Important! - Nobody On This Forum Is AWAKE

[Breakingthewall]

@OldManCorcoran you are the reality. There is not outside from the reality, even as a concept. The reality is absolute. Has no opposite, no outside, no other. Looking outside is the deception, there is not outside. Inside it's everything. 

[axiom]

21 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I stopped reading here. 

That's a shame. 

[OldManCorcoran]

25 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I stopped reading here.  You are lost in the materialist paradigm.  But the truth of the matter is this - there isn't a tree at all, outside of how it is held within your consciousness right now.  Right now.  And if you can't see that, refrain from further dialogue with me.  Yeah, I'm touchy.   I'm just sick of you materialists.  You contemplated reality perhaps a bit, and then you dropped it for what is accepted.  I have no patience for that.

Not even one word in that was materialist thought. The fact you got materialism from that quote is honestly a bit "special".

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, OldManCorcoran said:

Not even one word in that was materialist thought. The fact you got materialism from that quote is honestly a bit "special".

You were saying there is an objective world.  There isn't.  

[OldManCorcoran]

31 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

@OldManCorcoran you are the reality. There is not outside from the reality, even as a concept. The reality is absolute. Has no opposite, no outside, no other. Looking outside is the deception, there is not outside. Inside it's everything. 

If there's nothing to you but presence, why call it you? If there's nothing to consciousness but presence, why call it consciousness? If presence is nothing but an opposite to the concept of absence, and all concepts are thought-perception which cannot possibly be default to the fact of is-ness itself, then should it be named presence?

Probably not if you wanted to have fundamental reality recognized as being devoid of category or division.

But other than the uncategorized nature of reality, there is no better way to communicate existence than by the term existence itself. Every single modifier is misleading. Do you want to keep your mystical secret or do you want to be understood? It's not hard to be understood. It's as easy as calling being being, not calling it anything else. You can explain the rest the same.

[OldManCorcoran]

Just now, Inliytened1 said:

You were saying there is an objective world.  There isn't.  

No I wasn't.

People come here from Google and think you're Leo's right hand man. You need to be more careful about posting than most, because you're meant to be representing his ideas. You need to actually be able to comprehend things before responding with random stuff.

[Leo Gura]

 

6 minutes ago, OldManCorcoran said:

People come here from Google and think you're Leo's right hand man. You need to be more careful about posting than most, because you're meant to be representing his ideas. 

He can have his own ideas about awakening. Mods are not obligated to represent my ideas.

Edited March 25, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Yimpa]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

 

He can have his own ideas about awakening. Mods are not obligated to represent my ideas.

Not a cult, confirmed! 

[Inliytened1]

5 minutes ago, OldManCorcoran said:

No I wasn't.

People come here from Google and think you're Leo's right hand man. You need to be more careful about posting than most, because you're meant to be representing his ideas. You need to actually be able to comprehend things before responding with random stuff.

Well now you have my attention.   But yes you were.   I mean, Consciousness is all there is.  It is fundamental.  So how can a tree exist outside of your mind?   You said it did.  And by the way - right hand man? These are not his ideas.  Idealism- in fact- has existed for thousands of years.  The idea that reality is an idea, I mean.  The Buddha, for example- knew this very basic concept.   Yet you struggle with it.  I don't want you to struggle with it.  I would much rather you just accept what is - rather than make up lame excuses.   But its quite obvious that's what you are doing.  If I'm being harsh, maybe that's because it might do you good.

[axiom]

7 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I mean, Consciousness is all there is.  It is fundamental. 

You're not quite getting it. Consciousness and awareness are terrible pointers that cause much confusion. Consciousness is not what you think it is.

It really doesn't matter either way, but you don't seem to understand where @OldManCorcoran is coming from, and that may be because you're married to the idea of "consciousness"

Edited March 25, 2023 by axiom

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, axiom said:

You're not quite getting it. Consciousness and awareness are terrible pointers that cause much confusion. Consciousness is not what you think it is.

Well, apparently it caused that for you.

 

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Consciousness is all there is.  It is fundamental.

This is correct.

[Moksha]

17 minutes ago, OldManCorcoran said:

It's as easy as calling being being, not calling it anything else.

Every word falls short of describing reality, but being is as good as any. The purpose of differentiating the states of being (absolute vs. relative) is to facilitate the realization that being loses and finds itself within its imagination. It is always being, but it is not always aware of its absolute nature. The apparent differentiation is a pointer created by itself to guide its awareness back to its absolute nature.

[OldManCorcoran]

3 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Well now you have my attention.   But yes you were.   I mean, Consciousness is all there is.  It is fundamental.  So how can a tree exist outside of your mind?   You said it did.  And by the way - right hand man? These are not his ideas.  Idealism- in fact- has existed for thousands of years.  The idea that reality is an idea, I mean.  The Buddha, for example- knew this very basic concept.   Yet you struggle with it.  I don't want you to struggle with it.  I would much rather you just accept what is - rather than make up lame excuses.   But its quite obvious that's what you are doing.  If I'm being harsh, maybe that's because it might do you good.

Consciousness is not what you think it is, because you haven't had ego death. Instead of a tree falling listen to a tune.

Here's a melody:

Listen to it. When you turn this melody off, I am going to listen to it. When I listen to it, you will be hearing it, even if you have a different song then playing. But you will not understand how because you will be sure that you are hearing whatever song you put on afterwards. "Your direct experience". Even if you are dead or asleep, when I listen to the song, you are hearing it.

The inability to comprehend how, is because of the self based framework.

Each and every time this melody plays, irrespective of who is there to hear it, or even if every living being in existence is long dead and the universe has ended, the melody plays. Existence exists as the experience of the melody. There is nothing else. Existence exists as hearing, as seeing, as touching, and whatever else. Existence exists as many things.

In the comminication "I am conscious of this tune" is nothing at all but the verbalization that the tune is present. There is nothing to consciousness but presence. It is the sheer untouched fact of existence. In which there is nobody witnessing any of it. Because there are no perceivers of perceptions. There are perceptions. Each time they appear, they appear exactly the same.

[tuku747]

    

Edited March 26, 2023 by tuku747

[tuku747]

 

[SunnyCyn]

On 3/23/2023 at 11:46 PM, Leo Gura said:

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

...The woodchuck would be chucking wood if he could. 

[SunnyCyn]

On 3/23/2023 at 11:46 PM, Leo Gura said:

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

The woodchuck is chucking wood (if it could) and I am the wood, the woodchuck and the chucking. 

[Nemra]

The woodchuck would chuck wood as much wood woodchuck could chuck.

[spiritual memes]

Your definition of awake is different to other peoples definition.