http://www.richardsylvester.com/page1.html

...and click the buttons "Book Extracts" and "Interview & Links".

As a result of two exceptional, brief moments in his life, Sylvester now doesn't experience persons, or any kind of separated things as real anymore. For him, there are still phenomenons, but without a person who perceives these phenomenons. He stopped his spiritual search, as now there is no one left who can search for anything. For him, paradise is here, as it has been always here, only it can't be noticed as long there is the jail of the illusion of the person.

Interestingly in conjunction with Bruce's work, Sylvester labels the oneness he experiences as "unconditional love".

Nice read, challenging, mind-boggling, funny.

Spooky

W :o W  !

He's really into that !
I wonder what he does when he's not lecturing.  Whatever comes to mind?  :D   Does 'he' enjoy whatever comes mind?

When he says we lose paradise in order to experience the joy of finding it again,
I was reminded of a Voice that spoke to me when I was a child playing hide-and-seek. It said, 'Notice what happens when you have found each other." And I did and then said," we are very happy!" And It said, "Yes, and this is the Game of Life."
Of course I didn't get it then, but I think I do now !

Thanks Spooky !!

Bets

A number of years ago I was really into Advaita Vedanta.  I found that the guru I used to see and many other non-dual gurus aren't what they claim to be. Some of them contend that when your body dies your awareness merges back with pure consciousness and that's it. No focus 27, no disks, no nothing.

Fortunately, I eventually found a better way. Ramana Maharshi was one of the most well known advocates of Advaita Vedanta. One evening my spirit guidance showed me an image of Ramana sitting at one half of a table while wearing a business suit (when he was alive he wore a loin cloth).  At the other end of the table sat a lady. Ramana wore a business suit because he was being too conservative.  He didn't acknowledge the creative aspect of being. The lady in the image represented the creative aspect of being. They sat at halfs of the table in order to represent the proper balance between the manifested aspect of being and the unmanifested aspect of being (pure consciouness).

I'm open to levels of being I wasn't open to when I was involved with non-duality.  Once you open up to such levels of being, it is hard dismiss such levels as non-dualists tend to do.

A non-dualist takes one part of his (or her) mind, and focuses his attention so he is more aware than usual of the space in which everything takes place.  The reason he is able to be aware of something, is because he is aware of the energy of existence in an unmanifested way, even while it is manifested in a particular way.  This energy doesn't become non-existent, simply because it manifests in a specific way.  When it manifests in a specific way we can experience qualities such as beauty, happiness, love and peace. Nothing wrong with that.

It isn't pure consciousness that denies the manifested aspect of being. Pure consciousness is too fomless to do anything specific. It is simply aware. Only an aspect of mind can establish relationships and either in a faulty or accurate way come up with a viewpoint of what truth is (or isn't).

Richard Sylvester's association with Tony Parson's is mentioned, and Tony Parson's is one of the gurus who claims that your awareness merges back with pure awareness when you die, and that's it.

It is much better to contact your higher self, than rely on a guru who claims that nobody is here or there, yet benefits from other people.

What I was fascinated of was that Sylvester wrote he just experienced his "me" dropped away. He is really emphasizing that no school can teach you that, he makes jokes about that guru-thing. I think he indeed experienced something special, and it's inspiring to me, as some reports of Zen-Buddhists had been. As well, it's a central topic in modern philosophy (New Phenomenology) and psychology (although most modern philosophers and psychologists might not be aware of it ;-) ).

I've ordered his books and I guess I'll have to think and/or meditate a while on it before I can comment further, as this is really at the edge of what language can communicate.

Spooky

Bets, that's a nice little story, and I have gotten similar messages, like "find your lost companions". It's to go astray and find each other again, isn't it? This is quite a game. But I don't want to play it for all eternity.

Spooky

Greetings,

With RS's outlook, I wonder how he even incarnated !
He doesn't even seem to acknowledge soul, and it is the part of us (I think) that is most eternal. --  So what holds him together?
It seems he should just float off into the Great Whooshyness!

Maybe he was sent here because on Earth computers are doing most of the thinking and the basic process they use (I'm told)
is "This? or That?" (binary?) RS seems to show their antithesis,
so maybe his information will provide some sort of balance.  
We certainly can't deal with 'this or that' in non-duality.

I agree we have divided Earth's reality into too many pieces / categories. We have set up too many boundaries.  Examples: Us/Them, acceptable/ non-acceptable, etc. The afterlife we've glimpsed  at FL27 gets away from some of those those divisions and it's such a great relief to do so !

What RS talks about must be FL 80!

Bets

Well suit yourself Spooky. Say goodbye to your disk, get involved with the non-duality circus, and try to think your way out of existence.

Sometimes I don't know why I bother. Nobody seems to listen. Perhaps there is no point in trying to share what you learned through years of experience.  Perhaps it is better to let people waste their time and find out the hard way. Their souls do after all have all of eternity to do so, despite what non-dualists state.

Here's another point. I've known several non-dual gurus who have claimed to drop their I, yet each of them acted in a very self-serving and self-centered way.

Some of them say it happened automatically, there is nothing you can do to make it happen, yet they try to teach other people how to do so.

Sometimes doubletalk is just doubletalk.

Spooky:

I take back that "Suit yourself" comment. Since you no longer believe there is a self to suit, it is illogical for me to make such a suggestion.

Here's a Zen koen.  Who/what is it that believes that there is no self to suit?

Below is what he says about what happens after death. If what he says is true, perhaps all of us have been hallucinating when we visited various focus levels, communicated with spirits, and helped with retrievels.  His answer shows his lack of experience with spirit realms, which is typical for non-dual teachers.

"Tom What are your insights into death? What happens to us? Do we continue in any form?

Richard Death is the end of the dream of separation. In liberation and in death (which are the same thing) it is seen that there is no person, there is only Oneness."

Why take it so personally? Doesn't it make your life more interesting?

If you're talking to me, because I've known a number of people who have gotten caught in the non-dual thing, and once they do so it is like being caught up in any other belief system.  In a way its worse, because non-dualists negate things to an extent, where there is nothing to question.

Many of the people who get caught up in non-dual teachings could've found something better but don't, because they make the error of believing that their gurus are infallible, and as a result get to a point where they can't see things outside of the box their gurus create.

I guess I could just not care, but that would be the same thing that non-dual gurus do.  I mentioned Ramana Maharshi on an earlier post.  Whenever somebody would ask him about the problems of the World, and there were a lot when he lived, he would answer that the World is just a dream, so there is no need to worry.  

I figure that when people live in this World, they do in fact suffer.  I will not turn a blind eye to their suffering, because some supposed infallible guru states that there is no need to worry.

Our souls grow by opening up to love, not by negating the fact of our existence. 



wrote on May 21^st, 2009 at 6:22pm:

Why take it so personally? Doesn't it make your life more interesting?

Recoverer:

I think I'm well suited, from my education in philosophy I know this concept. The question is, could there be perceptions without a perceiver? Maybe, if we use another label for "perceptions", but it would be a very very different world. It's suspicous to me that Sylvester can behave (at least almost) like a normal guy, giving interviews and having meetings while in this state. There are other cases of non-personality persons similar to Sylvester and they are cared by psychiatrists.

Recoverer wrote: "Sometimes I don't know why I bother. Nobody seems to listen."
  You know Hesse's "Siddharta"? When Siddharta had been almost at the end of his path, he had to set free his rebelling son who won't take any education from him. Siddharta found, his son has to commit the same failures as he himself once had committed, but finally everybody will come together again in the great big river. Maybe it is so, maybe not. I listen carefully to you and take what I need.

Of course, Sylvester's view seems not to fit with RAM's and Bruce's and traditional western schools. But maybe I find a way to combine both views. Finally, all discs belong to a master disc. We don't know if it's an aim that they will once remerge totally with the master disc or not. And it is a question how a "resident member" of a disc feels like. We certainly have to think about what individuality and personality means when we think about those questions. I don't think we will continue for eternity as a person we now are used to be.

Believe me, I'll not go to meetings, I'll not spend money or devote myself to spiritual teachers. I'll just look what it is, and if it rings any bells within me. When I can't get something out of it I drop it. I become bored quite easily :-) . And after what Sylvester said, he can't start a cult because he dissed the whole spiritual search thing as useless (except "making one's prison more comfortable").

Yes, of course you can't get a grip of someone moralically who claims "he/she" is not existant, there only is "this character" and things that are just happening ("it happened automatically" ha ha, that's a good substitute for "the devil made me do it"). Contradictions though speak for themselves of course.

As to what the caring about the world and other people belongs, I believe the first focus has to be on spiritual truths; I think that is in accord with the New Testamentum and certainly with gnostic scripture, and RAM said we have to build up escape velocity, meaning loosen our focus on the physical reality to a sufficient degree. As a side effect of our growing insights, our actions will change accordingly. There is no right action in the wrong spirit.

I keep your warning in mind.


Bets:

The extreme segmentation is a tendency of the modern times. Starting with Plato, accelerated by modern philosophers and, in recent times mainly by a world view inspired by the sciences of nature and engineering, this tendency has become such bizarre in some areas that it is to hope it will become obvious that this is just plane silly.
The natural and primal way of thinking and perceiving is in "entirenesses", "gestalts". Out of these entirenesses we can, if required, extract more specific details. This has led to the wrong opinion the details are the primary and we could rebuilt the world with those little elementar pieces.
However, the person or, more phenomenologic put, the personal situation is one of these entirenesses, a very special one. In order to have a rich view at us and our role in our environment, it's not needed to fall in the other extreme and declare the whole world to one. But it's interesting.


Spooky

 Hi Spooky, i read some of that article you shared.   While i see truth in it, and i'm generally for any source emphasizing Oneness, well i have to agree with Albert to some extent.  

 The man seems to be stuck in his head, and seems to be rehashing certain traditional spiritual concepts from a certain tradition.  

 I suspect that if we had people follow him around constantly, but secretly, he might not prove to be as One and empty as he claims about himself.  

 I recognize i could be wrong, and in any case i see it as more of "shades of gray".  I think perhaps he has had some experiences with Oneness and with a strong mental focus on certain belief systems, has mistaken certain realizations to be "liberation" when they are only the seeds of same.  

 From synthesizing quite a few psychic/non physical sources i really respect, as well as going within, i've come to believe there are certain "outer" signs readable by a non liberated person in relation to a liberated person.    

Ironically, we have the unique nature of physicality to thank for one of the major indications.  

 The "body", or rather body image stops aging, getting sick, or dying.

RAM's experience of asking his Greater self to meet the most spiritually mature person living in his space/time is perhaps an incisive lesson in true liberation?

 Then such a one radiates a very pure, powerful and radiant White, or sometimes more golden hued White Light aura.  Funny that he mentions something like this in his article and makes fun of it.   A tactic one might use if they had some basic metaphysical knowledge, but subconsciously wanted to mislead people about something they have mislead themselves about.   With that said, consciously i feel he is sincere in his beliefs.

 In any case, does he have things of worth to teach?   No doubt (certainly more people use a greater focus on Oneness), but the most effective teaching is not by lecturing and constantly talking words and concepts...

 It's by our examples and how we live, which really affects people and the name of the game here is effective, powerful affecting...  If i ever met this guy, i might be tempted to test him in some extreme ways.   ;)   Just as Yeshua was tested in some extreme ways, though in an unconscious manner by others.  

 Also, i noticed in his booking schedule that at many places 60 euros were being charged from each person in attendance.  

 What, what o what would a truly and fully liberated person have a need for any money at all beyond the money necessary to use a space to lecture?  

 They transcend hunger, need for shelter, and all of the so called basic survival "needs" that all the rest of us humans attach ourselves too.  

 Dunno, perhaps i'm overly cynical, but a very real Teacher warned us about our times and that many false and deceptive teachers and sources would come forth proclaiming "here is Christ, there is Christ..."

 What this man essentially claims about himself, with claiming liberation, is that he is likewise a Christ (something i believe is a possible potential for everyone).   Perhaps sometimes better the Christ you know, than the Christ you don't? :D  ;D

Good post Justin:

Not all gurus are exactly the same. Some are unethical and dishonest with the people they mislead, some are dishonest with themselves about what they know, and mislead other people accordingly.  I know a few people from the group I used to belong to who became non-dual gurus.  When I knew them, they were nice people.  For whatever reason, they never got away from the non-dual approach. They deprive themselves accordingly.  I would have a hard time fitting into that old set of clothes.  

Non-dualists contend that they don't have to worry about things such as chakras and energy levels because they deal with higher truth, not illusions. The fact of the matter is that they haven't dealt with spirit realms and aren't qualified to speak about such levels of existence.

Beliefs can come in many forms.  If a person comes up with a way to believe that he or she doesn't exist, he or she might end up believing this is the case, even though his or her life shows something quite different.

If it is okay for each of us to exist to an extent where we can experience love, then perhaps it is okay for each of us to exist.  If we experience love and act with love, where is the problem?

SPOOKY:

I hear ya. :)

Greetings,

Can we aim three or four steps ahead of where we are, or should we take each step one at a time?  Does it matter?
Now substitute for 'steps'  -- use 'realms' or 'states of being.'

We know we lose uniqueness as we ascend into afterlife realms. Those who've visited FLs in the 30's have reported that beings of form merge, and their spirit is unified into energy; light increases.

Perhaps after visiting a 30s level realm, RS has made it his life's mission to tell us of the state of being up there. Perhaps he's skipped a few rungs on Jacob's Ladder and is sharing with us that we can do the same.  Have any of you heard that we can or can't develop that way?

If that is true or possible, what we have been discussing is how to live our lives while on the (only?) physical rung of the Ladder. Maybe we should be looking ahead to discover where the ladder leads -- ?

Bets

 Albert, i figure the only main difference between a fully liberated person like Yeshua, and those who aren't, is this:

 The former types spend every moment in viewing life/The Creator, others, themselves, and the process positively and with pure unconditional love.  

 They don't magically lose a sense of self, the "I" is still there, but the I only focuses on positivity, love, inclusiveness, and helpfulness, and disregards the so called material needs and wants of the little I, and totally focuses on helping all the other various I's within the Big I.  

 A clue to Richard's non full liberation is him not recognizing that even when one remembers and lives that Source Consciousness fully again, that there is still a need or desire within the little I...

 And that, as Yeshua so simply and beautifully put, is to live the Will of Source, which is to help uplift others, to help transform them to this Core truth, beingness, and experience.  

 Even then we have a "need" and a desire in the little i, but it's the little I in conjunction with Source, and it's not an emotional attachment need, but a whole being need and desire.  

 

 How much does one change when they have completed process, both a lot and yet not that much.   We still have our individual feelings, thoughts, choices, etc.   Or in other words, we still know ourselves to ourselves, unique, individual, and yet completely at One with the All and all that exists within same.

 They've just become purely loving and positive in nature.   Even when they are discriminating and seemingly "critical" (for Yeshua has criticized me before), the inner intention is positive and they still feel and think very positively of us, there is no emotional fear, one upmanship, dislike or repulsion involved like with most people's criticisms of each other, beliefs, or ideas.  

 Ironically, sometimes the more intune we become within ourselves, sometimes the more such intune Guidance energies constructively criticize us, especially when we are erring and know better.  

 For the immature and only so so mature cannot handle criticism, even more constructive and gentle kinds.  

 Who am i to speak on a process of which i have not yet completed?  Well i pretty much just parrot the words and teachings of one i know through repeated inner and outer guidance, has completed this process of full remembrance and living Sourceness.  

 Also, while this probably sounds egotistical to most here (why would it be when its the destiny of every child of Source?), i've been getting various kinds of guidance lately, both inner and outer, that its probable that i may complete this process in this life.  

 Hence, the closer one gets, the faster vibratory ones energies become, the more accurately, deeply, and holistically they can perceive the issues related to this very subject.  

 Yet, it is very misleading to self and to others, to label and think of oneself as "liberated" before one really is, and i will never do that.  

 

Perhaps Betson.

Also perhaps, I'm going to become the next super guru. :)  I'm going to teach something that no other guru has taught before.  I'm going to let everybody know that not even pure awareness exists, because it is absolutely impossible for anything at all to exist.  I'm going to tell people don't listen to your experience if you believe you are aware, because the fact of the matter is that you aren't aware.  If people wonder how I know such a thing, I'll tell them that I know this at a level that is beyond both mind and pure awareness, and as long as they believe they are beings who are aware of their existence, they won't be able to understand as "the absence of I" understand.

I see you know the tricks Recoverer  :) . Thanks for your posts dear friends.

I've thought about Sylvester, and have read another interview of him. I put aside his global claims (like "there are no persons" etc.) as these to me seem to be conclusions/constructions from his way of experiencing, and those claims, containing underlying truths (great pun btw) are not very fruitable I find.

I focused on passages where, to me, his way of perceiving the world, or his experiences, shine through. From this, I got the following impression:

It is a teachable, practicable mental technique. It is not such a deep alteration of experiencing as I first thought. In fact, I've been in such states many times, I only haven't noticed it due to Sylvester's style. When you're experienced in meditation, you might know this state: After a while of bodily relaxation, maybe a bit breathing exercises, and a bit thinking about your day, you calm down more and more and at some point you will become aware of your thoughts. You avoid to actively think, and then it appears as if thoughts arise and pass by. When you're good at this, you will not be affected emotionally or mentally by these thoughts. And this is the state, from my impression, which Sylvester talks about. We may call it maintaining a distance to your thoughts. It's not so easy to reach this state, but it's not overly difficult either. What's difficult is to hold this state for very long, and even more difficult when you return to daily activity.

The feeling which accompanies this state is just deep relaxation. It's very comfortable, like dozing peacefully.

Ironically, I once reached an even more comfortable state with a seemingly opposite method. At night lying in my bed, mind awake. In my mind I was guided by someone to a special place and it was a sort of great expanding of me. It indeed felt like a liberation (I admit this feeling was THAT blissful that I thought must be enlightenment). The next day that feeling was still there, but was getting weaker, so to hold it I tried some methods to make it stay, and one which seemed to hinder this feeling to decrease was to imagine I expand myself over the entire world, so that, in this imagination, my surrounding was part of "my" world. It seems like the opposite of what Sylvester told, but only at the surface. The point of it is not some vanishing or expanding of "me", it is the imagination of a great free space. It will make you less self-concentrated, irritable, and anxious. Not without reason Sylvester talked about the "jail" of the person, which is, in his opinion, the imagination of the person itself, I add: Not the person, but in which state the person is.

There are some similarities to the ego-reducing-work, but differences as well.  

And I remember too, I once had a mind-journey which I labeled with "the emptiness which is the fullness/richness", and another one where I had the impression I was a sort of knot, like a transmitter station, in a network, both experiences which remind of what Sylvester says. When I should give a Focus-Level number, both would be beyond F34, but I'm guessing here.

So, my conclusion for now is, Sylvester's writings don't give an insight into the truth, or what really is or so, but describe one of several consciousness states, which is reachable with training. When you're good in Bruce's techniques, you can playfully pretend Sylvester's claims are true, and I think you will get results. I recommend it for people who are over-sensitive, anxious, nervous. But don't believe in it like in "the truth".

Spooky

Spooky:

Related to what you wrote, I believe that non-dualists experience some aspect of truth, combine what they experience with the beliefs they acquire by reading what non-dual sources of information have to say, and because they believe non-dual teachings are complete and infallible, they don't check to see what other levels of truth exist.

Why would they bother to check out what other sources of information have to say and what other experiences are possible, if they believe that everything but pure awareness is nothing but an illusion?

Say a little kid created something he is quite proud of and he decides to show it to his dad. Should his father open his heart to love and say "good job son" or should his father tell him, "You're just a meaningless illusion kid, buzz off?"

I say we're in a learning pattern and it is an illusion, but to not abide by the golden rule keeps one encased in this pattern. Non Dualism is ultimately what I believe. There is no good or evil outside of the learning patterns. I read this thread so I felt I should throw my two cents in. Every "person" gets there and it won't be because someone else told them what to do. The learning pattern is for Experience, trial and error.

Non-dualism isn't about good vs. evil. It makes several contentions:

1. Only pure awareness exists.
2. Manifestation is an illusion that came to be by accident and it serves no purpose whatsoever.
3. There is no such thing as a soul because there is no such thing an an individual self. Only one self all by itself exists.

If you're hoping to be that one self, some being probably claimed dibbs on it long ago.

I used to buy into non-dual based systems of thought until I found out that they don't represent the truth.

We are one and many at the same time. What sense would the word "oneness" make if there was only one being? One being by itself is just one being by itself.  "Lonesomeness" would be a more appropriate word.

Consider the telepathic races Bruce Moen wrote about. On the one hand they were of one mind, on the other hand they weren't, because why would one being all by itself need to be telepathic?

Perhaps whatever we experience at the moment is real while we experience it, because what else is there?




Beau wrote on May 27^th, 2009 at 5:13pm:

I say we're in a learning pattern and it is an illusion, but to not abide by the golden rule keeps one encased in this pattern. Non Dualism is ultimately what I believe. There is no good or evil outside of the learning patterns. I read this thread so I felt I should throw my two cents in. Every "person" gets there and it won't be because someone else told them what to do. The learning pattern is for Experience, trial and error.

Thanks for setting me straight on Non Dualism. I think we are a vast number of different dimensions of the same consciousness. But you know I have to admit that I just thought of that while reading your post  there Albert. I haven't really fleshed it out, so to speak. I think our goal here is to remember we are One, but I'm in no hurry to wake up alone, you know?

Beau:

One time I had an experience where it seemed as if I was all alone, and it was the worse feeling I ever had.  Imagine what it would be like to be all by yourself for all of eternity.  I don't care how much happiness and peace you feel, you might get lonely.



Beau wrote on May 27^th, 2009 at 5:56pm:

Thanks for setting me straight on Non Dualism. I think we are a vast number of different dimensions of the same consciousness. But you know I have to admit that I just thought of that while reading your post  there Albert. I haven't really fleshed it out, so to speak. I think our goal here is to remember we are One, but I'm in no hurry to wake up alone, you know?

Quote Recoverer:
"What sense would the word "oneness" make if there was only one being? One being by itself is just one being by itself.  "Lonesomeness" would be a more appropriate word. "

Sylvester isn't talking about one being. "He" is talking about that there is no one at all. "This is all there is", meaning an emptyness which is full from which phenomena arise, only present, no time, no space, no one. The sense to be "me" "having" an experience or doing something having a choice in time and space is just a story emerging in oneness. Persons don't see through it, and when it's seen through then there is no one. He emphasizes that this is as well a story, as language cannot give a good description, but a story closest to "what is seen". So he'd probably say "There is no one who could be lonesome".

I have nothing against what Sylvester tells. It could be as he says. It sounds familiar to me, as some details he mentioned I've seen as well. For example the noticing of unconditional love as the fullness to go along with an expanded state rather than the contracted state of a person. I couldn't make sense of the term "free will" before I've read Sylvester's books, so accepting that choice is an illusion is not an issue for me.

I can recommend his books. His second one, "The book of no one" is not needed when you only want to have the basics, many repetitions, but one gets a better grasp of what is meant by reading it in addition to "I hope you die soon". If you don't buy what he's saying, well, then it's just an entertaining read, for me anyways.

Spooky

I figure:

1. We start out with awareness and the ability to create, without our ability to create being utilized.

2. At some point we learn that we have the ability to create, and make use of this ability so we have something to be aware other than nothingness.

3. We experience what we create, it comes from us, just as our awareness comes from us.  Therefore, what we experience is real even if there was a time when nothing existed in a manifested way,  because if what we experience doesn't determine what our reality is, then what does? Somebody's nihilistic theory? I think not.  Also, just because we can tune into the moment when nothing was manifested, this doesn't mean that the moments when the creative aspects of our being created what they created don't exist. If non-dualists such as Sylvester would give time to seeing what these other moments are about I would give more weight to what they say, but I have found that they don't.

4. If time isn't real in the way people think of it, then the moment when nothing had become manifest and the many moments when many things have become manifested, are actually one. This being the case, how can the reality of manifestation be denied?  

If a guy like Sylvester actuall believes that nothing exists, then why does he even bother with talking to people? According to his premise, there is nobody to talk to.

I really don't see what value there is in telling people they don't exist, when they do in fact experience their life for better or worse.

Often the non-dual approach doesn't help a person grow in love. Instead it gets people to believe that life is pointless and should be negated. Nothing is pointless when you live according to love. Rather, life becomes quite meaningful.

Hi Recoverer,
I'm pretending to be Richard Sylvester:

Recoverer:
1. We start out with awareness and the ability to create, without our ability to create being utilized.

R.S.:
No. There is no one. So no one started and no one has any abilities.

Recoverer:
2. At some point we learn that we have the ability to create, and make use of this ability so we have something to be aware other than nothingness.

R.S.:
There is no one to learn anything so there's nothing which can be learnt.

Recoverer:
3. We experience what we create, it comes from us, just as our awareness comes from us.  Therefore, what we experience is real even if there was a time when nothing existed in a manifested way,  because if what we experience doesn't determine what our reality is, then what does? Somebody's nihilistic theory? I think not.  Also, just because we can tune into the moment when nothing was manifested, this doesn't mean that the moments when the creative aspects of our being created what they created don't exist. If non-dualists such as Sylvester would give time to seeing what these other moments are about I would give more weight to what they say, but I have found that they don't.

R.S.:
There is no one, so no one can experience anything and no one can create anything. "Real" I call phenomena. Questions are asked, for example. There are stories, the story of time, the story of being a person. Persons perceive themselves to be in time. But there is no time. There are thoughts about the past and the future.

Recoverer:
4. If time isn't real in the way people think of it, then the moment when nothing had become manifest and the many moments when many things have become manifested, are actually one. This being the case, how can the reality of manifestation be denied?

R.S.:
There is no time, so there hasn't been any moments in the past. Of course, persons live within the story of time, but when the person drops away, all stories are seen through, and this is all there is. There's just oneness, phenomena arise. Nothing is happening though. There's no one there to whom anything could happen. There's only "is".

Recoverer:
If a guy like Sylvester actuall believes that nothing exists, then why does he even bother with talking to people? According to his premise, there is nobody to talk to.

R.S.:
Yes, there is no one who talks and no one who listens. There's talking and listening.

Recoverer:
I really don't see what value there is in telling people they don't exist, when they do in fact experience their life for better or worse.

The real R.S., quote:
"Yes it is purposeless. But so is everything else. Let's be clear about this, I can definetely confirm that you are wasting your time here. But of course you are also wasting your time anywhere else. In addition there's no you and no time which you could waste. So it doesn't matter. You might as well be here as anywhere else, but there's no choice about that. There is no possibility that this could be different to what it is."

Recoverer:
Often the non-dual approach doesn't help a person grow in love. Instead it gets people to believe that life is pointless and should be negated. Nothing is pointless when you live according to love. Rather, life becomes quite meaningful.

R.S.:
The mantra goes: Helpless, hopeless, meaningless. There's nothing to get, to learn, to achieve, or whatsoever. When the person comes back after awakening, you may be in the dark night of the soul. When the person drops away permanently, there's no one there to be bothered. All attempts to become an enlightened person are seen through. Instead it's noticed how awsome being is. The ivy climbing up the wall. A cup of tea. And it is seen that the emptiness in which all phenomena arise is full of unconditional love. A person never will be able to see this, yet might visit one guru after another to achieve full realisation. But the sense of separation will never leave until the person leaves. When there's no person, it's all just there. This is all there is, and it is sufficient.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

You see, debating about this is rather pointless. The Spooky-person has not dropped away, so I don't know if "it can be seen" or not. My point of view is, as long as there's a "me" we will never no the one and only truth, simply because when there's a "me", there's also a "there". Separation. Everything we know is our knowing. Every system we believe in is our system. What the truth is we don't know. Meanwhile, we do what we think is good, we believe what we think has to believed, we use the methods which we think are effective to let us lead a good, or even better life.

Spooky

Spooky:

How can you pretend to be Sylvester if there's no Sylvester to imitate? :)

It is kind of contradictory when somebody says that reality doesn't exist in the manner we believe because everything is just a dream, because the very fact of how they make a comparison between a dream explanation and a non-dream explanation, suggests that they believe there is a level of reality other than a dream reality.

Perhaps, if a person chooses to view the World with the concept that the World is nothing but a dream he'll (or she'll) experience it accordingly, and if a person chooses to view the World as if it is a physical reality, he'll experience it accordingly.

I figure that neither viewpoint is accurate, because each viewpoint represents one half of a dichotomy that doesn't actually exist. Source being doesn't have to operate within such parameters. Source being simply makes use of its beingness-whatever that is-to make it so itself and many other beings do in fact experience what source being's energy projects.  Our experience proves that something that can be experienced does in fact exist, otherwise we wouldn't experience anything at all.

Perhaps it is a mistake to listen to a way of thinking that tries to divide things up into real or unreal.  Whatever we experience is real, even when we have a dream all by ourself, even though such a dream isn't shared with other beings.  The reason this World seems more solid than non-physical levels of reality, is partly because the energy it is composed of vibrates at a slower speed than higher levels of being. One way or the other, even if you call it mind stuff without understanding what "mind stuff" actually means, something makes it possible for energy to vibrate at different frequency levels.

Hi Recoverer,
when one makes certain assumptions, your way of thinking is logical. But only when these assumptions are not questioned.

Sylvester cannot be addressed by what you wrote.

Quote Recoverer:
"It is kind of contradictory when somebody says that reality doesn't exist in the manner we believe because everything is just a dream, because the very fact of how they make a comparison between a dream explanation and a non-dream explanation, suggests that they believe there is a level of reality other than a dream reality."

Sylvester uses dreams and dreaming to make some things clear, but not in the way you wrote. He says dream and reality is the same. Sometimes you dream, sometimes you're awake (in case of a person). What he calls his "awakening" is similar to awake within a dream realising that you are just a dream character within a dream- in his awakening experience for a moment "he" wasn't there anymore, so this character Richard Sylvester was just one phenomenon of many phenomena. Everything remained the same, yet everything was different of course.

Quote Recoverer:
"Perhaps, if a person chooses to view the World with the concept that the World is nothing but a dream he'll (or she'll) experience it accordingly, and if a person chooses to view the World as if it is a physical reality, he'll experience it accordingly."

Sylvester repeatedly says it is not a matter of choice. A person cannot chose to drop this very person. It happens or not. In fact, he says liberation is already there, only that persons don't see it, because due to that they appear to be persons, they see themselves separated, while they aren't, but this can only be seen when the person has vanished.

So, Sylvester doesn't divide the world into a real and an unreal part, but says there is "it is seen that there are no persons but only being"= oneness and within this, stories containing persons and the mind, so that, metaphorical, oneness prevents itself to be seen as such and instead it is seen that here is a person who perceives what is outside this person, therefore separation, while there is no separation.

Concerning spiritual seeking he says that nobody will ever become enlightened. Simply because as long as there is a person, there is separation and therefore longing for oneness and therefore continued search.

Spooky

Spooky:

One thing gurus do is read each others books.  At some point somebody made the statement that even seeking for enlightenment will prevent a person from seeking the goal he or she seeks.

I can't say I agree with this way of thinking. As far as I'm concerned it is just intellectual doubletalk.  Until we have what we need to feel complete, our souls will keep seeking. The very fact of how there are many souls who seek, proves that there is more than one soul to do such seeking.

If you stop seeking you won't become non-existent.  You'll become like a soul that needs to be retrieved. In fact, as I've shared before, one night I helped retrieve the spirit of a lady who was into a nihilistic self-negating way of thinking, and her state of being felt quite dark. By trying to think herself out of existence, she separated herself from her higher self, love and God. After being connected to me her energy was cleansed of the nihilistic thought patterns that bound her so she could move on to the light.

One night I had a dream where I rode a bike (a symbol for moving in the direction of Christ consciousness) over a road, and underneath the road were souls who were stuck because they were stuck in a nihilistic self-negating non-dual belief system.

It is very possible that people such as Sylvester play a role in getting spirits stuck for however long.  Spooky, if you want to do back flips to defend what Sylvester advocates even though you have enough experience to know better, that is your choice. But you might want to reconsider.

If you're feeling stuck with your spiritual growth and Sylvester's way seems like an approach you can take, perhaps there is another option.  I figure an approach where more love comes into your life will work.  What significance does love play, if we believe there is nobody to share love with?

An after thought to the post I wrote a few minutes ago.

One of the dangers in what people like Sylvester say, is that there is nothing we can do to become enlightened.

Without getting into whether there is such a thing as enlightenment in the way he speaks of it, I believe it is dangerous to believe that there is no form of seeking that helps us grow spiritually, because if there is one thing I found through my experience, it is possible to grow.  We don't do so by trying to negate our existence.  We do so by letting go of the limiting thought patterns that prevent us from living according to love, our higher self, our connection to the light.

I am certain that the light beings I communicate with aren't just some mere emptiness/illusion.  They are souls who have evolved so they can exist in a manner that is very significant and quite wonderful.  Not once have they tried to tell me that I don't exist.  They simply tried to show me how I can live more completely according to love.  They feel one with me without negating me.

Hi Spooky, hi Bets, Hi Rec, Hi Justin
how the heck are you guys? http://images.bravenet.com/common/images/smilies/wave.gif

its a tough subject; like Spooky said back on page one, he sees more than one viewing point, he can merge two, three or more viewing points to gain that insight offered. I do that too, then I kind of end up being a nonspecified person, what with language being so limiting in itself to discuss spiritual pathways...it really is limiting you know.
would be much nicer and beneficial to get you guys in a physical room with your body language to view and the ringing tones of your voices would be most nice to hear!

we could discover we might be all on the same wave length and not even know it!

well the internet is how it has to be, to communicate with one another for awhile, but it won't always be so.

I think with any teacher, or your friends, or any individual appearing as separate, out there, even enemies, the password is Love.
this is so within doing retrievals. first the teachers told me, spirit guides, voices in my head, maybe my own deepest intuitions, I don't know for sure, they mentioned I must never be a nag while retrieving.
perhaps I was being a shrew?  :D in any case the password for all communications is love and acceptance of each retrievee, to gently inform them that they are no longer in a physical body as it is appearing that they are. to them. to bring love into the arena, it seems normal to them what they are doing, howsoever you find them, you must work your way into their dream, as if it's completely normal to you, because it is normal for them. so you don't scare them that way by blurting out something like YOU don't have to take drugs anymore because you're dead! lol.

I mention retrievals here because life is like a continual retrieval to me, if it means loving others just as they are.
For this is like a prayer I heard once. I think it was me praying. I spoke aloud to an imaginary God, which I imagined was listening and wanting to help me feel better.
I love you the way you are. Just the way you are, so imperfect, so not wanting to live, so tearful. Just the way you are, I accept you. I gave you a life, please don't ask me to take it back.  :-?

I thought I had to save the world or something  ;) God said no you don't have to save the world. Just have a little faith in yourself and others.

The things we talk about here are so huge, if we all want to get together on the same page, so to speak, that's why groups gather, so they have a beginning premise to start from.
I think most of us are loners in that respect, and nothing wrong with that. So far I haven't found a better premise to start from than the concept Monroe introduced of limited C1 area and unlimited being, meaning altered states of awareness, whereby communication from another level is coming through.

cheers, love you guys I've been having fun making new friends.  :)

Hi Recoverer,
so far, to me (as for every "person") it is an intellectual concept as other concepts are as well. From most spiritual concepts one can extract ways of living to grow spiritually. Sylvester's concept is indeed different as he says you can do nothing to be liberated from the person. He actually says that spiritual search, as well as psychotherapy is very effective, but it will never lead to an end of feeling separated because there is no method a person could use to get the person out of the way from seeing oneness. It's just a good intellectual point I find. I don't know if he's a fraud or not, and I'm not defending him, I just wanted to clarify what he's actually saying.
  His concept certainly stirs up many questions of what the "I", or the person is at all. It's unclear, although it seems to be so natural for everybody. Until you think about it. It's unclear to me as well if it's really possible what he's telling about "his" state.
  I think nobody stops searching because someone says you'll never get what you are searching for through this search. In this regard I'm the same opinion as Sylvester:
The search goes on until it stops. But nobody can make it stop.

Hi Alysia,
I thought of you recently what you would think of Sylvester's "oneness" story, as I remembered you always said that we're all one! (And I even have a bit like a deja-vu now, as I think I dreamt that you would post here in this thread)
  You're right, this is a huge thing we talk about, even when it is probably one the shortest theories of everything there are. It is possible to take some elements from other theories and embed them into Sylvester's theory. I think that's what we're doing anyway, we pick up something here and there and these bits then melt together into our belief system.

Spooky

Hello Alysia.  Long time no see.  You wrote:

"it seems normal to them what they are doing, howsoever you find them, you must work your way into their dream, as if it's completely normal to you, because it is normal for them."

That's a neat way to put it. :)

Regarding wanting to save the World, perhaps I should forget about running for president. ;)

Spooky:

I figure that if we open up to love we'll be able to experience oneness with each other without having to nullify ourselves. How can we share oneness, if there's nobody to share it with?

You can't be selfless, if you don't have a self.

This is one of those mobius-strip topics that I always end up getting swept away in.  There are people who claim that there is nothing, but it seems that as far as the "nothingness" goes, no one can claim that because it CAN'T be experienced.  If you experience "nothing" YOU are still THERE experiencing it.  "nothingness" would be total unconsciousness, which means you can't experience it, and therefore can't say that it exists at all.  Game over! lol.

As far as there being "one" thing as the ultimate truth - even if, on some level, there is "one" as the ultimate truth, I am still here as me, and *gasp* is that you there being someone else?  That is ALSO an ultimate truth, because it is actually happening right now.  I think that ALL of these levels can possibly exist simultaneously, with none being more valid and true than another.

Those who have experienced oneness with all things in situations such as meditation, out of body, or near death, have still come back to being THEMSELVES, separate and real, to tell us about that state of oneness.  They have perhaps changed or evolved, but they are still here.  Are you an I projections of the same consciousness? Possibly, but I can't say that it's "truth".  Are you and I actually YOU and I? That, I can vouch for.

Peace, friends (and there can be no "friends" without separation - the simple fact that there ARE friends shows that on some level this is "truth".)  ;)

Hi Starry,
what I find especially interesting is that Sylvester (and others) don't present a nice theory, but claim to tell about own experiences. Sylvester tells in the event he calls "liberation" he found everything to be one, and had no sense of localisation; this sense returned, but the "me" never returned.
For everyone who thinks that Sylvester and Tony Parsons have a big hoax running (which I can't close out), I recommend reading
Suzanne Segal  Collision with the infinite .
The term "the emptyness which is full", I-lessness, experiences of oneness are too frequent in scripture to be without a basis. You find it in Taoism, Buddhism, Zen-Buddhism, maybe in the fragments of Parmenides, and in Christian Mystic, as Meister Eckhart and Marguerite Porete.

It is very difficult to imagine how it would be, and language (at least western with it's subject-object-structure) cannot really describe it, but it seems to be a real phaenomenon.

After all, to grasp what the "I" really is is equally hard as it is to imagine how it would be without "I".

Spooky

Oh, I most definitely agree that these states are real phenomena.  It's just that I feel that if this IS a real and true state of being, it obviously doesn't have to mean that it is the ONLY real or important state of being.  I don't believe these people are trying to perpetuate a hoax - real or not, I believe they most certainly believe what they've experienced is real.  What I try to keep in mind is that there are hoards of schizophrenics and such who also believe the spiders they see on the wall are real, etc. lol  Just reading Terrence McKenna's experiences with psychedelics and such is really eye opening in terms of what our own brains are capable of producing - experiences we can't even really imagine if we try.  Keeping that in mind, there are phenomena that really can't be explained away so easily - remote viewing, telepathy, verifiable communications, etc.  Just more reasons why I think that being HERE in THIS state is terribly fascinating.  :)

Every hallucination is real.
Perhaps everything real is a hallucination?  :)

Spooky

StarryEyedNoOne:

Excellent points.

Spooky:

Regarding Suzzane Segal, for a number of years she thought she was enlightened, had her supposed enlightenment confirmed by some gurus who are very clearly not what they claim/claimed to be, and eventually found that she had dissociative order due to repressed memories of when she was molested as a child. This is why she experienced a background of fear during the years of her so-called enlightened state.

One day while she was sitting in front of her followers, she moved down to the floor and sat with them, and stated that she was no longer capable of teaching them, because she found herself in a state of mind that was quite disturbing (I don't remember her exact words).

Regarding the gurus who authenticated her supposed enlightenment, one was Poonja (Papaji), a guru from India who claimed to be an enlightened disciple of Ramana Maharshi. Gangaji and Andrew Cohen, supposed enlightened disciples of Papaji, also endorsed Suzzane's supposed enlightened state.

Andrew Cohen's mother Luna Tarlo wrote a book called "Mother of God." She talks about how she was Andrew's disciple for a while.  She felt so graced to have an enlightened son. Eventually she found that her son wasn't the enlightened being he claimed to be. If anything, he was quite insidious.  He used to verbally and emotionally abuse her and his other followers.

Andrew Cohen was the first disciple Papaji declared to be enlightened. When Luna was in India she traveled around with Andrew and another lady.  Andrew told Luna and the other lady that they are enlightened. Neither of them could see that this was true. When Luna met Papaji, he also told her that she's enlightened. There was a European lady visiting Papaji at the time, and he claimed that she was enlightened. She was playing with her child who was an illegitimate child of Papaji. The reason Papaji had so many disciples that became gurus, is because all it took to become one, was to believe him when he told you that you're enlightened, even if your experience tells you a different story. I know a lady who was told by one of Papaji's supposed enlightened disciples that she's enlightened, she knew this wasn't the case, and she didn't take the bait. She has way too much integrity and honesty to do such a thing.

After returning to the United States Andrew Cohen got out of hand, and despite claiming that Andrew was enlightened in various ways, Papaji later claimed that Andrew "wasn't" enlightened. There are a number of other people who have become gurus after Papaji endorsed their so called enlightened state. Gangaji included. Eventually Papaji took back all of the endorsements. He said that he stated that they were enlightened because he wanted to get the leeches off his back.  He said they were supposed to point the way to Lucknow (this is where he lived), not themselves.

Such later statements are nonsense if you consider the letters Papaji exchanged with Andrew Cohen and what he told Luna Tarlo about Andrew and herself.  Papaji has contradicted himself several times when it comes to what enlightenen beings he has supposedly met during his life. None of the versions include Suzzane Segal's name despite what she claims.

Suzzane Segal also got her enlightenment supposedly confirmed by Da Free John (one of just many names he went by). Da Free John was one of the most scandulous gurus who occupied this planet. He claimed to be an Avatar, the World teacher. He claimed that there has never been a master of his level, and there will never be one again. In one of his books from the 80's he claimed that eventually all of the slugs of this World will follow him.  He died recently, and his proclamation was proven to be false. The same is true for his proclamation that he would be resurrected.  He lived on "his" Fiji island (guess where he got the money from) with some of his disciples including a number of his wives that included a former playboy bunny.  He became well know in the 1980's, because some of his disciples left him and let if be known that he forced his disciples to perform all kinds of sexual acts in front of him, regardless of their marital status.  Young attractive ladies had an easier time finding their way to his island than his other disciples.

Or in other words, I'm still waiting for Suzanne Segal's enlightenment to be confirmed.

A late P.S. to the post I wrote a few minutes ago.

When it comes to the people who take the bait when a false guru claims he or she is enlightened, what kind of people take the bait? I've found that people who become false gurus tend to have a personality disorder where they find it necessary to put themselves in a position where other people put them on a pedestal, and where they get to control other people.

Regarding Suzzane's dissociative disorder, it is possible that because she didn't want to become conscious of her repressed memories, a part of her mind separated her consciousness from her body and the rest of her mind. A backdrop of fear is not a good sign. When it comes to the feeling of expansiveness being too much, there are many people who have experienced expansiveness in a way where it wasn't threatening. Quite the contrary. Since Suzzane had repressed fear she hadn't dealt with, when her awareness expanded, she might've touched into an expanse of energy that had a similar energetic signature as her fear.  If person experienced the oneness, they would experience love.

I am familiar with the terms in the psychiatry manuals (ICD, DSM) called personality disorder, disscociative disorder and whatever. There is no category which fits to Richard Sylvester and Suzanne Segal. In her book, Segal describes her oddyssee from therapist to therapist, and what you say reminds me of those, to her, inacceptable diagnosis. She even said at the beginning of her book, that exactly this would happen: The pathologisation of "her" experience.

I really don't care for any guru's "verification" of enlightenment. I have read Suzanne Segal's book and it came over to me like a description of what she had experienced. Whether this "state" has to be called "enlightenment" or not I don't know. But what I do know is, we have to take it seriously. This book, to me, sounds as authentical as, for example, Monroe's books do. Despite the logical errors she made in the last part of her book. And as I wrote in respond to Starry, this kind of experience seems to be not a singular one, but perhaps inspired religions and spiritual movements. So we have to deal with this kind of experience.

If you have reliable infos about Suzanne Segal which go beyond her book you might post them here and name the sources, or PM me.

Spooky

Hi YouAll,

Isn't it possible to accidentally be pushed into a state of
'enlightenment,'  perhaps even with the help of such a negative force as fear?  Isn't some 'disassociativeness' a sign of both 'enlightenment' and also of 'schizophrenia' ? ( The label depends upon who is doing the labeling, not entirely upon the inner state.
I cannot be threatened by labellers who have not experienced all I have experienced.)

I see labels such as I've used here as indicating just a point along a sliding scale of behaviors. Without a structure from beliefs/ religious paths to hold one at a particular point, it seems one can easily slide away frm the path one is seeking.

IMO the behaviors that mark these states have to do with where one's point of consciousness resides in the mind and therefore what informations one is dealing with. That point of consciousness can move. I'm speaking from experience :) and have invested much consideration and study to this topic. (Uh-oh, that sounds serious ::) but it's not--it's very freeing!  :)  )

Currently on another thread a similiar phenomena  is being discussed, i.e.,  the Afterlife/astral realm seems to have slipped away from many explorerers; or is it they have slipped in their   capabilities? I think people have to care enough to focus and reposition their point of consciousness as often as necessary.

Betson

Spooky:

If one thing is clear, she experienced a backdrop of fear for years. What does fear have to do with love and oneness? I'm not able to find all of the articles that spoke of her condition, but below is one of them. The Adi Da referred to is another name for Da Free John. The writer seems to believe that non-integration and enlightenment go together. I've found that the more I've grown, the more integrated I've become, yet I don't claim to be enlightened. This business of somebody supposedly being enlightened even though she hasn't dealt with chilhood trauma doesn't add up. If a spirit wants to move onto a higher realm, it needs to be free of the issues that prevent it from living according to love. That's afterlife knowledge 101 :). Yet, people who haven't dealt with their issues claim to be enlightened. If thoughts of the vastness, oneness and not being defined inspire you that's great, but integration of the creative aspect of our being is required.

Anyway, here's a part of an article and a link:

"Part 6

Suzanne Segal died of a brain tumor in 1997 at the age of 42. Many have stated explicitly or implicitly that her experiences were directly the result of cerebral trauma. In the spring of 1996, the present book had been completed and Suzanne was offering her teachings to the public through weekly dialogues and a training group for her fellow therapists.

Very soon thereafter, however, she began to experience bouts of 'vastness expansion' in which the vastness would expand greatly upon itself. These experiences sapped her life and energy and brought great fear upon her once again. It brought also doubt. She began to judge what she had been saying or claiming to know. She thought her talk about the vastness was perhaps a defence mechanism to protect her from feelings and childhood abuse memories.

She had lost her connection to the vastness, had become disoriented, experienced dizziness and a general decline in health In February of 1997 she was diagnosed with a massive brain tumor. She died on April 1."

http://www.nonduality.com/suzanne.htm

Hi,

Betson:

Quote: "Isn't it possible to accidentally be pushed into a state of
'enlightenment,'  perhaps even with the help of such a negative force as fear?  Isn't some 'disassociativeness' a sign of both 'enlightenment' and also of 'schizophrenia' ? ( The label depends upon who is doing the labeling, not entirely upon the inner state.
I cannot be threatened by labellers who have not experienced all I have experienced.)"

I agree. How a person's state is labeled depends on the culture and the beliefs. A part of this labeling is to identify a cause/reason of this state. For example it could be said someone is in a particular state as a result of meditation, or as a result of a brain anomalia. In most cases, to identify something as a single cause cannot be called proper science. We could only make a statistic and search for correlations, rather than causes.

Quote: "I see labels such as I've used here as indicating just a point along a sliding scale of behaviors. Without a structure from beliefs/ religious paths to hold one at a particular point, it seems one can easily slide away frm the path one is seeking. IMO the behaviors that mark these states have to do with where one's point of consciousness resides in the mind and therefore what informations one is dealing with. That point of consciousness can move. I'm speaking from experience Smiley and have invested much consideration and study to this topic. (Uh-oh, that sounds serious Roll Eyes but it's not--it's very freeing!  Smiley  )"

Yes. For example, it has been frequently mentioned that the results of usage of so-called psychedelic drugs depend greatly on the beliefs and training, the setting/present situation, and if an experienced good teacher is present. When one takes peyote without any training in a big city this one most probably will have a very different experience than someone who lives at a site where the ancient rituals are still in practise. It's better to have a pathway established when one moves into regions never seen before.

Quote: "Currently on another thread a similiar phenomena  is being discussed, i.e.,  the Afterlife/astral realm seems to have slipped away from many explorerers; or is it they have slipped in their   capabilities? I think people have to care enough to focus and reposition their point of consciousness as often as necessary."

Yes, as long as we consider that there is someone who perceives something, we have to deal with the, in Bruce's terms, interpreter's bias. In the story Grandma and the skunk Bruce has illustrated how much the belief of someone can influence what someone experiences.

Recoverer:

Thanks for the infos. I of course agree that a fearful state cannot be seen as desirable nor called enlightened. So, in Segal's case, if the info is true, her oneness-state wasn't very stable, maybe even reversable. Interesting. I won't go so far, as I already said in response to Betson, to make specific causes responsible for her experiences, such as a (hypothetic) childhood trauma or a brain tumor. After all, when the body decays even the enlightened would fade physically (in case it's not one of the "ancient" style who could fly and decide freely when it's time to drop the body...  ;) ).

Spooky