Gesundheit2

It's different, though. It's not the typical left vs. right debate. It's the left vs. speaking the truth. Leftists want to cancel any criticism of the left as too early and/or pragmatically inappropriate. I thought we were supposed to speak the truth here regardless of political orientation. This is simply about truth, introspection, and self-reflection. These are the values of Actualized, as far as I know.

By speaking the truth?

The levels of bias here are basically infinite.

So much, and still learning. He is a genius and a real gift to the world. Infinitely deep. But I'll still criticize and troll him sometimes

@Leo Gura I honestly don't know whether to cringe, shake my head, facepalm, or all of the above at your posts here. You're deeply biased and entrenched in left values that it's clouding your judgement. Your political views are not balanced, even though they might seem that way to you. It's not because you're advocating for Green per se that you are unbalanced, but because you're discrediting the right and giving a lot of unwarranted credit to the left. Keep in mind that most greenies have not experienced Red nor Blue properly, including yourself.

Start some charity or volunteer work.

Different doesn't mean higher. SD is a leftist bias. Nothing in life suggests that a right winger cannot have higher consciousness than a left winger, except SD and similar models. And it's an oversimplification to suggest so. MAGA is not ideal, and so is wokism. That's the point. They're both a caricature of their imagined ideal, and their ideals are not one better than the other, but complementary to each other.

I've just realized some deep truth about God, nature, and society. It's beautiful! But also cruel and horrible. What does an ego have to do?

Aka "woke".

lahul wala quwwata illa billah.

It's literally the same people in both cases. The only difference between woke and right wing is upbringing and possibly socio-economic status, but their levels of consciousness are roughly the same. They're fundamentally just conforming their social circle and going overboard with that to enhance their survival. That's just a leftist bias. It has nothing to do with truth.

@Thought Art Yes.

When you say "false distinction", you're referring to a value judgement or quality as in relative falsity. But when you say it "isn't true", you're referring to the existential property of true or false, as in existing or non-existent. These are two different levels that you're somehow mixing together, and it is important to understand the difference between them. Why would that be the case? Who said that imaginary distinctions are not true? Do you see the circular logic here? Basically, you are saying all distinctions are imaginary, and therefore ultimately false, precisely because they're imaginary. If all distinctions are imaginary, and I agree that they are, how does that make them not true? Like, why do you automatically assume their falsity, just because they're imaginary? What if they can be imaginary and true both at the same time? However, do you think that it is possible to stop imagining distinctions? I personally don't think so. And even if it is possible, what does that have to do with truth? There is a common belief in spiritual communities that truth is that which never changes or goes away. I think it's the source of this assumption. That is, if you stop imagining it, it might stop being true.

Why is it a false distinction? How does falseness relate to imagination? Can there be a false distinction, really? Is there a true imagination and a false imagination? Distinctions are imaginary, after all, but what does that have to do with truth and falsehood?

I see what you're saying. I'm just pointing out that this is not necessarily absolutely true. In other words, sense perception is pure consciousness, yet at the same time it's also not pure consciousness, as it has (or at least seems to have) properties, which pure consciousness does not. So in one sense, they are the same. And in another, they are not. Hence the distinction and the different labels. Carl is trying to get you to see why there is a distinction in the first place, even though you might call it an imaginary distinction, which is technically true but might be implying certain misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations. There is a truth and a value to understanding this.

Surprisingly good video! Somebody seems to have been following Actualized recently.

It might seem that what you're saying is devoid of hierarchy, but it is not. It is setting up "pure consciousness", "oneness", or "the absolute" at the top as a first-order phenomenon, and sense perception, the self, and the relative down below as second-order stuff. It's implicit and subtle, but still there. In any case, and even if you don't believe in or advocate for hierarchies, the preference against hierarchies is still a hierarchy in and of itself, even though on a meta level. Be aware of the meta narratives that the mind constructs. They can go very deep.

The thing with this terminology that you're using is that it already determines and reinforces a certain hierarchical structure and an order between "pure consciousness" and sense perceptions. It sets up a system of thinking or a narrative with one possible interpretation, while it ignores other systems. He is pointing to another system. The keyword here is imagination. You're using it to nullify certain differences that he's trying to communicate to you. If you think about what he said without referring to imagination as a source of authority, there might be something interesting to see there.

Imagine a room with a window and you're inside the room looking through the window from the inside out. You see the world around you through this little window. Does the world around you cease to exist if you close the window or look away? Does a blind person who doesn't have a window not have a room?

There can be a difference that technically might not be. When you imagine a distinction, a difference emerges. This imaginary difference that emerges is just that, an image in your consciousness. That doesn't make it non-existent, though. Imagination and existence are not necessarily opposites. Truth and falsehood can overlap if you blur the distinctions between them.

Typically, the word God is associated with jaw-drop emotional reactionary states. Feeling spiritually awestruck is usually what most people consider to be God. But according to non-duality, God and ego are actually interchangeable. So you can argue for the opposite case, and you will be right. Just realize the relativity of all this and don't get sucked into debates about it.

@Intraplanetary Cuz you're a Barbie girl, in a Barbie world.

Claim: Fact: Misfortune happens a lot. People born with disabilities exist. Bad things happen to people, animals, and even plants. People and animals get cancer and other terminal illnesses. Good people are rewarded poorly, and bad people are rewarded greatly. Etc.

That's why I don't read except what I think is necessary for me. I don't just gather information for the sake of information, my brain capacity is limited, and digesting information especially if new and/or complex takes time and energy. I don't read novels at all. I've only read like two or three books of that genre. However, one possible and valid use of mindlessly reading could be to brainwash your subconscious mind and program it with certain beliefs that you want. Sometimes, you'd need to change certain beliefs about yourself and/or life, and you might feel stuck trying to deprogram certain limiting beliefs, so that technique could be helpful.