Gnosis

Also, you're "correct". "I Am" is not unlimited, this isn't an "incorrect" observation. "I Am" is a completely "relative" thing. I get the sense that you know what "I Am" is, and that's the only reason I'm referring to it. It's fairly specific. You can approach it however you want, just do it 24/7 and it'll move forward regardless of your present opinions/understandings.

Suddenly everything will just "make sense". Sometime later, you'll lose interest in things "making sense" and it won't even matter anymore. I know that sounds hard to believe.

You'll get the "clarity" you want, after you hit what Leo calls "rock bottom". There's no other way. You'll just walk in circles and fumble around in the mud.

This is a very convoluted issue. I haven't read every single post that was made in this thread, but the simplest answer to your question is that these implicit philosophical formalisms relate to mental constructs at different stages of development. But take care in noting that this statement is already too big of a generalization (and also take note that I didn't state that you described these formalisms "correctly"). In general, I will say that you will not be able to understand this issue at length. Also, "view" and "practice" are usually taught as different things in these traditions. Furthermore, "where you're at" and "where you appear to be at to yourself" are usually different things. This is all I can think of off the top of my head that would be remotely understandable statements. Also, it appears that people here are trying to point to direct experience, maybe stop conceptually arguing. There's no "Universe" or "Beyond Universe". Just understand that when you understand, you don't. And then there's no problem.

Doesn't matter if they said it 2000 years ago or still say it today, in my mind, East Asia will always be East Asia.

Ok, I have arrived, take out the Tequila. Or, "bring out the lacquer bowls", as they say in East Asia.

My apologies, the language I use is indeed somewhat unique. This is just the word that resonated the most for me. It's fairly hard to find verbal descriptions of the sum product of cognitive development, awakening, and deconstruction. Even if there are qualified speakers or writers, it will not come out of their mouth and the pen will never touch the paper. Thank you for asking for the clarification, as if you had not asked, I would never have spoken. You awaken, and deconstruct awakening. Otherwise, you delude yourself further. Even clarity, is still the subtlest ignorance. The toughest Diamond is thrown away. Even at the pursuit of nations, Bodhidharma won't return.

"Reality" is not relative or Absolute. "Reality" does not "exist" or "not exist". "Reality" has all degrees of freedom. When "Reality" is unlimited, it is undelimitable and unreferenceable; every "thing" becomes "Reality", including "Enlightenment", "God", "things", and "Consciousness", and as such, all these "become" unlimited, undelimitable, and unreferenceable also.

"Reality" is un-delimit-able and un-reference-able. As such, "Reality" cannot even be called "itself". To say there is such a "thing" as "Reality", is already a fundamental error.

This is a great statement. There's "objectively" no difference between your body and a corpse. There are no "other beings" in consciousness, and consciousness is not experienced by "a being". Neither is "true". Consciousness is occurring, end of story. But even this is too conceptual and assumes too much about the nature of "Reality". "Reality" is a notion even larger and more inclusive than "Consciousness". To "know" "Reality" is already to be "Liberated". "Consciousness" is "objective"; "Reality" is not "objective". In "Reality", there is no "Enlightenment", "God", or such "things", including "Consciousness", and "Reality".

Even "the present moment experience", per se, has nothing to do with the nature of "Reality". It's simply the only "thing" occurring.

None of these are the case. "Liberation" means "Reality" is unlimited, end of story.

Maybe you should eat something.

The irony is that this is literally the center-piece of "Christ's" whole teaching. The metaphors of the allegories in the Christian mythology are blatantly obvious. Everyone reads, but no one understands. How do you expect to understand Sanskrit, when you can't even understand your own first language? Maybe the mind will clear up after receiving 30 blows.

No one here understood this line. 絕聖棄智 民利百倍 To understand this line and chapter, first read the previous chapter with an open mind. A different translation is not going to help you if you want to understand Lao Tzu's intended meaning. Classical Chinese is very, very concise. All English translations have more added interpretation. No, precisely the opposite of what Lao Tzu intended to express. That "inner" Sage goes too. Read the previous chapter of the Tao Te Ching, your statement applies there. However, most likely you won't understand it either, because Lao Tzu also says it in a back-handed way. The previous chapter has nothing to do with "hypocrisy". This was the closest. Just understand that this statement includes Yourself. Get on the road first, then we can talk about killing "the Buddha".

Funny you mention that, since this has actually happened to me before. I was brought there hand-cuffed too — in my underwear. I'll leave it to your imagination as to how it happened. I enjoyed the experience. It was great. Everyone was put in the same sobering and bewildering environment. While everyone else there was thinking, "This is awful. I want out." I was thinking, "This is exactly what I signed up for." No technology, so you could really connect with human beings one on one. The downside is no one seems to want to stay in contact after being released. You should try it sometime.

No One understood this.

@Thewritersunion I'll transcribe my reply to your private message here: There really is no problem with Spiral Dynamics, it's a fantastic model. I suggest looking into other models, because the people who "own" Spiral Dynamics (Beck and Cowan, I believe) have more interest in macro societal and systemic manifestations, and things along those lines that make Spiral Dynamics a more practical model for most people. There's a good reason Coral, even though it clearly exists, is still not a part of the official Spiral Dynamics model. These people know what they're dealing with and they're not interested in it, for now at least. If you look into the history of these models, Ken Wilber for example, had many disagreements with Don Beck, after Wilber went through stages of Enlightenment/Awakening. (Google and read a paper titled "A brief history of Spiral Dynamics" by Albion M. Butters for more on this.) Basically, to put it bluntly, it's not really possible to develop through and beyond Turquoise without having some genuine Awakening of Consciousness. If you're most interested in Consciousness and advanced human development specifically, Spiral Dynamics is not where to look. Look into Carole Griggs and Ted Strauss's model.

Consciousness is much more non-linear than you'd think.

Wait till you take Mahasamadhi before forming an opinion on it.

Surprisingly, I don't actually doubt your claims, which most even "spiritual people" would consider outrageous. The only concern I see is it's very clear to me through some of your behavior, that despite being a very knowledge-oriented and quite cognitively developed human being, you don't have anything close to a conceptual paradigm which is capable of properly integrating these experiences on a conceptual level. (Let alone fully integrating and embodying them on all levels.) And that's no surprise, because no such conceptual paradigm is being taught anywhere, it would be too far removed and wouldn't serve any purpose. Frankly, there isn't much I can say about this, except that this is not my understanding. There's a lot of naive-thinking in spirituality.

@Phrae You're under the impression that your mind is flexible, but it is rigid. True Mastery IS Not False Mastery; False Mastery IS Not True Mastery. Not True Mastery IS False Mastery; Not False Mastery IS True Mastery. True Mastery IS False Mastery; False Mastery IS True Mastery. Not True Mastery IS Not False Mastery; Not False Mastery IS Not True Mastery. There IS No True Mastery; there IS No False Mastery. There IS No Mastery; There IS No Not Mastery. No Mastery IS No Mastery; Mastery IS Mastery. No Mastery IS Mastery; Mastery IS No Mastery. There IS No Mastery Nor No Mastery. Mastery IS Mastery AND No Mastery. Mastery IS Neither Mastery NOR No Mastery. Mastery IS Mastery. Mastery IS No Mastery. What is Mastery? What is Is? What is What?

This is perhaps the worst model of Coral out of all the ones I've come across over the years. I came across his material a few years ago. I highly advise against listening to this man, especially on matters relating to development. There are many more developmental models out there, I would recommend looking into models other than Spiral Dynamics if you're interested in stages beyond Turquoise.