Breakingthewall

Quite accurate. A human being is an energetic construct that emerges in reality after an evolution spanning eons, and to evolve, it has selected an absolute will to be, to remain, to fit into the group, to maintain itself as a concrete form, to avoid dissolution. This will is an energetic knot of enormous power, which closes the human structure and keeps it limited. Breaking that knot and opening perception to the unlimited faces very serious barriers; it is extremely difficult. But the human will is unstoppable. It is the expansive will of reality, that is just the inherent expansion of the unlimited, and when the time comes, it focuses like a laser and breaks through any barrier.

Seems useless any strike from EEUU now. The only way to achieve regime change in Iran is through action by the Iranians themselves. The US and Israel will obviously collaborate if civil war breaks out, but for that to happen, a large sector of the Iranian armed forces would have to rebel, and this doesn't seem possible...so far. Who knows what tricks Israel has up its sleeve? Yes, yes, Israel should mind its own business and all that, but on the other hand, perhaps 50 years of Islamic clerical dictatorship, where the illiterate rule and those who study emigrate, is enough for a millennia-old culture like Iran's.

It's not about "truth," since that implies "falsehood," which is the wrong approach to the matter. Enlightenment is breaking down limits and being open to your nature, to the absolute being. "Absolute" means unlimited. Relative means limited. Relative is not false, is just manifestation, not nature. "Being" is the consequence of unlimitedness. If nothing limits it, being is. Reality is. This is everything; it is the totality. To truly be open to this reality as a base state is enlightenment. This is not just a realization, it's an energetic shift.

Yes I understand , but enlightenment is not about increasing your consciousness in the sense of being aware of more things, but about opening your consciousness to no-thing, to absolute being. For example, we were talking about Ramana before. He says that enlightenment is silence, or that it is found in silence. This means that enlightenment is not "something." It is not God, nor consciousness, nor a higher self; it is the absolute being, the field of possibilities where reality arises, the total openness that is

What you didn't understand? The explanation you quoted is straightforward and flawless. Put it to the test.

When we talk about increasing your consciousness, we're really referring to being aware of more things. This is irrelevant in relation to enlightenment, since enlightenment is being aware of the absolute, unlimited Being, which isn't a thing, but rather the opening that allows existence. Let's say that what appears is the vibration of Being. You can be conscious at level 3 or at level 1 billion, but both are equal with respect to the infinite vibrational potential of Being. Enlightenment is the opening to the bottomless, boundless Being, to the field of possibilities where existence manifests.

My answers are absolutely simple and direct. Maybe for you it's better this: An atom is pure consciousness Or this: An atom is pure love. They are emotional answers and are very successful because people feel safe listening them . All is spirituality is about emotions. If make you feel safe, it's true. But the reality is not like that. Anyway, tell me what is wrong in my answers , over all in the answer to the question: what is reality?

Not circular, are final. What did you don't understand?

A field of reality is a concrete possibility that can happen in the reality . According science a field is a magnitude defined in spacetime. More metaphysically could be said that it's a coherent way in which reality can be structured without contradiction The reality is what is due it's limitlessness A vibration is a stable dynamic pattern of change in a system. Coherence is the compatibility between the parts of a system that allows a pattern to remain stable. If this compatibility is lacking, the pattern doesn't appear, it doesn't exist. What is incoherent does not manifest, since any manifestation is a relationship between parts. What is a part in the unlimited? It's a local configuration. A wave is not a part of the ocean, it's a local configuration that is coherent with others locals configurations.

a localized set of vibrations of the fields of reality arranged coherently

Reality isn't made of something; it's made of being, and that's because it has no limits. It's difficult to truly grasp what "being" means. Reality is, you are, and you are because you have no absolute limits, only relative ones. And being is not experience, is what experience is. Experience is a possibility that is. Experience needs change. Being is where change happens. This isn't theory; it's constant, obvious, and undeniable direct openess to what I am. I don't speak from a conceptual standpoint, but rather I conceptualize vision in order to communicate it.

then it's not acceptable to analyze Ramana because he was superior to all of us? Is that a kind of blasphemy?

The explanation of what reality and enlightenment are is absolutely simple, look: reality is limitless, it is not contained. In the absence of limits, there can be no center, agent, or intention, as these would be limits. What arises are coherent possibilities that emerge because there are no limits. Enlightenment is not knowing this; it is being one with your limitless nature. That means being open to it.

You are not imagining, there is not an agent or a centre that creates the reality, it's impossible. But we already talked about it.

Maybe it's you who can't listen and understand what I'm saying. just consider the possibility. I wrote a long analysis about Ramana Maharshi and I don't see any relationship with your answer. Just that you think that I'm not in the level to talk about Ramana . But what about wh weat I said? That's interesting that you deliver subtle, let's say phrases meant to put the other person down Anyway I was trying to talk about Ramana maharishi. That's good, I appreciate a your advices, but I was trying to talk about Maharshi. Anyway, thanks for the advices and for the conversation

I know what Ramana Maharshi said; it's quite basic, uncomplicated. The thing would be to talk to him and see how he responds, but that's impossible. What is undeniable is that he was a man detached from form. For him, form was irrelevant; he was focused on what's he call the absolute self, the unlimited being. But for me, this only means that he was innately detached from form, and that since this attitude is promoted and given status in India, he voluntarily emphasized this detachment by vocation. This doesn't imply that when, for example, he says that the enlightened reach the end of the cycle of reincarnation, it isn't simply a religious repetition. For me, a much more interesting mystic is Ramakrishna, for example. His message is personal and direct. Ramana's message seems heavily filtered through Advaita and Buddhism . Focused in the vacuity, silence, no form.

I agree, it’s impossible to know whether I truly understand what Maharshi was trying to communicate, but I would say yes , and I would also say that I see his limitations (I know this will sound intolerably presumptuous to you). Let’s see. Ramana’s essential principle is disidentification from the ego, the human self, achieved by obsessively asking oneself “Who am I?”. At a certain point, you can no longer find anything to hold onto, and you realize that you are pure being: without edges, without definition, formless, silent, absolute. Then you realize that form was illusory, and that what is real is Being. Sat-chit-ananda, advaita: what is, which shines by itself, recognizes itself, is conscious of itself, and is absolute bliss due to its limitlessness. Nothing new, right? The old enlightenment of the Buddha, Advaita, etc. But something is missing here. There is a limit. What does it mean to say that form is illusory? What does this division between false and real really imply? Form is the inevitable manifestation of Being. There is no form without Being , that is obvious. But there is also no Being without form , that is less obvious. Being always appears as form, without form, change, there is not existence. Form is as absolute as substance itself; it is inevitable, limitless, and total. Brahman, as the Advaitins would say. Ramana remains in the silent void, in the mere fact of being, without penetrating into the character of Being , into its dance, its incessant movement, its infinite relationships. Into Kali, the goddess who tramples Shiva in her dance of creation and destruction. Reality is Shiva + Kali, both are really one. There is not separation, and the difference of being open to it or not is total. If you are closed to Kali, you are limited. Maybe something is missing in my interpretation, of course. I talk just by the image that I have of Ramana due some readings and videos.

The idea is interesting, but it wouldn't work in practice. Their identity would then be that of a humiliated person being insulted, or as the student who is so brave to humilliate himself, or anything. The goal is for him to not care about his social identity, but that's not achieved by humiliating yourself, but by ceasing to lie, expressing your truth without filter. And then he should let go his human identity, his identity as a form, and as center, also as consciousness

Absence of limitations, which makes the emergence of coherent relationships inevitable

You mean that he was seductive, like you feel a holy aura looking and at him or listening him? maybe it doesn't mean what you think.

A living being is not matter and energy, but rather the pattern that distributes matter and energy with absolute precision. This pattern is not located anywhere, nor can it be detected, it's just happening. But every quantum vibration of your body is in an exact location. The complexity of this goes beyond what our minds can conceive. Life is not something that appears in the universe; it is a way in which the universe organizes itself. A living being is not a localized object, but a non-local, dynamic coherence that organizes matter and energy in time. Its reality is not substantial, but relational: it exists as a pattern, not as a thing. It's absolutely coherent with the whole and perfect, like anything else that exists

There is no illusion or deception in what appears. Perceived forms exist. A nighttime dream is not the same as waking perception. The mind creates images from perceived images. There is internal and external reality. All this does not imply that limits are absolute; they are relative to another form, but they exist. To say that they are illusions is meaningless; it is not a correct definition; it leads not to understanding but to confusion. Limits are relative, not illusory. There is not a center creating illusions, there are infinite centers flowing in synchronicity.

What he tried to convey? For example?

I don't understand what you mean. When it's said that you're imagining reality, that's exactly what it means: that a nighttime dream and waking reality are the same. That there's no difference between perception and dream creation.

It sounds good, but is it really like that? For example, Ramana explained how he realized he couldn't die, in an experience he had when he was very young, but did he explain why he knew about reincarnation? Anyway, a sardine He has no self-referential thought, and according to those who believe in reincarnation, it is an inferior state, which still has countless reincarnations left.