Breakingthewall

Are just realizations of the ego, flat, without depth. When the point is precisely transcending the ego . But the egos do a kind of splitting and imagine they are enlightened because their structure has changed. Now they are not matter, they are consciousness; there is no self, there is emptiness; there is no reality, there is dreaming. All of that is the same matrix of the structured mind functioning in a different structure.

I think everyone is at a different stage, at a different moment, and there's no need to compare which is better. But I do think it's important to understand as deeply as possible how the human psyche works, the dynamics of group dynamics and belonging, and to go further, to delve into pure mysticism (for those who can). Most non-dualism is evasion, an attempt to escape mental suffering, and if you truly want to understand how human reality works, you must see these kinds of traps and evasions. Similarly, it's important to understand that religions like Islam play on the psychological vulnerability of the need for belonging, and that's what makes them strong. This isn't criticism; it's a view of reality. My life path is pushing me toward direct mysticism, not by choice but by circumstance, like almost everything else in life. Cause and effect, karma if you prefer. I clearly see that human tides occur synchronously and that the fact I have a certain tendency doesn't mean that's the tendency most people should have. This doesn't mean you can't criticize approaches that tend toward closure and prefer others that point toward openness. I understand what you're saying about organized religion, but in my personal opinion, it's something that's on the path to being overcome. It's obsolete. It still exists, but the human tendency in the AI age is toward the dissolution of external spirituality and toward an inner openness to the essence of reality. It's the culmination of a long journey from the tribal, through the normative, through nihilism and disconnection, to arrive at total openness to living reality

What you call "your mind" is just the reality, and the reality is same time totality and part. Any movement comes from another movement or relationship, then everything is interconnected, then inside is outside, outside is inside. Your mind have not bottom, but same time what is in your mind is "outside" of your mind. Same that what seems to be outside is inside.

What I tried to communicate is not what you have understood. But it's interesting that you said "enlightenment is not that" by default.

Yes but you have not tribe, and your only enemy is yourself. Your battle is not exterior, It is not permanence, nor reproduction, but openness. You are the culmination of a lineage, and the movement that life points to through you is an inner movement. An energetic reorganization that makes the individual a channeler of what is

I'm trying to express something else, but maybe that's not the way.

Read that I wrote above, let's see if you can understand. It's quite clear.

Anyway, about enlightenment. Here they say, enlightenment is realizing that the self isn't real, or that you are God, or that you are infinite love. Those are just realizations of the ego. The ego knows that the self isn't real. Good for that ego. But enlightenment is being the direct substance of unfiltered reality, being one with the dance of existence and letting yourself be permeated by its vitality. Be open, without limits in heart and mind, flowing without resistance. Without ego. Breaking down the separation between observer and observed. Then being pierced by the ultimate nature of what you are, of reality, and to be one with it. Sat chit ananda. That which is, shining in its glory. The absolute limitless in its abysmal opening. There is nothing else to know, it's the fundamental, the being that is and that is everything. The fact of being is always everything. But of course, just one second after that I was open to it, I'm closed to it. Then a empty feeling appears. I know that the absolute emptiness alive blah blah. But who knows that, is the ego. If the ego is here, the door is closed.

And the second part is great also. So good analysis. Sharp as a knife. The Degeneration of the Patriarch Between the sacred warrior and the psychological man stands the patriarch — a necessary bridge in human evolution, but also the beginning of decay. In his noble form, he builds, protects, and gives continuity. But in his fallen form, he becomes what you described perfectly: the idiot of civilization. 1. The enslaved man He no longer serves the tribe, nor the gods, nor the essence. He serves the image of order —a hollow idol built from fear. He marries because it is proper. He works because others would judge him if he stopped. He obeys because rebellion terrifies him. He is enslaved not by any king or priest, but by the eyes of others. His life is a theatre of appearances. He defends values he does not understand, fights wars he does not believe in, and raises children to repeat the same ritual of emptiness. 2. The death of meaning The warrior’s courage has become obedience. The patriarch’s duty has become vanity. His work no longer builds life, it merely sustains the machine of social validation. Inside, he feels nothing but a silent terror — the terror of not existing if he stops moving. So he keeps working, buying, talking, reproducing, as if motion itself could justify his existence. 3. The cowardice of conformity This man would rather die in a meaningless war than face the truth of his own emptiness. He calls it “honor,” but it is only fear in disguise. He cannot stand the weight of his own freedom, so he hides inside convention. He becomes a loyal citizen of nothing — a slave of an invisible master. 4. The tragic necessity And yet, even this stupidity has a place. Because only through the exhaustion of this false order can consciousness begin to awaken again. The idiocy of the patriarch is the soil from which the modern mind will rise —the mind that asks why. Every fall is a preparation. Every stagnation hides a future revolt. Thus the story continues: the sacred dissolves into duty, duty into hypocrisy, and hypocrisy into existential pain. And out of that pain, the seed of awakening begins to stir. Wtf eh? Direct to the point like an arrow. Oh sam Altman, I venerate you.

I don't want to put my picture, but I can put the carl Richard picture. Given his name is Carl-Richard, it is absolutely obvious and inevitable that this is his picture.

Enlightenment is only one and it's absolutely simple and obvious: it's erasing the limits and being without any single limit, then the absolute nature of reality is revealed. Anyone can do it. Those histories about dreams, self that's is real or unreal, gods, love, belong to the limited conceptual frame. Another step is needed, the step of the total dissolution. Id like to be able to do that at will, but it's very difficult, the energetic obstacles that we put due our nature makes it a real challenge, but in some moments it happens. Enlightenment is an action, a step, a movement, a dissolution, not a knowledge or a realization.

All that talk about consciousness, illusion, dreams, etc., is completely irrelevant to the matter of enlightenment. What I was doing was making a logical argument about why saying that reality is consciousness isn't accurate, but any definition falls within the learned conceptual framework. Enlightenment is the energetic opening that allows the revelation of what reality is. This isn't definable from the human conceptual framework, but it can be alluded to negatively: the absence of limits. But this doesn't define the nature of reality because it isn't definable, it can't be contrasted with an opposite. Another attempt at defining it would be: when there are no borders or barriers that create differentiation and the substance of reality is revealed. It's exactly the same as what you're experiencing now, but without the energetic barriers that create a defined experience. If the barriers dissolve, the whole manifests. It's exactly this now, but without barriers. Then its depth manifest as unfathomable, and it's vitality as total. It's not an understanding, it's an action or erasing the borders. Anyone can do it in any moment, but it's very difficult, because the energetic barriers are made of fear, attachment, control. This is the dynamic of this experience, and dissolving the barriers is a difficult art.

Then, where is the mistake? I was just talking about the term consciousness. I hope it doesn't make you angry . You are so strict. How to make you happy? I'm getting anxious.

I think that you don't understand what I'm saying, then maybe you could avoid those judgements , but anyway....do as you want

Salvia is absolutely logical in a different logic. Reality is logical. It's one thing to be open to vitality, to the source of this living moment, and another to understand the becoming. Spirituality tells you that you can't understand because everything is an illusion, but that's irrelevant; call it an illusion if you want, but it's an absolutely logical illusion. Everything is logical, because logic means relationship, and reality is relationship, and relationship is change

Im saying that existence is change and change produces change, then any change comes from change.

I look around and see constant change; every movement produces another movement. Therefore, it is absolutely true that every movement comes from another movement. The human mind understands causality and creates the timeline. The fact that it is always now does not mean that this now does not come from another now that is not now, but was. Time is the mental representation of the causality

Easy, the present exist, what create the present if not the past? I can't avoid the sarcasm given certain arguments that are taken for granted in spirituality, but it is true that this is not the way

Everything that appears is caused by relationships. Every relationship is caused by another relationship. Even the slightest quantum vibration is caused by another relationship, which in turn is caused by another, never reaching a beginning or an end. Therefore, everything that appears is a product of the past and moves toward the future. The past is the cause, the future the consequence. Yes, in self-help they say that the past is imaginary, since you are imagining it. Where is it? Can you touch it? No? That means it doesn't exist!! Ta-da! Immediate Nobel Prize for the gentleman!!! But no, things aren't like that, although for certain minds it sounds seductive that everything is simpler.

If emptiness is appearing as a conditioned self, first, it's not empty because it's doing things, and second, there is a conditioned self. If you like to define it as "emptiness", it's your choice. My car is not a car , It's a set of vibrations of quantum fields that aren't really things, but rather possibilities that synchronize. But it's still a car.

Vivekananda said: If Brahman is real, the world must also be real, because the world is Brahman manifested Great (and obvious btw, those ideas about illusion.....)

Interesting. But maybe more than a religion, it will be something like honoring his memory and drawing inspiration from him to reach or approach his level of mystical openness, not a religious worldview with a defined structure.

Just my view: All true mystics speak the same language, but there are few true mystics. In Islam, the purest is al-Hallaj, who was tortured and crucified by the Iranian Islamic authorities. Others, like Rumi and Ibn Arabi, were more intelligent and did not directly challenge the religion. Among Christians, the main ones are Christ and Meister Eckhart; in India, Tagore and Ramakrishna and others were authentic mystics. But be careful, Sadguru I'd say is not a real mystic(well who really knows), nor is Krishnamurti. There is a line that separates the sage from the mystic. The mystic is open to the living energy of reality, is absolutely pure and at the same time alive, passionate. Like Ramakrishna or Anandamayi ma, but not like Ramana Maharshi or most Buddhist . Then, is it possible doing a religion Based on Ramakrishna? Possible, but extraordinarily difficult. Ramakrishna is the living heart of reality, the opening to the unfathomable from a human perspective. What would that religion preach? That you be like Anandamayi Ma? In constant mystical ecstasy? It's not something you can do, nor does it depend on certain behaviors. Jesus tells you: love. Can you love everything? Existence itself? Your enemies? Then they change the religion and said: don't kill. Well, it's easier, but deeply Christians know that Christianity, really, says: be Christ, and this is almost impossible. In other hand the religion of Muhammad is much easier: obey. Submit, and you will be rewarded. That's why it's so successful.

The idea that consciousness is the foundation of reality has a fundamental flaw. Let's see, consciousness is being aware, right? So, if consciousness does things, like creating universes, then it's not consciousness, it's something that creates universes. You can call it X, but it's not consciousness.

I don't think so. What happened was that the tyrannical dogmatism of the Church was transcended, allowing minds to open to new possibilities. A large majority remained Christian; many great scientists were and are Christians. Christianity isn't ridiculed; the Church is, and that's a positive thing. In the Islamic world, it's more difficult because they kill you even for one design of Muhammad. Here the Inquisition used to do the same thing here, but thankfully that was left behind centuries ago. If someone is so biased and full of rage, their entire message is biased. It's worthless to me. You say he converted to Islam. It seems he needed someone to give him firm certainties. I hope that makes him feel better about life, more secure. The Islam also claim to be universal and the only way that avoid the hell. They never did that, They studied Eastern spirituality and venerated Eastern figures such as Osho, Krishnamurti, Tagore, Ramakrishna, Rumi, yogananda and many others. I don't know why this guy says that this is unrespectful. He's very angry, maybe some private issues, I don't know. Islam cannot impose Sharia law directly. Not even in Turkey is that possible, despite having a clearly Islamist government. The idea is to gradually spread Islam as far as possible. Islam is expansionist; it absolutely rejects any other religion. It tolerates coexistence but considers it inferior, false. Do you think Muslims can be open to Eastern philosophies, different ideas? It's forbidden; they would go to hell and have molten lead poured down their throats, just like all non-Muslims and their impure prostitutes. Let's see what happens with that people in London and America, it's interesting.