OneHandClap

Depends, I suppose. What were you experiencing in that jhana? As in, awareness of awareness, any sounds, visual perception, etc?

You're sidestepping my main point, which is that you are arguing from a biocentric viewpoint that excludes the possibility of AI being conscious. There is nothing special about the meat soup we call our brains. An AI with enough artificial neurons can certainly be self-aware, and probably will be within the next few decades. Treating an AI like it isn't conscious is just as bad as believing animals aren't conscious beings, IMO.

Thisssss. One reality, many realities, no reality? It's all the same game. Smile and go pet a dog. No amount of thinking can get the mind out of an existential jam.

I agree with all of this, though I do feel the "illusion" part (at least in the context I use it) is to illustrate that agenthood certainly appears real when we are in dualistic consciousness. Once seen through, yes, the whole artifice collapses. But until that point, there are few metaphors that can be used to point out how an experiencer isn't there, despite all the evidence seemingly affirming it due to ignorance.

You're making a distinction between organic and inorganic life. An AI could be just as conscious as you, if not millions of times more so. Anyway, it all sounds like a nice story to tell yourself, but then again, aren't most religions?

I can hear the reincarnation of Joshu in this post.

Because it merely appears that way. Again, I understand this is a very, very convincing illusion, but there is no real "center" to be found. If there was a center, you would be able to point to it and say "Look, this is me, this is who is experiencing!" But no matter how much you look, there is no center. Nor are there any edges. Phenomena are appearing and being known from within.

Emptiness is not a "thing," but rather a quality inherent in all phenomena. Emptiness means empty of self (Svabhava), or self-defining qualities. Nothingness is closer to what it sounds like—an absolute lack of sensory data. The 7th Jhana isn't full-on cessation, but it definitely is characterized by the exclusion of sensory objects in comparison to the lower states. So, in that sense, "emptiness" is really another way of expressing the nature of reality, while nothingness is an immediate description of perception.

The trouble is that you are mistaking what "no one" means here. It simply means there is no center to the pain that can be called a soul, individual self, et cetera. It is not saying pain never occurs. The question is, who or what could an experiencer possibly be? To put this in terms used by people like Culadasa, you are sticking at the "witness" stage. But there is a stage beyond this.

Okay, I'll hop right to your question about how to understand/work with materialists, since I am unsure about the blind spot part. This is definitely an unpopular opinion around here, but I think materialism is just one way to view reality. It uses a totally scientific set of terms to describe the same things that idealism describes. I may not agree with the philosophical conclusions (i.e. the brain is creating consciousness), but as far as using it to live in the world and discuss scientific understanding, it is very useful. What I would recommend is finding the most common ground possible with other people. They may say consciousness is made by the brain, you may believe consciousness is absolute... so what? You are both talking about reality. That is the starting point. I have many friends who are atheist/materialist, and we still get along very well because we have similar ideas about how to construct society and behave in the world.

It's just talking in circles at this point. Buddhism has spent thousands of years dissecting the exact questions you're asking, and has provided solid answers (backed up by experiential findings) in the forms of countless texts, teachings, and koans. If you're going to ask these questions related to Buddhist metaphysics, but not put in the iota of time to investigate the teachings themselves, there is no point. The answer you're trying to get me to say is "Ah, of course, because I feel pain. A self feels pain!" But that is not what is going on. Again, look into the Bahiya sutra.

It's all a big roller coaster, my friend. Have fun with it. Enjoy the selfies and the dogs and the ice cream and the political debates. All part of the human experience

That's the joke... nobody. There is pain, there is heat, there is movement... that's it. Tell me, where is the experiencer located? What are its qualities?

Because there is a sensory signal that is translated as "pain," and then a very complex series of neural actions cause your hand to move away. In fact, the hot-stove-hand example is great proof that there is no self, nor a need for one. Every biological creature moves away from pain and toward pleasure. There is no "choice" involved in the matter. Nobody deciding anything. And by the same token, no subject to experience objects.

I am just pointing out that standing on a "solid" ground of "knowledge" is a barrier to understanding ultimate reality. Believing that things must have an experiencer because there is experience is a barrier. It's like looking at an optical illusion and seeing something that isn't really there. Selfhood is one such illusion. It looks stable and real enough, but if you investigate sufficiently, it will drop away.

I am not OP, but this one has worked pretty well for me (I like working with the visual senses as well). Try looking at your entire frame of visual data as a gigantic screen. Pretend that you cannot influence, control, or affect it in any way. It will show whatever it wants, and your only job is to chill and do absolutely nothing. There is no "wrong" or "better" state for it to display. Once you've gotten a handle on the hands-off approach, repeat that with your hearing. Then feeling. Then tasting, smelling, and finally thinking. If you get deep enough with this technique, you will soon find that "you" begin to fade, and all of your sensory systems fade with the selfhood, too. Then the bliss comes out.

I think that's a phenomenal point. Some of the profound states being pointed to by Leo are misunderstood and trapped in linguistic prisons that seekers from all backgrounds have, based on their conditioning. Especially when you toss DMT and other volatile chemicals into the mix. Solipsism is an extremely easy pit to fall into, and extremely difficult to escape.

Beautiful, Tim! You've explained it with more rigor (and patience) than I can.

For somebody who is so sure of everything, you sure do make a lot of threads asking questions. Just my two cents.

That's your beliefs in action It feels very scary for the ego to accept that it's not required for existence to function. It's used to running the show.

Well said! Via negativa. Continue peeling back the layers until we find the (no) core

No, every experience does not prove there is an experiencer. Again, this is the very delusion that Buddhism (which you mentioned) is speaking to. Look up the Bahiya sutra. "In the seen, there is only the seen." AKA, no "see-r." There is only experience occurring. Delusion arises when we say "I am seeing." In reality, there is just seeing. "I" is a thought. You are adding the element of selfhood to a process without self or agency. Also, if you have not gone far enough in meditation to speak about cessation, there's no point in debating it. I can describe the taste of sugar to you all day, but you will not know what sweetness is without a bite Edit: In reference to your question about "whose ignorance is it," the answer is obvious. When selflessness is fully realized, ignorance is gone, because there is no longer a self to be ignorant.

Such a great way to phrase it. I agree with you that much of the "I am the only being" / solipsism talk is really a way to cope with loneliness or isolation. It is easy to feel "free" if we can tell ourselves nobody is real and nobody matters... but the toll it takes on sanity is immense. I am so glad you've got such a balanced and rational stance on this... you echo my thoughts perfectly. I also think this delicate application of teachings is why Buddhism (even schools such as Zen) have such rigid structures. They are not there merely to "hide" the ultimate truth; they are there to gradually and healthily introduce beings to it.

Your last line says it all. There is no experiencer in cessation. There is also no experiencer in daily life, but we are ignorant of that truth. The fact that you believe there is a self/experiencer is, in Buddhist thought, the root of your ignorance, and what binds sentient beings to rebirth. Get rid of the delusion of self, and there is nobody to suffer. Nobody to undergo samsara.

This is true. And it's also worth repeating that most of us are not psychologically ready for complete isolation. Many new seekers attempt to go full isolation mode and end up either going off the deep end or completely losing interest in spirituality. At a certain point, we can transcend the "need" for social contact. But for most of us, who are interested in living in the world and socializing, it's not advisable to do long-term.