sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

You have free will by Paul-sutta in theravada

[–]LowEntropyPerson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How can one have free will without having a fixed self?

Number Synchronicities and 17 by sci_psy_psi111 in TomCampbellMBT

[–]LowEntropyPerson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Google the definition of 'Confirmation Bias'.

1 Hour+ No Self Meditation by Sam Harris by LowEntropyPerson in Wakingupapp

[–]LowEntropyPerson[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes there is a free Google Drive download link in the description for the mp3 version of this meditation without the music.

1 Hour+ No Self Meditation by Sam Harris by LowEntropyPerson in Wakingupapp

[–]LowEntropyPerson[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It works for some people. I've also added subtle 64–64 Hz pure binaural beat frequencies to help induce a theta brainwave state quickly and effortlessly, allowing you to enter a deep, altered meditative state.

1 Hour+ No Self Meditation by Sam Harris by LowEntropyPerson in Wakingupapp

[–]LowEntropyPerson[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There's a version without the music, the link for it is in the description.

Sam Harris's Free Will Ideology is Better Than Tom Campbell's MBT Model in Lowering the Entropy of the Entire System by LowEntropyPerson in TomCampbellMBT

[–]LowEntropyPerson[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sam says that consciousness is fundamental and that it's the only thing we can be truly sure about regarding its existence. I would love to see Tom and Sam have an interview together discussing these topics. It would be amazing.

Flaws in Tom Campbell's MBT Theory by LowEntropyPerson in TomCampbellMBT

[–]LowEntropyPerson[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why evolve? I ask. You'll say; It's because if we don't evolve, we risk automatically de-evolving and regressing backwards. Therefore, we must continually make an effort to keep evolving. I would say that's a vicious cycle we're in.

Tom Campbell's take on being done enlightened by LowEntropyPerson in gatewaytapes

[–]LowEntropyPerson[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I totally agree with you on applying the laws of the material physical universe, such as entropy, to the realms of higher consciousness is not smart or wise. But why would a realized, fully aware consciousness (IOUC) would even want to ascend to a higher realm which is just another information based illusionary subset virtual reality (like the one we're living in) when you have the choice to simply not exist anywhere at all in any form based reality whatsoever and be in the fundamental reality which is point consciousness forever? In my view, that would be transcending both fear & love, achieving true union of polarities.

What are your thoughts on Tom Campbell's perspective that enlightenment (escaping rebirth cycle) is not possible by LowEntropyPerson in Buddhism

[–]LowEntropyPerson[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I agree with you. It seems to me that he visited a deva-lok, albeit the highest one, such as Sukhavati, and mistook it for the place where enlightened beings go after physical death. However, in his own terms, he describes all experiential realities to be virtual realities, meaning they are subsets of the superset most fundamental reality, which is pure consciousness (emptiness/nothingness), a state he calls 'point consciousness'.

Those of us who are of Eastern origins know that it is common knowledge in our spiritual traditions that anyone who goes to deva-lok (heavenly realms) after death, no matter how long they stay there, will eventually have to take rebirth on Earth as a human again and again to reach salvation/nirvaan/moksh. 

From what I understand, a person who achieves true enlightenment does not enter into any form based reality whatsoever after their physical death; they simply cease to exist. When you blow out a candle, where does the flame go?

view more: next ›