The universe is mental

[Osaid]

6 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Ego is an aspect of self. Self is who you take yourself to be. Leaving spiritual fantasy aside, you likely take yourself to be some way.

All these ideas are ego. There is no one "taking themselves" to be a certain way. There is just knowledge about "who I am", which is just knowledge. When you realize you cannot turn yourself into knowledge, the ego goes away.

6 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

But it isn't recognized as such; it appears to us as "reality".

Yes, because you believe that you can think about yourself. You have turned yourself into a concept, which is what self or ego is.

6 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

If you were completely free of self, you wouldn't mind dying as you'd be deeply conscious of what you are.

This is conflation. Surviving is not the same as believing that you can die. Surviving is not death, therefore you can still engage in it. This also completely depends on what you personally desire. You can have some religious zealot who doesn't mind dying for their God or whatever, so this is not a good metric. You don't need death to be motivated to survive.

The idea that having no self removes all your motivations is false. It just removes imagined fear relating to past or future. If you are being motivated by imagined fear, it will remove that.

Edited February 6 by Osaid

[UnbornTao]

@Osaid But is it your direct experience or something you've heard? 

By concept I just don't mean a thought, it is reality for you.

The drive to persist is incredibly powerful. It is based on the possibility of dying as a constant background sense! Survival isn't just existing. It is the force behind your perception, thinking, acting, emoting, relating. It is you, yourself. As a self, you can and will die -- your body will decay, etc. About people who claim to not be afraid of death, they don't know what they're talking about, unless deeply enlightened, so extremely unlikely. They're talking about their idea of death, not the reality of it.

Not minding death isn't about needing it in order to be motivated to survive; it is seeing what life and death are.

On 06/02/2024 at 7:33 PM, Osaid said:

The idea that having no self removes all your motivations is false. It just removes imagined fear relating to past or future. If you are being motivated by imagined fear, it will remove that.

I haven't said that. I think we're talking about not-self differently.

It wouldn't be about not having self but about knowing what it is, perhaps. It is incredibly hard to transcend the self, not-self dynamic. Again, you likely do take yourself to be some way, even after a few enlightenments. For example, you don't take yourself to be a microwave, a notebook or your pet, although in a sense they might relate to your self-concept and thus you might be attached to them in some form -- as your possessions. Gautama still showed up a particular way.

Fear might be "imagined" and relates to the future. There's still work to be done to transcend it at large.

Edited February 9 by UnbornTao

[Osaid]

24 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

But is it your direct experience

Yes.

24 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Again, you likely do take yourself to be some way

No. Enlightenment is a permanent shift which prevents you from imagining yourself ever again. To clarify, your imaginative capacity stays the exact same, you just don't react to it as if it is yourself. You aren't prevented from imagining things, but it just makes absolutely no sense to do that in relation to yourself, so you don't engage in it anymore. It's like imagining a unicorn that you want to take care of, it doesn't make sense, so you just don't do it.

24 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

attached to them in some form -- as your possessions. Gautama still showed up a particular way.

Attachment is just a fear of losing things in the future. It is a specific type of fear based on an imaginary self.

Consider that the reason Gautama showed up a certain way is because having no self and possessing something are not mutually exclusive. It is the fear spawned from possessing an object which is attachment, not the possession itself. If there is no self in the future to lose it, there is just the self which currently exists and has the possession.

24 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Fear might be "imagined" and relates to the future. There's much work to be done to largely transcend it.

There can be a lot of self-inquiry and spiritual practices involved prior to it, but the actual event itself is very simple and it can occur in many different ways. It's like realizing you forgot your keys, it happens in an instant. It's not stoicism or just "fighting against your fears", it is clearly realizing that the entity which was fearing things does not exist, and then going on with your life. You just realize that there is nothing to transcend because the thing you were trying to transcend does not exist. It is not coming up with insight or logic about why you shouldn't fear something, it is seeing that there is literally nothing there to fear. All fears related to past and future experiences immediately vanish, because there is no imagined self to fear any of those things anymore. It's not a matter of willpower, it is a matter of just seeing what exists.

There can be incremental improvements in how you handle fear, through certain insights and therapy. However, this is just more "belief-changing." It is still in the realm of beliefs. You're still just fighting beliefs with beliefs. Enlightenment is seeing through that entire structure as a whole by getting rid of the fundamental belief of "who you think you are."

Edited February 7 by Osaid

[Rafael Thundercat]

Universe is mental masturbation. It self plesure itself inside of itself to make more copies of itself to make more copies of itself from macro to micro level ad infinitum because it have no where to go than to itself. You came from yourself and when you dream nigth you meet yourself and wake up and there it is self again and one day you die and you are back to yourself again an again. 

But in the end you must let go of this circular thougth and engage in life. Even after knowing that is all Mind, or mainly because you undertand that is all mind this is a good reason to engage in life. Whu not engage with yourself?

[UnbornTao]

@Osaid I'll take your word for it -- that it is your direct experience or something you're conscious of.

I'd say that enlightenment is realizing the nature of what's already true rather than a shift, and it doesn't change anything.

The dynamic between self and not-self is present as an invention to some degree for us to function in the relative domain. How could we survive otherwise? Some form of self-identification is there.

For example: Why do you wash your car? Who says it is yours? Why wouldn't you try to wash other people's cars? Also, if a chair's leg is broken, you don't consider that it was your leg that got broken. There's a practical reason for that. That points out the fact that you hold your self to be some way. Relatively speaking, you "say" --live as-- that you are here, and not there. This seems to be a basic recognition for survival, and it doesn't have to mean that you conflate your nature with something invented.

Enlightened people seem to come in all shapes and sizes. How come they hold different values, interests, traits? One reason might be that they have their own particular way of showing up, and that we might call self. They may have awakened, however there're particular self-aspects and a personality aligned with their respective character. This is an interesting phenomenon.

Attachment and fear seem to be related although the former is based on the past. It is about you wanting for a past experience or memory to remain in some form, something you've identified yourself to, or knowledge as you say. Have yet to look deeply into it.

These topics are more profound than we are making them out to be, and I think we could be more grounded. Anyway, more work to be done.

Edited February 9 by UnbornTao

[Inliytened1]

On 1/26/2024 at 9:27 AM, B222 said:

How so? Heard Leo and people here say it too but don’t think I fully understand or have felt it

cheers

It should be so obvious to you.  So frigging obvious.  If it's not that is surely a sign you don't have the genetics for awakening but don't you go despairing just yet 

If you care at all about the nature of reality you will find it.  If you care at all.  But it will take lots of work.  Your intuition doesn't help you like it does some.   Intuitively, for example, it's extremely obvious that a thing cannot exist independent of Consciousness- or one who is conscious of that thing.  After all, if no one is consciousness of it then what is it? It changes everything.   It changes the paradigm.   But the materialist paradigm is absolutely impossible.   You would see that if you looked.

[Osaid]

8 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

it doesn't change anything.

Something which does not exist cannot be changed. So in that way, yes. You don't gain or lose anything, you just recognize that nothing is there.

8 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

This seems to be a basic recognition for survival, and it doesn't have to mean that you conflate your nature with something invented.

Survival does not contradict no self. This is a very common conflation, but the idea that "no distinction" means you stop doing things is just not accurate.

There is survival, and there is a recognition of survival, but there is no need for a self in the equation.

8 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Enlightened people seem to come in all shapes and sizes. How come they hold different values, interests, traits? One reason might be that they have their own particular way of showing up, and that we might call self. They may have awakened, however there're particular self-aspects and a personality aligned with their respective character. This is an interesting phenomenon.

There is uniqueness, which you seem to take as "self."

The world is actually comprised of physical and biological "motivations" which have nothing to do with a self. For example, you do not need to imagine yourself to feel physical pain, because physical pain is not imagined. You do not need to imagine yourself to prefer the taste of vanilla over chocolate, because taste is not imagined. It is specifically the motivations which stem from imagining yourself, which are self. The rest are just existential and biological occurrences.

You are doing something similar to looking at a tree or plant, and then saying "it has a self because it is trying to survive." You are anthropomorphizing it. The plant organism is simply operating in the world with its own unique intelligence, and that does not involve imagining or perceiving a self at all.

I think part of what drives this conflation is the sense of control you think that you have. When you feel pain from touching a hot stove, you think that "you" moved your hand away, and so then you attribute that with a self. The part where you physically moved your hand away is not self, but the part where you think that you did that is self, because you are imagining ownership over the experience.

[UnbornTao]

@Osaid What is uniqueness about? You may recognize differences between what you consider to be different individuals, hence the possibility of something being unique. Differences might be invented, including self and uniqueness and notice how uniqueness is acknowledged while self isn't.

The distinction of not-self as what lies outside one's self, not as a lack thereof. Self might be a construction but a rudimentary form of it seems to be present for most people, even if transcended to some degree. No one has completely transcended self here.  

Analogous to computer software, some identified "uniqueness" is the kernel for survival, a very basic sense which might better be called instinct, perhaps. Still, for example, the social domain is an invention and yet appears real to our selves.

Someone is enlightened. Do you know everything there's to know? Have you transformed? No, there's still plenty of stuff to be grasped, and chances are you can become more deeply and absolutely conscious. Knowing one's nature doesn't automatically imbues you with insight into emotions, mind, experience, space, time, skill, interaction, principles, etc.

Edited February 13 by UnbornTao

[Osaid]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

What is the distinction of uniqueness about?

You are pointing out how an enlightened person "is a certain way" and comes in "different shapes and sizes", or at least you imagine that as a reference, which points out their "uniqueness". You seem to view this uniqueness as "self."

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

This is the domain of personal transformation.

It is the domain of life, which is lived out afterwards, yes.

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

What does that mean?

It means I know what I am, or what "I" is. It means I know exactly what my experience is. This should not be mistaken for knowledge, because knowledge is not inherent to experience. That is why you can seemingly lack knowledge and still exist.

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

Do you know everything there's to know?

The "shift" with enlightenment is meta to knowledge, it informs what constitutes knowledge in the first place. It is seeing what knowledge is made up of, so to speak. You don't gain or lose knowledge in the process. You also cannot figure out what knowledge is with more knowledge, which is what happens in philosophy, because that is the old analogy of the hand trying to grasp itself.

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

Have you transformed?

There are certain measurable differences but they are more like side-effects. For example, if you don't fear things as much, there will obviously be less cortisol produced in the body. I talk about some measurable symptoms here:
 

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

Knowing one's nature doesn't automatically imbues you with insight into emotions, mind, experience, space, time, skill, interaction, principles, etc. This is the domain of personal transformation.

Perhaps, but it actually becomes much easier. For example, when you aren't enlightened, you have to speculate and theorize about what emotions and mind are. When you are enlightened, all you have to do is look at your own experience and then try to explain it conceptually. Certain enlightened people will have a better conceptual grasp of what they are experiencing, because that is still in the domain of language and communication, which is not really inherent to enlightenment. An insight is an intellectual formulation derived from experience, it is not experiencing itself. This is why experiencing the same thing twice does not create the same insight again, it's because you already remember the insight in your intellect. So there are such differences that can occur. However, they have nothing to do with an actual difference in development in those areas, because you cannot develop having "no self" further, you either see that the self doesn't exist or you don't.

And then, aside from that, anecdotally I also see that simply being able to see your perception clearly actually trickles into pretty much every other domain of life as a consequence. I would still have to learn how to make a pizza if I want to be a pizza chef, but perhaps my way of learning it would be enhanced.

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

I'm saying no one has transcended self if we remain experientially grounded.  

I think you only say this because you have some idea of "self" which is not actually what it is.

Although if you wanna be funny about it and act like a wise mystical sage: "Yes, there is no one which transcends self, because the one who transcends it is the one that is transcended"

Edited February 9 by Osaid

[James123]

On 1/26/2024 at 6:27 PM, B222 said:

How so? Heard Leo and people here say it too but don’t think I fully understand or have felt it

cheers

Whatever you think or know is that's what your reality is including word of reality. When you are in deep sleep is there any universe? No. Because there is no thought=you there, there is just being. 

[UnbornTao]

@Osaid

Uniqueness as a distinction may be equally conceptual as self. Without non-uniqueness, there's no being unique. However, why concede to one and not the other?

If enlightened, you realize the nature of the absolute, not necessarily that of experience, which is a relative phenomenon. Again, not everything is known after awakening. What is every relative phenomenon that we experience? What is object, another, life, pain, happiness?

On 09/02/2024 at 9:43 PM, Osaid said:

Perhaps, but it actually becomes much easier. For example, when you aren't enlightened, you have to speculate and theorize about what emotions and mind are. When you are enlightened, all you have to do is look at your own experience and then try to explain it conceptually. Certain enlightened people will have a better conceptual grasp of what they are experiencing, because that is still in the domain of language and communication, which is not really inherent to enlightenment. An insight is an intellectual formulation derived from experience, it is not experiencing itself. This is why experiencing the same thing twice does not create the same insight again, it's because you already remember the insight in your intellect. So there are such differences that can occur. However, they have nothing to do with an actual difference in development in those areas, because you cannot develop having "no self" further, you either see that the self doesn't exist or you don't.

And then, aside from that, anecdotally I also see that simply being able to see your perception clearly actually trickles into pretty much every other domain of life as a consequence. I would still have to learn how to make a pizza if I want to be a pizza chef, but perhaps my way of learning it would be enhanced.

Enlightenment facilitates investigation and learning but the work to grasp emotions, mind, etc. has to be done regardless of that. A conceptual explanation isn't enough; insight can be had into the nature of mind, etc. It goes beyond concept, everyone has concepts about mind, etc. Insight is an experiential encounter with the reality or nature of something. After that, it might degrade into intellect, but it's about the experience, not the memery.

On 09/02/2024 at 9:43 PM, Osaid said:

I think you only say this because you have some idea of "self" which is not actually what it is.

I'm saying that self-survival is an incredibly powerful force and isn't completely transcended with a few enlightenment experiences.

[Breakingthewall]

4 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

enlightened, you realize the nature of the absolute

10 minutes ago I was meditating in a park looking at a tree at night. At one point, my eyes opened a crack to reality, the veils lost their consistency for a few minutes. The revelation was of a power that seemed like it was going to melt my brain, the breadth and strength of reality shone with a power capable of killing. Being enlightened is impossible, you can have flashes but no one has ever been enlightened and no one ever will be. looking into the face of the living infinity is death

[Osaid]

6 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

If enlightened, you realize the nature of the absolute, not necessarily that of experience

You can't keep separating what is "absolute" from your current experience. You might as well say "you can't experience the absolute" or "the absolute doesn't exist." You say the distinction is useful but it isn't, because you are using the distinction to make an existential statement about the absolute. You are confusing the map for the territory.

6 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

which is a relative phenomenon.

Nothing is relative, you're just imagining that.

6 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

What is every relative phenomenon that we experience?

Nothing.

6 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

What is object, another, life, pain, happiness?

Nothing. No thing.

Quote

I'm saying that self-survival is an incredibly powerful force and isn't completely transcended with a few enlightenment experiences.

You are conflating survival, and life itself, with self. That is an uphill battle, to say the least.

Quote

Uniqueness as a distinction may be equally conceptual as self. Without non-uniqueness, there's no being unique. However, why concede to one and not the other?

Language itself is made out of distinctions, that is how communication works. I am not conceding to anything by communicating.

You made the distinction of "uniqueness" or "certain characteristics that people have", and I am pointing to that and saying "this is not self."

Edited February 13 by Osaid

[UnbornTao]

On 13/02/2024 at 10:25 PM, Osaid said:

You can't keep separating what is "absolute" from your current experience. You might as well say "you can't experience the absolute" or "the absolute doesn't exist." You say the distinction is useful but it isn't, because you are using the distinction to make an existential statement about the absolute. You are confusing the map for the territory.

Again, my contention isn't that the absolute isn't absolute. It can't be experienced as it isn't an experience, it's the word we use.

Relative phenomenon appear to us in distinct forms, depending on what we're talking about. An experience of an emotion isn't the same as an experience of an object, for example. A hug isn't a hunch, etc. Absolute doesn't imply insight into the relative. That's why, if other things such as skill or transformation are desired, there's more work to do besides enlightenment. Gautama might have not been a masterful cook.

Quote

Nothing is relative, you're just imagining that.

Then grasp how it's being imagined, to what degree, and how it's done and lived. Acknowledge and master it as it is experienced.

Quote

Nothing.

Nothing. No thing.

This is an answer about what's true.

Quote

You are conflating survival, and life itself, with self. That is an uphill battle, to say the least.

It's the same principle: self-survival. What drive is pushing you? What is surviving?

Quote

Language itself is made out of distinctions, that is how communication works. I am not conceding to anything by communicating.

You made the distinction of "uniqueness" or "certain characteristics that people have", and I am pointing to that and saying "this is not self."

Distinction isn't limited to language, though. It is that you experience what you do.

Uniqueness may occur conceptually as self does. Given that, the self dynamic can also be said to operate similarly as any other distinction. Uniqueness is a subset of a perceived "self", entity or object. Is distinction conceptual, and viceversa, though? Have to look into it.

Everything might be nothing, yet our experience of life is unlike that. Completely transcending self, suffering, life and death is unlikely and rare. Ultimately, we don't know anything and therefore must remain open. Enlightenment is a good first step.

Tried to come up with an analogy: Electricity is foundational to a computer's operation. It sources and is present throughout all of the computer processes, hardware and software. The experience of using a PC (managing apps, writing, editing videos, playing games, customizing the GUI) are forms of electricity while at the same time they show up in particular ways which are experienced as different from each other.

In this analogy, for example: What are hardware and software? What's writing a book? This would be the equivalent of investigating the relative.

Something like that.

Edited February 17 by UnbornTao

[Osaid]

11 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Again, my contention isn't that the absolute isn't absolute.

You can't experience the absolute as it isn't an experience, it's the word we use. It doesn't exist and it does, neither does it not exist, etc., short of grasping the absolute, not much use in chatting about it.

Consider why you put on your underwear the way you do and not on your head?

Relative phenomenon show up a certain way and this matter of direct consciousness isn't the same as insight into the relative. On its own, it doesn't provide you with that, nor with self-transformation or skill. As you say, this is about our experience of living.

A grounding exercise: we get angry -- what's that experience about?

Then grasp how it's being imagined, to what degree, and how it's done and lived. Acknowledge and master it.

An answer is an answer.

It's the same principle of self-survival. What drive is pushing you? What is surviving?

Distinction isn't limited to language, though. It is that you experience what you do.

Uniqueness occurs, being equally conceptual (imaginary) as self. Self, being illusory, can also be said to be operative as a dynamic in the same way as uniqueness is. Uniqueness is a subset of a perceived "self", entity or object. 

Everything might be nothing. On the other hand, our experience of life isn't usually like that. No of one has likely completely transcended self, suffering, life and death. We don't know everything and must remain open. Enlightenment is a good first step.

Tried to come up with an analogy: a computer needs hardware and software to work. Electricity is foundational to its operation. It sources and is present throughout all of the computer processes. And yet, the experience of using the computer (downloading apps, writing books, editing videos, playing games, customizing the UI) are at the same time manifestations or forms of electricity and at the same time show up in very particular ways, which are experienced as different from each other. In this analogy, for example: What are hardware and software? What's writing a book?

Something like that.

We're going in circles. You do you.

[UnbornTao]

On 15/02/2024 at 10:32 PM, Osaid said:

We're going in circles. You do you.

Who?  

We are, maybe it's by design. In any case, I appreciate the chat.

Edited February 17 by UnbornTao

[Osaid]

Just now, UnbornTao said:

We are, in any case I appreciate the chat.

Same, good chat.

[UnbornTao]

On 13/02/2024 at 8:58 PM, Breakingthewall said:

10 minutes ago I was meditating in a park looking at a tree at night. At one point, my eyes opened a crack to reality, the veils lost their consistency for a few minutes. The revelation was of a power that seemed like it was going to melt my brain, the breadth and strength of reality shone with a power capable of killing. Being enlightened is impossible, you can have flashes but no one has ever been enlightened and no one ever will be. looking into the face of the living infinity is death

It is possible to realize the absolute. What you say sounds like a state and I'd question your conclusions.

Edited February 16 by UnbornTao

[Breakingthewall]

10 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

@Osaid

 

 

I'd question your conclusions. What you describe sounds like a state. It is possible to become conscious of the absolute.

You can be conscious of your true nature all time, but after that you could access to mystical states. The absolute is just absence of limits, absolute freedom that is. Let's say that this is the basis of existence, but from that absence of limits reality emerges, this reality is not imaginary nor a mischievous god who plays, it is the incommensurable. The living void that can be accessed is one thing, but the opening to the atomic reactor, the supernova, call it whatever, which is the essence of life, is another. This is not an illusion, it is real. Trees grow, your heart beats, galaxies emerge, and all that.

Edited February 16 by Breakingthewall

[UnbornTao]

@Breakingthewall OK, contemplate.