Ibn Sina

.

Quality content, means truth. Things that work when applied. Low quality content means that they are false, people get misled, Knowing and not knowing them does not add any value. That is low quality content. Here is the catch , if you want truth, if want to clean up all the content that have no basis in reality, then things get nasty. Because people do unconsiously believe in low quality content , and dealing with that brings lots of nastiness, irrationality, ego's get hurt, demonstration of lack of logic is made, put downs are made, bannings can happenand so on. And unjustified, illogical bannings can happen because of perception that there is just ego fulfilling going on, there is nothing to learn. So mods should be careful if you really want to run this forum with justice. You might destroy where there is value if you perceive it otherwise. You can't just moderate however you want if your goal is the maximum efficiency of this forum, maximum quality content, maximum traffic and so on. You might be banning the wrong person who is steeped in logic and sense, but you feel he is acting like jerk so you ban him, thus lose his quality content which has it's roots in the nature of reality. So it’s important to recognize what a good, productive , discussion looks like though it may look nasty, and separating it from bad discussion where it’s only about ego fulfilling. First I would like to lay out a structure for what a good discussion / dialectic should look like. Basically there should be a logical progression. Person 1- Argument 1 proposition (someone says this is the case) Person 2- Argument 2 ( He refuses, and he has has a sound argument , which person 1 might not have considered. Person 1 might be lacking a certain information/data , or he might have problems with it’s interpretation or his reasoning his faulty. Person 2 corrects any of these anomalies) Person 1- Argument 3 / Resolution ( He takes in the information from Person 2, properly he modifies his argument, he places the right pieces at the right place. This has nothing to do with ego. It’s just putiing the pieces, following the argument. Here is where most problem arises. The ego clings whatever belief they have. In bad discussion, they refuse to modify their argument according to strict rules. This gives rise to the following problems that I have laid out. Ego takes the place of truth and many problems arise. In a good argument, the process would repeat, and since there is continuous modification and learning, both reach a resolution. Another good point is to see if he is bringing out unique, knowledge or not , which can literally be a life changer. One right youtube vid can change life, open new doors. I have literally had huge mind fucks, huge discoveries from just the videos and links people make. Posts can literally introduce you to completely new fields previously unaware of , and that day becomes a life changer. So since I have pointed out the exact point which differentiates a good discussion from a bad discussion, let me tell give the various examples of the subsequent bad discussions that happen due to the clinging of the ego to their beliefs. This is how(I hope) the mods consider while really banning / locking threads, taking any action - they are quoting and correcting over and over and over again, without a logical end. I mean correcting is good if something false is presented, but in the bad type of discussion there will be correction after correction like- 1- Okay so you are saying this__ (a) 2- No I was saying ___ (b) 1 Okay, so you were saying (b) 2 No I was saying _____ (c) It’s because the goal is not a certain truth, but to keep correcting and showing that they are not, without any reason. Person 1 is a lover of truth, he wants to know, keeps asking question while 2 is just putting down continuosly to stroke his ego. -Continuos repeatition Some people will just go on repeating over and over and over again the same thing. Again, there is no way up to go from there. They will quote, repeat the same thing. The other person modifies his answer and this means, there should be a change and the discussion should come nearer to end towards a common result) ( 1- Okay, so I got this so you mean this isn’t? 2- You got this part correct, but this part still you understand. It means this. 1 – Okay, so this means ______, so implies ____, and ____? 2- Yea, this time you got it right.) but nope, they repeat the same thing, and we are at stage 1 again. ( 1- So this means __? 2- No again you got it wrong. Its ___ 1 – (almost exactly quotes him , shows the logical implication to demonstrate he understand ) so it’s this? 2 Again you are wrong. It’s this ____ Goes on forever/ - Accusations without any evidence and accusations with evidence There’s a difference. Look at it. If someone says you don’t like philosophy, then look if that person was giving any reason to say so. If someone says- you are assuming (implying there was no evidence)___, look if their was a good reason to say so. - Analyzing if the bringing down is a by product of the pursuit of truth In pursuit of truth, only the truth can win. The untruth party will lose. And when that happens, it can get nasty. People cling on their beliefs with their life, and if they are on the wrong side, then it gets nasty. I am not talking about direct insult. If you see someone saying- you are idiot or moron, just ban them. But if you see someone saying you are Not stage yellow/ enlightened/ are Illogical( which might be an inferior category) and he gives logical reasons drawing from his arguments demonstrating they are just opposed to each other or demonstrates other proof, then you can’t ban them because they are not illogical terms, they can be demonstrated. People can be shown that they are not acting logically. And it can be a put down, but still it helps the community because we are all in search of the truth, and truth is of higher value to the community then the feelings of the opposing indivual. People can be misled with false information, and if someone is correcting with sound arguments, then that should be identified as value. - Denial of self evident truths Color white is not white A triangle has 10 sides. Absence of experience is not an experiences (which is same as saying experience is not experience) What’s shocking is some people take it for some higher spiritual truth and believe it to be true. Yes spirituality contradicts many common notions, but it does not cancel self evident truths. It doesn’t say, perception is not perception , God is not spelled as G O D, that is absolutely absurd, and no I have read spirituality, spirituality is not about that. - Look if the motivation is pursuit of truth or ego. The line can get blurry sometimes but it’s not difficult. Those who are in pursuit of ego will be absolutely irrational. They will keep repeating stuff to satisfy ego. Hold mutually exclusive beliefs. You can see there is no progression. There is just an irrational expression of ego. That’s how they feel better and feel superior. While those who want truth (and in doing so, may be unknowingly putting people down as a result) - Will have a consistent, logical frame work beyond , which they do not cross. Each of their arguments, their denials will be consistent with what they deem as truth and they don’t go away from that. Eg someone says- - Apple can be eaten. So that means, the logical frame work is that he assumes that the apple is a food. Now you ask him, it is a food isn’t it? And he says, no it is not food, then here we have example of just pursuit of ego. Likewise, someone says- Apple is only red. Then that means, his logically frame work is, there are many apples, and all apples are red, because that is his experience. Going outside the logical frame work will be- - Apple is only red So apple is has the color red isn’t it? the answer is- no the apple is red, but the apple doesn’t have any color. While staying within the logical frame work, staying in the pursuit of truth, and putting him down due to the presence of truth would be- Showing him a blue apple. And this will be consistent. It was just that he didn’t have the data to make that assertion. But still it is in the logical frame work, it is in the pursuit of truth. Now if the first person starts getting illogical, and gives illogical argument, and the second person is showing each of his argument is false, and putting him down as a result , then you can’t ban him. You know the second person is logically sound. While the first person is coming up with illogical claims because his ego is at stake. So you can’t ban the second person. Also, mods should consider that no one is hoping to become a celebrity from making posts in a forum which itself is not mainstream. So, take a double check to look if this guy really is posting for his ego or not. - Questions may look like ‘put downs’ and it but they may be in pursuit of truth, and also look at the answers. A toxic egoic person will go on giving illogical stupid answers instead of going linearly through the question one by one. It can look like the questioner is harassing,.To rule out that, it should be noted if the question goes along a logical progression or not. If they are, and the answerer does not actually answer the question, but tries to say something illogical that protects his ego, then again you can say it’s there is problem and Those questions are not put downs. - Does not consider lack of data, and goes and posting on and on. This one is for all the atheist and scientific minded people. They do not consider the possibility that they might not have gone through the experience, hence even if the reasoning is sound, their conclusion is wrong, since their starting premise itself is incomplete. Hence when a spiritual person says- Just go and take a DMT or just do a practice, they don’t stop, they go on and on and on. It’s just because they don’t consider that they lack data. For them just give them a message as warning. - The discussion is nasty, but it has value Value includes there is something ‘new’ to be learned, whether it is philosophical like how a conclusion was arrived at from a certain reasoning, or if there is new knowledge present, and it can all lead to nastiness people are clinging to their ego and spewing out irrationality to protect their ego. But still you can't start banning, because all that nasty discussion and visceral put downs (which has sound basis in logic) is the byproduct of the presence of truth. The opposing party might be constantly holding to his irrationality due to his ego, giving new creative reasons to maintain that, and the rational truth lover should with sound logic demonstrate that it is false. And that can get bloody. Doesn't mean you should ban him. - Just expressing frustration doesn’t mean you should ban them. People can get illogical. And there might be expression of frustration like- Look again you are saying this ____ How can’t you see ___ implies _____??? If it has logical basis, then why should there be bannings? These things naturally come out when lack of logic is pointed out, and these things can sometimes be seen like put downs or just insults. Just look at the motivation. These are not insults, these are yearnings for truth. - Adopting mutually exclusive ideas, embracing the ego over logical progression. The problem arises when you post something , and someone else says, no it is this ___, and you ask questions to move through a logical progression (eg- 1- It is realization of _ 2- So it is an experience isn’t it? 1- No it is not) but there is just clinging , clinging , clinging , clinging with 2 logically mututally exclusive ideas (mutually exclusive ideas- one idea that excludes the other) (eg believing both that it is a realization and it is not experience. If it is a realization it cannot not be an experience) , then there is no progression, just ego, double standards. - Eg – Take an example of an ardent feminist. She believes that men and women should be equal. So in a logical progression it would mean she will have to take exactly the responsibilities and the burdens that men have to take and she has to renounce her previleges as a female. Being equal to male excludes her privilege as staying at home , I don’t know not doing dangerous jobs, security and protection and opportunities as a female. But no, ego comes in, and both these sides are desired, She wants both the advantages of male and the advantages of female she will give very good reason . which of course have no logic to them, and guess many people will believe her and she will have a following. So mods should take care of that, and the logical put downs coming from that. The bottom line is we are all here to learn and discover something new, improve our lives, to discover truth, I hope none of us are here to read about false ideas. That’s the reason for watching Leo, reading any self help posts. Even if I am to get banned due to my commitment for logic and consistency because some mods think I am being an outright jerk , and thinks I am pursuing my ego instead of truth then it’s okay with me I will time and again meet this forum , just read if there is anything new to learn and make use of, just go on with life. It really takes some work to do this forum justice. How to maintain the balance of truth and feelings of people, that takes work. You may ban people for insisting on logic and truth but if you ban them you may lose value and preserve false hood, and if you don’t ban them you may allow people feel bad for the beliefs that they hold. So that may effect the business? It’s difficult to resolve this, depends on what your vision is , and what your philosophy of how customers are attracted and how they exit the business ,is. I might add something more if I get ideas.

Look, I know, you give emphasis on practice. I have considered that. I am also a practitioner, I am not always in my mind thinking philosophy leads to enlightenment. So you and I agree. It's just that whenever I talk about philosophy you say philosophy doesn't lead to enlightenment (since your posts are doing that), and I say yes you are right. We are on the same page. I was not assuming when I said you had aversion with philosophy because you directly attacked me talking about philosophy and reduced its importance , . It was a direct inference from your behaviour (though not fully correct since the information is from which I make the inference is incomplete) I meant your view about emphasis on practice and rejection of philsophy is a topic / school of buddhism. ( how can you literally believe that I was saying you are not a topic of buddhism. Just look at the context and understanding from there. Ofcourse I wasn't literally saying that ) Belief and assumption Not a belief and assumption, but a metaphor to say that they have done great deal of research (how I meant) (which is a belief from historical evidence, so it's not your 'belief' belief ) And I am saying the same thing, not the opposite. So why are you saying it over and over? As I was saying , please stop repeating.

I think you don't get it. I never said any of them (zen, buddhism, philosophy) is enlightenment. Actually you and I have the same view of enlightenement, I agree with your last sentence. It's just that you have an extreme aversion with all philosophical stuff. , I have never said academia is way to enlightenment, I have never said philosophy is about enligthenment, it's just that I am talking about buddhism and you are saying- philosophy academic is not connected to enlightenment. Just by talking about philosophy you believe that I think philosophy or academia or concepts leads to enligtenment, Look, whatever opinion you give about enlightenement, you say (it's this ___, no you don't get it, it's this ____), the buddhists have left no stone un turned. You are just a small topic within them. They have lived for 2500 years, so don't think you have got it all and what you say is the TRUTH and rest is false, it may seem like it but if you really consider that billions of people , who are just like you, who perhaps have lived through the path more dedicated then you, then your view , no matter how TRUTH it looks, is not the entire picture. Even Gautama Buddha is incomplete, just look at Leo and see how he has added to it. And here you are like you have it all, you have the entire answer and this it. Millions of people have had satori, samadhi. Billions (Over a course of thousands of years). There are masters who have reached God and have one outpouring, there are masters who have another outpouring. You are just saying that reject philosophy, do practice. Anything new to say? No. So just don't keep repeating. Just go away. What you say is just one outpouring of one of millions of enlightened masters, mainly the school of Zen. I am also a meditation practitioner. SO JUST DON'T KEEP REPEATING WILL YOU? (You don't get it you don't get it, okay move on) You just said- Philosphy is not enlightenment. Zen is not enlightenment. Buddhism is not enlightenment. Academic nitpicking of traditions is not enlightenment. Nonduality is about practice and waking up now indpendent of what silly tradition you’re part of or subscribe to at the end of the day. No tradition “has the truth”. I am quoting you here. it's all a small topic in buddhism. I GET IT. YES although you don't believe it. ( I know you may be shaking your head with a big smile saying no you don't get it) Your emphasis is in practice, rejection of philosophy, emphasis on silence, the void, rejection of all academic nitpicking. I GET IT, just don't keep correcting with more words. It's just that it is a small topic. again you will repeat the same thing- Philosphy is not enlightenment. Zen is not enlightenment. Buddhism is not enlightenment. Academic nitpicking of traditions is not enlightenment. Believe it or not but I AM a meditation practitioner, I have had my moments with the silence, I have experienced like my ego wasn't there, I wasn't there, it's in my consideration, I will take all psychedelics I get, and just because I talk about philosophy it's not like you have to put that quotation box and keep saying - you don't get it you don't get it, it's not this, it's that, while I am literally accepting every word you say. I HAVE experienced Silence. That is what keeps me interested in spirtuality in the first place. It's the peace of meditation, without it the philosophy is just meaningless words. Just move on, reply to some others. I don't think I need your advice. And by 'get it' I don't mean I am enlightenment, I mean I get where you are coming from.

@Jkris Are you saying that is written in mandukya upanishad? I myself own a copy of the upanishad. Does it look like anything of that sort is written? Here, let me show you - Besides , I was asking for a link from an authentic source like a scripture, or osho, that link you gave is written by a blogger named dennis. I wasn't asking for that. Look, this is not an ego game, it's just that I love truth so much. If you are able to show me something that proves A triangle has has 5 sides then I will be happy , then you don't have to prove enlightenment is not an experience , and I will bow down to you, literally. It is win win for both of us. But just really prove it, and don't present false proofs as real proofs. It's harmful for both you and me. You won't be making any progressing by blindly believing such things.

@winterknightNo it's okay, we have some major differences about how we view things, that's all. I hope the best for your work.

@Nahm ?

@Nahm I don't know why your posts make me smile. You are different. ?

@Nahm ? That is what is very difficult for me. Too difficult. Thoughts come and go in me , I am not enlightened ? My only concern was someone who claims to be enlightened, saying- absence of experience like in 5-meo is not experience (like color red is blue) ), something I have never heard from any person of credibility (counting Leo). I just said it's wrong. That's all. Like some statements are self-evidently true. Like, A girl is female. A boy is male. Color white looks white. And winterknight is contradicing that.

@Jkris Okay, if you are not considering the words, then yes, all those 3 are same. You are right. But if you happen to look at the words, then please notice that what winterknight , Leo and Osho says are different.

I can't say I am enligtened, but I can perfectly see that there can be a mode of consciousness where there is absolutely lack of any references an experience of absolute lack of references, just pure , pulsing consciousness. Like what happens when you take 5 meo, isn't that pure consciousness? isn't that experience? May be I am wrong, but you know, even if there is absolutely lack of any references and any consciousness, i see (an can't unsee ) that it is perfectly experience Eg- there are organismslike plants, who I am sure do not have any referencing going on, there is no division between it and other, there are coelentrates ,sponges who are as good as a rock. But still, even if there i no referencing, I can see it as experience. An experience devoid of all references.

I have already said that the context is different , and the meanings imparted by Osho and winterknight are different. I hope you know Leo also says there is only experience, nothing else. Reality is an affirmitive , Existence IS. Reality IS. It is not ABSENCE. It is a Presence. Go ask your beloved Leo. I am sure something like above was written by Leo somewhere. And No I don't think scriptures talk about the absence of reality. Hinduism says there IS Brahama. Buddhism says there IS sunyata. A link about exactly saying - not an experience written in the scripture, would help. I know about concepts of maya, and so on, I hope you are not talking about that.

@Jkris Okay, but still he is saying it in a sense of 'absence' of experience isn't he? Which is also an experience. "ven great travelers of the inner world have got stuck in beautiful experiences, and have become identified with those experiences, thinking, “I have found myself.” They have stopped before reaching the final stage where all experiences disappear. Enlightenment is not an experience." Enlightenment is not experience like looking at a mountain, psychedelic images induced during meditation(beautiful experience) Osho has not contradicted my(and Leo's) view of experience the way winterknight has. If you find a link where someone asks Osho Is the absence of experience an experience or not? and like winterknight Osho says no it is not, then I will say okay, winterknight is correct, and I will be surprised how Osho's followers bought that. When winterknight says there is no experience, it's like saying triangle is a circle. (context, he says enlightenment is destruction of ignorance, realization of ___,I ask that's an experiencee isn't it?ans - it's not) When osho says it, read the other contexts- "Even great travelers of the inner world have got stuck in beautiful experiences, and have become identified with those experiences, thinking, “I have found myself.” They have stopped before reaching the final stage where all experiences disappear." And as I said previously, the way , the context at which Osho says Enlightenment is not an experience, makes sense , hence his reader(me) feels happy, and I think he is legit, so do millions who revere him. And I have read his many books and I can say they always makes sense, the way non-dualism makes sense, experiencing the oneness in meditation makes sense, samadhi makes sense, spiritual ecstasy makes sense. While winterknight's "Enlightenment is not an experience", does not make sense when looking at the context. ( Like triangle = a circle). Giving me a Deepak Chopra vibe instead of Osho vibe.

@winterknight Look, your idea that there is no experience doesn't even make sense. ( I am not talking about the brain, the discussion is already over, I know you don't believe in the brain, don't bring that up again) It's not like I am a complete materialist, for a long time I have read and followed and loved ( and still do) Buddha, Osho, Leo Gura, and their teachings make sense, that is why they have huge followers not you. None of them have ever said that 'That is not experience'. Even Leo Gura the founder of this site that you are using to increase your followers, believes that there is nothing but direct experience. https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/36099-direct-experience-relativity/#comment-446252 "There is nothing but direct experience, so you have no other other but to trust it. Name one thing which isn't in your direct experience? You cannot." - Leo And here you are disagreeing again and again without any reason. When you say, that is not experience, it's like saying a triangle is round, a square has 5 sides,the color red is blue. This only means that you have lost a follower, who is actually a follower and lover of people like Osho, Sadhguru, Leo , Buddha. If you want to gain followers then you can't put out nonsensical (hence false) stuff and expect you will have a mass following. Yes, there will be those who will follow you, doesn't mean everyone will, because people do sense truth, and when they sense truth they flock there. Where there is truth, there is a following. Your philosophy base itself is not properly made, so it's difficult to believe you have moved up spiritually. Even if you get followers , it will be because you focused on other stuffs, but just try putting 'there is no experience' as your central teaching and go on emphasizing it again and again, I bet there won't be many following you. Instead of giving short quip answers like that of Deepak Chopra that sound intelligent , try to properly convince people that 'that is not experience, realization of xyz (meaningless of language, inchorehence of realization as concept, your definition of enlightenment) is not experience, try doing that. And that would be impressive. You constantly play the word game- realization of destruction of incoherence of language. Reminding me of Deepak Chopra. And guess what, he plays that game even better, and he has millions of followers. And the common consensus about him whether you look at his youtube video comments, or google search or his facebook page comments, is that he is a charlatan. While people like Buddha, Osho, Sadhguru, Leo are revered. Because everybody loves those who spread the light of truth. (over time atleast. Like Jesus was crucified, Bruno was burned, but they are saints now). While those who spread of lies, are not. (Joseph Smith, Mormonism, Scientology) You don't have to put in it in highly complex terms like you and Deepak Chopra do. Truth is pure and simple. Just saying " Okay, I can't convince you , you yourself should walk the path" ignoring me would make me feel(though notfull convince) that you are enlightened, but using highly complex words to redefine, correct my statements over and over again, I don't see Buddha or Osho doing that. They would just ignore me and rest in their bliss. Which also shows sign of egolessness, but your posts shows the opposite. I don't see any bodhisattva like compassion radiating from you and I am talking about each of your post, not this one. Just continuosly correcting and redefining terms according to your ideology. This is __. This is not___ but ____.All your post are of that kind. It shouldn't be very difficulto for a lay person to identify when he sees a truly enlightened person, atleast not as difficult as doing a sherlock holmes investigation. Even animals recognize an enlightened being. Even plants do. And here not only do I not immediately feel like you are enlightened (which I should if you truly were) but allyour behavioural evidence,the demonstration of your ego, your obvious desire to get followers your youtube vids, point toward opposite. You are indoctrinated. That's all.

I have yet to see such siddhis with my eyes. If you helped me show one, I would be reaaaaaaaaallly grateful.

I think that would be 'zen' , where there is more emphasis on practice than philosophy. Anyway, thanks for your opinion. Although I have heard it countless time's before and have done that too. And later I incorporated philosophy in my practice.

But for me it seems everything is experience, whether it is as you say-It is the realization that the category called "realization" is incoherent as a concept (experience), . It is the realization of the non-existence and incoherence of all categories (experience), and the meaninglessness of all language (experience). Everything absolutely everything. Language or languagelessness IS experience. All realization of incoherence is experience, meaninglessness of language is experience. At least that is how I see it. Every concievable thing , even presumably inconceivable , IS experience. Realization that the concept of experience itself is incoherent (experience) From the hustle and bustle of Las Vegas to absolute pure divine silence of God, it is , for me, experience. And you disagree. All right, I have reached the conceptual dead end I guess, beyond which is just spirituality. Thanks for your interaction @winterknight

And isn't that an experience? I can't see how it is not an experience. The problem stays the same.

@winterknight You didn't adress my query about the nature of experience. Whether you are looking at something and finding out that it isn't there (definition of enlightenment as stated above), or whether as previously said, destruction of ignorance (as you said previously) that is an experience isn't it? And you say, without giving any reasons that it is NOT an experience. I don't know why you say that. With that answer you stopped me dead on my tracks. That's the first problem I encounter. I asked the question expecting you would say an obvious yes, so that I could ask my next question which would be- Where do you think is the experience occuring. And probably you would say, NOT in the brain (of course you are not a materialist) And I would then ask , why would you think so, then you will say- you will have to find it yourself with meditation and practices. Then the discussion would properly stop.

@winterknight Wow, so enlightenment is not an experience. But what is there except experience and perception? I mean everything is experience and perception. I mean how can the fact that - destruction of the belief that you are seperate from your experience, not an experience. Please tell me. I can perfectly see that it is an experience, if it wasn't then that event wouldn't even happen. Then what do you think enlightenment is. Earlier you said it is destruction of ignorance, and ignorance is a belief, and isn't the destruction of a belief , an experience? Like if I used to believe that apple is blue, and someone showed me a red apple, then my belief is destroyed, and isn't that an experience. Okay then tell me what is enligtenment then. I bet whatever you categorize enlightenment under, it can be put under the category of experience. Except when you just say- Enlightenment cannot be grasped by the mind or categories, at which point I say you win because there is no way to go furthur from there.

@winterknight So enlightenment means 'I' AM one with my experience , you mean? So it means that there IS an experience isn't it? And you always maintain that enlightenment cannot be destroyed by brain change. My question is, do you believe that, the feeling that I AM same as my experience, is maintained even after brain stem is damaged? What I think is that no matter what you experience, whether you feel experience yourself identical to your experience or you feel yourself identical to your body, is rooted in your brain. So just a yes or no will suffice, do you think that experience of you one with your experience, stays or not with brain damage? If you say yes, then I think that is a non-falsifiable, assertion, and to access that knowledge (if it is true) I will have to do 5-Meo Dmt and all sorts of spiritual practices, I can't access it by concept. But I hope that you and I both agree that once brain stem is damaged, even if you are enlightened, the body shuts off.

All right so you do agree that defects in the brain changes your indvidual experience ( as you said- The cosmic mind has created a universe that appears to operate by certain laws, and among these is that brain states influence states of consciousness.) So we both agree that at least at the level of the body, your behavior changes if there is some defect in your nervous system, doesn't matter if you are enlightened or not, if you are a buddha or a christ or jesus if you have defect in your brain then you will show the subsequent symptoms and personality changes, this is no bullshit, this is medical physiology and if you happen to disagree you will be challenging modern medicine itself and if you demonstrate something otherwise then you will win the nobel prize, become world famous, it's that simple, you won't even need a youtube channel. So here we both agree. At the objective level, we both agree. Now comes the level of the subjective experience. Now here we may differ. You say that , leisions in the brain does not effect enlightenment. So what do you exactly mean by that? That is not clear. Basically you are saying that enlightenment stays even if you have a leision in your brain. But what does that mean. Let's say, the great Adi Shankaracharya, the greatest indian theologian responsible for wiping out Buddhism from India, gets a brain tumor. You and I both agree that at the body level he will be acting weirdly. But what do you think goes in that mind? ( You say that enlightenment stays) I don't know about you, but this is my understanding of enlightenment- the disidentification with your body, thoughts, minds, sensations, ego, and final result is pure awareness. So from my understanding of enlightenment, the enlightened Adi Shankaracharya's experience while he has brain tumor is he will have pure awareness in the background. He knows that the body is acting wierdly, but he knows that he is not the body or the mind, he is nothing but pure awareness, he feels himself identical to this awareness though he sees the body acting weirdly. Now what I am saying is that even that pure awareness has it's center in the brain. Of course this is assuming my version of enlightenment. So are you saying that enlightenment is other then dissolving into pure awareness and nonduality? If enlightenment means complete disidentification, complete disconnection with the imagery world , and subsequent flow of pure consciousness, then even this pure consciousness has it's root in the brain. All you need to do is read a book on neurology, or do a google search. Consciousness comes from brain stem. (Thinking, memory so and so it's all from cortex and other parts, but basic consciousness that is the characteristic of life, is brain stem. Even reptiles have it) It's clinical significance is, if there is a problem, there is irreversible loss consciousness. ( At least when looking at the body). That's how we know brain stem is responsible for consciousness. Now if you are saying that , if the enlightened individual has his brain stem damaged, he still remains enlightened because his flow of pure consciousness and disidentification with the body continues as if he is a ghost although his body is good as dead, then that is a subjective non-falsifiable assertion which cannot be proven or disproven. But at the level of the body, the center of consciousness is brain stem. The body loses consciousness and becomes dead stuff if brain stem is damaged. But if you are saying consciousness is still present, then that's subjective. Now if you are saying the retention of enlightenment happens in some other away, then again that's subjective, non-observable , and I have no idea what you are talking about.

@winterknight I have watched a few of your youtube videos, you seem very articulate , sharp and you seem quite authentic too. You share a belief that is shared by other prominent monks like Alan Wallace, that scientists haven't solved the problem about- how does the firing of neurons, give rise to consciousness, , how does the firing of neurons make you see that particular rose? Where is the rose present in the neurons, there's just electricity, nothing else. So that means there seems to be an underlying reality of the 'self' which is not influenced by neurons. So you hold the belief that there is a disconnection between the brain and our individual unique experience? Then let me ask you, why does the leision in the brain, alters one's experience? You may claim you are enlightened, but a leision in your prefrontal cortex will completely change who you are, you start become immoral, you lose your inhibitions, ability to learn. Leision in your broca's area makes you unable to speak, leision in your wernicke's area makes it impossible for you to understand. Leision in temporal lobe gives you Kluver Bucy syndrome, you turn into a sex addict immediately. Leision in spinal cord gives you paralysis, loss of touch sensation, breath, and so on. And you might say, even if there is involuntary movement, loss of muscle tone, paralysis, immoral thoughts, urges, there is still that grain of awareness, well there are exact parts of the brain that gives rise to consciousness ( awareness). Any problems there and your consciousness which you say is not influenced by brain matter, is lost. So, how do you account for that? Change in your brain matter brings changes to your personality. Matter is influencing mind.

@Leo Gura So you are saying that the 'life dream' can be manipulated (with sufficient spiritual mastery) What does this mean? Like can you levitate or bring out a tornado at will ? But except in ancient religious writings where people talk about 'siddhis' , and 'miracles' in christianity, I have yet to find any evidence for such occurrence. Or are you saying that even to witness these 'miracles' one's consciousness should be raised? Generally people don't believe in the existence of miracles like the way people believe in the existence of gravity, so commonly they are not thought to be true. Why do you think, 99% have never witnessed these miracles, hence 99% people don't believe in them?

I don't believe in Hypergamy, because of the simple reason that nature creates men and women in equal numbers. Hypergamy assumes that all women marry men who are higher in their status in terms of wealth and money. The reality is what you get depends on who you are, or your quality. If you are a high quality man , you will attract a high quality woman and vice versa. Hypergamy assumes that even low quality women attract high quality men, but that is impossible because I can't see how the 'high quality girlfriend' of the high quality man would share her boyfriend, even if the boyfriend would be happy to have the low quality woman. I have read about many cases where billionaires got divorced because of the above scenario. 'The bell curve distribution' works in all aspects of nature whether it be wealth of men or beauty of women. If even low quality women attract high quality men, then what will the really attractive model looking women get? Also High quality men? Are men in the upper strata more than those in the lower strata? The math doesn't work. Unless the wealthy men practice polygamy, many women get married to the same man, or live their life as their mistresses (I don't think women like that) which looking at Bill Gates and many rich people in the western world, I don't think is the case. I have seen men unable to get a girlfriend, but I have also seen many women who no guy would marry, and hence she had stay unmarried. At least women many times do accept genetically inferior men, so it's even harsher for women if they don't have the attractive genetics. There is only 1 inequality in nature, women tend to get more attention when they are young, because men desire younger women. But men being old doesn't necessarily decrease their attractiveness. Women do accept men older men if he can provide, but the opposite , in most cases isn't true. If you are an average guy then you will get an average girl. The only time it is very difficult to get yourself a girlfriend is when you have qualities so below or so high that (looking at the bell curve) it gets difficult to find girls who is also at your level.