It’s All in Your Mind

[Ishanga]

3 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I think the dialogue between Breakingthewall & Zurew was an attempt to understand differing views, not agree or disagree - just how I perceived it. If that's what you reference 🙃

I think this sort of stuff has to be done in person, especially with Spirituality matters, debating online there can be allot of misunderstandings in language usage and contexts and such, in the end it doesn't lead anywhere when it is back and forth so much... Too much talking about it makes one further away from it in the end!!

[zurew]

18 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Or, if you prefer, in simplified language, reality is mental, but saying it that way is extremely misleading because there is not a mind, it's just openess, absence of limitations 

I dont think it is misleading, because under how I interpret it, "mental" doesnt entail any clear limitation.

I dont know though what you mean specifically by absence of limitations and how that is incompatible with bare Idealism (by bare, I mean only making the claim that everything is mental and not subjecting yourself to any specific version of Idealism - so not subjecting yourself to solipsism or to non-duality or to analytic idealism or to any other specific version of Idealism).

I have more questions and issues, but lets go step by step.

[zurew]

48 minutes ago, Ishanga said:

Too much talking about it makes one further away from it in the end!!

The goal isn't to replace spiritual work with talk and conceptualization.

This is mostly an attempt from me to understand his view a little bit better.

Edited 17 hours ago by zurew

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

I dont think it is misleading, because under how I interpret it, "mental" doesnt entail any clear limitation.

I dont know though what you mean specifically by absence of limitations and how that is incompatible with bare Idealism (by bare, I mean only making the claim that everything is mental and not subjecting yourself to any specific version of Idealism - so not subjecting yourself to solipsism or to non-duality or to analytic idealism or to any other specific version of Idealism).

I have more questions and issues, but lets go step by step.

Because "reality in mental" implies a difference between mind and matter, and also intention. A mind implies an absolute being that imagines, that is, that makes decisions, does things for certain reasons; it is, in a way, an individual.

Reality is limitless, therefore it doesn't make decisions, it unfolds. It doesn't desire, it is inevitable. It doesn't decide, it is coherence. It is not one, it is limitless.

"One" implies "two," limitless is neither one nor two. One implies not another, limitless implies that one and the other have no absolute meaning, only relative meaning. One represent a circle, limitless represent an unfathomable abyss.

All this may seem silly or unnecessary, but it is essential, because if your mind becomes attached to the idea of "one," or "mind," it becomes trapped, closed off

Edited 16 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Ishanga]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

The goal isn't to replace spiritual work with talk and conceptualization.

This is mostly an attempt from me to understand his view a little bit better.

That's good, but real understanding doesn't come from exchanging words.. They say when ppl are with others together, the majority of the communication is done via body language and vocal tones, which cannot be translated here... 

Plus when continually going back and forth over many multiple posts, the others POV becomes blurred, responding with your own opinion become primary, so then the real communication is over with in that case but it is good that You want to understand him better, he has many good point for sure!!

Edited 16 hours ago by Ishanga

[Yimpa]

[zurew]

5 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

A mind implies an absolute being that imagines, that is, that makes decisions, does things for certain reasons; it is, in a way, an individual

No it doesnt  necessarily imply that it makes decisions or that it has a teleology or that it is an individual - thats only true under certain specific versions of idealism, but bare idealism doesnt entail any of that.

It doesnt even need to have a sense of self.

5 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Reality is limitless, therefore it doesn't make decisions, it unfolds. It doesn't desire, it is inevitable. It doesn't decide, it is coherence. It is not one, it is limitless.

Seem compatible with certain versions of idealism (depending on what certain terms that you use there mean - like depending on what is meant by limitless)

Edited 10 hours ago by zurew

[zurew]

6 hours ago, Ishanga said:

lus when continually going back and forth over many multiple posts, the others POV becomes blurred

Sounds like an accusation of derailing the thread, which is kind of fair, but the thread was dead silent.

If someone is interested in others pov then they can still read the first 2 pages , but also -  this discussion is still very related to the thread (imo).

[Ishanga]

26 minutes ago, zurew said:

Sounds like an accusation of derailing the thread, which is kind of fair, but the thread was dead silent.

If someone is interested in others pov then they can still read the first 2 pages , but also -  this discussion is still very related to the thread (imo).

No, nothing to do with derailing, the back and forth just creates more separation over time the more it happens, and in the end the debates mean little, its forgotten soon afterwards, but the ego's get strengthened for sure, this is not so good for a Spiritual Seeker!

[Breakingthewall]

49 minutes ago, Ishanga said:

No, nothing to do with derailing, the back and forth just creates more separation over time the more it happens, and in the end the debates mean little, its forgotten soon afterwards, but the ego's get strengthened for sure, this is not so good for a Spiritual Seeker!

It's not a debate to prove who is right, but an excuse to try to express a perspective as clearly as possible and from different angles, without falling into contradictions that the other person would point out.

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Seem compatible with certain versions of idealism (depending on what certain terms that you use there mean - like depending on what is meant by limitless)

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but for me, idealism means that I'm imagining reality, that it doesn't have its own existence; it's a flat hologram whose sole function is for me to see it. (Very dualistic deep down)

The opposite is materialism, which says that reality is real in itself, and that I am a part of reality, configured as a living being with a mind, observing another part of reality, which is a tree.

We are both reality in different configurations, and we are separate yet interconnected, and ultimately made of mathematical relationship, given that modern physics admits that all of reality is interconnected through quantum entanglement, relationships between fields; nothing is isolated, and the fundamental reality is interaction between fields that are really nothing without it's manifestation in coherent relationships, just potentiality .

Then materialism is not "materialistic" ultimately, but it's dualistic in surface, non dualistic in depth. Really modern physic is non dualistic because the foundation of reality at quantum level is the void, that's a field of infinite possibilities. 

Edited 8 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 hours ago, Ishanga said:

No, nothing to do with derailing, the back and forth just creates more separation over time the more it happens, and in the end the debates mean little, its forgotten soon afterwards, but the ego's get strengthened for sure, this is not so good for a Spiritual Seeker!

Definitely depends on intention. Back and forth can also facilitate union.

I think perhaps you are assuming what others are attempting or the meaning behind the dialogue.