Search the Community

One can die a bit differently than the physical version for sure... http://haunteduniverse.net/What_is_Enlightenment.html Like, still with a pulse, but the former illusion of separation/separate-self dead. Once you see through this illusion, it never gets its full power back to make-believe. Which is actually the best thing that can happen if the annoying bug is robbed of its hypnotizing power. The death of the caterpillar is the birth of the butterfly. But death is death, and before the Gateless Gate it can look like annihilation, especially if it is not gradual but fast. Only later it is seen that it was just the death of an illusion. An example: https://scienceandnonduality.com/article/a-spiritual-awakening/ Francis Lucille: "At this point, I felt that my death was imminent, and that this horrendous event would surely be triggered by any further letting go on my behalf, by any further welcoming of that beauty. I had reached a crucial point in my life. As a result of my spiritual search, the world and its objects had lost their attraction. I didn’t really expect anything substantial from them. I was exclusively in love with the Absolute, and this love gave me the boldness to jump into the great void of death, to die for the sake of that beauty, now so close, that beauty which was calling me beyond the Sanskrit words. As a result of this abandon, the intense terror which had been holding me instantaneously released its grip and changed into a flow of bodily sensations and thoughts which rapidly converged toward a single thought, the I-thought, just as the roots and the branches of a tree converge toward its single trunk. In an almost simultaneous apperception, the personal entity with which I was identifying revealed itself in its totality. I saw its superstructure, the thoughts originating from the I-concept and its infrastructure, the traces of my fears and desires at the physical level. Now the entire tree was contemplated by an impersonal eye, and both the superstructure of thoughts and the infrastructure of bodily sensations rapidly vanished, leaving the I-thought alone in the field of consciousness. For a few moments, the pure I-thought seemed to vacillate, just as the flame of an oil lamp running out of fuel, then vanished. At that precise moment, the immortal background of Presence revealed itself in all its splendor." Selling the death of the caterpillar by the River

I fully agree. It's beautiful unbounded lucid luminous impersonal centereless unlimited. But still only This seems to be happening. No others. No other povs happening somewhere in eternity. Just This.

As someone who grew up in a small Southern town, I can tell you that about a quarter of the people there range on a scale from casually racist to obsessively racist. It's anywhere from casually stereotyping certain races and occasionally the odd racial slur... all the way up to an intense obsession with people of other races and expressing a desire to cleanse America of all non-white people. So, yes... racism is still an issue. And that's not even taking into account the impersonal systems perspective on racism... or unconscious biases. And once you become conscious of that, you realize how pervasive it is. And even if there were somehow suddenly no out-an-out racist people, there would still be negative impacts on non-white people because of how certain systems were set up in the past that still trickle into how it is today. For example, public schools in America are mostly funded from property taxes. And because of past practices like segregation and redlining, it's the case that previously red-lined neighborhoods are poor areas where mostly non-white people live. And it has led to a disparity in wealthy that still impacts people to this day. This leads to poorer schools that get less funding... and the (mostly non-white) kids that go there don't get as good of an education compared to the wealthier (mostly white) schools. This then trickles into fewer educational prospects for non-white students... which trickles into fewer career prospects. And there have been studies done where they'd send in identical resumés... but have one be a black-sounding name and one be a white-sounding name. And the person with the black-sounding name was chosen significantly less for call-backs throughout this experiment despite having the same resumé. So, yes. Racism is alive and well unfortunately.

Wtf are "patterns "? Existence is not a collection of impersonal unconscious dumb atoms bouncing around in a void ..it's self aware ..conscious..sensible..sentient. You are denying your own sentience.

This has nothing to do with me, I’m not so needy to post something in a random forum to strangers whom I’ll probably never meet just to look cool, I’m here to discuss points and truth, it’s impersonal to me, you’re the one that keeps making thing’s personal and keep attacking people whenever they make a point that you can’t disprove, once they put you on the spot and call you on your bullshit, once they find out that you’re guilty, you start attacking, this is what happens to you whenever I post or comment on here.

@Danioover9000 I dont know if you are aware of the work of Mark Fisher. He is famous for his book Capitalism Realism, that basically encapsulate the words of Margareth Thacher " There is no other Alternative" or that Capitalism is here and there is no other way to do things. Well, there is a Essay where Fisher talk about or predicts the rise of this Intelectuals that somehow are used for the agendas of the Establishement. They have no loyalty them to themselfs and whatever serves their fame. He can explain it better than me . Bellow is the trasncrip of the essay. But ypu can look for the title online too. I am still trying to warp my mind around what exactly Fisher was trying to alert. But I have and intuition is something wort undestanding. If you understand better than me please share what you thing he was trying to point to. Here it goes. Ah the link is in the bottom Exiting the Vampire Castle We need to learn, or re-learn, how to build comradeship and solidarity instead of doing capital’s work for it by condemning and abusing each other. This doesn’t mean, of course, that we must always agree – on the contrary, we must create conditions where disagreement can take place without fear of exclusion and excommunication. Mark Fisher This summer, I seriously considered withdrawing from any involvement in politics. Exhausted through overwork, incapable of productive activity, I found myself drifting through social networks, feeling my depression and exhaustion increasing. ‘Left-wing’ Twitter can often be a miserable, dispiriting zone. Earlier this year, there were some high-profile twitterstorms, in which particular left-identifying figures were ‘called out’ and condemned. What these figures had said was sometimes objectionable; but nevertheless, the way in which they were personally vilified and hounded left a horrible residue: the stench of bad conscience and witch-hunting moralism. The reason I didn’t speak out on any of these incidents, I’m ashamed to say, was fear. The bullies were in another part of the playground. I didn’t want to attract their attention to me. The open savagery of these exchanges was accompanied by something more pervasive, and for that reason perhaps more debilitating: an atmosphere of snarky resentment. The most frequent object of this resentment is Owen Jones, and the attacks on Jones – the person most responsible for raising class consciousness in the UK in the last few years – were one of the reasons I was so dejected. If this is what happens to a left-winger who is actually succeeding in taking the struggle to the centre ground of British life, why would anyone want to follow him into the mainstream? Is the only way to avoid this drip-feed of abuse to remain in a position of impotent marginality? One of the things that broke me out of this depressive stupor was going to the People’s Assembly in Ipswich, near where I live. The People’s Assembly had been greeted with the usual sneers and snarks. This was, we were told, a useless stunt, in which media leftists, including Jones, were aggrandising themselves in yet another display of top-down celebrity culture. What actually happened at the Assembly in Ipswich was very different to this caricature. The first half of the evening – culminating in a rousing speech by Owen Jones – was certainly led by the top-table speakers. But the second half of the meeting saw working class activists from all over Suffolk talking to each other, supporting one another, sharing experiences and strategies. Far from being another example of hierarchical leftism, the People’s Assembly was an example of how the vertical can be combined with the horizontal: media power and charisma could draw people who hadn’t previously been to a political meeting into the room, where they could talk and strategise with seasoned activists. The atmosphere was anti-racist and anti-sexist, but refreshingly free of the paralysing feeling of guilt and suspicion which hangs over left-wing twitter like an acrid, stifling fog. Then there was Russell Brand. I’ve long been an admirer of Brand – one of the few big-name comedians on the current scene to come from a working class background. Over the last few years, there has been a gradual but remorseless embourgeoisement of television comedy, with preposterous ultra-posh nincompoop Michael McIntyre and a dreary drizzle of bland graduate chancers dominating the stage. The day before Brand’s now famous interview with Jeremy Paxman was broadcast on Newsnight, I had seen Brand’s stand-up show the Messiah Complex in Ipswich. The show was defiantly pro-immigrant, pro-communist, anti-homophobic, saturated with working class intelligence and not afraid to show it, and queer in the way that popular culture used to be (i.e. nothing to do with the sour-faced identitarian piety foisted upon us by moralisers on the post-structuralist ‘left’). Malcolm X, Che, politics as a psychedelic dismantling of existing reality: this was communism as something cool, sexy and proletarian, instead of a finger-wagging sermon. The next night, it was clear that Brand’s appearance had produced a moment of splitting. For some of us, Brand’s forensic take-down of Paxman was intensely moving, miraculous; I couldn’t remember the last time a person from a working class background had been given the space to so consummately destroy a class ‘superior’ using intelligence and reason. This wasn’t Johnny Rotten swearing at Bill Grundy – an act of antagonism which confirmed rather than challenged class stereotypes. Brand had outwitted Paxman – and the use of humour was what separated Brand from the dourness of so much ‘leftism’. Brand makes people feel good about themselves; whereas the moralising left specialises in making people feed bad, and is not happy until their heads are bent in guilt and self-loathing. The moralising left quickly ensured that the story was not about Brand’s extraordinary breach of the bland conventions of mainstream media ‘debate’, nor about his claim that revolution was going to happen. (This last claim could only be heard by the cloth-eared petit-bourgeois narcissistic ‘left’ as Brand saying that he wanted to lead the revolution – something that they responded to with typical resentment: ‘I don’t need a jumped-up celebrity to lead me‘.) For the moralisers, the dominant story was to be about Brand’s personal conduct – specifically his sexism. In the febrile McCarthyite atmosphere fermented by the moralising left, remarks that could be construed as sexist mean that Brand is a sexist, which also meant that he is a misogynist. Cut and dried, finished, condemned. It is right that Brand, like any of us, should answer for his behaviour and the language that he uses. But such questioning should take place in an atmosphere of comradeship and solidarity, and probably not in public in the first instance – although when Brand was questioned about sexism by Mehdi Hasan, he displayed exactly the kind of good-humoured humility that was entirely lacking in the stony faces of those who had judged him. “I don’t think I’m sexist, But I remember my grandmother, the loveliest person I‘ve ever known, but she was racist, but I don’t think she knew. I don’t know if I have some cultural hangover, I know that I have a great love of proletariat linguistics, like ‘darling’ and ‘bird’, so if women think I’m sexist they’re in a better position to judge than I am, so I’ll work on that.” Brand’s intervention was not a bid for leadership; it was an inspiration, a call to arms. And I for one was inspired. Where a few months before, I would have stayed silent as the PoshLeft moralisers subjected Brand to their kangaroo courts and character assassinations – with ‘evidence’ usually gleaned from the right-wing press, always available to lend a hand – this time I was prepared to take them on. The response to Brand quickly became as significant as the Paxman exchange itself. As Laura Oldfield Ford pointed out, this was a clarifying moment. And one of the things that was clarified for me was the way in which, in recent years, so much of the self-styled ‘left’ has suppressed the question of class. Class consciousness is fragile and fleeting. The petit bourgeoisie which dominates the academy and the culture industry has all kinds of subtle deflections and pre-emptions which prevent the topic even coming up, and then, if it does come up, they make one think it is a terrible impertinence, a breach of etiquette, to raise it. I’ve been speaking now at left-wing, anti-capitalist events for years, but I’ve rarely talked – or been asked to talk – about class in public. But, once class had re-appeared, it was impossible not to see it everywhere in the response to the Brand affair. Brand was quickly judged and-or questioned by at least three ex-private school people on the left. Others told us that Brand couldn’t really be working class, because he was a millionaire. It’s alarming how many ‘leftists’ seemed to fundamentally agree with the drift behind Paxman’s question: ‘What gives this working class person the authority to speak?’ It’s also alarming, actually distressing, that they seem to think that working class people should remain in poverty, obscurity and impotence lest they lose their ‘authenticity’. Someone passed me a post written about Brand on Facebook. I don’t know the individual who wrote it, and I wouldn’t wish to name them. What’s important is that the post was symptomatic of a set of snobbish and condescending attitudes that it is apparently alright to exhibit while still classifying oneself as left wing. The whole tone was horrifyingly high-handed, as if they were a schoolteacher marking a child’s work, or a psychiatrist assessing a patient. Brand, apparently, is ‘clearly extremely unstable … one bad relationship or career knockback away from collapsing back into drug addiction or worse.’ Although the person claims that they ‘really quite like [Brand]‘, it perhaps never occurs to them that one of the reasons that Brand might be ‘unstable’ is just this sort of patronising faux-transcendent ‘assessment’ from the ‘left’ bourgeoisie. There’s also a shocking but revealing aside where the individual casually refers to Brand’s ‘patchy education [and] the often wince-inducing vocab slips characteristic of the auto-didact’ – which, this individual generously says, ‘I have no problem with at all’ – how very good of them! This isn’t some colonial bureaucrat writing about his attempts to teach some ‘natives’ the English language in the nineteenth century, or a Victorian schoolmaster at some private institution describing a scholarship boy, it’s a ‘leftist’ writing a few weeks ago. Where to go from here? It is first of all necessary to identify the features of the discourses and the desires which have led us to this grim and demoralising pass, where class has disappeared, but moralism is everywhere, where solidarity is impossible, but guilt and fear are omnipresent – and not because we are terrorised by the right, but because we have allowed bourgeois modes of subjectivity to contaminate our movement. I think there are two libidinal-discursive configurations which have brought this situation about. They call themselves left wing, but – as the Brand episode has made clear – they are in many ways a sign that the left – defined as an agent in a class struggle – has all but disappeared. Inside the Vampires’ Castle The first configuration is what I came to call the Vampires’ Castle. The Vampires’ Castle specialises in propagating guilt. It is driven by a priest’s desire to excommunicate and condemn, an academic-pedant’s desire to be the first to be seen to spot a mistake, and a hipster’s desire to be one of the in-crowd. The danger in attacking the Vampires’ Castle is that it can look as if – and it will do everything it can to reinforce this thought – that one is also attacking the struggles against racism, sexism, heterosexism. But, far from being the only legitimate expression of such struggles, the Vampires’ Castle is best understood as a bourgeois-liberal perversion and appropriation of the energy of these movements. The Vampires’ Castle was born the moment when the struggle not to be defined by identitarian categories became the quest to have ‘identities’ recognised by a bourgeois big Other. The privilege I certainly enjoy as a white male consists in part in my not being aware of my ethnicity and my gender, and it is a sobering and revelatory experience to occasionally be made aware of these blind-spots. But, rather than seeking a world in which everyone achieves freedom from identitarian classification, the Vampires’ Castle seeks to corral people back into identi-camps, where they are forever defined in the terms set by dominant power, crippled by self-consciousness and isolated by a logic of solipsism which insists that we cannot understand one another unless we belong to the same identity group. I’ve noticed a fascinating magical inversion projection-disavowal mechanism whereby the sheer mention of class is now automatically treated as if that means one is trying to downgrade the importance of race and gender. In fact, the exact opposite is the case, as the Vampires’ Castle uses an ultimately liberal understanding of race and gender to obfuscate class. In all of the absurd and traumatic twitterstorms about privilege earlier this year it was noticeable that the discussion of class privilege was entirely absent. The task, as ever, remains the articulation of class, gender and race – but the founding move of the Vampires’ Castle is the dis-articulation of class from other categories. The problem that the Vampires’ Castle was set up to solve is this: how do you hold immense wealth and power while also appearing as a victim, marginal and oppositional? The solution was already there – in the Christian Church. So the VC has recourse to all the infernal strategies, dark pathologies and psychological torture instruments Christianity invented, and which Nietzsche described in The Genealogy of Morals. This priesthood of bad conscience, this nest of pious guilt-mongers, is exactly what Nietzsche predicted when he said that something worse than Christianity was already on the way. Now, here it is … The Vampires’ Castle feeds on the energy and anxieties and vulnerabilities of young students, but most of all it lives by converting the suffering of particular groups – the more ‘marginal’ the better – into academic capital. The most lauded figures in the Vampires’ Castle are those who have spotted a new market in suffering – those who can find a group more oppressed and subjugated than any previously exploited will find themselves promoted through the ranks very quickly. The first law of the Vampires’ Castle is: individualise and privatise everything. • While in theory it claims to be in favour of structural critique, • in practice it never focuses on anything except individual behaviour. Some of these working class types are not terribly well brought up, and can be very rude at times. Remember: condemning individuals is always more important than paying attention to impersonal structures. The actual ruling class propagates ideologies of individualism, while tending to act as a class. (Many of what we call ‘conspiracies’ are the ruling class showing class solidarity.) The VC, as dupe-servants of the ruling class, does the opposite: it pays lip service to ‘solidarity’ and ‘collectivity’, while always acting as if the individualist categories imposed by power really hold. Because they are petit-bourgeois to the core, the members of the Vampires’ Castle are intensely competitive, but this is repressed in the passive aggressive manner typical of the bourgeoisie. What holds them together is not solidarity, but mutual fear – the fear that they will be the next one to be outed, exposed, condemned. The second law of the Vampires’ Castle is: make thought and action appear very, very difficult. There must be no lightness, and certainly no humour. Humour isn’t serious, by definition, right? Thought is hard work, for people with posh voices and furrowed brows. Where there is confidence, introduce scepticism. Say: don’t be hasty, we have to think more deeply about this. Remember: having convictions is oppressive, and might lead to gulags. The third law of the Vampires’ Castle is: propagate as much guilt as you can. The more guilt the better. People must feel bad: it is a sign that they understand the gravity of things. It’s OK to be class-privileged if you feel guilty about privilege and make others in a subordinate class position to you feel guilty too. You do some good works for the poor, too, right? The fourth law of the Vampires’ Castle is: essentialize. While fluidity of identity, pluraity and multiplicity are always claimed on behalf of the VC members – partly to cover up their own invariably wealthy, privileged or bourgeois-assimilationist background – the enemy is always to be essentialized. Since the desires animating the VC are in large part priests’ desires to excommunicate and condemn, there has to be a strong distinction between Good and Evil, with the latter essentialized. Notice the tactics. X has made a remark/ has behaved in a particular way – these remarks/ this behaviour might be construed as transphobic/ sexist etc. So far, OK. But it’s the next move which is the kicker. X then becomes defined as a transphobe/ sexist etc. Their whole identity becomes defined by one ill-judged remark or behavioural slip. Once the VC has mustered its witch-hunt, the victim (often from a working class background, and not schooled in the passive aggressive etiquette of the bourgeoisie) can reliably be goaded into losing their temper, further securing their position as pariah/ latest to be consumed in feeding frenzy. The fifth law of the Vampires’ Castle: think like a liberal (because you are one). The VC’s work of constantly stoking up reactive outrage consists of endlessly pointing out the screamingly obvious: capital behaves like capital (it’s not very nice!), repressive state apparatuses are repressive. We must protest! Neo-anarchy in the UK The second libidinal formation is neo-anarchism. By neo-anarchists I definitely do not mean anarchists or syndicalists involved in actual workplace organisation, such as the Solidarity Federation. I mean, rather, those who identify as anarchists but whose involvement in politics extends little beyond student protests and occupations, and commenting on Twitter. Like the denizens of the Vampires’ Castle, neo-anarchists usually come from a petit-bourgeois background, if not from somewhere even more class-privileged. They are also overwhelmingly young: in their twenties or at most their early thirties, and what informs the neo-anarchist position is a narrow historical horizon. Neo-anarchists have experienced nothing but capitalist realism. By the time the neo-anarchists had come to political consciousness – and many of them have come to political consciousness remarkably recently, given the level of bullish swagger they sometimes display – the Labour Party had become a Blairite shell, implementing neo-liberalism with a small dose of social justice on the side. But the problem with neo-anarchism is that it unthinkingly reflects this historical moment rather than offering any escape from it. It forgets, or perhaps is genuinely unaware of, the Labour Party’s role in nationalising major industries and utilities or founding the National Health Service. Neo-anarchists will assert that ‘parliamentary politics never changed anything’, or the ‘Labour Party was always useless’ while attending protests about the NHS, or retweeting complaints about the dismantling of what remains of the welfare state. There’s a strange implicit rule here: it’s OK to protest against what parliament has done, but it’s not alright to enter into parliament or the mass media to attempt to engineer change from there. Mainstream media is to be disdained, but BBC Question Time is to be watched and moaned about on Twitter. Purism shades into fatalism; better not to be in any way tainted by the corruption of the mainstream, better to uselessly ‘resist’ than to risk getting your hands dirty. It’s not surprising, then, that so many neo-anarchists come across as depressed. This depression is no doubt reinforced by the anxieties of postgraduate life, since, like the Vampires’ Castle, neo-anarchism has its natural home in universities, and is usually propagated by those studying for postgraduate qualifications, or those who have recently graduated from such study. What is to be done? Why have these two configurations come to the fore? The first reason is that they have been allowed to prosper by capital because they serve its interests. Capital subdued the organised working class by decomposing class consciousness, viciously subjugating trade unions while seducing ‘hard working families’ into identifying with their own narrowly defined interests instead of the interests of the wider class; but why would capital be concerned about a ‘left’ that replaces class politics with a moralising individualism, and that, far from building solidarity, spreads fear and insecurity? The second reason is what Jodi Dean has called communicative capitalism. It might have been possible to ignore the Vampires’ Castle and the neo-anarchists if it weren’t for capitalist cyberspace. The VC’s pious moralising has been a feature of a certain ‘left’ for many years – but, if one wasn’t a member of this particular church, its sermons could be avoided. Social media means that this is no longer the case, and there is little protection from the psychic pathologies propagated by these discourses. So what can we do now? First of all, it is imperative to reject identitarianism, and to recognise that there are no identities, only desires, interests and identifications. Part of the importance of the British Cultural Studies project – as revealed so powerfully and so movingly in John Akomfrah’s installation The Unfinished Conversation (currently in Tate Britain) and his film The Stuart Hall Project – was to have resisted identitarian essentialism. Instead of freezing people into chains of already-existing equivalences, the point was to treat any articulation as provisional and plastic. New articulations can always be created. No-one is essentially anything. Sadly, the right act on this insight more effectively than the left does. The bourgeois-identitarian left knows how to propagate guilt and conduct a witch hunt, but it doesn’t know how to make converts. But that, after all, is not the point. The aim is not to popularise a leftist position, or to win people over to it, but to remain in a position of elite superiority, but now with class superiority redoubled by moral superiority too. ‘How dare you talk – it’s we who speak for those who suffer!’ But the rejection of identitarianism can only be achieved by the re-assertion of class. A left that does not have class at its core can only be a liberal pressure group. Class consciousness is always double: it involves a simultaneous knowledge of the way in which class frames and shapes all experience, and a knowledge of the particular position that we occupy in the class structure. It must be remembered that the aim of our struggle is not recognition by the bourgeoisie, nor even the destruction of the bourgeoisie itself. It is the class structure – a structure that wounds everyone, even those who materially profit from it – that must be destroyed. The interests of the working class are the interests of all; the interests of the bourgeoisie are the interests of capital, which are the interests of no-one. Our struggle must be towards the construction of a new and surprising world, not the preservation of identities shaped and distorted by capital. If this seems like a forbidding and daunting task, it is. But we can start to engage in many prefigurative activities right now. Actually, such activities would go beyond pre-figuration – they could start a virtuous cycle, a self-fulfilling prophecy in which bourgeois modes of subjectivity are dismantled and a new universality starts to build itself. We need to learn, or re-learn, how to build comradeship and solidarity instead of doing capital’s work for it by condemning and abusing each other. This doesn’t mean, of course, that we must always agree – on the contrary, we must create conditions where disagreement can take place without fear of exclusion and excommunication. We need to think very strategically about how to use social media – always remembering that, despite the egalitarianism claimed for social media by capital’s libidinal engineers, that this is currently an enemy territory, dedicated to the reproduction of capital. But this doesn’t mean that we can’t occupy the terrain and start to use it for the purposes of producing class consciousness. We must break out of the ‘debate’ set up by communicative capitalism, in which capital is endlessly cajoling us to participate, and remember that we are involved in a class struggle. The goal is not to ‘be’ an activist, but to aid the working class to activate – and transform – itself. Outside the Vampires’ Castle, anything is possible. This article was originally published in The North Star on November 22, 2013 and is reposted here with thanks to it and the autho De <https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vampire-castle/>

Reality/True Being has the potential of infinitel intelligence. So is is infinite intelligent. Our universe alone can sustain mathematics with which infinite dimensions can be calculated/simulated/described (4 dimensional worlds, 5, n, n+1, non-euclidian, hyperbolic, and what not). Anything that can be done in this universe has to be a potential in Infinite True Being (and much more). Same with life. True Being is not a dead Nothing. Every potential and intelligence we see must be inherent as potential in Infinity. "It" True You is that which is aware, and that which understands and creates all, maintains all, and it is THAT which does all understanding. What else could manifest the show? And be aware of it. Realize it, and you will have these facets all at once. Why do you create a duality between True Being, then Intelligence, then life, then infinite, the flow, and all the other stuff. Hasn't it been written many times True Being/Absolute is infinite (not finite), and has infinite potential? Infinity easily fits into True Being. All of the various infinities mathematics can describe. Buuut the path to realizing that Infinite True Being is first getting rid of anything finite, and limitations, and filters/dualities/lenses of perceptions... because these cloud the realization of "the" Infinite True Absolute Being. Neti Neti. Impersonal. No duality via filters/centers/contractions of the separate self. And then looking what remains, what is always there. "Bombing" oneself to boundlessness and nonduality, or whiteouts, (or what not) via psychedelics doesn't not dissolve these last filters/centers/contractions fully (at least I have never seen one case). Not enough time & clarity in these states. This dissolving of filters/centers/contractions has to be done with "on-board-means", not only external devices. It is the price the universe demands, transcendence of the little ego. Like, at least getting rid a little bit of the annoying bug as entry ticket to the Absolute, so to say...

Concentration on that Koan long enoug literally results in an Awakened nondual state of Infinite Being, and doing it even longer it can result in Realization of True Being. And that IS the sound of the one hand clapping, literally. What a wonderful & relaxed teaching tool for the Roshi. Imagine: No explanation needs to be given. No discussion with the disciple. No questions. One can easily reject any answer to the Koan-solution by just shaking the head. Only the right state of Infinite Impersonal Being will pass... and then its already done. Sounds a bit one-dimensional (if only done like described above, which of course it isn't done purely like that, but there is a tendency for it often) for this time & age? Yup, same here... But in the right setting works perfectly fine.

Welcome to Infinity of Gods. One could call that the Solipsists end-game. An infinity of separate-God-selfes. Indras Net (see link below) gone "ego" or "separate-self". The alternative would be: There is only one Reality. A Nondual & Infinite Unity of Infinite Being/Consciousness. Maybe that the whole thing is just the Real You, infinite and Impersonal Pure Consciousness/Awareness/Reality, splicing itself (apparently) up in infinite perspectives of Indras Net? Not a separate "God" in each node? Every single spiritual tradition over millenia that has made it to the nondual realization declared that there is ONE Infinite Being without (a second), manifesting itself in a myriad of (appearing) perspectives/beings. If that Infinite Being is infinite, it is by definition a unity, a Nondual being without anything outside of it. And no other besides it. That Infinite Being is Reality itself. There are not two realities. With declaring an Infinity of Gods, one is just cementing a separate-self (aka duality, not non-duality/Awakening) and blowing it up to God-like dimensions. Which is the opposite direction of stabilizing Nondual Awakening by transcending that which causes the separation/duality. That is at least my experience. One Reality, one Infinite Being, without a second. That is the testament of all spiritual traditions that came before and that made it to the Absolute. Just a little information sign along the road of Infinite Gods, if you don't mind. In order to not loose time traveling in the opposite direction of the intended destination. Every being is the own master of its Karma, and has freedom to choose. Selling Water by the River

Just add a few dimensions more (that "you" forget now in real time), and you have endless perspectives or POVs. Noneuclidian Vision like below, a one-dimensional chain of endless 3D-Pocket dimensions, or Indras Net in 3D. Infinite possibilities to pull that off, game of mathematics. That is called Indras Net. Like one policemen watching the monitors of lots of security cameras: One Infinite consciousness (the policeman), endless cameras ("bodys or better 3D perspectives, with endless monitors), endless monitors. And now just remove policemen, camera and monitors, and stack all of these perspectives together into a dimensional model of your choice. And forget all other cameras in real time. Of course just a metaphor to make it clear: ONE (without a second) Infinite Awareness/Consciousness/Being, splicing itself up into infinite perspectives and forgetting these in real time. And totally empty and impersonal so that it can be and feel like "everything/everyone". The same way you can forget in time what you did exactly 1 year ago, you can forget all other perspectives "in space". People had visions of Indras Net, or of something like that, since the beginning of time, often while tripping on the local psychedelic of the season: Nice book btw. Indras Net. Each perspective reflecting each other perspectives. The outside of another human/being/holon is the reflection of that "node/being" in your "node/being", see this picture. And mathematics can already do that right now in endless unimaginable n-dimensional spaces, the math exists also in our world... One just can't imagine it, but calculate with it one can... or https://www.actualized.org/forum/search/?&q=Indras Net&author=Water by the River

"And they do know that all is an imagined illusion happening within "their" own Infinite Being/True Being by definition" I think we align quite well, although its difficult to express these thing just in writing. With imagined Illusion I mean that the tree "out there" is no solid object existing independently existing from the human/consciousness perceiving it, like its normally perceived with the dualistic and materialistic view. The appearance itself is real. It appears. But it is just a lucid, groundless mere appearance. Like the appearance in a dream. Normally, in the standard-perception is seems to be external/out-there (duality), and solid (or material). In truth, its neither "out there/external" (nondual), nor solid/material (but appearing as lucid hologram-like (mere appearance, imagined, "dream-stuff" so to say). And yes, (self-)consciousness implies often a separation. With perceptions perceiving themselves I want to express that there are states where there is no I-thought and I-feeling. Then it is literally the universe perceiving itself, Being perceiving itself. That is also what I mean when writing "impersonal". Although this report of Steven Norquist is a bit "pushing" the empty/scary character , which can be the initial reaction if this realization goes very fast, in truth its the most wonderful state imaginable. http://www.hauntedpress.net/What_is_Enlightenment.html It is Awareness in and by itself, not the "personal" consciousness. There never is and was a personal consciousness, it is only non-personal Infinite Being/Awareness. "Impersonal" can sound bad, but isn't: Its all ones True Being, and that is aware, and eternal. Containing the whole world, and also a human and its thoughts/feelings. It is a much larger Being than the previous illusion-human. And much more blissful. This Awareness in and by itself (of Infinite Being) "lends" or appears as personal consciousness (which isn't conscious at all, because True Infinite Being is the Awareness/consciousness cosplaying limited personal consciousness). So nothing is really lost besides the illusion of being just a small separate human. True Being can not be lost, ever. Immortal. Eternal. Unborn. Does that clarify a bit? Did I understand you correctly?

@Water by the River I perceive some....how to say ... limitation. Let's see, i have let the self fall into the void absolutely and totally many times and the infinite has been obvious. There is no "alone" or "only" because everything is in infinity and there is no center, it is not me, the self is like an illusion created by perception, but the thing is that there is perception so there is self, reality it is an ocean that has no limit and that turns any "something" into nothing, since it is everything, including the self. This is not one, it is not unity, and above all and most importantly: there is no creation, nothing can be created, I am not God imagining anything, imagining is a process of creation and there can be no creation since everything is always, what What there is is movement of infinity, an impersonal kaleidoscope that moves cyclically and eternally. Maybe people who are in stage 5 are still limited? because for me there is something clear, I do not believe anything or anyone. I take everything with 2 kg of salt, anecdotal. There is a possibility that no one, ever, has been enlightened. Forget for a moment the stages, reality is not that square, no science can contain this that we are trying to open . Look, this of: I'm not anymore the avatar, I am the field of consciousness where the avatar is happening, like an illusion, is still limited, is still self.

On an Absolute Level, "it" or better True You is solipsistic. Alone and infinite. True You/Infinite Being is "alone" because "it" is infinite with nothing possibly outside of it. But that is True You/True Being. And someone who is not enlightened doesn't (by definition) know the difference between the current identity and True Being, or else he/she would be enlightened and no longer be asking these questions... So talking about Solipsism and God is just counterproductive when talking with beings who have not realized their True Nature. Because they will project their ego on the concept of God or Solipsism, no other chance. First become Nothing (no separate-self), then you will be everything (Infinite Being) - Thisdell stage 4, becoming Thisdell stage 5/Enlightenment. But better not project a little separate something (illusion-separate-self) on everything (Roger Thisdell stage 3 "Godmind"). Or: I am God imagining everything. That makes Thisdell stage 3 a cul-de-sac, no way forward to stabilize Awakening in daily life and ease the suffering. Which is exactly what we see here, with a few added ETs. Is Infinite Being not enough? Does it need to be called God? As I have written several times, I don't really like the pointer God, because it is normally loaded with other meaning on top. God = omnipresent, infinite, timeless/eternal/immortal, creating/manifesting/imagining the whole gig: Same for True Infinite Being. One without a second. But all the stuff projected on top of it when using the pointer God instead of Infinite Being, the one without a second, is often not for the faint of hearted. It anthropomorphizes Infinite True Being/Reality with properties and intentions that are just not there on the most fundamental level, and then proejcts it on the illusion-ego/illusion separate-self. "I am God". Only very few can truthfully say that, because most have not realized their True Being and can't tell the difference to ego/separate-self. And those who can say that truthfully and not fall for the illusion normally don't talk like that, because they know from their own practice it is not beneficial for beings with the ego/separate-self illusion not fully seen through. As soon as one talks like that to not enlightened beings, they almost always project the properties of True Being (or God) on themselves, their separate-identity, which they still have not seen through. Because else they would be enlightened. And these separate-self-identities-arisings/illusions are that which have to be cut down/transcended for Enlightenment to happen. And using the grandiose word "God" tends to blow these illusion-arising up to cosmic proportions: "I" imagine everything. No. "Your" True Being does. But what is that? What is the constant always here True Being? Here also in Deep Sleep? Before ones birth? And if one would fully know the difference between True Being and separate-self/ego, one wouldn't talk about these topics using pointers/concepts like God/Solipsism, because it would be all clear anyway... And one wouldn't need to state I am God and I imagine everything, because.... well... TO WHOM? Well, I guess you get the point. At the level of Infinite Being one is alone. But there is no one there to feel alone, because that would be an anthropomorphic illusion arising of a separate-self WITHIN True Being. It just is what it is. And always has been. And with an enlightened being talking like that it is not necessary. Makes no sense. One sees and knows the Awakened Nondual enlightened State the "other" is in (and nobody really home), and it is clear. Imagine a discussion like: I am God! No, I am God! No, you are not! We are God! That is all illusion, starting with the words "I" and "we". Lot of talk of God and Solipsism happens on Thisdells stage 3 "God-stage, God-mind". Infinite Nonduality with separate-self/remaining identity/ego not fully seen through". It is contradictory, not stable, with lots of illusions still going on. And that is presupposing its done from real nondual states. Most of the time, its done from not nondual states, just from the conceptual level. And from there, it is more insanity than anything else. The discussion then goes like: "No, small you is not God. Big You, True Being, is. But first find out what that is before talking about God & Solipsism". And because of all these contradictions that doing that move includes, there is so much discussion here about these topics. Because it is not clear, but contradictory. Sometimes I use the pointer God, but normally it is not a good pointing/teaching tool. Ever noticed that very few enlightened teachers that are public talk about how they are God and imagining everything, and they are all alone and Solipsism and so on? They do, if you listen between the lines or read/see enough stuff. Sometimes even explictily. Sometimes, even complete books like the Supreme Source have been written, that even got the approval by our host as God Realization. And these enlightened teachers normally don't talk about them being God/Solipsism. Not because they are too stupid to know what God is, and what Solipsism/Aloneness on the Absolute Level means. And they do know that all is an imagined illusion happening within "their" own Infinite Being/True Being by definition. If they wouldn't, they wouldn't be enlightened. But they don't throw that in public at a poor ego to blow it up to cosmic proportions, because that doesn't help their students going from Thisdell stage 3 to 4 to 5. It usually even prevents getting the ego stage 1 to witness stage 2 to nondual stage 3. Because to get there sobre and without psychedelics, one already has to kill/transcend the ego/separate-self quite a lot... Nothing kills sobre Awakened Nonduality better than saying to oneself: I AM GOD. A "normal" identification of I am a human so and so suffices to do that... And one more thing: If Nonduality (or Buddhism) gets bashed: Nonduality is NOT automatically Enlightenment, or realization of True Infinite Being/Reality. It is Thisdells stage 3 Godmind. A boundless nondual infinite field of Awareness, with a separate-self still well and alive hijacking that! And that most Buddhist are not enlightened should go without saying.. Stage 3 Godmind. That is where one gets with psychedelics. And maybe even stage 4 a bit. But I have never seen a mainly psychedelic aficionado get to stage 5, True No Self (also nondual, but without center/separate-self-illusion, truly being the Infinite Totality/Being). Stable Nondual realization of Infinite Being in daily life. Maybe somebody knows one, would be very interested. Can't rule out that one exists, or that one wakes up just by the impulse of a psychedelic. It is just, I have never seen one. I know quite a lot that have done that with transcending/meditation of the false illusion separate self. So basically "Nonduality" and "Buddhism" gets bashed, because one doesn't know that stage 3 "Godmind"/Nonduality is not yet True Being or Enlightenment. Of course merely Nondual Realisation doesn't bring "God-Realization", or understanding that True Being imagines/manifests all of it, and that ones True Self is that. That is stage 5, or the link (Supreme Source) above. Or True Enlightenment. Psychedelics get one to Nonduality, maybe in more sophisticated cases to realizing that it is all imagined/manifested to fool "oneself". But it doesn't get oneself conforming to the impersonal infinite nondual enlightened mindstream. And that is why this "realization" is not stable in daily life. Still suffering/resisting the content of ones own True Infinite Being. "Solution": add a few ETs from higher levels of Reality, and call that higher than realizing and being ones True Infinite Being. And be proud on ones own continuing suffering/resistance towards happens within ones True Infinite Nondual Being, and declare that as inevitable. Or something like that. Well, quite a show Maya is dishing "us" up this time, isn't it Selling God&Solipsism Water by the River The Koan still is: What is the True Being of the ET at the end, really? And that of any other ET, n+1?

According with @Water by the River it's a kind of oneness, I don't know, not for me, for me its just unlimited and impersonal, alive existence. One means center, and it's the opposite of many, unlimited is beyond one and many, it could be both. But maybe one day i see it totally different, maybe you too

Exactly, suffering can move you in the direction of the spiritual awakening, but you have to be almost empty of suffering before to move to real opening. It there is still suffering means that you psyche is still too dense, more work is needed. When you are almost empty of suffering, the bubble that limits you is still there, but you can start the serious work, the real opening It's another dimension where it's not you. It's unlimited existence, impersonal. the self cannot imagine it precisely because it is the self. It is the opening of the limits. I would forget things like knowing that you are God, that you are imagining this, etc., and I would focus on letting go of the self. without center, that's the key

The ability to hold the boundless infinite nondual Awareness will grow. In Pointing out the Great Way it is called Postsamadhi Meditation. This boundless infinite timeless Awakened Awareness (as Daniel Brown calls it) is impersonal, or Awareness in at by itself. It is not necessarily individual consciousness, but awakened nondual boundless impersonal consciousness. Non-separated, non-personal. Awake. With Nonmeditation Yoga, you can let Awakened Awareness hold the view and do the meditation. "You" just get out of the way. Same holds for daily activity. Awakened Awareness is more intelligent than normal ego-consciousness, since filters & lenses are removed. Daniel Brown once said: "I let Awakened Awareness do it (I think in the context of that statement writing a book), and I just get out of the way." That is how it feels. Reading and analytical thinking is about the most difficult activitiy while keeping mindfullness/Awakened Awareness, but it can be done. "The reappearance of the mind's spontaneous relative activity at this extraordinary level of practice [Nonmeditation Yoga] brings continuous supreme bliss (bde steng). Because mindfulness/recognition now has its own force (shugs), it goes on by itself without any effort whatsoever." "At this final stage awakened wisdom [Awakened Awareness] spreads rapidly so that all possible emanations of the mind become the embodiment of awakened wisdom. The term emanation ofnothingcaptures both the relative and the ultimate dimensions of truth, respectively. All the mind's relative activity becomes the play (rol du) of the always-here mind. Where ordinary thoughts and perceptions once were, "only the great fire of understanding burns" (TN, p. 536)." "Blended practice occurs when you are forever mindful of the real nature/clear-light mind throughout the four behavioral conditions. (TN, p. 547)" Pointing out the Great Way, Brown Daniel Brown, Video below, starting 57min 40 sec: Map 2: On stabilizing Awakening [or Awakened (Nondual) Awareness] Map 3 would be to Liberation / Enlightenment. Map 1 is to Awakening/Awakened Awareness. In my opinion, and that of Daniel Brown, the most sophisticated meditation/training system on the planet. Daniel Brown has received the clearance from Menri Trizin to translate all the previous secret teachings, including Tummo/Energetic Inner Fire Yoga with or without consort, Treckö and Togal (Visionary practices to get rid of the solidity of the visual field), dark retreat, dream yoga, and so on and on. And lots of other really unique techniques that neither Zen nor Theravada, nor any other tradition, have. and the result: The timeline to Enlightenment. Done correctly with energetic practices added a few years...

Ok, I try. But be aware this is extremely difficult to do it in a monological form via text, and hardly complete. Good news is: At that stage the path shows itself to itself if one just continues with the right meditation/awareness techniques. The illusion-mechanisms pop up one by one. If applying a good understanding of what will show up, the process can be fastened. It is like adding a blow-torch to the burning down of the illusion-building. So, here we go: Any thought implying I/me. "I-feeling" any understanding you have ("I" understand) any doubt ("I" doubt) all of it very subtle and fast forms of feeling separate. Or thinking that. Very fast & very subtle. Way faster than a thought elaborated over several second. Tenths/fractions of a second... Speed of awareness is crucial, that is being trained here And strength of awareness, to be able to also cut off core separate-self identities and suffering/resistance. Reckognizing that, not getting hypnotized by that, cutting it off by looking into its nature (empty consciousness). and since its very hard to tell the difference if a thought-arising is laced with individuality/separation/identity: Cutting off all of them, just for training. Yet, one can at other times also maintain ones awareness during practical daily life/thoughts. And memory of the past: It is being imagined right now, appears as complete "chunk" out of Infinite Consciousness/Being, and then gets elaborated in thought (which is very slow compared to how it emerges "fully" formed. That is truly a mindf*** when your awareness gets fast enough to spot for the first time how the complete past emerges immediately as "whole block" and then is slowly elaborated, fooling one to believe one is that "I" having this memory and thoughts. You see then how each any anything is just emerging to fool oneself. That is an aspect that Leo emphasizes with his concept of God-Realization. The past is radically imagined right now, there is no past. There is only an Infinite Formless eternal "Field" modulating itself to give the appearance of a past. Same for the "future". You don't have a past, You are an Infinite Vastness that is able to make up the past on the fly, and then have thoughts/feelings-arisings that "believe" that. Yet, that Infinite Vastness/Being CAN UNDERSTAND, and so it can understand that the past is imagined on the fly here and now. That is a major understanding/building block of Enlightenment, or seeing that separation from it all (separate self) is just an imagined arising within oneself. One is not a human, but the Infinite Vastness/Being (which is luckily also always here, aka immortal/eternal, can't go anywhere infinite Nothingness with nothing outside of it) imagining a human and all its elements moving/appearing within itself. So it is Duality gone (visual field nondual) -> Nondual boundless infinite (boundary of the field is gone) -> Infinite solidity of "external" visual field is gone, replacing solidity with mere groundless lucid appearance -> imagined illusion/lucidity/non-material, mere imagined empty hologram like appearance. time is gone (as described above, past imagined right now) -> always here, never not here Infinite Mind/Being. Eternal, immortal, absolutely fundamental, all is appearing and arising in it, always. space is gone (imagined IN the infinte vastness of True Being) -> space doesnt exist outside, space is imagined in oneself, the vastness of Infinity (which is not 3d space), and there is no 3D-space (or any space at all, non-euclidian, 4D, whatever) possibly existing outside of your Infinite Being. No outside. Infinite. All there is. Space is not self-existing outside of ones own nondual infinite being. It is imagined by it. What is behind your face? "beyond" the visual field. Not (3d-)space, but the Infinite (Being). -> spaceless, dimensionless, infinite. Containing all possible dimensions and realms, high and low. all of that is imagined/constructed/manifested right here right now in ones nondual True eternal Being, Infinite Consciousness/Being. -> A mirage/illusion appearing in ones Infinite Being, giving rise to the illusion of a human life within it. Another way to say that is: In Pointing out the Great Way, Brown is one statement: If everything (1) all appearance of the world/visual field is seen as mere appearance (empty) hovering lucid and hologram like in Infinite Vastness (that can still be stage 3&4 Thisdell with separate-self well and alive, and that is why that is accesible via psychedelics) AND (2) each and any thought/feeling arising/"internal" mindstream event (including everything one believed oneself to be, I-feeling, I-thoughts, the whole history, the whole asking what is Reality/True Being, ALL of it) is seen as empty arising in Infinite Being/Nothingness/Consciousness. which means that ones mindstream is then conforming to the enlighened mindstream, or close to how Infinite Reality really is. Then Enlightenment can happen. But it can't be forced, since that would be thoughts with a thinker identified with them, with I-feelings, wanting something. Infinite Being/Consciousness has to understand itself, with no artifical activity/separate self trying to force it. At that point, the properties of the mindstream above can be automized, and this automatic meditation/mindfulness can be protected ("mindfulness without [artificial activity]"), element (1) of Nonmeditation Yoga, see Pointing out the Great Way, Brown). One doesnt't focus on anything (which Daniel Brown calls particularizing). This picking out something specific with attention (particularizing, the fastest process of the mind, way faster than thinking) is what creates Duality, or better disrupts the original nonduality. Instead, one watches how particularization happens, and transcends that in a way that the boundless nondual unity with/of the visual field is not interrupted. Element (2) of Nonmeditation Yoga, "do not take to mind". and then maintains and waits in that state. Meditation and Mindfulness in these awakened nondual states does itself. Enlightenment can't be forced, because who would do the forcing? Instead, the Infinite Vastness/Being can understand/realize itself (or its True Nature) when conditions are exactly right. That is then Enlightenment. Bye bye illusion-human, hello Infinite Being/Reality "having" a human,. Making the mindstream conform to the enlightened mindstream so that Enlightenment can happen is very important, because that part can be done by intelligent and informed practice. And that is why an efficient system is way faster, more efficient for most than and way more pleasent than a brute force approach like sitting an staring at the wall (brute force method), concentration or Koan-style. more likely to work than betting on just by having the right Karma and enough of the mere-appearance-infinite-character of the visual field and thought/feeling space in place already (Ramana, Anamanda Ma), and then some contemplation based on the already very much conforming mindstream Only those who needed to walked the steps can tell about the steps. Those are on top can mainly tell about how the properties of the roof are/what Truth is, but its more difficult to talk about steps that didn't have to be taken/climbed because they were already in place. The low success rate of the Enlightenment-endeavours in my perspective is due to mostly using brute-force-methods (which need lots and lots of willpower and pushing through negative emotions on the pillow) with no clear map of the steps of the path and the lots of cul-de-sacs of the path, or prodigy-approaches of telling about nature of True Being, but not offering a method path for average-gifted persons (Ramana for example). So, conforming to the enlightened mindstream mainly is: (1) Visual Field nondual, mere appearance, "hovering" in Infinite Vasteness/Infinity, being manifested/imagined right now (2) every thought arising/feeling arising is seen as emerging out of True Being/consciousness, made out of it, moving in it. Especially all thoughts/feelings relating to I/me. Feels impersonal, no separate indiduality found in any of that. And based on that the separate self (what one thought oneself to be) can be realized as mere flow of colours/appearances/feelings/thoughts (which have a very coherent and well made structure/Gestalt, and therefor are extremly hypnotizing and seem believeable) appearing in Oneself (Infinite Being), including the whole past, and that one IS the always here Infinite Eternal Field of Being/Consciousness. And the former separate-self is like the tree-picture in this wikipedia-article (below): A representation for something that appears (the tree), but has no independend existence apart from True Being (which is the nondual infinite eternal vastness of Being right here and now, with the body and mindstream having no different priority or separation from all that is). A well made illusion. The picture of the tree concept doesn't point to a real tree outside of consciousness (an object), but to shapes/colours of an imagined trees within Infinite Consciousness, not to real trees that exist outside of Infinite Being, self-existing/indepdently existing outside of consciousness. There are no trees, just the concept of them, and some imagined colours/forms/sensations giving the Gestalt of an appearance of atree. Same way, there is no human/separate-self beyond the appearance-Gestalt, and the concept pointing to such an imagined self-existing entity. There is only Infinite Being, not the human (which only appears in Infinite Being). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept There always ever was, is and can be the Totality of (true) Being, self-aware, perceptions perceiving themselves. Either with reflective-self-consciousness arising (like normal human mind stream), or just mere awareness of the Totality without the self-consciousness part, perceptions perceiving themselves. Aware, but not separate. The non reflective-pure awareness of this vast field/being is more fundamental than the temporary appearing self-consciousness (with I-feelings I-thoughts). The Awareness is the Sun, the reflective (self-) consciousness (I-feeling, I-thoughts) is the reflected light of the Sun on the planets. Basically, its replacing ones old mistaken identity (imagined false illusion separate-self) with the correct identity, Infinite timeless/eternal (always here) Being. The flow of the human mindstream with its practical thoughts and so on happen within Ones True Being. One has a human, but is not only the human. Thoughts or feelings of separation are known to be illusion. When that shift happen, this realization is always available by just reaching out, or immediately always present. The visual field IS mere appearance and lucid/hologram/groundless, it IS infinite, eternal always here. Thoughts and feelings ARE just floating in it, made out of it, and "it" is onself, nondual. And that can be felt all the time or by just checking/moving attention there. It can never really be unseen. Reality/True Being understands itself. It is beyond doubt, unshakable, deathless/immortal always here. And that is the kicker: One/True Being is literally immortal and infinite. Not the ego, but True Being with its nature of Awareness. One can never die, and nothing outside one self can truly threaten one, because there is no outside of oneself. Seriousness and danger is replaced with laughter and security. Resting in True Being generates bliss, even when approaching it in Thisdells stage 4. Its a self-reinforcing positive feedback loop: Cutting off thoughts, field nondual, bliss flows. Literally. And that reinforces the stability of Nondual mere appearance visual field even more. Awakening enchances awakening. Suffering/resistance to what is no longer grips in any form since a long time. If it moves within ones being, is seen and let go. Would the inherent bliss of True Being ever be exchanged with grasping for being an ET seeing more of manifested reality, but suffers because its not enlightened? (more on that later). That is a "hard" shift, it is not just thinking differently. It is for sure not "I am God and imagine all reality", which is just cosplay. It is Reality understanding itself, Infinite Being waking up to itself. What can do the understanding of that? Reality/Being/Infinite Consciousness. Waking up to its True Nature. That last shift is knowing what one really is, and that understanding/realization runs over a short period of time. Waking up. Happens only once. And is final. Is beyond doubt (since these would only be more thoughts/arisings moving within Reality and subsiding into it). The shifts/Awakenings leading towards it go over a longer time, many years. And then of course there are infinite forms of manifestation, ET n+1, with vastly more understanding of the relative manifestations, basking in their understanding of the imagination process, different dimensions, higher realms, non-euclidian space, completely other alien manifestation realms. Humans look like ants compared to that for sure. These beings have been reported since millenia, in all cultures, all times. Reality-creating and maintaining Gods (Brahman, Shiva, Vishnu and endless other names for them). But it is the same True YOU, the only Being or Awareness in existence. The same being. There is nothing outside of it. No other (being, God, alien). And one can have an unenlightened ET, not having realized what Reality really is. Beings of higher realms are not necessarily enlightened. That tale is as old as the spiritual traditions. Although many of these beings of higher planes are enlightened. An unenlightened ET (which by definition has separate-self-elements not transcended/seen through in real time, which are by definition nothing other than the elements resisting the now, or suffering in other words) is a rather sad and suffering figure compared to a being who has realized its True Infinite Being. Calling the lower higher, and the higher lower. Whose modus operandi is that again? But lets not end too serious: It is all an illusion-game, "nobody" really gets lost forever, and Maya smiles lovingly on all not-really-(self)-existing-but-just-appearing children of Reality, humans and ETs alike. Although it can appear & feel very real & serious. Selling Water by the River

You are right that this is the last piece of the puzzle. Self-Awareness (bold marking by me), or awareness of its own existence is indeed NOT the Absolute. Its the last illusion... I wouldn't say that for Awareness (since here we would be on slippery terrain), but for self-awareness/self-consciousness definitely. Massaro summarized it nicely. Maybe watch that video a few times, and then the other parts of the Infinity-series: Awareness is "always there" (or not, since its beyond existing and non-existing), at least as a potential for sentience (if nothing arises, aka cessation, deep sleep), but if there is nothing to perceive there is no (self-)-consciousness. Unaware Deep Sleep, Cessation. But it doesnt really make sense to talk about awareness/consciousness if there is no perception, since then there is also no self-consciousness or self-awareness. Its pure Infinity/Absolute. The clap of the one hand. THAT Reality/Being which can be unaware of itself is what you are. Not the (self-)awareness with which one identifies, that is one of the last lenses/filters of illusion. You can be nothing at all, unaware of yourself (since there is no self-reflective self yet), with the potential for sentience. In your case, I assume getting that is the last building block to Enlightenment and fully getting what you are. Without fully realizing that, there is a subtle murky "nothing" self (Roger Thisdell stage 4). Thisdells stage 5 (another video) is then the resolve of the contradictions of stage 4. Everything else after this True Being/Absolute comes later: Manifestation, Infinite Field of mere appearance, gods & humans & aliens and the whole shebang. The "I am self-Awareness/Consciousness" feeling/thought/Gestalt (very subtle, hard to spot, the end boss so to say) is the last illusion/filter/lense of the last separate-self that can be constructed. And since it can be seen, since it changes, its an object, temporary, moving in True You. Leaves us with the point who/what realized all of that? Reality/Being realizes itself. And that is called Enlightenment. Its not personal, its not anything separate. It is Reality comprehending itself. Jac O'Keffee: "We're left with consciousness that cannot know itself. It's such a fundamental that it actually can't know itself. However, it is known. You can drop back there and it is known, but you can't bring yourself there or your capacities to know it. It's almost like it's so fundamental that it can't turn around and see itself. It doesn't see itself. That's too much movement. That's movement such as space, time and identification and me, myself, I, and the building of my movie that happens". And maybe most important. It is not an it, or an Absolute, or anything "third person singular"-pronoun at all that "has" "Awareness" and explodes into manifestation. IT IS You. True You. With a big Y. That becomes totally obvious when the whole field is a mere appearance floating in Nothingness/Infinity (1), and you are "It" since there is no separate anything left at all, no center at all left (2). Nondual mere appearance, impersonally floating in the Infinite impersonal Universal Mind. Something reflecting about what it is (awareness,self-awareness, whatever) is already a separate-self (a manifestation, arising, moving within You. I-Thoughts/I-feelings have no dimension or form, but are still appearance/imagination/arising/"form"), and that hides the True Reality/Being. Too much movement... So yes, its tricky... Roger Thisdells stage model is nice. Since at stage 3 "Big-Mind" (Frank Yang called that God-state, easy to be reached via Psychedelics), one is already the nondual field (1). But getting the separate self mostly empty (Thisdell stage 4), and totally empty (Thisdell stage 5, centerlessness, Enlightenment), needs emptying out the separate-self completely. I have never seen one case where that was done mainly or purely with psychedelics. Not enough time in these states to empty out/transcend/understand the "high-speed-machine-gun-illusion-fire" of the separte-self-ego. But instead that lovely darling quite active appropriating all of the Nondual Infinity, Gods, Demons, ETs, n+1... Which sometimes is not for the faint-of-hearted. Ok, so, after mis-understanding the question the way I wanted in order to write about what I liked, lets come back to the original question: And why the "first" movement happened? 1.First, that is a question that presupposes duality. Form vs. emptiness, and also time. Which means it can't really be answered on the level of concepts. But lets try it anyway as good as possible, just so that it calms the remaining questions you have, so that you can rest in your True Being in a non-conceptual way so that the Big Bang can happen.. 2. Think in dimensions of Indras Net. Just because "your" perspective is "switched off" in cessation/deep sleep doesn't shut off all other perspectives. Understanding one single perspective ("yours") is enough to understand the structure of all perspectives/beings/nodes in Indras Net as Universal/Infinite Mind. Indras Net (which is also True You, but lets take the separte perspective) "continues" happily even if your perspective goes cessation/infinite/blank. 3. Who said it ever started? That is already a lot of Duality smuggled in. The past is imagined in its Totality right here and now. Its all a big illusion, including the past. True You is here right now, imagining all of it, fooling itself with such questions as you have (sorry to say, but you are close to the endgame boss, so I hope you forgive me). Get "rid" of the questions, let them dissolve in your infinite Nondual Being as mere movements of thought-arisings, and rest in your being in a non-conceptual way (Nonmeditation-Yoga). And sometimes softly ask yourself "who hears these words right now", but without effort and grasping. I have written extensively about Nonmeditation-Yoga (Mahamudra) somewhere else. Then the Big Bang can happen, Infinite Reality understanding itself. 4. Only Formlessness/emptiness/Infinity would be an asymetry. God has infinite potential of manifestation that apparently is being explored right here & now by "you" and "me" and "everyone else". To use a human metaphor: It is the nature of the Infinite to explore its potential, going from each creation cycle to the next. There have been many descriptions when coming out of cesstion/Nirvikalpha this original impulse for creation can be experienced. Not IN cessation (since there is nothing/pure infinity), but coming out of it. And, since its en vogue, lets close with ET: After so much Selling Water by the River, here the much more precise summary: The old pond, A frog jumps in: Plop! - Basho

It is impossible to think about death because the one who thinks it is what is defined and structured, what is going to disappear, so he can only think of other defined and structured possibilities in which he remains. Let's see, what we are under the structure is existence right? So it would be correct to say that what happens after my death is that your life continues to exist, and that of millions of rats, bacteria, hydrogen molecules and all that. but it's impersonal, you won't be there. That's really ego death, drop the self, that that no one does because they prefer fantasies

Thought is a function of the human mind, created by the brain, created by life. It is another function, such as the creation of images from light reflecting on objects, or sounds from vibrations. The thought creates aspatiotemporal world whose center is an entity that perceives itself as a perceiver and thinker, and that is an energetic structure that we call the human psyche, but that is not really an actor but a product. When the self realizes this it gets broken, then the true nature of what is is manifested, the unlimited impersonal existence that flows.

As I see there is not you, not a player, the only you is the self, this experience. The naked reality is just depth, but if you can open yourself totally to the depth then you realize that in the depth is everything, and the thing emerges. It's like the unlimited energy that life is, it's totally impersonal, nobody would say anything like: I am the creator blabla, no I, just a natural wild phenomenon totally unlimited that arises due the absence of limitations. No logic for this. You could call it god, but I call it the monster, the incommensurable. It's not you playing games, not far, I think that idea leads to a limited misunderstanding

my friend..God is not Santa Claus.. it's not a bearded old man living in the sky who will fuck you in the ass and burn you in hell fire because you like to "touch yourself " before bed ...although that's what most people think that God is . God is the creator of this universe...and also the universe itself. Just like how you are the creator of your nightly dreams while simultaneously being one with the dream. He loves our missery..suffering. ignorance. He makes no excuse. He is not just some dumb impersonal consciousness floating around selflessly. He is a conscious entity . He is you . Look deep inside yourself. Who are you ? Find out.

This time I'm reminded of the Buddhist path or as Yoda would say: "Let go of everything you fear to lose" but then also pull the carpet of "letting go of needing to let go" from under you. "Before enlightenment: chop wood, carry water, after enlightenment: chop wood, carry water". I really don't wanna leave my identity/thoughts/ideas/emotions behind because its kinda scary how impersonal and "sterile" reality seems without them, like a random simulation, or even a material world without a consciousness to perceive it. But to understand anything at all, you have to transcend the system that encompasses a duality and impersonally observe what is happening without judgement, and that will dissolve a lot of previously comfortable dogma. It also encompasses the ability of accepting ideas regardless of whether they're true or not. For example, I'd like to continue existing in some shape or form after death, whether as god realized, reincarnated, as an astral form or whatever. But all of these are concepts and I can only speculate on observations, metaphors and wishful thinking. So I keep imagining a Buddhist master asking me why I would need certain ideas to be true. And oftentimes, I don't want to think about it because I'm scared of losing something, and I do, but at the same time as far as I know, I'd lose it anyway at death and questioning and expanding my consciousness doesn't really take anything away from me, as much as it dissolves the barriers within me. The contents still exist and are liberated because of it to take any other shape and form and I am always able to come back. But to truly accept and entertain the notion of taking a look outside the paradigm that includes something I'm attached to, it feel like jumping off a minor cliff. It's like the idea that if I mastered everything, I could do anything, but maybe no specific thing would be worthwhile to do anymore. Like I won't be able to realize my desires because my ego holds me back but if I let go of the ego, the desire might dissipate. Though that might really just reveal the truth. I am getting more optimistic though at allowing this process to happen. My awareness bubble of senses/feelings/thoughts is but a small subset of reality and possible experience, and although I try to solve all my problems from inside of it, I always end up at the mercy of the grander world which I am interdependent upon. So in the end, what happens happens regardless of what I want to happen and usually for the better. My ideas are faulty due to their limitation which is by design for me to be able to exist in time and space at all. Otherwise there would be no outside to observe and interact with to ponder and wonder at, to lose myself in. Everything is infinitely interpretable, is god materializing top down, or consciousness arising bottom up, or objects interacting middle through, psychic or material, its all united and interconnected at all layers in some shape or form, does life evolve complexity to survive better, or is survival just a step in the evolution towards a beautiful expression of experience. In the end, nothing is guaranteed and everything operates on faith at some level. I just gotta have faith that doing my best reality works out and not to be too obsessed with outcomes but enjoy what is, and how exactly is an infinitely complex question that nobody could live if they kept thinking about it to infinite detail.

God does things because it is alive, it is life, it has no bottom, it boils with life, it cannot help it, its intelligence and his complexity are inconceivable, its depth is infinite, but it is not someone. You are someone now, you are the being that perceives, but God is not that, it is the depth that exists, it is absolutely impersonal, unfathomable, unthinkable. It is not something, it is a well of existence. So it isn't god, its just no limits

Love is the flow of life, the substance of existence, what makes the birds be coloured and the trees grow strong and wonderful. Is the blood moving in your body, the perfect laws that govern the stars and the cosmos, the yin and the yang that flows from the abyss of existence. But it's wild, totally impersonal, formless, and it's what we are, just a bubble of love, or life , or existence. Love is not loving anyone, is flowing. I don't name it love, I name it life, but maybe are the same, god is not needed, of if you prefer, god is infinite life, but it's no someone, it's just substance, intelligence, depth. I feel it all time, that's awakening, you don't need to know anything, it's just being