Emanyalpsid

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    442

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Emanyalpsid

  2. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    Everything we experience points towards that consciousness is created by the brain; neural science, no consciousness when asleep (not dreaming) or unconscious, the innate behaviour (instinct) to preserve our body, change of consciousness if neurotransmitter activity changes, when taking psychedelics for example.

    There is no evidence or direct experience whatsoever, to support that there is a consciousness without a brain, besides you believing this.

    It is important, because if you deny that consciousness is created by the brain, you are going to ignore the signs your body and brain gives you, which could lead to unhealthy behaviour.

    Which could also inhibit your work towards enlightenment as being fully enlightened means to melt the body-mind duality. Meaning your mind melts with your body, you become a full human being. Without you being distracted by the mind, when it tries to create a distinction between your body and an experiencer (the self) out of not-knowing there is no separation between you and your body. You are just human.

    So, if you deny your body, you will never get fully enlightened.

    You see, this is where non-dualism is different from Buddhism. Non-dualists believe that consciousness exists upon itself, that it is the core of everything. So, basically they, rather literally, live in their head.

    Buddhists see that everything is non-dualistic, so there is not even a consciousness at the core. Consciousness arises together with, our perception of, reality. This however does not mean that reality is created by consciousness. There is so much evidence of earth and other planets being a lot older then humanity.

    But if you truly believe consciousness is not created by the brain, why not take it to the test and shoot a bullet through your brain to proof it. Guess you're not gonna huh?

  3. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    1 hour ago, Luka Tepic said:

    @FoxFoxFox  I agree but I don’t know if i would consider this enlightenment. Because simply understanding the illusions of our experience doesn’t get you enlightened. For example i do understand the nature of reality to a quite good degree but i would in no way consider myself enlightened because there are still some sticking points where i am stuck and are perventing me to fully embody nonduality. Enlightenment in my opinion is a complete transformation of your self and your experience.

    Maybe you like to read this website. It explains everything in detail. When you reflect upon what you read the transformation of your self and your experience will come.http://www.foundationsofhumanlife.com

  4. Posted

    6 hours ago, Jack River said:

    Watts was a most excellent dude. I’m not sure how correct his interpretation was of Buddhism, but beyond that It doesn’t matter. He was very very wise and had an outstanding intellectual capacity too. A double whammy ?

    What I heard seems correct, although I doubt that he got to the end of it. As I haven't heard him talk about the dependent nature of reality, only about the self. So he definitely transcended the self but I don't know if he transcended reality. 

    But he was more a philosophy entertainer and engaged in multiple philosophies.

  5. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    5 minutes ago, Jack River said:

    I can’t help anyone. They have to help themselves. That’s the point. Everything I say points to that. The more I help the more sustain there confusion..Self understanding dude.?

    Yeah thats also what buddhism points to. However there is a way to make the emptiness of essence clear through words, that is why I wrote the website. Hopefully it makes it easier for people to understand themselves. By reading it, they will be confronted with themself through themself. So I push them a bit you might say. Or better said, I take their hand.

  6. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    9 minutes ago, Jack River said:

    Thats what I meant too. I can’t get through, or communicate about this insight with anyone who hasn’t gone into the nature of self/thought. 

     

    I'm not going to repeat everything all over again. But I will say this and that will be the last of if from my end. You want to communicate something but you don't get that you will not able to know if someone understands it or not if you do not speak his language. Unless you speak to some tabula rasa who never heard anything before and had no previous thought at all or someone who just blindly accepts what you say. You only send, but dont know how to receive.

    I get your insight but there are probably only a few who will understand you and get it too.

  7. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    "I would have more luck getting through with somebody who hadn’t read a single page of literature. And with someone who saw the importants of humility." This indirectly means that I dont see the importance of humility according to you.

    Humility is not an attribute of someone, it is projected by someone on someone. So, the fact that you say this, says a lot about you. Whether it is directed at me or not doesnt matter.

  8. Posted

    9 minutes ago, Jack River said:

    I would have more luck getting through with somebody who hadn’t read a single page of literature. And with someone who saw the importants of humility. Seems like most people I  communicate with that already have a teaching in place or more difficult to speak with. But communicating this is new to me so maybe I will get better with some time. 

    Oops dropped the ball there dude. 

    "And with someone who saw the importants of humility." And how should I show more humility to you hmm?

    Tell me what I should have done better.

  9. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    1 hour ago, Jack River said:

    Only when we hold an image of what is not rude does that tend to happen. No image no prob. :) 

    I’m not trying to be rude. I meant it though. 

    Yeah, when humans engage in social interaction there tends to arise a norm. This has a purpose though.

    1 hour ago, Jack River said:

    “I” am from nowhere and I am nothing:)

     Yeah I know your I is nowhere and nothing. However, the body from which you perceive is somewhere.  

    Although I know you can't do anything about it, don't be surprised that people won't engage in conversation with you if you only talk to yourself. This has nothing to do with them being not enlightened, but with them being a human being.

  10. Posted

    21 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

    @EmanyalpsidThe "teaching" in which Jack expresses was not of his own invention however it is the only way in which he knows how to express his holistic understanding. Maybe he brings it up to see if your "enlightenment" would allow you to reflect on his direct experience of self/no self. Have you heard of Jiddu Krishnamurti? as well as david bolm? (Many youtube videos exploring how this "language" works...)

    also i linked you a few threads the other day which expresses this type of "language" 

     

    Yeah I was telling him how this is covered in buddhism, but he wasn't really listening. I also tried to show him that apparently some things still exist for him, as he spoke of attention being unconditioned.

  11. Posted

    21 minutes ago, Jack River said:

    Fosho. I am having a conversation with myself. :D

     

    I dont know where you are from, but where I'm from this is seen as asocial and rude. 

    5 minutes ago, Jack River said:

    There are a few others on the forum who get exactly what I mean too. Maybe with some time it will be clearer. 

    I got the essence of what you were saying, however you did not get my points, but how could you.

  13. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    I got your point earlier, but I was trying to show you some differences, advantages and disadvantages and asked you some questions for you to see this. You however don't seem to respond to what I'm trying to show you or are not trying. Thats fine, but I'm not going to repeat myself constantly.

    Language has its advantages and disadvantages in trying to spread knowledge. 

    It is not the method that is wrong, it are the people who use it that dont understand it.

    Your method is the same as every other method, besides that yours is not verified and improved over generations.

    You seem to think that your thoughts are free, that you are the thinker of your thoughts and therefore if you dont have to think in terms with what other people say you are free. 

    The self, at its core, is for every human the same. Therefore language is useful in explaining how people can dissolve it. You have the advantage of the ability to go deep into a subject over multiple generations and the disadvantage of people not understanding the concepts which are used. However the concepts used in a method are a very useful guide for people who are already thinking. And people who are not thinking are also not interested in following a method as they are already there.

    Of course your method has the advantage of not being lost in concepts in language, but you have the major disadvantage that you are trying to invent the wheel for yourself. Maybe you have built a wheel, but if you meet other people it could be that they already have a car. You however will not be able to understand how they got there as you don't speak their language.

    For example, I did not follow the traditional buddhist path, most of my insights came from using psychedelics. You seem to think that authority is something bad, it is also a way of progress if it comes from someone being the first to do or see something. It depends upon the people who look at the authority if the authority has any power. Therefore, the buddha is not worshipped. The only thing of interest is his method.

    Your suggestion is wishful thinking. Don't misinterpret my message as critique. I have a lot of respect if you got where you came without using a different method. But even your words, you have not invented yourself. If you have some self invented words, you used letters out of an existing alphabet. See where I'm going with this? And I believe from your posts in this topic you have not completely dissolved the self yet, which I tried to show you.

    But hey, if you are happy, what are we talking about?

     

  15. Posted

    We speak two different languages in English. You have your own concepts and a way that they sound logic to you. I use concepts from various fields; psychology, philosophy, buddhism etc. because most people use them, so we can understand each other. You however, have your own concepts, which I dont know about and dont understand, and logic, which I can't follow.

    So if you wish that people who use the concepts I use to understand you, you are going to have to learn them. If we dive in your language we have to invent language all over again as most concepts are thought out of in our language. That is the advantage of using a method.

    If you don't want to then don't. 

  16. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    8 hours ago, Jack River said:

    I feel ya. That's why I agreed with you before on your original posts. I'm with you dude or dudet ?

    The relative aspect of it all. 

    Not quite, with reality I mean everything we experience, including consciousness. So, when someone reaches Nirvana, sees through this non-existence, every concept, phenomenon, experience, object, etc. is empty of an essence, because it is conditioned. 

    However in your mind attention is unconditioned. You don't know how to explain it, but you tried to define it by trying to explain what it is and what it is not. Therefore you posted in this topic, to verify if we experience something similar. You did however not go into my questions how you know if it is unconditioned and if it is always present. You don't investigate it, because you believe it exists upon itself. You identify with attention, you are attention.

    If you believe something exists upon itself, you can give meaning to it through itself. That is the deepest level of the self. The self is the believe in itself, so one does not realizes this until one does. However, you know I can only point you to something, you have to figure it out for yourself. If you want too of course.

     

  17. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    16 minutes ago, Jack River said:

    Well..

    Who’s focusing?

    Or are “my” thoughts mine? :)

     

     

    I know what you mean, but the thing with the Buddha was that he went very deep and saw that the whole of reality didn't exist upon itself, not only the self. So he saw that we are not only not-self, whole of reality is not-self. By thinking it exists upon itself it is part of ourself. It is only out of ignorance, or not-knowing, that we hang on to something like attention and believe that it is unconditioned and exists upon itself. And I don't mean the concept attention but the actual experience. In other words you cling to it but don't see that there is nothing to cling to as it does not exist upon itself.

  18. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    1 hour ago, Jack River said:

    Has nothing to do with “i”. 

     

    To me the more we accumulate a teaching that points to a thing  described, the more of a veil of thought content becomes attached too it and looks through that veil when observing/learning or seeing what-is. 

    To learn any particular train of thought is to learn about that train of thought and when we conform or adhere to that form of text there is a inherent tendency to not observe what is actual, but the description itself. So if I learn about myself through frued, Buddha, Jesus or who ever I am not learning about myself, but about them. So creates a fundamental resistance to looking without a veil of the past which makes us project accordingly to that veil/content. So instead of me looking at what is in myself I project what i have read as an abstraction. Thought seems to do this mechanically/habitually. 

    So to me, understanding myself means understanding thought as it is directly in my own experience. To me there is not point to learn about me though reading about any particular train of thought like Buddhism/advaita/or other psycholo analytical source. 

    This is what the self does that sustains it’s own continuity/movement. The self looks to its content(thought) and thinks it will free itself by those means. But to me those means are what actually keeps that loop of reaction/action (self/thought) division in place. 

    When the self looks to thought, as in its its accumulated knowledge/experience that very action feeds the self which is also born of the selfs accumulated knowledge/experience. 

    This is seen with ATTENTION. It demands an unconditioned seeing to end that movement of divison. It’s both simple yet difficult. :)

    Well, Buddhism or what it is really about, is not really a train of thought in it's essence. It tells you to do self-inquiry, to learn about your self in order to dissolve the self, the same as what you did. The self is in essence the same as we are all humans. This is verified, not by a train of thought, but by the direct experience of others. That is the advantage of using a method. The advantage of only focusing on your own thoughts is that you are not distracted by looking for meaning in what others say in a method. The problem is that you don't really know where you end as you can not relate this to someone else his experience until you learn about other methods. 

    So, because you used the word 'unconditioned,' this triggers me as this means that you think that something would exist upon itself. If something exists upon itself, there is a self left.

  19. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    1 hour ago, Jack River said:

    Yeah I dont know, I was lucky to not really get caught in such teachings. 

    How come you say this?

    Quote

    No I explained it pretty well actually. Just takes self observation of “movement/process” with its thought/reaction loop that feeds itself. 

    This is why I can see there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what I’m saying. The thing to see is this intelligent action that is unconditioned is not derived from the process of causation with its conditioned action/reaction. 

     Intelligence works through that vehicle of the intellect/thought. But it’s essence is not born or that limited movement. 

    Its like a one way relationship. Intelligence doesn’t arise from thought with its conditions, but intelligence can act on that conditioned process.  

    Mutual dependency is also a conditioning but no causation. 

    However, they more you say, the less I understand what you mean.

    You are very convinced that it is unconditioned, however god is also unconditioned. Therefore you will not verify what it is, because it is in your believe unverifiable.

    If you sleep, in the moments without dreaming, is it still there, I mean present in awareness? If you are unconsciousness, is it still there present in awareness?

  20. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    1 hour ago, Jack River said:

    Which also includes will/desire/choosing. 

    No, equanimity is everything without will/desire/choosing

    Quote

    But attention has no opposite. That’s the groovy thing about it. It is not the result of reaction. All opposites have there roots in there own opposites. Choice/will/desire/concentration/attachment/identification and such are all actions that arise from a reaction(conditioned). 

    Like I said I cannot teach this, it is for attention (unconditioned awareness/observation/understanding which is action to that SEE’s this. 

     

    You will not be able to see what I mean by following “my” logic. Because you meet “my logic” with the veil of your logic(conditioned). 

    That’s why I say this is all seen directly in yourself, as in actually. 

    I still get the feeling your attention is what buddhists call equanimity. But if you can't explain it, maybe you want to look at it a bit more to understand what it is. If it is really unconditioned or not. How this attention came to be. If it is, it came to be and is therefore not unconditioned. If you don't want to, then don't. :)

    Indeed logic and language are decisive for understanding each other. Therefore, it might be interesting to read a bit into Buddhist texts. Not the original, but the common. Also, if you don't want to, then don't.

    Also, because you are posting here, there must be something for you to find here.

  21. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    Thanks for trying, but I don't follow your logic yet. Also, I dont really know where you want to go with all of this?

    "When I say attention that means to the whole of something not a part of the whole. To me that is an unconditioned observation. Observation that doesn’t exclude parts, or that doesn’t move in a particular direction as will/desire/choice. So when I use the words concentration/focus that to me implies observation directed on a point/part of the whole. To me that activity of focus/concentration is seeing through the veil of thought/self. It is a movement that arises out of thought and its reaction according to conten/the thinker. "

    In that sense, attention is the opposite of focus. You mean awareness of what is without focussing and without interpretating? That is what I mean with equanimity.

    "So attention is none of that. It’s unconditioned. It doesn’t exclude, not of control, will/desire/choice. And is not observing through the bias/prejudice nature of thought/as the thinker(a seeing/observation uneffected by the process of identification with what is familiar)."

    How can something be unconditioned?

  22. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    27 minutes ago, Jack River said:

    @Emanyalpsid I do intent to read through more of what you wrote, but I might want to make clear as well that I don’t think I can help anyone. What I write shouldn’t be looked at as a teaching. I can not teach this stuff, and to me it cannot be necessarily taught. 

    Anyway give me some more time to go through more of your post:)

    If someone learns from what you are saying or showing, you are teaching, but only then. Everyone can say they are a teacher ;)

  23. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    Interesting notion for the readers is; if you dont like my style of teaching or any others style of teaching for that matter, and therefore avoid me or them, it comes from your ego's desire to not experience them. By avoiding me or them you are actually comforting your ego. So comfortable teachers are the most ineffective in the long run, in contrast to what most people say or believe. Feels good doesnt it? :) There are no free rides here.

    The only question for you remains; which teacher is really enlightened and who just think they are? Therefore, always reflect upon your own experience. And with experience I mean, not what you think but what you perceive without thought.

    I'm confrontational by choice, you need to be confronted with yourself to see through yourself. You can also do this yourself, but then you wouldn't be here.

    So I greet you, I am destiny.

  24. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    16 hours ago, Jed Vassallo said:

    More likely, if Leo were to become fully enlightened, my guess is the videos and his business would stop all togethers, or be sparatic. Even though it's very much helping others, the videos are part of an ego construct. After enlightenment, there is nothing to do, just be. So there'd be no point in doing all the work and research that goes into making a huge video every week. But, what do I know, I'm not enlightened/awakened. 

    If Leo becomes fully enlightened he will see that he was just preaching his own interpretations. He then has some explaining to do if wants to help others go further. A big chance he will lose a lot of followers, who cant follow the u-turn. However, because Leo is so convinced of himself I dont see him reaching full enlightenment real soon. I dont know if he is even searching or trying anymore. He achieved a lot up until now though, made a lot of helpful videos, courses, etc. Created a strong community. Now there's the danger of becoming a self-convinced guru. Happened so often in the past with others.

    After enlightenment there is just as much to do as before enlightenment.

  25. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    22 hours ago, Jack River said:

    It seems attention to innatention/attachment starts with the understanding/observation of innatention/attachment

    Once that understanding/observation is seen as a whole as one unit in movement of self, as the cycle of innatention/resistance/attachment/identification, then seems to arise this “state” of attention. A seeing without the veil of self. This seems to be a very violent and fast process. Almost seems to be simultaneous. As I have suggested before, understanding/observation is action. One undivided action. 

    Where dualistic verbal/intellectual understanding as the self, seems to be an understanding that is a two step process. The understanding comes first via (projection of self), then an action is carried out by that understanding. Self/thought seems to at that point be influencing the understanding and then action. Or observing through the conditioned veil of self then acting which seems to get caught up in that same action/reaction cycle of resistance/attachment/innatention(emotion/thought reaction loop). 

    Your experiences seem to unfold as such dudes? 

    Never have looked at the process this way. Which I mean literally. But I cant say that I attach to something if I dont pay attention to something. So inatention and attachment are not the same for me. I used attention to meditate on objects, trying to figure out what I was perceiving. Now I see that if I pay attention to something I attach to something.

    But it is one of the last attributes I left behind, you can only leave focus behind if you see through the mutual dependent nature of everything  and its non-existence. And with non-existence I dont mean no existence, cause things exist. They dont exist upon themselves though. Everything is a seamless stream of nature constantly in motion. To use the flower example I have used often. A flower is not only a flower because it exists out of matter. It is dependent upon gravity, space, time, etc. It needs everything from its surrounding to be a flower. Without its surroundings there wont be a flower. So the flower does not exist upon itself. To see through this, you will have to focus on the flower to figure out what really constitutes the flower.

    If you leave focus behind earlier on, or not develop it, I guess you will not be able to see through the objects for what they really are. 

    So I would say that focus or attention is a virtue or attribute to develop, but only as a method and to be left behind in the end. The leaving behind goes almost automatically when one sees the nature of reality. Now I am only left with equanimity and dont really use a mental focus as it only costs energy. If I focus on something, I am attaching me to something, and now I realized that this serves no use. As every object is nothing more then a part of the whole. I would however not say that i am unfocused, as I am very aware of what is happening around me. I just dont really pay attention to it, I let it be, I dont let it disturb my state of consciousness.:) However, if I feel pain or discomfort my mind tends to focus on it, then it serves a use I guess. The body is miraculous invention, it is only by our will and convictions that we ignore the present.

    Edit; I however get your notion that attention leads to seeing without the veil of a self. If one deeply focuses on a object, the self as interpretator will dissolve. That is the utility of focus.

    I think in my post above I describe the same thing you mean by the two step process. I however use the word interpretation there.

    I must say; Your explanations are often not very clear to me as you seem to describe less detail in your logic. This has the effect that it costs me a lot of energy to interpret your logic. Maybe it is the best you can do, but I see you posting a lot on this forum, which is nice, but if you leave details open out of convenience, be aware that someone else has to fill them in. So please explain with as much detail in your logic as you can. This also has the benefit of understanding your own logic.