12 replies to this topic

[SteampunkScientist]

sometimes you can't find your way back... and you never will, just like trying to go "home"... you only ever experienced it, when you didn't notice because you were it, you _were_ home. The gates? the front door? yeah, they were always with you, because they are you.

[Severian]

Annnnnd the other problem with storming the gates is that some doors, once open, can never be closed. 

[TVCasualty]

The further/deeper I've explored the more important the advice of the three wise monkeys has become (which are often depicted by chimpanzees in memes but whatever):

 

 

I've gotten the distinct impression that "Hell" is just a sudden awakening of universal empathy after a lifetime of being an asshole. The less assholiness we embody in life, the easier our own personal self-Judgment Day will be if some part of our awareness persists beyond its physical existence.

 

 

 

I thought about posting a thread called "Running Screaming From the Gates" a long time ago but can't remember if I actually ever did (post the thread, I mean. I've definitely run screaming from the gates a few times).

 

In any case the point was or was going to be that fleeing doesn't work; once you merely get too close to "the gates" (you know 'em when you see 'em),  the only way to avoid seeing too much would've been to not go looking in the first place. But if we don't go looking, we won't find the good parts, either. So it's another one of life's tricky balancing acts.

 

Safety, security, and comfort aren't necessarily our friends, and can easily become pathological obsessions. If that's what life was about then we'd have been better served staying in the womb, but here we are; it's way too late to go back now!  

 

Lucky for us "it's just a ride."

 

 

[Guy1298]

I wonder how close I've been to the gates and how much that's changed me. 

 

*More* Comfortable with the idea of dying. *More* Comfortable with the idea of being and knowing that I am not what I appear to be. 

Edited by Guy1298, 20 May 2022 - 06:37 PM.

[TVCasualty]

I'm at the point where I'm totally fine with being 'dead,' but the actual dying part of getting there is still really freaky and concerning.

 

But that's probably just my mind being uncomfortable with change, like how our birth was a profoundly traumatic moment of change that we as fetuses would probably have said "no thanks!" to if given the opportunity.

[SteampunkScientist]

Everything in quantum physics and cosmology point to one thing: the universe is a collection of infinities. Each of of us is a vast pattern, but no matter how vast, if it's a finite pattern, no matter how complex, it must as a matter of course, be repeated an infinite number of times in this universe.

Which kinda seems to say, from your own perspective, you and I have always been, and always will be.

[shiftingshadows]

....

 

I've gotten the distinct impression that "Hell" is just a sudden awakening of universal empathy after a lifetime of being an asshole. The less assholiness we embody in life, the easier our own personal self-Judgment Day will be if some part of our awareness persists beyond its physical existence.

 

I thought about posting a thread called "Running Screaming From the Gates" a long time ago but can't remember if I actually ever did (post the thread, I mean. I've definitely run screaming from the gates a few times).

...

Lucky for us "it's just a ride."

 

I've had my own nightmares, salvia 'entrapment', and depressions contemplating my past.

 

I wonder if possibly this aphorism, indicates the direction, in which this sort of samsara may be avoided?

 

"Enlightenment is not about,

the liberation of the self,

but is about,

liberation from the self"

 

if the word liberation is changed to perfection is in the first instance,

and freedom in the second we get:

 

"Enlightenment is not about,

the perfection of the self,

but is about,

liberation from the self"

 

or

 

"Enlightenment is not about,

the liberation of the self,

but is about,

liberation from [any sort of] self"

[TVCasualty]

We might just be self-measuring wave functions in an eternal state of collapse.

 

And I mean "measuring" in a quantum sense, which includes any form of physical interaction. The particular body we inhabit in this moment might not be relevant to who -or what- we "really" are.

 

We were born at this moment in history rather than in the distant past because everyone is always born "now" and always has been. Otherwise the chance that we'd be born during the peak (and possible end) of human cognitive and technological development (i.e., the present) seems to me to be astronomically low.

 

But here we are now, against all odds. So we've either won the most unlikely lottery in the Universe or else there's more to self-awareness than we think (so to speak). My money's on the latter.

 

I mean, I feel like I'm something more than just a bunch of transient memories made of words (or maybe transient words made of memories; hard to tell).

 

Once "I am," I can never not be. Even liberating ourselves from our conception of "self" just creates a new self that is still perceived as "I."

 

Non-existence is unimaginable to us, probably because oblivion-upon-death (the strict Materialist position) would mean all our thoughts would be erased as if they never happened, which is indistinguishable from never having existed at all. But here we are, right now, against all odds... unless of course the odds aren't really stacked against us to the degree we generally assume.

 

If strict Materialism is correct then we would only be illusions of ourselves, which leaves us right back where we started (self-aware but utterly baffled). But going around in circles (or spirals) does seem to be an accurate description of how many things work in this Universe, so this line of reasoning is compelling (a bit like Hofstadter's Strange Loop hypothesis of consciousness).

 

That said, Assembly Theory has been messing with my cosmological and transcendental speculations lately. For starters, the concept of "god" is either the ultimate example of A.T. or else is an example of its polar opposite, which is fascinating (to me anyway). It seems that either God can exist or Assembly Theory can be true, but not both unless there are "higher" assembly spaces than the Universe we can presently perceive. Which is possible, and feels likely.

[shiftingshadows]

....

 

I mean, I feel like I'm something more than just a bunch of transient memories made of words (or maybe transient words made of memories; hard to tell).

 

Once "I am," I can never not be. Even liberating ourselves from our conception of "self" just creates a new self that is still perceived as "I." ..

 

It seems to me a odd subject (non-self or no self), for me, to talk or write about; as long as I’m not impervious to pain, or always dettached from the arising of any negative emotions, temporary though they may be; as well as because probably a majority of those who have tripped, have probably at some point had some insights into the nature of ‘self’ or ‘the self’; then again my

speculations hurt no one.

 

One version of solving the mystery of ‘Self’, states that the issue is subtler than

its existence or non-existence.

It is claimed that the problem is not whether it exists or not,

but that our misunderstanding, lies in the fact that both

existence and non-existence, in our language are categories,

usually applied to solid objects - and that ‘the self’ is not a solid object,

or doesn’t have the qualities of one.

 

Rather it is said to be constantly arising & then dissolving and then 

re-arising, and so on, somewhat like a wave.

One explanation of this type. uses the metaphor of a light bulb,

whose light seems constant, but is actually flickering, due to alternating current,

passing thru it.

Another version, of this type, claims that when we meet a close friend, after a long time, and spontaneously rush to embrace, that at that moment our old self has died,

and that for a moment we are free (of concerns),

but we don’t notice that this is happening;

and that actually this arising & ceasing is the norm.

 

It has been said that:

1) ‘there is no way to enlightenment, enlightenment is the way.’

2) ‘Buddha obtained nothing from enlightenment, or nothing was ‘attained’ ‘

 

If all that is involved, is a shift in awareness,

1) from taking things personally

2) from identifying with beliefs, concepts, or pretty much any-Thing

 

Then what has been said (as regards enlightenment, above) seems to make some sort of sense.

 

Interestingly on youtube from 3 completely different approaches: ( meditation(1), the ‘flow’ state (2), (often found in sports), and split brain research (3), similar insights, may be found as to the nature of ‘self’ or ‘the self’ and on the other hand, the ‘non-self’, or ‘relative, contingent, egoic identification’.

 

So I defer from arguing in favor of my current opinions, and let these fascinating, smarter, & more dynamic people, share. Perhaps the split brain research is the most astounding, and Eckhart Tolle is always a delight, as his humor is so infectious. 

 

It may be worth noting that all 3 of these sources, are free of originating in either the Buddhist tradition, or drug / Entheogenic sacrament use.

 

(1) Meditation: Eckhart Tolle,   the power of the present moment

 

[Direct Link]

 

(2) How To Get Into The Flow State | Steven Kotler

 

[Direct Link]

 

(3) Michael Gazzaniga - The Interpreter

 

[Direct Link]

 

---------

 

similar ideas may also be found in books, for example, this one which I have just started (so far so good):

 

“No Self, No Problem: How Neuropsychology Is Catching Up to Buddhism”

 

according to amazon:

 

“Chris Niebauer earned his Ph.D. in cognitive neuropsychology at the University of Toledo, specializing in the differences between the left and right sides of the human brain. He is currently a professor at Slippery Rock University in Pennsylvania, where he teaches courses on consciousness, mindfulness, left- and right-brain differences, and artificial intelligence.

 

—————

 

While in grad school in the early 1990s, Chris Niebauer began to notice striking parallels between the latest discoveries in psychology, neuroscience, and the teachings of Buddhism, Taoism, and other schools of Eastern thought. When he presented his findings to a professor, his ideas were quickly dismissed as “pure coincidence, nothing more.”

 

Fast-forward 20 years later and Niebauer is a PhD and a tenured professor, and the Buddhist-neuroscience connection he found as a student is practically its own genre in the bookstore. But according to Niebauer, we are just beginning to understand the link between Eastern philosophy and the latest findings in psychology and neuroscience and what these assimilated ideas mean for the human experience.

 

In this groundbreaking book, Niebauer writes that the latest research in neuropsychology is now confirming a fundamental tenet of Buddhism, what is called Anatta, or the doctrine of “no self.” Niebauer writes that our sense of self, or what we commonly refer to as the ego, is an illusion created entirely by the left side of the brain. Niebauer is quick to point out that this doesn't mean that the self doesn't exist but rather that it does so in the same way that a mirage in the middle of the desert exists, as a thought rather than a thing. His conclusions have significant ramifications for much of modern psychological modalities, which he says are spending much of their time trying to fix something that isn’t there.

 

What makes this book unique is that Niebauer offers a series of exercises to allow the reader to experience this truth for him- or herself, as well as additional tools and practices to use after reading the book, all of which are designed to change the way we experience the world—a way that is based on being rather than thinking.”

 

 

 ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLRZVTT     Print length ‏ : ‎ 184 pages 

 

https://www.amazon.c...ooks,111&sr=1-2

Edited by shiftingshadows, 04 June 2022 - 02:01 PM.

[TVCasualty]

One explanation of this type. uses the metaphor of a light bulb,

whose light seems constant, but is actually flickering, due to alternating current,

passing thru it.

 

That's why my light is powered by direct current, which does not flicker.

 

I'll reply to some of the other points when I'm not a few glasses into the red wine. Work tomorrow is going to be rough, but so it goes.

[shiftingshadows]

The videos are long and so is this pdf, (25 pg) but if the topic interests one having the details
explained by an expert, in free downloadable print, means, one can take one's time,
highlight portions, and explore it it in easy chunks, if one feels like it.
I will re-read it myself, its been a long time since I read it.

The Not-self Strategy by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

https://accesstoinsi...elfstrategy.pdf

 

 

Short version here ( about 1 or 2 pages)

https://www.buddhist...-self-strategy/

 

------------

 

And in Barbara O'Brien's article she addresses exactly your point:

"And notice that when one says "I have no self," the sentence assumes a self that doesn't have a self."

 

https://www.learnrel...s-a-self-450190

Edited by shiftingshadows, 07 June 2022 - 02:12 PM.

[Guy1298]

So I'm pretty okay as I am nowadays. 

Regarding the "not-self" stuff, I chased the bliss and high for a long time that comes with diving into that. For sometime at least, I'd have called myself a "devotee of Ramana." Then, about a year ago, I looked at myself and thought, "I'm a bit fanatical about this... I'm not thinking clearly anymore." Then, I took a mushroom trip that finally did it for me. It brought me to the point where I decided to quit self-inquiry for good. 

For me, I've felt the bliss. I know, but I'm not concerned with holding on to it. Who am I to hold on to anything? Impermanence and the inessentiality of things is a solid fact. Yet... I'm quite beyond that... am I not? 

[shiftingshadows]

the last 2 paragraphs of the short version pdf would seem to sum up the matter

and within them just 3 phrases, the rest just explains the historical, and philosophical background,

and how the matter has confused many people:

 

"What all this points to, therefore, is that the not-self doctrine is essentially not a metaphysical position but a strategy—a way of looking at an aspect of phenomena as they actually occur—so that one can abandon any sense of identification or attachment to them. Once one goes fully beyond attachment, beyond all phenomena, one goes beyond the realm of what can be described. And as the Buddha says (see A IV 173 & S XXXV 117), it is pre­cisely the realm beyond description that is truly worth knowing.

 

The Buddha’s teachings take as their departure not a philosophical standpoint, but an experience: the Buddha’s own realization of liberation and how it comes about. From this point of view, the question of whether or not there is a self is irrelevant. The important question is how we can go about attaining that same liberation. The Buddha says that if you develop discernment through virtue and concentration and then focus it on the ‘not-selfness’ of things as they occur, you will get this result: unconditioned happiness. Once you attain that happiness, it doesn’t matter what you call it. This is not an abstract theory; it’s a challenge."

 

The  half hour Eckhart Tolle meditation video above, explains in practical everyday terms, both why and how, this understanding may be used; and he is much funnier than the Buddha, ever was ...IMO 

 

I happen to enjoy science, so there's also a video on split brain research by Michael Gazzaniga, with some fascinating results on how 'self' is affected by this strange procedure.

Edited by shiftingshadows, 09 June 2022 - 12:07 PM.