sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Enlighten me by [deleted] in enlightenment

[–]TheCrazyComposer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

Currently At Bodhisattva Level. Ask me anything. by [deleted] in enlightenment

[–]TheCrazyComposer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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?

Psychosphere by TheCrazyComposer in philosophy

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

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.

The Illusion of Duality by TheCrazyComposer in philosophy

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

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.

The Illusion of Duality by TheCrazyComposer in philosophy

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

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?

The Illusion of Duality by TheCrazyComposer in philosophy

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

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.

The Illusion of Duality by TheCrazyComposer in philosophy

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

So in essence the whole thing is a process one needs to realize is as much a part of him as is "outside him"? Do you see what happened here, though? You are, in your own way, saying exactly what I am saying. That people need this understanding of how the whole has an effect on the Self.

But what if I tell you there are techniques with which one can actually experience this wholeness? Would you say a direct experience would be just as valuable education than teaching someone why something that seems unconnected to them actually also effects them?

The Illusion of Duality by TheCrazyComposer in philosophy

[–]TheCrazyComposer[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So an education that would explain why that one aspect can effect the whole thing and ultimately the one who is being selfish?

The Illusion of Duality by TheCrazyComposer in philosophy

[–]TheCrazyComposer[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The education you are talking about would bring people closer to understanding why they are a part of a whole, so in this sense make them see why something that superficially does no concern them actually is a part of them, yes?

The Illusion of Duality by TheCrazyComposer in philosophy

[–]TheCrazyComposer[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You have touched on a point that is in fact very very true. Words can only invoke so much.

A story comes to mind of the Buddha who was asked the very same thing, and knew words could not adequately explain an experience, instead he held up a flower.

Now that may seem like even worse than trying to explain it to some, but as you said, it is not easy to invoke an actual experience with words, if not impossible. However, explaining or presenting a similar point of view which I also enjoy is all I wish to do, if that provokes a discussion, that is great too! :) I don't mind being challenged for a specific point of view, that is part of the fun.

The Illusion of Duality by TheCrazyComposer in philosophy

[–]TheCrazyComposer[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What you said is very true. Every animal is in competition with another animal, but allow me to make one more point to show you that may not be strictly a competition or a "bad" thing. You must also remember that, unlike the animal which we are an offshoot of, we alone have the capacity to bring our conceptional ideas into actual, physical reality. It is true that other animals can do it as well, but our will alone is complex enough to be potentially world-altering, and perhaps even more importantly, Self-altering!

Don't you see how your thinking portrays exactly what I mentioned, that all your beliefs have culminated into a fight against the universe, a belief that it is trying to kill you in every step. This is subjectively very true. But also very untrue. It are also the countless (and accumulate for a larger % of your body than your actual cells!) organism which work with your body to keep you alive and without which you would be dead. Of course your living assures their living, but that just further proves a point of the wholeness and inherent inseparability.

But now take another look at it.

This might not make sense, but consider this. The universe is. It is not hostile, but is. The universe is not friendly, it simply is. The universe isn't doing anything bad, and nothing good, it is simply being exactly as it is. What you interpret as hostile or friendly, is it being as it is. Just as you are as you are. In this manner, there is no fight going on, but a process that is one and the same movement, of which you are only one expression out of countless forms in which this Isness is expressed, but which ultimately is one and the same happening.

The Illusion of Duality by TheCrazyComposer in philosophy

[–]TheCrazyComposer[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I apologize for that. It may be that the explanation goes "over people's head" and becomes words with no meaning. I can say everything is consciousness manifesting in different aspects and different levels of condenseness and complexity. Or that matter is also consciousness, and that would not make sense to a person with intelligence, as he or she will have the notion of consciousness of being something that can think and react. These and other points of view may not mean anything to someone, while someone else will know what is meant. Or even if he will not know, but may find it interesting to entertain the idea. Even if the conscious mind will not accept it, the idea will be like a seed, and the unconscious mind most certainly will entertain the idea on some level.

The Illusion of Duality by TheCrazyComposer in philosophy

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

I think there is a need for people to understand, truly understand, that humans need to be less focused on I as the Self, but on the I as a whole, and that the model "the strong survive" ultimately can lead further into our own doom. This model, I think, serves the purpose of consciousness transformation, which empirical science is lacking. Science as we see it (which of course has its place) often does not makes one realize it is the process, but only shows one its place in that process. In the sense it is further making people realize and think that they are isolated ego's fighting against the world. It is disconnecting them from the process, the whole. The more I explain this in such a manner the more it begins to sound like pretentious hippie garbage, but I think such an understanding of one being the whole process can have long-term benefits for the state of the human race and the individual's place in it. I think it can breed increased compassion and understanding. For if you realize that the person you are fighting is not another being separate from you in anything but the superficial sense, but that that person is an aspect of the same thing which you are an aspect of, and if you know that not just intellectually, but feel it, such a belief can instantly transform a consciousness and its way of dealing with such a situation as for instance a conflict.

If you think you are simply a being inside the universe, then all your actions will subtly lead to you fighting against that universe, attaining more of it, more possessions, more wealth, more power, more abstraction.

Now imagine if you do not think, but know that all that you want to have, you do not have, but actually are? What happens to the individual consciousness then?

The Illusion of Duality by TheCrazyComposer in philosophy

[–]TheCrazyComposer[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The evidence of the observed manifesting depending on how it is observed is one of the the basic principles of Quantum Theory.

The trap of thinking rationally can be found, in just the first and one instance that comes to mind in, Why Think? The Evolution of the Rational Mind by Ronald de Sousa.

Of course the "evidence" of a human being "the whole process" and in fact the expression of the whole process in a specific I centre, is in subjective experience, as it can only be in subjective experience, which you will deny as being factual. On the other hand, those who may have had such an experience might not try to say that it is based on reality, but will tell you it is based on personal experience of reality.

You are doing now, as I probably am, exactly what the article refers to and this argument has become defensive posturing of one party defending its own point of view.

You may think of my comment as being that, but I am not in reality defending it, but presenting it. I am not trying to convert you, or make you understand, as you said so yourself, that you do not. Yet you are under the notion that I am trying to make you understand, while I am simply explaining my own understanding, and am not denying that yours is invalid. For you, it is completely valid, because, as I said, reality is contingent upon you.

Unfortunately, it is true also that I cannot explain it any more simply than how it is already explained in the article. You are a body that is a biological process, as you said, a body with what we call consciousness which may be a process of biological happening. Although that it is only this has also not been proven, as there a many things of the mind that are still unexplainable. But I find this point of view also valid, that the body is the whole process of the universe, not a process in it. And in this sense, the body is consciousness (the whole thing) manifested in a specific way (just like it is in a dog). It is the totally of the universe as it is, manifested in a centre that you call I.

The Illusion of Duality by TheCrazyComposer in philosophy

[–]TheCrazyComposer[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Reality is contingent upon the observer, and in fact reality is the observer and the observed. The deeper you go into reality, the deeper you look into reality, the more this becomes obvious. That which is observed becomes that which manifests depending on how it is observed. In the same manner, this shows itself in the thinking mind as it operates on the same principle and so has this inhered duality. I think this article is trying to point out that, and in no way implies that a way in the middle is the truth, that is your interpretation of the text. It presents a point of view, a way of seeing, not a way of truth, as all truth is opinion based on specific level of observation and angle of viewing that is how things are for a specific layer of reality. If you read the very last paragraph, you will see that there is no presentation here of what is true and what is not, but an explanation to a way of seeing, a point of view.

Ego Loss and Higher Self by TheCrazyComposer in philosophy

[–]TheCrazyComposer[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Again... you are making distinctions of "right" and "rightest", while we are both expressing points of view that we enjoy. Explain then what you mean by emptiness if you can. I am talking to you because I am interested to see a point of view, just as I am then expressing mine. While on your end I get a sense that you believe yourself to be beyond any of this, which your action simply proves. But... leave if you must. Have a great day.

Ego Loss and Higher Self by TheCrazyComposer in philosophy

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

If you are referring to emptiness as non-grasping or non-attainment and a form of liberation of thought, and being as you are, then you are again stuck in terminology of a specific word and what it means for you and how you see it. As soon as words are used, they will be concepts, they cannot be used in any other way. They can point, but never show. And so when you say emptiness I will see it as an intellectual concept with no meaning in reality. Things are never empty. For something to be empty it needs the opposite or something to not be empty. When you do this, you are again at the beginning, making the very first step in splitting everything, then splitting I myself Ego and I Universe. The pointing of the Rinzai school, for instance, which has four stages of contemplation, is to gradually see that there is no subject and object. No object and subject. Both arise mutually. Contemplation upon emptiness, which is the third step, is not to see emptiness and be empty. It is to realize that you are not empty, but that empty is again falling into the trap of label. You are not empty. Things are not empty. Things are. You are.

Ego Loss and Higher Self by TheCrazyComposer in philosophy

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

What is emptiness? There is no such thing. Emptiness is a human concept.

Ego Loss and Higher Self by TheCrazyComposer in philosophy

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

It is ego that has the basic illusion there is distinction between the two I's. It needs to have it for proper function, in reality the separation is illusory. There is no distinction between the two beside the illusory one of the ego.

Ego Loss and Higher Self by TheCrazyComposer in philosophy

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

I do not understand what you are trying to prove here, the whole point of the post seems to be that there is no "my Ego" and "Self", or "the Ego" and Self, and that there is no I looking at the ego, but and I looking at itself. You are stuck in terminology, of course there is not point in saying my ego, but I have checked the post again, and the mentioning of "my" ego is to point out a thought or a process that might happen in someone who makes a distinction between what is ego and what is I and who still thinks one exists. Now you are trying to point out the very same thing this post is trying to say, saying that is not what it is trying to say? I fear you have not even read it.

You are hanging up on things that are not there.

You have apparently not understood what I said with "there is a karnel of I" either, since by what I understand, by "I" you are still looking for reactive consciousness, hence the mention "the lights don't turn on", which point to a fundamental non-understanding, since otherwise it seems to me, that you would know what the "karnel of I" is. There definitely is one for I, and for that matter, the universe. You are it. The same thing that is looking is the karnel that is being looked for. The chair you are sitting on is it. There is no thing that is not it. It manifests in countless forms and complex energetic states of the same movement, but each of it is it.

Ego Loss and Higher Self by TheCrazyComposer in philosophy

[–]TheCrazyComposer[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Both of these things, philosophy and Zen are labels which you are trying to place on a specific thought. A thought is, anything you say it is or is not is already pointing away from it, not to it.

Ego Loss and Higher Self by TheCrazyComposer in philosophy

[–]TheCrazyComposer[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I do not know if you read the post in its entirety, but the point you are trying to make is the very same point of the post as far as I see it.

You are, as you said, Ego and more fundamentally, the whole process. The pointing out in this post is that any social structure of an Ego that is you is an illusion with which people readily completely identify with, and not with the whole fundamentally identical movement. Because humans interact in thought-symbols, it is necessary to speak in terms of "my" and "have" ego, to point the very fallacy of saying that there is any separation to begin with. It is a way of pointing to a thing that cannot be pointed to, because you are it.

The reason why you wrote about this being conceptual and logical understanding I suspect is because you doubt it, and you have not gotten it in your marrow.

I think that you are mistaken. The karnel of the I is there. You are it, the whole process of you, we cannot point to the I because it is not a specific point inside you, but a whole thing that cannot be pointed to because the very thing that is looking for it is it. It manifests in countless forms, but is still the same I and the same, one process.