Telepresent

@Ayilton Tell you what, here's some of mine. I write in a variety of books, so there's other writing going on in other places in between some of these pages. A couple of notes: 1) I swear a fair amount, in case that bothers you. 2) 'Hector' refers to the pre-rational part of my mind/emotions 3) I don't think this will be of any use to anyone else, but you're curious and I feel like sharing. I think I'm after some ego-reassurance right now (and probably shouldn't really be indulging it but hey-ho) 4) Turns out there's an upload limit so I'll be doing this over several posts... 5) looks like I uploaded each pair of pages in the wrong order ?

Whatever remains when all the semiotic-conceptualized-meaning-belief is recognised in full

@Danda I don't see a difference between self-inquiry and dealing with these fears. Certainly you can spend a huge amount of time and energy playing the 'definition' game (ie. what we see people doing here constantly when they say "reality is this" or "is consciousness that?" or basically any of the threads I've ever started here). Maybe you can play that game indefinitely. But if you're really honest, you're going to reach a point where you realise that all of these things are based in your mind/perspective/beliefs, and that you need to start investigating your mind/perspective/beliefs totally, to learn if there's any truth to them. At this point it's impossible not to face all these little fears, as they are the same as your mind/perspective/beliefs. I suspect the reason that "when it comes to killing this motherf***er the fear is really not so strong" is because you haven't truly, truly made the connection that the thing making that statement is the thing you're setting out to 'kill'. So long as it is 'other', you won't fear it as you can distance it from 'you'. Really, really ask yourself: what is ego, what is 'you', why are you scared of small things but not the big one, and what are you willing to lose?

You're trying to define. Which is understandable - that's what I've spent most of my time doing until very recently, when I twigged that that was all I was doing. I snapped through it when I went for the big one: I tried to define NOTHING. Blew the whole thing wide open

Maybe pay attention to what position your eyes are in. I have had similar moments in the past, when trying to 'look' inside, and thought "ooooh, something's happening!" - then I realised in these moments my eyes were rolling up in my head, and acting as though I was intensely trying to 'focus' on the inside centre of my forehead. I can recreate the pain/dizzy sensation by consciously moving my eyes into this position. If I feel that coming on now I just take a moment to let my eyes relax again

@egoless problem is, how do you know what to visualise? How many times have people said "the mind / ego / words cannot grasp this; it cannot be made into a concept or idea". So what does one visualise? If you're thinking about visualising particular outcomes (deep meditation, for example), you're not visualising enlightenment, you're visualising what you think an enlightened person does. Which is a very different thing. Not necessarily bad or wrong, of course, but still a different thing

Hi folks. Stuck in 'othering'. Mental separation between me and not me being a persistent bastard. I see it I get it I know it and yet I'm still in I/not-I. Trying to process past smash through that gate. But believing still believing in separation in thought content. Not yet cutting through it. Not sure why I'm writing but that's what's happening right now so here we are! Weeeeeeeeee losing my mind and looking forward to the loss!

Wow, that reads like I've truly lost it, doesn't it? I wonder if I'm seeking some identification validation by posting here in a weird way so that all of you will talk to / about me, and so enforce that mental separation again?

What is the project brief / assessment criteria?

@Alien The only way to start is to start. Start anywhere, so long as you start doing something. You can refine as you go, but until you actually get going, you're not going to go anywhere. Momentum is one of the best allies you have in this, but you only get that by moving - somewhere, anywhere, but get moving!

@Toby That's not really the point, though, is it? The point is that these kids are drawing inaccurate conclusions about adulthood based on their own conceptual (mis-)understanding of it from their own perspectives, desires, and drives, rather than from a truthful position. It's a parable, a metaphor, not a literal conversation between two kids. The point @Shanmugam is making is that we may well be misunderstanding enlightenment just as much as those two kids are misunderstanding adulthood. The accuracy of how the kids speak is beside the point

This is what I find spiritual autolysis really useful for. Gets you into a strong habit of thought observation and questioning. Give the term a Google to find an excerpt from Jed McKenna's book explaining it

I've been thinking recently about the problem with accepting the groundlessness of perception. The whole basis of materialism is that our perceptions come from somewhere, are caused by something else, something 'out there' in the 'real world'. And it can be very hard to consider otherwise because everything seems so permanent and real and blah blah. It strikes me that we have at our disposal a wonderful tool to help observe the folding/unfolding of nothing into something back to nothing: thought & imagination. It happens RIGHT THERE RIGHT IN FRONT OF US IN REAL TIME, IN NOTHING. And yet how many people treat their thoughts as their enemies? As something to 'purify' or 'silence'? Maybe just by watching the process of thoughts folding and unfolding, we can learn to recognise that process in everything else. As an addendum, the 'folding/unfolding' description is conceived in a similar sense to the piece of paper video Leo recently put on his blog. Rather than cutting out the various appearances (which implies that we can separate them and move them elsewhere), I think more in terms of origami: the paper can be folded onto potentially any shape, and yet it never changes. What is thought / appearance folded/unfolded from?

@Ilya I don't have the link to hand but I've recently read a very interesting book called Practicing Radical Honesty which might be worth a look. Has a very interesting thesis on why most people are unhappy and is very connected to the kind of work we do here. Google the name and you should be able to find a free pdf version

@Monkey-man I'm a fan of McKenna's writing, and of spiritual autolysis, but I fully understand where these concerns are coming from. I wonder whether, if someone's only exposure to enlightenment theory was through McKenna, would they be in massive trouble. As it stands I find him to be a valuable point on one end of a spectrum, with (for example) someone like Matt Khan at the other. I think the important thing to remember is that any teacher can only talk about enlightenment from their own limited human perspective. And it seems like McKenna - if he is enlightened - had a very rocky journey to get there and this informs his human perspective. However, I also think a lot of his writing is in fact very subtle, and it can be easy to misunderstand him. He has a particular sense of humour and mode of communication that can make things seem darker than (I think at least) they are. And I think he does this on purpose. Why? Hmm, let's look at your questions: 1) Read again but pay attention to his descriptions of 'the universe'. Remember he writes from a human perspective; when he does take time to talk about the universe, he alludes to a profound connectedness, gratitude, and trust. The isolation is from the ego perspective, and this is what he comes back to again and again: when he says "you don't want this", he is talking to the ego, the fictional character. Not the truth. 2) Maybe I'm forgetting something, but his most direct description of other people is "like children", or "half-awake, half-asleep". Which again is all about people being run by ego. But I'll be cute with your point and say you can reverse it and say that a stone is as alive as a person. That's a very Jed thing to do. 3) Hmm, maybe. Maybe not. Consider that he's trying to cut through the 'bliss' narrative because he sees that as more delusional food for the ego. Go back and read the first chapter of Damndest, at the feeling he describes reading the Gita. Look at his discussion of 'agape' (don't know if I mis-spelled that) during the interview with Julie. In Incorrect he tells Curtis his living reality is one of contentment. There's more going on that he's only willing to allude to, not directly state - I suspect because he sees 'bliss' as crack for the ego and really wants to break past that concept. 4) Interesting thought. In terms of meaning, certainly he talks about the human having certain 'rights and wrongs' hardwired into it. Maybe his 'ego-costume' still seeks meaning? However, regarding beauty, look at some of Julie's later writings in Incorrect, and remember there IS no Julie: this is Jed describing to us his own process and shifting perspective. Pay attention to when she talks about the beauty of things she used to hate. Remember when he says that Ahab is missing a key characteristic: intense joy. 5) He does say to pursue adulthood unless you 'absolutely have to' pursue enlightenment. It reminds me of Steve Norquist saying "you don't want this". In both cases they are talking to the ego, and making the point that the desires and goals of the ego may not be compatible with enlightenment. And if you lose any belief in right and wrong, good and bad, suddenly the dream might not look so bad, right? Why not stay in it and enjoy it while you can? The question of audience is very important here, and is addressed in Incorrect (both in the 'review' at the front, and when he talks to Curtis about criticism). He is making a very clear distinction here that, if you are looking to enlightenment because you think it's going to enhance the life you are already living (i.e. if EGO is pursuing enlightenment to help EGO's ends), maybe the end of ego is not, in fact, what you are looking for. I think this is actually a very important point to contemplate for a while, and yes it can be a painful one: WHY are you doing this, and HOW MUCH are you willing to allow to change in your life if that is what is really required? If you're looking to enhance the life you have, is killing yourself really the way to do that? Also I'll point out he clearly loves poetry, and in some of the bonus material spends some time describing how he loves delving into art and music. 6) This entirely depends upon which 'you' we are talking about. But remember the simple razor he uses: whatever is, is right. He describes humanity in belittling terms at times, like children, so certainly doesn't seem to see ego bound reality as 'best' or anything. I don't think it's so much that he sees enlightenment as not the 'natural' state - but certainly not the natural state for the character/ego/human, which is so often who he is addressing. 7) I think he's either wrong here, or knows he isn't (he does say "what isn't possible in a dream?") but is trying to push people into action rather than waiting or relying on the zen "bam" factor. Hard to tell - perhaps he's overly reliant on his own process. But I suspect it's a call to action. 8) I think it's a combination of personality and intent. He doesn't seem willing to indulge people's ego-fantasies about enlightenment. He wants to cut straight to the core and not allow a moment's breath to stop and look at anything that the ego might grab and go "ooh, I like that". And I think it leads to books that are rather hyperbolic at times; which can only allude to deeper truths - but the hints are there. The thing about these books is they don't leave you anything to believe, really, except the falseness of the ego and ego world, which of course comes over as depressing and nihilistic to the ego. They're not books you can read once and believe and think "that's nice". They need intense scrutiny and an extremely discerning eye, they need to be pulled apart to be understood, and they need to be compared with other perspectives. I find it very interesting to compare what McKenna says against what Adyashanti says. They're actually not all that different. 9) Contemplate, and choose what you feel is right! I've had moments like you describe and I've always been drawn back, and whenever I have I've realised that what dissuaded me was an idea I had generated, nothing more. Have a look at what you've been imagining enlightenment to be, and look at what the consensus is between those who purport to be enlightened, and go from there! I hope some of that helped!

@How to be wise You also don't know what his reasons for going to a therapist were. People don't always go to them for significantly negative mental problems. Sometimes they go to help then with interpersonal skills or issues, for example. Don't jump the gun on concluding what it means when you don't have the details

@Serge I've been thinking about fear a lot the last few days, in relation to information, semiotics, and direct knowing. Lots to delve into there to investigate what you really fear. I'm going to copy-paste something I wrote just now (excuse the odd formatting, it's how I do it) - maybe it'll help, maybe not, but something to play with: an IDEA a BELIEF an emotion-infused interpretation carries much, much longer than the sensation to which it symbolises and then of course it can pre-empt things as well so death no no I am not afraid of death no self I am not afraid of this either i am afraid of the ideas of them the concepts of them neither are here so how can I be afraid of them there is no direct experience they are not here only the ideas are is it even POSSIBLE to be afraid of an actual true thing? or can we only be afraid of semiotic models?

You know you're the first person I've encountered here who's said this, and I entirely agree. In fact I have a shrink, and I find my time with her immensely helpful in helping me to integrate and move forwards smoothly

As I see it, continual negation. When you have an answer, try to disprove it. Assume it is wrong, and work out why. If it's true, you won't be able to. If it isn't true, there's always something to peel away. Until:

There's a different between making conclusions, and reaching conclusions. Say there is a ball - the very centre of the ball is truth, but it's surrounded by lies. You can either sit there speculating about what the truth might be, using all your logic and reasoning and so on (what I'm calling 'making' conclusions); or you can simply peel back each lie one at a time, until all that remains is the truth. Truth doesn't need your mental energies in order to be. Truth is prior, is prime. Meaningful spiritual contemplation is the peeling back of the layers of lies, misunderstandings, and misinterpretations from your life; the recognition of falsehoods, until all that is left is the truth. The prime. If you have drawn a conclusion, if you have constructed a mental creation to explain something, that is not the truth. It's a mental model/projection, and it may be a representation of the truth, but it will by its very nature be inaccurate - a flawed simulation, not the prime thing. To get to the truth you have to peel that back as well. And some of it, frankly, seems completely illogical and ridiculous. Until you examine the foundations of why it seems illogical and ridiculous, and start to realise... hang on... this foundation isn't actually supported by anything else other than belief...

Time to express another... something*... which is still being processed. Apologies for rawness - I'm not sure I'm going to express this well. *I don't want to say 'concept', 'idea', or anything like that because these don't seem right. Lacking them, though, I fail to find the correct language. Let's begin by laying the groundwork with an analogy: vision. The area of focus of the human eye is roughly the same as the size of your thumb when held up at arm's length. Meaning that when you look, you are only taking in information from a very small area of focus - the rest of what you 'see' is actually an approximation created by the visual cortex, created from a mix of expectation and rapid eye movement. There's a great video in this thread which goes into this in more detail: The key point (for this discussion) is that most of what believe you are seeing is not actually seen. It is fabricated to create a smooth continuous frame of vision. It's an illusion. Now let's expand out to experience in general. Raw experience - that which can be truly said to be known - comes in snippets. Fragments, fractions, bits and pieces. I notice this thought. I notice this sound. I notice this bodily sensation. Back to another thought. Back to the sound. Some movement in the corner of my eye. Another bodily sensation. A thought. Another thought. An emotion related to that thought. The sound. A new sound. A bodily sensation. A thought. A thought. A thought. A thought. A bodily sensation. Etc. Now these are not continuous. They are a series of discreet events, one after the other after the other. And yet my conceptual notion of what is happening is different to this. My conceptual notion of what is happening is predicated upon a continuity. A narrative-psychic-physicalised continuity of 'me', linking event to event to event. And very often, it fills in the blanks - like the blanks that are filled in to create a complete visual field. But that continuity is not what I experience directly. It's a narrative. One that I call 'me'. And it is also based on assumptions, rules, and expectations about how the world works. I'll use an example from this morning as a demonstration. I was walking down the road. I went into a train of thought. Then I was aware that I was carrying a leaf in my hand, which I hadn't been before this train of thought. Immediately my continuity-machine jumped into action: I must have plucked that leaf from a bush absent-mindedly while I walked past it lost in that train of thought. Only that's not what I actually experienced. I experienced no leaf, thought, leaf. And I firmly believed that I had plucked the leaf a few seconds ago - I now had a mental image of myself doing just that. Just like the field of sight, this illusory perception of me plucking the leaf was indistinguishable from what I was calling 'reality' - except I had not experienced doing it. It was a post-facto continuity illusion. I'd love feedback on this proposal - I have a sense that this all ties in deeply with time, cause-and-effect, maybe even life and death.

Does thinking require an object to be thought? Or is thinking the be-all and end-all of itself?

I entirely agree it's about direct experience. All I mean is that I see people taking on ideas*, believing in them, and heavily defending them even if they never have a direct experience which confirms or (or worse, direct experiences which contradict the beliefs but they make excuses for them). Faith is great, but blind faith is not. If you cannot PERSONALLY verify though direct experience, or real honest enquiry contradicts what you want to believe, you're also not going to get anywhere. That's what I mean by scepticism. It doesn't mean just going "no no no" to everything, it doesn't mean closing down to possibilities, it means being discerning in how you relate to what comes to you when your mind is open. Also, just to be clear, I'm not taking about the scepticism you see atheist YouTubers priding themselves in. They are extremely dogmatic and won't apply scepticism to their own dogma. I'm talking about discernment based on personal investigation and experience. *(I also want to point out here that there are many, many ideas around spirituality which may not be accurate. That's the point. Take on an inaccurate belief because you have been undiscerningly open minded, and where does that get you?)

This is very raw so please bear with me. We speak a lot about judgement and thoughts and what-have-you, and it always seems to fall into a semantic game of definitions. We play with language and the whole "I" problem and what one person means when they say something vs. what another person interprets it as. We tie ourselves in knots trying to reconcile the idea of one with the apparent experience that there are many. And so many ideas, ideas, ideas. What underlies all of this? Meaning. Very basic, very foundational, very important, meaning underlies everything of the 'dream' (if you want to call it that, but of course any understanding we have of what 'dream' means is flooded with meaning). Meaning dominates everything. From the very big ("what is the meaning of life?") to the very small (I drink my tea, I feel a sensation of warmth in my mouth, going down my throat... all of these are absolutely suffused with meaning). And of course we take meaning as truth. We believe interpreted meaning to be truth. And what happens when you strip out meaning? When you dare to view everything without meaning? I hesitate to say "meaningless", because that itself is suffused with meaning (generally negative, nihilistic, depressive), rather than literally representing a state absent of interpretation. And note it's something the mind cannot handle. It cannot imagine it. Because the mind is a meaning machine - that is the only way it can function. Interpretation, judgement, past, future, anticipation, fear... all meaning-making. It's easy at this point to go "duh, of course!", but this really isn't an 'of course' or 'obviously'. This is very very deep, below everything we engage with, in, and as, as human beings. As minds. As life forms. This is something that really needs careful contemplation, and I'm only just getting started. But I can feel, can detect, how critical this is.