Osaid

In order to perceive consciousness as less or more you have to perceive consciousness as an object in your mind which can be pitted against things other than itself. It's all a relative conception. An intellectual illusion which points to nothing outside of itself. Just mind dividing and separating as it tends to do. Nothing more to see here. "More consciousness" means there is something beyond consciousness, which is impossible. It's the classic folly of believing something can exist beyond the absolute. This is why you can't become conscious through intellect or logic or mind. Because the mind can only divide, and division is limitation.

They don't, obviously. He was just fooling us.

My favorite pity parties are the ones where you aren't allowed to reference the past or future.

? Not only that, but something other than what you are right now? I know what you mean. You mean the future. The you which isn't here with us right now. But when you get there, it won't include a body. And then we'll say "it's not infinite because it's excluding a body." Maybe infinity can't be "imagining other experiences"? Maybe your idea of infinity has trapped you in a logical catch-22 which points to absolutely nothing? And you chase that "nothing" like a hamster in an infinite wheel? Hahaha is this a threat to signify your annoyance or am I misinterpreting?

But not a body? Pointing out contradiction is "playing with words"? ? Right.

A limitation is a relation between two things. For something to be limited, it is limited by a thing. For limitation to occur, there is "Thing A", which is. And then "Thing B", which is not. The perception of a thing which is and a thing which is not, creates the perception of "limitation." But how can something which is not, Thing B, ever be experienced? It can't. It is non-existence. It must be imagined and inferred. Any single limitation you can think of, is simply just what you can think of. Mind. Imagination. Nothing else. Do you experience yourself as two? Are there two experiences? Are there two experiences which can relate and limit each other? Or do you simply divide it through your mind, and mistake it for yourself?

That is a limitation, which is finite. "Infinity cannot have a body" What you talk about is not infinite. Because you limit it in that sentence. "Beyond current senses" means "beyond the absolute" or "what is not occurring yet." It means there is an experience somewhere else in the future, which you can be. Which you currently aren't. That can't be the case. Not in infinity.

It seems obvious? Because you think that you can be something else in the future? Because you think that you were something else in the past? Maybe it's just you thinking, nothing else?

Imagination appears as imagination; about a "you" in the future which is less limited than you right now. Imagination certainly is, as a unicorn or Santa Claus is. Right. Imagination is not antithetical or excluded. It is imagination. Imagining unicorns isn't "unicorns", it is imagination.

I don't think it is basic or semantic or "hair-splitting" to convince people that infinity is antithetical to being human and located in a future. "Annoy" by contesting that idea? Being misguided or deluded about what you are feels bad. Just trying to prevent that.

It's obligatory for me to interject everytime you talk about infinity.

Might as well say "infinity exists somewhere other than what exists right now" or might as well even say "infinity doesn't exist." You are just talking about the future here, not infinity. "Lack" is created through mental inference/imagination. Not through infinity.

Goddamn. As expected though. Highly religious sects will inevitably have to employ narcissistic tactics which end up causing some form of trauma in the long run. No other way to create compliance, and compliance creates sustainability to a certain point. I find highly religious countries to be a breeding ground for narcissism or NPD for those reasons.

But that's good because it makes her submissive and easy to marry!

If it is one substance, where is the space for a sense of self? If there is one simultaneous physical occurrence (looking = eyes + rock), where is the space for a sense of self? Certain identities have different limitations than others which feel different. The persistent "block" you feel is probably a result of being stuck in that medium of imagination; the medium of imagining yourself in various different ways, and the constant desire to imagine a better and more accurate version of yourself. Don't know either. If you can't find it in your experience, then the idea of it doesn't really matter much. What really matters is what this means to you and how that makes you feel. What does it make you imagine about yourself and how does that make you feel? And is it accurate to imagine yourself that way? Hope is a desire to alleviate a current feeling of sadness through a future situation of love. This statement implies to me that an illusion is present which prevents love. This cannot be the case if it is truly illusion, because how can something unreal like illusion prevent something real like love? It simply must be a misperception, and that misperception cannot have power beyond being a misperception. Similar to saying "Santa Claus makes me hopeless or prevents love." The fear you feel towards the imagined self is actually equivalent to the love you feel towards yourself, it is all the same simultaneous occurrence. It is a desire to protect yourself from the imagination of yourself which creates fear. That desire is motivated by the love you have towards yourself, and the love that you already are. It is great to realize what you are, or aren't. In essence, you are a thing that is constantly trying to feel great or be great. Imagining yourself feels bad because it isn't you. It contradicts what you are, and so it threatens you. The great part is that it isn't you and it can't be you. For example, if it feels bad to see things as hopeless, that is you retaliating against the imagination of yourself as "hopeless", in the same way you would retaliate against a bear which threatens you.

It actually doesn't. That's just how it seems when you try to intellectually perceive non-duality. It's more like realizing that all duality is made of imagination or thought. It doesn't exclude it, it just perceives it more accurately. That might be a better way of looking at it. It's like someone comes up to you and says "I think that I'm a unicorn" and you're like "no you're not actually a unicorn, it's an imagination of a unicorn, you're just thinking it" and then they're like "no you can't just exclude unicorns like that." Like I'm not excluding anything, you're just imagining something and then also imagining that it isn't imagination on top of that. That's exactly how duality works. When you look at duality as something existential beyond your imagination, you're mistaking the map for the territory, the map being your literal imagination. When I say infinity or infinite I am talking about an awareness of something which is genuinely not limited by anything that exists. You cannot perceive something like that through some kind of intellectual definition, only through awareness itself. In the same way that you can't perceive sound or color through intellect, you can only partially grasp it through certain words and definitions, but those words and definitions never capture that "thing" itself. This is exactly correct. Because any framing is by definition not infinite or non-dual. It must exist outside of any frame, and so logic or intellect or imagination can't ever touch it.

You are still looking at infinity as if it is math or logic or incremental or relative.

You are actually in the same position, since you criticize other peoples understanding of infinity, which implies that you have your own understanding of infinity. You are just teaching dualisms because you never saw through duality. And it's not like you deny that since you like to scoff at non-duality.

Which means it was not infinite. You can't ascribe lack to something and then call it infinite, because if it lacks something then it is finite in some way. This reminds me of the mathematical infinity which I talked about a bit here: You're trying very hard to fit infinity into something relative but it just wont work.

I can agree with this much. Yes, reality is magical AF.

Yes, because the concepts and meanings point to something existential. A contradiction is logical incoherence. It is pure intellect, there is nothing existential to it beyond being an intellectual blunder. It's two streams of logic opposing each other. Therefore it doesn't symbolize anything outside of itself; therefore it actually points to nothing existentially. It self-terminates because it doesn't ever reach outside of itself. When you talk about contradictions you are talking about nothing but your imagination, existentially. The contradiction is pure intellect therefore it does not ever capture reality or infinity or anything beyond itself. A paradox is not logical incoherence. It is a logical conclusion which escapes the logic itself. To say it another way, it is something that escapes logic, but you can point to it using logic. Like the sound of music. Or the smell of a flower. Or a strange loop. Logic is something that divides. When it encounters something that cannot be divided, you call that thing a paradox. That paradox you encounter is not a contradiction, it is simply something which exists that cannot be divided by logic. It exists as one undivided thing. To call that contradictory is a function of your logic opposing that thing, not the thing itself, thus it is an anthropomorphization on your part. It has nothing to do with that undivided thing, but it is an assumption or standard created through your divisive logic. Sorry to be so anal about it, but it's because the contradiction is actually a big red flag and it should be scrutinized more instead of shrugged off as "reality is just paradoxical so we can contradict ourselves as much as we want" haha.

They are features in that they are both imaginary divisions and dualities. Nothing else.

No. Contradiction is a feature of logic and intellect, which you presuppose onto non-dual reality. Reality is not intellect, and non-duality is not intellect either. Only intellect can contradict because only intellect can compare and contrast. To consider reality as intellect is anthropomorphization. Contradiction is a statement you make which opposes itself. You imagine that reality should be a certain way when it isn't, then you perceive this as contradiction. Contradiction is also different from paradox. More on that here:

I'm not really making any judgments or assumptions about him because the truth is I have no idea what he thinks or what his intentions are. I'm just reporting what I have personally noticed about him. It seemed like he really didn't care about the pain until the last second, like you said. And he has healed himself every time. And it is a rare occurrence to begin with. So good for him I guess and I hope he recovers well. Will be interesting to see him back later on.