A lesson in space and time

[Carl-Richard]

38 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Ok, then you think I didn't get any results. It's a bit arbitrary to say that in a conversation about consciousness. Instead, you can argue your position, not try to belittle your interlocutor.

Your post was "I have meditated" and "consciousness is localized". I had already responded to the latter, so I responded to the former.

In my view, you're simply re-defining what I define as "consciousness" as "the limitless". The limitless can be known, you can become conscious of it; you already are conscious of it, you just forgot. You forgot through the process of localizing yourself as a separate locus of consciousness, a limited identity, what you define as "consciousness".

If you think the limitless can be known by direct acquaintance, then it's consciousness and you're simply playing word games by giving it another name. If you don't think it can be known through direct acquaintance, you're a materialist or a dual aspect monist or something like that (where the bottom layer of reality cannot be known through direct acquaintance).

Edited May 29 by Carl-Richard

[Yeah Yeah]

On 28/05/2025 at 5:05 AM, Breakingthewall said:

Leo have said hundreds of times that solipsism means that the people that you are talking to doesn't exist, you are imagining them for a reason, and they have not inner experience 

Yeah Leo actually goes extreme which I personally disagree because I know for a fact that I am currently this moment typing this out to you so by his extreme theory you all and everyone do not exist - I've listened to these types of teachings of his on repeat and have taken a break of such extreme ideas and now coming to these forums I wonder if he was speaking of the all non-duality ultimate consciousness being whatever as ultimately solipsistic but no I've recently researched solipsism video and he means to its most extreme - so I'm aware I am me so technically from that video you are not real but I have a hard time going that far - unless I haven't taken 5 meo DMT and seen what he has seen but idk I push back surely - surely other people do exist 

[Breakingthewall]

48 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Your post was "I have meditated" and "consciousness is localized". I had already responded to the latter, so I responded to the former.

In my view, you're simply re-defining what I define as "consciousness" as "the limitless". The limitless can be known, you can become conscious of it; you already are conscious of it, you just forgot. You forgot through the process of localizing yourself as a separate locus of consciousness, a limited identity, what you define as "consciousness".

If you think the limitless can be known by direct acquaintance, then it's consciousness and you're simply playing word games by giving it another name. If you don't think it can be known through direct acquaintance, you're a materialist or a dual aspect monist or something like that (where the bottom layer of reality cannot be known through direct acquaintance).

You can be concious of your unlimited nature because you are the unlimited. The unlimited is absolute and self-conscious, but it is not consciousness. It's not intelligence, it's not creation. All of that are relative possibilities that inevitably arises due our unlimited nature, but not the foundation of the absolute. The only foundation of the absolute is absence of limits.

[Carl-Richard]

47 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

You can be concious of your unlimited nature because you are the unlimited. The unlimited is absolute and self-conscious, but it is not consciousness. It's not intelligence, it's not creation. All of that are relative possibilities that inevitably arises due our unlimited nature, but not the foundation of the absolute. The only foundation of the absolute is absence of limits.

So you are playing a word game: you're simply re-defining what idealists call "consciousness" as "the limitless" and "localized identity within consciousness" as "consciousness". That's simply a word game. But it's at least good that you're making the distinction between an infinite existential ground (God's mind) and finite psychological structures (individual persons' minds). Not many people seem to be able to do that here and hence fall into solipsism, mixing the finite and the infinite.

[Breakingthewall]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

So you are playing a word game: you're simply re-defining what idealists call "consciousness" as "the limitless" and "localized identity within consciousness" as "consciousness". That's simply a word game. But it's at least good that you're making the distinction between an infinite existential ground (God's mind) and finite psychological structures (individual persons' minds). Not many people seem to be able to do that here and hence fall into solipsism, mixing the finite and the infinite.

 thanks, then in your opinion I'm not completely lost case like the solipsists, I appreciate that 

But no, you didn't understand what I said, I will try to explain again. 

Existence is not made of consciousness. Existence is made of contrast, and contrast doesn't have to be conscious; no one needs to be conscious of it in order to exist. But from the fact of contrast arises consciousness, and since reality has no origin, consciousness has no origin or limits. But it's not the essence of reality; it's a consequence of it. To understand this, you have to break the limits of your mind in meditation and become aware of your unlimited nature. Your unlimited nature is the same whether you're aware of it or not. 

Existence is not reality, existence is the manifestation of reality. Existence is movement, and reality is essence, is what you are. Reality is how you manifest yourself, with infinite movements coordinated, like every thing else. Movements are coordinated because what is not coordinate or synchronized simply doesn't appear, then what is synchronized appears. And as reality has not limits, the movement hasn't also, it's synchronized to infinity, always. And in that movement conciousness arise. Arise always, because movement is always, and it's infinite always. But it's just a consequence, not the cause. 

Edited May 30 by Breakingthewall

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Existence is not made of consciousness. Existence is made of contrast, and contrast doesn't have to be conscious; no one needs to be conscious of it in order to exist.

Maya is made of contrast. Consciousness is beyond Maya (but also envelops Maya; think of a big man giving a small lady a hug, ok that's weird). Consciousness is One. It precedes "twoness" which is what contrast assumes. I still feel like we're just playing word games here: we have just different words for the same things.

 

3 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

To understand this, you have to break the limits of your mind in meditation and become aware of your unlimited nature. Your unlimited nature is the same whether you're aware of it or not. 

This is where I have to use non-dual speak: nobody "becomes aware" of their unlimited nature. They just remember. Their unlimited nature is awareness itself, but it tends to be obscured by identification with Maya when you're embodied as a human with concerns, desires, wants.

[krazzer]

@Carl-Richard What I see is beingness resting above, a clear presence, while beneath it lies a tangled jungle of words and mind-made constructs.

That seems pretty accurate.

[Breakingthewall]

4 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Maya is made of contrast. Consciousness is beyond Maya (but also envelops Maya; think of a big man giving a small lady a hug, ok that's weird). Consciousness is One. It precedes "twoness" which is what contrast assumes. I still feel like we're just playing word games here: we have just different words for the same things.

 

This is where I have to use non-dual speak: nobody "becomes aware" of their unlimited nature. They just remember. Their unlimited nature is awareness itself, but it tends to be obscured by identification with Maya when you're embodied as a human with concerns, desires, wants.

If the substance of reality is conciousness, why forms and universes arise?

And you, as a concrete structure of the reality now, become concious of your unlimited nature beyond the form. Without form reality wouldn't be concious of itself, it's impossible. Consciousness needs form.