's own right, that the mistake of imagined separation enters in.





Obviously, if one is using language to point, the Truth which defies full capture by those words "can" be talked about. If there was no way at all to "talk about" Truth, there'd be no convos at all about it. As you often do, you've over-stated things here.




You've yet to realize that there is no "WHAT" that "comprises/infuses" every-thing....every-one. Appearance arises within/to Awareness, no fundamental, actual separation, and THIS is simply a pointer to the fundamental singularity of that ground and it's expressions.

When you invoke a substance/what/some-thing that this IS, that then infuses/makes up the apparent world and all it's apparent things, in that, you are invoking fundamental separation.....you have falsely attributed quality/property (a what/some-thing/substance) to THIS, and then you posit all apparent things as being "made of" that substance.

You are erroneously throwing experiential Levels/thingness boundary/distinction, under the same umbrella as fundamental separation...which is entirely imaginary...false.

Separation may indeed be experienced, but it's entirely false/imaginary...distinction gets mistaken for fundamental separation. That's the mistake. Apparent things/objects are not the problem. Imagining that they represent actual, fundamental, inherent existence of those objects/things, IS. Distinct objects appearing, never were the problem....imagining their distinction to be "existential/fundamental/actual" was/is.




It is in fact intellect that has you dividing THIS into two parts....the existential and the apparent, as you then declare THIS to "infuse itself" into body/minds/objects.

If your THIS does not include the realm of experiential content/distinction/things/objects, then you are invoking and reifying fundamental separation. The inclusion of apparent distinction does not equal the dissolving/disappearance of apparent distinction. Apparent distinction arises unproblematically alongside Awareness as ground, so long as it's not mistaken for having it's own inherent existence.

Your supposed, Absolute, realized knowing that each appearing object/thing is 'alive,' conscious, having it's own, discrete, unique experience, also falls under that category. You distinguish a rock, and then somehow know for Absolute certain that it is conscious, alive and having a "discrete/unique" experience..discrete perceptions. I wonder if you are able to see the projection and intellect involved in that knowledge?



Looking for visual, experiential boundaries to try to expose the illusion/delusion is looking for Truth in all the wrong places. Visual, experiential, apparent boundaries are not what's being referenced by the pointer "no separation." Distinction/boundaries will continue to appear even after fundamental separation has been seen through.

There may be a few quotes produced by AI in that thread that could be termed actual 'pointers,' but most are conceptualizations that indicate a mind-based view about Nonduality. And while pointers within Nonduality teachings could be termed to be attempts to 'lead' the seeker to the ultimate, non-conceptual 'non-place' where the pointer is pointing to, the seeking/pursuing itself is not actually 'causal' as you suggest when you say that pursuing a pointer 'likely leads to' significant realizations.

The moment we begin to set up 'odds' like that, to suggest the shift that is SR is more or even less likely, is the moment we enter into the delusion of actual causality within the dream. Wake up and it's clear, there is no such thing.

There are no guaranteed paths to SR....which also means there are no paths taken that make it 'more' likely....no paths taken that make it 'less' likely. SR if/when it happens, is entirely acausal....not under the control of the person.

& all this talk about multiple realizations; When it comes to waking up, there is really one fundamental, base realization (seeing thorugh) and that equals the absence of imagined separation.....absence of the imagined SVP. It's in that absence that Truth is unveiled and now, shines through.