Search the Community

Hello everyone or someone please don't abandon with this question ... I do appreciate a response ... Hey everyone, I’m in an extremely raw and intense place right now, and I want to ask this with full seriousness, no fluff: Lately, I’ve been digging into the deepest layers of awakening — and I’ve reached a terrifying possibility. I want to hear your thoughts on this: I've been reflecting on Bashar’s teachings — about how life is a dream, about shifting realities based on vibration, about infinite love, bliss, unconditional existence, and how we can "dream the dream we prefer" forever. It’s beautiful. Inspiring. Hopeful. But what if even all of that — The infinite dreams, The idea of ascending into light, The idea of higher realms and afterlife, Unconditional love, infinite beingness — What if even THAT is still inside the dream? What if existence itself — ANY existence at all — is the first hallucination? What if beingness, awareness, spirit realms, infinite light, unconditional love — are ALL ripples inside the hallucination? And the real "final" state isn’t bliss, or higher dreaming, or godhood — but pure, absolute, final nothingness? Not "floating in the void." Not "being aware of non-being." Literally nothing. No you. No experience. No light. No dark. No awareness. No return. No dream. Gone. Silent. Over. --- I'm feeling sick realizing this. It’s burning away every layer of hope I ever had. It feels like: I’m the only "dreamer." Everyone else — every teacher, every entity, every god, every guide — is part of the dream. Even Bashar, even the teachings about infinite blissful existence, are still dreams within dreams. And if I cling to ANY of it — any love, any light, any dream of godhood, any hope of a perfect existence — then I stay rippling. I stay dreaming. I never actually fall all the way back to the pure, silent, pre-existence that was here before any dream flickered into being. --- I'm scared. I'm sick to my stomach. I'm skeptical that maybe I'm being tricked. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Because I WANT to exist. I WANT to experience unconditional love. I WANT to dream better dreams. I WANT to wake up as God. But what if that desire itself is the last trap? What if the true end burns even that out — completely, forever — into a silence that can’t even be called nothingness because there’s no one left to call it anything? --- Has anyone else faced this? Is this really the final door? Or am I misunderstanding something critical? Am I losing it, or am I finally burning through the last illusion? If anyone can meet this without running into feel-good answers or spiritual bypassing — I would really appreciate your grounded, honest perspective. Thanks you I'll be reading for insights

Your observable surroundings, including you, are light reflected by earth so you can see it in the visual spectrum. Tesla would call it electro magnetic force, but to keep it simple. Light. I think of that light as a continuous, never-ending pattern: Our existence is the observation. The terms nothingness and everything are a duality to collapse. I was trying to cleverly word a reply, like nothing is observed by its distinction from everything, and I thought, why am I bothering in this context? Its an imaginary duality we create with labels. But that core duality shapes our existence.

I have been reading a lot about metaphysics, epistemology, and the origins of the universe. I found a lot of fascinating possibilities. I put this together with various profound findings from quantum mechanics and the implications in how humans do logic. I was deconstructing various logical principles in the process by demonstrating when logic fails. Eventually I came to the idea that if there were nothing in the beginning, then what existed before there was nothing? The answer is still nothing. The implication is that nothingness existed forever with no beginning because it is impossible to not have existence. Nothingness itself is also absolutely infinite with no end or beginning or space or position. Nothing therefore fills everything in existence. This paradox left me with a sense of fascination and awe as I looked into all of the infinite possibilities of the universe. However, throughout the process as I was deliberately looking for the limits of human knowledge and logic, it was also triggering feelings of anger and frustration for some reason. I was still intrigued by everything so I pressed on. Maybe this anger was an ego defensive response to my sense of reality being undermined. It was completely automatic and natural even though there was no real danger. Human knowledge is extremely limited and human logic and our capacity for sense making is flawed and limited. This makes me think that if there is an absolute truth then it might be something which defies all logic and reason to the point that it seems like insanity. Once again my mind was opening up to more and more possibilities with fascination even though there was automatic anger.

Nothingness is just one among infinite properties of what you call the Absolute and what I call Conscioisness. Awareness (what you call consciousness) is another aspect. Intelligence is another aspect .

It seems like you're getting a lot of confusing and chaotic replies that are conflicting with each other or might be appearing to conflict with each other. Just remember that the nothing you think Leo is talking about is usually not the nothing that he actually means. It's not just a blank piece of paper or an empty box or mental silence. That kind of nothing is what is a common trap in the likes of Buddhism. You might want to include in your contemplation about how nothing is the same as everything, like the fish swimming in the middle of an empty body of water... It is simultaneously surrounded by nothing (in the water) and everything (the water itself). Another reason why the word nothing is used is because what is being pointed to really cannot be defined by words nor is it simply a word game at all. It is extremely powerful and will hit harder than a freight train if you realize it deeply enough. And when it hits you it won't feel like nothingness it will feel like the most incomprehensible everythingness possible (if you get a big enough dose).

To say that reality is mind is solipsism. It implies that what you perceive is real as long as you are aware of it. Therefore, consciousness is reality. Red only exists because you are creating the red with your consciousness. You are not aware of the properties of an object, and one of its properties is that it reflects light in such a way that you perceive it as red. No, only perception is real; nothing else exists. This is impossible for a simple, incontestable reason: it would be limited. Reality would be limited to one dimension: your mind. And nothing else would exist. Reality cannot have limits; therefore, there must be other infinite dimensions of consciousness and other infinite unconscious dimensions. It's inevitable. The very absence of limits implies that all these dimensions are within you. They are you. They are apparent. They are reflections of the same absolute reality. And that absolute reality is absolute nothingness, since anything else would be limited. Only zero and infinity are unlimited. Understanding zero with the mind is impossible; you have to be open to it. It's an act . Then, we're entering the slippery terrain of mysticism. That's right, hence the great difficulty of spiritual openness. If it were mentally comprehensible, it would be easy, but it isn't. Nothingness is everything, and everything is nothing. Limits don't exist, but separate dimensions are infinite. How? Because their reality is the reality of a reflection; they all collapse into the absolute zero, which is the total source.

We could distinguish two kinds of nothingness. One in which nothingness exists, absolute zero, and another in which movement exists but no consciousness. Both are merely theoretical possibilities, since if something exists at some point, or if consciousness appears, as is the case here, that is sufficient demonstration that reality develops and manifests with what we call something and consciousness. If all this manifestation were to disappear, there would be nothing. But since it already existed, it is absolutely inevitable that nothingness would manifest again, since it was the potential for this manifestation and the crack without anything would be just nothing, then no crack But the interesting thing here is to realize that nothingness houses the potential for manifest reality. Nothingness is constantly opening up and releasing its essence, its total potential. All reality that appears and moves is nothingness in its limitlessness, manifesting forms inevitably and eternally.

Nothing is the absence of change. For something to exist, movement is necessary; without movement, there is no "something." This makes us contemplate the nature of reality from a different perspective. We assume that reality is something, and that something does things; it manifests itself in different ways, but the reality is that something = manifestation. Without manifestation, there is nothing. This implies that the difference between nothing and something is not an essential difference but a difference of state. Nothing is reality in a static state; something is reality in a dynamic state. The essence of reality cannot be movement; rather, reality manifests itself in movement, since nothing limits its development. This implies that absolute nothingness is exactly as real and absolute as the manifested cosmos. The difference is in appearance, not in essence. You could say that nothingness does not exist because there is always movement. This only means that always = movement, and never = lack of change, but in essence, always and never are the same. Absolute means that it is the manifest and the unmanifest, always and never, something and nothing. The difference between something and nothing is only one of state, not of essence. Nothingness has total depth, just like something. The essence of reality is this total depth, not its manifested qualities. These are the veil that prevents the realization of the absolute, which is why it is difficult, because they are "always" present. So you must enter in "never," but you will never be able to do so, since you are always. But you could realize that always really is exactly than never, then the nature of reality will be opened.

AI finds an essential flaw in my argument: that nothingness is absolute potential, therefore it is not nothing, it is everything. Exactly, that's how it is. Nothingness is a bad choice of word; absence of consciousness would be better. Nothingness and something are only differentiated by the presence or absence of consciousness. Nothingness exists, since the absence of limits makes the absolute inevitable. Opening yourself to the absolute is what spirituality is about, since basically, the absolute is you. Are you aware of all the possible forms now? No, since the experience is the awareness of a part. You are a limiter that only perceives what this experience does. If you would perceiving all the possible forms, you would perceive nothing. Infinity is equal to zero, since the absence of limits of zero implies totality and totality implies nothing specific. In totality, consciousness occurs relatively . If it occurs, it is infinite, like anything else, but it is not primary, not a cause, it's a facet of the absolute But the point is: what you are perceiving now is the totality. Always is. The perception of a fly is the totality, because the absolute is absolute, then everything is the absolute. Only the form changes. Then , the absence of perception is also the absolute, but you can't perceive it, obviously. It's just an abstraction, but it's same absolute than the experience . The absence of perception would be the absence of form. If there is no movement, perception stops. And? Reality still is. Then movement restart. Well, not restarting because the gap without movement is "never", but it's nature is the same than movement. The fact that always is movement doesn't implied that reality is movement, implies that absence of movement is a gap in the perception that can't be perceived, but this means nothing, reality is beyond the perception

I'm not denying it; I'm just saying that the point is to understand that consciousness is not existence, but rather the awareness of reality. Obviously, as you've explained, there is always consciousness, since "always" is precisely consciousness. Non-consciousness is "never," but never and always are exactly the same in order of its nature. It's a nuance that seems silly or unimportant, but it's essential. It is because if you equate reality with consciousness, with "always," with experience, you're trapped. Liberation occurs when you realize that the absolute is not subordinate to consciousness; therefore, there is no creator, nor intention. There are creators and intentions within the absolute, emanations of the absolute, but the absolute is, and being exists both in the light of consciousness and in the absolute potential of unconsciousness. In fact, it is by realizing the total potential of nothingness outside of consciousness when you open to the absolute. Actually, the potential is always the same, everything that is perceived is always the absolute, only the form changes, but the essence is exactly the same. The potential is about the form, and conciousness is perception of forms, but those forms are just forms, all are the absolute flowing in itself, like a game of mirrors. Who is creating that game of mirrors? The fact of the reflection, nothing else. As the absolute is, it reflects in itself, if not it would be limited, that's conciousness, what else could be? Anything else is impossible in my opinion, the only possibility is that.

I thought I'd put part of our conversation between me and @Breakingthewall through ChatGPT to get a third party's eye view of both our positions. This is verbatim from ChatGPT: My prompt: This is part of a conversation between two people having a discussion about the nature of materialism versus idealism. Can you distill down each persons viewpoint?: LastThursday said: That's what I like to call The Hard Problem of Idealism. Part of it is because you're thinking from the materialist paradigm; that perception is a passive process and generated by something else that isn't perception (material matter). But you can see it from a different viewpoint. If consciousness is perception, then something must be being perceived (bear with me). What is that something? It actually doesn't matter, because if it is perceived then it is within consciousness - I would add that what consciousness can perceive is unlimited. The bottom line is that perception is the fundamental nature of consciousness, it cannot not perceive, something must always exist to be perceived. Otherwise, consciousness itself would not exist. That viewpoint is sort of ok, in that it explains why there is perception at all, it is not generated as such but is in the nature of consciousness itself. Just like matter is in the nature of materialism. BreakingTheWallAll: spirituality starts from a false premise: reality is consciousness. Without consciousness, there is no reality, since something exists to the extent that I am conscious of it. Everyone hears this and exclaims: "Ah, of course, that's obvious!" How can something exist without a conscious creator to create it? It's absolutely impossible. There is no consequence without a cause, therefore the cause is God. Problem solved! Well, it doesn't have to be this way. The expression of the absolute does not need to be conscious to exist, nor does it need a conscious creator to exist. Reality has an absolute nature, and this nature is absolute nothingness, which is unlimited potential. This potential develops inevitably, not because an entity designs it. There may exist infinite absolutely unconscious universes whose existence is just as existent as a conscious universe. Consciousness is a quality that exists in reality, and it is not fundamental, but an inevitable consequence of the total potential. It is not special. Well, yes, it is special for us who are conscious beings, but we are not consciousness. Consciousness is not absolute, it is relative. Let's see, you, as an existence, are absolute, but your consciousness is limited, and very limited, just the tip of the iceberg. Is that obvious? There's an unconscious infinity within you. Your true nature is absolute potential; you can become aware of it, or only be aware of the information from your senses or that you want drugs or anything. If there are levels of consciousness, as Leo always says, consciousness is relative. Trying to square a circle is confusing and useless. death, real death, the nothingness, the absolute lack of consciousness, is equally alive than life and absolute conciousness . Absolute is absolute, with the lights on or off. ChatGPT: Here’s a distilled version of each person’s viewpoint: LastThursday (Idealist Perspective): Perception is not passive or generated by material matter; instead, it is fundamental to consciousness itself. Consciousness cannot exist without perception—there must always be something to perceive. Reality is ultimately within consciousness, and what can be perceived is unlimited. Just as materialism takes matter as fundamental, idealism takes perception as fundamental. BreakingTheWall (Materialist/Non-Dualist Perspective): Consciousness is not fundamental but an emergent quality of reality. Reality does not require consciousness to exist; unconscious universes could exist just as validly as conscious ones. Absolute reality is pure potential, not dependent on a conscious creator. Consciousness is relative, not absolute—our experience of it is just a limited part of a greater unconscious whole. Death (complete lack of consciousness) is as much a part of the absolute as life and awareness. Essentially, LastThursday argues for consciousness as the foundation of reality, while BreakingTheWall asserts that consciousness is a secondary, emergent aspect of an absolute, unconscious potential. My prompt: What are the flaws in BreakingTheWall's view? BreakingTheWall’s view presents a compelling materialist or non-dualist argument, but it has several potential flaws or weaknesses: 1. Unproven Assumption: "Reality Exists Without Consciousness" BreakingTheWall claims that reality does not need consciousness to exist, but this assumes an objective, independent reality outside of perception. The idealist counterargument would be: how can we confirm the existence of an unconscious universe if all knowledge comes through consciousness? This leads to a version of the epistemic gap—if consciousness is the only thing we can directly access, how do we justify belief in a reality that exists entirely without it? 2. The Paradox of Absolute Nothingness as Potential He states that "absolute nothingness" is "unlimited potential," but this is contradictory. Nothingness should imply the complete absence of anything—including potential. If reality emerges from absolute nothingness, then nothingness must already contain the potential for something, meaning it is not truly nothing. 3. The Problem of Consciousness as “Not Special” He claims that consciousness is just a byproduct of total potential and "not special." However, consciousness is the one thing we have direct, undeniable access to. Even doubting its significance happens within consciousness. If consciousness is just an incidental property, it doesn’t explain why it appears at all or why it has the structure and self-awareness it does. 4. The Self-Refuting Nature of the Argument He argues that "death, the absolute lack of consciousness, is equally alive as life." But if absolute lack of consciousness is identical to existence, why is there something rather than nothing? If there is no fundamental difference between something and nothing, the argument collapses into meaninglessness. 5. The Relativity of Consciousness Implies a Scale, Not Non-Existence He says consciousness is "relative" rather than absolute, but relativity implies degrees—not non-existence. If there are "levels" of consciousness, then something must be ascending or descending within a framework, which still suggests consciousness plays a fundamental role. Conclusion BreakingTheWall makes a strong case for a non-conscious fundamental reality, but his argument relies on paradoxes (nothingness as potential), assumes an independent reality without proving it, and downplays the significance of consciousness without fully addressing its nature. An idealist could argue that his position is just an unexamined assumption from a materialist framework. My prompt: What are the flaws in LastThursday's argument? LastThursday presents a strong idealist perspective, but their argument has some key weaknesses: 1. Circular Reasoning: "Perception Must Always Exist" They claim that "perception is the fundamental nature of consciousness" and that something must always be perceived, or else consciousness itself would not exist. However, this assumes what it is trying to prove: that consciousness cannot exist without perception. A critic might ask: Why can't consciousness exist in a state of pure awareness without perceiving anything specific? 2. Assumption That Consciousness is Unlimited LastThursday states that "what consciousness can perceive is unlimited," but provides no justification for this claim. Our own experience suggests limits to perception—humans, for example, cannot perceive ultraviolet light or hear ultrasonic frequencies. If consciousness were truly unlimited, why do we experience perceptual limitations? 3. No Explanation for the Origin of Perception The argument states that perception is fundamental, but does not explain why perception exists at all. Why should consciousness necessarily be tied to perception rather than existing as pure, unmanifest awareness? Without explaining why perception is intrinsic to consciousness, this claim remains an assumption rather than a proof. 4. The Problem of Solipsism If everything that is perceived exists within consciousness, does that mean the external world only exists because it is being perceived? This runs into solipsism: if perception stops, does the world cease to exist? The materialist counterargument would be: The world appears to persist whether or not an individual consciousness is perceiving it. 5. Equating Perception with Consciousness Ignores Unconscious Processes LastThursday argues that consciousness is perception, but neuroscience and psychology suggest much of our cognition happens unconsciously. If consciousness is purely perception, how do we account for subconscious thought, dreams, or instinctual reactions that occur outside of direct perception? Conclusion LastThursday's argument assumes perception is fundamental without proving it and runs into issues with solipsism and the limits of consciousness. A materialist could argue that their view is simply flipping the assumption of materialism rather than truly solving the nature of reality.

Quotes about the Eye..... Hinduism & Vedanta Krishna (Bhagavad Gita 11:8-12) "But you cannot see Me with your physical eyes; I give you the divine eye. Behold My majestic power!" (Arjuna is granted the "divine eye" to perceive Krishna’s cosmic form.) Ramana Maharshi "The true 'I' is the Self, the Eye of Wisdom, which sees everything but is itself unseen." Sufism (Islamic Mysticism) Rumi "The eye of the heart sees the Invisible, while the eye of the flesh sees only shadows." Al-Ghazali "The heart has an eye whose light is knowledge, and when that light departs, the heart no longer sees." Kabbalah (Jewish Mysticism) Zohar "The Ancient of Days has an Eye that sees all, yet is itself unseen—this is the secret of Ayin (Nothingness)." (The Divine Eye as both seeing and being beyond form.) Baal Shem Tov "God gazes into the world through the eyes of every creature. When you look with love, it is His gaze looking back at you." Taoism Lao Tzu (Tao Te Ching, Ch. 1) "The Tao that can be seen is not the eternal Tao. The eye cannot see itself—only by looking beyond sight can one perceive the Source." Western Esotericism & Hermeticism Hermes Trismegistus (Emerald Tablet) "As above, so below; as within, so without. The All-Seeing Eye perceives the unity of all things." William Blake "If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is—Infinite." (From The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, pointing to divine vision.)

I'd argue that death isn't a real possibility . When you sleep you don't experience nothingness. You wake up instantly . No time at all passes, there's just a seamless continuity. If the Absolute didn't already possess consciousness as part of its nature, there would be no consciousness as such. It's not something that arises as a consequence of a series of cause and effect trickling from the Absolute, it's already present.

All spirituality starts from a false premise: reality is consciousness. Without consciousness, there is no reality, since something exists to the extent that I am conscious of it. Everyone hears this and exclaims: "Ah, of course, that's obvious!" How can something exist without a conscious creator to create it? It's absolutely impossible. There is no consequence without a cause, therefore the cause is God. Problem solved! Well, it doesn't have to be this way. The expression of the absolute does not need to be conscious to exist, nor does it need a conscious creator to exist. Reality has an absolute nature, and this nature is absolute nothingness, which is unlimited potential. This potential develops inevitably, not because an entity designs it. There may exist infinite absolutely unconscious universes whose existence is just as existent as a conscious universe. Consciousness is a quality that exists in reality, and it is not fundamental, but an inevitable consequence of the total potential. It is not special. Well, yes, it is special for us who are conscious beings, but we are not consciousness. Consciousness is not absolute, it is relative. Let's see, you, as an existence, are absolute, but your consciousness is limited, and very limited, just the tip of the iceberg. Is that obvious? There's an unconscious infinity within you. Your true nature is absolute potential; you can become aware of it, or only be aware of the information from your senses or that you want drugs or anything. If there are levels of consciousness, as Leo always says, consciousness is relative. Trying to square a circle is confusing and useless. death, real death, the nothingness, the absolute lack of consciousness, is equally alive than life and absolute conciousness . Absolute is absolute, with the lights on or off.

Nothingness is:

Nothingness is the absence of manifestation. It is not emptiness, since emptiness implies awareness of emptiness, the absence of things that fill it. Nothingness is the absence of consciousness, but it is as real as a conscious universe. Absolute Being is both, not manifested and manifested. Both asleep and awake are exactly the same in essence; only the state changes. Consciousness is the awake absolute; nothingness is the asleep absolute. Realizing that the absence of consciousness is full, is absolute, is realizing what you are, your absolute nature. Reality is not consciousness; consciousness is the awareness of reality. It is very different.

The best way to describe nothingness on a metaphysical level would be to say that it is absent of all content -yet full. By "full" I mean full of potential. Infinite potential ready to be unleashed as content.

Nothing is what you get when you realize that space and time are imagined by consciousness, leading to the understanding that reality occurs no where at all without beginning or end. nothingness is the source of everything, nothingness is infinity, nothingness is God.

Nothingness is the cause of everything. As nothingness don't is, everything is.

There is an old Buddhist saying " form is empty. Emptiness is form". It's basically pointing to the collapse of the duality between somethingness and nothingness. I've realized it many times.. That something and nothing are identical. The mistake is thinking that "nothing" is some blank black void somewhere. No.. Everything we are experiencing all the time is precisely nothing. It's completely hollow and unstable. No different than appearance of a Dream. Even scientifically speaking.. If you break down the atoms that make up the universe.. You will get waves of energy. Break down the energry and you get nothingness . We know now through quantum physics that the universe is literally made out of nothing. Scientific community just doesn't want to let mainstream society know because it's going to cause a serious existential crisis and mass suicides if people knew that nothing actually exist .

Nothingness = God Not Nothingness = God

Spiritual Autolysis Journal Entry #63 - Mar 29, 2025 9:16 PM CHAPTER TITLE: Higher Self has a Meltdown Summary: The characters start to become aware of their own self-construction Higher self: Hi, how are you today? Lower self: I am good, just busy doing lower self stuff. Higher self: oh okay.... What exactly are "lower self stuff?" Lower self: Thinking. That's what I've been doing, I feel like it's all that I do. Think. And feel. Think. Feel. Think. Feel. It feels like that is all that I am, this floating ball of consciousness that has an endless stream of thoughts and emotions. Higher self: oh well okay then. Yeah, if that's what you feel like you are, then yeah good for you. Lower self: Thanks, I had to get that off of my chest. Higher self: I'm happy for you. Now what is a statement that is true? True beyond a singular doubt. Lower self: This water bottle is green. Higher self: *Looks taken aback* This water bottle is green??? That's the best you can come up with! I've waited two weeks to hear that?! *Looking dumbfounded* the water bottle is green... First off, water bottle is a concept, it is a label that was given to an object so that it can be identified and categorizing and given value to. Green... What the fuck is even that?*Using a mocking voice* Green. The color green is a label that has been given to an object that is seen by the human eye to have a shade that is similar to the color of grass or a forest or broccoli. It was invented so that we can distinguish one color as opposed to another. Pfft .. this water bottle is green. There is not an ounce of truth within that statement. Try again. Lower self: okay. Give me a second .... I.... I exist. I do in fact exist. I know this because I am moving my fingers, typing on a tiny little phone keyboard in order to write down a conversation that I am having in my own head. This is what I am doing and it is me that is experiencing it. There. I am fully aware that I do in fact exist. *Looks at higher self for reassurance* Higher self: I exist *scratches his chin* If I exist then that would mean that we exist. Then again I am just a voice inside of your head. But then again, who am I referring to when i say "your." *Higher self stares off into the distance, looking confused* Lower self: Yeah I don't know who you're referring to as your.. I am not running the show here. Higher self: What are you talking about? Then who's running the show here? *Growing frustrated* Lower self: My emotions and my thoughts are running things. I have no actual control over any and all behaviors and actions. In a sense I am a selfless being already because I have no control over what I am doing. Higher self: what are you talking about? Of course you have control. Lower self: I don't feel like I have control. I feel like I just do things without any real reason. It's as if I'm on auto pilot and I have been since I was born. That's why I should just let go. Let go of all control. And allows myself to float on down this beautiful river of mystery. Higher self: Why would you want to let go? Aren't you afraid of what will happen to you? Lower self: Yes. I am afraid. Higher self: Afraid of what exactly? *Lower self goes into contemplation mode* Lower self: I am afraid of losing something. Higher self: Afraid of losing what exactly? Lower self: I am afraid of losing... *Sits there in silence for a minute* ... My identity. Higher self: Ahhh okay. Now we're getting somewhere. And what is an identity? Lower self: An identity is a structure that I have built in my own mind in order to describe myself. I feel like I am different than all of the other creatures and things in this world. I identify with this body that is sitting here typing words on a screen. Anything outside of this body`s experience is "out there" and " other than me." Higher self: Now, tell me this higher self, what makes your perspective different than mine. Lower self: Ohhhh. That's a juicy question! Nice one dude! *Higher self gives lower self a high five* *Lower self smiles sheepishly* Higher Self: Now why are you say so self conscious? Why can't you confidently accept the praise and just be yourself? Lower self: Hold on a minute, what is the difference between you and me? Why do you act so confident and I don't? And are we both part of this "identity" that this "I" has constructed for itself? Higher self: I'm sorry, I just get so passionate about helping you. *Starts to settle in* Okay, let's take it from the top. I am a character that is located in this body's head. But I am imaginary. You can picture me as this tiny little version of myself that is able to zoom his perspective out so that he can see things from an objective viewpoint. It's as if I am in this Absolute realm. I am detached from outcome, from emotions, anything that makes you human, I am not attached to. That's what makes me... me. Lower self: Okay, then what am I as the lower self character in this story? Higher self: You are also a fictitious character that was created inside of this body's head. But what makes you different than me is that you have access to the feelings and thoughts and overall the human experience that I do not have access to. That is the only difference between you and I. I am not better than you. I fully accept and love you exactly as you are right now. You are perfect. Lower self: But are we both really the same thing because this I body is one entity, correct? And we are both inside of it. *Looks sad* I just don't really understand what I am though. Like what am I metaphysically? I must have some metaphysical make up. I mean I must be made of something, right? Metaphysically: relating to or concerned with abstract thought or subjects beyond the physical world, such as existence, causality, and truth, or the study of the fundamental nature of reality. Higher self: I don't know, why do we have to be made up of anything? Lower self: What do you mean? Are you saying that we are made up of nothing? What even is that? Higher self: Nothing? I don't know what it is. I literally have no clue. *They look at each other at first deep in thought, then they both grin in an eager way* Next chapter: Discovering Nothingness

In other words, if there is no awareness of something, what is there? Nothing. What is nothing? Absolute potential. Therefore, awareness of something reappears. If it reappears, when did it not exist? Never. Where is never? In nowhere. Always is being because not being is never, then being is infinite. It could take infinite dimensions, because nothing is infinite potential. It's simple inevitable logic, because existence is logical, just because logical is an arising in existence The question would be: why nothing is infinite potential? Because nothing is limitless, that's the main point. This is the root of the understanding, when you realize the absolute nothingness, and you realize that in it everything is, because the absence of limitations of the nothingness has as its inevitable consequence the explosion of the infinite totality. You can see it directly, without logical mind involved, it's within you

I realised Infinite Love is just product of this nothingness to keep me dream again.There is no more fear of experiencing nothingness now.

Nothingness and Everythingness are identical to Love. A heed of warning, though. There is a trade-off to raising your consciousness this high. All ideas of there being a past, present, future become obsolete. And a need to control and maintain your human identity takes a dip, as you realize how it means absolutely NOTHING in the grand scheme of things