Breakingthewall

The manifested reality is endless. It's completely impossible to grasp it in the sense of encompassing it with the mind, but it's easy to understand that if it has no end, it doesn't go anywhere; it flows on itself. This means that at a local level, it's constantly expanding, but from a complete perspective, it's beyond movement. Movement occurs within it, and you could say it's apparent, since it doesn't go anywhere; it only moves relative to itself. If you deeply contemplate the implications of limitlessness, you will see that reality is total by definition. Opening yourself to totality is enlightenment, btw. The total doesn't go anywhere; it's total, period. It sounds anticlimactic from a relative perspective, something like... so is the party over? I want more. That's when you are not in the total. If the total manifests, it's total. Any more is absolutely impossible. It's not conceivable, nor is it within the realm of relationship; it's the source of relationship. Evolution or movement is relationship, without a mirror there is no movement, that's the meaning of relative: that happens. The totality doesn't happen. Imagine that there is no movement. Try it seriously: everything is absolutely static, without change. It's exactly the same now than later. You can't realize there's no movement because realizing it would be movement. So, without movement, there's no consciousness. Conciousness concious of itself is a movement, without movement conciousness isn't concious of anything because there is not becoming. Of course there is always movement, because stillness is never, out of existence, because existence is movement. But the reality is not movement, but what is moving, and what is moving is the totality in infinite reflections that is the same that saying that movement is happening in the totality, outside and inside are the same. that is beyond consciousness, is where consciousness happens. It's not someone of something, not a mind or God, it's just the total. 5 minutes ago I was opened to it and it was absolutely obvious, 5 minutes later I was closed to it and I don't remember what it was, it's impossible, it's not thinkable, even remotely, it's another plane of being, it's not the plane of the becoming, the becoming is limits, the total is absence of limits. If you place yourself in the plane of the limitless the form is irrelevant. Even being concious or unconscious is irrelevant. You always are the totality, the unlimited. I'm intrigued to know better what you mean here. Could you explain it to me? If you define reality as something, whether consciousness, emptiness, life, intelligence, expansion, or love, you are limiting it to that definition then your frame is closed. Reality cannot be defined, but consciousness, emptiness, intelligence, and love occur in reality. And if they do, they are infinite, since there is no origin, only flow within itself. Conciousness is flow that happens is the reality, that is an open frame. If you want to realize what it is, you have to open yourself totally, become the openess. You can't get it with the mind, you have to be open to it. A strange thing to realize is that existing and not existing are basically the same. Even if you don't exist as a form or a structure (that is, exist ) you are still the unlimited not manifested. It's twisted to see this, because at the same time, we are also existence. Maybe this affirmation iis too twisted

Believing that you can change the frequency of your thoughts with your will is a mistake. Your thoughts are the manifestation of your structure. If you want to change them, change your structure.

Mental castration only works until uncle Vlad comes with his sticks to play with you and your family. Then it's all complaints.

It's an absolutely essential difference. Consciousness or perception is something that inevitably arises within an unlimited framework; therefore, it is, in turn, unlimited and never originated, but that doesn't define reality. That idea is very strange; I don't understand how it can be defended without seeing the contradiction it implies. If reality is consciousness, then form is consciousness dreaming forms. Therefore, consciousness is, in addition to consciousness, the creator of dreams. And what is a dream? Another limiting definition, one that opposes reality and lacks any logic. Then they would say: you have to awake to the fact of reality is conciousness. What is awake? Realize something? Maybe you could awake to the fact that Putin is spying on you to put polonium in your coffee

@kbone Imitation 1 of Huang Po: he says that Ultimate reality is infinite mind. This implies movement and relationship. Ultimate reality is the limitlessness that inevitably gives rise to infinite relationship, or infinite mind. Ultimate reality is unthinkable; it is the absence of limits, which translates into totality. Infinite mind implies creation; infinite creation is an inevitable consequence, not fundamental reality. 2: The final state, enlightenment, is the absence of identification, giving rise to a tranquil peace in which there is no conceptualization or seeking. Absolutely limited, closed. His enlightenment lacks real openness; it is repressive; it excludes conceptualization as a mental error, when conceptualization is a creation of reality, like anything else. It closes itself off from a true understanding of the nature of form, its depth and vitality. He does not understand the true human potential and castrates an entire human facet in favor of another, better according to him, which is peace, emptiness and stillness. 3 He says that the seeker must stop seeking, realize that seeking leads nowhere, and deactivate the mind. Doing this is precisely what has locked him into the duality of emptiness/fullness in favor of emptiness as the ultimate nature. Emptiness and form are exactly the same in terms of their level of reality, as are stillness and noise. This preference, disguised as non-preference, closes off the true nature of Source for him, and he remains in a tranquil limbo he calls absence of suffering and final realization. About Heraclitus, i think that as a philosopher he is the one who presents a cleaner framework, not closed. Anyway for him reality is flow, flow is consequence, I think it's essential to see that nuance

All of this is indisputable, and as you say in another post, logic leads to truth. This is because existence is logic. Logic means relationship. What is relationally coherent exists. But there is another plane of reality: nonexistence is simply unmanifested potential because it is not coherent with the whole. Any existence is relative movement, since in an unlimited framework there is no movement except with respect to a reference. From this it follows that any existence is stable, synchronous relative movement. From any relationship, infinite relationships are derived in infinite dimensions. This is the unthinkable totality of existence. But existence is manifestation; it is not ultimate reality. Existence has an opposite: nonexistence, which is simply the absence of relative motion. That it does not exist does not imply that it is not "real" as a concept. Understanding this is essential because it leads to the ultimate essence, the reality from which existence emanates. Reality is not logic; it is the source of logic or relationship. The conceptual framework you are developing is impeccable because it is absolutely logical, and that creates a viable conceptual structure for openness. Openness is not in the realm of logic, but limited logic closes.

This is the level of reflection and understanding needed for spirituality to be something serious and not a religion for people who only understand simple ideas. What you've said is perfect but can still be nuanced. Existence is the relative movement that emanates from reality. As you've said, it has no beginning and is inevitable, but it has a , let's say, source. What you call God is existence itself, the infinite, inevitable relative movements that, in their synchronicity, create forms of infinite depth. And the source of existence is reality, which is limitlessness, absolute openness. The whole transcends existence as movement, although it always manifests itself as such.

@Salvijus Straight from the other side of the barrier, without the slightest embellishment or lie to appear "more." Now it's a vague memory of something that happened yesterday, but I understand quite good the mechanic of the closure Wrong, if your intuition doesn't allow you to see beyond that loop of no self, perhaps you need a little dynamite to break down the barriers behind which you operate. A little poison so that the rigid mind behind which you take refuge melts like ice, leaving only a bottomless hole. Reality is neither empty nor full, it is unlimited

Usually if you read the tao te ching to death and another 1000 books means that you have the impulse, the need of understanding. That doesn't guarantees that you will reach a deep understanding of reality, but the will to understand is the fundamental step to doing so. It's important that it be a will to understand for the sake of understanding, not to be the smartest in the class and receive many imaginary medals. If this is the case, then you will very quickly delude yourself into thinking that you understand everything better than anyone else and will close yourself off from true understanding. This is the problem of narcissism, which encloses you in imaginary ideas

@SQAAD you are right , a lot of people is very toxic, it's how the human society is. We are heirs to war, slavery, class struggle, ruthless hierarchy, marriages of convenience, contempt and exploitation of the weak, and hatred and fear of those who are different. What did you expect? My strategy in those cases was always very simple: in the event of a confrontation, someone will leave with their energy diminished, so, better you than me. If someone spoke to me like that in a meeting, I would confront him absolutely directly getting totally out of the social rules despite the environment or if it's convenient or not, because the feeling of reacting too much was better than the feeling of reacting too low, that drained my energy. Now I try to maintain an attitude of detachment, since being reactive is weak, you do because you are vulnerable . It's something that shows you're manipulable. But of course, no one is invulnerable, you can't pretend that you are untouchable if you aren't , if you are going to suffer, as you are , better make him suffering more, that's life.

You haven't understood. I didn't say that we have to accept the Christian structure, but that the essence of Christianity, understood in a certain way, is the formulation that best points toward real openness. Perhaps that's why Western society has been the most vital, who knows

No I didn't , I thought that adyashanty was like neo advaita, conciousness and that, at least a book that I read was like that.

But nothing compares to Christianity understood in its essence, free of all its structure and embellishment: the fire of the cross, the absolute suffering, the bleeding heart of Christ, opens the real door of heaven. Not of the fluid, egoless life, but of the living heart of reality. Where everything falls away and the fire of suffering burns all the barriers, glory manifests itself, the unthinkable, the total, the living heart of reality, and then only one exclamation fills reality: hallelujah. The long-lost prodigal son has returned. The glass has been filled to overflowing. There is no explanation, no idea, no pointer, that can come close to the absolute fullness that reality is. Or in other words: When the walls of the structure fall, what remains is not simply spaciousness or stillness, but absolute light manifests. Total openness does not translate into bland peace or sterile silence: it translates into total being. And that being cries out life, expansion, creation, and joy. What is revealed is not a personal state or a psychological refuge, but the very source of infinite universes: the infinitely living heart of reality. There, where there are no limits, only absolute fullness remains, reality in its pure essence, without containment, without comparison, without defense. That is the real Halleluja: the inevitable exclamation of reality recognizing itself in its bottomless glory If there are no limits, potential is absolute. Absolute potential is the burning heart of infinite galaxies, the love of infinite mothers, the creativity of infinite jungles, the explosion of infinite supernova. It's what we are. As the Christianity says, the good new.

The form is limited and created by the flow of infinite forms, but at the same time its essence is unlimited expansion, its thrust is the thrust of reality, and although it is conditioned by all existence, it in turn pushes all existence and emits butterfly effects that vibrate in the totality and because it's creative power is the creative power of reality

It's interesting that they resonated with Heraclitus. He had a very direct connection with existence. I don't criticize him for being obsessed with becoming, but for considering it the basis of reality. Becoming is existence, and existence, being, is the inevitable consequence of reality, its manifestation. But the foundation of reality is limitlessness. I know I'm repeating myself like a parrot and maybe I sound stupid. Let's say, parroting others, that the foundation of reality is the Tao, and the true Tao cannot be said, since "saying" is a structure that happens, a manifestation in the tao. Reality is absolute openness, and within it, becoming is inevitable, infinite in all its dimensions, completely interconnected and alive. The life, the being, is a consequence of unlimited depth, or could be said that being is the absolute depth and becoming is it's manifestation. I know all this sounds like meaningless nonsense that someone would say to appear profound and mystical, but it is the better mental structure to define what reality is if you realize it's limitlessness

If you are in absolute silence, in total connection with yourself and with the other, without any mental or energetic contamination, that is when you see with total clarity that others are real and that their depth is the same as yours.

Yeah, true geniuses who have channeled human intelligence and left a profound mark. Without them, our conceptual and even energetic structure as a human collective would be different. Other writers, let's say lighter, like Hermann Hesse, Hoffman (the one of LSD) , Ernst Junger, and others, have contributed to the openness that can be sensed when reading them in the movement toward spiritual freedom. In them, real depth was perceived, even without being precisely articulated. The problem is that in more recent times, what has appeared is flatter, perhaps more ontologically ambitious, but lacking real depth. Henry Miller in Tropic of Capricorn talking about shit connects more with the core of reality than Ralston in all his work. The collective psyche tends to embrace more breadth at the cost of losing depth. The problem I see in spiritual literature is which is based on certain foundations that are limited from the ground up: Indian mysticism and Huang Po-style Zen Buddhism. They are supposedly indisputable, but if you analyze them closely, they reveal themselves to be limited. Almost not limited, almost to the core, but no....still not, even if they could burn themselves without moving a finger. Btw no philosopher is above the simplicity of Heraclitus

Thanks for the recommendation, maybe I try. I've read a lot of Nietzsche in the past, as well as many other philosophers. For example I remember that I read many times meister eckhart, but now I don't remember a single word, just a feeling of authenticity. Regarding Delutzde, I only know his ontology in a very general way, just a resume. Probably I'm not going to read him in depth because I detect limitations. I find it impossible to read anything about philosophy or mysticism because the moment I detect a limitation, I'm done. There isn't a single author with whom this doesn't happen to me of those I know. They seem toxic to me. It's not an opinion but a feeling. Maybe I'm deluded, maybe not, but at the end you only can follow your instinct, it's inevitable.

Deleuze is the one who comes closest to real openness, but he remains confined within the idea of becoming as if it were the ultimate structural principle of reality, when in fact it is only its manifestation. Wilber develops brilliant and integrative ideas, but ultimately closes his system by introducing Spirit as the unifying background of everything , a disguised ontological closure. Nietzsche is groundbreaking in dismantling classical metaphysics, but his vision that struggle and conflict are the essence of reality is limited to the local dimension of life as we experience it, rather than reflecting the total structure of reality. Ralston, like most neo-advaita philosophers, closes the system by equating reality with consciousness as an absolute background

This is exactly the problem. If the basis of your ontology is a limit, all its development will be limited. You might think that's not the case, that consciousness is infinite and therefore unlimited. A straight line can also be infinite, but it's limited to its straightness. If you develop an ontology for years based on an error, you deepen the error, you are absolutely convinced that you are right, and you draw many people to your perspective. These people will have the feeling that they have left a limited materialist paradigm to enter another, broader dimension, but they will always have the feeling that something is missing, a slight dissatisfaction. Ralston would tell them: you have not yet reached pure consciousness; there is still noise in you. And they will never get out of there.

Where are bullshit? I'm just developing the inevitable consequences of the absence of limitations

Energy is form, any energy is measurable, have a frequency, an intensity, a quality. From a physics perspective, energy is the fluctuation of a field of reality. A field is a reality-based structure where fluctuations can potentially occur, and therefore always do. A field is never static; it vibrates at different levels. If we assume that reality has no limits, a field cannot have them either it has local limits but not absolute ones. It is a relational structure, that is, a form that can unfold in infinite relationships. This implies that everything that exists as form can unfold infinitely, without a background, and all the relationships that would appear would be perfectly synchronized and infinitely interconnected. Reality would be an unthinkable compendium of limitless interconnected relationships. It is immeasurable; what is accessible is its essence, which is what is related, which is its substance. The substance is the openess that allows the relationship and make it inevitable and without limits. This is our nature, enlightenment is openess .

That's exactly the problem I'm pointing out. That statement is incoherent, and I'll explain why. If you say that the perceiver and the object are illusions, then why do you call reality consciousness? If there is no subject and object, then consciousness would be an appearance; there would only be undifferentiated reality. But the fact is that differences exist. Differences are necessarily relationships between opposites, between different states. These differentiations must be dynamic, constantly changing, otherwise they don't exist. So, what changes? With respect to what? Ralston's entire ontology, from the ground up, is wrong. Let's see, forget about competing to see who's right and, as a mental experiment, consider my perspective and the possibility that Ralston is radically wrong. Then return to the mental framework where Ralston is right. See if there's any difference, if your mind expands or contracts with the different perspectives.

Yeah, except in the thing of conciousness. That's limiting concept, you will see. For perception to exist, there must be change. If there is no change, there is no perception , only anesthesia, cessation, or a temporal gap until the next change. Even if you are in the deepest state of meditation, like the greatest Zen master in history, it may seem that you are in a state without change, but in fact, countless interconnected changes are occurring that generate the appearance of stillness or emptiness. Reality is always in motion because the absence of movement is not simply a pause , it is non-manifestation ,"never". If there are no limits, at some point fluctuation inevitably arises. And "at some point" means always, because any interval without change is simply never. If it happens, means that happens infinitely now, that is, always. Then the essential question is: what is change? It is the contrast between opposites or between different states. There can be no change except relative to something else, because in the absence of limits, without a reference, there is no movement. All change is relative. The next question is: relative to what? There is only one possibility :to another dimension of reality, to a self-folding of reality that contrasts with itself. Within infinity, this potential movement is inevitable reality. This means that every perception is the perception of "otherness". You could object: no, it's just a thought . it's me observing myself. But a thought consists of countless opposing relational movements. The fact that you observe it within what appears to be "your mind" does not exclude the possibility that it is the perception of another layer of reality external to your apparent center. Everything that appears is infinity unfolding through endless relative state changes, which synchronize into stable patterns because possibilities that do not synchronize simply do not manifest. Thus, consciousness does not metamorphose into forms. Consciousness is the sustained perception of relational change from a relational node complex enough to maintain that structure. It is the observation of "otherness" , of countless others ,which themselves unfold into infinite, interconnected relationships in all possible directions. The others are the same, the unlimited, but in another dimension, another plane. Think this obvious fact: the form that you are now in going to dissapear and another form will be. When? In the future? Subtle difference: reality is infinite conciousness. Closed frame Reality is infinitely concious. Open frame.

Nothingness is a limited realization because excludes the form, and nothingness is a wrong term because the absence of form is full of being, absolute potential and it's everything. Realizing the absolute, unlimited potential that you ultimately are and being able to access it is basic to spirituality, the most fundamental step. There you fully recognize yourself as the unlimited being. The point is to be able to access that reality at any moment, but this is not the end of the path, since form exists and unfolds in infinite interconnected dimensions. Denying form as "maya" is spiritual castration. Form is as real as formlessness. Thoughts are form, they are real energetic structures, and they unfold infinitely like any other form. True spirituality is recognizing form as the inevitable manifestation of limitlessness and delving into it to the fullest.