Breakingthewall

It's very simple to understand what consciousness is. It's the reality expressed in a duality.

I've repeated a lot of times that the self is an expression of reality, but to refute it you say that I said it is its source. The only possible cause of manifested reality, whether the self or any other structure, is the inevitable absence of limits, which is the foundation of reality. Without limits, reality expresses itself in dynamic relational patterns that must be limited and coherent with each other to be "something", forms, and dynamic and open to be ultimately limitless, since they are the limitless expressed in form. All this rant has no relation to enlightenment; it is a deduction of my logical mind by elimination.

Both are made by you. Your brain creates your perception of an apple through a cloud of trillions of processes a few nanoseconds after the light reflected by the apple enters your retina. The thought of the apple is the same, only it occurs several hours, days, or even years after the information enters your system. If someone throws a rock at you, you move aside because your system perceives it as potential harm. If someone insults you, you react because your system perceives it as potential harm. After millions of years of evolution, it has become clear that your position in the group affects your survival, just like the rocks thrown at you.

The separate self is real as a manifestation of the reality now. You could put adjectives as illusion or anything but the fact is that it is now. Obviously it is, or do you think that it's an illusion? It's how reality appears, nothing else. Exactly, enlightenment is a refinement of the self. Nothing else. The self can be unrefined, like, say, Donald Trump's, or highly refined, aligned in such a way that it perceives itself as the unlimited manifesting, like, for example, the self of Buddha, but both are self That's just a change of perspective and it's irrelevant. That's what the neo-Advaita claim, that they realize the self isn't real and that's enlightened. No, enlightenment is realizing what the self ultimately is, not that it's an illusion. Enlightenment is perceiving the totality in all that exists. Perceiving it not as knowledge or a perspective, but as what reality is. That would be structural knowledge. You know there is no center. That's the opposite of the fact that there is a center. But you remain closed to the essence, to what you truly are. You are the unlimited, period. Imagine having a lobotomy and not knowing what a center is, or anything at all, but being completely open to the unlimited nature. Imagine your mind being a hole and everything that is perceived is the bottomless, living totality, the total being. You don't know that you can be damaged, or that you are a human, nothing. Just the totality alive open to itself. There is no time, no registration, no differentiation. Then there is not a center, not a self. But there is perception? Difficult to say, right? There is no time, cero time. There is not perception, it's deep sleep, nothing. Reality manifested. But reality in its absolute totality. Do you see the image? Now imagine that they reverse that lobotomy and you regain a mental structure. You perceive the entire dynamic of form around you, you grasp all the nuances of relationships, and you feel the need to protect your body, and the timeline. You find it wrong to torture children, and women attract you, but you remain open to the essence of what everything is. Then you would say: I perceive the nature of reality, what reality is, and at the same time I perceive that I am a self-preserving structure that appears as a center that perceives and registers the form . This structure may be temporary or whatever, but it is. Right now, it is a reality. To make a mental shift to see it as an illusion or a dream of God is irrelevant and useless. It is what it is, a manifestation of the whole, like everything else. The point is perceive it's nature, the unlimited.

What I mean that the feeling of centrality, of "I amness," is a structure that reality adopts when it manifests as a human mind. It is not an illusion; it is a relative structure that appears at a given moment and that appears as an absolute center, receiving all experience. It's really a center, from it's perspective. But it's not the absolute as a center, it's an expression of the absolute, a relative expression. Relative as the experience. The receptor center as one limit, the appearance that happens as the other limit. Both are the experience . The absolute is let's say the substance of which the relative structure of experience is made, articulated by a self that registers it. That substance is indefinable, you could call it limitlessness or unlimited being. "Being" doesn't mean "conscious of being" means just being, and can be said that it's a synonym of unlimited. The absence of límits is, because it has not limits. Being is everything, but it's nothing defined. Anything defined is an expression of being, or reality, or limitlessness. That's a good description, maybe a perfect one. The absence of limits is total vitality, since nothing limits it. Vitality as total potential, unlimited being. Enlightenment It's about being open to your unlimited essence and being one with it. It's not about knowing that reality is infinite and all that, but rather about having your human structure aligned in such a way that its essence is perceived without obstacle. The one who perceives it is the current human form, but that form is ultimately the totality, manifested as form. Then enlightenment is the totality perceiving itself.

There is no ontological difference between them; both are manifested reality. One as an image of an apple, and the other as an apple. You can't eat the image of an apple, but that doesn't mean that it's not real as an image.

Then raw sensory is the truth , and mental construction are lies. Well, this mental construction is your opinion. I respect it but I don't agree The self is how reality appears from the self. Without limits, any part is the whole, and the whole always manifests as a part. It is absolutely impossible for it to be otherwise. Every manifestation is relative to another. "Other" means another state, form, reflection. All these "others" are also the whole. There is no center, and at the same time, there are infinite potential centers. Therefore, the self is the whole manifested as self, and a neuron that is part of the structure of that self is the whole manifested as a neuron. Both are centers and parts at the same time. The self is a way in which dual experience is structured. There is experience without self, but there is no experience without duality. When reality manifests in the human structure, there is always self. Experience is not the foundation of the reality, is a possibility that arises The self dissolves into totality at the moment you die. Before that, it can open itself to limitless. Then it will be an enlightened self instead of a contracted self, but it will always be a self.

It's a description of a reality, not a belief that creates a dynamic of existence. I don't know if the point is clear. An open self isn't structured by the idea that it is reality, but rather that it is reality. So, if you want to articulate this fact in a structured way, you do so by saying: I, as a self, a structure that arises in reality, am reality structured in self mode. But the existence of that self does not revolve around that idea; it is the living reality in constant relational flow and is open to its unlimited nature. The self is a reality, something that exists, just like the body or a stone. Its nature is self-preservation, the pursuit of the best and the avoidance of the worst, adaptation to the human social fabric, and alignment with a narrative. This will never, under any circumstances, disappear. It will change. Unless you undergo a lobotomy or have advanced Alzheimer's self exist. Jesus Christ or Buddha aligned themselves with their inner narrative as teachers, and created an ontological dissection between good and bad. The idea that the self should cease to hold a position implies the belief that the self is a mistake, a very common concept in spirituality. This occurs because the energies of the self are perceived as closure, leading to the conclusion that the solution is to eliminate the self. The one who reaches this conclusion is the self, which values states of mystical ecstasy above worldly work, for example. But this is only the self's valuation. I am 99.9% certain that if we were to speak in depth with mystics like Ramana Maharshi, Ramakrishna, Andamayi Ma, Tagore, Buddha, etc., we would find valuation, preference, desire. Even if that desire is the awakening of humanity or something else. Ultimately, it's the self. They are a self. You can be a businessman with the attitude of a knife and still be open to the total. The total denies nothing, it affirms everything, since everything is the total. And the self, of course, is an expression of the totality . The self is not the foundation, it's an expression, but is the self who is enlightened, not other. The monks intuited that the self was closing, so the logical consequence was that the self must disappear for openness to be, or at least become very faint, practically nonexistent, without preference. But this isn't necessary; the self can retain its preference without the violent attitude of self-repression that the monks used to practice, but rather align itself with the flow of reality in such a way that separation disappears. In fact this is much more coherent attitude than denying the mundane as "bad" to be without preference. The monks, in order to avoid preference, prefer not to have preference😅

If it has structure and isn't chaotic, it's vocational and self-directed, even though it may largely seem unconscious. It's like the process of becoming a scientist, a politician, an artist, a criminal, or whatever. In the case of "enlightenment", or whatever we call it, you innately perceive the need to free yourself from the energetic chains that keep you trapped, and your life constantly points in that direction and absolutely rejects anything that leads you in the opposite direction. At a certain point, you become aware of your path, and little by little you align your conscious intention with your unconscious impulse. You are guided by intuition, which tells you which paths to follow and which to avoid. If this intuition fails you, you're lost. There's no well-trodden path or method. Written spirituality can serve as inspiration, but it can never replace inner guidance. In fact written spirituality is a test for your inspiration, because it's full of mistakes or directly lies. In human reality lie is always present, because the need of stand out.

Awakening is not a correct expression. It implies that at some point you realize something, you awaken to something, as if you awaken to the fact that politicians are corrupt or women are manipulative (excuse the comparison). This is not the case at all. Enlightenment, or whatever you want to call it, is a gradual process of opening to the totality, and for an opening to occur, whatever is closing must fall away. This doesn't happen all at once; it happens little by little. 99% of the stories of monks who achieved "enlightenment" are a scam, same than koans, and most of spirituality. They always portray what enlightenment is as something very mysterious, reserved for a select few, and this is to create elitism. We have to understand human nature to grasp the extent of these lies. They are omnipresent.

In my opinion, how the self interpret reality is irrelevant. It's just an interpretation. The point is for the self to stop closing itself off, which leads to an opening to the totality. Then the self recognizes its nature because it is open to its nature. It's not a question of whether it's the one who decides or not; it's a question of being open to what is, something that wasn't happening before. When the self is open to its nature, it realizes that before, when it was closed off, it was in a prison of madness. Human beings adapt to everything and tolerate that level of existence, but it's awful. In this opening, the self recognizes itself as total reality. It's not that it knows, at a definitional level, what total reality is, but rather that it is open to it all the time. It is total reality, in the form of the self. This doesn't imply that it knows anything about the mechanic of the relationship of form; it knows that it is, and what it is, for the simple reason that it is that. The mind empties itself effortlessly because the totality fills everything. The mind can continue deducing, but it does so knowing that it is creating geometry. Reality is not geometric, it is total, it cannot be mentally articulated. But articulating things correctly is important, because there are mental configurations that create closure. If you believe in a creator god with a purpose, you're establishing an absolute limit and closing yourself off. You have to intuitively perceive what's closing you off and dismantle it. If you want the total openness, of course. Maybe you want anything else, anyone has it's choices

I don't think anyone believes the self is the creator of reality. Well, unless you believe you're God dreaming reality and everyone else is imaginary. But people generally consider themselves a part of reality For the self to be fully integrated and frictionless, it must have dissolved the boundaries between itself and reality. Otherwise, it will always be under threat. One of the essential functions of the self is self-preservation, and if the self operates in separation, as is normal, this function will create baseline anxiety and blind spots. One cannot look at death; it is impossible. The usual strategy is religion, but it is still fragmentation. The dissolution of boundaries, becoming one with reality, is what is sought for total integration. Being one with reality does not mean being its only expression, since it is obvious that any expression exists in relation to other expressions No expression of reality is above another. Existence is the relative movement of reality with respect to itself; everything is the whole in essence and a part in expression. There is no god conducting the orchestra; it is an ontological impossibility, an absolute limit within the unlimited.

The self does have authorship. I, as the self, can decide to go for a walk or to murder all my neighbors. The self is the visible part of an entire energetic structure that is oriented in a certain direction; it is will. Life is will, self-preservation is the will of life to be. You might think something mystical, like: the self seems to decide, but everything is predestined, or God decides it, or whatever. But the reality is that there is none of that; there is movement, a actual dynamic that moves through the inherent expansion of what is. The self is an expression of what is and participates in that drive, that will. Enlightenment is not the disappearance of the self; it is the self becoming one with reality, perceiving itself as a frictionless flow of the real, completely open, without dark spots, blind spots, or barriers. It is the constant, total openness where the self sees itself as a flow interconnected with the living totality, one with the limitlessness

The self is not the cause of experience; there can be experience without the self. Experience is reality in a dual state. In the universe that we know, this is called life. Life is the emergence of a self-preserving universe with its own particular laws within a larger universe, without violating the laws of the larger universe, but creating its own internal laws. This generates duality, and within duality, there is an exchange of information between the two realities. This exchange is experience. For example, a cell is experience at a very basic level, a sardine is already a complex experience, a monkey is already an experience that self-registers with a proto-self, and in the human case there is an essential phase leap. Just as there is an essential phase leap from the hyper-complex RNA that self-replicates but is not alive, not separate from the primordial universe, to the self-preserving cell, in humans another one occurs. A new living entity appears in symbiosis with the animal organism, but free from its genetic limitations: the mind. The mind has no limits; it is an entirely different phase from the experience of a chimpanzee, which is completely limited by genetics. The mind interconnects with other minds, records experience, creating a timeline, and creates a symbology that is interconnected with the emotional system, fostering unlimited expansive possibilities. It's ironic that spirituality in general rejects the mind, considering it an error, an illusion, maya, a misunderstanding that must be resolved by flattening experience through meditative repression, glorifying the senses, and demonizing abstractions. In short, Buddhism, the embryo of all modern spirituality, is an extremely myopic system in my opinion. The mind is totality in its most refined, complex, and magnificent expression. The mind gives rise to the self, the center that receives, desires, suffers, analyzes, and registers. It is no more "divine" than the no-self of a tuna; it is simply another phase of complexity in the unlimited expansion of the coherence of what is. Something essential to the matter of "enlightenment," openess, or whatever you wish to call it. Experience is not the foundation of reality; it is a manifestation of it. This is counterintuitive since, as humans, we see a conscious creator as essential, but this is not the case. Reality is without a doer. The doer is reality itself, and it is not planned nor does it seek a purpose; rather, it is the expansion of total coherence that occurs given its limitlessness. All manifestation is relationship, and all relationship is change. The static is not, it does not exist; existence is coherent, synchronous change in all directions. What appears is the consequence of the expansive thrust of the absence of limits, of not being contained, pushing toward the limitation necessary for form to exist.

The "I am" is the self. It is a creation of the energetic structure we call human. The totality in the form of the perceiver. The totality is the substance of the self, not the self. The self is its form. It is easy to confuse the self with something immutable, divine, and to think that reality is consciousness, an illusion that the self/god observes. It is logical to think this way since it is the structure that appears obvious in being human, but the reality is that if you want to be one with the totality, you have to see yourself as self/form and go beyond this form. The self is a point that closes, a center that acts as an absolute limit. The totality is the unlimited. Opening yourself to it is a strange movement, since the self is its opposite in structure, but same in "substance", with "" because absence of limitations that is is not a substance, it's being without the I, and what is being? The consequence of the absolute absence of limitations. Can't be described, it's just totality.

What any form is, is the absolute manifested; therefore, you are that. The absolute doesn't choose to be a human with two legs; rather, its nature is expansion into forms of perfect coherence and absolute synchronicity, since it has no limits and cannot not be, and being human is a possible possibility that arises. The absolute is not an entity that makes decisions, because if it were, it wouldn't be absolute, but relative to those decisions. The absolute is, period, and it's manifestations are limitless

It's an interesting perspective, but from my point of view, the center never disappears, nor do preferences. The change is (to repeat myself once more) from a closed energetic framework to an open one. In a closed framework, the center is absolute, and the facets of the self are energetic whips that vibrate continuously in the foreground or background, causing movement, like a cow propelled by electric shocks that tell it where to go. If you manage (if the self/center manages) to open the energetic framework, the configuration changes completely. It's an absolute mutation, not a change of perspective, a realization, or "the fall of illusion." There has to be an absolute will for liberation, not a will to seek a better situation. If it's the latter, you fall into religious spirituality. Of course, you'll believe it's not religion but awakening, etc., but you'll remain on the emotional rollercoaster with the electric shocks of the cow making you dream of a bright future, here or in the next life. The issue isn't the method, but understanding the objective. The objective is to break free from the energetic prison in which you live. Who lives in an energetic prison? The self. It is the self that is liberated, not God, nor consciousness, nor the soul; it is the self, the center constructed by the human energetic structure. And by liberating itself, the self becomes a direct interface between form and the totality . The self perceives itself as the totality manifested all time, because the opaque emotional barrier against which all flow bounced has dissolved; therefore, the flow is now unlimited. This does not imply that the self knows there is reincarnation or anything like that; it knows that it is, and is the unlimited manifested. Therefore, death is only a phase change, something within its domain as a totality What disappear is the constant suffering by default, the rumination and the anxiety, but obviously, as a human being, your mechanisms remain intact. If your daughter is gang-raped and then burned alive, you'll suffer. Or, without being so dramatic, if your car breaks down and it costs 3k to fix. It looks like freedom , openess , security, happiness , appreciation of the beauty everywhere, understanding of the dynamics of relation, perception of the unlimited vitality of the reality

What you're talking about here is the transcendence of the social matrix, the inherited tribal conditioning that comes by default in the human structure. It's what's called liberation. This conditioning makes the self identify with what it is for the group. It's an essential line of software for making the human group act as a unit. Without it, we would be weak prey; with it, we are galactic conquerors (well, according to Elon Musk, but maybe is some point could be). The difference is absolute, and this conditioning is not an "illusion" or a mistake, its written in our genes with red iron. It is more powerful than the instinct for survival. The individual will give their life for the tribe without hesitation, if they are fully integrated. The problem (or the good fortune, depending on how you see it) is that we no longer live in tribes, and this primal impulse to identify with the group finds no coherent foothold, thus leading to what we might call emotional illness. A profound underlying imbalance, inherited over thousands of generations, crudely corrected with monolithic pillars of religion, nation, and social class, until recently. And today with the more volatile and hedonistic pillars of success, well-being, sensory enjoyment, ideal couple and the essential pillar of addiction. It is a structure that works, that propels the collective toward greater expansion, which is always the driving force of life, but it plunges the individual into a very complicated state. False, superficial out of vital necessity, broken inside, fragmented in their psyche, full of red lines impossible to cross. If people would look their reality in the face... well, luckily they lack the capacity to do so, or they would collapse. What you propose, and what spirituality in general proposes, is the breaking of that conditioning, the individual's escape from the matrix, which implies being without attachments. The problem with this is that the programming is real, not illusory as those book sellers with beatific smiles claim. So, if you let go of the attachment to success, a partner, sex, whatever it may be, your system automatically grabs onto another attachment: "pure consciousness," "absolute love," "God imagining," "fun reincarnations with 70 virgins," or whatever. Because cheap spirituality sells you the idea that transcendence is easy, that it's just a change of perspective. This is because cheap sells, but nobody buys expensive things, and in this case, the product is extremely expensive. You have to let go of everything and be left with nothing. Not your money and other things, but your mental attachments, which are genetic programming from when humans were monkeys that couldn't speak. Obviously, this isn't easy; it's not a product that sells. Nobody is going to listen to it, much less understand it. It's important to understand that attachment isn't a mental construct. It's imprinted in your cells, in every breath and every micro-movement. It's part of who you are. If some guru tells you, "You are not that, you are the divine," blah blah, they're already leading you down a false path of roses. They're a con artist seeking influence. Yes, it is what you are, but what happens is that what is, manifested reality, is dynamic, constantly changing. Nothing is fixed; everything moves, and change can occur and be absolute. It simply needs to be initiated in a non-evasive way. But spirituality sells escapism; it's just another addiction, like Netflix and cocaine. There is no method for liberation. Methods are precisely how the system perpetuates itself. What changes is not a belief, but the exhaustion of avoidance.

The energetic structure that constitutes a human being carries a built-in self. This isn't a silly mistake or a misunderstanding, as the neo-Advaita would say; it's a hyper-complex system maintained in real time by different brain structures, refined from the earliest complex organisms to humans over a period of time beyond our comprehension. This self perceives itself as the receptive center of experience and has an absolute need for self-preservation and acceptance within the human group. All that talk of being invulnerable is fine until the torturer arrives with his briefcase. According to Zen philosophy, when you see the executioner approaching, you simply feel the pleasure of the sea breeze on your face, because that's what exists now. No, my Zen friend, what exists now is the human system, which is an extremely complex and precise mechanism anticipating events, seeking solutions, and releasing chemicals that prepare you for combat. If instead of a human you were an earthworm, none of this would happen, but it so happens that you aren't. Zen monks strive enormously to be earthworms. It's commendable and worthy of respect. Then they burn themselves alive. It's very practical, but perhaps, let's say, well, not natural. Bit forced. Well forgive all that nonsense, what I'm saying is that the mind must break its chains, not just pretend to have broken them. The mind isn't going to disappear; the mind simply is. It can be a mind trapped in its primitive conditioning, or a mind that has stared its primal demons in the face, and instead of erasing them, which is impossible, has danced with them. It has integrated them into its visible vibration and erased the barrier between conscious and unconscious. This undivided mind, sovereign over itself, with all its energies aligned, isn't "invulnerable" because it knows it's consciousness or God or whatever; it's simply not limited, it doesn't clash with itself but flows without friction. Then it recognizes itself as an expression of what it is, and as what it ultimately is. But if the guy with the briefcase comes, suffering occurs, that's inevitable, but can be relativized to some extent, maybe to great extent

The question here is, what is the difference between "us" and "source"? Logically, we can deduce that they are the same; there is no "us" separate from the source, but rather "us" is the source expressing itself as "us." This might seem obvious, but even if you accept this fact, it won't change anything in your internal configuration. First of all, "us" is the form that reality has taken after eons of evolution, of phase changes towards states of greater complexity, arriving at something as absurdly complex and as incredibly finely coordinated as human society (can you imagine the synchronicity of human society at a quantum level? no, you don't imagine it, you can't) . This "us" has a series of energy switches impossible to ignore, which, from the moment you appear, subdue you in order to integrate you as a processor of the enormous human machine. Evolution has created structures that will absolutely desire to be integrated into the matrix, and their fear of rejection will be greater than their fear of death. One only has to see how millions of soldiers ran in the direction of the machine guns, and not in the opposite direction, as would obviously be logical. So how do you clarify this "we" so that it stops being a dense protagonist that subjugates you and permeates you like a sticky layer of emotional molasses, making your mind dance from one extreme to the other like a puppet directed by a guy with Parkinson's. what has you absolutely gripped, like a zebra with ten lions clamping their jaws down on its flesh? There is only one way, and it's not the one the soft-smiling mystics with linen robes and erect penises tell you about. No, it's life's way of changing phases. It's something that happens when it can't not happen, and like everything living, it manifests itself from absolute tenacity, absolute focus, unstoppable drive, and total determination born from the fact that the only place to go is forward. Then the "us" is scorched, dries up, falls away like an extremely annoying old skin, and the essence of what is reclaims its freedom. It is not "other," there is no "us" versus "source," there is no baby Jesus crying because you spend money on OnlyFans (although there should be), there is a real phase shift, an absolute mutation of your energetic configuration, a total liberation from the chains that were necessary for a collective push, but no longer are. It is simply reality in its limitless expansion. Then the source sees itself as clearly as whole, just as the "we" saw itself as a part. Eyes open, veils fall, hearts open, reality sings. Wasn't it always like this? There's a faint memory that it wasn't, that there was pain, confusion, madness. It was in another life, in another phase.

As humans, the mind is a reality. Spirituality treats the mind as an error and glorifies what it calls direct perception, tastes, sounds, and so on. They yearn for an animalistic state, but as humans, that state is not the case. It's a misguided approach; the mind cannot be switched off because it is a reality. The mind is a deep sea; it must be understood and aligned so that it can express its full power.

A revolution is currently underway in Iran to overthrow the Ayatollahs' regime. The population is in the streets, government buildings are being set on fire, and in many cases, the police are joining the protesters, Israel is ready to act. This is a global event of immense importance, and the news isn't saying a single word about it. Why?

Both are constructions of the energetic system that you are. There is no qualitative difference. The spirituality consider one a mistake and the other true, but this is because the spirituality don't understand nothing . It's a total scam, but the scammers are also scammed 😅

Both are creations of the energetic system that you are. The first occurs nanoseconds after the stimulus and is basic. The second occurs without a defined time and blends everything perceived and it is complex.

Both are the same, reality reflecting in itself through the form that arises within it. The human interface can clarify density to the point that the perceiving self recognizes itself as a structural creation, opening itself to the totality and understanding its nature, but the fact itself remains the same: a self-preserved dual reflection that registers its perception, thus giving rise to an experience.