Questions On "the Enlightened Self - A Description Of Your Existential Nature"

[Gerhard]

Hi everyone, I just had some questions on Leo's most recent video "The Enlightened Self - A Description Of Your Existential Nature."  I'd love to hear any ideas, and any points I make I would love to be proved wrong in!

First up, how can we say that we are the "nothingness"? I can perhaps understand there is something outside what I can ever experience, but I would say that I am still experience. I reckon (or reckoned before the video at least) that experience is derived from the "nothingness", but how can someone say, "I am the nothingness". Are we not a small derivative part of the "nothingness"? It seems to me like an ant saying "I am the colony" when instead he is a small part of the colony (which consists of other ants, but also the eggs, also the ground, also the tunnels, etc). I would perhaps argue that there is more to us than our experience sure, and this is almost certainly outside time, but I wouldn't say it is accurate to call ourselves "it" - but instead we are a result of "it". When I die, surely I am dead, and the universe just continues on without me entirely? No part of me, not even my "true self" can survive a gun shot to the brain right? As another example, when I am doing work and I am in a state of flow, "I" do not exist for hours and there is no consciousness as such - but whatever does exist there will end after a gunshot to the head right; that would suggest the "true self" still exists in the brain?

And the last example here, if someone is meditating and in a TOTAL state of enlightenment, would he remain after a gunshot to the head? Or would that "nothingness" and the "true self" still exist? [Sorry for the gun shot to the head example the whole time, but it's useful in this thought experiment]

Second, why the choice of the word "nothingness"? Words are all about definitions, and isn't nothingness by definition nothing and non existant (non existant from any perspective)? Wouldn't a better choice of words be a "singularity" (a point outside space and time) or the "no concept" (outside concepts)? Does anyone know any other words or phrases that you prefer?

Third, why do people who are people who experienced enlightenment so sure they are correct? Why do they think that their new insight isn't just another illusion? Or if not an illusion, isn't the experience still in the mind? Or is the enlightenment "experience" actually escaping experience and the brain  itself, and thus totally outside the brain? Would a MRI of the brain for instance show the enlightenment experience, or does the whole process of enlightenment actually occur outside the neurochemistry of the brain?

Last up I would actually like to say I found the huge similarities to what Leo was saying with quantum physics hugely impressive. The below channel on YouTube attempts to provide a visualization of it. If anyone has a few spare hours it's very interesting. There are themes of the singularity = 0 = infinity, deeper levels of reality, and the ultimate illusion of our lives. In my interpretation though, it would suggest we are fundamentally trapped in our existance of 3D snapshots of a 4D spacetime worldline, and we are not the singularity as such, but rather we are a derivative of it.

 

 

[QandC]

1 hour ago, Gerhard said:

Hi everyone, I just had some questions on Leo's most recent video "The Enlightened Self - A Description Of Your Existential Nature."  I'd love to hear any ideas, and any points I make I would love to be proved wrong in!

First up, how can we say that we are the "nothingness"? I can perhaps understand there is something outside what I can ever experience, but I would say that I am still experience. I reckon (or reckoned before the video at least) that experience is derived from the "nothingness", but how can someone say, "I am the nothingness". Are we not a small derivative part of the "nothingness"? It seems to me like an ant saying "I am the colony" when instead he is a small part of the colony (which consists of other ants, but also the eggs, also the ground, also the tunnels, etc). I would perhaps argue that there is more to us than our experience sure, and this is almost certainly outside time, but I wouldn't say it is accurate to call ourselves "it" - but instead we are a result of "it". When I die, surely I am dead, and the universe just continues on without me entirely? No part of me, not even my "true self" can survive a gun shot to the brain right? As another example, when I am doing work and I am in a state of flow, "I" do not exist for hours and there is no consciousness as such - but whatever does exist there will end after a gunshot to the head right; that would suggest the "true self" still exists in the brain?

And the last example here, if someone is meditating and in a TOTAL state of enlightenment, would he remain after a gunshot to the head? Or would that "nothingness" and the "true self" still exist? [Sorry for the gun shot to the head example the whole time, but it's useful in this thought experiment]

Second, why the choice of the word "nothingness"? Words are all about definitions, and isn't nothingness by definition nothing and non existant (non existant from any perspective)? Wouldn't a better choice of words be a "singularity" (a point outside space and time) or the "no concept" (outside concepts)? Does anyone know any other words or phrases that you prefer?

Third, why do people who are people who experienced enlightenment so sure they are correct? Why do they think that their new insight isn't just another illusion? Or if not an illusion, isn't the experience still in the mind? Or is the enlightenment "experience" actually escaping experience and the brain  itself, and thus totally outside the brain? Would a MRI of the brain for instance show the enlightenment experience, or does the whole process of enlightenment actually occur outside the neurochemistry of the brain?

Last up I would actually like to say I found the huge similarities to what Leo was saying with quantum physics hugely impressive. The below channel on YouTube attempts to provide a visualization of it. If anyone has a few spare hours it's very interesting. There are themes of the singularity = 0 = infinity, deeper levels of reality, and the ultimate illusion of our lives. In my interpretation though, it would suggest we are fundamentally trapped in our existance of 3D snapshots of a 4D spacetime worldline, and we are not the singularity as such, but rather we are a derivative of it.

 

 

I guess when "you" die, you automatically become what you've always been. Realizing that there is no true separation between life and death (speaking from your true existential nature) is what enlightenment really is. That's why enlightened people aren't afraid of death. It's like realizing that everything you know and everything you experience right now in existence is actually just formed into the nothingness, which exists when you die. 

That's how I see it ...

[Gerhard]

2 minutes ago, Pinocchio said:

As Leo mentioned, the nothingness is the source of experience, and yet not separate from it. So you can't be the experience without being the nothingness. And we can't be some derivative because nothingness (absolute infinity) is dimensionless and partless (the illusion of finiteness is of the mind). Think of a hologram or a fractal, to be "part" of the whole is to be the whole. That's what nonduality means. Can't subdivide infinity. (mathematicians are clueless)

I like your idea of a fractal, but why do you think this is the case? "you can't be the experience without being the nothingness" - my point was aren't we a part of the nothingness then, we are not all of the infinite nothingness itself. "Can't subdivide infinity" why not? humans don't understand infinity, so we cannot make claims either way? "mathematicians are clueless" - I'm not sure about that, and don't think mathemiticians are claiming you can subdivide infinity either... in fact I've heard many mathemeticians admit the existance of infinity is totally philosophical and it is used more as a tool in maths than a hard fact. BUT infinity does have finite parts to it, that is fact. all numbers from 0 to infinity include the set of numbers from 0 - 5 (even though there infinite real numbers between 0 and 5, plus we're not even considering imaginary numbers yet!)

4 minutes ago, Pinocchio said:

To be the result of something else is to be in the illusion of finiteness and duality. You can know this to be strictly illusory and having no independent existence at all because it is logically absurd. It appears that way in our interpretations of experience, but there can be nothing outside of experience that matches our interpretations, because as it turns out, our interpretations are baseless and incoherent. You'll really have to do your own homework on this just to let that sink in,  because all our habitual ways of thinking go directly against it. But then, it's our habitual ways of thinking that are at issue here.

"To be the result of something else is to be in the illusion of finiteness and duality." What is the illusion of finiteness and duality? How do we know there isn't the illusion of infiniteness and non-duality? And why do you think this statement is true? "You can know this to be strictly illusory and having no independent existence at all because it is logically absurd." What is "this"? finiteness and duality?

10 minutes ago, Pinocchio said:

There is only absolute infinity, and you're it. No guns, no brains, no time and space, no life or death, no parts or even wholes, no true self. All manner of identity is finite and of the mind alone. Consciousness is not

Again, why do you think so? The gun, brains, time and space could  all be finite, but why does that mean they are not real? [I understand the concept of the brain only exists in my reality as a concept, but that doesn't mean there isn't something out there corresponding to my concept of the gun] "There is only absolute infinity? Why do you think that? Maybe for all we know something else exists, not finite, not infinite, but something else (ie. a singularity).

Sorry if I come across as critisizing. I'm just trying to understand rather than just believing anyone's word for it. Belief won't help one understand a concept as we all know.

[Truth]

Questions find answers and a means to no end. 

It seems a huge issue is, its hard to imagine nothing can create something, but, this nothing exists. 

Edited February 21, 2016 by Truth

[Gerhard]

Thanks for the replies guys. Any more answers would be greatly appreciated, I am still pretty confused! Just to be clear, I am not stating I know better than everyone else, I am more looking for answers and opinions on the parts I don't understand. 
We can't conceptualize enlightenment I'm sure, but i think we can use concepts and thoughts to realize our own errors in thought and assumptions at least!

So if anyone can spot my incorrect assumptions that would be golden!!

[Gerhard]

@Pinocchio Thanks mate I appreciate - although Leo says "Jed's views of meditation are too myopic and dogmatic." haha
I'll give it a read if I ever have a lot of spare time, but reading a book takes a long time so I might read others first

[Truth]

24 minutes ago, Gerhard said:

Thanks for the replies guys. Any more answers would be greatly appreciated, I am still pretty confused! Just to be clear, I am not stating I know better than everyone else, I am more looking for answers and opinions on the parts I don't understand. 
We can't conceptualize enlightenment I'm sure, but i think we can use concepts and thoughts to realize our own errors in thought and assumptions at least!

So if anyone can spot my incorrect assumptions that would be golden!!

Assumptions are groundless, any assumption is a foundation set that essentially has no ground. Even the word ''assumptions'' is groundless so your assumption to be using "concepts and thoughts to realize our own errors in thought" is also counter productive and more groundless assumptions.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Truth

[Gerhard]

Just now, Truth said:

Assumptions are groundless, any assumption is a foundation set that essentially has no ground. Even the word ''assumptions'' is groundless so your assumption to be using "concepts and thoughts to realize our own errors in thought" is also counter productive.

Interesting thought, and in real terms of finding final enlightenment you may be correct. But more pragmatically, I don't think casting away thoughts and concepts are the best way to go. Without thoughts and concepts, I won't even be able to bring myself into shutting off thought during meditation - and I wouldn't be able to write this sentence (and neither could you ).
We all have assumptions, and we generally don't question them. Using thought we can realize what our current assumptions are - if we never think we don't even know that we have assumptions. eg. before realizing there is no self, we have to think and realize we have this pre-held assumption that we are a human being.

[Truth]

8 minutes ago, Gerhard said:

Interesting thought, and in real terms of finding final enlightenment you may be correct. But more pragmatically, I don't think casting away thoughts and concepts are the best way to go. Without thoughts and concepts, I won't even be able to bring myself into shutting off thought during meditation - and I wouldn't be able to write this sentence (and neither could you ).
We all have assumptions, and we generally don't question them. Using thought we can realize what our current assumptions are - if we never think we don't even know that we have assumptions. eg. before realizing there is no self, we have to think and realize we have this pre-held assumption that we are a human being.

True true, that's why I think I just need to take a week off and meditate for 8 hours as Leo talked about

But in terms of enlightenment buying into our own bullshit seems like the answer, ''find your own answers'' they say. It seems my own answers come from this awareness that is nothing, and they just keep coming and its endless, so my whole world view is coming into question.

 

[Emerald]

4 hours ago, Gerhard said:

Hi everyone, I just had some questions on Leo's most recent video "The Enlightened Self - A Description Of Your Existential Nature."  I'd love to hear any ideas, and any points I make I would love to be proved wrong in!

First up, how can we say that we are the "nothingness"? I can perhaps understand there is something outside what I can ever experience, but I would say that I am still experience. I reckon (or reckoned before the video at least) that experience is derived from the "nothingness", but how can someone say, "I am the nothingness". Are we not a small derivative part of the "nothingness"? It seems to me like an ant saying "I am the colony" when instead he is a small part of the colony (which consists of other ants, but also the eggs, also the ground, also the tunnels, etc). I would perhaps argue that there is more to us than our experience sure, and this is almost certainly outside time, but I wouldn't say it is accurate to call ourselves "it" - but instead we are a result of "it". When I die, surely I am dead, and the universe just continues on without me entirely? No part of me, not even my "true self" can survive a gun shot to the brain right? As another example, when I am doing work and I am in a state of flow, "I" do not exist for hours and there is no consciousness as such - but whatever does exist there will end after a gunshot to the head right; that would suggest the "true self" still exists in the brain?

And the last example here, if someone is meditating and in a TOTAL state of enlightenment, would he remain after a gunshot to the head? Or would that "nothingness" and the "true self" still exist? [Sorry for the gun shot to the head example the whole time, but it's useful in this thought experiment]

Second, why the choice of the word "nothingness"? Words are all about definitions, and isn't nothingness by definition nothing and non existant (non existant from any perspective)? Wouldn't a better choice of words be a "singularity" (a point outside space and time) or the "no concept" (outside concepts)? Does anyone know any other words or phrases that you prefer?

Third, why do people who are people who experienced enlightenment so sure they are correct? Why do they think that their new insight isn't just another illusion? Or if not an illusion, isn't the experience still in the mind? Or is the enlightenment "experience" actually escaping experience and the brain  itself, and thus totally outside the brain? Would a MRI of the brain for instance show the enlightenment experience, or does the whole process of enlightenment actually occur outside the neurochemistry of the brain?

Last up I would actually like to say I found the huge similarities to what Leo was saying with quantum physics hugely impressive. The below channel on YouTube attempts to provide a visualization of it. If anyone has a few spare hours it's very interesting. There are themes of the singularity = 0 = infinity, deeper levels of reality, and the ultimate illusion of our lives. In my interpretation though, it would suggest we are fundamentally trapped in our existance of 3D snapshots of a 4D spacetime worldline, and we are not the singularity as such, but rather we are a derivative of it.

 

 

It is the difference between believing you'r a small ant within an infinitely large universe and being the container that holds all of the content of your perceptions. Your awareness is the empty space that is the container for the thing you know of as external reality which includes only the content of thoughts and the perceptions taken in by the five senses within the present moment.

[Sri McDonald Trump Maharaj]

I actually enjoyed my self inquiry when i tryed out these hints, it left me with a sweet sense of precense. Could this be a way I'm fucking up. Anyone felt different while trying to input Leos advice today?

 

[Gerhard]

"boundless emptiness" - I like it! And great other points too!

@Pinocchio True, I'll give it a go some day soon!