Breakingthewall

the point of those words was describing how it feels a total opening to the source not a description of what reality is. I told that was subjective. Anyway contraction is also reality happening, same than destruction. Are potential developing, an equation taking place because it's possible The source is unlimited potential ,period . It's absolute power, and it permeates everything. The point is not knowing it, it's being open to it. The difference is total.

That seems to be the case. The Iranian victory is complete, since the only possible victory for the US/Israelis would have been the fall of the regime. Without an internal revolution, it was impossible to defeat Iran. I suppose Israel and the US had a plan for that coup to happen, and it simply failed. The positive aspect of this is that it demonstrates that war today is a bad business; any army with modern weaponry willing to fight can cause enormous damage. The negative aspect is the fate of the Iranian dissidents. The regime has been strengthened, and Iran will have to remain dominated by a military oligarchy. EEUU and Israel will claim that everything was a success, that they destroyed what they wanted to destroy and then wait for the next movement of iran. Less power for EEUU, less legitimacy for Israel, more legitimacy for Iranian regime.

Over all when "awakening" is just an history that they tell to themselves. Spirituality is where the narcissists find their last refuge.

The mind is as real as the body. Imagine the quantum synchronicity that must occur in reality for a mind to exist. Ask Ralston if a city is real or not. The mind did it. How could something unreal do something real?

Fear is a reality that's sure, no one is free of fear. I think that the point is facing our fears, if not you are trapped

Most of humans feelings are about inclusion, exclusion, valoration, being enough, being better or worse, being humiliated, feel alone, fear death, poverty, sickness. Those feelings close. Feelings of acceptation, desire to give yourself to the reality, love reality and love yourself because you are the reality, those feelings open

spirituality largely stems from Buddhism, which classifies feelings as maya. The practitioner's goal would be equanimity, which is a flat emotional structure. The idea is that emotions create a dense mental structure that hinders clear vision. Equanimity allows for the perception of the absolute. Taoism says something similar, differing in its concept of the absolute. Christianity, for its part, exhorts you to love; you must love even your enemies. This is another form of equanimity. If you love everything and reject nothing, your emotional structure clarifies, and the whole can be perceived. Islam exhorts you to total submission to God's law and to love God. In this way, supposedly the structure also clarifies, and you would become, in the best-case scenario, a Sufi like al-Hallaj or Rumi. The point is that humans have for default a very dense emotional structure. This structure is what serves as the foundation of society. Human emotions are absolute; without that force, human evolution would never have occurred. The problem is that emotions blind you; you only see emotions. They are a biological vector of enormous power that compels us to go to war or to fuse the atom. Without them, we wouldn't be human. I think it's possible to achieve a structure transparent to the absolute without flattening emotions. You have to align and understand your emotional structure very well, and then you can hack the system at certain moments to put yourself in a mental position where life and death are the same for you. Then, sometimes, the totality manifests itself.

Sure, that's the point of talking about those matters. What's annoying without doubt is when anyone talks from the need of being right, not from the analysis. It's easy to check it: you can show a mistake in his analysis, if the person reacts defensive, not responding, changing topic (or saying peace brother 😅), it's that is speaking from the ego, but if they answer showing the argument from another perspective, admitting mistakes, then they are talking from analysis. Sometimes it's irritating read someone who talks with too much certainly, but that doesn't means that they are talking from the need of validation or to be right.

It's a complex matter. Some spiritual teachers believe that they are enlightened and teach that enlightenment means realizing that the human mind is an illusion, then everything become whats called spiritual bypassing. We are trying to talk about the matter, how it happens, where is the mistake, etc. If you come and insult the people who's trying to understand this wasting time and processing, maybe for you it's funny, over all insulting from a screen, but as you are a moderator, would be nice if you stop insulting. It's a tendency that you have, and sure for you it's funny and innocent, but there are people who doesn't like being insulted. I think you should be kind and understand those too sensitive people who don't like being insulted and be kind and stop insulting. Just a suggestion

I guess that if you want to express your worldview you would do or it would appear in your conversation, it's not a matter of asking but observing. I express mine, others express theirs and we talk about they, to refine, understand, see our flaws... Thats the point of this activity. My point is not convince people of my vision, because it's pointless, they are very few and my vision is in process of construction, it's not finished. My point is expression and communication when it's possible, because this make your vision alive, evolving

That's good that you take responsibility and say sorry to Leo, he has authority right? That's cool. Anyway, I asked about my comment in the video about incompletude. As you was upset about my comment I wanted to know my mistake. If I don't know it, I can't improve

Wrong, there are interesting posts, but they are not appropriate for your....how to say? Well, not appropriate. Try avoid insulting because it's supposed that you are a moderator of a spiritual forum

It's not a matter of letting go or being detached, but of being one with yourself, of breaking the separation that the pain of being human, being part of a humanity that is a well of brutal suffering, inevitably creates. We are the heirs of the most extreme brutality, both physical and psychological. Heirs of generations of minds imprisoned in dogma and terror, enslaved and violated. Breaking the separation, the alienation that human activity has created, cannot be achieved with mental tricks.

@Grateful Dead I'm too lazy to explain the depth of my trauma and its causes right now, but in short, my mental vibration was hellish for years, every second. Obviously, I was seduced by Tolle, Adyashanti, and all those who sell liberation. I saw that it was completely obvious that I was creating my suffering and that it was simply a matter of attitude to stop doing it. This makes you a dissociated being, separates you from yourself. You try to convince yourself that the self is an illusion, and thus you alienate yourself from yourself. You try to empty your mind because you believe that mental activity is what creates the horrible, constant anxiety you live with, and it's exactly the opposite. There is only one real way to resolve an emotional structure based on suffering, and that is to see it directly, to accept that you are a process that is happening, that is interconnected with everything, not an island that decides how to feel, and from there act with absolute determination to integrate that energetic structure that reality has created and that you are, and use its momentum to take a step to another level. You have to make your pain your tool, not try to get rid of it as if it were a mistake. Your anxious nature manifests in your whole being, in your body, in every breath, in every tiny gesture. You must see it as the expression of the reality now, and channel your suffering to open yourself to another level. If you label your trauma as a thought, illusion, mistake, you are trapped for ever, in the infinite carrot. Life is not easy, fair, controllable. Ralston and Tolle sell that you can control your inner state. You? Who? The ego? How? Labeling the real you as an illusion. The real you is what you are now, how you are vibrating now in the hiper complex process that being human is and that is interconnected with everything, not the one who decides stop suffering now. Ralston says: you are doing it! Stop doing it now!!! Who is doing it? It's the reality that is happening as a process that feels like suffering, the real you that Ralston and Tolle talks about is precisely the ego, they are absolutely wrong,.180 degrees wrong, like all non dualistics. At the end, when you have a really anxious and traumatic structure, there is only one way. It's the reality that is pushing itself to make a movement, and you have to face the reality so directly and without any filter, any grip, until you are able to open yourself to the unlimited, but not the unlimited "being" that is the truth, etc, but the heart of the reality, the source. If Ralston and Tolle would do that step they will understand what is a human, then they wouldn't categorize the lack, the mental suffering as falsehood. "Mental" is not different that physical. Everything is real, there are not illusions. I thought that for me in this life would be absolutely impossible stop the sick intensity of my suffering, but I managed to find the way. Absolutely, total transformation, a miracle that was just an utopia. Not something that is "almost", some days good, others not so, but totally clean. It's not a matter of identity, it's a matter of conquest your freedom changing the level where you operate. You can't do that denying the previous level as false, because it's absolutely real. Its precisely the reality happening.

Then their level of enlightenment is exactly equal to zero. It's not like, he's almost enlightened. It's more: he's deceiving himself and others because he's a kind of narcissist very subtle, very difficult to grasp. Enlightenment means exactly open heart. Open heart means absence of defense. They operate from defense, just watch a Ralston video, it's obvious Lets see, the first time I read Tolle, I had the same reaction as everyone else: I thought, "It's obvious! This man is a true genius, it's all so simple..." But now, when I listen to him, he sounds.to me like a professional con artist. I suppose he doesn't do it on purpose... or maybe he does. Let's see, when Tolle talks about the pain-body, how it activates, the trauma, and how you can choose to activate it or not, he's lying. It doesn't work like that. The trauma is embedded in your system, in your energetic vibration; it's absolutely real, it's your way of being now, it exists as a path in your brain. And if you categorize it as an illusion, a concept, a falsehood, as Tolle and Ralston do, you'll never get rid of it. It's the endless carrot; you'll always be chasing it, thinking, "I almost have it, it's as if I already have it, only... the trauma comes back." A minor flaw? No, an absolute con, and I'll try to explain how they do their movie Tolle tells you: a zebra doesn't care about what time is it, it's always now. It's similar than Ralston in the video I posted above saying that a 3 legs dog doesn't feel incomplete. A zebra and a dog are not a human 😅. It's like if I say to a zebra: why do you complain if I'm stabbing you? If I stab a three it doesn't complain, for a three everything is fine. I'm going to explain you my experience with trauma, I don't know if teorically, I know it absolutely directly

But we are not talking face to face. Anyway, it's still real life. You could judge the message instead the messenger, then we can talk about the topic

It's very different to have the need of being the one who's right than seeing the absolute mistake in a spiritual teacher that has great influence in the spiritual human paradigm nowadays and don't point it. It's not a matter of opinion, it's that he's totally wrong and is a huge hindrance for any Spiritual seeker. His message is seductive and false from my view. Anyway, many tell me that I'm this and that but no one say nothing about what I said about Ralston paradigm, except greateful death . Maybe it's me who's wrong, then tell me where For me this is like an exercise to see where are the barriers, not an exercise to be great.

Listen to Ralston's video, read my comment, and tell me where I'm wrong. If you're right, I'll admit it.

That's good that you call me closed minded. Anyway, where are my mistakes? For example in my comment in the video about incompletude

You seem very angry, I'm sorry. Anyway, we are talking about Ralston. I said some opinions about the Ralston paradigm, for example above about a video where he talks about incompletude. You could point all my mistakes in my comment, then maybe I could see them And of course, I make my opinion about others observing them, not believing what they say about themselves

Maybe that's what you see in the Ralston paradigm, then I agree in some extent. Unfiltered and pure presence for me is the result of absence of inner friction, and it's the pre requisite for enlightenment (in my opinion). It's the result of a inner work where you face all your trauma and fear. Anyway, For me Ralston doesn't transmit that pressence when I listen him, but who knows . Over all, that's not enlightenment. Enlightenment is more like Jesus christ, al hallaj or Ramakrishna. It's the openess to the absolute. And I think you agree with this, then how's possible that you don't see the Ralston limitation?

It depends a lot. Sitting Bull, who was a great mystic, might have felt the absolute power of Wakan Tanka , the great mystery, by torturing himself with the Sun Dance, or in a ritual torture of a tribal enemy, in which the enemy was skinned alive and then devoured by ants. Perhaps Sitting Bull would have seen the creative and destructive power of reality in all its brilliance, and might have fervently wished to be the one offered as a sacrifice to the cosmos to dissolve in the whole, demonstrating his courage. That's absolute love. But yes you are right, it's about union

For example this video. He talks about feeling of incompletude of humans and he compares it with a 3 legs dog that doesn't feel incomplete . Let's see, humans have evolved for millions of years as tribal beings, part of a group. There are many neurological mechanisms that form the human structure of group cohesion and comparison. This has enormous power. Rejection from the group activates pain receptors equal to, perhaps even greater than, physical pain. If a chimpanzee loses its status in the group, its cortisol levels and systemic inflammation skyrocket. The same happens in a human. Nowadays we live in an artificial society that is heritage of the horror of 18, 19, and 20 centuries, when the party in London or Moscow being a worker seemed more or less to the hell. Then the fool humans feel incomplete. That's absolutely normal You can transcend this plane of functioning with enormous insight and difficulty, but to say it's an illusion is a joke. Especially coming from a guy who's been a champion of everything, a millionaire, idolized. His way of expressing is like, it's so fool, poor idiot humans, feeling incomplete. The dog doesn't feel incomplete with 3 legs, but if you isolate it in a room for 1 year, it will feel absolutely incomplete, depressed and probably if will die. Then, what's the point of those speeches?

He always use the term: absolute truth. He can say anything, but "truth" implies a mental valoration. Saying that separation is an illusion is another mental valoration. What means separation? If you meditate and your mind is empty, you don't think: oh, there is no separation. Separation between what? Your mind is empty, period. Separation is real, you are an organism interacting with the external. You can empty your mind, but this doesn't implies that there is no separation, implies that your mind is empty. Nothing is "absolute truth", because nothing is false. What you can do is open yourself to your ultimate nature, to the unlimited that is, but this doesn't implies that the fact your 4 cm dick (following the previous conversation, not personal 😅)is short is an illusion, it's a reality in a level. Then if Ralston says that enlightenment is knowing what is absolutely true, this implies that everything else is false, and this is a mistaken approach (for me). Of course he will say that. It's impossible to explain, it's enlightenment and you have to do it. But we can deduct his mistake from his words

I think that unity doesnt mean love. it's obvious that everything is the reality in different manifestations, no one could argue this, but this doesn't mean that reality "loves" itself because it's one. I think that love is the positive drive of reality channeled from a human interface that excludes what threatens it. Positive drive in the sense of affirmative, being, manifestation, creation, expansion. I watched more that 20 videos of Ralston, including this one about love that you posted before. Maybe I'm ignorant about the real message of Ralston. If I discover that I was wrong and Ralston is really accurate, I would be happy to realize it.