I don't know who might have read this post on Subjective Reality by Steve Pavlina.

It is an interesting mix between the non-dual perspective, and the New Age perspective - (I'm specifically thinking about Seth type of material.)

Certainly, the description of the subjective is pure advaita.

 Simply read any of Ramesh Balsekar's works, and the similarity is quite apparent.

Or perhaps, this is closer to A Course In Miracles outlook.

Where the digression begins to occur, is the entry of what I would call "co-creation".  Here is a section of Pavlina's Q&A:

Question:  So if I were to believe in something that didn’t exist or that wasn’t possible yet, it would actually begin to manifest in the physical universe?

Answer: Yes, it would.  The physical universe is a summation of thought.  So first of all, in order to change this universe, you must adopt the belief that creation by thought is possible.  You must not only believe it.  You must know it.

If you try to create by thought, yet deep down you still believe it’s impossible or highly improbable, then it will not manifest for you.  The physical universe, including time and space, can only manifest in a manner that is congruent with your beliefs.

So here now an INDIVIDUAL belief will begin to have an affect on the OUTER subjective world experienced.  Beliefs are the mediating entity between the true subjective self and the normal objective self.

This is as opposed to the advaita view - that the experienced outer world - the normal world of form - is actually the subjective's dream - Brahma's dream - and not "your" dream.  "Not MY will, but THINE."  And implicit in this, is the surrender to God, the subjective, WHAT IS, rather than an attempt at manipulation through  "belief changing".

But again, it isn't JUST that simple as that because - guess what?  Each individual is blessed with a "creative self", and an ability to affect the world, at least on a social level. 

So Pavlina's version of Subjective Reality for the "world" and how to affect that world, is a bit different from - say, the "two truths" doctrine.

Or, the more sophisticated version of the Two Truths doctrine promoted by Ken Wilber, that is Integral Theory.


I could say more on this, but I would like others feedback as well.  Any thoughts?  Post and trackback on your blogs and I'll link and discuss, or comment here, if you feel so inclined.