ZeroZeroes

@Carl-Richard Done

God-Consciousness is directly tied to intelligence, understanding, etc.—their epitome. The degree to which a Consciousness understands maya is the degree of reality/solidity that it has. The more understanding, the more reality/solid/fundamental the Consciousness is.To say illusion isn’t real is to say nothing if it is not specified to what degree it is not real. All are real in that they exist, yet the degrees to which their existence holds is the test of the level of Consciousness. Say a mirage: it exists, thus is real, as a visual content and so on. Yet it does not exist corporeally beyond its place in the visual context. And corporeality is what it is faking. Thus, that falsehood, if not understood or seen through, determines the degree of Consciousness. Not because the Experience is not real, but because Consciousness was unable to determine its degree of truth. As the Consciousness does not understand it is a mirage, if it did, it would be higher, even if it still experienced the same illusion. God-Consciousness understands/is all maya. The Experience is not what determines the degree of Consciousness. The structure of that Consciousness determines its degree, even if the Experience is the same. Although a change in structure likely will result in a change in Experience as well. After the changed structure is attained, the Experience is superfluous, unneeded. Yet the Experience without the structure has no lasting effect. Concepts are also maya, because they are distinct from nothing. The relationship between maya and truth is that illusion is necessary for any Consciousness to have existence, as in: to be, or have being. The content itself is necessary; distinction from the totality is necessary for Consciousness. So maya cannot be done away with without having an annihilation of distinct Experience/Consciousness. Which results in Truth. God does not do away with maya because it cannot. In order for anything to exist, it must be an illusory distinction from Totality. Maya IS existent reality since it is the only thing that can be Experienced, as it is the content of Consciousness. No maya means no Experience. Consciousness is Experience in content, not structure. Being IS illusion. Illusion is God itself. It is all that is. Yet Reality includes Totality and Consciousness. Totality is not distinct, which is not maya/God/being because it can never be differentiated whilst retaining the quality of not being distinct. A baby can have a state experience of such features filling its Consciousness which would fill its Experience of reality—the content of it: Peace, Love, Bliss. It would not be an awakening, as those relate to the context/possibility space/that which holds the experienced Consciousness as a whole. The context of the baby’s whole reality being solipsistic truth, with it/God as sole authority, would not be grasped. And as such, it would not be lasting once the Experience of peace, love, bliss, or even a solipsistic Experience of it being the sole authority goes away and its Consciousness is filled with insecurity of its survival.This would change its Experience away from the heightened state, making it not an awakening, as it is not fully grasped/intuited, as it is transitory. An awakening would require an insight or inherent understanding of the structure of the baby’s being/Consciousness. This insight does likely need some structure which can grasp it rather than simply being an interesting happening. Does that structure have to be cognitive? I doubt it, but to communicate it, yeah. It may be strictly cognitive for humans. By your definition of an Experience being an awakening, then it would be possible for a baby to have it. Although the understanding and change in structure of what happens/is (Experience) as a necessary part of awakening. A ball can smack a baby’s face. It would Experience it. I wouldn’t say it had an awakening about balls, smacking, or of anything really. If that smack resulted in the baby having an insight into the workings of color, inertia, pain, mass, elasticity, which could all be structured/intuited/grasped from the Experience of the ball, then just the Experience wouldn’t necessitate an awakening nor insight. The distinction of Experience and structure/context falls apart since an awakening changes the very Experience to incorporate that changed structure, for that and future Experience. So, if an awakening to love happens, an Experience of it would be drastically different, as it would encompass the structure of that love into its being/Experience/Consciousness itself. After the structure is attained, the Experience is superfluous, unneeded. Yet the Experience without the change in structure has no lasting effect.

Low dose acetaminophen could help. You're likely holding the context of the relationship throughout your sleep and are under tension throughout the night. Try to eliminate the context of relationships all together, or at least shift the memories in that domain to be only positives for a while. Otherwise try to seriously immerse yourself into something mundane before-during sleep like a cartoon and have it encapsulate your whole awareness. That could shift your state enough to relax through sleep.

It’s an illusory effect of the mind, not the force field. Saying it’s a force field causing it instead of the rock assumes the rock is illusory but the force field is real. Yet believing it was the “non-physical electromagnetic invisible force field” is multiple more hallucinations away than rock since it’s even more concepts and beliefs added on. Also force fields are a part of the physical paradigm, it is invisible, not non-physical. So rather than: It would say: “what feels physical is actually the effect of a physical electromagnetic invisible force field.” Reductionism won't show the illusory nature of things. Because it reinforces the non-illusory nature of whatever is claimed to be the actual cause of the phenomena.

No need to dissolve, it is all consciousness. Think of form more as wrinkling a flat paper. It remains paper, but some aspects of it are denser than others and have forms, especially compared to the original flatness. Besides that, The way of distinguishing those shapes is up to a judger, who must say, this specific part and shape of the paper is a star, this other one is a human, this one is a rock. None of those distinctions are intrinsic, it's all paper. The paper does not mind being any of those wrinkled forms. There's no 'choice' to make, as it's all itself. The seeming separation is when the form creates an illusion of a distinct self or even distinct forms. I don't really know how to explain it's process. Life appears unfair for humans because of our survival needs, consciousness itself does not have survival needs except when one of it's forms believes so. In terms of the fairness, it might help to imagine an author writing a D&D story except he rolls levels also. The author doesn't mind the discrepancies, but the characters in the story do. In the same way Consciousness does not mind, it's illusionary differentiated self's do. Illusion because they are not actually separated from Consciousness, it just appears so to them. Depends on how solipsistic you want to be. From my experience, there is a bigger C consciousness that has all the structure of let's say earth, and a lower c consciousness, being you, as an experience within the big C that operates in that bigger structure. Although in the end you are both. It doesn't need to change from dog to guy because it is already both, and yet it appears distinct/separate to small c consciousness.