I am enlightened. Sincere seekers: ask me anything

[Ibn Sina]

1 hour ago, winterknight said:

Matter itself is a thought in the cosmic mind, that's all. So is the brain.

The cosmic mind has created a universe that appears to operate by certain laws, and among these is that brain states influence states of consciousness.

But you might compare the brain to a radio. Break the radio and the sound changes, but that doesn't mean the radio is the ultimate source of the music. No, the radio station is. 

And these issues have nothing to do with enlightenment. However many lesions one has it does not affect enlightenment in the slightest. But to understand why this is one must dispel ignorance.

All right so you do agree that defects in the brain changes your  indvidual experience ( as you said- The cosmic mind has created a universe that appears to operate by certain laws, and among these is that brain states influence states of consciousness.)

So we both agree that at least at the level of the body, your behavior changes if there is some defect in your nervous system, doesn't matter if you are enlightened or not, if you are a buddha or a christ or jesus if you have defect in your brain then you will show the subsequent symptoms and personality changes, this is no bullshit, this is medical physiology and if you happen to disagree you will be challenging modern medicine itself and if you demonstrate something otherwise then you will win the nobel prize, become world famous, it's that simple, you won't even need a youtube channel.

So here we both agree. At the objective level, we both agree.

Now comes the level of the subjective experience. Now here we may differ.
 You  say that , leisions in the brain does not effect enlightenment.
So what do you exactly mean by that? That is not clear. Basically you are saying that enlightenment stays even if you have a leision in your brain. But what does that mean.

Let's say, the great Adi Shankaracharya, the greatest indian theologian responsible for wiping out Buddhism from India, gets a brain tumor. You and I both agree that at the body level he will be acting weirdly. 
But what do you think goes in that mind? ( You say that enlightenment stays)
I don't know about you, but this is my understanding of enlightenment- the disidentification with your body, thoughts, minds, sensations, ego, and final result is pure awareness.
So from my understanding of enlightenment, the enlightened Adi Shankaracharya's experience  while he has brain tumor is he will have pure awareness in the background. He knows that the body is acting wierdly, but he knows that he is not the body or the mind, he is nothing but pure awareness, he feels  himself identical to this awareness though he sees the body acting weirdly.

Now what I am saying is that even that pure awareness has it's center in the brain. Of course this is assuming my version of enlightenment.

So are you saying  that enlightenment is other then dissolving into pure awareness and nonduality? 

If enlightenment means complete disidentification, complete disconnection with the  imagery world , and subsequent flow of pure consciousness, then even this pure consciousness has it's root in the brain. All you need to do is read a book on neurology, or do a google search. Consciousness comes from brain stem. (Thinking, memory so and so it's all from cortex and other parts, but basic consciousness that is the characteristic of life, is brain stem. Even reptiles have it) It's clinical significance is, if there is a problem, there is irreversible loss consciousness. ( At least when looking at the body).  That's how we know brain stem is responsible for consciousness. 

Now if you are saying that , if the enlightened individual has his brain stem damaged, he still  remains enlightened because his flow of pure consciousness and disidentification with  the body continues as if he is a  ghost although his body is good as dead, then that is a subjective non-falsifiable assertion which cannot be proven or disproven. 

But at the level of the body, the center of consciousness is brain stem. The body loses consciousness and becomes dead stuff if brain stem is damaged. But if you are saying consciousness is still present, then that's subjective. 

Now if you are saying the retention of enlightenment happens in some other away, then again that's subjective, non-observable , and I have no idea what  you are talking about.

 

 

Edited July 6, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[winterknight]

6 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

Now comes the level of the subjective experience. Now here we may differ.
 You  say that , leisions in the brain does not effect enlightenment.
So what do you exactly mean by that? That is not clear. Basically you are saying that enlightenment stays even if you have a leision in your brain. But what does that mean.Let's say, the great Adi Shankaracharya, the greatest indian theologian responsible for wiping out Buddhism from India, gets a brain tumor. You and I both agree that at the body level he will be acting weirdly. 
But what do you think goes in that mind? ( You say that enlightenment stays)
I don't know about you, but this is my understanding of enlightenment- the disidentification with your body, thoughts, minds, sensations, ego, and final result is pure awareness.

Well, that's the problem. That's not what enlightenment is. Enlightenment is the destruction of ignorance. Ignorance is the belief that "I" am separate from my experience -- and ignorance includes the idea that ignorance ever exists. Thus it is ignorance to believe that enlightenment exists. And yet this is the end product of enlightenment; it cannot be taken as true at the beginning by the seeker.

In short, enlightenment cannot be understood with the mind.

It can only be understood by getting there. If enlightenment could be destroyed by something as trivial as a brain change, it would be worthless.

[Nahm]

@winterknight Very nice. ??

[Ibn Sina]

18 minutes ago, winterknight said:

. Ignorance is the belief that "I" am separate from my experience

@winterknight

So enlightenment means 'I' AM one with my experience , you mean?

So it means that there IS an experience isn't it?

And you always maintain that enlightenment cannot be destroyed by brain change.

My question is, do you believe that, the feeling that I AM same as my experience, is maintained even after brain stem is damaged?

What I think is that no matter what you experience, whether you feel experience yourself identical to your experience or you feel yourself identical to your body, is rooted in your brain. 

So just a yes or  no will suffice, do you think that experience of you one with your experience, stays or not with brain damage?

If you say yes, then I think that is a non-falsifiable, assertion, and to access that knowledge (if it is true) I will have to do 5-Meo Dmt and all sorts of spiritual practices, I can't access it by concept.

But I hope that you and I both agree that once brain stem is damaged, even if you are enlightened, the body shuts off. 

Edited July 6, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[winterknight]

5 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

@winterknight

So enlightenment means 'I' AM one with my experience , you mean?

No, enlightenment means that the dichotomous choice between "I am one with my experience" and "I am not one with my experience" is itself incorrectly put.

Quote

 

So it means that there IS an experience isn't it?

 

It does not.

Quote

 

My question is, do you believe that, the feeling that I AM same as my experience, is maintained even after brain stem is damaged?

 

Enlightenment isn't a feeling.

Quote

 

If you say yes, then I think that is a non-falsifiable, assertion, and to access that knowledge (if it is true) I will have to do 5-Meo Dmt and all sorts of spiritual practices, I can't access it by concept.

 

True, you cannot access the truth by concept.

Quote

But I hope that you and I both agree that once brain stem is damaged, even if you are enlightened, the body shuts off. 

If we believe there's such a thing as a body, sure.

[Ibn Sina]

@winterknight

Wow, so enlightenment is not an experience. But what is there except experience and perception? I mean everything is experience and perception. 

I mean how can the fact that - destruction of the belief that you are seperate from your experience, not an experience. Please tell me. I can perfectly see that it is an experience, if it wasn't then that event wouldn't even happen.

Then what do you think enlightenment is.

Earlier you said it is destruction of ignorance, and ignorance is a belief, and isn't the destruction of a belief , an experience? 
Like if I used to believe that apple is blue, and someone showed me a red apple, then my belief is destroyed, and isn't that an experience.

Okay then tell me what is enligtenment then.

I bet whatever you categorize enlightenment under, it can be put under the category of experience.

Except when you just say- Enlightenment cannot be grasped by the mind  or categories, at which point I say you win because there is no way to go furthur from there.

Edited July 6, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[winterknight]

2 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

@winterknight

Except when you just say- Enlightenment cannot be grasped by the mind  or categories, at which point I say you win because there is no way to go furthur from there.

Correct, that's exactly so. Enlightenment is looking into something that appears to be there, but isn't. When you look into it, you find that not only is it not there, but even the belief that it was there -- isn't there and was never there.

Therefore enlightenment itself isn't there.

Edited July 6, 2019 by winterknight

[Ibn Sina]

15 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Enlightenment is looking into something that appears to be there, but isn't. When you look into it, you find that not only is it not there, but even the belief that it was there -- isn't there and was never there

@winterknight

You didn't adress my query about the nature of experience.

Whether you are looking at something and finding out that it isn't there (definition of enlightenment as stated above), or whether as previously said, destruction of ignorance (as you said previously)

that is an experience isn't it?

And you say, without giving any reasons that it is NOT an experience.

I don't know why you say that. With that answer you stopped me dead on my tracks.

That's the first problem I encounter.

I asked the question expecting you would say an obvious yes, so that I could ask my next question which would be-

Where do you think is the experience occuring.

And probably you would say, NOT in the brain (of course you are not a materialist)

And I would then ask , why would you think so,

then you will say- you will have to find it yourself with meditation and practices.

Then the discussion would  properly stop.

Edited July 6, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[winterknight]

20 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

@winterknight

You didn't adress my query about the nature of experience.

Whether you are looking at something and finding out that it isn't there (definition of enlightenment as stated above), or whether as previously said, destruction of ignorance (as you said previously)that is an experience isn't it?

It might appear to be, but it isn't. That's what's impossible to explain about it. You are not looking at something and finding it isn't there. The finding is the realization of the non-existence of "you."

[winterknight]

58 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@winterknight Very nice. ??

Thanks 

[Ibn Sina]

7 minutes ago, winterknight said:

The finding is the realization of the non-existence of "you."

And isn't that an experience?

I can't see how it is not an experience.

The problem stays the same.

Edited July 6, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[winterknight]

1 minute ago, Ibn Sina said:

And isn't that an experience?

I can't see how it is not an experience.

It is not. It is the realization that the category called "experience" is itself incoherent as a concept. It is the realization that the category called "realization" is incoherent as a concept. It is the realization of the non-existence and incoherence of all categories, and the meaninglessness of all language.

See where I'm going with this?

Edited July 6, 2019 by winterknight

[Guru Fat Bastard]

1 minute ago, Ibn Sina said:

And isn't that an experience?

I can't see how it is not an experience.

The problem stays the same.

8 minutes ago, winterknight said:

That's what's impossible to explain about it.

[Ibn Sina]

But for me it seems everything is experience, whether  it is as you say-It is the realization that the category called "realization" is incoherent as a concept (experience),  . It is the realization of the non-existence and incoherence of all categories (experience), and the meaninglessness of all language (experience). Everything absolutely everything. Language or languagelessness IS experience. All realization of incoherence is experience, meaninglessness of language is experience. At least that is how I see it. Every concievable thing , even presumably inconceivable , IS experience.   

Realization that the concept of experience itself is incoherent (experience)

From the hustle and bustle of Las Vegas to absolute pure divine silence of God, it is , for me, experience.

And you disagree.

All right, I have reached the conceptual dead end I guess, beyond which is just spirituality. Thanks for your interaction @winterknight

Edited July 6, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Aakash]

@winterknight what is science? 

[winterknight]

6 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

From the hustle and bustle of Las Vegas to absolute pure divine silence of God, it is , for me, experience.

And you disagree.

All right, I have reached the conceptual dead end I guess, beyond which is just spirituality. Thanks for your interaction @winterknight

I do disagree. Though frankly, regardless, there's no question that the brain cannot account for consciousness either way. Though it's such a boring debate to have, I've had it so many times.

4 minutes ago, Aakash said:

@winterknight what is science? 

That depends on the context in which that term is used. This kind of question is way too broad. You might consider reading more books on philosophy if you're seriously interested in the answer. But basically science is any systematically testable means of acquiring information about the world.

[Aakash]

@winterknight here's a definition i found online, what do you think of it... do you think its more accurate than any definition you can think of? 

Science is self-discovery and self-verification. Anytime you discovered Truth directly, you were doing science. Your personal experience provided you with the proof. 

[winterknight]

3 minutes ago, Aakash said:

@winterknight here's a definition i found online, what do you think of it... do you think its more accurate than any definition you can think of? 

Science is self-discovery and self-verification. Anytime you discovered Truth directly, you were doing science. Your personal experience provided you with the proof. 

Sure, that's one definition.

My point is that whole libraries of philosophers have written on this topic. If you really are interested, time to start reading...

[Aakash]

@winterknight but what if this was literally the absolute definition itself, with all other ways of looking at it, simply being distinctions by delusion, 

what would you say to this? 

[winterknight]

22 minutes ago, Aakash said:

@winterknight but what if this was literally the absolute definition itself, with all other ways of looking at it, simply being distinctions by delusion, 

what would you say to this? 

There are no absolute definitions of relative concepts.