mochafrap

Hi all I am newer to mediation in terms of actually doing it, and I'm sure I'm not the only person who has felt herself accidentally falling asleep during sessions ? I recently put my finger on a distinguishment between the feeling of falling asleep verus that of meditation. Getting sleepy feels like a pull toward a certain point, while meditation (open awareness) does not. Meditation feels like spreading out (but NOT *being* spread, more like the spread is just happening). The reason I find this interesting is because, to me, it lends credit to the idea that sleep is an egoic thing and an activity. We just don't notice that it is an activity and instead write it off as somethint different. Analogy: The falling asleep is akin to drawing out a sketch, and being asleep is akin to the finished drawing. Falling asleep is a process that leads to an end result (sleep), and then sleep itself would not be a total release or a total stop. The idea would be that sleep pulls the ego into a certain state. I think an enlightenment experience, then, would be said to be the release of all states. Idk if this is important or what, and I have further thoughts on it. I'm just curious to see what others may say. ? I'm very tired, speaking of, but did my best to explain all this!

If you happen to be interpreting my post as me saying I should defy sleep - and that is where the adverserial tone comes in - that's not what I'm saying. I've simply noticed a difference between the feeling of falling asleep and the feeling of meditating and am curious about it. Otherwise, would you mind explaining what you mean by adverserial? As far as a story, I see what I'm exploring here just as story-like as saying that ego doesn't exist in the absolute. Words pointing to the real. ??‍♀️ Maybe I'm missing something though.

I'm from a city wherein drugs are a pretty big problem, and I'm sure many have heard about the dangers of even tiny, tiny amounts of fentanyl, so cross-contamination is often in the back of my mind when it comes to psychadelic exploration. I bet there are some people on the forum who don't think about this, so hopefully they will see this post. Is there a pretty doable / feasible-for-average-person way to tell whether something (e.g. 5meo or even mushrooms) is laced or cut with something else undesired?

Why is there an expectation of going into the world to do X Y Z, and why is there is a judgement made if one does not do X Y Z? Just like I asked Leo, why not live in your mom's basement and eat Cheetos? Conversely, why not go into the world? As far as I understand it, enlightenment (one strain of apparently many interpretations) recognizes all as concepts except for the consciousness itself, which is a concept when discussed but not a concept when purely experienced. Choices outside of this pure experience are equivalent "why nots". Why would enlightenment suggest any one direction or self (egoic)-imposed concepts, such as that of doing X Y Z in the world, versus doing whatever flows most intuitively, even if that means being lazy af? I am mostly playing devil's advocate in order to learn. I'm not sure of my own answers to these questions.

Can you provide a brief summary of your essay?

Why not?

Ah. I think I am struggling with a fear of depersonalization, which is why I asked the original question. Your answer kind of makes sense to me because I see how this fear of mine involves separation, but I'll have to work to actually grasp it. Any input you have on this idea of depersonalized sensations would be appreciated or any further input on the lack of separation in enlightenment. Thank you.

How do you view day-to-day life now? Do you feel disconnected, as if playing a video game with intense graphics and experiences, and so on?

Does nondualism necessarily leads to idealism? When answering, please define how you're using these terms if your definitions aren't what I list below - that way we'll be on the same page Nondualism - all experience is one, and no experience can escape the large oneness of experience Idealism- "the group of metaphysical philosophies that assert that reality, or reality as humans can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial" (taken from wikipedia) PS: "Epistemologically, idealism manifests as a skepticism about the possibility of knowing any mind-independent thing." might or might not be important

A lot of activity from me tonight, but I may have just hit on something. I see validity in what I'm saying and also ways it could be a misunderstanding, so bear with me. Looking forward to replies. Attachment is, as I have seen it, generally viewed as this big bad boy in experience. Desires, they should come and go, they hurt or they don't. No matter, we have an internal river of tranquility that stems from Being and Self. We should remain detached. Attachment to something else only exists if there is some separate thing to be attached to. "Ourselves" in nonduality is all. I am all. My true self is all. My ego is an instantiation of a deeper Self. All is an experience of the Self that I am living. Many things are arbitrary (my ego just went "ugh dude wtf that hurts" lol), but ultimately it is all Self that is experience. There is nothing but Self, me / you / my homework is all Self in the nondual sense of the word. This is how I understand it all currently. How, then, is there anything to be attached to? And from where does the command come to detach one's Self? If I am "attached" to another experience or ego, would I not just be attached to part of Self, and therefore drawing on Self for happiness, as is the goal? Of course, I may be attached to an experience in a way that is acutely unhealthy for this biology (e.g. fighting all the time with a friend, struggling with addiction, etc) or toxic to my ego... but basically, why do some people demonize attachement when it seems to be a part of experiencing the Self? I could see possible explanations being that the goal is to detach ego from pure, unconceptualized experience rather than what I just said, or maybe that detachment is about having absolutely no need for any other parts of Self other than your own instantiation of it (which I still wouldn't understand at that point).

Actually may have just answered my own question right after posting this, but still wanna read input.

https://o-meditation.com/2012/05/18/for-ayn-rand-there-was-no-mystery-osho/ Came across a tidbit of Osho's views on rationality. Part of it happens to include his saying that "you are more than you can ever know, because your intrinsic reality remains mysterious, always remains unknown, unknowable." Just wondering if anyone has thoughts on this - is our intrinsic reality, and similarly / kinda the same our true nature, knowable? How would one know once one claims to know? Please correct me if this is not actually from Osho, but I did try and fact-check that it is.

Ah, I think I'm on this same page. Just confused as to why anyone claims to know anything, then, even with respect to enlightenment? Just a note: She does seem largely dualistic and parts of Atlas Shrugged make it clear she didn't really understand philosophies like Advaita Vedanta and erroneously assumed that they are 100% illogical and baseless. You may have read some of her nonfiction - so have I. However, I am not as quick to completely debase her, especially in terms of how to create an economy and behaivoral expectations of individuals (or distinct experiences of the one Self, in terms of nonduality). Basically, her systems thinking is interesting to me. I should note that I am not supporting the unhinged capitalism so many people (incorrectly) think Rand raves about. It would be interesting to talk to you and others who so strongly rebuke her about the actual plots of her novels and their implications, bad and good. Also, Rand died of heart failure. Not suicide. So.... weird that Osho claimed suicide.

@Leo Gura Definitely something I'll have to contemplate upon to understand, and maybe I should check out that video. Thank you.

Apologies to anyone who commented on a prior post and I haven't reacted to it - currently crazy busy and also kind of getting lost with all the new enlightenment things I'm pondering. In a state of pure beingness, there are no concepts. Is there differentiation between what is experienced? For example, would someone in pure beingness register the difference between a rose and a tulip? This essentially gets at whether differentiation is a concept or not. If differentiation is a concept and we must drop concepts for pure beingness and so drop differentiation, pure beingness would be literally nothing - that's how I'm understanding it. And there are those who say that is what pure beingness is. This might have important implications, E.G. we can't recognize a state of pure beingness until we are out of that state. Thanks for any thoughts - back to gross amounts of studying for me :,)

Anyone have suggestions for contemplative meditation questions? Things that are both in support of nonduality and things that seem threatening to it (the latter of which I don't expect any answers to haha). Thinking stuff along the lines of "What is a thought?" "What is your self?" Thanks in advance

@Mu_ very good questions to ask myself. Thank you!

Hi all, Under the idea that there is no self*, what is the explanation for preferences (including those of relationships) and everday individuality? Would it come down to different apparent levels of 'self' while still holding that there is no ultimate self? * I say "idea of" because I am not fully convinced on this point, but I am exploring within it. Do not derail my question though, please!

@Emerald Your response is actually along the lines of my own forming suspicions on this topic. However, this line: It seems to me that enlightenment in its most consistent and stringent form would shed all preferences and emotions - except for maybe the preference to have no preferences and those that are biological. Everything else would just fall away Do you have any input on whether this view of mine makes sense? Would stringent enlightenment be equivalent to being as neutral about everything as possible? And even then, it seems like the shedding of all desires as much as possible is literally death. But even in that action, there is a desire or preference. So.... it's confusing and kinda makes me doubt stuff.

@Jack River and @Hellspeed - thank you both for your replies. Thinking on em!

I think this is a very helpful post. It may also be worth noting that maybe some components of life have a purpose of reproduction - like maybe it is the purpose of certain hormones to make us feel the need to reproduce. It might even be argued that the biological purpose of being alive is to reproduce. But purpose is different than meaning, biological stuff is its own part of existence but can't be proven to be all of existence, and there are different types of meaning anyway. What I'm about to say is admittedly a bit of a stretch but has potential: Society is so obsessed with reproduction that we can't even tell if the desire to reproduce would be so strong without everyone always yelling "GROW UP HAVE BABIES". If that pressure were taken away, would the desire you talk about still exist with the same strength? We don't know, so if you're using this to argue that meaning = reproduction, it gets to be a shaky argument. You're clearly thinking about all this which is a good thing imo! When you're exploring meanings and purposes, I would advise to be careful and slow with it. Some of it gets "deep" and can be freaky, so just make sure not to bite off too much at once! Finally, try to figure out if you have some bias against people who don't want to reproduce (aka who don't want kids) or if you have a bias that we are supposed to have kids, morally or whatever. There are a large amount of Americans who stigmatize women and men without children, and if you have that bias, it will probably cloud your thinking.

@Nahm how so? @Hellspeed a friend with more experience in this area than me. For clarification, my friend meant no individual selves and was promoting one overall conscious Self instead. @ajasatya do you mean how we best explain it or why they truly actually happen? If the second, I don't know and currently think it is impossible to know. We just have to have practical predictions. This is annoyingly extreme skepticism on my end but it's my answer haha

Is desire a clinging? And is clinging more thoughts? That's part of my question. For example, can I desire to go hiking without clinging to the thought of hiking, or does desire necessarily equate to clinging? I could see it going both ways at the moment. My semantics detail-orientedness can be annoying but is also sometimes important. Regardless, he context here doesn't seem to need that clarification and I agree with the last sentence. The outcome is neither good nor bad if all preferences have been abandoned and we are speaking objectively (and also assuming there is no objective "lowpoint" that is inescapably painful, such as extreme torture or something). I agree as above that preference is a ball of thoughts. This definitely addresses where preferences come from in the perspective of self. My question, though, is why do they exist at all? What is the nondual explanation for why I like cherries while Bob prefers grapes? And can we use these preferences to define selves for what most people see as everyday life / is that bad or invalid? And then the other questions I directed at Mu_ in the 4th reply of the thread. Good input! Thank you.

Yes, exactly. And then to figure out possible implications of truth and decide what to do with truth. I will think about this more. Or maybe I will let go. I guess a related comment is that I do see all as one experience. I am just not sure that all is entirely one consciousness / that we are all the exact same consciousness / all one conscious being. Still pondering this idea.

@i am I AM I'm not sure I understand these questions quite yet, but I will certainly think them over. Could you explain a little further if you'd like? @Mu_ I do have a concept of both self and no-self intellectually. My sense of self is more obvious, of course, given the Western background, but I am slowly feeling the inklings of what it means to have no self. I am still open to both possibilities being true and don't see myself settling soon, as I am pretty epistemologically skeptical. I recognize that the skepticism has no bearing in the realm of no self. I also understand that in the ultimate nondual experience, all is one and individuals don't exist because all is one consciousness. However, when we are not in that zone of beingness and are not actively feeling that one consciousness, we can define things like "I prefer slapstick humor over dry humor. I prefer my girlfriend over some other person and so am dating her." I'm essentially wondering what role these preferences play and whether they are valid and whether they should just be shirked, to be honest. Like, what do we do with them? And do these distinctions define a level of self that is not the ultimate truth that we simply use to "live a human life"? I'm aware that the distinctions are infinite; could we say that there are infinite selves rather than no self at all? Could we group based on most common or most obvious types of distinctions? I'm sorry for so many questions, but maybe you have some insight on a couple now that I've talked so much! I also think I may have had a decent amout of realizations about the self while writing this, haha. @Shin I'm actually about to start a book that has an entire chapter dedicated to connecting the idea of consciousness with that of lucid dreaming, so funny timing! I guess there is a sense of self in a lucid dream... it's just weird, because we always wake up from and remember lucid dreams. I guess one would say that the actualization version of waking up and remembering a lucid dream is having an englightenment experience and coming "back" to "dream" experience? Thank you all for replying!