Breakingthewall

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?

The point is that conceptualizing is direct experience. The human mind is a living reality that emerges from animal life and ascends to another phase of existence in which the living is freed from the limitations of the material. The human mind is more alive and more direct than anything else living. But at the same time, it is a labyrinth of great difficulty. The mind struggles to align itself, just as every living being struggles to advance. The first birds made small, clumsy flights. They were the embryo of the eagle's flight. The same is true of the mind. The human mind is an interface with the totality.

Experience is reality structured in a dualistic way. For reality to be structured in a dualistic way, something very concrete called life must appear. Life is a very concrete emergent phenomenon, a phase change in the forms of the universe. It is a small universe self preservated with its own laws that operates within the laws of a larger universe and exchanges information with it. This is the basis of experience, what we call consciousness. Experiencing something is the exchange of information between the two universes. Can be very basic, like a cell, or extremely sophisticated like in a human. Where is the limit? Sure we don't know that.

Seeing an apple wont bring an apple to existence neither. Seeing an apple or representing an apple in the mind through logic have in common that they are a construction created by the brain. Logic is direct perception, exactly the same than the perception of the senses, but in a different level or mode. Sensory perception is a kind of perception, mental construction is another kind of perception. Both are complementary in humans. You could think that sensory perception is more direct, but not more real. Both are equally real, both can deceive you in some cases

If the consciusness wants anything, it's an entity that wants, not "pure consciousness" right? Then why they call it consciousness? The play doh is something, a concrete substance. Is the reality a concrete substance too? What is that substance? The consciousness who wants things? So a concrete entity. Same than an ego but bigger. So that entity is the only thing that exists. Then the reality is limited to a substance that wants things, and there is nothing outside it. So the only consequence possible is that that substance is you and the field of your consciusness is a dream that you are creating because some reasons, but because other reason you are hiding to yourself that fact, that's why you can't fly or change anything, and everything that you perceive are just images that you are creating to deceive yourself. Then the infinity is let's say small, just what you see, hear, etc. Well, and you hidden creating it to deceive yourself. What called deus ex machina, an exit to explain something that is, let's say, impossible to explain. That's the problem if you don't dissolve the ego. Then you create a bigger ego, that seems bigger, but it's more limited than the previous one

Your sensory perception is an indicator of reality, but it's far inferior to the logical mind. Through logic, you can, for example, deduce the theory of relativity, something you can't do through sensory perception alone. Logic dictates that there is a changing reality outside your room. Your sensory perception captures what is inside your room. To think that what your sensory perception perceives is real and what your logical mind deduces is false is a rather strange philosophy, like being flat earth or any other obscurantist mentality typical of people who feel threatened or inferior by their low intellectual level and seek an emotional outlet to place themselves above the others.

Love is an expression not a path. It's the expression of what you are. You can't change the expression, you can pretend that you do, but then you are false. The biblical commandment that says: love God, love your neighbor, love your enemies, is usually a call to hypocrisy. The real path is open yourself, be what you are, don't try to be another, don't try to love, don't try, just be. You are the expression of the reality, your depth has no bottom , your perfection has not stain. If you could see what you really are, you would relax any control.

Because I am

You know everything. You are, that's everything. Forms are just forms.

In spirituality, there's a bias against the conceptual, as if the human mind were some kind of error we should reverse to reach the level of a cat, sheep, or cow, which live in the present moment without conceptualizing. The conceptual mind is a structure that reality creates and that has the power to understand basically everything. It's another matter that our minds usually operate trapped in emotional limitations and aren't free, but a free mind is a divine instrument.

I don't think that there is a true self and false self, there are different levels of self-density. As a human being, there is always a self; the self is the perception of oneself as a self-preserving individual. Completely eliminating the self and becoming a monk who doesn't care about starving to death and doesn't perceive himself as an individual is perhaps the closest thing to no self or a self of minimal density, but what's the point of reaching that point? The optimal approach seems to be a balance that allows you to avoid being trapped in egoic density, but also allows you to operate effectively as an individual, while still having the possibility of opening yourself to the limitless at certain times.

The matter is very simple and at the same time enormously difficult. Simple: you simply sit down to meditate for two minutes and the sensation of being a self disappears, and what remains is the totality, and the totality is absolutely nothing, and this nothing is everything. It's not a self; you are that, but it's not someone or something, it's the unlimited totality, period. Then you, the self, see with total clarity that, as a form, you are a construct that emerges. If you were to die right now, nothing would essentially change. In any case, nothing essentially changes. Complicated: form traps you; you are form; you can't stop being form. You change form and perceive yourself as divinity, consciousness, love, God, whatever. It's still a self. The absence of self is the absence of everything, absolute emptiness, and that emptiness is everything. Extremely simple, extremely difficult

Existence is the manifestation of reality. It is a dynamic process that happens. Non-existence is a conceptual idea; it is the idea of what is missing in that dynamic process, for example, Santa Claus or my grand mother or the full moon last night Non-existence is a concept that points to something that could be possible in my conceptual frame, but doesn't exist.

When we talk about transcending the ego, we're referring to two very difficult aspects to release. The first is the social, tribal, collective self. Our genetic programming is strongly inclined toward the absolute need to be part of the group. You are what you represent to the group. This force is enormous; it can make millions fight to the death for a symbol. You won't get rid of it easily. It has layers upon layers. It's not an "illusion," it's programming created over millions of years of evolution. Clarifying this, seeing it directly, and deactivating it is an enormous challenge. If you read in some self-help book that it's an illusion and that simply ceasing to believe in it will make it disappear, don't believe it. The other facet is the self as form, the need to be a concrete form. The force of this is astronomical; it's an ontological necessity. You are a self-preserving form because, as reality manifested in this form, you are the absolute will to be this form, and your attachment to form is such that formlessness is inconceivable, not a possibility. Dissolving this attachment is like eroding granite, a slow but constant, unstoppable, uninterrupted process. If someone tells you it's simple, that a change of perspective is all it takes, it means that person hasn't grasped the power of form. It's a cosmic power, the power that makes life life. You have to align yourself with that power, not fight against it. Accept its reality, be one with it, and thus see through form. An interesting game.

You mean more aspects of the reality. If there are not limits always can be more aspects, but any aspect is always relative . Totality means just unlimited. It's not that you realize that reality is unlimited but that you have dissolved what limits you and you are the unlimited in a form and you perceive yourself like that all time. It's an energetic shift, not a realization. Reality is that but they are aspects of reality. You could say that they are infinite, but anything could be infinite and limited. For example the numbers are infinite but limited to be numbers. You won't say that reality is numbers because they are infinite, they are a possibility of the reality. Unlimited doesn't mean big, means open. Numbers are closed, limited to be numbers. Consciousness is limited to be consciousness, etc. Totality is not something, it's absence of limits in all directions.

If something is total, can't be more total, otherwise it was partial, right? Think about it: if something has a quality, it's partial, it's limited in some way. The whole is simply whole; it is everything. If you open yourself to the totality , you open yourself to love, to the absence of negation, of exclusion, and also to true consciousness, to clarity, but that doesn't mean the whole is love or consciousness. The whole is total; you, as a human being, are open to love and real awareness. They are two different things.

I suppose it depends on the experience. In my case, it was the opposite of liberation: absolute limitation. So the feeling is very negative, just as the feeling of total liberation is very positive. I would say that what you're describing is closer to liberation than limitation.

If by that you mean seeing something or having a direct perception of something, that's not true. Mathematics is far more effective at determining the existence of something than direct consciousness. Logic is a much more reliable tool than sight. No one has seen a proton, but it exists, and we know how it behaves. No one has been conscious of someone other than themselves, but logically, it's absolutely certain that another being with consciousness exists. It's very simple math. Sight can deceive you, mathematics doesn't

it's total. Divine, alive or aware are relative Because it's open and total. Lo mismo digo!

My point is eliminating what is logically impossible and leave only what is possible. Obviously, I don't know how reality originates; I'm only offering one possibility, which from my perspective is the only one. If you see cracks in it, could you share what they are What I meant is that could be understood that all manifestation requires structure, and all structure implies limitation. However, if reality is ontologically unlimited, as its inevitable, no limitation can be absolute. The structures that appear must necessarily be open, that is, capable of transforming themselves and giving rise to new phases. A completely closed system would be incompatible with a limitless essence, since it would not allow for becoming. From this point of view, the so-called fine-tuning would not be an external design, but rather the only possible stable configuration for reality to manifest itself without betraying its unlimited nature.

Then God would be an entity with desires, therefore you would explain the universe by placing God as the cause, but you wouldn't explain God. This is religion, and it's something inherent in the human mental structure. If you question religion, believers get defensive; that's also structural. They need that belief to maintain equilibrium. The anthropic principle is convenient but impossible; fine-tuning occurs at all levels, it is not accidental, it is structural. The only explanation that does not violate logic is that reality inevitably finds a way to allow for a limited structure without absolute closure, since reality is ultimately unlimited and a limited structure in all its facets is ontologically impossible. Structured reality always tends toward greater complexity and phase shifts. This occurs when it is possible, coherent. It is an ontological necessity that there be an opening to this phase leap; reality cannot be closed. This means that when a possible possibility manifests itself, it does so with parameters that allow for expansive opening. Any limited structure must bear the imprint of unlimitedness, since it is truly unlimitedness in a form. There is no maker or will, there is inevitability resulting from the absence of limits.

What is the property of "awareness" of a stone? A stone is not an entity that can possess something like awareness. You might think so, but it's arbitrary. Well, It's a religious way of looking at it, but if instead of adhering to religious beliefs you observe reality, it's obvious that consciousness arises when reality is structured in a dualistic way. A stone is not an entity separate from the universe; a human being is. It operates according to its own laws; it is a universe in itself within a larger universe. It intentionally preserves and perpetuates itself. In contrast, a stone is only a consequence of the laws of the primary universe; it is not separate from it. Therefore, consciousness is the interface between two separate realities that arises from the need for self-preservation. Consciousness is one way in which reality appears.

Yes, because a boson is not an individual entity. A photon is not one thing different from another photon; it is a wave in the sense that it is the excitement of a field of reality. Therefore, two bosons are not two things in the same place, but rather a more intense vibration. They are still two photons because a photon is a "quantum", but they behave like one. In contrast, a fermion cannot be superimposed. This doesn't mean it's a "thing" instead of a wave. Like a boson, it's an excitation of a field of reality, but unlike a boson, it cannot be superimposed. Because if it were, differentiated reality would be impossible. It's just a property or the fermions. Here we enter the realm of metaphysics. Why is reality organized by leaving an opening to greater complexity with such fine-tuning? Why is the cosmological constant exactly what it is? Why is the weak nuclear force such that it allows stars to burn for billions of years and not minutes? How is something as extremely improbable as carbon synthesis possible? Is there an intelligence guiding it, or does reality always seek and find the most coherent possibility that enables greater coherence, without closure, as an inherent, inevitable property due it limitlessness? Could we call that inherent property "intelligence"? Is precisely "intelligence" that property that impregnates all the reality in all it's levels?

Why? A stone only exist if someone is aware of if? Yes counterintuitive, or directly not logical. Like a religious dogma. It happens because being human we are awareness or we perceive ourselves as it, then we can't conceive reality not aware, so we Invent a a bearded god and, more sophisticatedly, a creative consciousness

If I have any ego projections, I know they're ego protections, so I don't accept them as ontological truth. What you seek in a psychedelic trip is the dissolution of energetic barriers, not understanding things on a conceptual level. That wouldn't make much sense; it would be like driving drunk and thinking you're doing better that way.