Breakingthewall

At least you can adopt a perspective not immersed in lack at times, something very few people can do. The next step is to adopt that perspective even when there is conflict. That is, the conflict persists, but you can take a step back and escape its intensity, seeing it as a movement within the flow of reality. Not conceptualizing it as such, but truly perceiving it as such; then most of its burden disappears. Obviously, if the situation is intense enough, immersion is inevitable, but at least you know what's happening.

Well, that's your opinion. Humans are complicated, things are simple, humans should be simpler, it's just your perspective. The perspective of the reality is that humans should be as their are.

Zero and infinity, from an absolute perspective, are two extremes that touch to the point of becoming one. Zero is the absence of everything; in the absence of everything, there are no absolute limits that stabilize nothingness as the absence of contrast, of "something." Infinity is the infinity of contrast, of relative change, of form. Any local relative form, if you open the perspective to infinity, blurs into zero. Therefore, zero and infinity are the same. Relative forms are forms from a local perspective; from a total perspective, there are no forms, only being. Infinity and zero are two facets of being that are truly the same.

@Natasha Tori Maru the mistake that i see in Ralston is ontological, not something banal, but of course this is my opinion and probably you would think that who's wrong is me. Look: For Ralston, mental flow is illusory because what ultimately is, is direct awareness of mental flow. For me, mental flow is what it is in the form of mental flow, and what I am is what it is in the form of a dual perceiver. Perception is not the foundation but the expression of what is in a concrete structure. For Ralston, perception itself is the foundation. Consequences? If you follow Ralston's line of thought to the end, you arrive at solipsism and absolute closure. If you follow the line I propose, you disintegrate as a center and arrive at absolute openness If you place perception or consciousness as the foundation, you place yourself, the perceiver, as the absolute center. This is neo-Advaita spirituality, and the problem with it is that, while calling itself non-duality, it establishes an essential duality: the real, consciousness; the illusory, that which appears. In my view, you can jump from the dense emotional level to the perceptual level where everything is perceived as flow, but the only thing that changes here is your subjective experience, not the ontological category of your experience. Ontologically, everything is what it is. Subjectively, one type of perception is free, the other trapped. Both are the reality.

It could works, same than Tolle s ideas. What I meant is that what I get from watching his videos is that he establishes an essential difference between the sensory and the mental, categorizing the sensory as real and the mental as false. In my opinion, this isn't the case. It's like when Tolle says, "It's always now." Is something bad happening to you now? Then why are you suffering? What's happening now is that you're suffering. Not because of something in the past, but because of a created mental structure, a neural pathway, a stable quantum cloud that is a universe in itself that is happening. This structure takes the form of the "past" because the mind functions by creating a timeline. This isn't false or illusory; it's a natural force that creates civilizations by synchronizing millions of individuals as one, creating art, culture, science, philosophy. I completely agree that it's essential to break free from the chains of the mind, but that's not achieved by categorizing them as illusory. It's confusing, traps you. Or at least that's the case for me. The only way for me is the The direct, non-conceptual understanding of the energetic mechanisms that close off, that trap you in the vibration we call mental suffering, perceiving them directly and confronting them without evasion, and without categorizing them as "illusion." If you categorize them that way, you are within the mind level that assigns categories and meaning. If you see them directly, you are a step above, at the level of direct structural understanding. At that level, everything is the same category: real. It is living reality flowing in its forms, and suffering is living reality. It is at this level that suffering is deactivated because here it is not "suffering", it is the flow of the real, like everything else. Maybe Ralston is pointing in the same direction? I guess so, but I never understood that listening him.

I didn't read his books. Maybe I will try but I'm too ADHD for reading books, or maybe I just find them boring. What I understand of his idiosyncrasy is that, according to him, the mental is illusion and the real is direct experience: tastes, smells, what you can see and touch. But the mental is also your direct experience, even if it's not sensory; it's a real perception. You're not imagining it; your system creates the mental from perceived models just as it creates the sensory. It's not ontologically different. It's just another level of perception, less rigid but as real as the senses.

He really has some kind of autism? I see in him a vibe similar to the guy from Free Solo, Alex Honnold; it's like the problematic emotional hardware we all have is very subdued. That has great advantages, you can climb 900m walls without a rope or be a perfect martial artist, always totally focused, but like everything in life, it has its downside: maybe less connection or understanding of certain human facets that are real

Anyway, I know this might be below some people's level, but maybe anyone will find it interesting. Ruminative mental suffering occurs because your circumstance plus your innate system have created a certain structure. Challenges and emotional burdens have arisen in your life that you haven't been able to manage and have been covered up by emotional mechanisms aimed at preserving your stability. For example, your need for belonging in childhood and adolescence was non-negotiable; if it couldn't be satisfied, you would cover up a part of your system in order to function. These accumulated scars create an underlying dissonance that can manifest as hysterical rumination because your partner isn't calling you. You can't stop this rumination at will, you are not "doing " it, it's happening due the energetic structure that you are now. but you can understand your mechanisms, look at them directly without falsehood, open yourself to your suffering, become one with it, align yourself with it, see it as an energetic burden, a circumstance that occurs, and not run away from it. If you think that the suffering is a mistake that you are doing, you are trapped

No no , its ok, you are too charitable. I greatly appreciate your patience and charity . I'm very sorry if I bothered you by expressing opinions that, in your wisdom, you've deemed stupid, and it's perfectly legitimate for someone as charitable as you to, at times, driven by righteous indignation, insult or even block people who hold different opinions.

Be careful or he's going to block you. He insult endorsed with his power to block you here a week or two

Well, tell me exactly what I can say to don't offended you and what is allowed here. It's easy, I didn't know, then I gave a free opinion, but thanks to correct me so wisely

He sends a seductive message: reality is simple, you're the one complicating it. Focus on the sensory and abandon the mental, which is false. Well, this message is completely wrong; it's what's called spiritual bypassing. But this is what sells, because people don't want to, or can't, go deeper. They want to be told that everything is easy and that everything will be alright. Do you want to be a successful spiritual teacher? Tell the people that their suffering is an illusion and absolute happiness is easy, just stop suffering. It's you who's creating suffering, then you can stop it. Tell it a lot of times, then they will buy, because they need it. And then they will tell others that now they are happy, because they know that suffering is false. the reality could be the opposite, but they will make up everything to pretend that they are happy, with addictions, rumination, depression, repression, hate, etc. That's just narcissism. The mind is not a mistake to transcend but a structural phase of reality. Attempting to bypass it creates dissociation, not freedom. If you want freedom you have to align your system, not denying it. There is the real work.

Exactly, and that grip is extremely deep. The human world is moved by that grip, people lives and dies moved by this, it's what we are. If you don't understand it and trivializes the ego as an illusion, you are going to be prisoner without scape. Understanding is essential, and Ralston only sells attitude, not understanding

The problem I see with Ralston is that he doesn't realize, or seems not to realize, the enormous emotional burden that comes with being human, and how incredibly difficult that is to manage. Fear, the need for belonging, for acceptance, for self-preservation, for permanence, are encoded deep within our genetic makeup, and very few people manage to align their energies to achieve a permanent state of openness. It's like an autistic person who doesn't feel emotions or fear danger becoming a coach and telling you: just climb that 700-meter rock wall in solo, and that's it. It's easy! Well, no, it's extremely difficult, and a teacher who doesn't understand the difficulty involved is not fit for the job.

Even the word "source" could be confusing implying a duality: a source from which reality emerges, when reality does not emerge, it simply is. The concept of enlightenment is extremely simple: what everything is, is being. Being is, and everything is an expression of being. Being is absolute, without opposite, since non-being is not. Forms are relative; they are relational. Enlightenment is the form that is conscious of form becoming aware of its absolute nature. When you open yourself to your nature, you realize that being is everything, and form are form. That's it, sounds anticlimactic but it isn't. About God, you could say that the totality of the being manifested is God, and you and God are one in essence. But what you can't say is that you are god dreaming the reality and you are omnipotent, because it's not true, you are a relative form. Relative to the other forms, created by them by relationship, and creator of them by relationship .

A revolution is currently underway in Iran to overthrow the Ayatollahs' regime. The population is in the streets, government buildings are being set on fire, and in many cases, the police are joining the protesters, Israel is ready to act. This is a global event of immense importance, and the news isn't saying a single word about it. Why?

Good to see you again. Well, source and God have different connotations . God implies a creator with an intention, like, ok, I'm god and I will create humans, because I want. Humans, be! And the humans are. Source implies the foundation of the reality, of what is, and because it is, the humans are. Why? Because are a possibility, a potentiality that is happening. Without any intention, since the source is not limited. The source doesn't decide, it flows, and this flow now is you.

It depends, if your ego is oriented to become a Buddhist monk expert in meditation then you could meditate a lot

There is only one enlightenment, and it's simple. Being is. If you are totally open to it, that's everything. All what you said before are states of consciousness that are fundamentally subjective perceptions of the human mind. Like if you find boring the normie perception and you create special perceptions, like infinite god full of love that is dreaming for fun, for example. And then you affirm that this is the truth because you imagined it being drugged after watching a video of a guy saying that he realized that reality is and infinite god full of love etc etc. I think it wouldn't pass a deep logic questioning, but if you want to try, let's.

I've always been sure that almost all spiritual teachers are narcissists. The problem is that everything they say is geared toward their own success. Spirituality is fake, but necessary

I didn't, Just his main ideas by curiosity . I'm not saying what he says is false, I'm saying it has no relation to enlightenment. It's very possible, but it's just something that happens and we cant explain, like quantum physics 100 years ago. Maybe the structure of reality is very complex and interconnected and what we understand is just the surface. What is an awakening? It's very simple. It's about dissolving the barrier that keeps you separate. Structurally, we are separate individuals; in essence, ontologically, we are reality. The point is to transcend the barriers that define you as an individual and be aware of yourself as reality. Reality isn't something defined, because if it were, it would be an individual. If it were God or consciousness, for example. It's nothing that can be named; as the Tao says, it is the totality. It's not thinkable; you can only be it. That's the only awakening or enlightenment, not knowing that everything is consciousness, or that you are god. Those are forms that the mind creates. The mind can create extremely precise and persuasive forms.

Schmidt sells you Ideas like the universe has an intention and responds to your vibration . This sell well; people want to hear that. It could be that your inner vibration attracts events in a "magical" way, and that this could be proven by science in the future due to interdimensional quantum connections or something like that, and this would have no relation to opening yourself to the totality. When he presents awakening as something mysterious that only happens by accident, he tries to make you believe he knows something very mysterious you don't, but that a select few will know. perhaps you're one of them. This sells very well. Siren songs to lure the unwary traveler. Awakening doesn't depend on "spiritual" genetics or being "spiritually gifted," but rather on your will and intelligence to avoid falling into traps. Awakening is very simple: it's opening yourself to the totality, period. The totality has not intention because any intention is not total. Obvious right?

Really? I think that most of them are narcissists who believe their own histories because they make them feel safe. Narcissism is so powerful that can induce mystical experiences, but there is something that is impossible to falsifying, the openness that is the end of the emotional rollercoaster. If you are not open you system can't be stable

Feminism inevitably leads to the end of procreation and to transactional sexual relationships. This is positive because in the future, it seems robots will be doing the hard work, and procreation will be highly planned rather than widespread. You only have to look at birth rates according to level of development. It's just the next evolutionary step.

It's a matter of will. If the will is absolute, the obstacles fall away. Will of absolute freedom, absolute truth, absolute openess. The question would be: is your will enough to leave everything? Even god, permanence, consciousness? It's enough to open yourself to real death without greed? If the question is really yes, you are honest enough to cross the border. But if you are looking for something divine, wonderful, better, then you will get delusions. Many are called, but few are chosen. If even a trace of greed exists, that trace will be an insurmountable barrier. It will lead you down paths of madness where you will wander in circles, in mystic circles believing delusions. The heart must be open, the mind be integral. If not, the door will be armored.