Hyper Normalisation.

[VeganAwake]

7 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Who is having that illusion? An illusion is an appearance that is not real. For an appearance that seems real exist, must be a subject who is deceived by that appearance, then realize that this was false and another thing is true. Who's saying that the self is an illusion?

Nobody is having an illusion & nobody is deceived. It's more like a misunderstanding or mistaken assumption.

"Illusion" is just a good word which seems to fit well.

The illusory self isn't replaced by something else that's true. 

It's just recognized as having never been real. The identification of being this self/me character is clearly seen as an illusory mis-identification........& that's it boom 💥 

Nothing is replaced as a new identification.

Nothing different is revealed or learned about reality, except that there isn't a "you or me" actually experiencing it.

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, VeganAwake said:

It's just recognized as having never been real. The identification of being this self/me character is clearly seen as an illusory mis-identification........& that's it boom 💥 

Nothing is replaced as a new identification.

Nothing different is revealed or learned about reality, except that there isn't a "you or me" actually experiencing it.

There is existence existing right? You could call it no self or as you want but existence exist and that is what you are. It's not an identification, it's a reality happening now. 

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, VeganAwake said:

Nothing is replaced as a new identification.

Nothing different is revealed or learned about reality, except that there isn't a "you or me" actually experiencing it.

Enlightenment is not a new identification, is that you were closed in the darkness and you open yourself to the absolute light, that's why the name "enlightenment". It's because the closed state is dark, because the closure prevents the source of this exact moment manifests, be perceived, because it's closed in the shell of the ego, the survival system, but if the openess happens, the unlimited nature of existence is totally perceived and the perceptor and the perception are not different. 

[Joseph Maynor]

Hmm.  Man.  

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-10-31 at 1:18 PM, Breakingthewall said:

 

Imagine that your emotional structure is a barrier that keeps your perceptual field focused in one direction, on a specific frequency. This doesn't happen because we are foolish or because it's an error of the ego; rather, it is the structure created over millions of years of evolution, from the first cells to the minds that recreate the universe as an interface between the organism and the environment.

These structures are solid and very real, but they can be dissolved. In some cases, like Ramana Maharshi's, or perhaps yours, those structures are fainter and easier to dissolve, but it always requires a long and dedicated process.

What is sought is not to understand reality, but to perceive the nature of reality, what reality is. This is not impossible, since the perceiving system, the mind, is reality taking the form of a mind that perceives in a dual mode with recording and prediction. A stone is reality in stone mode, it does not perceive.

Reality is not perception; rather, perception is a mode of reality, and we are that mode. In other words, we are essentially the reality and formally perception. What reality is can be fully perceived; your mind can perceive itself as the absolute that it is.

It is rediscovering what you have always been and what anyone is: the absence of limits that exists because it has no boundaries. And that absence of limits of total life has a self: You. Any self is the self of the absolute, because obviously there is a self, and obviously that self is an expression of the absolute, there is no mystery, it is something completely simple and direct.

So if the limits of perception break, the total manifests, and the eye that sees it is at the same time the object that is being seen.

But openness is not about knowing that you are the absolute, but rather opening yourself up to the self-perception of the limitless, which is recognized as something obvious yet forgotten. It is the totality that exists, possessing an absolutely clear quality: total being, the absence of limits, unrestricted possibility, absolute freedom, and the inexhaustible power that emanates from limitlessness.

I like the poetic touch to these writings but still of substance. Funny you put me in same sentence as Ramana Maharshi tho, but yea I have natural inclination for things of the like too

On 2026-10-31 at 1:25 PM, Breakingthewall said:

I'm thinking in spiritual masters like tolle, adyashanti, Ralston, or Ramakrishna, Maharashi, Tagore, and I think that spending time with them maybe they could transmit some special calm, maybe some special understanding. Tagore probably would be someone special, powerful , genius, Ramakrishna probably would like to go on party with MDMA, then he would admit that he's very gay😅

Sounds like you know them personally, maybe during sailing you stopped to pass by hence you got this information

[Breakingthewall]

18 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

Sounds like you know them personally, maybe during sailing you stopped to pass by hence you got this information

Yeah because reading them you could see what is inside them. But if I could choose to know any teacher in deep, I would choose sadhguru without doubt. I bet that he's a real evil narcissist, but sometimes listening him seems that he's a kinda of genius, or really enlightened. He's an enigma that id like to solve. 

[Sugarcoat]

8 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Yeah because reading them you could see what is inside them. But if I could choose to know any teacher in deep, I would choose sadhguru without doubt. I bet that he's a real evil narcissist, but sometimes listening him seems that he's a kinda of genius, or really enlightened. He's an enigma that id like to solve. 

From my perspective, Sadghuru seems legit. Enlightened is one thing, but he's not the stereotypical enlightened as in coming of as very simple and "empty", perhaps contributes to the suspicions, and also him touching upon so many topics in spiritual way, everything from energetics of food to past lives, to the more fundamental awakening stuff. A lot of things one doesn't experience oneself, so I have also been suspicious as in wondered how true it is. But based on my overall impression, he's legit as I said. Seems to have good influence in society. I don't see the narcissism you speak of, based on what I've seen, it's not that much but still. 

I've thought before what you think of Muhammad, may I ask? As you "dissed" Jesus I couldn't help but have the thought😂 He seems more worldly while Jesus seems more spiritual (both spiritual but in comparison, not placing hierarchy there, but a difference that seems to me, I have not studied this much, to be clear)

Edited 20 hours ago by Sugarcoat