Breakingthewall

I think it's just more complex, life is just a process that occurs when conditions allow. There is no intention; rather, the very quality of existence is expansive, emitting potentiality that is realized if possible, because there are not absolute limits. Simple life has no self; a self arises when a model of reality is created in a brain, at least from we can see. This does not imply that the self is not real. If a self that knows it exists appears in reality , then reality is or has a self that knows it exists. The fact that reality acquires self-awareness is possible and therefore inevitable, then you could say that reality is self aware

Essentially, the ocean is not separate from the land either, since both are made up of interactions of the same fundamental fields, but locally they are separate and have different properties. Everything that exists is made up of interactions and boundaries that occur as processes, but a living being has a particularity, it's not like a wave in the ocean that happens inevitably due the properties of water, but it's a process that self preserves, perpetuates and creates it's particular laws creating another level of separation inside/outside.

Real means that is. It's the same if you are one, two, illusion or anything, you are, or existence is. Being is everything, then it happens as self awareness. You could say that this self awareness is illusory because it's not two or anything, but that's just a valoration. The fact is that you are and that structure of being is aware of being

No because a tree is not a self aware procces, but a human is. Both are equally real. It's the same in order of the level or reality . The perception is the reality, and the external world also is the reality. Nothing exist separate, everything that happens is relational, but everything is real. You could say that you are wrong thinking that tomorrow will rain, but the thought itself is the reality manifested as a thought, same than the idea about that thought is wrong

There is separation between the sun and the moon, they are two different structures with different properties. The reality can be one, but many relative limits appears, then saying that are not real is wrong, saying that are relative would be right. Why anything relative is not real if it exist?

Self means being aware of being, you don't need to be separate to that. Anyway, a human is a process that is not ontologically separated of the universe but it creates a separation while it's happening, that's any living being. Then a self appears, you could say that it's not fundamental or permanent, but it exists.

@Sugarcoat I would say that Lisa Cairns experiences what many mystics do. They reach a state of limitlessness, then create a logical framework that is a mess. For example, in one video she says that awakening happens when you realize that everything is you, and in another that there is no you. Both statements are logical constructs. Awakening is not a logical construct but the opening to your limitless nature. Then, saying that you have realized that the moon doesn't exist and that baby Jesus cries if you touch yourself, or that you must fight in jihad, depends on your mental framework. These teachers confuse unstructured states with structures that they "become aware" of. Logic is structure, openess is without structure. Then they merge both because they are totally focused in absence of structure and they say things like: reality is pure consciousness. Everything is imaginary. Nothing exist. Reality is nothing. Then the people read it and change their structural frame for that mess and come to forums to say that are enlightened repeating that nothing is real or anything

I think the same. "Self" means experience. There are 3 levels imo. First the self full of identification due the human need of belonging. This need is genetically uncoded and very strong. Not always same strength, some individuals are more free of that. I'm not one of them, but maybe you are, some are more inclined to spirituality because their structure, let's say less dense. Second is the pure I am in meditation. Absolutely empty of anything, just the I am, the feeling of being, of existing. Not a thought that says "I am" but the very fact of being conscious is the I am. 3, when the I and the am lose their limits and the structure collapse. There is no more "consciousness ", because it implies being aware of. There is the reality, period. Zero structure, then it's like a ocean of life without any distinction. This is the no self that they talk about But look, that no self really is the self without limits, because there is still experience, register, knowledge. What happens is that you made a movement to dissolve the natural structure in order to break the barrier that prevents you to realize the nature of yourself. It doesn't mean that there is no self but that the self become the whole and the whole become the self. Now I remember perfectly that yesterday I did that movement for 10 minutes, then saying that of no self is just a mess without sense imo

Yeah, I'm not one of the choosen who know the truth. Poor stupid scientist omg, are like kids. Maybe I should do psychedelic, realize god and then be above of them. Just in a while in your room you surpass Einstein, Tegmark or Roger Penrose. Seem a good business.

If perceived reality is a mental construct, it remains absolutely real. Moreover, this mental construct is modeled on a constant exchange of information with the outside world. Reality is one, but consciousness, or the mind, is a local process that acquires stability and structural independence from the outside, even though it is entirely interdependent with the whole. The subjective reality that this mind generates is as real as anything else; it is reality in the form of subjective experience. Its substance is exactly the same: the dynamic flow of reality. To say that it is imaginary is to say that on one hand there is reality, and outside of it, the mind. This is obviously impossible.

Yes i know your religion. It's funny that if you observe the reality its absolutely obvious that consciousness or awareness is a process that happens in complex organisms where a model of the exchange of information happen. It's not "materialism", this process is the reality becoming conscious. But spiritual people are smarter, they know that all that you can see is a deception because god is making fun of us, and everything is imaginary, earth is flat and the chem trails make us weak. You could know it if you do psychedelic and you realize it. Well.... nothing, that's ok

I don't know, explain it if you can

I listened a while, I think she talks about the unlimited, the openess and how the presence when all the closure fall is perceived as life, the absolute unlimited that is. For me the problem is saying that of there is not you, just presence, reality happening. What's the difference with a you? The unlimited is happening and that happening is perceived, so you are that. Maybe I don't understand exactly what they mean with that no self, or maybe it's a metaphor I mean, I understand that the centrality falls, that the reality that's happening is not defined anymore as "experience", it's the reality, the vitality happening, there is not a perceptor, all merges in a flow totally open, but there is always presence. That presence doesn't need a center to be, it's the fact of being, that's a self for me.

Lets see if you see this idea (bit long at the end) It's not that I know but understanding what the self means. It's usually thought that self is identification with a conceptual structure created by the mind. I am a person who can die, etc. and according to spirituality, if you dissolve all of that, you would be in a state of no self. What I see is that the self is an inevitable basis in all subjective experience; that is, "subjective" is exactly what self means. Then, that self is clothed in attributes by the symbolic mind, and meditation consists of dissolving the symbolic part at will, which, by the way, is not illusory, it is symbolic. It's real that you are a person who is going to die and all that; the symbolic mind is not a "lie," it's a machine for creating models. So, you turn the symbolic mind off, zero meaning, but subjective experience remains. This experience contains sensations, changing forms, body perception, etc., but beneath all of that lies the most fundamental thing: presence. There is a perception of being. This is the self; it is totally inherent in consciousness, so the only way to be no self is to turn off consciousness. Then you might say: Oh, I am in pure presence, I am enlightened. Well, no, pure presence remains closed because the human structure contains mechanisms of closure, since without a symbolic mind you are still a human with encoded fear. Therefore, the symbolic mind must merge with pure presence to look fear in the face. Because humans can intentionally look directly to the atavistic fear to die, perceive their closure, decide (with the symbolic mind) release the closure, and open themselves to the unlimited that is. The closure is what avoid the bad and wants the good, and it's not something trivial but extremely powerful . Then, on a giving moment you can open yourself to the absolute, then you will realize that in this exactly moment, the absolute is seeing itself. Then another step happen, there is not observer, there is just the reality. That's what they call no self. But the reality, at least now, implies recognition of itself, you can't say that there is not self because you broke the structure of the self, you can say that the self and the flow are one, but not that the self doesn't exist What changes is the structure of the experience, and in a given moment any structure subject /object disappear, then the total manifest, it's not "experience", "consciousness", it's the ocean itself, the absence of limitations that lives. But this doesn't implies that the structure is illusory, it's an structure that's happening, and you have to force it to dissolve to remove the barriers let the absolute manifest itself, and you do staring the fear and opening yourself. Then, that unlimited is perceived by the fact of a self that dissolves it's centrality and become one with the unlimited.

What means that's not reality? All that non dualistic stuff is meaningless

For example Ramakrishna, Tagore, Ramana maharshi, the sufis, meister Eckhart, Hawkings seem true but strange ideas, bit delusional, Eckhart Tolle same but very wrong in his view imo...but who knows, I don't know their work in depth, just reading a book of listening some

There's a book, Lives in the Shadow with J. Krishnamurti, in which the daughter of one of J.'s alleged lovers talks about what he was really like. It seems he was a complete liar, but who knows? For me what is told in that book seems coherent with his vibe

For me a spiritual teacher must have an absolute commitment with truth and integrity. Can be wrong in some points but should be absolutely free of need of high self image, because if he's corrupted by this a bit, he's absolutely corrupted. The topic is extremely subtle and deception is everywhere. If a teacher is not absolutely humble, he's absolutely liar. Humble means that the reality is first, and his ego second absolutely always

He repeat an idea that's essential and true: truth is a land without paths. No one can lead you to truth but yourself Maybe he's true in some aspects but when you become so important it's almost impossible that the character doesn't become an interference

We could venerate Bentinho Massaro's dick, which brings together all the attributes of the masters of all time. The christic penis that can awake you just sucking it a bit.

I read him a lot when I was a teenager; I found him fascinating. I'd say I've read almost all of his books and transcripts, some several times. What I liked about reading him was that he gave me a feeling of almost grasping something essential, almost, close. Later, I reread him and thought: wtf, he's a fraud. He's an intelligent man who understands spirituality in depth, but the issue is where it's aimed, its vector. The arrow points to him, to his self-image. He's condescending and makes impossible logical twists; he lacks real depth, he comes across as disconnected, narcissistic. He seems like a wounded, very distant, closed-hearted guy who uses lies without any qualms. His goal is appearing special, enlightened, genius. That's the truth that he wants to transmit

The ring is small, there's nowhere to escape, you have to give it your all and admit when you're wrong. I'm willing to recognize my mistakes but I need solid arguments, not just "realizations." Anyway, what do you think, is essentially the self the fact of recognition of being, presence, consciousness, or in your opinion the self is something that comes later? Has a tuna a self? Imo yes. Not a elaborate self, just the fact of knowing that is by the fact of the subjetive experience. Not like the tuna thinks, but perception is synonym than recognition.

The key is not to contradict logic imo. For example, a guy might be a monk who meditates in absolute openness for years in India or anywhere, but then says: "Reality is empty consciousness." So I ask him: "Look, if consciousness were truly empty, then wouldn't it be unconsciousness? Consciousness implies experience, and experience implies change, and change contradicts 'emptiness.'" Then the monk would tell me: "Brother, you're not awake, that's why you don't understand my message." Wild card! He wins!

Just logical deductions. Removing what is impossible and let's see what apparently possible remains. For example, how could be the reality limited? It's logically impossible. Then if the reality is unlimited, how could be the reality a god with a concrete will? It's logically impossible, etc

How do you know that?