Carl-Richard

I've sat in meditation many times where the sensations of my body, the perceptions of my visual field behind my eye lids and the sounds in the room, literally start fading away, consistently the same way every time, to the point where I feel like I have no body, no mind, and that there is no space, no time. I didn't go all the way though, only up to the point where I felt like I was no one, nowhere, and that I would disappear forever and never come back, because that is a scary thing to let go into when you're completely sober.

This video in general parses out a lot of the fine distinctions between things like "mind" and "Mind" (and in fact idealism and solipsism). The Kastrup-Spira combo is excellent for this. 14:49 is about perceptions specifically.

So I guess everything is slippery, heh? Want more videos?

I think you should focus on the last part where he said conceptual distinctions are ok to make for utility reasons. That solves everything.

I guess you're a videos guy, so I'll let Rupert take it away:

Again, I'm making a distinction (a conceptual one, merely for utility) and again, everything is consciousness, so the distinction technically happens within consciousness. In other words, you can have consciousness either with perceptions present, or you can have consciousness without perceptions present. It's just easier to say "perceptions vs. consciousness", because "consciousness with perceptions present vs. consciousness without perceptions present" is a mouthful, and it logically follows if you already know that everything is consciousness (which I've said 12 times now). And what is a perception? It's anything that has a form that you can experience, and it's generally very humancentric and linked to your sense organs: sights, sounds, smells, sensations, thoughts, feelings, emotions, colors, objects, etc. Again, consciousness can exist without perceptions present, like in cessation, and it can exist with perceptions present, which makes the distinction useful for differentiating between these two things.

It's one thing to say that there exists infinite potential, but it's another thing to say that a particular thing can necessarily exist in a particular way (e.g. "infinite heroin"). You're now projecting some limited conceptual understanding onto reality. Maybe you can envision it in the fantasy of your own conceptual mind, but if you were to wheel it out in practice, meaning a reality that looks sort of like this one but which is somehow also different ("Reality 2.0"), I think you would encounter a lot of problems. Firstly, you don't even know what infinite heroin actually means, because again, it's only a limited conceptual idea. Secondly, this reality is not exactly an accident. It flows in a particular way. Copying and pasting something like infinite heroin (whatever that is) into it would interrupt the flow. The flow is infinite, but the flow is the flow.

Bro, I've said 10 times in this thread that everything is consciousness. How did you miss it? I'm saying it's a distinction.

Spontaneous awakenings doesn't change the fact that I'm Green-Yellow. But again, I generally don't like to type people that I kinda know, especially not someone like thisintegrated who is just different. For me, SD has become a tool to gauge someone I've just become familiar with, like when I first discovered Andrew Tate. Over time, it just becomes very superficial and limiting. It poisons your mind if all you can do is to think through that lens, which is a low resolution lens. To try to think deeply using a shallow tool is to shoot yourself in the foot.

The brighest stars burn the fastest, just like his first account ?

What happened is that we separated the super aggressive Advaita dogmatists from the super aggressive psychonaut dogmatists ?

??

With forms? That requires positives and negatives. But without forms, yep — not much going on then ?

Here is a challenge: construct me a reality without positives and negatives.

If consciousness is all there is, it's redundant to say "consciousness of" something. Everything is "consciousness of" something. Just say what it is. If there is a body, there is a body. If there is a thought, there is a thought. It's all consciousness anyway. Then, you can make a category that describes these things, e.g. sense perceptions. A body, a thought, an emotion, a memory, an identity; anything that can be experienced as a form: all of it is sense perceptions, and consciousness is that which is even beyond sense perceptions. You can use different words than sense perceptions (e.g. "experiences of form"), but just call it what it is.

@Osaid In other words, the consciousness is the same but the sense perceptions are different

God is not a human.

My read on him was always Red > Orange. Looks like that might turn out more correct than it intended.

By typing you as the type I actually think you are? Notice how I've never before talked about what I think your type is. I've only shared my disagreements about your interpretation of SD as a model. I didn't change my mind about anything because of some personal stuff, only about whether I should share it or not.

Why would I be upset about somebody typing me the same as I type myself?

It's going to be fine now.

Maybe you'll learn something.

You want to at least pretend that you're not the one instigating all this, or? I said no more personal attacks. Last verbal warning.

@lxlichael @KH2 If you two start up again, I'll bring out the points.

This is not a good thing to do with things you can change.