There cannot be more or less consciousness

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Osaid said:

"More consciousness" means there is something beyond consciousness, which is impossible.

It doesn't mean that.

There exist kangaroos. Kangaroos are made of consciousness. But a kangaroo is not currently in your consciousness.

You guys love to talk nonsense.

The nature of consciousness is to hide and reveal parts of itself. Most of consciousness is hidden from you for good reasons. If all of consciousness were revealed to you, you would melt into a puddle of goo.

Edited March 29 by Leo Gura

[Thought Art]

13 minutes ago, Yousif said:

I think you mean the substance of your consciousness and mine are the same and that’s true, but that doesn’t make an ordinary person as conscious as a guru, or make a child as conscious as an adult.

Me? I think that resonates. 
 

It’s deeper than human as well…

Edited March 29 by Thought Art

[koops]

Consciousness/Oneness/God/Tao is. Just is.

Your ''perception'' of It changes, hence your level of consciousness/awareness changes, higher or lower.

 

 

 

[Princess Arabia]

46 minutes ago, Ishanga said:

Oh Okay, that's cool, its like some doors are opening up which is life at Ease in some ways, which is very cool as well, its the way it should be:)

Nice

[Yousif]

all of spirituality and reality hinges on Non-duality which is that it’s all encompassing there’s no difference between the opposites, if you say it’s all one that’s wrong you’re excluding many, if you say “there cannot be more or less consciousness” you’re excluding the “ yes it can” and making infinity finite by limiting it.

 

Because of this most spiritual teaching will tell you that there’s no where to stand, and you’re reduced to silence.

[Ishanga]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

It doesn't mean that.

There exist kangaroos. Kangaroos are made of consciousness. But a kangaroo is not currently in your consciousness.

You guys love to talk nonsense.

I have to agree with Leo, there is allot of nonsense talk around here, absolutism talk around here, its all or nothing.

You cannot deny a persons experience, just go on the Mental Health, Emotional Issues forum and tell those ppl that what they are feeling is just imagination, it doesn't exist, all there is is all of us as One! Its a bunch of BS, I've had depressive times in my life, even after years of spiritual practice, I've realized it was mostly Ego based sort of depression now after looking back but it was not a pleasant experience let me tell You, but I was able to get myself out of it and now am in a very stable place for the most part ..

Life is open to all possibilities, not just God/Oneness Absolutism, one first has to Realize this and have it as an Experience for it to be real, so rather than always bring this up, talk more about relatable things, how to feel empowered, what sorts of ways to get that sort of experience on a consistent basis, 

Arguing about language differences and things like Consciousness as all, God is infinite, I am God, all oneness, at times it means absolutely nothing and means nothing when the same threads get repeated over and over with the same result, a circle jerk of nothing changes!

[StarStruck]

You guys need to stop fucking around and read the Red Book by Jung. This kind of ass poking won’t get you anyway. 

Edited March 29 by StarStruck

[Breakingthewall]

You are talking about different things, quantity and quality. The amount of consciousness is always the same, whether in a hooligan crying because his team has lost or in Ramakrishna in mystical ecstasy. It is the consciousness of what is, and it is always total.

The difference is in the quality, in the penetration of that consciousness. The hooligan's conscience has a wall in front of him and he cannot and does not want to see beyond it. Ramakrishna's is largely unencumbered, and sees the abyss of reality in all its glory. If he watch the football game he will not see its meaning but its reality, he sees the absolute transparent through everything. The hooligan is lost in meaning, and this limits his perception, he only see the result of the game and what it means, but the amount of consciousness is the same in both.

Edited March 29 by Breakingthewall

[Sugarcoat]

1 hour ago, Princess Arabia said:

You know how many times this has happened to me. Once I was thinking why gurus all have white long beards, then Someone_here started a post about that. Other times, my mind spontaneously, out of nowhere and for no reason, think of a forum user who I haven't seen on for quite some time, and within a few days, i'll see them appear. The moderator, Michael in the health section was one of them. He was gone for a while; and it wasn't till I noticed months later that he appeared again.

There are times when I've had a conversation with someone on a particular topic and woke up to a YT suggested video on the same topic and answering some questions or concerns I may have had on that same topic. It's everywhere. We just have to have the eyes to see them. I don't even get shocked anymore, that's why I don't even say anything, I just smile within myself and say, hmmmm.

Shows you how it's all One, not even, but All there Is. We're not even connected because it's all there is, all the same. 

Mm I don’t pay attention to it but sometimes i notice

Edited March 29 by Sugarcoat

[Ishanga]

12 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

You are talking about different things, quantity and quality. The amount of consciousness is always the same, whether in a hooligan crying because his team has lost or in Ramakrishna in mystical ecstasy. It is the consciousness of what is, and it is always total.

The difference is in the quality, in the penetration of that consciousness. The hooligan's conscience has a wall in front of him and he cannot and does not want to see beyond it. Ramakrishna's is largely unencumbered, and sees the abyss of reality in all its glory. If he watch the football game he will not see its meaning but its reality, he sees the absolute transparent through everything. The hooligan is lost in meaning, and this limits his perception, he only see the result of the game and what it means, but the amount of consciousness is the same in both.

Yes and this denotes and points out that there is individuality, as well as Oneness and connectedness, so therefore one can be a Ramakrishna themselves in Experience or they can be a Cave Man in experience, its available to anyone, and actually easier today if one wants it enough, but to say all is imaginary, there is no individuality, no need to do anything or change anything is very off course and plane wrong imo!

Edited March 29 by Ishanga

[Bazooka Jesus]

The consciousness is always the same, yes, but you as a body-mind-complex can be a bad or a good conductor for divine consciousness to shine through. And your conductivity can be increased through methods Iike yoga... that is their whole purpose.

[Osaid]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

It doesn't mean that.

It does. You just can't see it. 

You simply can't perceive consciousness as "more" or "less" without comparing consciousness against something other than consciousness. 

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

There exist kangaroos. Kangaroos are made of consciousness. But a kangaroo is not currently in your consciousness.

You can't experience non-existence. Consciousness does not have that feature. Experience does not have that feature. It is by definition "not consciousness." 

You don't experience a lack of kangaroos, that is impossible. You can't experience a lack of something, that is an existential contradiction. You infer that through your knowledge of kangaroos. In the same way you don't actually experience a lack of consciousness when you go to sleep. 

The color red is not experienced as a lack of kangaroos, even though it isn't a kangaroo. The smell of a flower is not experienced as a lack of kangaroos, even though it isn't a kangaroo. You can only experience what exists. You can only imagine or infer what doesn't exist through what exists. It's just existence. There's no limitation anywhere until you imagine it.

You're imagining a variable which doesn't exist in your current experience (kangaroo/non-existence) and then calling it a limitation. No, the limitation literally does not exist. If there is a lack of kangaroos you do not perceive that, it is literally non-existence. It says nothing about what exists. 

If you say "experience is limited because kangaroos do not exist" you have literally admitted in that sentence that the limitation itself does not exist. 

[Leo Gura]

@Osaid You can talk all you want but there is no kangaroo in your experience right now. But there could be.

Where is that kangaroo? It's hidden from you. You are not conscious of kangaroos, no matter what excuses you concoct.

The end.

Edited March 29 by Leo Gura

[Osaid]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You can talk all you want but there is no kangaroo in your experience right now.

Non-existence is not experienced. Of course. By definition.

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But there could be.

Non-existence couldn't be. 

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You are not conscious of kangaroos, no matter what excuses you concoct.

I am not conscious of non-existence. Of course not.

You are playing an intellectual game with yourself.

Edited March 29 by Osaid

[Princess Arabia]

4 minutes ago, Bazooka Jesus said:

The consciousness is always the same, yes, but you as a body-mind-complex can be a bad or a good conductor for divine consciousness to shine through. And your conductivity can be increased through methods Iike yoga... that is their whole purpose.

Thats where energy comes in. It's like how electricity works. Faulty wiring can get you shocked.

[Breakingthewall]

2 minutes ago, Ishanga said:

but to say all is imaginary, there is no individuality, no need to do anything or change anything

That are just ideas, mental constructions . Imo they are not going to lead anyone to enlightenment, only to fantasies. Enlightenment is identifying yourself with the absolute, and this is existence, or consciousness if you prefer. Existence exists and takes infinite forms, one is that of the hooligan, another that of the Buddha. Ultimately there is no difference, only the content changes, and over all the angle of perception, one is in the form, other in the substance. If you are absolutely identified with existence, it is the same to be in Autchwitz as in a hotel in Dubai, in fact Autchwitz would be much more interesting. but who is? 

[Bazooka Jesus]

Just now, Princess Arabia said:

Thats where energy comes in. It's like how electricity works. Faulty wiring can get you shocked.

Eeeeeexactly.

That's the problem with people taking powerful psychedelics without having properly worked on increasing their conductivity first. Your wires will get roasted if you get flooded with more pranic energy than you can handle... which can lead to serious imbalances. So buyer beware.

[Yousif]

6 minutes ago, Osaid said:

Non-existence is not experienced. Of course.

Non-existence couldn't be. 

I am not conscious of non-existence. That defeats its definition. You are playing an intellectual game with yourself.

You act as if experience is all there is, what about non- experience, 

non-existence is the same as nothingness or the void

just like how lower case good/ bad make Good with a capital G 

non-existence/existence make existence with a capital E

[Princess Arabia]

19 minutes ago, Osaid said:

There's no limitation anywhere until you imagine it

Are you saying here and pretty much your whole comment is that existence is all there is. What consciousness is experiencing in the moment is all that exist. There are no limitations because anything that would be considered a limitation would be mind-created. E,g if I wanted to grow wings and fly, that is just the mind thinking and imagining that and is not in my direct experience so it really isn't a limitation. I'm experiencing what I'm experiencing and that is existence, so anything that I consider to be a limitation isn't really a limitation since it's only something I'm imagining? 

Is that what you're saying?

Edited March 29 by Princess Arabia

[Osaid]

16 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Are you saying here and pretty much your whole comment is that existence is all there is.

You can only experience what exists. Notice how this immediately intuitively makes sense until your logic comes running through.

"Doesn't exist" "non-existence" "lack" are words which point to something that doesn't exist. That's how they are defined.

Making conclusions about consciousness, or what does exist, or what is experienced, through words which point to non-existence, is a serious blunder. Because those words can never describe what exists, by their definition. It's like if you ask me what vanilla ice cream tastes like and I tell you "vanilla is not Santa Claus." It doesn't tell you anything about what vanilla is because Santa Claus is not. The point of reference is something which does not exist. You can't point to what exists using non-existence. You can't conclude that experience is limited by pointing to non-existence.

Non-existence describes nothing about existence, naturally. It is intellectual stagnation. You get caught in it like a hamster wheel because it seems to make logical sense.

It is important not to confuse "nothing" with non-existence. Non-existence is intellect. Nothing is actual.

Nothing has no intellectual basis, no conclusions, it says nothing about reality, literally. Non-existence, on the other hand, has an intellectual basis, it is a conclusion, a way to define how experience operates. Nothing != non-existence. Your experience says nothing about what is not experienced, literally.

16 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

There are no limitations because anything that would be considered a limitation would be mind-created. E,g if I wanted to grow wings and fly, that is just the mind thinking and imagining that and is not in my direct experience so it really isn't a limitation. I'm experiencing what I'm experiencing and that is existence, so anything that I consider to be a limitation isn't really a limitation since it's only something I'm imagining? 

That is on the right track.

Limitation is literally "what doesn't exist." That means the limitation itself doesn't exist either. It's imagined. It's really profound if you grasp it.

The color red doesn't exist as "not blue" or "not yellow." It exists as red. Which causes you to think about blue and yellow, which is not blue and yellow, just thinking/imagination. If your thinking was actually blue and yellow, your experience would not be limited anymore. Your mind is desperately trying to grasp at non-existence and use it as proof that your experience is limited, but that is impossible.

When you say "my experience is limited because blue doesn't exist", you've literally admitted right there that the thing which is limiting your experience does not exist.