There cannot be more or less consciousness

[Ishanga]

5 minutes ago, Osaid said:

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.

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. 

Intellectual hogwash language that keeps one in the loop of thinking mind patterns based on date collected and rehashed, means nothing, will get one know where on the path of spirituality, or just trying to get out of bed when they feel like dying inside!!!!!

[Princess Arabia]

9 minutes ago, Osaid said:

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.

That's why I quoted you; because of the profundity of your statements. I grasped it while reading it but wanted to make sure that's what you were saying, or at least somewhat close. You're saying just that. Another thing that makes sense and fits into puzzle of what doesn't make sense, if you know what I mean.

I've never looked at it this way before but I do see what you're saying.

Question: Would you say then that direct experience is not imagined and that is direct aliveness, what's happening and all there is.  Anything else is imaginary.

Edited March 29 by Princess Arabia

[Osaid]

1 minute ago, Ishanga said:

Intellectual hogwash language

That's the name of the game here. If someone is stuck in intellect I have to traverse intellect.

[Breakingthewall]

13 minutes ago, Osaid said:

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

59 minutes ago, Ishanga said:

 

Good points, but you have to admit that your perception of what this experience is is limited. Not the experience, just the depth of the perception 

[ivankiss]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

If that were true there would be no point in doing spiritual practice. There would also be no point in taking psychedelics.

You do those to make less ego, not more consciousness.

[Osaid]

29 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Would you say then that direct experience is not imagined and that is direct aliveness, what's happening and all there is.  Anything else is imaginary.

Direct experience is not any thing. Things are divisions. Mind divides. Experience cannot divide itself from itself. There aren't two experiences being experienced.

Edited March 29 by Osaid

[UnbornTao]

You don't know what you are now. If and when you become conscious of your nature, we call that an increase in consciousness. And you can keep having breakthroughs into what emotions, mind, space, context, experience, language, etc., are.

Go figure.

Edited March 30 by UnbornTao

[Yimpa]

Not one mention of Love yet.

tsk tsk 

[Breakingthewall]

35 minutes ago, Osaid said:

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

1 hour ago, Ishanga said:

 

Limitation could be what exist. For example if it's pain. It's a positive thing that you perceive. in fact everything that you perceive are limits. 

[zurew]

@Osaid Why do you point out and care about contradictions? - You are limiting metaphysics by aristotelian logic , no ?

[Princess Arabia]

10 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

Not one mention of Love yet.

tsk tsk 

It's all Love, no need to mention it.

[Yimpa]

2 minutes ago, zurew said:

Why do you point out and care about contradictions?

What would stop Consciousness from experiencing contradictions? 

[Hojo]

How could you awaken if there were no degrees of consciousness? I have been unconscious and conscious in my life and there are infinite degrees that you can be conscious. Everyday is a different level. How can you say there are no levels. A baby and a full grown man are the exact same level of consciousness then. A dead person and an alive person are experiencing the same thing with this position. A guru cannot teach you anything if this is the case.

Its there are levels clearly. You are just taking the layers off to gain more consciousness. We are all ultimate consciousness with deceptions to say we are all equally conscious means there are no deceptions thats just not true.

[Breakingthewall]

7 minutes ago, Hojo said:

How could you awaken if there were no degrees of consciousness?

Because conciousness=existence. Existence without conciousness is non existence. Then if you exist, your conciousness is total. What can change is your perception. Perception is inside the conciousness, and can be limited, more deep, or totally unlimited, but in all of those cases conciousness is the same

[Leo Gura]

29 minutes ago, ivankiss said:

You do those to make less ego, not more consciousness.

No!

[Osaid]

56 minutes ago, zurew said:

Why do you point out and care about contradictions? - You are limiting metaphysics by aristotelian logic , no ?

The reason why I point out contradictions is because a contradiction does not exist, that is literally what defines a contradiction. 

It's like you come up to me and say "Isn't it crazy how it's raining unicorns today" and then I'm like "no it's not raining unicorns." I have to point out the contradiction or else the conversation cannot progress without being delusional.

I am using logic to point to something which is not logic. What I am doing is pointing out that none of these words point to anything that exists. I am pointing out that your logic makes no sense. That is all. I am not making you adopt it with new logic.

When you say "limitation" you're talking about something that doesn't exist. When you say "more consciousness" you're talking about something that doesn't exist. All those quoted phrases are synonymous with "non-existence." My only goal is to make you realize that, nothing else. When you do realize that, you are left outside of logic, wherever that might leave you.

I am not trying to make you believe in a better or more accurate logic or metaphysics. My goal is to make you stop believing in whatever kind of logic or metaphysics that you currently believe in, and my method for doing that is by making you realize the contradiction for yourself. You can't believe your logic if you realize it is contradictory. I am using logic to make you realize why your logic is contradictory. And you can only realize contradiction by being met with an opposing stream of logic. I use logic as a tool to untangle logic, not for you to adopt it as more logic. I do not have an end goal or framework to my logic other than simply just using it to untangle you from your own logic. That is the only imperative on my part. 

Edited March 29 by Osaid

[ivankiss]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No!

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Ishanga said:

Intellectual hogwash language that keeps one in the loop of thinking mind patterns based on date collected and rehashed, means nothing, will get one know where on the path of spirituality, or just trying to get out of bed when they feel like dying inside!!!!!

There are two different approaches to spirituality. you can focus on the openness of human potential, on the deep perception of your being, on the unlimited richness of who you are. Or you can focus on the quality of what you are, on being aware of what this experience is in a clean, content-free, absolutely basic way. 

[Breakingthewall]

46 minutes ago, Osaid said:

When you say "limitation" you're talking about something that doesn't exist. When you say "more consciousness" you're talking about something that doesn't exist. All those quoted phrases are synonymous with "non-existence." My only goal is to make you realize that, nothing else. When you do realize that, you are left outside of logic, wherever that might leave you.

You are right in the sense that if you totally remove the meaning , and only the naked reality remains. In the naked reality there are no limits because limits are just a concept. The naked reality is liquid, and limits are just an idea create for this flow 

But we can only peer into that absolutely alive state of mind, into the limitless now, because being there implies that it doesn't matter to you about life, your physical integrity, nothing means anything. In the moment that something means something, it closes. This is the garden of Eden, the paradise. Humans were expulsed from the Eden in return of the logic

Edited March 29 by Breakingthewall

[zurew]

3 minutes ago, Osaid said:

When you say "limitation" you're talking about something that doesn't exist. When you say "more consciousness" you're talking about something that doesn't exist. All those quoted phrases are synonymous with "non-existence." My only goal is to make you realize that, nothing else. When you do realize that, you are left outside of logic, wherever that might leave you.
 

When you say words like "thats impossible" or "can't" - I have no idea what you mean by those things, if you don't mean limitation or a lack of possibility.

All of the issues that you are pointing out are only applicable inside certain logic systems like for example classical/aristotelian logic. Once contradictions are allowed none of your critcisms are relevant because everything becomes allowed and possible.

Even Leo and everyone else here are working under classical logic and the proof for that is that none of you guys allow metaphysical contradictions. Not a single person, and there are very good reasons why that is.

Allowing metaphysical contradictions would mean that anything can be anything else at the same time without any problem. So saying things like nothing and everything is made out of consciousness at the same time would mean no problem or saying things like everything and nothing exists at the same time also wouldn't mean any problem at all or saying that everything is made out of completely different substance from each other  - literally any kind of silly thing or system could be made up here. In this case nothing needs to be grounded in anything or anythingcan be grounded in anything and nothing at the same time.

There is not a single thing that becomes impossible if you allow metaphysical contradictions. The very notion of impossibility and possibility and words like can and can't are all happning inside the framework of classic logic - thats another thing that all of these things become completely meaningless, because our sensemaking is happening within contrast and classical logic.