Breakingthewall

Well, you know, because even if you look inside and totally collapse all dualities you are still a knower, that is, a conscious being. Then after this openess you return to the normal way of perceiving but you perceive your nature, the absolute being, total potential that lives, every moment. Not for ever, if something unbalancing happen you get closed again and you have to open yourself again and again. Do you use to meditate?

You can know, it's simple: look within, empty your mind, forget phenomena and definitions, enter a mental state where nothing means anything, forget meaning, be in absolute silence. Then you will perceive only existence, but a closed existence. Remain in that non-definition, in that clear mind, and find the subject-object structure. If you look at it directly, it collapses quickly, in minutes. There is no longer subject-object, there is reality. This reality manifests as flat, nothing. Remain there without interpreting. Then it opens, it manifests as what it is, what lives, what is total potential. that is you, and it is absolutely obvious. There is no separation between you and reality; you are reality. It is indefinable; it is what it is. Your heart opens, and your mind too; the separation has dissolved.

The word that tells that only your experience exist. You have to believe right? Because you can't know it

Yeah we should believe the word right? If that's ok for you, that's good.

Why it's a all that exists? That logic makes no sense

It's easy knowing that other mind exist. Your mind is limited, concrete, your experience is defined. Then it's sure that another different mind and experience is possible. If its possible, then it exists. Why do you need to experience it? It's obvious.

Why it's peace having that mental paradigm? Imo what's peace is perceiving directly without mental filter, without categories like void, meaning, karma or anything. Just being open to the real flow now. Definitions happen in the flow, can't encompass it. Void is just an idea that want to express "without reality" when you are talking about the reality. The reality can't be unreal because it's the reality. You can't define it, you are it. Knowing in this case is being, not defining.

Or this: Though phenomena appear as if true, most true, ultimately they are not true. Therefore phenomena abide in the middle way, not truly or inherently existent and also not utterly non-existent… So, according to him the phenomena appears as true, but they aren't. What means "true"? Why they appear as true and they aren't? That's just a subjetive categorization that the writer established just because that's his feeling. Like if "true" was something that everyone have exactly determined. That's a kind of reasoning that can't be seriously confronted. If you want to believe this you have to be extremely permissive with all the logical jumps.

They say this: Therefore, when a tree, for instance, is analyzed, the tree is not found, but its mode of being or emptiness is found. Then, when that emptiness is analyzed, that emptiness also is not found, but the emptiness of that emptiness is found. This is called an emptiness of emptiness. Thus, a tree is a conventional ‘truth’, and its mode of being is an ultimate truth… How they analyze the tree ? Maybe they know all the physical procceses that happens in the reality that have as a consequence the tree? Or maybe they see a tree and they arrived to the conclusion that it's empty, just by feeling? Seems that they are inventing a paradigm without a real deep understanding of what a tree is. Like, I see the tree, then I arrive to the conclusion that the tree is the void. Well, if you say so..... All this text is a conceptual paradigm built over some "truths" that are just subjetive ideas of the philosopher who wrote it, that can't be seriously confronted because they depends of logical jumps that make no real sense but they present as absolute logical obviousness

Imo the point of spirituality is breaking the barrier between you as a self and the reality. You could say that this barrier is just psychological but still exist and it's very strong. Being open is not knowing that the self doesn't exist, is feeling the connection and the vitality of the reality every moment. Not because you love the others and that, but just because you exist

I think that the "anyone personally" is what arises due or genetical programming, it's not an illusion, it's something that happens, something realtive. You can recognize yourself as not fundamental as a self, just something that happens in the process of being human. The problem is calling it illusion, it's very confusing because implies anything else more real. When Newman and the neo advaita say that nothing have happened, nobody never existed, it's just wrong, the self exist and the process that is happening too. It's not essential, not the center of reality, it's just an arising that's happening and you can see yourself as something relative, not absolute, then open your focus. But if you deny the self as false you get in a mental mess imo

A true mental framework must be open because reality is open. Otherwise, it would be limited, and what would limit reality? Suprareality? That's impossible. Therefore, a mental framework that is closed on one side, the creator god, establishes an absolute limit. You might say no because that god is infinite, but it is a limit nonetheless. Reality begins at that god/limit. This conceptual framework limits your mind and traps you, preventing your freedom; therefore, it is false.

Self deleting use to be a kind of evasion to avoid suffering making a new mental frame where the self is seen as an illusion in comparison to a reality, then if many things are painful you think that are illusions then they stop hurting, but at the end it's a closed mental frame. Why not stop categorizing the self and just understand it's dynamics? Why it's important if the self is real or not? Notice that the categories are a function of the self, without self you couldn't make categories as illusion vs real, then the self is affirming that the self doesn't exist.

The ultimate ground of being would be just the fact of being. You could say that being implies manifestation necessarily, but the only possibile "cause" of being is the impossibility of absolute limits previous to being, because those limits should be. Then you could say that absence of limitations implies being, make being inevitable. Then the god that you are talking about would be just the fact of the absence of absolute limits. That's not a ground, it's just unlimited. And it's not an entity that's omniscient and powerful, absolute power is synonym of absence of limitations because absolute being is absolute potential. You can know that God directly, it's the fact of being, the unlimited that is. You are that manifested as a human, and you can totally perceive what you are, because a human is (among other properties) the fact of perceiving. Then same than you can perceive pain or sadness or anything, you can perceive what you are, the absolute being. It's nothing alien or mysterious, it's exactly what you are if you are able to dissolve all the limits of your perception

That's the explanation of someone who can't find an explanation. So, what is God, and who created God? Is God even anything? It should be, since he creates things like universes. If it does, it has to be with a precise intention and excluding what he doesn't want; that is, God has a concrete will. Where is that will? How is it defined? This God would have dimensions since he would be subject to causality. If he wants something, it has to be for some reason, some cause. So, you explain the universe through God. How do you explain God?