Joseph Maynor

Released in 1972. What a great remaster! This album needed this kind of a remaster. I can hear things in this version I never heard before. Nice and loud! Ian Gillan – vocals Ritchie Blackmore – guitar Jon Lord – Hammond organ Roger Glover – bass Ian Paice – drums

When I first heard this excellent remaster I was like this is the way this album is supposed to sound.

This might trigger some people, but if the Self is nondual, saying it's the witness might be a pointer not a truth. Nonduality would go beyond the real vs./and unreal duality. Every pointer is going to be expressed dualistically.

"Upadesasahasri" by Shankara. I highly recommend reading this! https://estudantedavedanta.net/Sri_Shankaracharya-Upadeshasahasri - Swami Jagadananda (1949) [Sanskrit-English].pdf

The Vivekachudamani -- I enjoyed devouring this work. http://www.vivekananda.net/PDFBooks/Vivekashudamani.pdf

The Self knows itself through a non-pointing direct knowing. We might call that realization. The Self realizes itself. I want to say realizes itself from within, but that's a pointer too. The Self can know itself directly. You don't need a subject-object duality to know the Self. The Self doesn't need a thought to know the Self. It's the "I Am" that is not a thought. This is just a pointer obviously: It's the mirror realizing -- I ain't anything in the mirror, nor do I need anything in the mirror to realize that I am the mirror. The mirror is a part of everything reflected in the mirror but none of those reflections affect or impact the mirror.

What you and I are is the Self (assuming you're like Me). This has to catch for advaita vedanta to work. Atman is Brahman. Maya doesn't exist, but it's not harmful to the Self. How could it be? How could what appears in the mirror threaten the mirror itself? Getting this I think is useful. It has to be "realized". It's not an intellectual grasping. You know what I'm talking about. You don't have to sweat what's happening in the mirror, because if you are, you're identifying on some level with ego.

"You" can write and still realize that's not the Self. This is an issue of identifying with the ego vs. identifying with the Self. You're mixing these.

"Talks with Ramana Maharshi". https://www.amazon.com/Talks-Ramana-Maharshi-Realizing-Happiness/dp/1878019007

Realize you're the mirror not what's reflected in the mirror. Then let the reflection in the mirror be without thinking it hurts the mirror. You don't need to react to what's in the mirror if you realize you're the mirror itself. Let talk happen, just realize it's not the Self. The Self doesn't need to kill talk to be the Self.

In terms of Enlightenment talk, this is actually kind of funny, but also good too. https://wildsimplejoy.com/what-is-spiritual-enlightenment/

Apocalypse Now

American Beauty

Abre Los Ojos (This is the movie Vanilla Sky tried to recreate, but you gotta watch this version with English subtitles)

The Wicker Man (the original not the new one)

Magnolia

That spooky I thought. I guess we better burn it at the stake!

Understood. But what is this @Phil character saying what's what to other separate selves? Let's dig a little deeper. Give us a good answer here. I know what you're gonna say but still. Don't hold back. Have fun. Create.

@Phil What are your beliefs?

Oh my God, I've died and gone to Heaven. What a fantastic remaster. This album needed a remaster so badly. One of my favorite albums. I can hear sounds in this version of the album I never heard before.

I Heart Huckabees

Relative means the human (the world of ego and the finite self). Absolute means the Divine (the Infinite Self). You can get to the point on the path where you're not putting relative truth in the shadow. but you also realize it's not true. Then you can embody the absolute while also playing around with the relative. There's nothing that needs to be burned at the stake in this experience. I understand what @Phil is teaching, but it's absolute only. He doesn't acknowledge the relative as existing or worthy of discussion. I've been at that place years ago now, but I kept that and then subsequently relaxed my attitude relating to taking the relative out of the shadow. You can actually hold the relative and the absolute at the same time, there's no bright-line conflict there. They are different too, everyone knows that. I know I'm so stupid right? Lol.

There's 2 answers that can be given, a relative one and an absolute one. The relative answer is not true, but it can be illuminating and useful.