Breakingthewall

a localized set of vibrations of the fields of reality arranged coherently

Reality isn't made of something; it's made of being, and that's because it has no limits. It's difficult to truly grasp what "being" means. Reality is, you are, and you are because you have no absolute limits, only relative ones. And being is not experience, is what experience is. Experience is a possibility that is. Experience needs change. Being is where change happens. This isn't theory; it's constant, obvious, and undeniable direct openess to what I am. I don't speak from a conceptual standpoint, but rather I conceptualize vision in order to communicate it.

then it's not acceptable to analyze Ramana because he was superior to all of us? Is that a kind of blasphemy?

The explanation of what reality and enlightenment are is absolutely simple, look: reality is limitless, it is not contained. In the absence of limits, there can be no center, agent, or intention, as these would be limits. What arises are coherent possibilities that emerge because there are no limits. Enlightenment is not knowing this; it is being one with your limitless nature. That means being open to it.

You are not imagining, there is not an agent or a centre that creates the reality, it's impossible. But we already talked about it.

Maybe it's you who can't listen and understand what I'm saying. just consider the possibility. I wrote a long analysis about Ramana Maharshi and I don't see any relationship with your answer. Just that you think that I'm not in the level to talk about Ramana . But what about wh weat I said? That's interesting that you deliver subtle, let's say phrases meant to put the other person down Anyway I was trying to talk about Ramana maharishi. That's good, I appreciate a your advices, but I was trying to talk about Maharshi. Anyway, thanks for the advices and for the conversation

I know what Ramana Maharshi said; it's quite basic, uncomplicated. The thing would be to talk to him and see how he responds, but that's impossible. What is undeniable is that he was a man detached from form. For him, form was irrelevant; he was focused on what's he call the absolute self, the unlimited being. But for me, this only means that he was innately detached from form, and that since this attitude is promoted and given status in India, he voluntarily emphasized this detachment by vocation. This doesn't imply that when, for example, he says that the enlightened reach the end of the cycle of reincarnation, it isn't simply a religious repetition. For me, a much more interesting mystic is Ramakrishna, for example. His message is personal and direct. Ramana's message seems heavily filtered through Advaita and Buddhism . Focused in the vacuity, silence, no form.

I agree, it’s impossible to know whether I truly understand what Maharshi was trying to communicate, but I would say yes , and I would also say that I see his limitations (I know this will sound intolerably presumptuous to you). Let’s see. Ramana’s essential principle is disidentification from the ego, the human self, achieved by obsessively asking oneself “Who am I?”. At a certain point, you can no longer find anything to hold onto, and you realize that you are pure being: without edges, without definition, formless, silent, absolute. Then you realize that form was illusory, and that what is real is Being. Sat-chit-ananda, advaita: what is, which shines by itself, recognizes itself, is conscious of itself, and is absolute bliss due to its limitlessness. Nothing new, right? The old enlightenment of the Buddha, Advaita, etc. But something is missing here. There is a limit. What does it mean to say that form is illusory? What does this division between false and real really imply? Form is the inevitable manifestation of Being. There is no form without Being , that is obvious. But there is also no Being without form , that is less obvious. Being always appears as form, without form, change, there is not existence. Form is as absolute as substance itself; it is inevitable, limitless, and total. Brahman, as the Advaitins would say. Ramana remains in the silent void, in the mere fact of being, without penetrating into the character of Being , into its dance, its incessant movement, its infinite relationships. Into Kali, the goddess who tramples Shiva in her dance of creation and destruction. Reality is Shiva + Kali, both are really one. There is not separation, and the difference of being open to it or not is total. If you are closed to Kali, you are limited. Maybe something is missing in my interpretation, of course. I talk just by the image that I have of Ramana due some readings and videos.

The idea is interesting, but it wouldn't work in practice. Their identity would then be that of a humiliated person being insulted, or as the student who is so brave to humilliate himself, or anything. The goal is for him to not care about his social identity, but that's not achieved by humiliating yourself, but by ceasing to lie, expressing your truth without filter. And then he should let go his human identity, his identity as a form, and as center, also as consciousness

Absence of limitations, which makes the emergence of coherent relationships inevitable

You mean that he was seductive, like you feel a holy aura looking and at him or listening him? maybe it doesn't mean what you think.

A living being is not matter and energy, but rather the pattern that distributes matter and energy with absolute precision. This pattern is not located anywhere, nor can it be detected, it's just happening. But every quantum vibration of your body is in an exact location. The complexity of this goes beyond what our minds can conceive. Life is not something that appears in the universe; it is a way in which the universe organizes itself. A living being is not a localized object, but a non-local, dynamic coherence that organizes matter and energy in time. Its reality is not substantial, but relational: it exists as a pattern, not as a thing. It's absolutely coherent with the whole and perfect, like anything else that exists

There is no illusion or deception in what appears. Perceived forms exist. A nighttime dream is not the same as waking perception. The mind creates images from perceived images. There is internal and external reality. All this does not imply that limits are absolute; they are relative to another form, but they exist. To say that they are illusions is meaningless; it is not a correct definition; it leads not to understanding but to confusion. Limits are relative, not illusory. There is not a center creating illusions, there are infinite centers flowing in synchronicity.

What he tried to convey? For example?

I don't understand what you mean. When it's said that you're imagining reality, that's exactly what it means: that a nighttime dream and waking reality are the same. That there's no difference between perception and dream creation.

It sounds good, but is it really like that? For example, Ramana explained how he realized he couldn't die, in an experience he had when he was very young, but did he explain why he knew about reincarnation? Anyway, a sardine He has no self-referential thought, and according to those who believe in reincarnation, it is an inferior state, which still has countless reincarnations left.

One should always be skeptical. Just because someone seems serene and without desires doesn't mean they're at peace with themselves or maybe they have a system that works at low intensity. It doesn't imply a deep understanding of the structure of reality. For example, how does he know there's a cycle of reincarnation that ends with enlightenment? It's an acquired idea.

It's important to remember that Ramana Maharshi was revered for his mystical "aura," not for what he said. Some people seek genuine mysticism, finding someone who conveys a sense of serenity, holiness ,and this implies that the person is enlightened, whatever that may mean, someone who knows the truth. Let's see, Ramana spoke of the cycle of reincarnation and said that his mother performed Mashamadi, then she ended the reincarnation well and a cow achieved enlightenment through transmission by him. Just a couple of examples.

What I said before needs clarification, since Nisgardatta, when he says "illusion," surely means "not ultimate." In that case, he's right, and he's one of the few mystics who makes that leap, not considering consciousness as the ultimate substance. The problem is the word "illusion," which implies falsehood. It would be much better to use the terms "relative" vs. "absolute," instead of "illusion" vs. "real." Nothing is false or illusory. Forms are real, but they are relational in form, absolute in essence.

The feeling of "I am" exists in contrast to an external world. Without an external world, there is no "I am" because there is no consciousness. The fact is that reality will always reflect itself in some way, and in doing so, it will realize what it is, which is true. Therefore, what Nisgardatta says is false if we want to be precise. "Illusion" is a misleading word; nothing is an illusion, but rather different perspectives. To say that I am is an illusion is like saying that consciousness is an illusion, or that form is an illusion. glorifying emptiness and denying wholeness, depressed neo-Advaida defining enlightenment as nothing

Yeah but one alone is not the absolute truth , is ego inflation. The ego must explode and disappear, then there is not one nor loneliness

I've had that experience many times with psychedelics, especially with 5-MeO-DMT. It's absolutely horrible. You're alone, you are reality, there's nowhere to go, no time. You are eternal, reality is an eternal prison. You've always been here, alone, in eternity. There is no escape. I've even vomited, gone out into the street in a state of extreme high to avoid seeing that horror, drunk 4 beers in a row at a bar afterward to forget it, etc. But my feeling was: you have to hit that spot. You have to enter that state of absolute solitude until it becomes normal. It's almost impossible because it's horrible. Then one day I did 5-MeO-DMT, and... the usual, cosmic loneliness, a gong that resonates and is absolute horror. I thought, okay, this is what I was meant to see today....again. After a few seconds I thought: no, I'm not going to settle for this shit. I put a double or triple amount of 5-MeO in the pipe without weighing it and thought: show me the truth or kill me. Reality shattered. There was no loneliness because there were no limits. It was everything, unlimited, total. It wasn't defined, closed, drawn, confined to a form, it was the unlimited, it wasn't someone, it was the boundless ocean. Nothing could be better, "better" wasn't a possibility, it, or i, was total, period. "Alone" means nothing, because it's total, alone is absolutely meaningless, because alone is closed and you are open. Alone means a circle. Everything mean no lines, no definition. There is not one. Not numbers. One means nothing. If one means something, you are closed.

When someone says that reality is love, they reveal their attachment to the concept and definition since love is a subjective human valuation. First, what does love mean? Titanic-style love, or more like your grandmother's, or perhaps the way you love your cat? Protection? Care? Positive evaluation? Successful identification? Erect penis? Torturing children in your garage? 1 kg of cocaine ? It's complicated, since it means something different to each person. You could say that reality is relationship without denial, expansion without limits or synchronicity that emerges from the absence of boundaries. This means something concrete. But love doesn't mean anything, it's like saying: reality is beauty, or reality is wonderful, or reality is cool. Yes of course, you could say: I don't mean human love but mystical love. Then how do you know what's mystical love? You have an experience and it's written: mystical love? Or the word mystical love comes to your mind in that moment?

You mean here that others experiences could happen but not simultaneously. You say this because you're positioning the self, the center that perceives or receives experience, as the sole subject that has experiences. But this is precisely where the error lies. There isn't a subject that receives experience; the subject is experience. I don't have an experience; I am that experience, and without experience there is no self, no perceiving center. "I" can't have other experiences because if there are others experiences, as they are, they are not me. Not me as a self, as an observer. The absolute is not an observer, is what allows the observation. All this idea of creation, God, solipsism, stems from confusing the relative self with the absolute being. The absolute being is not someone, not a center; it is the fact of being that derives from total openness. It's not consciousness, consciousness is a form that happens. Is the reality reflecting in itself. Now you could say: everything is consciousness because without consciousness you aren't, then nothing is. Here is the problem: you as absolute are not a point of view, a perceptor, an observer. You are the totality where observation is possible. The difference is total. No, it's accurate for me.

Yes. It's mathematically impossible that there are not others experiences if we admit that reality has not absolute limits. The other possibility would be that the only experience in the totality of reality is that of a person who is currently writing on a phone and who lives in Spain, etc., etc. Since this is impossible, it is absolutely certain that in the totality of unlimited reality, other experiences will eventually occur. These experiences are not temporally linked, they are not successive, since temporality is something internal to this experience, not something absolute. Therefore, right now there are infinite experiences. It's absolutely sure, you don't need to have those experiences, same than you don't need to go to Jupiter to know absolutely sure that it exists. The logical mind is a perception tool as accurate or more than the qualia.