I am enlightened. Sincere seekers: ask me anything

[Forestluv]

14 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.

Not my point at all. The point is that what was once unimaginable appeared. Throughout history, human minds have made limiting assumptions. You are working within a finite set of concepts. Be careful using terms like "impossible" and "never". This is a huge assumption error and saying "this is fundamentally different" is a restriction within a limited belief paradigm. Reality is infinite. ANYTHING can appear, because Anything is within nothing/everything. If reality wants to reveal the essence of existential nature through science, it will happen - regardless of whether your finite mind can imagine it or thinks it is possible. 

The ideas you present are based on your evolving perception of reality - which is based on less than 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of all available information. This would round off to zero. . . 

It's like saying that jakibibs will never be able to fanilikate because hatikastin can never be pulatifined with zastekimin.

It's fun stuff, just be mindful of whether you actually believe it as true.

[Emanyalpsid]

 

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

 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[Outer]

6 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Correct, he wouldn't. But he knows it could be the case. He cannot know if it is actually happening.

So the point is that things might be happening in people's world models that scientists will never be able to know are happening. Do you see that?

Yes, you only experience your WM.

You cannot experience another's WM.

But you both perceive the same world.

WM's can be and are different. Even people will spot it and explain it to others.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Outer

[winterknight]

1 minute ago, Outer said:

Yes, WM's can be and are different. Even people will spot it and explain it to others.

Again, you've already agreed several times that no one could know if someone else was seeing green-as-binary. As long as they still referred to grass as "green," you would never know.

So again, do you understand that scientists might know this could happen, but would never be able to tell?

[Outer]

2 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Again, you've already agreed several times that no one could know if someone else was seeing green-as-binary. As long as they still referred to grass as "green," you would never know.

So again, do you understand that scientists might know this could happen, but would never be able to tell?

Yes you cannot experience anything but your WM. But you perceive the same world as the person whose WM green is binary.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Outer

[winterknight]

5 minutes ago, Outer said:

Yes you cannot experience anything but your WM.

Ok, fantastic. So let's look now at exactly what science is.

Science is about explanation of phenomena in terms of sense data that we can all agree upon.

But in order to explain phenomena, it has to be able to access them.

Since a scientist cannot "experience anything but their WM," scientists cannot explain phenomena that are occurring in other people's WMs.

If that is the case, science cannot explain these phenomena.

Are we still on the same page?

5 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

The point is that what was once unimaginable appeared.

If you want you can say that one day love could be a number and that 2+2 could = 19, but I am happy to say that such things will never happen... 

Edited November 12, 2018 by winterknight

[Preetom]

9 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

ANYTHING can appear, because Anything is within nothing/everything. If reality wants to reveal the essence of existential nature through science, it will happen - regardless of whether your finite mind can imagine it or thinks it is possible. 

@Serotoninluv

Yes any thing/dimension/activity can happen. That's very definition of absolute potentiality.

But whatever that would appear, wouldn't it be 'known'?

This 'knowing', without which nothing else could be, is it possible to objectify this pure 'knowing'? Wouldn't that be another phenomena known through this 'knowing'?

Can any 'object' stand on it's own without the 'knowing' of it?

[Forestluv]

6 minutes ago, winterknight said:

If you want you can say that one day love will be a number and that 2+2=19, but I am happy to say that such things will never happen... 

I don't get the sense you have direct experience with the null void of absolute nothing yet. This is a question of distinctions which traveling to and from the null void can reveal. IME, 5-meo is the best tool to travel there.

[Mu_]

9 minutes ago, Preetom said:

@Serotoninluv

Yes any thing/dimension/activity can happen. That's very definition of absolute potentiality.

But whatever that would appear, wouldn't it be 'known'?

This 'knowing', without which nothing else could be, is it possible to objectify this pure 'knowing'? Wouldn't that be another phenomena known through this 'knowing'?

Can any 'object' stand on it's own without the 'knowing' of it?

From the absolute sense, there is no objects.  Just itself.  So the question is really just Self happening/being (still just experiential meaning metaphors), not the language and experience of what is falsely being pointed to

Edited November 12, 2018 by Mu_

[Preetom]

1 hour ago, Outer said:

Yes you cannot experience anything but your WM. But you perceive the same world as the person whose WM green is binary.

Where is this world? Has anyone found it? Could anyone find it?

So it basically seems that it doesn't really matter whether you're following a Consciousness-only model or Matter-only model. If you are consistent with either of them and take it all the way, you reach to the same conclusion:

An Absolute Reality that cannot be objectified and accessed through objective manner, but yet it undoubtedly exists! Without it's existence, there cannot be any World Model existing.

The materialists are not totally congruent with their own argument. Brain itself is a World Model. Why do  they assume that the 'SAME WORLD' aka Absolute Reality is bound by a World Model called Brain and nervous system? 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Preetom

[Preetom]

@winterknight

I don't know if it would sound like a legit question but anyway I would appreciate it if you answer.

At the moment of Self-Realization, is it kind of an inference? Like we all conventionally agree on a same, shared, external, objective world through inference, even though we have no experiential or objective proof of such a world.

Or is it something so direct that it cannot be missed at all? Something which pales all other knowledge and inference..

[Outer]

19 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Ok, fantastic. So let's look now at exactly what science is.

Science is about explanation of phenomena in terms of sense data that we can all agree upon.

But in order to explain phenomena, it has to be able to access them.

Since a scientist cannot "experience anything but their WM," scientists cannot explain phenomena that are occurring in other people's WMs.

If that is the case, science cannot explain these phenomena.

Are we still on the same page?

Scientists can however explain what is occurring in other people's WM, but can't experience it. That scientist brain is explaining what is occurring in someone's WM because WM's are ultimately created by the Experiencer, which is created by the brain. But that is experienced in the scientist's WM.

You can explain something without directly experiencing it.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Outer

[Mu_]

6 minutes ago, Preetom said:

Where is this world? Have anyone found it? Could anyone find it?

So it basically seems that it doesn't really matter whether you're following a Consciousness-only model or Matter-only model. If you are consistent with either of them and take it all the way, you reach to the same conclusion:

An Absolute Reality that cannot be objectified and accessed through objective manner, but yet it undoubtedly exists! Without it's existence, there cannot be any World Model existing.

The materialists are not totally congruent with their own argument. Brain itself is a World Model. Why do  they assume that the 'SAME WORLD' aka Absolute Reality is bound by a World Model called Brain and nervous system? 

Thats spot on.  I've said it before, but its very clean in the way you worded it.

 

[Forestluv]

 

24 minutes ago, Preetom said:

@Serotoninluv

Yes any thing/dimension/activity can happen. That's very definition of absolute potentiality.

But whatever that would appear, wouldn't it be 'known'?

This 'knowing', without which nothing else could be, is it possible to objectify this pure 'knowing'? Wouldn't that be another phenomena known through this 'knowing'?

Can any 'object' stand on it's own without the 'knowing' of it?

It is "known" by which it appears. It is "known" by itself. 

This is one facet of awakening. All of these concepts are highly sophisticated distinctions. Even concepts that appear to transcend concepts. Go to the place before you were born. Go to the place that proceeds all concepts. All language. All images. All symbols. All distinctions collapse into nothing. 

A lot of what's being offered in this thread are awakenings. Some of which I have not yet had direct experience. Yet, one facet of awakening that seems to be getting off track is that it's all inherently meaningless. I get the sense that there is some attachment to very sophisticated, subtle spiritual beliefs. There is nothing "wrong" with that, it's just extremely difficult for the self to be aware of.

One facet of true freedom is zero attachment to anything. Regardless of how spiritual the idea is. Can a buddhist monk let go of all his profound beliefs and experiences? How about an advaita master? How about a scientific master? Can they let go of them like they were just a fantasy dream? Or do they actually believe them?

[winterknight]

1 minute ago, Outer said:

Scientists can however explain what is occurring in other people's WM, but can't experience it. That scientist brain is explaining what is occurring in someone's WM because WM's are ultimately created by the Experiencer, which is created by the brain. But that is experienced in the scientist's WM.

You can explain something without directly experiencing it.

But you've already admitted the scientist can never even know whether someone else is experiencing binary-as-green or not. How can they explain this if they cannot know whether it is happening or not?

[Mu_]

19 minutes ago, Preetom said:

@winterknight

I don't know if it would sound like a legit question but anyway I would appreciate it if you answer.

At the moment of Self-Realization, is it kind of an inference? Like we all conventionally agree on a same, shared, external, objective world through inference, even though we have no experiential or objective proof of such a world.

Or is it something so direct that it cannot be missed at all? Something which pales all other knowledge and inference..

I can only speak from my experience.  But if your looking for something to happen (Self-Realization) that can't stand the test of objectified scrutinization, you'll miss it.  I've been really trying to answer the very specific nature of your question for a little while now, because I think it holds the key to more people waking up.

The best analogy I can put it in, is, you just remember something you forgot, like oh ya I put my keys over there.  Prior you had no knowledge of where the keys were, and then boom, oh ya they are right here.... but like many other awakened teachers have commented on in the past, breaking down your ego through spiritual practice increases the chances to have the remembrance.

 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Mu_

[Outer]

1 minute ago, winterknight said:

But you've already admitted the scientist can never even know whether someone else is experiencing binary-as-green or not. How can they explain this if they cannot know whether it is happening or not?

They won't explain that because they have no reason to.

[Outer]

If there's a good reason to explain something, you can. But "is your green is the same as mine", is filed under the category of "not being the case".

Also, it is technically explained by talking about WM's, if we exclude science. As not being the case. Also the fact that no  two brains are alike.

Because color is not something we perceive. What else do we not perceive?

Edited November 12, 2018 by Outer

[winterknight]

14 minutes ago, Preetom said:

@winterknight

I don't know if it would sound like a legit question but anyway I would appreciate it if you answer.

At the moment of Self-Realization, is it kind of an inference? Like we all conventionally agree on a same, shared, external, objective world through inference, even though we have no experiential or objective proof of such a world.

Or is it something so direct that it cannot be missed at all? Something which pales all other knowledge and inference..

It's a legit question, no worries. It is not an inference. It is a direct realization beyond the possibility of doubt.

14 minutes ago, John Lula said:

@winterknight Are you scared of suffering? How does enlightenment change your relationship to suffering?

I don't identify myself with the mind, so I am not afraid of suffering. The mind, suffering, pain, pleasure, none of these exist.

They might seem to exist, but they do not, really. 

It is only the mind that could be afraid of suffering, and if we accept its seeming existence for discussion's sake, then I would say that it is much less afraid of suffering than before, but it still does try to avoid it. There is also much less emotional suffering.

5 minutes ago, Outer said:

They won't explain that because they have no reason to.

Ok, so if scientists have no reason to explain things that might be happening in other people's WMs, then those things won't be explained. Do you see that?

If that's the case, then science will not explain those things, because scientists have "no reason" to explain them. They cannot know if they are going on. But they might be going on.

Right?

So if that's the case then there is a group of phenomena -- that is, what's happening in other people's WMs -- that science cannot explain, because scientists cannot know if they are going on.

Do you see this?

[Preetom]

@Serotoninluv

yes I see that the distinction between knower and known must collapse as well. Let me frame in a different way.

Can the Infinite appear as a finite thing in it's totality?

I know this question itself must collapse as well because already it is assuming a distinction between infinte and finite.

Anyway, thanks for the healthy reminder about attachment. Actually in Vendanta, it is one of the core principle that the methodology/scripture itself can never produce or reveal the Self. It is only a thorn to remove a thorn(ignorance), thus has to thrown in the end as well. I was listening to a lecture of a swami today and he mentions this through a verse which is, '' After Self-Realization, the Vedas(Knowledge) becomes the Avedas(Ignorance) ''