Well, then there are definately different forms of conciousness.

Only when you draw a distinction between your self and "it"*, but the self and "it" are the same thing. Consciousness only becomes an "it" when described by words, but seeing as it is not an object there are no different forms it can fall into.

*For example.....
"oh hello how are you? what have you been up to, i havent seen you for AGES!!"
"oh well, i'm fine, but i went from the triangle consciousness to the square consciousness a couple of days ago, ha haaa, it was all a bit MAAAD!!"

The triangle and the square could represent life and death but the consciousness remained the same, it was only the words that changed, the consciousness remained as consciousness.

Words and thoughts/concepts are what create different forms of consciousness, there are different things that we can describe that we experience within consciousness, but consciousness itself is one.

Words and formulas are not the heart of who we are, consciousness (God) is

NICE ONE!!
nn23

"you" are a figment of a brain. (as are all with "self awareness")

What do you mean by "you"???

Underlying all the different forms of consciousness is consciousness. It is That consciousness which is the entire universe which isnt the universe at all but consciousness.

The "brain" is a figment of self-awareness (as are all things)

No, I AM my ENTIRE brain, your brain IS you, it defines you in personality and what you are. Conciousness is simply the guide that shows the way. I am both my conciousness and my brain, since they are so insanely wound together. (im postulating a lot)

This is true, but you are also the self-awareness.

Without self-awareness how could we ever know we had a brain?

Point made

This abstract identity of "self" is an illusion, or hologram, which developed to serve a role in survival but it is not real.

Self-awareness is a tool, not a reality. Turn of the projector (brain) and no more "self-awareness".

As stated, you never have existed. There is no real you. "You" are a software function within a the brain. The brain can function without the "you" software, but the "you software" requires a brain to run. Another way of looking at it, "you" are virtual. to the virtual, in the virtual, it seems real, but is not. "You" are the illusion. "You" never did, and never will exist in a real way. Get over yourself.

rofl, nah dude, you get over ureself. Im starting to wonder just what u classify "existance" as. "A real way of existance"

I beg to differ. I say there is self-awareness reguardless of a brain. With a brain it is a different form of self-awareness. Also Self-awareness is the only reality as far as words go.



How do we know that the brain isnt a software function of the illusory "I"???



You say the "You" needs a brain. But without the "I" how can we know or prove there is a brain? I agree that the "I" and "you" is illusory but I say that the brain is a function of the Illusory "I" and that the "I" is not a by product of the brain.

The physical only exists because of the mental and not vice versa. We cant prove it otherwise. We say "I" have a brain. The brain doesnt say this but the "I". Without the "I" the brain is inert. You may argue that the brain is responsible to be able to say "I have a brain" but I have faith in the former. It is an act of "faith" either way.
"

IMO God is real. but i dont think any theist religions have got it right yet.
we havent got the capacity to understand. things interpreted as his/her/its messages are seen/heard through our filters of understanding.
im happy just enjoying the ride.

Well put. Yes esoteric and religious scriptures are just there to point the way. To truely know god you must experience it yourself (something I have done). All religions contain an element of truth to learn but all are liable to error.

Good post Gremlin.

Perhaps I should explain "get over yourself": i was refering to getting past a belief in the self, and thus the self-centred illusion.



Yes, we have disagreed before on this. I challenge you to step outside of the self-paradigm. (break out of the virtual-world that is "consciousness") yes... i think you can do it given your post history.



No, they are more self-elevating drivel. Sounds great, builds up that faux existance called consciousness, but that is about it.

Well where does the physical substance stop and the spiritual substance start?



Yes because consciousness is the only reality hence the build up.

hyper, I think the saying is and BNW i think you can apprectaite a quote "be of this world but not in it...

row row row your boat gently down the stream merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream and so are you.....

The grand illusion...


doc as always a delight to read your posts..I am biased you have a mind that is a beauty...

There is no illusion. Illusions by their very nature dont exist. How can there be an illusion?

You say "you" what do you mean by that?

why do think there is a "physical substance" and a "spiritual substance"?

consciousness is not the reality, it is the virtual world created by the brain.

If by god you mean an independent entity which exists, and is not only capable of manipulating, time, space , matter and energy, but "often" chooses to do so in order to affect the lives of individuals then yes "he" exists, and from the literary evidence has done so as least as long as mankind has been around.

I don't understand him or his motives, and I am pretty sure that he is seen through many eyes in different aspects, possibly through his own choice, and possibly because humans simply can't see him in his entire and natural form, or would not understand what they were seeing if they could.

I know he exists the same way I know my parents, my wife of 30 years, or my car exists. They, and he, physically interact with my world in ways which are measurable, and with effects that are observable by independent observers.

As I have said in many other posts. I and my wife would not be alive today without the direct intervention of god, both in the form of angels and in the direct manipulation of "natural" forces such as those mentioned above.

The only thing which suprises me is how few people have similar experiences, or perhaps in this modern age they do not recognise them, or are too afraid to admit to them. My experiences so much resemble the many historical experiences of miracles, that i now accept that many of these miracles were real and physical events, where god manipulated the forces at his command, to achieve goals that I am not certain of. Until they started happening to me, i just saw such stories as clever teaching tales, or moral allegories and parables.

And no I am not crazy, not even a little depressed, like so many people today, do not take any drugs, even alcohol; and many of the events had physical outcomes which were immediately verifiable by people other than myself. ie they were not hallucinations.

Please answer the question directly. Where does physical substance finish and spiritual substance start?

Is the brain made of physical or spiritual substance?

One person's belief is just as real as another's. Why is belief in the self wrong?



You believe this, does that make it true? Perhaps for you it does, but can that truth be applied for all others?



This red pill you offer, does it lead to a world of reality or just another illusion?



While I offer no opinion about what you say, is it [what you say] not just the same as the 'self-elevating drivel' you deprecate?

I'm not being antagonistic here, hyper. I'm simply curious as to why you would offer someone a chance to swap one illusion for another?

If you believe that God has intervened for the good in your life then this is your belief. You live a happy life simply by knowing where ur religious obligations are and therefore whether God is real or not its making your life better.

God hasn't intervened in mine as far as I can tell however, and until He does I'll continue to question him.

Yes, you should ALWAYS question God................its the only way you will ever get to understand anything about God


keep questioning God

What is your definition of spirituality? If I make an assumption based on your posts, the answer to that is there is no spiritual substance.



Good Questions Leo,

Belief in the self is not wrong. It serves its function well, in fact.

Correction, I don't believe anything. I understand the limits of humanity, and understand where and why things have gone. This in itself does not give the complete answer. Far from it. It highlights how little is understood. To break the barriers of illusion, one needs to dismiss belief and than challenge those beliefs as an impartial observer. The self-promoting is warming, encompassing. It is like a drug. People easily become addicted to it, and to the soothing words of the "mystics" that peddle it. The problem is that these mystics are merely so consumed by their own illusions, they can peddle it without thought of its limitations and falsehoods.

Why swap illusions? If you never wore shoes before and I gave you a pair, you might comment on how your feet feel in them. If I tell you tales to affirm that is how your feet should feel, this becomes the accepted norm, and extended upon. Now if I give you a different pair of shoes, you can come to see the parameters of the first pair in a different light. Man has been passing out the same pair of shoes for millenia. Somewhere during human evolution self-awareness developed as a product of social need (proposed). Man immediately became addicted to this concept of "self", and has remained so ever since, which has limited his further development. The challenge is to strip off this historical baggage and build from the ground up again, on your own. Whatever end result you arrive at, you will be more aware for having done this.

Interesting perspective, hyper. Why though, do you suggest that this perspective of yours is not a belief? It is your awareness that has lead you to these conclusions, through melding your studies of Eastern philosophies with human psychology I'd suspect, but your awareness is restricted by your own subjective experience and so what you may consider a limit others may not. They may not be wrong just as you may not also. Is not the subjective awareness of your perspective belief, regardless of the psychological terminology you may wrap it in?

Don't get me wrong, I am no subscriber to the 'mystical oneness' and 'illusion of reality' - I am an empiricist by nature and suspect quite strongly that the reality we are subject to is objective as well. Unprovable of course but it tallies with my experience far more than wishing this life was just an illusion. I don't totally discard the possibility of another existence outside that which we experience though and this is due to some past experiences of my own.

I understand your shoes analogy, however we are not talking about something we can objectively observe and experience. Our existence is totally subjective and changing the paradigm of your existence is only changing your subjective experience - how can this lead to objective awareness of progress?

I know the exact word game you are playing here. Yes in another way of using words and concepts there is no spiritual or physical. There is nothing including a virtual reality created by our brain. There just 'is' but even this fails as a description. But like I have told you in other posts I use words and dualism because it is the only way I can express myself on the subject. Just like you do in the exact same fashion use dualistic concepts and thoughts to explain your non-dualistic concept. And I have never on one post ever tried to claim I am enlightened or anything.





Yes you do. You believe in not believing anything.



You too by making that claim can be accused of being consumed in your illusion. So the mystics are wrong but you are right because "you" understand where and why things have gone? Im not being nasty but just outlining that you in putting the mystics down leave yourself open to the same mistake.



But the Gurus and mystics teach just this. They say that reality is within and to get rid of the self or "I-consciouness" we identify with. Lao Tzu was a mystic or a sage and taught this.

*sigh* its so hard to discern to which side to go on "There IS something after death" or "There is nothing after death." A question I feel i need answered however is HOW exactly is life an illusion?



This is true, but still I've found that people who believe in God general have a HAPPIER life than those who do. So in sense it is a good drug? I don't know a lot about the mystics myself. They do have very deep words of wisdom i feel however and obviously have dedicated their whole lives to understanding life and its different aspects. Not to atleast hear their words would be foolish.

This is true, I believe a person HAS to swap shoes to see life from different angles. Otherwise you might find you become extremely narrow minded. When I was younger, like 7, I used to go to church every Sunday, religiously served God, I scoffed at other religions and was convinced that God was my saviour simply by the way I was brought up. However I saw how firmly other people believed in their religions, just as I did mine, and started questioning just what is the truth. My approach now is to just stay as open minded as possible :\.

It is impossible to define consciousness with words because the nature of language requires that all sentences are made of verbs and nouns, creating a dualism between an object and a subject, but if consciousness does not have these because it is non dual then it is naturally impossible to define.

Many people regard this as evidence for its impossibility, but they do not realise that the paradox comes from limitations in language and not potentiality.




And to what purpose does dismissing and challenging anything observed serve within the state of being impartial pray tell me?


This is a sad and negative view which you have thought of here. I hope you feel better about it soon.


This is assuming that i want to put my feet in a box. You would have to convince me of this. If i was self aware, it is likely i would be uninterested in all the desirabilities that wearing shoes would offer me and would probably invite you for tea and scones instead.


Yes but the foot that is wearing them is where God can be found.

That aside, conformity and obediance is a little more complex than your analogy describes and so too is the culture to which you are catagorising it with. Not everybody responds in the way expected.


Further development to what ends?


Which/Whos baggage? I wonder if anyone has ever tried this in the past?


I do not think there would be any more or less aware, you would simply be aware of something different but what remains the same always is who you are.

NICE ONE!!
nn23

Studies and experiences, experiences and studies. Still, even for having gone back to what I will call "first priniciples" and constructing my understanding (as a forward to what I will type to nn, without language), can I prove objectively its validity (if I could communicate it to you)? No. Now why is it not a belief? Because I can not draw on a second party to confirm or deny this understanding.

It is a true challenge to change your subjective experience and have it lead to objective awareness. A key part for my own understanding on this was facing my own death.



Could I be consumed by an illusion? It could well happen. The only method to breaking this entrapment I have found is full detachment. This is what I would say has its own perils, not the least of which is coming back.

I beleive in not believing anything. Not so much as I don't extend belief beyond that which can be verified. Since we are limited in our abilities, I place limits on what I accept (hence I don't "believe" in things, but rather accept within restriction...)

I sometimes get harsh with my words, the purpose being to stimulate thought. I don't completely dismiss the writings of "philosophers", but as said above, I only accept with restriction (in this case, the restriction being "it works well within its own virtual space")



Those that believe in god are happier? An interesting observation. Happiness is what we make of it. If you are told a method to happiness, "what happiness is", and given the methods, and the feedback to having "that" happiness, it will be found.



thank you nn,

Language is very, very limiting. It is especially hard to translate non-linear concepts through the linear format of language. I am glad you mentioned language. It is something I have discussed many times (although as far as I recall not on this board).

Dismissing everything on a quest for discovery is important because otherwise you are starting off with the "baggage" of your past (and thus the baggage of your ancestrial past). There is so much we carry, and use it as a foundation, we may not even recognize how this baggage is influencing us.

Now why do you think I am being negative?

People are "complicted idiots" (don't take that as an insult towards anybody or anything). The only thing stopping effiecent prediction is understanding of enough of the variables.

Development to what ends? I can not tell you what the next stage of human development could be. I am not an oracle. (cues brave to give various quotes on the next stage of human development )

"Everything has been tried in the past"..... the difficulty is not with the individuals that try things, but the preparedness of their culture to understand and accept. Things move not just because of discovery, but because of discovery and it melding with those introduced to it. (timing is everything).

HA HAAA EXCELLENT POINT!!! i shall get back to you on the rest later

Full detachment? Well Buddha, Jesus, Hare Krishna, Sri Ramana Maharshi, Lao Tzu, Chuang tzu, William Law, Eckhart and basicly all mystics and sages of the past have said. It is one of the most advocated spiritual discplines ever.

Even confucious says the same thing: Perfect virtue is compassionate detachment.






I fully agree. I have found a mystic saying that sums up perfectly what you are saying:

The relinquishing of all views leads to emptiness
But if emptiness is the view, then have achieved nothing. --Nagarjuna

Or this by a Hindu mystic:

We must not only cut asunder the snare of the mind and the senses, but flee also from the snare of the thinker, the snare of the theologian and the church builder, the meshes of the Word and bondage of Idea. All these are within us waiting to wall in the spirit with form; but we must always go beyond, always renounce the lesser for the greater, the finite for the infinite; we must be prepared to proceed from illumination to illumination, from experience to experience, from soul state to soul state. . . .Nor must we attach ourselves even to the truth we hold most securely, for they are but forms and expressions of the ineffable who refuses to limit itself to any form or expression."

---Sri Aurobindu Ghose



And much stimulation you cause



Alot of what you have said is the same as what alot of the mystics have been saying for thousands of years.

True happiness is the absence of striving for happiness. But Psiseeker made a decent point. Not everyone is born as abstract minded and as intelligent as you. People with a genuine faith are happier because faith enhances one's spirituality and gives independent peace of mind.

As Boethius explains: Temporal possesions, honor, fame, pleasure and power are inadequate and disappointing goals; only the happiness that comes from loving God cannot be taken away by misfortune.

Or this by the same person: True Happiness is found in pursuit of the highest good, which is God.

Basically faith helps us become more mentally detached from the world which leads to happiness. You said full detachment leads to happiness or ridding yourself of entrapment yourself.

Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed. --Alexander Pope

Faith ultimately leads one to detachment which results in happiness.

Agreed. My view is that like enlightenment, it is something that occurs rather than something that is found (and is something never found when searched for). It is spontanious and in the moment, without thought.

Kinda like finding your car keys.

Yes, I agree with this. Perhaps the desire to dismiss is a baggage unto itself.

Yes, it was my thinking that caused me to assume this was a negative view. If it satisfies you to view mysticism this way then so be it

mmm, maybe...
But perhaps the only thing "stopping" understanding is people who complicate reality with their catagorisations of variables and their judgments within predictions.

Just a quickie on the first quote. I do not believe it is possible to become addicted to something that you are never without. The addiction would reside in the desire for awareness of self, not the "self" itself.

If you are unaware of the ends, then how is it that you can deduce any objective views on the limitations that may obstruct mans further development?

Following on from my quickie, if it is desire that creates these limitations upon mans further development, then the desire for development in itself could be seen to be a limitation.


They perpetuate each other. I see no difficulty, conflict is required for discovery to be desired. It is the individuals that do not accept things that become the individuals that try things new.



NICE ONE!
nn23

Kinda like rev r finding his brain. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Just kidding man. I didnt mean that!

form is empty, skull is form, skull is empty.

Agree with this, hyper



...only to find you left the headlamps on overnight...

perhaps it is, if it is only desire. there is truth to the idea of eschewing everything you hold true and if you find your way back to it (by exploration, not desperation), then it truly holds merit.


Perhaps the negativity lies in the connotations of the language used?



categories are just aids. Is there anything to really predict? Think of it this way, is there really a future? Like so much, it is our creation. A product of our brain's capacity.

This is where you reveal the dreamer and the idealist in me. I could say what I envision, but it is only a dream. Potential? Perhaps. Better or worse? No. Different, yet the same (the cumulated effect of human history would not be lost).



I think it is completely possible and real to be addicted to something you are never without. the addiction reveals itself in the fear of losing it.



That which does not move us forward holds us back.



Could desire for development be a limitation?

Yes. Think of all those that devote their lives to achieving what they think is some level of ascention. What is lost in such a focused persuit?

for me, i don't desire any particular development of humanity. I don't promote anything as a path or a destination. The idealist in me does see an altered state of awareness that is beyond "self". As I have suggested before though, it is something that "occurs when it occurs", and when/if enough people experience it, humanity will change.

People who generally 100% believe something are generally happier than others yes.

Everyone believes in something.................this is fact....and when I say something, I mean anything, not just God, so yea you are right

who is calling them gurus and sages Bravey..

The Illusory 'I' I identify with.

well now your getting it... exactly it is you who is labeling these ideas....

I'm not sure that its a matter of abstainance, more the recognition of reality sets everything free, this is territory that can not be properly qualified with words, they simply describe an understanding but do not define the reality.

Yeah, it was all judgments and predictions

yes, EXSsunckly . All the catagorisation and predictive assumptions we make are just thoughts which mask the true self.

Sounds good, would love to hear more...

Yes, but you have left out the context to which my statement applied.

That which does not move us forward... does not move us forward.

Everything outside of that which is focused upon.

All thought is limited by its duality.


mmmm, an altered state of awareness? sounds interesting, i'd love to hear about it... NICE ONE hyper

nn23

Since I don't ever talk to you, and I've got an entire day off to myself to hang out here and leisurely talk, may I ask what enlightenment is to you? I am curious about what you think. I see you talk about it often (but not often enough to piece together the whole idea that you use), and since I don't know the basic premise of the definition of it for you, I don't really pursue conversation with you, but I'd like to know now. Thanks.

You snuck a vacation WOW how to you swindle that on Heather ? LMAO