Questions about levels of consciousness

[Shambhu]

@PedroCedro If you have a greater understanding, I'm all ears :-)

[PedroCedro]

@Shambhu Do the work

[GreenWoods]

3 minutes ago, Shambhu said:

The ego is never perfectly happy!  Even if it get's what it wants, it become afraid of losing it, which it will, and then the cycle repeats.

If the ego lived in a perfect heaven which is guaranteed to be permanent then there is no reason to fear losing it and it will be happy.

All the reasons why egos aren't happy  only apply to this imperfect realm we are currently living in.

4 minutes ago, Shambhu said:

Even in dreamless sleep?

Yes.

Dreamless sleep falls under either of these three possibilities:

1. It is unconsciousness and therefore doesn't exist
2. There is consciousness and your ego functions during dreamless sleep
3. There is consciousness but the ego is not able to function at this state and therefore relative to it, dreamless sleep is unconsciousness. But there is some consciousness there during dreamless sleep and relative to that consciousness, dreamless sleep exists.

7 minutes ago, Shambhu said:

If existence equals form, then how do you account for space?

Space is form too.

If something exists, it is form. 

Existence = form

Non-existence = complete formlessness/unconsciousness 

9 minutes ago, Shambhu said:

Consciousness is unlimited, and therefore it must be formless.

Absolute Infinity/Existence is unlimited and therfore is every form.

But without complete formlessness, because that's non-existence. 

 

 

As for everything else you wrote, I think we just disagree. You explained your perspective and I mine. Any further discussion would just be repeating the same. 

[Shambhu]

@GreenWoods

2 minutes ago, GreenWoods said:

As for everything else you wrote, I think we just disagree. You explained your perspective and I mine. Any further discussion would just be repeating the same. 

Yes, I agree. ?

[Shambhu]

6 minutes ago, PedroCedro said:

@Shambhu Do the work

Now why didn't I think of that ;-)

[PedroCedro]

@Shambhujijij

[Consilience]

@PedroCedro Dude he’s one of the most advanced yogis on the forum… @Shambhu is most certainly speaking from experience  lol. 

[Shambhu]

@Consilience 

Awww, shucks.  You're making me blush ?

Seriously, I am humbled by your graciousness ?

[Seeker_of_truth]

Omg! As I read I seem to agree to one thing then when the other person is refusing it I also seem to agree to their logic.  This is showing me how much I don't know. This is one heck of a discussion. ???

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, Shambhu said:

@Leo Gura

Can you imagine if everyone communicated this way here?  The dialogue would never move forward in a meaningful fashion.  I could just as easily say, "True.  It's your bias that it's not," but is that helpful?  That's a genuine question.  Perhaps your style is helpful to some, but I think you can become a better teacher yet.

Which part of my statement do you see as false or biased?  Is it that Consciousness is Absolute, or that it is unchanging, or that the two equate to the same?  

The bias is that you are assuming the Absolute to be changeless and something other than form or experience. This is a subtle duality stemming from incomplete awakening.

The Absolute is changing all the time. That's what your life is. You cannot exclude anything from the Absolute. You're not conscious yet what Absolute Truth is.

Your entire experiential field is Absolute Truth.

I'm perfectly clear on these points so it would be wise to listen. But do as you like. You guys here seriously overestimate you degree of awakening/consciousness. You are missing the basics, never mind God-realization.

[Shambhu]

@Leo Gura

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The bias is that you are assuming the Absolute to be changeless and something other than form or experience.

I'm not assuming.  I see it clearly and with complete certainty.  It's plainly available any time I choose to look.

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

This is a subtle duality stemming from incomplete awakening.

There is no duality.  It is not that there is Consciousness and form as two things.  I cannot keep Consciousness and give you form; its not like that.  Form is nothing other than Consciousness, but Consciousness is not limited to any form.

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The Absolute is changing all the time. That's what your life is. You cannot exclude anything from the Absolute. You're not conscious yet what Absolute Truth is.

The Absolute does include all things, of which there is only one...Itself, and it does not change.  Change implies time, and time is another appearance within Consciousness.  Consciousness is prior to and unconditioned by time.  To say that it changes is to say it is subject to time, which would put time outside of Consciousness, which makes no sense.

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Your entire experiential field is Absolute Truth.

There is some truth to this.  Everything is Consciousness, which is Absolute Truth, but Consciousness is not limited to any form.  In fact, it ultimately has no form at all.  When you dream at night, your mind is not transformed into a starry sky, or a race car, or Bozo the clown, but all those things can appear in the space of the mind.  That's an analogy, of course, so don't bend it too far ;-)

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I'm perfectly clear on these points so it would be wise to listen. But do as you like. You guys here seriously overestimate you degree of awakening/consciousness. You are missing the basics, never mind God-realization.

The dog that barks the loudest... ?

[DecemberFlower]

19 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Since everything is absolutely relative, the difference between any two things has no reality other than as held in your mind.

The only reason a taco and a zebra are different is because you think they are. At the ontological level that difference is purely relative. All difference is a bias held within consciousness. This includes all physical difference, since the difference between physical and mental is just another relative difference.

To God, there is literally no difference between anything. Which is why God is Love.

Contemplate this: Why would a difference between anything exist? And then realize, it shouldn't and doesn't other than as held by a biased mind such as yours. The only reason you see differences between things is because it's necessary for your survival as a finite self. If you stopped seeing differences you would die and become Infinity (indifference).

19 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Since everything is absolutely relative, the difference between any two things has no reality other than as held in your mind.

The only reason a taco and a zebra are different is because you think they are. At the ontological level that difference is purely relative. All difference is a bias held within consciousness. This includes all physical difference, since the difference between physical and mental is just another relative difference.

To God, there is literally no difference between anything. Which is why God is Love.

Contemplate this: Why would a difference between anything exist? And then realize, it shouldn't and doesn't other than as held by a biased mind such as yours. The only reason you see differences between things is because it's necessary for your survival as a finite self. If you stopped seeing differences you would die and become Infinity (indifference).

And yet you said that distinction is a substance of reality which negates that there isnt a difference between anything and also you now say difference exist within consciousness as a bias.. I m so confused

Also everything being absolutely relative then has to include difference being relatively real comparing to Gods point of view

I get that there is no difference between anything to God but at relative level i dont see how it is as you say other then no separation between anything cause every "thing" is contained in Oneness

Why would difference exist? 

My answer is that God experiences its diversity..If there would not be differences we would basically have one undistignushed mess and not Oneness as it appears with its diversity of phenomena And also my experience is that difference exist.. I see hear and think different "things" appearing and dissapearing in consciousness 

Edited May 20, 2022 by DecemberFlower

[WelcometoReality]

8 hours ago, Shambhu said:

The actual quote is:  

Brahma satyam

jagat mithya,

jivo brahmaiva naparah

meaning:

Brahma is real

The world is an illusion

There is no difference in the self with Brahma

I haven't heard that translation before. How do you interpret the third sentence?

8 hours ago, Shambhu said:

The ultimate truth is that there is no wave, only Consciousness.  

Yes, I agree.

9 hours ago, Shambhu said:

Consciousness is not "waving" or in motion, which implies change.

I would say that consciousness is in constant motion. There is nothing to cling to. Not even the absolute.

9 hours ago, Shambhu said:

Since Consciousness is Absolute, it must be changeless.  The world is only an appearance within Consciousness. 

From the absolute POV you are correct, it is changeless. But that is only half the truth. That is what I mean when I say that it's a subtle form of separation. There is no appearance within consciousness but appearance as consciousness. That is true oneness.

9 hours ago, Shambhu said:

The analogy of the snake in the stick is used to explain this relationship.  If you are walking along the road at dusk, and you mistake a stick for a snake, you become frightful, but after realizing it is only a stick mistaken for a snake, your fear is removed.  So just like the snake, there never was a world (or wave) there; it only appeared that way.  There never was two actual things, only one.

This is a good analogy because it can explain the way beliefs create our reality. As long as we have a belief that the stick is a snake we will construct our reality so that it will appear that way. 

Just as believing to be a separate self. Or an absolute self.

[Shambhu]

@WelcometoReality

25 minutes ago, WelcometoReality said:

I haven't heard that translation before. How do you interpret the third sentence?

jivo = you or self

brahmaiva = Brahma or reality

na  = not

parah = other

You are not different from Brahma.  This is your true identity.

26 minutes ago, WelcometoReality said:

I would say that consciousness is in constant motion.

I brought this up above, but motion implies change, which implies time.  Time appears in Consciousness and not the other way around.

27 minutes ago, WelcometoReality said:

From the absolute POV you are correct, it is changeless. But that is only half the truth. That is what I mean when I say that it's a subtle form of separation. There is no appearance within consciousness but appearance as consciousness. That is true oneness.

No, there is no separation, nor could there be.  You cannot take Consciousness and give me the appearance.  They cannot be separated since there is only Consciousness.  I say "appears within" to denote that Consciousness is not limited to appearances, but it's not like a sack filled with some second thing called appearances.  If Consciousness is an appearance, it would have to come and go, which is not even our direct experience. It is always there, regardless if an appearance is or not.  Consciousness is always present, unchanging, and whose existence is necessary for appearances to be apparent.  

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Shambhu said:

@Leo Gura

I'm not assuming.  I see it clearly and with complete certainty.  It's plainly available any time I choose to look.

You see your bias of formlessness and call it Absolute. Missing the other half.

You're not fully conscious of what Truth is.

You've misapplied "Truth" to formlessness only, overlooking that form is also Truth. This is a bias.

Quote

The Absolute does include all things, of which there is only one...Itself, and it does not change.  Change implies time, and time is another appearance within Consciousness.  Consciousness is prior to and unconditioned by time.  To say that it changes is to say it is subject to time, which would put time outside of Consciousness, which makes no sense.

Change does not imply time. Time is something your mind imagines on top of change.

Consciousness is obviously changing right now and it is Absolute Truth.

You're missing things. But you are so stubborn that I will not argue with you any further.

[Shambhu]

@Leo Gura

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

You see your bias of formlessness and call it Absolute. Missing the other half.

No, I see forms too ;-)

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

You're not fully conscious of what Truth is.

Is that your catch phrase?

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

You've misapplied "Truth" to formlessness only, overlooking that form is also Truth. This is a bias.

Pure Consciousness, which is formless, is Absolute Truth.  Form is relative truth, which actually is not truth at all.  Maybe I am biased to the Truth ;-)

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Change does not imply time. Time is something your mind imagines on top of change.

Change isn't even comprehensible without time.  The two are practically synonymous. 

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Consciousness is obviously changing right now and it is Absolute Truth.

I'm guessing it only seems obvious to you because you are confused about the true nature of Consciousness.  It's cool; nothing to be ashamed of.

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

You're missing things.

Takes one to know one lol

Quote

But you are so stubborn that I will not argue with you any further.

Quitter ?

I probably am stubborn, but you kind of stink at arguing.  It's just as well that you give up :-P

[Naturalist]

57 minutes ago, Aleister Crowleyy said:

This is correct based on my insights. Change does not imply time. Reading the I-Ching greatly helped to make it understandable within the relative perspective.

Time is a human construct because it is a dimension created to measure the process of becoming a.k.a. change.  It is inappropriate to characterise the process of becoming either like this or like that because it does not have a beginning or an end in nature.  Therefore, from an ultimate perspective, change does not imply time.

[Zigzag Idiot]

For whatever it's worth. Here is my 2 cents.

Ego cannot exist without time. 

Next time you slam a car door on your fingers. Just remember that time doesn't exist.

I would elaborate but my automaton is sleepy and my ego is selfish and grumpy. I'm going to bed. A little bit out of sorts,,,

 

[PedroCedro]

16 hours ago, Consilience said:

@PedroCedro Dude he’s one of the most advanced yogis on the forum… @Shambhu is most certainly speaking from experience  lol. 

@Consilience I don't doubt that he's a very advanced guy, but here we are doing serious work, don't take anything personally

Experience is simple but tricky, you need a big spiritual hue to have the highest prespective

 

[Shambhu]

@PedroCedro

48 minutes ago, PedroCedro said:

we are doing serious work

I am familiar with serious work.  My teachers spent decades meditating 10-14 hours a day.  That is serious work.  It seems to me that most people cannot recognize what serious work even looks like.

Regretfully, I do not feel that my words are being very helpful here, so perhaps this is my time to depart.  I don't want to be just another voice adding to the confusion, and my time would be better spent in practice.  

I sincerely wish everyone the best, and may you all find what you are looking for.