Jg17

Member
  • Content count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jg17

  • Rank
    Newbie

Personal Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

433 profile views
  1. But zero is infinity ?
  2. @Consilience so I’m replying months later. Oops. But so you’re basically saying my experience is my universe and your experience is your universe and if you have a mahasamadhi then your universe will end and my universe/direct experience will continue as if nothing happened? If so, the same problem exists that I pointed out initially: according to the given definition of mahasamadhi, you’re supposed to take me - my universe/experience - with you. Not just your experience of me from your POV - as if you wake up from dreaming about me, ending the dream version of me while the real me lives on unaffected - but my POV from my POV too, and everything else.
  3. I don’t knowww Do you mean a human body cut in half lol? Well I was positing that consciousness is infinite, the substance of everything and omnipresent, and therefore not increased or decreased by any alterations/combinations of the structures which are constructed with it. It’s like when you take apart a Lego structure, there aren’t less bricks (although a higher-order construction has dematerialised, but it still exists in potential). So... one human has infinite, half a human has infinite. If you were meaning the difference in consciousness between a live and a dead human then I’m less confident. It’s like the comparison between the consciousness of a rock, a cat and a human. It’s common sense that a human is more conscious than a rock. We even say a rock has no consciousness. My POV was different in that consciousness is not an emergent property differentially possessed by these objects but that it’s what they both equally are made of, and that the obvious differences we see between them (that we normally think of as degrees of consciousness) - moving about, talking, sleeping - are in fact just differences of how the substance (consciousness) has been structured, like how I could put 100 Legos in a single-file vertical stack or I could make a 1:1 scale model of a car or something, and in both cases, despite differences in complexity (an emergent property), I’ve only ever used Lego blocks... but Leo has suggested otherwise and I’ll contemplate that Your point about balls sounds like atoms. But no, consciousness is infinite (not limited to any particular form) and equally sized balls/atoms are structures made of consciousness. They are one possibility within infinite consciousness. By “Legos” I was not meaning that reality is ultimately made up of many many many small irreducible blocks, although I can see obviously why you might think that. Hmm. Bad analogy perhaps. I was using it to mean that although the Lego constructions might be very different ( human vs ant) they are combinations of the one same essence. Again, I don’t know. I’m making this up as I go along.
  4. @Leo Gura so... isn’t that to say that consciousness is relative? The idea that consciousness is a spectrum is tripping me up. If a human has more of it than a cat then it isn’t the absolute undifferentiated substance of reality. A human doesn’t have more existence/reality than an ant despite having a more complex bodymind. I thought of consciousness as the Lego blocks out of which all forms are made, whether relatively simple ones like ants or complex ones like humans, and not something differentially distributed to entities (in the way that mass is). I thought the differences between ants and humans are not the degree to which they are forms in consciousness - they are equally images on the screen of consciousness/reality. The differences are biological essentially, which is like the differences in how you doodle two different cartoon characters on paper. One can be almost a small black dot and the other can be a 3D-looking person but they’re both equally on the page. Obviously I get what you’re pointing to re the “consciousness” of an ant, cat and human, but is consciousness that simple? A child basically knows that difference between an ant, cat and person. I’d have said they’re differences of body/mind. Have I confused myself about what consciousness is? I’ve seen your video about ‘what is consciousness’. Has your understanding changed since then or have I not grasped the video?
  5. What do you mean by limit of “consciousness” in this context? I don't think you mean it as the absolute because in my understanding consciousness as an absolute is basically Infinity and so is one with All, including the finite by definition. Consciousness as an absolute cannot increase/be limited (so as to determine love/morality in this context) except in so far as it does via relative forms. So I don’t think you mean the absolute. Limited/unlimited is a duality that must ultimately collapse but there’s still the problem because then all you’re saying is that a finite form increases and that this finite form is included in infinity (the category of All). That would be true by definition but it’s missing the key detail: the definition of the finite form that you’re talking about. For example, if the finite thing is the degree of inclusiveness of one’s sense of self - which I understand is the essence of the developmental models of morality you use - then it would be better to say so instead of “consciousness”? All things are consciousness but only your sense of self is your sense of self, as it’s a finite thing. It’s a kind of knowledge, a form that can come and go. So perhaps “understanding” or “knowledge” is actually a more accurate word than “consciousness” in this context. “Understanding of oneness” or something. I don’t know. I could be misunderstanding but to me it’s as if if I asked you what ingredient (finite thing, the object) to add to make a better cake (increased morality) and you said “consciousness” (the absolute). It’s true that whatever I am going to add will be part of infinity, but you haven’t defined the finite thing (ingredient) just by saying consciousness, and that’s what’s asked for.
  6. @Consilience @Consilience What is a universe? And then what is a mahasamadhi? I don’t know what it is. I’m trying to understand what people are saying it is. I’ve read the Wikipedia page.
  7. That is the point I’m getting at, that is the contradiction in the story. I quoted the story which said that “a guru in India later verified that the dude left his body and didn't simply die by suicide or overdose”. And so I ask how can there be a guru left to verify it if mahasamadhi brings the whole universe to an end? By definition, the story must be wrong unless, again, I’m misunderstanding. And if we agree that the story is wrong then we must extend this reasoning to all claims of mahasamadhi.
  8. To us Mahasamadhi is a concept, so regarding that concept of I am querying how it can simultaneously propose a) that the whole universe ends and b) that other people are left behind to verify the mahasamadhi. It must be a concept created by people who have not died and therefore have not directly verified it. The claim is that it amounts to the end of the universe and yet the universe has not ended, so it has never happened? Unless the universe restarts and knowledge of its previous ending can persist, or there is some way to know directly that Mahasamadhi exists without experiencing it, almost as if we have the theory for an atomic bomb but have never detonated.
  9. @Leo Gura You said “While I love the idea of being the first and greatest, I have read reports of a Western guy who attained mahasamadhi from LSD. He was actually meditating in a cave, did a bunch of LSD, and simply left his body for good. A guru in India later verified that the dude left his body and didn't simply die by suicide or overdose. If you believe the stories that is.” This seems illogical. I can appreciate it might be paradoxical but perhaps you can point me to a flaw in my perspective? Elsewhere you have described mahasamadhi as God - as the only being there is - ceasing to imagine the physical universe. If so then there should be no one else left behind to verify, no? Otherwise it is not the whole physical universe which is dissolving, but only one perspective of it, since others still exist to verify another’s mahasamadhi. I believe I heard you say that mahasamadhi means no one is left behind, you bring the whole reality with you. If I’m wrong then by solving the contradiction I might uncover and transcend some hidden assumption. Or maybe I’ve misunderstood something basic. I wonder if you might say something such as I am the only being and I am imagining others. Does that then mean in this universe there has never been a mahasamadhi - only hearsay of it - since i have not done it? It’s tricky stuff...
  10. I did a quick search on this forum and couldn’t find anyone talking about this. The aim is to have one million people in meditation simultaneously. I’m not sure about it myself but I dunno, thought some of you might be interested. more info: http://www.globalpeacemeditation.com/#
  11. I’ve had similar experiences and am in a similar situation. I don’t know if I’ve ever fully broken through. I’m not sure I even know what breaking through means. It’s puzzling because the consensus is that the tried and tested psychedelics pose no physiological danger when done sensibly. People do them all the time and even report experiencing death, yet obviously something of them comes back alive to tell the tale. I’ve heard that the “physical body” is actually a concept and that surrendering to what seems like physical death of the body while on a psychedelic is in fact only the death of this concept. It definitely doesn’t feel like the death of a concept but that doesn’t really prove anything. To be able to accept that experience (I.e. not call an ambulance) while one is convinced one is dying must mean one is literally willing to risk bodily death, which seems suicidal. But that isn’t what we are doing here. There seems to be a contradiction between using psychedelics for a positive purpose and yet also being ready to accept actual death. I am absolutely not suicidal and yet it seems that that’s what is required. All I have right now is speculation. I imagine that if I ever did feel suicidal then at that point I’d be willing to take the leap of faith. Right now I’m attached to my life - is this my problem? But then I’d actually be open committing suicide, so how on earth could that be deemed a superior state than my present “attachment”? I have to conclude that my theory is all messed up. The crux of the issue for me is, if I am using psychedelics to improve my life then why would I take a leap of faith into potential death, meaning that I might actually be committing suicide, which is not my intention when tripping. @Leo Gura How do you resolve this ??
  12. @Mulky You’re still creating a division between the manifest actions of form and consciousness, implying that consciousness is some different “pure, underlying, true reality”. Form = consciousness, as @Inliytened1 said. Consciousness is the substance of everything, including learning, understanding, creating etc. There are different forms/states of consciousness but it’s all consciousness. The world and all aspects of your personal experience are consciousness.
  13. How exactly do you mean consciousness doesn’t exist?
  14. “Consciousness just observes” is the typical subject/object duality. There’s ultimately no “this” here which watches “that” over there. It’s all observed yet there’s no separate observer. The observer is also an object. Or all objects are identical to the subject. (It can be formulated in different ways.) Notice that the thing which you’re calling the observer is itself observed.