A Rant Against Science and Religion

[ivankiss]

@Serotoninluv Well, it is the other way around, actually.

I just recently attained theoretical understanding of what was going on actually. I was never really knowledge oriented. I am an artist. Passion and expression is what I am about. Knowledge came in kinda secondary; just so that I could know what I was already doing.

Passion and excitement remain the driving force behind my choices and actions.

I am aware of that which I express. And I know the reason why. I also know the reason is imagined. There is no meaning other then the meaning I create. So I create. I interpret. I observe. I express.

I am aware of the fragmentation. I do not care about it. I fear no illusion. I love it. I explore it; create it, express it. Deliberately and on purpose. Consciously.

I play with myself. I dumb myself down. Why the heck not? That's absolute freedom. And also infinite intelligent. And excitement. Thrill.

Yes. I am ranting against myself actually. And it's fun. It is expansive. No one cares about how words are being seen or interpreted. I could be expressing anything really and still be aware of the fragmentation in the meantime. The ongoing play.

Nothing wrong with expressions. Nothing wrong with rants. Nothing wrong with science, either. But I choose to express an opinion about it. For the heck of it.

At the end of the day; I cannot be defined. The expression may be illusory, yes. But that does not stop it from expressing itself. 

No rocket science. 

Consciousness.

Magic.

[Aakash]

@ivankiss from my point of view, i've just realised that stopping half way is dangerous in of itself, because you see enlightenment, god etc as some lofty idea. 

i am not questioning your decision, but i think that once you realised the truth that what your doing now will not need the need for justifications. 

especially when talking to a non dual crowd of people? 

[Forestluv]

@ivankiss There is a dynamic here your ego doesn’t want to look at. There is an impressive fortress surrounding it and I can’t enter because you won’t lower the drawbridge.

[Aakash]

@Serotoninluv why don't you just tell him what the dynamic is to bring it into his consciousness, or would you prefer to ask him whether he wants to know in the first place? 

[Forestluv]

22 minutes ago, Aakash said:

@Serotoninluv why don't you just tell him what the dynamic is to bring it into his consciousness, or would you prefer to ask him whether he wants to know in the first place? 

After my initial exposures to nondual realms there arose games of egoic conflation between trans-rational and rational. For me, rational explanations would strengthen newly-evolved defense mechanisms - which is counter-productive. I needed to first establish clarity within nonduality before understanding distinctions and then integrating nondual and dual.

The early stages of nondual maturation involve realizing separations and distinctions from duality. As well as attachments and identifications with distinctions. There are realizations of this and there is embodiment as well. The ego resists maturation at every stage, yet it’s tactics get more subtle the deeper we go.

[Aakash]

i see, i can relate in some ways aswell

[Forestluv]

20 minutes ago, Aakash said:

i see, i can relate in some ways aswell

Even though I’ve got a lot of experience with nondual states, there are still subtle egoic dynamics playing in the mind. Once a mind becomes aware of a dynamic in their own mind, they can now see it appear in other minds. Yet other minds will resist if they have not become aware of the dynamic. 

Every level higher requires a re-newed willingness, openness and surrender to keep maturing. 

[Aakash]

question: what are you surrendering too 

 

[Forestluv]

4 minutes ago, Aakash said:

question: what are you surrendering too 

Within this dynamic, surrendering control of the narrative of how things are and how I am.

[Aakash]

@Serotoninluv so surrendering control of the illusion you have created?

[Forestluv]

27 minutes ago, Aakash said:

@Serotoninluv so surrendering control of the illusion you have created?

Yes,. Yet, a distinction of the term “you” is important here. It can be used at different levels. 

I would re-phrase it as “surrending control of the illusion that has arisen”. This removes the variable of a “you” or “creator” and guides a mind to simply see attachment/identification to an illusion.

One could also think of it as surrendering ownership of it.

Deconstructing attachment/identification to a single illusion is simplier than deconstructing attachment/identification to all illusions. Yet, if a mind can completely deconsruct one illusion that they hold very dearly, other weaker attachments/identifications can unravel and dissolve. Yet, it’s much easier and less threatening to deconstruct more surface-level attachments/identifications than the deeper ones. It’s alot of work.

The deconstruction process involves observing a dynamic from a higher state of consciousness. A mind can’t deconstruct effectively from the same conscious level of the dynamic.

[Aakash]

okay thank you for answering my questions, they were much helpful  

[Jack River]

45 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

The deconstruction process involves observing a dynamic from a higher state of consciousness. A mind can’t deconstruct effectively from the same conscious level of the dynamic.

Fosho

From a fragmented viewpoint that fragment cannot see past it’s finite’ness. 

This seems similar to holistic insight. A unlimited seeing into even more subtle apparent distinctions made, like for example identification & attachment, as there appears to be a fundamental difference between the two, yet are an expression of subject/object modulated activity. Insight puts order in these seemingly differnt/distinct aspects-parts of thought and sees the actuality as one indivisible whole(resistance to what-is). 

In actuality you cannot separate the insight from the action/realization. For me the insight was/is the realization(as in an undivided experiencing). Action from this place of truth is total/unlimited by the fragmented separate self. 

If there is not embodiment/action at the moment of insight then that is just a sign of subtle resistance or limited insight. Sometimes we subtly miss certain aspects of insight, therefore that insight is not as total as we originally thought. 

From the perspective of a subject overly fascinated with objects of experience, which implies resistance(attachment/identification) there may be very subtle tactics employed to sustain this psychological continuity of time as an separate self. The degree this takes place depends on holistic insight/choiceless observation/awareness as I AM. 

Edited February 10, 2019 by Jack River

[ivankiss]

@Serotoninluv What is the concern exactly?

Identification with thought? Ego?

There is no any.

Thoughts are aware of themselves. Recognozed for what they are; imagination.

No identification with imagination. No identification whatsoever. Honestly and naturally. I am not forcing nonduality. I am surrendering to it. I cannot be more than I am already. No real embodiment being noticed. There are no bodies left, really. No containers. There is only liberation. Freedom. Exploration.

Thoughts are being thought and expressed in alignment. No body is fighting them or stopping them from being. Yet there also is the freedom to stop thinking altogether, at any time.

Consciousness is conscious of itself. It is exploring itself. Expressing itself. Experiencing itself. Not caring for a single thing.

Perception is illusory.

Consciousness does not fear illusion. Nor does it resist it, or anything else for that matter. Illusion is how everything is. And so am I. Peacefuly.

Getting more and more comfortable with absolute emptiness.

Still, there is an ongoing process of transformation and expansion. I do not care how it looks. I simply allow the unfolding and express it in whatever shape or form I choose to. This thread is one example.

I do not identify with words, either. "Consciousness" is merely a pointer, pointing towards that which cannot be actually defined or labeled.

It is a concept I use in order to attain a higher understanding of what already is; effortlessly so.

Edited February 10, 2019 by ivankiss

[Forestluv]

@ivankiss That’s not what the ego was expressing earlier in the thread. Be aware of the egos tendency to retreat into and hide in nonduality. . . . When light is shined on the ego it likes to say “Huh? Just nondual awareness here. No attachments or identifications here.” Then the fog machine starts blowing out ideas about nonattachment and nonidentification that the mind is subconsciously attached and identified to.

[ivankiss]

@Serotoninluv

Will keep all eyes open.

Thank you.

[Shadowraix]

Direct experience is all illusory but that doesn't mean much when the relative perspective is experiencing the illusion. Real and illusion become one in the same. You could call science the attempt to create pointers at direct experience. Observe an experience. Figure out how to experience it again. The pointers serve as an effective way to communicate direct experiences. Imagination kicks in more to help you take all these direct experiences and mix and match them until you get something that does what you want it to do.

As long as science continues to point to direct experience it will forever be useful. I'd say the materialistic perspective in science isn't a bad one to have, but it puts rules ontop of the imagination restricting what one is willing to experiment with. How many people deny healing crystals as pseudo science for having no evidence without trying it themselves?

[Scholar]

22 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The question of What is science? and Why does it work? is a very deep mystery. One worth seriously contemplating. I have resolved many question about existence for myself, and I have studied the foundations of science for over decade, but I have not yet resolved that one.

What is understanding? How can we understand understanding?

Genuine insight is a very real thing. Enlightenment is a genuine understanding of the structure of existence. So in a sense, enlightenment is a kind of science.

Likewise, one can have a genuine insight into how to build an airplane or how to cure a disease or how to solve a differential equation. Which is different from pure fantasy.

What if the map is the territory?

[How to be wise]

15 hours ago, Aakash said:

@How to be wise i'm not gonna lie to you, the you don't know how is the core of science , the actual bit you need to understand lol. science is predicated upon pure assumption just like any subject in the world. any subject you know about its fundamentals or pillars of structure has assumptions made about reality. 

they try to box reality and thats how they are able to create truths, the truths work in their domain of their given subject but if the same object is different within two different feilds the whole system collapses and thats why you get lawyers who are able to define humans in the court of law via different definitions. did you know in the dictionary there are 514 different defintions of humans and you can legally use them to fight your case. thats how these assumptions are truthed. 

Thank you.

[Preetom]

The ego/subject that arises, the world it perceives and the God/mechanism/science on which this entire system works; this ego-god-world trinity arises and collapses simultaneously.

Trying to figure out how come science works is already assuming an independent, objective world. But there is no such world without an ego to perceive it and the God/mechanism to sustain that system.

Does the waking state science work in the dream? No! Because in dream there is a new trinity of ego-god-world. Thus there can't be any objective science ever because there is no independent, objective world.

Me trying to question and conceptualize the intelligence of God with which this world/maya is made of, is itself a tiny aspect of that maya. And no ego would see and accept this without putting up a fight.

It's like the water inside the stomach of a little fish in ocean is deluding itself by thinking that it is figuring out the entire hydrodynamics of the ocean from it's own little position.

Nothing wrong with using science to make the dream more pleasant, but to conjure up a dream and then trying so hard to validate that dream is probably the most deluded form of tail chasing in the history of tail chasing!

Edited February 11, 2019 by Preetom