Breakingthewall

It's a perspective, if it's wrong you can explain me why, but anyway, ok, sorry , I will stop blasphemy. It's your place, your rules. It's nonsense arguing about this, and waste of energy, so I'm done. I'm going to talk only about the absolute and psychology. Ontology I'm done, doesn't leads anywhere

You are defining it calling it conciousness. Conciousness is something definite: perception. The fact of being aware. Saying that reality is conciousness is a mistake but anyway, I don't want to start those discussions again and again

conciousness is the fact of perceiving, it's relative to anything else. Without difference and change there is no conciousness. Imagine no change and no difference, can you? No, because it's impossible. Then conciousness is something that arises due the movement, then not fundamental.

Why god is conciousness? It makes no sense. Conciousness is just a circumstance, the fact of reality perceiving itself like a reflection. If reality is conciousness, why there are forms? Because conciousness is creating them? Then conciousness is something with creative power? Then it's not "pure conciousness" would be "pure conciousness that creates things like elephants " but how conciousness could create anything if it's conciousness, that's , the fact of perceiving? Where is the logic of this?

You are almost hitting the nail on the head. The spiritual path is the only option that doesn't lead directly to disaster. And disaster is not unlike hell. If you're clever, as it seems, you'll see this with absolute clarity. There's no escape; you're alive, you exist. The only way out is inward, through yourself. Anyone who doesn't realize this lacks real vision; they're blinded by mirages. It's not that you choose the spiritual path because it's better, it's because it's the only one. The other paths lead to ruin, they're utter madness, but no one notices. It's incredible.

That's a step. Your story shows that you're a serious guy, that you're on a serious path. Little by little, your reality and the reality around you become equalized and cleansed. It's a rapid process once it begins. Things become more fluid. Then you begin to perceive the real openness, the energy of reality, its vitality. It's no longer an effort to be here and now, but an impulse to blend, to be one with reality, to dissolve. Open your heart and your mind and merge with reality without reservation. Then you see that reality is you. A shift has occurred. You're no longer looking at reality; you are it. And you have no limits. Then you can open yourself more and more to yourself , until in some moments you are totally open and then you are the totality that lives.

Seems that they are a group of people with very low level of maturity, with a lot of trauma, who are looking identity in spirituality. Then, if you are in that game, well, it's because you are in that wave (a quite anxious vawe), and if you aren't, you abandon as you did. Take it as an experience to mature yourself, to understand that spirituality is personal, absolute inner freedom, and that any imposition is precisely the opposite of what spirituality is. An organized group of spiritual people is the exact opposite of spirituality. Spirituality is about leaving the herd, not changing herds.

When anything ,an atom, and energetic quantum moves, that movement is not confined to its local surroundings: it generates a disturbance in the fields it inhabits (gravitational, electromagnetic, quantum...), and that disturbance propagates indefinitely. Physically, the intensity of the wave decreases with distance, but it never reaches zero. Even quantum probability, however small, always extends beyond. From an ontological point of view, this is inevitable: if reality is a totality without limits, then any change in one part affects the whole. There are no cuts. No edges. No outside. Every form is a relational expression of the whole, and every event reorganizes the totality to some degree, even if we cannot perceive it. Since everything moves and everything vibrates, all infinite movements affect each other, generating an interconnected reality. This web of vibrations, all related without exception, is in constant self-organization. And this self-organization of relational totality is what we, from within, perceive as intelligence. It is not that there is an intelligence somewhere that orders things, but rather that the totality itself, unfolding without limits and constantly reconfiguring in perfect synchronicity, is intelligence in action. That is why each local vibration is a reconfiguration of the whole. Each movement resonates infinitely. Nothing is isolated. Every action reverberates. Reality is not a machine ,it is a centerless organism: a living intelligence in perpetual motion

Bit nuanced. When we say "being," it's usually Eckhart Tolle's idea: being here and now without mind, undefined, flowing, pure becoming. Openness is something else; it is what gives rise to being because nothing limits it. The dissolution of the limitation of being in the here and now, in which even in total silence there is separation between perceiver and perception. It would be the essence of reality, the openness to ultimate nature, which could be defined negatively as the absence of limits and which is perceived as totality, unlimited and diaphanous, which implies everything, the total absence of lack, absolute plenitude because there are no limits, absolute depth; it is everything, and you are that. The word would be total. If you are in a meditative state, without mind, everything is silent and calm but it's still closed . Openness means unfathomable depth, the openenss to the totality, to its vitality that arises due the limitlessness, and then it's obvious that you are that, there is no difference between you and the total, it's one. You can't be like that all time at work or meeting your friends,.it's something that happens in some moments

Maybe I'm wrong, but when I read him I perceive always the intention of appear profound, not real depth. But that's a subjective impression . I have the same feeling with Krishnamurti for example.

I think thats not self image but desire to be your best version. Self image is precisely "image", something that you imagine and you want that others think about you, like the concept that others have. It's not like being worry if you are fat but hate yourself a lot if you don't fit in an image, so much that you can't bear it and then you believe that you fit in that image that you created to survive emotionally, but deeply you know that's not real and you are very anxious. It's something that happens due deep wounds of lack of love, a big hole in your structure. Many people has this hole, it's what I meant in the thread about the wound, but some realize that they have to work in it from inside and others hide it and work from outside. Then they work creating a self image. It's something very disfuncional and source of deep suffering

You could say yes, in one sense and not the other. Liberation happened many times, I understand the mechanics of self-closure, but it's quite subtle, with many nuances. At times, lately when I've been sober, everything is diaphanous, open, and total, maybe 2 minutes. But my structure, the self, still has quite a bit of impurity, so these openings are brief. If, for example, two days go by without this happening for at least an instant, my reality becomes dense again. Then I think, let's see if I can make everything open up, but it either happens or it doesn't. What's clear is that if you want this (and you do, since everything else is pale and lifeless without this opening), you must equalize your structure. This happens naturally. You perceive behaviors as impossible, disgusting, and they gradually disappear. The essential thing is openness, but that doesn't mean that the human must not flow. The form still exists; it just must be equalized. How? Only intuition can tell. Reality flows. When people says: I'm enlightened, absolutely liberated, etc...well, where is someone like that? I don't know any. It's not so simple. For example reading al Allahj , a Sufi, I perceive radical openenss

Depending of how you define "you". If you define as something relative to anything else, you could say that in essence, absolutely, the "you" is just an appearance in the sense of its circumstantial, but if you erase all the barriers, the reality is and you are that

Knowing is relative to anything, the absolute is not unknowable because "knowing" is relative; it means nothing out of the relative. You can open yourself to your true nature; this means ceasing to be "you" and becoming your true nature. "You" is the structure that knows, perceives, and understands.

@PurpleTree I just read your thread about tony Parsons and that. Reality is nothing, reality is conciousness....it's very obvious that they are relative definitions that are being built in the relative paradigm right? Obvious truth: you are, right? Then you are the reality. This mean nothing conceptually, you have to open yourself to what you are. Obviously if you are the reality you are essentially absolute, that means that you are the reality without relationship with anything else. That means that in relation with anything else you are a relative circumstantial reality. That is, there are two perspectives: one relative and one absolute. If you want to place yourself in the absolute perspective, you must understand that it is not a perspective, since "perspective" implies an observer. You must be one with yourself. Allow all the barriers that are necessarily built in the relative perspective to dissolve and open up to yourself absolutely. Here, words end and actions begin. You either do it or you don't. There is nothing to talk about this, since it is absolute, and talking is relative, just as thinking is. Then any teaching should be about what those barriers are and how dissolve them, not about what reality is. Reality is you and it's absolute, nothing else can be said

What says essentially?

Neo advaita is false because says that reality is nondual and that reality is consciousness. Consciousness implies perception, and perception implies duality. Consciousness is a quality of reality; reality is you, and you are not consciousness; you are total. The absolute. Consciousness is a superficial perspective, supposedly nondual but stuck in the relative.

If you don't like that people answer to you with words, what would you like? Just that they read your words?

If you become concious of the absolute truth it's not the absolute truth, it's relative to you. You can be the absolute truth, without "being concious of", that's why it's unthinkable and impossible to remember But about what I said of the accident and no thought. Don't you understand that without thought it's still separation?

That is conceptual. Conceptual things have an energetic basis. If you don't understand that thoughts are a consequence, not a cause, you don't understand the dynamics of closure. You can have a completely silent and closed mind. For example, you can have an accident and become a being who can't even eat alone, or articulate a simple thought, and be constantly terrified. Let's see if you can have a conversation and you don't answer: brother, stop mental masturbation. You answered leo without those tricks right? Because he's the owner of the forum. Then answer me without your usual lie. Could you?

That's very dangerous territory. First, you define enlightenment as the end of suffering and immortality, something anyone would want, the most any human being can aspire to. And then you say you can give that in exchange for money.

Yeah, the remedy is that, not exactly non duality but spiritual development. The need to connect with others is inevitable; we're human. Connecting from a self-image is misery; you're like a beggar asking for alms. The point is to connect from an open perspective, letting what's inside you flow, and seeking real connection.

Agree, I think he thought he has powers and he can enlighten people by skype. Crazy right?

Today, we're all like this. The key is to realize it and focus on substance, not appearance. The true narcissist is the one who can't stand it. The pressure is so great that he invents a parallel reality bubble in which he designs a brilliant self-image and believes it. Since this is a distortion, he always needs validation, so his entire speech, in one way or another, revolves around that self-image. Your speech now revolves around your truth. The difference is essential.

If you were a narcissist you couldn't say that. Everyone has the self image around, almost nobody is totally free, it's very difficult, but the narcissist is who believes their lies, it's bit psychotic