LastThursday

@Jacobsrw that's interesting. I use a combination of both open and closed whilst entering meditation. I find this is quite effective at calming the monkey mind. My method is to close my eyes and not focus on anything in particular. If I notice myself drifting off into fantasy or monkey mind, I open my eyes and just notice my surroundings. This seems to shut off the fantasy for a while and there's a stillness. If it starts to come back, I close my eyes and begin the cycle again. I noticed at first this can actually feel quite unpleasant, because it feels like an interruption to the flow of the meditation. But I now find it quite effective to get my mind to go into nothingness fairly quickly.

Oh go on then, I’ll take you on. Warning: deep deception and circularity follows… I’m taking this on from cold, not ever having really thought too deeply about it, so what follows is a bit of a stream of consciousness ramble and a genuine from ‘first principles’ type of thought process. What is Mind? I think to have any chance of answering any of your questions I need to start with which definition of ‘mind’ I’m going to use (question 2 first). Firstly, I’m going to divide the world ‘out there’ from the world ‘in here’ and have an ‘interface’ between the two. Both ‘out there’ and ‘in here’ and the ‘interface’ belong to the entirety of the things I am conscious of. The world of ‘out there’ is the set of happenings which are either: autonomous (things I have no direct influence over or happen of their own accord), semi-autonomous happenings (things I can set in motion, but then continue to have a life of their own without further influence from me), and consistently spontaneous happenings (things that appear without my conscious effort, but are consistent with other autonomous happenings) and lastly, are vastly parallel (a very large set of consistent, simultaneous, interlocked happenings). The world of ‘in here’ is the set of happenings which are either: transient (they persist for a short period only), inconsistently spontaneous happenings (are not causally related to other happenings), are closed to the world ‘out there’ (do not influence the world ‘out there’ in a direct fashion if at all), and lastly are restrictedly non-parallel (the happenings are sparse and only loosely interlocked, if at all, and happen largely sequentially). The ‘interface’ is the set of happenings where the world of ‘in here’ mixes (influences) with the world of ‘out there’. The world of ‘out there’ can be changed or guided or re-arranged by the world of ‘in here’ by the ‘interface’. The world of ‘out there’ can in turn influence and change the world of ‘in here’. The ‘interface’ belongs to both worlds and allows a bi-directional exchange of happenings. From here on I will call the world ‘in here’ the Mind. The world ‘out there’ is Physical Reality. The ‘interface’ is The Body. A ‘happening’ is simply something that consciousness is aware of and has a separateness from other ‘happenings’, in other words a happening has a unique set of attributes which sets it apart. I will call a ‘happening’ in the world of ‘in here’ a Thought. The Deceptive Mind Again we need a definition of ‘Deception’ to work with. Deception is deliberate ‘covering up’ or ‘hiding’ of Truth. Truth here, is the bare happening without further interpretation or judgement. Truth is the first instant that a new happening becomes apparent to consciousness. Since every happening either in Mind or Physical Reality or The Body is unique (if it wasn’t it wouldn’t be recognised as a separate happening), each happening in itself is always Truthful. How does the mind conspire to hide Truth? Despite Thought being largely sequential and inconsistently spontaneous, there is a special sub-class of Thought(s) that acts as a type of glue. This glue works by sticking together different Thoughts and making them ‘consistent’ and ‘persistent’ with each other. Consistency involves a kind of logic of relationship between two Thoughts where they share some commonality or common attributes. Persistency involves two Thoughts which are labelled as being the same or sharing a large number of common attributes. In other words these Glue Thoughts act as a kind of comparative logic between two otherwise acausal Thoughts. The Glue Thoughts are where Deception first arises. Since every Thought is unique they cannot be compared with each other - otherwise they would not be unique. When one Truth is equated with another Truth then this is a type of ‘pointing’ or ‘indirection’ or ‘misdirection’. This is the essence of the Deception. Not every Thought in the Mind is a deception but those that create a sense of causality and persistence are. One of the consequences of the ‘pointing’ of one Thought to another, is that it is possible to have a circularity of ‘pointing’ where each Glue Thought in turn creates a chain of causality which eventually arrives back at the original Thought. This will set up a self-sustaining chain of Thoughts which persist outside of Truth. The chain persists, but the original transient Thoughts are long gone – all Mind happenings being transient. The chain is composed of a Truthful set of transient Thoughts which point to other Thoughts, but the ‘pointing’ itself is wholly deceptive and hence so is the chain. There is a large interconnected web of chains of Thought which create a sense (more Thoughts) of causality and persistence, this is The Ego. As such The Ego is a Deception. But The Ego itself is composed of Truthful Thoughts (each taken individually). It is therefore The Ego that is the actor who is deceiving. The ‘you’ that The Ego is deceiving is therefore the Truth of each happening. It is not even possible to say that the happenings are being observed by the spark of consciousness, as this is itself a type of ‘pointing’ and hence a deception. A painting is no more than its brushstrokes.

I bet that electron is concious...

Age is just a number. A big fucking number: 45. Gulp.

I often think about my childhood. My early childhood was full of two different cultures, sunshine, always being outdoors with my younger sister, who was my best buddy, being adored for being the eldest grandchild, and for having insatiable curiosity about everything. My teenagehood was full of arguing and absent parents, unwanted responsibility, bullying at school, social awkwardness, loneliness, high introversion, lots and lots of TV, books, staying indoors and home computers! And what do you think I thought I missed the most? Being a teenager: that was the closest thing I could identify with, now. That is, until I went on holiday one time. I was in my late thirties. And I was with a bunch of friends. The setting was a huge converted barn in the middle of the French countryside. We drank wine, ate cheese. I ate sunflower seeds swinging gently in a hammock most days, sipping wine and reading. I discovered a beaten up old bike in a shed and re-learned to ride a bike and took it around most days for an hour or so and got lost. I would wake up before everyone else just as the sun was coming up and take a plunge in the freezing cold pool before doing some Tai Chi. I was also inexplicably struck by the beauty of a ruined old brick barn next to our lodgings. So much so, I just had an overwhelming desire to sketch it. The amazing sunsets and the warm stillness in the evenings nearly made me cry. It was then I realised what I had really been missing. I had been totally disconnected with the authentic, curious, adventurous, outdoor-loving me and with that sensation of just being for the sake of being, and the inherent beauty in the world, and a deep knowing that I was part of the world - the sensations I last had as a young kid.

Before every awakening there is confusion.

Then what is 'nothingness' other than a delusion of language?

@Shanmugam good article. Especially valid since we're using words on a forum to try and discuss the elephant of non-verbal direct awareness. Maybe all seven are true here?

I have to admit I've become super sceptical about things I don't directly experience - anything other than that is quite literally a story I tell myself. Anything to do with science is also quite literally 'a story'. Useful stories maybe, bit still stories; and I used to be a hard and fast materialist. But anyway, entanglement is a very specific thing between two identical particles of matter, which were born at the same instant. It has nothing at all to say about the subjective experience of thought. However, there is solid scientific evidence of 'mind over matter' (video here sound is crappy though). Also look up Benjamin Libet. My point is, who's to say that one person's thoughts/intent doesn't affect the free will of others? Maybe we're all thoroughly entangled? But it's still easier to use the power of speech, than the power of mind to 'entangle' others. As for magic, it is all around us, but our egos have a real downer on it.

I think that's murky territory. Mainly because it's impossible to treat thoughts as 'things' that can be compared to each other. Your thought about your friend is not their thought about you. What exactly would tie these two disparate thoughts together - especially if two different people are having them? One answer is that every thought comes with the baggage of context. The context is pinned on the pure thought after it's occurred. It is the context that is then used to compare thoughts. Where does the context come from? Previous experiences, memories and so on. In other words, there is no coincidence, it's 'made up' to suit the occasion. A completely different slant on it, is to take it probabilistically. Here's a thought experiment... Imagine there is an entity whose sole purpose is to generate thoughts. The thoughts are utterly random, but they come in succession one after the other. The entity has always existed and will continue existing forever. One day it gets lucky and has a succession of thoughts which are in some way correlated with each other, by pure chance. The lucky succession of thoughts lasts for 75 years, thought after thought after thought. Impossible? Not given an infinity of time. That lucky fluke is you. In reality the thoughts a not connected in any way with each other: the succession of correlated thoughts gives the illusion of a 'you' having these thoughts. Rather like the individual frames of a film giving the illusion of motion.

@Serotoninluv it is certainly powerful to question from where do thoughts originate (and where do they disappear to?). And then to question 'a choice'. After all it is just another thought and where did that arise from? And, the ego 'having control', is just another thought and on and on. Extending this, you realise that the ego itself is just a bunch of thoughts, that come from somewhere mysterious. I am inclined to think that thoughts are associated with memory, because there is a 'recognition' that happens when you have a thought. A thought is never without context of some sort, even if it's about a pink elephant say. I think generally the 'recognition' is confused by the ego as coming from itself. The 'recognition' is then conflated with the thought itself. You're right that the everyday definition of free will is that of being free to make a choice (by thinking about something) and that's probably the most useful one. But for me, it somehow feels/appears wrong to me to call a chain of thoughts without manifestation 'out there', free will. For example, if I have a thought about asking for a pay rise tomorrow, and then tomorrow I change my mind without uttering a word to anyone: have I really exercised free will? Or is it just that something has 'made me' change my mind over night? If you take my definition, then when I think of making a coffee, and I actually make one, there's no confusing that free will was exercised.

Of course. I was just illustrating that free will = thought + manifestation. Thought without outcome, cannot be free will, it is just thought. The outcomes are only relevant to 'free will'. You rightly point out that awakening has nothing to do with outcomes and by extension free will has nothing to do with awakening; it's simply a distraction on the path.

I feel you. My sympathies. I'm glad you made the better choice. I'm loath to give any sort of reply as it's only my ego speaking and your reply is marvellous. Anyway, to unpack my answer a bit, as I'm prone to being terse: 1. I'd like to turn into a goat... : Of course I can't. Free will, if it exists, is very (very) circumscribed, even if my ego wants outlandish things badly. 2. I'm going to make a coffee instead : At least I (the ego) have the illusion of choice. 3. I wonder what made me think of coffee? : Where did the thought originate? Isn't wholly dependent on a zillion bits of context, such as my upbringing, culture, emotions, addiction, in fact probably the whole of reality up until that point. The ego is ignorant and greedy and will take ownership for anything. 4. I'm chosing not to have coffee : Despite the ego reasserting itself, the outcome is that nothing happened, I neither turned into a goat or made a coffee. The free will was an illusion in this instance, because nothing came of it. Just thoughts, whirring round. 5. I'm not a robot zombie : The ego tries to console itself. The fact is we are all robot zombies, albeit very amazing ones. My view on it, is that it's ok throw the ego a bone and to pretend to have free will. But I realise it requires a certain level of conciousness to play that game and not get sucked back in.

I'd like to turn into a goat... Nope. That didn't work. Ok, let's try something easier. I'm going to make a coffee instead. Oh, I wonder what made me think of coffee? Was it that advert I just saw? Was it my addiction? I DO HAVE FREE WILL. I'm chosing not to have coffee, I'm not a robot zombie.

Which 'i' is that? Then listen to the other 'i'. It's clearly got it's head screwed on. Given the choice between a punch to the face or a kiss on the cheek, I know which one I would take.

By definition, nothing is what's left when you remove everything. So it is still something, but only relative to what's been removed. So in a dualistic sense, nothing is the ground for everything. In a non-dualistic sense, nothing is actually everything, because it's not possible to remove anything; removal is a process which fragments. So in a non-dualistic universe everything can come out of nothing, because they are in fact the same. In a dualistic universe, nothing is the ground of everything. Both are equally as pleasing.

Why not ground yourself in some personal rules to get past the frustration and allow yourself to grow? Here are some of mine: Lead by example not by instruction. Don't present a gift, if the receiver is not ready for it. If a person's actions make you 'feel' a certain way, that tells you more about yourself than it does about them. Change yourself first before you decide to change the world. Let the world get on with it, it's big enough and ugly enough to carry on all by itself.

The one that turned it around for me and made me realise I was a hypochrite. And very relevant to our Western orange societies today:

@fabriciom what you should aim for is full awareness of what the mind is. It's slippery to grasp, but the grasping is the problem. There are two sides to it. Firstly, the mind has a concept of itself which it calls 'the mind'. With this is makes up all sorts of stories and ideas about what it is and how it operates and how it should 'quieten itself' to be free of itself. This is the self referential aspect of it. It creates itself out of itself. It traps itself in itself. Secondly, is the real mind. This is the observance that the mind exists. In other words there is a 'thing' which is outside or beyond the mind that can observe the mind in action. The 'thing' is emphatically not the mind - the 'thing' is you in all your glory. But the mind exists nonetheless, i.e. it is real. If you want a metaphor it's like this: Imagine you are riding the subway in a big city. You undestand the layout of the lines, where to change, and you can read all the station names. It is no effort at all to travel around it. You are part of it and it is part of you. You don't understand how it could be any different. You try by standing still on a platform and closing your eyes and hoping that it 'goes away' and that you can finally reveal the real you. Then you are suddenly transported to another big city in a different country on a different subway. You don't understand a damn thing, you can't read the local language, you don't know the layout, you can't get around. But you finally realise what a 'subway' is and the fact that you've been trapped in one and that a subway is not part of you. Ok, it's a lame metaphor, but hopefully you get the idea.

@Primentex thoughts of suicide are just a distraction. Suffering comes in many forms, small and large, simple and complicated. But all mental suffering occurs because you want to force 'reality' to your will. And when 'reality' doesn't do what you want it to, you suffer. All distraction is just suffering in disguise; you distract yourself because you do not like reality and you do not like reality because it's not happening the way you want it to. Step away from the suicide. Step away from the distraction. Embrace reality as it is.

In my opinion everyone has ingenuity 'built in'. How else do you explain the fact that a baby learns to walk without being told or explicitly shown how to do it? The same with picking up language. It takes ingenuity to cordinate the movements of the rib cage, tongue, larynx, jaw, lips and other facial muscles - all without being told explictly how to do it. So how do you direct the ingenuity? One way is to have mastery of the field you want to be ingenious in. Not to be too cheesy, you have to learn to walk before you can run a marathon. You have to run many marathons before you can use your ingenuity - maybe you invent a new running style or way of breathing that nobody else thought of before. Another way is to constantly force yourself to think outside the box. To be a mismatcher - some people are natural at this, others not. But it can be learnt. This allows you to be free to make connections between things that are not normally connected to each other, i.e. ingenuity. Problem solving of any type is conducive to ingenuity. Build a problem solving habit! Lastly plain old inspiration. Kekule and his benzene dream, Einsten riding a beam of light, Newton and his apple. The stuff that plain comes out of nowhere.

Social situations have rules of engagement. These are mostly to aid smooth communication and non-hostile behaviour. Some of these rules are very subtle. Awkwardness occurs when one of the people in a conversation breaks a rule. For example take eye contact. If you don't make eye contact at all that is breaking a rule, as you should make eye contact with the person you are speaking to. If you don't, the other person may feel uncomfortable or awkard. On the other hand too much eye contact may be seen as aggression or sexual interest, which may be inappropriate for the situation - a rule is broken and again 'awkwardness'. Most people will naturally know how much eye contact is acceptible and thus avoid awkardness. Some people may not be so good at this and are seen as 'socially awkward'. Having good strategies is hard, there are very many rules to adhere to and you have to apply them in 'real time', there is generally no time to think in a flowing conversation. Your only two friends a practice and lots of it, and being very aware. But use any 'awkwardness' as a sign that you or the other person has broken a rule and learn from those mistakes.

It is a judgement you have to weigh. Is the suffering you are feeling by trying to get back into the group and not succeeding, worse than the suffering of not being in the group? The leader of the group may also want to maintain her control and power and status quo. She may perceive that having you there may make it more difficult for her to do that - whether that is right or wrong. Not getting closure can be a very difficult thing to manage. Usually we feel this intensely, with people, situation and things we are strongly emotionally attached to. Sometimes, what it takes is a line drawn in the sand and to say enough is enough it ends here. That can then allow you to start the grieving process and slowly come to terms with letting go of the emotional attachment. It may also help, but it's up to you, to carry out some sort of personal ceremony (something meaningful to you) at this point, so you can formally say 'goodbye', even if you can't do it in person. I can personally say that I have a number of people in my life who I will probably never see again, and who I didn't say 'goodbye' to. It can still hurt occasionally, but actually, they made me the man I am today, and for that I'm grateful.

I hasten to add. I love science and I love Enlightenment and I'm probably weird, but hey, I really don't care. People often blame themselves for not living up to a certain ideal. But who is setting that ideal? We get pressured from our friends and family to be a certain way, when your 'real self' doesn't match that. In time you will understand you can't read other people's minds and you should just give up doing that, because it wastes a lot of mental energy you can use for other things. Also you may eventually realise that you're telling yourself a story about being 'socially awkward', when in fact you are probably not at all. Your whole mind and body may be screaming 'socially awkward', but your mind and body (a.k.a ego) can lie to you. It sounds like you're on the right track and you will get to where you want to be. Keep learning about yourself. Keep up the good work.

Which people specifically (be honest)? Is being weird a problem for you? And do you think you'll ever find people to talk about science or Enlightenment with who won't think you're weird?