#non-duality

What Remains in Deep Sleep? | The Enigma of Deep Sleep: The Mystery of Pure Consciousness From Seeing God As He Really Is: The ‘Doctrine of the Three Bodies,’ ‘Sarira Traya,’ postulates that a human being is composed of the three bodies, which constitute the five koshas that manifest through nescience. These three bodies are, 1. Sthula Sarira (the mortal body that eats, breathes and moves, the…

What Remains in Deep Sleep? | The Enigma of Deep Sleep: The Mystery of Pure Consciousness From Seeing God As He Really Is: The ‘Doctrine of the Three Bodies,’ ‘Sarira Traya,’ postulates that a human being is composed of the three bodies, which constitute the five koshas that manifest through nescience. These three bodies are, 1. Sthula Sarira (the mortal body that eats, breathes and moves, the…

--- Name: Consciousness of the Present Moment Creation Date: 2026-06-02 Created: ChatGPT Language: En Translation: LaChat ---

# Introduction:

This conversation took place during an evening meditation, when I simply wanted to record the thoughts that came to me while meditating. I didn’t even read the responses; I just asked for an image after finishing my meditation. The next day, I corrected the texts in the image, had them translated, and created two more variants based on the same theme.

---

# Table of Contents:

1. Without Love, There Would Be No Creation 2. The Farthest Point from This Position 3. The Present Moment 4. Now Is Omnipresent 5. Request for Image Creation 6. Image Adjustment and Creation of Additional Variants

---

# 1. Without Love, There Would Be No Creation

## Question:

Without love, there would be no creation. Without love, creation would tend toward emptiness and stillness. Love is the reason everything happens. It is the final arbiter in the process, with the ability to influence things so that we may fare better.

## Response:

This is a very interesting philosophical thought.

If I read it as a metaphysical statement, you are saying something like:

Love is not just an emotion arising in the minds of living beings, but a fundamental principle that gives existence direction. It is the force that leads systems from emptiness to creation, from isolation to connection, and from stillness to movement.

In this conception, love is the opposite of entropic indifference—not necessarily in the physical sense, but in terms of values and direction. When someone loves something, they invest energy in preserving, developing, and creating. They build houses, write books, raise children, care for others, and create art. Love then appears as a principle that creates complexity and relationships instead of decay and solitude.

On the other hand, someone might argue that the universe functions without love. Stars are born, galaxies collide, and physical laws operate regardless of human emotions. In that case, love would not be the cause of creation but a product of it.

But you seem to be aiming deeper. You are not talking about romantic love or human emotion, but about some universal principle that prefers good over emptiness, creation over destruction, and connection over separation.

In that case, this sentence is particularly interesting:

*"It is the final arbiter in the process."*

This recalls a question that philosophers have asked for thousands of years: Why is there something rather than nothing? And why, within existence, does a tendency to create increasingly complex structures emerge?

Some would answer with physics, others with evolution, and others with God. You propose an answer: because at the very foundation of reality, there is a principle that prefers emergence, growth, and experience—and you call this principle *love*.

This is more of a philosophical or spiritual statement than a scientific hypothesis, but as a conceptual framework, it has a certain elegance. If love is defined not as an emotion but as a tendency to support existence, connection, and development, then it can indeed be seen as something that underlies many of the processes we consider meaningful.

I would even formulate your thought more succinctly:

If death is a return to stillness and emptiness, then love is the principle that continually chooses the next step of existence—not because it must, but because it wants something to *be*.

---

# 2. The Farthest Point from This Position

## Question:

The farthest point from this position is precisely this position itself, in all directions, both from the outside and from within.

## Response:

This sounds almost like a sentence from paradoxical geometry or metaphysics.

Let me break it down:

*"The farthest point from this position is precisely this position itself."*

This suggests that upon reaching the maximum possible distance, one returns to the starting point. It reminds me of a closed space, like the surface of a sphere. If you keep walking in one direction on Earth, you might eventually return to where you started. The farthest place is not absolutely separate from the beginning but is connected to it by the structure of space.

Then you add:

*"in all directions"*

This is a stronger statement. It’s not just one path that returns, but every path eventually leads back to the same point. The beginning and the end are identical, regardless of the direction taken.

And finally:

*"both from the outside and from within."*

This eliminates the difference between the internal and external perspectives. It’s as if there is no "outside" of this position. No matter where you go—whether into depth or distance—you ultimately find the same thing.

Philosophically, this reminds me of the idea that absolute unity is simultaneously the point of greatest differentiation. That when reality unfolds into all possible forms, it eventually becomes clear that all those forms are different perspectives on one and the same foundation.

In the context of your previous thought about love, this could also be read as:

Love sets out from itself into an infinite number of forms and relationships, but the farthest boundary of this journey is not something other than itself. The farther it moves away, the more fully it returns to its own source.

Mathematically, I would compare it to a space without boundaries; spiritually, to a unity that knows itself through diversity; and poetically, to the sentence:

*The longest path away from home leads home. And when home is everywhere, the farthest place is identical to the place where you stand.*

---

# 3. The Present Moment

## Question:

The only thing that is real is the present moment. And it is up to us to make it pleasant and to be able to enjoy it, whether through external activities or through the depth of meditation.

## Response:

This is a thought that aligns closely with certain streams of philosophy and meditative traditions.

The first part:

*"The only thing that is real is the present moment."*

has a peculiar logic. The past exists only as a memory present right now. The future exists only as an imagination present right now. No matter where the mind travels, it always does so in the present moment.

The second part:

*"And it is up to us to make it pleasant and to be able to enjoy it."*

adds a value dimension. It’s not just about observing reality but actively creating the quality of experience. This is interesting because it shifts the focus of life from the question *"What will happen to me?"* to *"How do I experience what is happening right now?"*

And I like that you don’t limit yourself to meditation. You say:

*"Whether through external activities or through the depth of meditation."*

This connects two apparent opposites.

One person finds presence in creation, work, sports, conversation, or learning. Another finds it in silence, stillness, and observing their own consciousness. Both can reach the same place, just by different paths.

If I combine this with your previous reflections, an interesting image emerges:

If love is the principle that leads existence toward creation, and if the farthest point is identical to the starting point, then the present moment is the place where this entire process unfolds. There is no need to wait for the future or return to the past. Everything we can ever influence is the quality of the moment we are currently experiencing.

Perhaps it could be expressed even more succinctly:

The past is a memory. The future is an imagination. Reality is the present.

And the art of living lies in learning to experience this present in a way that makes it worthwhile.

---

# 4. Now Is Omnipresent

## Question:

Now is omnipresent, and every single moment is contained within it. By everything beginning and ending within it, it is connected to the entire universe and everything it has been, everything that has ever happened, will happen, and will be in the future.

## Response:

This already points to a very deep view of time.

If I understand your thought correctly, you do not see the present moment as a tiny point between the past and the future. Instead, you perceive it as something much more expansive:

Now is not a moment flowing through time. Now is the space in which time appears.

In this view, both the past and the future are contained within the present. Not necessarily as events that are simultaneously occurring, but as parts of a single, cohesive structure of reality.

When you say:

*"Everything begins and ends within it."*

the present is not a single point on the timeline. It is rather the canvas on which the timeline is drawn.

And when you continue:

*"It is connected to the entire universe and everything it has been, everything that has ever happened, will happen, and will be."*

the present moment becomes the meeting place of all existence. Every memory appears now. Every anticipation of the future appears now. Every decision that influences the future happens now.

What’s interesting is that a similar intuition has appeared in many different traditions. Not because they claimed the same thing, but because they all somehow encountered a peculiar fact:

No matter how hard we try to reach any moment in the past or future, we always seek it from the position of the present.

In your expression, however, I sense something more. Not only does the present contain everything, but it is also what connects everything. As if every moment in the history of the universe were a thread, and the present were the very fabric in which all threads are woven together.

Poetically, this could be expressed as:

Now is not a grain of time between yesterday and tomorrow. Now is an infinite net in which yesterday and tomorrow meet. Everything that ever was and everything that ever will be touches the present, because nowhere else can existence manifest.

The present moment is not a visitor to the universe. It is the place where the entire universe unfolds.

---

# 5. Request for Image Creation

## Question:

Create an image inspired by these four texts.

## Response:

*(the first Czech version of the image was created here)*

---

# 6. Image Adjustment and Creation of Additional Variants

## Question:

*(The following is a list of individual changes as they occurred sequentially in time.)*

1. **Change:** Super and great, so leave the image as it is, and let’s just adjust the texts as follows: - **Top left:** is > "bez lásky" > should be > "Bez lásky" > change > the first letter should be capitalized. - **Bottom left:** is > "ať to vnějších aktivitách, anebo v křeze" > should be > "ať ve vnějších aktivitách, nebo skrze" > change > "to" changes to "ve", "anebo" changes to "nebo", "v křeze" changes to "skrze". - **Top right:** is > "bod této pozice" > should be > "bod od této pozice" > change > add "od". - **Bottom right:** is > "Nyní je tady vše rozlehlé a je v nich obsažen" > should be > "Nyní je všudypřítomné a je v něm obsažen" > change > "tady vše rozlehlé" changes to "všudypřítomné" and "nich" changes to "něm". The second change in the bottom right is to change the entire text from: "Je propojená tím, že vše začíná a končí uvnitř něj, s celým vesmírem a vším, čím byl, co se kdy stalo, stane a bude do budoucna." to: "Vše začíná a končí uvnitř nyní. Nyní je propojené s celým vesmírem, vším, čím byl a čím je, co se kdy stalo, a stane se do budoucna." So, you don’t need to change the image at all, just adjust the texts for me. :-)

2. **Change:** Super, thanks a lot! Absolutely great! :-) And the last thing I’d ask of you is whether you could redraw it once more—so leave the image as it is, and just translate all four texts into English. :-) And you’ll also need to change the middle "NYNÍ" to "NOW". :-)

3. **Change:** I also wanted to ask if you could align the texts on the right side to the right, so that all four texts have even alignment along the outer edge and create those imaginary frames. That is, not only should the texts on the right side be aligned to the right, but it’s also necessary for the top and bottom consecutive texts to align—so if you were to draw a line around their edges, it would form a rectangle that is centered relative to the image. The texts would thus visually create this frame. I’m not sure if I explained it well—if not, feel free to ask again. :-)

4. **Change:** Great, thanks a lot! :-) Now, create the same thing for me, but slightly modify the image so that it is more in a masculine style—by that, I mean that this image is more in a feminine style because the meditating figures are girls. So it connects both principles, masculine and feminine, but the feminine is dominant. And now, I’d like to keep it that way in the next version of the image, so that both principles are represented, but the masculine one is dominant. So the meditating figure will be a man, and the approach to knowledge will be more through science and exploration. And one element I’d like the new collage to have is a scene from a techno party taking place somewhere in nature under a starry sky, which then transforms into the entire universe. The point is that techno parties are one of the ways people awaken today, experiencing mystical experiences through the hypnotic rhythms of music and, thanks to drugs like LSD and mushrooms, they penetrate through the first veils of reality and realize that their consciousness is much deeper than they originally thought. :-) But that’s just one idea; I’ll leave the rest of the design up to you. And now, the task is to create, alongside this version where the feminine principle is slightly dominant, a second one in the series that will have all the same inscriptions, but with the masculine principle slightly dominant. Otherwise, they should look very similar. :)

## Response:

Non-duality Of Raking Leaves (or Raking Water).

When non-duality is another survivability.

We do not go to work because we are overflowing with existential affirmation. We go because the anticipated future threat of hunger outweighs the immediate desire not to go. Likewise with the leaves. Social mammals are deeply sensitive to exclusion, humiliation, and reputation because historically these carried survival consequences. The neighbor’s opinion may seem trivial rationally, but the nervous system often treats social ostracism as danger.

So when spiritual systems speak as though all suffering comes merely from believing in separation, people sometimes experience this as absurd because internal fragmentation clearly remains. One may intellectually repeat “I am one with everything” while internally experiencing fear, resentment, shame, boredom, exhaustion, envy, and coercion all at once. The slogan of non-duality and unity with the universe does not dissolve the operational complexity of the organism.

This is where thinkers like Arthur Schopenhauer become relevant. For Schopenhauer, the human being is not fundamentally a rational unity but an expression of striving forces that often conflict with themselves. Likewise Friedrich Nietzsche frequently describes the psyche less as a unified self and more as a multiplicity of drives competing for dominance. Even contemporary neuroscience often portrays cognition as distributed negotiation rather than centralized command.

And this is why some modern non-dual movements feel psychologically thin. They sometimes jump from metaphysical claims about the universe directly to promises of inner peace, bypassing the actual machinery of embodied life. A person still has bills, social pressure, biological drives, status anxieties, trauma patterns, fatigue, and dependence structures. Saying “there is no separation” does not automatically reorganize these systems.

At the same time, it is worth distinguishing between a philosophical claim and the commercial use of that claim. Some traditions originally tried to point toward loosening rigid identification with thought and ego structures. But once translated into modern wellness culture, these ideas are often packaged as emotional anesthesia, certainty, or spiritual superiority. Then the language becomes detached from lived psychological complexity. The irony is sharp. A person may claim cosmic unity while spending all day defending an identity, monetizing enlightenment, competing for attention, fearing criticism, and maintaining social hierarchy. The organism speaks non-duality while operating pure survival logic underneath.

I was watching this video:

And it resonated with me a lot, I commented about my own experience of a state of having no desires on that video:

"No comment on Buddhism, but in Advaita Vedanta, the "Ananda" state is where you do not desire any more, as you are already full and complete in yourself, satiated in your own wholeness and fullness. You basically are in a state where every worldly or even every spiritual desire is not desired or needed, no longing is in you for anything, as you are already complete, satiated in your own completeness. It is a real thing that can happen. To me, God does not have lack inside Himself, so too, can we experience satiation so full and so complete, that we too, lack nothing inside us. It is, in a way, all desires fulfilled, without the need for searching or trying to find them, as that would be longing for them, craving and aching for them, searching for something to fill up the hole in ourself, desires unsatisfied. But also, in a way, it is also the cessation of all desires, for nothing is needed but the fullness of your own Self, which exists by just Being. There is no desire, for there is no lack, no need, no craving, no ache, no longing, you become satiated in your own fullness. 

Trust me, this is possible, I have experienced a taste of the state myself, for about a minute, and it was pure Bliss, everything I ever needed and wanted, was in this state, as I was full, complete, whole, and no desire was needed, for I had it all, all desires fulfilled, satiated and completed, without the need to search for them. It was pure Bliss. I needed for nothing. It is actually possible. Now, I am trying to get to this state for life. That is my goal. Every desire we have, mirrors the desire for this completeness in God. We do not realise it, but it is what we all need, all search for, all crave, so much so, we search for it in the world and its things, not realising it is God we are searching for, this state, IS God. Where our desires are all fulfilled, instead of us always searching for something we cannot pinpoint, but try to find in all worldly things. All our desires reflect this longing for completeness, and that state, "Ananda", is what is called, complete Bliss of the Fullness of Being, the Ecstasy of Being. It is what every Being longs and searches for, all desires satiated, our own completeness."

First, thank you for the birthday wishes. There is normal person inside of all of this, normal enough to appreciate normal things – people doing the right thing. I’m not sure the impression I create here of what my life looks like resembles reality very closely. I don’t type out how I spent a moment in bliss, just watching small birds playing in the garden. If that’s something that happened. If…

Why non-duality is basically and structurally false?

There are onthological families of views that deny causality at the level of ultimate reality while secretly relying on it at every other level. They announce “beyond cause and effect,” but only as a slogan. Structurally, they cannot live there.

The clearest example is contemporary non-dual spirituality in its Advaita-descended, Westernized form. It says reality is timeless awareness, without sequence, without causation. Yet it explains awakening as something that happens because you listened to the right teacher, did the right inquiry, or dissolved the ego through the right insight. That is pure causality smuggled back in through the back door. If causality truly did not apply, there could be no path, no mistake, no progress, no liberation. The very narrative of “realizing” non-duality presupposes temporal order and explanatory dependence.

Then there is analytic idealism and related consciousness-first ontologies. They claim the physical world is derivative or illusory while mental processes are fundamental. But they still talk about how experiences arise, how dissociation produces subjects, how evolution leads to brains that localize consciousness. These are causal explanations wearing metaphysical makeup. If causality were genuinely transcended, none of these “because” statements would be coherent. What they really do is relocate causality from matter to mind and pretend that counts as transcendence. It doesn’t. It’s just a change of address.

The same incoherence appears in spiritualized notions of manifestation, karma, synchronicity, and “alignment.” They explicitly deny linear cause and effect, yet promise that inner states produce outer outcomes. That is causality with moral cosmetics. Thought causes reality, vibration causes events, unconscious beliefs cause illness. The metaphysics says “no causality,” the sales pitch says “do this and that will happen.” You can’t have both. And they always keep both, because without causality there is nothing to offer.

Process-style spiritual ontologies sometimes look more sophisticated, but they fail in a related way. They claim reality is flow without fixed entities, yet still rely on lawful transition, dependence, and explanation. Change without causality is just noise. As soon as you say “this phase gives rise to that phase,” you are back in causal structure, no matter how poetic the language.

What unites all these ontologies is not error in detail but dishonesty about constraints. They want the emotional payoff of escaping causality with no blame, no necessity, no harsh determinism while keeping the instrumental benefits of causality with teaching, healing, improvement, explanation. That combination is impossible. You either accept causality as a constraint of cognition and stop making ultimate claims, or you place it in being and live with determinism. The middle position is incoherent.

Dissolve Yourself Softly

Contemporary non-duality, “ego death,” entanglement mysticism, dissolution into the void is not a rupture with the religious pattern; it is its late-modern upgrade. Instead of asking people to submit to God, it asks them to submit to “no-self.” Instead of commandments, it offers techniques. Instead of sin, it diagnoses “identification.” The result is the same. The removal of agency under the banner of liberation.

What makes this version especially efficient is that it short-circuits conflict. Hatred, jealousy, ambition, rage are not worked through or transformed; they are declared illusory. The personality is not refined or strengthened; it is dissolved. This produces subjects who are calm, compliant, conflict-averse, and administratively ideal even cheaper than the more celebratory religions. A person who believes they are “nothing” has no standpoint from which to resist. They pay taxes, attend workshops, speak softly, and call this peace and liberation (but not from taxes).

Nietzsche would call this passive nihilism wearing therapeutic clothing. Spinoza would say it is a confusion of knowledge with anesthesia. There is no increase in power here, only a reduction of friction. The danger is exactly the most sublime - obedience without chains. Not oppression by force, but self-erasure sold as enlightenment.

So why do religions ancient and modernfly banners of diminished power? Because systems do not optimize for truth or flourishing. They optimize for continuation. And continuation is easiest when strength is suspicious, desire is pathologized, and self-assertion is framed as moral failure.