Pure identification then with the universe. For eleven years, you were identified with the absolute. Now you say ‘I am ...’, you made a shift to the universe, only the subject of identification changed.

Finally you are saying: ‘I am this very material universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being’ which is equivalent to ‘I am this very material universe experiencing itself as this thoughtful flesh-and-blood body simply brimming with sense organs, delighting in this sensuous world of actual experience’. Is this not one identification with the universe? Instead like other stating that they are the higher self or Atman and are identified with it, or with the universal consciousness, you have identify your self with the universe. ‘I am the universe ...’ you say. If this is not identification what the heck it is?

Richard, although I can easily understand what you mean by giving up the Self (God, or Universal Presence, no matter the name) I still don’t see how when there’s no ‘me’ plus no Self, how you can think of yourself as Richard, like you do. How a [flesh and blood] body by itself has sense of entity? How can [it] think? Is not this phenomena of a consciousness arising from a ‘body’ and remaining localized there, pointing to some kind of ‘me’ – or ‘I’ – again? * How you Know (capital) you are not again into another suggestion game (self hypnosis), a game of ‘imagining actual freedom’ and so?

This is a very valuable example of the efficiency the exercise of the world view called actualism, specifically, the act of transcending experience, splitting in two, and asking the then imagined self: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’

If you were enlightened as you declare for 11 years, that means that you supposed to have lost your self 11 years ago because I never heard about a person being enlightened genuinely and have a self. But the way you write in the web site, you give the impression that you lost your self through actual freedom. That proves that you were not enlightened but in one state of illusion. If so, why you continue to say that you were enlightened for 11 years? Are you calling the illusion enlightenment? How you know you are not in an altered state of consciousness?