Emanyalpsid

@GabeN Consciousness itself is aware of the soul or consciousness, but it is formless, so you will not find it. It is the formless consciousness from which the manifestation of consciousness, or soul, emerged. Like the seed from which a flower (soul/ consciousness) grows. You look for the seed, which comes from a flower. Endless cycle of rebirth. @Mikael89 Go experience nature! Spending too much time at your screen only brings depression, confusion and desires.

It was something I inquired through meditation. There are two questions which seem suitable for inquiry into this. The first; What is conciousness? After you have found the answer to this question, you can ask the last question; What is? If you didn't find the right answer to the first question, you will end up back at the first question if you answer the second question. If someone wants to inquire into this, I will be happy to help the best I can.

It means I never came and will never go. Through unwholesome thought, or ignorance, the mental fabrication of consciousness arises; if you are consciousness (manifestation), you must come from consciousness (formless). That is the identification, that is the rebirth. This mental fabrication comes again and again, as long as it keeps manifesting itself, meaning; as long as someone identifies with consciousness. Everytime consciousness manifests in a fabrication, it is there, but you can't say it was not there if it has not manifested. Just as the flower is already present in the seed. It just hasn't manifested itself, because the conditions are not met. To break through this, you have to see that consciousness is nothing. From your point of view consciousness is, but the manifestation of consciousness can't be defined, as it needs everything, so it is nothing (empty) on itself. And consciousness is formless, which is also nothing (empty), as it needs everything. If you see it is nothing, you will not identify with it. You need insight into dependent arising to see this.

It never comes (nothing is formed) and never goes (nothing is formless). The conditions through which it manifests arise or they do not, which means; you identify with it or you do not.

Okay, it doesn't matter anyway. Consciousness (nothing) is and consciousness (nothing) is not. Nothing is, so consciousness, which is nothing, is formed and nothing is not, so consciousness, which is nothing, is formless. They are just mental fabrications. Thanks for the connect and sharing! @Mikael89 So consciousness does exist as mental fabrications. That I said there is no consiousness, was me breaking away from these mental fabrications, meaning I don't identify with it anymore. This doesn't mean they are not there, or here. At the time I wrote that, I was still breaking away. It seems I have grasped the implications now.

Thanks! But it is not the same, because you referred to consciousness as always being there which continues to manifest after our ego dies: "In spirituality consciousness was there even before life even formed. So the end of consciousness in relation to humans or life in general really has no bearing here. We are made out of and created by consciousness. And when we as egos die consciousness will continue to manifest itself." I just realized that this is just a mental fabrication (nothing) in form and formless, which you can break from. The manifestation is the rebirth. This manifestation is possible because it is there as formless, like you said; In spirituality consciousness was there even before life even formed. Before this realization I thought the same as you, although I used other words. I referred to reality what you call spirituality consciousness and I saw consciousness manifest itself in it. So I made a distinction between reality and consciousness, which you do not.

No, I didn't practice Vipassana, but it is referred to in every Buddhist stream. http://www.buddhismandaustralia.com/ba/index.php/The_Cessation_of_Consciousness_in_Vipassanā_Meditation_by_Ven._Bhikkhuni_Anula_Devi From the text: "And the Buddha also explained the emergence of consciousness as a natural causal process denying that consciousness would emerge in the absence of the necessary conditions." The same is meant here with what I referred to: Although I penetrated the nature of reality through consciousness, I had not let consciousness go yet. It is tricky, because you need consciousness to penetrate through reality, but after that you also need to let consciousness go. So, consiousness has no form. It can manifest itself, but it is not really there to be perceived, it is empty in itself. But you can't say it is without form, it doesn't mean it is not there. It is just formless, the conditions are not so that it can manifest itself. It is what Thich Nhat Hanh refers to in the video, with the flame, it has no form, but it also is not without form. It only needs conditions to manifest. Hence, dependent arising. If you plant a seed from a flower, you already know the flower is there, it however has not manifested itself yet, because the conditions to manifest itself have not met yet. The flower needs to grow first to form, before that, it is formless. So you can plant the seed and let the flower manifest, or you do not plant the seed and let the flower be formless. It doesn't matter, because the flower is nothing, it is empty but full of everything. You can't define it, because it needs everything. Just like consciousness is nothing, you can't define it, because it needs everything.. An instruction in the text from the link; "we should observe firstly the arising of the object and secondly the vanishing of it, then thirdly both appearing and disappearing of that object." This means; first the identification of object arising through subject-object distinction, then venture into nothingness (no object), then venture into nothing is (nothing is formed) and nothing is not (nothing is formless). So, you go from form to formless, to no-form and no-formless. You arrive into no-form and no-formless by letting the formless go, which is consciousness. You are dissolved. Nothing is and nothing is not.

I don't refer to the subject-object consciousness here, that is form consciousness. Consciousness is also formless; experienced beyond the subject-object distinction. However, this formless consciousness also does not exist. When there is consciousness, there is rebirth of consciousness. It's only a form (subject-object) and formless (beyond subject-object distinction, unable to lable) mental fabrication. First you become conscious of nothing is, or nothingness, (nothing is formed, no self, no formation of subject-object consciousness) and then you dissolve, because nothing is not (nothing is formless). So there is no consciousness, not in form nor formless, and therefore no rebirth. Nothing is and nothing is not.

@AMS I also don't see your point. Yes the statistics differ like Shiva said, some statistics mention 18% for CO2. Different measuring methods. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But it is not only CO2 which is polluting, methane is much worse. And there is Nitro...something I don't remember. Yes there is a lot of land not utilizable for crops, but the cows don't walk on the grasslands of Canada, Africa, Russia, Mongoly and China. They walk on the soil of the US where crops could also grow. Besides this, these lands are becoming dryer because we are cutting down the rain forest to find places to grow corn and soja beans to feed our livestock, and because our greenhouse gas emission is rising. If you are going to try to convince people that keeping livestock is not polluting and slowly killing life on this planet, you are gonna have a hard time. But again, I don't see the point. Unless you wan't to convince yourself and others that your carnivor diet is sustainable. It is still poluting in a big way. Maybe we are not able to measure exactly how much, but does it matter?

Thank you for your message.

Look I am not trying to convince people, everybody has their own path, most people do not seem to care anyway. The cause of diseases go further than mere bad habits. If you are seriously interested in your health, why not take a look at the topic I posted? Why make a tradeoff? Bye, I've got other stuff to do!

Yes and these have shown to badly reproduce, but they have a good yield. So the big coroporations, like Monsanto, who sell these seeds have a billion dollar business, because farmers need to constantly buy these seeds. Also the health effects from eating these plants for us humans in the long-term, and over multiple generations, have not been researched. Is almost impossible to research, and nobody would finance these, so is not going to happen in the near future. But the amount of diseases in humans keeps rising in an exponential rate and we are getting these diseases earlier; children who already have rheuma etc. Don't believe the propoganda from big corporations, they only want to make as much money as possible. They give shit about your health.

I am not a specialist in this area and I should indeed be careful with my assumptions. But as far as I understand DNA, it is the design of proteins, which are the building blocks for other cells. So it seems that if you change DNA, the whole organism is influenced by this, and future generations. Because we digest and metabolize these organisms and transport their molecules and atoms into our cells, it seems a small step to assume that this leads to serious unnatural changes in our cells and alter our DNA. You might know that cancer is caused by problems in cell division and because DNA is main factor in a normal cell division. It seems likely that GMO will cause major abnormalities in the body and therefore diseases, maybe not in 5 years, maybe not in 10 years, maybe not in 30 years, but probably in a couple of generations. Depending on the amount of GMO intake and the composition of the nutrition in general. Furthermore, GMO could lead to use of different types of pesticides which have other unknown health effects for us. Besides all of this, GMO is unnecessary for our food delivery. We only allow it because people want to eat cheap animal-based food. If everybody ate organic plant-based food we would not even be discussing this and there would be no hunger in the world. However, these are still assumptions, but I would put the burden of proof to the other side, let the corporations who want to use GMO prove that there are no negative long-term health effects over multiple generations. ...But this could lead to people becoming test subjects... Anyways, I wouldn't take this risk with my body and my children (not that I have any yet). There is no good excuse to mess with nature for our food production. We are able to produce enough for the whole world even with organic agriculture. Conventional agriculuture slowly destroys all life on this planet. People should however see the importance of our food to make this turn. Ah the diseases we suffer from will eventually bring us back to natural organic food. Could take some generations though.

But you started to teach, so what are you teaching?

Eating organic food is important for your health, as pesticides are toxic and will remain in your body for a long time. Non-organic agriculture is not sustainable as it drains the soil, which is the bottom for the plants to grow on. Plants will become more susceptible for diseases which in turn will create more pesticides. Artificial fertilizers increase this process, as they fail important micronutrients for the plants to grow healthy. The plants in turn contain less micronutrients. Less fertile soil means less bugs and insects, less insects means less birds, less birds mean... etc. Pesticides also kill flowers and other plants, which means there are less bees, when there are less bees there is less cross-fertilization. In this way we are slowly destroying all life on the planet. I believe that in America even more pesticides are allowed than in Europe. GMO is even worse for our health, as you mess with the DNA of food, which is metabolized in our body, which means that it will mess with our DNA. Long-time effects for us and for the next generations are not clear yet, but it seems likely that these foods will be the cause of cancer, abnormalities in different organs and abnormalities in growth in general and may even cause our body to be unable reproduce in the next 3 to 4 generations. In Europe GMO is not allowed. In America it is already applied in soja Bean's, corn and wheat. These products are the main food for animals we eat, so the GMO will also turn up in animal-based food. We cannot bend nature to suit us, nature will set us straight in the long run. Organic food is sustainable and we are able to solve the world hunger problem with it if we stop eating animal-based food. If the food which is fed to animals for our meat and milk is given to humans, the hunger problem would be solved immediately. Also our polution would be solved for a big part as livestock is a big polluter. I can recommend the documentary 'Cowspiracy, a sustainability secret.' Also we don't need animal-based food. If you want to know more about this and a healthy nutrition in general, read this topic: https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/30271-a-holistic-view-on-nutrition/

I agree that both paths end up close to each other, but they seem to differ in the end. And I don't know where Leo is heading if he is still progressing. But the paths towards this end seem to differ a lot.

The totality of what? I will elaborate as to why I asked these questions. When you reach Nirvana in Buddhism you realize that no-thing exists, but this is not nothing. It is the relative space between something and nothing. You realize that everything is of dependent arising and that there is no totality. So this Brahman, even if not labeled, is still there in your mind as something. This means that you are still attached to something and are not fully enlightened by the Buddhist standard. You see, there is a difference between enlightenment in Hinduism and Buddhism, but it seems that Hinduists do not see this and if you have not attained Nirvana in Buddhism you will also not be able to see this. I had two interesting discussions about this with two Hinduists, you can find them here. https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/27518-i-am-enlightened-sincere-seekers-ask-me-anything/?page=103 https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/28840-differences-between-hinduism-and-buddhism/?page=5 So although you act like you got it all figured out, it seems your own words apply to yourself: "Ramaji postulates that the reason people get stuck at a specific level of enlightenment is due to the fact that they start teaching at that level. They believe they see truth. Their perception and interpretation starts to become rigid. Their understanding of the world untouchable. This might seem like progress but in fact it’s stagnation. In Buddhism there are many stories of monks who overestimated their level of understanding, and due to false understanding got stuck." I was also under the assumption that I reached enlightenment for some time in the past, until I gained the final insight and saw my own ignorance. At higher levels of enlightenment, just before Nirvana, appearances of the ego are very subtle and hard to detect because you lack the final insight.

It depends upon which path you are. If you are on the path of Leo, or any other spiritual path which sees reality as an illusion like most non-duality teachers, you will become detached from reality and everything in it. Because you will come to see it as not real. If you are on the path of Buddhism you will come closer to everything in reality, because you will slowly melt into reality.

Do you believe in Brahman?

In Buddhism there is no oneness. Form is dependent upon formlessness.

@Aakash @Sockrattes This website http://www.foundationsofhumanlife.com/ discribes the entire path to Nirvana in detail for a Western logical thinking mind to understand. Most buddhist texts describe the path from the point of Nirvana backwards, with which I mean that qualities which someone attains in Nirvana are used to explain the path, which makes it hard to understand for Western people. As they often come from the logical thinking 'I think, therefore I am' side. This makes these texts for people from the West hard to understand, because our starting point is different. Moreover, the language used to describe the path is also different, a lot of metaphors and cryptic stories to unscramble. People from the West are often used to read texts which have a logical reasoning and therefore have trouble understanding these texts. That is why most people don't understand Buddhism at first and it requires a lot of determination to through with it. Be prepared to be confronted. You should look there where mental discomfort arises. Edit; if you skip lessons/chapters, don't expect to understand it though.

I don't get your post. I didn't develop this view. Have you read everything?

Personal development is grounded in the natural material world and is an attempt to better cope or flourish in this sense-world. Spirituality is an attempt to go beyond the natural material world, as presented to you through the senses, to look for its meaning or the fundamental nature of it. In western philosophy this is called metaphysics. Basically, you look for something beyond nature, something you do not perceive through your senses. This meaning is thus only found in thought and imagination.

Maybe reading this topic will help.

@Shadowraix Okay that is confusing, so it is what we call reality? What do you call the experience when an impulse from out of your body touches a sense organ?