The obstacle for real meditation

[gettoefl]

18 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

You could say that awareness knowing is included in reality arising, but not the opposite, then if you say that reality is awareness you are making a closure. Just my opinion, because all the authors talk about consciousness and that. I see it as a very obvious mistake, but who knows 

If there is fear you could identifícate With it or not that there is still fear. 

If you are in silence, that of be what you are or not has no meaning. There is fear, period. If you think that this fear is not you, you are introducing an enormous structure of thoughts that implies that the fear could be you or not, then the notion of "you". If there is no mental activity, you or not you means nothing, but fear means everything. The idea that if the thoughts stops the mind is free is not real. 

I do see what you mean about not wanting to create any extra structure or a separate observer. For me, the point of noticing thoughts and feelings isn’t to define what I am, but to train myself to stop automatically taking them as me. I’m not trying to hold onto a position like “this isn’t me,” just to loosen that reflex. In the same way, with fear, it’s not so much about whether it is me or not, but seeing how identifying with it and feeding it seems to keep tension and separation in place. So in my case I’m less interested in defining what’s true at an absolute level, and more in not reinforcing what creates that contraction in the first place.

[Breakingthewall]

6 hours ago, Grateful Dead said:

have a different view. The door is always wide open, but it's guarded by the ego, and you simply have to slip through quietly.

Ok, but the ego is not only your human identity, thoughts, but the primal fear to dissolution that is programmed in the human psyche. The identity is it's manifestation 

6 hours ago, Grateful Dead said:

I've been in the 'black and white dead landscape'. I've faced the worst-case scenario where I felt completely abandoned by God for years and during this time I was sure that all my spiritual experiences/insights etc. were just naive delusions and that I had fooled myself. I stood in the mechanical, bottomless abyss where everything seems like a dead illusion. But at some point, I realized that dead void isn't the ultimate reality, but merely the ego's interpretation of perfect silence/God.

Then we are speaking the same language (what is very rare). The dead void is the last door, there is a very subtle movement, a shift where the void opens and reveals itself as the unlimited that is. This is the movement that I'm talking about and that is so difficult to do for me. I think it's something that happens when your psychological structure is aligned in some way. If it happens now, and you are open to the unlimited for example during one week, but then in some moment it's closed again, very fast you will forget that reality and you will start to think that was a fantasy to scape of the obvious nihilist void that reality is.

6 hours ago, Grateful Dead said:

believe everyone who has a body is closed to some degree. Some are more transparent, others very dense. The work you talk about is the only thing truly worth doing here anyways, and I do it gladly and with joy. Because I know that the Self remains beyond the body and its barriers, and that is what I truly am.

Exactly, nothing in life worths more that this. Without this openess anything is just suffering, at least for me. Every human has a closed structure in some degree, there is always a great work to do to align yourself enough to allow the openess. 

[Breakingthewall]

4 hours ago, gettoefl said:

I do see what you mean about not wanting to create any extra structure or a separate observer. For me, the point of noticing thoughts and feelings isn’t to define what I am, but to train myself to stop automatically taking them as me. I’m not trying to hold onto a position like “this isn’t me,” just to loosen that reflex. In the same way, with fear, it’s not so much about whether it is me or not, but seeing how identifying with it and feeding it seems to keep tension and separation in place. So in my case I’m less interested in defining what’s true at an absolute level, and more in not reinforcing what creates that contraction in the first place.

I understand what you're saying. I was commenting on it mainly because modern spirituality, like Spira, Mooji, Ralston, and non-dualists in general, say: you are consciousness. You are the screen where forms appear, not the forms themselves (quite dualistic for a non-dualist).

They say: enlightenment isn't something special, it's simply realizing the nature of reality, which is consciousness. This is completely and obviously, let's say impossible. If reality is consciousness, what are the forms that appear in consciousness? Dreams. And who dreams them? Consciousness. So, is consciousness not just consciousness, but an entity that produces dreams? They'll say: don't get confused, let it go, forget the mind, you are consciousness. Ah, so I forget the mind except to know that I am consciousness? Yes! You're enlightened now.

Well, no. Enlightenment is being open to that which has no limits, to what is, which is what you are. Not knowing what reality is. That what has no limits, and having not limits is, is not a screen nor something trivial; it is the source, the Tao, the light, the life, and the total glory of being without limits. These are subjective statements, of course, but not therefore false.

[Breakingthewall]

Just now, No1Here2c said:

Perhaps consider that all of these thoughts are an obstacle to real meditation.

Perhaps consider that all these thoughts are an impulse to real meditation, and what is an obstacle is speaking from the need of appear special. Real humility is needed for this work.

 

[gettoefl]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

I understand what you're saying. I was commenting on it mainly because modern spirituality, like Spira, Mooji, Ralston, and non-dualists in general, say: you are consciousness. You are the screen where forms appear, not the forms themselves (quite dualistic for a non-dualist).

They say: enlightenment isn't something special, it's simply realizing the nature of reality, which is consciousness. This is completely and obviously, let's say impossible. If reality is consciousness, what are the forms that appear in consciousness? Dreams. And who dreams them? Consciousness. So, is consciousness not just consciousness, but an entity that produces dreams? They'll say: don't get confused, let it go, forget the mind, you are consciousness. Ah, so I forget the mind except to know that I am consciousness? Yes! You're enlightened now.

Well, no. Enlightenment is being open to that which has no limits, to what is, which is what you are. Not knowing what reality is. That what has no limits, and having not limits is, is not a screen nor something trivial; it is the source, the Tao, the light, the life, and the total glory of being without limits. These are subjective statements, of course, but not therefore false.

Yes excellent. I think we’re actually aligned on this main point. I myself also don’t want to land on a conceptual conclusion like “I am consciousness” and announce that as enlightenment. It does seem like that can become another position the mind holds onto, which indeed subtly creates a split rather than dissolving it.

Where I think we’re fully in agreement is that whatever reality is, it isn’t something that can be captured or reduced to a concept. Like you said, it’s more like an openness to what has no limits, rather than us arriving at a definition of it.

For me, the sole difference is more in approach than in aim. I do not try to define what I am, but I do find it most helpful, practically, to notice how identification with thoughts or fear seems to create the sense of contraction and separation. So the “not identifying” piece isn’t an absolute truth claim, but it's a way of not reinforcing that contraction.

So I guess I’d say I shy away from trying to describe what reality ultimately is, but instead stop feeding what seems to limit it in experience. Beyond that, I’m fine leaving it open rather than concluding anything like “it is consciousness” or anything like that.

[Mellowmarsh]

@Breakingthewall Who or what has the desire or need for real meditation,exactly?

[Breakingthewall]

17 hours ago, gettoefl said:

Where I think we’re fully in agreement is that whatever reality is, it isn’t something that can be captured or reduced to a concept. Like you said, it’s more like an openness to what has no limits, rather than us arriving at a definition of it.

You could say that the reality is you, because it's obvious that you are the reality manifested in a local process. The point is not knowing that but being open to what you are, what is you nature. This is a subjective perception, like any other perception, but that's doesn't mean it's false. If you perceive yourself without any limit, you will say: yes! Alleluia! This is what I am, it's absolutely obvious, it's not something, it's unlimited and this implies everything , this is the end of the lack , the opening to the inexhaustible source, the bottomless abyss that is what you are. The biggest bullshit is that perception is an illusion. Perception is the reality perceiving itself. The perception can be closed or open. If it's totally open, the reality perceives itself in its nature. You are the reality now, not another, not any illusion 

When spira, Ralston , etc , talk about the realization of the nature of the reality, they are talking about a mental realization, like, you stop thinking that you are American, a human, etc, then THIS is what you are. No, they are just in a meditative state like mindfulness and as they have the psychological need of being enlightened, they are identifying with enlightenment. That's spirituality nowadays, total absence of depth. Enlightenment is absolute depth. 

17 hours ago, gettoefl said:

For me, the sole difference is more in approach than in aim. I do not try to define what I am, but I do find it most helpful, practically, to notice how identification with thoughts or fear seems to create the sense of contraction and separation. So the “not identifying” piece isn’t an absolute truth claim, but it's a way of not reinforcing that contraction.

When you are totally free of any identification, is when the real game starts. The game that @Grateful Dead have played that include go through the absolute nihilism. Most of people will grab any idea of god because they don't like that horror. You have to be absolutely naked of everything, absolutely humble, accepting the possibility that reality is dead emptiness and be one with this emptiness. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

9 hours ago, No1Here2c said:

You mean of the self?

The self is the speaker in me. The self is foundation for experiential distinction between both you & I. Fundamental duality of self/other, subject/object. 

That is what you point towards?

I agree that self is capable of being quite an obstacle.

You sound smart , impressive. Say more things to sound smart if it makes you happy.

6 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

@Breakingthewall Who or what has the desire or need for real meditation,exactly?

The person who thinks that his mental state is limited. 

[Breakingthewall]

44 minutes ago, No1Here2c said:

Id like to see you come up with something of value 

I said something with value: that you are someone who talks with the sole purpose to appear smart. 

Edited 29 minutes ago by Breakingthewall

[Mellowmarsh]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

The person who thinks that his mental state is limited. 

⬆️Correct answer⬆️ Well said. 
 

Now, who or what is this mindless unlimited state? 

[No1Here2c]

2 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

⬆️Correct answer⬆️ Well said. 
 

Now, who or what is this mindless unlimited state? 

God

The Infinite

Absolute Freedom

Not an idea

Not a concept

No ideals of mind

The actual reality at hand