Breakingthewall

@Inliytened1 what paradox is real, for example?

Paradoxes are ideas that are not paradoxical as ideas since they exist, but what they describe cannot exist. That's why are paradoxes. Paradox means incoherence, and incoherence only exist as an idea, as a conceptual model.

Paradox doesn't exist, only lack of understanding. If you see a paradox means that you didn't understand the coherence of the system

Why? A self is totally logical, very simple. Where do you see a paradox?

There are not paradoxes, just lack of understanding . Why do you think that there are paradoxes?

He says that the foundation of reality is "spirit", and that its development always tends toward systems of greater complexity. He also says that consciousness is a fundamental property of reality. The contradictions would be: 1. This spirit he speaks of would be something with characteristics and will. This will would be greater complexity. From an absolute perspective, there is no possible "greater complexity," there must be infinite complexity flowing in local cycles of creation and destruction. There is no tendency toward nor a will, since there is no causal arrow except at the local level. 2 The spirit he speaks of already introduces an impossible paradox: a conscious being with will, but unlimited. Consciousness and will are limits. Consciousness and will are local; they cannot be absolute. In the absolute, there are zones not subject to will or consciousness. How many? Infinite. The only possible will is the inevitability of the absence of limits. The only possible consciousness is that which arises in complex, self-referential systems. The only possible "spirit" is the total fact of being, absolutely cleansed of any quality except being, which implies everything. For me the view of Wilber closes the mind in a defined idea of reality as an entity, and this prevent liberation. The point is that a conceptual frame that put any subtle barrier is a total closure.

I have points of view, if I expose them here isn't not to convince you it's to see how you debunk them by logic, if you can. To find contradiction and mistakes

Scared about what? He's interested in spirituality, the point is not a competition about who's right but refine our vision, contrast any paradigm to see if it stands or it's a mistake , of contains any mistake

You cry a lot but then saying nothing. If you read so much Ralston sure you could explain his view

Have you reading willber? From what I read he's very inconsistent, not clear about the basis of his view .

They say that the ground is empty pure consciousness

The problem with Willber is similar to Ralston's and Buddhism . For him, ultimate reality is formless empty consciousness, and the world of phenomena is an illusory appearance within that consciousness. This description is wrong; it confines you to a dualistic mental boundary that apparently is non-duality. Ultimate reality is not formless empty consciousness; this is impossible since form exists. Ultimate reality is absolute being, the fact of being, which is no formless or form because it is what all forms are, it's not something separate from the forms. It's affirmative being, the quality of everything. Emptiness or formless are meaningless, just ideas. What is, is. Period. Being is everything, could be empty of form if you meditate but it's just an aspect of being, not different than form. "Formless empty consciousness" would be the state of being conscious of absolute being from the human form, which is also absolute being. I don't doubt that Ken Willber can access this state; the problem is that his explanation is flawed, a complete misunderstanding that will close the reader in a maze.

Real is an idea that happens in the self. The self exist, period. Nothing else. Any adjective is a closure

It's not an illusion, it's a reality. The self is all the system that creates differentiation. Without the self wouldn't be experience, everything would be the same. The point is not being focused in the differences but in the substance, but always from the self.

@OBEler for example , you said before that you are in a moment of suffering due a break. That's inevitable right? According Ralston, how could anyone stop suffering in such situation? Or if your son dies, etc. From what I watched I guess that he would say that you should contemplate who is suffering, where is the subject that is suffering, then in some point you will realize that it's not such center or self, it's an illusion, then suffering dissolves. The problem for me is the same than Buddhism. Who is doing that contemplation is the self itself, and realizing that it doesn't exist is a contradiction. The only way to dissolve the self as a center that receive the experience is not dissolving it, it's open yourself to the absolute. The self do an action, it open itself. Then the absolute fact of being takes the protagonism, and the self lose its charge in great extent. Differentiations blur because all are the same: being. But what you can't do is removing the self from the self without any substance or support that sustain the structure of your psyche. It's impossible, your psyche would grab anything, and that anything would be the history of yourself, the contrast good /bad, the ego.

Buddhism is very coherent. The problem for me is that it's focused on subtraction, on letting go of attachment and desire in order to reach the emptiness of the mind, which is enlightenment. As I see it, the path is openness, and it is openness that results in detachment, not the other way around. And what Buddhism calls sunyata, or essential emptiness, I see as the total fullness of what is. If you are open to the absolute fact of being, your mind empties of content, and desire ceases, since in absolute being there is everything; there is nothing you can desire that you don't already have. This, of course, lasts for a while, during which you intentionally focus on the absolute. Afterward, you have to continue living, and this requires thousands of desires and actions, and a very deep understanding of all relationships. Another mistake in my opinion is calling the self illusion. This is categorizing something as illusion from what you are calling illusion, because it's the self who affirm that the self is illusory. It's a mental mess that leads to confusion. Another mess is affirming that there is reincarnation, this is a religious belief that is quite contradictory. If the self is illusion, who reincarnates?

I just want to talk about his paradigm, just to go deep in what is suffering and what is a self. Also about Buddhist paradigm. It's very interesting but you can see some contradictions.

Let's analyze your emoticons. what they mean? Your feeling of happiness by feeling (wrongly) superior?

Who understands him? He's contradictory from the videos I watched. Then, how could you dissolve the self according to Ralston? According to him You suffer because you are identifícate with an idea of yourself that you create by social interaction, and that's an illusion. Where is the difference with traditional Buddhism, Eckhart Tolle or many others? Imo the mistake is that the conceptual idea of yourself in the social interaction is real. It's genetically uncoded and it's the drive that build societies, empires, civilization. It's not the same than direct pain of the body but it's real in its level. You can die due those ideas.

@Natasha Tori Maru I watched many videos, I can't read books about spirituality because in the moment that I read anything that I see as a mistake, I'm done. Anyway, it's easy to transmit it's paradigm. If you want I could tell mine, then anyone can point my mistakes.

@Natasha Tori Maru Sorry for being such monster, I can't avoid. Anyway, then Ralston paradigm about suffering?

Just understanding relativity theory as deep as I can. Not so simple as it seems.

You could try to explain. I think it's more or less clear what the self is. It's the "me" vs what's not me. The I that can be damaged and must be protected. That includes body and self image . What Ralston and others says that is illusory is the self image, the social self. But the social self is uncoded by evolution, it's the position of the individual in the group. Monkeys also have it, but not conceptual. This social self is seen as a timeline, and generates suffering. The point of everyone is stop this suffering. So for Ralston the key is dissolving this self. I know this topic very good by direct experience, then I like to contrast, nothing else.

It's not talking down, it's analyzing. Read what I wrote and answer if I'm wrong. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, it's analysis. He's not a religious figure, is someone who exposes a thesis about the mind and can be analyzed without generating rage.

Because he writes about how stop suffering, and that's what people wants. Same than Buddha