ForTeap

Well, I don't see how that's true. There are people who born into unknown place without any parents or anyone to even influence them and their sense of ego haven't change a bit.

Have you read Kant? You can't know the thing-in-itself. You can never know what a 'rock' actually looks like outside of you (uour mind etc), you can only pretend. But it's all vibrations. According to quantum physics when a rock is not observed it remains as quantum foams and 98% of what is inside an atom is pure void. So a rock isn't a rock, but somethign else.

Define "infinite emptiness". How can something that doesn't exist be "infinite"? Do you even know what the concept of "infinity" points to? How do we open our minds to infinity if we don't even know if there is such path to walk?

No self = ???. Your argument for no self being a set of endless possibilites comes from a specific analogy which is not correctly used, the true color spectrum is actually finite, because there's no way to strictly define the number of colors doesn't mean there are zillions of them. But even if there were zillions of possible colors, the chamaleon is in a neutral state when incolor, the colors the chamaleon can shift to, doesn't yet exist, it's one that can produce another, like cause and effect, like chemistry builds a new substance. And a rock cannot imagine anything, because a 'rock' is not a living being. But if it could, then it wouldn't be a rock anymore.

Or maybe each person has their own consciousness and you are in denial. The "Direct" (which is ultimately indirect as vsauce proves on his video 'we live in the past') "experiment" is NOT a reliable source for verification, perceptual illusions prove that. Anyone using this 'in-direct experiment' argument to argue for something is not being honest.

Pure idealism.

So depression is "imaginary" Javfly33? So people just need to believe they are willing as a "higher entity" to end their depression and puff magic happens, they are now happy yada yada. No depression or trauma anymore... You can't be serious.

I know it's your theory, however it has its implications. This statement itself already implies implications. 1. If it's your theory, it implies it's a personal theory from a personal consciousness, and you want to give this theory to people who do not have this in their consciousness. Doesn't that suggest something? 2. You "there" in the present moment is chatting with other people who, were not aware, of your theory before you presented to them. Doesn't that suggest something? 3. How would you differ from people not being you vs them being you? How would you differ talking to yourself vs talking to someone else? If you still don't know what I'm talking about, consider this... when you are talking alone to yourself, and you know you, is it the same thing as giving exciting new information for people who are not you? Doesn't that suggest something? See? If you can't see the difference you can't conclude anything. There is no evidence that eventually people will be "You" like some "same Higher being", you can't even know if each person have their OWN Higher Beings (like Bashar suggests), you don't know that, you can only assume.