RedLine

God, in is his absolute perfection, decided to create the illusion of division, to create the illusion of separate selfs. Thus, he could observe himself as Other. He chose relative world over absolute perfection. He coose suffer over absolute blissful. And now we want to return to the Source??

I don't understand this. Why forget and then remember. Wouldn't have been better to never forget?

+1 I procrastinate a lot about this technique even when it is the most powerful tool -apart from pschycodelics- I know.

that rectangle that icludes my laptop, my legs and part of my room, some pain in the chest and behind my head and thoughts mmm it seems a little bit depressing...

Yeah, what I don´t get is you preference to label it as infinte rathern than label it as a, b or c. Why infinite? Sometimes I feel that I am not separe from the rest of what I experience but I would not label it as Inifite, it is too grandiloquent. I am not sure if you are exaggerating or actually you are being honest with that label.

I suspect that when you guys talk about infinite experience, you mean all the concepts you know are present right now. It is like the sensation that everything you know (in the form of thoughts of mental images, becuase there are not anything out of concsiusness) is happening here, so that´s why you describe it as infinite. Am I wrong?

What do you mean by infinity? For example, the moon is here? the thoughts about the moon is here? you mean inifinte thoughts are here? all of them at the same time?

Am I the only one that thinks that this idealism vs materialist debate is stupid??. Both are false from the pov of direct experience, and I don't think one is more useful than the other to understand reality.

Most of the philosophical problems are languaje problems. What do you mean by that question? I don´t understand. You mean we are in your thoughts? Of course. Isn´t it obvious to everybody?

Why Red shadow?

That is a belief!

That is a believe you have, it is metaphysics. Yes it was a discontinuity of consciousness because Rupert Spira wasn´t consciousness during surgey, as simple as that.

Straight to the point:

according to some people here that wouldn´t exist either because you don´t know you are giving birth until you interpret that in your mind, so it is not present anymore for me all this stuff are just word-games; real, non real, present moment, thoughts, just words...

You are the one who is making distinctions: finite mind vs infinite mind. You are saying that he wasn´t aware during surgery because he was in finite mind mode. What a metaphysical believe!

That distinction between the not awaken finite mind vs an hypothetical infinite mind always present is an intellectual construction you are making, it is not direct experience.. The fact is he wasn´t aware during surgey.

I don't understand why Rupert Spyra says Consciousness is always present but at the same time he says he wasn't conscious during surgery. Isn't it contradictory? Can somebody explain it to me?

that´s true, but you just to go back to your previous version; it is not something you can do on a regular basis, permanent shifts are rare

Why do you say his teaching are very advance? I don't see he is saying something new about psychology and spirituality, something that Leo didn't say for example. So that guy for the future is not saying anything you can't find in the self-, improvement/spirituality shelv of library, mmm.

pschycodelics (insights) body work (remove body repressions) shadow work mindfulness meditation concentration meditation The best you can do is combine these 5 methods. You can balance what area is more urgent for you each day.

He si personal developed to some degree. Not awoked. He has little shadow. He doesn´t overreact and stay very chill when people spike him. He doesn't care much about anything, in the good sense. Here the interveiwer is retarted and he stays completely polite and chill haha:

This guy has a natural gift, he is enlighten since he was 8 years old, and during all his life he went through deeper and deeper levels of awakening. It shocked me because he contradicts several thing that are assumed in the spiritual community. For example: Emptiness/Nothing is not the absolute because there is somebody aware of Emptiness/Nothing (hello @James123); there is always a deeper level of awakening; it looks like he doest´n agree with the solipsistic view -or whatever you want to call it- most of the people have in this forum What I mention in the title is in the minute 46.

He had a permanent shift so I think it is ok if he speak in a paternalistic way. He is wiser than us; must respect the ranks.

Both of you don´t understand the map vs territory distinction. I am not trying to do some self-inquiry or something like like in this thread. Here, I am just trying to RATIONALLY understand conscisuness. And by the way @Nahm all that "nothing exists in the Present" is still an idea (map) so it is not the Present itself; that´s why that discourse is pretty ridiculous. And there are many enlighten master that say what I am saying here: something is witnessing what you call nothing so it is not nothing, so it is not a studip assert.

You can´t experience Nothing because you need a subject and a object to experience something. What you call Nothing is still and object, so it is not nothing.