Emanyalpsid
Member-
Content count
442 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Emanyalpsid
-
-
21 minutes ago, Jack River said:@Emanyalpsid I responded back to you yesterday and you haven’t yet responded back. I was wondering if that was similar to as you see it.
21 hours ago, Emanyalpsid said:
Not quite right, knowledge can also be obtained through direct sensory perception. 'How' is just looking for a method ,or cause, and is the right question to ask yourself. By asking yourself how did my thoughts came to be, you will end up by the root cause of your ego.
However, asking yourself 'why' will force you into reasoning or the meaning of something, this will strenghten the ego as it will create more thoughts and spin a web of thoughts, which is the ego.
My reply was.
What I am saying is when looking for a way out of suffering by searching for answers In ideas/concepts or thought we are no matter the case implicitly strengthening self. This action seems to imply that we as self are different from that process of thought and “we” can control by applying thought content to solve a problem that’s exsit separate from “us”. It’s from the start trying to escape the illusion as if the problem is different from the one who wants to escape “it”. So as long as we see that looking for an answer out of a problem strengthens “me” then we will not try. So that is to escape what is the case. Understanding what is really means to embrace the relationship with the problem of what is, as it is, or not looking for an answer but willing to observe the the fact as it is.
About the direct perception I agree. But this is a seeingthat is not limited to that lens of self. Its actually what faceless and robdl would talk about a lot. A seeing all supposedly different and distinct thoughts/actions/reactions as actually one movement in motion. Through this direct perception that is at its essence not of the response of thought there is an ability to see the whole of thought/self. As where usually thought only can see a small part of thought and chops away at those parts. This for example is limited to seeing through the concept.
Make sense?
This seems to be similar to what you said above. It’s directly realted to this insight/understanding/seeing that is beyond the limit of intellectual/conceptual understanding. It’s a holistic understanding.
What do you think, is there a similarity here?
Sorry mate, didnt see that. Yeah that is indeed similar to what I said. By asking 'why' you are looking for a reason and therefor you look into ideas/concepts, but that is the structure of the ego. See for more info chapter 5 conceptual thinking and chapter 10 the self.
-
31 minutes ago, non_nothing said:What has enlightenment added into your human experience /improved?
How did you know that you're enlightened?
What was your method/ practice if any? If none, what would you say as responsible for your trigger?
Describe you as before 6 months from you being enlightened?
What's the reason of human experience?
What would you say about human if you consider human as an invention?
1. It made me feel connected to reality more as I dont make a distinction between me and reality anymore and I dont hold onto it as something definite. I now flow better in it..
2. When I realized the dependent existence of it all, every desire to know it fell away as I realized there is nothing to be found or seen. Chapter 12. reality will help you here.
3. meditation, psychedelics (LSD, shrooms, but only in moderate quantities), reading, hearing, seeing, just observing in general. Although I must say my memory is very bad, I suffered from a cerebral hemorrhage from an accident when I was nine. So my brain probably grew more on the other parts of my brain. I am very sensitive.
4. I already had the feeling I was there as I already had dissolved the self. However there were some things I did not understood...so I kept searching.
5. The reason you give it.
6. irrelevant
-
To say; "I am enlightened," is a contradictio in terminis, however, I used it here as a reference to my state of consciousness.
Enlightenment, as dubbed by Buddhism, means something totally different as enlightenment used by most people in the west. Your meaning of the word depends upon your interpretation, or experience, what it is. So, if you're not enlightened you can not make the judgement if someone is enlightened or not as you don't really know what to judge. How do you know if you are enlightened? Well that depends upon your interpretation.
The common interpretation in the west of the concept enlightenment is non-self. The realization that you are not separate from your environment as you are only consciousness of reality and not something separate from this.
The concept of enlightenment in Buddhism goes further though and means insight into the nature of reality as a whole and not only the self. Enlightenment in buddhism means; to dissolve. A short explanation of what this means; this is the realization that reality does not exist upon itself, but that it is of dependent origination. Therefore, its essence is empty. A flower is dependent upon space, time, matter, gravity, etc., therefore, the flower does not exist upon itself.
Your consciousness is also from dependent origin as you need eyes and hands to see and feel the flower. Without consciousness there would be no reality, they came mutually dependent into existence. Therefore, it is not really perceived as what is perceived is being perceived through it. Therefore ,it doesn't need to know itself, as it knows, that itself came into existence through itself. Itself will dissolve. Itself is the ego of it, or the believe, out of ignorance that reality exists upon itself. Itself is what you are left with if the self dissolves. If you see through this you reached Nirvana.
Now, you will probably not understand this at first, but lets hope you will.
So what am I enlightened from, you might ask? fear, the desire for meaning, the chain of thoughts, desire to have a grip, dissatisfaction, egocentric emotions, frustrations due to a worldview that does not correspond with reality. Do I not experience them at all? No, but If they arise I do not suffer from them. To make this clear I will use a famous buddhist text;
A monk sees his mentor crying besides a grave.
The monk is thunderstruck and walks up to his mentor and asks; "Why are you crying?! I thought you learned us to not experience emotions?!"
The mentor replies; "I am crying because I feel sad. "
You see, it is not about denying emotions or thought, it is about understanding them. And with understanding them I mean a transcedental understanding as a direct insight into the nature of reality. If one realizes the emotions and thoughts have a cause and you realize this cause, you dont really suffer from them as you know how they came to be. You are then also able to take the cause away.
How did it came to the point that I made this topic? I see in the other topic there is a great demand of teachers. Am I a teacher? You be the judge. Through questioning me you can question yourself. I will not give you a simple answer as you should think for yourself; you have to find the exit in the maze that is your mind.
I had a lot of trouble understanding the texts about buddhism and that was mainly because they are not written in a way that my western logical thinking mind could understand them. All the books I read about it were mainly just copied texts from other books or texts. So after gaining the insight into it all I decided to expand my notes into a text someone else could understand. To share this knowledge and to help people understand buddhism and themselves better. That is why I opened the website: http://www.foundationsofhumanlife.com It should serve as a guide for your mind to understand it all. So, you might want to read it first as most of your questions are probably answered there. But don't just believe what is written. Reflect upon it from your own experience. I am also interested to hear what is unclear or could be improved. As from my environment I have not had any real useful feedback.
Important note; if you start reading in chapter 13 instead of chapter 1, don't expect to understand what you read there. You can not understand a book or Buddhism if you skip to the last chapter and only read that. I understand your impatience though and I understand your assumption you can skip chapter 1 till 12 and still get it all. I was the same.
I can not answer questions like if I can unlock cities, etc. I am only consciousness, I can't do anything. So, therefore, to prevent a horseload of irrelevant questions in relation to the path, I ask you to not post them here. For the path they are irrelevant. English is not my mother language, so please forgive my mistakes.
Lets see where this goes..
-
15 minutes ago, winterknight said:It's fundamentally different. That was just a matter of augmenting the senses (that's what all scientific instruments do). Here, even if you knew the state of every atom in the universe, you'd still be faced with the same problem.
We're getting confused here.
Again, let's assume X sees binary for green -- because of what you call X's world model.
How would someone else, Y, a scientist, ever know this? You already said he couldn't. Because Y is within his world model.
If that's the case, how would Y ever explain that binary-for-green phenomenon in X, given the fact that Y cannot even know it's happening?
Well if Y asks X to point to an image which the rest defines as green, X would define this different. Or a different method; if Y asked X to draw what X thinks green is.
It is simple psychology this, not faultless because of the statistics, but we accept it as there is no alternative besides religion/ spirituality. Or in other words: believe which is not falsifiable.
Maybe I will open a topic after all. I enjoy spreading knowledge and it would be a almost a shame if I would not share it even more.
For the people reading: everything I write is also written down on this website: http://www.foundationsofhumanlife.com
-
2 minutes ago, winterknight said:Ok, if the scientist can't tell if someone is seeing binary for green, then how can he know how the brain connects to that experience?
The scientist cannot even know that it's happening. How can the scientist use the brain to explain it?
They will have trouble calling it consciousness as consciousness is what you are and not the concept you have of consciousness, so you can not define consciousness for you are consciousness. So scientists might be able to explain how consciousness works, they will not be able to relate it to consciousness. Because to see the results of a scientific experiment, to figure out if something is consciousness, is using consciousness (the seeing) to verify the evidence. So consciousness is looking for consciousness, but it will never find itself, as our perception is always changing, and therefore that what constitutes consciousness also.
So they might be able to find the chemical functioning of consciousness, it will never be consciousness itself. As consciousness is just perception; everything that you experience. The same as that the functioning of a car is not the car itself.
-
1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:How were scientists able to see microbes?
There is a big difference between psychology, what outer and winterknight are discussing and natural science. This is just a note for the readers.
-
4 minutes ago, winterknight said:Ok, but again: how would the scientist ever know whether someone else was seeing binary for green in their world model?
Statistics and comparing images. Science is not 100% accurate, but we know this and accept this as there is no alternative besides religion/spirituality. And with religion/spirituality I mean believing in something without it being falsible.
-
-
15 minutes ago, winterknight said:Yes, but can you answer my question? Could you tell if someone saw the color green as a binary number? As long as they called it green, would you ever be able to tell?
That is why they seperated psychology, or the cuckoo science, from the rest of science..
For those reading along with this pleasant discussion in which I take no part. Psychology is based upon self-awareness and came forth out of the philosopical works from Rene Descartes. That is the person who found himself in thought and created the whole Ego based society where we are living in. As his thoughts where given through over generations to our generation by the upbringing. So basically we are, or more you are, all in this mess because of his fine work and the focus of western philosophy on the 'why' question, in other words; the quest for meaning.
-
2 minutes ago, winterknight said:How do you know that their experience of the color green isn't radically different from yours? Say, for example, that they actually see some long binary number -- 111000011101101 -- whenever they see the color green. But they call it "green." Could you be sure that isn't the case?
That is why we invented science and statistics. In the old days someone who could not see colours would be some weird fucker. Now we know that it comes from a neural condition.
-
8 minutes ago, winterknight said:How do you know what color in the inner movie corresponds to the brain? Words, right? Don't they look at an fMRI and ask what the person is seeing? Suppose two people say they see "green." How do you know if their inner-movie experiences of the color green are the same?
Well, through language and images.
-
9 minutes ago, Outer said:I edited t he post, check the PDF instead, it explains the point at around p.10 and forward, that the brain creates colors out of the 3 different light the retina takes in.
Well to be exact, the retina only takes in electromagnetic waves reflected by the object you see. The eyes then processes these waves into colours, this however is steered by the brain through neurotransmitters. If the brain is damaged, your sight is damaged.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye
-
15 minutes ago, Outer said:You don't experience what you perceive. Red, blue and green light enters your eye and retina as three black and white images and then what you experience is the world model where there is color. So what you perceive is the same for everyone (red/blue/green light entering the retina) what the brain does is create color out of that in the world model for clear reasons. Like separating tiger fur from a green bush. That the world models are different is of course the case, for instance a schizophrenic has a different world model than you. That is due to the difference in brains.
Exactly, the same as with some people who's brain cannot process the lights and only see white, black and shades of grey. A neural condition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achromatopsia
It is all so simple and out there, but by overthinking everything you get lost in your own mind. (This is not directed to you Outer, but for the public)
-
25 minutes ago, Outer said:I'm talking about neuroscience, brains, hands, cars, these are consistent. Vague feelings about love or whatever can be seen in the brain anyway.
It was also impossible to figure out how life arises out of material processes, that it must be some magic "life force". Throughout history you know how ignorant we've been and still are. Your claim that dead matter cannot generate sentience is very up to debate. See for instance how you experience vision, feelings, hearing, and a bunch of senses in consciousness. It obviously has a function for the brain, and see how also what you feel or hear in consciousness changes depending on what you've experienced in the past. That is the brain updating depending on what it senses through consciousness, which is a sort of mechanism in the brain which maybe unifies or puts together a bunch of senses so you don't have to sense multiple things separately. During sleep you become unconscious the same as with anesthesia, sometimes more, sometimes less. The point is that you've now seen good arguments why the brain has something to do with consciousness. In the future I think we'll get closer and closer. I bet we'll even know what happens when consciousness knows itself in the brain. Maybe that's the Awakening (outside of DMN deactivation).
You have an open mind, you are getting there. If consciousness is aware it is generated in the brain, then this has major implications for Awakening. It means you dont want to wake up from a physical illusion to achieve a mental state or consciousness overarching it all, but that you want to wake up from a mental illusion that the physical world is an illusion and that is was somehow created by consciousness.
However, to experience reality you have to be conscious of it, so your experience of reality is dependent upon consciousness, but is reality itself also dependent upon you perceiving it? In other words: will there be a world for us without Outer?
-
1 hour ago, Outer said:Color isn't necessary, can you think of something else? It's so unlikely that everything isn't from material processes. It's not absolute knowledge, but it's likely to be the case.
What if science figures out exactly how consciousness is created by the brain? How will that change the work towards Awakening?
Maybe the Self is what we are when we are human, or any other conscious being for that. In fact I think it's likely it is like that. But that doesn't change much, as long as we're human or conscious we're the Self. You are human now so you are the Self because you are conscious.
Well science has almost figured this out, but they will have trouble calling it consciousness. As consciousness is what you are and not the concept you have of consciousness, so you can not define consciousness for you are consciousness. So scientists might be able to explain how consciousness works, they will not be able to relate it to consciousness. Because to see the results of a scientific experiment, to figure out if something is consciousness, is using consciousness (the seeing) to verify the evidence. So consciousness is looking for consciousness, but it will never find itself, as our perception is always changing, and therefore that what constitutes consciousness also.
So they might be able to find the chemical functioning of consciousness, it will never be consciousness itself. As consciousness is just perception; everything that you experience. The same as that the functioning of a car is not the car itself.
-
7 hours ago, graded24 said:Most earning livelihood methods would come invariably with two kinds of thoughts: competition and survival. Both are me-my-thoughts. They provide a kind of orientation to the person by organizing their 'to-do's in a hierarchy of priority and, perhaps more importantly, answering 'what should i do' questions on multiple scales, from their day to day activity to big career moves. It is very hard to orient oneself in a profession if one disregard me-thoughts. Can I orient myself with me-thoughts while simultaneously inquiring who these thoughts are arising to?
Relateable situation, I struggeled with this in the past. It is actually very simple. Don't focus on what you want, but on what you like. There is a difference between them as wanting something is holding on to something, liking something is just enjoying it. However, liking something could lead to wanting something. It is just a matter of being aware of this.
So; what do you like? could it be of help to others? and therefore maintain your survival?
In order to survive one has to think and act for himself a bit and how to spend your time on this beautiful earth. This does not mean you can not help others! Surviving by helping others is the ideal.
Or you have someone who does this for you..
Or you starve and your body will stop functioning and you cease to exist..
-
1 hour ago, Pouya said:A no self experienced happened lately and I experienced myself as everything that is happening right now. I wasn't percieving outside from inside but i was the outside. I don't think I realized the Truth or something because I feel deluded and lost tho.
No idea of me anymore but what is the experience that is happening doesnt make any sense. It seems like no matter Physical or mental (dream like), it is like more lies.
Congratulations, you dissolved the self. You see, there is no truth, that is only the believe and search of the ego. Your ego makes a seperation between your sensory perception and the subject, the self, through thought. So, if you don't think, you are enlightened from this seperation, and you perceive reality as it is without interference of the ego.
Don't feel deluded and lost, you lost your ego, but you are now part of everything, as everything you perceive is you. Although in the beginning this feels quite unusual, so I understand your feelings.
All words and thoughts are attemps of the ego to give meaning to itself. Word or thought = meaning.
Although this does not mean you should not think. There is a difference between practical thought to survive and looking for a truth.
-
17 minutes ago, Jack River said:When we ask how to we are looking to knowledge/memory to stop what memory/knowledge has sustained.
This is what causes suffering/conflict. Asking how to end self suffering by looking to answers in thought(asking others or looking for knowledge). It’s the self, being an accumulation of personal knowledge and memory) seeking answers by using that same movement of thought. So when the self seeks a way out by conforming to thought content it is really strengthening its own structure. To see that looking to thought strengthens the psychological me will end that pattern.
Not quite right, knowledge can also be obtained through direct sensory perception. 'How' is just looking for a method ,or cause, and is the right question to ask yourself. By asking yourself how did my thoughts came to be, you will end up by the root cause of your ego.
However, asking yourself 'why' will force you into reasoning or the meaning of something, this will strenghten the ego as it will create more thoughts and spin a web of thoughts, which is the ego.
-
1 minute ago, Jack River said:Fosho. But is the pursuit of a breakthrough a response of thought which is the same mechanism that thinks, theorizes, and is motivated by the fantasy of that breakthrough?
Yes just as the believe in enlightenment.
-
16 minutes ago, Dodo said:Enlightenment stereotypes be like... Facepalm! Emptiness is neither humble nor not humble. Enjoy your life and drop this heavy stuff... This forum has become too heavy. There was a time where we shared love to each other - what is important.
Well as the consciousness from the people on this forum keeps growing as that is what this forum is about, the people who don't really want to grow further will be left behind. Love in the real word, this forum is for growing mentally. I can say sweet things to you, but they will not help you grow. I still love you though, now even more then ever, but I don't mention it anymore. Our love has grown beyond words.
-
What is the difference between lack of trust and the doubt in one's own ability to judge?
-
Enlightenment as dubbed by Buddhism means something totally different as enlightenment used by people in the west. As Joseph Manor stated rather eloquently, your meaning of the word depends upon your interpretation or experience what it is.
So if you're not enlightened you can not make the judgement if someone is enlightened or not as you don't really know what to judge. How do you know if you are enlightened? Well that depends upon your interpretation.
The common interpretation in the west of the concept enlightenment is non-self. The realization that you are not separate from your environment as you are only consciousness of reality and not something separate from this.
The concept of enlightenment in Buddhism goes much further though and means insight into the nature of reality as a whole and not only the self. Reality does not exist upon itself but is of dependent origination, therefore it's essence is empty. As a flower is dependent upon space, time, matter, gravity, etc. Your consciousness is also from dependent origin as you need eyes and hands to see and feel the flower. Without consciousness there would be no reality, they came mutually dependent into existence. Therefore it is not really perceived as what is perceived is being perceived through it. Therefore it doesn't want to know itself, as it knows that itself came into existence through itself. Itself will dissolve. Itself is the ego of it, or the believe, out of ignorance that reality exists upon itself. Itself is what you are left with if the self dissolves. If you see through this you reached Nirvana.
Why don't I open a topic like winterknight? Although it is very very generous what he is doing, it is also very inefficient and time consuming. It is like knowing how to raise kids and trying to raise all the kids by yourself by letting them ask you questions. You get childish questions. It is more efficient to teach the kindergarten teachers, so that they can reach the kids better.
The only problem with teaching the kindergarten teachers is that they are in the misconception that they already know everything so are not open for suggestions. So what is more effective? I don't know.
I am not a member of a Buddhist society as sadly the Buddhists in the country in which I live, Germany, don't know shit. Even the book, The Way Things Are, from Ole Nydahl, the person who brought Buddhist to Europe, is very vague. If he would have understood it better, he would have written it better.
Therefore I made this website http://www.foundationsofhumanlife.com to explain Buddhism, and here I mean all of it and not the shallow interpretation of it in the west, to Western thinking minds. It is easy to read and you can easily reflect upon the text. My writing style is provocative by choice. Because if you get provoced or agitated by my words that means your ego is responding. In real life I'm a very gentle and friendly person, at least that is what my girlfriend says.
Not a lot of people have the courage to read it as they will get agitated a lot, and feel a lot of doubt, because they are massively confronted with themselves and their convictions in a time space of 2 hours.
A lot of people, from my experience, who want to achieve enlightenment are unwilling to go the path which is uncomfortable. If things get unpleasant they will want to avoid it, that is the function of the ego.
So the teaching is out there for everyone to read and understand and it is easy to read and understand, but only a few have the courage to really go there. That is why only a few people really achieve it. That is also why I don't put more effort into this as the will to overcome the self has to come from the inside.
So what am I doing now? I am learning for my health advisor study as raffined carbohydrates (sugar and starch) and fabricated fetts destroying the health of everyone eating them without them knowing this to its full extent. As it takes 20 till 30 years for a disease to unfold. Eat plant-based food close to its natural source! Meat is unhealthy, although some people are better in digesting them as others. Raw food is the best and full grains (who are able to flower) are the most important. If you live in the USA it is very important for your health to eat organic food as a lot of food is genetically altered and they use more chemicals when they are spraying crops. The USA is a real fucked up country, pardon my words. Although with nutrition it is almost the same as with enlightenment, a lot of people believe they eat healthy. Misinformation is the cause of all this.
For people living in germany, or who are able to speak German, I can recommend https://gesundheitsberater.de. they have so much knowledge about nutrition there and are very gentle people.
Don't think I am arrogant, I just know what I am talking about, it is your ego who is offended by my knowledge.
I am very willing to answer serious questions, just PM me, I am humble and friendly person to person, but please read the website first cause 99% of your questions are probably answered there. So I am not really expecting questions, not while the website answers them all, but because nobody will read it. It is more pleasant to watch videos on YouTube from guys telling you sweet words that make you feel good.
For example, people who believe in free will are already provoced in the third alinea of the first chapter, where they probably think something in the sense of; no this is bullshit, I am the creator of my own thoughts. Whoever this I may be. Then they stop reading and go back to doing pleasant things or reading or hearing things that please their minds. Only the person with the perseverance and patience to really understand himself will read further and will learn, as how these thoughts are formed is explained later on. But first you have to learn how the ego is constructed to be able to understand how thoughts are formed.
You see, it not a question if someone is able to achieve enlightenment, it is a question if someone is really willing to know himself or not. That is why buddhism is a very disciplined teaching. There are no free rides here, although there are shortcuts to be made, they will not bring you there alone. You have to put the effort into it, which actually only means; an openness of mind. But that is easier said then done.
-
1 hour ago, Outer said:Why does it seem so difficult to awaken, I do the inquiry and it seems like I realize my true nature for a moment but it goes right back again, completely out of my control. I just become aware of consciousness and that the thought is in consciousness, but nothing happens, again I am the thought or the emotion or my vision as that's at least what the type of thought I have imply.
Because you are still convinced you are right in some way. You are afraid to let go of your beliefs as it is the only thing you have left. You have to let go of everything with which you identify.
You could be awakened in 2 hours from now if you would read the entire website http://www.foundationsofhumanlife.com
But you aren't going to are you? Because you believe that what it says on the website isn't true or that it does not apply to you because... (Fill it in). What you are going to fill in, is what is holding you back.
P.s. my words are meant to hurt, if you are agitated by them the more they apply to you. You will not get awakened by having people patting you on the back.
-
It is a believe system, just as spiral dynamics and any other model or religion. If you believe in it you will try to form experiences you perceive into the system. Like a placebo, just as with SP and any other religion. There is no objective evidence to support the system outside of ones own mind. It is a model which tries to explain a part of reality, just as with SD, by the interpretation of someone based upon his or her worldview. It stems from the ego's desire for meaning; trying to give meaning to experiences as if they exist upon themselves and there is someone who could give meaning to them. Outside of the voice in your head.
From a scientific point of view you can even prove it is utter bullshit as the gravity of the moon, as the nearest rock from the earth, doesn't even have the slightest pull on humans. The mass of humans is way to small, look up the details via Google. The moon only has a pull on Earth itself and the ocean (because it's mass is huge). So, planets further away then the moon have even less then zero effect on us.
*Probably in some time hereafter someone will come in and defend his or her believe in astrology with an argument not grounded in objective evidence.
Edit: there are some people who made a lot of money selling it to the gullible though.
And there are a lot of people happy in believing.
.gif.ee2ba265aea2eda7c3306a9b968a2f0a.gif)
in Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God
Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid
I read this word before, but never really cared to look for its meaning or to give it a meaning. But if it in common use means figuring out the self. What else is there to do?
Edit; In relation to the path of course. There are tons of other things to do besides that.