Mu_

@Princess Arabia Agreed with what you originally posted and would add something I shared earlier..... A closer reality of what "god" is would be a VR machine experiencing itself which did not code itself, but experiences the ability to code itself and not code itself.... Its a source of sorts that had no creator, in which there are no other things than itself, being aware of its innate unfolding, not as a separate action, but a built in quality of itself, but also built in, is to not be aware of itself, which could be said to be both or a quality that is neither, again this all as you said the unfolding of itself and the comprehension of itself (which you appear not to currently agree with). One of the issues you may be having or appear to as you ponder this stuff and read these words, is the words "both" or "different qualities" triggers rule structures in you that see this stuff as breaking the "not-two" rule and thus must be impossible or false. But again this mystery doesn't fall strictly into these rules. The quality of separation and objects and feelings, being in a body, human or what not, and self-aware, are qualities of "You", every experience and "thing" is. Again, "things" aren't things, illusions or "not-you", and everything is you, but nothing in particular defines "You" totally, and you are totally everything which has no inherent definition to know as that, lol. Its a mind fuck of fucks, trust me, been on this one for a few years now...lol...

So are you arguing based on "theory" or based on "awakening and understanding", or a little of both? "Ground" is a interesting idea, which in my experience can reveal as you seem to be arguing along the lines of as perhaps having unfounded connotations. However even dropping such connotations one can still come to a recognition that for lack of better analogies or ways of communicating is a fundamental ".....something or other.....", not something of matter, and not something "not of matter", not a static experience of some sort, but a knowledge you could say, that is fundamental. It doesn't reveal all possibilities of whats possible to experience and take place (although stuff like that may be one of the possible experiences of this mystery) , and doesn't necessarily reveal anything that appears or feels to be useful to do something with, but it does reveal a foundational mystery of life in a unique way and that everything is "that" and yet "that" is truly undefinable or knowable like we generally think things can be known, even though there may always be a felt attempt to try and know fully. Perhaps its the un-itchable itch, that this mystery just can't Self-scratch......

I get what your saying, there are limitations to the pointer "consciousness is the only that exists/absolutely" and I agree. Like someone may recognize this and say it to not get out of bed and say well I'm not doing it, consciousness is, and its a limitation on their life you could say. is that what you mean? Also I'm curious to know your definition of existential limitation, its not a way of saying things I'm to familiar with.

While what Im about to say is false, its a pointer something that I meant earlier. And is what I think your also saying. The axioms of limited, depth, more, less are actually not there, whats there is experience, experience of what? God experiencing. However there are no kangaroos becoming aware nor aliens nor humans, only god experiencing and sometimes it has the experience to itself of something refered to by itself (not necessarily by its own volition, nor how I'm talking about it is the only way to say it or point to what I'm conveying) as human climbing a tree, dog wagging its tale, monkey getting squished by a steamroller, planet giving birth to species, alien waking up to god. And none of these experiences are more total, more enlightened, better that the others, none of them are "the point" or "not the point" of the existence, none of them are bad or good along some "real" objective reality, allowed or not allowed.... also @zurew The above is true for you as well, there is no real anything other than "god" which you could say includes what your trying to convey, but remains the only true ontological base, but again "god" in sense transcends "ontological", its meanings and what they are trying to point to. A closer reality of what "god" is would be a VR machine experiencing itself which did not code itself, but experiences the ability to code itself and not code itself....

Everyones free to call "this" what ever they do, you seem to have a point you want to make about there being a human experience, and I'd like to ask why isn't it a earth experience, or a solar system experience, or a God experience instead? Can you prove eyes are reading posts and fingers typing responses? You sure its the eyes and not the brain, or not the brain but the mind, or not the mind, but particles in motion, or not particles in motion but God itself looking out and looking in? Instead of being frustraed with 95% of people on here denying human experience, why do you hold so much to this particular framework when there so many equally valid false ones?

Wouldn't you say that to be aware of being god, its degree's or lack of degree's is still God being God.

Ya and no, but ultimately there is only God which is all and mysterious. If this is fully understood, than some statements such as there are real humans or real planets or real things aren't suddenly going to be true simply because all contradictions are possible. Just like you don't make a tree from a table, the table is constructed from tree. Same is ultimately true of reality, you can't make god from humans and planets, God is experiencing something sometimes referred to by itself innate nature as humans and planets. But to kinda contradict myself and agree with you, God can make any statement and idea and it is so, which may kinda fall into what your saying.

To be fair if what he said he intellectual hogwash, than its only fair to say this whole thread is and everyones idea's. I think he's pointing to something useful, and think some of what you have said is as well. Personally I don't think its that hard to understand what the thread starter was saying, that you can't get more God than God which this all is, yet I understand how it ruins the whole fun of the stories we know the current world through, including the one that we are all humans, or are on a spiritual path, or theres more enlightened and less enlightened.

So I had a powerful spiritual dream last night which I'm not go into detail on, but woke up with some old names I hadn't thought about in 20+ years. These names were of some spiritual students I had been with during our time in a community that has since dissolved due to the teachers ego. So I decided to look them up. And while I don't know the guy well and didnt spend much time with him during out time in this community, since he was one of the more senior members, I found a video he made on youtube to be very accessible, humble, vast, subtle and accurate. Its a long video, but I'd say if your interested in spiritual awaking, its worth it to set aside a little time, or atleast 20 mins, since you'll know by that point if you like it, and learn something. No matter how awakened you think you are, I'm pretty sure you'll find something in this.... FYI he doesn't claim to be enlightened which is refreshing......

I always like hearing new ways of trying to talk about "this", and about 100% of this I agree with. The only thing I'd add or say, is Qualia isn't qualia in the traditional sense, arising from senses due to a phenomena. The whats arising is ultimately You, God, Gods experience..... But honestly it doesn't really matter to say it like this or the way the video is saying it, because ultimately its all the same anyways. I think I and many others here get a little to pedantic about all this.

I may not understand your sentences, but if I eat some warm food and its yummy, I didn't need any education to enjoy it.

No doubt what you express is an experience We go through, and I think we ultimately agree that there is more than the conceptual "only being human reality". My comment was to a part of the experience referred to as "ideas", "levels", "conceptual" as having no realness as well in of themselves. This is isn't nihilism what Im talking about. I'm not saying this is empty either, this to is a concept. The body ultimately isn't a body either, and never has been a body, and yes this pointer breaks down eventually to, as it to isn't what it appears to be, and it doesn't break down into nothingness or meaninglesness, these to are concepts..... But again I think we are saying and understanding the same things but perhaps with different language, nuances and differences.

wouldn't you say though that levels are itself an idea, even if experientially different? And yes even the claim and idea that there are not levels, are to an idea, until even these claims that ideas being real are dropped as well..... but once that door is open, I'm not sure we can talk about much, hahaha..... and yet, the experience keeps on chugging.....

1. Is there anyone here to awaken. I'd say there is a waking up that can happen as an experience, but ultimately there are no here's or theres, a specific you or another..... 2 Not saying we don't exist, but what do we exist as.... haha, what do we exist as. Like objectively? Ultimately there is no objectively what we exist as outside ourselves to observe to then explain it as a image or thing to relate to another thing. On the one hand we are everything so to say, and yet on the other none of those experiences define us objectively or ultimately. There are no rules in which anything follows including langue and definition itself, you and I are not bound to such strict definitions and traps. You are free and yet you will suffer in this experience along with anything else that may appear to feel and happen. This is not a good thing or a bad thing, just a possibility..... 3. is it really awakening or is that just another thought.... Hahaha..... I'll leave that one for you to have your own experience with.....

That there is fulfillment and perfection that doesn't come from understanding something, knowing something, doing something, proving something or achieving something.