Breakingthewall

No, if you want to understand the subject you must be able to read longer texts. I explained carefully before, if you have any doubt just ask If you disagree of my view, maybe you are right and I'm wrong, but give any solid argument, not just emotional thing I think that the topic is interesting, if for you it isn't just ignore it

Ok, well, it's quite weird to put videos of teachers to have like more power. Better would be with your own words

Just try to point any mistake in what I said. If you don't like me just because my vibration, I will take it like a real compliment.

Ramana said the opposite than Ramakrishna. Don't get stuck in figures with authority just because many agree with them

Why do you try to insult me? I'm writing with everything that I have in any moment, with the best quality that I can. It's annoying that around are kids but I assume. Anyway, if you have any disagree with what I say, why don't try to rebuttal instead of using derogatory phrases to belittle someone? That only belittles you.

It's ok if you don't understand what I'm saying, but don't get aggressive, just ask. Anyway, how could I know that was for me? It's the thread of the op, so seems that is for him. Next time you should quote the person that you want to answer, then he will know. Ah, I see that now you changed the post . At first was just "blah blah". I think you are not mature enough for this kind of topics

if you have any doubt, just ask. Try to read first carefully and do your best to understand.

It's not an argue, it's a posible explanation of a mistake, but if the user is not interested it's ok

Be respectful with a new user that tries to transmit his vision. You aren't in the kindergarten

That is meaningless.

if Ralston said then it's true. He's famous right? And Ramana Maharshi took consciousness to the limit of its self-perception and took it for the absolute. This attributeless "I am" is not total reality, but an extreme form of the human flow perceiving itself. The absolute is not a motionless perceiver, but the unlimited openness that includes the perceiver, the world, and all possible flows.

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