Profound Insight - Being Conscious vs Infinite Consciousness (& Love)

[The Renaissance Man]

This could be one of my best insights yet, and could help explaining a lot of what spirituality is, using logic.

 

What's the relationship between being conscious (as an attribute of an ego) and infinite consciousness?

Being conscious is not something absolute, as there can be more and less conscious people. We can all agree on that. You can be more or less conscious.
Is there a level where this attribute is at zero? I'd say with a rock. A rock is not conscious. It may be consciousness, but it's not conscious (right?)

Survival = Maintaining a virtual boundary from infinite consciousness = Ego
Ego is what's being survived, not the physical body (see video series by Leo on Survival). Martyrs will sacrifice their bodies to survive the ego.
So it seems like being conscious is actually something inherent to the ego and survival.

Being conscious is not thus absolutely true, since it's inherent to the ego. That's the first distinction from infinite consciousness.

 

• Then my question is: what's the relationship between levels of being conscious and infinite consciousness?
• Is "being conscious" even the correct expression?

 

Q1 - It seems the relationship is in the sense that as an ego becomes "more conscious", it gets better and better at unwinding self-deception. You could say perception becomes more accurate. Accuracy of perception = How conscious you are. 
This would also imply that if you want to become more conscious, you need to directly work on the accuracy of your perception.
The most accurate perception would be nondual, nonbiased, and all of that beautiful stuff. It would be 100% true.

Q2 - I feel like the expression "being conscious" can deceive you, since it's a relative concept, and the word "conscious" makes it seem like it's absolute. I think a better expression could be along the lines of "being aligned to truth, or to reality". It would make it much easier to understand what being conscious means, and how to frame self-actualization practices.

 

Let me make another logical guess here:
We said as we become "more conscious", we get closer to truth. That's the definition of it.
Does this also mean that if there's a prevalence of certain kinds of emotions in conscious people when interfacing the whole of reality, those emotions are more metaphysical and not "just emotions"?
- Lower stages are unable to integrate, so they will hate and receive resistance from the environment (for example other societies)
- Higher stages are better at integrating, so they will love more, as they see more of the world as part of their ego.
The result will be that lower stages will feel more hate, while higher stages more love.

Is this why Leo says Love isn't an emotion, but an actual metaphysical aspect of reality?
Is this the process that leads to discovery of the various facets of awakening? Meaning what does remain when you strip everything? If something remains which is not the ego, then that's actually a metaphysical aspect.

 

Having first principles understanding of how self-actualization works can save you from months and years of mistakes from blindly trusting teachers.
Obviously, I still keep an open mind, I may be wrong. The logic I used may have fallacies.
The only thing I'm lacking is an awakening experience. But I've been able to notice how accuracy of perception = quality of life and how conscoius you are, and how accuracy of perception = love. I also have been able to notice directly some of the devilry of the ego, and how what I'm surviving is not just my physical body. I've grounded as much as possible in direct experience, while assuming (for now) infinite conscoiusness as the nature of reality.

[Princess Arabia]

I really like this post. It's truly a profound insight. I especially like the phrase, "alignment to truth".  

Only thing, I don't think we have to work on our perceptions to become more conscious; I think perceptions begin to align more towards Truth automatically once we become more conscious.

Overall nice read.

[Guest Bazooka Jesus]

20 hours ago, The Renaissance Man said:

The most accurate perception would be nondual, nonbiased, and all of that beautiful stuff. It would be 100% true.

It also would be 100% un-experienceable.

There is no such thing as experience/perception without distortion. The distortion is that which creates the experience. You can only perceive if there is something to perceive. Erase all duality and you erase perception itself.

So yeah, non-dual perception is actually an oxymoron. And the notion that you will ever reach a state that is 100 percent pure, unbiased and blissful is nothing but a spiritual fantasy.