wstein

You can know without awareness if you are creating the thing. I.E. I know this exists because I created it. Only the knowingness is created by your awareness, not the things you are aware of (in this case the alarm). How is it that the alarm can wake you if it does not exist (to you) until after you awake and become aware of it? How is it that you can become aware of 'the world' that does not exist (to you) yet?

Its not so clear to me that the knowledge follows after the awareness. If I understand, you can't say why you have awaken. All you have is some knowledge of unclear origin that something, perhaps named, woke you up. In other words it might well have been you spontaneously waking and then attributing a fictional cause to that awakening. I going to assume for the moment that you believe you still exist in some sense while not awake (if not please clarify). Though one can't be sure, there seems no reason why other things might also 'exist' while you are asleep. You seem to be equating 'knowledge' with 'exist'. I feel things can exist without your knowledge of them. Further question: what is it that is 'aware' of the world? Most likely possibilities are consciousness, conscious mind, unconscious mind. Perhaps you are self identifying with the conscious mind (as you)?

So how do you view things that wake you while you sleep (like an alarm clock, siren, cat)?

There is no path other than the steps you took.

I stand corrected. I know the difference. I would never try to force you to accept any answer, even my own. There is no reason to accept. In this context amidst the separation, there is no 'right' answer. You are more of an optimist than I.

Don't think you understand. Our Moon is not attached to the Earth. They are one and the same thing (as are you pointing to them as not attached). Feel free to disagree whether or not you understand. As said, misunderstanding. Even in ordinary situations, things are drastically mislabeled for many reasons: misunderstanding, political gain, lying, ignorance, etc...

Separation didn't happen, just your misunderstanding.

Seems the original quote fails to illuminate much. Indeed the perceiver and the perceived are the same. Direction of the gaze makes no difference. Yet for those who are spirit, neither is 'them'. Spirit has no actuality, actuality is strictly something in the manifest (illusion). In my experience, though one can not 'see' themselves, one can 'know' themselves by reflecting on themselves. What is my nature that I acted that way?

I don't think the quoted paragraph explains the nuances of "the world is unreal". The quote explains quite well that the world as perceived is not the actual world. What is missing is that ALL the aspects like 'ornament', 'gold', 'dog' and 'stone' are also constructs YOU create and do not reflect the actuality of anything. So to see the dog or the stone is still not to see reality.

As per your analogy, there is this 'real' 'pool of water'. I will note that in this analogy, that pool of water in no way depends on you, what you experience, or what you know (with which I agree). Perhaps 'you' can sample the pool directly or perhaps 'you' only have some crude senses to do so or perhaps you are in the pool but can't sense it in any way. In all cases, your experiences do nothing to indicate the reality of the pool. In all probability you are part of the pool.

I did not suggest that. IF in fact you were experiencing an actual life, then it stops when the life ends. If you were dreaming or imagining a life, then you can continue to experience it. Further, as per dreaming, 'experiencing' has little to do with the reality of the things being experienced. As such, experiences tell nothing about how real the context of that experience was. Even more problematic is that most of what passes for experience is actually memories of experiences. Even in ordinary situations, memory is less than perfect.

Ok, so your ability to perceive/know has to develop. Still that does not affect the reality of anything but perhaps your internal state. Whatever it is that might be perceived or known was always out there even when you are unaware of it. You becoming aware of it does not change the reality of it. Further you gaining experience or knowledge does not indicate the reality of anything other than perhaps you. One could easily be dreaming or deluded while being completely detached from any reality 'outside' you. Thus you might think/remember something or sometime, but that does not mean it occurred in any substantive objective sense.

This indicates why you don't perceive there is any 'control', though it only indicates the control is not at the level of the world itself. Still this has no bearing on if you or the world is 'real'.

This does not seem to relate to the topic title. Whether or not 'you' are 'stationary' has no bearing on the 'real'-ness of this world. It *might* have some bearing on the reality of 'you'. 'You' having control is even less relevant to anything being real. There is nothing to say reality is subject to your whims.

Experience is not reality in the same way the map is not the territory. Everyone's subjective experience holds precedence for themselves, no one else. No one's reality is the same as any one else's because no one is the same being as any one else. One person's essence does not conflict with another person's essence, even if they they engage in conflict with one another. Each is still a person in and of themselves no matter who/what another is. Same goes for experiences, doesn't matter if they don't match. They both coexist, one does not hold precedence over the other.

"clap, clap, clap" pretty much the same as two hands clapping only quieter. One only is confused by this question if they are imaging one hand attempting to clap with another hand that is not there.

'Stopping' thoughts is an ego activity that unfortunately causes more thoughts. Thus one can spend decades and not 'solve' the problem. One does not stop monkey mind so much as observe it cease on its own. I know this counter to all common sense. The method I describe took me several years to reach inner silence as a default state. Short periods of silence happened much sooner. I use the well known method generally referred to as 'observing your thoughts' (goes by many names). There is a slight bit more to it, you also need identify (label) thoughts as 'thought' when you notice them. That's it, don't try to do anything about them, don't analyze them, don't worry about failing to label them all, and above all don't try to stop them. I know your mind is screaming, you can't stop thoughts if you don't 'do' anything. My only response is that this method works. Generally this is most easily done during meditation, but any time will work. Probably need to spend minimum 20 minutes a day to meet your aggressive schedule. You indicate you are in a hurry, I expect you will see short periods without the mind (monkey) chatter within a few months. Not sure a permanent fix can be had by most people in under a few years.

I see compulsion in the category of not being present. In compulsion, one is driven to action by something that is not part of self. Its not much different than acting out of habit. I don't have a big dispute about teaching though I think providing lessons is far more effective. I totally agree that not all beings are called to teach. The push to teach what you know is largely a misunderstanding of what it means that we are all connected or all one. As far as I know bliss is a state or an experience, not part of one's nature.

First, I want to applaud your willingness to own your experience in public. Sounds like a really major breakthrough. It is clear that not all the implications have become apparent to you. Some unsolicited comments: -bliss is mostly a dead end, not a part of continued spiritual development -the compulsion to be a teacher is an indication of not fully 'being' -there is no need to continue as a human being, to remain in the manifest part of reality you only need be functional -you might look into miracles, this is how those acting directly from their inner divine appear in this world.

First most of these don't even suggest Demonic encounters let alone Possession. This might suggest that Jesus is a 'way' towards relieving/avoiding 'negative spiritual experiences'. That in no way suggests the new ager or occult practices led to those 'negative spiritual experiences' in the first place. When people get in trouble, they tend to call out to anyone/anything they think might help. As Jesus is widely touted to help in such situations, its not surprising they invoke his name. I would bet that in non-Christian parts of the world the cries are to the local gods. This is pretty much like 1. A lot of people don't believe there is anything more than the physical existence. An NDE strongly suggests they have been completely naive. As such they panic and call out for immediate help to anyone they think might provide it. Entities tend to get hostile when anyone tries to cast them out. In fact most animals get hostile if you try to separate them from their food or their homes. Clearly you have not seen an exorcism done without enlisting Jesus. They are quite common in many parts of the world. Many people couldn't distinguish a vision from esp from telepathic intrusion. Entities are known to impart images in people minds (usually during dreams) as a means to bypass the normal protections and gain entry. Probably a few of the esp experience are actually 'borrowed' from possessing entities. More likely the ceasing of 'esp' is either no more manipulation by the entity or a self protection mechanism to avoid anything associated with their traumatic experience. It would not matter if esp had nothing to do with the original possession, only that it was similar in presentation. What??? I would also like you to clarify what you mean by 'Demonic'. Most Christian religions lump all unapproved of practices as 'Demonic'.

I feel you are confusing what you possess, what you own, what you identify with, and who you are (as a being). One can 'have' an apartment they call 'theirs'. That does not mean you possess it, or own it, it only means you are using it, perhaps having exclusive use of it. The same could apply to your body. Did you actually make that body? Or perhaps negotiate ownership? Or are you simply using it for now? So, when you buy (or make) a pen it becomes 'yours'. Do you then become in part a pen? One might argue that you are now a pen owner (not in part a pen). The situation is the same for your body. The issue of identity is harder to clarify. Identity is arbitrary and entirely under your control. You CAN think or perceive of 'yourself' as anything you want. In fact for the mostly realized choice of identity has some very real consequences in your experience (as does disbanding identity). However, your identity is your concept about who you are, not who you are. Yes it greatly affects how you perceive things and how you act in the world/reality. It does not however establish your inner nature. In other words, identity does not override the qualities that make up who you are. For example are you generous because you identify with a body or because that is the nature of your essence?

In order to benefit from most material things, one must take care of them. Disconnecting, more accurately disregarding, your body or your car has consequences on the material life you experience. Most of the 'purposes' one might have for living as being human for a time requires a functional body. In some parts of the world having a car also has significant impact on the experiences of your life. That does not require that you include your car in your identity (though you may choose to). Similarly, one need not include your body in your identity either.

Most 'people' are actually souls (having a human experience). One doesn't have to 'be' in 'existence' (manifest reality) to have presence as a being.

Wow, you seem to know every single Satsang poster on YouTube. I find this hard to believe.

Both detachment and presence (full engagement/immersion) are important to spiritual development. Together they are more valuable yet. Obviously not all 'paths' teach both. That speaks to the incompleteness of various paths. It does not matter if you learn them from separate paths, the same path, or on your own.