is Consciousness an Absolute Only in this Dream?

[Breakingthewall]

2 minutes ago, gettoefl said:

you are my amazing teacher brother

I only try to teach myself, but I need to explain it to someone to think in loud, so thanks for listening and sharing all your ideas

[Nemra]

@Someone here

Imagine that the air you're breathing makes you forget things. The faster you breathe, the more you forget.

Or imagine someone changing your brain structure to make you afraid all the time with a snap of a finger for their own pleasure.

[gettoefl]

2 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

I only try to teach myself, but I need to explain it to someone to think in loud, so thanks for listening and sharing all your ideas

you are very devoted and much appreciated

and by the way, i call purified perception VISION, that is when egoic traits have been laid aside and then we glimpse the gate of heaven

[Someone here]

1 minute ago, Nemra said:

@Someone here

Imagine that the air you're breathing makes you forget things. The faster you breathe, the more you forget.

Or imagine someone changing your brain structure to make you afraid all the time with a snap of a finger for their own pleasure.

That's beanuts compared to what I said .

 

[Nemra]

@Someone here 

I don't think so.

For mine, you have to be more imaginative.

Edited June 7 by Nemra

[Someone here]

@Nemra remember this ?..

"It's Absolutely infinite ..it's Absolutely infinite..it's Absolutely infinite..it's just Absolutely infinite. .its Absolutely infinite you don't fucking understand it's ABSOLUTELY INFINITE "

[Nemra]

@Someone here

Ok, I surrender. You win. 😂

But next time, don't use his cards. 😉😁

Edited June 7 by Nemra

[Breakingthewall]

3 minutes ago, gettoefl said:

call purified perception VISION, that is when egoic traits have been laid aside and then we glimpse the gate of heaven

That's right, the mind must be purified to the maximum, until it is transparent like crystal. Attachment to the thousands of forms of the ego makes the mind a mirror that can only see its own reflection, it has to be cleaned and opened to see, and for that has to understand how it limits itself.

Be human is very difficult in mostly of cases, high density must be dissolved .

[gettoefl]

3 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

That's right, the mind must be purified to the maximum, until it is transparent like crystal. Attachment to the thousands of forms of the ego makes the mind a mirror that can only see its own reflection, it has to be cleaned and opened to see, and for that has to understand how it limits itself.

Be human is very difficult in mostly of cases, high density must be dissolved .

yes see each form for what it is, the all in the part ... definitely requires a different way of thinking but gets much easier when practiced

[Someone here]

6 minutes ago, Nemra said:

@Someone here

Ok, I surrender. You win. 😂

But next time, don't use his cards. 😉

OK 

[integral]

i’m glad this topic went in a positive direction. 🙌

I just received a sick joke from the YouTube algorithm obviously this is divine intervention.

Edited June 7 by integral

[Davino]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Insanity is as holy as shit.

Holy Shit!

[UnbornTao]

On 6/7/2024 at 9:05 PM, zurew said:

Here is what im willing to give: There is a set of things, that we can have epistemic access to (given some foundational assumptions), and there is probably a way to max out on that set (maybe). Lets grant that there is a way to max out on it. -  That sounds like a really fucking cool thing.

Now, lets start with  an opposite assumption, namely, that there is a set of truths about yourself and about the world that  you have 0 epistemic access to and you will never have any epistemic acces to . Now ,the issue comes when we start to make knowledge claims about that set - and thats what I have problem with here (mostly).

When someone says "consciousness is all there is" -  thats a claim that seem to be touching on that set, and it shouldn't be touching on it. If the sentence would be "Consciousness is all there is, given what I have epistemic access to" - then I would be much more accepting of that statement.

So by definition, everyone has to admit, that there is 0 way for you to rule out the possibility or the existence of that set, and because of that, we should only ever make claims about things, that we have epistemic access to and leave alone all the rest.

Btw, just to be clear, no hard feelings here, this is just my writing style , sorry

Any statement can be interpreted as an assumption. But could there be a real recognition underlying the communication that validates such view?

Say someone "gets it" and then claims something like "Consciousness is all", if that were consistent with their breakthrough. First, you don't have to believe in it. You can try listening to it and the "experience" may get across to you, that is, you grasp your nature (this would be like a transmission in zen). The key is the consciousness itself, not anything else that comes after it such as the expression. It must be validated through personal "experience." Hence the role of self-inquiry.

One challenge is that we may not understand what "direct" means. Do you hold it as possible--becoming conscious of the thing itself without intermediary, absolutely, prior to experience, mind and perception, beyond a doubt? The terms kensho and satori can give the mind something new to ponder. If you don't think it as possible, then this awakening business is a mere fantasy to you.

And relatively, why close oneself off? We may be able to understand directly the nature of things beyond assumption. We just shouldn't conflate our failure to do so with concluding that it is impossible. This is where the principle of openness comes in.

Why is Gautama known as the awakened one? Leaving legend aside, he exemplifies the possibility of "complete enlightenment", whatever that is. Can we understand everything there is, as the Buddha presumably did? I'd say yes. If a human could do it, then it means that it is possible. 

There, an incoherent mess.  

Edited June 19 by UnbornTao

[zurew]

@UnbornTao You are misunderstanding what Im trying to say.

Im not trying to claim that enlightenment or awakening  is impossible (the word impossible is itself  a relational term and its only meaningful if it relates to a specific standard and if you change the standard, impossible can become possible). I already said in my previous reply, that I have almost no issue with granting that those things are possible.

What I do have issue with, is when we are not honest about our epistemic limitations and we start to rule out things that we can't really rule out by definition. This was about the set of truths that you don't have epistemic access to and never will. - If that set do exist , then you won't ever know about that set, if it doesn't exist then the same applies, you won't ever know about that set. So either way, you cannot ever claim, that that set doesn't exist.

So again, lets tie all this back to the claim that "consciousness is all there is". That claim can be interpreted in multiple ways - one can be  epistemic (you make a claim about what you know) or it can be metaphysical (what exist). If its the first one, then thats nothing more than you just reporting on your own epistemology. If its the second one, then we are starting to have an issue with you conflating your epistemology with metaphysics, where you are trying to touch on the set (I was mentioning) which you by definition cannot know about and you  are conflating with what you know, with what actually exist.  

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

We just shouldn't conflate our failure to do so with concluding that it is impossible. So this is where the principle of openness comes in.

Thats exactly what Im trying to build up here. When enlightened Andy number 140 on this forum says "I know everything that exist and I cannot ever be wrong about this statement" - thats sounds  exactly like falling into the trap you are mentioning  there. They are ruling out the possibility of them being wrong.

Edited June 9 by zurew

[UnbornTao]

On 09/06/2024 at 5:18 PM, zurew said:

@UnbornTao You are misunderstanding what Im trying to say.

Im not trying to claim that enlightenment or awakening  is impossible (the word impossible is itself  a relational term and its only meaningful if it relates to a specific standard and if you change the standard, impossible can become possible). I already said in my previous reply, that I have almost no issue with granting that those things are possible.

What I do have issue with, is when we are not honest about our epistemic limitations and we start to rule out things that we can't really rule out by definition. This was about the set of truths that you don't have epistemic access to and never will. - If that set do exist , then you won't ever know about that set, if it doesn't exist then the same applies, you won't ever know about that set. So either way, you cannot ever claim, that that set doesn't exist.

So again, lets tie all this back to the claim that "consciousness is all there is". That claim can be interpreted in multiple ways - one can be  epistemic (you make a claim about what you know) or it can be metaphysical (what exist). If its the first one, then thats nothing more than you just reporting on your own epistemology. If its the second one, then we are starting to have an issue with you conflating your epistemology with metaphysics, where you are trying to touch on the set (I was mentioning) which you by definition cannot know about and you  are conflating with what you know, with what actually exist.  

Thats exactly what Im trying to build up here. When enlightened Andy number 140 on this forum says "I know everything that exist and I cannot ever be wrong about this statement" - thats sounds  exactly like falling into the trap you are mentioning  there. They are ruling out the possibility of them being wrong.

I started writing a different response and then realized that it wouldn't cut it. We're basically talking about a possibility called "realizing the absolute" while living and being stuck in a world of relativity, so to speak. Having a few enlightenments is the answer. It would save us all this pointless intellectualization. Convenient thing to say but for some of us this is the main goal.

Ramana Maharshi's first teachings, and presumably his most potent ones, were said to consist of him just being silent. Something to consider.

Edited June 18 by UnbornTao

[BlessedLion]

On 6/7/2024 at 1:52 AM, Inliytened1 said:

Or mediation.......

Leo is stuck on psychedelics being the only way to have insights or awakenings 

[VeganAwake]

Here consciousness was recognized to just be the normal bodily functioning; seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, ...coupled with a very stimulated and creative imagination.

Its dream-like in the sense that there's actually no one experiencing this so-called consciousness.

The illusory experiencer is what causes the ruckus. It turns out that illusions perpetuate illusions really well 🤣

❤️