The deeply-felt recognition that the Absolute is all that is, and consequently that must include you, is the life-changing substance of enlightenment. All things are That, you as well as all other human there is only That, in the sense of ultimate, permanent reality. How, then, does one live one’s life when the present awareness is “I am That, and all else is That”; when the perception of being a “separate individual” has dissolved, and the ego (Latin for “I”) is no longer at the center of one’s perspective? “Real-i-zation” (the “enlightenment” the aspirant has sought) means “to make real”. How do we make the real—the essence of timeless reality—the central expression of the Absolute perspective we have now discovered to be inevitably our own? To “make real” in one’s life and activities the awareness that “all that is, is That” is unavoidably a life-altering engagement. Are you prepared to “live” with this discovery today? So, the real question, the final question, is not “How am I to come to self-realization,” but “Is enlightenment what I really want?”
I believe the author presents a general synopsis of Non Dual Theory and has also provided the reader with excellent insights into the nature of "Self Realization". The author states that "Bliss" is not necessarily the result of "Self Realization" but might be more aptly characterized as an "Equilibrium". The author also reports that the experience of "Self Realization" varies from individual to individual and, in some cases, is not what the aspirant wants or expects. Another interesting insight expounded is that only through the "individual self" can the "Self" know or recognize "Itself". The question is whether or not the "individual self" maintains its integrity or is forever obliterated. Perhaps the most difficult tenet to comprehend and accept is the idea that we are the "Absolute". The question arises is why the "Self" would devolve "Itself" from "Perfection" Into "Duality" where "It" experiences imperfection and delusion. This theory also appears to be a secular interpretation of man that places him at the centerpiece of "Being". Perhaps an alternate view point might be that we are, indeed, separate entities but relative ones dependent on the "Absolute" for our existence. The "Absolute" ("Self") beholds "Its" own essence in subjective terms but can only perceive "Itself" through "Its" own creation. We share the "Consciousness" of the "Absolute" but it can never be said that we are the "Absolute". We have, indeed, become lost in our own individuality and have forgotten who we are.
When we come to realize that everything we see is a manifestation of the ABSOLUTE and the ABSOLUTE is al there is all the sense of separate individual disappear.
It is only the "individual" mind that sees the world and when this mind disappear so does the world.
The "you" that you want you believe that exists, really exists only as a self-imposed fantasy and in present awareness it is possible to snap out of this fantasy. Try it for you shall find out the truth!
As Nisargadatta says: "Abandon all conceptualisation...and objectivisation...identity cannot remain; and in the absence of identity there is no bondage."
If you get the chance, read it. As the author says: "You are the teacher; you are your teaching; and you are the taught. No teachings are indispensable: all that any of them can tell you is that, in the comprehension of "oneness" there is no "individual" remaining who needs to be taught."