Breakingthewall

The fact of the flow is real. Thinking that the reality is unreal because a tree will die is the 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. Ok, and for me it's boring . And for John is so beautiful. Then what epistemology is this? Not a serious one for sure.

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

A human being is a social being . this is obvious to anyone. What's not so obvious is the extent of it. The human mind is evolutionarily programmed in a very concrete way, with very little margin for freedom. Language isn't just another function , it's an evolutionary mechanism that creates a cloud of information shared between individuals, sustained by emotional mechanisms of enormous power. This cloud of information is structured in symbols, and the symbols represent acceptance, rejection, family, love, status, worth within the group, mythology, and ultimately, the world itself. A child is held up by their parents , completely dependent. An adult is held up by the mental matrix they create through interaction; that is their reality, the ground they stand on, the ocean of possibilities they navigate, and what guarantees their survival. Without the group, they're a larva , they'd be dead within a few days. When we talk about enlightenment, we're talking about the fact of existing without the support of the mental matrix as psychological ground. This means being completely alone before reality, with no foundation or ground other than the fact of existing. The problem is that is impossible to exist psychologically without any support, any source. In isolation, the psyche itself creates the support by neurosis, remembering, pointing what is lack, what should be different. This is not an habit that you can to release, it's the ground of your existence as a psyche, and an human mind. You can't "let go the ego" because that ego what creates an structure for the stability of the psyche. In my experience there is only one way to do the change: the openess to the direct existence by mechanical means, like meditation and psychedelic added to the construction of a mental frame that allows that openess. If some moment, openess happen a moment , ant then the psyche itself starts a recalibration. It's a deep change that implies the dissolution of many essential grips, many of them unconscious. It happens slowly and it depends of those moments of openess. In some point those moments of openess start to be more common and the individual undergoes a shift and steps out of the mental matrix, coming to exist directly in reality without an interpretive filter. The mind stops being the support; the support becomes the direct fact of being. No interpretation or explanation is needed, because this fact implies everything. By existing directly, without foundation, the nature of reality reveals itself . it's perceived in every instant. The fact of being manifests its indefinable quality. It simply is what exists; it's absolutely obvious, it implies everything, nothing is missed, it's not outside. At a given moment, you perceive yourself as that. Then for you it's absolutely normal being the reality what is, that is expressed as this form. It doesn't implies that the others are unreal, in fact it's irrelevant, reality is, that's everything.

Imo the point of spirituality is breaking the barrier between you as a self and the reality. You could say that this barrier is just psychological but still exist and it's very strong. Being open is not knowing that the self doesn't exist, is feeling the connection and the vitality of the reality every moment. Not because you love the others and that, but just because you exist

I think that the "anyone personally" is what arises due or genetical programming, it's not an illusion, it's something that happens, something realtive. You can recognize yourself as not fundamental as a self, just something that happens in the process of being human. The problem is calling it illusion, it's very confusing because implies anything else more real. When Newman and the neo advaita say that nothing have happened, nobody never existed, it's just wrong, the self exist and the process that is happening too. It's not essential, not the center of reality, it's just an arising that's happening and you can see yourself as something relative, not absolute, then open your focus. But if you deny the self as false you get in a mental mess imo

A true mental framework must be open because reality is open. Otherwise, it would be limited, and what would limit reality? Suprareality? That's impossible. Therefore, a mental framework that is closed on one side, the creator god, establishes an absolute limit. You might say no because that god is infinite, but it is a limit nonetheless. Reality begins at that god/limit. This conceptual framework limits your mind and traps you, preventing your freedom; therefore, it is false.

Self deleting use to be a kind of evasion to avoid suffering making a new mental frame where the self is seen as an illusion in comparison to a reality, then if many things are painful you think that are illusions then they stop hurting, but at the end it's a closed mental frame. Why not stop categorizing the self and just understand it's dynamics? Why it's important if the self is real or not? Notice that the categories are a function of the self, without self you couldn't make categories as illusion vs real, then the self is affirming that the self doesn't exist.

The ultimate ground of being would be just the fact of being. You could say that being implies manifestation necessarily, but the only possibile "cause" of being is the impossibility of absolute limits previous to being, because those limits should be. Then you could say that absence of limitations implies being, make being inevitable. Then the god that you are talking about would be just the fact of the absence of absolute limits. That's not a ground, it's just unlimited. And it's not an entity that's omniscient and powerful, absolute power is synonym of absence of limitations because absolute being is absolute potential. You can know that God directly, it's the fact of being, the unlimited that is. You are that manifested as a human, and you can totally perceive what you are, because a human is (among other properties) the fact of perceiving. Then same than you can perceive pain or sadness or anything, you can perceive what you are, the absolute being. It's nothing alien or mysterious, it's exactly what you are if you are able to dissolve all the limits of your perception

That's the explanation of someone who can't find an explanation. So, what is God, and who created God? Is God even anything? It should be, since he creates things like universes. If it does, it has to be with a precise intention and excluding what he doesn't want; that is, God has a concrete will. Where is that will? How is it defined? This God would have dimensions since he would be subject to causality. If he wants something, it has to be for some reason, some cause. So, you explain the universe through God. How do you explain God?

You are a very complex mind that can be aligned to be open to its ultimate nature, or be closed and lost in the emotional structure of the psyche. There is not any illusion, just levels of density.

It's just for talking about the topic. Anyway, also no one can say that after death you will realize that you are existing in many dimensions and you will go to hell because you touched your dick exactly one time more over the limit that baby Jesus defined, then you are going to be the bitch of Satan for some eons. Nobody knows the structure of the reality, saying what's going to happen is nonsense

And? Then could be the sense of being of vegan awake, even that sense of being is closed in the individual, ultimately it's the absolute being expressed as a form. It's the same absolute being, different expression. Imagine that you have an accident and you forget everything, did you cease of existing? If you are focused in the form yes, you did. If you are open to the absolute being no, you didn't, the form changed, the essence is exactly the same, and what you are is that essence. It's not something like, oh, ok, I know that I am, no, it's the absolute openess that is, the reality itself, the absolute potential. It's the same if it's conscious of itself or not, it's the absolute. It's real, not a mental history, it's what everything is.

Reality didn't "come" from anything, because "coming" implies causality and time, and can't be causality or time outside of the reality, then reality never started. "Start" implies causality and time. Causality and time happen in the reality, not the reality is subjected to causality and time. Reality is, and being is absolute. Another paradox?

Instead that kind of affirmations you could put an example of a paradox that's real

If a bottle hasn't limits it would be a paradox because a bottle is something limited by definition, same than any form, because any form is relative to another form, that is, limited by another form, then a unlimited bottle is impossible. The only unlimited is the fact of being, because it's not limited by the fact of not being. The fact of being a bottle is limited, same the fact of being you, but the fact of being itself is unlimited because it's opposite is not.