Fran11

Of course. This post is about understanding the fact that it is social construct born out of old survival needs like phsycial labor. These survival needs have changed and that's why the line is blurring and in the future it will completely dissapear.

The concept is pointing to your indivual bubble of perceptions, call it whatever you want, I know you get what I mean. Is the current you are experiencing the only one inside the Absolute? It's impossible to confirm by experience, but I get the sense that not, by contemplation of the potentiality of the absolute. What's your intuition about it?

God doesn't say either "the world is real" or "unreal", these are human labels, to God it is what it is. But the point is: are we experiencing the waking dream from all POVs or not? It's okay to not have decided yet, but let's say what we think without being ambiguous.

Right. It only makes a difference after you wake up. Like you said before, awakening from the waking state makes you care and love more. But when you wake up from a dream you give a fuck about people's suffering, even if there was a genocide. C'mon we all like to say mind-fucking things but be honest on this one Unless you are into the one-POV version of solipism you have to admit it's not quite the same in that regard.

I know they're very similar. But regarding this specific point: do you mean we (god) experience conventional dreams from all POVs / the waking state only from one ? Or what ?

Language is so tricky to talk about this topics that sometimes you don't even know if you are agreeing or disagreeing

Of course. But you also know you were dreaming all people in conventional dreams when you wake up, and still you don't care about their suffering because we generally don't think that that dream has been experienced by all points of view. So it does make a difference if you think you are experiencing the waking dream from all povs or not.

Oh now I got what you mean, we're on the same page then.

Do you care equally about other people in you dreams (in the conventional sense) as much as people in the waking dream? In the sense that if you dream someone you love dies then when you wake up you don't think that suffering has really been experienced by conciousness so you don't care at all. But in the waking dream we generally do.

Do you mean as a "thought in my mind" or as another bubble of "individual perception"?

I don't. I think so. It does makes a lot of difference in how you realte to others whether you think you are experiencing this dream from only one point of view or from many.

No, I'm glad there are "other" conscious beings.

Ok, change the word proof to "confirm". I know you got what I ment. Yes, the Relative and the Absolute are the superficial and the deep leyers of the same reality. Therefeore the Absolute can experience itself in many levels trough the point of view of the Relative layer. This is what the confussion about the absolute having levels or not is about. It doesnt per se. But im can experience itself in infinity levels through the relative layer.

You cannot prove or disprove "naive solipism" (the one dream version of it) by direct experience, because your own direct experience is all you'll encounter by definiton. But when contemplating Absolute Infinity it certainly seems impossible that from such endless potential your current human life, relatively minuscule, is all that ever appeared/will ever apper.

Unenlightened waking state: World Perception Enlightened waking state: World Perception + Conciousness of the Absolute. Enlightened deep sleep: Conciousness of the Absolute. Unenlightened deep sleep: Neither World nor the Absolute. But it's still a state of the Relative layer of conciousness. This layer has infinite levels, it can be very high or completely off without content nor God-realization like in deep sleep. Deep sleep is a state of conciousness.

I thought that point was clear but it may need expansion: He only percieves this false "mis-match" beetween his body and his mind because of social stereotypes. If society didn't have such stereotypes, this person would be able to have any type of personality and behavious (even name and bodily modifications if wished) without other members of society and himself percieving a "mis-match". As society progresses changing genders will ultimately be irrelevant because without such sterotypes it would just be chaning an irrelevant empty label.

People who comform to social stereotypes are not the ones who get hurt by them. That's like saying someone who is making an argument agasint racism should clarify that he's also against the (non-existing) marginalization of white people. Or that someone making an argument agains wage inequality beetween man and women should clarify that he doesn't propose that men earn less than women.

@Forestluv You are projecting onto me things I neither said nor meant. Tell me where did I say or imply that someone who willingly wants to do things that society considers "appropiate" cannot? I respect you and don't wanna seem rude, but it seems you just got triggered and aren't even trying to understand.

@Forestluv Ok you seem to be actively trying to misunderstand me, did the post trigger you that much? I think I was clear enough, maybe you need to cool down and read again with an open mind.

It's not like that. You tastes stay exactly the same/you change them at will, without having the limitation of other people labeling you and you having to change irrelevant labels in order to match your tastes. Just imagine a trans person doing what the fuck she/he wants without having to legally change genders in order to match society's stereotypes. It wouldn't be called trans anyomore because such notion depends on the prior existance of genders. I know it's not possible right now, that's why I clarifyed I was thinking some time ahead.

You get it

I get what you mean but we are talking about diferent things. My poimt is that you can only identify as trasgender if society has ALREADY programmed you with gender roles. See, "Behave as a boy", you assume there's "boy behaviour" and "girl behaviour". There's not such thing. Without such stereotypes no-one wouldn't say that and you wouldn't even need to change gender. You need to think this deeper.

I agree, it's a necessary intermediate step.

You won't confirm reincarnation even if you have a direct experience of the absolute. You have to become concious of the subtler levels of relative reality (astral and mental planes in Hermetic terminology) in order to percieve these sort of things. There are specific techniques, but your conciousness has to already be in a certain level or they won't work

@electroBeam Wow you took the word "seriously" too seriously I just ment it must be a priority in your life. Most cases of people not progressing it's because they just play around with spirituality. I liked the park example. In my experience, permanent mindfulness and constant identification and rejaction of the "I thought" are much more powerful than they seem, in the long term.