Would not a serious attempt to answer that question have to first acknowledge that language carries with itself the problem?

In fragmentary perception 'I' have a 'problem' (with this or that). So that affirmation already contains the horizontal conflict (the subject vs the object). 

So firstly we see that we must be very careful with language.

The thinker and (his) thoughts.

But when it is attempted without effort to perceive everything perceivable at the same time, including thought, in this true factual perception there is no thinker.

There is no thinker, only thought. The fact is that the thinker is the product of thought. 

This is not just a conclusion (knowledge) but an observable fact.

And what is the pillar of the human society? And what an enormous structure was built on the illusion?

Do we see the consequences?

Interesting question.

A shock when one loses something one thinks is valuable (part of his self, his pleasures) can last for 2, 3 days or even longer. Then the fact seems to get accepted, assimilated, transcended.

But why does it have to happen in the first place? Why does it have to start at all?

Because one is attached to that thing, isn't it? Attachment meaning conditioned thought, memory.

To make America.. (Russia, Azerbaijan, etc) great (again)?

Please.. You cannot. Obviously. You can struggle, fight, try to subdue the others or win the economical competition.

But if a river is polluted outside of the imaginary borders, it affects you. If the forests are cut down in the poor countries, violent storms will flood your house.

'America' is not something that exists alone. You can't make it great and all the others stay in shambles. You are intelligent enough to figure it out why. It's very simple.

It's not possible to make Japan, England or Guatemala great in separation.

It is possible to make the World a great place.

And it begins with understanding my self.

A sad song may be ringing in the ear because it played in a shop or in a bus but one knows that's not true. So what's the problem?

Sadness may happen but it's not a problem, it's perceived together with all sound, vision and gravitation. Without effort. And actually it's not sadness anymore, the name.

Do not be attached to anything psychologically. Do not grab and hold a hot coal, it burns. You only imagine it could be oh so great if you could only hold it, that it only has good sides. In fact there are always two sides to something. The good and the dreadful. The other side of pleasure is fear, sorrow and anger.

Do not believe that old tale sold on postcards from vacation that by touching the world and getting burned you will be happy. That you must get entangled. You don't have to.

But first of all, do not cling.

Do not want anything.

There is an observable failure of the school.

Along a retreat from science to so called religion, political conspiracy theories.

Escape from reality.

Wizards, fables, Superman, Batman and other super-heroes, vampires.

Music, computer games, overwork, entertainment, getting intoxicated, violence.

Children at school learn that there is Germany, Japan and France but they don't learn why, what it means and whether it is necessary to be so.

They learn about so called religions but not what is religion really.

Differential calculus is taught but not what is thought, fragmentary perception, Unitary Perception and how to live sanely.

- Do you claim you are energy?

- Please, first of all we must begin in peace, cause otherwise we just sputter a lot of words like machine guns and just wait for our turn. So peace is at the beginning, not at the end.

It is only possible if we try to perceive all perceptible at the same time as we try to tackle the question.

By tackle I mean we together uncover the subject, nobody is forcing an issue, pushing the answer on anyone else, we are talking together as friends, not foes fighting on opinions.

[silence]

So what do we mean when we say 'I am energy'?

We have to be clear. What do we mean by the 'I'?

The ego? The thinker? The so called soul? The soul is an invention of thought surely, isn't it? No one has proven its existence, there is no evidence. So when some one says 'I am energy' he means the me, right? But the me is just thought! Please, this is of utmost importance to see: There is no thinker, only thought. It can be factually perceived in the total observation, which includes all thought which we call Unitary Perception.

So obviously if the question is understood in the fragmentary perception of thought only, than it is false, it has no meaning.

The truth is 'I' am nothing. That is a fact. I am a super product of thought.

So the sentence: 'There is one energy, not divided, is correct.

But if we put at the front, the speaker's intentions become questionable, because of the inherent falsity in the language, the horizontal conflict: the illusionary division into the thinker and thought, the me and the world, the 'inside' and the 'outside' and so on.

We are conditioned to think that we are the 'thinkers' of 'our' thoughts, that we produce them and 'own' them.

However when we test the situation, we can easily see that we do not control thoughts, it's the other way round, it is thoughts make us crazy.

We cannot control thought because we are thought. The 'I', the 'me' is a superproduct of thought.

There's a differential calculus but this basic fact is not taught at school.

Non-functional thought can make us feeling miserable and suicidal, angry and scared. It is a channel of desire.

Therefore we have disappointed teenagers drinking themselves to stupor, troubled people feeling panic attacks or businessmen jumping out of windows.

There is no thinker, only thought.

It is an observable fact in Unitary Perception.