Sorry to see you are again less certain of your own development. Fear not. The thing is much simples than you may imagine. In fact, it is imagining itself that is your problem. But let's proceed to your latest post
I am afraid that today my mind is very confused: I am a sissi and as far as I understand the truly enlightened folks are "as dead as ducks" (Enlightenment is not for sissies).I have to absorb all kinds of words, concepts so that today the sky is again almost completely clouded. Maybe this is because I am now also reading your essays, which is too much at the time.>>
(M) May i just share with you that the first part of my book is for information purposes only. It is to explain many of the experiences the practitioner may encounter if they were to put into practice the suggestions explained in Part Two. The reason why I have done it in this sequence is to give the mind some material to work on and comprehend, so that when experience finally happens through practice, the mind does not offer all the kinds of resistances to new experience it usually does.
So, yes, read as much as you like. But be careful not to mistake the knowledge you get for the actual experience. Spiritual experience has nothing to do with knowledge. It may confirm some pre-conceived ideas in the process, but this would only be incidental. Quietness alone will take us to the place where we already are. I describe the processes by which I suggest this inner quietness may be revealed in considerable detail in Part Two. Don't confuse your already confused state more with too much further reading and gathering of information.
>>The quote you asked for is from your first book on page 77: “… free from the dualism observer/observed… just the present arising of WHAT IS.”>>
(M) Yes. I think the statement makes sense in the context in which it was mentioned.
>>However you continue (page 83,§3) with… “out there” which you seem to accept as another place than the brain!>>
(M) I mentioned before that I do not regard reality as a brain phenomenon alone. The truth is that experience is mystery. We cannot know what anything is. So to insist that all experience is of the nature of mind (brain?) is to assume that you know what experience is. I am happy to live with the mystery of that which my brain and thought cannot fathom or even remotely comprehend.
>> I was expecting again the real solution/description being WHAT IS. Why should you need a back pulse?? If I hit you, you shouldn’t hit me back for the both of us to know about the first hit? There is no “out there”, but only a construction of the mind.>.
(M) Once you have decided that everything is 'a construction of mind' you are lost in the very construction you presume to be a creation of mind. There is absolutely nothing in present experience to which you can point and state categorically that the tree you see is a construction of mind. Things happen to us, and we do not, and cannot know, their origin. We can only speculate about it, and as i said before, I am not great on speculation.
>>On the quantum mechanical level(it is the most precise and effective science today: computers and laser are important applications) it has been proven that space (and time) does not exist.>>
(M) In my experience, space and time do exist. Here i refer to space as it appears to me as integral to my present experience, and time, both on the clock and as psychological memory. Beyond that, time and space are not my concern. And if physics proclaim that these do not exist, well, that is what physics say. How does this matter in any way effect the clouds that you cannot remove from your confused state? Are there not more relevant questions for us to discuss other than to speculate about the existence or not of space and time? Is this really our problem? Our human problem of suffering? Is this the level where our confusion and discontent manifest?
>>Next time I can explain in simple terms if you are interested. (I had my education with nuclear physics and professionally I was involved for more than 30 years in the field of electrochemistry-R&D). So just right now for a general understanding of the term "electrochemical impulse", this should be understood as follows: it is the charge transfer between “conceptual” electrons, ions and molecules. If you want to I can further detail in a next message.>.
(M) I really appreciate your kind offer to explain these things to us. But, please allow me to decline your offer. As I said, my sense is that we have so much more important things to talk about with regard our human situation and how to live with some measure of elegance, freedom from mind, and plain human-heartedness.
>>In the last sentence from your today's reply, it seems as if you are aware of alternative effective ways to uncover ourselves, which are?>>
(M) I think these matters are well explained in my books.
>>Are you aware of the Science and nonduality conferences? This year it is about sense perception (in the Netherlands, end of May).>>
(M) No, I am not. Would you kindly forward a link to their website so i may pay t a visit.
>>Finally, what is your ambition: just being at peace yourself or in addition trying to bring peacefulness to as much as possible other people?>>
(M) I am falling ever deeper into the well of my own clarity and humanity. So, in this regard there is no ambition. This inevitably stirs me to look for ways to be of help where i may be needed.
Hand in hand,