Search the Community

You are the spirit of light, but because the spirit is impersonal, there is no you and you are everything and everyone. Spirit gets bored and wants to know itself. It manifests its hearth into Maya and becomes differentiated into souls, sparks of light. Which reincarnates by karmic activity. This karmic activities create personalities that we live in physical life. We/you/me are the impersonal spirit, experiencing the illusion of differintation by emanating as souls/sparks through reincarnation. You are both the impersonal spirit and the reincarnating soul at the same time.

In Talks on Beelzebub's Tales, Bennett distinguishes four types of suffering - Unnecessary Suffering, Unavoidable Suffering, Voluntary Suffering and Intentional Suffering. Lets have a look at each of these to see if they can help our understanding: The first is Unnecessary Suffering. This would be the type of suffering that we incur because of our unreasonable attitudes and expectations towards others, from our ill-will, hatred and rejection of others, from doubt, possessiveness, arrogance and self pity. In other words, suffering arising from our self-importance. The second is Unavoidable Suffering. This would be the type of suffering that comes to us by accident or from events beyond our control, such as interpersonal conflicts, war, disaster, disease or death. Third, we have Voluntary Suffering. This would be the type of suffering that we take upon ourselves in order to accomplish a personal aim, such as an athlete who disciplines himself to win a race, or a student who labours to get good grades. And finally we have Intentional Suffering. According to Bennett, this would be the kind of suffering that we take upon ourselves in order to accomplish an impersonal or altruistic goal, one that is directed more towards service to others or to the Work, and not for any personal gain. Bennett assumes that this is what Gurdjieff meant by Intentional Suffering. From an article on the second Conscious Shock https://www.endlesssearch.co.uk/philo_is_talk_ae2005.htm

@Schahin There are impersonal levels of God’s consciousness that have predetermined literally every event in existence, at least in our universe and potentially just up until a certain point in the cosmic evolution.

I done hardcore self inqury for about 6 7 months and i am pure witness of body mind, pure sky of awarness hapiness and love. I became aware of awarness tnx to 24 h self inquiry and rupert spira's guided meditations. Its not little personal body - mind that knows this its impersonal consciousness unchanging without location, attributes Also tnx to Leo for his awesome clear and beutifully explanatuon of self inquiry ??

Survival dominates your life. Universal Love can be counter-productive to your survival. But also it's not so elusive. You love certain stuff all day long. You go to lunch and you love it. You jerk off and you love it. You watch Netflix and you love. You see a sunset and you love it. Your dog licks your face and you love it. You take a big shit and you love it. You earn some money and you love it. You crash on the couch after a long day and you love it. You read some profound book and you love it. You take a hot shower and your body loves it. If your life didn't have love in it, you would kill yourself pretty soon. What is the universe doing as a whole? Forget about individual people or atoms. What is the ENTIRE thing up to? Is it just a random mess of stuff? No! It's doing something intelligent. Consider the possibility that what it's doing is maximizing the expression of metaphysical love. If this were true, you can see how the movement of every atom would contribute to that ultimate goal in the same way that every atom in your computer's hard drive is contributing to the function of the hard drive storing data. The materialist paradigm goes very deep. I think many people just assume that reality cannot be loving because it must be neutral or empty or mechanical and impersonal. Love is a distinct awakening that one must have. Some people, especially masculine men who tend to skew towards autistic may have a limited ability to realize love. Many men have closed hearts or avoid emotional expressiveness. For example, I'm not sure if a clinical psychopath can realize Love. My guess is he can, but he's just not very likely to. Ralston's style is very reductionistic, clinical, masculine. It's that classic sort of Zen style. But this is only one style of spirituality. It's not Truth per se. It's a style. It's one expression of Truth. But honestly I don't know why he doesn't get it. That's a good question that requires some scientific research.

Love is simply what is. If you are a serious student of spiritual texts and teachings, you know that the best of them talk about love. It has nothing to do with fireworks or psychedelics. Psychedelics simply show you your deepest nature -- if you have the courage to look at yourself in your rawest form. The reason some of guys have a hard time buying this whole love business it because you're still thinking of reality from the materialist paradigm. This paradigm can extremely subtle, such that even people who have an awakening or two -- such as Sam Harris -- still have not transcended it. According to materialism, the universe must be neutral, impersonal, and devoid of any sentimentality. This is a hyper-logical, hyper-masculine, reductionistic way of understanding reality. And it is untrue. Consciousness is Love. It is not dumb matter or energy or even "simply what is". What is, is LOVE! And why it is, is LOVE! Be careful not to underestimate God's goodness. That is the key mistake here. God is not neutral as you might assume.

? I think we're talking about the same thing. After all, all of those terms (authentic self, ego, highly evolved ego) refer to God, only in various disguises. I think you're saying that God is also personal. In that case, I agree. Because it's not possible to separate the personal from the impersonal. That sounds more like evolution/growth/giving birth than suffering And what comes next after freedom? I suspect that there's a subtle form of resistance to desire in the previous paragraph. I suppose it's the same form of resistance to embracing being an ego. Without resistance, all that remains is freedom. Even resistance, if any, becomes freedom. That's liberation I love you too ❤️? (I hope it doesn't sound awkward lol ?) Egos are beautiful! Aren't they? Whether mature or juvenile. They're your creation. They're perfect! ..... @Leo Gura You made me rewrite this post. Thanks a lot ? But yeah, I think your maps are way better than other maps, as long as they're combined together ?

@InDeep “Teaching” is just one way of describing it. Every approach or pointer will have limitations and won’t seem useful from another perspective. From one perspective, to “teach” suggests a hierarchy. From that perspective, there are limitations. I often take views from various levels and see how different evils are integrated. For example, atoms compose molecules which compose cells which compose tissues which compose systems which compose an organism which composes a population. I use examples like this many times and they have great value in certain contexts. When we say “levels” here, that can be interpreted as being superior. A “higher” level is superior to a “lower” level. When we say a cell is at a higher level than a molecule, this is for convenience. “Superiority” is not necessarily inherent to the model. Similarly, we could interpret “teacher” as being “higher” than a student. Yet that is not inherently so. These are add ins. This intention can be present in some contexts, yet not in other contexts. I could talk about “levels” of consciousness in a context of superiority and I could talk about “levels” without a context of superiority. I like the imagery you use, yet no one model or imagery is complete. If SD is a whole, there are no levels. There is no levels to move up. From a perspective, “moving up” is similar to “build”. If a cell is whole, there are no levels to “move up”. Atoms are not at a lower level than molecules at a lower level than the cell. It is certainly useful to build a model of atoms-> molecules -> cell. Moving up levels is similar to build. Atoms build molecules which build cells. We could say the cell is both one whole and contains parts which we can organize into levels. In terms of “listening” to each other, that has value in some contexts as you mentioned. Yet is not very helpful in other contexts. This is were development, expansion and “teaching” comes into play. For example, Blue is oriented toward binary thinking. Either / Or. In some contexts, this is useful. Yet in other contexts, it’s not useful. My mom is blue and would see someone as a racist or a non-racist. I understand this simple binary construct and it is useful in certain, yet not in others. In another context, people are not simply racist or non-racist. There are degrees of racism. Someone can be strongly racist or mildly racist. As well, everyone has subconscious biases regarding race. In this sense, we all have components of racism. As well, some might be racist toward certain groups and not racist toward other groups. I would not be able to have this conversation with my mom. She would say “Why do you always have to complicate things? People are racist or not racist. That’s what it boils down to”. Here, I could listen to my mom for hours talk about who is racist and who isn’t racist. I can understand her perspective because I have developed above Blue. However, my mom will not be able to understand Orange. She cannot comprehend gradients and nuances. She can listen to me when I speak at Blue, yet she cannot comprehend me when I speak at Orange and above in this area. If she was open and curious about developing this ability, I can explain it to her. I would call this “teaching” since I would be transmitting a cognitive skill to her. . . Similarly, an Orange level thinker would have difficulty comprehending the relativism of “racism”. Orange understands in terms of objectivism and would not be able to comprehend a yellow level thinker. When “pulling” someone up the spiral, we can try to use terms and modes at that level. And I agree that keeping it impersonal is important. Yet this has limits. One cannot explain gradients in strictly binary terms. If they did, it would be binary and not a gradient. Similarly, one cannot communicate relativism in strictly objective constructs. One cannot communicate intuition or empathy strictly through material evidence and facts. There comes a time a person has to make a “jump” in consciousness. For example, when a dog sees itself in a mirror it will not recognize itself and bark at itself. You can point to the dog and the mirror over and over saying “look it’s you!!!”. Yet the dog would need a jump in consciousness to realize “whoa!! That’s me!!”. This is a dramatic example, yet this component is with developmental psychology as well, which is integral to SD. Personal hierarchies in Tier1 is a common manifestation of a personality construct. The dissolution of a personalized construct begins in Tier1 with empathy and cultural relativism, yet is more of a feature of Tier2. Then, attachment/identification dissolves one can mucbetter see multiple perspectives without judgement and superiority. Having transcended the personality, yellow would not make personal value judgements within Tier1 stages, yet Yellow would not consider all perspectives to have equal value.

What does the word ‘non-duality’ point to? The world created by thought, the world of words, language, and concepts, is the world of opposites. ‘Up and down’, ‘this or that’, ‘inside and outside’, ‘right and wrong’, ‘black and white’, ‘true and false’, ‘positive and negative’, ‘me and you’ and so on. The world of words, language, thoughts, concepts, is a dualistic world of apparent opposites. But, in reality, do opposites exist? What we are really pointing to when we use the word ‘non-duality’ is something that goes beyond all of these mind-made opposites. But how can we talk about something that goes beyond opposites, when even our attempt to talk about non-duality is dualistic? So, what the word non-duality actually means is really very difficult to describe or put into words. In fact, you could say it’s impossible. For we are not talking about non-duality as opposed to something called duality, we are not talking about pro-duality as opposed to anti-duality.In fact the non-duality we speak of is not the opposite of anything. This is impossible to understand logically or rationally. To see what is being spoken of, we must go beyond our ordinary way of thinking and seeing. ‘Non-duality’ is actually a translation of the Sanskrit word ‘Advaita’, which simply means ‘not two’ and points to the essential oneness (wholeness, completeness, unity) of life, a wholeness which exists here and now,prior to any apparent separation. It’s a word that points to an intimacy, a love beyond words, right at the heart of present moment experience. It’s a word that points us back Home. And despite the compelling appearance of separation and diversity there is only one universal essence, one reality. Oneness is all there is – and we are included. What we are really trying to do when we say ‘non-duality’ is point to life as it is right now, before the appearance of concepts and labels; before thought creates a world of things: table, chair, hand, foot, fear, me, you, past, future. What is life before thought? Can we even talk about that? Is it possible to capture non-duality into words? When we speak of non-duality it can sometimes seem like we mean ‘anti-duality’, that we are against duality or that it’s wrong or false or even dangerous. This can then lead to dogmatic thinking and religiosity and to the proclamation of rightness: “You are dualistic and I am non-dualistic! I am more non-dual than you!” That is the religion of non-duality. We are more interested in the truth of non-duality. Is non-duality a religion or belief system? Non-duality isn’t a new belief system, a religion or a ‘how to’ guide to living. It makes no promises about the future. Of course, it canbecome a belief system or religion, however, like anything can. You could start to believe that there is “no self, no ‘me’, no time or space and that everything is an illusion” – and non-duality could become your new belief system. That’s what happened years ago in my own experience; non-duality had become my new belief system, although at the time I actually believed I was free from all belief systems! When someone subscribes to non-duality as a system of belief, there’s just someone there – a separate person – believing that they’re no longer a separate person! And then perhaps they go round telling everyone that they are not a separate person. Secretly they experience themselves as a separate individual but they have taken on a set of concepts, they are living with a new image of themselves as beyond all images. You can believe you are not separate, but you can still feel separate, and experience yourself as separate. There’s a world of difference between simply believing that you are not separate, in other words, intellectually taking non-duality concepts on as a new belief system, and really seeing what those words are pointing to in a very deep way. Here, we are interested in the seeing of non-duality, not just talking and arguing about it. We can talk and argue about non-duality concepts until we are blue in the face, we can argue about who is right and who is wrong and who is more ‘nondualistic’, but we would really be missing the point of all this. Is it possible to reach a non-dual state or become spiritually awakened? Isn’t it fascinating how automatically thought (or ‘the mind’) tries to turn what we are talking about into some kind of special state or experience. Thought hears about ‘non-duality’ and wants it. And it asks, ‘How do I get it? How do I reach it? How do I see it? Who can take me there? Who can transmit it to me? Who can teach me it or give it to me? Where will I find it?’ It starts looking for something called ‘non-duality’. It starts waiting for it. It lives in hope. That will inevitably happen because the individual is always a seeker. A separate person is always looking for something. We might seek wealth, success, power, fame, or we might seek for ‘spiritual’ things instead – but really it’s all the same seeking. The spiritual seeker might seek awakening, enlightenment or a non-dual state instead of money and power and success – but deep down, it’s the same movement. Time is always involved in seeking. What we search for is always in the future. We say, ‘One day I will find non-duality. I’ll get into the non-dual state or have an awakening experience or my person will drop away magically.’ So, stop right there! You’ve already turned non-duality into a future goal. Stop and look and see where this seeking begins. So, this incessant seeking takes on different forms? Yes. Ask anybody on the street what they are looking for, and they’ll probably say they’re looking for peace, happiness, success, popularity, power, love, acceptance, understanding, fame, glory. Someone who identifies themselves as a ‘spiritual person’ might be looking for an altered state of consciousness, or some kind of transformation, or an enlightenment experience, or they may be seeking to no longer seek anything anymore! Everyone is looking for something. This seeking takes many forms but really it’s all the same seeking. It seems as though everyone is looking for different things, but actually what we are looking for, deep down, is the same. Basically, everyone is in pursuit of the same wholeness (or oneness, or completeness, or whatever you want to call it) – a wholeness that is already here, but is ignored in our pursuit of a future completion. That’s where it all begins: looking for something better in the future. Looking for the next moment that will be a better moment, a more full moment, a more complete moment. And of course, non-duality could just become something else you are looking for. We could turn non-duality into our new goal. But the word ‘Non-duality’ actually points to what is already present here and now, within this present experience, as this experience. We’re not talking about a new goal for the seeker. We’re talking about life as it already is. non-duality is not in time. If life ‘as it is’ is already perfect why do we continue to seek? The real question is ‘Who is seeking?’. What is this seeker? Where is it? Can I find it now? And is this seeker who I really am? I seem to be a separate individual who is looking for something to complete myself, but is that really who I am? Does this seeking really define me? Am I really something that is incomplete, something that seeks completion in the future? You pass through all these different layers of questions and ultimately you get to the fundamental question: ‘Who am I?‘ That’s where everything leads to in the end. So, who am I? If you ask most people that question, they’d probably reply with a story about who they think they are. They’d give you a description about what they’ve done in the past and maybe what they dream of doing in the future. They might tell you a story about their role in life – that they are a father or mother, or a business person or baker -where they work and live, and how many children they have. They’ll quite literally tell you a story about the past and future. They’ll basically tell you a story about who they were in the past and who they think they will be in the future – not who theyare in this moment. But the question is, ‘Who are you now?’ Normally that question is answered by describing the past or an imagined future. We are living with a thought-created story about ourselves. I am a shop keeper, a doctor, a lawyer, an artist, a spiritual person. (Someone who calls themselves a ‘spiritual person’ might even tell a story about how they are not a person, that they’ve transcended time and space and that they have no relationships because they have no self and there are no others. Despite the content of the ‘I am’ story, it’s still a story! Maybe, if you see yourself as ‘enlightened’ you have convinced yourself that you are not telling a story, that you’re beyond stories. But isn’t that just another story? We all seem to live with an image of who we are.) It’s a case of mistaken identity? Exactly. Is the image of yourself who you really are? Does it define you? And here’s the problem. When you live with an image of yourself, that image can always be improved; you can always have a better story. If you have the identity that you are successful business women and you’re making a lot of money, maybe you hope that one day you’ll make a fortune and be a famous millionaire. Or the story could be that you’re a spiritual person and one day you’ll become enlightened. So, are you saying enlightenment is just another story? Well, it’s always about ‘me’ completing myself in time, isn’t it. The enlightenment story is equal to the ‘one day I’m going to win the lottery’ story.Within the story you are always incomplete and always moving towards a future completion. On some level we feel incomplete now – there’s a sense of lack, or of not being whole. Everyone lives with that, although not everyone admits it or realises it. This is how the search begins: the sense of being incomplete now, that something is missing now. Then there’s the urge for a future fullness, a future completion. Something wants to complete itself in the future, but it begins with a present sense of incompleteness, a sense of lack. That goes right to the root of it all – a sense of lack that everyone is trying to escape in various ways. The sense of lack doesn’t seem to go away, it might for a while but it soon comes back. Well yes, this is the problem. Even when you get what you want and you think you’re satisfied, very quickly dissatisfaction starts up again: ‘I finally got what I wanted but it didn’t complete me.’ After twenty years of spiritual seeking you finally have the awakening experience you always wanted, but you still don’t feel complete. You make a million dollars and then you realise you still feel a sense of lack. You finally find the man or woman of your dreams, and you still want more. This is the problem with trying to complete yourself in time, trying to complete yourself through getting stuff and having experiences. There’s always more. There’s always a future. Why does the seeking, or the sense of lack eventually start up again? Buddhists see that everything is impermanent. However amazing, blissful, or apparently fulfilling something is, it will pass. Whatever you have you can lose. If you finally got all the money you wanted, it wouldn’t be enough because you can always have more money. You can be more successful, more famous, move loved, more spiritual, and so on. You attain the tenth level of consciousness (whatever that means) and then you want to be on level eleven. You want to get to the top! The self wants to be bigger, faster, stronger, more. Basically, we want to be special in some way – the self wants to stand out against other selves, and complete itself. It wants to be something, not nothing. We want to be certain about who we are and have a fixed and complete story about ourselves. But the nature of stories is that they can never be complete. And so the seeking goes on and on – always waiting for a permanent sense of total completion that never comes. How exhausting! I don’t think people realise how exhausted they are! We live on autopilot and we don’t question our seeking until this way of living breaks down, and we call that suffering. When everything is going your way and you’re getting everything you want – if the seeking mechanism is working for you – why would you question your reality? But what tends to happen is that it sooner or later life stops going your way! Then we find out that we are not in control of life and that we can’t have what we want. This whole seeking mechanism starts to break down and we suffer. When you are suffering you might start to ask, ‘Is this who I really am? Do I really need all this stuff I believe I need?’ So, we are all suffering in some way? Yes. Some people appear to suffer in extreme ways and others seem to suffer less, but everyone is suffering in their own way, even if they don’t realise it. Like we’ve said, ultimately life brings you to the question: ‘Who am I?’ Everyone comes to that question in their own way. Eventually you might start to ask why you’re suffering and question all these fundamental assumptions we’ve been talking about. Often people come to the message of non-duality through suffering, pain or distress. In other words, when the seeking begins to fail on some level, something else can begin to open up. What does the message of non-duality have to offer the suffering seeker? The wholeness or completeness that you are looking for is not be found in the future. The wholeness that everyone is looking for is actually already here within this present experience, within this present moment. The wholeness that you’re looking for – is what you are. It sounds like a total paradox when you try to understand it with thought and it really goes against everything that we are conditioned to believe. It’s not about understanding this with the mind, with thought – it’s about really seeing this for yourself, in your own experience. In a way, this offers nothing to the seeker – it is the experience of being a seeker in the first place, that’s the illusion. And it’s that illusion that this message exposes. If we ultimately cannot understand this message intellectually is there anything that can be done? No one can give this to you or teach it to you. You need to see it for yourself within your own present experience because that’s all there is. You won’t see it in someone else’s experience. It’s not a second-hand thing. It’s about this experience, right now. It’s not something to find in the future. The wholeness you look for is already appearing as everything that’s happening now: as these thoughts, sensations, feelings, sounds, smells. Perhaps this is the wholeness we’ve been seeking. And perhaps wholeness doesn’t look, sound, smell, feel or taste anything like your idea of wholeness – your concept of wholeness! Everyone is looking for their concepts of wholeness (or enlightenment, freedom, love) but true wholeness is not a concept. It’s what is already here prior to concepts. So again, here’s the paradox: perhaps there is only ever wholeness, and within that wholeness we go out into time and space and look for wholeness! Within Home, we’re all looking for Home. Everyone is trying to come Home, but they are already Home. They are what they seek, and do not realise it. So, the message of non-duality points to this ever-present completeness – in the midst of present experience. We are like waves on the ocean, looking for the ocean, longing to be part of it? Yes. That’s a great metaphor. You are like a wave in the ocean experiencing itself as separate from the ocean. The wave asks, ‘When and where will I find the ocean? Who can give the ocean to me?’ But the wave was always the ocean, from the very beginning, even in its seeking! It’s the ocean looking for itself. Even within the ocean’s failure to find itself it is still the ocean; every wave is one hundred per cent water. As all the authentic spiritual teachers have been telling us for hundreds and thousands of years, you are what you seek. Although ‘non-duality’ is just a word, what it points to is the possibility that you are not who you think you are. It’s the possibility that what you are is not this seeker, broken or incomplete. What you are is simply this open space of awareness (consciousness, awakeness, Being) in which absolutely everything seems to come and go, and that space is already at rest; it’s already Home. Is this open space that I am impersonal or personal? Well, it’s neither and both – unfortunately that question implies that it could be one thing or another thing. But space is not impersonal as opposed to personal. Thought creates opposites but in reality there are no opposites. When thought appears in the space, immediately there appears to be a world of opposites: up and down, light and dark, inside and outside, or impersonal and personal. All opposites depend on each other;all the pairs of opposites arise and fall together, and the open space holds all of this. The personal life story is just something that is appearing and disappearing in the open space that you are. ‘You’ appear and disappear in you! Does that mean that the space is impersonal? It’s impersonal in the sense that it holds all personal stories as they appear and disappear. But at the same time it’s not opposed to the personal, because that would be another story! The open space is not a rejection of anything. Like we said before, non-duality is not against duality; it’s the open space in which every thought, feeling and sensation is allowed to appear and disappear. It is the ocean that does not reject any waves, because it is all the waves. So it’s not really personal or impersonal – it holds all these concepts as they come and go. Anything can become a new form of seeking for the individual, a new identity. Yes exactly and if we’re not careful the ‘impersonal space’ state can become food for a new form of seeking! ‘One day I’m going to reach or become an impersonal state of pure consciousness.’ It’s another way of being special: ‘Everyone else is stuck in the personal but I’ve transcended it!’ It’s the same seeking, the same game; it’s just taken on a more subtle form. This open space is not something that the individual, the character, the seeker can attain. It’s the same seeking mechanism as: ‘I have gone beyond the self.’ Only a self would proclaim that! It’s like a wave claiming that it’s beyond the ocean. The seeker is very sneaky! The seeker cannotreach this open space for the seeker appears in this open space. Why do we need to tell any story about ourselves? Yes, and why can’t we just be the space in which all stories are allowed to come and go? Why do we need to hold on to any one of these stories? At the same time, we do not need to reject any story. Again, if you’re not careful, non-duality just become a new war -a war againstimages: ‘I’m not that image!’ But the very moment you say you’re not something you’ve definedyourself! You’re defining yourself again, and again, and again when you say ‘I’m not that! I’m not that!’ You start to see the genius of this seeking mechanism. It’s absolutely, infinitely ingenious!It wants to be something, anything: ‘Let me tell a story about myself, any story! I don’t care what it is!’ What is always open to be discovered is that what you are is not an image. It’s not any image; not even the image that you’re beyond images! Not even the image that ‘I am not an image’.You are not the things that come and go, but at the same time (and this is crucial) what you are is not separate from everything that comes and go. What you are, as the space in which everything comes and goes, isintimate with all of those things, in the same way that the ocean is inseparable from the waves. So, ultimately there are no separate waves. The ocean is appearing as the waves. The ocean is the waves. Then you can’t even distinguish between the ocean and the waves. In present experience, the waves of the ocean appear as thoughts, sensations, images, feelings, sounds – everything in present experience is simply a wave. What you are as the ocean is the waves as well! You are not the thoughts, sensations, images, but at the same time, what you are, as the open space in which all of these appear and disappear, is totally intimate with all of this. So, awareness and the contents of awareness are the same thing? Yes, awareness and all that appears in awareness are absolutely intimate! The ocean cannot reject the waves, why would it? Awareness, wholeness, oneness, or we could call it consciousness, takes form as everything that appears. Consciousness is not some blank empty slate behind everything. That’s how the mind interprets it. The mind interprets these words asthings. Consciousness is not a thing – it is everything that appears. This is why you cannot talk about non-duality! You cannot talk about intimacy. Rooted in that knowing that this is impossible to put into words, we are still free to play with words. We know we cannot use words to capture non-duality; we’re just using them as pointers. We are pointing to something that ultimately cannot be understood by the mind, it cannot be captured. Every wave that appears contains the ocean. That which we are pointing to is within every experience; whether you are in the office or sitting on the meditation cushion, walking in a supermarket or attending a non-duality lecture. Whether there is extreme pain, or intense sadness, that is still the ocean. It is the ocean appearing as pain, the ocean appearing as sadness. Oneness is not limited to a particular experience. It expresses itself as all experience. So, the invitation is to come back to present experience, and rediscover the ocean, and that invitation is always there, in every experience, in this experience. This present experience is the ocean that you have always been seeking without realising it. What is actually happening right now? What is appearing in this present experience? I don’t mean the story of what’s happening to you, I don’t mean what do you think is happening; I’m saying look at what is actually happening now. Come back to the present thoughts, sensations and feelings and rediscover who you really are in the midst of these waves of experience. What you truly are must be there within every experience, otherwise it can’t be who you really are. If it’s something that comes and goes, it can’t be who you really are. Who you really are, as the ocean, does not come and go. Where does suffering come into this? If who we really are is complete why do we suffer? Suffering is forgetting who you really are. We suffer when we don’t see this completeness – this intimacy – within the present experience. When we don’t see that every wave that’s presently appearing is part of the ocean and therefore allowed in the ocean, we start trying to escape this moment to attempt to reach the next moment. We experience ourselves as not whole or somehow broken so we attempt to move away from this moment. In truth, that movement is not actually possible but we try anyway because that’s how we are programmed. We try to move away from this moment to get to the next moment, to tomorrow or next year or to ten years time. We start to use time to achieve this. This is the origin of suffering. We try to escape what’s happening now. We try to run away from aspects of our present experience. We try to escape these thoughts, sensations and feelings and get to a future place where things will be better. That’s the movement of suffering. Within suffering you’ll always find seeking. Seeking is the basic mechanism behind all of our suffering. We label certain elements of experience ‘bad’ or ‘negative’ or ‘dark’ or ‘dangerous’ or ‘unhealthy’ and that’s because of our conditioning. We have been conditioned to label things as ‘fear’, ‘sadness’, ‘anger’, and do on, and to judge these as negative, or not-okay, or bad, or sinful – basically as expressions of incompleteness, as threats to completeness. Because we don’t seethe completeness in these waves, because we can’t find the ocean within these so-called ‘negative’ waves, we try to escape them and that movement ‘away from’ creates the suffering. Then we create stories and identities around this suffering: ‘Oh, I’m a victim of my suffering. I’m a victim of fear and pain! Why is this happening to me? How can I escape this experience?‘ Suffering is a great teacher. Maybe it’s the best teacher but we often don’t see that, because we don’t realise what suffering really is. Normally, we do all sorts of things to avoid, deny and numb our suffering. We take medication, drink alcohol or try to distract ourselves. Of course, there’s ultimately nothing with doing these things either! But suffering is always an opportunity; it’s an invitation to discover the completeness in what you are running away from. Which aspects of your experience right now are not okay? Which waves (thoughts, sensations, and feelings) of the ocean are being rejected right now? Which waves are not being seen as part of the ocean? Basically, what are you at war with? This is always the question that suffering leads you to. Within the experience of suffering you’ll always find seeking. You can believe as much as you like that you’re not seeking, or that you are free from the self, but whenever there’s suffering there’s seeking. It’s the story of ‘me’ looking for something, escaping something; it’s the story of incompleteness or of feeling that there’s something wrong with you. So, the invitation – not a demand – is to take a look at what you are at war with right now. What’s the story? What are the images you are trying to hold up? What are you defending? What are you rejecting? What are you running away from? Look a little deeper. Perhaps these images of yourself are not who you really are. Maybe these stories don’t define you. We suffer when we try to hold up images of ourselves – ‘I’m strong, I’m enlightened, I’m a success, I’m loving, I’m kind, I’m happy’ – which conflict with life as it is. And in the end, all images conflict with life as it is – no image can match this moment. This moment is the fire that burns up all images. In this moment there could be pain, sadness, fear –any image that says that what’s appearing shouldn’t be appearing, that you should be happy, or free from pain, is a false image. Is this about cultivating more presence? What I’d say is forget about trying to become more present; that can just be another form of seeking. It’s a beautiful idea, but it’s still the same seeking mechanism. ‘One day I’ll be present!’Ultimately, you cannot become more present; for you are presence itself. Like the word ‘non-duality’, presence is just another pointer to life as it is. It’s another pointer back to who you really are. There is already presence and there is only presence. Everything is already appearing inpresence. There is only this moment. The past and the future happen now; they appear in this presence, asthis presence. There are memories about the past and thoughts about the future appearing in this presence. It all happens now. Every sound is a present sound; you’ve never heard a sound that wasn’t now. You’ve never heard a sound in the past and you don’t hear a sound in the future! You’ve never smelled anything that wasn’t smelled now. Ultimately, you’ve never seen anything that isn’t seen now. It’s all present! So, it’s not really about a separate entity becoming more present; it’s about rediscovering presence here and now. Presence could just be another word for consciousness, awareness or Being; pick your favourite word! What you are is presence itself, so you cannot become ‘more’ present, just as the wave cannot become more or less ‘ocean’ than it already is. And that’s always there to be discovered. Life is the constant invitation to discover this in the midst of present experience. Life is the constant invitation to discover who you really are in this moment. Who discovers this? Well, who asks that question! Source: https://www.lifewithoutacentre.com/writings/what-is-nonduality/ I really liked this interview. It's like a neat summary of non-duality in an everyday language.

Is this identification to the story necessary? There is a lot of information in my head. Someone could ask me “where did you go to school?” and “where did your sister ho to school?”. The information to answer both questions is available, one needn’t identify with either story. Another way to look at is - humans interact through stories. We play characters through story telling. It’s part of human life. Yet we don’t need to be identified with my story. These days, I’m not that interested in telling “my story”. Sometimes sharing experiences is fun, other times it practical. Yet I see people go on and on about their personal stories. It can be fun in some contexts, yet can get tiresome and boring. I generally prefer discussions at an impersonal level and to just be engaged with what is actually happening now.

@Leo Gura I think this may be a good example of the dynamics you describe. Below is a clip from a senate confirmation hearing of a Raytheon defense contractor lobbyist for the position of secretary of defense. Elizabeth Warren described how the current structure allows for potential conflicts of interest since a loophole would allow the secretary to personally engage with Raytheon while secretary of defense. Warren asks if the potential secretary would be willing to distance himself from Raytheon defense contracting for a period of time related to his position as a defense secretary (as other secretaries have been contractually required to do). To me, the basic essence came across as impersonal principles of ethics and conflict of interest. Yet the republicans in the hearing were strongly reactionary and personalized it - saying that this nominee is a man of integrity and that Warren is rude by calling him dishonest. The chairman even apologized for the terrible treatment he received from Warren. To me, this seems like a collective ego at play and this type of personification can be a distraction from the underlying issue that we need structural frameworks to discourage conflict of interest. Erosion of that framework allows for corruption and dysfunctional government.

Thanks for your impressions. I can now see the dynamics with better clarity. In particular, I used way too much personification. Statements like “your statement of ‘abc’ shows you have a deficiency in ’xyz’” creates personality dynamics. Impersonal statements such as “the statement ‘abc’ does not include the relative nature of ’xyz’” are much better. Not only does it reduce personifying the other person, it reduces the personification of a “me”. As soon as someone says “you”, that immediately creates a “me” (since there is no “you” without a “me” relative to “you”). Stating “you have a deficiency” is inherently also saying “I don’t have this deficiency and I am able to judge that you have the deficiency”. This adds in all sorts of underlying personality dynamics that alter the energetics and are a distraction. A core component of yellow is that these types of personality dynamics are transcended and ideas are appearing without personal ownership and identification. . . One of the most challenging aspects is not drifting into a “I am right, you are wrong dynamic” or that in someway I am better/more developed than you. I also like your point about self reflection - it’s much better than self defense posture. Also, I went into a weird orange/yellow hybrid state in which I tried to establish orange level credibility and grounding, yet used yellow level abstraction that would appear highly ambiguous, irrational and irrelevant from an orange perspective. . . I like your comment that the specific topic of race was as relevant as saturns moons. . .

I occasionally get requests to describe yellow level thinking. I haven’t engaged in this realm much the last couple months, since I have time off from academics. Yet thus situation is an excellent example for those wanting to transition from tier1 to tier2 yellow and are curious what yellow is like. Before I post more thoughts, I want to stress that this is not personal. A core component of tier2 is impersonal dialog of ideas in which there is no “owner” of the ideas. This allows for a beautiful fluidity, merging and evolution as well as curiosity, awe and excitement. Yellow level explorations are much more enjoyable, rewarding and enriching than blue/orange level debates. As a teacher and researcher in genetics, I can say with certainty that you have gaps in your understanding of genetics. I have tried to reach out from a yellow level. It is clear there is disinterest, unwillingness and inability to recognize and utilize yellow level modes. As well, there are attachments to preconceived ideas and personal identification to such ideas. Being confined to blue/orange modes significantly restricts what I can convey to you. For example, I have said over and over that I am not saying what you write is 100% false. Rather, there are partial truths relative to context in what you write, yet due to extrapolation and your contextualization have become distorted. A yellow level thinker does not have personal attachments and is not defensive of an idea that is “mine”. As well, yellow understands “partial truths” and can see how statements can be relatively true or false depending on context. Also, yellow has an unattached openness and curiosity to view things from multiple levels and form integrated holistic views. Your responses to me indicate a strong contraction within blue/orange modes of thinking. This could be a great opportunity to evolve consciousness, yet there is strong resistance. For example, you believe that your ideas are “true or false” and insist that I show you how your ideas are false. I’ve said several times that the main block to learning here is a binary true vs false mentality. A deeper level of understanding would involve nuances and an ability to see relative contexts. When I stated that from a genetics perspective, the statement “race doesn’t exist” is partially true depending on context, you responded in a strongly defensive posture in which you posted articles to support a personal contextualization that you are unconsciously attached to as being universally true based on objective facts (hallmarks of blue/orange thinking). If there one thing I would encourage to open, is the true vs false mentality. This is a blue level mode of thinking which I think is a primary chain restricting expansion in this situation.

@Pouya Yes, Absolute/God's love is impersonal, unbiased, liberating, unconditional, and accepting of all. Only this kind of love can heal the world

Taoist Resources If you need a guide to Taoism, then first start with these three books: Tao Te Ching Chuang Tzu A Personal Tao I recommend starting with A Personal Tao, as it’s specifically written with a modern perspective to help people discover their nature. Due to the nature of Taoist writings, you can easily read all three at the same time and intermix the ideas. If you desire a person as a guide, you can find a Taoist temple, Zen Dojo or local sage to chat with occasionally. Taoism’s deepest truths must come from the inside, but at times it’s helpful to get an outside perspective to see your nature. If you are in the Oakland area of California, I highly recommend The Taoist Center. Dr. Alex Feng is an incredibly open and sincere Taoist Master. I also offer classes. If you cannot find a local resource, then start keeping a journal and over time review it. A journal becomes a nice mirror to reflect upon our nature as we move through life. Casey teaches Taoism with contemporary language. Julie teaches shamanic meditation and movement exercises. Together we offer a unique retreat that reveals your essence and helps you be whole in life. Our Taoist retreats are one on one and taught in a traditional Taoist manner of a teacher directly to a student. History of Taoism Most sites will teach you the terms and history of Taoism. That might be nice for academics: but it does nothing for teaching you how to live as a Taoist. Taoism is about embracing life in the now and not in being stuck in history or terms. Originally Taoism can be considered to be a shamanic practice. However, Taoism is so old; the complete history of Taoism cannot be traced through written records. Taoism is very much a tradition that is transmitted verbally from master to student over the generations. Because of this, some of the shamanic roots of Taoism still survive today. Taoism historically is also a very flexible practice. Taoism is a practice of change, and it always changes to meet the needs of the times. Even as you read this, Taoism is evolving to keep pace with modern culture. Constant evolution is one reason Taoism has survived for so long; it always adapts with the time while holding onto a few key concepts to keep the practice true to the Tao. An early surviving text to describe the Tao is the Tao Te Ching, written by Lao-Tzu (The old master). The Tao Te Ching is a series of poems that can be considered to be a work of philosophy, a treatise on how to run a government, a how-to book for achieving a balanced life, or a sage’s reflection of humanity and the universe. It is known to have been written over 2400 years ago, but not much else is retained about the origins. Many fun stories abound about these origins; however, these are just that, stories. What is important is that the Tao Te Ching and its poetry survive, having had an impact on the course of human events over the past 2400 years. It’s an interesting book, worth skimming. I say “skim” because it is written in a light-hearted manner. If a reader stares too hard or takes the Tao Te Ching too literally, the multiple intentions within the poetry will be lost. Many many stories and tales exist about the History of Taoism. Some of these stories could be true, and some could be fables. As a Taoist, the point is to learn from the mixing of our reactions to the tales. Veracity is best left to history; time will always change “truth” for each generation. Tao and Chinese Culture Tao is a word. It translates roughly as the way. When as a Taoist we talk about the Tao, we are talking about the central aspect of our practice. However, it’s important to keep in mind, as a word, the word Tao is used for a lot more than just Taoism. Every religion has its way. Every person has their way. Every practice has their way. There is a Tao for everything. This doesn’t directly mean it’s the same Tao as what we speak about in Taoism. While from a Taoist viewpoint it’s all the same, from a human literary perspective it’s not. So it’s important to always take the word Tao within the context of the statement being made. For instance: a Confucian will use the term Tao to cover how they believe and act. On paper, the Tao of Confucianism is quite a bit different than the Tao of Taoism. A Confucian embraces order while a Taoist will dance to chaos. The Tao that a Confucian teaches is a rigid logical complex system of behavior. The Tao of Taoism is freedom to embrace all the whimsy of life. The same Tao both times: in the using the Tao to refer to a way of life, but the actual results, the teachings practiced are quite a bit different. A path is a path, but not everyone on that path will experience it in the same way. Of course, to a Taoist, all paths do lead to the same place :). It’s just the journey might seem longer to some than others. So please keep this in mind if you see the word Tao being used in a slightly different context than what you were expecting. Advanced Taoism: Tao and God This last section is for the brave of heart, for those wanting a few more advanced answers. First and foremost: Taoism respects the concept of God. Initially one might think a discussion of God would be an impersonal topic. It isn’t. Each person has a very deep and connected relationship in what they view God may or may not be. A person’s view of God is a statement and reflection of the way a person also views their own life. As a result, when discussing differences in God, it’s best to respect it as also being a highly personal and sensitive topic. When exploring Taoism, eventually a person compares the terms, God and Tao. I would suggest first reading this chapter of A Personal Tao on Religion. From this chapter: Taoism offers the option to skip the comparison. This question is irrelevant. God could or could not exist, and either state doesn’t change the way we lead our lives. Our lives are expressions of action between ourselves and the universe. To respect our surrounding environment is a furthering of respect to ourselves. This manner of living doesn’t change regardless of the nature of God or the Tao. However, most people insist upon definition and seeking deeper answers. So let’s expand upon God and Tao. God as a term is often “defined” as being an ultimate creator or universal power. The various aspects of God have been fought over as long as humans have written and used words. All definitions are based on perception. From a Taoist perspective: human-based definitions are both right and wrong: as all meanings are relative to humanity’s state of mind. A Taoist stays out of arguments of definition. It’s not productive arguing over something relative to each person. Instead, Taoism accepts each person’s view of God as being personal. A Taoist doesn’t think the Tao is before, after or is even equal to God. The Tao is a concept to describe something that goes beyond our capability to define. Taoism leaves the Tao undefined, and a Taoist happily explores the wonder that opens up as a result. All Taoist’s will agree: The Tao is indefinable… Something which is indefinable: is outside of human definition by default. However, we can still accept it as indefinable. The Tao by being indefinable removes all issues of perception in its definition since perception cannot directly reveal the Tao which is undefined. It’s just simply and utterly is: undefined! Tao and God merge towards the same concept when the definition of God is indefinable. Once a person accepts the definition of the Tao as being indefinable, that person by definition has to leave it as undefined. Once you place any definition over such a term, it takes a person further away from the whole concept of the Tao. In some of the Taoist religions, Taoism does have gods, but Taoist gods typically are very tangible beings. They walk beside us, share tea with us, laugh, play and can alter reality. A Taoist god represents an enlightened immortal that helps other conscious beings work towards grace. In Taoism, gods are shown as guides and inspiration towards how to find enlightenment. (Please keep in mind: this paragraph is an extreme simplification of how Taoism views Gods.) We do say in Taoism: We are of the Tao, or God is the Tao. Taoist’s say this because we also are undefined. We only define ourselves as we live. While living, we are still moving through life, a large part of our nature is indefinable until the end of Living. As a result: we are of the Tao. A Taoist can see the Tao within everything, a very delicate logical truth and often confuses non-Taoists. We know the Tao by witnessing our own life, and that is why I wrote A Personal Tao. We have just come full circle in the Tao’s definition. The Tao is indefinable, and yet we are complete with the Tao. A Taoist knows to leave the Tao as is, to grasp the Tao within the chase of living fully. It’s a wonderful contradiction to embrace, and it does completely full-fill one’s life within that acceptance. For a Taoist, this is all about living and exploring our possibilities, for we each are undefined and of the Tao. Trying to define ourselves just limits one’s nature and what can be done. So a Taoist instead embraces the Tao, to discover and open up all possibilities instead. From here each person is free to draw their conclusions. Conclusions will always shift to the winds of perception. If this confuses you, then please go back and repeat these three steps: Don’t concentrate on the definition of the Tao (this will come later naturally) Understand what Taoism is: Taoism is more than just a “philosophy” or a “religion”. Taoism should be understood as being: A system of belief, attitudes, and practices set towards the service and living to a person’s nature. The path of understanding the Tao is simply accepting you. Live life and discover who you are. Your nature is ever changing and is always the same. Don’t try to resolve the various contradictions in life, instead learn acceptance of your nature. Remember: Taoism teaches a person to live in their heart. Sincerely Casey ??????Taken from web sources

The last time I went to Pomroy's I got a deer tick on me, attached, which means I have to check for a rash and make sure I don't have symptoms of Lyme disease. I knew that would happen someday but I've always avoided exploring around places until this year for that reason. When I was a kid we didn't have ticks and could go wherever we wanted, we only have them now thanks to global warming. I took it as a sign that I shouldn't go back, I should stop caring so much about going to the places that seem to trigger signs and experiences, as all of those things are distractions unless you learn not to want them or chase them. I was going to go for a long run today but was so exhausted I turned around to go the opposite direction and knew I had to go back to Pomroy's. I bought some tick repelling spray, but the mosquitoes were so bad I couldn't focus much. I did find these black walnut shells though. The heart shape with the two "eyes" make them look like the creepiest Valentine I've ever seen. I also went to the cemetery which has not been mowed or well cared for after memorial day. I recently learned about a once prominent family who lived here, and on their monument stone was this. "There is no Death! What seems so is transition; This life of mortal breath Is but a suburb of the life elysian, Whose portal we call Death." Across from it was a stone for a mother who died in childbirth, then for her daughter, named after her, 10 months later. I used to feel silly for doing things like this but I sat there and cried. Fear of death, grief, all of these things meld into one collective shadow. I used to think there was something wrong with me because I was so in tune with it. Of course, it's impersonal. Christians say that Jesus took on the sins of the world that day. This had a deeper meaning than can be thought.

In Gurdjieff's writings he stressed the importance of Intentional suffering. John Bennett, a student and friend of Gurdjieff gave some commentary on this subject. In Talks on Beelzebub's Tales, Bennett distinguishes four types of suffering - Unnecessary Suffering, Unavoidable Suffering, Voluntary Suffering and Intentional Suffering. The first is Unnecessary Suffering. This would be the type of suffering that we incur because of our unreasonable attitudes and expectations towards others, from our ill-will, hatred and rejection of others, from doubt, possessiveness, arrogance and self pity. In other words, suffering arising from our self-importance. The second is Unavoidable Suffering. This would be the type of suffering that comes to us by accident or from events beyond our control, such as interpersonal conflicts, war, disaster, disease or death. Third, we have Voluntary Suffering. This would be the type of suffering that we take upon ourselves in order to accomplish a personal aim, such as an athlete who disciplines himself to win a race, or a student who labours to get good grades. And finally we have Intentional Suffering. According to Bennett, this would be the kind of suffering that we take upon ourselves in order to accomplish an impersonal or altruistic goal, one that is directed more towards service to others or to the Work, and not for any personal gain. Bennett assumes that this is what Gurdjieff meant by Intentional Suffering. The quotes here were taken from this web page which expounds more around this. https://www.endlesssearch.co.uk/philo_is_talk_ae2005.htm

(DQ)"We are beginning to see the entire universe a holographically interlinked network of energy and information, organized whole and self-referential at all scales of existence" - Ervin Lazlo (DQ)"Out beyond ideas of wrong-doing and right-doing there is a field. I'll meet you there" - Rumi (DQ)"A samadhi beats an organism any day" - unknown (Q) What is the essence of stage turquoise? - Leo Gura Holistic global collectivist & self-transcendent OVERVIEW Sacrificing the self for the benefit of existential reality Experiencing the wholeness of existence through mind & spirit The universe is alive & not a dumb clockwork machine Building a human community grounded on mystical wisdom Getting all of mankind to awaken You wont find turquoise in politics, education, media, business & universities Turquoise people are mainly mystics, sages, gurus, healers, visionaries. Clairvoyants, leader & teacher Synthesis of all dichotomies for the benefit of all life & all consciousness HOW IT EMERGES Realizes that I cannot solve the worlds problems just through systemic solutions (It needs community) Realizes consciousness unifies everything & everyone (consciousness is central & every problem is rooted in consciousness) Deeply sees the limits of thinking, modeling, reason, logic & mind Realizes that all its understanding of reality so far haven't been the ultimate answer Very serious spiritual practice; a flowering of mysticism & dissolving the boundaries between self, other & outer world. Awareness of Maya, ego transcendence Realizes that mind & understanding doesn't bring happiness and yellow wants a permanent solution A shift from learning about stuff to merging with the many VALUES Consciousness & Elevating the consciousness of mankind Existential truth Deep metaphysical insights Wisdom & the wisdom of nature Mysticism, spirituality & non-duality God & Divinity Holism, integration & synthesis (vs analysis) Left & right brain synthesis Being vs knowing, doing & having Honesty, transparency & radical authenticity Minimalist sustainable living (less is more) Collaborative synergy Human wellness Healing on every dimension (physical, emotional, spiritual, etc) Exploring altered states of consciousness Intuition Channeling & direct downloads from infinite intelligence Supernatural degrees of creativity Awakening & Transcendence Liberation Unconditional Love Emotional Mastery, Mindfulness & Presence Paradox Esoteric teachings Gratitude Unity Deeper & Deeper levels of interconnectedness Selfless living Sacrificing self for the greater consciousness of the whole Meditation, Yoga, Contemplation & Self-Inquiry Spontaneity, playfulness & self-amusement The really big picture (Embodiment vs models) CHARACTERISTICS Lighthearted vs heavyhearted & logical Spiral wizard Sees the human race as a single organism (not metaphorically) Sees the world as interlinked causes & effects in interacting fields of energy Has a supernatural intuition Deeply trusts in intuition Non-manipulative, Non-ideological & non-judgmental Far beyond greens faddish spiritualty Has had a direct experience of one being God (doesn't have to be enlightened) Deeper mental & spiritual capacities are awakened (New sense & new abilities) Heightened sensory awareness Paranormal / psychic abilities can develop The mystical become the mundane, the paranormal becomes the normal Ecologically conscious Being visionary & an inspiring leader Unifies science, technology, medicine & mysticism Deeper understanding of all religions & able to integrate them Synthesis of the East & West (Western technology & Eastern mysticism) Understanding of the fulness of the spiral & uses all the colors proactively & holistically Turquoise is referred to as the 6th or 7th Chakra in the Chakra system Business is about awakening people Sexual desire is transmuted into metaphysical love Great mental & behavioral flexibility Excellent at dealing with paradox Very wise & teach in unorthodox styles Post rational & post material connects to being rather than quantifying & categorizing the world Non-linear, human-centered, supernatural intuition Ability to connect to source High integrity The universe is both impersonal & deeply personal Deeper systems thinker than yellow was (systems are alive) Life consists of fractals Stands in awe at the cosmic order (micro to macro) Reality can be experienced but never truly known Life is the most important thing there is & on the other hand my life is completely important Detects the harmonic forces witch govern organizations Moves from gross to subtle External to the internal Transcendence of morality, meaning, judgement, life & death, duality, mind, reason, science and good & evil Finally has really deep honest, meaningful relationships & communication (NO EGO) EXAMPLES Sahdguru Shunyamurti Thomas Campbell Yoda Ken Wilber David Hawkins Shinzen Young Deepak Chopra Stan Grof Osho vs his community Mooji Rupert Spira Romaji Eckart Tolle Martin Ball Yogananda Sri Aurobindo Ervin Laszlo David Loy Allen Watts Wim Hof Mat Khan The Dalai Lama Sacha Shulgin Yoga Holotropic breathwork The holographic universe (BOOK) Opening the third eye Out-of-body experience Pineal gland Samadhi experience Mediums like Bashar Some of the stuff Aleister Crowley was doing Rudolf Steiner Occultist type figures Alternative healing methods The 'Maya' Notion Psychedelics; 5-Meo-Dmt The q race from star trek Rupert sheldrakes The Akashic records Paranormal abilities Dene Radians paranormal research Gandhi's ideas of pluralistic harmony Notion of 'Gaia' Biocentrism Transpersonal psychology Jung's collective unconscious Quantum field theory Sacred geometry Morphogenetic fields Reincarnation Opening chakras Saints, sages, mystics & prophets STATISTICS O.1% of the adult population is turquoise Less than 1% of the worlds total world influence is turquoise SLOGANS We are all god Everything is one You are already enlightened Everything is perfect & everything is evolving To see a world in a grain of sand & haven in a wild flower The kingdom of heaven is within Forgive them father for they know not what they do I am that Life is a dream WHAT TRIGGERS TURQUOISE The insanity of the world It sees the unsustainability of the world The status quo Myopia Materialistic corruption Profits over truth & spirit Dogmatic scientism & rationalism Ecological dysfunction Collective suffering of mankind Little, petty & mundane affairs LIMITATIONS: Can become too mystical & too spiritual to the point where they're unconcerned with earthly problems They live in their own reality Turquoise teachings can be short & confusing for less conscious people Can develop a guru complex, here everyone serves your spiritual ego - which can lead to corruption Life can become meaningless Can deny the importance of political issues Can assume that other people are just as capable of awakening are There can be a community division on a grand scale Can get stuck on shallow levels of enlightenment & non-duality Non-duality wars - gurus can sometimes criticize other gurus from other traditions Maha Samadhi (BOOK: graceful exists, how great beings die) Its not immune to false beliefs & cultural biases/values Its not immune to mistake Its not immune to sexual cravings & addictions Its not immune to hurting people & humanity at large. Its solutions are not always gonna work and can backfire. HOW TO FULLY EMBODY? Have a hardcore industrial grade spiritual practice Contemplate everything Embody unconditional love Long solo retreats Spiritual purifications of various kinds 5-meo-dmt Read turquoise people Meet turquoise sages face to face Study cutting edge science & technology Study non-dual theory deeply Open your chakras, especially the lower ones & your heart Transmute sexual energy Learn alternative healing methods Make sure you master all the lower stages (go back on each stage and ask: What am I missing & What have I fully integrated? (DQ) = Direct Quote

In the past few months I have observed a significant but subtle change in my perspective on the substance of reality. It seems to me that it is a truer way of looking and understanding the world, or maybe a more accurate way, a more conscious way? It is like seeing the actuality of experience, leading to an intellectual framework that incorporates the nature of existence itself into language. Whereas most operate in terms of objecthood and processes, it seems that both of these are nothing but Nessness. Nessness is another word for being, for actuality or existence. I find it very fitting, because it points to what everything truly is, everything is itselfness. Red is redness, love is loveness, beauty is beautyness. Appending the word "ness" to all fascets of being, to formulize the recognition that these fascets are being itself. I feel like there is a great confusion in the general population of what consciousness is, it is like people are lost within the content but cannot see the substance of the content. Consciousness is not merely experience, experienced by an experiencer. The essential nature of consciousness is being, it is existence itself. Beingness is consciousness. What we call the material world is equally as much beingness as the "experience" of the color red is beingness. They are what reality is, they are not within reality, they are not projected upon a ground of existence. They are that which is realness, isness, beingness, existenceness. What I have not yet investigated is the connectiveness of all substance. It seems to me like all aspects of reality are intimiately connected, colorness with soundness, soundness with feelingness, feelingness with thoughtness. And these connections do not seem to be rational or logical, or coherent. These connections seem to be impossible. Impossibilityness is an integral part of them, yet I find impossibility not to be a perfectly fitting word. It is beyond impossible, it implies a Power so great and full that it is beyond all measures of power, a Power so great it exceeds greatness, it exceeds all categories, it exceeds all limitations. Understanding itself is an impossibility, yet it is there. The absurdity of the connectivity of reality seems to be divinity. Divinity being the connectedness of all fascets of realness, the impersonal Intimacy. Intimacy seems to be a very fitting word, the intimacy of realness. There is no depth to realness, it has only one layer, one layer that is itself. It cannot get closer to itself than it is. "I am". The fundamental nature of the Self is not Iness, but Amness. Amness is the same as Isness, or Beness. It is existence itself. Amness is completely impersonal, meaning it is not Iness but includes Iness. Yet Amness is Intimacy. It is not merely including Intimacy, it is the nature of Intimacy. Amness and Intimacy are one and the same (I have to note that what I mean by intimacy does not fit into the individuated category of intimacy, as a feeling). It seems to me like the category of mind is false. It implies an inherent seperation from reality, as if consciousness was unreal and our abstract thoughts of reality were true. Yet the inverse is true, or not really the inverse, because even the abstract thoughts are beingness. Consciousness is not a mind, it is existence. It is being. It is all there is, it is Isness. Everything that exists must be consciousness, existence itself is consciousness. We might as well throw out these concepts altogether. Consciousness, existence, reality. It's all the same thing. It is Ness-ness, or Nessness. That to me describes it very well, because it is itself as itself, and not just that. It is the isness of itself. Any other word would imply some sort of seperation. Or, it would not be inclusive enough. Nessness not only includes Isness, but also Nothingness. It includes absence and presence. It includes All Ness, because Ness is the nature of reality, Ness is reality, Ness is existing. Nessness is itself as all that can be and not be, all that Nesses. And all must Ness. This is Nessness cognition, where, within our usages of language and thought, the substance of objects merges with itself, where the Isness of all becomes itself, or is revealed as itself. It could be no other way, it is always this way, it Nesses. I have not yet seen the groundless ground. I am curious if it can be found in the Isness. I don't know if deconstruction exists. It does not seem like there could be anything to be deconstructed. Isness seems to be final, it seems to be untouchable. There is nothing to deconstruct it, as it is deconstructionness itself. Right now it seems to me like I can sense a veil, a sense of a source of Isness so to speak. This is the sense I get when I see the Impossibility of existence and all of it's fascets (like the impossiblity of any aspect of reality, whether it is redness or straightness, or softness) It's like the Isness is a subtle trail, it's truly magical or Absurd nature has an implication. Not an intellectual implication, not even an emotional implication. I would almost call it a metaphysical implication. That seems to be a fitting word. Metaphysical not in the sense of philosophy, but in the sense of being itself. Denying it would bé like denying consciousness/Nessness, it is not possible because denial itself is Nessness. I can't see it, I can't sense it really. It is like an aura? That does not seem to be a good word for it. All I can call it for now is incomprehensible.

Oh there is a You inside. Not personal not impersonal rather Total. Forever expanding infinite Absolute.

can you guys please stop posting this impersonal bullshit in my journal. stop projecting teal swan unto me. of course ego is her best friend!

When speaking to yourself, do you use first or second person? Is one better than the other? I’ve found that I currently lean strongly towards the second person. I think I trained myself to do this a while back in an early effort to separate my egoic self from the higher Self. It was constructive for a time, but now I’ve encountered a new challenge. This impersonal approach has created somewhat of a distance/ dissociation in myself, and I think I neglected to build an entirely loving connection there. In proceeding towards practices of self-love, I’m unsure whether to remain in a second person dialogue, or whether to reestablish the first person in order to nurture the sense of oneness? I would love to hear input and advice!

Hey guys, my first post here I'm not religious, in fact, ATM I'm practicing meditation and yoga and am huge into personal development. One thing , however, that I've noticed after lots and lots of research is what I like to call the "New Age to Jesus phenomena". I've encountered lots and lots of testimonies (some of them I've attached below) of people converting from New Age spirituality (meditation, yoga, astral projection,...) to Jesus (Holy Spirit). What I found interesting is that these experiences and testimonies seem very heartfelt, touching and compelling. I guess what I'm trying to ask is, is there anyone who has any clue as to what this means? Are these experiences just something we can't really explain? Why do people in the Christian faith deem everything that's not Christian demonic? What is the correlation between Kundalini energy and the Holy Spirit? I'm praying for the first time in my life, I guess I'm conducting a sort of an experiment, trying to figure out whether Jesus is real or not. Please, do not view me as a Fundamentalist/Stage Blue person. I'm extremely open-minded and I've had an awakening experience about a year ago, brought on by LSD... so it's not like I was raised Christian. Not at all. I was an atheist since I can remember. I also find it interesting that the New Age philosophy is "You are God"/"Everything is God" whereas the Christian philosophy is "We are separate from God". Could BOTH be true? Could God be impersonal or personal? Thanks in advance.

Yes, it is a religion. But what's wrong with religion? If you think religion is bad, wrong, or evil, then that has automatically become your religion. You see? Although it's good to be aware of it, but if you want true liberation, you won't give a damn about other people and their ideas. Not everyone has the time and ability to sit down and meditate for decades only to come to the same conclusions that everyone else has come to before them. Actual spiritual realisation is not superior to religion! Direct experience is just a belief! Notice that direct experience will become a memory after the experience is gone. A memory is merely a thought, and a thought taken seriously will become a belief. You see how this thing goes full-circle? You can't escape belief, even a direct experience of God becomes a belief in the ordinary state of consciousness. So, I prefer calling the direct experience of God a personal belief, whereas the belief that is learned from teachers I would call it an impersonal belief. To conclude, everything is perfect as it is, whether Actualized.org is a religion or not. WE ONLY LIVE ONCE. If you care about finding God, then go find God. If you care about happiness, then go find happiness. If you care about success, then go find success, etc... Total freedom, do whatever you want. Anyway, from a more practical point of view, the only thing that we can agree is a real problem with religion is its politics. If we have a religion with politics of equality and fairness, etc... Then there wouldn't be a problem at all. But that won't happen by a long shot, so the struggle will keep going.. (this post is not directed at the OP per se).

@Truth Addict thank you. Interesting, I haven't thought about "personal experience vs. impersonal theories" duality. They should be transcended, but maybe this topic is too deep for this post. I can learn how electrons were discovered, I don't want to repeat the same experiment with a vacuum tube. But to read reports on psychedelics and have own experience of psychedelics is a completely different story. I can't grasp the essence of experience just by reading reports.