Breakingthewall

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?

Whole complete and perfect are not opposite to the existence of a self. What I mean is that consciousness implies a self. What is consciousness according to you? It is subjective experience right? "Subjective" "perceived" "being aware". Don't you see it? Implies self for the very fact of its structure. Maybe not the ego , a clean self without identification, but consciousness and self are inseparable Btw, what a boring people around here, this is an interesting topic but nobody is interested. They are interested only in solipsism.

🥱

Consciousness is simply the state of being aware, not something that does things. Reality manifests in relationships that form patterns. At a certain level, subjective experience or consciousness appears, and this experience can open oneself to the unlimited nature of reality. Consciousness occurs through complex processes; without them, consciousness disappears. Reality neither needs nor desires consciousness; unlimited reality does not desire, since it is unlimited, but rather manifests itself. The consciousness that you are is reality being aware of itself. There is no god above you who created you, but rather possible processes that have occurred. Reality is total, unlimited, divine, absolute power, total creation, infinite being, but there is no one directing its function. Limitlessness itself is the inevitable cause of everything that can be, being.

Reality is not a hallucination, it is real (as its name "reality" suggest). Religious people don't hallucinate because of their religion; rather, they believe a series of things they've been told are true.

That's great that you read non duality and now you think that you are one of those choosen. Congratulations for that.

I can meditate in absolute silence, even walking on the street. I'm not thinking about that self that you mention, it's just presence, but this presence is recognition of being itself. Also I can vape 40 mg nndmt, 20 of 5meo, without any hallucinations, just a hole where the mind use to be, and it's the same: presence that means recognition of being. Also big dose of mushroom, with hallucinations, but same, zero thoughts, only forms and colors, and it's the same, presence, recognition of being. That is the fact of being conscious, if there is consciousness there is recognition of being. And this is the self. Then a model of reality based in human interaction is created, it's not false, it's a level of organization of the self. You can erase that level and there is still presence, and presence equates to self. That's why al hallaj, etc, said I'm the truth, etc . They mean that they are what is. The reality. You should talk about those enlightened people I quote. Are them delusional according your view? Nisgardatta, Ramana, Ramakrishna, Jesus, meister Eckhart, etc. Don't be offensive as a defense, just give your opinion

I don't idolize anyone, I just put those examples to show you that all the spiritual Masters of all times told that the self is Brahman, etc. I have my own perspective, as you could see if you read what I posted. But it's useless, you can't communicate, just repeating same mantra and be offensive. Read yourself, you can't communicate with anyone, you don't see the other people, it's impossible any real interaction with you. Not only me, anyone. Of course you wont answer those examples I put of meister Eckhart, al hallaj, etc. Just silence and then any offensive message. Again: what is the self for you? Without offensive long message. For me the self is the fact of perception. Perception implies the self, there is no difference between self and perception. Then the ego is the comparative character that covers the self due the human interaction. Can you explain anything without that passive aggressive attitude and without being condescending?

Anyway your experience is recognition of being. Experience and recognition of being are synonyms. Consciousness is experience, and consciousness implies always perceived change. "Perceived" means self. The fact of perceiving is the fact of knowing , and this fact is the self . You as a self are not an illusion but an action. Then we could say that this actions is the reality knowing what is. It's irrelevant that reality in not inherently someone or a self, because it becomes a self in the action of consciousness, then the reality is a self now. Imo a new born baby or a fish is perception of being, even there is not a model of "I" developed, the very fact of subjetive experience is knowledge of being . For example I took big dose of different psychedelics and any model disappear and what remains is meaningless experience happening, like waves and colors without anything else, and there is recognition of being . The only absence of that recognition is unconsciousness It's like there are 3 levels but all of them are modes of the first one 1 Fundamental level: self-awareness or subjective experience. Experience=self -presence because experience implies presence for itself 2 Structured level: mental model of "I" ( not illusory; it is a construct that occurs based on an exchange of information) 3 Narrative level: personal identity.

What is the unchanging reality? We could say that is the unlimited being, then it wouldn't be something, not a dimension with some properties but just absence of limitations, absolute openess, previous condition of any form. Then there wont be Brahman and form, but Brahman always manifested as a form. The unlimited never changes because it's not anything but absolute depth that translates in being, that manifests as form

What is the self according to you? Would you say that Ramana, Ramakrishna, Jesus, al hallaj , rumi, etc, were ignorants and you are the only enlightened? Or maybe you are misunderstanding any point? Just curious. Again: the self is the recognition of existing. It the recognition of existing and illusion?

Everything is changing, a tree is changing every millisecond. That doesn't mean that it isn't real, everything is a process, nothing is static