Breakingthewall

Well, everything is a manifestation of the absolute, then the ego or the conceptual mind must be so, can't be something separate. The point is that the mind can operate in a confused or an alienated way, or aligned. What sense does it make to the idea that reality is perfect or true except for the mind, which is false?

Then maybe you could say that all is self, or that all is direct, without a creator Awareness of that? Maybe he means "being". Different ways to express something that probably points to the same truth You cannot seek silence, but silence is created when the light of being shines. Being is everything; it is complete and total. Its quality is that it stands out and is full. But beyond this, it can be understood with the mind, since the mind is a manifestation of being. The mind is being in a form. The mind clears itself to dissipate the fog that clouds the glory of being, immutable in its essence, changing in its form. Then the mind, as a manifestation of being, can understand itself

I've presented a critique of spirituality that considers the self to be an illusory thought and explained how it blocks the search for and achievement of openness. If you read it, perhaps you can talk about it. If you're simply against any conceptual explanation because reality isn't conceptual, then you should retreat to silent meditation. If you don't like my explanation because it's "arrogant", well, I'm sorry that it's not aligned with your feelings and emotional stuff, but maybe the content should be more important than your emotions

Again, zero content, zero going into the arguments that I presented.

You could say that reality is made of bananas, but that would be a confusing definition. If you say that bananas are made of reality, you communicate more clearly, since you're speaking to another mind and want your vision to be its vision

A definition of enlightenment: two facets: form and essence. Form is unfathomable, the total, the limitless abyss of what is, manifesting as flux. You. Essence is its quality: it is being, brilliant, full. Being because it is, always, immutable in being. Brilliant because it stands out, luminous; that is its character. Full because it lacks nothing; it is everything. It's not one, not two, it's total.

Yes, because It's supposed to be the ultimate achievement and also the end of suffering, so people appear who sell it. It's a perfect place for narcissists, who partly believe what they say, but can't stand a profound critique of their mental framework without saying: "You don't understand because you haven't awakened." The issue of enlightenment doesn't have a globally accepted definition, and a consensus is currently emerging that it means identification with consciousness defining it as the screen where change arises.

What is conciousness according Buddha? How zen Buddhism changes the concept? What is conciousness according advaita Vedanta? What is conciousness according neo advaita? What is the relationship with the word conciousness with the term in Sanskrit sat chit Ananda, that in neo advaita is translated as conciousness? Over all: were is the difference between advaita Vedanta and neo advaita?

Sure. But something concrete, or it's just your emotional vibe? I know that reading something complex could be tired, so it's easy to get carried away by emotional impressions without understanding anything. But that doesn't make progress

Why you don't say where I'm wrong? stop trying to appear cool and talk about what is wrong in my explanation. It's boring talking in this level, but it's what it is, so let's try to make it higher

That is what I'm doing.

@UnbornTao I took some time to explain the point, if you have no interest about the point, then why did you ask me to resume? Just read and see what is wrong

Current spirituality assumes that the self is a thought, and therefore an illusion. So you can abandon that illusion by abandoning that thought, that false identification with your body, your social group, or whatever. This is false; the self has a genetic energetic basis that is impossible to ignore and that is given by millions of years of evolution and that is activated by social relationships, threats, etc The emotional barriers of fear of rejection, death and physical harm, or the desire to reproduce are not illusory thoughts, they are energetic realities. They can be overcome in the sense of seeing trough them, and the self can open itself to the absolute. But if they are assumed to be illusions, you are trapped without possibility of exit. The self will be always the case being a human, but an aligned self can open itself to the unlimited. It's an evolutionary step that is possible, but not "dropping" the self, because this is just impossible

For example?

No, if you want to understand the subject you must be able to read longer texts. I explained carefully before, if you have any doubt just ask If you disagree of my view, maybe you are right and I'm wrong, but give any solid argument, not just emotional thing I think that the topic is interesting, if for you it isn't just ignore it

Ok, well, it's quite weird to put videos of teachers to have like more power. Better would be with your own words

Just try to point any mistake in what I said. If you don't like me just because my vibration, I will take it like a real compliment.

Ramana said the opposite than Ramakrishna. Don't get stuck in figures with authority just because many agree with them

Why do you try to insult me? I'm writing with everything that I have in any moment, with the best quality that I can. It's annoying that around are kids but I assume. Anyway, if you have any disagree with what I say, why don't try to rebuttal instead of using derogatory phrases to belittle someone? That only belittles you.

It's ok if you don't understand what I'm saying, but don't get aggressive, just ask. Anyway, how could I know that was for me? It's the thread of the op, so seems that is for him. Next time you should quote the person that you want to answer, then he will know. Ah, I see that now you changed the post . At first was just "blah blah". I think you are not mature enough for this kind of topics

if you have any doubt, just ask. Try to read first carefully and do your best to understand.

It's not an argue, it's a posible explanation of a mistake, but if the user is not interested it's ok

Be respectful with a new user that tries to transmit his vision. You aren't in the kindergarten

That is meaningless.

if Ralston said then it's true. He's famous right? And Ramana Maharshi took consciousness to the limit of its self-perception and took it for the absolute. This attributeless "I am" is not total reality, but an extreme form of the human flow perceiving itself. The absolute is not a motionless perceiver, but the unlimited openness that includes the perceiver, the world, and all possible flows.