Osaid

Distinctions and preferences are not actually limitations. You say that in order to be unlimited, you have to remove things, like fear, pain, apples, arms, etc. However, this is just another limitation you are putting on yourself. You are saying that those things cannot exist, otherwise you are limited. I am saying that you are always unlimited, and that everything that exists is unlimited, you are literally just using your imagination to think that you are not unlimited, like how someone would imagine that they are a unicorn when they aren't. You are not actually experiencing limitations, you are experiencing the imagination of limitations, this is what is actually going on in your experience and everyone else's experience. You are experiencing imagination, not limitation. The experience of pain is not a distinction or preference, it has nothing to do with a self or limitation. There is no limitation in the experience of pain. It only feels limited if you imagine another situation that contrasts it.

What does that do? Or do you want me to find out for myself?

No. I don't have limits. You don't either, you just think you do. Thinking has no limits either.

What is a limit made out of? What kind of perception? Touch? Taste? Sight? Sound? Thought?

How do you perceive a limit? Through memory? Through inference?

No, it doesn't. Relativity is never actually the case. Something which is not the case cannot be necessary for survival. Thinking about the difference between the apple and my arm is not actually relativity, it is just thinking or imagining. It doesn't change anything metaphysically or existentially. In the same way that thinking that you are a unicorn doesn't change you into a unicorn. You are confusing the map for the territory. Duality is never actually the case, the point of enlightenment is to realize this.

How does reality prevent itself from being revealed? Why would it seem unreal? Is the thing you glimpsed here with you right now, or is it in some other place?

No, it's not a function of anything. It is existence itself. Clarity of perception means: Are you seeing what exists? I am not talking about some enhanced focus you get from caffeine or adderall or something. I meant the opposite actually. Permanent, as in, it is always here. Maybe "eternal" is better? "Absolute" means it is absolute, not relative, which means it depends on nothing, so it is always the case. If what you say here is the case, I don't see room for a distinction between existence and experience. That's an interesting idea, but what does your experience say about it? Are you experiencing your body creating experience? Or are you just experiencing the end result of what it supposedly creates? If you're playing a video game, it wouldn't run without code. But, what is your experience of code in the game? Put experience first and foremost. I was trying to figure out your position but I guess we are going in circles. I could describe this in about 1000+ ways. I am not really conscious "of a thing." There isn't any subject and object relationship in my experience anymore, because that would just be a thought about experience.

Yeah pretty much. More so about intellectual philosophical ideas, like solipsism, and then also: "I'm God, I'm imagining everything, oh my God dude I realized that I'm God for 1000th time. Can't wait to realize it again on a deeper level in my next trip!" And then they might say: "No, it's not that enlightenment is boring, it actually doesn't exist, it's a deception, it's just a lowly state of consciousness, get on my level bro."

Intermittent fasting is basically non-negotiable when it comes to optimal health unless you are some kind of outlier. I find it unwise to wait for conclusive scientific evidence on certain things, so anyone reading this should probably go and test it for themselves, although initially getting into it can be an annoying and overly logical labyrinth with a lot of misinformation. Although, to be fair, there is a lot of scientific evidence showing the benefits of fasting too. First and foremost, listen to your body, ask yourself why you crave the things you do and why you feel hungry at the times you do, and eat simple and whole foods that you enjoy. You will naturally learn about your body and how food affects it from there, work your way up from there.

This was very simply exemplified to me when I was talking to some guy about animals a long time ago. I talked about how pigs are intelligent and similar to dogs and he literally said something like "something that can fall over in a ditch isn't the same as a dog." (the context was about some video of a pig stuck in a ditch, and him saying that pigs are stupid so he deserves to eat them)

Probably better not to imagine an imaginary entity which is creating your experience, it really takes away from the experience.

"UV light on spiral dynamics"? "Supermind"? Can there be a succinct definition or do I really have to go through the book and models? Might be best to ask @Water by the River, they're the Ken Wilber expert. This is enlightenment and it is possible. Personally wouldn't call it a "stage" or "evolution", but just accurate perception. Do you understand what your experience is or not? If you do, then it becomes non-dual.

Nothing

Free will is like dividing zero by zero. Error created by intellect. Completely false notion. Try proving a unicorn while you're at it. You will only understand free will by understanding what you fundamentally are, there is no other way.

Self-inquiry. Simply question what you are experiencing. Questioning what you desire is a very good way to get to the root of your emotions, because there is no difference between emotions and desire. What do you desire to avoid? What do you desire to have? Why does it feel bad to desire that thing? Is my desire fulfilled or unfulfilled? How can I work on my desire?

Is it accurate to say, after all your spiritual experiences, there is now a "you" which "knows" things, a "knower" so to speak, which views your current experience through the lens of those past experiences, and that this "knowing" did not exist before those experiences? And this knower knows that things have no meaning, this knower has a better view of how experience and meaning works. It knows that things are illusory, that things are not as they seem, and that things are existentially unstable?

I am trying to describe, or transcribe, my direct experience, because I am enlightened. I also acknowledge your strict adherence to being "directly conscious", but I don't find certain distinctions you make to be helpful, so I wanted to ask about them. I am not saying you are necessarily wrong or right. Something like Zen, for example, doesn't really allow any concepts or distinctions at all, even if they are accurate or correct. This is essentially a safety mechanism to prevent dogma from accumulating, but I find it has weaknesses, for example, it becomes too vague and unclear by not attempting to really say or speak anything, but that is tangential, and maybe that works better for certain people. Sorry, I meant specifically the distinction between consciousness and experience. If you are saying the distinction between consciousness and experience is useful for survival, I disagree. So, there is consciousness and experience. Experience is sourced by consciousness, but consciousness is present throughout all of experience, and it can manifest experiences in many different ways, but all those experiences are consciousness too. Is that right? Is the distinction to separate the "transient contents" of experience from "permanent and absolute truth"? I do not imagine a difference between awareness and consciousness, what would you say the distinction is? If you are perceiving things, enlightenment cannot be independent of that, unless enlightenment is transient or untrue. Because that means enlightenment is absent during perception. By perception I mean "existence" or "experience." Right, I am elaborating on this by highlighting a difference between clarity of perception and what you call "understanding", which is just knowledge. Knowledge is a subset of experience. Enlightenment certainly doesn't provide knowledge, at least not explicitly. How do you know experience depends on something? What is your experience of that? Just something to think about. Yes. Existentially, there is no such thing as something which is not absolute or true. That cannot occur. Duality is not existential, it is like looking at a rope as if it is a snake. If you include duality or relativity into your existential formulation, that is just confusing the map for the territory, because the point is to realize that those don't exist in the first place, not to make a map of reality or consciousness which includes them. Yes.

I am aware of the statement they made, I believe you are repeating it here. So their solution to the design flaw was to slow it down through the update, which no other phone has to do. How innovative. Not just ethically bad, practically bad. They gatekeep and overprice repairs too. Smooth and overpriced.

Isn't it the other way around? Apple literally purposefully slowed down their software through their updates and got in massive shit for being exposed for it. I had a Samsung S5 for about 6 years straight, very durable. I could never use Apple though, simply because none of their phones can even support an LDAC bluetooth codec or any hi-res codec in general, among other audio effects.

Bad company and bad products. Apple has proven time and time again their priority is not the quality or consumers, just profit. Do yourself a favour.

Still hasn't become an alien on camera.

Right, but what reason? What is "consciousness" and why do you differentiate it from your current experience? Is it like an insight or recognition of what your current experience is, is that how you hold the term "consciousness"? Is experience a relative phenomenon, and then consciousness isn't? Being knowledgeable is not the same as clarity of experience, it is actually not even inherent to experience. You can lack knowledge, after all. But, even the perception of a lack of knowledge is itself knowledge, which is to say, it is just an inference of what you lack created through intellect. Yes, the mind is tricky. Enlightenment is just clarity of perception. Knowledge itself is a perception that occurs and becomes perceived in experience. Knowledge itself is transient.

True. He's very smart intellectually, but it becomes his vice when it comes to understanding consciousness. Observing how that plays out can teach you many lessons for sure. He is still ultimately just doing philosophy, not an actual examination of consciousness. Pretty much. The ego orchestrating that doesn't see it that way though. The ego sees it as "deeper" and "more true" and "going beyond enlightenment." "They're deluded, not me, enlightenment must be an illusion." He basically realized that his idea of reality was inherently dualistic and doubled down on it, like: "Hmmm, nope, I'm right, non-duality must be wrong."

But apparently there is a difference between "experience" and "direct consciousness"? Because experience is biological?