What are your opinions on enlightenment/self-realization and what are they based on?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-02-2015, 04:48 PM
RE: What are your opinions on enlightenment/self-realization and what are they based on?
(07-02-2015 10:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-02-2015 04:48 PM)Spirtic Wrote:  What exactly would you like a citation for? I'm not trying to shirk the request, but what about what I said do you have an issue with, and why?

I don't have a citation for such a broad statement, but I can point you towards some literature that has been written on it: Two books I can recommend that delve deeply into the neuroscientific evidence for the illusory sense of self are 'Being No One' by Thomas Metzinger and 'The Self Illusion' by Bruce Hood. Sam Harris also talks about the illusory nature of the self in his book, 'Waking Up'.

"Self-awareness" in regards to traits, feelings, behaviours and the realization of oneself as an individual entity is based on a false assumption. The false assumption is that there is a continuity to personal identity, and that it is not just a momentary appearance in the current contents of consciousness. If you examine this introspectively, you will recognize in your own experience that there is no central "I" thought that you are. The ideas you have about your 'self' will be erroneous, as they are all transient. Whatever label you give yourself, is not necessary true the next day (except perhaps for the generic label of human being). Labels of being shy, happy, a lawyer, or whatever else, are only temporary. So, by examining the beliefs you have about yourself, you will see that they are not held together by any central "I" that exists independent of the momentary arisings in consciousness. Even your memories about things you did in the past, are just thoughts occurring in the present.

With regards to whether what I'm presenting is an, "unnecessary convolution of what we already know exists."

Yes and no. It is a restatement of what we already know exists, but it is not unnecessary. It is not unnecessary because I am not pointing to the intellectual understanding of what we know that exists. I am pointing to the the direct recognition of it.

People know instantaneously that they are aware and they exist. If I ask you whether you're aware and you exist, you can answer "yes" intuitively without having to ask yourself the question, because the very fact that you would be asking yourself the question is proof of your own existence and awareness of the question.

Through mindfulness or simple watching of thoughts, you know that whatever arises is arising in the present moment as an appearance in awareness.

So, how can you be what the thoughts, feelings, and sensations are alluding to, if you are also the observer of the thoughts, feelings, and sensations. What is the I" that is observing the "me"? What is it that is observing the ideas you have about yourself as the entity "Full Circle"?

How can you simultaneously be the observer of your thoughts, and also the story that your thoughts are telling about who or what you are? Take a few minutes to really reflect on this. Your sense of self is arising with self-centered thoughts. Yet, the whole time, regardless of what thoughts are arising, there is the witnessing and knowing of the thoughts.

What I am pointing to is that what you really are is the witness, observer, knower of thoughts, feelings, and sensations. You can't be the story that those things are spinning, the idea of a separate identity, because how can you simultaneously be both the story, and watcher of the story? The story must be something that is appearing and disappearing in awareness.

So what I'm saying is not unnecessary, because it's the getting caught up in the story and the drama of life that causes psychological suffering. If you distance yourself from the story, and rest as the present-awareness you are, your well-being is no longer at the whims of whatever happens to appear in consciousness. You can be free from being the limited sense of self that is a slave to whatever thoughts and feelings happen to spontaneously arise in consciousness.

Consciousness consists of pulses of quantum energy. “Quantum” means an evolving of the joyous.
Flow requires exploration. You and I are adventurers of the infinite. Where there is materialism, conscious living cannot thrive.

We must strengthen ourselves and heal others. It is time to take non-locality to the next level. The multiverse is approaching a tipping point.
Imagine an unfolding of what could be. We must learn how to lead non-dual lives in the face of discontinuity. It is in summoning that we are aligned.

Aromatherapy may be the solution to what’s holding you back from an enormous vector of health. Through Kabala, our hopes are engulfed in health. As you dream, you will enter into infinite complexity that transcends understanding.

You must take a stand against discontinuity. Consciousness is a constant. Today, science tells us that the essence of nature is ecstasy. We self-actualize, we dream, we are reborn.

You will soon be guided by a power deep within yourself — a power that is primordial, cosmic. We exist as four-dimensional superstructures. To embark on the circuit is to become one with it.

Self-actualization requires exploration. To navigate the quest is to become one with it. The cosmos is buzzing with morphogenetic fields. Humankind has nothing to lose.

By unveiling, we vibrate. Nothing is impossible. You and I are pilgrims of the dreamscape.

Reality has always been beaming with adventurers whose brains are immersed in chi. We are at a crossroads of science and dogma. Who are we? Where on the great journey will we be re-energized?

We are in the midst of an enlightened flowering of fulfillment that will align us with the dreamscape itself. Our conversations with other dreamweavers have led to a blossoming of hyper-perennial consciousness. Throughout history, humans have been interacting with the multiverse via frequencies. We can no longer afford to live with illusion.

This life is nothing short of an ennobling vision of amazing interconnectedness. We exist as supercharged waveforms. Rebirth is a constant.

For a minute there, I thought I was in a large conference hall at a Holiday Inn.
Well done. We can all stop holding hands now. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
07-02-2015, 04:56 PM
RE: What are your opinions on enlightenment/self-realization and what are they based on?
(07-02-2015 04:47 PM)Spirtic Wrote:  There IS the PERCEPTION of a continuation of personal identity, but it has certainly NOT been PROVEN by neuroscience as something that exists apart from disparate appearances in consciousness. For starters, as you should know, science isn't about proof, that's left for mathematics and alcohol. I'm certainly open to the studies that have demonstrated a 'self', as the research I have come across has alluded to the opposite conclusion.

Our perception of ourselves as a 'self' is built upon a lifetime of conditioning from childhood to believe that we are a 'self.' It does not surprise me that people believe in it very strongly and without sufficient evidence, because it for most people is how they experience their lives.

You just contradicted yourself. Genetic memories and epigenetic memories have been proven. Too bad you ARE so ignorant or your own subject. The "lifetime of (learned) memories *are* (what we perceive) as the "self". Sounds like you don't really even know what you're trying to actually say here.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-25156510

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2015, 05:06 PM
Where am I going wrong?
(07-02-2015 03:37 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(07-02-2015 03:22 PM)Spirtic Wrote:  Haha, that is some high-level gobblydegook.

And Chas has made his point. Drinking Beverage

If you think so, please indulge me by responding to my post.

Spirtic Wrote:People know instantaneously that they are aware and they exist. If I ask you whether you're aware and you exist, you can answer "yes" intuitively without having to ask yourself the question, because the very fact that you would be asking yourself the question is proof of your own existence and awareness of the question.

...

So, how can you be what the thoughts, feelings, and sensations are alluding to, if you are also the observer of the thoughts, feelings, and sensations. What is the I" that is observing the "me"? What is it that is observing the ideas you have about yourself as the entity "(insert name here)"?

How can you simultaneously be the observer of your thoughts, and also the story that your thoughts are telling about who or what you are? Take a few minutes to really reflect on this. Your sense of self is arising with self-centered thoughts. Yet, the whole time, regardless of what thoughts are arising, there is the witnessing and knowing of the thoughts.

What I am pointing to is that what you really are is the witness, observer, knower of thoughts, feelings, and sensations. You can't be the story that those things are spinning, the idea of a separate identity, because how can you simultaneously be both the story, and watcher of the story? The story must be something that is appearing and disappearing in awareness.

So what I'm saying is not unnecessary, because it's the getting caught up in the story and the drama of life that causes psychological suffering. If you distance yourself from the story, and rest as the present-awareness you are, your well-being is no longer at the whims of whatever happens to appear in consciousness. You can be free from being the limited sense of self that is a slave to whatever thoughts and feelings happen to spontaneously arise in consciousness.

What about this is so contentious?

Do you, for example, think you are in control of the next thought you are going to have?

Do you think that you are both aware of your thoughts, and also a 'self' constructed from the content of your thoughts? How is that possible?

Do you believe your identify is bound up in momentary perceptions in consciousness? Or perhaps it would be silly to think that you are just a momentary perception in consciousness, but if you have a whole lifetime of momentary perceptions in consciousness, and they are tied together by memory, the shear number of them somehow creates a person? As it stands, this seems to be what people take to be their 'self'.

I'm really trying to understand what is so gobblydegook about what I'm saying. So please enlighten me, because although the words I'm using are inherently flimsy like consciousness, awareness, etc., the meaning behind them is sound, unless you have evidence to the contrary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2015, 05:18 PM
Here we go again
(07-02-2015 04:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-02-2015 04:47 PM)Spirtic Wrote:  There IS the PERCEPTION of a continuation of personal identity, but it has certainly NOT been PROVEN by neuroscience as something that exists apart from disparate appearances in consciousness. For starters, as you should know, science isn't about proof, that's left for mathematics and alcohol. I'm certainly open to the studies that have demonstrated a 'self', as the research I have come across has alluded to the opposite conclusion.

Our perception of ourselves as a 'self' is built upon a lifetime of conditioning from childhood to believe that we are a 'self.' It does not surprise me that people believe in it very strongly and without sufficient evidence, because it for most people is how they experience their lives.

You just contradicted yourself. Genetic memories and epigenetic memories have been proven. Too bad you ARE so ignorant or your own subject. The "lifetime of (learned) memories *are* (what we perceive) as the "self". Sounds like you don't really even know what you're trying to actually say here.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-25156510

What difference does it make to what I'm saying if genetic and epigenetic memories have been proven? (again, using the word where it doesn't belong) Of course the lifetime of memories is what we perceive as the 'self,' I just indicated that too. What I'm saying, however, is that the presumed self is just that, presumed. It is not real, but people take it to be real. So if your 'self' is a perception based on memories, and you are not this, then what are you?

Now, if you don't believe that the 'self' is an illusion, then we're at a bit of impasse, as per what Hume said. But, if you accept what the evidence and experience says about the self, and the self is an illusion, then that's a pretty big deal.

When people take what is not real to be real, and live their life as though they exist as a 'self,' then this is where unhappiness comes from. Not always, no doubt, but think about the times you have self-centered thoughts. When you get anxious about the future, for example, it's because you are thinking of yourself in the future doing something, and something negative happening to you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2015, 05:30 PM
RE: What are your opinions on enlightenment/self-realization and what are they based on?
(07-02-2015 05:06 PM)Spirtic Wrote:  
(07-02-2015 03:37 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  And Chas has made his point. Drinking Beverage

If you think so, please indulge me by responding to my post.

Okay. ... Which one?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2015, 05:43 PM
RE: What are your opinions on enlightenment/self-realization and what are they based on?
(07-02-2015 05:18 PM)Spirtic Wrote:  What difference does it make to what I'm saying if genetic and epigenetic memories have been proven? (again, using the word where it doesn't belong) Of course the lifetime of memories is what we perceive as the 'self,' I just indicated that too. What I'm saying, however, is that the presumed self is just that, presumed. It is not real, but people take it to be real. So if your 'self' is a perception based on memories, and you are not this, then what are you?

Now, if you don't believe that the 'self' is an illusion, then we're at a bit of impasse, as per what Hume said. But, if you accept what the evidence and experience says about the self, and the self is an illusion, then that's a pretty big deal.

When people take what is not real to be real, and live their life as though they exist as a 'self,' then this is where unhappiness comes from. Not always, no doubt, but think about the times you have self-centered thoughts. When you get anxious about the future, for example, it's because you are thinking of yourself in the future doing something, and something negative happening to you.

The "difference" is that you don't know *what* you're trying to say. What humans have learned and stored over a lifetime IS the *self*. You're tilting at non-existent windmills, and you just admitted it.

What would you call a "real self" and how exactly would that be different from the learned perception of "self", and how exactly would you knw the difference.?

No discrete being is "another" being, either now or in the future. We all (only) have OUR own memories. You just have no clue what you're on about.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
07-02-2015, 08:19 PM
RE: What are your opinions on enlightenment/self-realization and what are they based on?
From my own personal experience I have simply toyed with different, human made concepts. These concepts have varied from simple consequential beginnings of "good" versus "bad" as a toddler with a range of emotional learning thrown in until I LEARNT the concept of "self" (maybe we all feel a sense of self from birth, however it is only through others we learn how to conceptualise and express it through communication/language)

I didnt learn empathy, at some point mirror neurons formed and started firing in my brain and I began learning from things that were not happening to me. I would be as bold to say that our brains can at times forget the difference between imagination and reality (Amygdala hijack/irrational fears) and that the more I saw and experienced in life helped sculpt my imagination.

It is here, at this moment in our lives where this concept of the "I that is aware of that I change, yet what is the witness of this change, and can itself be witnessed" that I think your trying to explain "spirituality" as, starts to evolve spirtic ( beginning s of our limbic system maybe?)

Through life as I grew I learnt a multitude of other concepts, consequences, morals, information and experienced many different emotional states. These continued to craft my personality and still do to this day.

At some point I learnt that instead of looking outwards.... I could "look inwards and either use my imagination or to quieten it and experience "Nothingness, a state of simply being" and it was nice to have a break from "myself" from time to time.

I personally think that we operate on default settings crafted from countless factors ranging from genetics, environment etc. Our imagination, the voice/reasoning in our heads, this sense of "I" is a LAYER that has evolved over this. When people meditate many wish to remove or quieten this layer and once achieved, be left experiencing the natural default settings, this state of simply "being", attempting to remove all learnt concepts.

A spiritual awakening, to me, is when somebody learns a new concept that clashes with all pre-existing and learnt concepts. This breaking down of biases then leads to new learnings of other concepts, which can be transformational as the individual can potentially let go of old beliefs, or view them in a different light... To then transcend to a new, accepted norm with the addition of these new, accepted and re-prioritised concepts.

I feel so much, and yet I feel nothing.
I am a rock, I am the sky, the birds and the trees and everything beyond.
I am the wind, in the fields in which I roar. I am the water, in which I drown.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bemore's post
08-02-2015, 08:44 AM
RE: What are your opinions on enlightenment/self-realization and what are they based on?
(07-02-2015 05:30 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(07-02-2015 05:06 PM)Spirtic Wrote:  If you think so, please indulge me by responding to my post.

Okay. ... Which one?

The one I quoted right after stating that. Perhaps I should have used a : instead of a . to make it clearer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2015, 09:22 AM
Play it again Sam
(07-02-2015 05:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-02-2015 05:18 PM)Spirtic Wrote:  What difference does it make to what I'm saying if genetic and epigenetic memories have been proven? (again, using the word where it doesn't belong) Of course the lifetime of memories is what we perceive as the 'self,' I just indicated that too. What I'm saying, however, is that the presumed self is just that, presumed. It is not real, but people take it to be real. So if your 'self' is a perception based on memories, and you are not this, then what are you?

Now, if you don't believe that the 'self' is an illusion, then we're at a bit of impasse, as per what Hume said. But, if you accept what the evidence and experience says about the self, and the self is an illusion, then that's a pretty big deal.

When people take what is not real to be real, and live their life as though they exist as a 'self,' then this is where unhappiness comes from. Not always, no doubt, but think about the times you have self-centered thoughts. When you get anxious about the future, for example, it's because you are thinking of yourself in the future doing something, and something negative happening to you.

The "difference" is that you don't know *what* you're trying to say. What humans have learned and stored over a lifetime IS the *self*. You're tilting at non-existent windmills, and you just admitted it.

What would you call a "real self" and how exactly would that be different from the learned perception of "self", and how exactly would you knw the difference.?

No discrete being is "another" being, either now or in the future. We all (only) have OUR own memories. You just have no clue what you're on about.

I know what I'm trying to say, it just appears as though I'm not doing a very good job of saying it. Now, I'm not sure if this is a function of the people I'm communicating with never having experienced the dissolution of the self and so have difficultly comprehending it, or whether my approach is too scattered.

There's the false 'self,' which is the "I" thought strewn together from all the disparate thoughts and perceptions over the lifetime. This 'self' is not real in any sense other than as a perception.

So the "real" self I'm pointing too, our true nature, is as the awareness in which the false 'self' is only an appearance. The conditioned habitual response is to assume that we are something in the appearance, such as the body or mind. But they are both objects in awareness. Can you really be an object or appearance?

What I'm pointing to, what every sage, and mystic, and religious tradition points to, is finding this true sense of self by resting as the sense of being awareness. Although the dogma and pseudoscience that is usually attached to this central message makes in unpalatable, they are pointing to something that can be directly experienced.

Here is some Sam Harris on it:

Sam Harris Wrote:Consciousness exists (whatever its relationship to the physical world happens to be), and it is the experiential basis of both the examined and the unexamined life. If you turn consciousness upon itself in this moment, you will discover that your mind tends to wander into thought. If you look closely at thoughts themselves, you will notice that they continually arise and pass away. If you look for the thinker of these thoughts, you will not find one. And the sense that you have — “What the hell is Harris talking about? I’m the thinker!”— is just another thought, arising in consciousness.

If you repeatedly turn consciousness upon itself in this way, you will discover that the feeling of being a self disappears. There is nothing Buddhist about such inquiry, and nothing need be believed on insufficient evidence to pursue it. One need only accept the following premise: If you want to know what your mind is really like, it makes sense to pay close attention to it.

I'm here to practice how to effectively communicate something so simple and obvious that it is overlooked. That what one is, is not an appearance in consciousness that arises and sets, but that one is the backdrop, the clear and untouched awareness in which the arising and setting happens. If one can identify with that, and not the false sense of 'self' that is subject to all the problems and doubts and human suffering, they can live a more peaceful and happy existence.

Everyone wants happiness, and they know that happiness does not come in the acquisition and fulfillment of desires, because there is always the next desire, the next want, and the cycle continues. Despite knowing this, people spend their whole lives trying to fulfill desire after desire, always seeking happiness outside of themselves, knowing full well that is it not really possible; the most they'll get is respite from pain, and moments of pleasure and joy. (This is good enough for most, and it was good enough for me, until I saw there was another way, that didn't require deluding myself into believing something without evidence).

What's that old definition you hear of crazy, 'doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.' This is what people do in the elusive search for happiness.

What I'm trying to communicate isn't radical, it isn't pseudoscientific, it is simply what is. What is, is the simple truth that one is not an appearance in consciousness, but that on which the appearances, well, appear. This is important to communicate, because to recognize that you are not the separate 'self' that is an appearance in consciousness, you need something to connect with, some deeper truth. That truth is that you are awareness. If you don't have the truth to connect to, the habits and conditioning of the mind will continue to make you think that you're the separate person that is "depressed" and "anxious," "joyous" and "jealous." It is so easy to get caught-up in these thoughts about ourselves, because we feel they say something true about who we are and where our happiness lies.

So, the unfortunate limitation is that I'm trying to communicate something that likely won't be believe until it's experienced. I would like to find a way that helps people have the experience of 'no self.' Or at least, demonstrate empirically that it's the case, and tie this with the subjective experience.

For myself, I gave no credence or thought to any of this stuff, and scoffed at is as much as you have (although perhaps without the name calling Tongue ), before I experienced it. So I appreciate fully where you're coming from. All I can ask is that you continue to ask me questions and probe into this matter and my description of it, so that we can hopefully learn from each other.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2015, 09:31 AM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2015 09:43 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What are your opinions on enlightenment/self-realization and what are they based on?
(08-02-2015 09:22 AM)Spirtic Wrote:  I know what I'm trying to say, it just appears as though I'm not doing a very good job of saying it. Now, I'm not sure if this is a function of the people I'm communicating with never having experienced the dissolution of the self and so have difficultly comprehending it, or whether my approach is too scattered.

I have experienced the "dissolution of a self". I still don't buy the double-decker universe you're trying to establish. It doesn't exist. There is no "true self", or "false self". The amalgamation of learning and genetics that INDIVIDUALS experience (and which can CHANGE), if what is called the "slef". It's that simple. Trying to turn it into some sort of woo is a fools errand, AND you have presented no evidence for you idea. I'm done UNLESS you present some. You have not so far. Nor have you explained why and how what you're saying is any different from what the world calls "self" already. How do you know that others ALWAYS didn't exist on the plane you're saying you "experienced" ? Maybe YOU are the exception, and cannot generalize from it.

There's the false 'self,' which is the "I" thought strewn together from all the disparate thoughts and perceptions over the lifetime. This 'self' is not real in any sense other than as a perception.

(08-02-2015 09:22 AM)Spirtic Wrote:  So the "real" self I'm pointing too, our true nature, is as the awareness in which the false 'self' is only an appearance. The conditioned habitual response is to assume that we are something in the appearance, such as the body or mind. But they are both objects in awareness. Can you really be an object or appearance?

What I'm pointing to, what every sage, and mystic, and religious tradition points to, is finding this true sense of self by resting as the sense of being awareness. Although the dogma and pseudoscience that is usually attached to this central message makes in unpalatable, they are pointing to something that can be directly experienced.

Which is exactly the same as perception, and/or if not you have not explained the difference.

(08-02-2015 09:22 AM)Spirtic Wrote:  I'm here to practice how to effectively communicate something so simple and obvious that it is overlooked.

By whom exactly ? You took a poll ? Yeah, you are special. Weeping Just like all the rest.
Attaining "enlightenment" has been described by many in many ways. Whatever.

(08-02-2015 09:22 AM)Spirtic Wrote:  Everyone wants happiness, and they know that happiness does not come in the acquisition and fulfillment of desires, because there is always the next desire, the next want, and the cycle continues.

Not everyone. In fact not MOST. And actually "enlightenment may be "just one more desire". Right ? WHo sets the hierarchy of value ? YOU ? Who doed and gave YOU that right ?

(08-02-2015 09:22 AM)Spirtic Wrote:  Despite knowing this, people spend their whole lives trying to fulfill desire after desire, always seeking happiness outside of themselves, knowing full well that is it not really possible; the most they'll get is respite from pain, and moments of pleasure and joy. (This is good enough for most, and it was good enough for me, until I saw there was another way, that didn't require deluding myself into believing something without evidence).

Great. So you're appointed yourself a missionary, and you're going to impart your great wisdom. How wonderful. You're gonna save the world.
Yawn. You think you're come up with something special. Guess what ?

(08-02-2015 09:22 AM)Spirtic Wrote:  So I appreciate fully where you're coming from. All I can ask is that you continue to ask me questions and probe into this matter and my description of it, so that we can hopefully learn from each other.

Not gonna happen. You can't even define your terms coherently, woo-meister.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: