Skepticism: Enlightenment and the secrets of the universe

[Derrida]

So I discovered Leo’s videos on Youtube a few weeks ago and I’m not sure what to make of it overall.

On the one hand I dig his more practical videos and his more light psychological videos. The guided meditation of him for example was probably the best meditation I ever had. 

On the other hand his more ideological videos, or videos that supposedly go ‘deeper’ I find rather far-fetched. 

This applies to spiritual teachers in general though. The way I see it they tend to to be overconfident in their knowledge, wisdom  etc. And people who normally tend to be sceptical and heavily scrutinize other belief systems like for example Christian belief systems buy into everything those spiritual teachers tell them, perhaps simply because they like what they hear.

The way I see it, enlightenment is not much more than a mental state where you’re more detached from certain urges you have, which allows you to act more rationally and in a sense more freely. However, no matter what mental state you’re in, your reasoning is still limited to your faulty human brain, you’re still a flawed human being and susceptible to self-deception. I also doubt that the secrets of the universe and of existence itself open up to you just because you can meditate well.

In fact, did I say ‘enlightened’ people act more rationally? Well in some ways they might, but in other ways their overconfidence in their ideology might lead them to pretty absurd conclusions, because again, they still rely on their faulty human brain and their reasoning is still susceptible to biases, like it is for every human being.

It’s a bit similar to this ‘rationality cult’ I discovered a while ago, I mean sites like lesswrong. They have a few rigid and simplistic principles that they identify as ‘rational’ and think that simply applying those principles make them somehow superior beings that can figure out problems that people have thought about for thousands of years on the fly. It basically results in a form of Dunning–Kruger effect, and it yields dumb shit like this: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3wYTFWY3LKQCnAptN/torture-vs-dust-specks. In case I'm not allowed to link here, just google torture vs dust-specks

An example of an overconfident claim in Leo’s philosophy that kind of falls into the same bucket for me would be this: his belief that suffering is just an illusion and not all that serious. Well ok, maybe he’s right about that, I can’t contest this belief with absolute certainty. But what if he’s wrong?

If people make such far-fetched claims, one thing to look out for is imo this: Are they actually intensely suffering themselves in their own lifes? Or are they just living in first world countries and sitting comfortably on their asses while proclaiming their grand theories about life and the universe? I don’t want to come across as too provocative here, but that’s what it comes down to in the end, doesn’t it?

So what do you think, are there people on this forum who agree with me, or somewhat agree with me?

Also another thing that would interest me: Are there actually people who can voluntarily turn off their breathing and suffocate themselves, as Leo claimed in one of his videos? Because I don’t believe that either

Edited November 15, 2019 by Derrida

[Leo Gura]

Hehehe....

Don't believe anything I say.

[pink]

just start, aware of changing DNA, play, experience & situation: first unknowable pink level complete

Edited November 16, 2019 by pink

[Space]

@Derrida I like your skepticism, but be careful not to dismiss the things Leo mentions just because they seem 'far-fetched'. This stuff gets really fucking weird and radical. Always remain open minded. But you are in a good starting point. Better to be skeptical about this work in the beginning, rather than just blindly believing everything and turning it into an ideology. 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Space

[mandyjw]

Welcome to the forum!

The most important beliefs to consider are our own. We have many beliefs without even knowing that we have them and they shape our reality. Some of them are so sneaky that the only way to see through them is to get really really in tune with how you feel. Ever had a thought that was sort of half thought/half feeling, and maybe at first it wasn't possible to articulate it? Try to catch one, then interrogate it. Kindly though, invite it in for tea, don't shut it in a jail cell. 

 

[LastThursday]

@Derrida I'm totally with you.

Don't believe other people's BS until you've validated it for yourself.  Note I said "believe" not "dismiss". You shouldn't dismiss anything: it might just be true.  There is a difference between the two.

In fact you shouldn't believe your own BS either - but that's a lot harder to validate - maybe even impossible for some things.

Even if you have validated something for yourself, you should still be ready to drop it if something better comes along.

Lastly, be sceptical of your own scepticism!

Edited November 15, 2019 by LastThursday

[Derrida]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Hehehe....

Don't believe anything I say.

I'm trying, though I'm still wondering how sure you're of some of the things you say (and other people who make similiar claims). Like for example the part with the world and suffering being a illusion. How sure are you of those things, is it the same level of certainty like "I think therefore I am" or "I exist" ?

(also the part with people stopping their breathing, you wouldn't put that in your videos nowadays, or would you?)

 

 

Thing is, I don't even believe it's possible to derive some of the more metaphysical claims of eastern philosophies simply from direct experience and/or reasoning, meaning there will always be a component that you will simply have to believe (which might not necessarily be a bad thing, I'm just saying). Perhaps a plausible belief, but not absolute certainty.

I mean, how are you supposed to derive something like "suffering is an illusion, the world is an illusion" from direct experience? Seems to me that such a conclusion would still depend on your subjective interpretation, how you interpret the experience of your personal enlightenment, satori, awakening whatever. 

And it wouldn't suprise me if people can have have the same experience, mental state which we would call enlightenment, but still adhere to very different worldviews.

Thanks for the warm welcome btw.

[Consilience]

I was right where you were when I first found Leo’s videos. Highly recommend learning to meditate and learning how to contemplate. For either, Id recommend a book called The Mind Illuminated by John Yates and a book called The Book of Not Knowing by Peter Ralston. And when you’ve got a solid practice going and intellectual understanding of this stuff, highly recommend finding a way to do psychedelics. Though unneeded, those substances offer power glimpses into the radical nature of reality, your mind and this work.

Welcome to the forum though  I think you’re skepticism is great but don’t let it turn into a self deception. In fact, Id watch Leo’s skepticism video! And rationality video. Very foundational stuff.

[Forestluv]

@Derrida Consider what knowing is. It seems like your construct of knowing is limited to knowing something like a fact. Or knowing a concept is true. For example, someone may speak of neuroscience as if they know what they are talking about.

Yet also consider a different form of Knowing. . . How do you know now is now? . . . Do you wake up each morning skeptical that now is now. Do you spend your whole day trying to determine if now is now? Do you seek evidence and proof that now is now? Of course not. There is a Knowing of Now that is prior to all the thought stories and evidence. There is simply a Knowing of Now. . . Similarly, how do you know you exist?. . . Do you go to scientists seeking proof that you exist? Are you seeing a psychiatrist to help show you that you are alive and exist? . . . Of course not. There is a Knowing of "I AM" prior to facts and evidence. As well, the Knowing that ISness is ISness comes prior to evidence and facts. 

[Derrida]

44 minutes ago, Consilience said:

I was right where you were when I first found Leo’s videos. Highly recommend learning to meditate and learning how to contemplate. For either, Id recommend a book called The Mind Illuminated by John Yates and a book called The Book of Not Knowing by Peter Ralston. And when you’ve got a solid practice going and intellectual understanding of this stuff, highly recommend finding a way to do psychedelics. Though unneeded, those substances offer power glimpses into the radical nature of reality, your mind and this work.

Welcome to the forum though  I think you’re skepticism is great but don’t let it turn into a self deception. In fact, Id watch Leo’s skepticism video! And rationality video. Very foundational stuff.

Thanks man, also for the sources, I'll look into it

 

35 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Derrida Consider what knowing is. It seems like your construct of knowing is limited to knowing something like a fact. Or knowing a concept is true. For example, someone may speak of neuroscience as if they know what they are talking about.

Yet also consider a different form of Knowing. . . How do you know now is now? . . . Do you wake up each morning skeptical that now is now. Do you spend your whole day trying to determine if now is now? Do you seek evidence and proof that now is now? Of course not. There is a Knowing of Now that is prior to all the thought stories and evidence. There is simply a Knowing of Now. . . Similarly, how do you know you exist?. . . Do you go to scientists seeking proof that you exist? Are you seeing a psychiatrist to help show you that you are alive and exist? . . . Of course not. There is a Knowing of "I AM" prior to facts and evidence. As well, the Knowing that ISness is ISness comes prior to evidence and facts. 

I see, so you're saying things like "suffering is an illusion" are on a similiar level of immediate ... knowing for an enlightened person (in case you think that too and consider yourself enlightened of course) as "now is now"? Wouldn't that require that you can completely resist and withstand any pain though? Because if you let pain and suffering affect you, how can you at the same time intuitively know that pain and suffering are illusions?

[Forestluv]

39 minutes ago, Derrida said:

I see, so you're saying things like "suffering is an illusion" are on a similiar level of immediate ... knowing for an enlightened person (in case you think that too and consider yourself enlightened of course) as "now is now"?

These types of constructs can be insightful and beneficial. Some with depression may have a realization that "suffering is an illusion". This might be a paradigm shift that reduces mind-body distress. As well, I often like to contemplate about the inter-relationship between whats real and what is illusion. 

Yet there isn't there also a prior to this? In which suffering is suffering and an illusion is an illusion. How can one thing be another thing? We need to take out a knife and carve out a thing called "suffering" and carve out another thing called "an illusion" and we can say the are the same to each other, yet different from our other carvings. For example, our suffering carving is different than our tuna sandwich carving. . . Yet what is there prior to these carvings? What is the substance from which we carve?

Regarding an enlightened person. . . who/what is this person that gets enlightened? Again, this can be a useful construct, yet what is prior to "I am enlightened"? . . What is prior to "I am XXX"? . . . I am a scientist. I am an athlete. I am intelligent. I am a belly dancer. I am enlightened. .  Prior to this is simply "I AM" without any add-ons. And this "I AM" can be deconstructed to "AM". Simply AM-ness.

48 minutes ago, Derrida said:

Wouldn't that require that you can completely resist and withstand any pain though? Because if you let pain and suffering affect you, how can you at the same time intuitively know that pain and suffering are illusions?

See what is happening here. A statement was made that "Suffering is an illusion" and then a story is written titled "Suffering is an Illusion". We are now writing a story about how pain/suffering affects a person, how an enlightened person would interpret pain/suffering, whether we need to overcome pain/suffering for another thing called "intuition" to be revealed and this intuition reveals that suffering is an illusion. . . . There is a lot in there. This type of construction can be helpful, yet it can also be mesmerizing and distractive - especially when there is immersion into the content. . . What comes prior to all these ideas? That prior in which an idea is an idea?

I like to walk through nature and simply observe. Sometimes I see a sunset and think "That sunset is so beautiful". I may see a group of dragonflies dancing together in the air and think "Those dancing dragonflies are so amazing!!!". This is part of the human experience and I wouldn't want to live without it. Yet I also wouldn't want to live with attachment either. . . A sunset is beautiful and a sunset is a sunset and beauty is beauty. Dragonflies are amazing and dragonflies are dragonflies. . . With this realization of "prior" there is a price to pay. There is a certain type of loss and sadness when the magic trick of "A is B" is revealed. Yet there is also a liberation and doors to magnificence open. Here, one doesn't need to convince themselves or anyone else that dragonflies are amazing or that a sunset is beautiful. Or that suffering is an illusion. One no longer needs to prove their worth and win debates by proving that dragonflies are amazing. A is A and B is B. And All carvings arise from Nothing and return to Nothing. To me, it's profoundly beautiful and profoundly sad. 

[Guest Bazooka Jesus]

@Derrida  For what it's worth (which might not be a whole lot), here's my two cents on the subject:

When spiritually inclined folks claim that pain and suffering are illusory, I think that what they are really trying to say is that pain and suffering are subjective interpretations of sensations, not objective facts.

Just think of forms of entertainment which involve sensations that, under different circumstances, would be perceived as threatening, painful, even traumatizing: Riding a roller coaster, watching a horror movie, skydiving, BDSM play, heck, even eating spicy food are all enjoyable activities simply because the person engaged in them has decided that they are enjoyable. Now, serve some nice hot Mexican chili to a bunch of average European toddlers and see how they like it... ;o) If those toddlers will be capable to enjoy that very same chili later on in their lives, it's simply because their interpretation of it will have changed over time; same sensation, different experience!

An experience of absolute reality, on the other hand, seems to not involve this intermediary step of interpretation (at least that's how I understand it; I have never had a fully nondual experience myself, so what the hell do I know, lol). I have heard it being described as a state of pure conciousness where everything (or nothing) is being perceived directly, without any wiggle room left for personal interpretation; it allegedly is the state that you will reach if you manage to let go of all interpretations.

Of course, all of this might just be a bunch of steaming BS; I guess there is just one way to find out, and that's experiencing it for yourself.

[Derrida]

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

These types of constructs can be insightful and beneficial. Some with depression may have a realization that "suffering is an illusion". This might be a paradigm shift that reduces mind-body distress. As well, I often like to contemplate about the inter-relationship between whats real and what is illusion.

I've heard of this approach to meditation from Yuval Harari, he differentiates between the things that really exist (or at least come before) and the things that are constructed in our mind and are thus in a way illusions. . Since the ego itself is a construction, that can be quite effective in that regard I guess.

 

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Yet there isn't there also a prior to this? In which suffering is suffering and an illusion is an illusion. How can one thing be another thing? We need to take out a knife and carve out a thing called "suffering" and carve out another thing called "an illusion" and we can say the are the same to each other, yet different from our other carvings. For example, our suffering carving is different than our tuna sandwich carving. . . Yet what is there prior to these carvings? What is the substance from which we carve?

Regarding an enlightened person. . . who/what is this person that gets enlightened? Again, this can be a useful construct, yet what is prior to "I am enlightened"? . . What is prior to "I am XXX"? . . . I am a scientist. I am an athlete. I am intelligent. I am a belly dancer. I am enlightened. .  Prior to this is simply "I AM" without any add-ons. And this "I AM" can be deconstructed to "AM". Simply AM-ness.

That is an elegant way to put it, rings true.

 

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

 With this realization of "prior" there is a price to pay. There is a certain type of loss and sadness when the magic trick of "A is B" is revealed. Yet there is also a liberation and doors to magnificence open. Here, one doesn't need to convince themselves or anyone else that dragonflies are amazing or that a sunset is beautiful. Or that suffering is an illusion. One no longer needs to prove their worth and win debates by proving that dragonflies are amazing. A is A and B is B. And All carvings arise from Nothing and return to Nothing. To me, it's profoundly beautiful and profoundly sad. 

By realization of the "prior", you mean getting conscious about the a priori things, before we form our constructions? And seeing past the constructions means a certain loss, but also liberates (and frees from attachments)?
I don't quite understand the part where you're saying one doesn't need to convince oneself of things like A is B in the enlightened mode of seeing things (you mean only the obvious stuff like A is A is still relevant in that mode of .. consciousness?). Or convince oneself that suffering is an illusion. Isn't that rather because complex, constructed concepts like "suffering" and "illusion" don't exist on that level of thinking, so you can't convince yourself of them in the first place?

You also seem to talk about concepts and ideas here and I agree that they're in a way constructed by the brain in several layers. But what about sensations? Is there really an a priori to red and green (not as ideas, but as sensations). We just know that red is different from green and that's it. Similarly pain is a sensation that is best defined as the very thing that we want to avoid. It's something that goes deeper than our complex constructed thinking, it's not part of our big brain but more part of our animal brain, if you want to talk physiologically.

Now I know that there are also more complex forms of .. suffering, that only arise because of our interpretations (or illusions so to speak). For example we're only afraid of pissing off our boss because we're afraid of losing our job, getting homeless and dying on the street (well we aren't necessarily, just an example). If we don't make that connection, or make different connections, there is no fear and no suffering from that.

However, I'm not convinced that all suffering relies on our interpretations. If you cut yourself, that will simply hurt and that's it, no matter how you interpret it. Well ok, I've read once that mindfulness meditation can get rid of 90% of chronic pain or even more. But I guess that's more of a longterm thing, physiologically speaking, you train your brain over time to adapt to your pain. However it's probably not that easy to train your brain in a short period of time to adapt to pain and ignore something that it's hardwired to pay attention to.

 

So I hope I didn't go completely autistic on your quite poetic post and completely missed your point, but that is my take on what I've understood.

@Bazooka Jesus
The last few paragraphs are also my answer to you.

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Derrida

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, Derrida said:

I'm trying, though I'm still wondering how sure you're of some of the things you say (and other people who make similiar claims). Like for example the part with the world and suffering being a illusion.

You will never understand from your current level of experience and consciousness.

You have no idea how deep all this goes and how far I have gone to tell you the things I say. It is impossible for a human mind to understand what I understand.

[Derrida]

42 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You will never understand from your current level of experience and consciousness.

You have no idea how deep all this goes and how far I have gone to tell you the things I say. It is impossible for a human mind to understand what I understand.

So you say. I'm cautious, also because I've met a few people already who were totally convinced of their (contradicting) worldviews because of this or that experience they've made and this and that insight they had. Anyways I will continue trying to figure things out for myself on this path, it's not like I have anything else to do :)). Although I could still start worshipping that thunder god ..

BTW. I can't help but notice you still haven't answered my more concrete question. I can't force you to do that of course, never mind
Thanks for your videos

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Derrida

[Leo Gura]

20 minutes ago, Derrida said:

BTW. I can't help but notice you still haven't answered my more concrete question. I can't force you to do that of course, never mind
Thanks for your videos

You are inside a hallucination. You have imagined your birth, your family, the Earth, science, humanity, all people, the past, the future, animals, atoms, physical reality, and myself.

Your entire life is a hallucination. Wake up, son. You are not a human.

All of your questions are too shallow and miss the point.

Your skepticism is a red herring, a clever distraction from realizing that you are hallucinating. Every reason you have is just another part of the hallucination.

No one can help you because all others are just your own hallucination, including myself.

What a pickle you find yourself in...

What you gonna do about it?

If you beleive me, you're hallucinating. If you doubt me, you're hallucinating.

Quite the pickle indeed...

[Forestluv]

21 minutes ago, Derrida said:

I've heard of this approach to meditation from Yuval Harari, he differentiates between the things that really exist (or at least come before) and the things that are constructed in our mind and thus in a way illusions. . Since the ego itself is a construction, that can be quite effective in that regard I guess.

I haven't heard of Yuval Harari. Thanks for mentioning him. . . This wasn't quite the facet I was getting at, yet this is also a profound realization. It reminds me of Leo's "Hand Exercise". . . Here a person observes their hand without any thought. Just observation and feeling their hand. This is actual. Then the person puts their hand behind their back and imagines their hand. They create a thought construct of their hand. This is an imagination. It seems too simple and obvious, yet the direct experience can be profound to highlight the contrast between actual Now and imagined. One can extend this to looking at the wall (actual Now) and then thinking about their parents (imagined). . . One tendency of the mind is to conflate actual and imagined. When presented this a person might think "Duh, this is so obvious. I now the difference between actual and imagined". Yet we then live our lives misinterpreting imagined as real. It is also a good exercise for realizing Now.

29 minutes ago, Derrida said:

By realization of the "prior", you mean getting conscious about the a priori things, before we form our constructions? And seeing past the constructions means a certain loss, but also liberates (and frees from attachments)?

Not quite, it's even more radical than that. A priori and posteriori and great epistemological ideas about how we come to know truth. Yet my understanding is that it both refer to how a proposition is known to be true. That has great value and practical usage. Yet I'm pointing to something different. I think I added in too much to the example. To re-visit the example. . . How do you know it's now? Try to imagine prior to the idea of now, so all there is is Now. How do you know everything is happening? . . We could theorize about what is a happening, what is sensation and perception, neuroscience etc. That's all good. Yet there is also a "before" all that. Yet here, it's not like there is a me knowing everything. Before all the theory, there is nothing to know. There simply just IS. Think of a baby, they are just simply aware of what is. They have no theory about stuff. Kinda like that. . . So it's not like "me" knowing. It's more like ISness "Knows" itself. Now just Knows it's Now. .. . Another way of saying it is that awareness is aware of itself. All evidence and theory is second order. There is a first order of ISness before the theory, evidence etc. 

44 minutes ago, Derrida said:

I don't quite understand the part where you're saying one doesn't need to convince oneself of things like A is B in the enlightened mode of seeing things (you mean only the obvious stuff like A is A is still relevant in that mode of .. consciousness?). Or convince oneself that suffering is an illusion. Isn't that rather because complex, constructed concepts like "suffering" and "illusion" don't exist on that level of thinking, so you can't convince yourself of them in the first place?

Creating a conceptual framework is helpful, yet one can only go so far with concepts. Ime, concepts can help support direct experience. A person may have a realization of direct experience, beyond words. "Oh, my god!! What just happened? I can't explain it". This can feel groundless and the tendency of the mind is to dismiss it as "woo woo" and return to status quo. Yet a conceptual framework may provide grounding for integration. For example, after the direct experience one may realize "Oh my gosh!! That is what Rupert Spira was talking about!!! I get it. Yet I can't explain it". 

The point about A is B has to do with the dualistic conditioning of the mind. Anytime we say something is something else we are creating two things in a relative context. Re-vist all of your statements with the word "is". In each instance, you are creating one thing and equating it to another thing. For example you earlier wrote "the ego is a construction. .. ". In some contexts, content is important. Not here. The content isn't important, it's the structure. Notice the way it is structured. You have created two things. One thing you call an "ego" and another thing you call a "construction" and you propose that the ego (A) = construction (B). . . . The mind does this so much it becomes oblivious to what it's doing. This can be helpful to navigate life and survive. Yet the mind gets lulled into believing it's true. 

One exercise I've done is to walk through nature and notice every time I make statements. I then acknowledge I am creating relative meaning that is not objective/actual. . . That duck is big. No, that duck is a duck. Those clouds are beautiful. No, clouds are clouds. This is boring. No, a thought this is boring is a thought this is boring. That litter shouldn't be here. No, the thought that litter shouldn't be here is a thought that litter shouldn't be here. Adyashanti is the enlightened. No Adyashanti is Adyashanti. The thought Adyashanti is enlightened is the thought Adyashanti is enlightened. . . This exercise is maddening to the mind because it prevents being right, attachment and identification. The exercise still has labels, but its a big step. The next step would further remove labels. Rather than that duck is a duck. It becomes that IS is IS. 

How is this liberating? The liberation doesn't come from the theory, it comes from the embodiment. For example, suppose you tell me that this passage I wrote is delusional, I have no clue about enlightenment and I need to watch more Eckhart Tolle videos. How might my mind body respond? If there is attachment/identification that my writing is true/insightful and that you are wrong - the mind and body will likely respond defensively. It will want to defend that the writing is true/insightful. I may try and convince you that the writing is true/insightful. Yet what happens when there is embodiment of IS is IS? Then it becomes "writing is writing" and "a thought that writing is delusional is a thought that writing is delusional". There is nothing here to be attached to. There is nothing here to be identified with. It's the same as saying a bird chirp is a bird chirp. Yet it's not the theory. It's the underlying realization and embodiment. Is the mind just thinking this? Or has the mind-body actually embodied it. Is there still underlying feelings of attachment/identification and desire to convince myself and others that the writing is true/insightful? Or does it have not more significance than a bird chirp?

1 hour ago, Derrida said:

You also seem to talk about concepts and ideas here and I agree that they're in a way constructed by the brain in several layers. But what about sensations? Is there really an a priori to red and green (not as ideas, but as sensations). We just know that red is different from green and that's it. Similarly pain is a sensation that is best defined as the very thing that we want to avoid. It's something that goes deeper than our complex constructed thinking, it's not part of our big brain but more part of our animal brain, if you want to talk physiologically.

What is the sensation of color? Colors don't exist. A tree is not green. The visual cortex is creating a hallucination of green and you have no idea if what I call green is the same thing as what you call green. 

What is pain? You can define it however you want. Pain to you could be pleasure to someone else. Try some S & M and explore the inter-connectedness between pain and pleasure to the point you can't tell the difference between pain and pleasure. All these concepts are great, yet they aren't actual. Creating a terms like "pain" and "pleasure" is useful to communicate, function in society and survive. Yet ideas of pain is not the actuality. It is not the direct experience. An exploration of pain through observation and direct experience is very different than a theoretical exploration of pain and pleasure. . . Similarly, explore terror and peace so deeply that you cannot distinguish between terror and peace in your direct experience. As well, explore real and imagined so deeply that you cannot tell the difference between real and imagined. Not theoretically. Literally in your direct experience. 

1 hour ago, Derrida said:

However, I'm not convinced that all suffering relies on our interpretations. If you cut yourself, that will simply hurt and that's it, no matter how you interpret it. Well ok, I've read once that mindfulness meditation can get rid of 90% of chronic pain or even more. But I guess that's more of a longterm thing, physiologically speaking, you train your brain over time to adapt to your pain. However it's probably not that easy to train your brain in a short period of time to adapt to pain and ignore something that it's hardwired to pay attention to.

You are assuming there is a universal, objective thing called "pain". How can it be pain without your interpretation of it as pain? The conceptualizing has value, yet its so easy to get trapped in a vortex of intellect. It goes sooo much deeper. . . Self inquire "what is pain?". Don't think about it or try to figure it out. There is understanding of direct experience. Explore actual direct experience of pain. What are the inter-connections between sensation, thought, interpretation. Yet don't intellectualize. Just ask the question and observe. If you and a gf are into kinky sex, this is a great area to explore. I've been in realms in which I'm at an interface of pain, bliss and humor. My gf couldn't tell if I was screaming in pain or laughing hysterically. She would ask "Is this good or bad?". I'd respond "I don't know, but keep going. . . ". 

In general, a good way to blast through all this is with a psychedelic. 

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

What a pickle you find yourself in...

What you gonna do about it?

If you believe me, you're hallucinating. If you doubt me, you're hallucinating.

Quite the pickle indeed...

You like to cut to the chase. . . 

[Derrida]

On 16.11.2019 at 1:04 AM, Leo Gura said:

You are inside a hallucination. You have imagined your birth, your family, the Earth, science, humanity, all people, the past, the future, animals, atoms, physical reality, and myself.

Your entire life is a hallucination. Wake up, son. You are not a human.

All of your questions are too shallow and miss the point.

Your skepticism is a red herring, a clever distraction from realizing that you are hallucinating. Every reason you have is just another part of the hallucination.

No one can help you because all others are just your own hallucination, including myself.

What a pickle you find yourself in...

What you gonna do about it?

If you beleive me, you're hallucinating. If you doubt me, you're hallucinating.

Quite the pickle indeed...

Dismissing basic questions as too shallow or beside the point to address can also be a good way to further one's own hallucination, if one is in a hallucination that is.
I have no doubt that on this forum people discuss the intricacies of enlightenment in great depth, so that questions like the ones I pose here might be uninteresting to some.
Thing is, it ain't really deeper if the fundament is unstable.

Having said that, I get what you're trying to convey, what I believe or think doesn't matter as long as I don't get the experience.
I hope getting the experience won't require that I abandon my scepticism altogether though. Otherwise that would be similiar to Christians telling you: You need to open yourself to God ( = believe in him) in order to experience him so that you can believe in him. Well .. shit.

 

On 16.11.2019 at 1:45 AM, Serotoninluv said:

Not quite, it's even more radical than that. A priori and posteriori and great epistemological ideas about how we come to know truth. Yet my understanding is that it both refer to how a proposition is known to be true. That has great value and practical usage. Yet I'm pointing to something different. I think I added in too much to the example. To re-visit the example. . . How do you know it's now? Try to imagine prior to the idea of now, so all there is is Now. How do you know everything is happening? . . We could theorize about what is a happening, what is sensation and perception, neuroscience etc. That's all good. Yet there is also a "before" all that. Yet here, it's not like there is a me knowing everything. Before all the theory, there is nothing to know. There simply just IS. Think of a baby, they are just simply aware of what is. They have no theory about stuff. Kinda like that. . . So it's not like "me" knowing. It's more like ISness "Knows" itself. Now just Knows it's Now. .. . Another way of saying it is that awareness is aware of itself. All evidence and theory is second order. There is a first order of ISness before the theory, evidence etc.

So it's basically a similiar experience like a baby or an animal has it, but an enlightened human can still employ his higher faculties of thinking in order to garner wisdom from that state? I mean a baby isn't really enlightened right (a baby certainly isn't always at peace)? What's the difference?

 

On 16.11.2019 at 1:45 AM, Serotoninluv said:

How is this liberating? The liberation doesn't come from the theory, it comes from the embodiment. For example, suppose you tell me that this passage I wrote is delusional, I have no clue about enlightenment and I need to watch more Eckhart Tolle videos. How might my mind body respond? If there is attachment/identification that my writing is true/insightful and that you are wrong - the mind and body will likely respond defensively. It will want to defend that the writing is true/insightful. I may try and convince you that the writing is true/insightful. Yet what happens when there is embodiment of IS is IS? Then it becomes "writing is writing" and "a thought that writing is delusional is a thought that writing is delusional". There is nothing here to be attached to. There is nothing here to be identified with. It's the same as saying a bird chirp is a bird chirp. Yet it's not the theory. It's the underlying realization and embodiment. Is the mind just thinking this? Or has the mind-body actually embodied it. Is there still underlying feelings of attachment/identification and desire to convince myself and others that the writing is true/insightful? Or does it have not more significance than a bird chirp?

Bruh, do you even lift? You need to watch more Eckart Tolle videos man.
No seriously, thanks for clarifying that (also for dropping a few names). By embodiement you mean actual realization rather than just thinking about it theoretically in your head in a way of "the duck isn't big, the duck is just a duck" or "the thought x is just a though x", like just saying the words in your head?
Anyway it's an interesting technique, I already tried it a bit myself.

 

On 16.11.2019 at 1:45 AM, Serotoninluv said:

What is the sensation of color? Colors don't exist. A tree is not green. The visual cortex is creating a hallucination of green and you have no idea if what I call green is the same thing as what you call green.

Well, colors, sensations, qualias are subjective, but you could still maintain they exist in a subjective way, for the subject. You're saying they don't exist because they're hallucinations? Even if that's the case, If you don't know that a hallucination is a hallucination, it's just as real to you as anything else, right? So I don't think an argument like for instance "suffering is just a hallucination, so it's not that serious" is valid.
I'm also not sure if there isn't room for different interpretations, as in how you determine what's the hallucination and what is real. If you have the state of a normal human and the state of an enlightened human, you could say the state of the normal human is a hallucination and the state of the enlightened human is real. Another interpretation however would be that both states are real, and the enlightened human has imply used the power of his focus to shift to another, more sophisticated state.

 

On 16.11.2019 at 1:45 AM, Serotoninluv said:

What is pain? You can define it however you want. Pain to you could be pleasure to someone else. Try some S & M and explore the inter-connectedness between pain and pleasure to the point you can't tell the difference between pain and pleasure. All these concepts are great, yet they aren't actual. Creating a terms like "pain" and "pleasure" is useful to communicate, function in society and survive. Yet ideas of pain is not the actuality. It is not the direct experience. An exploration of pain through observation and direct experience is very different than a theoretical exploration of pain and pleasure. . . Similarly, explore terror and peace so deeply that you cannot distinguish between terror and peace in your direct experience. As well, explore real and imagined so deeply that you cannot tell the difference between real and imagined. Not theoretically. Literally in your direct experience. 

You are assuming there is a universal, objective thing called "pain". How can it be pain without your interpretation of it as pain? The conceptualizing has value, yet its so easy to get trapped in a vortex of intellect. It goes sooo much deeper. . . Self inquire "what is pain?". Don't think about it or try to figure it out. There is understanding of direct experience. Explore actual direct experience of pain. What are the inter-connections between sensation, thought, interpretation. Yet don't intellectualize. Just ask the question and observe. If you and a gf are into kinky sex, this is a great area to explore. I've been in realms in which I'm at an interface of pain, bliss and humor. My gf couldn't tell if I was screaming in pain or laughing hysterically. She would ask "Is this good or bad?". I'd respond "I don't know, but keep going. . . ".

This reminds me of an experiment, where mice could give themselves electric shocks via a mechanism that would at the same time release dopamine in their brains. The result was that the mice started to enjoy the electric shocks, and they wouldn't stop giving themselves electic shocks until they died. It's probably in a way a similiar experience to S & M, although of course much more extreme.
Interpreting an experience differently, reframing it in order to view it in a more positive light or simply associating it with positive feelings can be powerful I guess. But there are limits to everything. If you don't have hardcore drugs at your disposal to manipulate your brain chemistry (or even then) I don't think there is any human being who would enjoy being burned at a stake, enlightened or not.

 

On 16.11.2019 at 1:45 AM, Serotoninluv said:

In general, a good way to blast through all this is with a psychedelic. 

..Perhaps worth a try, thanks for the tip
 

On 16.11.2019 at 3:37 AM, modmyth said:

What makes you think that this is hyperrationality first and foremost? (this makes me think of the Enlightenment with a capital E... age  of reason, etc.)

Not really hyperrationality, but more clarity which might lead to more rational behavior as a side effect. And of course not being controlled as much by one's emotions.

 

On 16.11.2019 at 3:45 AM, modmyth said:

I mean, if the original perspective is worthwhile..... you can always adopt the former perspective, right?

I hope so, but perhaps it's in the end also make-believe to some extent, in the sense that, what you believe becomes ultimately also what appears true to you. That would at least explain why there are so many people totally convinced of different religions etc.
Yes I know you're not supposed to believe in anything, but I'm not sure if that's really possible either.

 

On 16.11.2019 at 3:45 AM, modmyth said:

Usually the response I get to the above request is some sentiment like, nice thought experiment. Very interesting to think about. Not the point. Actually do it!

I'll get into it 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2019 by Derrida
wrong citation

[Raptorsin7]

@Derrida You have to do the practice. Right now you are just thinking and philosophizing. That will get you nowhere. You can discuss and argue about enlightenment for eternity and never get any closer to what the fuck people here are talking about. If the more out there claims make you uncomfortable and lead you to doubt the practice (which they should btw all this shit sounds like pseudo scientific from the perspective of a rational person who has never had these experiences) then I would just focus on the practical benefits of this work. Do you want to be happy? Do you want to live a life better than any dream you have ever had? These practices are the way to do it. Granted, there could be other ways to get the same thing, who knows. But thinking and philosophizing about it is only useful if it leads to actually try these practices. There is no higher truth or practical benefit to be had from talking shit all day.