Death Is

[R. Steven Coyle]

However, if all things lack inherent existence, each being dependent on the others and (can therefore be said to) arise simultaneously, life (consciousness) and death (the absence of consciousness) merely become ojbects of consciousness and the idea of death as the final cessation of consciousness rather than an object of it is undressed as a source of great delusion.

Your argument is your own fear of death. What you're alluding to, is the attempt to utilize logic to escape sensation. Shrouding the finite, in the Infinite.

But, I have said too much. In trying to appease your standards of what constitutes genius (your own ambition for clarity of thought), I have, and seemingly continue to (in hopes of maintaining some form of relationship) jeopardize my own self-confidence. A self-confidence that, having two mothers who find their own sexual and social confidence through my own, is, at this stage in life, moderately corrupt.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert,

What do you think of kundalini awakenings? This is the second time I've seen that you've mentioned it on these forums. Do you think that the awakening is a pathway to enlightenment, or that it's just a strange transformation that has nothing to do with enlightenment?

I don't regard my understanding of this topic as complete in any way. But here she goes.

The term itself is in my opinion misleading though I can see it as an effort to describe a certain set of experiences people are sharing that seem to be too similar to each other as well as having too much impact to be merely a product of imagination.

I'd go for the 'strange transformation', as you put it, because as any strong experience it has more the potential to cloud the real issue than to gain clarity. What I think causes the experience seems to be a sudden 'release' of what was blocked before, in terms of nervous energy, embedded thinking patterns, chemicals or any other possible strain. This opposed to suggested movement of some 'cosmic' special form of energy through 'chakra power points'. Of course in the end everything can be seen as the 'cosmos' moving in some manner.

Many of the accounts I've heard of such transformation are not positive in the way it effects our basic functioning or reasoning. Too much, too fast and some fuses might burn through? I have the tendency to classify all the so-called 'miraculous' and super-natural interpretations as 'by-products' or 'frictions' occurring when real awakening is somehow forcefully restrained or suppressed.

I do have interest in the topic though and I think most medical and psychological disciplines are in a too backward state to investigate properly what's going on here. It seems to me one of the great mysteries of the body & mind relations that do have a relation to the spiritual inquiry but not necessarily a positive one.

Even while I believe 'chakras' and 'spiritual powers' are both mostly psychological affairs and not clearly localized physical manifestations in itself, the following fragment from Wikipedia sums it up well for me:

According to Hindu tradition the Kundalini raises from the root-chakra up through the spinal channel, called sushumna, and it is believed to activate each chakra it goes through. Each chakra is said to contain special characteristics (Scotton, 1996). In raising Kundalini, spiritual powers (siddhis) are also believed to arise, but many spiritual traditions see these phenomena as obstacles on the path, and encourages their students not to get hung up with them (Kason, 2000). Although the opening of higher chakras are believed to mark advanced spiritual unfoldment, it is important not to measure spiritual growth solely by the opening of higher potentials. According to this view chakras might be under- or overdeveloped, and lower chakras are thought to be just as important as higher. -- Wikipedia

[sschaula]

Diebert,

Cool to see you're interested in it.

In my understanding, kundalini is a purifier of a person's
"baggage". Emotional trauma is tied to a person's physical body, and in order to have that non-attached philosophical attitude, any emotional problems need to be cleared up...including any latent impressions (things that don't show themselves most of the time, but you can tell you have them because of patterns in behavior or feelings). The body needs to be back in the emotional state of a newborn...absolutely no stored stuff that gets in the way. Then there's some room for the truth.

When the kundalini rises, it's said to purify the "72,000 nadis" (energy channels). I don't know if there are actually 72,000 nadis, or what yogini had the audacity to actually sit there and count them...but it can be simplified to: kundalini prepares your body for enlightenment. Kundalini is not enlightenment itself, because many people who've had awakenings are still stuck in their delusions.

They say that a premature awakening of the energy causes a lot of problems, however according to most traditions, the rising of the kundalini in the sushumna nadi is a necessary prerequisite to realization. So if someone does want to awaken the kundalini energy, they should purify the body...the Hatha Yoga Pradapika says to do alternate nostril breathing, in addition to alterations of diet. Also, the author of http://www.aypsite.com says that reaching samadhi in meditation is a prerequisite as well. His method for having an easy awakening of the energy is to do "spinal breathing"...check it out if you're interested.

Mainly, I think the most important thing to take from all of this is that in order to be immersed in the truth, you have to fully be rid of delusion.

And in case you're wondering about my experience on the matter, I don't have much. I only know enough to know that I trust the sources I read from. If I ever come to know more due to my own experience, I'll let you know, if you would like.

[Leyla Shen]

THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN: A DIVINE TRIP OR GARDEN OF LOGICAL REVELATION

Ken wrote:

Push beyond the physical stimulations of attachment to the body. Tantalizing emotions bind our freedom to the next best thing of transcendance of the material plane. (1)Let the body and brain do your bidding and remain an observer of the unique creation of what you have formed out of water, amino acids, and electricity.
Good job that.

Considering the text I have italicised and bolded, this really speaks of nothing more than an altered state of consciousness rather than any sort of ground-breaking, revelatory ultimate truth. It also seems to be saying that transcendence of the material plane merely involves a surrendering to it [see (1)], “allowing” the body and brain to be the active component of self and self the effect. But at the same time it posits self as cause of that which it is supposed to take a back seat to. Well, that definitely points to the idea that all things lack inherent existence, but it still has a very sharp and contradictory, egocentric twist as it--all the while--implies the subjugation of objective existence to individual will.

On the question of “a personal, everlasting consciousness”:

Aside from any reverent permutations for the moment, why do you think you came back to life as a living, physical organism? What did you have to say to yourself about this--that is, how did you justify it?

Can you die and come back to life at will? If not, in what way exactly have you transcended “the physical plane”?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

And in case you're wondering about my experience on the matter, I don't have much. I only know enough to know that I trust the sources I read from. If I ever come to know more due to my own experience, I'll let you know, if you would like.

Great idea. Though I have some experiences, I don't find them currently important or meaningful enough to write about. Part of it is highly subjective as well. The topic seems confusing to most people and that's not what I'm after. Most of its relevance lies in relation to ones personal development, or as you say: getting rid of deeply buried delusion. Clearing the way. But it brings new possible attachment and possibilities for delusion as well. Or that's what I see happening around.

But nevertheless there might be a place and time to discuss it sometime later. Thanks.

[sschaula]

Leyla,

Considering the text I have italicised and bolded, this really speaks of nothing more than an altered state of consciousness rather than any sort of ground-breaking, revelatory ultimate truth.

Comprehension of ground-breaking, revelatory ultimate truth is an altered state of consciousness.

Think about that...

[R. Steven Coyle]

Nature itself is a system.

The realization that you are also a system, within a formless system -- is Awakening.

[Leyla Shen]

I think you are missing the point of my post, Scott.

Comprehension of ground-breaking, revelatory ultimate truth is an altered state of consciousness.

Of course it is. But there’s a big difference between the “altered” state of consciousness pursuant to the realisation of ultimate truth/s and the altered states of consciousness prior to that comprehension.

[Leyla Shen]

Steven, system implies form. The only form in a formless system, therefore, is the one you give it, which speaks nothing of the truth in your system of form.

[R. Steven Coyle]

Steven, system implies form.

Leyla, not when you realize that your own mind is the void [formless Reality].

[sschaula]

Leyla,

I didn't miss the point of your post. Your post was entitled, "the kingdom of heaven: a divine trip or garden of logical revelation". You are saying that enlightenment is either some sort of strange experience, or an uncovering of truth by logic. I'm saying it's most likely both.

The truth here is one type of truth...it's absolute. A priori. There's no way to deny any of the truth. It's higher than any other truth, because it precedes all other truth. If one has integrated this truth into their every waking second they have truly attained the highest state of mind.

How does someone integrate this truth, though? How does a person know they are a fluctuation of nature while they get cut off in traffic and their mouth begins cursing, their mind begins flaring? How do they understand that their nature envelops the entire universe and all of them is formlessness taking shape, while they talk to their friends about the weekend? While a student studies, how does he comprehend that the book he's reading is the same as him? How does he search through his closet for clothes to wear while he understands that his body will pass, the clothes will go out of style, that nothing matters?

How does this realization take root in our daily activities? Reminding yourself of the truths you've uncovered in your thinking doesn't seem to do the trick. The mind always falls back into the game...it is tricked back into believing the illusion.

Your friends call you out, saying, "What's up with you lately! You've been acting so strange!" Your family begs for you to come back "down to earth", asking you about your day and what you've been reading so much. If you told them they'd be devastated. They want you to marry a beautiful person and make grandkids for them. The people from your church pray for you to believe in whatever image they pray to, so that a piece of you will not burn when your body dies...and you hear about their prayers and try to believe. You try harder than anyone at church, yet the Holy Spirit moves in you and says, "Their god doesn't exist...in all honesty, they worship themselves. Your path is different. You seek the truth."

You have no one to tell your secrets to, because everyone else, in their search for answers, ends up clawing you down...like a drowning person attempting to reach surface while you try to pull them up.

How does a person comprehend the truth while the world pulls them down into the pits of hell? How does someone remind themselves at every moment to integrate the things they've philosophized? It's impossible!

The habits we have become always draw us into delusion. The thoughts we have every second cause lifetimes of oppression, and they keep coming onto us...they roll over us and snowball on the way. Our attempts at reading philosophy bury us in delusion. Our seeking enlightenment imprisons our minds.

The kingdom of heaven: merely a garden of logical revelation? Hell no.

[R. Steven Coyle]

Christ, and many great eastern thinkers, never taught with, and most likely never learned with a logician's mind. Their system of thought might be considered logical, but it is not based on the conventional structure of human logic. They relied upon instinct, intuition, and feeling [later to be sublimated into a logical framework] -- all downplayed as feminine irrationality in the West. Their reasoning, partly influenced by their primary audience, but mostly due to the efficient and already inherent nature of Nature, was upheld to transmit essence.

[bert]

sschaula:

How does this realization take root in our daily activities? Reminding yourself of the truths you've uncovered in your thinking doesn't seem to do the trick. The mind always falls back into the game...it is tricked back into believing the illusion.

The conception of "I am not" must of necessity follow the conception of "I am",because of its grammar,as surely in this world of sorrow night follows day.The recognition of pain as such ,implies the idea of pleasure,and so with all things.
Who desires this duality?

By allowing maturity is to predicate decay...
by giving non-resistance is retrogression to simplicity and the passage to the original and unity without the idea.

one must transgress Conception!
then there is the chance to steal the fire from heaven.


R. Coyle:

Christ, and many great eastern thinkers, never taught and most likely never learned with the mind of a logician. Their system of thought might be considered logical, but it is not based on the conventional structure of human logic. They relied heavily upon their own instinct, intuition, and feeling [later to be sublimated into a logical framework] -- all downplayed as feminine irrationality, in the West. Their reasoning, partly influenced by their primary audience, but mostly due to the efficient and already inherent nature of Nature, was upheld to transmit essence.

greatest "thinkers" rely on the utterances of the gods through a Pythoness that is in every one of us,being usually difficult to understand ,and a Delphic cavern ,which is our imagination in which we must retire to achieve anything of worth.
such experiences are remarked by high emotionalism and ecstatic revelation.

ecstasy is our out-span touching Reality.It is a potent generative instant having a surplus that,when synchronised,may be used abstractly to incarnate another wish.

[R. Steven Coyle]

ecstasy is our out-span touching Reality.It is a potent generative instant having a surplus that,when synchronised,may be used abstractly to incarnate another wish.

I have not yet mastered my hop. An eagle's eye, a fox's claw and a cardboard box, I have in my satchel.

[edit: over-analysis]

[sschaula]

I really don't know what either of you are talking about....make sense.

[Cato]

Death is the absence of life, life being defined as consciousness.

You know about this cessation of consciousness how?

Death is merely the cessation of the biological functions of the corporeal body. We have no knowledge what so ever about what happens to consciousness.

[David Quinn]

Hi Cato, it's nice to have you here, but can you please acknowledge the people you are quoting, so that our readers, including me, can follow what is happening more easily.

I agree that we cannot be 100% certain that consciousness expires with the death of the brain. However, all the credible evidence suggests this will be the case. Neurologists are nowadays able to meticulously link specific states of consciousness with particular neuronal and chemical happenings in the brain, including coma and deep sleep. And the human race has long known how to use specific chemicals to induce a wide variety of altered states. So it does seem pretty conclusive, to me at least, that consciousness is very much intertwined with the brain.

But, as you say, we cannot be absolutely sure of this. There is always the possibility that extraordinary processes exist which we (i.e. the scientists) currently have no knowledge of. For example, the world could be a computer simulation and our consciousness could be an algorithm which can be saved and transfered to other simulations.

Going beyond this, however, and diving more deeply into the subject of death, it is interesting to note that we can never experience death in a subjective sense. This is because the death of consciousness repesents the end of all conscious activity, by definition, which means that it is impossible for us to remain aware while death is happening, both in the moment of its occurance and afterwards.

To illustrate this point, imagine that the entire universe is a computer simulation and is due to be switched off in one second's time. One second we are happily existing in the universe as always, and then suddenly, in the next second, it is all gone. Everything vanishes into the hardware that had been running the simulation. Our awareness of this occurrance would, of course, be non-existent. Even though in an objective sense the switching off occurs, subjectively we would never experience it.

The only time we ever subjectively experience death is in our thoughts about our future death. It is purely a mental phenomenon. We can imagine that, at some point in the future, our consciousness will disappear forever and that everything we have ever known will vanish. This is the only way we can consciously experience death.

-

[Cato]

Mr. Quinn,

I will try to remember to attribute the quotes from now on. My apologies.

So it does seem pretty conclusive, to me at least, that consciousness is very much intertwined with the brain.

I agree such as it is. But we still have no clue what could or couldn't happen to the "I" when our corporeal existence stops. You certainly might be correct that it all just plain ends. Blammo. There is no more.

But, we just cannot say, so to even argue the point as if we somehow "know" seems rather silly to me.

Again, I am not disputing that your faithful belief in this scientific "conclusion" just might be correct. But, because science claims that it is a process of attaining proof, we cannot, therefore, utilize science to confirm the jump in logic that goes from observance of brain activity -- therefore saying our "consciousness" exists-- to what happens when that activity ceases -- and then saying it merely disappears.

As you say, there is just no way to confirm it one way or another which leaves science out in the cold.

[Sapius]

David: So it does seem pretty conclusive, to me at least, that consciousness is very much intertwined with the brain.

Cato: I agree such as it is. But we still have no clue what could or couldn't happen to the "I" when our corporeal existence stops. You certainly might be correct that it all just plain ends. Blammo. There is no more.

But, we just cannot say, so to even argue the point as if we somehow "know" seems rather silly to me.

Let’s see…

How do you know a brain exists?

.

[David Quinn]

Cato wrote:

As you say, there is just no way to confirm it one way or another which leaves science out in the cold.

That's right. So it's best to leave science behind and jump up to the higher philosophic perspective and realize, with perfectly clarity, that life and death are illusions.

There was never a point in the past where we had a beginning, and consequently, there will never be a point in the future where we will end.

-

[suergaz]

The infinite does not make what is perceived by us to be finite, illusory.

[R. Steven Coyle]

The infinite does not make what is perceived by us to be finite, illusory.

The infinite has made us, hasn't it?

[suergaz]

Yes. The infinite makes us, and what we perceive to be finite, infinite, not illusory.

[R. Steven Coyle]

An aside: I used to lurk around the forum a couple years ago. I noticed that you made a comment to Hu, something about shaving your head to appear stormy to others. I always liked that.

[suergaz]

I'm pleased I got to meet Hu Zheng. I'm always pleased to meet people whose seriousness is not oppressive of necessity.