How deeply can You awaken?

[Iesu]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

Well before we even discuss time as being imaginary...let's look at the 1st part.  Language is dualistic so when we talk we can't help but include time..so If you and he are absolutely identical..then that would mean there could be only a single actuality.  In other words, you as God could not be actually experiencing multiple points of view simultaneously - because you as God are experiencing this particular one.  And so how could "he" if he is you, be experiencing "his" or "yours" without you?  You see you are God.  You can't "miss" anything because you are everything.  So some experience cannot be happening without you!   If he is you, then dualistically speaking at some point you will BE him.  But you are not being him now because you are being you!  You can't be him without you being there to do it !

Lmao 

[Inliytened1]

@Iesu God doesn't have to be alone.  All it has to do is go back to sleep.

[Iesu]

12 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

@Iesu God doesn't have to be alone.  All it has to do is go back to sleep.

Al-one bruh, it's Satire lol 

 

Edited December 10, 2021 by Iesu

[Inliytened1]

@Iesu ?

[RMQualtrough]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

Well before we even discuss time as being imaginary...let's look at the 1st part.  Language is dualistic so when we talk we can't help but include time..so If you and he are absolutely identical..then that would mean there could be only a single actuality.  In other words, you as God could not be actually experiencing multiple points of view simultaneously - because you as God are experiencing this particular one.  And so how could "he" if he is you, be experiencing "his" or "yours" without you?  You see you are God.  You can't "miss" anything because you are everything.  So some experience cannot be happening without you!   If he is you, then dualistically speaking at some point you will BE him.  But you are not being him now because you are being you!  You can't be him without you being there to do it !

If you look at a leaf on a tree, one leaf could not be another leaf, yet both are simultaneously and inescapably the tree.

If everything me, which would mean this thing via which I type to you, is a leaf, sharing its treeness with many other leafs and fundamentally BEING the tree (as there is only tree), then why could there then only be one leaf at a time?

It is still oneness with an appearance of division in that scenario. There already is an appearance of division necessary, since if you layered a bunch of film reels on top of each other eventually the projected image would just be black. Finitude allows for distinction and form.

But is it the case that these forms and identities are like tree leaves, with an underlying singular being, or that there is just one form at a time? I think it's difficult to comprehend, I'm not sure what the answer is.

[Iesu]

@Inliytened1

9 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

If you look at a leaf on a tree, one leaf could not be another leaf, yet both are simultaneously and inescapably the tree.

If everything me, which would mean this thing via which I type to you, is a leaf, sharing its treeness with many other leafs and fundamentally BEING the tree (as there is only tree), then why could there then only be one leaf at a time?

It is still oneness with an appearance of division in that scenario. There already is an appearance of division necessary, since if you layered a bunch of film reels on top of each other eventually the projected image would just be black. Finitude allows for distinction and form.

But is it the case that these forms and identities are like tree leaves, with an underlying singular being, or that there is just one form at a time? I think it's difficult to comprehend, I'm not sure what the answer is.

words will never express 

 

Edited December 10, 2021 by Iesu

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

If you look at a leaf on a tree, one leaf could not be another leaf, yet both are simultaneously and inescapably the tree.

If everything me, which would mean this thing via which I type to you, is a leaf, sharing its treeness with many other leafs and fundamentally BEING the tree (as there is only tree), then why could there then only be one leaf at a time?

It is still oneness with an appearance of division in that scenario.

that's what this is...its an appearance of division.     lets' look at the top sentence.  You are the whole tree, and you are imagining that you are being one pariticular leaf.  so you are not being the other leafs...   Who else would be being the other leaves then?   or maybe the other leaves are just being imaged by you as the tree?  And when you stop being the leaf and realize you are the tree, you see this.   You can't get around Oneness as much as you are trying.

[Shin]

It's one pov of human, even though all human (and everything else) is one.

There is no over pov on if yours is.

And of course by that I mean none of you have a pov, only me through Shin right now, until I dream I'm you or something else entirely.

Edited December 10, 2021 by Shin

[RMQualtrough]

37 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

that's what this is...its an appearance of division.     lets' look at the top sentence.  You are the whole tree, and you are imagining that you are being one pariticular leaf.  so you are not being the other leafs...   Who else would be being the other leaves then?   or maybe the other leaves are just being imaged by you as the tree?  And when you stop being the leaf and realize you are the tree, you see this.   You can't get around Oneness as much as you are trying.

The ego self, the finite experience, would be the leaf. My leaf and your leaf are different. But we are both just the tree. If you end, the tree doesn't end, the leaf ends.

Is it like that, which allows for simultaneous perspectives all had by one I, or is it sequential.

[Iesu]

Also why does @Being Frank Yang preach the natty state and pyschdelics wont awaken you. @Leo Gura 

[Fearless_Bum]

@Iesu what is referred to as the Natural state is what happens when there is no more clinging to any particular states. 

We are talking about liberation here, which also means liberation from samadhi, awakenings, etc. 

When one holds a particular state as being a true state, that person will suffer a lot, because states don't even exist in the first place. It is the mind that wants to remain in the "good" state, while infinite intelligence isn't concerned with maintaining any state. 

Some sensory experience occurs, mind captures it and then its labelled as a state.

So when you're looking to attain a state of consciousness you're either chasing a memory, or chasing an imagined goodie because someone told you it's real.

Edited December 10, 2021 by Fearless_Bum

[RMQualtrough]

47 minutes ago, Iesu said:

Also why does @Being Frank Yang preach the natty state and pyschdelics wont awaken you. @Leo Gura 

Frank is genuinely severely mentally ill. I've noticed the mentally ill have spontaneous "awakenings" a lot, and sometimes during this, end up in an institution.

I think this is like Leo says, different neurochemistry. Frank is NEVER "sober" as we'd call it, he's always somewhere off in lala-land which most of us only reach with drugs. That's why he can reach certain states sober. Because he's NOT sober (as it's usually meant). Ever.

[Fearless_Bum]

@RMQualtrough there are no states of consciousness.

How do you know you're sober right now? 

[RMQualtrough]

13 minutes ago, Fearless_Bum said:

@RMQualtrough there are no states of consciousness.

How do you know you're sober right now? 

Because you're making a concession to some sort of agreed upon thing to discuss sobriety to begin with... We have a sort of agreed upon idea of what sober means and are talking in reference to what that idea is agreed to represent. Frank is very very very far from that.

If everyone was like Frank, that would be called sobriety. It has NOTHING to do with states of consciousness, nothingness is always the same. What you mean is the contents of mind, what you mean by states of consciousness is just content of mind. And that differs.

[Fearless_Bum]

@RMQualtrough I only make the concession so you and me can have a conversation, that doesn't mean it isnt completely made up. 

It's like you're saying that sobriety is something we agree upon, and then you go on to speak of sobriety as if it were a real thing. 

There's no need to call anything sobriety, unless you're just complying with societal expectations (having conversations at work, with family and friends, etc.).

[Iesu]

@RMQualtrough are you sober lmao 

[RMQualtrough]

1 hour ago, Iesu said:

@RMQualtrough are you sober lmao 

By how humans have decided to define it, beligerent drunk is not considered sober, being high on drugs is not considered sober, and Frank Yang is FAR from what we have collectively decided to call sober.

If everyone was in mania as the natural state, then I would not be considered sober. Frank is constantly manic, and actually mentioned several mental disorders he's diagnosed with.

You don't need drugs when you're naturally tripping all the time.

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, Iesu said:

Also why does @Being Frank Yang preach the natty state and pyschdelics wont awaken you. @Leo Gura 

You are dreaming Frank Yang to keep yourself asleep.

You are dreaming Leo too.

This is all your game.

All of your teachers are imaginary. You are not appreciating the depth of this.

Psychedelics will definitely awaken you. He's just wrong about that. You can easily prove him wrong. He too is still playing games.

[Raptorsin7]

8 hours ago, Shin said:

It's one pov of human, even though all human (and everything else) is one.

There is no over pov on if yours is.

And of course by that I mean none of you have a pov, only me through Shin right now, until I dream I'm you or something else entirely.

So you are the only one with a pov right now? Wouldn't it be true to say that are both have a pov, but it's just a different expression of the same one consciousness?

How is what you wrote not delusional solipsism 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Raptorsin7

[Iesu]

25 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You are dreaming Frank Yang to keep yourself asleep.

You are dreaming Leo too.

This is all your game.

All of your teachers are imaginary. You are not appreciating the depth of this.

Psychedelics will definitely awaken you. He's just wrong about that. You can easily prove him wrong. He too is still playing games.

Why wouldn't @Being Frank Yang be wise enough to see this?