Breakingthewall

There are two completely different aspects. One is realizing that you are what is, therefore you cannot not be; the other is understanding the nature of what is. You might think, for example, that it is a god full of love who plays fun games or something like that, but that conceptual structure has a closure, an absolute limit, so even if you believe you have realized that you are what is, at an energetic level your system remains closed, limited. The real opening has not occurred. Then really you didn't realize what it is On the other hand, that opening could have occurred, and from it you develop a coherent structure that explains how what is manifests. Why would you do this? Why not?

Those kinds of ideas are very frustrating because they create a kind of effort to reconcile the comforting (and somewhat childish) notion that there is an external entity that loves you with being a homeless fentanyl addict. Indeed, it resembles St. Augustine's idea that God, who is love, created you knowing you would be condemned to eternal hell. Yes I think that the nature of life is to move forward. If you don't swim with the current, life will crush you. Maybe someone doesnt care about that, but if there is choice much better flowing with the flow

Or maybe it's impossible because we are the body and the mind. We are reality expressed in this form, so identifying with the content of the experience instead of with the body is still identification, only it's more unreal, because there are real limits between your body and the outside world. You could say that those limits are illusory, but what does that mean? Just an idea that doesn't describe how reality works, so more confusion.

That is still an identification, just more open than the previous, but still identification, then an absolute limit. Furthermore, it denies the reality of your separate nature, something that will become manifest at any moment as a reality check.

Beautiful or disgusting are human biases, stemming from what favors or hinders survival and reproduction. From an absolute perspective, there is no good or bad, there is only being. Being is everything; it is not beautiful, it simply is. If you find that being is beautiful or wonderful or glorious or anything, it's from the human perspective. Being is open, limitless, not good, love or beauty. All that are human visions. The absolute is all that, from the human perspective. Any appreciation is from a limited perspective. From an unlimited perspective there are not adjectives because there is not comparison. Quite challenging, that's why all that about enlightenment is so twisted . The absolute is open, period. Naturally, it is extremely difficult to separate ourselves from human bias because we are human, and our bias comes from the first living cells that pursued survival and fled from destruction.

They are good people, they help many people, and their intentions are genuine, but that doesn't mean they aren't fundamentally flawed. Their non-duality is always profoundly dualistic; their identification with consciousness is a mental exercise that offers comfort but isn't true understanding. It remains identification. Their use of the idea of "illusion" is a tactic to downplay life's problems and make people feel more at ease. They cover a social necessity, doing a great job Just my point of view, maybe who's wrong is me, of course

Ok sorry for the irony, just that the idea of a God creator sounds like religion, same than the idea: you are consciousness. They imply absolute duality and call it, precisely, non-duality.

Let’s consider the following conceptual framework to understand what “enlightenment” actually is. Bit long, as short as it can be. First, we have a coherent universe, a system of relations governed by universal laws that organize energy, matter and cosmic events, allowing increasingly complex relational systems to arise. Vibrations of fields that we call energy, atoms, stars, planets, complex molecules… until we reach a fundamental phase transition we call life. Life is the appearance of self-legislated systems, that is, systems with their own internal laws and a built-in drive for self-preservation. This is a mode of existence absolutely different from everything that came before it. Fields, energy, stars, planets, these are what they are because of the universal laws that govern them. These laws make them inevitable. But life does not operate within that same frame: it is not the mere result of gravity + the strong nuclear force + electromagnetism, etc. Rather, within that framework of physical laws, life is the emergence of a universe with its own interior laws. It does not break the fundamental laws of physics; it operates according to them but creates, on top of them, a new set of exclusive internal laws. In effect, life is a universe inside a larger universe. And if the “main universe” is probably itself a subsystem inside something larger, nothing suggests this is impossible. This new universe, with its own internal laws, produces an essential duality between inside and outside. A living organism must preserve itself in order to be, and this necessity forces selective interaction with the environment. A living organism is not a collection of atoms, but a pattern that places those atoms in exact positions and functions, a vast map of processes occurring at different levels continuously. Can you see the map? Because here comes the interesting part. The interaction between the interior and the exterior inevitably produces what we call qualia, subjective experience. Qualia is the interface between these two universes: the living system and the external universe. In simple organisms it is very basic, impulses that distinguish heat from cold, high from low mineral concentrations, light from dark, desirable from undesirable. As the organism increases in complexity, this interface does the same: it expands, becomes richer, more nuanced. The qualia of a bacterium is not the qualia of a plant, or a worm, or a fish. With each phase transition, the organism’s range of movement and possible actions increases exponentially, and the interface connecting the two universes expands proportionally. This interface is essentially a third universe, supported by the biological base and shaped by the external world. It is not more or less real than the main universe or the secondary universe we call life, there are no categories, only expressions of reality. Qualia, subjective experience, is the reality, just as the universe is reality and the organism is reality. Qualia is a stable cloud of processes and relations, with a defined form. When living organisms reach large degrees of complexity, as in the case of a rat, qualia, the subjective cloud, begins to take the shape of an individual that desires, fears, enjoys and suffers. This stable cloud of quantum-level processes begins to recognize itself vaguely as a proto-self that must defend itself from destruction and preserve its lineage. Complexity continues to advance, and new beings appear in which a further phase transition takes place: a new dimension of being emerges: symbolic mind. A mind that transcends rigid conditioning tied to matter and begins to operate beyond it. This symbolic mind is a cloud of qualia/processes capable of operating through symbols/forms created within this cloud that emulate both the biological reality that sustains it and the external reality in which it must operate and adapt. Symbolism gives rise to what we call memory: a mega-symbol composed of countless smaller symbols, stable enough to create the image of change unfolding in a temporal line. It is supported by atavistic impulses implanted by evolution: the absolute need to survive, belong to the group, reproduce, influence, avoid harm, and pursue pleasure. This system, this quantum cloud of enormous complexity and perfect synchrony, is what we call consciousness. This is the highest peak of complexity we can observe. And now comes the next phase: the deconstruction of complexity. This hyper-complex system, consciousness, is a universe in itself, and as such, an expression of reality. That is, it is reality. This being that knows itself, that defines itself, can deconstruct itself and return to its essential nature. This is simple, because what it truly is is its essential nature. A bit of meditation: first, we remove the process called memory, which creates a temporal line, and we situate ourselves in the absolute now. Simple: deactivate symbolism, which is to say, deactivate meaning. Without meaning there is no time. It is that direct. But of course ,there are energetic forces behind the meaning, fear, desire. Simple, but not so easy to face them. Second, we remove sensory input. Obviously it cannot be eliminated, but it is relatively easy to withdraw relevance from it. Without becoming and without sensation, what remains is something naked, alone, singular, an odd structure, a kind of energetic barrier, a black hole that absorbs everything: the self. What is the self? Is it something? A witness? A witness of what? Of experience? But what is the self without experience? Here is the key: the self is the final door that keeps the system called consciousness closed. This is very difficult to explain or think about, because the one who explains and thinks is the self, or better, the self is the apparent center of all those process. At a certain moment, when the energetic flow of the entire system aligns in a certain way, the closure dissolves, the self collapses as a center, and then it ceases to close. The ultimate nature of reality reveals itself. What reality is before that enormous tangle of molecules, life, rats and selves: absolute openness, total being. Total being is not conscious or unconscious, it is total. “Conscious” only means a process that registers what is happening. Without any register, there is no change, there is no sense of self, there is not what we call "consciousness", there is being. Being is equally total with or without that process. But in that process the self recognizes that what it truly is… is total being. Because everything that exists is that, and all the dance of form is simply the dance of form, the inevitable expression of what has no limits. Total being is not movement, but what makes movement inevitable. It is not conscious or unconscious, not moving or still; none of these categories touch the openness. It is totality, and totality perceives itself through the very system created within itself called consciousness, and recognizes itself in its essence, in its openness, in its unlimited nature. One thing is very important: any identification must fall. That's more difficult that it seems. Consciousness is an identification. Love, god, infinite, everything, glory. Identifications. All belong to the self, to the center. The absolute is absolutely naked. It's not nothing nor something, it's open.

@Ishanga writing just for the pleasure of developing ideas. I'd like that anyone likes to develop deeper, if not I will do anyway Maybe what i said doesn't agree with your religion, but what to do? The main religion nowadays is non duality/consciousness. For me is same false than any other. Opinion is free . In the absolute level nothing is true or false. The absolute level is openess, any closure is relative. It doesn't plays in the level true/false. Absolute is what happens when your energetic system is totally aligned and open. Then , "god" is an absolute limit, "consciousness" another. It's just a mental limit, and any limit is relative to something. Obvious right?

Life has a quality that separates it from non-living things: separation. Living things are contained, limited by a membrane, thus creating a difference between exterior and interior. Living things are self-preserving; they have the intention to exist. For example, an RNA molecule is highly complex and replicates itself, but it is not alive; ontologically, it is the same as a water molecule. A cell, however, is not the same; it is another phase of reality within the same universe. I can turn off my mind and be in silence, or turn it on and try to decipher reality. The thing is that, being human, there is always a mind and always a conceptual structure. If that conceptual structure has limits, the silence will be limited. Silence itself does not guarantee openness. Many meditators are silent and in a closed state, believing they are consciousness, for example.

Inner monologue is inevitable because the human mind operates through symbolism, and this is expressed through language. It is an essential function of the mind. The problem isn't the monologue itself, but the energy that drives it. If you manage to deactivate that energy, you can remove the emotional charge from the inner monologue and focus your perception at a deeper level. Inner monologue is usually triggered by emotions like fear, rejection, anxiety, and identity issues. Trying to turn off the monologue by thinking it's the cause of these emotions is a mistake; it's the opposite, it's the consequence. You have to deeply understand the root of these emotions and confront their underlying causes, and ultimately, look death in the face without filters. Then the emotional charge gradually loses intensity, and the monologue becomes manageable.

No, the Google translator put that lines too, I use to remove them when I use the translator precisely to doesn't appear as chat gpt

Then it's something not nothing, a creator with a will, and then the reality is dual. A creator in one side and a creation in another

Your text is difficult to understand, not because it's technical, but because of its nature, its origin. The text is written to assert the writer as a superior intellectual position, not to clarify a real problem. Therefore, it doesn't address the problem; it addresses the writer. This results in a lack of clear structure, impossible twists, and abrupt shifts from science to philosophy to possible simulation and then to consciousness. The author isn't describing reality but their self-image, and this makes everything difficult. The objective is not penetrate in the readers understanding, but show the reader the level of the writer. Then the explanations are not clear, clean, direct. Are intentionally twisted, dark, difficult. You could try again putting your ego aside, then we could enjoy sharing with someone who knows about physics

Seeking an external agent, like consciousness or God, and calling it non-duality when it's absolutely dual has already said a lot; it's the shortcut taken by some who want to simplify things to feel safe . It could belegitimate if it works for them and their needs are covered, that's the purpose of religion. Btw, I explained about consciusness and living organisms without a creator. I know it's more twisted that : awake to pure consciousness! Just try to understand it. There is not external agent, that's an absolute impossibility. From this basis, how could life appears? What is the reality? What consciousness is?

Great insights. What life is is the pattern that orders matter, not matter itself. But the point is that life is an expression of the nature of reality, just like the universe. Life emerge in the universe, so it express the nature of universe, you can understand the nature of universe and reality observing life. It can be said that reality will always fill a possible niche. There is a marked tendency toward expansion, and if nothing prevents a new phase of complexity, it will occur. Reality balances itself, seeking the most optimal equilibrium possible, the option that enables the development of its full potential. In the case of life, this manifests as evolution, a desire for permanence, self-preservation, and reproduction, since life operates in duality. The universe is not a closed organism and therefore does not operate solely on the basis of survival, but its essential behavior is symmetrical to that of life. It expresses its potential, finds the optimal equilibrium, and fills the available niches of complexity. For example, there's the mystery of fine-tuning. The cosmological constant or the strong nuclear force are fine-tuned with millimeter precision. If their values changed even slightly, the universe would collapse. Observing life, one might deduce that these fundamental laws are not imposed from the outside, but rather have been adjusted by the intrinsic tendency of reality toward the point of greatest equilibrium within the inherent and inevitable instability caused by the absence of limits.

Btw, this framework does not aim to define reality or capture the whole. Its sole function is to avoid introducing conceptual fissures that impede the individual's natural openness to the totality. This openness is neither conceptual nor constructed; it is real. The framework is merely a tool to prevent it from being closed off. If there are absolute limits, like god, consciousness, or anything, the door will be closed. Absolutely always. The openess requires a open frame.

Yes, it knows itself in the sense that it preserves itself from the outside world. That's what we call life: a system that has the will to be, that actively resists attempts to make it cease to be. This is the great mystery. Life wants to be. And what goes against that is suffering. Life is desire. Let's see, If we observe the universe, we see that reality seeks form; there is a structural tendency toward differentiation, toward the formation of form, toward the exploration of possible configurations. This is an inherent property of the universe. The universe does not resist threats because it has no exterior, but it tends toward complex structures; it is a proto-desire. Life is a universe within the universe, and this proto-desire translates into direct desire. There is an outside world from which to protect oneself. The structural property of the universe of being concentrates, amplifies, and becomes defensive. It is a total phase leap, the greatest possible leap. Then suffering appears, it's the reaction to that which prevents one from being. Human psychological suffering is exactly the same nature as the reaction of a cell repairing itself when damaged, only amplified and symbolized. Life is fundamentally the will to be, and this inevitably involves suffering. But this will to be can't be something alien to the universe, it's the fundamental nature of the universe with an exterior. The point is that the universe does not merely allow form; its dynamics structurally favor the emergence of stable configurations. Symmetry breaking is not accidental but intrinsic to how reality unfolds. After each rupture of symmetry, the system reorganizes into new coherent structures with their own local symmetries. This is not intention or purpose, but a structural tendency toward stability and coherence. But the real point is: structural tendency equates intention, there is no difference. Not because there is an entity that desires, but because this is the nature of reality

@Ishanga @LastThursday thanks for reading. Matter is a form of vibration of reality that spontaneously organizes itself into increasingly complex patterns, eventually reaching extremely complex forms like amino acids or self-replicating RNA molecules. No one knows how the leap from these molecules to self-organizing systems with their own laws, called life, occurs, but the point is that life is no more "alive" than a hydrogen atom; it is simply more complex, at a different stage of complexity. Just as a bacterium and a cat are at different stages of complexity. I suppose this tendency toward extreme levels of complexity can be explained by entropy, which forces a closed system to inevitably tend toward disorder, but always with pockets of extreme order that ultimately lead to greater entropy. It seems that at certain critical points, reality shifts phase, inevitably finding the most optimal path. Unfortunately, science has its limits for now and cannot see beyond them, but by logical deduction, reality functions through symmetry breaks and an intrinsic tendency to re-establish that symmetry, not going back, but seeking possible stable coherences. It seems to be an intrinsic property of reality.

I used to find hang gliding in the most extreme conditions absolutely fascinating, in real danger to break my body. I spent a lot of time planning sailing trips in the harshest conditions that I dare. I'd do things like take a long solo sailing trip, and the night before, without any planning, drink and do drugs all night in clubs and still set off knowing that I wouldn't sleep in the first 3 days in a very rough weather alone in the ocean, and then sleep 2 hour by day another week. I also found boxing with rage-filled, psychopathic Eastern European guys absolutely thrilling. If I had sex, I'd think: yes okay, but a fight with extreme pain is way better, no comparison. Another thing I found very appealing is 3 days non stop parties with drugs dancing techno, again and again, with very toxic people around. And many other things in that line of behavior, I didn't do more because I didn't dare, but if I would dare I would like to go to a war or similar. All of that now seems like something a mad, a mentally ill person, would do. I don't identify with any of it. It's like I'm a completely different person. But I understand exactly why I used to act in that way. I was closed, my heart was locked, and I instinctively searched the openess in the external world, because I couldn't see that the jail was inside. I was staring a mirage that always was far, in the next thing. That mirage was freedom, and was impossible to reach, because the lock was inside, exactly here. But was absolutely totally impossible to see in that moment

I exaggerated a bit before . anyway, just 1 years in prison sure it's interesting. 25 years what a hell, maybe it's better to die. But honestly, I think I would commit suicide only in case of terminal, degenerative disease, and I would never harm innocent people. But who knows, we don't know what we would be like in extreme circumstances.

It's clear that you attract certain types of people depending on your inner vibration, your sense of fulfillment or lack, and this greatly influences your life. But on the other hand, misfortune can befall anyone, such as illness, being sentenced to life imprisonment despite being innocent, or living in Stalingrad under siege by the Nazis. I think it isn't wise to cling to the belief that you create your own reality and that if you have brain cancer it will be your fault.

Well, for me not exactly. I absolutely hate many things. There are a lot of things that I won't do and I would prefer to die. If it's necessary I would organize a genocidal war and then dance around our impaled and burned-alive enemies. If that's what life expects of me, of course . Or maybe I simply commit suicide, depending

It's not about doing what you want. We usually want things because we feel incomplete and believe that achieving certain goals will make us complete, but it doesn't work that way; it works the other way around. You feel complete by aligning yourself with the tendency that your life circumstances, your nature, expect of you. The question isn't what I want, but what life wants from me. If you operate in the "I want things" dimension, you will never, ever be satisfied. You are a black hole that absorbs energy and is never filled. On the other hand, if you operate in the sense of aligning yourself, you will be satisfied in the trenches of World War I, surrounded by corpses of your friends eaten by rats. That's how the game works.

Sure, but choices at the end. Why would one focusing in what you can't do when you can focus in what you can do? Even it's small, it's everything