The Rationalists Advocate On Enlightenment

[Scholar]

So every now and then I think about what I know about enlightenment, and my rational mind comes to the conclusion that it is entirely explainable with simple rational means. Of course, this will not keep me from investigating myself, but from time to time it creates confusion within me.

 

So, when we look at the mind, or at my mind in particular, I can say that everything that exists and that I exist. But ironically, everything that I believe to exist, everything that from me is everything, solely exists within my mind. It cannot exist anywhere else. But of course, the mind creates a dualism within itself. It differentiates certain aspects of the expirience from others.

For example, there is a very particular feeling when someone "else" is in the room. That other entity is a very specific expirience within the mind. Entity itself is an expirience. Now as far as I know, the path towards enlightenment is disassambling that very specific expirience, so the entity disappears and all that is left is the direct input of expirience meaning color, sound etc.

But if I look at it from a rationalists perspective, all of it makes complete sense. The mind is a simulation of the brain. All of the mind, which is all of the expirience, happens nowhere else than in the brain. The irony here is that the mind itself thinks that the "outside world" exists, even though the outside world is simply part of the simulation. Everything the mind thinks exists is part of the simulation.

So, one way to look at enlightenment would be simply disassembling the expirience of "I" and "something else", so that everything becomes I. In the moment that happens, the mind will believe that it is everything in existance. Because previously it wasn't aware of the fact that everything the mind thinks exists is part of the mind. That includes everything, the simulation of time and space, the simulation of object and subject, the simulation of nothingness and everything. All the mind is left to recognize is that infact, even the simulation of the mind itself is part of the simulation. So, of course the mind will first think believe it is god. God is everything, and because what the mind thought everything was, was now revealed as part of the mind, the mind is in the disbelief that it is infact everything. It is not just what previously was defined as "me", it is what previously was defined as anything whatsoever.

 

But here comes the trap. The mind, from this perspective, is an isolated expirience. The fact that this is the case is that noone can be part of someone elses expirience. If that was truly possible, that we would have easily provided proof for that. But yet, there is noone on this entire planet that can access someone elses expirience.

But here comes the confusion. Me, and I am kind of talking to myself here, is still operating within that simulation. So, I have no clue wether or not anything at all exists or not. The mind cannot be aware of anything outside of the mind. The illusion here though is that "revealing" the truth is nothing more than revealing another illusion. If I look at it from a rationalists perspective, someone saying that "He is god" or he is "Infinity" is completely explainable. Yes of course he is infinity, of course he is god. He is literally everything within his expirience. But, if the expirience of that person ends, that infinity is gone. God is gone. 

Everything that person thought or believed, or even expirience as "absolutely everything" is no gone, because inherently it was nothing more than his mind playing another trick on himself. The mind recognized that it was an simulation after all, and that it was able to alter itself. Infact, the mind is inherently nothing at all, it simply is what it is, the expirience itself. And as far as I can tell, I cannot explain even the most simply thing. I cannot explain the color red, or the sound of my fingers tapping on the keyboard. There is no explanation for that, because explanation is concept. 

 

But what I do know is that the mind is capable of anything. It can simulate absolutely everything. It can even simulate the expirience of absolutely everything. Infact, it is simulating that expirience at all times, because from the perspective of the mind, whatever is within the mind is absotutely everything.

So, when Buddah sat down and discovered the true nature of the self, didn't his brain literally just discover that it was a simulation? That, the "me" is no different from what the mind thinks the "everything else" is. That infact, the "me" is nothing at all, because it is a simulation? That infact, everything in existance (within the mind) is nothing at all?

 

Now, the confusion within me is mainly that I am trapped within the simulation, so everything I think is part of the simulation, even the rational explanation I just gave for the phenomena of enlightenment. And here comes the explanation for why people stop trusting rationality. Because once you realize that everything you believe is rational, there is no reason to trust rationality. Infact, how can you trust rationality if it is part of the mind. How can the mind possibly explain itself?

But yet, every expirience that I have heard of so far is explainable with rational means. Unconditional love for example is the obvious choice of the mind for recognizing that all of the simulation is the mind. And of course, the mind likes to take care of itself, so it will love everything within it's simulation. But what if the mind lacks one step. What if the mind is not recognizing it's own limits? What if the mind is capable of simulating whatever we might belief to be "infinity", an expirience so incredibly that it completely transforms the mind, but yet the mind is uncapable of recognizing that even everything, or nothingness, is simply the mind. That, yes, whatever the mind thought was the "outside world" was infact part of the mind, but that what truly is the "outside world", will for the mind always be a mystery, because it inherenitely cannot access any of it.

Yes, everything that enlightenment is still is true from the perspective of enlightenment. You are "everything" and yet "nothing at all". Infact, the "you" does not exist because it's simply the expirience. But what I fail to understand is why one takes the step further and says that "expirience" is everything that exists. I mean, what if it isn't? Yes, from the expirience perspective, everything is expirience, so obviously it will assume that everything is expirience, but what if the expirience is simply limited. What if whatever one beliefs to be everything is simply a very limited part of the true nature of reality, which the mind might not be able to access even on the most basic level.

 

Yes, if I sit down and do enlightenment work, I will have the expirience of god and being everything and being nothing. But why do I assume that this expirience actually is everything and nothing? Yes, it might be a direct expirience of everything and nothing, but what if that direct expirience is an illusion? We cannot forget that the mind is capable of simulating EVERYTHING that we think exists. It is literally the simulation all of your entire reality, even the part that you think is not part of your reality. Literally everything that exists within or "outside" of you is your mind. But that doesn't change the fact that it might just be the mind, whatever we call the mind. We can call the mind god, of infinity, but what if it's not what the mind beliefs it is? What if the expirience does not correlate with actual reality, whatever that might be?

 

I hope someone can understand my doubts. I know thinking is not the way to expirience truth, but what if thinking is the only thing that will keep me from "thinking" that infact expiriencing the "truth" is nothing more that expiriencing the truth of the mind, which is obviously that it is nothing at all, and that it is everything within the mind...

If one has an expirience of infinity, isn't it simply the expirience of what the mind would think "infinity" is, or even what within the mind infinity is?

I'm so confused.

Edited February 21, 2017 by Scholar

[PureExp]

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

I'm so confused.

You are doing great confusion is a better state to be in than the "I-know-it-all" state. It means you are ready to receive, you are open.

I'm going to be very brief, so it may appear like nitpicking, but I'm not really critical of your fine post at all .

3 hours ago, Scholar said:

The mind is a simulation of the brain.

No. Its the reverse. Brain happens in the mind. Brain is just another object, a qualia, part of the body, which is an object.

3 hours ago, Scholar said:

But yet, there is noone on this entire planet that can access someone elses expirience.

An assumption. The truth is - you don't know. Be agnostic where your experience fails.

IMHO, the "one" (universal consciousness which we are) is already experiencing experiences of everyone.

3 hours ago, Scholar said:

The mind cannot be aware of anything outside of the mind.

Awareness is not an attribute of the mind. Mind is a process. Awareness is the witness that witnesses the mind/mental processes. Awareness=consciousness. Mind is not aware of anything, including itself, awareness is aware of everything. Check Rupert again.

3 hours ago, Scholar said:

It can even simulate the expirience of absolutely everything.

No. It cannot simulate consciousness (aka awareness in current post).

3 hours ago, Scholar said:

But what I fail to understand is why one takes the step further and says that "expirience" is everything that exists. I mean, what if it isn't?

What do you mean by the word "exist"? If something exists it must exist as an experience. No?

You are trying to get to something which is not an experience. You see. Such things do not exist. The only thing that is not an experience is the experiencer ! So if all experience is a simulation of the mind, it is false, it is illusion, and only the experiencer is the truth. Only the experiencer exists in absolute definition of "exist". Wow ! instant enlightenment....

 

[jse]

5 hours ago, Scholar said:

So every now and then I think about what I know about enlightenment, and my rational mind comes to the conclusion that it is entirely explainable with simple rational means.

Often I think about what I know about love, and my rational mind comes to the conclusion that it is entirely explainable by simple rational means.

We should exchange notes.

[Azrael]

7 hours ago, Scholar said:

If one has an expirience of infinity, isn't it simply the expirience of what the mind would think "infinity" is, or even what within the mind infinity is?

If you have a real experience of infinity it is necessarily surrounded by a few things. First you'll have a mental breakdown (if you're still stuck in egoic consciousness) because you cannot experience infinity with a finite machine. So it has to die. When all of your normal mental palest is gone it's quite natural to experience infinity because its the natural property of this reality.

It's just that we are in our normal egoic state firmly convinced that we are this person stuck in a body with tasks to do in this world. If you find out that you don't have a body (I'm serious), that you are not able to think, that your ego goes as deep as perceiving this reality to a large degree, that all of what you know is knowing itself, the shift that happens is so dramatic that you are likely to completely go nuts if you are not trained and prepared to experience this. Because you instantly recognize that the state I'm talking about is reality and your normal state is a dream state.

So yeah, if you experience infinity and you are still able to tell yourself that you have a body and are a person trapped in a body, it's not real infinity. If you are not able to normally think any more, are overwhelmed by being and just go through infinity, it's more likely that you experience the real thing.

Cheers to 5-MeO, Az

[Scholar]

But as I said, all of these findings that you guys describe are completely explainable by rational means. You don't have a body, because whatever the mind thought the body was, was simply an expirience of the mind. As I said, everything is the expirience of the mind, from the perspective of the mind.

 

If I look at a tree, whatever I expirience the tree to be is not really the tree. It's simply another expirience, an illusion. But that doesn't mean that whatever that I am refering to does not exist. We have zero access to the outer world whatsoever, not even a glimpse of it. We have so limited access to the outer world that infact, whatever we think the outer world to be is always part of the inner world. The inner world is everything we expirience, and I understand that. Even the "body" that we expirience as "body" is part of the inner world, so it's an illusion.

But that doesn't mean that whatever the inner world is referring to as "body" doesn't exist at all. If it doesn't, go ahead and test it. Let's see if the body is an illusion after you cut off your arm. Let's see if "death" is an illusion once the expirience of your mind completely stops.

 

I can recognize that we have no idea what the mind is. That we are completely clueless, and always will be, what exactly consciousness is, alteast in a conceptual manner. And yes, consciousness is the ONLY thing we have access to. But why do we assume that everything is consciousness? It's obvious that the mind will have the expirience of "everything" being "consciousness", because for the mind, everything in it's existance is consciousness.

 

A good example is 5-MeO-DMT. I mean, 5-MeO-DMT is an illusion. It's simply a concept of the mind that is completely generated by the mind. But yet, once you take 5-MeO-DMT, you will alter the expirience of the mind is such a way that the structures that create the ego suddenly disappear. And once that happens, the mind has access to the entire expirience of itself, and that expirience is literally unlimited in every way imaginable. Previously the mind limited itself in a way to expirience itself in a specific way, but once you alter that, the entire reality of the mind alters.

 

I mean, how can we just ignore that with rational means, the expirience of absolute infinity is easily explainable? There is no great mystery about it, it's simply how we know the mind works. Yes, we don't know what exactly the mind is, because the map is not the territory. But it's like you guys just say the territory doesn't truly exist, because after all all we have is the map. Yes, the map is part of the territory. The "expirience" is part of the territory. But the expirience is evidently not the territory itself. And with expirience I mean everything the mind could possibly expirience, even "infinity".

 

My biggest question here I guess is, why can we trust the "expirience" just because it's everything we have? Why do we trust the expirience of enlightenment, or the direct expirience of god. How is that a good idea?

 

I mean, look at us. Right now, for our mind, the ego is part of it's reality. But, you can alter the mind in a way where it becomes obvious that ego is just a structure. But then the mind thinks it's everything because you still expirience everything the mind is capable of expiriencing. 

Sure, nothingness is an expirience, but how does it apply to actual reality that we don't even expirience in any shape or form? I can have the expirience of nothingness, but I will still die of starvation if I don't eat. So, is "eating" not real? Is "hunger" not real? Yes, what we expirience as hunger or as starvation is not real, or rather it's just an expirience of the mind. But as I said, it doesn't change the facts whatsoever.

 

I don't doubt for a second that if I take 5-MeO-DMT, whatever I think reality is right now will change in such a drastic way that I will be left with a completely different reality, so different that I can't even imagine that it's part of the mind. But what if, what if the mind is actually capable of generating an expirience of absolute infinity? And, isn't for the mind the expirience of absolute infinity nothing more but the expirience of it's own, entire reality? The problem I seem to have is that, right now I have a very specific feeling of reality, and yes, if the ego disappears I will suddenly realize that the mind is that expirience of reality. But what if that expirience of reality, of infinity, is just a fabrication of the mind? We can never proof that it isn't to ourselves, because the MIND is EVERYTHING we expirience.

Edited February 21, 2017 by Scholar

[SchallUndRauch]

35 minutes ago, Scholar said:

My biggest question here I guess is, why can we trust the "expirience" just because it's everything we have? Why do we trust the expirience of enlightenment, or the direct expirience of god. How is that a good idea?

You really shouldn't. You can't ever know 100%, because the way we perceive experiences is always shaped by the way we think, not even talking about memory. Bloodletting used to be a thing proven by experience. Just because a lot of people here echo the stuff they hear from Leo doesn't mean it's the ultimate truth. He might be all wrong about it and he's telling people constantly to check for themselves for a reason. The question is, does it really matter? Do you need to know if Nirvana is true or not, if there's another elephant beyond the curtain? My views are rather dualistic and I still think the experience is valuable.  Isn't challenging your mind like that the best way to go about it, to get perspective? There's tons of science about psilocybin, for example. You'll hopefully still come up with your own conclusions, when you're there.

Edited February 21, 2017 by SchallUndRauch

[Nahm]

35 minutes ago, SchallUndRauch said:

You really shouldn't. You can't ever know 100%, because the way we perceive experiences is always shaped by the way we think, not even talking about memory. Bloodletting used to be a thing proven by experience. Just because a lot of people here echo the stuff they hear from Leo doesn't mean it's the ultimate truth. He might be all wrong about it and he's telling people constantly to check for themselves for a reason. The question is, does it really matter? Do you need to know if Nirvana is true or not, if there's another elephant beyond the curtain? My views are rather dualistic and I still think the experience is valuable.  Isn't challenging your mind like that the best way to go about it, to get perspective? There's tons of science about psilocybin, for example. You'll hopefully still come up with your own conclusions, when you're there.

If you experienced being without thinking you would have the opposite understanding. I presume you have been putting the cart before the horse your whole life.

[Scholar]

6 minutes ago, Nahm said:

If you experienced being without thinking you would have the opposite understanding. I presume you have been putting the cart before the horse your whole life.

You stand infront of a cliff and think "I will die if I take one more step.", or you stand infront of a cliff and think not at all.

Taking another step forward, which of these two states of consciousness captures the truth? Or in other words, what will happen once you step forward and fall down the cliff?

It may very well be that the thought does not describe what will happen, or that the description itself is not really what will happen. But does the absence of thought hold any more truth? And wouldn't any investigation of truth within the mind always lead to nothingness, because the mind is inherintely uncapable of fabricating truth?

[SchallUndRauch]

13 minutes ago, Nahm said:

If you experienced being without thinking you would have the opposite understanding. I presume you have been putting the cart before the horse your whole life.

Yes, everyone must come to the same conclusions as you do. You're not ideological at all.

[Nahm]

7 hours ago, SchallUndRauch said:

Yes, everyone must come to the same conclusions as you do. You're not ideological at all.

The nothing is the nothing. Infinity is infinity. 

It's not a conclusion. 

[Trond]

The only thing you should even care about regarding enlightenment is that it is completely pointless. It doesn't give you ANYTHING at all, because there is no you there in the first place. However, if you absolutely HAVE to know what is true, then it is another story. 

But all the rationalising in the world won't get you "there". All beliefs are false. Even "Truth exists" is false. 

Break down all your beliefs and you'll see what is left, that is of course the truth. Whatever that is. Reality is. Consciousness is all there is. 

Whatever remains after you destroy yourself and abide as no-self, must unmistakably be the truth. 

Edited February 21, 2017 by Trond

[SchallUndRauch]

What you experience is a thing. You may call it nothing or infinity, but that's already you categorizing it. What you make of it is a conclusion, or the missing understanding.

[Scholar]

21 hours ago, Trond said:

The only thing you should even care about regarding enlightenment is that it is completely pointless. It doesn't give you ANYTHING at all, because there is no you there in the first place. However, if you absolutely HAVE to know what is true, then it is another story. 

But all the rationalising in the world won't get you "there". All beliefs are false. Even "Truth exists" is false. 

Break down all your beliefs and you'll see what is left, that is of course the truth. Whatever that is. Reality is. Consciousness is all there is. 

Whatever remains after you destroy yourself and abide as no-self, must unmistakably be the truth. 

But how do you know that all beliefs are false? What if some beliefs are just correct? How would you proof the opposite? By a certain expirience that you think is true? By pure absence of all conceptualization? I am still confused as to how it's even possible to get to the conclusion that "consciousness is all there is".

Yes, from the perspective of the mind that may be the case, but how can one be absolute certain that consciousness is absolutely everything there is? Literally everything "we" expirience is consciousness, so obviously we'll have to say that consciousness is all there is.

For me it's like alot of people just ignore the mystery of the outer world. Materialistic people are completely absorbed in the conceptualization of the inner world. But spiritual people seem to completely ignore the possibility that there might be something consciousness has absolutely zero access to. Where does this absolute certainity come from? What if consciouss is nothing and everything, but still merely a limited part of a reality we have no access to?

Again, how can we trust the expirience to be the truth? Is it only because it's all we have? What if even the expirience of absolute truth is merely an illusion? What if concept is real, and the world is made of concept? And what if our mind has no access whatsoever to true concept, but merely is able to access the reflection of concept within consciousness itself?

How can we be so certain that it is not the case?

 

And why are people so certain of it before they are even enlightened? Who in this forum considers themselves truly enlightened?

Edited February 22, 2017 by Scholar

[Trond]

Good questions all of it. @Scholar

It doesn't matter what I or anyone says; "consciousness is all there is" and all that. While it still might be the case, for me it is till a concept of course.

I am in the self-verification process and that is the only way you can come to that "place" for yourself, when ego is gone. And so is it for you. Verify for yourself. No answers will get you "there". 

But it is important to have the conceptualisation as accurate as possible before you embark on it because well, there won't be a "you" left. So, it can be useful to have the awareness of that before you decide that this is something you REALLY have to verify for yourself. 

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

And why are people so certain of it before they are even enlightened?

You have to have something to "guide" you, to fuel your search or else what the hell are you doing, even searching for truth. You gotta have the faith or hope that there is truth. For me it was an epiphany, and I know from personal exp that the universe isn't fucking around. When you're opening your eyes to the natural flow in life, there are no coincidences. You just follow the currents and that will be all you need. 

Edited February 22, 2017 by Trond

[Scholar]

 I can't seem to get past this confusion.

 

So, let's say we fast-forward 1000 years into the future. And let's say that science has uncovered the entire functionality of the brain.

Now, let's look at this from the spiritual perspective. The scientist, that does not exist, sets a subject, that does not exist, into a device, that does not exist, that can manipulate the brain, that doesn't exist, in any form it pleases. The device, that does not exist, is capable to deactive and alter any system of the mind, that doesn't exist. The device, that doesn't exist, can turn off the cognitive system, that doesn't exist, that is creating ego, that doesn't exist, within the mind.

Once the non-existent device turned off the non-existent ego, suddently the non-existent subject feels like he is becoming absolute infinity. That non-existent subject reports of losing the sense of self completely, saying infact the self was an illusion. Let's say the non-existent device can alter the non-existent cognitive systems in a way where time and space ceases to exist for the non-existent subject. The non-existent subject loses all sense of reality, as perfectly predicted by the non-existent device. The non-existent device can manipulate the non-existent brain to alter the non-existent subjects reality in any shape of form it pleases. It can turn the non-existent subjects reality into that of a plant. It can alter the reality in such fundamental ways that the non-existent subject will get a sense of nothingness. But the non-existent device can once more alter the non-existent subjects non-existent mind in a way that the non-existent ego emerges once more out of nothingness. 

The non-existent device could do anything. It could alter any function of the non-existent subjects mind in ways that the non-existent subject could have impossibly even imagined before. The non-existent subject might lose all sense of outer world, it might lose the sense of location, or seperateness. The non-existent device can play with the non-existent subjects mind in whatever way it wants. One moment the non-existent subject is enlightened, and then the next the non-existent subject is once more egoic.

 

How can a non-existent device do anything? How can it predict the behaviour and consciousness of the non-existent subject? It would know exactly when "enlightenment" would occur, yet the expirience of enlightenment reveals that the device cannot exist, and that it is just a illusion of the mind. But it's the non-existent device that has absolute control over the non-existent subject, not the other way around. Of course the reality of the subject will change, because the device is in control of it's reality. It can control wether or not the expirience of the subject is that of absolute emptiness, or of seperateness and ego. Ironically though, the subject, once it expiriences emptiness, will belief that it is reality, because it doesn't even have the cognitive functions to distinct between anything. So, it is merely left with emptiness, and once the structures of the mind reemerge, the subject will belief it expirienced reality, when infact it just expirienced a different expirience, and altered reality. 

The non-existent device is in absolute control of the consciousness of the subject. The subject will at any time be absolutely certain that it's reality is reality. The egoic reality is an illusion once the subject is put into a different kind of reality. But what if both realities are illusions, that of nothingness just as much as that of ego. What if, whatever the non-existent device really is, is reality. What if that reality is so inaccessable, that we cannot even imagine it's properties, because properties themselves are part of the limited reality of the mind?

Why else could a non-existent device play with a non-existent subjects consciousness as it pleases. Why else would it be able to alter consciousness in any way it wants, creating an enlightened being within a split second. What if, when the device decides that it wants to get rid of the subject, true nothingness will emerge? A nothingness so empty that it is void of expirience and consciousness itself? An emptiness that is so empty, that there is nothing to witness it?

 

Maybe the rational mind underrestimates how much the subjective reality can be altered? Maybe it cannot grasp that whatever it "feels" reality to be is nothing more than an illusion, and yet, it is everything it has? Because if it cannot recognize that, then it will never recognize that even the greatest truth there is, is nothing but a lie. Even the most real and unlimited expirience, nothing but a simple expirience that does not go beyond what the expirience itself is. And, maybe it cannot recognize that everything that is expirienced, is not actually everything there is? What if the mind is just too limited to actually become aware of that, ever?

If one expiriences "everything", isn't it merely an expirience of everything that the mind is capable of expiriencing? And to the mind, it will be infinite, because by definition it will literally be infinite within the perspective of the expirience. But why would the mind fall into the belief that the expirience of infinity is actually everything there is? Or is by definition saying "everything there is", merely pointing to the contents of the mind, because after all, what is beyond might be so incomprehendable that even content itself would be a false desciption?

Or is true enlightenment, or the expirience of nothingness, merely a recognition that reality is beyond words, so beyond words and concept that everything the mind can come up with is absolutely nothing?

Edited February 27, 2017 by Scholar

[Razorback]

On 2/21/2017 at 0:09 AM, Scholar said:

...

If I look at it from a rationalists perspective, someone saying that "He is god" or he is "Infinity" is completely explainable. Yes of course he is infinity, of course he is god. He is literally everything within his expirience. But, if the expirience of that person ends, that infinity is gone. God is gone. 

...

6

I'm glad I found this thread. I had to create an account just to comment because everything you've expressed here has also been on my mind recently. I've been having a lot of doubts about how to interpret the experiences of people that have had an awakening experience. Many seem to come away from it with such strong certainties about the true nature of reality. That consciousness is fundamental. But let's suppose for a moment that actually, the classical material view is correct, and a physical world comes first, consciousness comes later. If that were the case, you could still have an absolute infinity experience. Because even then, all you can experience is mind.

Evolution made it so that you have a lot of filters over basic awareness so that you function in a way that improves your chances of survival. So it makes you think that all your senses are actually showing you true reality. Of course, we can learn this is not the case and through meditation or use of mind-altering substances, you can strip those layers away and feel it in your core that that is not the case. (The fact that a physical molecule has such an effect on mind should be a clue here.)

You remove programs, like ego and separation and you have an experience of being all there is. As you have expressed in multiple posts, that experience can still happen and have nothing to do with base reality.

That doesn't mean that consciousness can't be fundamental, maybe it is. But I think that it's almost axiomatically true, that you can never know for sure. 

I know this is kind of an old thread so I was wondering if you've had any new insights on this, or if you've read any good books or articles on the subject.

[RossE]

When you have a deep taste of truth, you'll know what's correct and what you can believe, what you know to be true, not through concepts, but through a deep intuition or wisdom that is beyond concept. You will not be able to speak it.

Conceptualising is unnecessary. Science and the rational mind will look somewhat ridiculous to you. 

I like that you're interested in such a topic but this level of analysis will hold you back, in my opinion.

[key]

On 28/02/2017 at 1:40 AM, Scholar said:

 I can't seem to get past this confusion.

I understand where you're coming from, and even though this thread is old(ish), your first post struck a cord, I thought the same once, and still do to a degree,

Your confusion seems stemmed from the belief that the mind & body exists, thus creates our isolated sensory experience, and is explainable for our conceptual life, identity, and enlightenment.

But entertain that your assumptions about the body are wrong, and that there is no physical self here to begin with, so everything you've built from that has been a lie, what could your life be like if you didn't believe there's such a thing as body & mind? 

The only thing we can know is that we can't truly know anything, even that. 

 

Edited April 7, 2017 by key