What's the difference between knowing and being directly conscious?

[Razard86]

I wouldn't say being is prior to knowing, I'd say that being doesn't need knowing to exist, but it does need knowing to confirm its existence. 

[Princess Arabia]

12 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

At least that’s what i heard from my non dual cult leaders.

Lol. At least you're being honest about it. Lol

[Princess Arabia]

7 hours ago, Razard86 said:

I wouldn't say being is prior to knowing, I'd say that being doesn't need knowing to exist, but it does need knowing to confirm its existence. 

Aha. Great insight. Love this. Clarifies a lot.

[Princess Arabia]

11 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Being directly concious is knowing. There are two ways to knowing, one relative, another absolute. The relative is for example knowing that if I stab anyone he's going to die. The absolute is that you are. It's not so simpler than knowing that you are a human, that's relative. Absolute knowing is omniscience and only can happen if you are totally open. I could have absolute knowing 10 minutes ago and now not anymore, then I build relative knowledge over that remember and it's just relative. The absolute I am implies everything, it's total omniscience, but has a little problem: you can't remember it, it's actual, now, and it's mystical extasy, absolute openness. Then, anything else is relative perspective, not false, relative. 

Hmmm, nice. Sometimes you make sense and sometimes you just seem like a delusional, chaotic, omnipotent, robotic, open to the cosmos enlightened unawakened being. I love to fuck wit you, don't mind me. 😛

[Princess Arabia]

Great question, btw, OP.

[Breakingthewall]

12 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Hmmm, nice. Sometimes you make sense and sometimes you just seem like a delusional, chaotic, omnipotent, robotic, open to the cosmos enlightened unawakened being. I love to fuck wit you, don't mind me. 😛

Sometimes I try to understand logically the structure of the relative reality and sounds weird but i think it's interesting too, and necessary to remove barriers imo. Another times like above I talk about direct experience of opening, then sounds different. I achieve it really, but sometimes not , and if you don't do in a couple of days you are out.  this is an ascendent movement with some moments of getting down to go upper next. Up in the sense of more clean openess. 

[Princess Arabia]

4 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

  this is an ascendent movement with some moments of getting down to go upper next. Up in the sense of more clean openess.

Yeah, it's called phases. I know I surely went through a lot of that and still going through them. That's how one grows....or decline....depending on how they respond to the phases. Just like the human body.

[Inliytened1]

14 hours ago, Egosum said:

If God cannot be known (because being is prior to knowing), how can you become directly conscious of it? Isn't being directly conscious of God also a form of knowing? Aren't they really the same thing?

You can know that 2+2=4 but when was the first time that you directly (actually) realized and understood for yourself that 2+2=4? 

Notice that one is concept while one is actual.

Both are of the same reality but one is sort of the thought afterwards and not direct Being. This is a duality that yet too must ultimately break down, but not until you first grasp the difference can they become indifferent. 

Edited November 12 by Inliytened1

[UnbornTao]

Me pica el pie.

[zurew]

On 2024. 11. 12. at 0:47 AM, Inliytened1 said:

You can know that 2+2=4 but when was the first time that you directly (actually) realized and understood for yourself that 2+2=4? 

What does that mean to directly realize that 2+2=4 ?

That terminology kind of makes sense if we apply it  to Being , but to me it doesn't make any sense when you apply it to the relative domain.

@UnbornTao This is the kind of category-error that I was talking about.

Edited November 24 by zurew

[UnbornTao]

3 hours ago, zurew said:

What does that mean to directly realize that 2+2=4 ?

That terminology kind of makes sense if we apply it  to Being , but to me it doesn't make any sense when you apply it to the relative domain.

@UnbornTao This is the kind of category-error that I was talking about.

In that case "to personally understand a fact" may be a more apt expression. "Direct" may better be used for existential matters and breakthroughs, in my view.

If direct means (is being defined as) the thing itself, I assume that doesn't pertain to the relative domain.