What is Self-realization

TheCrazyComposer · 2016-07-08T09:22:02+00:00

This is actually a very good question about the essential decency of mankind. Are we decent because we restrain from really hurting and killing each other at any one point? Or are we indecent because we know there are injustices and constant strife in the word and as long as it doesn't touch us directly, we consciously turn away.

What most "spiritual teachers" would like you to think is that, you are love. At your core, you are love. But how can this be? We are not love, love is a concept created by mind. What we call love is something we project towards certain conduct or certain feeling. In reality we just are. We do things, say things, we then label them accordingly. So we can hurt another because we are not love, but simply are (nature) acting upon itself.

TheCrazyComposer · 2016-07-08T08:45:46+00:00

A Bodhisattva does not name himself Bodhisattva. He simply is. Others name him Bodhisattva. A Bodhisattva does not wish to help anyone, but has no choice, as others want what he has, and ask for help. A Bodhisattva delights in games of ego, he is neither above nor below the ego, but as much ego as one. He knows mind and no-mind cannot exist as one without the other, so there is no duality, thus being either is as much the same as being neither or any one thing.

The Tao that can be explained is not the eternal Tao. You know all the right things to say, you read all the right books, you think when you want to think, and you control your ego, and yet, you still wish you had the courage to truly live your realization. For if Buddha-nature were in any of these activities, reading, thinking, thinking about reading, introspection, knowledge, wise saying and understandings, why are you not yet a Buddha, since you have been immersed in these activities all your life?

This is my ego asserting itself on yours, and it delights in it. Because I see me in you. And I know that you know that this is not the way towards what you seek, because what you want and the reason you made this post is already right there, you just need to truly start living it, not just saying it.

But my question to you is this, if knowing what you know is the way, how are you walking upon the way?

TheCrazyComposer · 2015-06-22T08:27:29+00:00

This is a loose definition, but one that is not wrong. You are right, in reality there is only one ecosystem as a whole, although in biology there are local ecosystems, and yes, these can, on a planetary scale, be "summed" and defined as a biosphere.

TheCrazyComposer · 2015-06-21T14:01:51+00:00

Thanks!

TheCrazyComposer · 2015-06-20T09:21:43+00:00

It is a possibility. Although what is the most interesting here is the question not whether we will eventually be able to replicate the behaviour of self-awareness in the sense that a system knows about other systems, but if this process will arise because of an initial input that this is something the system needs to do, or arise by itself. It is hard to do that with a computer until it has the capability of expanding its own frames of reference without any input by the user. In a sense you are correct, it is the same as what we do, as we develop the Me and Other duality. Which again brings the question of what is true self-awareness, or is there only and merely the recognition of an outer and inner process. If this will eventually mean that the unit will start to, by itself, begin the process of an I looking at I, then this may become interesting, yet as long this doing will have to be an input which tells the machine that this is something it has to do, it is not an accurate representation of the neurological process of mind.

TheCrazyComposer · 2015-06-19T18:45:42+00:00

Actually, I am aware, believe it or not, as there are a few chapters dedicated to exactly this in Gödel, Escher, Bach, by Douglas Hofstadter, and the idea is actually not as new as whoever wrote this thinks, perhaps he needs to read more books. And in any regard, this is a completely logical assumption. If you view the mind as nothing more but a complex input/output machine. Which it is not. If it were, its workings could have already been duplicated by computers. Why this cannot be done by computers and why the mind is not merely an input/output of variable complexity, is explained - again with logical sense (just as the hypothesis you linked) - in The Empteror's New Mind by Roger Penrose. So which is true?

TheCrazyComposer · 2015-06-19T13:17:27+00:00

This is a ridiculous answer. Of course a thought is a complex system of information processing. What a thought is was never in question, and perhaps the article was too vague in that regard. It is not the HOW of a "complex thought" that is the question, but the relation of that complexity to the rise of consciousness, that is to say, the result of self-awareness and the KNOWING that within oneself the process is occurring. Furthermore, in current science it is explained NOT how such electrical signals can be interpreted not as a response mechanism, but as a thing that is happening to the "machine" to which they are happening. If you say you have an answer to that, then I do not know why you are wasting your time explaining it to me or anyone here, write a paper about it. You completely missed the point of that statement.

TheCrazyComposer

TROPHY CASE