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.   

 

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

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?

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

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.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

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

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