Reason Why Enlightenment is Difficult for you and if happened what is waiting

[Sugarcoat]

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I would have to see a video of that 👺 (*french early twenties something running up from behind with a baseball bat*).

Omg have we became a joke on the forum @Schizophonia

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Omg have we became a joke on the forum @Schizophonia

Baguette.

[Schizophonia]

6 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Omg have we became a joke on the forum @Schizophonia

Maybe he's talking about someone else, I use a crossbow not a baseball bat 

[Schizophonia]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Baguette.

france baise ouai

 

[Schizophonia]

Don't approach the e-girl of an angry Frenchman who put testosterone cream on his testicles

Edited Thursday at 07:06 PM by Schizophonia

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

Maybe he's talking about someone else, I use a crossbow not a baseball bat 

F**k.

 

1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

Don't approach the e-girl of an angry Frenchman who put testosterone cream on his testicles

I tried to find something Schizophonia-esque to say, but I guess that works.

[kbone]

On 7/23/2025 at 8:16 AM, Breakingthewall said:

@kbone sure but all of your speech have a center: you. Even indirectly, then the vibration is always, let's say difficult. 

Anyway, if you want to criticize or dismantle what I say about spirituality, reality, etc., using logic, reality, pointing out errors, welcome.

Only Truth will 'truly' set one free...unfortunately, for the self-identified ego, that endeavor entails something like a self-destructive implosion of an ongoing construct of untruths one has been (mostly) unconsciously building, projecting, and living as a separate volitional person (SVP) for one's entire life. That's most of the reason for the admonition for self-inquiry often found in most religions, speerchualities, psychological schools, etc that challenges an adherent to move toward a higher self or a god. Nonduality challenges that movement, so sure, it requires a bit of tension. But it is NOT about escape, denial, bypassing, stagnation, etc...ultimately. In fact, I'm not really certain what ND is per se, other than maybe a collection of familiar, annoying pointers, hehe. But, this mind is informed by whatever they ultimately point to.

Anyway, in architectural structures, there are what are called 'load-bearing walls' which are of much greater import than the 'normal ones' that just divide rooms or are used for decorative purposes. I've noticed that many peep's psychological load-bearing walls are often constructed via the interactions with parental figures and, to lesser extents, other family members or close friends/idols. There's often an emotional charge/energy within them, and they tend to be influential in the familiar patterns (good or bad) one finds in one's life.

Many aspects of self-inquiry eventually center on this construct of self  which, in turn, obscures the objectivity of one's own subjective stance and/or interpretations of 'others' perspectives. They show up in one's reasoning, logic, theories, preferences, etc.  Interestingly, many peeps also identify with such concepts as if they are extensions of the illusory self, rather than simply aspects of its construct in the mind. There's an interesting twist there.

Ironically, when discussing 'transcending', it is often about negating the oppressive walls/barriers/beliefs one has erected in/as one's mind and sense of self. To transcend and include requires taking responsibility for having unconsciously constructed such walls/barriers via ignorance. That is, having seen through their obscuring nature, one understands them as aspects of human nature, but is no longer bound or limited by them. Imagining is creative, but identifying as is limiting, conclusive. The 'objective' conclusions of who/what you think I am were expressed from a center/self  that I am all too familiar with, as an aspect of human nature.

With respect to our previous discussions, I certainly didn't know that I needed to be walking on egg shells while, supposedly, participating in 'breaking the walls'. As such, understanding what is likely to come into play, I'm not really sure how much to participate in any further dialogue with your takes on "spirituality, reality, etc., using logic, reality, pointing out errors". Let's see what happens.

 

 

[PurpleTree]

Reason why enlightenment is difficult for you.

 

Because there is no you.

 

glad we talked about it.

 

Purp Gang

[Breakingthewall]

4 minutes ago, kbone said:

Ironically, when discussing 'transcending', it is often about negating the oppressive walls/barriers/beliefs one has erected

Great, something interesting. Agree , most of spirituality is evasion, that's what I'm trying to point when I said the the self is real. It's real as a self, same than the body is real, they are energetic structures that exists. 

Current spirituality is seductive because it denies the self as nonexistent, an illusion. You stop thinking, and that's it, there is no self. This is false. The energetic/emotional structures created in any human are genetically encoded and are built according to life circumstances, just as a plant grows according to its environment, but based on its genetics. Entering into spirituality to deny the self, see Nisgardatta or all neo-Advaita, does not work; it is evasion and spiritual ego.

9 minutes ago, kbone said:

With respect to our previous discussions, I certainly didn't know that I needed to be walking on egg shells while, supposedly, participating in 'breaking the walls'. As such, understanding what is likely to come into play, I'm not really sure how much to participate in any further dialogue with your takes on "spirituality, reality, etc., using logic, reality, pointing out errors". Let's see what happens.

 

I just try to have conversations about spirituality without putting the ego as a main character. If I say that I think that Huang PO is basically wrong, you could try to explain why I'm wrong, but if you say that I'm ridiculous telling that about a master that millons accept and I do that because I need my mother or other nonsense, then you are putting your ego and your emotions in front. It's absolutely legitimate to analyze and point the mistakes of any master, if not you are someone without criteria who follows the mass. Then spirituality is closed , and as we want to open our frame, it's legit to say that nisgardatta was wrong in the most that he said and people worship him because his charisma, to put an example. If you are not agree, your arguments against are welcome, but if you say that I don't believe nisgardatta because my wounded ego, it's just a projection. 

[UnbornTao]

[kbone]

On 7/25/2025 at 8:21 AM, Breakingthewall said:

Great, something interesting. Agree , most of spirituality is evasion, that's what I'm trying to point when I said the the self is real. It's real as a self, same than the body is real, they are energetic structures that exists. 

Current spirituality is seductive because it denies the self as nonexistent, an illusion. You stop thinking, and that's it, there is no self. This is false. The energetic/emotional structures created in any human are genetically encoded and are built according to life circumstances, just as a plant grows according to its environment, but based on its genetics. Entering into spirituality to deny the self, see Nisgardatta or all neo-Advaita, does not work; it is evasion and spiritual ego.

I just try to have conversations about spirituality without putting the ego as a main character. If I say that I think that Huang PO is basically wrong, you could try to explain why I'm wrong, but if you say that I'm ridiculous telling that about a master that millons accept and I do that because I need my mother or other nonsense, then you are putting your ego and your emotions in front. It's absolutely legitimate to analyze and point the mistakes of any master, if not you are someone without criteria who follows the mass. Then spirituality is closed , and as we want to open our frame, it's legit to say that nisgardatta was wrong in the most that he said and people worship him because his charisma, to put an example. If you are not agree, your arguments against are welcome, but if you say that I don't believe nisgardatta because my wounded ego, it's just a projection. 

Yes, but based on a majority of what you pursue and share, you seem more interested in mysticism than in Truth. That is, with respect to Plotinus' model of reality (just a model, not Truth), the sense is more of NOUS than The ONE. Generally speaking, it seems that a majority of peeps deeply influenced by and/or dependent on psychedelics get attached to the NOUS aspects of the model in which there's a lot of the woweezowee woo woo rather than the simplicity of the Here and Now (immanence). That's not saying that they can't be decent tools for a select number of seekers, but they can be a trap. It surely seems that the qualitative shift in perspective between NOUS and The ONE would be of 'greater importance' were it otherwise.

The belief in self and the belief in no self are of the same mind ish, and are thus easy to argue about. I'm not arguing, just looking to see how well informed the mind is of its content and its 'secondary status' in this grander scheme of things.

I repeat, I am not interested in defending or promoting any particular teaching/teacher. Yes, there is a lot of nonsense in the speerchal market that many fall prey to. The appearing world of Life is unfolding that way, Perfectly So. Sometimes, I do sense that a teacher/teaching is somewhat limited or closed, as you say, but I am also willing to suspend judgment and try to get a sense of the larger 'direction' of their intent. Sometimes certain teachings seem to require certain number of 'provisional truths' that might only be transcended later on in one's journey. It requires a little coaxing to get some seekers to walk through a past certain doors of perception. Does the teacher allude to that anywhere in their (usually) numerous teachings? Those kinds of things don't always show up in some out-of-context quote, so it can be the seeker who makes the mistakes, not the teaching. It's messy stuff, to be sure.... but clarity isn't. It's simplererer.

But, since you bring up Niz, what do you think he meant by focus on the 'I AM' (the crux of his teaching, supposedly) with respect to your arguments FOR self and AGAINST no self . Are you willing or open enough to challenge or to suspend your own potentially limited perspectives? 

[kbone]

On 7/25/2025 at 1:40 PM, UnbornTao said:

 

🤣

🔥

[Breakingthewall]

3 hours ago, kbone said:

you seem more interested in mysticism than in Truth.

The truth is absolutely simple. It's absence of limits, and you can realize it anytime, it's your ultimate nature, what you are. 

 

3 hours ago, kbone said:

Generally speaking, it seems that a majority of peeps deeply influenced by and/or dependent on psychedelics get attached to the NOUS aspects of the model in which there's a lot of the woweezowee woo woo rather than the simplicity of the Here and Now (

The here and now is not so simple. Reality appears one thing, but it is another.

The flow of reality, that is, you (yes, your true nature is limitlessness, but you manifest as flow), is modulating, oscillating, vibrating. Every obstacle that has appeared in your emotional system and closed you off, only to open up new dimensions of being, is a work of precision art. If you can pierce through the hard surface of human bias and perceive yourself directly as flow, and understand your depth, the absolute wonder and perfection of the design occurring in your incessant movement will bring you to your knees in tears at the vision of the divine. You may believe me or think I'm a clown, but I assure you that you are only seeing the tip of an iceberg of blinding dimension and perfection.