Breakingthewall

"You" work "yourself" to a "state" where "you" let the ego not identify with "you". So there are two you, the ego and the real you? It seems you're talking about your self-image, something like: oh, my children are being raped, does that mean I'm a bad father? Gosh, should I do something to maintain my image as a good father? Yeah, well, that's psychotic narcissism, it's fine for anyone to get over it, but I'm not talking about that, but about the real psychological structure, the real neural pathways that make you pick up an axe and start a fight to the death when you see your children being raped. If, for example, you were a tuna, and you saw your children being raped, you wouldn't care at all, since you wouldn't have those neural pathways made by millions of years of evolution, you would have different ones, which would make you swim or maybe eat your children.

I didn't understand what you meant, I missinterpreted. Finished for today

Unbiased, but you said that I should inquiry to discover that the self is illusory.

Sure, then dropping the ego means what? For example, if you see a rapist raping your girlfriend, your no ego, what could do? Singing? Maybe starting cooking? Because you ve no ego, anything is the same. Or maybe you could fight? Because your ego is aligning with what reality wants from you. Your ego is an structure and have to decide to fight, how to fight, when exactly, be strong against fear, then calculate exactly what to do. Your "ego" is not your ego, is the reality. If has to "resist" because resistance means nothing, it's just another vibration of reality. Your ego not aligned was the reality exactly the same , but not aligned, closed, in process to evolution "Ego" means nothing, what you consider ego is self image, the layer of narcisism . That's just a layer Again, sorry before for that about condescending, Im almost sleeping, long day

Yeah that's a coincidence. Anyway, read what I said if you want, maybe you can see what I want to point . No, it's different, if now I say: well, you speak from learned beliefs, really you are stuck In concepts, etc , same than You and the other user said without touching a single point that is said is just condescendence and I don't understand exactly what do you get saying that. Defending a position? Better be opened to the truth . Anyway, sorry for get triggered, it's stupid, stress and work day

Maybe you don't understand what I'm saying. That's because you both operates in the same level. You can't understand what Im saying because you are in the conceptual limited level, believing that is me who is in the conceptual limited level, and both use condescendence. I'm talking from another perspective, from the broad one. Maybe someone who's reading this can see it. If not it's ok, it's not a topic to argue

No, What survives is an enormously complex energy system we call human, which can die at any moment. It's a stable form that reality is now taking. What can't die is reality, but the human form can, and this form isn't an illusion; it's a form. Anxiety and worry are just energetic vibrations that are happening. Harmony and alignment are other energetic vibrations, bot are possibilities of the energetic sistem that we call human. Energetic means relations btw, not some mysterious energy.

There is no paradox or mystery. There cannot be two separate absolutes, because then they wouldn't be absolutes; they would be relative. "Separate" means relative. "Many gods" mean many forms, god is not something , not an entity that feels and touch other god, god is the absence of limitations itself, the absolute potential that is source of the totality of the form. If there are two gods, both are part of the totality of the form, then are just forms, expressions of god

There is only one apparent paradox: the absolute is the absence of limits. Therefore, it has no absolute limits, only relative ones. This might seem like an absolute limit in itself, but it is not ,because the nature of the absolute is not defined by an edge or a boundary. Its limitlessness is not a restriction; it is simply what it is. It's not a real paradox, just a missinterpretation of what a limit is.

Over all if you are lazy

Ok, So when your 5-year-old daughter is being raped, you can read that to her. Tell her you don't have the balls to be a man, and that in return, you're an enlightened. Sure she will understand.

Because your survival programming is threatened

And if you have a daughter, it's ok that she is sold in a brothel when she's 5 years old? Or maybe do you think that this doesn't happen to enlightened people? If it happens, what would you do? Eat bread?

That's not the work of the self, it's keeping the body alive with external resources and the integration of that system into the social matrix, cooperation, emotional ties, work.

No, flowing with the flow. But that doesn't mean that the haven't a self.

For example, what is trans logical?

There are no paradoxes, only superficial understanding. Existence is absolutely logical, since its substance is relation, and there is no relation alogic, since logic is relation. You may not understand that logic, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It's a tremendously complicated job, it's not about eating and shitting, it's about integrating into society.

This belief occurs because there's a real separation: you have a body to feed, a group of people to find your place in, a job to do, obstacles to overcome. Before opening your perspective, you must resolve all of the above.

Anti human spiritual talk about the “ego” and the need for “validation” starts from a flawed assumption: that the drive to be accepted and validated is merely a shallow whim of the narrative self, something that can be dismissed as an illusion. That drive It is an atavistic mechanism, embedded in the nervous system and the body’s energy through millions of years of evolution, not just in humans, but in mammals in general. For most of human (and mammalian) history, integration into the group was a matter of literal survival: to be cast out meant hunger, unprotected exposure, and lethal risk. This evolutionary pressure shaped our neural and energetic pathways to seek acceptance intensely and automatically. Dismissing this with phrases like “it’s all illusion” or “you don’t need validation” ignores the fact that the impulse arises before any mental narrative. It comes from much deeper layers: biological reflexes, cellular memory, and relational structures. Real work is not about suppressing or denying this mechanism, but about understanding it fully. When you see it for what it is, you can stop being enslaved by it. That means: Giving yourself the validation you once sought externally. Resolving, as much as possible, the wounds and perceived injustices that keep the need alive. No longer allowing other people’s acceptance or rejection to define your intrinsic value. And to be able to do that, you have to be true, without stain. Aligned. And this is not something that you would achieve in a moment, but through an ongoing process of integration, truthfulness, and dismantling of false structures within yourself. The difference is simple but essential: denial leaves the impulse intact in the depths, only covered over; letting go happens when you see it clearly, without judgment or feeding it, and then it loses its power. Denying human (and mammalian) nature is not transcendence. It is violence against it. Understanding it and liberating it is what opens the door to its deepest dimension. If your spirituality needs you to amputate the very mechanisms that made you who you are, it is not freedom, it is self-erasure disguised as awakening.

The truth isn't hidden, it's veiled, and you are the one who veils it, with your closing energetic vibration. You are the door, so if you want to open the door that you are, you must change your vibration. It's quite difficult work, a radical evolutionary impulse, in which you have to invest all of your energy.

Good text. Perhaps we could say that the false self never disappears, since it wasn't false, because nothing is false, but rather it was a closed structural configuration with an essential mission: survival and evolution. At a given moment, this ever-changing structure evolves into an ever-more open pattern, until it becomes completely open, a window onto the whole, from which the unhindered flow of reality emanates. It is the unhindered flow of reality, and it perceives itself as such.

I'd say that aligning is a process where the self is totally equalized with the external reality, but this doesn't mean that the self is not real, or that the self dissapeared. The self and the reality are one, They are in total harmony, there is no resistance but symbiosis, but there is self. Anyway, this is an ideal, not my case. For me it's enough that my self can be transparent in some moments and let the totality manifest.

The only god is the one that we can see in ourselves, in the actual reality

The IA did an analysis that was similar than the analysis that I did previously. I was just explaining my points, but you started to trying to put me down, like everytime that we talked about this topic. I just tried to show you it. Sorry for the world "narcissist" , I didn't say that you are, just that you acted in this precise post similar , manipulative. If you act like that what do you expect? That the other gets down without answering? Anyway, sorry for the word narcissist, Im not saying that you are