Breakingthewall

Unity is very simple, it's the absence of limits. We perceive relative limits, one form is limited by other form, it's a form because it's defined by opposition to other forms. This differentiation is what creates separation, which is the same as closure. You perceive yourself as separate, and therefore you live in a vibration of lack. If you transcend separation, lack disappears, since you perceive yourself as bottomless, without borders. This bottomlessness and absence of limitation is open, and this openness is what you are, appearing as this present possibility in which there are apparent relative boundaries, but they are circumstantial, ultimately what you are is no limits and you perceive it whole time. That's no two, no separation, or if you prefer unity. But as unity has a connotation of closure, seems better no two.

There's nothing to reflect on, no exercises to do; understanding is direct, unfiltered. It's what happens when there are no barriers and your mind grasps without being filtered by any projection or learned formula. Understanding is, for example, talking to someone and grasping their inner reality and the underlying intention of their discourse. It's seeing the dynamic structures of the processes that occur, without projecting your self onto them. The self, or rather, the need to maintain a self-image, is the great obstacle to understanding, since it filters everything through that need and corrupts true comprehension. It turns you into what they call an idiot, which isn't uncommon.

I think that it's just a tool of social cohesion and emotional regulation, same that any other religion. Just human matrix. If you believe in a god that transfer to Muhammad the Quran to save humans from hell, well, it's your choice

Im not indian . I think that islam is a religion of exclusion, the term for the non Muslims is kafir that's very negative. Islam in its root is expansion, and it's main tool to convince is fear to hell and promises about a paradise. It glorifies a man, Muhammad, who was a warlord and a pedophile without hiding that fact, and predicates the yihad and allow and even recommend marriages between cousins, what's a huge problem in the Muslim world, producing a lot of genetic diseases and decreasingly of the IQ, around 10 points, in many Muslim countries Also I don't agree with forced marriages, submission of women to men and marriage with 9 years old girls thats allowed is Quran and still allowed nowadays in many Muslim countries, where girls are sold by their parents to old men. Also, rape into marriage is not a crime since the woman is a possession of the husband, who can use her for sex according his will. It's a formal precept in Islam. Also I don't agree with the arbitrary prohibitions like making human or animal designs, that castrate art, or eating some foods or drinks. I think that anyone who submitted himself to those prohibitions by fear to hell is not a real man but a puppet easy to manipulate. I also don't agree with the condemn to homosexuality, translated into jail and death in many countries. Also, it's significant that 80% of terrorist actions are perpetrated by Muslims nowadays. In short, I think that it's an ideology of control, mental castration and fear. In my opinion, Muslims should break free of that darkness.

I said in that time that Hamas declared a war then a war happened, not that I cheer death of children. Maybe you didn't understand it well. I don't cheer death of anyone, I just tried to understand the situation placing myself in both sides

It also command amputation of hands and stonning adulterous

Sure that was very revolutionary and necessary in its time, same than crucifying rebellious slaves was civilized and necessary in ancient Rome; the problem is whether you still do it now.

At least you can adopt a perspective not immersed in lack at times, something very few people can do. The next step is to adopt that perspective even when there is conflict. That is, the conflict persists, but you can take a step back and escape its intensity, seeing it as a movement within the flow of reality. Not conceptualizing it as such, but truly perceiving it as such; then most of its burden disappears. Obviously, if the situation is intense enough, immersion is inevitable, but at least you know what's happening.

Well, that's your opinion. Humans are complicated, things are simple, humans should be simpler, it's just your perspective. The perspective of the reality is that humans should be as their are.

Zero and infinity, from an absolute perspective, are two extremes that touch to the point of becoming one. Zero is the absence of everything; in the absence of everything, there are no absolute limits that stabilize nothingness as the absence of contrast, of "something." Infinity is the infinity of contrast, of relative change, of form. Any local relative form, if you open the perspective to infinity, blurs into zero. Therefore, zero and infinity are the same. Relative forms are forms from a local perspective; from a total perspective, there are no forms, only being. Infinity and zero are two facets of being that are truly the same.

@Natasha Tori Maru the mistake that i see in Ralston is ontological, not something banal, but of course this is my opinion and probably you would think that who's wrong is me. Look: For Ralston, mental flow is illusory because what ultimately is, is direct awareness of mental flow. For me, mental flow is what it is in the form of mental flow, and what I am is what it is in the form of a dual perceiver. Perception is not the foundation but the expression of what is in a concrete structure. For Ralston, perception itself is the foundation. Consequences? If you follow Ralston's line of thought to the end, you arrive at solipsism and absolute closure. If you follow the line I propose, you disintegrate as a center and arrive at absolute openness If you place perception or consciousness as the foundation, you place yourself, the perceiver, as the absolute center. This is neo-Advaita spirituality, and the problem with it is that, while calling itself non-duality, it establishes an essential duality: the real, consciousness; the illusory, that which appears. In my view, you can jump from the dense emotional level to the perceptual level where everything is perceived as flow, but the only thing that changes here is your subjective experience, not the ontological category of your experience. Ontologically, everything is what it is. Subjectively, one type of perception is free, the other trapped. Both are the reality.

It could works, same than Tolle s ideas. What I meant is that what I get from watching his videos is that he establishes an essential difference between the sensory and the mental, categorizing the sensory as real and the mental as false. In my opinion, this isn't the case. It's like when Tolle says, "It's always now." Is something bad happening to you now? Then why are you suffering? What's happening now is that you're suffering. Not because of something in the past, but because of a created mental structure, a neural pathway, a stable quantum cloud that is a universe in itself that is happening. This structure takes the form of the "past" because the mind functions by creating a timeline. This isn't false or illusory; it's a natural force that creates civilizations by synchronizing millions of individuals as one, creating art, culture, science, philosophy. I completely agree that it's essential to break free from the chains of the mind, but that's not achieved by categorizing them as illusory. It's confusing, traps you. Or at least that's the case for me. The only way for me is the The direct, non-conceptual understanding of the energetic mechanisms that close off, that trap you in the vibration we call mental suffering, perceiving them directly and confronting them without evasion, and without categorizing them as "illusion." If you categorize them that way, you are within the mind level that assigns categories and meaning. If you see them directly, you are a step above, at the level of direct structural understanding. At that level, everything is the same category: real. It is living reality flowing in its forms, and suffering is living reality. It is at this level that suffering is deactivated because here it is not "suffering", it is the flow of the real, like everything else. Maybe Ralston is pointing in the same direction? I guess so, but I never understood that listening him.

I didn't read his books. Maybe I will try but I'm too ADHD for reading books, or maybe I just find them boring. What I understand of his idiosyncrasy is that, according to him, the mental is illusion and the real is direct experience: tastes, smells, what you can see and touch. But the mental is also your direct experience, even if it's not sensory; it's a real perception. You're not imagining it; your system creates the mental from perceived models just as it creates the sensory. It's not ontologically different. It's just another level of perception, less rigid but as real as the senses.

He really has some kind of autism? I see in him a vibe similar to the guy from Free Solo, Alex Honnold; it's like the problematic emotional hardware we all have is very subdued. That has great advantages, you can climb 900m walls without a rope or be a perfect martial artist, always totally focused, but like everything in life, it has its downside: maybe less connection or understanding of certain human facets that are real

Anyway, I know this might be below some people's level, but maybe anyone will find it interesting. Ruminative mental suffering occurs because your circumstance plus your innate system have created a certain structure. Challenges and emotional burdens have arisen in your life that you haven't been able to manage and have been covered up by emotional mechanisms aimed at preserving your stability. For example, your need for belonging in childhood and adolescence was non-negotiable; if it couldn't be satisfied, you would cover up a part of your system in order to function. These accumulated scars create an underlying dissonance that can manifest as hysterical rumination because your partner isn't calling you. You can't stop this rumination at will, you are not "doing " it, it's happening due the energetic structure that you are now. but you can understand your mechanisms, look at them directly without falsehood, open yourself to your suffering, become one with it, align yourself with it, see it as an energetic burden, a circumstance that occurs, and not run away from it. If you think that the suffering is a mistake that you are doing, you are trapped

No no , its ok, you are too charitable. I greatly appreciate your patience and charity . I'm very sorry if I bothered you by expressing opinions that, in your wisdom, you've deemed stupid, and it's perfectly legitimate for someone as charitable as you to, at times, driven by righteous indignation, insult or even block people who hold different opinions.

Be careful or he's going to block you. He insult endorsed with his power to block you here a week or two

Well, tell me exactly what I can say to don't offended you and what is allowed here. It's easy, I didn't know, then I gave a free opinion, but thanks to correct me so wisely

He sends a seductive message: reality is simple, you're the one complicating it. Focus on the sensory and abandon the mental, which is false. Well, this message is completely wrong; it's what's called spiritual bypassing. But this is what sells, because people don't want to, or can't, go deeper. They want to be told that everything is easy and that everything will be alright. Do you want to be a successful spiritual teacher? Tell the people that their suffering is an illusion and absolute happiness is easy, just stop suffering. It's you who's creating suffering, then you can stop it. Tell it a lot of times, then they will buy, because they need it. And then they will tell others that now they are happy, because they know that suffering is false. the reality could be the opposite, but they will make up everything to pretend that they are happy, with addictions, rumination, depression, repression, hate, etc. That's just narcissism. The mind is not a mistake to transcend but a structural phase of reality. Attempting to bypass it creates dissociation, not freedom. If you want freedom you have to align your system, not denying it. There is the real work.

Exactly, and that grip is extremely deep. The human world is moved by that grip, people lives and dies moved by this, it's what we are. If you don't understand it and trivializes the ego as an illusion, you are going to be prisoner without scape. Understanding is essential, and Ralston only sells attitude, not understanding

The problem I see with Ralston is that he doesn't realize, or seems not to realize, the enormous emotional burden that comes with being human, and how incredibly difficult that is to manage. Fear, the need for belonging, for acceptance, for self-preservation, for permanence, are encoded deep within our genetic makeup, and very few people manage to align their energies to achieve a permanent state of openness. It's like an autistic person who doesn't feel emotions or fear danger becoming a coach and telling you: just climb that 700-meter rock wall in solo, and that's it. It's easy! Well, no, it's extremely difficult, and a teacher who doesn't understand the difficulty involved is not fit for the job.

Even the word "source" could be confusing implying a duality: a source from which reality emerges, when reality does not emerge, it simply is. The concept of enlightenment is extremely simple: what everything is, is being. Being is, and everything is an expression of being. Being is absolute, without opposite, since non-being is not. Forms are relative; they are relational. Enlightenment is the form that is conscious of form becoming aware of its absolute nature. When you open yourself to your nature, you realize that being is everything, and form are form. That's it, sounds anticlimactic but it isn't. About God, you could say that the totality of the being manifested is God, and you and God are one in essence. But what you can't say is that you are god dreaming the reality and you are omnipotent, because it's not true, you are a relative form. Relative to the other forms, created by them by relationship, and creator of them by relationship .

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?

Good to see you again. Well, source and God have different connotations . God implies a creator with an intention, like, ok, I'm god and I will create humans, because I want. Humans, be! And the humans are. Source implies the foundation of the reality, of what is, and because it is, the humans are. Why? Because are a possibility, a potentiality that is happening. Without any intention, since the source is not limited. The source doesn't decide, it flows, and this flow now is you.

It depends, if your ego is oriented to become a Buddhist monk expert in meditation then you could meditate a lot