Enlightenment Finally

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by David Quinn »

maestro wrote:
David Quinn wrote: Fair enough. May you be happy in being an observer!
I am nowhere to be found, it is now all decentralized, the mind planning and deciding. The eyes observing, the body doing what it does etc.
And yet mysteriously you were in a state of panic yesterday.

This suggests that your mind is merely suppressing the "I", temporarily blocking it out of consciousness, allowing you to experience this quirky state of mind you describe for sustained periods. If that is the case, then I guarantee you that this "I", still existing and still as strong as ever, will invariably find a way to escape the prison of its suppression and with greater force than before.

Take very good care not to deceive yourself, maestro. You cannot hope to trick Nature without paying the consequences.

-
User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by maestro »

David Quinn wrote:And yet mysteriously you were in a state of panic yesterday.
The mind was in a state of panic and the eye was observing it there was still no I.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Longer version: the perspective you now find yourself in ("non-perspective" or decentralized as it might appear) is only a part of 'right view' to use a Buddhist term. And that view is only a small part of many more aspects of wisdom forming. You quickly dismissed a lot of stuff by saying "no wisdom". You merely dismissed how you understood it all so far. But after time, after you get out of this lull you might discover there are deeper aspects to it after all. That's why I wrote "back at the start again". It's meant as encouragement and warning of a fellow traveler and I hope you take it that way.
Why I said no wisdom was that now it is clear that all this spiritual and philosophical knowledge was an attempt by the thinking mind to adorn itself, to stand out from others to feel better about itself. With the clear view of the insides of the mind this "holy" deception cannot go any further.

But then the Sanskrit term for philosophy is Darshan Shastra the art of seeing, so wisdom and vision may be considered synonymous
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by samadhi »

maestro,

Is there still an "I" who is doing your technique so as to avoid suffering?
User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by maestro »

samadhi wrote:Is there still an "I" who is doing your technique so as to avoid suffering?
Samadhi. The clear vision of the third eye ensures that the mind takes no false steps and hurt itself. The result of any activity of the mind is apparent immediately.

If you want to know where the I is created it is definitely created by the mind, it is a fiction through and through. In here the mind cannot fool anyone anymore since the observing process can see what is happening then and there.
User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by maestro »

Sam it also seems to me that you regard the ego as some actual malicious entity.

This is not so it is an implicit assumption by the thinking mind, around which it bases a lot of thought patterns/habits. Thus it is a mere concept by this mind. Neither the ego (a mere fiction) nor the thinking mind are malicious. The problem is that the thinking mind is blind and it cannot see what the effects of its own thought patterns and behaviors. If it can get information about this aspect, it will never do one thing to hurt itself. This is because it is very selfish and on the lookout for the best course of action to maximize overall well being.
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by samadhi »

maestro,
sam: Is there still an "I" who is doing your technique so as to avoid suffering?

maestro: The clear vision of the third eye ensures that the mind takes no false steps and hurt itself. The result of any activity of the mind is apparent immediately.

If you want to know where the I is created it is definitely created by the mind, it is a fiction through and through.
Sure.
In here the mind cannot fool anyone anymore since the observing process can see what is happening then and there.
It sounds good.
Sam it also seems to me that you regard the ego as some actual malicious entity.
Actually I've always said, if you enjoy the ego, there is no reason to seek enlightenment. If you're getting what you want, why would you change? The ego isn't bad, it's just that it creates conflict. That's it's nature.
This is not so it is an implicit assumption by the thinking mind, around which it bases a lot of thought patterns/habits. Thus it is a mere concept by this mind. Neither the ego (a mere fiction) nor the thinking mind are malicious.
Not normally but don't put it past them.
The problem is that the thinking mind is blind and it cannot see what the effects of its own thought patterns and behaviors. If it can get information about this aspect, it will never do one thing to hurt itself. This is because it is very selfish and on the lookout for the best course of action to maximize overall well being.
Interesting. You definitely do have a different outlook and expression now. Whatever it means, it seems to be having a good effect.
JustinZijlstra
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:26 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by JustinZijlstra »

maestro wrote:The conflict did not end however with this realization, it ended when
the observational process finally traced the source of suffering to
the feedback phenomenon and realized that it can stop the thing dead
in its tracks.
[snip]

Questions and discussions are welcome.
So I totally concur with this, however, are you able to suffer? Or have you only learned how to 'observe it away'?
If one cannot handle furiousity or mourning or crying one is not enlightened but simply understands the mental dynamics.
So congratulations!

What I do at the moment is put myself in an more unelightened stage (=lower trance state) and build up again. This way one reorganises the brain to be naturally enlightened.

I'll write about:

"Basically I would deduce that the process is a fast neuronal circuitry
in the neocortex, which runs faster than the limbic system. To make the
circuitry fast you have to practise, much like learning to cycle or
swimming."

below. This is faulty.
JustinZijlstra
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:26 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by JustinZijlstra »

"Basically I would deduce that the process is a fast neuronal circuitry
in the neocortex, which runs faster than the limbic system. To make the
circuitry fast you have to practise, much like learning to cycle or
swimming."

--
Limbic only or limbic with all the in betweens.

There is no neocortex only, just the acceptance of limbic operating it without the need for neurotic controll (different neurotic circuits that use different neocortical domains (integration if you wish))
--

Hypothesis 1:
Mesolimbic projection towards neo-cortex.

Prefrontal lobe (intuition) is the reserve for limbic system to force action through body.

If the neo parts don't do it, prefrontal does.

If you do nothing with neoparts you keep partially reptile.

So, good and evil?

Good Fight!
Evil Flight!

or

Good Go on!
Evil stop!

or

Good Go on!
Evil Be warned!

I think it IS evident that neocortex ineffectively uses 'Good and Evil' which make people feel tense. I suppose that the above illustrates that other 'ways' are possible.

Hypothesis 2:

Certain about your pictures?
Your thinking in circels?
Your trapped.
Your certain!

Ontcertain someone, someself. *e

e
In philosophy, ontic (Part of being). So, pictures attached to not questioned words can mean 'wrong parts' thus thinking is not possible from here (circling thought is not thinking but repeating thought). Note: Ontic in my eyes is a being and that can form you and than be experienced as 'being' (experiences make you be).

Being there/Dasein: Being Be'ed or moved through being /experienced and Experiencing (interaction)

Hypothesis 3:
If ontology is a subset of epistemology (in epistemology ontology to my knowledge is a loop).

Then epistemology in the eyes of phenomenology is just 1 orientation.

"I do not bind myself to models, neither my own or that of others. If I belief in a model I simply say: "My model shows no contradiction". Well! That does NOT certify that it is a good model. And believing in that model keeps from grander pictures to be taken seriously."

Epistemology or ontology one model?

Hypothesis 4:
Besides noumena (humans being noumena themselves) (Schopenhauer: One can will, but not will what one wills) all words are used temporary and make one aware of other noumena, if one doubts about noumena it rightfully can be judged: phenomena.

Phenomena based on Hypothesis 3 are just a perceptual problem.

Hypothesis 5:
Objective: model shows no contradiction.
Subjective: arbitrary choice of models.
Science: Best model or model combination to see what false phenomena are experienced.

General note on noumena and noumenon:

Regarding Art criticism.
To destroy art.

Regarding Art analysis.
Search what gave you the experience.

Experiencing the art after analysis.
The analysis made new experiences.

Art as mirror.
You experience deeply and the mirror, mirrors a moment in life.

Pure art in this sense travels you back in your own time phenomenologically or you are experiencing understanding which in itself is overt as long as no 'danger' is registered, or more strongly, experienced as being such.

So in this sense one is noumena because if one can 'travel in time' or 'experience different facets of life by mere memory' it is a question of: "how to get the northern part of the compass working".

All starting from Hypothesis 1 parsable to this sentence are my thoughts.

The associations are yours.

Side note:

Old resonating citation from a friend:

"O friend, awake, and sleep no more!
The night is over and gone,
would you lose your day also?
You have slept for unnumbered ages;
this morning will you not awake?" - Kabir

Just naturally adapting awarenes? Or shifting models?

-----------

My problem at the moment is how to choose between trance state to observe. I figured it is linear but this is not the case downwards, only upwards for me. So high trance, wrong decision, put to waaay lower trance state and then I let myself burn by emotion and feelings etc, somewhat later I am at the perifery of my normal awareness (which is a growing-standard-trance-state).

I figured this is save. However I haven't yet been able to get to the utter depths of possible torment and thus not able to balance with it.

I call it breaking devil horns and picking angel feathers if I 'just balance'.
JustinZijlstra
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:26 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by JustinZijlstra »

Put also in a special reply:

If one is able to close all the doors with observation, one should in my eyes be able to open one door at a time.

I'm interested in schematics. Anyone already mapped this? And what would be the best way first good then bad feeling or other way around?

In the end all experiences find their natural compensator and all can be put in expression.

Neither Joycean private language, nor Wittgensteins objections because the private language is expressable in practical terminology without gesticulation or moment of doubt..
bert
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:08 am
Location: Antwerp

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by bert »

gaze at reflection till blurred and you know not the gazer, usually followed by unvoluntary closing of eyes.hold on to the light that is seen, never let go, the effort will be forgotten.gives a feeling of immensity wherof the limit you can not reach.the emotion felt is the knowledge why.
User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by maestro »

JustinZijlstra wrote:
So I totally concur with this, however, are you able to suffer? Or have you only learned how to 'observe it away'?
If one cannot handle furiousity or mourning or crying one is not enlightened but simply understands the mental dynamics.
So congratulations!
See my reply to Sam above about the selfish mind.

Limbic or neocortex is only a hypothesis. I am actually of the view that maybe nothing new is formed but a preexisting faculty is reinvigorated.
JustinZijlstra
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:26 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by JustinZijlstra »

maestro wrote:
JustinZijlstra wrote:
So I totally concur with this, however, are you able to suffer? Or have you only learned how to 'observe it away'?
If one cannot handle furiousity or mourning or crying one is not enlightened but simply understands the mental dynamics.
So congratulations!
See my reply to Sam above about the selfish mind.

Limbic or neocortex is only a hypothesis. I am actually of the view that maybe nothing new is formed but a preexisting faculty is reinvigorated.
That is partially true.

Limbic->meso->higher ...

Psychotropics of the first generation just blocked down big parts after the meso and thus people could not organise a lot of behaviour.

One does not have will, one observes and experiences the choices that are made. One mirrors information.

First samadhi and then vipassana can become trashy if not done properly.
First vipassana then samadhi makes one capable of stopping tense situations of samadhi.

Your position is logical from the first perspective. However third has a lot to offer as well.

To make your case stronger (with my reaction here supersetting it):


Video lik: Psychotropic drugs and nature of reality
User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by maestro »

Carl, your comments about Gurdjieff has piqued my interest. Do you have any recommendations for which book/s to begin with?
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by Carl G »

I believe PD Ouspensky's In Search of the Miraculous is considered the best all around primer on the Gurdjieff work.

In addition you may find this website and this website contain useful introductory tidbits.
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by maestro »

Thanks I got a copy of this book as well as the fourth way.

It seems here is a guy who takes a no bullshit approach to the end of suffering. You are a machine (there is no soul), and you have to become conscious and eliminate the energy wasting habits one by one. What a refreshing change from QRS style vague platitudes about consciousness of ultimate reality.
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by Carl G »

Good. And, I pretty much agree with you there.

You know, I have been making a study of philosophy here for quite some time. Part of it is pure study, and part is comparative to my early exposure to the ideas of Gurdjieff -- which as far as I can tell represent ancient core teachings adapted to the particular situation of modern man, particularly modern 'western' man.

In a sense this study, especially the comparative part, has been like translating from another language. And that's not something for which I am naturally gifted. For instance, the term enlightenment is quite foreign to me, and I still do not know if it is equivalent to the Gurdjieffian idea of evolution (meaning spiritual evolution, not biological).

And certainly it has been interesting to see how the concept of inner work, so central to the Gurdjieff system, is derided here -- after all, if there is no self why would there be a need for inner work? And that seems to be another divergence; Philosophy, espoused by QRS (and seemingly based on Buddhist system) stress that there is no "I" to recognize, while Gurdjieff continually hammered home the need to create a foundational "I AM" (as opposed to the many "I's" which inhabit us.) It appears Jesus agreed: I AM (is) The Way.

Another difference is the emphasis of QRS on the mental function, almost never mentioning the body, nor the emotions (except as something to supercede the need for their arising at all), while Gurdjieff speaks of a right functioning of each (the horse, the cart, and the driver).

Another difference is the emphasis of QRS upon understanding of the outer world (the truth about reality) to the nearly complete exclusion of self examination (except for inference and indirect allusion to ridding oneself of delusion -- by understanding the greater reality), while Gurdjieff, while discoursing on reality -- a very different one than QRS speaks of -- stresses the changing of oneself by acting upon the fruits of self observation. And on it goes.

Now, Gurdjieff speaks of all religions being the same at root, so I have kept an open mind about philosophy, the study of truth. But is philosophy a religion? It appears to be, in that it is, broadly, an organized thought system suggesting how to live. Certainly QRS claims it can lead to enlightenment, surely a religious (spiritual) term. But is philosophy tapped into the root? In some way, I would say, yes. It certainly worms around in the loam around the root, with its logic and Buddhist views of emptiness and the infinity of the Totality.

Ah, here I must admit I am still studying. I am still learning the definitions, and attempting to translate into my own language the terms of philosophy. I am still struggling to see how A=A relates to anything practical in my life, why the feminine should be a better concept for that which I wish to transcend than is unconsciousness, and from where come such pronouncements, except as theoretical extrapolation, that there is not a modicum of freewill anywhere in the universe, nor any possibility of anywhere where the law of cause and effect, depending on definition, is not in effect.
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by maestro »

Carl G wrote: And certainly it has been interesting to see how the concept of inner work, so central to the Gurdjieff system, is derided here -- after all, if there is no self why would there be a need for inner work? And that seems to be another divergence; Philosophy, espoused by QRS (and seemingly based on Buddhist system) stress that there is no "I" to recognize, while Gurdjieff continually hammered home the need to create a foundational "I AM" (as opposed to the many "I's" which inhabit us.) It appears Jesus agreed: I AM (is) The Way.
Actually even Buddhism emphasizes a lot on inner work. In there the discovery of no self is inimately tied down being able to observe clearly inside and these observations will reveal the fact of no central point or self. It is the same as the Gurdjieffian concepts of many I's by which (I guess) he means various habital patterns which seize the mind. By making a central I, he means to create a mental process, which does not allow this seizing of the mind to occur. It is all very closely related to my own viewpoint.
Carl G wrote: Another difference is the emphasis of QRS on the mental function, almost never mentioning the body, nor the emotions (except as something to supercede the need for their arising at all), while Gurdjieff speaks of a right functioning of each (the horse, the cart, and the driver).
Yes and that is why I am skeptical of their grand claims that the emotions do not arise in them at all. And of the claims of effortless living in reality. Such things do not seem to be possible without a harmony in the various centers. Which again seems to be tied to a process in the mind which is able to tackle the disharmony.
Carl G wrote:Another difference is the emphasis of QRS upon understanding of the outer world (the truth about reality) to the nearly complete exclusion of self examination (except for inference and indirect allusion to ridding oneself of delusion -- by understanding the greater reality), while Gurdjieff, while discoursing on reality -- a very different one than QRS speaks of -- stresses the changing of oneself by acting upon the fruits of self observation. And on it goes.
Indeed I highly doubt that by just reasoning with an axiomatic framework one can end the habits in the mind which are the causes of distortion and suffering. They have to be tackled head on.
Now, Gurdjieff speaks of all religions being the same at root, so I have kept an open mind about philosophy, the study of truth. But is philosophy a religion? It appears to be, in that it is, broadly, an organized thought system suggesting how to live. Certainly QRS claims it can lead to enlightenment, surely a religious (spiritual) term. But is philosophy tapped into the root? In some way, I would say, yes. It certainly worms around in the loam around the root, with its logic and Buddhist views of emptiness and the infinity of the Totality.
I would like to remind you that Buddhism is tied to eastern philosophy. The word for philosophy in Sanskrit is Darshan Shastra, which means the art of seeing. Thus eastern philosophy is closer in spirit to Gurdjieff's self observation and its fruits than QRS style definition based deductions.

Carl G wrote:that there is not a modicum of freewill anywhere in the universe, nor any possibility of anywhere where the law of cause and effect, depending on definition, is not in effect.
I also think there is no freewill, even the mental process which has clear observations of the inside and works actively to end habits, is not free (because it depends on its past), but it is surely intelligent and aware. One needs intelligence and awareness to pick a correct course rather than arbitrary freedom to act.


And of course I can see Gurdjieff propounding theories for which there seems to be no basis at all, such as the moon feeding on the biosphere, and the idea of heavy and dense matter. But I have no worries as I can now very easily separate the wheat from the chaff. And there seems to be a lot of wheat in his ideas.
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by Carl G »

I also think there is no freewill
Depends on definition, I think.

"The highest that a man can attain is to be able to do." -Gurdjieff
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by maestro »

Carl G wrote: Depends on definition, I think.
Yeah if you define freewill as the ability to see and choose intelligently rather than blindly and habitually.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by Dan Rowden »

maestro wrote:Yes and that is why I am skeptical of their grand claims that the emotions do not arise in them at all.
If you can show me an instance of any of us making this "grand" claim I will never post to GF again. Emotions don't/can't arise in a perfectly enlightened person; none of us have ever claimed to be such a person.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by David Quinn »

Carl G wrote: Another difference is the emphasis of QRS upon understanding of the outer world (the truth about reality) to the nearly complete exclusion of self examination (except for inference and indirect allusion to ridding oneself of delusion -- by understanding the greater reality), while Gurdjieff, while discoursing on reality -- a very different one than QRS speaks of -- stresses the changing of oneself by acting upon the fruits of self observation. And on it goes.
The understanding that I talk about applies to all of reality - to both the outer and inner worlds. I also emphasize the need to change oneself - becoming more rational, rejecting falsehoods, giving up attachments, becoming more free, etc. That is to say, to act on the fruits of self-observation.

The main difference and Gurdjieff and myself is that his aims were more limited.

-
clyde
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:04 pm

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by clyde »

Dan;

Why do you believe that
Dan Rowden wrote:Emotions don't/can't arise in a perfectly enlightened person
It seems to me to be an unhelpful belief.

clyde
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by Dan Rowden »

clyde wrote:Dan;

Why do you believe that
Dan Rowden wrote:Emotions don't/can't arise in a perfectly enlightened person
It seems to me to be an unhelpful belief.

clyde
Unhelpful in what sense? The survival of egotistical bullshit? Emotions arise from ego; in absence of that, they don't. It's surprisingly simple.
clyde
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:04 pm

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by clyde »

Dan;

It seems, at least to me, that there are some emotions that arise which are not ego-based, where ego is some psychological or mental construct. If there are such emotions (not ego-based), then such emotions might arise even with an enlightened person. And even if one accepts that all emotions are ego-based, there is no basis to believe that psychological and/or mental constructs will not arise in an enlightened person (Why wouldn't/couldn't they?), so even an (temporary) ego might arise which might be the basis for the arising of emotions. Finally, why project a 'perfection' on an enlightened person? How does that benefit you?

clyde

p.s: Good-night. If you respond, I'll reply later.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Enlightenment Finally

Post by Dan Rowden »

Give me an example of a non ego based emotion.
Locked