Hyperion

I am relieved. Well, that depends on what you mean by "real". When I speak of "reality", I am referring to that which has no opposite because it is all that there is (and could be). So to me it doesn't make any sense to speak of something which is "unreal", because unreality would be that which is not. And the characteristic feature of that which is not is that, well, it just isn't there, duh. I mean, if you want to say that what you see before you right now is in fact not there (in which case I wonder how you are able to see it), then be my guest... just don't complain when manifest reality violently hits you over the head in order to prove to you just how real it is, lol.

Well, I admittedly am no PhD scholar of comparative religion, so you might want to take the following reflexions with a slight grain of salt... but the way I understand it, the big difference between Advaita Vedanta and (Kashmir) Shaivism is that classic Advaita in the vein of Adi Shankara regards the world of form & change as illusory and unreal and postulates that there is a formless and unchanging essence of reality which is sort of hidden behind a "veil of illusion" and which alone is ultimately real. So the glaring irony of this philosophy is that while Advaita literally means "not two", it splits up reality into "real" and "unreal", "illusory" and "not illusory", "essence" and "appearance" etc. and thereby creates exactly the kind of duality that it nominally denies. Shaivism on the other hand acknowledges and honors the duality of Shiva-Shakti (i.e. spirit/matter, consciousness/energy, permanence/impermanence) and sees them as two equally valid sides of the same coin, as I said earlier. Now, the delicious irony on my part is that my signature, which you can see below - The World Is Illusion, Only Brahman Is Real, The World Is Brahman - is a famous Advaita slogan that is widely attributed to either Adi Shankara or Ramana Maharshi, who are arguably the two most revered and well-know proponents of Advaita philosophy in all of history. So why, in spite of everything I just said, do I love it so much that I decided to make it my signature of choice? Well, I love it precisely because it spells out the inherent contradiction at the heart of this philosophy in such a clear and palpable way that the contradiction turns into paradox. It basically says "it's all an illusion, and it's also real, and it's all one, and it's also two, and it's all the same, and it's also different". So I guess you could say that the saving grace of Advaita philosophy is that it basically negates and annihilates itself, once you take it to its proper conclusion. And if that's what being a "radical nondualist" is about, then by all means... non-dualize away.

Nice. 😌 Not really... been reading books and listening to talks by people of all stripes and colors over the years. Went to one live satsang by a former Osho sannyasin couple of years ago --- which left me rather unimpressed, lol. I've never really had the impetus to follow one specific teacher or tradition. Having said that, the systems/traditions that I probably resonate with the most are Taoism, Buddhism and Shaivism. What I like about (correctly understood and applied) Buddhism is its emphasis of shunyata (I.e. the recognition that there is no concrete ultimate nature or essence of reality); what I love about Taoism and Shaivism is that they both honor and acknowledge the divine role of form & energy and recognize all (seeming) opposites such as spirit/matter, permanence/impermanence, form/formlessness, oneness/multiplicity etc. as equally valid sides of the same coin (which frankly makes much more sense to me than Advaita philosophy, which is inherently self-contradictory imo). But honestly, there is truth and beauty to be found in all spiritual traditions... even though you may sometimes need to dig and drill your way through entire mountain ranges of superstitious & dogmatic BS (= belief systems) in order to unearth it.

Do you ever feel like you are literally being consumed by silence... like there's an invisible black hole that just perpetually sucks you in and swallows you up? That sensation seems very prominent for me these days.

Looks like those guys in 1984 were actually on to something, huh?

Tbh what I wrote in the OP is just a bunch of poetry, as far as I am concerned. And as any poet will tell you, it feels kind of weird and futile to try to explain and dissect your own poerty after you vomited it out, lol. So it's probably best to not read too much into it... I know I don't.

Well, if that's your definition, then that's your definition. For me, bliss is very much beyond definition... which is in fact the whole point of the OP. Even saying that "bliss is the absence of resistance" falls short, because when you truly don't resist, you don't even resist resistance. So trying to put it into words becomes very paradoxical very fast. 🤷‍♂️ There is no bliss without suffering, so... relatively speaking, yes.

How do you define"blissful"? That's a bit of an odd question to ask after my purposefully cryptic and elusive sermon, don't you think? Again, what exactly would constitute a "constant background of bliss", according to your human understanding?

The correct answer to this question (and all other questions) is yes, no, maybe, all of the above and none of the above.

"Metaconscious" is a relative quality that can only exist in relation and contrast to "not metaconscious". The Absolute (aka. "God" / the totality of reality) has no opposite, because it is all that there is. Therefore, the Absolute must be both metaconscious and not metaconscious, and also it is neither. Hope that helps.

God feels like everything, nothing, all of the stuff in between and none of it. Because, y'know, that's what God actually is. So don't confuse "God" with some fancy-schmancy altered state. That altered state is just one potential expression or aspect of God (aka. reality), not the whole ineffable and undefinable shebang.

As a spiritual seeker, you may have heard many teachers say that spiritual awakening is the end of the personal self. While such claims have undeniable relative value/validity and can serve as effective pointers towards the realization of Absolute Truth (aka. spiritual awakening), it is important to keep in mind that all such statements regarding the "true nature of reality" (and the recognition thereof) can by definition only ever be relatively true, but never absolutely true. To appreciate why this is the case, it is necessary to understand what the word "Absolute" refers to: The Absolute is the infinite field of reality which includes and gives rise to all possible qualities; every quality that there is (and could be) is a relative aspect of that which is Absolute, meaning that anything that you can name, think of and experience is it - and also, it's not it. As outlined in my little "theory" above, consciousness must constantly oscillate between contrasting qualitative states, for without such oscillation the experience of reality would not be possible. (An experience = a relative quality or set of qualities that "stands out" from the infinite sum total of all qualities and thereby comes into existence). This is why all polarities such as "self/no-self", "personal/impersonal", "limited/unlimited" etc. essentially represent two (relative) sides of the same (absolute) coin, since they can only exist and be experienced in relation and contrast to each other. Where there is no Yin, there can be no Yang... and vice versa. However, once (your) consciousness enters a high-frequency meta-state where all seeming opposites are recognized as equally valid facets and expressions of the same infinite Reality, there is now a sort of simultaneous meta-experience of self and no-self, personal and impersonal, limited and unlimited and all other complementary opposite aspects of the Absolute. So in one sense, all of these relative aspects/perspectives are still "online" and fully available to you; and in another sense, they simply cease to have any meaningful significance since all conceptual definitions are now seen to be nothing but mere arbitrary labels. When the pendulum of consciousness swings so fast that contrasting qualities are being experienced simultaneously (as it were), they essentially merge together and neutralize each other... and what remains is the ineffable Divine that contains and transcends absolutely everything and is impossible to speak of. So while it is true that upon awakening there is no more solid sense of self, there is also no solid sense of no-self once you have truly passed through the proverbial gateless gate. Seemingly conflicting statements such as "I exist as a person" and "I don't exist as a person" are now just as equally meaningful/meaningless to you as all other verbal utterances (aka. relative perspectives); you may still emphasize one aspect over the other in order to make a spiritual, philosophical or ethical point(er), but there will be no more dogged attachment to either side of the all-encompassing Coin. Depersonalisation on the other hand signifies being (often involuntarily) attached to and stuck in a specific relative perspective; it means that there has been a shift from personhood to non-personhood, and now the latter perspective is being mistaken for absolute truth and thereby made into an (egoic) identity. (If it sounds strange and unbelievable to you that it should be possible to construct an identity that is based on the tenet of "I don't exist", then you really don't know just how enduring, clever and creative the egoic mind is... trust me, it can make an identity out of ANYTHING, lol). To be clear: For some people, temporary depersonalization may in fact be a necessary phase or stage of their awakening journey; it may just be the appropriate antidote that will over time cure them from their attachment to "being someone", so none of this is meant to be an indictment that points out some kind of shortcoming or character flaw on your or someone else's part. All I am saying is that it is beneficial to see things for what they are(n't) and that there is no need to overly indulge in and willfully prolong such transitory phases. After all, the point of awakening is not to trade in one attachment-based identity for another, but rather to transcend all identity and fully thrust yourself into the great unknown which is quite literally beyond description. But then again, in case you prefer to foster your depersonalisation and milk it to the very last drop, then by all means... depersonalize away.

If that's not a wonderful example of self-contradiction, then I truly don't know what is.

As long as you don't make "no place to land" another place to (not) land, I am totally cool with that. And also, I am not.

Rebrand it as radical non-nonduality, and I'll gladly sign up.

That is... ...waaaaaaait for it... . ..relatively (un)true.

You only lose your sanity on this path if you get caught up in spiritual delusion. Delusion = confusing a relative perspective for absolute truth. A relative perspective = anything that can be expressed with words. Absolute truth transcends sanity and insanity (and all other opposites). It is neither grounded nor groundless... it just IS.

I still maintain that spaghetti are noodles.

There you go... that would be one possible way of formulating an opposite perspective. But regardless of how you formulate them, any verbal statement you make is an expression of a specific perspective that has an opposite and therefore is relativey (un)true. Including of course what I just said.

Again, what would be the opposite of this statement/perspective?

What would be the opposite of this statement/perspective?

@Willy Phallicus Nice. Now reverse the roles and apply everything you are saying about yourself to me and vice versa, and voila... all of your wonderfulky pointless questions are magically answered! I thoroughly enjoyed our stimulating conversation, Mr. Biggus Dickus. <3 😘