LifeandDeath

@CARDOZZO ah, I can now see why you can relate to the model as we seem to have been following and studying the same people and models how are you going on your embodiment / deep transformational journey so far? I’ve been able to get some good growth in terms of certain habits, not all, but working in it, which I’m chuffed about, and now looking at integrating some of the internal conflicts I seem to have been living with for some time, where my ego sees them as competing but I can see how they could be more coherent with a mindset shift. thanks for the chat, and if I decide to invest more time in adding refining and the model then I will come back to the thread and let you know, but keen to just not repeat what’s already out there, and at the moment it’s more of an artistic expression of the literature and teachings I’ve been exposed to. hope you gain something from it too good luck with your journey 🙏

Tried to integrate a number of teachings into one diagram in a simplistic way, drawing on all core themes. It’s a model to map an array of introspective, existentialist-type, non-dualist teachings. Not sure if it’s clear for someone reading, if it makes sense or just my own journalling that is more like my own individual study notes. Keen to put it out to this community to get some feedback.

@CARDOZZO thanks, for the encouragement. I was considering putting up a free website to go deeper into the relational topics in each stage, more as a personal hobby but also to stimulate discussions. Might still do that, still deciding if it’s a worthwhile exercise to do. I was kind of gauging what the response would be to see if there was enough interest, or if it was impressionable enough. Also, other similar models have been done combining Western & Eastern, so not sure if it’s repeating the same info just in a different way. Check out Integral theory as developed by Ken Wilber which is a synthetic metatheory aiming to unify a broad spectrum of Western theories and models and Eastern meditative traditions within a singular conceptual framework. I’ve done Peter Ralston’s program Experiencing The Nature of Being program several times, and one of live workshops, read a number of his books, and thinking of doing it again, so I can’t recommend it enough. A lot of these things are deeply personal though, so the model and practices work for you, but definitely I recommend, as it’s unique approach, with some unique techniques taught. Still practicing. It’s not been the only influence as I mentioned but probably a model used the most over the years, hence I’ve tried to include as many models I know of out there as simply as I could without too much over simplification. Although any model is going to over simplify. I stumbled across Peter Ralston through Leo’s videos. Then dived deep into it over the past several years, and in the past year or two I’ve gone a lot broader into other work on consciousness studies, theories, philosophies, and scientific attempts to progress our understanding, trying to include religious teachings but I always get stumped with religion as I find the domain of religion is so dogmatic and strict on its scriptures. But nevertheless, I try, in my own way. Have you come across any content that you see as similar to this Infograph or do you see this as unique to what you’ve come across before? What’s been your strongest influence to your personal journey?

@CARDOZZO it’s meant to be an inter-disciplinary approach so it’s a broad read across multiple disciplines, methods and subjects It’s aimed to map introspection and takes into consideration some of the main areas of introspection It was mostly inspired by Peter Ralston, after I’ve done the Experiencing the Nature of Being and reading some of his books Ralston had the model as condition - condition (unknown) —> experience —> perception --> interpretation —> cognition —> effect. Ralston emphasises individuals having a direct experience of the work rather than a model. He also overlays non-duality and existentialism philosophy (like Sartre) as the core themes. It’s also influenced by Buddhism. Some subjective psychology and cognitive psychologists such as Donald Hoffman. I introduced “meta-“ as the first stage where the mind is able to meta-analyse and understand constructs which is also inclusive of non-duality. “content” to talk to the duality experienced by the mind. perception where we start to create distinctions we make within context. interpretation is self evident effect is the emotional charge, value, purpose that we overlay on our impressions. I added in Consequential to look at our reactions and actions we take as a lot of the prior stages are more internal and mental, and I think an action taken has a very big impact on the next moment. then I listed all the various terms out there across various literature and tried to categorise the best fit stage that I thought it fit into. Naturally not all words are a perfect fit and some words fit across most stages in the model, but thought I would try as I was aiming for steps and stages as best as I could as a guide to self enquiry. Simplifying various literature and aiming for a model that is comprehensive, inclusive, accurate to self-inquiry, and clear every day language. What are your thoughts?

Thanks @Dodo im not tossing the whole concept aside as I agree I'm obviously thinking about a no spending challenge as I'm in debt and I actually earn a lot of money and I want to break the spending cycle. But I gathered the challenge is itself extreme and could be a trap and lead to other complications, like unrealistic expectations, resistance, etc. it could have a shadow side which far outweighs the benefits. It could lose sight of the fact that I just need to not "over consume". I think I will scrap the challenge idea, and I already feel relief from doing that. I'll just live within my means and aim to overcome my unnecessary buys by reconfiguring my values. I haven't got to being able to save yet which is why I was wanting to undertake an extreme measure like the no spending challenge. But realistically, cutting back will be more appropriate and realistic.

I'm thinking of putting myself on a 12 month no-spending challenge, where I will not be spending any money, other than on 'essential items', like groceries for preparing food, utility bills, and that's about it. Any 'essential' items that come up along the way will be considered on a case-by-case basis. This means that I'll have all clothing that I need for the year, and no purchases what so ever. I've seen other people do this on-line and blog it and find it very interesting. Do you think it will help deconstruct my ego by eliminating all forms of unnecessary attachment to consuming, or do you think it's a form of self mortification that will lead to unnecessary irritation and deprivation? Has anyone done anything like this before and would anyone recommend it for a kind of spiritual detox?

wow, @Arman @Prabhaker ok, that's two negatives to the idea. I can see both your points. thank you, I think I will embody my consumerism instead of resisting it and be mindful with attentive awareness. Thank you for contributing as I feel that after listening to this feedback I have resolved an issue that was bugging me for a while. =)

I was meditating today for an hour and I was having these jolts rush up from my legs up my body I haven't heard or read too much about kundalini but I imagine that's what these sensations are. They can vary from tingly feelings, to twitches, to jolts that knock my elbows and knees up and down. The more occasional powerful ones can tense my whole body in a spasm and almost is painful. But always more relaxing afterwards. Sometimes I get a throb in my groin as well (I'm male) and pleasant tingly feelings and sometimes some slight movement down there. But just today, wow. I almost had an orgasm. Now I did hear Ram Dass describe such a body-mind blow kundalini where he actually orgasmed, and after listening to that a month or so ago, I was jealous and desperately wanted to experience this. But today I almost did. I felt like I was penetrating and I almost came and at times felt on the verge of orgasm. Now what brought this on was actually me trying to 'ignore' or 'let these sensations go' as I was practising mindfulness of breath, and so was seeing every sensation experience as fleeting moments and trying to tune into my deeper sense of being and awareness. But it seemed the more I let these sensations come and go, the more intense they got, and the whole process left me heaving and almost thrusting my hips, trying to detach from the pleasure but not control it in any way. But I am conscious of not letting me slip into sexual urges as at the moment I'm attempting to let my sexual energy rise into higher consciousness than just gratifying and releasing it, so this practise was also in my mind. But I couldn't help get caught in it and I was thinking at the time I'm not going to repress it as I want to fully experience it without getting scared, but as long as I don't attach to it. It then passed and I continued on with my meditation with only one or two small kundalini's afterwards. I wasn't going to tell anyone as I feel like when I have experiences, I feel the need to share, and sharing sometimes is gloating or my ego wanting to impress. So if I don't share the experience, then I'll cut my ego from the roots so I won't let my ego sneak in to my attempt to integrate my meditation experience into my daily practice. But this was too unreal to not share at least in this community, where I find I'm around like minded people. Firstly, has anyone else had similar orgasmic experience? Also, do you think I brought this on in some constructivist way? Or have I just hit another stage in my meditation?

I see fasting one day per week is a little controversial I'm training to get a six pack so thinking it could be a good overall way of keeping calorie intake down over the week Any one doing this out there that can share their reports? Any tips or hints? Perhaps warnings against this?

@FirstglimpseOMG have you ever gone, say 2 months without fapping or any orgasm?

@electroBeam or regeneration could be completely psychological?

@electroBeam do find theres a regeneration period of a few days to build the energy back after fapping?

@electroBeam thanks, I'm keen to look into this

I've been practising mindfulness & attempting to get my head around non-duality for a little while now. I've come to realise that all is mind is dual in nature, so we should discard it as not-self and practise of non-attachment with the aim to realise our true nature of our non-dual nature, which we can't ever be aware of. Because our non-dual nature is something incomprehensible, we are only left with our dual minds in our experience. So we need to embrace our dual minds, while letting it all go at the same time, to comprehend the incomprehensible? Am I on track here?

@electroBeam well, I did reach really soft breath afterwards, complete relaxation, and my monkey chatter stopped, and it did feel like a void. Although, my ego returned shortly afterwards as i started analysing what happened during my meditation, then I slipped back into formal meditation on breath as I did before. I think you are right, I didn't go all the way. Does that mean I needed to ejaculate to 'go all the way', or is it more about ego death? But anyhow, it was a pretty deep place I went directly afterwards, and I've been to some pretty deep places, so maybe for a newbie it could have been perspective shattering??? Although, I'm always looking for new depths, so I'm going to keep an open mind in that theres further territory for me to discover, and I'll start cultivating my kundalini practice and integrate it into my meditation thanks

@SOUL wow, this is helping me get over a conceptual limitation I thought that we could never be aware of awareness, because it's like a touch shining out and it never can shine directly on itself So when you describe 'self conscious' then this is starting to make more sense in the possibility of something external of myself understanding itself and it's about the ego stepping back and letting that happen through us, as we watch the unfolding self awareness take place. I imagine as we step back, then as self awareness is aware of itself I imagine we as ego dualistic being would feel like we have remembered something and can sit in peace outside any stimulation or experience, in joyful spacious silence. I believe I've been there, but I know there's a lot more ego deconstructing to do for myself to reach new levels any methods you can share that have perhaps worked for you would help thanks

thanks @BeginnerActualizer @Ayla @SOUL for your replies good to know i'm on the right track this stuff is so nuanced but so simple at the same time. I find it's riddled with paradoxes and mental traps, and the ego continually manifests itself in new ways like I continually have to recognise it's different forms, then take responsibility to peel it away. And when I do i have to be careful not to gloat about it as that's ego in disguise waiting again. I'm hoping as I become stronger my ego will quieten down but I'm also prepared for it to get stronger, more subtle and even more cunning.

@SOUL when you say 'be aware' of non-dual nature, is this through faith or indirect experience, or are you saying one can directly experience non-duality. Awareness = comprehending something with attention. Even though awareness itself is the canvas for conscious expression to present itself, my understanding is that we will never be able to directly be aware of our awareness direct because it's we are the sun and like light (awareness) is shining out. But we know it's there because if it wasn't we wouldn't be aware. But we have to dismantle what we 'think' awareness by deconstructing any assumed idea of it. You jumped straight to 'aware of our non-dual nature'... can you please elaborate?

@Seeker_of_truth another way of looking at it is we have our 'being' where our 'conceptual mind' manifests from. Our 'being' is us in our absolute existence which is interconnected with everything at the same time and we cannot experience because all we have is our conceptual mind. But when we come to terms that we realise we can't experience it, our mind relaxes and we surrender to this fact. Our mind becomes so quiet that it breaks it's conditioned reactions and ideas that it has about itself. The experience of this is different between everyone and the insights are personal to everyone. It's escaping any conceptual reasoning that makes this most liberating and freeing as we are not falsely identified with our mental phenomena but come to an understanding that we are more. This is deeply peaceful. Others, feel free to correct, add or provide your opinion as this is a very nuanced practice. Enjoy!!

Does salt taste salty? Yes. So "partying" will always be fun. It will always be a temptation for instant gratification i think doesn't matter how spiritual you are, there is always the attraction to lower level gratification through the senses i think highly spiritual people can at any stage either regress mindlessly and get lost in the buzz. But I also think some spiritual people can be mindful when intionally "partying" where they are not attached to the partying and there is no feeling of trapped ness or guilt. So I don't think it's about the partying per se but what the intention is, what the feedback is within the individual in response to their own partying and how mindful they are of their own behaviours.

The inner “witness” that objectively observes all feelings, thoughts, sensations, etc can’t be used at all times, and it creates an intellectual divide between what one is experiencing in all our humanness and our rational mind, like a spiritual by-pass. A spiritual by-pass is when one detaches from their emotions rather than resolving them, through avoidant or escapism, which comes from over intellectualising and hence suppressing the arising feelings. What’s also interesting about the conversation was the parallel made between the “witness” and the masculine line of linage that the idea of mindfulness and meditation historically came from, and the zang had lost balance with the ying. The yang being ‘intellect’ and the ying being ’emotions/feelings’. It was stated that feelings, acceptance of the emotions should come prior to re-framing, intellectualising, or ‘witnessing’ the feelings. In that way, this will avoid guilt for feeling something, unnecessary repression, and increase self-healing potential through origionally embracing and allowing oneself to feel something, then move onto a broader conceptual understanding of what is going on for someone. A direct metaphor was used when someone is in rage, they can’t witness what is going on as it is all too overwhelming, so what use is this technique when people are going through powerful emotions. Moreover, how is someone to ‘witness’ what’s going on for them if they are in denial of the original pain. “Attachment” and “Witness” go hand in hand. As the Traditional Eastern practice is about allowing the moment to unfold in front of one self, and to not be falsely identified with our consciousness, yet without taking away from the Absolute Truth in that we have a side to ourselves that we are completely and always will be unconscious of, it is still a paradoxical that in the same moment we can not comprehend anything more than our consciousness. To become conscious of not conscious we still have to have a conscious expression of it. Even Traditional Eastern practices that go to explain the unknowable start dramatically deviating from each other at this point. Some say that to comprehend the incomprehensible is to either embrace all consciousness that is, or to detach from all consciousness that is. In a practical sense if one is detaching the tradition draws reference to awareness and enlightenment exisiting beyond consciousness, and the more integration models go into more about radical acceptance of the present. Then, as a secondary note they do cover each others territory with side notes. So, where I’m going with this is not to go into detail around accurate summary of approaches to practice opening up beyond our conscious awareness, but rather it’s a complicated and messy field of inquiry, no matter if you take the modern or traditional route. There’s no one answer, and it becomes obvious that more sophisticated models are needed to be applied at different times for different people depending on the different circumstances. For example someone may need to integrate with their present state after they experience loss to regain a sense of unity again, where the same person may need to dissociate from the present moment when they are trying to change a behaviour that is becoming compulsive or not working. There is no easy answer to it, and when we try to reduce it down to one method at this stage we become ego oriented neurotic person stuck to a position or method that we are trying to avoid in the first place! A good example of how both attachment and witness are very powerful, yet subtle tools, but can be mis-used when over generalised or over-used in context that they may be unhealthy or cause self sabbotage is when we use the analogy of the ‘bow and arrow’ approach to life. Such as our intention is the bow, and then the arrow is the outcome of our actions. We can clearly recognise that we have elements to us that we can control then elements that we can’t control. It’s obvious that things are happening to us beyond our control, and that things ‘out there’ in our perceptual field have more influence over our outcomes that we do. Clearly you can aim for the target when shooting the arrow but at times the arrow may not land in the same place every time, no matter how good we are. This becomes even more evident when the ‘arrow’ is the outcome of someone else actions, either, say our children, boss, partner or anyone really, even a stranger we pass on the street or someone we haven’t even met yet. When some one else is involved there’s only so much influence we have over them, so we can clearly separate the outcome from our intention and rationalise the difference. However, can this be applied to things we think we have absolute control over, or when the start and end moments of an activity are not separated by time. For instance, there are activities between two people, such as sex, dancing or sitting in silence. What about internal states inside of us such as writing this passage, where we are in the domain of absolute control. Now, one could say that death is always more powerful and at any moment the canvas of life can be pulled from us, which we need to recognise but that’s not what I’m referring to here. I’m specifically talking about moments in our existence that we overlook that are most powerful, like when we do have control over things and when you can’t isolate action from outcome, or subject from object. Now the reason why I’ve gone into this much detail about this, is because what if we thought we didn’t have control over an outcome but when we raised our awareness or consciousness we realised that we did in our lives, or the reactions to others we thought came from their own minds but we realised that the original cause of their thought or action was something that you could bring out in someone so you had a lot more control over this than originally thought. So, it’s in these instances that the becoming a witness to an outcome shifts as the outcome itself shifts, and identification with what we thought was ‘out there’ actually becomes an extension of your ‘in there’. What is also the inverse cam also be true just to complicate things further, in that what we sometimes think of ‘in here’ or ‘self’ or that we have control over we come to realise it’s not us, and it’s not part of ‘self’ and that we never had control over it. A good example of this is our body, thoughts or consciousness it self. Now, traditionally, on a existential level, no matter what is meant to happen to you, there is a space of silence that we always have as part of our sentient being, which is usually what is referred to when the term “the witness” is used. However, an applied conventional practical day-to-day level it’s not pragmatic solution to a lot of things we need to do, but it does allow a space for one to think what is perceived as fixed can be seen as completely relative in nature. I’m saying all the above, new questions comes into the picture, that is “what really is self and not self”, and “is there a divide between out there and in here” and “what is in our control and not in our control”? We can rightly say that it is all us and we are creating everything due to the non-duality interdependent nature of our inner minds and projection of our worlds from our conscious expression, but we could just as easily say that nothing we experience is us, and we haven’t control of everything in a deterministic sense. But both these definitions are not satisfying on a practical level, and neither are complete. This is why the witness and non-attachment approach can be dangerous when the essence of embracing our human expression is taken out of the equation. This same mindset can also be applied when we look at how and when feelings and thoughts arise, and whether we take them with precedence to fully realise them and embrace them, or let them pass as they have arisen from the eternal void and this unknown side of ourselves should always be taken with primary importance over any sensations that arise. This starts to sounds like a chicken and egg senario, and depending on which way you look at then becomes a subjective constructivist approach, and it therefore shouldn’t really matter which method, perspective and view we chose to take at that particular time, but the outcome will differ. So even though there’s no right or wrong or one solution, feedback is important about what’s nourishing us or what’s sabotaging dependant on what goals we have intended to achieve, i.e. Peace of mind, relaxation, empowerment, behavioural change, emotional healing, etc. My opionion that I like to think that there is a balance that can be found. We should also be aware of, but avoid reacting to models with opposing solutions that are unbalanced themselves as they are swinging too much to the opposite side. Also I think both can be used together in synergy as it doesn’t have to always be one or the other but more advanced practitioners can have them running in parallel on top of each other. When we take these paradoxical ideas and run them together, we can understand it all a little better when we investigate the underlying nature of our mind and its operations. Any aspect of our mind is duality in nature, and duality arises from non dual substance (what ever that is) and that non dual substance is our true nature of our being and awareness arises from this non dual substance. We can’t see this non dual substance just like the eye can’t turn in on itself. So, the idea of true equanimity is radical acceptance not suppression, but we must embrace the idea of the concepts mentioned above are all there incompleteness and recognise that they are all tools that should be used in balance, either one at a time, or with an overlaying approach depending on what we are capable of at a particular time. In conclusion it is important not to oversimplify and reduce the overall techniques down to superficial and watered down ‘quick fixes’. Sometimes complex things require complex solutions. From my experience all these ideas and concepts seem to amplify when we refer to deep insight meditation, so that if one is wanting to unify with an external object and feel one with it, then this requires a particular intention, but if one is wanting to see core nature of themselves then this requires another method, which is why I think meditation, in any form, sitting or dancing can be a good modality to explore these concepts further.

There's a general consensus that mindfulness in isolation can be used for immoral or moral actions, depending on whether one focuses their attention on a skilful or unskilful action. So mindfulness can be used to train to kill, like soldiers in an army, or it can be used for increasing kindness and compassion. However, does non-duality practice run by the same amoral principles? So if one was to practice not-self, and increased integration of themselves with others and external objects beyond ego, then will this lead to spontaneous moral, ethical and virtuous actions? For example, if I truely don't see other sentient beings as different to myself, then I wouldn't want to hurt or steal from them, as I wouldn't want to hurt or steal from myself, so why would I do that to others if they were seen as a truely an extension of myself. But if I did see them as "others" and "external" to myself and not a shared single conscious entity, then is this more justification to steal or hurt others, as there is a clear divide between me and them. But perhaps non-duality can be used for justifying immoral practices too, such as justifying death or murder, or stealing, as if people are only an expression of a whole, then damaging others could be seen as only 'trimming' part of the whole, like pulling leaves off a tree? I think traditional practices of 'mindfulness' and 'non-duality' are not to be taken in isolation, they are seen as interconnected within a web of other practices, such as compassion, virtue, morals, ethics, concentration, balance, etc. So in this case when seen as only part of a bigger more complete practice there is an intention for them to be used skilfully. But given these practices have landed in the west, which is an extreme rationalist culture, they have been taken in isolation, categorised, refined and sharpened within the western culture, so does this mean they are potentially dangerous if not used with caution? Or is mindfulness and non-duality at a deep level so pure and innocent in their raw forms they can create positivity no matter how they are applied or practice?

Thanks everyone for contributing to the thread so far. @SOUL I think the big ticket word that you used and that was also standing out to me as we are all contributing our views on this subject is "identification" I think if we don't identify with 'right vs wrong' or 'dualism vs non-duality', or 'beliefs vs being', then we have no position. It seems to be the clinging to one's ideas, beliefs, stance, or a particular aspect of reality is the main culprit that prevents radical acceptance to how things are, no matter how enlightened one is. Naturally an enlightened person won't attach themselves to any belief, perspective or morality. @Dingus Thanks so much for putting in the time to deeply discuss these ideas. It's added more of an elaborate view that I now have of non-dualism and it's relationship to morality. Your post's have moved me forward in leaps and bounds since I first wrote the initial question, as your last post is demonstrating that morality is an intricate subtle topic, especially when it starts getting to the higher levels of consciousness. I've read the link you provided: https://theawarenesseffect.wordpress.com/free-e-book/ and it's a clear summary of becoming less ego oriented and more mindful of one's being. A neat summary. We need more people being authentic in tune with the true nature of being.

@ajasatya I really like your post. @Dingus I'm recognising I'm limited in my direct living and understanding of morality as a subject in light of non-duality and not-self, but I can't help but pick up the notion that amorality and it's link to reality could very well be an ego-position just as much as @Bodhi123 position on applied moral codes. I think @ajasatya is right as it captures both arguments well. My original position is that we live in an existential reality where pure non-duality emptiness is where everything arises and falls within our minds. This arising and falling of mental perceptions is our ego dualistic minds. So we have a conventional world of human existence which is dual in nature, even though it's illusionary, where we must make decisions and strive to be more compassionate, moral, empathetic, understanding beings. How can one say that they have reached their "maximum" compassion or kindness levels? There's always more. Always more ignorance. But @Dingus I completely get what you are saying too, and I look forward to reading more on what resources you have mentioned. But I'm not convinced yet that non-duality and our existential nature is enough to stop striving for the world to be a better place. Maybe 'striving' to be better more tolerant, peaceful, understanding, compassionate beings is the non-deterministic amoral path of action that we need to take. In that way it can still technically satisfy your model of reality, as neither striving or not-striving will be considered the same, neither right nor wrong, in an ironic way. Anyway, I fully recognise I'm limited in my knowledge in this area and I have more to learn. Peace.

@Dingus wow, thanks for the response. I get where you are coming from more so now. I think you are right, I need to read and study this subject more before I can reply. I'll look into the author and books you mentioned, thanks again