Transcendence

Awakening reveals that (s)elf awareness is an appearance arising within (S)elf/Awareness.

You're so clearly mired still within the apparent, personal, limited viewpoint and have no reference at all for "primordial Awareness," that lies as unwavering ground to that appearance and all other perceivables.



Well, appearance-wise, experientially, it seems as though there is a "My/me character" mind in relation to the apparent 'mind/perceptions' of other's. There is only direct experience of a singular mind and it's content and those others who appear within/to that, also seem to have limited windows of perceptions/unique mind-scapes associated with them.




Ah, you've clearly conflated apparent limited, discrete mind-scape/limited window of perception with "primordial awareness."

There's only one abiding Awareness...and within that, one directly known experience of "minding," and multiple/numberous apparent "minds" relative to apparent "others." But ultimately, the me character/my mind AND the you character/your mind, all fall under the umbrella of appearances arising within/to the ground of awareness.

So long as there is experience, there will be ups and down feeling wise...some preferences fulfilled, some thwarted. That is plain and simply the nature of temporally arising, personal experience. And that continues post SR.

So, if there's a sense of having had a 'really good day,' then there's also going to be a reference for a sense of having had a day that was not as good. However, in SR, the judgments no longer extend as deep...they remain very surfacey...no stickiness. And that does impact how long would drag around an idea of "I had a bad day at the office" for sure...

It's the SVP that gloms onto personal judgments, a sense of not-liking this or that, and clings to it, tells stories about it, adds fuel to it. The SR might acknowledge something 'shitty' happened, and then in the next moment, that judgment/acknowledgment is gone. So it does change in SR, just not the way you 'think' it should.



Yes, Reefs take is just as misconceived and deluded for sure. She believes she can look to the apparent circumstance of another to know for certain the past and imminently arising, 'state of being.'

What someone like Reefs judges to be an intolerable condition, to a true sage, is not. We cannot judge the state of being/feeling/emotional countenance of another, solely based upon how we'd feel if we were subject to those conditions. While it may be fine and even important to do that when it comes to trying to empathize and extend compassion to those who apparently suffer, it's pure delusion to think you can use that to determine the emotional state of another with absolute certainty.

All of that stuff, "dream-scape/dream-state"....."experiential content." It has nothing at all to do with the Truth. You continue to look entirely in the wrong direction SDP.

Consider the duck/bunny pic below;



What you're doing is akin to only seeing the duck, while merely conceptually knowing, via what you've heard from others, that with a shift of focus, there is "apparently" also a bunny....but you yourself have zero direct reference for that bunny. You can only see the duck....you imagine the bunny and what it must be like when that shift in focus happens and the bunny gets revealed. Yet, despite that zero direct reference, you speak as if you DO in fact see the bunny....you reference it and talk about what it looks like and how it behaves, etc, and tell those who DO have direct reference for the bunny, that you just don't understand how they don't see your opinions and take-aways re: the bunny, to be valid and important.

That would mean a loss of interest in figuring out/nailing down answers to all your erroneous 'how/why' existential questions. You're still at the point where you get pissed off when folks tell you that your existential questions do not have answer because they are all misconceived from the get-go.....you seem to have zero respect for Nonduality pointers, but on the other hand, you've adopted the language inherent to them, and use the terms in a manner that mangles their intended meaning. It's actually quite disrespectful, all in all.