What Insights Have You Experienced?

[Cahoot]

ardy,

If present jnana is necessary
If not present jnana is not necessary
Sooner or later all paths lead to jnana
As all streams lead to the sea

In other words, to say some of what is, for reasons expanded upon in the postings between here and when the concept of breakthrough was introduced, I agree with your insight that thought is not necessary for a spiritual breakthrough.

One logical supporting reason for this agreement is the concept: I am, therefore I think (using the concept “I am” as the dualistic “I thought” of awareness).

I think that for all people, a spiritual breakthrough can be defined as the time when the inner landscape changes but the outer landscape does not, or the outer landscape changes but the inner landscape does not, which causes insights and natural balancing movements (experiences) to appear.

As with all humans, Kerouac lived a balancing act. I think that some resistance, caused by ignorance concerning perception of the inner landscape, or the outer, or both, threw him on a big tilt, and then the show ended and the curtain closed.

In keeping with forum philosophy, does this dangerously bloody any Views? :D

[Russell Parr]

Hey Russell. Keeping you busy, looks like. Thanks for the feedback and insights. One thought leads to another. No rush.

No worries, just been a little busier overall lately.

Thoughts obviously exist, or we wouldn't need brains. Thoughts are like software on a computer.

That thoughts exist implies that thoughts have physicality. After all, other than the physical, what really exists. Mirages and appearances?

The fact that everything made by man, including airplanes, first existed as a thought, and must first exist as a thought, also suggests that thoughts have physicality.

Thoughts can be lost, found, controlled, fed and starved, like wolves and other physicalities, which also suggests that thoughts have physicality.

In order for the physicality of thoughts to be logically consistent with reality as presented in mans’ experience, thoughts would necessarily have to be of a physicality that is too subtle for any current sensory organ or man-made instrument to register, other than Mind.

The proof of the physicality of thoughts is that they are inseparable from the physical world. Wherever there is any evidence of thought, there is evidence a physical host. The mere fact that thought can be transmitted into the physical world, and vice versa, shows that the two are interlinked.

Moreover, what is the physical world other than what our senses inform us? I think this is what you were hinting at in reference to Mind. The more you investigate into the source of what we gather to be 'physical reality,' the further inward you have to look (physical reality can only be what we gather it to be). In a sense, 'Mind' is the only thing that creates reality via experience, with physical reality being a subcategory of experience.

The gap between the outer world of physical reality and the inner world of thoughts is a wedge created by the illusion of will. The nature of our awareness includes a sense of control. Nature has programmed us this way in order to accomplish things (creation) according to Her whim. While the illusion of will has obvious practical value, it invariably casts a persuasive delusion that is very hard to overcome.

[Russell Parr]

Russell: ...nor does anything truly exist independently of anything else.

Knowing this truth in concert with the actuality of consciousness appearing as if independent of everything "else" has produced in me a thought world of spiritual-emotional tension I am currently exploring. I am unwilling to call them insights, it seems more accurate to call them "existential experiences." Does anyone relate to: The loneliness of God, God's forgiveness for God, God's compassion for God, God laughs at God, God weeps for God?

All emotions are different forms of 'existential tension,' so to speak. The difference between your experience and that of most others is that while they are responding to typical everyday social stimulation, your ego is responding to the perceived threat of annihilation in reference to insight of its (the ego) illusory nature.

[ardy]

What you are referring to is prajna wisdom. Now how the hell it works I have no idea, to just understand things from nothing is almost mystical if it wasn't so matter-of-fact.

I'm no expert in buddhist terminology, but Prajna seems simple enough to understand, leaving me to assume that you are confessing a lack of Prajna. To me this can only come from a misunderstanding of Reality.

That we can "understand things from nothing" isn't mystical at all to me. The nothingness that all things come from, understanding included, is fundamentally the same as the things that we come to understand. Ultimately, it is simply the Tao, Taoing along, so to speak.

I'm interested in hearing more about what Prajna means to you, or perhaps how/where you learned it.

However prajna knowledge would not build you a multi-span bridge over a major river without any prior knowledge. Is it a case of horses for courses or is one fine tuned to outside knowledge the other to inside knowledge?

I see Enlightenment as the moment that the two come together as one.

Russell: There is no connection between prajna and logical thought. Logical thought is what you and DvR do all the time but prajna comes as a part of the subconscious (a guess), it is very strange that all of a sudden you have understanding of people in pain and what to do about it. You seem to understand things that outwardly would make no sense ie the recognition of fundamental relationships you have never linked before.

I am also guessing when I say it seems to be linked to:

Before you start: Mountains are Mountains and rivers are rivers.

As you develop: Mountains are not mountains and rivers are not rivers (and Prajna arises from samadhi)

My understanding of enlightenment is that it is not a function of a combination of Prajna and rational thought. As a proof the only thing a Zen monk has invented has been Hokkien Noodles.

[ardy]

ardy,

If present jnana is necessary
If not present jnana is not necessary
Sooner or later all paths lead to jnana
As all streams lead to the sea

In other words, to say some of what is, for reasons expanded upon in the postings between here and when the concept of breakthrough was introduced, I agree with your insight that thought is not necessary for a spiritual breakthrough.

One logical supporting reason for this agreement is the concept: I am, therefore I think (using the concept “I am” as the dualistic “I thought” of awareness).

I think that for all people, a spiritual breakthrough can be defined as the time when the inner landscape changes but the outer landscape does not, or the outer landscape changes but the inner landscape does not, which causes insights and natural balancing movements (experiences) to appear.

As with all humans, Kerouac lived a balancing act. I think that some resistance, caused by ignorance concerning perception of the inner landscape, or the outer, or both, threw him on a big tilt, and then the show ended and the curtain closed.

In keeping with forum philosophy, does this dangerously bloody any Views? :D

Cahoot: All streams of internal investigation should lead to prajna but I have met a few christians who have no knowledge or understanding of this concept. I suspect it is because religions seem to have a 'guy in the sky' who will save them. However we know that the only way to be saved is by your own efforts. The guy in the sky has nothing to do with it, the same as Buddha has nothing to do with any of us here.

The inner and the outer is an interesting concept and I read something about it years ago. I found it was all change internally, I appeared the same to others but I could not relate to them or understand their world anymore. My world had taken over the world view and others views held little interest to me.

I think it is due to the examination becoming all encompassing and you are riding a rocket without a compass (at least I was).


DvR would be outraged if he thought you were questioning anyone's freedom to any view on this forum!

In Bali diving at moment so connections are tricky.

[Pam Seeback]

Russell: ...nor does anything truly exist independently of anything else.

Knowing this truth in concert with the actuality of consciousness appearing as if independent of everything "else" has produced in me a thought world of spiritual-emotional tension I am currently exploring. I am unwilling to call them insights, it seems more accurate to call them "existential experiences." Does anyone relate to: The loneliness of God, God's forgiveness for God, God's compassion for God, God laughs at God, God weeps for God?

All emotions are different forms of 'existential tension,' so to speak. The difference between your experience and that of most others is that while they are responding to typical everyday social stimulation, your ego is responding to the perceived threat of annihilation in reference to insight of its (the ego) illusory nature.

Let's start with the glaring contradiction "your ego is responding to the perceived threat of annihilation in reference to insight of its (the ego) illusory nature": If the ego is illusory, how can it have insights? I love this contradiction however, because it is the perfect segue to exposing the untenable situation God finds himself once he becomes wise to his self-induced ignorance of belief in the independence of his things (or The Causality once It becomes wise to Its principle-induced same said ignorance minus "his"), that is, now what to do about the ever restless spirit, the "I" that cries out, I gotta be me, I gotta be absolute, part the sea of nothingness, I'm coming through! (Hello individual consciousness-soul-essence, etc.)

In a nutshell, ignorance is relative to wisdom, can't have one without the other. Now if this isn't reason for God to feel compassion for himself, I don't know what is, realizing of course, that the presence of compassion is relative to the absence of compassion. Oh and also the reason for God to use reason - how else is he going to sort out all those pretend boundaries?

[Russell Parr]

it is very strange that all of a sudden you have understanding of people in pain and what to do about it. You seem to understand things that outwardly would make no sense ie the recognition of fundamental relationships you have never linked before.

Like what?

I am also guessing when I say it seems to be linked to:

Before you start: Mountains are Mountains and rivers are rivers.

As you develop: Mountains are not mountains and rivers are not rivers (and Prajna arises from samadhi)

And then the last part: Mountains are once again seen as mountains, and rivers as rivers.

From what I understand, Prajna is insight into truth without attachment. Samadhi is practiced single minded concentration that enables the seeker to experience Prajna effortlessly and continually. The mountains cease being mountains because of insight into the illusory nature of the mountain's existence (due to Prajna). Once this insight is fully ingrained into one's consciousness (due to Samadhi), the seeker can then rest easy with the fact of experiencing the mountain as a mountain.

My understanding of enlightenment is that it is not a function of a combination of Prajna and rational thought. As a proof the only thing a Zen monk has invented has been Hokkien Noodles.

Rational thought doesn't have to lead to inventions, or any materialistic gain. Being rational is about having a consistent line of thinking and reasoning. It's rather immaterial.

Any insight into truth is necessarily rational in structure, by definition.

[Russell Parr]

All emotions are different forms of 'existential tension,' so to speak. The difference between your experience and that of most others is that while they are responding to typical everyday social stimulation, your ego is responding to the perceived threat of annihilation in reference to insight of its (the ego) illusory nature.

Let's start with the glaring contradiction "your ego is responding to the perceived threat of annihilation in reference to insight of its (the ego) illusory nature": If the ego is illusory, how can it have insights?

The ego doesn't know it is illusory. Worse yet, it won't accept that it is illusory.

I love this contradiction however, because it is the perfect segue to exposing the untenable situation God finds himself once he becomes wise to his self-induced ignorance of belief in the independence of his things (or The Causality once It becomes wise to Its principle-induced same said ignorance minus "his"), that is, now what to do about the ever restless spirit, the "I" that cries out, I gotta be me, I gotta be absolute, part the sea of nothingness, I'm coming through! (Hello individual consciousness-soul-essence, etc.)

Yes, the battle cries of this "I" is the ego giving the seeker the "spiritual-emotional" tension that you described. The ego presents itself to consciousness emotionally in order to persuade us of it existence.

In a nutshell, ignorance is relative to wisdom, can't have one without the other. Now if this isn't reason for God to feel compassion for himself, I don't know what is, realizing of course, that the presence of compassion is relative to the absence of compassion. Oh and also the reason for God to use reason - how else is he going to sort out all those pretend boundaries?

Isn't God transcendent of all these dualities?

[Cahoot]

The inner and the outer is an interesting concept and I read something about it years ago. I found it was all change internally, I appeared the same to others but I could not relate to them or understand their world anymore. My world had taken over the world view and others views held little interest to me.

Yes. For me the experience preceded the concept, and for me it was necessary for it to happen that way. It happened in the early Springtime, in the mountains.

But I recognize that for someone else, the concept could precede the experience. The conditions for that to happen could likely exist. The dualistic concept of the inner becoming the outer is a variation of the “I thought” found in “Who am I?” The actual experience is a complete dissolution of delusional barriers, for a time, and a hyper-sensitivity to surroundings of nature and people.

Come to think of it, I don't know what others have written about the concept.

*

“I gained a deeper insight into the fears which drive a person of high IQ into the extremes of hyper-complex academia and political correctness, and discerned more clearly just how much of a barrier to wisdom a high IQ can be.” - David Quinn, The Limitations of Academic Intelligence.

[Cahoot]

The gap between the outer world of physical reality and the inner world of thoughts is a wedge created by the illusion of will. The nature of our awareness includes a sense of control. Nature has programmed us this way in order to accomplish things (creation) according to Her whim. While the illusion of will has obvious practical value, it invariably casts a persuasive delusion that is very hard to overcome.

I can see that. I was having this discussion just the other day. I said that these people who live into their nineties are tough old birds who do not surrender to internal weakness. Their existence is the evidence, because once you reach the physical frailty of that age, if you lay down to rest and don’t get up for a couple of days, you’re done for. Sarcopenia only takes a couple of days to set in, and that begins a swift chain reaction.

But once the attachment to will is overcome, and there is no will to activate will, so to speak, one still needs motive force to continue living. What is the motive force that replaces will?

[Pam Seeback]

Quote: movingalways:
In a nutshell, ignorance is relative to wisdom, can't have one without the other. Now if this isn't reason for God to feel compassion for himself, I don't know what is, realizing of course, that the presence of compassion is relative to the absence of compassion. Oh and also the reason for God to use reason - how else is he going to sort out all those pretend boundaries?

Russell: Isn't God transcendent of all these dualities?

You have just identified the subtlest duality of all, that of a transcendent God. And yes, until this is realized, God is transcendent of all these dualities.

[Pam Seeback]

The actual experience is a complete dissolution of delusional barriers, for a time, and a hyper-sensitivity to surroundings of nature and people.

Come to think of it, I don't know what others have written about the concept.

Pre-conceptual dropping of boundaries happened for me when I was four years old and I agree, it has the effect of a hyper-sensitivity to surroundings of nature and people. Of course, until one has the concepts, they feel lost in a world they do not understand. This is why the intellect is critical to enlightenment, which for someone like me who believed their hyper-sensitivity to nature and people WAS enlightenment (interpreted as being the heightened feeling sense of "God") was difficult to accept.

Since I have left that belief behind, I have discovered that this path of the rejection of the intellect prior to its acceptance vis a vis enlightenment is quite common. It seems as if most who experience the dropping away of matter (distinctions, contrast, boundaries) believe this to be the discovery of a spirit God that is separate from matter, so naturally they are reluctant to connect their intellect of matter with their non-matter spirit God.

[Russell Parr]

But once the attachment to will is overcome, and there is no will to activate will, so to speak, one still needs motive force to continue living. What is the motive force that replaces will?

The will to live is activated by the will of nature, with motive as the accompanying experience. Attachment to will is born of the belief in self as an inherent, separate entity. Once this is resolved, and self and nature are seen as inseparable, the concepts of life and death take on a much less substantial meaning. Then one can truly live.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Russell: There is no connection between prajna and logical thought. Logical thought is what you and DvR do all the time

Thought is a lot like breath (Pranayama in a sense): it's advised not trying to stop it or worse: believing you've stopped it and imagine something is being accomplished that way. The point is regularity, depth and breathing in and out in accordance with natural requirements. This is the same with reason. Just stop twisting it, stop panting all over the place, being out of breath before the first thought even is born!

As you develop: Mountains are not mountains and rivers are not rivers (and Prajna arises from samadhi)

Yes, the state of being lost. Like the prodigal son: the aim is to return: mountains are then mountains again.

As a proof the only thing a Zen monk has invented has been Hokkien Noodles.

That has more to do with the late and decadent cultures all the Zennery tends to prosper in. Anyone who understands Zen, understands it's been everywhere, with everyone and has nothing to do with Eatern or Westen cultural or technological developments. It's about freeing Zen of any religious confines and to prevent it becoming another mind-killer, truth-strangler or hide--out for tired, worn out ego games.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The actual experience is a complete dissolution of delusional barriers, for a time, and a hyper-sensitivity to surroundings of nature and people.

Come to think of it, I don't know what others have written about the concept.

Pre-conceptual dropping of boundaries happened for me when I was four years old and I agree, it has the effect of a hyper-sensitivity to surroundings of nature and people. Of course, until one has the concepts, they feel lost in a world they do not understand. This is why the intellect is critical to enlightenment, which for someone like me who believed their hyper-sensitivity to nature and people WAS enlightenment (interpreted as being the heightened feeling sense of "God") was difficult to accept.

Yes, it's often mistaken like that and I know all this out of first hand as well. When being described as the "logical" guy not understanding deeper experiences or "mind blowing" stuff I often have to smile: so much fierce defending of the very things I'm looking back on now as growing pains. The dissolution of boundaries could just as easily be described as disease and you'll find hyper-sensitivity and the sense of a lack of boundary as formal descriptions of many psychological disorders. The reason for this is that to function in the natural world, we need a firm sense of boundaries and meaning. Weakening these things might provide insight and experiences of a certain kind but will leave one ultimately dysfunctional or at least blindsided to ones own deeper functioning without even the means to pull oneself out of the swamp.

Since I have left that belief behind, I have discovered that this path of the rejection of the intellect prior to its acceptance vis a vis enlightenment is quite common. It seems as if most who experience the dropping away of matter (distinctions, contrast, boundaries) believe this to be the discovery of a spirit God that is separate from matter, so naturally they are reluctant to connect their intellect of matter with their non-matter spirit God.

Quite right. Anyone experienced with entheogenic drugs would agree as well. One sniff of burning salvia extract and distinctions or identifications drop away or get seriously mixed up. It's really not hard to put the mind in such states. But the question remains: is truth being served? What remains the value? Would one be prepared to benefit from the experience?

[Cahoot]

Since I have left that belief behind, I have discovered that this path of the rejection of the intellect prior to its acceptance vis a vis enlightenment is quite common. It seems as if most who experience the dropping away of matter (distinctions, contrast, boundaries) believe this to be the discovery of a spirit God that is separate from matter, so naturally they are reluctant to connect their intellect of matter with their non-matter spirit God.

Quite right. Anyone experienced with entheogenic drugs would agree as well. One sniff of burning salvia extract and distinctions or identifications drop away or get seriously mixed up. It's really not hard to put the mind in such states. But the question remains: is truth being served? What remains the value? Would one be prepared to benefit from the experience?

Though he may not know it while seeking, a consciousness explorer seeks to find that which never leaves, no matter the state of consciousness. What never leaves is non-conceptual, thus unlike thoughts, cannot be lost or forgotten.

[Cahoot]

Since I have left that belief behind, I have discovered that this path of the rejection of the intellect prior to its acceptance vis a vis enlightenment is quite common. It seems as if most who experience the dropping away of matter (distinctions, contrast, boundaries) believe this to be the discovery of a spirit God that is separate from matter, so naturally they are reluctant to connect their intellect of matter with their non-matter spirit God.

At an altitude that reveals the horizon where mistakes don’t exist, intellect permits experience of the mistakes that don’t exist, without moving the body.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Though he may not know it while seeking, a consciousness explorer seeks to find that which never leaves, no matter the state of consciousness. What never leaves is non-conceptual, thus unlike thoughts, cannot be lost or forgotten.

Even when non-conceptual, if it's meaningless it could always be claimed by any dreamer to be "true" and "everlasting" -- It becomes a feeling. The only things which can never leave are the things which never arrived. And only not be lost or forgotten in as far they cannot be found or remembered.

But such "explorer" does not seek meaninglessness, he seeks to understand how things become meaningful to him and other things not. How certain ideas can be right and others wrong. And how he cannot escape that even by clever denials or sophistries about "emptiness being empty".

Better to be a wisdom explorer who will find it even when he'll lose everything else in the process, sooner or later. And this new found wisdom, even knowledge, certainly will erupt like a fountain. A treasure is sought and is found. It's not a metaphor for "dropping the search and find peace". It means actually finding wisdom and instead of seeking: stopping to run away with every thought, sentence and movement for what's right there to be found: all the essential. Not just "everything" but actual wisdom, knowledge of the way as opposed to ignorance or some ambiguous void to hide in.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

While it's true that almost every post is an attempt to discuss "'insights' being 'experienced'", it is not necessarily carefulness and deliberation in the expressing of symbols, gestures and verbs which will best convey these insights. It's often the case that simplification, or a short and directly to the point sentence, such as moving's earlier realization "there is no self, there really is no self!" is the best way to express the core of an understanding. Whether or not this inevitably leaves obvious "gaps" when considering the implications of such a statement, perhaps it is best to be patient and see if the poster has already considered such branches which have not yet been addressed? Is it possible that immediately pointing out these "gaps" is actually a hindrance toward moving on for the continuation of logical exploration regarding the initial insight? Such as in your reply to Moving's words.

This is my strongest and only concern with your long term posting Diebert. To me it appears that, through your constant reiteration of the importance of the call for logic, which is implied as being nothing but a call for careful and deliberate use of language , coupled with your unending concerns regarding the dangers of 'falling in to mindless lulls', that you are, more than anyone else I've ever encountered, hindering the possibility of the "wise explorer" by imposing borders and constraints on the methods used to begin, such as a simplified statement. As if the speaker doesn't know they should be logical and deliberate, while you might think they failed at this off the bat, perhaps you should consider patiently asking for more elaboration on such insights before immediately recycling the old "Stop right there, go straight to jail, you cannot pass go."

I'm not sure if anyone has ever outlined this concern to you before, but my hope is that you consider such leniency and instead focus on trying to "level" with the ideas expressed and work on their exploration first. It might just lead to unleashing more of the potential you've been hoping to see from posters. Frankly, I don't believe you will take this in to consideration, perhaps it is difficult to recognize that same trap of repetition others have found themselves in. My hope is that you'll prove me wrong, that your posts will look just a little different in terms of how quickly you "cut off" the comments of other posters, perhaps allowing us all to move as far as we can away from those "lulls", together :)

[Cahoot]

Moreover, what is the physical world other than what our senses inform us? I think this is what you were hinting at in reference to Mind. The more you investigate into the source of what we gather to be 'physical reality,' the further inward you have to look (physical reality can only be what we gather it to be). In a sense, 'Mind' is the only thing that creates reality via experience, with physical reality being a subcategory of experience.

Awareness expanding without end in every direction at once, sort of like the universe, describes the inner becoming the outer, and within that awareness is direct observation of mind creating a vision of the world as it unfolds. Because it unfolds new every moment, it holds captive total attention, and this leaves no opening for reflective thought, or thought of reflective thought. The ordinary becomes extraordinary only in retrospect. Within the unfolding world the experience is of creating the witnessed vision, of creating all that is unfolding simultaneously and also prior, of being one with one’s creation, of witnessing one’s creation.

However, at the altitude of the physical, to think through what I was hinting at in a way so that others may understand, as encouraged to do by Diebert, based on reception of transmissions:

Based on limited knowledge of physicality, there is a point within sitting meditation practice, that can be repeated, where the first movement of mind is in the visual cortex rather than conceptual thought. When the senses have detached from awareness, the first drop of stimulation in response to the experience of emptiness, unfiltered by thought or judgement, can be stimulation of the visual cortex.

When movement of mind begins as a stimulation of the visual cortex, with all senses detached from awareness … with total amnesia of identity, place, time, without any thought to determine these things and without any other thought, when thus disconnected from conceptual thought the world can appear visually in a way that I have not ever heard others describe, and details of this world do not change.

This experience of the world, which in ways is like the world observed with eyes, remains more fixed than what is observed with physical eyes that are unaffected by drugs, or affected by drugs. A comparison of the steadiness of vision is one of those magic-eye paintings. At first you can’t see the hidden image at all, and then when you breakthrough and see it, it is as steady as an unthinking rock, even though your eyes move to examine details.

We could call this knowing a world without inference.

When you consider that I Am is true, and all else is inference, then inferences of the world without inference can be made.

After the experience, amnesia vanishes, thoughts appear, illusions appear, inference appears, soon one is walkin and talkin and doin the dance in a colorful world that is both arbitrary and inevitable.

I don’t know if this can be repeated with the drugs, as Diebert references. One of the conditions required to delineate movements in consciousness is subtlety of mind, and ingesting concentrates of plants distilled by man can weave a self-contained Faraday cage of experience around awareness, a cage that comes and goes until it no longer goes, which I think is the escapism that Diebert mentions.

[Russell Parr]

Based on limited knowledge of physicality, there is a point within sitting meditation practice, that can be repeated, where the first movement of mind is in the visual cortex rather than conceptual thought. When the senses have detached from awareness, the first drop of stimulation in response to the experience of emptiness, unfiltered by thought or judgement, can be stimulation of the visual cortex.

When movement of mind begins as a stimulation of the visual cortex, with all senses detached from awareness … with total amnesia of identity, place, time, without any thought to determine these things and without any other thought, when thus disconnected from conceptual thought the world can appear visually in a way that I have not ever heard others describe, and details of this world do not change.

Within this meditative state, any detailed description is disqualified by the fact that all sense of identity, place, and time are absent. These things are needed in order for any sort of description to be possible. Yet at the same time, descriptions about it (e.g. stillness) are possible because of the identity, time, and space sensed beyond this state.

This experience of the world, which in ways is like the world observed with eyes, remains more fixed than what is observed with physical eyes that are unaffected by drugs, or affected by drugs. A comparison of the steadiness of vision is one of those magic-eye paintings. At first you can't see the hidden image at all, and then when you breakthrough and see it, it is as steady as an unthinking rock, even though your eyes move to examine details.

All things take this form of fixation; a freeze frame, a stillness captured out of a constant fluctuation of change. In meditation, stillness caused by the absence of sensual input is the only thing held in awareness.

We could call this knowing a world without inference.

When you consider that I Am is true, and all else is inference, then inferences of the world without inference can be made.

Yet 'I Am' cannot be concluded without inference.

After the experience, amnesia vanishes, thoughts appear, illusions appear, inference appears, soon one is walkin and talkin and doin the dance in a colorful world that is both arbitrary and inevitable.

I don’t know if this can be repeated with the drugs, as Diebert references. One of the conditions required to delineate movements in consciousness is subtlety of mind, and ingesting concentrates of plants distilled by man can weave a self-contained Faraday cage of experience around awareness, a cage that comes and goes until it no longer goes, which I think is the escapism that Diebert mentions.

The difference between altered states caused by drugs and meditation is that drugs force the mind into an experience that is partially or fully cut off from normal sensory input. Meditation induces a voluntary release of sensory input. Drugs often provide more of a "wild ride" because of the stimulation provided by chemical alteration, but sensory deprivation can cause this too with enough time and/or practice, though not as intense. For example, see comparisons between DMT trips and dreams, or hallucinations induced by sensory deprivation.

It should be noted that neither drugs nor meditation provide much insight alone. They can help us to see just how fragile normal, everyday existence is, but not much else. Meditation can help declutter the mind and improve focus, but true resolution can only come about with the hard work of deep, rational thought.

[Russell Parr]

While it's true that almost every post is an attempt to discuss "'insights' being 'experienced'", it is not necessarily carefulness and deliberation in the expressing of symbols, gestures and verbs which will best convey these insights. It's often the case that simplification, or a short and directly to the point sentence, such as moving's earlier realization "there is no self, there really is no self!" is the best way to express the core of an understanding. Whether or not this inevitably leaves obvious "gaps" when considering the implications of such a statement, perhaps it is best to be patient and see if the poster has already considered such branches which have not yet been addressed? Is it possible that immediately pointing out these "gaps" is actually a hindrance toward moving on for the continuation of logical exploration regarding the initial insight? Such as in your reply to Moving's words.

This is my strongest and only concern with your long term posting Diebert. To me it appears that, through your constant reiteration of the importance of the call for logic, which is implied as being nothing but a call for careful and deliberate use of language , coupled with your unending concerns regarding the dangers of 'falling in to mindless lulls', that you are, more than anyone else I've ever encountered, hindering the possibility of the "wise explorer" by imposing borders and constraints on the methods used to begin, such as a simplified statement. As if the speaker doesn't know they should be logical and deliberate, while you might think they failed at this off the bat, perhaps you should consider patiently asking for more elaboration on such insights before immediately recycling the old "Stop right there, go straight to jail, you cannot pass go."

I'm not sure if anyone has ever outlined this concern to you before, but my hope is that you consider such leniency and instead focus on trying to "level" with the ideas expressed and work on their exploration first. It might just lead to unleashing more of the potential you've been hoping to see from posters. Frankly, I don't believe you will take this in to consideration, perhaps it is difficult to recognize that same trap of repetition others have found themselves in. My hope is that you'll prove me wrong, that your posts will look just a little different in terms of how quickly you "cut off" the comments of other posters, perhaps allowing us all to move as far as we can away from those "lulls", together :)

Hey John,

I think it goes without saying that it's nearly impossible to predict the reaction of those reading. There are too many unknowable variables involved during transmission (to borrow Cahoot's wording), especially on a web forum. At times a simple koan can induce a breakthrough, while at other times a lengthy elaboration is most helpful. Overall, the validity of the content is more important than the method of the messenger.

Nice to see you around, though. I'm sure Diebert will appreciate your constructive criticism :)

(not that I think he needs it.. I think the more styles of expression, the better)

[Cahoot]

Following SeekerOfWisdom’s advice, I read with the intent of understanding before responding, and detect a source of static.

Cahoot: “When you consider that I Am is true, and all else is inference, then inferences of the world without inference can be made.”
Russell: “Yet 'I Am' cannot be concluded without inference.”

Your response makes logical sense when the sentence you’re addressing is read a certain way. I think that my poor phrasing caused you to misinterpret my intended meaning of the sentence.

The clearer phrasing … inferences, about the “world without inference”, can be made.

Likewise, the ‘I Am’ thought cannot be concluded without inference, however without thought, there is only I Am.
(I Am is also conceptually imprecise, because of the duality implied in the phrasing. Beingness and Am-ness are more precise because they don’t imply two, but under certain conditions such words can cause static that erodes that precision during the process of reception.)

[Russell Parr]

The clearer phrasing … inferences, about the “world without inference”, can be made.

Likewise, the ‘I Am’ thought cannot be concluded without inference, however without thought, there is only I Am.

I understood what you meant; I just barely responded to it :)

I disagree that there is only "I Am" without thought, because the two are inherently connected. Without thought, there is only indiscernible, undelineated nature. Being exists only where it is discerned to be.

(I Am is also conceptually imprecise, because of the duality implied in the phrasing. Beingness and Am-ness are more precise because they don’t imply two, but under certain conditions such words can cause static that erodes that precision during the process of reception.)

Indeed, any word used to described the fundamental state of reality produces a bit of static because words are inherently dualistic. As the oft-used adage goes, words are the finger pointing at the moon. Some words are better pointers than other; I prefer words like Infinite, Tao, or Nature over "I Am" or Beingness because the latter tends to imply a degree of ego-centrism.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: Yes, it's often mistaken like that and I know all this out of first hand as well. When being described as the "logical" guy not understanding deeper experiences or "mind blowing" stuff I often have to smile: so much fierce defending of the very things I'm looking back on now as growing pains. The dissolution of boundaries could just as easily be described as disease and you'll find hyper-sensitivity and the sense of a lack of boundary as formal descriptions of many psychological disorders. The reason for this is that to function in the natural world, we need a firm sense of boundaries and meaning. Weakening these things might provide insight and experiences of a certain kind but will leave one ultimately dysfunctional or at least blindsided to ones own deeper functioning without even the means to pull oneself out of the swamp.

I remember you mentioning something several years ago about your experience with non-intellectual spirituality (I'm paraphrasing). I very much relate to a time of "drowning" (perhaps this was a word you used?) in "the void" or hyper-sensitivity to nature and to this day, I experience a moment here or there of being pulled into these old patterns of consciousness, but when they come, I remind myself meaning/wisdom will come and nature is what it is in pleasure and pain and I am a part of that truth.

What is curious to me is that most people report that when they experience no thought, they experience bliss (reminds me of my many head-to-heads with Dennis) but for me, the absence of thoughts creates a "pregnant" silence, a sense of waiting or "being on hold."

Quite right. Anyone experienced with entheogenic drugs would agree as well. One sniff of burning salvia extract and distinctions or identifications drop away or get seriously mixed up. It's really not hard to put the mind in such states. But the question remains: is truth being served? What remains the value? Would one be prepared to benefit from the experience?

About a decade ago, I had two "spiritual"/consciousness altering experiences under the influence of weed wherein I was totally absorbed for more than an hour in swirling 3D colours and undulating 3D geometric shapes. Very relaxing, mundane-blowing, super-blissful, interesting experiences in and of themselves, but despite what I might have interpreted them to mean at the time, they had nothing to do with wisdom of the nature of reality. Which, of course is what one can take away from such experiences.