Osaid

I like this video because it makes you realize you're doing all this to yourself out of love. It sort of removes the idea that everything is being "forced" onto you. Might help you.

Thoughts are just thoughts, that is what is true about them

Self is dual. No-self is the removal of a superficial duality. "Self" is an imaginary distinction you create. "No-self" is the removal of that distinction. This is just the problem of language being inherently dualistic. There is no "I" left if "I am not." So, there is nothing left to be separate. You're not separating "I", you're realizing it never existed.

hahaha wow I had a dream once, where I fell asleep in the dream, and then started lucid dreaming while in the new dream which was inside that dream. Then, when I woke up inside the dream, I stopped lucid dreaming. And then I woke up again to actual reality.

yes

Oh wow, I didn't even think to look there, as obvious as it may seem. I thought it was some really old and obscure post.

strange loop

might help

what section of the website is this even from lmao

90% of people who follow religions don't understand what they're following. It's still pretty narrow. I don't understand your logic here. You're basing all of this on a metaphor describing the path as "narrow". It makes no sense to me. This is talking about the controversy and disturbance his teachings will bring. It will make conflicts and disturbances between people and divide them. It's not saying that non-duality is false. All religious teachings can be dissected like this, and you will notice a pattern, which is that all of them point to non-duality. It's just a matter of being able to interpret the metaphors used.

Jesus also said: "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the (Father's) domain]."

Subjective = objective "Subjective" and "objective" are superficial dualities imagined by you. They're both the same thing. Try to imagine what it actually means for something to be objective. What would proof that something is objective look like to you?

I would say still works. There is nothing that requires conscious attention for such noises to work. Even if you were conscious, it's not like you have to focus on the sounds for them to work. So, the entire process is probably unconscious/subconscious.

Well, how would dreaming and being awake at the same time look like? I don't think it is possible since your perspective has to be focused on one of them, so one needs to be shut off first. The closest we can get to such a thing is our thoughts. I am able to have very vivid thoughts. So, for me, thoughts are very similar to dreams actually, but the difference is that you are able to experience them while awake. I have personally seen my thoughts slowly manifest into dreams while I was drifting into sleep, so I am sure there is some sort of connection there. I actually think dreams are just very vivid thoughts, to the point where you start identifying with the characters in there. This would also explain the fact that it is actually impossible to have any inner monologue with yourself while inside a dream. The less associated you become with the waking state, the more easier it becomes to drift into and become a part of your thoughts. You can actually catch this happening while you drift into sleep. Teal has a pretty good video on the more metaphysical aspects of dreaming, I think it is pretty accurate based on my experience.

Colour pertains to shape, they are relative to each other. No colour = no shape and no shape = no colour The reason it seems like you should be able to imagine them separately is because you've created a superficial duality between "colour" and "shape", when in fact they are the same thing. Classic ego-mind.

Yeah this is normal. He's probably talking about people who do it wrong.

1. I believe Deja Vu is in fact stored up memories, usually a memory of a dream. You re-enact a lot of daily things in your dreams and you will often do those things in real life as well, and then remember that memory of doing it in a dream and think "wait, didn't I do this before?" Thing is, dream memories can be very vague and get stored in your subconscious, so when you do something similar you might not even realize it was from a dream and think "woah I swear I've done this before" because it feels so familiar. But, it doesn't necessarily have to be from a dream. So, in conclusion, I think it's a memory you had from before which predicted the future. 2. Synchronicity is a great reminder that you are in the mind of God right now. It's like a message from the Universe to wake you up. People call it "coincidence" or 'chance" but those words do not invalidate it at all. Probability and coincidence is just the vehicle/mechanism the universe uses to bring its synchronicities to you. It reminds me of how people use the word "placebo" to invalidate certain affects. Like, placebo is literally you healing yourself through the power of your imagination. That's magic right there. If your house burned down in a dream, you would be questioning what it means, not saying "oh it was just probability". << See how foolish it is to do that? 3. Yeah dreams are pretty crazy. It's a testament to the capabilities of consciousness. There are a lot of mind-bending things like that we take for granted. Dreams are just another unique sensation of consciousness, the same as thoughts, sound, sight, etc. I mean, think about what sound is. It's completely invisible and intangible, yet it can be experienced. How crazy is that? You wouldn't be able to explain that to anyone, they would have to experience it to know it.

@Adamq8 I think when he says "consciousness" he is talking about the relative and impermanent experiences within consciousness. Same goes for "beingness".

It seems to me that the main point of this excerpt is to teach you about your true nature as pure consciousness, so that you can differentiate it from your relative identity as a "body" or "human". It also seems that there is some different terminology being used. For example, he calls things that are relative "untrue". I'm having trouble understanding some of it, like "food body" and "child consciousness". But, I can see that he is trying to point to the pure everlasting awareness which underlies our conscious experience. He does, however, say at the beginning "When the material gets dried up, our consciousness vanishes" which could mean two things: 1. The word "consciousness" is being used in a way different from how we know it 2. He actually believes consciousness can vanish I don't know enough about him to confirm the above two possibilities. I can see why you're confused. EDIT: After reading through his definition of "child consciousness" I think theory number one is right. He says "The Absolute state cannot be obtained. It is your state now and always. To the Absolute state the witnessing of the consciousness happens." and he also says that "You will transcend that beingness, and you, the Absolute, will know that you are also not that beingness, that consciousness." Notice that he refers to the eternal state, and then creates a duality between that state and consciousness. I think this confirms his definition of consciousness is different from ours.

You should give us the actual quote so we can dissect it But, there are multiple instances where you can be conscious without your body. So that's wrong.

I don't understand the question

It does fade away, because you realize it never existed in the first place. It's a recontextualization. It's like when you walk up to the mirage in the desert and see it vanish. Now, you realize that the water you previously thought to exist was in essence just light-rays bouncing into your eyes, not actual water. Similarly, when you realize the ego doesn't actually exist, you see that it was in essence just a thought inside your head, not an actual ego which exists in reality.

You perceive the illusion of having an ego, not an actual ego which exists in reality. The ego is just an illusion which is perceived and mistaken for reality. It's like when a kid thinks Santa Clause is real. Santa Clause only exists as a thought, but the kid doesn't know that and mistakes it for something that is actual. Or, if you perceive a mirage in a desert, the mirage only exists as an illusion. If it wasn't an illusion, it wouldn't be a mirage. Same goes for ego.

perception = existence

Are you talking about nothingness here? Are you saying we need sleep to reincarnate? I'm having trouble understanding the post