Nobody knows anything

[Breakingthewall]

8 minutes ago, gettoefl said:

One is a construction within experience and the other is the absence of construction. The first is limited because it is made of distinctions while the second is not unlimited in size or scope but it is unbounded and unconstructed because no distinctions are being made at all.

Both are constructions of the energetic system that you are. There is no qualitative difference. The spirituality consider one a mistake and the other true, but this is because the spirituality don't understand nothing . It's a total scam, but the scammers are also scammed 😅

Edited 5 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[gettoefl]

18 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Both are constructions of the energetic system that you are. There is no qualitative difference. The spirituality consider one a mistake and the other true, but this is because the spirituality don't understand nothing . It's a total scam, but the scammers are also scammed 😅

I’m not suggesting that one construction is “true” and the other “false.” What I am saying is that one construction brings with it apparent vulnerability and ongoing suffering, and the other reveals invulnerability together with the absence of suffering. Collapsing that difference by calling both “just constructions” indeed explains everything yet at the same time clarifies nothing.

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, gettoefl said:

I’m not suggesting that one construction is “true” and the other “false.” What I am saying is that one construction brings with it apparent vulnerability and ongoing suffering, and the other reveals invulnerability together with the absence of suffering. Collapsing that difference by calling both “just constructions” indeed explains everything yet at the same time clarifies nothing.

As humans, the mind is a reality. Spirituality treats the mind as an error and glorifies what it calls direct perception, tastes, sounds, and so on.

They yearn for an animalistic state, but as humans, that state is not the case. It's a misguided approach; the mind cannot be switched off because it is a reality. The mind is a deep sea; it must be understood and aligned so that it can express its full power.

[gettoefl]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

As humans, the mind is a reality. Spirituality treats the mind as an error and glorifies what it calls direct perception, tastes, sounds, and so on.

They yearn for an animalistic state, but as humans, that state is not the case. It's a misguided approach; the mind cannot be switched off because it is a reality. The mind is a deep sea; it must be understood and aligned so that it can express its full power.

Let me flesh this out a little. I do not believe the issue is whether the mind is real or can be “switched off.” And I agree with you that the mind is certainly part of lived reality, and pretending otherwise is unhelpful. But that’s not the distinction I’m pointing to here.

The distinction I am making concerns the very structure of the mind.

One configuration of mind posits that it is organized around:

• a center that must be preserved
• interpretation as being personal and consequential
• meaning tied to vulnerability

In that configuration, suffering is not an avoidable mistake bur rather it is structurally inevitable.

The second configuration of mind is one that is organized without:

• a defended center
• ownership of meaning
• the assumption of vulnerability

In this configuration, the mind is just as active - perception, sensation, thought all continue - but suffering no longer arises, because there is nothing that can be harmed.

So this isn’t about rejecting the mind in favor of an “animalistic” or sensory state, nor is it about glorifying raw sensation and It’s also not about turning the mind off. It’s about whether the mind is self-referential and defensive, or non-appropriative and open.

Where spirituality critiques the mind, at its best it’s not calling the mind an error. Rather it’s pointing out a particular way the mind relates to itself that generates unnecessary pain. To say “both are just constructions” misses that point. Two constructions can be experientially night-and-day different, even if both arise within the same reality.

So I’m not arguing for less mind or weaker mind. If anything, what I am proposing is a mind that no longer has to spend all its energy defending a vulnerable self which in particular means a mind that’s free to function fully because it isn’t busy protecting an identity.

In summary:

The issue isn’t mind versus no-mind.

It’s vulnerability-based mind versus invulnerable mind.

That difference is not intended to explain everything, but ignoring it simplistically explains suffering away rather than understanding it.

Edited 37 minutes ago by gettoefl

[Terell Kirby]

Lots of knowing going on in here.

You all know Nothing! 

Edited 21 minutes ago by Terell Kirby

[Breakingthewall]

27 minutes ago, gettoefl said:

It’s vulnerability-based mind versus invulnerable mind.

The energetic structure that constitutes a human being carries a built-in self. This isn't a silly mistake or a misunderstanding, as the neo-Advaita would say; it's a hyper-complex system maintained in real time by different brain structures, refined from the earliest complex organisms to humans over a period of time beyond our comprehension. This self perceives itself as the receptive center of experience and has an absolute need for self-preservation and acceptance within the human group. All that talk of being invulnerable is fine until the torturer arrives with his briefcase.

According to Zen philosophy, when you see the executioner approaching, you simply feel the pleasure of the sea breeze on your face, because that's what exists now. No, my Zen friend, what exists now is the human system, which is an extremely complex and precise mechanism anticipating events, seeking solutions, and releasing chemicals that prepare you for combat. If instead of a human you were an earthworm, none of this would happen, but it so happens that you aren't. Zen monks strive enormously to be earthworms. It's commendable and worthy of respect. Then they burn themselves alive. It's very practical, but perhaps, let's say, well, not natural. Bit forced. 

Well forgive all that nonsense, what I'm saying is that the mind must break its chains, not just pretend to have broken them. The mind isn't going to disappear; the mind simply is. It can be a mind trapped in its primitive conditioning, or a mind that has stared its primal demons in the face, and instead of erasing them, which is impossible, has danced with them. It has integrated them into its visible vibration and erased the barrier between conscious and unconscious. This undivided mind, sovereign over itself, with all its energies aligned, isn't "invulnerable" because it knows it's consciousness or God or whatever; it's simply not limited, it doesn't clash with itself but flows without friction. Then it recognizes itself as an expression of what it is, and as what it ultimately is. But if the guy with the briefcase comes, suffering occurs, that's inevitable, but can be relativized to some extent, maybe to great extent 

Edited 14 minutes ago by Breakingthewall