Princess Arabia

With clinging there still is no "you". This is freedom, my love. It can appear as clinging to thought. Makes no difference. There is no waking up from the dream. The illusory person, the energy that thinks it's separate, that sense of self that's contracted and senses separation, that is the dream. There is no one dreaming. The end of the dream is the end of the person and no one's left to wake up. It is recognized by no one that the dream never happened.

I see this a lot. Who's conscious or not conscious of something. I'd like to explore this topic. We say direct experience is king and we also say what we're conscious of is the case; what is real, what's true, but is it? If we're conscious that solipsism is the case, then it must be the case. If we're conscious of the fact that we're God, then it must be so. (this is not a discussion on whether we're God or not, so please don't take it there, I use that as an example). We're sensing our lives away; meaning, we're using the senses to navigate our way through life and how we experience things, people, places and circumstances. A dog can sense things a human can't and also a cat and many other animals. A cat sees colors differently and a dog can pick up scents humans can't. Animals experience the world differently. I'm sure we can all agree on that. I'm conscious of my hand and feet. I'm conscious that I can see, hear, smell, taste and touch. I'm not conscious, however of how my heart is beating and how my inner body is operating, yet it is. Doing it all on it's own. I'm conscious of the fact that I perceive myself to be alive. When I'm dead, I will lose all consciousness. If you say, consciousness will still be alive and kicking after I'm dead, I'm not conscious of that right now so, i can't speak on that. If that's the case, then I can't use what i'm conscious of to decipher what's true, I can only speculate on things of that nature. Am I conscious of things, or am I conscious of my perception of what appears. If I do some drug and become conscious of whatever that may be, am I really conscious of what's true or how that drug altered my perception. People experience and perceive things differently. How is what I'm conscious of supposed to determine what's the case for everyone including dogs and cats when the senses are used to perceive things differently depending on what species i am and what state I'm in. So, the question is, is what I'm conscious of, the truth or is it just what I'm perceiving with the senses which can be altered depending on which state I'm in and is also different for other species so, therefore, cannot be true for everyone and everything but only to me.

🍌 🍓 facelift anyone.

You'😛re funny

I don't even know how to continue this thread anymore. Seems like most are saying that Consciousness is the same as what I'm conscious of. That the word Consciousness is not fundamental and means that i'm conscious of, say my experience and what arises in my awareness. I wasn't really discussing Consciousness as being fundamental. I was referring to what I'm conscious of as a person and when one says I can do the work to be conscious of...say solipsism or God or whatever claim there is that I can become conscious of. As far as I'm concerned that's not Consciousness itself being fundamental. If we say I can become conscious of something, how can that be the same thing as "big C" Consciousness as a fundamental thing and what is referred to as all there is. The post is about what I'm conscious of and most of the comments speak of Consciousness as that; and imo, both cannot be the same thing because what I'm conscious of is not all there is because that's a split called duality and there's no I to be conscious of anything without it being a dream. Is Consciousness called that because it implies I'm conscious of....or that Consciousness is all there is whether I'm conscious of consciousness or not.

Jesus, you make women seem like deer. Go hunt females? Get the rifles out please. Sharp shooters only please.😏

Ok

You've assumed I watch a lot of Neville Goddard. Sure, I've heard of him and seen a view videos back in the day and I'm aware of his story, but I don't watch Neville Goddard anymore. Plus, I don't consider him a non-dualist. Also, one cannot apply non-dualism, so whatever appears is what appears with no one's doing. A question asked is a question asked and a statement is, just that, a statement with no one behind it.

Nice explanation.

No need to make it any clearer. I'll re-read your post. No biggie. It's all done.

I don't have to ask myself anything. It's just words on a screen. Why do I have to ask who is James. Only a deluded person would ask who is a word on a screen.

This seems to me dualistic. Something appears within consciousness is dualistic. How can one be conscious of not knowing. There must be someone conscious that they don't know which is still a form of knowing. Not knowing is reference to something not known.

Ok, so the statement No ego=no consciousness implies consciousness is the dream of separation and doesn't really exist.

Ok then, so if we say "what I'm conscious" of VS "consciousness is", is that referring to two different things. This is not about intellectualizing but understanding.

Yes, I think that's the issue. Leo says Consciousness is fundamental; but we refer to it as "being conscious of....which implies separation. Notice the heading says "to be conscious of", many are replying as if I'm referring to Consciousness itself and that can be where the confusion lies.

Lol. Who do you think those so-called prophets are, memory appearing as prophets.

Right on!

James doesn't get anything. He's the dream talking to itself and so is this comment.

It's very simple. Nothing is being everything. That's it.

What am I truly. There's an I there and what I am. "It is what..." states something different from the "you" that's truly is. In other words, you're telling me there's something else that exists that I think I am.

What is this and who is doing the abiding in? That's two separate things. Just asking for clarity.

What/who is inquiring into this " I"?

Most of the guys i've been with intimately in the past have been through social circles. Hanging out bullshitting. The rest were through clubs and one-night-drunk-stands in my younger days but weren't that many as I was rarely drunk. Hehe. Drunk for me now is heading home after work and had enough to drink. Don't do drunk dates anymore only work drinking dates.

I used to believe in this notion of gratitude, but I don't anymore. I use the word thankful. To be grateful for, imo, suggests one isn't worthy and should be grateful that something is being handed to you or that such and such is happening. Being thankful, on the other hand, is saying you are here and are thankful to be here and whatever arises, is simply what's meant to be and I'm thankful for it's existence. I will thank the sun for shining, not be grateful that the sun shines. That goes for everything else I'm thankful for.

"Helping others", is a broad topic. There can be numerous ways of helping others. See a baby drowning and going to help, lending someone money for rent, answering a question from someone in math class, helping Leo build this forum by contributing, I mean the list is endless. So it's impossible to draw a general conclusion on what helping others mean for you.