SkyPanther

*nod* well, or unwholesome, or unskilled. But here is something else to think about. Sometimes you may fail to reach your goal because of society, culture, genetics, experience (or lack thereof). This is not your fault, and you did not choose any of it, and ultimately why things like "free will" are illusory. All experience is subject to a cause and effect chain. This is why most spiritual paths that have to do with Enlightenment (Buddhism/Hinduism), tend to have a different definition of "free will", that in the lense of compatibilism. Determinism, and Free Will entwined to be something else. You are free to choose, but your choices are colored by the options you have, and some of those options are determined by circumstance that are outside of your control.

It seems to be about paradigm shifts in how you respond to culture, and relativistic "truths" and concepts that humans deal with.

It is arbitrary, or relative. What is a waste of life to you, may not be a waste of life to someone else. I think that "metrics" of a wasted life or not, is ultimately up to the person that is living it. We create our own purpose in life, so saying "it's a waste" is arbitrary in that instance. If there was an ultimate "purpose" than you could make a case of something/someone doing something that is a waste... but since there is no set "purpose" a "waste" is all dependent on the person and the life they themselves perceive as not reaching some purpose or goal they set for themselves.

It's a realization I had. The "I" is a conglomeration of different parts that takes on the illusion of a whole entity. Wasting your life is an interesting notion though... mostly because one can also see that no deed, no matter how "empty" is a waste. All effects are started from some cause, and so nothing is a "waste" in the grand scheme of things. It can be perceived as a "waste" by the culture/concepts you surround yourself with however. Some people think being a Monk/Yogi, and sitting and meditating your whole life is a waste because you add nothing to the economy.

I like "Twim" meditation; Twim stands for Tranquil Wisdom Insight Meditation. It combines Vipassana with Samatha, and uses either breath or Metta as the focus. It is the meditation the Buddha taught to his followers. More about it here:

This may not totally fit you because this is from a Buddhist perspective, but it does deal with Family and their ideas of "Brainwashing" and enlightenment work. This is on retreat (the guy in the white is there on retreat). Meditation is about "brainwashing"... you are removing all the concepts and "trash" that society has put in your head.

Naamusty!

A simulation of how the neural networks work in the brain:

Death should not scare you; because nothing is dying but an illusion of the egoic self, and an organism that was not "you" in the first place.

I know this was not for me to answer, but there are some interesting things about this from the perspective of science: Quantum Theory Proves That Consciousness Moves to Another Universe After Death http://www.learning-mind.com/quantum-theory-proves-that-consciousness-moves-to-another-universe-after-death/ Orchestrated objective reduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness http://www.amazon.com/Shadows-Mind-Missing-Science-Consciousness/dp/0195106466 Panpsychism http://www.iep.utm.edu/panpsych/ Indra's Net https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net These are scientific theories and on the edge of science stuff, and mainly having to do with Quantum Physics. And some of the research and theories are being made by some heavy hitters in physics, for instance Penrose, who worked with Hawking on black holes. If this is accurate, it would "jive" with rebirth which interestingly, is actually part of almost every major religion (before they became religions). Rebirth is part of the three main religions in the East (Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism), but also part of Gnostic Christianity and Judaism.

This is why I say Buddhism/Hinduism is not a religion (unless you make it one), and why you do not need faith to know enlightenment. What he is basically restating is what Tolle has also said. At the start of "enlightenment", you stop seeing things as "other things", and your labeling mind quiets down a lot. The mind you get when you are meditating and focusing on something becomes the pseudo "default". You are just in your mind, and it is quiet. When you stop labeling others, you also stop labeling yourself (unless you want to). It will not be an obsessive loop. Some other things to think about, is that this is all from a point of view of rationality (which may or may not be correct) and has been intentionally secularized (which is coloring it with a certain view). The brain's neural network does not explain conciousness, or why we are conscious of qualia. The secularization is understandable though, this is probably to make it palatable for people that are not interested in the more... "mystic" parts of the path. And it is the only way to make it unbiased, as he spoke about at the end of the talk. Was an interesting video, thank you for sharing!

Hmm.. there used to be a button that let you delete your account, but I cannot seem to find it now, maybe it was disabled.

It depends on the mind and why you are killing yourself. For instance Jains kill themselves by starving themselves to death (Sallekhana), but they do it, usually, at the end of life. "When death is imminent, the vow of sallekhanā is observed by progressively slenderizing the body and the passions. Since the person observing sallekhanā is devoid of all passions like attachment, it is not suicide." In most of cases killing yourself will not bring you to enlightenment. Because the reason you are doing it is most likely tinged with hatred(of self), greed and delusion. If you have attachment to not being, or being, etc... that will obscure enlightenment. Now, have there been beings that have gotten enlightened that way? Maybe(depending on their minds/reasons)... but it is really, really rare, and not something anyone should consider if trying to reach enlightenment.

It's complicated, and no.

Because you are thinking there will be in independent "you" that is conscious after enlightenment. Is the wave of an ocean independent of the ocean? Or does it arise out of the ocean and go back into it again, only to arise again? When you light a candle with a match, is the fire that leaves the match the same fire that is on the candle wick? Enlightenment/nibbana means "extinguishment of the flame". That is even the conciousness is unbound. But some "awareness" of now still exists... but you won't perceive it as an independent awareness... It is just the awareness of existence. It is also difficult to explain with words. That is why a lot of enlightened people are just silent. A nice way of putting it that I heard recently... If you are asleep and I ask you are you asleep, if you answer "yes" than you are not actually asleep. Silence in that instance is the right answer.

When you say "I" you are talking about the egoic self. That self is not what Leo is talking about. He is talking about awareness/conciousness... there is no independent "you" in that. There is a mind-stream, but that is also just a stream of awareness that is conditioned by your experience. When you become enlightened you stop being a mind-stream, you stop living and just become existance without goals, or wants, or desires. That is both void, and full at the same time.

"You" are not eternal. Consciousness is. "You" are not consciousness. When Leo says consciousness is internal he means existence, because both are dependent on each other. You require memory to remember events. Consciousness is just awareness of "now" without memory. If you can hold on to conciousness via meditation, you can be aware of "now" while sleeping. Otherwise your brain stops recording memory and rests. And you lose the connection awareness.

There is a good write up here on the different schools: http://www.alanpeto.com/buddhism/understanding-mahayana-theravada/ Unfortunately, because I have only really been following the Theravada school, I do not know of any Zen Monasteries in the US. I know of a few Theravada Monasteries (and have visited one in San Diego), but you should be able to find some Zen Monasteries in your area; most come up on Google search and will have information about retreats, etc...

This has a pretty good description for what happens before and after an enlightenment experience:

Just some stuff to play with. Empty in Buddhist terms is a bit complex. It does not mean "nothing" per se, but that nothing is inherently "itself". For instance light. To us "light" is something... but in reality, it is photons that are emitted as radiation on the electromagnetic spectrum. We only see a small portion of it: And this is true for all matter. Matter is energy with a certain frequency. Without instruments to measure "light" (our eyes, and the brain to be conscious of the Qualia), there is no "light", just photons/electromagnetism. Consciousness gives that "thing" meaning. But by itself, it is "nothing" but particle/wave. (which is also a concept we created) Nothing and something are dependent on each other. You cannot have one without the other. Because they do not make sense when one is absent. Like having a coin with only one side. The problem is that we see nothing and something as separate things; but in reality they are two sides of the same coin. In Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism cycles, dependent origination and cause and effect (Kamma) are emphasized. In the West we tend to see the world as artifacts, not processes. So from my understanding: 1) You are as much something as nothing. Ego, which is what most speak about in enlightenment, is a construct of memory/experiences/causes/genetics/environment. It is "real" but is an illusion. Sort of like this: Your mind creates shapes like these because it puts together information in such a way as to "completes" things that are not actually there. 2) Do you need this concept to function? It depends. If you want to be part of modern culture yes, but you can still see it as an illusion. You can than construct whatever "personality" or "ego" that best fits the situation. If you see the "egoic self" as impermanent and dependent on your experiences, you can construct whatever ego you wish. Of course if the person has still not seen through the egoic self this can cause issues like multiple personality disorders and dissociation. The "Arahants" are said not to be able to function in "normal" society without a monastic order supporting them. Most, if not in a monastic order, would die.

Just some thoughts on the different sects of Buddhism. Theravada Buddhism is what is considered the "root" of Buddhism, as it is only using the original Pali Canon. It is also called "the Smaller Vehicle"; Mahayana, "Greater Vehicle", uses the Pali Canon, plus additions from other enlightened beings after the Buddha (The arhats), this branch has sub-sects like Tibetan, and Zen. Tibetan has more rituals and is more akin to Catholicism in Christianity. Zen is more strict and less ritualistic, but is influenced by Japanese Culture. If you are looking for the "pure" teachings of the Buddha that is Theravada and is only based on the Pali Canon. It has less focus on the supernatural, and is more concerned with self-transcendence than Tibaten, which is more focused on compassion and being reborn as a Buddha in another lifetime. Zen is mostly about Meditation and sudden/spontaneous realization, as opposed to the gradual insight/tranquility/meditation practice of Theravada. Personally I prefer Theravada but all three may interest others.

Here is $1000 worth of information for free. http://caic.org.au/eastern/sydda/free-tm.htm TM is using a mantra to get into a trance/jhana/altered state of conciousness. The mantra is your focus, instead of breath, or the Brahmaviharas, etc...

I agree with @Henri. I think the idea of enlightenment is simple, and because it is so simple it turns out to be really hard for most people to comprehend. Mostly because they have conceptualized the idea so much. Some people may not be ready, or more often, do not understand what "enlightenment" means. Or, if they do, they will find it really "dumb", or "counter" to cultural/social mores (usually this happens in the west). This is why a lot of teachers, particularly in Zen, but also in other traditions, try to make the person "work" for it. Because most think that to achieve anything in life you need to suffer to get it. It is really rare that you can go up to a person, explain the existential nature of existence (why there is something rather than "nothing") and have them "wake up". Most will think you are insane, or might grasp it on an intellectual level, but the "realization" won't come because their mind is buried with too much concepts, beliefs, opinions, views, and a sense of an egoic permanent "self". This is where systematic paths come in handy, Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, etc, etc; paths that lead a person to realizing what they were seeking was always there, but obscured by beliefs/concepts. When that happens the beliefs, even in the path itself, should drop away. And all that should be left is the realization. I think it is easy for people that have already realized to say "Hey! It's so simple, you're just not seeing it and here is why!" But the actual truth of the matter, for people that have not self-realized, may be too foreign for their "egoic" self to grasp, or even allow to be grasped.

My position is agnostic, I don't know; (though I have some opinions) but I really resonate and agree with the Buddhas position on these questions: This samyutta is organized around questions that the Buddha left unanswered. Most of the discourses here focus on questions in a standard list of ten that were apparently the hot issues for philosophers in the Buddha’s day: Is the cosmos eternal? Is it not eternal? Is it finite? Is it infinite? Is the body the same as the soul? Is the body one thing and the soul another? Does the Tathagata exist after death? Does he not exist after death? Both? Neither? MN 72 lists the reasons why the Buddha does not take a position on any of these questions. In each case he says that such a position “is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full awakening, Unbinding.” Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.intro.than.html