Breakingthewall

@Bogdan i don't know, nothing has no meaning, it's like absence, the totality is no absence

If you are one with the absolute it's impossible to doubt, you are that, that's everything, it's absolutely impossible have 0,0000001% of doubt. It's the only possibility possible. But if you are closed to it for some time, then you start to forget until it's totally forgotten. Then you can remember that you had an experience that seems very real but not exactly what it was

But it's not nothing, nothing is a word that has zero relationship with the totality

Criticism comes when falsehood is detected. Spirituality has focused on the mind, since it is the mind that seeks. Advaita and Buddhist currents tend toward that direction. Huang Po says: Reality is an infinite mind. If he says that, it means he hasn't opened himself to true totality. You cannot see or perceive the total, you can be it. You already are, but your structure is closing. Only by aligning it perfectly for a moment does it open. And to do so, you must open your heart, look into the total fire and burn in it, consume yourself and be the totality. It is not a mind, nor consciousness, it is total. There is nothing but totality, and you are that. It's not a mind, could be said that it's divinity to use a word. The only Buddhist that i perceived he's open to the totality is Longchenpa , Tibetan master of Dzogchen. He said: "Emptiness and form are not two: form is the dancing face of openness. Emptiness is not lack, it is unlimited totality.” But then, why use emptiness? It's unlimited totality not emptiness. He said that because he's in the Buddhism and has to use this word. He also said: “Rigpa is not a thing, nor a consciousness, nor a god. It is what it always is: clarity without object, openness without limit" I'm searching in Chatgpt mystics that point to total openenss and are some, but much others aren't . True openness isn't about quieting the mind, but about opening the heart and burning in the fire of the total and be it. I don't see almost any Buddhist who aims for this. if anyone has been close from the absolute it's perceived. For example Plotinus, Ramakrishna, meister eckhart, Jesus Christ, Rumi, Dionysus from aeropagita, longchempa. Searching some others

@Bogdan that logic starts good but when you mix the word nothing in the equation everything fails. Reality is unlimited, and that means it's total. The equation is that simple. Knowing it can be useful or useless. Its usefulness depends on whether you can use it to open yourself to the total. It's what you are. Knowing it as a structure doesn't mean much if you don't do the movement. For example this explanation from Ramakrishna is not bad. He don't say much but that's the thing "Kali disappeared. She was no more. There was only an infinite mass of formless light. I saw nothing else. Body consciousness disappeared. I didn't know this world existed, nor that there was someone called Ramakrishna. The world disappeared. There was only formless Vastness. I was that." Open yourself to the absolute totality is more or less that experience, but those words don't capture the real thing. The formless vastness is total. You are that. It's everything. The glass has been filled and the prodigal son has returned. Can't be said, it's impossible. You can do it and be it. This is enlightenment, nothing else. Plotinus says: “Vision is not achieved through a science or a discipline, but when the soul becomes identical to what it has always been.” Seems he was the real deal

Well, but that's not exactly the ultimate in masculinity. He'd be something like Genghis Khan or Achilles. An absolute warrior who conquers his fears, masters his weaknesses, and charges toward a wall of enemies with the absolute faith of someone who knows he's been chosen for victory, thus imposing his imprint on reality by force, crushing obstacles, and laughing in the face of death. A party-loving rugby player would be like a little girl calling for Mom in comparison.

I think it has something masculine, like a warrior who fights against the weakness and purifies himself to be worthy to access to the heavens door . Fight, goal, achievement, renounce, repression

@kbone Buddhism has a lot of good points. When they talk about the cessation of suffering, it must be interpreted as the cessation of dissatisfaction with the state of lack. Maya would not be the perceived reality or the self, but rather the closed energetic vibration, which can be transcended or opened, placing you on a plane where Maya is seen as fluidity and not as a closed capsule. Enlightenment would be the breaking of the closure that forms Maya, whereby the structure of the self opens and becomes unlimited. Then everything is perceived as becoming. It is clear that its meaning could be defined as illusion, since in essence everything that happens is undifferentiated becoming and it's nature is the reality/unlimited/absolute The problem I see is the denial of the self as an illusion, not because it is a lie, but because it is a limiting idea that encloses and causes the practitioner to have a repressive attitude toward their own mind. It could be said that Buddhism desires the masculine aspect of reality: detachment, emptiness, discipline, asceticism, equanimity, austerity, and rejects the femenine: the passionate, the connected, the fertile, the dark, the emotional. It's a kind of castration that manifests itself in the character of those who have accepted this philosophy as "truth," and its consequence is closure. An essential facet remains closed, the most beautiful facet of the absolute. Not a facet, a dimension , the depth. Its enlightenment is like disinfectant; it requires great effort, great discipline. So much so that you burn like a bonze without lifting a finger.

In my opinion one of the problems with spirituality is these kinds of ideas. You are the tree; there is no separate self. Perceived reality is an illusion. Consciousness is the foundation of reality. Let's see, you are the tree, but it's better to cut down the tree than to have your leg chopped off, right? So these kinds of statements are confusing. Another: the self is an illusion; you are creating your suffering; you can stop doing that. Let's see, the self is an illusion; therefore, you (the self) are creating your suffering, and you (the self) can stop doing that. Well bit contradictory right?......and creating it? How do you create it? If, for example, when you're 8 years old, your mother is tortured in your presence, you create suffering?. Or does your genetic structure create it, relating to a circumstance that occurs? You could say that everything is you. And then claim that there is not you. What's the point of that mess? Just contradictory concepts that are absolutely useless, worse than useless, a trap. Why deny reality? That's not going to work. Spirituality is above all denial and religion. Buddhism and Advaita assume that reincarnation is a fact. How do they know this? Their entire discipline aims to achieve a better reincarnation, or, if possible, nirvana. cause and effect, future achievement. escapism. self-deception. We can articulate a spirituality without all that bullshit. But to achieve that we have to look directly without mercy. It's not a matter of narcissism, it's about truth.

If you take high doses of psychedelics with the idea of realizing you're creating reality, it would be like trying to have an induced psychotic episode. You might succeed, but why?

It's not though love, just transparent analysis. Coul be accurate or not so. I didn't ask questions, but statements about the nature of form, experience, consciousness, existence, and nonexistence. What more could someone interested in deep meditation and understanding reality want to engage in conversation? It's impossible for me not to have made subtle mistakes. The process of refinement is constant, so any feedback is appreciated, and it's so difficult to find anyone who's interested this. I'm not so ambitious, I just want to make a conceptual logical frame transparent like a perfect diamond. Of course based in the real openess to the unlimited. then any criticism in not just accepted but sought

The self is a relational structure. It's something the human psyche creates based on relationships with others. Every microgesture, approval, disapproval, belonging, rejection, social assessment of right or wrong are bricks that stack on innate structural foundations, building the energetic structure of the self. You see a person walking down the street and you see that they're composed of relationships upon relationships upon relationships. An entire interconnected energetic compendium functioning like a computer of enormous power, never stopping. It's absolutely unconscious, and it's not an illusion; it's as real as a rock, only on another plane of reality. It would be like saying that the Android program is an illusion. It's not. It's real. As a program, it works on a physical basis and executes and operates in an absolutely real way. The self is the same. You can't erase the self; you can see it. When you see it, it doesn't disappear; it's still there, but you understand it. So you seek absolute cleanliness in your relationships, directness, openness, since you want your self to be clean, direct, open. This is how it aligns and you can see through it. By seeing the self as a network of relationships, you free yourself from the need to defend or deny it; you can flow, open up, and let your structure be as clean and alive as the reality that sustains it. Freedom is not having no self, but having a transparent, open, and alive self, in direct relationship with the whole.

I said a lot of things, but you don't want to get into the mud right? Why, if you see clear and transparent, you could show me my mistakes.

The problem is not if I use or not, it's that maybe all the Buddhist tradition It's based on an error. I'm not saying this is certain, but it's a possibility. Buddhism starts from the difference between maya and reality, and from here proposes a dynamic of negating form in favor of formlessness. This has a logical basis: form traps; emptiness cannot trap because it is nothing, but perhaps it can. Meditation normally consists of discipline, repression of the impulse to create forms in order to achieve the emptiness perceived as the ultimate goal. And this may be mistaken. One shouldn't empty, but rather open up the meaning of form. It's a subtle difference. Emptying implies repressive action; opening implies a change in energetic frequency.

You could say It has, it's total because it is limitless, "nothingness" is not a pointer, it's a misleading idea. Maybe it's pointed by some people who don't know what are talking about but they need to appear whise? Just a possibility . Do you know something? There are people who are so concerned about their self image that they invent that they are enlightened and they believe that history, and it's absolutely impossible that they see the that they are creating an history. It's fascinating to see that phenomenon, not always easy to detect. It's very important to understand that this is always a possibility, because if not it's easy to get lost in the games of some people

Nothingness is a word with a meaning, means absence of anything. If we want to use the language we should use the words knowing it's meaning. If you say that the totality is a dog, but not a dog in the sense of the dogs that we know, but an infinite dog without definite characteristics, then why are you using the word dog? Better trying to explain without words that implies an idea that tends to confusion Same than stillness. Who is still is the zen master, the absolute is not still, still means absence of movement. Stillness or movement has not meaning in the absolute

@Water by the River So they call it "nothing" when they don't mean "nothing." Then maybe they complain that no one understands them? Or maybe they don't want to be understood so they can seem mysterious? Or maybe they don't know exactly what they're talking about? Maybe they just intuit it, but if you ask them directly, they'll tell you a koan or beat you with a cane until you're unconscious, because they don't know what to say Existence is the expression of the reality, non existence is the reality without expression. It's not a mystery, it's obvious: existence means change, becoming. Reality emits, or if you prefer, inevitably allows, infinite potential by the fact of the limitlessness, and what finds a synchronous relationship exists. It is movement relative to another movement, coherent perspectives in infinite dimensions reflecting each other and thus existing. You can say they are only images, but their essence is totality. Ontologically, what exists is no different from what does not exist; the only difference is circumstantial, the possible possibility. Existence or relative movement is the root of consciousness, in which reality unfolds into two planes of existence and perceives itself. Ultimate reality does not require existence or consciousness; these occur as inevitable potential given the absence of limits. Understanding is just an arising that happens in existence, has no meaning from an unlimited perspective. The unlimited has no perspective, the perspectives happen in it, but we are the essence and the arising, so we are the whole and the perspective. The totality is not understanding or hearing of perceiving, understanding, hearing and perception happens, are the same than anything else, inevitable potential developing in infinite possibilities. The real openess to our ultimate nature happens and it's perceived by the form that exist, by the becoming, but it doesn't means that the totality "wants" to perceive itself, or need it, or even is doing it. it's just inevitable arising, it happens. You could say that the intelligence that arises is infinite, it's god, infinite gods, anything. That's only arisings between infinite possibilities. The totality is total, period. You can be open to it, nothing else. The totality don't "do", doing happens in it. What we are is same time happening and totality, as any relative movement has the totality as essence. We could say that the human perspective, therefore, is not the perspective of the totality as a subject, but rather a localized manifestation of that totality, a configuration of limits that occurs within the unlimited. To attribute a human perspective to the whole would be to define the totality as a subject , reducing it to a finite form, which is a logical contradiction, since the absolute cannot have form without ceasing to be absolute. Then reality perceives itself not because it has intention or identity, but because unlimited openness allows for conscious forms that can reflect its own nature. In this recognition, there is a self, an structured relational node that appears due the infinite relation that open it's perception breaking the barriers that construct itself as a possible entity within the whole and perceives its absolute essence. The perception of the absolute is a local phenomenon. It may be infinite, as indeed it inevitably is, but it is not the absolute; it is a manifestation of the absolute. There is no mystery or koan, it's obvious and direct

Halaw said that, but it's deeply dual , that is, closed, or if you prefer, limited. Nothingness is just an appearance that is opposite to something or everything. The ultimate nature of reality is limitlessness and can't be said, thought or represented in any way. It includes nothingness, something, conciousness, unconsciousness . When I read that paragraph of halaw I perceive absolutely clear that he didn't opened that door . when hallaw he said that Buddha recognize his own emptiness, groundless, he's equating emptiness with groundless, which is not equivalent at all. Empty is the opposite of full; groundless is the absence of boundaries. Great that you don't think that the reality is conciousness, the reality is conciouss. Conciousness It's not the act of nothingness, is the act of the tao, if you prefer the tradition. If you define the tao as nothingness, you are defining what can't be defined. Here I catched you eh 😉. About you said about the pointers, they must be clean and direct as an arrow, transparent and perfect as a diamond. Any imperfection must be destroyed by the fire of the unthinkable without mercy. That's the only way to talk about this topic without being a joke

How is love for example when the guerrillas cut your arms with a knife? Then you have no arms for the rest of your life and you say that's love?

Sure But if I've already tried the apple, then I can talk about it. That's what talking is all about: expressing your experience If there is no creator, what appears is not a creation. But it's always a creator, a cause of everything that appears. You can follow the causes without end, then the reality is creating itself in it's infinite flow. How could be a reason for the creation? It just is because there are no limits, it can't not be, would be limited. That about the reason is just a opinion that you said. If you said: anything that appears is made of love, then could be possible, or at least we could talk about why or how it's love, but that about the reason is impossible. The last: what is love? Is love something? Like love someone? Love the life? What exactly means love? Maybe love means existing? Then it's not that existence is love, it's that love is existence. Existence is existence, not anything else. Don't you see the point? It's essential You said that concepts are nothing, but they are important because some concepts are a door that can be open or closed

Great to know. This topic is too fascinating, nothing else is even close.

I know, I can't avoid, I'm an unbearable smartass 😅

Yes I just argue the approach. it's right now, in the middle of the shit. Then the point is finding the way now, not imagining another better circumstances. The only way is really empty the mind for ideas bout what is and focus in the ideas of what closes, to open yourself. The path is blind, you don't know what you are going to find, then better don't think about it , maybe it's nothing, maybe everyone is wrong when they talk about it, it's a possibility.

You said that the purpose of the creation is burning in love. Then first there is a creation, so where is the creator? And he does it with a defined purpose: burning in love. What is love? What was before of your so called birth?

Why you say that if before you said that any thought is meaningless? All except this one?