Breakingthewall

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    16,132

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Breakingthewall

  1. Posted

    Good text, high level of analysis. The problem with what we call materialism is that it doesn't fully explore what matter is. Matter isn't something like basic particles, but rather the result of the interaction of fields in reality within a universe with a defined and coherent framework of laws. Therefore, matter would be the result of this framework. Why does reality create finely tuned, coherent frameworks to allow for increasingly complex structures? That would be the question.

    2 hours ago, tvaeli said:

    Life as an Improbable Attractor

    Life is an extremely improbable configuration of matter. If we treated it as a simple random event, we would never expect it to appear. Yet it does appear, and once it appears, it stabilizes, spreads, and complexifies.

    This suggests that life is not a random accident, but a kind of mathematical attractor: a structure that emerges when matter is allowed to organize over long timescales. Materially, life is improbable. Spiritually — in the sense of long-term pattern and equilibrium — life is natural.

    It depends on how you look at it. From a broader perspective, life would be inevitable, not improbable. If you consider the emergence of a universe in which everything that exists interacts and self-organizes in patterns of increasing complexity, seemingly without absolute limits, the appearance of self-preserving energy patterns that don't violate the laws of the universe but create their own legal framework within it, and initiate a new phase of increasing complexity, would be inevitable, and that's life, an universe within the universe. 

    2 hours ago, tvaeli said:

    Pure materialism fails because it denies meaning, goals, and future orientation. It reduces humans to machines

    Depends. If one understands that the inevitable impulse of all that is real is expansion, since reality is the absence of limits manifesting in partially limited but ultimately unlimited frameworks, then one understands that what you call spirit is simply limitlessness.

    Limitlessness is being, and being manifests in limited structures because without limits there is no manifestation. And limited structures must always have an openness to the unlimited, since otherwise they would be frozen in eternity, they would be absolute limits, which is an ontological impossibility.

    There is no entity directing with an intention; there is inevitable limitlessness. This is equivalent to an entity directing in its outcome, only that entity is unlimited being, which is not a thing, it is the absence of limits.

  2. Posted

    Spirituality doesn't imply detachment from material success. It implies reconfiguring the idea of material success towards your true inner calling, detaching yourself from the social paradigm of success.

    The material and the spiritual are one; aligning yourself with the flow doesn't mean rejecting the mundane, but rather seeing it as an expression of the flow of reality.

    Periods of crisis or disorientation may occur, but the more you break the energetic structure that confines you, the more fluid your life will be. It's not a mistake to delve deeper into the path you've begun, but rather the only possible success.

    I would say it's essential not to believe, or to believe with many reservations, in teachers; great part of their message is geared towards their own success as teachers.

    The only authority on this matter is yourself. The path to the complete opening of your energetic structure is unique; it must be discovered by you. No one can guide you. Anyone who tells you they can is trying to steal your sovereignty over yourself. This is very common in spirituality, which is plagued by vampiric narcissists.

    You are a pioneer in this. What you are going to do has never been done before, since there has never been another structure like yours.

  3. Posted · Edited by Breakingthewall

    5 hours ago, Someone here said:

    What is "opening the self "? 

    The dissolution of the center. Centrality occurs by default in the dual configuration, where reality perceives itself trough the form. A perceiving individual separate from an external universe is necessary.

    Both the universe and the individual are configurations that occur within reality. The dissolution of centrality allows reality to perceive itself in its essence, true nature ,from the individual/universe configuration, but beyond both.

  4. Posted

    3 hours ago, Someone here said:

    But the difference is I'm using "direct logic"..which means I'm investigating direct sensory experience as it is ..whereas you are reasoning about additional layers of abstractions (relationships ..casuality ..point of views ..absence of limits etc)

    I don't think that there is any difference. Any logical reasoning, such as: "I can only exist within my direct experience, therefore I cannot prove the existence of others," is a logical construct.

    The problem is that it's a flawed construct, based on a false premise.  that statement reveals a lack of understanding that you can never truly escape your direct experience because what you call "I" is a construct that arises within this experience. "You" are not an absolute. This leads to solipsism and the belief that you are God dreaming, and the kind of "enlightenment" we know.

    Enlightenment is precisely the dissolution, or opening, of the self. This is logic applied correctly versus logic applied incorrectly.

    Can you understand how the self can be dissolved? Not right? Because if you do, you would do it. The only understanding of the opening of the self is the opening of the self. 

  5. Posted

    The drama of life is an energetic labyrinth that must be resolved, and the complete resolution of this drama is total alignment with the flow of reality, that's also called enlightenment.

    Drama is an evolutionary engine; it is how life functions, facing challenges to move forward. It is absolutely ruthless and spares no suffering.

    Every living being is an evolutionary warrior, and a human even more so, since human evolution progresses millions of times faster than genetic evolution. Because humans are both animal and mind, and the mind is freed in great way from its attachment to matter, mind is a living being who evolve so rapidly that one generation is equivalent to a geological era. And suffering is proportional to that speed. 

  7. Posted

    9 hours ago, Someone here said:

    This argument is 100% correct ..coherent..and consistent with itself logically. 

    However..I'm NOT contemplating solipsism logically.  I'm contemplating directly by testing it against direct experience. Not logic . Logic is second order reality .direct experience can never be wrong. 

    Very well, except for the subtle detail that your direct experience, without logic, is meaningless. There are no others who may or may not exist, nor you,  there is no question of whether only you exist, or even whether you exist at all. All of that is logical formulation you create. So, since you're creating them, explore them thoroughly, Einstein-style, don't get stuck in a simplistic, flawed logic.

  8. Posted

    On 12/2/2026 at 10:23 PM, Davino said:

    When I'm feeling open I just sit to bliss out in samadhi. Thoughts or no thoughts are irrelevant at that point, I'm too conscious for that game.

    I don't know how to define it. Maybe it's high consciousness, I see it more like openess in the sense that seems like we have many doors that closes in our mind, then we start opening one after another. Every one that you open brings more clear vision, but you have to align yourself in certain way to allow this opening . In some point there are no more doors, you are opened to the totality, you are that and same time you are a perceptor, because the duality is a fact, and structure that is happening. Consciousness happens due the duality, without duality it's impossible, but duality happens. Then, in some point you are the totality perceiving itself.

  9. Posted

    you can call it a dream or whatever you like. All movement is relationship, and every relationship is caused by a chain of relationships that has no beginning, because a beginning would be an absolute limit.

    Therefore, your direct experience is caused by an infinite chain of events that unfolds in infinite directions and dimensions. Therefore, it is absolutely certain that your point of view is one among infinities. Maybe the other pov were in another dimension, time, reality, but time is not lineal, there are infinite timelines, because there can't be límits. 

  10. Posted · Edited by Breakingthewall

    Existence is a coherent, harmonious, synchronous, perfect, dynamic relationship between reflectiosn, opposites. It is like a living dance that creates complex patterns;

    its character is expansion because it has no limits, and its perfection is absolute because it is exactly what is possible. This dance is expansive, alive, and its vitality is unlimited. It is a supernova raised to infinite power. You can call it love, glory, or totality. It is not like being in love; it is total, living perfection without limits. It's like a flame that can't be extinguished, and in all directions it expands into infinite forms of infinite perfection.

    It is inevitable, because there are no limits. All that form is only form; its basis is being, which is because there are no limits. Being is not neutral; it rejoices in its totality and expands endlessly because it has no limits. And you are that. Simple. 

  12. Posted

    All the spirituality of the New Age is based on the premise that its audience is...how to explain it? Naive? So, some designs with vibrant colors, phrases like: "I awoke to the fact that reality is pure loving consciousness, brother. Namaste, brother." And a hug of at least 15 or 20 seconds. This is very convincing for certain people; nothing else is needed, like understanding what consciousness is.

    They'll tell you: "Abandon the mind, beloved brother, let it go." Oh, by the way, I need some money.

    Anyway, once this whole funny ritual is over, and we have our linen clothes and Sanskrit tattoos, and we know that the mind is bad and lobotomy is good, we could do just as an exercise, to pass the time between namastes: what is consciousness?

  14. Posted

    1 minute ago, James123 said:

    To win with what? The words that doesn't belong to me?

    To win, to position yourself above the other person in the race to be right, like the politicians do. 

     We all do that, but the motivations can be threefold: 1. Because you clearly perceive the other person's error and want to point it out to make him see clearly (my conversation with inligtened);

    2. Because you need to uphold your belief to feel safe (inligtened's conversation with me);

    and 3. To project your self-image onto others and reinforce your own self-image (what you do).

    That's why when someone challenges a statement of yours, and you don't know how to respond, you use the easy way out: peace brother, I love you, give up, it's all in your head

  15. Posted

    1 hour ago, James123 said:

    interpretation. Surrender.

    You're tied to your spiritual identity. That's why any debate with you is like a debate with a politician. The goal isn't to communicate or share, but to win. In other words, you don't want the other person to understand something, but rather to see you as enlightened.

    The first step to doing anything resembling spiritual work is to let go of any identity, and this translates into an absolute commitment to never, under any circumstances, lie to project an image. Without this, the entire discourse is corrupt, sterile, and incredibly boring.

     

  16. Posted

    13 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

    Its a Mind it isn't science's definition that it is dumb atoms.  It is a Mind with a will.   But it is a selfless Will. It is only bored through you, through human incarnate.  What created the Mind? Its Infinite so again eternal.  Its all there is.  Its existence itself.  But it isn't a dumb clockwork universe.  That's what science doesnt yet understand.  

    Human science penetrates the fabric of reality and understands it at an absolutely astonishing level. The fields of reality, the structure of energy and matter, and universal constants are all understood. That the human mind can deduce this through mathematics, that is, through logic, speaks volumes about the nature of the human mind.

    By the way, before talking about atoms, I'd advise you to study a bit of quantum physics. It's quite fascinating. Well, it is for anyone focused on a true understanding of reality and not on clinging to religious beliefs to feel safe. 

  18. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

    I find it amusing that saying I'm the Creator gets a side-eye even from spiritual people.  I get it, it's a radical insight.

    If you were the absolute creator you would be the limit of the unlimited. Just an impossiblity. Ultimately you are the unlimited, the absolute being in a form, like anything else. Locally you are a creation of the synchronicity of the cosmos and a local creator of the synchronicity of the cosmos. I'm not talking about "awakenings" , just about logic. It's the only possibility possible. 

  19. Posted

    1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:

    Interesting insight.  You might want to drill down a bit more on this one.  This topic has fascinated me now for a while.

    This is basic reasoning; you don't need to be enlightened or take psychedelic drugs to arrive at it.

    Reality cannot have absolute limits because those limits would be something, which in turn would have to be limited, and so on. Therefore, there cannot be a creator because that creator would be an absolute limit.

    Unlimited reality itself is both the creator and the creation. There cannot be an intention or a goal in creation because this goal would be an absolute limit. The only driving force of manifest existence can only be the absence of limits, which inevitably gives rise to fluctuations, changes of state relative to itself as a whole, which automatically replicate and expand to infinite power, creating infinite forms whose substance is the change of state, the reflection of one state in relation to another, accumulating in perfect coherences, since the incoherent, the not perfectly synchronized, simply does not appear. The substance of manifestación only can be change, vibration over vibration constructing patterns. 

    What consciousness is is simply a coherent system that splits in two and observes itself. In our case, biological life creates a self-preserving universe with particular laws within another universe with global laws. In different realities, there will be different configurations of consciousness, but always dual. Patterns inside other patterns. 

    There is no intention, only inevitability. There is no creator, only the absence of limits, manifesting in infinite realities made of no thing, of the inevitable change of state of that which has no limits, which we can call "absolute being." To be means to exist because nothing limits it; it is the totality, absolute potential. That is what we are; it is absolutely obvious, and there is not the slightest possibility of it being otherwise. I don't understand why no one sees the absolutely obvious

  20. Posted · Edited by Breakingthewall

    1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

    If its Infinity then it would have the ability to create itself and thus reality. So you can look as God as either eternal meaning it was always there because it is infinite- or that it created itself. Its the same thing. Eternal is the same thing. 

    If if has an ability it should have a goal right? Then it has some concrete ideas about what it wants to produce. Where are those ideas? Are those ideas the source, prior of that god? Or maybe those ideas are a part of god, then they are the reality, then why that god wants to create a dream, if he already has those ideas about what he wants, that are more real than the reality?  Because he's bored, or there is nothing else to do? Like a game. So that God is an entity who's bored ? Then, what has created that entity? 

  21. Posted · Edited by Breakingthewall

    The problem with this is that when you say you ignore thoughts, you let them pass, you're establishing a duality between the observer and the thoughts that occur. And the observer takes an action, ignoring the thoughts, which only widens that duality. This can lead to a tense but closed silence.

    What you're looking for is openness, not silence. The absence or presence of thoughts isn't related to "awakening," but rather to the opening or closing of your energetic structure. 

    There is no duality between you and thoughts; thoughts are you in thought form. The observer is precisely the separation that closes off. When the observer merges with thought, thought reveals itself as the living flow of reality. Thought should not be blocked, but rather the separation between thought and thinker should collapse. Then the flow of mind opens, the mind reveals itself as limitless, and thoughts as an expression of the totality