To Be Conscious Of....is that statement flawed.

[Razard86]

Ego is not experience of consciousness/awareness, ego is the experience of being only ONE thing in particular. For example if experience reality as I am ONLY this human and there are OTHERS then you have an ego. The moment you experience Reality as equally you in all directions THEN you have lost your ego. Many people keep creating a difference between something and nothing. 

There is no difference between something and nothing. For example awakening to the SELF= what is classically referred to as No Self they are completely identical. Many people believe that to achieve No Self that they need to lose their human identity completely like losing all your human memories etc. This is not what the Spiritual Path is about. It's about ONENESS. ONENESS says there is NO separation, as such when I move my body it is YOU moving my body right now. When you move your body it is ME moving your body right now. 

Never let anyone fool you into creating the false thought that there is no I AM. The I AM is self awareness and self awareness cannot be false. Without self awareness you cannot even have an experience!!! For example a door nob is a form, a form= a self. But notice the door knob has no self awareness, instead YOU are the door knobs self awareness. Without your awareness there would be NO DOOR KNOB. 

Notice that all form needs awareness for it to be experienced, without awareness there is no experience. You see the issue in Spiritual circles is people are using ancient teachings and not converting them properly in sentence form. Majority of ancient teachings were not written and communicated in  English language and many of the people that translated them DID NOT UNDERSTAND THEM. This has created so much confusion for those who are walking the path. This is why I realized you have to do your own research and then write it in your OWN LANGUAGE. 

So self awareness is = to PURE AWARENESS. Now with that said, your TRUE NATURE can function perfectly without being aware of itself. No creation= no awareness of itself. At your purest truest nature you do not have a reflection at all, you are so blank, so empty, that you do not know what you are, and yet at the same time you hold infinite potentiality of all form/creation, but since you have not manifested as any part of that potentiality in particular you still don't know what you are. So for God to know itself in a particular way, it needed to create YOU Princess Arabia so it can know itself as Princess Arabia. This means Princess Arabia= GOD completely REGARDLESS if you are aware of it or not.

Many people do not understand what it means for something to be ABSOLUTE. ABSOLUTE = Unchanging/cannot be changed, So it is ABSOLUTELY true that you are God and regardless of what happens in your life as a human or even when you stop being human this will always be the case. So in all honesty it is completely accurate for me to say thanks for creating me Princess Arabia, and it is also accurate for me to say I am thankful for creating myself and both are equally true.

Edited August 18 by Razard86

[Princess Arabia]

10 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

Ego is not experience of consciousness/awareness, ego is the experience of being only ONE thing in particular. For example if experience reality as I am ONLY this human and there are OTHERS then you have an ego. The moment you experience Reality as equally you in all directions THEN you have lost your ego. Many people keep creating a difference between something and nothing. 

There is no difference between something and nothing. For example awakening to the SELF= what is classically referred to as No Self they are completely identical. Many people believe that to achieve No Self that they need to lose their human identity completely like losing all your human memories etc. This is not what the Spiritual Path is about. It's about ONENESS. ONENESS says there is NO separation, as such when I move my body it is YOU moving my body right now. When you move your body it is ME moving your body right now. 

Never let anyone fool you into creating the false thought that there is no I AM. The I AM is self awareness and self awareness cannot be false. Without self awareness you cannot even have an experience!!! For example a door nob is a form, a form= a self. But notice the door knob has no self awareness, instead YOU are the door knobs self awareness. Without your awareness there would be NO DOOR KNOB. 

Notice that all form needs awareness for it to be experienced, without awareness there is no experience. You see the issue in Spiritual circles is people are using ancient teachings and not converting them properly in sentence form. Majority of ancient teachings were not written and communicated in  English language and many of the people that translated them DID NOT UNDERSTAND THEM. This has created so much confusion for those who are walking the path. This is why I realized you have to do your own research and then write it in your OWN LANGUAGE. 

So self awareness is = to PURE AWARENESS. Now with that said, your TRUE NATURE can function perfectly without being aware of itself. No creation= no awareness of itself. At your purest truest nature you do not have a reflection at all, you are so blank, so empty, that you do not know what you are, and yet at the same time you hold infinite potentiality of all form/creation, but since you have not manifested as any part of that potentiality in particular you still don't know what you are. So for God to know itself in a particular way, it needed to create YOU Princess Arabia so it can know itself as Princess Arabia. This means Princess Arabia= GOD completely REGARDLESS if you are aware of it or not.

Many people do not understand what it means for something to be ABSOLUTE. ABSOLUTE = Unchanging/cannot be changed, So it is ABSOLUTELY true that you are God and regardless of what happens in your life as a human or even when you stop being human this will always be the case. So in all honesty it is completely accurate for me to say thanks for creating me Princess Arabia, and it is also accurate for me to say I am thankful for creating myself and both are equally true.

Nice explanation.

[Mellowmarsh]

@Razard86 @Princess Arabia 👍

[Schizophonia]

18 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

How does that equate to the topic. Are you saying to be conscious is an objective experience and therefore no such thing exist. Not sure, your response is very vague.

You suggested that there's an objective world and a subjectivity (which is a weird divide for someone who's looked a lot into Neville Goddard and non-dual stuff in general eheh ) and asked if you were truly aware of things (aware of object as their "objective" form) or uniquely aware of your subjectivity.

I said objectivity is an illusion, so indeed your only aware of what's going on your subjectivity.

Even a materialist would go to the same conclusion, because he would say you can only experience things through your brain.

Edited August 18 by Schizophonia

[Bufo Alvarius]

3 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

This seems to me dualistic. Something appears within consciousness is dualistic.

Language about consciousness can sound dualistic, but what is actually being pointed to is nondual phenomenology. When we say “something appears within consciousness,” it’s not meant to suggest two separate things (a container + an object), but that experience itself is inseparable from consciousness.

It’s not that consciousness contains an object. It’s that the object is the modulation of consciousness, not separate from it. To say “something appears in consciousness” is only shorthand for there is only appearance, which is not apart from the field that knows it.

3 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

How can one be conscious of not knowing. There must be someone conscious that they don't know which is still a form of knowing. Not knowing is reference to something not known.

There is a difference between knowing as information vs. awareness of absence. You can be aware of not knowing something without that implying dualism or a separate knower. For example, when someone asks you a factual question and you can’t answer, you’re still conscious of the gap. That recognition of absence is not knowledge about a thing, it's simply awareness without content. There is no separate “someone” in that experience unless you conceptualize one. The experience is just: “there is no answer here.”

In direct experience, you are conscious even when no “thing” is present to be known, seen, or defined. Because consciousness is not knowledge and it's not content. Consciousness is that which is prior to all content, including the thought “I don’t know.”

[Princess Arabia]

25 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

You suggested that there's an objective world and a subjectivity (which is a weird divide for someone who's looked a lot into Neville Goddard and non-dual stuff in general

You've assumed I watch a lot of Neville Goddard. Sure, I've heard of him and seen a view videos back in the day and I'm aware of his story, but I don't watch Neville Goddard anymore. Plus, I don't consider him a non-dualist. Also, one cannot apply non-dualism, so whatever appears is what appears with no one's doing. A question asked is a question asked and a statement is, just that, a statement with no one behind it.

[Princess Arabia]

18 minutes ago, Bufo Alvarius said:

Language about consciousness can sound dualistic, but what is actually being pointed to is nondual phenomenology. When we say “something appears within consciousness,” it’s not meant to suggest two separate things (a container + an object), but that experience itself is inseparable from consciousness.

It’s not that consciousness contains an object. It’s that the object is the modulation of consciousness, not separate from it. To say “something appears in consciousness” is only shorthand for there is only appearance, which is not apart from the field that knows it.

There is a difference between knowing as information vs. awareness of absence. You can be aware of not knowing something without that implying dualism or a separate knower. For example, when someone asks you a factual question and you can’t answer, you’re still conscious of the gap. That recognition of absence is not knowledge about a thing, it's simply awareness without content. There is no separate “someone” in that experience unless you conceptualize one. The experience is just: “there is no answer here.”

In direct experience, you are conscious even when no “thing” is present to be known, seen, or defined. Because consciousness is not knowledge and it's not content. Consciousness is that which is prior to all content, including the thought “I don’t know.”

Ok

[Hyperion]

2 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

No need to make it any clearer. I'll re-read your post. No biggie. It's all done.

Great.

Not to (overly) toot my own horn, but I suggest you read my previous three threads over and over and over again until they really land... I am not saying that my grandiloquent ramblings are necessarily the be-all end-all of spiritual wisdom, but perhaps they'll do the trick and disimbue you of the kind of sloppy, deceptive, half-baked, self-contradictory dogmatic nondualistic horseshit that mostly passes for spiritual teaching these days. All of that popular Advaita slop might serve as a valuable pointer in the beginning, but if you don't let go of it and transcend it at some point, you'll probably end up more lost and deluded than the most duality-driven egomaniac out there.

Just my two cents, of course. Make of it what you will. 😌

[Staples]

 

17 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

Ok then, so if we say "what I'm conscious" of VS "consciousness is", is that referring to two different things. This is not about intellectualizing but understanding. 

Not really sure what you mean. Sounds like you're making a distinction between the form of consciousness takes and what it actually is existentially. I think you already know the difference.

[Princess Arabia]

I don't even know how to continue this thread anymore. Seems like most are saying that Consciousness is the same as what I'm conscious of. That the word Consciousness is not fundamental and means that i'm conscious of, say my experience and what arises in my awareness. I wasn't really discussing Consciousness as being fundamental. I was referring to what I'm conscious of as a person and when one says I can do the work to be conscious of...say solipsism or God or whatever claim there is that I can become conscious of. As far as I'm concerned that's not Consciousness itself being fundamental. If we say I can become conscious of something, how can that be the same thing as "big C" Consciousness as a fundamental thing and what is referred to as all there is. 

The post is about what I'm conscious of and most of the comments speak of Consciousness as that; and imo, both cannot be the same thing because what I'm conscious of is not all there is because that's a split called duality and there's no I to be conscious of anything without it being a dream. Is Consciousness called that because it implies I'm conscious of....or that Consciousness is all there is whether I'm conscious of consciousness or not. 

[Razard86]

8 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

I don't even know how to continue this thread anymore. Seems like most are saying that Consciousness is the same as what I'm conscious of. That the word Consciousness is not fundamental and means that i'm conscious of, say my experience and what arises in my awareness. I wasn't really discussing Consciousness as being fundamental. I was referring to what I'm conscious of as a person and when one says I can do the work to be conscious of...say solipsism or God or whatever claim there is that I can become conscious of. As far as I'm concerned that's not Consciousness itself being fundamental. If we say I can become conscious of something, how can that be the same thing as "big C" Consciousness as a fundamental thing and what is referred to as all there is. 

The post is about what I'm conscious of and most of the comments speak of Consciousness as that; and imo, both cannot be the same thing because what I'm conscious of is not all there is because that's a split called duality and there's no I to be conscious of anything without it being a dream. Is Consciousness called that because it implies I'm conscious of....or that Consciousness is all there is whether I'm conscious of consciousness or not. 

You are getting lost in concept here if you want to become aware of what Solipsism is you have to understand the difference between actuality and concept and you HAVE TO BECOME AWARE OF NOTHINGNESS. You must have these realizations to understand Solipsism if you don't have this STATE change which makes it completely obvious that there was never any separation you will never know this information. Also in an earlier post you said when you physically die you will lose all content that's not what will happen go research Near Death Experiences, all that happens when you die as a human is you become Infinite Consciousness and become unlimited. You experience limitation as a human and then you experience the lack of limitation as God. 

Also and this is a big thing, ONLY YOU CAN AWAKEN. So you can literally experience physical death, become Infinitely Conscious and STILL BE DELUDED. If you don't fully accept yourself as God then nobody else can for you. This is why I recommend people take state altering substances, this belief that just do nothing and things will happen is horseshit. If I never walked the Spiritual Path I would NOT have awoken. The experience of Duality while an illusion IS SOMETHING YOU STILL HAVE TO WORK WITH. For example if I want to go swimming I'm not going to sit on my bed and meditate and think that the swimming will happen by meditating. I will get my butt up and go to a water source and swim. Awakening is exactly like that! No amount of forum posts are going to awaken you in general with only few exceptions. So here is something that will help. Go get an edible you can order it online the name of the company is Mood. 

Then take it and watch this video. Sit and listen to this video with a quiet mind. 

If you come up with any objections at this point you just don't wanna awaken. Anyone that tells you that awakening is ordinary (and it partly is no question) has not awakened deeply. This is absolutely the case with no question. TRUE AWAKENING is becoming aware of the RADICAL SUPERNATURAL POWER OF GOD. This is no small thing, this is literally the power to create UNIVERSES, please explain to me how that is ordinary? The only ordinary aspect of it, is your ordinary human existence is an expression of that Radical Power. So yes its ordinary, but it is also SUPER NATURAL.