There are no others

[Deleted]

You must have heard this statement very often here. Do you know what's the meaning of this statement? This statement implies that only one horse is running in the race. How come one can have many perception? Have you ever thought of this ? One consciousness is looking at more than one perception simultaneously? Or does it take turn between you and me?

[zendancer]

Apr 28, 2023 14:03:53 GMT -5 Gopal said:

You must have heard this statement very often here. Do you know what's the meaning of this statement? This statement implies that only one horse is running in the race. How come one can have many perception? Have you ever thought of this ? One consciousness is looking at more than one perception simultaneously? Or does it take turn between you and me?

The Infinite (THIS) is looking out of every set of eyes. This can be known as a result of a particular realization--a direct seeing that separation is a cognitive illusion and that all boundaries are imaginary. If we search for an actual boundary anywhere, it will never be found because all imagined boundaries are like lines of longitude and latitude. This cannot be known via the intellect although many thought experiments can be used to logically understand the issue. Reality is non-dual, and duality only exists in thought (images, ideas, symbols, language). THIS, in the form of humans, has evolved an intellect that can make imaginary distinctions, which are useful but deceptive psychological acts of severance. What we call "the consensus paradigm" is the common idea that reality is composed of 10,000 things that interact in 10,000 ways and is seen by a separate thing called "me." None of that is true.

[stardustpilgrim]

Apr 28, 2023 14:03:53 GMT -5 Gopal said:

You must have heard this statement very often here. Do you know what's the meaning of this statement? This statement implies that only one horse is running in the race. How come one can have many perception? Have you ever thought of this ? One consciousness is looking at more than one perception simultaneously? Or does it take turn between you and me?

In my teens and '20's I was desperate to understand myself and the world, I was not happy with the Christianity I had grown up in. At 18 I started exploring Eastern philosophy and religions. I discovered Alan Watts pretty early, probably from The Wisdom of Insecurity, which he got mostly from J Krishnamurti, admittedly. (As I've said here many times, J Krishnamurti was IT for me from 1971-[March] 1976, that it, nobody I encountered surpassed him in clarity. But that also means I didn't stop with him). I explored Joel Goldsmith pretty extensively, I consider his best book A Parenthesis In Eternity (that's what you're living right now, a parenthesis in eternity). He can be summed up in one sentence (his): God is the substance of all form. So I encountered nonduality, although not specifically named that. I remember specifically doing a *thought experiment*, a test, of nonseparation. I put myself in a sealed refrigerator (I thought that up myself). So it didn't take very long to see that, no, I have no separate existence, I saw that deeply (and I extended that out to include the furthest reaches of any aspect of my being. I could gladly go into that). We could stop there.

But I was functionally, a mess, seeing I had no separate existence didn't help me get out of bed in the morning.

Ya know, I am going to stop there. Let's just say that my *refrigerator [thought] experiment* didn't stop my spiritual search.

But my key words were functionality, pragmatism, not idealism.

[laughter]

Apr 27, 2023 12:20:27 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

Apr 27, 2023 10:04:01 GMT -5 andrew said:

I'd say 'actual thing' is part of the religion of non-duality. The pointers are part of the religion (I'm using the word 'religion' very loosely). I'm fine with them, I find value in them, and I believe fully in the experience of 'direct knowing'. But I'd say 'direct knowing' is still a leap of faith i.e we cannot remove our subjectivity (or illusion of), in order to have absolute knowledge of 'The Truth', if there is such a thing. Only in the total absence of form could we have that absolute knowledge. Until then, the experience of direct knowing is enough for me to be working on.

I want to put that another way, maybe a little softer. I'd say that if all experience is a 'play' then 'direct knowing' is an experience, or way of experiencing, that is happening as part of that play.

Maybe a relevant question is....can we remove the illusion of boundary? It seems like we can sometimes, but even if you are experiencing samadhi, am I necessarily experiencing that too?

Maybe another relevant question.....can one realize Oneness to be the case, and STILL believe in fundamental separation? I'd say 'No', by definition of the realization. But I'd say that a belief structure will still express this realization, by talking about the illusion of separation, or the imaginary nature of boundaries etc. The belief structure is born out of the realization, it's just not experienced as a 'belief structure in the way that other individuals may experience belief structure.

"Ars Poetica" by Archibald MacLeish has a line in it that " a poem should not mean, but be." Reminds me of what RM said to a follower when the latter exclaimed that he wanted to "know" God. "You cannot know God, you can only BE God." "Direct knowing" describes a method.

You are never not God, but for thinking otherwise. 

It's difficult to speak about things like removing boundaries because it is misinterpreted. There are no boundaries doesn't mean you can levitate or that you can manifest a Porshe.  It's a dangerous thing in the wrong hands. The notion of boundaries or lack thereof is only relevant in time and space.

Do you experience time and space in deep sleep?

The other weird thing I hear is if the mind rests, I won't do anything. It seems to me when depressed the mind is very active. I have to constantly rein in mine else I start to flail and flounder. Coming here is a symptom of it.

The nonduality religion, cool.  I like the sound of it. First an industry. Now a religion.

The thing about "God" is that once we have this notion, then we've already had the first thought. There's "God", and, there's "you". As I recall, Niz was told something similar by his guru as to what RM told the guy there. But I think this is something someone has to be ready to hear, and if they're not, it can lead to all sorts of confusion, and even to some seriously bad ends. Not to mention that they'll likely be seriously misunderstood by Consensus Trance Joe. What zd writes here, is far more subtle. Same pointer, but to my ear, better suited to the Western mind, acculturated to Christianity, which runs quite deep. This depth is despite the current cultural prevalence of questioning the "God" notion, especially among the educated. In fact, it seems to me a major correlation between interest in nonduality and that questioning. And shutting ones dusty self in a refrigerator. Makes sense, as the Christians have historically only ever offered a devotional path to the laity.

When you yourself got interested in Zen, was it because you were questioning the idea of the Christian God?

[zendancer]

Andrew wrote: "I'd say 'actual thing' is part of the religion of non-duality. The pointers are part of the religion (I'm using the word 'religion' very loosely). I'm fine with them, I find value in them, and I believe fully in the experience of 'direct knowing'. But I'd say 'direct knowing' is still a leap of faith i.e we cannot remove our subjectivity (or illusion of), in order to have absolute knowledge of 'The Truth', if there is such a thing. Only in the total absence of form could we have that absolute knowledge. Until then, the experience of direct knowing is enough for me to be working on.

I want to put that another way, maybe a little softer. I'd say that if all experience is a 'play' then 'direct knowing' is an experience, or way of experiencing, that is happening as part of that play.

Maybe a relevant question is....can we remove the illusion of boundary? It seems like we can sometimes, but even if you are experiencing samadhi, am I necessarily experiencing that too?

Maybe another relevant question.....can one realize Oneness to be the case, and STILL believe in fundamental separation? I'd say 'No', by definition of the realization. But I'd say that a belief structure will still express this realization, by talking about the illusion of separation, or the imaginary nature of boundaries etc. The belief structure is born out of the realization, it's just not experienced as a 'belief structure in the way that other individuals may experience belief structure."

To the bolded part, it's NOT a belief structure in the way that most sages define a belief or belief structure, which is "a strong attachment to an idea or set of ideas." "A strong attachment" usually indicates that there is a SVP who is strongly attached to an idea, and in that sense it is neither a belief nor a belief structure. Again, the goal-less goal of Zen and other ND traditions (whether explicitly stated or not) is "non-abidance in mind," and NAIM means that abstract thought is no longer dominating one's perspective. Life becomes simple and direct. This is why sages tell seekers that ND has nothing to do with beliefs, only realizations and direct experience. The consensus paradigm is a belief structure, but seeing the living truth of "what is" is beyond ideation, so it is not a new paradigm; it is seeing what lies beyond all paradigms.

The only time that there appear to be beliefs is when sages point to the truth, and seekers imagine that they're pointing to a different set of beliefs than the usual ones. From the sage's POV, there is simply the flow of life however it is manifesting, and the sage responds intelligently and appropriately without reference to a fixed set of ideas. This happens in the same way that one drinks a glass of water when thirsty; no thinking or reference to any set of ideas is required.

[zazeniac]

Apr 29, 2023 7:27:50 GMT -5 laughter said:

Apr 27, 2023 12:20:27 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

"Ars Poetica" by Archibald MacLeish has a line in it that " a poem should not mean, but be." Reminds me of what RM said to a follower when the latter exclaimed that he wanted to "know" God. "You cannot know God, you can only BE God." "Direct knowing" describes a method.

You are never not God, but for thinking otherwise. 

It's difficult to speak about things like removing boundaries because it is misinterpreted. There are no boundaries doesn't mean you can levitate or that you can manifest a Porshe.  It's a dangerous thing in the wrong hands. The notion of boundaries or lack thereof is only relevant in time and space.

Do you experience time and space in deep sleep?

The other weird thing I hear is if the mind rests, I won't do anything. It seems to me when depressed the mind is very active. I have to constantly rein in mine else I start to flail and flounder. Coming here is a symptom of it.

The nonduality religion, cool.  I like the sound of it. First an industry. Now a religion.

The thing about "God" is that once we have this notion, then we've already had the first thought. There's "God", and, there's "you". As I recall, Niz was told something similar by his guru as to what RM told the guy there. But I think this is something someone has to be ready to hear, and if they're not, it can lead to all sorts of confusion, and even to some seriously bad ends. Not to mention that they'll likely be seriously misunderstood by Consensus Trance Joe. What zd writes here, is far more subtle. Same pointer, but to my ear, better suited to the Western mind, acculturated to Christianity, which runs quite deep. This depth is despite the current cultural prevalence of questioning the "God" notion, especially among the educated. In fact, it seems to me a major correlation between interest in nonduality and that questioning. And shutting ones dusty self in a refrigerator. Makes sense, as the Christians have historically only ever offered a devotional path to the laity.

When you yourself got interested in Zen, was it because you were questioning the idea of the Christian God?

I agree. Most statements about reality are double edged, and therefore dangerous. Note my third paragraph. I find the nondual world rich in narcissists and escapists. I was in the latter camp. Life experience snapped me out of it.

To answer your question. No.  It had nothing to do with Christianity. I considered myself a Christian while at the Zendo and even after I left. It was misery in the form of depression that drove me to Zen. Therapy was helpful, but only provided temporary relief. Zazen was a permanent cure. 

My views on Christianity changed after reading The Dark Side of God and agreeing with its conclusion that Christianity is an invention of Paul. But even when I considered myself a Christian my views were pretty unorthodox.

Actually in the Zendo, I never encountered nonduality. There was never that kind of talk. It was all about technique. My interest in RM and nonduality started with reading "My Untethered Soul" many years after leaving the Zendo. My wife got a copy of it from a friend.

I still consider myself a follower of Jesus, but see Christianity as a perversion of his teaching. Speaking of mantras, I still recite the rosary. I kept my communion rosary. Funny thing is for some strange reason the Hail Mary's are in Spanish and The Our Father's are in English. My favorite mantra is "Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the earth, have mercy on me." 

You can take the man out Catholicism, but can't take Catholicism out of the man, I guess.

[zazeniac]

Apr 28, 2023 17:38:28 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Apr 28, 2023 14:03:53 GMT -5 Gopal said:

You must have heard this statement very often here. Do you know what's the meaning of this statement? This statement implies that only one horse is running in the race. How come one can have many perception? Have you ever thought of this ? One consciousness is looking at more than one perception simultaneously? Or does it take turn between you and me?

In my teens and '20's I was desperate to understand myself and the world, I was not happy with the Christianity I had grown up in. At 18 I started exploring Eastern philosophy and religions. I discovered Alan Watts pretty early, probably from The Wisdom of Insecurity, which he got mostly from J Krishnamurti, admittedly. (As I've said here many times, J Krishnamurti was IT for me from 1971-[March] 1976, that it, nobody I encountered surpassed him in clarity. But that also means I didn't stop with him). I explored Joel Goldsmith pretty extensively, I consider his best book A Parenthesis In Eternity (that's what you're living right now, a parenthesis in eternity). He can be summed up in one sentence (his): God is the substance of all form. So I encountered nonduality, although not specifically named that. I remember specifically doing a *thought experiment*, a test, of nonseparation. I put myself in a sealed refrigerator (I thought that up myself). So it didn't take very long to see that, no, I have no separate existence, I saw that deeply (and I extended that out to include the furthest reaches of any aspect of my being. I could gladly go into that). We could stop there.

But I was functionally, a mess, seeing I had no separate existence didn't help me get out of bed in the morning.

Ya know, I am going to stop there. Let's just say that my *refrigerator [thought] experiment* didn't stop my spiritual search.

But my key words were functionality, pragmatism, not idealism.

Yes, I'm with you. The freedom barometer is also a happiness measure. No matter what the elegance of your nondual paradigm, if there isn't happiness then it ain't working. When peace permeates even the hard moments, then there's freedom. 

[zendancer]

Apr 29, 2023 10:35:51 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

Apr 28, 2023 17:38:28 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

In my teens and '20's I was desperate to understand myself and the world, I was not happy with the Christianity I had grown up in. At 18 I started exploring Eastern philosophy and religions. I discovered Alan Watts pretty early, probably from The Wisdom of Insecurity, which he got mostly from J Krishnamurti, admittedly. (As I've said here many times, J Krishnamurti was IT for me from 1971-[March] 1976, that it, nobody I encountered surpassed him in clarity. But that also means I didn't stop with him). I explored Joel Goldsmith pretty extensively, I consider his best book A Parenthesis In Eternity (that's what you're living right now, a parenthesis in eternity). He can be summed up in one sentence (his): God is the substance of all form. So I encountered nonduality, although not specifically named that. I remember specifically doing a *thought experiment*, a test, of nonseparation. I put myself in a sealed refrigerator (I thought that up myself). So it didn't take very long to see that, no, I have no separate existence, I saw that deeply (and I extended that out to include the furthest reaches of any aspect of my being. I could gladly go into that). We could stop there.

But I was functionally, a mess, seeing I had no separate existence didn't help me get out of bed in the morning.

Ya know, I am going to stop there. Let's just say that my *refrigerator [thought] experiment* didn't stop my spiritual search.

But my key words were functionality, pragmatism, not idealism.

Yes, I'm with you. The freedom barometer is also a happiness measure. No matter what the elegance of your nondual paradigm, if there isn't happiness then it ain't working. When peace permeates even the hard moments, then there's freedom. 

An excellent point. Totally agree.

[tenka]

Apr 28, 2023 14:03:53 GMT -5 Gopal said:

You must have heard this statement very often here. Do you know what's the meaning of this statement? This statement implies that only one horse is running in the race. How come one can have many perception? Have you ever thought of this ? One consciousness is looking at more than one perception simultaneously? Or does it take turn between you and me?

There isn't one is the first instance .

This is a myth .

[stardustpilgrim]

Apr 29, 2023 9:51:22 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

Apr 29, 2023 7:27:50 GMT -5 laughter said:

The thing about "God" is that once we have this notion, then we've already had the first thought. There's "God", and, there's "you". As I recall, Niz was told something similar by his guru as to what RM told the guy there. But I think this is something someone has to be ready to hear, and if they're not, it can lead to all sorts of confusion, and even to some seriously bad ends. Not to mention that they'll likely be seriously misunderstood by Consensus Trance Joe. What zd writes here, is far more subtle. Same pointer, but to my ear, better suited to the Western mind, acculturated to Christianity, which runs quite deep. This depth is despite the current cultural prevalence of questioning the "God" notion, especially among the educated. In fact, it seems to me a major correlation between interest in nonduality and that questioning. And shutting ones dusty self in a refrigerator. Makes sense, as the Christians have historically only ever offered a devotional path to the laity.

When you yourself got interested in Zen, was it because you were questioning the idea of the Christian God?

I agree. Most statements about reality are double edged, and therefore dangerous. Note my third paragraph. I find the nondual world rich in narcissists and escapists. I was in the latter camp. Life experience snapped me out of it.

To answer your question. No.  It had nothing to do with Christianity. I considered myself a Christian while at the Zendo and even after I left. It was misery in the form of depression that drove me to Zen. Therapy was helpful, but only provided temporary relief. Zazen was a permanent cure. 

My views on Christianity changed after reading The Dark Side of God and agreeing with its conclusion that Christianity is an invention of Paul. But even when I considered myself a Christian my views were pretty unorthodox.

Actually in the Zendo, I never encountered nonduality. There was never that kind of talk. It was all about technique. My interest in RM and nonduality started with reading "My Untethered Soul" many years after leaving the Zendo. My wife got a copy of it from a friend.

I still consider myself a follower of Jesus, but see Christianity as a perversion of his teaching. Speaking of mantras, I still recite the rosary. I kept my communion rosary. Funny thing is for some strange reason the Hail Mary's are in Spanish and The Our Father's are in English. My favorite mantra is "Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the earth, have mercy on me." 

You can take the man out Catholicism, but can't take Catholicism out of the man, I guess.

Yes, I used to talk about conceptual NDism, nobody wanted to.

Concerning this, I agree. But I also consider it was planned, in a "two birds one stone" way. The major religions were originated from a higher order of reality, by "Messengers" (I've gone into this somewhat with andrew). So at least Buddhism, Judaism (Moses), Islam, Tibetan Buddhism (Padmasambhava), Christianity, Jesus/Paul. So Jesus in the red letters is the real deal, he bears almost no resemblance to the Jesus of Christianity. But, again, I think Jesus was in on it. So there is an inner teaching and an outer teaching. Jesus had and passed on the inner teaching, there are more than hints in the red. And Paul came along to fulfill his mission, for the outer teaching, the Church. Its purpose is basically to give a moral basis for culture, it was a failure by the Inquisition. I'm pretty sure, about 93%, that Paul knew he also had a role, he played a part. This outer teaching and inner teaching aspect it blatant in Judaism. In the OT there is the school of the prophets who passed on the inner teaching. This teaching also came to be called Kabbalah about the 12th century, but it probably existed at least all the way back to Abraham, who came from Ur. In the 5th grade we learned about the Sumerians. I saw that they were a high point of civilization, and afterwards civilization actually degraded. So, I learned later that Sumer = Ur, so Abraham was chosen to continue the tradition, a new place, a new time, a new people, a new start. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (revered by Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Abraham was also the father of Islam, which came from Abraham + his Egyptian servant Hagar, which resulted in Ishmael, begat, begat, begat, etc.).

Just a tiny bit more. Jesus and John the Baptist were both most likely Essenes, who carried the inner tradition. IOW, we don't know behind the scenes. The inner teaching of all these religions are in agreement, as they came from the same source. I'd throw Lao Tzu and Taoism in the same group also. Where he writes about being and nonbeing, that used to throw me, nonbeing. Then a few months ago I found what I consider a reliable source. He says this simply means manifest and unmanifest, nonbeing simply means that which is not manifest. Makes sense.

Yes.

It's pretty obvious Jesus was waiting for the right time to "sacrifice" himself (Passover). All part of the Cosmic Drama.

[laughter]

Apr 29, 2023 9:51:22 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

Apr 29, 2023 7:27:50 GMT -5 laughter said:

The thing about "God" is that once we have this notion, then we've already had the first thought. There's "God", and, there's "you". As I recall, Niz was told something similar by his guru as to what RM told the guy there. But I think this is something someone has to be ready to hear, and if they're not, it can lead to all sorts of confusion, and even to some seriously bad ends. Not to mention that they'll likely be seriously misunderstood by Consensus Trance Joe. What zd writes here, is far more subtle. Same pointer, but to my ear, better suited to the Western mind, acculturated to Christianity, which runs quite deep. This depth is despite the current cultural prevalence of questioning the "God" notion, especially among the educated. In fact, it seems to me a major correlation between interest in nonduality and that questioning. And shutting ones dusty self in a refrigerator. Makes sense, as the Christians have historically only ever offered a devotional path to the laity.

When you yourself got interested in Zen, was it because you were questioning the idea of the Christian God?

I agree. Most statements about reality are double edged, and therefore dangerous. Note my third paragraph. I find the nondual world rich in narcissists and escapists. I was in the latter camp. Life experience snapped me out of it.

To answer your question. No.  It had nothing to do with Christianity. I considered myself a Christian while at the Zendo and even after I left. It was misery in the form of depression that drove me to Zen. Therapy was helpful, but only provided temporary relief. Zazen was a permanent cure. 

My views on Christianity changed after reading The Dark Side of God and agreeing with its conclusion that Christianity is an invention of Paul. But even when I considered myself a Christian my views were pretty unorthodox.

Actually in the Zendo, I never encountered nonduality. There was never that kind of talk. It was all about technique. My interest in RM and nonduality started with reading "My Untethered Soul" many years after leaving the Zendo. My wife got a copy of it from a friend.

I still consider myself a follower of Jesus, but see Christianity as a perversion of his teaching. Speaking of mantras, I still recite the rosary. I kept my communion rosary. Funny thing is for some strange reason the Hail Mary's are in Spanish and The Our Father's are in English. My favorite mantra is "Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the earth, have mercy on me." 

You can take the man out Catholicism, but can't take Catholicism out of the man, I guess.

Thanks for taking the time to relate that.

[Deleted]

Apr 28, 2023 14:20:51 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Apr 28, 2023 14:03:53 GMT -5 Gopal said:

You must have heard this statement very often here. Do you know what's the meaning of this statement? This statement implies that only one horse is running in the race. How come one can have many perception? Have you ever thought of this ? One consciousness is looking at more than one perception simultaneously? Or does it take turn between you and me?

The Infinite (THIS) is looking out of every set of eyes. This can be known as a result of a particular realization--a direct seeing that separation is a cognitive illusion and that all boundaries are imaginary. If we search for an actual boundary anywhere, it will never be found because all imagined boundaries are like lines of longitude and latitude. This cannot be known via the intellect although many thought experiments can be used to logically understand the issue. Reality is non-dual, and duality only exists in thought (images, ideas, symbols, language). THIS, in the form of humans, has evolved an intellect that can make imaginary distinctions, which are useful but deceptive psychological acts of severance. What we call "the consensus paradigm" is the common idea that reality is composed of 10,000 things that interact in 10,000 ways and is seen by a separate thing called "me." None of that is true.

That's an assumption. Assumption is not realization.

[Deleted]

Apr 28, 2023 17:38:28 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Apr 28, 2023 14:03:53 GMT -5 Gopal said:

You must have heard this statement very often here. Do you know what's the meaning of this statement? This statement implies that only one horse is running in the race. How come one can have many perception? Have you ever thought of this ? One consciousness is looking at more than one perception simultaneously? Or does it take turn between you and me?

In my teens and '20's I was desperate to understand myself and the world, I was not happy with the Christianity I had grown up in. At 18 I started exploring Eastern philosophy and religions. I discovered Alan Watts pretty early, probably from The Wisdom of Insecurity, which he got mostly from J Krishnamurti, admittedly. (As I've said here many times, J Krishnamurti was IT for me from 1971-[March] 1976, that it, nobody I encountered surpassed him in clarity. But that also means I didn't stop with him). I explored Joel Goldsmith pretty extensively, I consider his best book A Parenthesis In Eternity (that's what you're living right now, a parenthesis in eternity). He can be summed up in one sentence (his): God is the substance of all form. So I encountered nonduality, although not specifically named that. I remember specifically doing a *thought experiment*, a test, of nonseparation. I put myself in a sealed refrigerator (I thought that up myself). So it didn't take very long to see that, no, I have no separate existence, I saw that deeply (and I extended that out to include the furthest reaches of any aspect of my being. I could gladly go into that). We could stop there.

But I was functionally, a mess, seeing I had no separate existence didn't help me get out of bed in the morning.

Ya know, I am going to stop there. Let's just say that my *refrigerator [thought] experiment* didn't stop my spiritual search.

But my key words were functionality, pragmatism, not idealism.

But universe is not made of consciousness material, There is one consciousness to which everything appears. Consciousness is watching the movie, the secret we yet to have learn is, the same consciousness is animating that movie as well.

[Deleted]

Apr 29, 2023 10:35:51 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

Apr 28, 2023 17:38:28 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

In my teens and '20's I was desperate to understand myself and the world, I was not happy with the Christianity I had grown up in. At 18 I started exploring Eastern philosophy and religions. I discovered Alan Watts pretty early, probably from The Wisdom of Insecurity, which he got mostly from J Krishnamurti, admittedly. (As I've said here many times, J Krishnamurti was IT for me from 1971-[March] 1976, that it, nobody I encountered surpassed him in clarity. But that also means I didn't stop with him). I explored Joel Goldsmith pretty extensively, I consider his best book A Parenthesis In Eternity (that's what you're living right now, a parenthesis in eternity). He can be summed up in one sentence (his): God is the substance of all form. So I encountered nonduality, although not specifically named that. I remember specifically doing a *thought experiment*, a test, of nonseparation. I put myself in a sealed refrigerator (I thought that up myself). So it didn't take very long to see that, no, I have no separate existence, I saw that deeply (and I extended that out to include the furthest reaches of any aspect of my being. I could gladly go into that). We could stop there.

But I was functionally, a mess, seeing I had no separate existence didn't help me get out of bed in the morning.

Ya know, I am going to stop there. Let's just say that my *refrigerator [thought] experiment* didn't stop my spiritual search.

But my key words were functionality, pragmatism, not idealism.

Yes, I'm with you. The freedom barometer is also a happiness measure. No matter what the elegance of your nondual paradigm, if there isn't happiness then it ain't working. When peace permeates even the hard moments, then there's freedom. 

If you had such tranquilly, it would re-orchestrate the outside world as well. So the difficult moments you mention would not occur (mostly) because you are not only watching life, but also creating it.

[Deleted]

Apr 29, 2023 14:00:11 GMT -5 tenka said:

Apr 28, 2023 14:03:53 GMT -5 Gopal said:

You must have heard this statement very often here. Do you know what's the meaning of this statement? This statement implies that only one horse is running in the race. How come one can have many perception? Have you ever thought of this ? One consciousness is looking at more than one perception simultaneously? Or does it take turn between you and me?

There isn't one is the first instance .

This is a myth .

What? I did not understand you, explain me more.