Breakingthewall

Really? Sounds like an adventure. I think that kind of attitude happens when the self trust is real, then panic is just an hindrance, calm is the best option to survive, it's automatic.

I don't know ,I find slaughterhouses and meat processing disgusting. Hunting a deer in the tundra isn't the same as an industrial slaughterhouse

Maybe at some point you have the need/compulsion to break through all barriers, and you focus on that to the fullest. Imo usually happens for two reasons: first, you perceive your current structure as a prison; you need depth, openness, absolute inner freedom. Second, you truly see the possibility of doing it; you sense it; it's there, just beneath the surface; you almost have it... that feeling. Then, intuitively, you do what you see leading to that. Meditation, psychedelics, or anything else you perceive as something that can help you break through the ice on the surface

People who use violence to empower themselves do so out of a place of lack, a need to complete themselves, anger over past trauma and humiliation, and a reaffirmation of narcissistic structures. Supposedly, a truly Zen monk would have left these energetic structures behind.

@kbone It depends on your objective. When I read these authors, my goal is purely analytical; there's nothing that interests me personally about any of the authors. I mean, what I do is an analysis like a historian, purely out of hobby, interest, not as a search. The search is within yourself, not in books. That's fine at first; when you're completely closed off, mystical authors help open your perspective. But once you reach a certain point (a fairly basic point, by the way), nothing anyone says means anything in terms of penetrating reality, since you're not operating on a conceptual level. Then you can talk about your perspectives as we do here, same than you could talk about politics or anything else, just expression When I was absolutely blind with a wall in front of my face all time I used to think: I can't believe those authors, maybe everything are bullshit or traps. Maybe the ultimate reality in nihilism, hell or shit, everything is possible. They could be a help in the sense of...let's see all of them say that ultimately reality is not horror, then when you face horror you think...let's trust a bit and let's get deeper. But nothing else

Yes pesticides and hormones like paclobutrazol everywhere, it's almost impossible to avoid. Supposedly it's not so bad, but who knows , lot of cancer. When people lived in caves sure they ate lots of seeds and vegetables. Anyway almost everyone dies young . Imo the point is your feeling, if you like sports and challenging your body you feel clearly what stress more your body. A lot of people agree that meat stresses, like it's heavy, dirty, inflammatory , makes your body works double to process it. But not everyone is the same

I eat meat sometimes but I don't like the way animals are treated on factory farms. Furthermore, meat is full of hormones and antibiotics, and fish is contaminated with heavy metals. Intuitively, I think it's healthier to eat vegetables, whey protein, kefir, and eggs. They're easy to find from organic farms; they're a little more expensive, but not that expensive. My perception is that not eating meat translates into better machine performance.

You could eat milk and eggs from happy animals, are much better than meat.

That implies that infinity has a center and that center is you. It would be a limit in infinity, and that's impossible

You have spiritual intuition and real inclination, for sure. Maybe not the fanatic will to break everything but probably you don't need it.

I'd say no, because openness refers to the configuration of the structure that we are. That is, we know that a structure exists, that reality is configured as a form; otherwise, there would be no experience. So, that form can be more open or more closed. Reality will always be reality, but the structure of the form changes. Ultimately, it's the same, since the structure is made of reality; it's a manifestation of reality. But how the structure perceives itself changes.

You could try this formulation as an experiment :there is no ego and truth, there are levels of closure and openness. What we call love is simply reality. In an open structure, it is perceived as spaciousness, unity, creative energy. In a closed structure, it is perceived as contraction, separation, defense. Using the word love is like using the word nothing; it is misleading, dualistic, and formulated from the structure that closes. Makes distinctions, then leads to confusion.

In all of these authors, one perceives a real openness to the absolute, but in all of them there is some degree of structural closure except for one: Rumi. Let's see, I'm not judging these masters but rather the texts that have come down to us, and they are surely distorted by interpretations that don't capture their essence. But we only have the texts, therefore, they are equivalent to their texts. Rumi's case is special because he doesn't formulate an ontology but rather drops samples of his perception into proverbs and stories. Nothing is concrete or defined and therefore not as susceptible to modification over time. Even so, it's likely that Plotinus said: true virtue lies in despising the pleasures of this world. My friend Plotinus, this world is the reality. What you call pleasures is a structural level perceived by a structure that operates at that level and that perceive them pleasures. Just as for you pleasure is observing the blue sky, for another it is going to a cheap brothel. Rumi would say: both are the breath of the beloved. One is dual, the other nondual. Can you imagine Rumi saying this world is an illusion? That would be blasphemous, he'd say: this world is the beloved in one of its thousand faces. The difference is total: some close, others open. Or in other words, only total openness reveals the truth. Partial openness intuits it, and from this intuition, a limited ontology is formulated. Since reality is open, limitedness is synonymous with falsehood.

Existence is movement, then absence of movement is non existence. The totality is not the movement, is what moves, what allows the movement or makes it inevitable. From this you could say that non existence really is the same than existence, the only difference is that one moves, the other doesn't. Of course existence is always because non existence means never, and never doesn't exist, it's like a tautology

I think you are absolutely deceived, just another narcissistic. I know that who have that particularity really think that are enlightened and spread their things, but as here there is people really interested in the real thing,when detect a liar (even he doesn't know he is) I just point it. Who can see will see, that's all. Done.

The absolute is not infinite; infinity is its inevitable expression. The absolute is absolutely unnameable and is what reality is. You could call it openness, but that's not true. The openness of the structure of form allows the absolute to manifest without filter and to recognize itself within form. It is not describable. Infinity is one description; nothing is another. Both are possibilities, not the absolute. Maybe inevitable possibilities, but they are not the total. The total is total, period.

I don't know, when you sleep and your brain gets off. That of openess doesn't mean that you understand how the reality works, just what the reality is, it's nature, what you are. It's exactly you now, but the human structure closes by default, because the character of life, how life is built

Why nothing? That's a misleading idea, only reading that explanation makes me sick, like if I see someone lying to mislead the people just for evilness, like a demon. I'm not saying that you are, just my feeling reading that "absolute nothingness", it's dead.

The only way to realize the absolute is being the absolute, it's like you erase all the structures, barriers, energies, that make you not equalized by the absolute, then in some moment you perceive the openess, it's like a fire that burns you, then you allow be burned and you are not you anymore, you are the totality. Its What you are, there is not loneliness, that doesn't exist as an idea, nothing exist as an idea, thats everything, it's total, absolute, hallelujah, etc. You can't say it's "nothing", it's the reality, period

@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.