Thomas Razzeto

@Serotoninluv [All of this is just my opinion and I celebrate the fact that everyOne gets to choose what they want to believe and how they want to live their life. Hooray for that!] Regarding “the person watching the person watching the person.” Well, here is how I would describe it. I am aware of all the objects in the world from the perspective of the person that I seem to be. As I reflect on this with my mind, I become aware of the thought that I am aware. But this is not really “the person watching the person.” Instead, it is the person reflecting on being aware via the powers of the mind. I do not perceive two persons. Now I can then think about the fact that I am thinking about this, and that can be repeated for as many layers as I want. So I am making a distinction between perceiving a thought and perceiving a person. But to backup a bit to a bigger picture, I often talk about the idea that you exist fundamentally as pure awareness. Sure, it seems like you exist fundamentally as a person, but that is just a deceptive experience. There is a person, of course, but it is not fundamental who or what you are, although it is part of what you are in a nonfundamental way. In a nonfundamental way, you are the totality of created reality. I have essays on my website that go into all of this in more detail. Here are links to two of them: The Loving Heart of Enlightenment A summary overview of spiritual awakening in simple, clear English https://www.infinitelymystical.com/essays/the-loving-heart-of-enlightenment.html 3-pages Anatta – “Not Self” Rather Than “No Self” https://www.infinitelymystical.com/essays/anatta.html 3-pages Perhaps these will be of interest to you. In truth, I honor your divine nature Thomas Razzeto

@Joseph Maynor @Leo Gura [All of this is just my opinion and I celebrate the fact that everyOne gets to choose what they want to believe and how they want to live their life. Hooray for that!] What is unreal Okay, let’s start with the easy one: What is unreal? I like to use an example that is meant to humorous. I put it on the table because it makes a good point and perhaps the humor will help you remember it as a good example. Here it is: The pink elephant in your pocket is unreal. It does not exist in any way whatsoever. Yes, of course you are now thinking about a pink elephant in your pocket but let’s be clear. That thought now exists as a thought alone and still there is no pink elephant in your pocket. Very simple. An illusion is something that exists in a deceptive way An illusion is something that exists in a deceptive way. So in order for something to exist as an illusion, it has to both 1) exist and 2) exist in a way that points to an idea which is false. The sun seems to travel across the sky throughout the day. And yet the true reality of the situation is that virtually all of that apparent motion is caused by the earth spinning on its axis. So the idea that it is the motion of the sun that is giving rise to the apparent motion we witness is false. And here is an important point: All good illusions are persistent. Even when we discover the true nature of the reality at hand, it still seems like the false idea is true. So even though we understand the spinning of the earth, it still seems as if the sun moves across the sky. And I think it is perfectly okay to talk as if that is the case. For example, it is fine to ask you if you saw the sunset yesterday, even though that implies that it is the sun that is moving (setting). We are just speaking from the perspective of our own experience, and this is valid and the communication is clear. We all know what we mean. But notice how frequently people use the word illusion and then later reveal that they think it is something that does not exist in any way whatsoever. This often happens when people talk about time. They might say something like “Time is an illusion,” and then a minute or two later, they will add “Well, since time does not exist we shouldn’t worry about it” (or whatever). See the slip-up? That is not the correct use of the word “illusion.” Ordinarily I am relaxed about how people speak but for our purpose in this example, there is great benefit in being more precise. A similar thing happens with dreams and movies. You hear people say “Oh, thank God it wasn’t real; it was just a dream.” Or “That was just a movie; it wasn’t real.” But we should really say that it was real as a dream or it was real as a movie. Yes, a movie exists as a fabricated fictional story. So it is real as fiction; it exists as fiction. If the movie did not exist, we could not watch it. Likewise, a dream is certainly real. It is experientially real for the person witnessing it. Now we all know that movies and dreams are not real in the same way that our ordinary reality is real. If the movie is about a murder, the real police will not show up and arrest the actor since no one was really killed. It was just an act of pretending. And yet that act still exists as an act of pretending. So the movie can be said to exist “one level down,” so to speak. It is just a pretending and all the fabricated roles can be dropped at any time. They are nonessential to the existence of the actors and actresses. But those roles are essential to the movie, of course. When we “buy into” the movie as we watch it or if we are asleep and dreaming without realizing it is a dream, the movie and dream are tricking us into believing that they are “more real” than they actually are, so to speak. Or more correctly, we are not recognizing that they are real as a movie and as a dream. God and creation - Going a little deeper Speaking of acting, God comes forward as all of creation in a way that is very similar to an actor coming forward as a character. I use this metaphor a lot, as you will see in a minute. I should start this section with some of my opinions, some of my definitions. God is Source-Awareness. God is not an object or a thing and cannot be perceived in any way whatsoever. This Awareness perceives but it cannot be perceived. God has two capacities: the capacity to perceive and the capacity to create what it perceives. Hence the term Source-Awareness. And this is what you are fundamentally. This is all you are fundamentally. And yet there’s more to what you are – but none of that is essential to what you are as pure Awareness. Through the miracle of creation, this formless Awareness paradoxically arises as the form we see all around us. And this is what you are in a nonfundamental way. To help us understand this point a little better, we can use the metaphor of the actor and the character. When the actor comes forward as the character, they are one. That’s an important point. And yet, the character is not fundamentally who the actor really is. The character is not essential to the actor since the actor can drop the role of the character at any time. Again, the actor arising as the character is very much like God arising as creation so I hope you enjoy pondering this metaphor. Source-Awareness is real (often stated as Real) and yet it cannot be experienced. But it is what you truly are. You can know it because you are it, not because you experience it. All of creation is experientially real and yet it is a fabrication, a construction, and nonessential to what you are as Source-Awareness. I like to say that creation exists “one level down” from the non-experiential Reality of Source-Awareness. The world can be said to be an illusion since it seems to exist all on its own. And yet if it were not for the unseen Creator permeating it and giving it substance, it would not exist. This is why you hear some Hindu teachers say that the world as world is unreal and yet world as God (Brahman) is real. If you think of the world as existing all on its own, you entertain a false idea. But if you think that God comes forward as the world, you entertain a true idea. (By the way, sometimes you hear a similar statement that says that the world is an illusion, rather than "unreal," and I think this is clearer.) Now, not only is all of creation an illusion, the person you appear to be is also an illusion. Yes, of course, the person exists but it is not the separate, mortal, sentient, physical being that it appears to be. That is the false idea pointed to by our common daily experience. You exist fundamentally as pure awareness, as Source-Awareness. This is your True Self. It seems to me that the word (or concept) of nonfundamental existence (or nonessential existence) is sometimes translated as "unreal" and I think this can lead to a fair amount of confusion. I like to say: Your fundamental identity is Source-Awareness, the one, uncreated, formless Divine Essence. Your nonfundamental identity is the totality of created reality. This is what you are through the process of creation. And your functional identity is the person you appear to be. All of this is thoroughly divine. God is infinitely intimate with all of creation. It is God who is arising as everyOne and it is God who is doing everything. How wondrous! I have essays on my website that go into all of this in more detail. Here are links to two of them: The Loving Heart of Enlightenment A summary overview of spiritual awakening in simple, clear English https://www.infinitelymystical.com/essays/the-loving-heart-of-enlightenment.html 3-pages Anatta – “Not Self” Rather Than “No Self” https://www.infinitelymystical.com/essays/anatta.html 3-pages Take your time with this material. While it is not complicated, it is much different from the way things seem to be and it takes a while for it to sink in both cognitively and intuitively. In my opinion, it can take lifetimes for this wisdom to come alive within your soul in its deepest intuitive form. So no rush and no worries. Thanks for reading this long post. In truth, I honor your divine nature Thomas Razzeto

Hello Joseph. This talk about what is real and what is not real can be pretty confusing. But it doesn’t have to be. One “mistake” that some people make is thinking that an illusion is something that is not real, as in “no reality to it at all.” But an illusion is something that exists in a deceptive way. So it has to exist. The person is an illusion. It exists in a deceptive way. Furthermore, once you wake up, you realize that you do not exist fundamentally as the person. So the person is both an illusion and not your true, fundamental self. I use this word “fundamental” to pointing to what you are when everything that is not essential to your true self is stripped away. You know you exist. This is self-evident. So the real question is “What is it that you exist as?” I offer the idea that you exist fundamentally as pure awareness. But I also offer the idea that you exist in a non-fundamental way as all of creation. This is like an actor and the character. When the actor arises as the character, they are one. When you look into the eyes of the character, you are looking directly into the eyes of the actor. They are one. But the character is not fundamental who the actor really is. I talk about this more in the following two essays: The Loving Heart of Enlightenment http://infinitelymystical.com/essays/the-loving-heart-of-enlightenment.html Anatta – Not Self Rather then No Self http://infinitelymystical.com/essays/anatta.html Perhaps you will find some of this helpful. In truth, I honor your divine nature. - Thomas Razzeto

Everything I offer here is just my opinion. Although there is no universally accepted definition of enlightenment, here are the two key criteria that I use: 1) Being fully awake to the correct understanding of your True Self as this One Divine Source-Awareness, the One Self that arises as all apparent selves and 2) Being completely free from all selfish or self-centered tendencies. These two aspects work together to automatically produce the unhindered flow of all the divine virtues such as loving kindness, compassion, peace, humility, generosity, patience, and the divine bliss that holds all human emotions. In this way, your personal consciousness (your soul) becomes a well-tuned instrument in the hands of God, sharing the fruit of enlightenment with everyOne, including yourself. So we see that being fully awake and being completely free leads to being entirely available for the sharing of the One Love of God, without any fear at all. You can read more in my 8-page essay: What Is Enlightenment? http://infinitelymystical.com/essays/what-is-enlightenment.html But perhaps a better place to start would be here: The Loving Heart of Enlightenment http://infinitelymystical.com/essays/the-loving-heart-of-enlightenment.html

@The Monk Hi. I won't go into the question about who I think is enlightened but I will offer this essay: What Is Enlightenment? http://infinitelymystical.com/essays/what-is-enlightenment.html. Also, you mentioned listening, rather than reading. My mentor is Timothy Conway and I have made over 75 hours worth of audio recordings of some of his satsangs, all available for free here: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0B63GUZPUWajeUjdyZXgxa3hKV2s. You may enjoy his website: http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/ or my website: http://infinitelymystical.com/ Perhaps this might be a good place to start, my 3-page essay: The Loving Heart of Enlightenment. This is an overview of spiritual awakening in simple, clear English: http://infinitelymystical.com/essays/the-loving-heart-of-enlightenment.html