Matrix and freedom

[Breakingthewall]

A human being is a social being . this is obvious to anyone. What's not so obvious is the extent of it.

The human mind is evolutionarily programmed in a very concrete way, with very little margin for freedom. Language isn't just another function , it's an evolutionary mechanism that creates a cloud of information shared between individuals, sustained by emotional mechanisms of enormous power.

This cloud of information is structured in symbols, and the symbols represent acceptance, rejection, family, love, status, worth within the group, mythology, and ultimately, the world itself.

A child is held up by their parents , completely dependent. An adult is held up by the mental matrix they create through interaction; that is their reality, the ground they stand on, the ocean of possibilities they navigate, and what guarantees their survival. Without the group, they're a larva , they'd be dead within a few days.

When we talk about enlightenment, we're talking about the fact of existing without the support of the mental matrix as psychological ground. This means being completely alone before reality, with no foundation or ground other than the fact of existing. The problem is that is impossible to exist psychologically without any support, any source. In isolation, the psyche itself creates the support by neurosis, remembering, pointing what is lack, what should be different. This is not an habit that you can to release, it's the ground of your existence as a psyche, and an human mind. You can't "let go the ego" because that ego what creates an structure for the stability of the psyche. 

In my experience there is only one way to do the change: the openess to the direct existence by mechanical means, like meditation and psychedelic added to the construction of a mental frame that allows that openess. If some moment, openess happen a moment , ant then the psyche itself starts a recalibration. It's a deep change that implies the dissolution of many essential grips, many of them unconscious. It happens slowly and it depends of those moments of openess. 

In some point those moments of openess start to be more common and the individual undergoes a shift and steps out of the mental matrix, coming to exist directly in reality without an interpretive filter. The mind stops being the support; the support becomes the direct fact of being. No interpretation or explanation is needed, because this fact implies everything.

By existing directly, without foundation, the nature of reality reveals itself . it's perceived in every instant. The fact of being manifests its indefinable quality. It simply is what exists; it's absolutely obvious, it implies everything, nothing is missed, it's not outside. At a given moment, you perceive yourself as that. Then for you it's absolutely normal being the reality what is, that is expressed as this form. It doesn't implies that the others are unreal, in fact it's irrelevant, reality is, that's everything. 

Edited 9 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[VeganAwake]

It's interesting because I can completely understand how so-called enlightenment would seem/appear/be described this way.

It wasn't like amnesia though, or forgetting who you are. It's not a denial, avoidance or disregard of yourself.

It's also not forgetting how to function in reality or loosing self control. That would be a mental health issue or something.

Nothing actually dies, falls away or collapses.......these are just words used for a lack of being able to describe a non-happening or something that just SEEMS to occur. 

I can understand how these types of words make it sound like a big actual physical happening of sorts.

And the descriptions obviously vary greatly because everyone uses different descriptive wording/language.

The sense of self/ego doesn't dissapear, dissolve, die, collapse,  merge or ascend anywhere.

It's simply recognized as having never been a real separate entity.

That's why the word "illusion" seems to fit really well. "Something that looks, feels, or seems real, but is actually false, misleading, or misunderstood"

It's not the end of knowing how to function in society and or earning a living for you and your family. You don't forget how to be a banker or lawyer or carpenter for example. I remember how it was being the self character in the past and it's clear how it seemed to emerge at a young age.

But that's not saying it might not change either, anything can happen. A lot of people apparently relax a lot more, because there is no longer a "self" needing to uphold the life standards it had adopted once upon a time.

It's not a state of mind or achievement someone attains. In other words, the seeker never finds whatever it feels is lacking. It's completely hopeless in that sense.

Nobody becomes liberated because nobody was confined in the first place. 

And THAT very realization is the freedom sought-after. It's just overshadowed by the illusory experience of being incomplete.

Reality is already perfectly whole, complete and free.

It's unconditional freedom.

[kavaris]

Im goin over your words, and im tryina isolate just one idea for you, for, I dont normally touch these delicate quandaries, but im changing things up, just to shake the etch-a-sketch and see what happens

36 minutes ago, VeganAwake said:

the seeker never finds whatever it feels is lacking

The seeker can never find the lacking, that is, you might call it penia (poverty or lack) inb4 how eros is born and neither fully destitute nor satisfied, etc, etc...

The truly ignorant dont philosophize, because they dont *feel* lack, mistaking emptiness for fullness sake. Only the persons caught in between are in some sense aware of the in between~ness. They are who is to pursue wisdom at all in that case, and what is wisdom then?

That is, what is wisdom within this context, of either, \*that which is within (or around) the hole?... The lack?...

(p.s. woops i thought both posts were by the same pers., oh well, i guess i meant to ask both of yous in this case now)

Edited 3 hours ago by kavaris

[kavaris]

Ill preface w/ this idea, 'doesnt it invalidate our understanding of self (the Self as the one who knows what is), upon promoting lack/illusion to the highest position? Yay?... Nay?... Paradox is the next obvious perspective after that... And if in fact "paradox", then what?

Yous may have had a diff road, but im jumping ahead.

p.s. you can still have god(s) as a functional element i think, cause its "a god"~that is an extension of self~, the God is like a claim about the infinite self, infinite possible perspectives on gods, or something like that... im adding that in as i read someones talking around god, gods or God.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by kavaris