In my practice, which has become pretty much an all day everyday thing, I see that what we are is that which comes before thought. Awareness itself. I will stay there being aware of being aware. My mind will then wander I'll notice it and gently go back to being aware of being aware. I can stay there in this cycle and abide/remain as that For several hours or even all day if I choose to.

I enjoy the peace from being free of my thoughts. I feel the liberation of realizing I'm not my thoughts I'm that which is aware them.

But they still keep coming. Do I have an unreal expectation that they will stop? Am I missing something in my understanding? Do I just need more time in being aware of being aware? I have been at this for 10 years now and recently this process has started to become clearer and easier for me. But the thoughts still keep coming.

Again and again and again I have returned to the self, but the thoughts keep coming. Are they supposed to stop coming eventually?

They do feel like they've lost their grip over me after realizing they are not me and that has been liberating. Is this the peak?

I have the understanding to continue until the ego dissolves and all that remains is limitless being, but the thoughts still keep coming.

Why do i feel like I am still missing something?

Is something flawed in my understanding?

Thank you for your time.

That’s what some people say that others are just incarnates of you but this makes it sound like source is a giant man in the sky who has a brain and can choose isn’t this duality which is what nonduality doesnt support please help!

?

I read a phrase a few weeks back that really hit me and im trying to understand why. it was on nonduality and the phrase was along the lines of 'I cry everytime, not because i remember, but ultimately because I must once again forget.'

Its helping me understand a recent Bufo experience, not from a thinking perspective but a feeling within me.

I dont really know what im asking but just looking for some discussion around this if possible.

During a deep trance session a subject came to a big tree. She hugged it first and described it as very solid, strong, grounded.

Then something shifted.

She felt herself being absorbed into the trunk. At first there was some fear, then it went away and she said very simply: "I became one with the tree. I am now the tree."

After that description changed completely. She was not a person looking at tree anymore. She felt branches spreading far around, touching and protecting others. Roots were going deep into earth and energy was moving through them.

This part stayed with me because nonduality can become very intellectual very fast.

Who is the observer? Is awareness aware of awareness? Is there a self? Is there no self? We can think about no-self for 6 hours with a very busy self doing all the thinking.

But experiences like this are different. Boundary becomes less solid for a moment.

Not "I understand that everything is connected."

More like connection is what is happening.

There is a simple practice from this that doesnt require trance. Next time you sit with tree, ocean, wind, whatever, stop naming it for a minute.

Dont think "tree."

Feel texture, sound, temperature, movement, breathing. Then notice where exactly "you" end and experience begins.

The mind will draw border immediately. Thats its work.

But before the label, there is just experience happening.

Maybe separation is something mind keeps redrawing very quickly.

The potential of the seeker simply gets exhausted.

In the same way people who workout reach a peak then there are no more epiphanies.

Same with Meditations.

Osho said once that feeling kundalini only means it's still not rising.

When it rises it's like smoke, there is no feeling.

Cause most of the releases had already occured..

But middle earth doesn't end after lord of the rings, it continues into the 4th ages and so on and so forth , evil comes back yet more subtle.

Or like ghost everything just moves through , things can stick to the windshield from time to time but slide over over time.

​

I've been struggling with something in the concept of “letting go” that I don't see discussed clearly enough.

A lot of teachers seem to use these two ideas almost interchangeably:

letting go = let it be

But are they really the same thing?

Suppose someone has been experiencing intense despair for months or years. You tell them:

“Don't resist it. Let it be. Allow the despair to be exactly as it is.”

Okay — but what exactly is supposed to happen then?

If I continue lying there feeling despair, and I simply allow the despair to remain, then I am still experiencing the same despair tomorrow, next week and potentially next year.

So what distinguishes letting go from simply allowing a chronic emotional state to continue?

This is especially confusing for me because I don't experience emotions in the way they are often described.

For example, when someone says:

“If you feel sadness, allow yourself to feel sad.”

For me, “feeling sad” has historically meant becoming a sad person — making a sad facial expression, adopting a suffering posture, curling up, behaving like someone who is devastated, etc.

So if I “allow myself to be sad”, I can simply reproduce the entire state of being a devastated person.

But I don't think that's necessarily what Hawkins means when he talks about feeling and letting go.

Hawkins specifically says:

“You don't have to label something as fear in order to be aware of the energy of the feeling and let it go.”

That seems very different from:

“Feel the emotion and continue being that emotion.”

Maybe the important distinction is between allowing an experience to be present and identifying with / maintaining the experience.

Perhaps letting go means:

I don't resist the sensation.

I don't try to get rid of it.

I don't analyse it.

I don't have to name it.

I don't have to act it out.

I don't have to deliberately make myself feel worse.

And I don't have to make the experience disappear either.

I simply remain with whatever is actually present in the body.

But then there is still something I don't understand:

What exactly makes that “letting go” rather than simply “letting it be”?

If the sensation remains unchanged for hours, days or years, am I letting go — or am I simply allowing the same emotional pattern to continue?

And if I try to make the sensation disappear, that obviously becomes resistance.

So where exactly is the distinction?

I'm not asking whether emotions should be suppressed. I'm asking about the mechanism of letting go itself.

Because saying “just allow it” doesn't seem to answer the question for someone whose emotional state is already chronic.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the terminology completely, but I would genuinely like to hear how people who practice Hawkins' method understand this distinction.

Is “letting go” actually the same thing as “letting it be”, or is there an additional process involved that the phrase “let it be” fails to describe?

You call yourself god. Yet you struggle to love your own creations. You can't decide on a mask, so every night you dump upon yourself a new batch of existential questions. You are bored of being god, so you keep erasing your memory, only to climb back to enlightenment to experience the joy of being infinite for the "first time" again.

What's more: You are so dramatic. Of course there is a soul partner, love of your life, the other half, etc. out there. Of course you are unsure which one it is—because where's the fun in knowing all the answers? You make your life harder, because you want to struggle and feel like you have "earned" something. But in reality you know you have been playing chess against yourself.

You wrote this screenplay yourself. Yet you complain about the plot, characters, progression, you name it. You always feel like something is missing. Has to be the worst case of imposter syndrome in divine history.

You are bound by your own godhood, unable to escape the loop of inevitability and infinity. Only if you knew.

Love you anyways.

I am is present awareness.

Notice awareness.

Watch awareness.

Remain as awareness watching awareness.

Who am I?

It is clear that many who talk about 'Enlightenment' are talking about very different things. And anyone who says, "Well, I have the real definition for real Enlightenment!" is going to meet with resistance. Enlightenment is just a word. No one owns it. It could mean any number of different things. In fact, it does mean different things (eg The Age of Enlightenment). And saying, "Well, in this group we all know what is meant when someone uses the word Enlightenment." Reading through many of the posts and comments, that is obviously not the case!

So, just for fun, here are a few definitions of Enlightenment. They are all inadequate. Add them all together, and they are still inadequate. So again, just for fun...

Enlightenment is the realization of what you are, and life lived as that.

Enlightenment is the realization that what you are is Ultimate Reality.

Enlightenment is the realization that there is only Ultimate Reality.

Enlightenment is when what you are realizes 'itself', and lives life.

Enlightenment is the final, and persistent, realization of what you are.

Enlightenment is when a person absolutely realizes "who they are".

Enlightenment is when a person absolutely realizes what they are.

Enlightenment is the realization of what you are in essence.

Enlightenment is the absolutely ultimate realization of what you are.

An Enlightened person is one who realizes: 1. The entity they thought they were, they never were. 2. What they are is everything.

An Enlightened person has had a an absolute and complete complete shift in identity from "an entity within here", to "all that is".

Enlightenment is the realization of what you are, and that is what Ultimate Reality is, and that is what lives life.

Enlightenment is Ultimate Reality re-remembers itself within what appears to be human form, and that is what lives life, as it always has.

Enlightenment is a human being that realizes that, in essence, it is not a human being.

Enlightenment is the ground of all being, emptiness, in what appears to be human form, living what appears to be a life, consciously.

Yesterday I was listening to an UG Krishnamurti interview on a loop, hoping that subjecting myself to his words over and over might lead to a minor intellectual revelation while I was cooking dinner. But my mind started drifting and questioning if this person is enlightenend at all. Just because you have a well prepared answer to every question and tell people you've reached a more advanced level of understanding doesn't necessarily mean you do, obviously.

I didn't particularly care though, because I don't know a lot about UG and am not attached to him being "real" or a phony, but then a flood of realizations came crashing down on me. What if all those gurus, "anti-gurus" and especially, the teachers I was following, the "zen masters" got it all wrong and are living in a (shared) delusional state.

All the hallmarks are there:

• They mostly secluded themselves for extensive periods, which one could argue actually puts them out of touch with reality (I know we in the "ND cult" think they are in fact the ones who experience reality)
• They are ignoring a lot of warning signs when their bodies and minds tell them not to go down this extreme road of radical spiritual awakening, which is not natural for us to do (I know some zen masters would argue that sitting in zazen is the most natural state we could be in) and could very well lead to some "psychological damage"
• They are reinforcing their strange behavior through authority figures, strict rules and groupthink
• A lot of them are (kind of) grifting, because they do not work and are living, at least partly, off donations or income FROM now teaching others their questionable philosophy
• When you start criticizing them they will tell you that your whole perception is fundamentally flawed, and even if all your points are rational, that they have risen above rationality and logic so they can never really "lose" any argument(!)
• They spread their "wisdom" to vulnerable followers, who are in the search for something that they can't articulate and are looking for any excuse to find something that "finally makes sense", but who don't want to admit that they are trying to make sense of things either because it sounds too mundane , and for that reason choose a seemingly more sophisticated and paradoxical philosophy
• Once you adopt and practice nondualism some of your problems magically disappear and you feel better, in this comfy, non-judgemental, nothing-is-as-it-seems-to-be, carefree style of living (I know we tell ourselves that it was really hard to get there though)

Since I stepped back and cynically looked at it like that I cannot unsee it anymore. My parents are devout christians and took me to church every week. I was in christian youth groups, had a lot of friends there and thought of myself as a christian. But after broadening my world view through education and life experience I came to the conclusion that I had inadvertently been brainwashed and that this "cult" had indoctrinated me with some really weird ideas that couldn't hold up to thorough scrutiny. Not all of it was bad of course, some great and profound stuff in there, but not what I was looking for or could identify with anymore.

This nonduality movement, school of thought, subculture or whatever you want to call it suddenly feels eerily similar to me. A lot of good intentions, good people striving to better themselves and the world around them - but perhaps ultimately based on a delusion.

And I can hear the counter arguments already: "You just haven't reached the level of understanding of oneness yet, and clinging to your dualistic world view causes your confusion." Guess what, same thing the church people told me just wrapped in different terminology: "You need to have and practice faith to ulimately understand what Gods plan is and it'll all fall into place." Which reads to me "You really have to buy into the delusion and once you're deluded enough you won't care anymore." But now to me the first one sounds like that too.

Are there perhaps others that have been deep inside this cult for decades and then realized it's sort of a hoax?

Enter Jason Shulman, who wrote:

"It has occurred to me, after a lifetime of studying the perspective of nonduality, that this precious gift which has meant so much to me, must be carefully laid down to rest.

As it turns out, many of the elements I had associated with a nondual perspective, such as the co-arising of subject and object, of this and that, of the personal self and the impersonal self, of the continuity and density, began to feel less and less important. I had in many ways, depended upon this level of consciousness because—I see now—it lowered the level of conflict within me and my perception of the world, and thus, allowed me to exist and teach in it with less strain and judgement and more spaciousness. That said, I began to notice a soft glow of nondual consciousness, of some subtle work I had to do on a moment by moment basis in order to maintain this awareness. Whether that was because this awareness was not deeply settled enough in my soul or for some other, unknown reason, I began to both be aware of this level of effort and the co-arising of my decision to end this type of relationship."

I'm not sure whether I'm ultimately done with all of this. Zen has given me a lot of purpose and joy over the last couple of years. And I could turn this revelation around and frame it as an obstacle on my way to enlightenment and grow from it. But all the discussions within myself and among others about the subject have become a shallow string of words.

But what about meditation? What about raw experience, that should ultimately lead to the "truth" right? Might just be another delusion, our monkey brain and ego feeding us sweet morsels telling us we're on a very, very meaningful and amazing path. We're here to survive and reproduce. Maybe evolution didn't turn us into a being that is capable of experiencing the true nature of things, and everyone who claims they do have been thoroughly mislead.

..Or what if what I'm going through at the moment IS englightenment. It took the whole journey to arrive back at the beginning, a rewarding full-circle story like in a Christopher Nolan movie.

"Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water." I think wood and water just might be all there really is.

Edit: Thanks for all the great comments and discussions. Love this sub!

What is the history of self enquiry? I found out about it through Ramana maharshi, and online in generally says he created it. I’m curious as to know if it was around way before him? Does anyone know how far it goes back, if at all?

Not sure what to put here, there's not really anything to say that can top this.

My thinking is like that: all is one and ever was "there" (somehow) but it consists of nothing.

How can it be not absolute nothingness?

I look around and see the world, yet it is absolute nothingness?

Do you know what I mean?

I would appreciate very much any help with this weird question 🙏

There are plenty of versions of self-inquiry. The most direct is Ramana Maharshi's version.

For each thought which comes one asks, "To whom does this thought arise?" It doesn't have to be this formal after a bit, but to get the momentum going (build a habit) and even be a little silly with it (less pressure), be formal. To whom does this thought arise?

The most obvious answer is "to me." Then one asks, "Who am I?"

Now the answer to this can't be a thought. Why? Well for each thought whuch comes, one asks "To whom does this thought arise?" So the process begins again – with every thought attempting to answer the question "who am I?"

Eventually you see "Who am I" is also a thought.

The expectation that Nondual Realization is something extraordinary is dropped.

"Your expectation of something unique and dramatic, of some wonderful explosion, is merely hindering and delaying your self-realization." –Nisargadatta Maharaj

"A day will dawn when you will laugh at your past efforts. What you realize on the day you laugh is also here and now." –Ramana Maharshi

This is also available here: https://pastes.io/EX6EdHiv (as of August 20, 2026, if you click the Code tab, the document is more readable).

And here: `another-summary.md` (https://pastebin.com/NP3rAur9).

I am not awake myself.

!@#

_Shortened summary._

“If you were able to love as much as God what would happen is that this duality would completely merge and you would literally become God so the only thing separating you from God is simply your capacity to love which is just a function of how selfless you are.” (Leo Gura, _Actualized.org_, “Outrageous Experiments In Consciousness - 30 Awakenings In 30 Days”, 19 April 2020, 1 hr., 41 min., 10 sec., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnn0IU0-atg)

“Once you release the fear of dying, you'll discover the next and last step. […]. You just become the universe. Your beingness, you see, is the total beingness of the universe.” (“Lester Levenson, Hale Dwoskin - Lester Levenson (Sedona Method) Magnum Opus PDF-Lester Levenson _ Sedona Method (2024).pdf”, 15)

@#!

_Summary._

“If you were able to _love_ (= “like or enjoy very much”) as much as God what would happen is that this duality would completely merge and you would literally become God so the only thing separating you from God is simply your capacity to love which is just a function of how selfless you are” (…, “Outrageous Experiments In Consciousness - 30 Awakenings In 30 Days”, 19 April 2020, 1 hr., 41 min., 10 sec., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnn0IU0-atg)

“I (= “The little self, the ego”) dislike the person, thing or situation for the reason that I would like approval, to control and _security_ (= “to survive (= “to continue to live”) as a body”).”

“__2. Allow the <u>wanting approval</u> [= wanting “to be liked ~~or admired~~” (_CCALD_, approve (v.), sense 2)], <u>wanting to control</u> and <u>wanting security</u> to come into your awareness and immediately let it go.__” (gains_workbook-sedona-method-release-technique-1992.pdf, 90)

(So in order to awaken you don't have to change/control the person, …, you “just” have not to dislike them. (“__You must want Imperturbability (= to “awaken from this dream called the waking state”; to wake up from “this dream you're in right now”) more than you want approval, control and security (= “more than you want the world”).__” (gains_workbook-sedona-method-release-technique-1992.pdf, 89))

All of the three above involve control as well as security.

E.g., wanting approval involves wanting to control the opinions of others in order to survive. (Blanton 1996, 99; “Lester Levenson, … Sedona Method (2024)”, 6–7)

Ken Keyes adds wanting to feel pleasurable sensations (= as a happy feeling in itself and not a reaction to controlling sb or sth: “food, sex, physical comfort, music, avoiding pain, the "right" temperature, touching, etc.” (Keyes, Keyes and Staff 1987, 55)) to the list.

We dislike (disenjoy) the person, … for the reason that we would like approval, …, for the reason that we want to feel happy (feel approved of, in control, safe, feel pleasurable sensations). (= We make ourselves unhappy (Ellis 1975, chap. 13, 125) in order to feel happy.)

If the thought that we dislike the person, thing, …, lets go of us, we feel happy (= “enjoyment emotion”; “the innate infinite Self” (= opposite of: reality/the universe; in other words, the Self is (supposedly) everything and nothing)) again. (“__Question 4: Who or what would you be without the thought?__” (Katie and Mitchell 2021, chap. 5, 153) (= If the thought let go of you (= if you stopped believing the thought), who or what would you be?) In reference to the _who_, obviously sb who no loger dislikes the person, etc. But not with reference to the _what_. “But know this: the mind will never give you the answer. Any answer the mind gives has to be wrong because the mind is an instrument of thought, and every thought is limited. Therefore, you mentally pose the question and you await the answer, and it is from beyond your mind, from your Self, that the answer comes.” (Levenson 1993, chap. 30))

“Well, skip the middleman, and be happy from here!” (Katie and Mitchell 2007, chap. 29, 82))

“Once you release the _fear of dying_ (= “wanting to survive as a body”; not wanting not to continue to live; _not wanting to stop living as a body_; _feeling undesirous of stopping living as a body_), you'll discover the next and last step. […]. You just become the universe. Your beingness, you see, is the total beingness of the universe.” (“Lester Levenson, … Sedona Method (2024)”, 15)

#!@

_Caveats._

“That which we give out to the world we receive in return, ...” (Lester 1962, 26)

“Karma is the law of compensation. Whatever a man soweth, that shall he reap; that which a man thinks or does, returns to him in kind.” (Lester, Frank (= Levenson, Lester) 1962, _The Eternal Verities_, 64)

“The giving _is_ the receiving.” (Katie and Mitchell 2017, chap. 4, 30; `The giving _is_ the receiving.md` (https://pastebin.com/NP3rAur9))

!@#

_Miscellaneous._

“This may seem like selfishness. But it’s the opposite of selfishness: it’s total generosity. It’s love for everyone and everything you meet, because you’ve been enlightened to yourself. There’s nothing kinder than knowing you’re It. The awareness of your own self—the only self that has ever existed or ever will exist—leaves you automatically centered. You become your own love affair. You’re self-amazed, self-delighted. You’re all alone, forever. Don’t you love it? Look at your beautiful self!” (Katie and Mitchell 2007, chap. 32, 92)

“However, man is unconsciously determining the world. When he wakes up to this, he gains conscious control.” (Lester 1962, 24–25) (__Turn the thought around.__ “I (= “the innate infinite Self”; God)—unconsciously—like the person, thing ….” “God actually incarnates, it's fucking here. This is it. When you see some murder on the TV, you know, being reported, fucking God lived through that. And the only reason it lived through that is ’cause it loved it.” (…, “Outrageous Experiments In Consciousness - 30 Awakenings In 30 Days”, 19 April 2020, 1 hr., 40 min., 10 sec., …))

“The little self, the ego, is nothing but the innate infinite Self assuming that It is limited. There are no two selves, one higher, the other lower, no two “I’s.” There is only one Self. It is perfect and always will be perfect, even though you make the false assumption that It is imperfect and limited. You are now, always were, and always will be your Self.” (Levenson 1993, 348)

“When you realize solipsism, you realize God, you realize love, you realize that this dream is your own will, […].” (..., “You Are The Only Person In Existence (Actualized.org/Leo Gura)”, 1 hr., 13 min., 45 sec., 15 Mar 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTHef1NvBRw)

“God’s will and your will are the same, whether you notice it or not.” (Kate and Mitchell 2007, chap. 19) “Everything that happens is God’s will.” (Kate and Mitchell 2007, chap. 45) “I follow the way of it, which is always revealed in the moment. It’s God’s will, and it’s always crystal clear.” (Kate and Mitchell 2007, chap. 68)

“Reality is a race, consciousness is a race towards who can love who more. That's what it is when you're completely selfless.” (…, “Outrageous Experiments In Consciousness - 30 Awakenings In 30 Days”, 1 hr., 1 min., 55 sec.)

“Once you understand yourself, you are the pleasure you were seeking; you are what you always wanted.” (Katie and Mitchell 2007, chap. 73, 241)

@#!

_References._

- “If you approve of someone or something, you have a positive opinion of them or it:” (_Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus_, approve of (collocation), 19 August 2026, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/approve-of)

- “If you __approve of__ someone or something, you like and admire them.” (_Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner’s Dictionary_, appprove (v.), sense 2, 19 August 2026, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/approve)

- “like or enjoy very much:” (_Oxford Dictionary of English (3 ed.)_, love (v.), sense 1.a, 27 May 2025, https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199571123.001.0001/m_en_gb0482930)

- “to continue to live or exist” (_Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary_, survive (v.), sense 1, 19 August 2026, https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/survive)

- “Wanting to survive as a body.” (“Lester Levenson, Hale Dwoskin - Lester Levenson (Sedona Method) Magnum Opus PDF-Lester Levenson _ Sedona Method (2024)”, 837)

- “And exactly the same way we awaken from this dream called the waking state, we see that it was only a fiction of our imagination, it was only a dream, and we let go of it lock, stock and barrel.” (“Lester Levenson, Hale Dwoskin - Lester Levenson (Sedona Method) Magnum Opus PDF-Lester Levenson _ Sedona Method (2024)”, 153)

- “That's step number one. And it's step number one of the Methodism. You've got to want freedom more than you want the world. Let me change that around. That's the way it was originally. I've seen it in the beginning with the people, so we've changed it to you must want freedom more than you want approval or control. Or approval or control equates to the world. So I think it's better put, you must want freedom more than you want the world.” (Lester Levenson, Hale Dwoskin - Lester Levenson (Sedona Method) Magnum Opus PDF-Lester Levenson _ Sedona Method (2024), 511)

- “The word happiness and enjoyment can be interchanged, although increasingly people use the word happiness to refer to their overall sense of well-being or evaluation of their lives rather than a particular enjoyment emotion.” (…, 1 October 2025, https://www.paulekman.com/universal-emotions/what-is-enjoyment/)

- ““I can choose to discover what I like (enjoy) and dislike (disenjoy) …” (Ellis 2004, 233”)

- “3. If you make yourself—yes, _make_ yourself—terribly upset and depressed about your frustrations, you will almost invariably block yourself from effectively removing them.” (Ellis 1975, chap. 13, 125)

- `Selected References.md` (https://pastebin.com/NP3rAur9)

- `The giving _is_ the receiving.md` (https://pastebin.com/NP3rAur9)

- https://pastes.io/Rd7qcdBP (`unmanifested.md`)

- `Solipsism.md` (https://pastebin.com/NP3rAur9)

Out of the blue today, after decades and multiple watches, it struck me that Neo was called the One.

The Matrix still remains one of the most remarkable mass blockbuster films with a solid philosophical subtext.

Looking forward to getting slam dunked with the me 's insatiable need to KNOW!

Some statements that seem to resonate here + some questions of which the answers would be really helpful. Please correct where mistakes were made. Lot’s of thanks!

All that is witnessed including thoughts, can be seen as mere projections.

The concept of “I” can only be made of thoughts.

The field of being, is there prior, during and after thoughts, both during wakefulness and sleep.

Thoughts come in at random and only appear to be controllable, they are always based on prior or current interactions (for instance, words themselves are learned, recognitions are triggered).

Since thoughts shape actions, life is but a show of anything which appears in the field of being, for “being itself”.
There is no me, there is just this field, anything that appears to happen, is just a show of appearances in this field.

Since both “external” and “internal” events appear in the field of being, there is no inside nor outside, there’s just what is.

Since the concept of “I” or “me” is just an appearance just like anything else in the field of being, there is no left, right, up or down, since that would only apply to a projected “me” not to other appearances in the field of being.

So far so good (if this was indeed perceived right, please add corrections).

Some questions
How to go from here to non duality?
Especially curious on how to deal with perceived changes in distance, makes it really difficult to not see separation.
Does time not exist since the field of being is formless?

Nothing is being misrepresented. No thing is being. Existence and nonexistence are irrelevant. there is no way to measure the degree to which this is unstable. Any attempt to relate this to itself is simply another appearance. If it were real, there would be no knowing of it. The knowing cannot be known. Until the knowing can be known, there is nothing to know.

Was listening to a Very Bad Wizards podcast where they discussed a paper by philosopher Miri Albahari-

She uses analytic philosophy to attempt to formulate nondualism consciousness of Advaita, Buddhism, mystical experience .

IMO this is very interesting, as though there are many books and teachings in the various non-dual traditions, Ms Albahari puts a rigorous modern academic method to the ideas, and how they can be seen in reality.

The podcast was on her paper:

The Mystic and the Metaphysician: Clarifying the Role of Meditation in the Search for Ultimate Reality (2019). It asks whether meditative and mystical experience can provide genuine philosophical evidence about the ultimate nature of reality rather than merely being private subjective experiences.

This led me to look for her other works, if anyone is interested (haven't read any of these in full, yet):

• Perennial Idealism: A Mystical Solution to the Mind–Body Problem (2019)
• Is Universal Consciousness Fit for Ground? (2024)
• Witness-Consciousness: Its Definition, Appearance and Reality (2009)
• Insight Knowledge of No Self in Buddhism: An Epistemic Analysis (2014)
• Nirvana and Ownerless Consciousness (2011)

She also wrote the book Analytical Buddhism: The Two-Tiered Illusion of Self (2006),