Where is Peter Ralston wrong?

[UnbornTao]

47 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

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

Sounds good. 

Contemplate what real openness is. 

[Princess Arabia]

14 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Damn

Yeah, but that's all empty talk and a bunch of words muffling under the pretense of saying anything of real substance. Just as this ,BTW, without the utterer, those words don't mean anything, without an observer like you who said "damn" those words are empty, only full because there's an observer to notice the fullness. It's all empty and full simultaneously but all empty, meaningless and of no purpose or substance and that's how THIS what's appearing is even possible .

[Salvijus]

8 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Yeah

I understood this part. 

[Princess Arabia]

Just now, Salvijus said:

I understood this part. 

Lol...good. My point was clearly made then which was demonstrated by your response. Excellent. The response matched perfectly with what was said.

[Breakingthewall]

@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

2 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

Yeah, but that's all empty talk and a bunch of words muffling under the pretense of saying anything of real substance. Just as this ,BTW, without the utterer, those words don't mean anything, without an observer like you who said "damn" those words are empty, only full because there's an observer to notice the fullness. It's all empty and full simultaneously but all empty, meaningless and of no purpose or substance and that's how THIS what's appearing is even possible .

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

Edited July 3 by Breakingthewall

[chess_king]

On 7/2/2025 at 2:47 AM, AION said:

Ibn fucking Arabi of all people. 🤣 

 

what is your problem with ibn arabi?

[Hyperion]

6 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

I never said anyone adopts a mental story

I know, and that's precisely the issue that I am pointing out. You don't seem to realize that the perspective of "there is noone here / there is nobody to teach / there are no other people" is just as much a mentally fabricated story as the perspective of "there is someone here / there is somebody to teach / there are other people". They are simply two (relative) sides of the same (absolute) coin. Purely conceptual fairytales, just like anything that can be expressed with words. Like this, for example:

6 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

The SENSE of a separate individual that arose in the human being is lost, just as someone can lose their sense of smell or taste, to reveal there was never an individual there to begin with, ALREADY, and cannot sense 'other' to be individuals either. A person that cannot taste or smell needs 'objects' to reveal to it that there's no sense of smell or taste. Therefore, when and if that apparently happens, it doesn't have a need to teach other anything and talking will automatically be happening to and by no one and there wouldn't be expressions of teachings happening only messages and responses which would be an energetic exchange just as what's happening here but because there is a sense of self it's interpreted as someone reading and someone responding when, in fact, it's the Absolute 'playing both parts'.

Again, nothing but a relative perspective aka. mental story. I could say the exact opposite of what you wrote, and it would be just as (in)valid from an absolute standpoint.

No words can ever capture that which is absolute. It is that which holds all perspectives, gives rise to all perspectives, encompasses and is aware of all perspectives, regardless of their content. And guess what... even THAT isn't absolutely true, lol. 

[kbone]

On 7/2/2025 at 4:28 PM, Breakingthewall said:

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 

So, do you think Heraclitus ever realized what the Zennies (like Huang Po) point to? Just asking for an opinion, of course. So, your ongoing argument seems heavily influenced by/aligned with his idea of the self as being real, which might also imply that you also agree with his idea/belief in perpetual rebirth. That surely sounds 'limited'. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by the words self, rebirth, and real/reality, existentially speaking. 

Heraclitus was more focused on the 'outer' appearing existence, (maybe from the stand point of being Realized) ... 'the unfolding', rather than the Zen focus on the 'inner' dynamics which might give rise to 'suffering' (for practitioners of Zen who are seeking from the stand point of 'unrealized'). That is, though they have many similarities, the philo of the Greeks tended more towards stating what reality and its structure is, rather than point to and provide admonitions for (re-)discovering/uncovering/re-cognizing that which is immediately realizable right Here, right now.

In this approach to the discussion, I am not 'taking sides', but more or less see where the ways of thinking likely meet and what the resolution offers. I mostly just see them as same same. but different expressions, don't get lost in the details, and feel at peace where wisdom emerges. But, you've stated that the Zennies are more limited. I'm thinking that conclusion may just arise from a misunderstanding of the theoretical 'goal', and misses the contemplated appreciation of the contextual outcomes pointed to in the Zen stories of spontaneity or bare bones expressions. That might shed light on your consistent appeals for a very rational approach and the very logical nature of your expressed jnani approach focused on limited versus unlimited.

[kbone]

On 7/2/2025 at 8:39 AM, Breakingthewall said:

Subtle difference:

reality is infinite conciousness. Closed frame

Reality is infinitely concious. Open frame.

 

I've stated this point more or less word for word elsewhere, and have also expressed it has Awareness (stillness) in/as which Consciousness (movement) appears/happens (i.e., Conscious of the Movement). This is also what I mean by being conscious of when the mind is engaged. So, perception is creation (movement), which is how an ingenious friend of mine stated it.

It does indeed seem like splitting hairs, but for any peep who practices meditation with the 'goal' of transcending mind (such a rascal ), it can be a subtlety that points to their emotional 'annoyance' as to why realization doesn't happen. Realization is acausal, and contemplation, logic, meditation, taking medicines, hanging out in nature, and other such practices might make one more prone, but cannot 'make' the final tip of the existential scale. Only IT can make that 'happen'.

God (Stillness) just keeps on Godding (Movement), hehe. 

[Breakingthewall]

@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

Edited July 4 by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

32 minutes ago, kbone said:

I've stated this point more or less word for word elsewhere, and have also expressed it has Awareness (stillness) in/as which Consciousness (movement) appears/happens (i.e., Conscious of the Movement). This is also what I mean by being conscious of when the mind is engaged. So, perception is creation (movement), which is how an ingenious friend of mine stated it.

It does indeed seem like splitting hairs, but for any peep who practices meditation with the 'goal' of transcending mind (such a rascal ), it can be a subtlety that points to their emotional 'annoyance' as to why realization doesn't happen. Realization is acausal, and contemplation, logic, meditation, taking medicines, hanging out in nature, and other such practices might make one more prone, but cannot 'make' the final tip of the existential scale. Only IT can make that 'happen'.

God (Stillness) just keeps on Godding (Movement), hehe. 

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

[Davino]

On 2/7/2025 at 3:39 PM, Breakingthewall said:

For perception to exist, there must be change. If there is no change, there is no perception , only anesthesia, cessation, or a temporal gap until the next change. Even if you are in the deepest state of meditation, like the greatest Zen master in history, it may seem that you are in a state without change, but in fact, countless interconnected changes are occurring that generate the appearance of stillness or emptiness. Reality is always in motion because the absence of movement is not simply a pause , it is non-manifestation ,"never". If there are no limits, at some point fluctuation inevitably arises. And "at some point" means always, because any interval without change is simply never. If it happens, means that happens infinitely now, that is, always. 

Then the essential question is: what is change? It is the contrast between opposites or between different states. There can be no change except relative to something else, because in the absence of limits, without a reference, there is no movement. All change is relative.

Yes, I totally agree.

Although I would add the nuance that the fact that both perception and change must exist does not make the former subjugate to the latter. Meaning, perception and change are continuously happening but I wouldn't say perception happens because of change. Maybe I would say change happens because of perception. But ultimately, consciousness is breathing into perception and morphing as change. 

On 2/7/2025 at 3:39 PM, Breakingthewall said:

The next question is: relative to what? There is only one possibility :to another dimension of reality, to a self-folding of reality that contrasts with itself. Within infinity, this potential movement is inevitable reality. This means that every perception is the perception of "otherness". You could object: no, it's just a thought . it's me observing myself. But a thought consists of countless opposing relational movements. The fact that you observe it within what appears to be "your mind" does not exclude the possibility that it is the perception of another layer of reality external to your apparent center. Everything that appears is infinity unfolding through endless relative state changes, which synchronize into stable patterns because possibilities that do not synchronize simply do not manifest.

Yes, I agree. I would give it more of a Oneness solipsitic touch saying that Reality is self-changing and self-organising. I'd go as far as pointing why does reality change and that is because Reality is like an infinite Mind already perfect and striving to breakthrough into ever greater perfection.

Why I bring this up? Because I think you claim that reality cannot have a purpose or that it's devoid of meaning or that imposing it an objective is a limitation and reality is inherently infinite. Bear with me. Consider the possibility that if you hold that view, reality happens to be not Infinitely Intelligent. Why? Because an Infinite Conscious Mind is already perfect and strives for greater perfection. An Infinite All-powerful Consciousness would metaphysically self-design itself to be Love and to ever compute and evolve itself for Infinite Love.

This was a huge revelation that I had this year and radically changed my view on the matter.

On 2/7/2025 at 3:39 PM, Breakingthewall said:

Thus, consciousness does not metamorphose into forms. Consciousness is the sustained perception of relational change from a relational node complex enough to maintain that structure. It is the observation of "otherness" , of countless others ,which themselves unfold into infinite, interconnected relationships in all possible directions. The others are the same, the unlimited, but in another dimension, another plane. Think this obvious fact: the form that you are now is going to dissapear and another form will be. When? In the future? 

I have to recognise that your point of view is logic and self-holding, but it's not my experience of reality. 

Consciousness cannot be slave of the chain of causes and conditionings, Consciousness cannot be slave of interconnections, relativity or forms. Why?

For the mere fact that you are conscious of all that and as the saying goes the thinker must be greater than the thoughts, the creator must be greater than its creation. Consciousness IS that which makes all this present field of experience, hence it cannot be limited to what is happening in it. The screen is both beyond the film and the film at the same time. That's consciousness, you've spoken so far of one side.

On 2/7/2025 at 3:39 PM, Breakingthewall said:

Subtle difference:

reality is infinite conciousness. Closed frame

Reality is infinitely concious. Open frame.

I'm intrigued to know better what you mean here. Could you explain it to me?

 

Hope you're having a nice day. I'm enjoying the conversation 

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, Davino said:

I'd go as far as pointing why does reality change and that is because Reality is like an infinite Mind already perfect and striving to breakthrough into ever greater perfection.

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.

2 hours ago, Davino said:

Because an Infinite Conscious Mind is already perfect and strives for greater perfection. An Infinite All-powerful Consciousness would metaphysically self-design itself to be Love and to ever compute and evolve itself for Infinite Love.

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. 

2 hours ago, Davino said:

the thinker must be greater than the thoughts, the creator must be greater than its creation. Consciousness IS that which makes all this present field of experience, hence it cannot be limited to what is happening in it.

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. 

2 hours ago, Davino said:

On 2/7/2025 at 3:39 PM, Breakingthewall said:

Subtle difference:

reality is infinite conciousness. Closed frame

Reality is infinitely concious. Open frame.

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 

Edited July 4 by Breakingthewall

[Inliytened1]

Highly recommend his Book of Not Knowing i read it during my enlightenment period but honestly it wasn't needed.   Leo's.videos were all that were needed.   

I love how every few months someone has to make a post about Peter Ralston because I guess there's not enough to talk about and we forgot Ralston.  Leo is on a different level imo so simply by finding his work alone you are already where you should be but Ralston is a good supplement.  And chances are the only reason you found Ralston was because you found Leo.  What you are getting with Leo is the culmination of him and Ralston combined because he already took the gems from Ralston and left out the rest.

 

Edited July 5 by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

On 7/1/2025 at 6:42 PM, Emerald said:

I don't know a ton about Ralston.

I read his "Book of Not Knowing" which was really quite brilliant and helpful for emptying your cup.

And I've watched a few of his videos... but not many.

In the little bit that I know of him, he seems fine... but I don't know him well enough to even know the criticisms.

Leo discovered Ralston and consumed what was good about him where it pertains to Truth.  So when you are getting Leo you are also getting Ralston.   You don't need both teachers.  At least not in my opinion.  

Edited July 5 by Inliytened1

[Davino]

9 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

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.

Yes, we are on the same page regarding the metaphysics of change. The only difference is that I claim change exists as a means for reality to become ever more perfect in the manifested world, while metaphysically it is already perfect.

You get it right in the existential level regarding change, but there's a motive for change in the manifested world, that you have to figure out.

9 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

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. 

That is accurate. Although here I must make a nuance. It is true that the Absolute is total and limitless and by virtue of being itself is already complete always already what it is. However, then you're ascribing properties to the Absolute. Which you'll say, well it is actually like that. And I'll say yes. Be open then to the possibility that the Absolute may have properties which are not raw equality, why? Because by contemplating limitlessness Reality happens to be Infinitely Intelligent, not dumb, not average, not smart, infinitely intelligent by definition. 

I used to be under the illusion of removing any qualia when I entered into the absolute which is a legit Awakening and consciousness state by itself. Although the more I macerated in the Absolute, the more I saw: wait a minute, being is designed and equivalent to intelligence, it's not just pure potentiality, but actually what I'm encountering is a Universal God Mind which actually is existentially defined by the highest virtues. It's quite a mind fuck, first you discover Reality is beyond dualities and Oneness and in full Oneness and Absoluteness you discover that as Reality is infinitely intelligent it has designed itself so that the Good always wins, like a perfect self-machine that returns to itself all parts into the source and recreates them back again.

9 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

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'll contemplate it. You're pointing to an interesting facet I haven't explored.

9 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

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. 

Here we have different views. 

It happens to be that Infinity has a logic and is perfect. To be just open or undefined, is not the highest intelligence God chose upon itself. Imagine if you were God would you choose yourself to be open in totality or actually that just a facet of a diamond of perfection?

9 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

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 

Yes, yes I got it. I had the same Awakening. Communication is easy when we both been there.

As a matter of fact, I've just realized that here when you speak about that Existence which takes the form of nonexistence and existence; That I call Consciousness.

Edited July 5 by Davino

[Breakingthewall]

5 hours ago, Davino said:

The only difference is that I claim change exists as a means for reality to become ever more perfect in the manifested world, while metaphysically it is already perfect.

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.

5 hours ago, Davino said:

Be open then to the possibility that the Absolute may have properties which are not raw equality, why? Because by contemplating limitlessness Reality happens to be Infinitely Intelligent, not dumb, not average, not smart, infinitely intelligent by definition. 

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  

5 hours ago, Davino said:

To be just open or undefined, is not the highest intelligence God chose upon itself. Imagine if you were God would you choose yourself to be open in totality or actually that just a facet of a diamond of perfection?

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 

Edited July 5 by Breakingthewall

[Davino]

@Breakingthewall Hi, I've been contemplating our conversation and I came to clarity in our main difference. I'll be integrated to what I understand the truth to be. You've got many things right and you're quite accurate regarding the Absolute but you've got it from an impersonal lense that may be categorized as substance-mechanic based. In other words, there is a very high Awakening were you connect with the Sentience of Reality and Consciousness. In this Awakening,, Ultimate Reality happens not be neutral but the ultimate personality or the final I. It's important to get the no-I to infinite degrees as well as the Royal-I. The Universal I in this sense is a particular way and not in another, it's pure Genius and Virtue. Meaning, a Conscious Being which is Infinite, all-encompassing and Reality itself: it feels, it thinks and is always already The ALL Now. Reality as the Ultimate Being is God and in communing with it, you'll breakthrough into your very own Infinite Godly Self, which will be total Openess as well as Infinite Consciousness, Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Love itself, Truth Itself, Intelligence and Universal Sentient Mind.  

I'm sure you've had Awakenings I haven't yet. I just try to point out this. There's an Awakening were you Become Infinite and discover your true Self to be God and it is perfectly designed in the most intelligent way, which is not neutral, or just happening, or simply open; but the source of all Genius. 

[Breakingthewall]

4 minutes ago, Davino said:

I'm sure you've had Awakenings I haven't yet. I just try to point out this. There's an Awakening were you Become Infinite and discover your true Self to be God and it is perfectly designed in the most intelligent way, which is not neutral, or just happening, or simply open; but the source of all Genius. 

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

[kbone]

@Breakingthewall

If you haven't come to appreciate the directness zazen and how it's aligned with the bare bones philosophical pointing, then it may be that you've missed the entire dealio. Not sure. But I don't see it as limiting, just on point in its own way.

Every single fleeting thingy experienced in/as life, including every self-referential thought, that arises or argument made is ABSOLUTELY unplanned, spontaneous, and new. Absolutamente, Full stop. No hay mas. Let that and its full on implications sink in, and sink in some more, until you can't hold back the laughter about what was being sought.

If one has fully realized that, not just intellectually or even as just an insight, but fully and undeniably to the very core of their very Being, I suspect there's a greater chance to openly and spontaneously enjoy/appreciate reading Huang Po, Ch'an/Zen stories, or koans. All literature is written with a context in mind (purpose, audience awareness, genre, literary devices, etc). Unless I'm reading a how-to manual on an undertaking I'm about to carry out, I don't expect to read about what I'm going to do after I finish reading, if you know what I mean. Traditional monastic Ch'an/Zen had a one-liner how-to mentioned (for how-to transcend and potentially experience/realize IT). They also had a number of inspired literary devices as contemplative expressions of the fleeting nuances of mind and the fading, eloquent beauty of existence in its present impermanent state (emanation), but they typically did not sit around and argue about stuff like the Greeks, who contemplated the nature and state of reality, and the like. Zen/Ch'an, practically speaking, were just specifically focused on 'experiencing/realizing/fully embodying' the nature of reality, cutting through and stripped bare of mind's insatiable need to understand or organize it (philosophical/religious emanations). In the tradition, if you could express that depth of clarity to a ZM, you got an honorable bow or a hearty round of laughter. That's about it, and honestly, it doesn't matter at that point. It's that freeing... and you can do whatever you want, free of the mind's limitations (even its wants to be free). What else could one want or expect? More freedom to do whatever? Even less limitation to get up off my ass and do whatever? Watch mind come up with an answer. Such a wittle wascal!! So I laugh! 

If the mind doesn't like what Zen points to, then that's on the mind, not Zen. But, fully realized, there's a less obscured reality to more fully experience, as one GNOSSISES there are no existential questions about god's demands, the meaning of life, etc. That's why you get such simple answers found in Zenny dialogues. Some of them are just funny AF.

"No man ever slips into the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man."  ~Heraclitus

Heraclitus and Huang Po both pointed to the same impermanence and the same no-self. That's why I asked, "So, do you think Heraclitus ever realized what the Zennies (like Huang Po) point to?" After all, it was said he was a bit on the melancholic side, but not sure how often that was or whether he died that way. Democritus supposedly was the laugher, but I haven't read into him much either. 

It may be that you feel limitaton in what Zen doesn't say. There's often a silence (沈黙) evoked in Japanese linguistic contexts that is loaded with emergent contextual meaning, if ya know what I mean. 

But I suspect you prefer more explicit pronouncements than what Zen, in general, has to offer. It's a Western thang. No biggie.

 

Full Disclosure: I am not saying one should or shouldn't like, practice, or believe anything to do with Zen/Ch'an. I am not a practitioner, teacher, or whatever. Just pointing to what I understand it to be pointing to.