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 November 15 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 November 15 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 November 15 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 November 15 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 November 15 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.

[Ishanga]

16 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

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.

Overall back and forth on certain topics such as what we talk about here is in the end no good.. There is no discovery once You realize that the views betwn the participants are different, and continuing it does not make change.. and for sure no one has gotten spiritual progression via discussion on a level of transformation, since intellectual understanding does not make transformation, transformation is nothing of the old lives on.  Yes it may help one decided on a path in life, or inspire someone to investigate other ways to think or view a subject, I'm not denying that, but that is not transformation, and that what Spirituality Is all about!

[Anonymous_2727]

On 11/9/2025 at 9:15 AM, Ishanga said:

No, You have more than a Mind, you have a Body with its own intelligence, Emotions and Energy, and you also have Karmic Substance, so we are all made up of a few things not just Mind, or Thoughts, or picked up Ideologies..  The thing is today ppl are super identified with Thoughts, Ideology, thinking process that they believe this is all we have to use while here and Embodied, that is not so...

 

Its impossible to have a real physical body, and you dont have a mind. You are the mind dreaming and decieving yourself that your human.

[Aaron p]

On 09/11/2025 at 2:52 AM, Terell Kirby said:

The unfolding of your entire life has been almost exclusively mental, grounded in conceptual knowledge and backstory.

God awakens when it sees its work in the unfoldment of reality; it sees itself as a sort of master craftsman through Divine Consciousness and Intelligent.

Consider how much you resist this unfolding, and how much suffering is caused by not recognizing that it is all your Minds work.

To fall in love with life requires you see the Intelligence of your own Mind- bask in the fact that it’s Eternal.

Excellent points. I'm growing more and more aware of how my imagination generates reality. Was chatting with my Buddhist teacher just last week about this analogy:

A young person sees a person wearing a mask and holding a gun while exiting a bank, they point at the individual and say "Bad!" 

Clearly, while this does encapsulate some basic and obvious facts, it is also an oversimplification that will invariably fail to calculate other, key contextual artifacts. Maybe the individual is stealing money to pay for their child's cancer treatment or perhaps they're being blackmailed. These additive elements obviously don't excuse the action, but it does shine light on the fact that the real world is often more complex than what is comfortable or convenient for us to assess with the appropriate degree of realistic accuracy. Perhaps the individual is an undercover government agent. 

 

This analogy is a slightly accentuated example of how the mind can oversimplify things in the waking dream. AI calls this phenomena "Heuristic-Based Categorisation" or "Cognitive Shortcutting."

 

As has been talked about by others in this community, fear is an excellent defence mechanism for these oversimplified projections. If you can take some scientific findings, formulate them into systematized ideology (set of ideas), enshroud the ideology with more ideas that are scary, come up with a neatly packaged term or identifying label for this "thing" and get everyone to subscribe to it... It will spread like wildfire and will be assumed to be as factual as the concrete on the pavement and the fear surrounding it will make it difficult or impossible for the masses to actually investigate. 

 

Some examples of ideas [that are actually ideologies within the mind] (pay close attention to the emotions you feel when hearing each label). Each of these causes a subconscious emotional trigger of being the -prototype- of X or Y:

- professional (prototype of competence)

- psychologist (prototype of understanding the mind).

- astrophysicist (intelligent)

- teacher (wholesome)

Often you'll find that "professionals" are anything but competent (and yet their value stands) and astrophysicists might make common mistakes in the social domain. 

 

Some of my favourite negative ones (pay super close attention to the contextual and emotional sensations that are triggered within the mind and body when you view these terms):

- narcissist.

- ego maniac.

- gaslighter.

- terrorist.

When the oversimplified mental projections of the mind (which are based in some truth) are shrouded in extra ideas that induce a particular amount of fear...people are energetically discouraged from analyzing them independently or critically. 

Edited 10 hours ago by Aaron p