Breakingthewall

Then the only thing that is allowed to say is repeating that the self is an illusion? How could be the conversation? For example? The self is an illusion? The self is an illusion!!! Yeahhhb the self is an illusion!!! Is an illusion? What? The self!!! Ahhh yes the self is an illusion. Because any other idea will be humiliated by condescendence. Well, now I understand that spirituality, its let's say, special Btw, rumi was a clown right? Poor idiot, he didn't know the only TRUTH. THE SELF IS AN ILLUSION. Absolutely forbidden to say anything else.

Do you remember when you were 8 years old and everything was direct, raw, wild, unmediated, uncontrolled? Well, I suppose it's more or less like that, but as a dog, for example.

@Eskilon anyway I think that Buddhism doesn't try to make an ontológical explanation of reality but creates a mental structure that collapse, then they have forbidden any positive affirmation because according to them it always would be a barrier. A real Buddhist will tell you that forget even the emptiness and nirvana. Imo it's too twisted but maybe it works in some cases

Anyway, another way to see it is that a blockage exist and insisting and trying in some point it's necessary. It's easy to say that it's nonsense when you are not there, but sometimes effort is needed. Then the point is knowing when it's a blockage in you or real incompatibility.

Imo there are two problems with the non dualistic paradigm. First that they assume that duality is an illusion, second, that reality is consciousness. Duality is a structural fact, it's the same if everything is ultimately the same, duality is happening. It's not an illusion, it's the form of reality now. And consciousness is an arising, not the reality. And arises due the fact of structural duality. It's reality perceiving itself. Perceive implies a self that appears when the reality adopts a mode that is a representation of a change of information between two separate realities. Both could be essentially the same, but now they are separate. The paradigm oneness and illusion leads to confusion, to get stuck in a frozen state where you are closed to the real power of what is. Flat, empty, limited

Rumi said: you are not a drop in the ocean, you are the ocean in a drop. Do you understand what he means? In any part there is the totality, because the totality can't be divided, because it's total. About the self, any consciousness means knowing of being. In fact that's the definition of consciousness. If you are in anesthesia you don't know that you are, even you are, then there is no self, but if you are awake there is consciousness of being and that is the self. The most empty consciousness, the meditative state , is when only the fact of I am remains. You could ask, who knows that? The fact of knowing creates the self because the self is the fact of knowing the fact of being. As consciousness is a possibility (as we can see) then the self is a fundamental property of the reality. The self is not the reality, it's the reality expressed as a self, knowing that it is

That used to happen to me when I was younger, and I'd think, "Oh, how awful, I'm not enough," blah blah. The reality is, you're just not horny, period. Why? Whatever. You don't have to have sex if you're not horny. It's not your fault, or the girl's, or anyone else's; it's just a fact. And spending half an hour giving oral sex when you're not horny... well... imagine the other way around: you're kissing a girl and she says, "I'm not horny at all." So what? Does she suck your dick for half an hour? I don't see it. Usually the problem is the there is tension, not real free connection, it doesn't mean that you are not masculine, it means that you are not a monkey who can have sex with anyone . Sex is not a competition, it's deep connection masculine feminine. It's much better being patient and find the high quality that go for the quantity to feel a winner. For me if the slightest feeling of being winner appears in sex the translation is a voice telling me: you are a pathetic mentally retarded, congratulations The feeling in sex is connection, expansion, life and power, but power doesn't mean win. Win is comparative, power comes from inside, it's the creative power of life, the nature of you. "Win" is always in relation with others, that's noise that prevents you to flow in sex. Win is perfect in competition, business, anything, but not in sex, thats obsolete.

Exactly, concepts arise about the reality of the self; they are not what create the self. I don't understand why non-duality teachers say the self is an idea when it is a fundamental structure. The self arises when there is inside/outside, an exchange of information, and awareness of being. It is impossible for consciousness to exist without the self, because the very existence of consciousness implies being aware that you are, and that is precisely what the self is.

There is knowledge of existing as a fact, or not? When you say "I", you don't mean vegan awake with all his history, you mean the fact of knowing that you are. You can cover this fact with a lot of characteristics, a heavy ego, or remove everything except the fact of knowing that you are, but in both cases there is an i, because the I is a process, a structure that happens that is fact of being knowing that is

I agree, the only manifestation is align yourself and work for your goal

I think it's something as simple as a few years ago almost no one approached women on the street, then suddenly it started to be talked about and more and more men did it, until it became commonplace and women started to show annoyance at it, and men stopped see themselves like "brave who act face to face" and started to perceive as "stalker who's rejected" I think it's ok approaching women but not like serial killer who approach anyone but approaching from the true interest for this concrete woman with the idea of finding real connection and affinity and then let's see where it leads to I think men should stop seeing sex like an achievement necessary for our self steem, that's the toxic point of everything . Seems that men doesn't respect ourselves, then we don't respect women

You started a topic, I gave some ideas, you started with that of, you are not awake, then ❤️❤️, I know that the most Smart position is ignore the fools, but it's stronger than me. Anyway, ❤️😘

Oh, a passive aggressive heart, that means that you are enlightened! I thought that you were just parroting Buddhism, like a obedient believer, but that heart show me that I was wrong. High level here. Just an idea, oh wise. If you say that forms are illusion, you are saying it from the form, because illusion vs real has only meaning in the human form, then , it would be also an illusion right? Absolutely meaningless. Affirming it I mean. It would be exactly the same than "real". It's simple enough for you? Just put a heart if you understood it.

Ah ok, you are awake because you adopted all the Buddhist paradigm and you use the wild card "you are not awake" if anyone put any objections to your beliefs. This is nothing new.

I was thinking about what do you mean. Maybe for you the self was a kind of concept that was happening all time in your software and in some moment it got dissolved and your mind got free of that. But anyway there is still recognition of the fact of being, it's not that "someone" recognizes it, but that exist that recognition. For example, if you are in coma, that recognition disappear. Then in coma there is not self, but now it's self because there is registration of the change, and this implies recognition of the fact of being. The point is: who recognizes it? Well, we don't need to make mess with it: the human structure implies this recognition, and this recognition needs information, difference inside/outside. This recognition of the difference is the self, and it's absolutely real. It will finish when you die, but now it's real, and when you die this self reflexive structure will happen again and again, just because it's a possibility, and always it's "you" because "you" is the fact of knowing that reality is, it's a property in the reality that happens.

He says that any thought you could have about God is just a thought then it's limited, but I think that's he's wrong, for example I could think: god is unlimited being. Then, where is the limitation of that thought? He also said: you are just a part of reality, and thoughts are a small part of reality. But it isn't true, because the reality is, and you are, then there are not parts, are modes, forms. If you want to be open to god, or the absolute or anything you call it you have to focus in the essence not in the form. You can be totally open to the unlimited and perceive right now the unlimited being, and realize that's your ultimate nature. You don't need to know all the forms, only the nature of form, and you can express it in a thought: unlimited being. Quite simple, you don't need to be a genius

You could say that the other ultimately is the same than you, but he's still other. Without other there is not experience, because experience is relationship, and relationship means two or more things, states, in relationships. So saying that it's an illusion maybe sounds enlightened but there are still two

How could be that? There is a brain, a body, a extremely complex procces that is taking place and we call this "person".it's not unreal, it's interconnected with everything, like anything else, but as a process it has it own reality. Saying that is only a belief turn spirituality in a mess, because means denying direct perception as false. Why to do that? It's not necessary, you don't need to twist the reality to open yourself to the unlimited.

The question is not if God exist or not but what is God. If for you God it the unlimited reality, for another a dreamer with an intention, for another is the fact of existing, etc, then it's pointless saying that god exists or not

My main problem with Buddhism is the issue of emptiness. According to Buddhists, nothing has reality in and of itself, but only through its relationship with other things, and from this they infer that ultimate reality is emptiness. From this, they deduce that enlightenment is reaching nirvana, which means "extinguishing your candle." They're already saying a lot there. First, the fact that all reality is interconnected doesn't imply that it's empty, and their bias towards silence, being static, ceasing, etc., is simply a bias, and a rather strange one at that. If reality is relationship, wouldn't it be full of relationship? Buddhists tell you to look closely until you see that reality is empty. They're already telling you what you should find at the end of your observation. So, their silence on other metaphysical matters perhaps simply means they're not interested; they just want to cease.

Buddha is very easy to misinterpret, I often do, but I would say that in essence he points to the truth. Superficially it seems like a self-help strategy, but deep down what he's telling you is to break down the barriers, and what remains is the truth, what you are. He doesn't explain what that truth is, because it can't be explained, since that truth is you. You are the fact of reality being conscious of itself. What Buddha calls dukkah, attachment and desire, are the veils that keep you in a contracted state, blind to yourself. Enlightenment is the end of that contraction and the opening to your true nature. The problem with Buddha is: there is no self, self is imaginary. That's a mess imo, there is self, the self is the fact of knowing that you are.

So for you enlightened is changing your mind paradigm? Then now you think that reality is a dream and that's it? Well, that's what I meant with mental projection

Maybe they had that god realization and it was a projection of their mind

Maybe I imagine what Ramana maharshi what to express and I'm wrong, and I thought you meant the same thing. For me, there are like two types of meditative states. One is being in the pure fact of being; it feels bright, expansive, perfect, and vast. The other is opening yourself to the depth of what you are. It feels deep, alive, connected, and sensual. I have the feeling that for Ramana Maharshi, only the pure being is important to him; the depth doesn't interest him.

It depends how you see it. A determined form has an end, but if you see form as permanent change thats happening, it hasn't end, one form ends and other begins. I see that your perspective is similar than Ramana maharshi perspective. For both of them, reality is absolute being, or rather, the consciousness of being. What they call Sat Chit Ananda. Shiva, the pure, radiant, immutable being. Ramana was enamored with that; for him, that was everything, and everything else was illusion. But for me, that is just being conscious of the fact of being. There is still a closure, which is why Ramana (and you) describe form as illusion. The fact of being is obviously immutable, but it is, let's say, a flat dimension. There is a lack of openness to the profound dimension, to the living nature of reality. Continuing with Hindu terminology, Shakti, or Kali. The creative and absolutely living character of reality. For me, Ramana has fallen in love with one dimension while denying another; when you read him, you notice that lets say limitation. It's not he's not enlightened or anything, it's that he's totally open to one aspect and the other doesn't exist for him. As I see openess means be open to both aspects of reality and see them as inseparable, both are one. Creative power is not an illusion, it's the essential character of reality, the inevitable manifestation of the unlimited. Absolute being opens your mind like wide dimension, unlimited in wide direction, unlimited creation opens your heart in the dimension of depth.