Sensory Experience Proves There's A Me

[Ramu]

@Samuel Garcia you die but other peoples lives go on.  But Samuel, how do you know that other peoples lives go on.  You're missing the point of the video.  Leo is talking about direct experience.  After your physical death, would you have direct experience of others lives continuing?

Edited January 17, 2017 by Ramu

[electroBeam]

58 minutes ago, Emerald Wilkins said:

 I just think it is a bit dangerous

Sure, but sometimes, even revealing the truth to someone can make them more callous, and potentially lead to a more dangerous situation. A lot of people who become enlightened, actually loose their empathy (like Rali). 

If you want to change the world in a way that makes people more empathetic, the enlightenment path probably isn't the best option. The best option would be to indoctrinate people with the love of Jesus, or maybe try and turn everyone into hippies(which my country is currently doing in primary schools). 

[Telepresent]

@Samuel Garcia I'm not enlightened, I'm not an authority on what is 'true' or not, but your question prompted a little thought experiment in my head which provides a metaphorical answer to your question.

Let's start by removing ourselves from humanity, so we don't get too personal about this. Let's say humanity flat out doesn't exist. Never did, never will. Instead, there is an advanced alien species. Let's call them the Krull. The Krull have a life span of 200 years. They have figured out suspended animation, which allows them to put their bodies into hibernation for long periods of time. They have also figured out how to directly implant a virtual reality into the brain - so films and other kinds of entertainment can be experienced from a first person perspective: You experience the film AS the main character with all the senses engaged, not just sight and sound.

The Krull are interested in interstellar travel, but they can't travel faster than light. This means some pioneering Krull have volunteered to go on a one-way mission to the nearest star - a journey which will take 75 years. The spaceship is tiny to save on fuel and resources - no bigger than the space shuttle. A 75 year voyage on that would drive anyone mad! So to save our heroes' sanity (& minimise food), they are to go into suspended animation. But to keep their brains from deteriorating from non-use for such a long time, they need to be plugged into a VR system.

The difference is, though, that they have to believe the life they are living, otherwise their brains will still wither (for whatever reason). So instead of watching a film, a computer sequentially generates a 75 year experience for them. For whatever reason, it's safer not to have them live a Krull life (in case they remember who they are and 'wake up'), so the VR programmers construct an imaginary species, called humans. The Krull will live a human life, with complete belief that they are human, that their sensory experiences are 100% true, for a 75 year life span, despite the fact that humans do not and never have existed.

For the Krull/Humans, though, none of this is known. They remember nothing before their birth. They absolutely believe in the world their senses are telling them is out there. This is reinforced by the appearance of the billions of humans they can see, who all tell them that OF COURSE Earth and humanity are real. OF COURSE what the Krull/Human is seeing, hearing, feeling is really what is out there. And OF COURSE all other humans are feeling things too. OF COURSE they feel hunger.

But do they? Remember the other humans are really just VR data. Image and sound and texture - not a living being. Does a collection of image and sound and texture feel hunger? No matter how compelling it looks and sounds, does it actually FEEL hunger?

Now prove that you are not a Krull on that spaceship.

[Dodo]

1 hour ago, Telepresent said:

@Samuel Garcia I'm not enlightened, I'm not an authority on what is 'true' or not, but your question prompted a little thought experiment in my head which provides a metaphorical answer to your question.

Let's start by removing ourselves from humanity, so we don't get too personal about this. Let's say humanity flat out doesn't exist. Never did, never will. Instead, there is an advanced alien species. Let's call them the Krull. The Krull have a life span of 200 years. They have figured out suspended animation, which allows them to put their bodies into hibernation for long periods of time. They have also figured out how to directly implant a virtual reality into the brain - so films and other kinds of entertainment can be experienced from a first person perspective: You experience the film AS the main character with all the senses engaged, not just sight and sound.

The Krull are interested in interstellar travel, but they can't travel faster than light. This means some pioneering Krull have volunteered to go on a one-way mission to the nearest star - a journey which will take 75 years. The spaceship is tiny to save on fuel and resources - no bigger than the space shuttle. A 75 year voyage on that would drive anyone mad! So to save our heroes' sanity (& minimise food), they are to go into suspended animation. But to keep their brains from deteriorating from non-use for such a long time, they need to be plugged into a VR system.

The difference is, though, that they have to believe the life they are living, otherwise their brains will still wither (for whatever reason). So instead of watching a film, a computer sequentially generates a 75 year experience for them. For whatever reason, it's safer not to have them live a Krull life (in case they remember who they are and 'wake up'), so the VR programmers construct an imaginary species, called humans. The Krull will live a human life, with complete belief that they are human, that their sensory experiences are 100% true, for a 75 year life span, despite the fact that humans do not and never have existed.

For the Krull/Humans, though, none of this is known. They remember nothing before their birth. They absolutely believe in the world their senses are telling them is out there. This is reinforced by the appearance of the billions of humans they can see, who all tell them that OF COURSE Earth and humanity are real. OF COURSE what the Krull/Human is seeing, hearing, feeling is really what is out there. And OF COURSE all other humans are feeling things too. OF COURSE they feel hunger.

But do they? Remember the other humans are really just VR data. Image and sound and texture - not a living being. Does a collection of image and sound and texture feel hunger? No matter how compelling it looks and sounds, does it actually FEEL hunger?

Now prove that you are not a Krull on that spaceship.

This is a solid idea for bestselling book righ there. Very entertaining and thought provoking. For all we know we are all in a ship, asleep/tripping out on something, travelling or just paid for an experience.

However, just like in the Matrix, this is not such a deep rabbit hole.

If we are Infinite beings having the human experience for whatoever reason, when we wake up as the Krull, it is a false awakening, we are still the infinite being having a Krull experience. Maybe a much better experience, but still off the mark to the truth of who we are.

 

Edited January 17, 2017 by Dodoster

[Echoes]

53 minutes ago, Telepresent said:

@Telepresent wouldn't it make more sense for the Krull to be in deep sleep for 75 years, so there is absolutely no experience of time? interesting idea though

 

[MaxBlank]

@Samuel Garcia There is so much about your question... I'll just address a few things.

Who says this person is enlightened? That is not something I give people the benefit of the doubt on, ever. I don't care what color their robes are, how many people tune in every week, how many books they sold, etc.

Can an enlightened individual ever be wrong, make mistakes, or have a moment of plain stupidity? I suggest it might be more rare, but it will happen.

One more thought on that particular individual. Using the concept of the terribly stereotypical "children starving in India" is one of the most callous examples I could think of to use in explaining, no-self, non-existence, and the like. The lesson does not hold up to any enlightened standard I use: compassionate, considerate, kind, and so on. She also side-stepped the actual question it seems. Was she ok with it?

So far as the subject itself: The mind is everything. What you think you become.

Edited January 17, 2017 by WarPants

[Dodo]

26 minutes ago, WarPants said:

@Samuel Garcia There is so much about your question... I'll just address a few things.

Who says this person is enlightened? That is not something I give people the benefit of the doubt on, ever. I don't care what color their robes are, how many people tune in every week, how many books they sold, etc.

Can an enlightened individual ever be wrong, make mistakes, or have a moment of plain stupidity? I suggest it might be more rare, but it will happen.

One more thought on that particular individual. Using the concept of the terribly stereotypical "children starving in India" is one of the most callous examples I could think of to use in explaining, no-self, non-existence, and the like. The lesson does not hold up to any enlightened standard I use: compassionate, considerate, kind, and so on. She also side-stepped the actual question it seems. Was she ok with it?

So far as the subject itself: The mind is everything. What you think you become.

The mind is everything if you take the mind to be the subject and object of experience.. But isnt this spirituality thing about subject being not-mind, from which leads that mind is not everything,  but an illusion aka nothing?

Isnt this why we talk about the spiritual heart and not the spiritual mind?

Otherwise I agree with you on Katie, i personally always felt she's a fraud, a shark, but I haven't seen too much of her anyway, not really interesting from what ive seen.

Edited January 17, 2017 by Dodoster

[MaxBlank]

28 minutes ago, Dodoster said:

 

Isnt this why we talk about the spiritual heart and not the spiritual mind?

 

 

[MaxBlank]

I recently read something from one monk that compiled and committed to writing talks from an elder monk (Ajahn Chah). in one speech, he did just that, he changed "mind" to "heart", except in some instances , where it was already "heart" or "mind and heart". It is all the same, a matter of heart, mind, or heart and mind.

At any rate, thank you for your addition. Nothingness, non-existence, no-self, are all relevant to the subject. We could also consider words like "kind-hearted", "mean-spirited", "angry minded", and so on. In the end, every word is a symbol. All we can do is point the way.

[Emerald]

8 hours ago, electroBeam said:

Sure, but sometimes, even revealing the truth to someone can make them more callous, and potentially lead to a more dangerous situation. A lot of people who become enlightened, actually loose their empathy (like Rali). 

If you want to change the world in a way that makes people more empathetic, the enlightenment path probably isn't the best option. The best option would be to indoctrinate people with the love of Jesus, or maybe try and turn everyone into hippies(which my country is currently doing in primary schools). 

Given the nature of my experiences of ego-transcendence, I would say that it definitely made me more compassionate not less as I was aware of my emotions on a much deeper level. My joys and sorrows and lusts and angers were recognized as being so many shades more complex, and they carried a deep intuitive wisdom to them as the sensations swept freely through my body. The overwhelming amount of love that I had for everyone and everything was absolutely riveting. Though I could clearly recognize my murderously destructive drives and their consistent profound impact on my view of the world, there was also an out-pouring of compassion toward all life and a deep respect for the fragility of this human experience and the sentient experience in general. I would be careful not to sneeze at compassion, as somehow unrelated to enlightenment or as some sort of soft coddling that degrades the fabric of society through indoctrination. This view has likely come about through indoctrination into a society steeped in emotional resistance and ignorance. We tend to get ridiculed and ostracized for being emotional because we have a great many unwritten social rules around emotions, causing us to ignore that entire facet of our reality. Experience ego-transcendence first. You will likely see that compassion is key, and that emotions play as big a role as they've always played. But in transcending the ego, we no longer have need to ignore or repress them.  

[Emerald]

18 hours ago, eskwire said:

@Emerald Wilkins Very true. She may know what she's talking about, but teaching on such a large scale has serious complications. 

People with deep wounds like that are seeking compassion. What caused the wounds was a lack of compassion in the first place. They/we are needs deficient. 

When we are met with, again, no compassion and only tough love from our teachers, it's very painful and perhaps dangerous. "I am seeking compassion. It's not here. I'll seek elsewhere, or I give up ever receiving compassion for these wounds. Maybe I should stop believing in compassion at all." 

I think you hit the nail on the head about her material turning some people callous. 

I believe the problem becomes that enlightened teachers forget exactly what it was like to be unenlightened. So, they teach from the enlightened perspective and take for granted little details of difference between the enlightened and unenlightened paradigms. So, they may miss how the average person may interpret their meanings. 

[WaveInTheOcean]

On 16/1/2017 at 0:09 AM, Leo Gura said:

There is hungry child when he appears before you. Otherwise, it's just an image in your mind.

When does a hungry boy ever appear before one?

Isn't it ALWAYS just an image in the mind?

Why is there anything wrong with an image - as long as one is aware of its nature (that everything we percieve visually is mind-created images).

[WaveInTheOcean]

On 17/1/2017 at 1:23 AM, Leo Gura said:

@Emerald Wilkins Doesn't change the fact that "hungry child", in this case, is a concept.

So if I meet a hungry child in real life - the hungry child is real and not a concept now?:D

Isni't it sill a concept? 

Yet, I get what you mean I guess. That in that case it is what is, and until direct experience: concepts.

Just ignore me, im being silly I think.

[WaveInTheOcean]

On 17/1/2017 at 4:05 AM, Emerald Wilkins said:

I can't speak to Byron Katie's perspective because I have not heard or read very much from her. But I have heard these types of criticisms of her work before. I think there is a fine line (on the intellectual level) between transcending a negative situation through a realization of oneness/ accepting 100% responsibility for your life and blaming yourself for things you did not deserve or cause and engaging in self-flagellation. For someone who speaks to large groups of people, who are likely not enlightened, this doesn't seem like it would be the appropriate advice to give. Many people will mistake the meaning, and will end up making unwise decisions from it. For the average person, they need to hear "You did not cause your abuse. Get out of the situation now. Don't blame yourself. There are options." To say, "you are the cause of your abuse" may be true from the perspective of oneness (as if there is only one, who else could cause or create anything?), but most people have not experienced this... so this just becomes intellectual fodder that fogs instead of clarifies. An enlightened person knows the Truth... but a true master knows what to teach to whom from exactly where that person is.

Brilliant comment. You're so right.

[WaveInTheOcean]

On 15/1/2017 at 9:40 PM, Samuel Garcia said:

But doesn't that implies that there is a 'me' because if my body dies, my thoughts and sense dies as well so I cannot perceive the world no longer, yet other people lives still go on.

 I just don't perceive it because my sensory perception isn't everything.

 

"my body "

Who owns the body you call "my body" ??? "You" ?

Who are "you" ???

Do you feel like a controlling, conscious agent inside your head between your eyes? Yes, you do, right? You're right now conscious of seeing a computer screen right in front of you through 2 eyeholes. Conscious of the sensations in your body. Cold feet. Cold hands maybe. Sensation of pressure on the butt from the chair.

But is it really your body? Who does the breathing? Who does the seeing? Who does the smelling? Who does the thoughts? Who does the sensations? Who moves the intestines? You? Who moves the fingers when typing on a keyboard? You? Who beats the heart? You? Who breathes right now? You?
Who hears the noise from your computer right now? You?  That unique self inside the head? Is that you?

Who feels like that conscious, aware, conscious, thinking "thing"/soul/agent inside the head? You? Well if it's you that feels like being you, but you locate and think that that you is inside your head (and thus dependent on the body; you see if you don't think you are your body (most ppl don't identify with their body, but as someone who HAS a body, is INSIDE one, OWNS the body, CONTROLS it, FEELS it), then it's maybe even worse, because now you feel like a passenger inside the body, and this passenger's existence now depends on the survival of the body... , because if the body dies, only God know's what will happen to YOU, who spent the whole life living inside that head/body-thing...., and I mean surely you must die as well.. A passenger in a car crash rarely survives, right... 

Have you ever thought about, that the feeling of being 'you' -- a unique independent controlling percieving self/agent -- inside the head is in itself just a sensation that the actual You is percieving? Doesn't that make more sense?  And what traits does this You have? Does it have any locality? Does it have any shape? Any age? When was it born? When will it die? Can it be hurt? Can it modified? Can it be killed? Is it a thing? A physical thing? Is it a product of the brain? Is it a software controlling the brain? Is it a program ran by the brain that gets killed when the brain dies? So You die when the brain dies? Or is it independent of the brain? Independent of experiences? Untouchable by feelings, thoughts, sensations, pain? And yet it can still experience all that? Where is this You? Is it anywhere? 

 

So how about You - the real You...the very experience of having any experience or no experience - is actually just being tricked by a complex sensation/experience into thinking it's a seperated, living, unique, mortal, hurtable self inside the heard? So when you think you see a tree in the forest you have a "normal experience." The normal experience of believing "Hey I am standing here 10 meters away and I am seeing a physical tree 10 meters away. The tree is there. And me? I am right here 10 meters away from it seeing a tree ".... Do you think it's possible to see a tree without having any location? Without being 10 meters away. Without any perciever, but just the perception of that tree itself? So that you in a way merge with the tree? The perciever and the percieved merges away and there becomles only perception? The ffeeling of being a unitary self -- can this feeling dissolve away? Have you ever thought about that? If that feeling dissolve away - what is then left? Can you imagine?

What is left can be a feeling of oneness. Complete destruction of the illusion of being a self. And you see that everything is one big happening. Oneness. No separated selfs. No persons. Only a game of playing persons. Acting like humans. All done by one Self. The Self that is You. The Self that is Me.

The Self contains all experience that is, has been and will come.
The Self creates all experience that is, has been and will come.
The Self percieves all experience that is, has been and will come.

Since It contains, create and percieves all experience,... if It ever believes it is only one particular kind of experience, like the one you're having right now of being 'you' .. then It must be playing a hide and seek game with Itself. What is the goal of a hide and seek game? For the hider, it is to hide for as long as possible. For the seeker, it is to seek for the hider until found. If the hider is the seeker, the seeker the hider, then we have a very paradoxical game. How can he who simutlationsly hides from himself and seeks for himself ever really hide from himself or find himself? Isn't both the hiding and the finding happening RIGHT now already at the same time in this present moment? You're looking for yourself, not realizing you already yourself. That what you're seeking for is happening right in front of you. Yet you don't see it, because you don't want to. You want to pretend like you're not ... that you're still seeking, and that that which you seek is still hiding somewhere. You want to keep this pretending for as long as possible, because the conceptual you -- the mind -- can't take the Truth that there really is none seeking and none hiding... That it's all a game. that it has no meaning what-so-ever... that the mind doesn't exist... the mind has to realize it's not a mind, but a stream of experiences experienced by no-mind, by You... THe mind constantly wants to get stimulated.. Why? Because it cannot stand being alone with itself... How do you get enlightened? By doing the opposite of what the mind what to do. The mind wants stimulation... well, show it who's in the driving seat and give it the opposite: Sit down for 2 hours and do nothing (except being aware which happens by it self because You are that which is aware in itself... that which is aware of all experience,.. that which creates all experience...that which contains all experience).

As perons we are all just finite minds living inside the infinite mind (the Self), created by the infinite mind, and percieved by the infinite mind. As long as a person doesn't see that he comes from Infinity/God/The Divine/The Self, that he is within the Divine -- right now -- and that he is percieving the Divine right now (existance itself)...then one will be forever lost... IF one instead thinks that he is a mechnical evolutiunary fluke created by and contained in a stupid cold mechnical universe, and seeing it has not divine, not magical , not mystical but as ordinary , trivial, explainable, understandable, sensable ... then LOL... Both atheits and very religious people do the same: They see existance as not-mystical... they see it as ordinary. The atheist thinks he's just a fluke in a random, cold, mechnical, very big physical ... very ordinary... and theists makes all kind of human-like-explanations to make it ordinary (God is looking over you, be nice, this is a parole, REAL heaven/Divinity comes if you pass this little life-exam) ... LOL

The Self experiences the experience that it created within itSelf for itSelf.

For the Self to ever experience the experience of being the Self it first had create the opposite: the experience of not being itSelf. And one stream of this infinite experience is the finite experience It is currently right now having by experiencing being "you".  Just as well that Self - which I really, really am - is currently tricking Me (itSelf) into believing I am the little human me, Waveintheocean, a tired sleepless boy sitting in front of a computer in Copenhagen typing these meaningless words on an interent forum instead of going to bed. The mere experience you have right now of being a separate self inside the head...can't you see that this is an illusion? That it has nothing to do with ACTUAL reality? That you in fact are that which is having that experience of believing/feeling like a seperate self inside the head.

 

 

goodnight folks

Edited January 18, 2017 by WaveInTheOcean

[Samuel Garcia]

If I only have my senses and thoughts to access reality, why would I want to help other people? Because the reason I would have empathy for other people would be because I believe that there is a person in there your experiences emotions and struggle (via there sensory field). But I only have my senses and thoughts -- nobody elses.

So surely my experience is the only thing which would really matter. This though however builds up a little bit of arrogance and so why would I consider other people's perceptive (as suggested in the how to deal with anger part 2 video) when other people are mostly thoughts most of the time? 

[key]

9 hours ago, Samuel Garcia said:

when other people are mostly thoughts most of the time? 

That's where you're confused, "other people" are a thought, there is no other except the word you create, so for everyone who you could ever possibly think of, interact with, or come in contact with is a creation of you, why treat them badly? You're just treating yourself badly at the end of the day

"Enlightened" people are generally more compassionate and caring for others because it comes from a recognition of being the other. 

So what feels nicer, what's more easy, peaceful & all that good stuff? Acting kind, understanding, patient and respectful to yourself, or hating, judging, dismissing or negative to yourself? 

You be the judge 

 

Edited January 22, 2017 by key

[Leo Gura]

11 hours ago, Samuel Garcia said:

If I only have my senses and thoughts to access reality, why would I want to help other people? Because the reason I would have empathy for other people would be because I believe that there is a person in there your experiences emotions and struggle (via there sensory field). But I only have my senses and thoughts -- nobody elses.

So surely my experience is the only thing which would really matter. This though however builds up a little bit of arrogance and so why would I consider other people's perceptive (as suggested in the how to deal with anger part 2 video) when other people are mostly thoughts most of the time? 

Once the distinction of self/other is eliminated, EVERYTHING becomes YOU!

Not only are other people Nothing, so are You!

If you're looking for a rationalization for why you should be good. It doesn't exist. LOVE = BEING, BEING = LOVE.

[Hunter Arrington]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Once the distinction of self/other is eliminated, EVERYTHING becomes YOU!

Not only are other people Nothing, so are You!

If you're looking for a rationalization for why you should be good. It doesn't exist. LOVE = BEING, BEING = LOVE.

Where does relative vs absolute come into this? 

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, Hunter Arrington said:

Where does relative vs absolute come into this? 

The Absolute is the superset of everything relative.

The Absolute and relative are not separate. They are the same. But that's an extremely advanced insight. Focus on experiencing just the Absolute for now. Later you can realize enlightenment is identical to not-enlightenment and have a Fight Club moment