weirdway

I'm saying something like that: My subjectivity is prior to my Mind. All that exist, exist in my Mind, I'm beyond my Mind (hence I'm beyond existence also)

I don't agree with this.

I'm wish to ask you what contradiction do you see between the proposition "I'm beyond Mind" and subjectivity.

I wouldn't call it a contradiction. It's just that saying that you are beyond your capabilities is not informative. It doesn't tell us anything about you. Or more accurately, when I flip what you say to my own perspective and I say to myself "I am beyond my own capabilities" it doesn't add any new meaning for me. Since it doesn't add anything, there is no reason to say it.

One possible reason that I currently see to maintain that oneself is separate from a singular threefold capacity of mind to know, to will and to experience is if you don't have the confidence in this capacity being primordial, and need a further retreat into an ever safer space of some sort.

I have absolute confidence in mind and have no desire to retreat into anything further.

Another possible reason is because you've heard other doctrines which preach "Self" and you want to reconcile what I say with those doctrines. I have no such concerns. I don't really care about any other doctrine and I don't strive to reconcile what I say with what anyone else says. This understanding of mine is not exactly a community project built around consensus seeking. It's my own mind seal. If you consider it the same or different compared to some other doctrine, that's the sort of freedom you have, but it isn't my concern.

I expose some of my understanding in case it is useful for someone else, and in order to create a volitional imprint on my own mindset that "Just as I say these things, so I hear them, and just as I hear them now, so I can hear them again later." It's a hedge against forgetting what I now know.

For you, this omniscient state of knowing would be the same or different for each Subjectivity which reach this state?

It's the same but it's incomparable. In other words, even though I believe it's the same, it isn't something that can be compared because it is always beyond convention. It's beyond any standards by which we would be doing the comparing. Omniscience is the sort of understanding that goes into establishing conventional standards to begin with. Since it's at the foundation of convention and is beyond convention, we could say it's the same, but when we say that, there is no way to verify. Generally one knows omniscience by being uninhibited in experience. So long as we still experience inhibitions, we're still not quite there yet. Until then, we all have what I call "secret omniscience" which means, unconscious omniscience. We're always omniscient, but we don't always remember that we are.

Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2017-07-08 19:17:18 (djxvxg1)