Transcript: A Conversation with Andrew Hewson and Davidya Buckland on Brahman Stage Plus

Andrew: Peace and love everyone. Welcome. My name is Andrew Hewson. I’m a spiritual teacher. I’m here with my friend David “Davidya” Buckland. David is someone that I highly admire and revere. He is an author. He has a blog, Davidya.ca, where he writes about the subject of spiritual realization, how that relates to psychology and science, and how that shows up in daily life.

We’ve been having talks for about a year now, and this talk is the third talk of a series where we’re specifically going over the stages of realization, the stages of unfoldment. And David and I both love this subject. We speak about it quite often and we like to explore the details of how it shows up in different physiologies, the various possibilities, so on and so forth. So we have different ways of speaking about it and come from a different context, and so as we come together we witness a complementary overview of this graced process of enlightenment. So here we’re going to be talking about nothing, which is going to be an interesting discussion. So I really appreciate you taking the time again to be here with me today, David.

David: Oh, you’re more than welcome. I’m very happy that we’re doing these. There’s a lot of details that aren’t widely understood, and so it’s really good to bring them out.

I think probably first, we could set the stage a little bit, so in our prior talk, our prior talks, we talked first about Self-Realization and God Consciousness, about the initial awakening, and the unfoldment of refined perception and the awakening heart.

In the last conversation, we talked about the Unity shift and its Refined version.

And now we’re going to talk about the Beyond stage. It’s always interesting to talk about because it’s beyond the field of experience, so it’s beyond any qualities or normal reference points that anybody might have, and yet it’s very possible for it to be lived.

So essentially, in later stages of Unity, the Unity stage, oneness, we come to a point where the Self has come to know itself fully in some way. Now there’s various contexts we have or we bring to this, various perspectives we have or how it’s unfolding specifically, but the underlying process is consciousness comes to know itself fully in some way. And so there’s a consciousness aware of itself in this kind of a space and it’s always been looking in on itself. This wasn’t obvious at first and you know someone in Unity will tend to see consciousness as infinite and eternal and you know so the idea there’s something beyond that is a bit, seems a bit false. But at a certain point, that looking in on itself knows itself fully, and then it kind of turns and looks beyond itself. Now, it’s hard to say how that’s going to unfold exactly.

Another option, if there’s a full, Refined Unity stage unfolding, and a God-Realization, where there’s unification with our personal form of God, we discussed prior, then that’s kind of like, can be a climactic unification. And this, and, or consciousness, the conscious looking on itself, or however it unfolds, there’s a turning and looking beyond.

In the Vedic tradition, they refer to this as Brahman, which means the great, and it’s referred to as the great awakening because we’re essentially surrendering our prior enlightenment. It’s a pretty massive shift because before this, there’s a profound intimacy with everything because we are it, and that’s grown over a period of time, become greater and greater and greater, and it reaches a point where we transcend that.

And so, somewhat like in first Awakening, where we transcend the personal ego to become the cosmic Self, in this stage we’re transcending the cosmic Self to become Brahman, or it’s often referred to as “That” with a capital T in the Vedic texts.

And it’s describing it is an interesting paradox, because on the one hand, you have this collapse of all dualities, even these subtle dualities that were still present in Unity, of conscious, not conscious, existence, non-existence. These all collapse in Brahman, and so it’s this profound resolution of paradox, and yet to talk about it is completely paradoxical.

And it gets confused a lot. I’m using the term Brahman in a very specific way. There are places, there’s a Mahavakya, for example, that Atman equals Brahman. but that doesn’t mean they’re the same thing. It means that Atman has recognized that Atman is Brahman also.

A: Yeah, so just in that Atman and Brahman recognition, I’ll just sort of go back to our last discussion on Unity. I mentioned a stage which I referred to as Source Awareness, which is sort of what you call the taste of Brahman, prior to the full unfoldment of the unification of the masculine and feminine aspects of the Self or the Atman. And in that condition, the difference between what I refer to as Source Awareness and then the Void which is comparable to what you’re referring to as Brahman, is that the Self still remains fully present.

And not that it ever really disappears, but in that Source Awareness there appears to be this sort of equilibrium where we recognize this field of full light that is the Self, that is the Atman, and then also that unmanifest source or totality which it is shining from. Now I think that that condition is sort of where I recognize that statement that Atman is Brahman because they’re sort of held in an equilibrium and then at a later stage at least in the way that it unfolded here and in several other cases that I’ve seen, then that field of full light seems to disappear or become insubstantial and the no-thingness or the nothingness sort of comes into the foreground.

D: Yes, and it’s important here to distinguish terms a little bit too, to be very clear. You used the word Void for example, which is a very good word on one hand, but this is not to be confused with emptiness. Emptiness is a quality of space and that quality of consciousness being self-aware creates a subtle space and that can be experienced as either an emptiness or fullness in prior stages. But in this stage now we’re talking about a no-thingness, a void of things, a void of qualities.

A: Yes, beautiful. Yeah, that’s a great point. The word void refers to the total condition where of course we’re working within the limits of language so no word is really sufficient to describe it but it’s a non-spatial void, it’s an infinite void which is what you are, what the reality has recognized itself to be.

So it’s a total condition which seems to be a way that it actually, we recognize later after that condition is shifted out of, wasn’t the way that it seemed to be but subjectively it shows up as an infinite supreme voidness or nothingness, no-thingness.

D: Yes, and so for some people the initial Brahman shift can be quite high contrast. We go from being everything to being nothing. Yes. And sometimes what happens in initially as has happened here is that, what we’re conscious of is what’s fallen away, not so much about what’s here. Because Brahman is quite a bit more subtle than consciousness. Yes. And so there can be an initial stage where there’s a more conscious absence than something.

But then, just as consciousness is what knows consciousness, it’s Brahman that knows Brahman. We don’t discover Brahman through consciousness, we discover it through itself. And so there is this progressive progression into its self-discovery. I’ve also seen cases where people kind of came to the doorway, they were sort of, became conscious of something more, of the Brahman, but they were kind of like, “Oooh!” It’s like stepping off a cliff again, you know, it’s like, “Oh!” and they step back. And then they step to the doorway and then step back. And then when they finally made the shift, they kind of brought a little bit more with them. And so there was less of that, less of the sense of loss and more of a sense of what’s here now. Yeah. There’s a familiarization first.

A: Yeah, that’s a beautiful point, David. And it just reminds me about this sort of difference between nothingness with a lowercase n and Nothingness or Nothingness with a capital N. I was speaking with someone yesterday who’s in the first stage of nothingness we might say with a lowercase n where the superficial conceptual value of everything that has been projected onto the experiencing has sort of been removed. And so they’re in the initial stages and they’re still speaking in terms of nothingness but it’s referential to the labels. It’s referential to what seemed to be going on before. So people aren’t doing anything. The bodies aren’t doing anything. They’re doing nothing, right? They just think they’re doing something. And that stage [awakening] is much different from the stage we’re talking about here because we’re talking about it in terms of actual field value, nothingness or no-thingness, which is a big difference. There it’s referential, which includes of course form, because at that point there isn’t any sort of distinction between the field and the form anymore, or there’s a distinction, but there’s no duality after we’ve unfolded both aspects of conscious awareness.

But in this sort of initial shift there can be a sense of nothingness, but it’s not the nothingness that we’re referring to here. This is something that is an all-encompassing totality of no-thingness, which is really supreme. It has a supreme quality to it, at least until we sort of go beyond that.

D: Yes, there’s a… so as that integrates, there is a profound sense of totality to it, is how it’s often worded. It’s not the same wholeness that you had in the Unity stage. It becomes a totality, hence the Supreme or the Great.

And then we start to find there’s these fine qualities that are there, but they’re not qualities that are, now getting a little ahead of ourselves here I guess, but they’re not expressed qualities, but they’re like seeds of what become qualities.

And as it integrates, there’s kind of this interesting experience of, we know the world’s not there, not that it’s an illusion, but it was never created in the first place, and yet there it is to the senses, it’s experienced, the senses. And it’s not like, you know, the world is gone. It’s that the world never was created in the first place. So the sense of the world being an appearance becomes very distinct, as opposed to an illusion or as a divine play. And it’s, so there’s then this progressive integration.

And, in the prior stages, you were in Self-Realization, and then you were in Unity, or you went through a God Consciousness phase, and then Unity, or you were in each distinct phases. And when you were in Unity, it was hard to remember what the previous stage was like. But in Brahman, it has this totality to it, and it becomes inclusive of everything. Yes. So nothing has been created yet here it is.

The Brahman shift has happened and yet there’s the availability to reference Unity and to reference Self-Realization. Yeah. It becomes more inclusive of all of it.

A: Yeah that’s a really great point, David. It’s the way I see it and the way it showed up here is almost like that stage is sort of there outside of time, and you can go back to it when it is needed or you can drop into it according to the proximate environment that kind of calls it forth and its usefulness or sort of expression as service even, at least in the context of teaching or sort of being with someone that is in that stage, it doesn’t negate or take away from the totality shift, this sort of beyond conscious awareness shift, but it just allows for a greater flexibility to sort of tune into those infinite channels, TV channels as I like to call it.

D: Yes. Yeah, there’s a quote from Shankara, the sage Shankara. He said, “The world is unreal. only Brahman is real, the world is Brahman.” So you have this paradoxical kind of quote again, but the world appears to us because it is Brahman, not because it has reality in itself. So the world is unreal in itself, but as Brahman, it’s real because it’s Brahman. because that’s all that’s real. Yeah.

And the Manduka Upanishad said the knower of Brahman is Brahman itself. Again, what I said earlier, it’s Brahman that knows itself. We don’t know Brahman through consciousness, the self-interacting dynamics of consciousness. We know Brahman through Brahman, through being it. And it’s not that we have consciousness recognize there’s something beyond itself in that shift, but when that step takes place, it’s not consciousness that knows Brahman, it’s Brahman itself that knows Brahman. And so until you are Brahman or recognize you already have been, then Brahman can’t know itself.

Now sometimes people use Brahman to refer to samadhi or transcendence in meditation and the silence and so on like that. And you know, from the perspective of Brahman, that’s true, but prior to that it’s not really Brahman itself.

A: Yes, and it’s important also to note that there are certain teachers that use Brahman to refer to consciousness or conscious awareness, which is different from the way that you’re using it. And one famous teacher, Nisargadatta Maharaj, a non-dual Advaita Vedanta teacher, he referred to Parabrahman as what you’re referring to as Brahman. So he referred to beyond conscious awareness as Parabrahman. But actually, in the way you’re using it, Parabrahman is something totally, totally different. So just to clarify for the viewers, maybe privy to that languaging.

D: Yes, because Parabrahman means beyond Brahman, the term itself. Yeah, it’s interesting. Another distinction is in Unity, it’s a becoming process. Whatever we experience, we recognize we are and become. It’s this gradual progression of unification.

Brahman is kind of reverse. It’s said to devour. Whatever arises is recognized to be Brahman, and thus is recognized to be nothing.

A: Yeah, that’s a beautiful, extremely beautiful point. And it kind of goes back to that refinement of the Brahman knowing itself that you’re referring to earlier, which I would sort of contextualize a little bit differently from the term void or vacancy, supreme nothingness, but it’s essentially the same process.

One thing that shifts is from the space of being infinite conscious awareness, the value of unmanifest and manifest is really referential to the unmanifest value of the Self and its manifest value as the various layers of expressed appearance.

But what I found shifted when there’s a going beyond conscious awareness is that the recognition of unmanifest and manifest shifts as well. So now the light that before was seen to be unmanifest is actually recognized to be the manifest. So it moves from a field form, unmanifest manifest to a field field, unmanifest manifest. Now there’s the unmanifest field shining as the manifest field of light within which the whole play of the world is appearing.

And in that, in the Unity, Refined Unity, or what I refer to as Dynamic Subjectivity stage, there’s this thisness, thisness. You spoke about the word that, but in that full field vibrancy and that flowing fullness that is recognized itself, there’s this immediacy of the sense of thisness. And that shows up in the contrast between that and this, that is shining as this. So we have this infinite thisness within an infinite thatness.

And a part of that sort of devouring process, I would say is where the thisness sort of falls away in a certain sense, so that the thatness becomes more prominent. nd in that also the sort of fullness of the forms, the appearances of the thisness also begin to have more of a thatness as their recognition of what they are. So it’s that sense of devouring or revealing the total field and its content, and its form really to be made out of nothingness or no-thingness.

D: This also points to why Brahman is kind of the true non-duality that Shankara was speaking of. Sometimes people use the term in reference to Self-Realization, because there’s a kind of inner non-duality, but there’s a separate, perhaps illusory, world. But Unity is where you start to develop much more of that oneness, because everything becomes inclusive of it, and then you go beyond that, collapsing even those subtle dualities of Unity.

There’s another interesting detail too, known as Leisha avidya, the remains of ignorance. Essentially, there’s this, a bit of humanness required for Unity to function, and this becomes actually even more so in Brahman, because Brahman is a human living, Brahman Consciousness, the Brahman stage is a human living Brahman. Without that human living Brahman you don’t really have that Brahman stage. It needs a bit of a person to be able to express it. And of course, you know, talking about this and that and those kind of things.

It’s kind of the mind kind of goes off the rails a little there. It’s something you can’t figure out with the mind. Even someone in Unity stage, this isn’t going to make any sense to them because for them it’s all the Self and there is nothing else. Here we’re talking about something entirely different and yet the same. So yeah, it’s a very curious topic to talk about, and yet it’s very much something that we can live.

A: Yeah, it is something we can live in, and I think it is, I know it’s relevant to talk about because when I was, when these stages were unfolding here, you know, what I found was that there was a drawing to the stage, whatever material or teaching or sort of expression was coming from the stage that was was unfolding.

So it’s sort of had a deeper resonance with the laws of nature in that sort of impulse to continue or to unfold in a certain direction or directionless direction, if you will.

And so having that, the capacity to sort of hear what is beyond the mind, sort of filter through the mind, express itself in a way which is somewhat communicable, is helpful because it supports the unification and the integration of what’s happening on its own.

And of course, could never be brought about through listening to David and Andrew talk about something. But at the same time, what’s going on behind David and Andrew appearing to speak? And as we speak about that supreme no thingness, as we speak about that supreme thatness, Is it possible that there is a subtler than the subtlest recognition that could shine forth?

D: Yes.

A: That that is appearing as this speaking, as this experiencing.

D: Yes, yes. And it’s key too, because there’s a lot of people now on spiritual paths without a formal teacher or in-person teacher. Traditionally, this kind of knowledge was given out when the student was ready, when they came to that point. There was probably some general overview and so on.

Vedanta, you know, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, the Brahma Sutra, those are all texts that talk about this stuff. But a lot of it, you know, the verification supported this was was always done in person. But nowadays, you know, we’re spread out over the world and people are, there’s a rising consciousness that’s causing people to awaken. And if you live that, that shift, naturally, a number of those people are going to move forward into higher stages, which points to why we’re talking about this kind of thing to help, you know, primarily to help support people who are reaching these kind of places.

And I don’t know, secondarily, just to have a broader understanding of the path for people, so they know when they’re reading the Brahma Sutra what they’re talking about, because, you know, if you try and apply Self-Realization to that or whatever, the pieces, the puzzle pieces, don’t all fit together properly.

A: Beautiful. Yeah, going back to that, when you mentioned sort of how conscious awareness sort of looks beyond itself, in sort of the initial unfoldment of the shift, what comes to show up in that refined value is that actually it was that we, or what we are, was looking from the thatness into the appearance of the field of conscious awareness. So it sort of shifts that perspective, so that we were looking from that unmanifest field into the manifest field of light that is none other than that we come to realize.

D: Yes, another important detail about the process is this kind of masculine-feminine duality. That shows up in a number of ways as the the observing consciousness and the field of experience and form, and so forth. And in the stages model we talk about, there’s kind of the shifts in consciousness itself, and there’s the shifts in the refinement and the awakening heart and so on, the more feminine side, that they’re kind of parallel but intertwined processes, but they’re somewhat distinct in how they’re unfolding for individuals. Like some people will go through the Self-Realization and Unity process with very little refinement going on, and other people will have a lot of refinement and have that stronger feminine side, oriented. So there, what unfolds potentially then is a refined stage of Brahman.

Now it’s kind of a bit obscure to say Refined Brahman when there’s no thing. What is it that’s refining? But the understanding of Brahman of itself definitely refines, and there’s a much greater totality of recognition, you could say. And I mentioned earlier those subtle qualities, like alertness and liveliness and intelligence, that are there in Brahman, but not expressed.

So we could say there’s an alertness, like Brahman can know itself through that quality of alertness, but the alertness hasn’t expressed into consciousness, and so on. And those actually turn out not to originate in Brahman. They actually have a more subtle origin that we’ll get into in our next conversation in Parabrahman. But you know, so at that point I basically become a person who came to see Brahman as the afterglow of Divinity beyond that. But essentially once we know Brahman, we’ve gone as far in the consciousness process as we can, on the masculine side. So then it’s all on the feminine side really, all about refinement and progression.

A: Yeah, that’s really beautiful David. I just actually looked up an email that I had sent to you probably a year or so ago when we first were making contact. I was describing this shift and so I was just going to read the description real quick, because I felt like in terms of you describing a Refined Brahman it might be, you know, of course it’s only a description, but it is what it is.

So in this description, “The field or screen of manifest conscious awareness, which is all there is at this point, objectivity as a perceptual modification, has disappeared, qualitatively shifts into sort of a perpetual vacuum. The existenceness or beingness of the field itself is like sucked out. The field and phenomenal emergence is experienced as a nothingness, a silent infinitude. It’s profoundly peaceful and impressive, far beyond the initial realization of pure awareness as the Self. When it came on here, walking down the beach was like a pure, silent transparency. The phenomenal emergence was like a continuum of infinite silence, where the seagulls, ocean, clouds, sand, buildings were transparently empty of existence. Even the initial bliss of the field pales in comparison because of the infinitely silent peace which prevails as an absolute vacancy. This state was recognized immediately and even expected as it had been presented prior to its emergence.”

D: Yes, it’s a fascinating shift in the style of experience. Walking in the world and seeing, you know, perceiving, and yet knowing intimately that it’s just an appearance. And yet it’s an appearance, it’s not of yourself, it’s the wrong way of putting it, but of your essential nature. Even that.

A: Even that, yes.

D: What is real, a reality. It’s like this reality, but it’s not, it’s an appearance of reality. It’s not, well, it is reality, but it’s not at the same time. Yeah, not in its appearance.

Yeah, there’s another thing about Brahman that can come up. One of my teachers said that that everyone can realize, but not everyone cognize.

Now, cognize is a word I’m using for a certain style of experience, where it’s kind of like a download where the entirety of an experience of an object is known. For example, say this pen, you experience it, you see one side and you have some memories of, you know, how it works and how to use it or whatever. But if you cognize the pen, you it’s like you experience it from all sides simultaneously. And its entire history and its nature, what it’s made of, where all those components came from, this totality of knowledge.

And what tends to happen if there’s a cognition is that there’s kind of like this big download, and then there’s a period of time to process it so that the mind can digest it a bit and then words can be given and so on like that.

And what I found is that there’s stages of cognition, or styles of cognition you could say. The grand type is what I refer to as a Vedic cognition. It’s essentially, there’s these core memories in the divine mind that are kind of like the blueprint of the structure of creation. And at certain points in the schedule of creation, to put it that way, in the apparent unfolding process, a sage arises who cognizes that detail in the structure, and that awakens a law of nature, which then integrates with existing laws of nature and furthers the evolution of creation.

So some of the old Vedic texts are essentially a compiling of Vedic cognitions of ancient seers of old when consciousness was higher.

There’s another style of cognition I call “re-cognition” where essentially in the vast cycles of time, consciousness rises and falls in the collective. And during a rising cycle, there’ll be people who come along and revive Vedic cognitions, make them, enliven them again, and awaken those slumbering laws of nature. In low ages, quite a few of the laws of nature essentially fall asleep for long periods of time. Then as consciousness rises, they gradually reawaken by being recognized by people capable of that.

Then there’s what I refer to as Expressors. They’re people who experience those fine values, not as a cognition, but essentially reviving and spreading through experience. So someone can re-cognize a quality of nature and then expressors will experience those qualities that have woken up and make it more enlivened, more broadly in collective consciousness.

And then finally you have your basic cognition where those lively memories in the collective are directly cognized, in kind of a basic form. And I’ve seen examples of people who can have those kind of basic cognitions even prior to awakening, but they have to have fairly developed refinement in order to have those the style of experience. You know, because essentially the world, as you mentioned earlier, is structured in layers. At its most fundamental we have Brahman that we’re talking about, and then within Brahman, consciousness becomes self-aware and then expresses from consciousness. That’s beyond the context of our discussion here.

But, and then it kind of builds up in layers until we experience form on the surface and have experiences. But it all takes place within consciousness.

A: Yeah, that’s really, it’s a really beautiful point. I sort of jokingly had a less sophisticated way of describing cognitions. One was a sitting cognition that comes during meditation, and the other was a the walking cognition where you’re walking along and all of a sudden a comprehensive knowledge of a certain aspect of creation comes out of nowhere.

And one thing that’s interesting is you’ve spoken about the sheaths and how even conscious awareness itself can be recognized as a sheath when you go beyond it. Sort of a covering or a veil in a certain context. I mean, of course, there’s no negative connotations or anything.

But I also see that nothingness itself also can be recognized as a certain sort of sheath, a certain sort of veil, which is maybe not in the same sense of sort of containing like it is in conscious awareness, but something that must be sort of transcended or seen beyond in order to realize the reality of pure Divinity, which we’re not going to go all the way into, but just talking about how even that supreme status of nothingness is something that has the potential to be transcended.

D: Yeah, yeah. So, yeah, in a sense Brahman is, I mentioned earlier about being the afterglow, I’d agree with the word veil. I wouldn’t call it a sheath though, in that sense. Not like a layer around us kind of a thing.

A: Yeah.

D: Yeah, a number of, there’s a kind of a five kosha model that’s used, sheath, kosha or sheath model, that’s used by a lot of Vedic oriented teachers because from the perspective of consciousness in Self-Realization or Unity, consciousness is infinite and eternal, so it’s not a sheath. And so they kind of count five within that.

But when you, you know, transcend into Brahman, you recognize that consciousness is also a sheath, and you end up with what I use as the seven kosha model, where there’s consciousness and then there’s the, what you might call, creation within consciousness, and so on from there.

Yeah, it’s an interesting, Parabrahman is a really interesting one because you kind of, there’s little hints, it’s kind of like in Self-Realization, you kind of, you recognize that I’m not the doer, so the question can come up, so what’s doing the doing? What’s motivating me to take these actions or do these things? It’s just happening. And in the same kind of way, you know, as you refine in Brahman and you recognize these qualities like alertness and intelligence and so on, they don’t have an obvious source in that sense. And so there can be the question. And so as that process refines, we come to a place known as…

Well, place is the wrong word. We come to a stage of Parabrahman, and Para again means beyond. And this is known in the sense that consciousness is the source, Parabrahman becomes recognized as the source of the source. Those subtle qualities and everything that comes after that all are recognized, come out of Parabrahman, also known as pure Divinity.

Like the context in consciousness, we can experience pure consciousness in samadhi, or transcendence, when we go beyond the mind and just experience consciousness by itself. Or we can experience consciousness as the world and everything in it. So there’s, but you know, by going beyond that we can experience consciousness by itself.

And in the same way we can experience forms of Divinity within the field of creation, within consciousness. We can experience more abstract values of that, but until we come to Parabrahman, we know pure Divinity, Divinity by itself, without Brahman, without consciousness.

A: Yeah, that’s a great point. We’re going to talk, we’re going to really go into some detail about that in our next discussion, and how it really ties up some loose ends, you might say, when we arrive at that, makes the whole process much clearer than it was. And what I found was was that there were still some subtle paradoxes even in the totality of nothingness, even in that supreme recognition of silent non-spatial vacancy.

And it’s kind of like, you know, the light of the sun shining and looking back on itself as the light through it, you know, the light sort of turning around and looking back towards the sun, but the sun not being there, They’re just being no thingness, almost like a black, dark field.

So something isn’t lining up because it’s like this light was appearing to shine from a no lightness, you know what I mean? The infinite no lightness.

And, but because of the, how would you say, because it is a supreme appearance, because it is not appearance in the typical sense of the term, but be this sort of, how would you say it, quality-less canvas upon which the supreme artist of pure Divinity paints the whim of creation. And it, at first in that quality-less no-thingness, it’s recognized that it’s beyond masculine-feminine distinction but that is actually kind of a step down version of the masculine-feminine distinction or we can look at it like that, we could we come to find out that we can see it as that and that there’s a supreme version of the masculine feminine distinction sometimes uh you know spoken of as the divine couple like Radha Krishna, that kind of thing um

A: Go ahead.

D: Shiva and Shakti.

A: Shiva and Shakti, yes, but in this context I would say Shiva and Shakti refers to the to the step-down version or the Atma, the Atmic version, yeah. And then of course there’s that the source value of the masculine feminine as well. So that… what at first was recognized to be beyond the masculine and the feminine actually later on in in pure Divinity, which is not later in time or anything like that necessarily, but sort of beyond time later on.

D: Later in our discovery.

A: In our discovery, there you go, thank you. We recognize it to be the supreme, it has the potential to be recognized as the supreme value of the masculine in a new way. So that’s really beautiful and that’s kind of been in the foreground over the past year or so in terms of that, yeah, sort of the coupling of that and how that relates to the unfoldment of the presentation of creation.

D: Yeah, it’s also important to, we’ll go into this later, but it’s important to understand that Parabrahman is like Unity in that sense. It’s kind of like this three, it’s like Self-Realization, God-Consciousness, Unity, and then Brahman, Refined Brahman, Parabrahman, and there’s certain similarities between them, and in their process.

So Parabrahman, like Unity, has a progressive series of stages that unfold, of the depth of our knowing of pure Divinity.

A: Yeah, which is pure Divinity actually knowing itself, tasting itself through this unique flower of the human physiology.

D: Very good point, yes.

A: Yeah, so it’s really beautiful, it’s amazing, and yeah, starts to really kind of swell up, even just to start to talk about it, so.

D: Yes.

A: Well, I think we’ve really covered a lot of the major points surrounding the Brahman shift, or what I refer to as the void contextual modality, supreme nothingness. Is there anything else that you can think of that we’ve missed, maybe?

D: It’s good.

A: Yeah, good. All right. Well, as always, it’s been an absolute pleasure to speak with you and to witness the flow unfold. I’m really grateful for the opportunity to have these types of conversations, not a common affair.
So, so much grace. And we just give all glory to pure Divinity.

D: All glory.

Pin It on Pinterest