Nemra

Why do you assume that I believed it from watching a video? Also, why do you think what I'm saying is a belief?

That's the juicy part. 😏 They are imaginary. Appearances are so direct that they make it seem to you that appearances, like people, should have an inner experience. Honestly, it's beautiful.

You are saying why there are specific appearances appearing and not others. I don't know why either. You are talking about imagination at the level of appearances, and I also don't understand how those appearances are an imagination. However, appearance is actual. An appearance that isn't appearing is a possibility. What is appearing is true. I was more talking about how appearances are used to imagine conscious agents.

People are imaginary in the sense that you believe that they are conscious agents existing for themselves. That is a subtle thing to notice.

It is the golden age.

Again, I said screen was an analogy for your experience. Imagine a screen that has an infinite length and width. Or imagine a room where the walls, ceiling, and floor are one screen.

@Salvijus, it's one screen. The screen is an analogy for your experience.

When you are watching a movie, only that movie is being played and not any other. In the movie, you can see the characters as long as they are in the scene. Believing that the characters are experiencing stuff in the scene is part of the story, because the only thing that is being seen is the scene.

If you say that appearance is appearing, then you would be able to understand that appearances having appearances inside themselves is a story. That is what I know right now. Other than that, I don't know a lot of stuff that is being talked about.

And I'm telling you that you are using those appearances to create a story of things to be experiencing reality. It's tricky.

First of all, I said that individuated consciousness is imaginary. I know it's not wrong, because it is absolutely direct. For example, when you hear a sound, it is clear that you have heard it.

The solution is to understand the mechanism of the method or else your questions would be misguided. Who said that you won't have false insights? Well, the users might be fooling themselves, but actualized.org is definitely not a religion.

@Salvijus, ChatGPT can reinforce your beliefs. Don't look at LLMs as truth generating machines.

But see, you can actually understand that Christians are fooling themselves by understanding what they mean by awakening. How? Because you understand what beliefs are from your experience. You can do that; however, you can't assume that questioning without understanding the mechanism of the method should be able to (in)validate that method or that questioning must absolutely be able to (in)validate all methods. Consider that questioning is a method too.

Well, yeah. Even saying awakening could mean different things to different people. E.g., religious people would have a different idea about it, which could be to go to church and live the Christian life. Well, I think you would also agree that those premises should also be questioned.

I thought that was obvious. To me, someone who says "... it's because of awakening" doesn't say much. Well, before that you said why not attribute x,y,z to awakening, which I think also means that the person has realized thing about x,y,z. The second one is more revealing. But also depends how the terms are defined. It also could be more confusing. However, aren't there things that you have found out to be true? I don't hold things as true just because someone said it.

@zurew, let me be more clear. There is the experiencing of reality that a person could be conscious of. That experience does not have limits, which means you can infinitely zoom in or out, go left, right, up, or down, and there's no limit to the objects that can appear to you. It includes everything that is happening. If you say that someone has consciousness, then that person must experience reality, and what I said in point 2 should also apply for that person. However, point 3 is impossible to be the case in your experience; otherwise, that person's experience would be the only one happening and not yours at that moment, because of what I wrote in point 1 and 2. Therefore, if I'm having my experience, that's what's happening. If you're having your experience, that's what's happening. However, these don't happen at the same moment. Both of our experiences are imaginary in the opposite one.

@Leo Gura, I thought rats were bad by how you would describe people. 😒

@zurew, have you done meditation or used psychedelics?

I don't really have a persuasive reason for why these kinds of arguments are question-begging.

@zurew, well, knowing how much someone is relying on beliefs can be a difficult task. Of course, you cannot trust anyone. The word direct is very powerful in this case as it draws your attention to the thing that's being talked about without intermediaries. I agree. But what is important is to turn your attention on the thing that you are observing and not so much on what and how people say stuff.

I don't understand why you would think that I was relying on beliefs?

@zurew, have you ever changed your state?