Existence is a TV Screen: My Enlightenment Experience

[ground]

25 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@ground ... consciousness ... knows itself through (A) being aware of its own existence, ...

I think you are confusing the sentiment of 'I' with awareness here.

 

25 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@ground ... consciousness ... knows itself through ... (B) being aware of forms through the lenses or instrument of other forms. ...

What's the meaning of 'through the lenses or instrument of other forms'? Are there other existing forms in your system of thought?

25 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@ground ... when you look at a square that is green, that is in fact, consciousness appearing as a green square. 

Since your metaphysics posits an inter-individual consciousness you can impute whatever you like to this idea of an inter-individual consciousness. But how does your system explain that a square that is green may cause different thoughts in two individuals? Obviously there have to be other consciousnesses that aren't inter-individual but individual, right?

Edited December 23, 2018 by ground

[Forestluv]

57 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@TheAvatarState One particular thing that i had always heard but didn't realize what that it's not correct to say that all these forms are within consciousness. At first one might be tempted to say such a thing. As time passed though, I realized that within and without are concepts. In truth, all these apparent "forms" are themselves consciousness.

Very nice. The concept of all things being within consciousness can be a useful step for a mind. Yet once a mind becomes relaxed and settled here, there may arise the realization that “within” suggests there is a “without” - and then this duality can collapse.

Yet, I think the “within consciousness” imagery can be a helpful pointer for an open mind that has not yet had direct nondual experience.

[SoonHei]

@Nahm @Leo Gura @Serotoninluv

 

So an enlightenment experience first and foremost reveals our true nature. And that's it?

When does one become aware of its various (infinite) facets?

Like leo said, infinite screen or infinite love or infinite intelligence?

 

Does a fully enlightened person (Rupert Spira, sadhguru, Eckhart) have full knowledge of all facets of Reality?

 

Like i have seen a few of leo's enlightenment experience videos and in each of them he talks about a different facet... 

 

Are those facets of Reality still content in the dream but it is also TRUE because it's an insight?

 

So essentially, two enlightened beings may not have the same understanding or depth of Reality?

 

The only one common thing would be that they are aware of the TRUTH but their understanding would be varied?

[FoxFoxFox]

@ground Honestly, there is no point in this discussion as far as getting enlightened is involved, and I say this with utmost respect. What I can tell you is that you are currently identified with your mind. You believe that the accumulated sense perceptions of the mind are what we refer to as the "screen". This is not the case. The screen precedes mind. Try looking for that. There are several individuals in this forum that are way more qualified than me in explaining this stuff. 

[Forestluv]

11 minutes ago, ground said:

Since your metaphysics posits an inter-individual consciousness you can impute whatever you like to this idea of an inter-individual consciousness. 

Such an inter-individual consciousness is a bridge toward the concept of a collective consciousness (that includes individuals).

There is another “level” higher in which all distinctions collapse into one consciousness. 

[FoxFoxFox]

@Serotoninluv @ground

Quote

There is another “level” higher in which all distinctions collapse into one consciousness. 

This.

[ground]

4 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@ground ... What I can tell you is that you are currently identified with your mind. You believe that the accumulated sense perceptions of the mind are what we refer to as the "screen". This is not the case. The screen precedes mind. Try looking for that. There are several individuals in this forum that are way more qualified than me in explaining this stuff. 

I haven't even read the opening post. So I do not know what 'screen' you are referring to. Do you take your speculations about 'you' and 'your mind' as valid? if yes, how come?

[ground]

11 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

There is another “level” higher in which all distinctions collapse into one consciousness. 

Ah see, if this sentence of yours would have ended after 'collapse' then I could have said 'On a linguistic level I can agree with your wording' but since it does not end after 'collapse' I cannot even agree on a linguistic level.

[FoxFoxFox]

@ground I identify with the couch this body is sitting on as much as i identify with the mind. I illuminate all without lording it over them. 

The screen is awareness, consciousness, the Self, or God. Whatever you want to call it. It is also your own true nature. There really isn't any speculation of someone about his "mind". Everything that can be said about the Self is a concession to language, and will not accurately portray the truth. 

[Forestluv]

6 minutes ago, ground said:

Ah see, if this sentence of yours would have ended after 'collapse' then I could have said 'On a linguistic level I can agree with your wording' but since it does not end after 'collapse' I cannot even agree on a linguistic level.

Of course. That is a reasonable perspective within a rational linguistic paradigm. 

A mind would need to surrender that safety blanket to further expand. 

[TheAvatarState]

@Leo Gura thanks, I'll make sure not to lose this understanding. It could be so easy to fall back into objectifying things.

How do you reconcile this understanding with everyday life? I am aware of the one-ness right now, but it doesn't seem to bring me any happiness, fulfillment, or extra value to the experience. Am I missing something, or are these experiences completely normal?

[FoxFoxFox]

Quote

I am aware of the one-ness right now, but it doesn't seem to bring me any happiness, fulfillment, or extra value to the experience.

I believe this line of thought is a doorway to recede back into the egoic paradigm

Who is it that wants those things? The screen? Does the screen care if the actors in the movie are happy, or fulfilled etc etc?

[ground]

4 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@ground ... Whatever you want to call it. It is also your own true nature. ...

Maybe that's the point. I have no urge to name what isn't, let alone to call a nature 'true' when this nature isn't. Saying 'isn't' however is restricted by the degrees of freedom that language has and in case of 'is' it is just 'is' in the affirmative and 'isn't' in the negative. Unfortunately there is no word for the middle of 'is' and 'isn't'. "Neither 'is', nor 'isn't', nor both, nor neither" would be the most appropriate expression.

[SoonHei]

@TheAvatarState @TheAvatarState @Serotoninluvj but it doesn't seem to bring me any happiness, fulfillment, or extra value to the experience.

 

REAlize there is no me/you there to have happiness.

Use the Awakening to know there is no you

The audience watching a movie is free from the character's happiness or suffering

Unless you become attached to the character.. and that's the example of people getting emotional when watching a sad movie for example

 

REAlize you are the audience and are ever okay with respect to what happens on the screen.

 

 

[TheAvatarState]

1 minute ago, ground said:

Maybe that's the point. I have no urge to name what isn't, let alone to call a nature 'true' when this nature isn't. Saying 'isn't' however is restricted by the degrees of freedom that language has and in case of 'is' it is just 'is' in the affirmative and 'isn't' in the negative. Unfortunately there is no word for the middle of 'is' and 'isn't'. "Neither 'is', nor 'isn't', nor both, nor neither" would be the most appropriate expression.

I believe the word you're looking for us "Mu."

[ground]

13 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

A mind would need to surrender that safety blanket to further expand. 

Provided there is a mind that can expand.

[ground]

1 minute ago, TheAvatarState said:

I believe the word you're looking for us "Mu."

Well I would like to use the most conventional language, i.e. expressions one does find in common dictionaries. Using expressions only used in small communities of believers ('Mu' is know from a Zen koan and Zen folks typically are believers) would to a certain degree create the impression that I would advocate their view which is what I do not want.

[Forestluv]

10 minutes ago, ground said:

Provided there is a mind that can expand.

The words are merely a pointer. In this “realm”, I’ve found it best to let go of the words and relax the mind. This tends to increase the liklihood that “what” is being pointed to may be revealed. 

[TheAvatarState]

@SoonHei yes, that was my ego speaking. But fully knowing that I don't exist, and that every distinction I make between myself and the "outside" world is an illusion, honestly it isn't that pleasant for me right now. I can stop at any moment and smile at the infinite beauty and wonder of this illusory existence, I really can, but forcing myself (to the best of my ability) to bask in that for days now, it's starting to get really tiring. I have faith that I'm doing the right thing and that it'll get better... And honestly I'm not attached to a future outcome of "getting better," I'm following truth no matter what. It has already killed me, so there's nothing really to fear anymore. I just wanted to express that it's difficult to be at a lower state now than I was... But maybe that's just what I need. 

[ground]

6 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

The words are merely a pointer.

Taking this expression on a merely linguistic level I can agree with this wording. But beware of asserting where words are pointing to!