SOUL

So when you make a point of adding the word 'inherently' to 'exist' you actually aren't changing anything, you think illusion means 'does not exist'. This confirms you think illusion means 'does not exist' and no 'to exist' is not synonymous with 'to appear'. Even if something is an illusion, which means 'not as it appears', it exists though it's not as it appears. It isn't beside the point, you asserted there was no awareness without a mind, I showed an example of it, it's on point with your thread topic. This is what happens when someone attempts to achieve enlightenment with logic, it fails because it is a construct of the mind. Transcending the mind is in part what enlightenment is comprised of.

Amoeba?

Actually it is commonly held belief that things change and there are even some who think that the natural laws may not be constant eitherl. Although, it seems like you are implying that things don't exist unless conscious observation but my point was that things still exist though may not be determined unless observed. You said "created by the interaction between consciousness and its environment." and I asked what would that environment be. It can be reached if one transcends the mind. I do and it takes transcending the mind to understand it.

Well, now I have to ask what do you mean by inherently? Also, what did the initial form of potential as consciousness interact with to create existence? I am aware of what it is but I just would like to hear your answer on it.

Potential is a thing even if it's all things unfulfilled but isn't the same as the void which is devoid of anything as well as the potential of all things. Emptiness implies that there is a thing not yet filled so emptiness is not the void because the void is devoid of anything including a thing that has yet to be filled. It's not just a paradox, it's mind shattering and consciousness stripping because even the purest of awareness cannot be one with the void.

@Russell Parr Consciousness is only limited by it's awareness.

@Russell Parr Ok, so your interpretation of what is meant by illusion is that it 'does not exist'. Which isn't the actual meaning of it. You also assert that things don't exist without conscious observation of them. On the quantum level we know that a particle isn't determined until observation is made but that isn't the same thing as does not exist until observation is made which correlates to your misinterpretation of the word illusion. Yet there is existence with it's natural laws that does exist, hence it being existence, and affects the manifest universe regardless of whether there is any manifest conscious being there to observe it. Well, what is this consciousness that is the observing which has the power to manifest the universe of things into existence that doesn't rely on manifest consciousness to observe it into reality? It could be then understood that the presence of consciousness as the initial form of infinite potential is what brought the manifest into existence through it's observation, aka awareness of it. So, I state that it is the awareness within our consciousness that transcends to unite with the consciousness form of the infinite potential without the machinations of the mind even if it's effects are present within the mind. You assert it's all an illusion, with you defining it as 'does not exist', including consciousness, though here you are arguing on behalf of your idea that something that does not exist being the only way to attain something that does not exist. Hmm...

@Russell Parr Well, what do you mean by illusion?

An accurate understanding of reality and the shedding of delusion are effects from enlightenment that can happen in us, although it is more than just those effects and not a result of them. One can attempt to logically construct a mental framework, a paradigm, to understand enlightenment and it's effects but that isn't what is enlightenment itself. Conflating the two as one is what the mind does to justify it's ideas about it and often is the stumbling block to enlightenment. Enlightenment can happen when the mind gets out of the way of our awareness, the mind cannot understand a process that doesn't include it even if the effects are experienced in the mind.

Mental transcendence of egotism is one of the effects from enlightenment but isn't the only one and enlightenment isn't an effect from logical machinations in the mind.

Well, it isn't semantics that an amoeba has a primitive awareness as demonstrated by it's ability to be aware of it's environment and respond to the stimuli in it. Although, it is semantics to stretch the word "mind" in a way that describes the primitive awareness and response of an amoeba so it fits. You are using your own definition of the word to justify your own view about enlightenment and you are welcome to do so for your own experience. To suggest it is a universal truth for everyone is the moment your view and it's definitions cannot stretch to fit.

It is only limited for yourself by your ideas of it, not for anyone else and certainly your ideas of it doesn't limit consciousness.

The void is absolute in it being nothing. It's not consciousness, it's not potential, not time, it's absolute in being devoid. Infinite potential manifests as consciousness. Infinite void manifests as space. Infinite now manifests as time. The manifest is not the absolute, it's an existential expression of it but it is not it in the absolute state.

Consciousness can expand to any possible degree of awareness since it is the initial form of potential.

Infinite potential is a state that all is possible and nothing has been determined. I did not say finite produces infinite, you misunderstand once again.

You misunderstand, I did not say consciousness is the beginning of infinite potential.

It comes from infinite potential, it could be said that consciousness is the initial form of infinite potential.

I simply responded with my experience but gave no opinion either way about it, I didn't think it was a big deal of my not reading and replying on it. If you value the book then enjoy what you got from it, although what value do you get by projecting stuff onto others because they didn't read it? It's not fear or uncaring or being above something, it's just a book, I have no opinion of it, I just didn't read it. if your attitude towards me is an example of what reading this book brings to someone then I surely have no need for it.

You have clearly displayed your own limiting beliefs with this statement but it doesn't apply to anyone except yourself. Does an amoeba have any awareness? Of course it does, it is a primitive sense of awareness of it's surroundings but it is an awareness nonetheless. Does it have a mind? No, it doesn't. This is just one example of awareness without mind.

@Vanish I do appreciate the sentiment of the book but I have no need to read it.

@Vanish I am intimately aware of now.

Revelation is insight that doesn't use logic to acquire it, logic may be used after to examine it but the initial revelation happens when awareness transcends the mind and all it's trappings. Of course, that insight is revealed within the context of mind even though it isn't the product of it yet the mind will attempt to lay claim to it. Enlightenment is a function of awareness, not logic and to achieve the the illuminated insights it behooves us to shed the confines of the mind which logic is part of.

@Shin That's just projection on your part, so this fear you see may be something to examine in your self. I didn't say i never will, I said I have no intention to, two different things.

Never read it and have no intention to.

Developing is a natural process that happens regardless of whether we are aware of it or not but we can attempt to be an active influence in the process or we can let it happen randomly.