A Fellow Lighter

The way in which reality is created is non-mechanical. By this I mean that there is no process to it, none so ever. What there is is truth. But I'll explain. Imagine that there is a singular and yet universal current (a current like that of streaming water). However this current is so singular that even its flow is completely in unison, thus rendering it formless due to the lack of any finite features which would be present if this current had some sort of conflicting opposing current. But there isn't, because this current is universal. Alright, now, what I'm talking about here isn't really imaginary, in fact, it's not imaginary at all because I'm talking about consciousness in its purest state. It is the eternal motion of knowing that there is that which knows and it knows itself. A closed loop as you can assess for yourself. Ok, with that being said, what is reality and where does it come from? Reality is an activity performed by consciousness purely out of love. This activity is mind. Think about the verbal form of the word, contemplate it and attemt to broaden its meaning. Reality is the mind of this eternal motion or current called consciousness. With this capability, you can imagine both the possibility of a mindful (active) movement or a mind-less (passive/rest) movement. However, it is still consciousness no matter the movement. It is still one eternal motion. There is still no mechanics to it, nor is there a rhyme or a reason behind this. It is irrational. It is out of love. Love is what drives, so to speak, the motion.

Basically, you're struggling with existence. But to say "existence" does not address the heart of the matter which is that there, here, is consciousness. It is not going anywere, and all experiences are due to it, including your mom getting shot or yourself. Someone else you love might get shot. You might get shot again, and again, and again, and again. All of this is possible because all of this is still consciousness. But either you don't know what consciousness is and you keep asking why this stuff happens, or you do know what consciousness is but are still resisting the fact that you are it, you are that experience of getting shot and possibly dying, you are that experience of death as well as birth. But instead of being aware of this, you have rather fabricated an identity against consciousness and have called it your life instead of just life. Now everything that happens will be about you instead of being just about life. And when life moves on, you remain behind. You remain at that traumatic moment which has long passed. Rather than experiencing the pain and allowing to flow through, you are blocking it with your fear of possibly experiencing it again which might or might not be the case. This is why people suffer. No, you can't. If this happens then you have not understood consciousness, let alone be aware of it. Your reaction is not an involunteery spasm as you make it sound, it comes from your own concerns about life. It is rooted in your own unwillingness to accept and befriend death as part of life as part of consciousness. It is resistance at its best.

I'll only touch on this because it is the only part here related to a question you asked. 👇 Everything else in your text appears to be your own contemplation, which I won't interfere without the invitation of a question. Alright, since you have defined solipsism for me as the idea that the current experience as it is, is the only one in existence, then I'll have to disagree with solipsism. Reason being: All experience is impermanent. This is due to the fact that consciousness is a motion – the only motion outside the physical illusion. So, how can my experience of having a cheese burger for breakfast be the only experience in existence when I'll have a different meal for breakfast anytime soon? This idea is not accurate. The word existence encompasses a lot for just the current experience. Experience is an impermanent thing. It can be one thing, then in a blink of an eye, it is another thing entirely. However, within the impermanence of experience, is the permanence of consciousness. This consciousness (or eternal motion) is the only one in existence.

@Clarence When something traumatic is taking place then exactly in that moment, all you know is the pain that is unfolding for you. Yes, this too is consciousness, a very focussed or distilled form of consciousness, but conscioisness nonetheless. Now, the moment has long passed, but somehow, you are still living in that moment which has passed, and the present moment alludes you because you have not let go of that painful experience. You keep wondering "Why me?" or "Why does this happen?", and now you live in anxiety that it might happen again. This, precisely this, is suffering. And there is clearly no deep awareness because you keeping asking "why". "Why" marks the absence of awareness, the lack of understanding. The moment you are living in pain, even though the painful moment has passed, then you are struggling with consciousness. You are not aware that it is consciousness, hence you ask "why". The worst case scenario is that you are not aware of consciousness at all, never have been. Except trauma doesn't cause suffering. Suffering is caused by resisting the fact that it happened. The question of "Why me?" or anything along those lines is a form of resistance. We tend to resist what we don't understand. But then how can we understand it without the needed awareness?

Consciousness without awareness is the problem. That's what I'm saying above, in my post. Of course everything is consciousness, but without the awareness of how every single thing, or every experience, is in fact consciousness then one is bound to struggle. For instance, trauma is also consciousness. But if you're not aware of how trauma is still consciousness then you'll call it suffering.

There is no room in the sense that you can not operate from ego-mind in that level of awareness. Hence the sense of aloneness and the terror which followed. However, if your concern is that I reached this level of awareness with my ego in tact, then I understand your point. And, yes, it is possible to reach that level of awareness while operating at ego-mind, because ego-mind is still mind. However, you won't like it, and you'll back out just as I did. That level of awareness is not for the i.

It is in fact the last door because in that state of awareness, nothing is hidden from you. The truth is so blunt and undeniable. However, this time I'm making sure that I am prepared for that level of awareness. I am having and integrating all the awakenings I've had and might have. There won't be an "again" once I get to total awakening again. Because I will be prepared to let go of the illusion of i.

The blow of the knife was much more penetrating than that. It was the deconstruction of the observer entirely, forget the objective or subjective context. Precisely 💯 I can tell you my view on the nature of "the self" and "others", however I am still not sure what it is exactly that solipsism posits or even if there is one school of solipsism. Perhaps you can reiterate it for me? No, there are no bubbles formed. Nor are they necessary for the illusion of POVs because there is no individual awareness. There is always only one mind, that is, only one reality. The appearance of individual awareness is not even an appearance at all, but an assumption. The observer is imagined by the consciousness that is us (or everything). The assumption is made due to the form which reality (the mind) has taken. It has taken a perceiver-perception form for no purpose in particular but again for the general purpose of consciousness. The observer or perceiver-perception form is not in any way necessary or a somewhat default form. The mind is in fact capable of taking a form that doesn't give rise to the illusion of a POV at all. And chances are, you've probably experienced this in a psychedelic trip or at least in a dream where there was an experience but no clear indication of an experiencer. The POV is an illusion. In fact, it is not even an intended illusion. It is only a case of imagination or assumption made by the consciousness that is us (or everything). This illusion of a POV can be let go of, can be released, and reality would still continue as it is, the "dream" would still continue, up until it reaches it's natural conclusion. Yes, I have.

I once had that awakening in which I was totally aware of my singular existence as consciousness. At first I found it calming, well I was calm. I also started feeling overwhelmingly powerful. Then, as the realisation of my absolute aloneness set in, terror struck. I wasn't prepared for that truth. I can accept it conceptually but to be totally aware of it as I was in that state, that's a whole new ballgame. Ever since, I've been gradually and steadily working towards that realisation again. I'm still not prepared for it, to be honest. There really is no room for ego up there, just pure selfless expression.

It's just consciousness, friend. There is no rationalisation or justification needed. Pain is consciousness. The good news is that the pain doesn't last because consciousness is forever in motion.

That's a good sign. Feel free to share your contemplations, questions or the answers you arrive to. This is just a way to recognise potential falsities or unventured realities. Otherwise I wish you much luck on your journey.

I stay in Pongolo, KZN. I also stay in Tembisa, City of Ekurhuleni (I only go there if I'm working, though). You moved all the way to Western Cape. Johannesburg is relatively closer to Tembisa.

I am from South Africa.

According to modern physics, everything is in motion. This concept is known as the Principle of Universal Motion. It states that everything in the universe, from particles to galaxies, is in a state of constant motion. This idea encompasses various types of motion: translational, rotational, vibrational, and etc. Even seemingly stationary objects like a rock or a building are composed of atoms and molecules that are constantly vibrating and moving due to thermal energy. What if consciousness is not a void? What if all this motion is the consciousness? Not an expression of consciousness, but the actual thing – actually consciousness? The ego mind has fabricated this re-occurant thought that it is conscious. What if no one is conscious? What if this adjective is a misnoner? What if consciousness is the movement itself: the thought, the feelings, the sensation, the decisions, the impressions and the expressions, the interactions? What if all this motion and emotion is pure consciousness? At the end of the day, awareness is existence, and existence is motion – in one form or another. If nothing moves, nothing is.

What stillness are you refering to?

It's a process. You need to start observing reality while paying much attention to the detail of your experience. I'm not just taljing about your day-to-day experiences, but also your night-to-night expetiences as well. Your dreams also part of reality. Upon observation is contemplation. You must ask what it is that you are observing, you must do so without jumping to conclusions. Then, finally, if the answers seem to allude you, meditate. Meditation is not contemplation. Meditation, here, is rest fron thought. Contemplation is thought. The key to having any genuine awakening is to be true to yourself. So long as you are honest with yourself, there will be real progress in your journey.

Yes, it really is quite different. It is also both refreshing and empowering. But I'm glad if I am in fact making sense conceptually.

Not exactly. The mind doesn't do anything, it's not a thing or a being which is able to "do" anything. The mind (reality) is an activity, not an actor (do-er). Regarding the illusion of the self. Firstly, this is a bit confusing if you haven't had that direct awakening that reality is mind, so you'll have to bear with me and help me make sure that I am making you understand. Alright. The mind, or reality itself, is not an illusion. The word illusion describes a false appearance. Everything is really here, this is not a false appearance. The only illusion is you, the I, this is the illusion which is created by consciousness' imagination. [This is very subtle so pay close attention to the detail as much as you can.]

Yes, everything. Reality is an activity. The way in which things take form, express their form, then lose form... All this is activity, and I call this activity mind.

Yes, it's all the same substance. However, I would suggest that you consider it an activity rather than a thing (if substance is seen as a thing). Thank you for your comment.

Though I may not agree with the precise wording ("turned off", "displaying"), I do get it. Consciousness, or the screen (as you put it), still exists without form. But, now, do you get that even this formlessness is a motion? And that there are not two motions but one motion which moves into colourful experience or unto deep sleep but without one being permanent or more (or less) impermanent than the other? This is the main position of my thread. That consciousness is motion – one motion that is.

No. The mind does, or reality does (in case you haven't realised that reality is mind).

Whether it's important to differentiate or not is a matter of experience. In my ezperience, such a differentiation is on its own ego (or self-serving) mind. I'm concerned more about the truth. And the truth is that there is no screen. It is only the appearance of the so called content which makes it seem like there's a screen. The I Am is whatever It Is at the moment that it is up until it is no longer that thing because it has become something else entirely. The truth is that which is the case no matter what. Consciousness is that which is the case no matter what. So why should one speak of a screen as if the content is something less than the consciousness? So, yes, Ramana Maharshi is in deed overlooking. Except the real consciousness cannot be turned on and off, because every movement is its own movement. But there only reason you assume that there is a screen is because of the so called content. So why assume that the screen is consciousness and the content isn't? But really, why assume a screen at all when there is no reason to? Why create this dichotomy between form and consciousness? Why have you disregarded the form as something less than consciousness? Isn't it because of the form that you know that there is consciousness? And if so, then why continue to devalue the form or attempt to separate it from the existence of consciousness? It is though the form comes from somewhere else, somewhere other than consciousness. But there is no where and no other. All is one motion, and that motion is without a beginning or end. That motion is consciousness.

There is only stillness in terms of me not going anywhere as the consciousness, otherwise I am pure motion all the way. And there is only emptiness with regards to there being nothing but me, otherwise i am absolutely whole. Not a space or somwthing that is capable of being empty or filled. I am both the appearance of the content and the appearance of the space. But these appearances do not define me, I define them. I am rootless, I am foundationless. I am all polarities, all dichotomies, all appearances.