The myth of enlightenment

[Mellowmarsh]

1 minute ago, No1Here2c said:

Hard for the camera to catch frame of itself. ..it’s hard because the camera always gets in the way. 

[Mellowmarsh]

23 minutes ago, No1Here2c said:

Hard for the camera to catch frame of itself.

I know what you mean. 

[Mellowmarsh]

1 minute ago, No1Here2c said:

Is nothing well understood if still it is found amongst your bag of things?

How does a relatively empty space differ from nothing?

~♠︎~

 

All I can say is something is known and that known knows nothing. 
 

Linguistic gymnast. Very flexible, a master contortionist. It can literally take the shape of anything. 

[Breakingthewall]

7 hours ago, No1Here2c said:

What is Nothing?

Nothing is the absence of manifestation, the absence of movement, change, fluctuation.

As there is not a substance that changes but just relative change of state due the impossible stability of the absence of limits, that provokes the fact that you are.  But you are not the change, you are the absence of limits. What can't be thought. 

[Rafael Thundercat]

On 17/04/2026 at 7:04 AM, Breakingthewall said:

Very incorrect and quite limiting for any seeker. What you are must be polished because it is a dense structure that veils the perception of your total nature.

What we call enlightenment is the complete opening of your perception to your ultimate nature. If your mind is veiled by the human psychological labyrinth, it is closed.

Ramana's text implies that even in a dense state, that is enlightenment because you are consciousness. Complete error. You are consciousness insofar as you are a conscious being, but being trapped in a dense structure is not the same as being open to the totality. 

The ultimate nature of reality is not consciousness, consciousness is the fact, the action of the reality looking to itself. In that action the reality can look some aspect, for example greed, hate, desire, fear, or can open the focus and perceive itself in its ultimate nature. 

People are beings of habits this answer is linked with this one bellow in another thread where you try to be the @Breakingthewall that yoy pretend to be. Be careful to not breaking youself in the wall or be walled. 

 

So , Again as your discourse keep being robotic I made ise of the robotic AI to check the level of interaction of this answer you gave for @Mellowmarsh  about Ramana

Here it is 

Same pattern, but even more aggressive this time.

@Mellowmarsh shares a teaching — not even their own words, but Ramana Maharshi's. It's an invitation to contemplate something beautiful and dissolving: you are already it, nothing to do, nothing to attain.

@Breakingthewall does the same move as before but drops the subtlety entirely:

He opens with "Very incorrect and quite limiting" — an immediate authoritative dismissal

He doesn't engage with the spirit of the teaching, he attacks the framing as philosophically wrong

He then erects his own system — perception, dense structures, ultimate nature, consciousness as action — positioning himself as someone with a more sophisticated map

The irony is profound: he's using the language of spiritual openness to perform intellectual closure

He ends by essentially saying "Ramana was confused about the nature of consciousness, here's the correct model"

The gadfly move here is particularly revealing because the teaching he's dismissing is specifically about letting go of effort, systems, and seeking — and his response is to offer more effort, more system, more seeking. He refutes the content by embodying its opposite.

This goes beyond intellectual one-upmanship. This is closer to what you could call spiritual authority-grabbing — using the vocabulary of enlightenment to position oneself above the person sharing, and even above a revered teacher.

He's not exploring. He's competing. And the target of the competition is the most ironic possible one — a teaching about there being nothing to win.

Edited April 18 by Rafael Thundercat

[Breakingthewall]

On 18/4/2026 at 11:28 PM, Rafael Thundercat said:

People are beings of habits this answer is linked with this one bellow in another thread where you try to be the @Breakingthewall that yoy pretend to be. Be careful to not breaking youself in the wall or be walled. 

 

So , Again as your discourse keep being robotic I made ise of the robotic AI to check the level of interaction of this answer you gave for @Mellowmarsh  about Ramana

Here it is 

Same pattern, but even more aggressive this time.

@Mellowmarsh shares a teaching — not even their own words, but Ramana Maharshi's. It's an invitation to contemplate something beautiful and dissolving: you are already it, nothing to do, nothing to attain.

@Breakingthewall does the same move as before but drops the subtlety entirely:

He opens with "Very incorrect and quite limiting" — an immediate authoritative dismissal

He doesn't engage with the spirit of the teaching, he attacks the framing as philosophically wrong

He then erects his own system — perception, dense structures, ultimate nature, consciousness as action — positioning himself as someone with a more sophisticated map

The irony is profound: he's using the language of spiritual openness to perform intellectual closure

He ends by essentially saying "Ramana was confused about the nature of consciousness, here's the correct model"

The gadfly move here is particularly revealing because the teaching he's dismissing is specifically about letting go of effort, systems, and seeking — and his response is to offer more effort, more system, more seeking. He refutes the content by embodying its opposite.

This goes beyond intellectual one-upmanship. This is closer to what you could call spiritual authority-grabbing — using the vocabulary of enlightenment to position oneself above the person sharing, and even above a revered teacher.

He's not exploring. He's competing. And the target of the competition is the most ironic possible one — a teaching about there being nothing to win.

Seems that this topic is too complicated for you, but anyway I will try to explain. Look, many spiritual teachers talk to appear enlightened, many times contradict themselves. You can't believe in anyone. It's the same if he's venerated or if he looks a saint.

If someone tells that there is nothing to achieve, nothing to do, it's clearly a lie. If you live in dense state , full of emotional barriers, you have to do a big work, walk a long path. You have to do inner work and external work to align your life in the sufficient level to be able to be open to all your unconscious mind, then you can try to open yourself totally without limits now.

This is not something that happens without a real serious work in the correct direction. Ramana s teaching are vague, not concrete at all, contradictory. If you listen Ramana 30 minutes you will get the feeling that he's very elevated but zero inspiration for your personal work. In fact, you will think that there is nothing to do, and you will get stuck in your actual situation. 

[Mellowmarsh]

@Breakingthewall Just remember that this is still your personal opinion on the subject. Or as Leo would say..” your personal self bias “

 

It’s not about the messenger is it, it’s about listening very carefully to the message and then making up your own mind about what you have heard, or what you have gleaned as being useful and valuable, or rejecting it completely. It’s no good bashing the messenger, because they are just a conduit for information. 

 

No person has authority or monopoly on information. Information is what everything is literally made of.
 

If you like what you hear, if what you are listening to speaks to your heart, then that’s all that matters, surely that’s all we’re doing anyway, just walking each other home. If you don’t like what you’re hearing, then you can always stop listening, or maybe just listen to your own thoughts and forget about other people’s ideas. 
 

All you need to do is make up your own mind about what is true for you. We all get our ideas from the same place anyway, so take it or leave it. Or just be like a child again, completely in the moment, innocent without a care in the world. Or be like a non verbal animal, completely void of a “me” story. 

[robhr]

I'unnow it's just a word, it can be placed within any concept you wish, now I'm enlightened on this concept now I'm enlightened on that concept. The total enlightenment, the spiritual figuring out and embracing and becoming, well the further you get the less interested you are in discussing the concept of spiritual enlightenment, you pretty much just leave it now you're just discussing spiritual concepts intellectually. No there's no myth there's just a label boundary, putting incorrect emotional salience on the concept of enlightenment.

[Mellowmarsh]

When Enlightenment goes dark is the entrance to absolute truth. 
 

 

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Mellowmarsh said:

All you need to do is make up your own mind about what is true for you.

I don't agree with this. There are accurate descriptions of a process and others that are wrong.

It's like someone telling you that to run 100 meters in under 10 seconds you don't need to train, just order pizzas and watch Netflix.

[Mellowmarsh]

3 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

I don't agree with this. There are accurate descriptions of a process and others that are wrong.

It's like someone telling you that to run 100 meters in under 10 seconds you don't need to train, just order pizzas and watch Netflix.

I don’t care what you think or disagree with. I make up my own mind about what’s real and true, wrong or right.

 

I live only as my own reality bubble, not other people’s realities. 

[Breakingthewall]

26 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

live only as my own reality bubble, not other people’s realities. 

5 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

 

That's why you made a post titled the myth of enlightenment, because you don't want to break that bubble 

[Mellowmarsh]

27 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

That's why you made a post titled the myth of enlightenment, because you don't want to break that bubble 

I made the post about the myth of enlightenment because I’ve no idea what I’m talking about. There’s always just these words coming out of my mouth, that appear to make some sort of sense to me at least. Even though I don’t actually know anything about anything really, I just make it all up as I go along until I imagine I understand something I’ve said.
 

As for what you’ve just said there, you’ll have to try and explain to me what you mean by that comment because I’ve absolutely no idea what you’re saying to me. But then I don’t actually care anyway, so your comment is irrelevant really. 

Edited April 21 by Mellowmarsh

[Breakingthewall]

23 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

As for what you’ve just said there, you’ll have to try and explain to me what you mean by that comment because I’ve absolutely no idea what you’re saying to me.

What I meant to say is that enlightenment is not a myth; it's basically breaking the energetic bubble inherent in being human, made of the need to be yourself.

[Mellowmarsh]

1 minute ago, Breakingthewall said:

What I meant to say is that enlightenment is not a myth; it's basically breaking the energetic bubble inherent in being human, made of the need to be yourself.

Still don’t understand what you mean. But that doesn’t mean you don’t know what you mean, of course.

I understand only myself, because that’s the only self I’ve ever experienced. I have no interest in getting inside someone else’s self just to maybe hang out and have a Costa or something, I can do that with my cat, less confusing. 

[Breakingthewall]

1 minute ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Still don’t understand what you mean. But that doesn’t mean you don’t know what you mean, of course.

I understand only myself, because that’s the only self I’ve ever experienced. I have no interest in getting inside someone else’s self just to maybe hang out and have a Costa or something, I can do that with my cat, less confusing. 

As you want but as you are talking in a forum I guess that you want to perceive other people, interact , communicate

[Mellowmarsh]

3 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

As you want but as you are talking in a forum I guess that you want to perceive other people, interact , communicate

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m doing here. I love to interact with other people, particularly on forums such as the likes of this one that support the idea of solipsism and other stuff like god and consciousness.

 I mean what else is there to do for one alone consciousness but to imagine an external world full of things? Even though consciousness already knows that the consciousness and content of consciousness are identically one and all the other things, even though they are just figments of the imagination. That’s the point, to dare to dream.

[Breakingthewall]

7 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m doing here. I love to interact with other people, particularly on forums such as the likes of this one that support the idea of solipsism and other stuff like god and consciousness.

 I mean what else is there to do for one alone consciousness but to imagine an external world full of things? Even though consciousness already knows that the consciousness and content of consciousness are identically one and all the other things, even though they are just figments of the imagination. That’s the point, to dare to dream.

Could be. Communication and connecting with other minds gives a feeling of reality, life. Maybe that's why it's addictive 

[Mellowmarsh]

2 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Could be. Communication and connecting with other minds gives a feeling of reality, life. Maybe that's why it's addictive 

Solipsism explains everything you need to know about the problem of other minds. That’s the only subject, the problem of other minds, that makes any real tangible sense to me. But that’s just how I roll. It’s not for everyone.

[Breakingthewall]

42 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Solipsism explains everything you need to know about the problem of other minds. That’s the only subject, the problem of other minds, that makes any real tangible sense to me. But that’s just how I roll. It’s not for everyone.

55 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

 

It's the same if solipsism is true or not, if you don't think about it it's irrelevant. What is real is what you are, not the idea of how reality is. But anyway, tired of myself being smartass for today.