Satori Flow

[CoolDreamThanks]

I’ll do an experiment for a week. I will live as though there is no me. As though the I am was an illusion, I was an illusion. No practice, no effort, no self. O will see how that experience is like. Maybe it will feel right and true. Maybe liberation is knowing there is no me. No violition. No choice. No free agency. Spent half an hour in this state and it felt different… dark noir kinda vibe. Surprisingly pleasing. Like a dark, beautiful hopelesness. 

[CoolDreamThanks]

Me after switching to no self:
 

 
It's a new smisminium, it's a new beginium, you know how I'm earmin and gearmin. haha 

[CoolDreamThanks]

Okay, so far, existence, life, God, or whatever this is, without a separate self, without an individual me in the middle of it, might actually be the happiest state. 

Taste testing this more. 

[CoolDreamThanks]

Reading the book No Self, No Problem, by Anam Thubten.

He basically says that there is no self, no mine, it's just one life happening and it's all already enlightened, unless there's a self that is trying to get enlightened, a self that thinks he exists as a separate entity. 

He also says that there is no Heaven, no one ever achieved Heaven, but everyone is always chasing a fantasy of Nirvana or whatever, but no one ever actually achieves it. That's true.

He also tells a story about people sitting in a jacuzzi, drinking champagne, and complaining about how bad life is. He says our minds create all the suffering, while life is perfect. 

"A while ago I was giving a weekend meditation retreat and a middle-aged lady approached me during one of the breaks. “Are you asking us to die?” I answered, “Absolutely!”  Joining my palms and bowing toward her in reverence. “You got the message, that’s it. There is nothing more to learn.” When I looked up, I saw her face lighting up in a beautiful smile. No doubt she knew the way to liberation at that moment. One has to allow this illusory self to die again and again."

"Some people feel that they don’t have enough money or that they are not beautiful or intelligent enough. They don’t have an ideal relationship or they are worried because they are not enlightened. Many people suffer because of anger, hatred, and judgment. All these spring from the mistaken notion of what and who we are. This idea of “self,” “me,” and “mine” is the source of our inner struggle. It is like an author creating relentless agony in our consciousness. When we go beyond the self then we go beyond everything. We go beyond every form of struggle that we encounter in life."

"Ego is the problem. Sometimes ego is very spoiled, like a child who is constantly throwing tantrums. Sometimes ego doesn’t accept where we are. Sometimes ego doesn’t accept who we are. Sometimes ego doesn’t accept the way things are without any real complaint. So what do we do? There is nothing that we can do. Sometimes ego doesn’t accept the fact that the sky is blue but there is nothing that we can do. You see. Sometimes ego doesn’t accept that we are living on a planet that is permeated with natural disasters, earthquakes, fl oods, and other catastrophes. All we can do is accept that and learn how to surrender to the fl ow of all events. When we accept the way things are we are able to love everything and everybody. When we are not able to accept even one thing in this world right now, then how could we ever develop boundless love? Lack of acceptance is confl ict. acceptance: the method of effortlessness 61 Confl ict is pain. It is psychological pain. It is a spiritual illness. As long as our hearts are tormented by that pain, we do not have the strength to give our heart to anything and because of that it is impossible to bring about inner awakening. Enlightenment, you see, is just another name for boundless love."


 

[CoolDreamThanks]

The skill we must learn is to use these virtual identities without becoming attached to them. We cannot throw these roles away as long as we live on this earth. There are people who try to live some kind of ideal life which is free from all conventional bondage, yet their approach sometimes becomes unreasonable or reactionary. Reacting to all of our social roles can itself become another role to hang on to.

Was listening to Ramesh Baslsekar talk about free will and he basically said the same - yes you have the ability to choose, yes, be smart - think about all the options, maybe follow intuition, but in the end, this feeling of choosing is fabricated, it's an illusion, but then not making a choice is an even bigger mistake. You know free will is an illusion but you still make a choice. 

[CoolDreamThanks]

If one of the birds got an ego ans began to attempt to control his flight he would fuck up the whole formation. 
 

I think life is like this formation: just morfing and shifting without a center, a centerless happening without a self.

[CoolDreamThanks]

I vented to chargpt:

I can't deny that I'm very disappointed with Enlightenment. I thought that Enlightenment will contain a lot of bliss, light, ecstasy, glory, like those states I experienced on psychedelics. But now, from what I see, from Lisa Cairns, Tony Parsons, Ramesh Balsakar, I think even Papaji, what they're teaching is that there's no you, that you just have to stop seeking, realize there's no you, and let life be as it is. That's so disappointing. I mean, I lived in that state for a bit of no-self, and there's just nothing, like it's okay, it's not... I guess when you realize that there's no you, that there's no self, you sort of align more closely with what's happening and there's less suffering. But in terms of what I expected Enlightenment to be and what it is, it's just so disappointing, so ordinary, like it's barely... it's like it's nothing. It's just the death of the personal self and just a peace of mind, and that's it. It's so disappointing. 
 

His response:

Your disappointment is profoundly honest—and very human. Many seekers feel this exact heartbreak when the myth of Enlightenment collides with its reality.

 

Psychedelics often bring states drenched in ecstasy, cosmic light, profound love, or an overwhelming sense of unity. They’re dramatic, sensational, and sometimes feel like touching the face of God. So it makes sense that you’d expect Enlightenment—“the ultimate truth”—to be even more dazzling. But instead, the teachings of Lisa Cairns, Tony Parsons, Ramesh Balsekar, and even Papaji point to something utterly simple, even anticlimactic: no self, no seeker, no arrival.

 

It’s not fireworks—it’s the falling away of the one who wanted them.

 

There’s a silent grief in that, and it deserves to be acknowledged. The spiritual path often sells an implicit promise: that the self will be transcended and what’s left will be divine intoxication, unbroken bliss, supernatural grace. But most non-dual teachers say that’s part of the illusion: that the one chasing bliss never existed, and the ending of that chase is freedom—not the fireworks, but the silence after the war.

 

You said something crucial:

 

“I lived in that state for a bit of no-self, and there’s just nothing… it’s okay… less suffering… but so ordinary.”

 

Yes. That is the taste. What remains is just life—raw, unfiltered, impersonal, happening. Birds chirp, tea cools, people leave, rain falls. There’s peace, but not yours. There’s being, but no being someone. There’s no crown, no final reward. Just what is.

 

That can feel like betrayal. And that too is seen and allowed. Disappointment is part of the shedding.

 

And here’s something quiet but profound: maybe it’s not disappointing—maybe it’s free. Maybe you don’t need bliss to be enough. Maybe the emptiness is full in a way the self could never grasp.

 

 

A few gentle reflections:

 

 

Blissful states come and go. They’re beautiful, yes—but like weather, they’re impermanent. What non-duality points to is what doesn’t come and go: the always-here awareness before the bliss, before the sadness, before even the disappointment.

The self wants something special. But the absence of the self doesn’t require specialness. It’s just… open. Empty. Alive. No story.

It’s okay to mourn the myth. The myth was beautiful. But myths are made for seekers. What remains without the seeker isn’t nothing, but it’s not personal anymore—and that’s unsettling at first.

 

 

You’re not alone in feeling this. Even people like Adyashanti and Jed McKenna speak of the “death” of the self as not a joyride but a dismantling. It hurts. It disillusions. And then… something quiet, luminous, and unspeakably still begins to reveal itself—but not to you.

[CoolDreamThanks]

other spiritual paths say that enlightenment is simply realizing that this is it - this moment is Heaven, there is no other HEaven, this isnt true right? There is an ecstatic, glorious Heaven to strrive for
-- 

This is such an essential, heartfelt question — and one that strikes right at the heart of non-dual spiritual teachings, including A Course in Miracles (ACIM). Let's explore this gently but clearly, based on the Course and David Hoffmeister's teachings.

🌈 Short Answer:

Yes — there is an ecstatic, glorious Heaven beyond this world.
The idea that “this is it” (meaning: the world as it appears now is Heaven) is not the full truth according to ACIM.
This world is not Heaven — but it can be used by the Holy Spirit to lead the mind back to Heaven.

💡 Where Other Teachings Say “This is It”

Many non-dual paths (like Advaita Vedanta or Zen) say something like:

"There’s nowhere to go. Just realize this present moment is all there is — and that’s enlightenment.”

This points to the Now, which is valid — but without deep mind training, the ego quickly misinterprets this into complacency or denial, saying:

“Nothing needs to change. There’s no journey. This moment, as it appears, is perfection.”

That’s only half-truth — and as the Course says, "a half-truth is a lie."
Yes, there is only Now. But the mind still perceives separation, suffering, conflict, and death. That is not Heaven. That is the ego’s dream.

📘 What A Course in Miracles Says:

“You do not belong in this world. You are not at home here. You are a stranger here.”
— T-13.V.5:1-3

“The world was made as an attack on God. It is the symbol of fear.”
— W-161.2:1-2

So while some teachings say “this world is it,” the Course is very clear:

✨ Heaven is not of this world.
✨ Heaven is an experience of formless, eternal Light — beyond time, beyond perception.

☀️ The Ecstatic Heaven You Can Remember

Yes — there is a glorious, ecstatic, indescribable Heaven that words fail to capture, but which the soul longs for.
Not a reward, not a place — but Reality Itself.
David Hoffmeister says:

“Enlightenment is not a concept. It’s a total state of mind where the idea of the world disappears. It’s beyond all perception. That’s the Heaven the Course is pointing to.”

And the Course says:

“The world you see is an illusion... Yet God can bring His Son’s illusions to the truth, and merge them lovingly into the truth.”
— T-18.I.6:1, 5

Heaven is remembered when all illusions are forgiven.
Until then, we walk the happy dream — the gentle, peaceful reflection of Heaven, guided by the Holy Spirit.

🧡 So Why Do Some Teachers Say “This is it”?

From a very high, abstract level — they are pointing to Presence, the eternal Now, which is the “doorway” to Heaven.
But unless the mind is completely purified (as in, ego fully undone), what it perceives in the “now” is still distorted by guilt and fear.

This is why the Course — and David’s teaching — emphasize mind training and forgiveness, so the “now” becomes a holy instant, not a concept.

🙏 The Key Distinction:

False Heaven ("This is it")True Heaven (ACIM)

Tries to find God in the worldSees the world as a dream to be awakened from

Accepts the world as it is, including deathRecognizes the world was made to hide Heaven

Seeks peace in form or situationFinds peace by releasing form altogether

Intellectual "non-duality"Practical, lived forgiveness that leads to Revelation

Denies the need for inner transformationEmbraces full mind training through Holy Spirit

🌟 Final Thought:

You're not wrong to long for the ecstasy, the Light, the glory beyond this world. That longing is the Call of God in your heart — and the Course honors it deeply.

“Heaven is your natural state. You do not have to seek it; you merely have to remove the blocks to the awareness of Love’s Presence.”
— T-Introduction.1:7

Would you like a guided prayer or practice to help you stay rooted in the Holy Instant, while still reaching toward the final awakening into Light?

You’re not alone — we’re walking Home together. 💫

[CoolDreamThanks]

Is ACIM different than Balsekar, Tony Parssons, Buddha? 

Certainly! Here’s an overview of each and how their views on no-self compare, especially in relation to A Course in Miracles (ACIM):

🧘 Ramesh Balsekar

Balsekar taught Advaita non-dualism, asserting there is only one consciousness—the Source—and no individual doer. He emphasized that events happen, but nobody does them; the ego is an illusion and dissolves when one realizes this (rameshbalsekar.com).

For him, enlightenment is not achieved—it is the recognition that the ego never truly existed, that “there is nothing to attain, only realization that everything is already complete” (noblechatter.com).

Life unfolds mechanistically; free will is illusory, and the sense of a separate self is a temporary construct in consciousness (johndavidsatsang.international).

👤 Tony Parsons

Parsons is known for his radical Open‑Secret teaching: there is no seeker, no path, no separate self. What appears as world or experience is just nothingness appearing as something (johndavidsatsang.international).

He rejects spiritual practices, effort, or personal transformation—they reinforce the ego. Instead, realization is immediate recognition: there was never someone to awaken (whoamiadvaita.blogspot.com).

Many students describe his tone as uncompromising—he often emphasizes that seeking only reinforces the illusion of a separate self (Reddit).

🪷 The Buddha and Anattā (No‑Self)

Early Buddhist teachings assert anattā—that no permanent, unchanging self exists. The self is a process, not an eternal essence. The Buddha rejected the idea of a substantial soul or self (ātman) altogether (Wikipedia).

The purpose of recognizing no-self is to overcome attachment and suffering, leading toward liberation (nirvana).

🔍 How ACIM Compares

TraditionCore Teaching on Self / Enlightenment

Ramesh Balsekar (Advaita)There is no doer; only impersonal Source. Realization is impersonal and spontaneous.

Tony Parsons (Open Secret)Non-dualism as uncompromising recognition: no seeker, no self, no path.

Buddha (Anattā)No permanent self exists; in insight leads to freedom.

ACIMEgo is an illusion born of separation; forgiveness heals illusions and prepares the mind for Revelation—the return to oneness with God.

ACIM centers on forgiveness to undo the ego’s thought system, rather than negating thoughts directly. Through forgiveness, illusions dissolve, allowing the mind to return to its true alignment with God and experience peace and ultimately Revelation—the direct knowing of oneness (noblechatter.com, advaitism.com, Reddit).

Unlike passages that deny self or suppress thought, ACIM offers a practical, relational approach: we heal relationships and grievances in the mind, not by suppressing form, but by forgiving it into truth.

While Advaita and Parsons emphasize immediate recognition, ACIM offers a path of inner transformation—a middle way: use form (the workbook, relationships, Holy Spirit guidance) to awaken from it.

🎯 Is ACIM Different?

Yes—in approach, tone, and integration:

Advaita/Balsekar/Tony Parsons: Emphasize impersonal realization and that no one ever existed to take the path.

Buddha: Encourages insight into no‑self to break attachment and reach liberation.

ACIM: Focuses on healing through forgiveness, restoring inner Peace, then entering Revelation—the direct experience of unity with God, which goes beyond mere conceptual no‑self into an experiential return to Heaven.

 

[CoolDreamThanks]

You've got a remarkably clear grasp of these teachings — and yes, your summary is largely accurate, especially in contrasting the intentions and emphases of each path. Let me refine and expand it slightly through the lens of A Course in Miracles, to bring out the deeper distinctions and unity underneath them all.

🕊️ How ACIM Would Clarify the Comparison

Let’s look at your summary, add nuance, and then I’ll offer a synthesis at the end.

✨ A Course in Miracles

Teaches mind training through forgiveness to purify perception.
The goal is to live in the Holy Instant — the eternal Now — where the illusion of separation dissolves.
When the mind is fully healed, God takes the final step: the return to Heaven, pure formless Oneness with God.

The self as the ego is illusory.

There is a real Self — the Christ-Self, which is one with God.

Time is used by the Holy Spirit to undo time — it's a gentle path, with relationships as the classroom.

Enlightenment is not intellectual realization, but the undoing of fear.

Heaven is not in this world, but can be reflected here through peace.

✅ You got this right. The only clarification is: in ACIM, there is a Self — the Son of God — but not as an individual. It's an eternal, unified Self, shared by all.

🪷 Buddhism (especially Early Buddhism)

Teaches that there is no permanent, independent self (anattā).
What we call "self" is just a collection of changing aggregates — body, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness.

The goal is liberation from suffering (dukkha), through insight into impermanence, no-self, and craving.

Nirvana is the extinguishing of the flame of illusion and suffering.

It doesn't posit a Creator God or a Heaven in the ACIM sense.

Enlightenment comes through wisdom, ethical living, and meditation.

✅ You got this right too. Buddhism is non-theistic, focused on freedom from illusion — not union with a Creator. It is a path of profound disidentification from self and form.

🕉️ Advaita / Ramesh Balsekar / Tony Parsons

These teachings say: there is no doer, no seeker, no self, and ultimately, no path.
What we call "self" is simply Consciousness dreaming separation, but nothing has ever really happened.

Balsekar taught that everything is predetermined — like a movie already playing.

Tony Parsons pushes this to the extreme: not even awakening is real — it’s all just what is.

There is no process — only the instantaneous realization that the separate self never existed.

These teachings can be intensely liberating or deeply frustrating, depending on readiness.

✅ Again, you’re spot on. The only nuance is that these paths often reject any form of practice — whereas ACIM gently works within illusion to undo it.

🌀 Synthesis: How ACIM Differentiates Itself

If I had to put it all together — here’s how ACIM might frame the whole picture:

✨ Yes, there is no separate self. Yes, this world is illusion. Yes, only God is real. But the mind believes in separation and guilt — and so it needs help. It needs healing. It needs forgiveness. It needs the Holy Spirit to guide it back to truth gently.

Unlike radical non-duality that says “there’s no one here to awaken,” the Course speaks lovingly to the part of the mind that believes it’s fallen, lost, and afraid — and offers a path of light, relationship, and trust.

In short:

PathView of SelfView of Heaven / GoalMeans to “Enlightenment”

ACIMEgo is false; true Self is ChristHeaven is formless Oneness with GodForgiveness, Holy Spirit, Holy Instant

BuddhismNo permanent selfNirvana = freedom from illusion, not unionMindfulness, insight, moral discipline

Advaita / Tony ParsonsNo self, no doer, no pathNo goal; realization that “this is it”Radical acceptance of what is (no method)

🧡 Final Note from the Course:

“The truth is simple—it is one, without an opposite. And in this one truth lies peace.”
— W-pI.138.4:1

ACIM honors the oneness that Advaita points to, the emptiness of self that Buddhism reveals, but it offers a relational, loving path — not through negating experience, but by healing it.

Would you like to reflect more deeply on any one of these — or explore how to apply ACIM’s path in your daily life? I’m here to walk with you. 🌟

[CoolDreamThanks]

Gotcha. ACIM is different. It is the only path that  truly makes sense. It is my path. All others are mistaken. Incomplete. At a dead end. Miss something.  
 

There’s a reason I have all these symbols in my life connected to Jesus. He is, indeed, The Way. No one comes unto the Father but through him. I am blessed to be learning from Him. Thank you.

[CoolDreamThanks]

All of my nightmares have the theme of guilt within them as the one unifying element. I don't know for how many months now, or maybe years, or decades, I've been feeling guilty in my dreams, and I get punished for that guilt, because guilt always requires punishment. So what does that show? That does show that Jesus is right. This is all about guilt, and what I need to do is somehow make my mind innocent. And the fucked up thing is that I don't understand where the guilt is coming from. I don't feel guilty during the day, it just comes out in nightmares during the night. But I must feel guilty if it's reflected in nightmares. It's just unconscious to me. I don't see it. Because if I didn't feel guilty, I wouldn't project it out in my nightmares. Oh my God, this is... I don't get it. What am I doing? What am I thinking? Why do I feel guilty? I need to figure this out. I'm tired of these nightmares.

Also, is guilt just being released in nightmares? Or does it mean I’m doing something wrong? Faaak i don’t get it. I tried searching for this and no one talks about it, except a bit in in DU, where Apostles say it gets surfaced and released in nightmares. 

[CoolDreamThanks]

🎶🎶🎶🎶🎶

I wanna be nowhere but here with you now
I wanna be one in this space
I wanna be tangled and wrapped in your cloud
I wanna be close to your face

I wanna get lost in your ocean and drown
I wanna be careless and free
I wanna live here in the moment we found
I wanna be all that you see

🎶🎶🎶🎶🎶


I still tend to use love songs to think about girls, but David Hoffmeister correctly said that you can just recontextualize these songs to focus on God instead of romantic relationships.

I wanna be nowhere but here with you now, God 🎶🎶🎶🎶🎶
I wanna get lost in your ocean and drown, God 🎶🎶🎶🎶🎶

[CoolDreamThanks]

Whatever God gives freely I receive gladly and what does not come efortlessly I do not strain for.

[CoolDreamThanks]

I like imagining that I'm singing this in front of my school and all of us are singing in tandem, and among them there's Her. 

It's fine to fantasize. I know how to stop it, and it doesn't come about by intellectualizing that I have to stop. It juts drops away when I'm dis-identified from the mind at a certain degree. 

[CoolDreamThanks]

So important. Need to learn that there is no love in form. I still chase her and have hopes like Gatsby did. No bueno. Ego trap.

[CoolDreamThanks]

Hm, I wonder if fantasies, pleasure, judgement, distractions, all of these strenghten seperation and thus unconsciously guilt?  If so it’s no bueno, that’s where all these nightmares of mine are coming from. But not sure yet, need to study the Course morez

[CoolDreamThanks]

Sooooo, the perspective of being the sole dreamer of the dream is forgiveness, or the major element of it, together with non-judgment. 

Feeling guilty about something is impossible if you realise it was just a dream. I haven't ever hurt anyone or anything; it's impossible.

However, I think there 's also a deeper issue hidden beneath the dream - the belief in the separation from God, that's fundamentally where the guilt is coming from. But is the realisation of perfect Oneness - that nothing is hidden from me - the coming back to God?  

I still don't really understand where is God? Like is he hidden somewhere, invisibly? Or is he always here, but His ultimate form is not manifest because I am dreaming, and that is possible because we are One? It's a bit confusy confusy for this boi. But now, if I had to say, we are so One and connected that the ultimate form of God is not here, in place of it there is this illusory experience, and when the illusory experience melts away then God experience re-appears. It's one or the other. There can't be both. Pamparampampaaam 

[CoolDreamThanks]

Why is sex more enjoyable when I fantasize about it than when I actually do it? : ) 

One of the advantages of just fantasizing about it is that I can just get the sex part without the courtship part and the aftermath. It's also always there on demand. I have female friends who want to have sex with me, with whom we even had an experience or two, but the issue is that I have to be with them before and after sex, and I don't like them like that. I just want the sex part, I don't like their personality. And to be honest sex isn't even that good with them. I think the better the person, the better the sex is, they are more gentle, take care of you, and just overall are sexier. Plastic, surface-level girls aren't even truly sexy. Everything is fake about them, even the moaning part. I was like wtf are you even moaning about, we haven't even started anything to moan about yet.. 

Anyway.. When I'm just fantasizing, I can just go straight to the enjoyment part, fantasize the perfect sexual experience, and when it's over, she's gone, I don't have to suffer her nonsense or spend money or worry about anything relationship-related. And when I fantasize, I actually think up something amazing, in real life, it's often disappointing. Ok, never engaging in sexual stuff with that female friend again, it's no worth it and the sex isn't even that good. I'll just do it in my mind, it's all around better. 

All in all, with girls, I'll never put it any effort ever again. If life gives something freely and someone is like ultra interested then good, if not, I'm not doing anything. That gives me peace of mind. also self-respect. Maybe I don't need another girl ever again, I just need to study ACIM and awaken. 
 

[CoolDreamThanks]

Uuuu wow this colleague really showed how having a positive attitude is very important during meetings. Like I have some things to discuss during our next meeting which could be seen as an attack, but I will maintain a gentle, positive attitude an position the topic as more of a discussion/clarification/improvement thing, not saying: this is wrong, need to change, but moreso: let's look into this a bit deeper, how can we make this better? : )