Breakingthewall

Developing a conceptual framework based on a previous conceptual structure is not the same as developing a conceptual framework based on real openness that is transparent, in the sense that it has no barriers or limits. To be able to see this, openness must be real. But even if you achieve real openness at certain times, your energetic structure will close, so it's essential to develop a conceptual framework that facilitates openness next time and allows a let's say transparent state all time The conceptual framework is not "just a thought", it's an energetic structure that operates in background all time, even you are in mental silence . For example if you are a zen master and for you silence is better than concept, the human world is Maya and you can't searching enlightenment, then that's your conceptual framework, disguised of absence of conceptual framework

Let's imagine that reality is unlimited. It's not closed in any of its dimensions/perspectives/possibilities. Reality is configured in structures, like a human, for example, precisely because it is not limited. These structures are created in relation, synchrony, connection, with other structures, ad infinitum, since, as we have said, there are no limits in any direction. Due to their configuration, in order to operate, exist, or remain, they operate on a closed frequency, since the framework in which they exist demands it. It's a matter of existing or not existing, and they operate to exist. It's an automatic and eliminatory process. What is incoherent is not functional and does not exist, period. So, at a given moment, these structures reach a critical point where they tend toward breaking the limitation imposed by the need to synchronize with the whole, like a change of phase. This isn't easy because the limitations the mind has created to limit itself are real. The mind is an interface for connecting with the whole, and at the same time, it is the whole. Reality, as we said, is unlimited. Therefore, it operates in infinite interconnected dimensions, and each of them is the total reality. The part is the whole, the whole is the part, as you know. This need for coherent interconnection is what closes, since form doesn't exist by itself; it exists in relation to infinite forms. Therefore, it focuses on synchronicity and loses the dimension of absolute depth. So, to get to the point, when someone like Ralston says, "Reality is consciousness," they're staring at a wall. . They just don't know it. If he would say: reality is concious, would be different. And when someone like Huang Po says that reality is "this," without a concept, they're separating reality from concept when concept is not separate from reality: it is one of its forms. Unlimited reality also manifests itself as a concept. The error is not conceptualizing, but losing the openness in conceptualization. There are closed concepts and also open concepts. That is the key: not to deny the concept, but to open it, to sustain it as a living structure of openness itself, zen are placing themselves in the position of deny something in favor of anything else. They're defining enlightenment as peace and emptiness vs confusion and maya, thereby limiting and flattening their vision. It's not a question of whether they're wise, happy, functional, kind, and a good person. It's a question of whether or not their structure allows for unlimited openness

You can perceive that Ramakrishna is operating from an open configuration, or at least seems so, Vivekananda same, maybe you couldn't agree in what they say about service or many things that they said , just their perspectives, preferences, but they are not limited or at least seem so. The thing is that their explanations are confusing, but maybe because they are from another culture or just their minds are in different frequencies, they don't articulate with precision, just evocative, but at least not limited, you can perceive broad vision, depth

Limited doesn't mean that he's not all-encompassing, but its depth is limited. Depth can be both limited and unlimited. If it's limited, then you're operating from a closed configuration, like Ralston, and your job is to open it up so it's unlimited, not to teach people your ideas that come from your limited configuration, but that's what almost every teacher does.

Thank you for your condescension. I appreciate it, and it's extremely helpful. I hope it makes you feel better. What I wanted to say is that being present and forgetting the fragmentation produced by the conceptual mind isn't true openness. You can believe what I say or not. If you are interested in what I meant to try to understand I could explain. I'm trying to have conversations without measurements of egos. let's see if it's possible. What you explained about nothing is what happens when you realize that what appears is empty, just an hologram. In my experience It's just a realization, mean that you detach the meaning that the mind gives to everything and then everything appears empty. But really it's full, everything is infinite, but in a different plane. The vision that says that everything just appears magically is limited, everything appears because there are no limits. It's very different. The zen vision is flat, lacks depth, and it's so because they reject "maya". Yo can give a lot of advices about letting go and that, or try to understand what I'm saying, your choice

What do you mean ? My "knowledge" comes from observing

If you call the ego the narcissim and lack could be, but ego is also all the human structure, the way of relation, language, conceptual frame, past and future, idea of progression, the need of bonds, the couple, friendship, family. all the human software. It's extremely brilliant, a perfect machine of evolution

Who would do what? Human beings are relational beings. Their foundation is the other. Most of their structure is relational. Our emotional system is enormously powerful; its drive creates civilizations. It's not some mental nonsense you deactivate because you've seen a video of Tolle; it's the impulse of life in all its power. If, on a global level, tribalism ceases to make sense, the emotional system focuses on another dimension, success, couple, narcissism, fun. When this ceases to make sense, all that remains is suicidal depression and nihilistic horror, or total openness.

All of this is because, even if they claim otherwise, their perspective is that of an observer. They haven't realized that they are the reality. they operate from a limited perspective. They think otherwise, that they are enlightened because they silence the mind and perceive directly, but there is perceptor and perception, that's why for them the perception of silence is more true than the perception of maya, because Maya make them like confused. They don't realize that they are maya. If they would say: the silence can allow openess more easy than noise, then ok, but no, they say: the silence is the openess. That's wrong. They confuse a mental state with reality itself . For them enlightenment is a mental state where you realize that "this" is everything. But no, openess is not realizing it, is be open to what reality is, not realizing, it's very different, in another dimension because the reality is you, you are that, you don't realize that you are, you open your perception because was closed. You was looking to a wall all time, then you remove it, it's not about silence.

The ego is the reality taking on a very complex form, composed of countless relationships. A perfect energetic structure of unimaginable complexity. Imagine the complexity of a human brain, its trillions of energy layers. Imagine it at a quantum level. It seems like a joke. It's the work of a god of gods; it's inconceivable. Well, this supports an energetic structure that sustains itself, feeds on its environment, mutates, synchronizes with other egos, dances with them, and from its dance emerges another structure of immense power, the collective ego, which in turn mutates and synchronizes with the total flow of reality. Then you could see that the ego is as real as a Galaxy

That what I see limiting. Maybe I'm wrong , but the idea of void is absolutely meaningless. Void of what? What means void if you are there being the void? It isn't void if you are that. Maybe it's without form, but there is total potential, total potential is something, don't need to look like a table, its enough that is a reality. Then seems that they can't see that, that they really think that they realized the void because their mind is silent and can't see that silent or noise is exactly the same, both are manifestations of the reality

Both Heraclitus and Huang Po are profound and intelligent, and I agree with everything you've said, but we're not talking here about being wise, intelligent, happy, enjoying life, understanding impermanence, understanding the spontaneity of reality, but about being open to the unlimited, and when Huang po talks about an infinite mind can't help but perceive closure. But perhaps the problem is semantic. But his rejection of thought and conceptualization seems limiting to me. For him, every concept or idea is false. And then he says that reality is a mind, which is a closed concept, since mind is equivalent to relationship, and relationship is the manifestation of the absolute. Relationship is made of the whole, not relationship is the whole. The mind is made of the whole. To say that the whole is a mind points out its limitation to me like an arrow. It may be open about many things, but not about the essentials. Blasphemy? Well... For him, ultimate reality is the experience of the formless. Here, alarm bells are ringing. The whole is not an experience, it is the substance of experience. He says enlightenment cannot be sought because that's it. Another mistake: enlightenment isn't, it's not "this," but direct, without conceptualization. That's the experience of a cat. The experience of a cat isn't enlightenment; it's closed. The opening is in the heart, in your entire being. It's the opening to absolute infinity, to the limitlessness of total power, to the absolute glory of limitless infinity and it's absolute power, it's absolute joy of being unlimited, or better, the fact that joy means unlimited, , it's absolute expansión in all the dimensions. Seems that Huang Po is closed to this, imo it's the problem of the Buddhists, they reject suffering, thought, maya, as "false", then they reject the absolute, and are close to it.

The vast majority of people, 99.999%,, probably much more, until two or three generations ago, operated from a place of tribalism, driven by belonging, by being part of a group. When this begins to dissolve, a huge number of people are left in a limbo that they try to fill in different ways. Material success, finding a partner as an ideal of happiness, sex, drugs, sports, and above all, narcissism. Most operate from a place of lack, from a core that's missing something. It's how reality finds the necessary imbalance for the movement that must occur to happen. Spirituality is about getting out of that frequency and opening your center to reality. It's the only possible way. It's not easy, and there are many traps, but eventually, that will be the path that is seen as the only viable one, once it becomes clear that the others are empty

Yes , what you say is inevitable. If the manifestation of the absolute is infinite, it has no origin, it is not expanding, it is infinitely expanded. This implies that if there is intelligence and consciousness, as we know, these are infinite, absolutely interconnected and total. And this intelligence and consciousness encompass the totality of reality, and you can connect with it and be one with it. This is phase 2 of spirituality and it has no end. There are infinite degrees, but first anyone has to reach phase 1, which is the opening to the absolute, to the nature of all that exists, whether it is a drug addict, a rat, or universal intelligence. Without this the phase 2 is confusing, I think that for navigating in infinity first you have to see that anything is the absolute, it's the same god or a rat

Well, those countries don't have nukes by virtue of a 1997 treaty, but they also promised not to expand NATO's borders, and then they did. Besides, Russia fears missile shields on its borders and any disruption of the balance. NATO could, at any given moment, decide to put nukes in Ukraine, just as it decided to expand NATO, and then there would be nothing to do; Russia would be surrounded, and it doesn't want that. It's all symbolic and paranoid on both sides. If the nukes fly, it's over, but they really don't feel good about Ukraine being in NATO. They feel that Ukraine, although independent, is linked to Russia. It's like if your enemy fucks your ex-girlfriend, he could do it with others. Why precisely her? What's the point?

I'd say that the Russians doesn't believe that. There are american nukes is Germany, Holland , turkey, Belgium and other places.

Probably because your parents, your environment, etc. It's an advantage because if you are disfuncional then you have to deconstruct all your fears and start from zero. It's a hard work but at least it's not a prison

Well, maybe for you its the same being in a coffin full of insects for 25 years than in the beach because both are illusions, but for me it's different. Just different point of views .

Maybe they don't like that in Ukraine the NATO place a lot of nukes, over all if in Ukraine there is a anti Russian nationalism who repress the 10 millions of Russian who live there . They hate Russia because many reasons, holodomor, etc, maybe they are legitimate, but anyway it's a treath. The NATO knew it perfectly before pushing in Ukraine, that's why they do. Pressure to weaken Russia.

Then as Hitler was expansionist, Putin also is. Well, I don't see the logic in that, just my opinion. There were different circumstances. Putin invaded Ukraine because the NATO expansion, nukes, etc. Hitler invaded Russia to kill the Russians and expanding Germany, vital space, Arian race, those ideas.

Being fearful is usually a sign of being intelligent. When I was a child, I found it incredible to see people doing dangerous things. I saw all the possibilities, and I was afraid. I saw this as an obstacle, and from very young I internalized the need to face fear. You can't stay trapped in it, nor can you be so stupid as to ignore it. You have to balance both realities. But at some point you have to be reckless, walking a tightrope without a net. Its a must if you want freedom

Putin's war is not expansionist, it's defensive, and absolutely all the world's governments know this perfectly well, but it's useful to scare the population with this threat and do good business.

These people used to be Indians, who came from a tradition of denial in which manifest reality was disdained as illusion or maya and a dissociative attitude of detachment from the body was promoted as a lofty ideal. Doing nothing was considered superior to doing (strange, perhaps reality acted out of some kind of error that these wise men corrected), and a sort of narcissism pushed toward ecstasy, where the master was venerated and nurtured while staring into space. Identifying this as enlightenment because they claimed it is baseless. I would say it's simply a narcissistic power dynamic. Now we have sadhguru, the guru 2.0, who elevates the indian narcissism to another dimension without the boredom of being static.

Better that than the slavery of the tribe imo. Freedom or death. Only fetuses are tied to an umbilical cord, independent beings are alone. Nobody said that freedom is free or easy, but the other option is finished, it's moment has passed. There's no going back, only forward.

why illusory? The absolute is the essence of the reality, but now a self is happening. There is something to do, you have to breathe for example. Why do you call that illusion? It's a reality from this perspective. The absolute is not in opposition to the relative, is the essence of the relative.