Meditation exercise on "separate me"

[Federica]

Hi Eugene

I do this type of exercise often, and I find it works sometimes. Other times, the resistance is too strong. Patience is a virtue, it takes practice.

As a matter of technique, I find it best to start with feelings. Starting any other way, especially with the idea of a separate self, already grounds the exercise within that self. The whole exercise then becomes an analysis rather than an experience. At least that’s the way it is for me, I’m intellectually top-heavy.

Mike, could you be more detailed how you go about it when you start with feelings? Could you give an example?

My wife likes to tell me everything in lots of detail - lots. And I always used to get impatient, sometimes internally, sometimes externally. I used this exercise, and still use it, to get to the bottom of this.

If I start from thinking, I conjure up all the excuses in the book. She doesn’t have to go into such detail, she just interrupted what I was doing, etc. So I go to the feeling of impatience, or I try to. Sometimes, the mind actively tries to prevent this. I’ll suddenly remember something important I have to do. I might get a pain or itch, etc. There’s a non-action of letting go that’s sometimes needed to get to the feeling.

If there’s success, I connect to the feeling. I experience the feeling of impatience, and it’s uncomfortable. There is fear of connecting deeper to the feeling of impatience, and sometimes I have to back off.

But I go deeper into it, and it’s almost overwhelming. It’s not impatience anymore, that was just a smokescreen. There’s something much deeper, some kind of primordial fear. It has layers, and I am still penetrating the layers even today to get to the bottom of it. It’s like the whorls and jagged lines in my being that Cleric describes.

I have learnt a lot about this feeling, and I continue to work on it. I see how it extends to much of my behaviour, not just with my wife. And it’s changed things for me. I am now different in the same circumstances. I am more connected with her, and with others. But there’s much more to learn.

And the thing is, is that the impatience as such is now gone. It’s over for me. There’s no more mind tricks when I’m in a conversation. The ego knows the game is over with regards that particular feeling. And I know that when I get to the deeper pain that generated the impatience, and fully experience that, it will also go. But right now, that’s even more terrifying.

Again as a matter of technique, the only way I can really move into this feeling is to start from a position where I am relatively separated from myself. If I think that this is my feeling, it’s literally too terrifying. If there’s just the perception of the feeling as a sensation, equivalent to feeling my position on the chair, for example, then I can approach it. But there’s still the choice that has to be made to dive into it and experience it.


I read all the discussion that goes on here between Ashvin, Cleric, and Eugene (in alphabetic order lol). It’s interesting, and attractive, and it piques my interest, but it doesn’t serve a spiritual purpose for me. My intellect, my thinking, has got me to its limit. It’s showed me that there is a non-dual state, and I now experience that. It’s showed me that I have to work on myself, and I do that. It can’t take me further, it can only distract me. And that is where I am spiritually. Of course, if you are somewhere else, and these discussions are vital for you, that’s great! We are all where we are, and we should all respect that.

Like Eugene, and probably even less than him, I lose the non-dual state far too much. You just have to experience it once to know that this is our birthright that we have lost, and that we can get it back. I use meditation and prayer to “achieve” and strengthen the non-dual state.
The detailed work on myself, smoothing out the soul as Cleric puts it, or purifying it as is commonly stated - this detailed and difficult work has to be done. For me personally, without the anchor of the non-dual state, I would never be able to truly approach it.

Frederica, I hope you connect to this in some way. I invite you to try the same thing, and see what happens. Drop the thinking, drop trying to fit anything into a theory, just try simple, direct experiencing of a negative feeling, and see what happens. And no need to publicly report the details.

Mike,
Thank you so much for your openness! It's really appreciated. I know you have the best intentions.
Because I have been following Rupert Spira for a short time, before encountering this forum, I understand the experience you describe, and the work with feelings you are doing. I know it can generate a sense of appeasement and a sense of having distanced oneself from the turbulence of unpleasant feelings.

What I know today, that I didn't know back then, is that the price to pay for that relative sense of pacification - relative, in the sense that it is both incomplete and unanchored - is enormous. We cut the link to our feelings. Of course we are not going to suffer as much from them. Instead of inquiring it, we dismiss our responsibility for the turn we have taken along our feeling. Of course we are not going to feel its weight as much. We lock up the uneducated and uncared for child in the furthest room. Of course we are not going to be disturbed by the screams and cries for a while. But that child is us. We have to face the discomfort an the fear, with the appropriate tools, and take responsibility, and care for it. There is no way around it. Or rather, there is, but it's a mourning place. It's a dead end.

[Stranger]

That's clear and this inter-being is very pleasantly presented by TNH. But I wanted to direct attention to something else. When we take prayer in the context of inter-beings, then it is similar to reverence and sacred feeling for everything that exists. But I'm talking about the Divine that is even in this present moment concealed, which we know as an "I" only as far as it expresses in the intuitive space of our present stage of evolution. How do we relate to that Being that will manifest more and more fully in the course of evolution at completely new levels of consciousness? Do we need to take some active stance in relation to that potential?

Of course, if you noticed, I quite often in my posts refer to the Divine as becoming the center of our TWF activity. TNH did not talk about it in that video, but in the Buddhist tradition it is actually also emphasized, especially in the Dzogchen tradition where I have some background. For example, here is a quote form a root Dzogchen scriptural text called "The Sovereign All-Creating Mind": From this quote you can see that calling the Buddhist tradition "atheistic" is a gross misunderstanding.

I, the All-Creating Sovereign, am the core of all the Buddhas, I am the father and mother of all sentient beings of the three-fold world. I am the cause for all that exists as animated and inanimated. Not one thing in that does not emanate from me. ... The nature of what is called "mind" is the ceaseless all-encompassing All-Creating Sovereign. Everything is made, all is generated in the mind of perfect purity."

So yes, we absolutely need to take an active stance in relation to the "Being", and I outlined here one of the practical ways to do that which is usually used in nondual practices. But that is not the only way, there are other ways used in other traditions, for example, the practice of prayer in Abrahamic traditions. One of the issues with prayer, when approached traditionally, is that the prayer is understood as a relation between "me" as a separate being with the Divine which is a separate Being "outside" of me. This approach still works and gives some positive outcomes, but it is limited. We need to recognize that the Divine Aware and Conscious Being is the same "I" of us that Exists (=Being) and is Aware (conscious), as well as the same "I'-core of all other sentient beings. And then the prayer becomes maintaining the intimate inner connection and openness to this Divine Presence everywhere - both inside in our "I"-core and outside in every being and world's phenomenon (to the extent that eventually any imagined hard border between inside and outside disintegrates into Oneness).

I often quote Meister Eckhart, but he is pointing to exactly this "inversion" where we need to recognize the Divine not as some external Being, but as our very "I"-core and the experiencing "eye" of our own consciousness:

“The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.”
Meister Eckhart

[AshvinP]

Mike, could you be more detailed how you go about it when you start with feelings? Could you give an example?

My wife likes to tell me everything in lots of detail - lots. And I always used to get impatient, sometimes internally, sometimes externally. I used this exercise, and still use it, to get to the bottom of this.

If I start from thinking, I conjure up all the excuses in the book. She doesn’t have to go into such detail, she just interrupted what I was doing, etc. So I go to the feeling of impatience, or I try to. Sometimes, the mind actively tries to prevent this. I’ll suddenly remember something important I have to do. I might get a pain or itch, etc. There’s a non-action of letting go that’s sometimes needed to get to the feeling.

If there’s success, I connect to the feeling. I experience the feeling of impatience, and it’s uncomfortable. There is fear of connecting deeper to the feeling of impatience, and sometimes I have to back off.

But I go deeper into it, and it’s almost overwhelming. It’s not impatience anymore, that was just a smokescreen. There’s something much deeper, some kind of primordial fear. It has layers, and I am still penetrating the layers even today to get to the bottom of it. It’s like the whorls and jagged lines in my being that Cleric describes.

I have learnt a lot about this feeling, and I continue to work on it. I see how it extends to much of my behaviour, not just with my wife. And it’s changed things for me. I am now different in the same circumstances. I am more connected with her, and with others. But there’s much more to learn.

And the thing is, is that the impatience as such is now gone. It’s over for me. There’s no more mind tricks when I’m in a conversation. The ego knows the game is over with regards that particular feeling. And I know that when I get to the deeper pain that generated the impatience, and fully experience that, it will also go. But right now, that’s even more terrifying.

Again as a matter of technique, the only way I can really move into this feeling is to start from a position where I am relatively separated from myself. If I think that this is my feeling, it’s literally too terrifying. If there’s just the perception of the feeling as a sensation, equivalent to feeling my position on the chair, for example, then I can approach it. But there’s still the choice that has to be made to dive into it and experience it.


I read all the discussion that goes on here between Ashvin, Cleric, and Eugene (in alphabetic order lol). It’s interesting, and attractive, and it piques my interest, but it doesn’t serve a spiritual purpose for me. My intellect, my thinking, has got me to its limit. It’s showed me that there is a non-dual state, and I now experience that. It’s showed me that I have to work on myself, and I do that. It can’t take me further, it can only distract me. And that is where I am spiritually. Of course, if you are somewhere else, and these discussions are vital for you, that’s great! We are all where we are, and we should all respect that.

Like Eugene, and probably even less than him, I lose the non-dual state far too much. You just have to experience it once to know that this is our birthright that we have lost, and that we can get it back. I use meditation and prayer to “achieve” and strengthen the non-dual state.
The detailed work on myself, smoothing out the soul as Cleric puts it, or purifying it as is commonly stated - this detailed and difficult work has to be done. For me personally, without the anchor of the non-dual state, I would never be able to truly approach it.

Frederica, I hope you connect to this in some way. I invite you to try the same thing, and see what happens. Drop the thinking, drop trying to fit anything into a theory, just try simple, direct experiencing of a negative feeling, and see what happens. And no need to publicly report the details.

Mike,
Thank you so much for your openness! It's really appreciated. I know you have the best intentions.
Because I have been following Rupert Spira for a short time, before encountering this forum, I understand the experience you describe, and the work with feelings you are doing. I know it can generate a sense of appeasement and a sense of having distanced oneself from the turbulence of unpleasant feelings.

What I know today, that I didn't know back then, is that the price to pay for that relative sense of pacification - relative, in the sense that it is both incomplete and unanchored - is enormous. We cut the link to our feelings. Of course we are not going to suffer as much from them. Instead of inquiring it, we dismiss our responsibility for the turn we have taken along our feeling. Of course we are not going to feel its weight as much. We lock up the uneducated and uncared for child in the furthest room. Of course we are not going to be disturbed by the screams and cries for a while. But that child is us. We have to face the discomfort an the fear, with the appropriate tools, and take responsibility, and care for it. There is no way around it. Or rather, there is, but it's a mourning place. It's a dead end.

Great observation, Federica. It is really time that we stop drawing a circle around our desires, feelings, thoughts and say "these are my private possession to do with as I please (or to dissociate from as I please)". If we have a loaded machine gun, hold down the trigger, and let bullets go spraying out into the world, do we imagine that we have done our Divine duty by dissociating from the act of pulling the trigger - "that wasn't me!" - and remaining ignorant of where the bullets went? The 'non-action of letting go' ironically only makes sense as a strategy for reconnecting with the Divine if our own inner experiences are private possessions without any causal efficacy in the World Process. Or, alternatively, if we conceive of the Divine as an abstract force without any moral valence to speak of. Otherwise, we can rest assured the Divine "I"-potential is not rewarding us with blessings for spraying our inner bullets into the World and then stepping 'out of the movie', washing our hands of the whole affair like our personal (temporary) sense of pleasantness is all that matters in the course of Cosmic evolution. In this way, the non-action, non-thinking dissociative process simply reinforces the lower ego's illusory stronghold as the center of Cosmic evolution, where everything of existential importance is measured against its own personal happiness and satisfaction at any given time.

Our higher Self across the threshold already knows how our spiritual activity impresses itself into the wide Cosmic expanses, and has given its lower incarnational self the opportunity to experience these unpleasant thoughts and emotions and impulses exactly so that we can, not dissociate from them, but take responsibility for and redeem them through our living thinking.

[Federica]

It is really time that we stop drawing a circle around our desires, feelings, thoughts and say "these are my private possession to do with as I please (or to dissociate from as I please)". If we have a loaded machine gun, hold down the trigger, and let bullets go spraying out into the world, do we imagine that we have done our Divine duty by dissociating from the act of pulling the trigger - "that wasn't me!" - and remaining ignorant of where the bullets went? The 'non-action of letting go' ironically only makes sense as a strategy for reconnecting with the Divine if our own inner experiences are private possessions without any causal efficacy in the World Process. Or, alternatively, if we conceive of the Divine as an abstract force without any moral valence to speak of. Otherwise, we can rest assured the Divine "I"-potential is not rewarding us with blessings for spraying our inner bullets into the World and then stepping 'out of the movie', washing our hands of the whole affair like our personal (temporary) sense of pleasantness is all that matters in the course of Cosmic evolution. In this way, the non-action, non-thinking dissociative process simply reinforces the lower ego's illusory stronghold as the center of Cosmic evolution, where everything of existential importance is measured against its own personal happiness and satisfaction at any given time.

Our higher Self across the threshold already knows how our spiritual activity impresses itself into the wide Cosmic expanses, and has given its lower incarnational self the opportunity to experience these unpleasant thoughts and emotions and impulses exactly so that we can, not dissociate from them, but take responsibility for and redeem them through our living thinking.

Yes, it really becomes crystal clear when expressed in these terms!

[Stranger]

Just wanted to repost a few messages from another thread because I think they are relevant to this thread and are directly related to the sense-idea of "me":

So this is all still the very bubbling surface of consciousness. The depth layers of these final products, in which I include our intuitive sense of "me", i.e. the nested imaginative, inspired, intuitive activities of higher beings, are quite unimaginable for ordinary sense-based cognition, except by way of analogies and illustrations such as Cleric and Steiner have provided. Those forces reside in the genuine supra-conscious and structure the substances-processes of the subconscious, i.e. the physical, life, and soul processes, at individual and collective scales. Our given conscious aperture is always mediating between these two spheres of ideal forces and perceptual outer-inner phenomena, sort of like a porous membrane through which they flow and swirl into a vortex we experience as 'present I-state of being'.

This is exactly right, the intuitive sense of "me" is indeed buried in the depths of the lawful structures of the human organism nested in the activities of dualistic higher beings. This is all a dualistic hierarchical structure of the dualistic domain. Don't get me wrong, I'm not demonizing the dualistic realm, it has its own evolutionary path, and human organism is designed by the dualistic higher order beings exactly for this dualistic evolutionary path. But this is why for any soul who chooses the nondual path, being in the human form and embedded in the hierarchy of the dualistic realm is not suitable, it would be living in a continuous dissonance with the lawful structures of the human composition and higher-order structures in which it is nested.

It's a rough analogy, but it's like if you worked in the structure of the Democratic party and then converted to being a Republican, you just cannot work for the Democrats anymore without being in a continuous cognitive dissonance, the Dems party structure becomes a wrong place for you to remain in. Just like in US politics ("as above so below"), in the Cosmic organism there are two parties: "duals" and "nonduals", and they have their own structures and realms extending to higher-order levels. Each party has its own evolutionary path and program, its own arguments why their program/path is better, and so on. And, just like in human politics, each soul decide for themselves which evolutionary path and program they subscribe to.

The key to understand here is that the sense of "me" is one of the most essential features of the dualistic path, and that is why the higher-order hierarchies of the dualistic domain embedded it so deeply in the human psyche and organism structure. You admitted that and thank you for being honest. So, the human organism structure was deliberately designed for the dualistic path and so it is authentic and organic for this path. However, one of the key hallmarks of the nondual path is that it is the evolutionary path without relying on the sense-idea of "me". Therefore, the human form is completely inorganic and incompatible for the nondual path. And there is no point to change it because changing it would be contrary to the intention and plan of the higher-order hierarchies that designed the structures to fit the dualistic path. so, the souls that switch to the nondual path, after leaving the human body, simply reincarnate in different forms (nested in nondual hierarchies) which are more fit for the nondual path where the sense of "me" in not embedded in the structure.

[Cleric K]

So yes, we absolutely need to take an active stance in relation to the "Being", and I outlined here one of the practical ways to do that which is usually used in nondual practices. But that is not the only way, there are other ways used in other traditions, for example, the practice of prayer in Abrahamic traditions. One of the issues with prayer, when approached traditionally, is that the prayer is understood as a relation between "me" as a separate being with the Divine which is a separate Being "outside" of me. This approach still works and gives some positive outcomes, but it is limited. We need to recognize that the Divine Aware and Conscious Being is the same "I" of us that Exists (=Being) and is Aware (conscious), as well as the same "I'-core of all other sentient beings. And then the prayer becomes maintaining the intimate inner connection and openness to this Divine Presence everywhere - both inside in our "I"-core and outside in every being and world's phenomenon (to the extent that eventually any imagined hard border between inside and outside disintegrates into Oneness).

OK, now we’re at the most important question that stands at the gate of every human soul at our stage of evolution.

The polarity “We’re one with the Divine, yet we’re also its individuated expressions” should be easy for Buddhist thought, which is versed with such conundrums (like emptiness is form and form is emptiness from the TNH video). Of course the important thing is not to simply abstractly smear out all differences and rest blissfully in indeterminacy. We need to understand very clearly in what sense we’re one and in what sense we’re individuated. These poles can never be abstractly unified in our thinking.

We can talk endlessly about this without going anywhere. That’s why it’s better to proceed with practical examples. As you say, the Divine Being is One. Thus anyone who is able to sacrifice enough of the disorderly patterns of the sheaths should approach the essential core, which is a much purer manifestation of that One Being. Approach, not as we approach some external object but as we approach a certain age where our consciousness changes, our interests change, our sense of self changes and so on.

From here it logically follows that that higher Being becomes more and more collective, more archetypal for all humanity. When this archetype is clothed in the specific patterns of the sheaths it becomes more personalized to the extent that it completely loses consciousness of its Cosmic origin and finds itself as a lone “I” confronting a (potentially) hostile world.

Now the reason I asked about the relation with the Divine Being is because in our discussion so far there’s not much said about what this Oneness means in practical terms. OK, we’re one with the King but what does this mean? Do we reap all the benefits with none of the responsibilities?

It would be very misleading if we borrow the Divine sovereignty, freedom and so on, apply them to ourselves (for example, imagining that it is up to our absolutely free Kingly decision whether we reincarnate, whether we go to other galaxies and so on) but refuse to know anything about the archetypal nature of the Divine that works in every being and thus makes humanity an organic living whole.

My question about prayer was about this Divine Being, which is the Life stream of every living being. Yes, we’re one with it, yet if we’re to realize this oneness we have to become students of that Being and it has to be our Teacher. No matter how nondually realized we are, we still live in an individual conscious perspective which is manifestation of that collective Divine Being.

Do you feel that in our prayer we should turn to that Being – not as something external but as the Life current that can say “I” within ourselves – and beg that our individual life is Inspired according to the higher streamlines such that what we do here is in musical harmony with the archetypal unfolding of the Divine Self of all humanity (this is how our musical oneness grows)? Do you feel how even if we have realized nondual oneness we can still be out of sync with the collective Self?

[Stranger]

Do you feel that in our prayer we should turn to that Being – not as something external but as the Life current that can say “I” within ourselves – and beg that our individual life is Inspired according to the higher streamlines such that what we do here is in musical harmony with the archetypal unfolding of the Divine Self of all humanity (this is how our musical oneness grows)? Do you feel how even if we have realized nondual oneness we can still be out of sync with the collective Self?

The Divine Being has two indivisible aspects - what it is and what id does. "What it is" is its fundamental Being inseparable from its creative potential (Awareness-Willing-Thinking). What is does are the products of the activity of this potential. This activity of the potential unfolds as a Cosmic activity as well as a stream of individuated activities (let's call them "souls"). There are different states and degrees of the souls' development, but roughly they can be classified into states with the knowledge of what the Divine Being is (which is the realization that the soul is fundamentally the Divine essence in what it is) , and states without such knowledge (I am talking here about experiential knowledge, not just intellectual). Only when a soul has such inner experiential knowledge (which we can call "nondual realization") it can fully align its activities with the Divine essence, so that the unfolding of the Divine potential through the individuated activity (what it does) can be fully harmonious with the Divine essence (what it is). If that knowledge is not present, then such full harmony is not achievable, yet the activity can still be partially aligned with the Divine activity through lawful structures and the soul's good will. Of course, each soul is limited in its current span of what it does (the activities and knowledge of the world of forms/ideas), and in that sense of the activity span the souls are not equivalent of the fullness of the Divine, yet in its fundamental aspect (what each soul is) the souls are fully equivalent to the Divine. In other words, the soul is the Divine in the full sense of what it is, but limited in the span of what it does or can do.

Do you feel that in our prayer we should turn to that Being?

Yes, prayer in its highest sense is abiding in the experiential realization and direct connection with the Divine Self/Essence and aligning all its activities (what it does) in harmony with this Essence (what it is) on whatever level of streamline the activity happens to unfold. There are, of course, other levels and ways of prayer: every time a soul turns and opens to the Divine in whatever form or action, it may can be called "prayer".

Do you feel how even if we have realized nondual oneness we can still be out of sync with the collective Self?

The nondual realization is a gradual process with its own stages, and at intermediate stages it is possible to be partially out of sync with the collective Self (because the full realization is not yet attained), but if nondual realization is full, then it is always in sync (well, because being fully in sync with the Self is the very definition of the full nondual realization).

But the key is that being in sync with the Self first of all means to experientially and directly know the Self, and then act as the Self and not as "me" anymore ("it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me" - Galatians 2:20). Or more precisely, it is not that the "soul" becomes to know the "Self", it is the very Self that wakes up from a dream of "separate me" and recognizes Itself within each of its individuated streams of spiritual activity (souls).

[Cleric K]

Do you feel that in our prayer we should turn to that Being – not as something external but as the Life current that can say “I” within ourselves – and beg that our individual life is Inspired according to the higher streamlines such that what we do here is in musical harmony with the archetypal unfolding of the Divine Self of all humanity (this is how our musical oneness grows)? Do you feel how even if we have realized nondual oneness we can still be out of sync with the collective Self?

The Divine Being has two indivisible aspects - what it is and what id does. "What it is" is its fundamental Being inseparable from its creative potential (Awareness-Willing-Thinking). What is does are the products of the activity of this potential. This activity of the potential unfolds as a Cosmic activity as well as a stream of individuated activities (let's call them "souls"). There are different states and degrees of the souls' development, but roughly they can be classified into states with the knowledge of what the Divine Being is (which is the realization that the soul is fundamentally the Divine essence in what it is) , and states without such knowledge (I am talking here about experiential knowledge, not just intellectual). Only when a soul has such inner experiential knowledge (which we can call "nondual realization") it can fully align its activities with the Divine essence, so that the unfolding of the Divine potential through the individuated activity (what it does) can be fully harmonious with the Divine essence (what it is). If that knowledge is not present, then such full harmony is not achievable, yet the activity can still be partially aligned with the Divine activity through lawful structures and the soul's good will. Of course, each soul is limited in its current span of what it does (the activities and knowledge of the world of forms/ideas), and in that sense of the activity span the souls are not equivalent of the fullness of the Divine, yet in its fundamental aspect (what each soul is) the souls are fully equivalent to the Divine. In other words, the soul is the Divine in the full sense of what it is, but limited in the span of what it does or can do.

Do you feel that in our prayer we should turn to that Being?

Yes, prayer in its highest sense is abiding in the experiential realization and direct connection with the Divine Self/Essence and aligning all its activities (what it does) in harmony with this Essence (what it is) on whatever level of streamline the activity happens to unfold. There are, of course, other levels and ways of prayer: every time a soul turns and opens to the Divine in whatever form or action, it may can be called "prayer".

Do you feel how even if we have realized nondual oneness we can still be out of sync with the collective Self?

The nondual realization is a gradual process with its own stages, and at intermediate stages it is possible to be partially out of sync with the collective Self (because the full realization is not yet attained), but if nondual realization is full, then it is always in sync (well, because being fully in sync with the Self is the very definition of the full nondual realization).

But the key is that being in sync with the Self first of all means to experientially and directly know the Self, and then act as the Self and not as "me" anymore ("it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me" - Galatians 2:20). Or more precisely, it is not that the "soul" becomes to know the "Self", it is the very Self that wakes up from a dream of "separate me" and recognizes Itself within each of its individuated streams of spiritual activity (souls).

OK, but everything that you speak of still addresses only what Oneness means for the personal experience. It boils down to the feeling "At this level I'm One with the Divine, we're fully in sync, every my act of spiritual activity is my absolutely free Divine expression" (without speaking it out loud of course). But the question still remains - what this Oneness means for my relations with other beings? Because otherwise we're making for ourselves a very convenient philosophy (much like David's): "If I don't want to reincarnate then this is the Divine speaking, which is fully in sync with my individuated expression. I don't feel any inner division, no duality, there's only oneness, so my decision must be a fully free expression of the Divine whose perspective I'm one with within this soul." Clearly, we can justify in this way anything we decide. All we need to do is to try feel undivided in our activity that aims for this or that. If I want to leave Earth and go to another galaxy and I feel nondual about it, then it's the Divine in me that wants this. If I want to do something else, it's still the Divine that wants it. In other words, there's absolutely nothing that my Divine will has to consider when it determines its direction of steering (unless it really leads to some deeper entanglement).

In other words, what you say is that at the highest level there's the potential of the One Self, then at the next level this potential is already differentiated into individual souls. These souls are completely sovereign and independent, because they are independent expressions of the One Self. The Latter doesn't impose any patterns and laws on these expressions, they are absolutely free to reorganize themselves in any way they want. Then all World creating is something that is shaped below the souls and they may simply choose to entangle themselves with these structures in order to have certain experiences. Would this be a correct way to put it?

[Stranger]

OK, but everything that you speak of still addresses only what Oneness means for the personal experience. It boils down to the feeling "At this level I'm One with the Divine, we're fully in sync, every my act of spiritual activity is my absolutely free Divine expression" (without speaking it out loud of course). But the question still remains - what this Oneness means for my relations with other beings? Because otherwise we're making for ourselves a very convenient philosophy (much like David's): "If I don't want to reincarnate then this is the Divine speaking, which is fully in sync with my individuated expression. I don't feel any inner division, no duality, there's only oneness, so my decision must be a fully free expression of the Divine whose perspective I'm one with within this soul." Clearly, we can justify in this way anything we decide. All we need to do is to try feel undivided in our activity that aims for this or that. If I want to leave Earth and go to another galaxy and I feel nondual about it, then it's the Divine in me that wants this. If I want to do something else, it's still the Divine that wants it. In other words, there's absolutely nothing that my Divine will has to consider when it determines its direction of steering (unless it really leads to some deeper entanglement).

It is difficult to understand from our human perspective, but basically, in the realized nondual state there is no "me"/"I" who is "One with Divine", there is just the Divine. The sense of "me" can be only present when there is a perception or belief that there is something other than "me". "Me" always defines itself with respect to something that is "not me". So, the sense of "me" becomes redundant and loses any meaning when there is nothing other than "me". Here is a little Divine secret: there is no sense of "me" in the divine Self, there is only a pure subjectivity of the Self directly knowing Itself (with no gap between the "knower" and the "known"). In such state there are actually no capricious "wants" to follow, so if I say to myself that "If I don't want to reincarnate then this is the Divine speaking" then I am simply fooling myself here. But having no "wants" does not mean that there is no spiritual activity, it's just that this activity is not based on "wants". The activity simply remains in the state of Self knowing Itself and then acts according to what needs to be done for the good of all, therefore, its activity is based on compassion and the progress of spiritual development of the Cosmic Consciousness as a whole, because it sees Itself everywhere and in all its individuated activities (souls). But this activity is never deterministically shaped by "what needs to be done" because the Self is fundamentally free and has Free Will as one of its fundamental aspects. In simple words, it does not have to do good, but it still does.

But if we are talking about non-fully realized nondual states, than yes, confusing some individuated "wants" with what "Divine is speaking" is still possible, and these remains of the egoic "wants"-structures need to be discerned and cleaned in the next phases of the spiritual path.

If you want to know how exactly such activity of the Self unfolds in the fully realized nondual state and what forms it takes to do that, then unfortunately I cannot tell you, first, because I am not a fully nondual-realized soul, but rather a beginner, and second, some glimpses of this knowledge are contained in some scriptures of authentic nondual teachings, but they are not supposed to be discussed publicly and so I am not allowed to disclose them. The only thing I can tell you that these are not "reincarnations" in a way how the human souls reincarnate (even though they still can "reincarnate" for special "bodhisattva" missions), but it is still active involvement with the World though individuated spiritual activity.

In other words, what you say is that at the highest level there's the potential of the One Self, then at the next level this potential is already differentiated into individual souls. These souls are completely sovereign and independent, because they are independent expressions of the One Self. The Latter doesn't impose any patterns and laws on these expressions, they are absolutely free to reorganize themselves in any way they want. Then all World creating is something that is shaped below the souls and they may simply choose to entangle themselves with these structures in order to have certain experiences. Would this be a correct way to put it?

Well, what we call "souls" here are just semi-autonomous but still interconnected activities of the same Self. These activities follow certain lawful structures that are collectively created by the same activities on different hierarchical levels. Yet, at the level of the Self within each activity there is fundamental Freedom of Will that can still act within the "window of opportunities" within these lawful structures. So, it is an interplay of Freedom and structures within which the Freedom acts. And by exercising this Freedom the Self (through its activities) can change and re-shape the structures, so the structures themselves are not so rigid.

Now, specifically to your last question, the soul does have a say of a free decision with which structures to get entangled in its next incarnation, but the range of such structures is limited to the structures compatible with the karmic matrix of the soul. There is a certain continuity in the evolutionary path of a soul and no "jumps" or "shortcuts" are possible. And this still applies to the evolution of non-fully realized nondual states. As I already said, the soul on the transitional path to the fully-realized nondual state is advised by "Spirit Guides" and understands what forms of incarnations are compatible with its current karmic matrix and are best fit for its further evolution.

[AshvinP]

If you want to know how exactly such activity of the Self unfolds in the fully realized nondual state and what forms it takes to do that, then unfortunately I cannot tell you, first, because I am not a fully nondual-realized soul, but rather a beginner, and second, some glimpses of this knowledge are contained in some scriptures of authentic nondual teachings, but they are not supposed to be discussed publicly and so I am not allowed to disclose them.

I'm just curious, what is the purpose served by keeping the teachings secret now, if it provides knowledge of our enhanced Free Will after death? Is it envisioned that too many souls are not morally perfected enough to take hold of this Free Will, so it remains reserved for the select few?