I had a real awakening

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, Meeksauce said:

Real and unreal are the same thing. There is no difference. Man how are you moderator on here and you don't know this lol

"The external world is real and unreal at the same time. I don't know how you don't know this lol"

[Meeksauce]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

"The external world is real and unreal at the same time. I don't know how you don't know this lol"

There is no external world

[Meeksauce]

8 hours ago, Ishanga said:

@Meeksauce You've had an Awakening, that is Great! You realized everything is One, Complete, this is Great, this is what the Absolute Is!

Problem is You still have an Ego, Body and Mind to deal with, these things provide Experience, so You came back and Realized everything is One, but then communicated that "I only Exist" solipsism stuff, which is not so Great!

There is no "I" in Oneness, but there is an "I" in You and Everyone else, that is the whole point of this Existence here on Earth and Us being Humans. We can go from being totally "I", Egoic based, me/myself/I experience, which is basic Survival level instinct and Awareness, to what You Experienced which is Oneness, but is there is no "I"..

If You are the only one in existence then whom are You sharing with, it would make no sense and doesn't.

Just don't think about it so much or try to argue a philosophy (Solipsism), just share the experience of Oneness, this should make life for You a whole lot better, time will tell!

You are telling me I have no experience whatsoever. There is experience here. It's just that "I" is an illusion. I did awaken to that fact. Saying "I'm the only one" doesn't mean I didn't awaken to that fact. That's just the only way to say it. You are caught up in nondual ideas and fantasy.

[Meeksauce]

10 hours ago, Eskilon said:

@Meeksauce You said that your fear of death is not out of the system. How can that be? Did your awakening not point to infinity?

I didn't say I still fear death. I haven't for a while. I just don't understand immortality yet. Yes the awakening did point to infinity.

[Meeksauce]

8 hours ago, Salariatu said:

Well, you are lying to yourself. 

You took the idea of the ego collective consciousness and you made up this frases, in fact you identified with the ''agent smith'' and made up this frases, you haven't escaped the matrix pal. This is not an insult, this is reality. 

So really what you think about the dead is a lie, because you did not open your third eye yet and you just babbling info about the spirits of the dead, based on the mind.

Take care

You are denying an experience that I obviously had. You're just upset that I had it. You're the one who believes in this stuff so why are you denying it when someone else says it.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Meeksauce said:

There is no external world

Why do objects exist and not exist at the same time, but the external world does definitely not exist?

Edited 17 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Meeksauce]

21 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Why do objects exist and not exist at the same time, but the external world does definitely not exist?

Objects exist absolutely. I'm saying subject and object are one.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Meeksauce said:

Objects exist absolutely.

Ironically, objects are defined by things external to themselves, just like the internal world is defined by things external to it (the external world). In fact, the external world can be said to be an object to the internal world. So why can't the external world exist absolutely if objects exist absolutely?

Nevertheless, you are invoking the same fundamentals for making an external world by invoking the existence of objects. You are invoking relativity. And the relative is not absolute. If not, find me the absolute boundary between the beach and the ocean.

 

1 hour ago, Meeksauce said:

I'm saying subject and object are one.

Subject and object are one, internal and external are one. Yet "there is no external world". So why not "there are no objects"? In both cases you are defining something external to yourself, external to what is already the case.

Edited 15 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Meeksauce]

43 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Ironically, objects are defined by things external to themselves, just like the internal world is defined by things external to it (the external world). In fact, the external world can be said to be an object to the internal world. So why can't the external world exist absolutely if objects exist absolutely?

Nevertheless, you are invoking the same fundamentals for making an external world by invoking the existence of objects. You are invoking relativity. And the relative is not absolute. If not, find me the absolute boundary between the beach and the ocean.

 

Subject and object are one, internal and external are one. Yet "there is no external world". So why not "there are no objects"? In both cases you are defining something external to yourself, external to what is already the case.

Ok, reality is absolute, might as well call it the external world. It makes no difference. I think we actually agree on this.

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, Meeksauce said:

Ok, reality is absolute, might as well call it the external world. It makes no difference. I think we actually agree on this.

Ok, so reality is absolute, reality is One, yes, but does that mean the objects you carve out on the screen of perception are absolute? Does you drawing a line in the sand and giving it a name make it absolute?

[ExploringReality]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Ok, so reality is absolute, reality is One, yes, but does that mean the objects you carve out on the screen of perception are absolute? Does you drawing a line in the sand and giving it a name make it absolute?

It is the Absolute, but also it isn't. The Absolute isn't in the world of objects and forms, the objects and forms are The Absolute but also it isn't at the same time. Its a weird mind fuck. The objects like the impermanent sand being drawn by us is relative but also it's the absolute because the Absolute is all.

[Salariatu]

9 hours ago, Meeksauce said:

You are denying an experience that I obviously had. You're just upset that I had it. You're the one who believes in this stuff so why are you denying it when someone else says it.

Oh you special snowflake  enjoy the trips kid

[Ishanga]

12 hours ago, Meeksauce said:

You are telling me I have no experience whatsoever. There is experience here. It's just that "I" is an illusion. I did awaken to that fact. Saying "I'm the only one" doesn't mean I didn't awaken to that fact. That's just the only way to say it. You are caught up in nondual ideas and fantasy.

No, You have an Experience, we all do, individual Experiences, this is on the basic level, Human level, then there is the BEING level lets say, that is where You were are when You have Your lsd experience, the Being Level where everything is ONE, all I am saying is that on that level there is no "I", on the basic Human Level there is an "I", if there wasn't we wouldn't have existed long as a species.

One way of saying, other than to say "I am the only Being in existence" is that I am You, You are Me, everything is connected and Inclusive to each other, its just that there are trillions of different forms of life, all coming from the same source, on that level we are ONE!

btw I am not into non dualism ideas and fantasy that no one exists and nothing is happening lol!!!

[Sugarcoat]

Do you think you’d have these insights if you’d never stumbled across Leo’s work?

If psychedelics can contribute to collapsing duality, why would an insight about a seemingly dual god with “intellect and humor” arise?

[Carl-Richard]

11 hours ago, ExploringReality said:

It is the Absolute, but also it isn't. The Absolute isn't in the world of objects and forms, the objects and forms are The Absolute but also it isn't at the same time. Its a weird mind fuck. The objects like the impermanent sand being drawn by us is relative but also it's the absolute because the Absolute is all.

The trouble begins when you begin favoring any configuration of objects and forms over others, because you cannot ground such a move in the absolute. If solipsism claims "only these objects right here exist, any other objects that are not right here and could potentially be elsewhere, do not exist", you're outside the realm of the absolute.

What is mistakenly labelled as "direct experience" by most solipsists is favoring a particular configuration of objects ("right here") over others (e.g. "not right here"). Had they instead treated direct experience as whatever exists before you try to divide reality into what is real and what is not real, then you're in line with the absolute.

Edited 3 hours ago by Carl-Richard