Breakingthewall

Here is the mistake. The substance is not conciousness, conciousness is a relative idea that leads to solipsism. The one, the absolute, is the open totally, not conciousness. If you want I could develop it because it's obvious

It requires something serious, without contradictions and bullshit, absolutely clear, product of total clarity.

Infinite means that anything that seems finite really is infinite, because it's a part of the infinity that is the infinity itself appearing as finite

@randydible very ambitious, I also believe that true spirituality has to be formulated in a precise way. but to try that, are you really open to the totality full time, the total depth, the absolute openess? Do you feel the flow without limits in your daily basis? Me not, just sometimes, then it's not possible yet to make a real map. Maybe never, maybe any day.

Sure, and the opposite of absolute is relative.

Absence of limits is absence of limits, that's everything. Everything else is not an illusion, is limited

Infinity means no end. It's a negative definition, "in" means no, "finity" means end. So it's unlimited, open, absolute.

There is only one enlightenment: openness to the total. You are the total, the whole, the unlimited that is given its limitlessness. It is everything, and has always been everything. It is absolute openness, and that implies immutability, since it contains all changes. But at the same time, it flows as a relational flux in ceaseless change reflecting in itself. You can say that change is illusion in the sense that essence never changes because it is everything, but the flux is always flowing, since nothing limits it. You can be open to the absolute or not, there is not different versions, there are only those two possibilities Rumi said: you are not a drop in the ocean, you are the ocean in a drop. This sentence shows enlightenment But you are also a drop in the ocean. There are no limits.

CLAIMS that do just sometimes, but more and more often, and that understand more and more how to do it , and understand more and more how spirituality, mindfullnes, Vipassana, neo advaita and Buddhism are reductive tools to achieve exactly the opposite to openess: closure, control, duality, ego.

Nonduality says: there is no self, everything is one. You are not the thoughts, you are where the thoughts pass. Let them pass, don't get caught up in them. Let's see, if there is no self, who can choose to catch up in thoughts or not? If there is no duality, how can thoughts be different from where they occur? Reality is precisely the other way around: you are the thoughts. When a thought occurs, you are that, just as you are the body flowing in infinite processes and beyond the limits that are perceived, you are the whole, everything that is flowing. You are the flow of reality taking this form. What happens is that this form is not static or closed, it is dynamic and open, therefore, you as a flow can flow in an expanded way, not a contracted one. You are not a static observer watching the thoughts; that is precisely the appearance of the perceiving subject that occurs in the flow. That's why you perceive that silence has nothing to do with awakening, because it hasn't.

Just like a mental exercise to see that idea of the no self from all the possible perspectives.

Then the you don't vanishses, just change to what you truly are. Where is the difference?

Exactly, that's the problem. Spirituality is full of narcissists who truly think they're enlightened. Narcissism is an astonishing mental process

In my case, I like to talk about this topic for two reasons. First, because it helps me clarify and define a conceptual structure that allows for the fluid state. And second, because of my life circumstances, I was someone who suffered greatly mentally. So I read about spirituality, you know, Tolle, Adyashanty, Krishnamurti, Ralston videos, Mooji, all of that. I always had the feeling there was something there that didn't quite fit. Then, after a lot of meditation and psychedelic work, and life work in general, I managed to completely break the energetic structure that kept me trapped. Little by little, I'm achieving a fluid, open, non-contracting state, for longer and longer periods of time. And with that state comes an understanding that I like to communicate. Is it false? Who knows? It's just my understanding

Maybe, but Sadhguru doesn't keep silent even under water.

Where is the difference with your selfless text?

Who don't identify with it?

There is no mystery, it's just absence of limitations. It's inevitable, and absolutely logical. If there are not limits, how could the tao not be? It's impossible. The tao is everything, and you are that.

I'm arguing to point a mistake that make modern spirituality a path that ends in a trap.

Easy That's the idea of no self. First, it doesn't consider that the self has a genetic basis. This is totally obvious; all the emotional mechanisms that are the structural foundation of the self are innate. Second, it assumes that thoughts are false and sensory information is real, implying that the animal state is more true and desirable than the human state. The ideal is to get rid of thoughts, which are interpretations and therefore illusions. But sight and touching are real, pure, direct awareness. The past and future are illusory; only the present exists, where you can touch, see, and hear. This is a higher category of reality, direct. The mental is illusory, unreal. Sight and that are mental images, same than conceptual ideas. Both are created by the brain . Sight is created based on photons that penetrate the retina and the conceptual world through neuronal synapses occurring primarily in the frontal lobe. Both are representations of external reality, and both are the reality. Mental reality is reality, and sensory reality is the same. The brain is reality, adopting a structure that in turn creates structures. There are no categories of reality. There is only one category: reality. Then the mind can operate like a closed system, closed in itself, as use to do, or can operate open to the flow that really is. The mental structure changes, but it is still a self, but a self that allows the flow and that recognize itself as the living flow taking a form all time, open to it's true nature. If you believe the idea that the self is an illusion, you are closed in a static idea of consciousness as a screen where the reality happens: duality

Because it's open in part and closed in great part. If it were totally open you wouldn't know the difference between a stone and a dog and you couldn't operate as a human. It's not dance around and arguing to win, it's to point that of no self is just a misunderstanding, and this is important because anyone who think that the no self is the goal is in a trap

Ah

It isn't no self, It is an open energetic configuration of the self in which the self realizes that it is the total flow of reality. It is still the human self, only it is not closed in on itself. There is an opening through which it flows without limits. Then it realizes that it is not limited to this life cycle. It sees it with total clarity, so it perceives altruism as inevitable, effortless, and egotism and narcissism as stupidity, a mistake due short sight

What is absolute is the absence of limits, and it's not something, it's the absolute openess that reality is. The manifestation of that openness is infinite contrast in motion. You could say it's immutable because it involves infinite mutations, but the reality is that it's always changing.

If it's witnessing all of them, it's related to them and is therefore just another form of relational flow. If what you're suggesting is that it's something inherently separate from relational flow, immutable, then it's an absolute limit, which would imply that reality is limited. That witness that seems absolute in meditation is a very detached mental state in which there seems to be stillness in contrast to the more dynamic usual state, but still maintaining duality.