Sugarcoat

I said “particularly egoic”, not as in having a self/ego AT ALL. You can chat without being “particularly egoic” 😂😂😂

Not fair comparison imo, the way it seems you’re implying things I could continue pointing out flaws I see in your logic but it doesn’t seem to get anywhere so…

Theres many posts so I’m going off this one for now… ”your experience being the only one” It’s not clear what you mean here. Overall, and once again, I’ve seen both claims of “all of reality” then on the other hand it’s spoken of in a particularly dualistic and personal way, with strong preference for using words typically used for the human experience hmmmm

I meant that when people write about their insights etc. They might talk about the nature of reality but some come off as particularly egoic to me, is what I meant by “sensing beyond the words”. Everyone does this to some degree ig, I’m sharing my perspective. Now, idk exactly what you mean by “solipsistic” (there’s lots of replies here so I don’t remember it all). I don’t agree that it’s not popular for the reason you say.

Idk what you mean by demonic ahahah. But for me it can sometimes come off as particularly egoic, especially in contrast to the achieved states being claimed by the person

Seems you’re not getting the logic in my replies. Once again, here it sounds simply like “non duality”, but in other posts throughout this thread, you describe a logic more complex than that, it’s not coherent imo.

Maybe we are sensing something beyond the words, you know even if you’re behind screen there’s something internal about you that is shining through the responses, and it’s not always congruent with the claims being made, and it’s coloring the claims, so it’s quite obvious imo the words are being chosen for a reason, you do find they matter, not just what you consider to be the “raw insight”

“Oneness” “reality” “limitlessness” “non-duality” is too dry, boring, flat, not so dopaminergic to them

Ok let me be the one to interpret this because you’re the one who is not so clear imo. You basically are trying to create an analogy for “non duality” with this one. Ok, that’s not contradicting what I said?

The way you use the word “mind” sounds contradictory to me. If mind is everything, then it’s also the “external world”, so the first sentence you wrote doesn’t make sense here. If you mean mind as in “personal awareness”, then the first sentence is speaking of how subjective experience works. Overall you speak in a way that sounds there is a mind “behind reality” imagining it. Even you mean it in non-dual way, that’s lost in your wording as you over and over write in a way that implies distinction beyond what seems like is a consequence of language use

If everything is your mind/consciousness, then the external world isn’t “not real” it’s just “consciousness” (I personally prefer using that word for subjective awareness). Whats “not real” is the sense of boundary, is that what you mean? Because without boundary, “consciousness/mind” is not more real than the “external world”, they’re equal, because they’re one.

Just because you’re limited to experiencing things within your own awareness as a self, doesn’t prove the non-reality of what you’re perceiving.

I get what you mean, those terms have lot of complexity to them, so can mean different things, for example a narcissist can be called self focused, but a deeply inward spiritual person too, but it's totally different how it works in them. I've thought along those lines too, especially the social awareness part, and then also lack of self awareness. It was refreshing to read your comments.

Not being able to experience another's POV doesn't prove that they don't have subjective experience like you. Not being able to access anything beyond your own POV/direct experience doesn't prove all of reality is limited to it. If you define consciousness as reality itself, why simultaneously apply that meaning to subjective experience of being aware? Mixing to distinct concepts together. As if "all is one, everything is consciousness" proves subjective experiences cannot arise in different bodies.....when it's talking about two different things.... In my perspective, the words people use to describe reality, reveals something about their psyche. I think theres trend here where this place is very intellectually focused, makes sense to me that "mind", and solipsism/ "only one mind" is popular here to use..... I could go on and on....

What I marked, is kindaaa where I'm at. And from this state, the rest of the descriptions is quite simple to follow. The one occasion I took 5 meo, and then very few other instances, I've been briefly in no-self state (or almost, as I seemed to have felt tiny minuscule center still present somehow), but I also would describe it quite simplistically. I don't relate to some of the super fancy complicated descriptions I see sometimes, but I also don't assume it's the same for everyone.

I'm just waiting for the word "awareness" to be stolen too...

You could apply this logic to anything almost? Why pay the cashier if they don't even exist, why call your grandma, why approach that girl she's not real...etc. But maybe it's nice to use the logic where it suits the most....

I think in this case it's a matter of how one uses the word, what you wrote imo could sound like you described it as illusion but just didn't use the word. I meant in the case when the subjective experience is intact, then it's impossible to understand it's nature because you're living it directly

@Breakingthewall I understand the distinction between getting it logically/it making sense (it does) vs the actual openness, simply because I percieve limits in my experience, to make that clear. I am just thinking of the nature of experience, thus the question of wether its "illusion" or not is relevant because it says something about the nature of this experience. But then it's sometimes about how it's defined that makes the topic difficult to talk about. Also it's not just thinking, observing it first and foremost, but I suspect it may be impossible to get to the nature of this subjective experience while in it.

I have had this saying in my mind recently “Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the emptiest of them all?” As in like who’s the most “non dual” ahahahahahhaahhaha 😅😂☠️

So someone who is “opened”, in open state, as you speak of, but self structure is still there, vs somebody who only knows of the duality, and feels the boundary between self and world is 100% real, not “relative” but totally real, you don’t consider there is some illusion at play there? Nature of reality being totally “hidden” so one only sees the separate, vs “seeing” both, the absolute and the relative self structure and the forms, in the open state.

Not that the form is illusory, but the sense that the stone is absolutely real as a separate object. Maybe it's not clear what I mean

Maybe it's meant that the "illusion" is the sense that you're absolutely real (as a self)

🤨😅 Yea

I wanted to say something along those lines, you spoke my mind too there lol☠️