Breakingthewall

Meaning arises from relationship: cause and effect, synchronicity, or contrast between opposites. Any meaning is built on multiple layers of relationships. Ultimately, all relationships share the same root: they emerge from the structure of distinction, whether through sequence (cause and effect), non-linear resonance (synchronicity), or polarity (contrast). Look at anything. Perceive its meaning. Break it down into its components , the most obvious, then the parts within the parts. Fragment each part conceptually. You'll find that the structure remains relational, infinitely deep, with layers of interaction, contrast, and implication between forms. The deeper you go, the more you encounter dimensions of relational patterns, contrasts given meaning by their relative movement and interdependence ,ad infinitum.

The only way to trascend the suffering It's the understanding of the psychological dynamics that close us off. It's very complex because our biological programming drives us, and one of its most effective tools is suffering. Neo-Advaita shortcuts don't work; they're a trap. Our energetic structure has layers and layers of identification cemented by emotional energy. Neo-Advaita flattening is like putting a layer of plaster over those structures and thinking they're gone (you work in construction, so you understand). The only solution is to penetrate those structures, understand them, and deactivate their charge

If you want love you have to conquer the world. It's not easy. We are not is the kindergarten, this is the war, The sooner you realize this, the less frustration there will be. Society doesn't promote openness, but rather closure. If you want openness, you must fully understand social dynamics, adapt to them without internalizing them, and thus achieve inner freedom. It's not easy or simple work, and no one will care if you end up a frustrated, lonely addict with suicidal thoughts. You're on your own.

I love Osho, he's an actor who doesn't know the shame, who says absolutely silly obviousness, staring from 1,000 meters into space, while knowing perfectly well that he's laughing at you, and he laughs too. He's magnificent.

It's normal. Humans have programmed themselves to function as a hive entity in groups of millions of individuals. The most effective glue for cohesion is the fear of not fitting in, a kind of limiting narcissism that pushes you to act using the energy of your emotions. This limits your open life from which reality flows freely, and turns you into a closed soldier focused on a single point. It's necessary to sustain the structure necessary for the survival and evolution of a technological civilization of billions. If we were all absolutely open individuals flowing independently, the collapse would be brutal.

That difference is essential; it implies that you see the total as an evolutionary process. Although you later qualify it by saying that it is already perfect but aims for greater perfection, there is still a need for evolution. The absolute is not that; it is not on that plane. Movement occurs in the absolute. Imagine that the absolute is one of those gelatins inside a tube where bubbles appear, rising and intertwining. The absolute is the gelatin, the form is the bubbles. The gelatin cannot evolve; it is the gelatin, period. Potentially, all the possible bubbles are in the gelatin. A single bubble or a group can appear, fostering an interdimensional civilization encompassing millions of interconnected universes. The gelatin is exactly the same. And when that civilization goes "plop" and disappears as if it had never existed, the gelatin will be exactly the same. And if it forms a single, boring, isolated bubble, this will be its expression, exactly the same as the previous one, and its depth will be the same if you look through the limits: infinite. Intelligence is an arising in the totality. As it arises, it's infinite, but the absolute itself is not intelligent or dumb, it's just total. Let's see, intelligence by definition implies relationship, without relationship there is not intelligence except as potential. The absolute is "where" relationship happen, then it's not intelligent itself, it's where intelligence happens. Intelligence is just coherence. Relationship=logic=intelligence. Infinite relationship=infinite intelligence, just because the most coherent relation prevails God is just an arising. The absolute doesn't choose, it's inevitable, and the flow is inevitable, same than intelligence and what you call god. It's something that appears. Don't you see that choice is totally closed perspective? It's impossible by definition in an open frame. It's essential to see this to allow the real openess. It's not so difficult, just letting go all the limits. Choice exist, as an arising in the absolute. You could say that there are infinite choice, infinite intelligence, infinite conciousness, but as an arising that happens

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