Scholar

I have just done some research and I do think I saw the tail of the ox. https://ancientforestzen.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/seeing-the-ox/ But how do I proceed now? Do I just do the same meditation for longer periods of time? I'm not even quite sure how I did it, it's like I was in a dark room filled with thousands of switches, and accidently I found the right one to turn the light on. Shouldn't I "note down" where the switch is so I find it again once the room goes dark again? Maybe I am too fascinated looking at the room, now that I see it for the first time, but all the excitment will distract me from finding the switch later again. I always tried to make the content disappear, but I think it's the content, the true recognition of what the content is, what leads one to the source? When I just become aware of sight, I also become aware of "where" sight is happening. I guess you can do this with everything? Maybe it is a way to disillusionize the mind. Instead of thinking everything is illusion, simply look at everything the way it really is. I want to try this with the feeling of "someone else".

@Nahm I don't know, but I feel much more patient.

I feel am so calm, it's almost funny to me.

Yes it's a very strange situation, I do kind of feel like I am going crazy. It's like I don't see reality as "reality" anymore.

I don't know, I don't think I did enough meditation work to be aware of the witness or anything. Maybe I am just deluding myself? It's so hard to explain. I can "feel" this something now, but it's not really a feeling. I am just aware of it, the best way to explain it is like dreaming? I don't feel like I am really writing this. I don't even know how to explain it, I don't even know if there is a point in explaining it.

I can't seem to get past this confusion. So, let's say we fast-forward 1000 years into the future. And let's say that science has uncovered the entire functionality of the brain. Now, let's look at this from the spiritual perspective. The scientist, that does not exist, sets a subject, that does not exist, into a device, that does not exist, that can manipulate the brain, that doesn't exist, in any form it pleases. The device, that does not exist, is capable to deactive and alter any system of the mind, that doesn't exist. The device, that doesn't exist, can turn off the cognitive system, that doesn't exist, that is creating ego, that doesn't exist, within the mind. Once the non-existent device turned off the non-existent ego, suddently the non-existent subject feels like he is becoming absolute infinity. That non-existent subject reports of losing the sense of self completely, saying infact the self was an illusion. Let's say the non-existent device can alter the non-existent cognitive systems in a way where time and space ceases to exist for the non-existent subject. The non-existent subject loses all sense of reality, as perfectly predicted by the non-existent device. The non-existent device can manipulate the non-existent brain to alter the non-existent subjects reality in any shape of form it pleases. It can turn the non-existent subjects reality into that of a plant. It can alter the reality in such fundamental ways that the non-existent subject will get a sense of nothingness. But the non-existent device can once more alter the non-existent subjects non-existent mind in a way that the non-existent ego emerges once more out of nothingness. The non-existent device could do anything. It could alter any function of the non-existent subjects mind in ways that the non-existent subject could have impossibly even imagined before. The non-existent subject might lose all sense of outer world, it might lose the sense of location, or seperateness. The non-existent device can play with the non-existent subjects mind in whatever way it wants. One moment the non-existent subject is enlightened, and then the next the non-existent subject is once more egoic. How can a non-existent device do anything? How can it predict the behaviour and consciousness of the non-existent subject? It would know exactly when "enlightenment" would occur, yet the expirience of enlightenment reveals that the device cannot exist, and that it is just a illusion of the mind. But it's the non-existent device that has absolute control over the non-existent subject, not the other way around. Of course the reality of the subject will change, because the device is in control of it's reality. It can control wether or not the expirience of the subject is that of absolute emptiness, or of seperateness and ego. Ironically though, the subject, once it expiriences emptiness, will belief that it is reality, because it doesn't even have the cognitive functions to distinct between anything. So, it is merely left with emptiness, and once the structures of the mind reemerge, the subject will belief it expirienced reality, when infact it just expirienced a different expirience, and altered reality. The non-existent device is in absolute control of the consciousness of the subject. The subject will at any time be absolutely certain that it's reality is reality. The egoic reality is an illusion once the subject is put into a different kind of reality. But what if both realities are illusions, that of nothingness just as much as that of ego. What if, whatever the non-existent device really is, is reality. What if that reality is so inaccessable, that we cannot even imagine it's properties, because properties themselves are part of the limited reality of the mind? Why else could a non-existent device play with a non-existent subjects consciousness as it pleases. Why else would it be able to alter consciousness in any way it wants, creating an enlightened being within a split second. What if, when the device decides that it wants to get rid of the subject, true nothingness will emerge? A nothingness so empty that it is void of expirience and consciousness itself? An emptiness that is so empty, that there is nothing to witness it? Maybe the rational mind underrestimates how much the subjective reality can be altered? Maybe it cannot grasp that whatever it "feels" reality to be is nothing more than an illusion, and yet, it is everything it has? Because if it cannot recognize that, then it will never recognize that even the greatest truth there is, is nothing but a lie. Even the most real and unlimited expirience, nothing but a simple expirience that does not go beyond what the expirience itself is. And, maybe it cannot recognize that everything that is expirienced, is not actually everything there is? What if the mind is just too limited to actually become aware of that, ever? If one expiriences "everything", isn't it merely an expirience of everything that the mind is capable of expiriencing? And to the mind, it will be infinite, because by definition it will literally be infinite within the perspective of the expirience. But why would the mind fall into the belief that the expirience of infinity is actually everything there is? Or is by definition saying "everything there is", merely pointing to the contents of the mind, because after all, what is beyond might be so incomprehendable that even content itself would be a false desciption? Or is true enlightenment, or the expirience of nothingness, merely a recognition that reality is beyond words, so beyond words and concept that everything the mind can come up with is absolutely nothing?

Just a random thought, but are you multitasking as you work? If so, you might want to try to avoid it for a while and see if it makes a difference.

But how do you know that all beliefs are false? What if some beliefs are just correct? How would you proof the opposite? By a certain expirience that you think is true? By pure absence of all conceptualization? I am still confused as to how it's even possible to get to the conclusion that "consciousness is all there is". Yes, from the perspective of the mind that may be the case, but how can one be absolute certain that consciousness is absolutely everything there is? Literally everything "we" expirience is consciousness, so obviously we'll have to say that consciousness is all there is. For me it's like alot of people just ignore the mystery of the outer world. Materialistic people are completely absorbed in the conceptualization of the inner world. But spiritual people seem to completely ignore the possibility that there might be something consciousness has absolutely zero access to. Where does this absolute certainity come from? What if consciouss is nothing and everything, but still merely a limited part of a reality we have no access to? Again, how can we trust the expirience to be the truth? Is it only because it's all we have? What if even the expirience of absolute truth is merely an illusion? What if concept is real, and the world is made of concept? And what if our mind has no access whatsoever to true concept, but merely is able to access the reflection of concept within consciousness itself? How can we be so certain that it is not the case? And why are people so certain of it before they are even enlightened? Who in this forum considers themselves truly enlightened?

You stand infront of a cliff and think "I will die if I take one more step.", or you stand infront of a cliff and think not at all. Taking another step forward, which of these two states of consciousness captures the truth? Or in other words, what will happen once you step forward and fall down the cliff? It may very well be that the thought does not describe what will happen, or that the description itself is not really what will happen. But does the absence of thought hold any more truth? And wouldn't any investigation of truth within the mind always lead to nothingness, because the mind is inherintely uncapable of fabricating truth?

But as I said, all of these findings that you guys describe are completely explainable by rational means. You don't have a body, because whatever the mind thought the body was, was simply an expirience of the mind. As I said, everything is the expirience of the mind, from the perspective of the mind. If I look at a tree, whatever I expirience the tree to be is not really the tree. It's simply another expirience, an illusion. But that doesn't mean that whatever that I am refering to does not exist. We have zero access to the outer world whatsoever, not even a glimpse of it. We have so limited access to the outer world that infact, whatever we think the outer world to be is always part of the inner world. The inner world is everything we expirience, and I understand that. Even the "body" that we expirience as "body" is part of the inner world, so it's an illusion. But that doesn't mean that whatever the inner world is referring to as "body" doesn't exist at all. If it doesn't, go ahead and test it. Let's see if the body is an illusion after you cut off your arm. Let's see if "death" is an illusion once the expirience of your mind completely stops. I can recognize that we have no idea what the mind is. That we are completely clueless, and always will be, what exactly consciousness is, alteast in a conceptual manner. And yes, consciousness is the ONLY thing we have access to. But why do we assume that everything is consciousness? It's obvious that the mind will have the expirience of "everything" being "consciousness", because for the mind, everything in it's existance is consciousness. A good example is 5-MeO-DMT. I mean, 5-MeO-DMT is an illusion. It's simply a concept of the mind that is completely generated by the mind. But yet, once you take 5-MeO-DMT, you will alter the expirience of the mind is such a way that the structures that create the ego suddenly disappear. And once that happens, the mind has access to the entire expirience of itself, and that expirience is literally unlimited in every way imaginable. Previously the mind limited itself in a way to expirience itself in a specific way, but once you alter that, the entire reality of the mind alters. I mean, how can we just ignore that with rational means, the expirience of absolute infinity is easily explainable? There is no great mystery about it, it's simply how we know the mind works. Yes, we don't know what exactly the mind is, because the map is not the territory. But it's like you guys just say the territory doesn't truly exist, because after all all we have is the map. Yes, the map is part of the territory. The "expirience" is part of the territory. But the expirience is evidently not the territory itself. And with expirience I mean everything the mind could possibly expirience, even "infinity". My biggest question here I guess is, why can we trust the "expirience" just because it's everything we have? Why do we trust the expirience of enlightenment, or the direct expirience of god. How is that a good idea? I mean, look at us. Right now, for our mind, the ego is part of it's reality. But, you can alter the mind in a way where it becomes obvious that ego is just a structure. But then the mind thinks it's everything because you still expirience everything the mind is capable of expiriencing. Sure, nothingness is an expirience, but how does it apply to actual reality that we don't even expirience in any shape or form? I can have the expirience of nothingness, but I will still die of starvation if I don't eat. So, is "eating" not real? Is "hunger" not real? Yes, what we expirience as hunger or as starvation is not real, or rather it's just an expirience of the mind. But as I said, it doesn't change the facts whatsoever. I don't doubt for a second that if I take 5-MeO-DMT, whatever I think reality is right now will change in such a drastic way that I will be left with a completely different reality, so different that I can't even imagine that it's part of the mind. But what if, what if the mind is actually capable of generating an expirience of absolute infinity? And, isn't for the mind the expirience of absolute infinity nothing more but the expirience of it's own, entire reality? The problem I seem to have is that, right now I have a very specific feeling of reality, and yes, if the ego disappears I will suddenly realize that the mind is that expirience of reality. But what if that expirience of reality, of infinity, is just a fabrication of the mind? We can never proof that it isn't to ourselves, because the MIND is EVERYTHING we expirience.

Maybe replace "caring" with "pay attention to". An unconscious person will tend to pay attention to suffering and then take actions to avoid that suffering. Let's say a brother and sister fight for candy, and the brother wins because he is stronger. He causes suffering is his sister, but his own suffering is too great for him to care about his sister. Despite how bad he might feel for his sister, chances are that he will focus entirely on his own suffering. If he really craves the candy (which I would define as suffering) or he is scared of being judged for compassionate actions (which I would define as suffering aswell) then he will tend to focus on himself and keep the candy, his reaction that of anger. Now assume that the brother isn't suffering at all. It wouldn't come to the fight because the brother wouldn't care about the craving he possesses for the candy. Even if it came to the fight, the brother would have given the candy to his sister because the void of his own suffering leaves room for compassionate suffering. He will feel empathy for his crying sister, and thus suffer himself. But if he already is filled with suffering from cravings and fear, then the compassion will not happen, and even if it will happen, his egoic suffering will take over. Another example is the beggar on the street. When people feel empathetic for the beggar and give him money, they do it because of compassionate suffering. But they don't really help him, they just give him enough money so their conscience is satisfied. Now, if the person would be completely free of suffering, he would be able to really help the beggar. Complete lack of suffering includes no suffering from fear, so he would simply give the beggar a place to live in. He wouldn't care about the his fear of the reactions of his friends and family. He wouldn't care of the fear that the beggar might steal his possessions. Because there is no isuffering in himself, there is room for true compassion. Another example would be the meat eater. A meat eater is suffering when he cannot eat meat. Either he likes the taste of meat, or he believes that he requires it to be healthy. In this case it is again craving, but also fear of death and disease. If the person is not scared of death, or lacks the suffering from fear, the choice not to eat meat is effortless. There is room for compassion finally, because the egoic suffering is gone. Of course, compassionate suffering is a form of egoic suffering, but it is different in the way that it is outwards directed instead of inward directed. There is no guarantee that lack of "inward" suffering will create compassionate suffering, but atleast there is a greater chance of it to develope. On the other hand inward suffering can help to develope empathy for others who suffer the same, but I would say that in most cases, inward suffering creates greater defenses of the ego, including the possible developement of narcissistic structures. Keep in mind that suffering is a means to motivate actions of self-preservation and reproduction. When suffering is gone, there is really no reason for one to desperately self-preserve and reproduce.

If you worry about them, then you should think about ways how to make their minds come to peace. There is a reason for why they are protesting and rioting, and for why they are "insane", just as there is a reason for why you voted for Donald Trump. Instead of focusing on the mess that was created, focus on how it came to the creation of the mess. As a doctor, you can either treat the symptoms, or the causes of an illness.

Too many people worry about the President, and not enough worry about those who voted for him.

I would say the opposite is the case. If you are unhappy, you tend to develope a narcissistic personality, because as long as you are suffering you will care about yourself first and foremost. It's like, if your cup is empty, you will try to fill it no matter what cost. If your cup is full though, you can worry about other people's empty cups, because there isn't much to improve about your own one. If you are truly happy and fulfilled, there is no need to think about yourself anymore. Why would you if you have everything you need? And keep in mind that just because you are smiling and laughing all day, doesn't mean that you are happy. Sure, Trump seems like a happy guy on the surface, but his behaviour clearly shows that he is desperately trying to fill a void in his life. When you look in the mirror and check if you look good enough, are you doing it because you are happy, or are you doing it because you need reassurance, because of the fear that you might not be enough? The constant worry about oneself is rooted in suffering, not in fulfillment.

You don't know what enlightenment is, you don't know if it exists. You don't know anything at all. Believing in what Leo tells you is the first mistake you made. You are seeking something, but why are you seeking it? Why do you believe that the world is illusion? Is there any real curiousity within you, or are you simply chasing an "expirience" that is supposed to benefit yourself?

The question is wether you need a psychiatrist to understand you, or wether you just need someone to understand you. I think there is a problem with how mental health is approached these days. Often for proper treatment a psychiatrist needs to know almost everything about a patient. But that's not really how the world works. Any psychiatrist has multiple patients every day, a limited understanding of the mind and a very specific view on how to treat certain psychological conditions. It's not possible to understand all patients in all their complexity, with the limited time they can spend with them. So the best is to just prescribe some meditation and hope it somehow solves the problem. I think the rise of mental illness and depression might be rooted in a greater problem that we face today. People become more and more disconnected because technology is isolating us. There is less deep, personal connection. What a few centuries ago a family member or friend did, now has to do the psychiatrist with his doctor in psychology. Who is more likely to actually understand you? Someone who spend most of his life with you, or someone else who sees you every week for an hour and gets paid for it? Today the world is filled with superficial relationships. The quality doesn't really matter anymore, instead people tend to go for quantity. More friends, instead of stronger and deeper friendships. The human mind was simply not designed to function in the enviroment we have created for ourselves. It seems as though society has constructed many taboos and restrictions as to what we are supposed to talk about with our friends and even with family. I mean, if you have a son and he seems deeply troubled, it seems completely fine to just send him to the psychiatrist. After all, the psychiatrist is a professional who deals with these problems. Of course, sometimes a psychiatrist is a very helpful tool , but I think in a lot of cases people are just looking for replacements to have someone to actually listen to them. Having someone really listen and understand is often healing enough to deal with traumata. Just visualize how you would feel if you had a person who would actually want to know how you feel, and why you feel the way you do? In a tribal setting this might not even be far fetched. Humans lived in small groups for thousands of years. There was no sea of billions of people who are accessable. Almost all sources of entertainment were social activities, and taboos as far as what you could talk about were probably almost non-existant. If there was a problem, people talked about it, and they were most likely genuinely interested in each other, simply because there were just a very limited amount of people around. People are wired to enjoy drama, especially women. Today we watch TV and movies, and back than people listened to each other. The problem is that the TV is not listening back. Today, we live in houses, seperated from each other. Most of us don't even know all of our neighbours. Why would we, everyone is moving around constantly anyways. So what we lack are real communities and deep interpersonal connections. Those are simple, psychological needs, and we have to keep in mind that our brain evolved in a way to deal with situations in that kind of manner. Traumata are not supposed to just ruin your life, they have a very specific evolutionary purpose, otherwise there would be no place from them in the psyche. In the enviroment traumata evolved in, it was beneficial to the survival of the human being, or whatever species we were back when it evolved. Now, we live in a completely different enviroment, and instead traumata becomes a "feature" of the mind that is doing damage, rather than being beneficial what so ever. The question is wether just treating the symptoms instead of the root causes is the best way to deal with this. You are definitely not alone with this problem, there is infact an epidemic of "mental illnesses" that relate to the disconnection of human beings. I wouldn't advice you to stop looking for a psychiatrist, but if you can, try to tackle the problems from more than just one front. Simpler said that done, but you might want to start building true and deeper relationships with people. And of course, you can try to meditate and tackle the problem from a spiritual front, as people already adviced. You have to keep in mind though that there is no perfect, easy path for this, especially with how the world is like.

The documentary "Planetary" is pretty good too!

The past few days I've been focusing on a visual field exercise while meditating. When you look at something, whatever that is, it is always in the middle of your visual field. When you move your eyes, the next thing you look at is still in the center of your visual field. The center of your visual field never moves, but the image does. Yet, the brain tricks itself into believing that the center moves. It believes that you are looking up and down, or left and right. So, what I do is basicly focus on that feeling, and try my best to sense the entire image moving through my visual field, instead of my eyes moving in a certain direction. Once you kind of get the grip of it, the visual information will seem flat instead of dimensional. Instead of your sight being a laserbeam that is moving through the room, the entire room will be moving through your visual field. It gets more difficult when you get closer to the corners of your eyesockets, because your eyebrows, nose etc. signal your brain that your eyes are moving to the "border" of your visual field. But what really is happening is simply the border coming closer to the center of the visual field. So in the end what I try to do is lose the sense of space, as far as my visual perception goes. The movement of the eyes is becoming the movement of the content. I think it's similar to making the sense of the outside world disappear when you close your eyes, but that's something I'm far from being able to do. I'm not sure if there is any point in doing this, but it's fun and challenging.

Can someone explain to me what movement that is, which you can see at 2:30? I noticed it because it's what I tend to want to do when I meditate, usually I try to suppress it because I'm trying not to move as I meditate. Is there a name for it? And what purpose does it have?

Hey there, I've stumbled over an interesting study: http://www.psy-journal.com/article/S0165-1781(15)00321-2/abstract Apparently, if you look into someones eyes for as much as 10 minutes in a dimly lit room, you start to dissociate and hallucinate. Now my question is, couldn't there be a way to use this with a partner for a meditative practise? Maybe there already is?

I've watched the guided Neti Neti Meditation before sleep yesterday, and I had quite a vivid dream afterwards. I can't remember details, but I do remember that at one point in the dream I watched a video of a guy meditating, opening his eyes and smiling almost frantically. The moment the corners of his lips went up, I knew that he became enlightened just in that moment, and suddenly I realized that there was no difference between me and him, that the me and him does not exist. And then everything went completely crazy, I had an incredibly feeling of fear that overcame me, and I immediately tried to escape the dream. I remember that feeling from sleep-paralysis, it's like something is pulling at me, and there is the strong sense of death in case of me letting go. Like, "if I don't fight this right now, my heart will literally stop beating" kind of fear. I have always fought that feeling, I remember I had this quite often in my teens. It never takes long to escape the dream and wake up. Now, today I was aware of the fact that maybe I could just let go and see what happens, but I literally couldn't. The fear was just too great. I think that shows me that I am not remotely ready to be enlightened yet, if I can't even face death in a dream. But my question is, is it possible to become enlightened by a dream, if one is willing to let go? Or has something like this been described in any historic recordings of enlightenement?

Oh, I wonder if it works with a mirror and yourself? I hope it doesn't make one crazy.

@sgn 3-4 weeks is where most people fail, because the effects abstaining are almost non-existent and the craving is the highest. So that's nothing unusual. This time I'd suggest you try it for half a year, and once you see results, you'll simply decide not to do it ever again. Maybe it won't completely resolve the problem, but I highly doubt there is any chance of you resolving any problems if you don't overcome this addiction. And also, if it is placebo, who cares? It clearly helps, and that's what you want, right? Aside from some very reasonable explanations to why exactly it helps on a neurological level, you should have a leap of faith and just trust in it. We do the same on the road of enlightenment.

@sgn For a while means how long? Did you abstain from it completely? If you don't know if it is placebo or not, find out if it is. You have to be honest and be aware of why exactly you don't want to do it. Are you addicted? Are you unable to just stop for half a year and see what would happen? Why do you make up excuses for something that could potentially transform your life? The fact is probably that you are mentally too weak to stop. Do you want to stay mentally too weak to abstain? Clearly you can't stop, do you want to stay that way for the rest of your life?

@sgn Limiting your time on your computer would be good, if you really do it that much. But I know that's hard to do with social anxiety. What about porn and mastrubation? Both can contribute greatly to social anxiety and general self-esteem/confidence problems.