Search the Community

It’s totally impersonal. You are speaking your truth, based on your genetics and life conditioning. But it’s not The Truth. It’s just appearances and a desire to express oneself. And all these thoughts in my mind are also appearances with no more relevance than a dog bark.

All of the above really, Absolute truth is omnipresent, so everything has to be One. Infinity is more like a negation finity in finity terms. Ill just post an excerpt from my book Non Duality Explained Non dual literally means ‘not two’ or that no two truths can exist. It is based on two assumptions:- Objective knowledge isn’t possible as reality that we experience is constantly changing Reality as we know it is One not two Thus, There is Only One Truth and that Truth is All Non Duality Derived We can’t say that truth does not exist, as it would amount to a logical contradiction. To say that truth does not exist is a self nullifying statement. So we conclude that TRUTH exists. Lets classify Truth with a capital ’T’ as something of which we can be absolutely certain. So Truth is something that is: Not subject to change Makes one absolutely certain of it Thus, Qualities of something Absolutely True must be not be subjected to any duality It must be : Timeless Omnipresent Impersonal Constant and Unchanging Not subjected to any limitations i.e Infinite False never existed, Only Truth exists so it contains everything There can’t be two absolute truths so Absolute Truth is not subjected to any duality Now we have to say that something exists for sure, lets call it Consciousness If absolute truth is everything, And Consciousness exists Consciousness is everything What is Self There are two types of self: Self with a capital “S” and self with a lower “s” ’S'elf is your true self whereas ’s'elf is your conceptual self. The conceptual self includes: Your memories Beliefs Assumptions Associations The True Self includes: Everything that is left when the conceptual self is removed or we can say simply Being Thus if Consciousness is everything You experience that consciousness through your true self Thus comes the saying Tat Tvam Asi ( You are it )

The first thing to do is to let go of your identification as a good person. This identification will hide many things away from yourself that you don't want to see. The internal landscape is vast and complex. It isn't all just sunshine and rainbows in there. If you look with brutal honesty, you will find a wide range of things that you'd never associate with yourself. You can even find sadistic and violent parts of yourself that you didn't know were there. The internal landscape is "well-peopled", so to speak. When I had my second experience of ego transcendence, I zoomed out from my ego identifications and noticed that I had two warring drives. I had my compassionate drive and I had my "evil" drive. And they were clashing against one another. And that evil drive was sadistic and violent and produced images in my mind of me delightedly shoving my thumbs into someone's eyes. Not because I didn't like that person. In fact, it was pretty much my favorite person in the world. It was just because my evil drive enjoyed the suffering that it brought to them in the fantasy. Now, I was even further identified with goodness at the time than you probably are now. I would get absolutely neurotic about being perceived as good and honest, to the point of obsession. So, had I been identified with my "good" ego, I would have never seen that drive in me. But in seeing it, I was able to transcend both the "good" and the "evil" drive and simply see them as the impersonal fodder of my internal landscape. Neither of them had anything to do with me. I was just the awareness taking them in. And in my distance from those two drives, I could hear a quieter more subtle voice of Divine Wisdom. And I knew that I already knew everything that I needed to know to live this life. I always had and I always would. And I simply wasn't able to perceive of the evil drive or the voice of Divine Wisdom because I was stuck in the pile of "good" thoughts, that really cared about people and assured me of my own goodness. And this is a problem because when a person is unconscious to the evil drive, it doesn't go away. It sneaks its way in, in subtle ways by disguising itself as goodness. So, in order to see your issues with your Anima clearly, you will have to see beyond your identification with goodness first. And what you find might not be pleasant or paint you in a good light. It may be like turning over a rotting log and seeing lost of nastiness that you never knew was there. But I would start by looking at your fears of how women will objectify you and what it will mean about your worth. Then (without trying to look away or see yourself as good) consider maybe you are unconsciously objectifying and viewing women's worth the same way. This can cause the Anima to project the same onto women as a whole group, so that you get a taste of what you may be doing to it. Remember, the Anima is literal a part of you, and it is literally female. So, if you judge women's worth based on objectified standards, the Anima (as a woman) will feel rejected and objectified and will exact revenge on you. And she will do this by projecting the same objectification/rejection/devaluation pattern onto women, which will make them appear to hold your worth in their hands. And she will make you feel powerless and worthless, because you've made her feel powerless and worthless. So, that's what I'd look for first. But you won't be able to see it if you can't question your own goodness. You have to be able to see yourself in unflattering lights. The identification with goodness will cause you to have a blindspot and to protect that blindspot so that you won't be able to see what's behind it. Basically you need to turn over the rotting log.

I have thought about this subject for a while. I have talked in length about personal development and spirituality with my friends who are mostly orange-green type of persons, and they even have personal developement habbits in their life and they resonate with the ideas but... it never really sticks. I feel like the ONLY real reason for that is the fact that they wont recognize the ever so subtle pain of experiencing the world as an ego. I cant just tell them "Hey! I know for a FACT that you are not happy, and it's not personal, it's in fact impersonal and I have it too". Thats something everyone has to admit themselves first. My friends have so much going for them and they mostly live a passionate life, so it is super easy to ignore that sadness and longing for unity. The few friends that have really noticed that sadness, know about non-duality. Not a surprise. Most folk have the reasonable philosophy of "life is like a rollercoaster: ups and downs" and its true even! But only on the surface. Thats where most peoples sticking point is. They accept the sadness (without understanding the reason for it) and the happiness ("Im happy because of these favourable conditions") as "thats how life is". "Dont fix it if it's not broken" is the reason personal development does not stick.

When I first encountered mushrooms, I was absolutely fascinated with it, and I wanted to experiment with dosage, in an attempt to sort of map things out. Started with 5 grams, went to 6, then 7, then 9, and finally 14g. For me, it just gets more confusing and the information gets more unusable and impersonal at the higher doses. Like raw data bundles being hurled at you in clumps, and you don't know how to use it, so all you can do is duck and try not to be hit by it. It was like Cosmic dodgeball. I have since learned that for me, the most benefits seem to be in the smaller doses, like say 3g - 6g.

@Neptune2020 As long as we imagine ourselves to be separate personalities one quite apart from another, we cannot grasp reality which is essentially impersonal. First we must know ourselves as witnesses only. Dimensionless and timeless centers of observation and than realize that immense ocean of pure awareness which is both mind and matter and beyond both. Your being a person is due to the illusion of space and time. You imagine yourself to be at a certain point occupying a certain volume. Your personality is due to your self identification with the body. Your thoughts and feelings exist in succession. They have their span in time and make you imagine yourself because of memory having duration. In reality time and space exit in you, you do not exist in them. -Nisargadatta

The idea that all perspectives are a fragment of a larger perspective is a stepping stone to realizing that there are perspectives that are completely disjoint. When you exhaust your top-level perspective, you will be able to make those discontinuous jumps. It will get a lot more confusing up until then, but you will settle in neutrality eventually. Neutrality in the sense of divine indifference. Of an objective, impersonal, perspective of equivalence of all perspectives. Lots of weird things start to happen here, but it is the most wonderful place of all (counter-intuitively). You are becoming more conscious, don't worry. Try to get comfortable in the Unknown, but without rejecting the Known. The Known needs to be exhausted, not rejected. It needs to naturally become uninteresting to you.

Enlightenment is not a state. Life is pain and pleasure, ups and downs. The “me” who decides whether pain or pleasure is good or not will fade away when enlightenment happens and completely disappear as it deepens. What’s left when there is no one judging life as it is? Pain is not a problem, it only becomes a problem if someone holds on to it. This someone disappears with enlightenment. Enlightenment is the end of personal suffering. When suffering does happen it is seen as completely impersonal and therefore it allows it to be without resisting it. Acceptance is not suffering. In a way, enlightenment is an attitude to life. Enlightenment is when beliefs about who you are falls away. You can’t do anything for enlightenment to happen just like you can’t do anything about the sun going up tomorrow morning. Enlightenment feels absolutely normal.

Many find, in the first glimpse or initial awakening to truth, the difficulty of meaninglessness. That this existence has no meaning. What has happened, is all their meaning was applied to what is untrue. What is true had been veiled from them their entire life, so there was really no choice in the matter but to take what was given as being the truth. The beliefs, concepts, ideas, opinions, imparted to them from birth by trusted "authorities". Those same authorities are in the same boat, and just passing on what was imparted to them. As one's perception deepens on the path of truth, what was found meaningless becomes a blessing. It clears all that was untrue to allow what is true to be revealed. It is distressing at first to many, but with continued perseverance on the path, as more clarity gives rise to clearer perception and "deeper" seeing into the truth, an unfathomable, unexplainable meaning begins to arise. It is not explainable, or very difficult to explain because it is a meaning that is impersonal, and not derived from what has been gathered and believed from what has been taught by society and "authority" figures, who themselves are ignorant of what is true. One should surrender any sadness, anger, or negativity surrounding what they had mistakenly thought was true. Ignorance in self or others is not a sin and no one is to be blamed. If one happens to eventually perceive and/or "see/experience" what is true, it is truly a blessing. With devotion and love for truth,god,ishta,etc., will come ever new clarity and deeper insight. And with that, an ever deepening,unspeakable divine meaning will be experienced/perceived.

Moving From Red to Blue The Delta/3 stage is included here because it shows the cognitive differentiation that occurs from Self-protective thinking to Conformist dependence and provides a logical link for mental growth. It is not included in our measurement tool, the MAP, because it is statistically rare as mentioned in endnote #7. At this stage people vacillate between two points of view. They can take one or the other view, but not both at once. Sometimes they wonder “how do you look to me?” but newly also “how do I look to you?” They now recognize external differences regarding self-presentation and behaviors. Often children entering school are exploring this developmental stage. The Rule-oriented stage describes adults who are discovering the second person perspective and who begin to make simple, external comparisons based on concrete mental operations. They become preoccupied with finding out the social conventions and rules based on the beginning need to fit in and to be liked. One wants to look “right,” and acceptable, therefore the emphasis is on external attractiveness and appearance. People at this stage show more trust in the world since acceptance and protection can be gained by following the rules. The world is experienced as less hostile than for Self-protective folks. Persons want to be “re-spected” which means, “seen” by others. Respect can now be gained by adhering to group norms, not just by might. One also gives respect to others in the form of noticing them and how they act and look. “People notice me when I am here. I listen to them, they listen to me.” With the second perspective, one discovers the possibility for simple feedback. One can find out what others think about one. “I can ask my friends what they think; they will tell; and the world doesn’t collapse! I can trust them.” The ability to take a second person perspective is a milestone in the development of social interaction. THE CONVENTIONAL STAGES The Conformist, Self-conscious and Conscientious stages, stages 3, 3/4, and 4 respectively, cover the ego stages of most people after about the age of 12. We have found that roughly 80% of adults populate these three stages with most people in the adult working world moving from the Expert to the Achiever stage. In Piagetian terms, stage 3 represents functioning at the concrete operational level, stage 3/4 uses abstract operations and stage 4 individuals rely on formal operations for their meaning making. According to Piaget and the cognitive schools of constructive development, Conscientious stage 4 people have a linear view of reality: they define objects (variables) as being separate and having closed boundaries; they see causality as linear and variables are treated as independent. The expanded 3rd person perspective with its formal operational capacities is widely considered the adult stage in much of Western culture; and society and institutions support and reward its achievement. It is also the stage that is described as “high” ego development in research projects that use Loevinger’s theory only (Manners and Durkin, 2004). A citizenry capable of rational deliberation and choice based on pertinent criteria (not external features, sameness or tradition) would seem to be a necessary precondition for democracy to work. Only such a perspective and rational assessment of choices can safeguard the whole and at the same time allow changes to be reflected in the laws. The Conformist Stage 3 (Diplomat) This is a stage of integration into a new social container. At the Diplomat or Conformist stage, people make sense of the world in a new way. They now have developed enough skills to get around in the world, accomplish the daily tasks of life and, in general, manage ordinary, concrete things and situations. They now actively want to play by the rules. It is the first stage that can be considered as socialized, that is, to know about basic interpersonal skills such as sharing, and protecting one another. Most importantly, people at this stage see others as important people in their own right. They want to be like those in their environment whom they admire. We might say that they discovered the beginning of the “we-space.” They sing the choir of the crowd, yet without a separate voice. One can now trade magical, egocentric thinking for group-centric thinking and the security of being a member of the group. Being a part of a group gives people a new way to deal with the fact that “it’s hard to be an adult and get along.” The Conformist stage 3 describes persons with a frame of mind naturally developed in latency and early adolescence. Their self-identity is defined by their relationship to a group. This leads to confused boundaries between oneself and the group (whether family, sports team, or nation). Being part of this larger entity allows one to be protected and share in its power. The price for inclusion is an unexamined demand for loyalty and obedience. This holds for both leaders and followers at this stage. In cultures, where ostracism is a form of severe punishment, being “shunned” is meant as a death sentence. “You no longer exist for us.” Conformist adults actually relish the dependency that group membership bestows. It provides safety in numbers and a new sense of power. The self is defined by and generated by the expectations and values of those others to whom one “belongs.” Conformists tend to accept norms without inspection or questioning. Their cognitive world is divided into simple categories, and types of people, mostly based on external distinctions. Having a holiday table just like the one seen in a famous “best home” magazine, or owning a car just like one’s boss’s might really make a Conformist happy. The boundaries between self and others, however, are confused, literally fused and blurred. On the one hand, there is total acceptance of the family and in-group (such as peer groups in adolescence), on the other hand, we see blind rejection of deviance and out-groups. It’s “them” against “us” now instead of the Self-protective person’s lonely stance of “me” against “them,” which included everybody else (even family members). For the Conformist, you are either ally and friend and approve of us and what we do, or you are the enemy. The more status the group has, the more Diplomats feel worthy as one of its members. If it took some effort to fulfill the required demonstration of obedience and submission, they feel honored to be admitted and wearing the insignia that tell others so. Having a shared truth gives people a ready-made way to make sense of the world. Sometimes this goes beyond feeling valued as a member of the group. Some groups believe that their truth is the only truth. This fosters a sense of superiority. Members are told that they are the “chosen few” that shall be saved. All those who do not belong are doomed, considered heathen or barbarians, or whatever label makes them lesser or non-human. This kind of mindset is particularly common in various fundamentalist religious groups. They can judge harshly those who do not belong. It is difficult for someone whose self- sense is based on belonging to such a group to even realize that there may be others of different faiths who believe equally fervently that they have the only truth. In general, Stage 3 people try to uphold tradition and to avoid rocking the boat. They are accommodating, sometimes overly nice and non-confrontational. They don’t like to be singled out and get feedback. Feedback is experienced as critique and as having done something wrong and displeasing. Diplomats expect guidance from above or from those who lead them. They are not yet ready to take a stand to express themselves. They don’t have their own opinions to assert although they may be good at expounding the values and beliefs of their group. Nor can they take initiative for themselves. They might do so for the benefit of their group when told to do so by an accepted authority. Uncertainty and conflicting feelings cannot yet be registered as they threaten the very being of a Conformist. The description of this stage in terms of “not yet” exposes a common Western bias. Stage 3 persons have to keep up with the neighbors. They make sure they are seen in the right places (for instance, in church on Sunday) and with the right group. They are often eager to contribute to the group by volunteering (PTA, church social, men’s club) and taking on preset roles in their respective clubs. Acquiring material assets and status symbols is important as these symbolize status and prove one’s worth. Moreover, the visible assets are important because the provide real personal satisfaction and they indicate one’s success. Nametags on the door, being listed as the employee of the month show that one is noticed. Trying to keep up with fashion, neighbors and material gain can, of course, also become a burden and a source of unhappiness and stress. Morality: Conformists adhere to a simple rule: “everything goes into two piles. The good, or correct, and the bad, or incorrect.” Knowing the distinction makes it easier to make sense of the world. Every decision, every idea, every person, every action, fits in one pile or the other. There are few, if any, shades of gray, no irony, and no intangibles. Actions are carried out with conviction. This is how it is done around here. “Either you are with us and agree or you are against us.” Unlike at the Rule-oriented stage where simple rules are inconsistently adhered too, here rules are beginning to be internalized and followed without question. Shame is a common response to transgressions and for undesired consequences of one’s actions. Because of their strongly held and unquestioned values, Conformists are apt to feel responsible in situations in which they are not to blame. Repeatedly saying “I am sorry” is meant to soften any repercussions. One should have done the right thing all along. Conformists are identified with and bound to those with the same tastes, attributes, beliefs and expectations, and confused or threatened by differing demands, perspectives, diversity, and complexity. The values of one’s own group get introjected as strong “shoulds,” while the values of those who are different are denigrated and likely rejected as “evil.” Thus, life is governed by rules of what can be and cannot be done. Others with differing views are morally condemned. Sexual and aggressive feelings are likely denied or suppressed out of fear of rejection and abandonment. For the same reason, commandments from various religious are taken in as the Truth and not examined. The “holy books” contain the literal truth. Any questioning of their commandments guaranteeing salvation is seen as a form of treason or a sign of having fallen from grace. Social: To be liked one has to have an attractive social personality. It is important to be nice, pleasant, and accommodating. People are judged by the way they dress and talk and by the proper manners. Great care is taken on neatness, outward appearance, cleanliness of one’s domicile or office. There are those whom by temperament, are more contrary. At the Diplomat stage, it is possible to find some sense of OK-ness as a non-conformist. Rebels, have-nots and other misfits often need, find or create their own cliques. One can either be a loner or create or join an alternative group and display the markers that identify one as a member of that clique. This can happen because the individuals don’t fit the prevailing norms or do not have the tokens that would help them to belong to the high status group. 17 Multiple cliques, such as fraternities and sororities on campus, often attract various kind of students with a conformist mindset . Each has its own traditions with different acceptance rituals and admittance oaths. Feelings: Blind conformism, fundamentalism and prejudice can be expressions of this early conventional frame of mind. Potential aggression against self (putting oneself down) and negative affect or disappointment are often countered by demonstrations of overly positive feelings and enthusiasm. One’s negative feelings “I hate you” are split off and projected outside and then experienced as “they hate me.” Anger and other disagreeable feelings are suppressed as they threaten the status quo. They rarely reach awareness. Conformists’ main coping moves are projection and introjection. They imagine that others think, want, feel what they themselves think, want or feel (projection) and then try to fill those imagined needs. They also swallow others’ definitions, norms, values and opinions without questioning (introjection). If my mother, the church, or the boss says so, it must be true. To summarize, the Conformist- Diplomat does not yet have a self in the sense of a separate adult identity. Instead, he or she is defined by others. The self-other boundaries are blurry and not differentiated. Thus, relationships often have a dependent, “sticky, I-need-you” quality. Interpersonal style: Because Conformists so desperately want to belong, they will conform to the rules and norms of whatever desired group, gang, political party they belong to. In companies they are the ones that smooth discontent or incipient conflict among coworkers and make sure that the place has a pleasant atmosphere. They value being nice and helpful. They see relationships in terms of expected behaviors (loyalty, being friendly) rather than in terms of deep feelings and motives. Cognitive style: Conformists are interested in the concrete, visible aspects of experience and tend to use superlatives and conventional clichés to describe it. These clichés, however, are taken seriously and not experienced as clichés. References to inner feelings are stereotyped and predictable and aligned with cultural expectations. Conscious preoccupation: Conformists put great value on appearance, status symbols, material possessions, reputation and prestige. They are concerned with social acceptance and attempt to adjust to group norms. They deeply care about other’s opinions and evaluations although they are not likely to ask for feedback. “What do others think about this or that, or about me?” Internal dimension: Conformist individuals worry about what others think and feel at any given moment as their sense of self-worth depends on others’ approval. In protocols they express simple “acceptable” feeling states: sad, happy, nervous, upset, but do not differentiate feelings into subtler graduations. The sense of “shoulds” and “oughts” and sense of shame and embarrassment if those shoulds are not fulfilled can be crushing. Main anxiety: not to belong and to be cast out. Most threatening to a Conformist is being disapproved by or deserted by significant others, rejected by one’s group. Their anxiety is thus a fear of being non-existing and the loss of a sense of self as a loss of “me-as-accepted-by-others.” Problem solving: Generally, emerging problems are denied, or relabeled and white-washed. “Never mind that. If you look at the bright side, it’s not really so bad.” Asking a superior for what to do is the most natural way of dealing with difficulties. Conflict is not yet registered or if experience, it is avoided as too threatening. It can become great challenge to a Diplomat if he or she belongs to different groups with conflicting value sets. With today’s mobility and complex arrangements, this is becoming challenge for Diplomats is becoming more common. Organizational type: Conformists seek acceptance and protection by a larger entity. They are most apt to be drawn into organizations with a clearly defined identity and hierarchical structures. Clear instructions, advice and guidance are preferred over freedom to show initiative. Thus, command and control enterprises such as the military are attractive. Coaching-Counseling style: Conformists like to give lots of advice telling others what to do or not to do. They also tend to compare and evaluate others according to their own preferences where the way I manage or we do it here is the right way while other ways are simply wrong and need to be corrected. Sample characters: Edith Bunker in All in the Family takes all kinds of abuse by others, particularly her spouse Archie, but she stays with him. She is fluttering and fussing around him, always trying to be positive, to see the best in everybody and in everything. Edith finds pleasure in taking good care of her loved ones. However, the character Edith also displays an open-mindedness which is not typical of this stage. Language signs: The language is often impersonal, nice and positive and may be full of clichés. Short, stereotypical phrases, exaggerated positive affect are common on the MAP. Everybody and everything is fun, important, wonderful. When describing situations; concrete aspects and factual information is given. Conformists describe their and others’ behavior in terms of I “always”, we “never.” The vocabulary for feeling states is simple, undifferentiated. Source: cook-greuter.com

What is Knowledge? "Knowledge represents your bond and your intrinsic relationship with all life. Yet Knowledge has a specific mission for you in this life—a mission which you are encouraged to discover, to accept, to integrate and to fulfill. In other words, Knowledge is not everything within you; Knowledge is your connection to everything. Knowledge is intelligent; it is here for a purpose. Knowledge is the part of your mind that is spiritual and permanent. It is the part of your mind that knows who you are and why you have come here, who you must reach and what you must accomplish. Knowledge is within you now, but you cannot lay hold to it. It is not there for you to acquire and to use. Rather, you have an opportunity to come back into relationship with Knowledge. Here your personal mind, the mind that is conditioned by your world, and your Impersonal Mind, the mind that you have brought with you from beyond the world, reunite in a meaningful relationship based upon a purpose in the world and upon relationship with the world and with people who support that purpose." It's incredible isn't it? Makes sense to me. Also in the context of this forum. https://www.newmessage.org/the-message/volume-2/greater-community-spirituality/what-is-knowledge

It is my opinion that the use of God has now become a tautology. What does it matter what we call the ultimate truth? Or the ultimate cause of everyting? If God is existence or consciousness, what does it matter if we say God is existence or existence is existence? The majority believe God is a personified thing, we invented a personified God, we gave God a personality, now we found out that this not the case. Existence is non-personal, impersonal. Consciousness/existence exists, God does not. An ultimate causer may exists, but there is no need to call it anything, not God, nor anything. It certainly does not call itself anything, we do that name calling, probably because it is so much rooted within us.

of course, Leo should look beyond his own interpretations of his experience, and beyond infinity infinity has no absolute, and has no ground. groundless and empty as Leo says. while true ground of all, true absolute, actual God of monotheism, Allah/Elohim/Christian God, True God transcends infinity itself thats the biggest mind twist, especially for nonduality folks and alive infinite intelligence that Leo tripped to, is not really a God of monotheism it is what Sufis call as Universal Being, or Universal Soul, or Self-unfolding Being or just big SELF also known as Adam Kadmon in Kabbala think about it, you just trip and arrive to godhead, who is actually just a bored intelligence with human qualities and its not even clear whether he is alive or dead. whether you can call him god or just a dead reality what kind of god is this? god with existential boredom? nothingness whatsoever? empty awareness field? infinite machine of infinite possibilities? is it god or is it some mechanic calculator? can you intuit that there are inconsistencies here brahman = atman. but brahman is not God that transcends infinity. brahman is the name for impersonal aspect of this reality, which is maybe dead maybe alive, maybe dream maybe real, maybe this maybe that, utter nonduality however pretty nondual picture only applies to this reality, but it fails when you recognise that your witnessing of the here and now, is not simply equal to reality but its rather pointing to absence of the real subject in the reality, it points to absence of actually real thing in this infinite reality. coz actually real and true is beyond this infinity. absolute truth is not infinity, or being, absolute truth totally transcends infinity, and you can't trip to it, in other words creator and creation are not in nondual bowl, they are not the same thing. absence of the real subject in this reality points to that real subject does not exist in this infinite reality, real subject transcends infinity so its not true to equate all old gods into the same god, all religions into all being about same thing, archaic paradigms of pantheism and monism to monotheism based on revelations, all mystical schools into the same thing, all notions into one undifferentiated bowl of oneness, and think that this undifferentiated bowl of maybe alive maybe dead reality is the absolute truth that people pray to? and consider as holy? praying to dead consciousness? to infinite machine with existential boredom? can you see that its not so simple my friends. but in the same time its all much more simple than we think it is, and 'deluded' religions who followed prophetic revelations understood it much better than us modern-time sages, not just conceptually but also experientially, because only messengers who had message from Absolute Truth could taught you how do you form relationship, binding (religare) with Absolute Truth, God. and your reliance upon your own techniques or own understanding can only take you to merging with brahman. do you really think that Jesus or Muhammad did what they did just so you can merge with dead brahman intuition can sense things that actual direct experience cannot. actually, intuition is more real than experience, or than perception. and ur intuition probably sense that something isn't correct about this, and your experience of god might probably been tricking your understanding of the map of the territory human-being is reflection or projection of this universal being (Adam kadmon), its an archetype of reality, thats why you are one with it, thats why Leo sense that he is it, and it is him. of course reality is infinite mirrors all referring to each other, thats why its all relative, because absolute is simply not in this reality true God is witness of this reality/infinity, but his essence is not here, he is not 'what is', his essence transcends 'what is'. God is what isn't, his absence in this reality actually points to him existing outside of this reality, when mystics say God is everything they confuse realisation of him witnessing everything with his actual essence being in everything, but we can't say that his essence is in this reality, coz its totally different from this infinite reality, Sufism had this debates between various schools and resolved this misunderstanding long time ago, Sufism has term called 'monotheism of witness', which means that being is all one, while Allah is witness of being, and actual essence of God transcends being our infinity and this infinite intelligence is probably like a tiny toy in his 'hands' maybe this whole thing of misunderstanding god is the obstacle towards your enlightenment. so Leo, I believe in you but I carefully follow Leo's growth, and it is very interesting to watch, because he brings lots of interesting stuff, even if I don't agree with him about God. coz without Leo i would still be studying all the things like nonduality that he studied for us, so without Leo i wouldn't come even close to anything, but now i wish to repay Leo, so that this maybe will boost his progress. he is great in investigating reality, but i hope there will be time when he will start to investigate about what can be outside of 'all there is'

I know what you mean. The 'personal' mind is like goggles that makes it possible to recognise 'a world of things' Without the goggles('personal mind') put on 'your' awareness, 'you' don't experience memory nor a world of things. It's just impersonal consciousness, unbound, outside of time and space. You literary have to limit this impersonal consciousness, and narrow it down in order for memory to arise and a world to appear. @Faceless Great insights!(as usual)

Can two Absolute Truths exist?? You must ask yourself this. This is a excerpt from my book Non Duality Explained Non dual literally means ‘not two’ or that no two truths can exist. It is based on two assumptions:- Objective knowledge isn’t possible as reality that we experience is constantly changing Reality as we know it is One not two Thus, There is Only One Truth and that Truth is All Now you may ask, as to how we have come to these two conclusions? Aren’t these two assumptions also two truths? Non Duality Derived We can’t say that truth does not exist, as it would amount to a logical contradiction. To say that truth does not exist is a self nullifying statement. So we conclude that TRUTH exists. Lets classify Truth with a capital ’T’ as something of which we can be absolutely certain. So Truth is something that is: Not subject to change Makes one absolutely certain of it Thus, Qualities of something Absolutely True must be not be subjected to any duality It must be : Timeless Omnipresent Impersonal Constant and Unchanging Not subjected to any limitations i.e Infinite False never existed, Only Truth exists so it contains everything There can’t be two absolute truths so Absolute Truth is not subjected to any duality Now we have to say that something exists for sure, lets call it Consciousness So, if Absolute Truth is Everything And, consciousness Exists Consiousness is Everything What is Self There are two types of self: Self with a capital “S” and self with a lower “s” ’S'elf is your true self whereas ’s'elf is your conceptual self. The conceptual self includes: Your memories Beliefs Assumptions Associations The True Self includes: Everything that is left when the conceptual self is removed or we can say simply Being Thus if Consciousness is everything You experience that consciousness through your true self Thus comes the saying Tat Tvam Asi ( You are it )

@Prabhaker coz abrahamic religions are not about enlightenment per se. Enlightenment can happen to you through them but it’s not the ultimate goal and main idea of these religions. And again you don’t need to believe in God for enlightenment, you don’t need religion and scriptures and faith and prayers for that. If you are God then you are praying to yourself, what the hell! How can you even pray to yourself? Can’t you see so many contradictions. Moreover, if reality is impersonal then how can you pray to something which is impersonal? How can impersonal respond to your prayers. And why you even need to pray for enlightenment? Enlightenment doesn’t require prayer. Jesus didn’t mean that he is one with reality/being, he didn’t mean reality/being by God, no one would care about him if he was one with reality because there were tones of mystics in that times who were enlightened and were one with reality. I’m only telling this because I also had same view in past so I understand your misunderstanding. It requires research.

@Highest In Hindu text, the Existence aspect of the Absolute Reality is referred to as the SELF. It is impersonal. But it is called the self because that's what you ultimately are. On other hand, Buddha used the term no-self as one of the three marks of Nature. If you observe your experience non judgmentally, you can discover these 3 marks yourself. 1) Impermanence= all your experiences are constantly changing. Nothing remains constant 2) Anatta/no-self= there is nothing called a 'me' in any experience if you observe it carefully 3) Suffering= yet if you cling to experiences in spite of impermanence and anatta, that very clinging is your ego and you suffer from everything because your clinging is on totally false grounds

I have almost been there, countless people have experienced it, it's more probable that it is real. But of course how it is experienced is far different from the concept of it. It can only be truly understood after experiencing it. But the ''i'' is not needed, existence can exist without the notion of an ''i'', it's just superficial language game. From my experiences, what absolute nothingness means is that the true nature of yourself is impersonal nothingness or emptiness, so much that you actually do not exist, you drown in the emptiness until you disappear then you become everything that is, at the end you stop identifying yourself as everything. Now only what IS is, alone. You can trigger this by being the observer yes, you can also trigger it with other methods, like introspection, self-inquiry, neti-neti method, etc.

I wouldn't say selfless, impersonal. The opposite. Self-full, personal, and mechanical/fragmented.

Same as the "observer is the observed" right? I could never fully grock that statement, as I've heard it so many times it's starting to lose meaning, you know what I mean? Can you explain? Is it that the personal identity of questioner/observer/do-er is nothing more than self-less, impersonal, mechanical thought?

Who knows, maybe they are being deluded by their minds, or maybe they actually experienced other realms? Various metaphysical ideologies have mapped out different sectors of consciousness from celestial heights to dense and hellish depths. Most religions seem to agree that ones behaviors and actions in this lifetime determine where ones consciousness goes afterwards. This seems to be an impersonal energy dynamic thing and not one of judgement or morality. Maybe the idea is not so nonsensical. You're right to reject the nonsense that you were indoctrinated with, but it's not necessary to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The problem here is that religious doctrines have perverted cosmological insights with projections of our own animal nature: in this case it's primarily that of our own fear and guilt.

Haha! Like the part with guns. ? Love have to protect itself with guns. ? But honestly, there is indeed a system that enslave people, Maybe not literaly, But mentally, we pick up thoughts, ideas, norms from society until we forgot how to live from intuition/heart. Finally we fear leaving the mind even for a brief second to experience impersonal Love beyond mind. Therefore, I really think a worldrevolution is a good Idea. But Maybe its impossible, as you pointed out using absurd humor, guns will not be a part of it. And without guns, how can it not be anorher flower power movement where we give flowers to the military when others are laughing and not taking it serious. ? I guess many in history have accept violece and cruelty just as means to come to power. And once there, they like to implement the good, the Love and beauty of life, in a top-down model. Nerver works I guess! ? I guess there can be no Justitified revolution other Then the individual inner one?

It was sarcasm in order to catch attention. Of course it's foolish to speak about an elite, spirituality is absence of elites by its very definition. I think it's equally foolish to be sarcastic though. The questions are valid, but the thread in its whole is crap I guess. Sometimes I rebell against consensus and all the sweet talk in here, all beautiful and wise words. But again, why rebel against that? Truth is about big words, we are indeed eternal and infinite impersonal consciousness, and that's beautiful, isn't it?

Exactly Or deprogram? By a holistic perception of “seeing the whole” thought/the conceptual, ceases and what remains is truth. Yeah from the personal to impersonal hehe. A ceasing of time...or a cessation of the center?

hi iTommy~ Perhaps you might be falling into the space occurring due to the conversation being nowhere to begin with and you are actually recognizing the real potential constituting the situational energy due to your meditation practice. It may be the conversation constitutes fog in terms of the psychological momentum you are seeing for what it really is? I like that you are also (deliberately?) shifting between the ratio-synchretic/psychological and the immediate non-discursive knowledge of your innate non-psychological capacity. Very good~ [as long as you shouldn't be in one OR the other]. Are these conversations valid? I would continue this exploration while perhaps using more subtle (impersonal) circumstances to practice this shifting between modes. Nice observation! ed note: add "…in terms of the psychological momentum you are seeing for what it really is" in first paragraph