Breakingthewall

Agree, then saying things like: "reality is a dream" , make no sense, reality is the reality. The only thing that you could say about reality is that reality is.

If I'm in the pure present without mind, nothing tells me that the other people are imaginary and I'm creating them in order to have a human experience , but they have not inner experience. How do you know that?

Well maybe not so simple look for example: being, or existing have an opposite, not being, not existing ,but those opposite don't are, then they are absolute in the sense that their opposites are just an idea, not a reality, because the absolute non being is not real. Would be the non existent space between two beings, then absolutely nothing.

According the solipsistic paradigm, they don't exist as minds, only as images that you are seeing. Are illusion without real experiences, because you as God are creating them in order to have a realistic human experience, but you have the power to hide that fact to yourself. Until you awake and you see the trick .

The tiger is a perception that happens, your mind is creating a tiger and a you/center based in a real tiger that is threatening a real body. If you are at home without hungry tigers, you can look inside, focusing in the mind, then perceive a self/center/subject in that mind and a object/perception , and collapse them because both are a creation of the mind. But "creation" doesn't mean "illusion", because that self/center represent a living organism that's real, and the perception represent an universe that also is real, and both are changing information constantly. If that information is the hungry tiger, you won't be able to collapse the duality because your genetic conditioning would prevail. Maybe you could have the feeling before death of: well, let's go to be one again with the whole, let's open our heart and our mind and surrender to the absolute. Bye and alleluia. But the situation wouldn't be an illusion, just the reality, same than your mind, that's the reality expressed as a mind that knows that is, or if you prefer, as the reality looking/knowing itself.

In my perspective there is a phone and a room. Is all that is possible a phone and a room ? Or maybe you would say that no, but the other possibilities are going to happen "after". Then, is the reality a timeline, or maybe the time is an arising that happens in the reality? If the reality is not a timeline, nor an individual or witness, then, where are the other possibilities now? I only see a phone.

You have to complete that proposition: "Now is all that exists and my perspective of that now is the entire now"

People here is saying that. I don't know, I'd say that other mind are real, but that's because I didn't realized the absolute truth, that is that I'm creating the other minds now. I asked to those people who are enlightened that maybe they could do anything simple, for example creating a planet, just a small one, or do a flight like neo. Not a very high one, just 1 or 2 meters over the floor (because it could be dangerous if it's your first time) , but they say that's impossible because they as God have fixed a rule that forbids it.

Exactly, if you take some drugs you would know without any doubt that other minds are unreal and that you are creating them now, and this is an absolute proof about that other minds doesn't exist. It's obvious, and if you have any doubt it's because you are not awake, you are not in the exclusive club of those who have seen . It's a reasoning that any brilliant mind would have to admit, it's more than a reasoning, it's an absolute fact.

It's not trusting it's knowing or understanding. If you go out in the street now and suddenly a hungry tiger appears in front of you, you will know immediately that something extremely serious in happening, even you never would have seen a tiger in your life. The very fact of the situation would trigger atavistic programming that create a concrete mental state with an emission of chemistry in your brain same time than a structure of perception that would be: knowing that death is coming right now. You don't need to think: oh, an animal that seems dangerous, it could damage my body and provoke a collapse of the system that is called dead. You will know being the knowledge. All your structure would be: knowledge of death now.

If you use to sitting everyday to change your mental frequency and getting out of the cloud of procceses that constitutes the egoic mind to be without any support or grip, open to the actual existence now.

Why the contraposition is false?

The real Jesus was an apocalyptic Jewish prophet. That is, he preached that the apocalypse was imminent, within one or two generations, and that only a few, a very small tribal circle, would have a chance at salvation. Later, as the religion spread, the paradigm shifted, until with Augustine of Hippo, an ideology of absolute terror was consolidated, in which disobedience meant eternal hell. This proved enormously useful as a system of social control when the Roman Empire disintegrated. Similarly, Islam was useful in uniting the Arab tribes. When the Roman Empire was strong, an ideology of total threat wasn't necessary, and that's why Christianity was marginal. But when centralized power fell, this became the tool that society naturally adopted to avoid total collapse.

The fact of the flow is real. Thinking that the reality is unreal because a tree will die is a reasoning very basic, without real understanding. Those people talked from a pre science perspective. Their efforts were real, they really tried to penetrate in the nature of reality by logic , but with basic mistakes. Heraclitus was much more accurate. Imo the basic mistake come from the obligation of not contradicting Buddha because he's seen as holy, then they made a lot of logical jumps to keep the Buddha paradigm

It's a text full of logical mistakes and arbitrary jumps. What is impermanent? What the writer sees as a tree? Maybe he can't understand that the tree is a local manifestation of the reality, and that the reality is permanent as manifested flow, then the tree would be just the visible tip of that flow from his local perspective. What means meaningless? The tree is meaningful for all it's area of influence, and this area is meaningful for the next areas of fluctuation, because everything is interconnected. Maybe for you or for the writer all that is meaningless because ultimately it would disappear, but that's not true, nothing disappear but changes. Meaningless or meaningful are just mental categories that the writer use arbitrarily. The correct term would be cause and effect. The tree is cause of an area of change. Then you could say: for me it's meaningless. What is meaning? First define meaning. Really meaning is anything that is in the cause effect chain and means anything for this chain. Then you could say: ok but for me that chain means nothing. Well, that is just your subjetive feeling, not a description of the reality. You are using "meaningless" as an adjective, like beautiful or boring or anything. Just the effect that causes in your emotions from your actual limited perspective.

Awareness of what?

Well, you know, because even if you look inside and totally collapse all dualities you are still a knower, that is, a conscious being. Then after this openess you return to the normal way of perceiving but you perceive your nature, the absolute being, total potential that lives, every moment. Not for ever, if something unbalancing happen you get closed again and you have to open yourself again and again. Do you use to meditate?

You can know, it's simple: look within, empty your mind, forget phenomena and definitions, enter a mental state where nothing means anything, forget meaning, be in absolute silence. Then you will perceive only existence, but a closed existence. Remain in that non-definition, in that clear mind, and find the subject-object structure. If you look at it directly, it collapses quickly, in minutes. There is no longer subject-object, there is reality. This reality manifests as flat, nothing. Remain there without interpreting. Then it opens, it manifests as what it is, what lives, what is total potential. that is you, and it is absolutely obvious. There is no separation between you and reality; you are reality. It is indefinable; it is what it is. Your heart opens, and your mind too; the separation has dissolved.

The word that tells that only your experience exist. You have to believe right? Because you can't know it

Yeah we should believe the word right? If that's ok for you, that's good.

Why it's a all that exists? That logic makes no sense

It's easy knowing that other mind exist. Your mind is limited, concrete, your experience is defined. Then it's sure that another different mind and experience is possible. If its possible, then it exists. Why do you need to experience it? It's obvious.

Why it's peace having that mental paradigm? Imo what's peace is perceiving directly without mental filter, without categories like void, meaning, karma or anything. Just being open to the real flow now. Definitions happen in the flow, can't encompass it. Void is just an idea that want to express "without reality" when you are talking about the reality. The reality can't be unreal because it's the reality. You can't define it, you are it. Knowing in this case is being, not defining.

Or this: Though phenomena appear as if true, most true, ultimately they are not true. Therefore phenomena abide in the middle way, not truly or inherently existent and also not utterly non-existent… So, according to him the phenomena appears as true, but they aren't. What means "true"? Why they appear as true and they aren't? That's just a subjetive categorization that the writer established just because that's his feeling. Like if "true" was something that everyone have exactly determined. That's a kind of reasoning that can't be seriously confronted. If you want to believe this you have to be extremely permissive with all the logical jumps.

They say this: Therefore, when a tree, for instance, is analyzed, the tree is not found, but its mode of being or emptiness is found. Then, when that emptiness is analyzed, that emptiness also is not found, but the emptiness of that emptiness is found. This is called an emptiness of emptiness. Thus, a tree is a conventional ‘truth’, and its mode of being is an ultimate truth… How they analyze the tree ? Maybe they know all the physical procceses that happens in the reality that have as a consequence the tree? Or maybe they see a tree and they arrived to the conclusion that it's empty, just by feeling? Seems that they are inventing a paradigm without a real deep understanding of what a tree is. Like, I see the tree, then I arrive to the conclusion that the tree is the void. Well, if you say so..... All this text is a conceptual paradigm built over some "truths" that are just subjetive ideas of the philosopher who wrote it, that can't be seriously confronted because they depends of logical jumps that make no real sense but they present as absolute logical obviousness