GENIUS FORUMS

Now that you know a bit more about my experience, I will tell you plainly what I think of reality. I only found out years later that there was an ancient Hindu system that is very close to what I teach. I teach what I call a 'modified Samhkya' system. But, it comes from my experience, so that is all I can say about it.

I say there are two things and only two things in 'reality.' They are completely different, separated and both uncaused. One is pure consciousness known as Purusha. This is not to be confused with any person or gods or beings. Just something that is unknowable that is called Purusha.

The other 'thing' is the void/plenum known as the universe (Prakriti). It is always moving and changing and full of mystery. It is also unknowable as it is limitless in it's creative manifestations. It may disappear or appear. It's manifestations and displays are temporary and fleeting, but the Universe itself is real and uncaused - eternal.

Now, we still have no beings, no animals, no gods, no people, no plan. The Universe creates beings of different types - animals, men, gods, etc. These beings are designed with ever-increasing complexity in the nervous system and brain. The purpose of the brain is to interface between Purusha and Prakriti. I don't know that 'purpose' is the right word here - it just IS. Different beings, then, receive or really REFLECT Consciousness from the Purusha. This gives them self awareness in varying degrees. In more complex brains, this reflection is felt as 'I Am' and is the core of the human ego. It gives one a sense of being unique and separate from others. It creates necessary ego functions such as 'here and there' 'this and that', 'now and then', 'us and them', subjectivity, preferences, physical preservation and many other necessary functions.

Without a brain there is no being to know anything. At night in deep sleep or under anesthesia, you might as well be dead. You are dead. Without a brain there is no being to know anything. Yet, the two essences are there, but there is no connection between them - hence no one experiencing anything.

'Enlightenment' as I understand it is a state in which the brain reflects the Purusha in it's full, clear and unmodified purity. The reflection is so complete that the individual in the ego mind is swept away and one BECOMES the Purusha.

I suppose at this point several different things could become of the individual who sees this. He could stay fixated on that picture, but this is unlikely since the brain is more apt to continue moving. What is more likely is that the person would continue to function at a higher level of consciousness in which the purest state is locked into memory and can be approached and 'brushed up against' from time to time. This seems to be the case with me.

Now, are their causes to this mental purity? There must be, but, in my opinion, they cannot be traced to this life alone. It would be very difficult to imagine what things would contribute to such a condition, but there are probably thousands of factors. I do not believe one can force oneself into such a condition.

Is this what people see under LSD and other drugs? Since enlightenment is a condition of the brain, drugs have the potential to quite it's activity in such a way as to allow it to more fully reflect Purusha. So, yes it is possible. This situation would be only temporary and inaccurately perceived as other necessary brain centers would be distorting the received ideas. Yet, it could be a close approximation and we find that many people who have taken LSD display a much deeper interest in Consciousness and related topics after the experience.

So, that is a very simple and understandable version of what appears to me due to my own experience. It bears some strong resemblance to very ancient systems, but I did not know that until long after the fact.

You are very contradictory.

for instance, how do you reconcile these two statements...

At night in deep sleep or under anesthesia, you might as well be dead. You are dead. Without a brain there is no being to know anything.

Alteration of the wakened state eliminates "consciousness" or even life itself making the supposed attainment of "enlightenment" null.

Yet, later you say...

Since enlightenment is a condition of the brain, drugs have the potential to quite it's activity in such a way as to allow it to more fully reflect Purusha. So, yes it is possible.

Well, now. You already said that being asleep or under certain drugs makes this so-called enlightenment impossible because the brain is altered somehow. So, how is LSD able to alter the brain the "right" way to achieve this so-called enlightenment, while sleep or other drugs cannot?

No, it appears to me you are merely bowing to the "cool" folks' idea that LSD is cool! You are falling for kitsch. Just like a westerner who "discovers" eastern religion.

I would, in fact, posit the opposite conclusion re LSD. I say it is a chimera, a fake out. It make fools imagine they have somehow touched the face of God when it is merely a chemical reaction that the unintelligent conflate with some sort of substantive "experience". Just like you have conflated pseudo eastern religiosity with "enlightenment".

Alteration of the wakened state eliminates "consciousness" or even life itself making the supposed attainment of "enlightenment" null.

I have no idea what you mean.

Well, now. You already said that being asleep or under certain drugs makes this so-called enlightenment impossible because the brain is altered somehow. So, how is LSD able to alter the brain the "right" way to achieve this so-called enlightenment, while sleep or other drugs cannot?

I never said that being asleep makes enlightenment possible. Quite the contrary. Sleep=death. Powerful mind-altering drugs like LSD can, in some cases, bring one much closer to the Purusha and, thus, the enlightenment experience. But only an approximation.

I would, in fact, posit the opposite conclusion re LSD. I say it is a chimera, a fake out. It make fools imagine they have somehow touched the face of God when it is merely a chemical reaction that the unintelligent conflate with some sort of substantive "experience".

I would not recommend LSD to anyone because its effects are quite unpredictable and possibly very dangerous. In other cases it has certainly sparked interest in consciousness and its foundation. But its a crap shoot.

I never said that being asleep makes enlightenment possible.

I know you didn't. You hinted that it makes it impossible which was my point. How do you know this? You do not.

Sleep=death. Powerful mind-altering drugs like LSD can, in some cases, bring one much closer to the Purusha and, thus, the enlightenment experience. But only an approximation.

Ah, but sleep is merely an alteration of the wakened consciousness just like LSD is. But, you equate that to "death" while equating a silly chemical alteration with LSD as "enlightenment"!

Further, you cannot say -- nor can anyone else -- what the mind is actually doing when asleep. So you are making two great leaps in logic. #1, sleep is a state of "nothing" merely because you don't have any recollection of knowledge of where your mind is during that time, and #2, LSD is an approximation of "enlightenment" even though no one can know either enlightenment OR what the mind is truly doing under LSD!

Personally, I think you are making it all up as you go along. Which is fine as long as you admit that it is all merely a "belief" having no sensible logic behind it.

Personally, I think you are making it all up as you go along. Which is fine as long as you admit that it is all merely a "belief" having no sensible logic behind it

All I can tell you in all honesty ia that this is my bonefide experience and true. You may not like it; it may seem like illusion to you, but all I am doing is reporting what I saw. As far as logic goes, logic seems to play in either reality, but not in both at the same time. From my viewpoint now, I am all people and I am no one. That is quite a paradox and not logical. Also, from my view, yes and no are both true; everything exists and nothing exists; I am here and I am not here, etc. I am sort of baffled at what you are trying to achieve with your logic exercises. But, it all plays a part in the big game I reckon.

Well, I just find everything you are saying to be post-modernist and would eventually lead to nihilism. "Nothing is everything, everything is nothing"... easy clap trap to spout, but meaningful? Not really. Practical? Not at all.

However, I wouldn't begrudge you your simplistic vision of the world/life if it makes you feel closer to something that would place your interactions with other people to the highest and, what I would call most moral, level.

If this belief in what ever you want to call it precludes your stepping on the liberties of the next man in line, then I say good on you. We are all in need of some higher level of being, something probably unattainable, but something worth striving for (if only to us).

I call it virtue, you call it enlightenment, what ever. As long as we all look to a higher power or a higher plain of existence that can, as we strive to reach it, make life better between people in the here and now.

Well, I just find everything you are saying to be post-modernist and would eventually lead to nihilism.

But it's the opposite of nihilism. What is going on here is more apt to lead to nihilism. Nihilism says life is not worth living. I say life is worth celebrating. How is that Nihilism?

However, I wouldn't begrudge you your simplistic vision of the world/life

If I can totally comprehend your view of the world, but you have no idea what I am talking about....then how is that a 'simplistic' view?

As long as we all look to a higher power or a higher plain of existence that can, as we strive to reach it, make life better between people in the here and now.

Find out what makes you tick, then the result might be good for other people.

But it's the opposite of nihilism. What is going on here is more apt to lead to nihilism. Nihilism says life is not worth living. I say life is worth celebrating. How is that Nihilism?

It's nihilism because this level of "wonder" you exhibit cannot be sustained without purpose behind it. If everything is equal to everything else, then there is no wrong and no right, no good and no bad. This will, in the end, tend to equalize all behavior which leads to nihilistic assumptions that just any old thing you do is "right". After all, it's all good so what matters?

Still, as long as it keeps you from disrupting civil society, you are fine as far as I am concerned. If you are able to forever keep that level of wonder (thereby making you reach for a more productive or civil nature) at your conclusions, that is great.

As to proselytizing, which is what you mean by your last line, I again have no problem with it as long as it does not undermine civil society. (Not that our society is perfect, mind you) But the second you begin to tell others that your ideas are so much better than the rights other have to their own and that your ideas should be put into effect for the "good" of everyone else... we got trouble. Right here in River City!

Unwise wrote:

Now that you know a bit more about my experience, I will tell you plainly what I think of reality. I only found out years later that there was an ancient Hindu system that is very close to what I teach. I teach what I call a 'modified Samhkya' system. But, it comes from my experience, so that is all I can say about it.

I say there are two things and only two things in 'reality.' They are completely different, separated and both uncaused. One is pure consciousness known as Purusha. This is not to be confused with any person or gods or beings. Just something that is unknowable that is called Purusha.

The other 'thing' is the void/plenum known as the universe (Prakriti). It is always moving and changing and full of mystery. It is also unknowable as it is limitless in it's creative manifestations. It may disappear or appear. It's manifestations and displays are temporary and fleeting, but the Universe itself is real and uncaused - eternal.

Now, we still have no beings, no animals, no gods, no people, no plan. The Universe creates beings of different types - animals, men, gods, etc. These beings are designed with ever-increasing complexity in the nervous system and brain. The purpose of the brain is to interface between Purusha and Prakriti. I don't know that 'purpose' is the right word here - it just IS. Different beings, then, receive or really REFLECT Consciousness from the Purusha. This gives them self awareness in varying degrees. In more complex brains, this reflection is felt as 'I Am' and is the core of the human ego. It gives one a sense of being unique and separate from others. It creates necessary ego functions such as 'here and there' 'this and that', 'now and then', 'us and them', subjectivity, preferences, physical preservation and many other necessary functions.

Without a brain there is no being to know anything. At night in deep sleep or under anesthesia, you might as well be dead. You are dead. Without a brain there is no being to know anything. Yet, the two essences are there, but there is no connection between them - hence no one experiencing anything.

'Enlightenment' as I understand it is a state in which the brain reflects the Purusha in it's full, clear and unmodified purity. The reflection is so complete that the individual in the ego mind is swept away and one BECOMES the Purusha.

I suppose at this point several different things could become of the individual who sees this. He could stay fixated on that picture, but this is unlikely since the brain is more apt to continue moving. What is more likely is that the person would continue to function at a higher level of consciousness in which the purest state is locked into memory and can be approached and 'brushed up against' from time to time. This seems to be the case with me.

Now, are their causes to this mental purity? There must be, but, in my opinion, they cannot be traced to this life alone. It would be very difficult to imagine what things would contribute to such a condition, but there are probably thousands of factors. I do not believe one can force oneself into such a condition.

Is this what people see under LSD and other drugs? Since enlightenment is a condition of the brain, drugs have the potential to quite it's activity in such a way as to allow it to more fully reflect Purusha. So, yes it is possible. This situation would be only temporary and inaccurately perceived as other necessary brain centers would be distorting the received ideas. Yet, it could be a close approximation and we find that many people who have taken LSD display a much deeper interest in Consciousness and related topics after the experience.

So, that is a very simple and understandable version of what appears to me due to my own experience. It bears some strong resemblance to very ancient systems, but I did not know that until long after the fact.

I know why you have adopted this dualistic interpretation, Unwise. Really, I do. I say this because I myself have experienced first-hand, many times, the state you are talking about. I agree that it really does seem, at least on the surface, that the state of Purusha is irreconcilably different from the ordinary, everyday world.

However, where we begin to differ, is that I was never able to be satisfied with a dualistic interpretation of things. It went againt my intuitive sense that all Reality must be "one". Moreoever, I've always considered this kind of acceptance a cop-out which goes against the spirit of scientific and intellectual inquiry. I mean, if the human race had simply accepted the Christian duality of God and his Creation, then science would never have got off the ground and we would all still be living as medieval peasants.

So after my first few experiences of Purusha, each of which blew me away, I decided to take a different tack from the one you took. I decided to make the assumption that Purusah and the world are simply two different aspects of the one Reality, and that the seemingly irreconcilable schism I saw between them was an illusion created by my own lack of understanding. In other words, I assumed that the perceived difference would be resolved as I became wiser. And this, in fact, turned out to be the case.

In part, the illusion that Purusha is radically separate from the world is created by the sense of timelessness it exudes. Whenever one enters into it, there is always the strong sensation that one is entering into something incredibly ancient, and that from its perspective, the whole observable universe, together with all of one's past and the entire history of the world, is but a fleeting piece of nothingness. It's as though none of it has any substance at all. Suddenly, everything that we normally take to be substantial and real is nothing more than a fleeting cartoon-like illusion.

As I say, this is a very powerful experience, and, again, I completely understand, Unwise, why you have reached the conclusions that you have. However, I beg of you, for the sake of your future development, to consider the possibility that you are being fooled by a deception. The sudden lack of substance of the world is an illusion created by the simple act of the mind turning its attention away from the outer world and becoming absorbed in an inner oceanic-like altered state of conciousness. The world doesn't really have an empty, cartoon-like substance. But the mind gets the impression that it does during the moments when it is turning its attention away.

The timelessness and feelings of ancientness exuded from the oceanic-like consciousness is a deception as well, created by the fact that we all used to splash around in this type of consciousness in great depth as very young children. Thus, whenever we reenter this oceanic consciousness in adulthood, it feels like nothing has changed. All the long years that have been lived by us in the ordinary, everyday world from early childhood onwards are suddenly forgotten. It's as though one's entire life as a human being has disappeared into the ether and one is suddenly back in the ancient heavens of early childhood once again.

-

.

An existential - and I think compelling - reading of the oceanic feeling comes from Freud in Civilization and Its Discontents. When a colleague of his argues for the persistent appearance of this sensation (the oceanic feeling) - in connection with people's religious sentiments and experiences - Freud traces it this way: the first living impress of our existence is there in the womb; there in awash of amniotic fluid and the rhythm of an uberbreath; there, not suffering the consciousness of distinction from anything, where all is the world and all needs are met autonomically; without sense of subject and other, etc. etc.

Freud assumes all religious impulse to have its root there in this original existential condition, and he assumes all religious impulse to be this natal wishing (for simpler times, so to speak). It is sincere in the sense that it has been everyone's experience, but for Freud, not possible to sustain in the development of consciousness and reason in the world outside the womb. That God is a Father (masculine/power doing the giveth and taketh away) belongs as well to this category of "infantile" (I use his word) cravings, from which equally do humans retreat to, away from the isolation of individual existence; away from the necessary demands of the ego. It would be no surprise then that destruction of the ego is most often the means and the end of a great deal of spiritual teaching. Oneness experiences for the spiritual would be this adeptness to temporarily restrain the ego and recall this actual and original placid unity.

Now what is interesting to me is how the idea of this purely existential source for the spiritual impulse would have to suffer a sudden downgrade to the thinking of many, as though finding ourselves in the world what smells and is many ribbons of temporality is just plain not mysterious or spiritual enough. I wonder (challengingly) why this thought has to have any less of an impact upon us or be thought of as any less wondrous a source. I also wonder why this thought -- and the one that supports the oneness/relatedness of all caused things actually in existence - would have to mutually exclude one another. I wonder how one's ego - that is, one's sense of self - has no place in these caused conditions as well, other than the widespread belief that it keeps us from originally effortless existence. And then, we might want to ask why - evolutionarily speaking - the largest human trend in consciousness that can be seen over time is the development of the subjective experience.

.

It's amazing people still rely on Freud when it has been shown he lied about most everything and made his "studies" up out of his rear end, just like Kinsey did!

But, heroes die hard.

.

Why not handle the thought itself, Cato. Otherwise, Freud becomes perhaps the only person in human history who had absolutely everything wrong.

.

[spits her tea all over the computer in a fit of laughter]

You tell -- him? her? it?, Pye!

Hey, Cunto, (recollects a recent, similar discussion) abandon ye thy nihilism. Ever had a thought of your own on the man's ideas? Who be your "hero," then? Come in here and slash this idea, trash that one -- where are yours?

How would you describe the notion of castration?

Leyla,

You never cease to amaze me with your contradictions. No, no. I don't want a fight, really. Just a theraputic observation.

How would you describe the notion of castration?

Something that your brain went through which is why it is so sterile.

Steven, the best therapy is to be able to think for yourself. No?

Cato wrote:

How would you describe the notion of castration?

Something that your brain went through which is why it is so sterile.

Typical.

Leyla,

Yes, but I still have a poet's heart. Your reckless venom stabs a thorn bush in my belly. Okay?

I wouldn't worry too much about the Work of the Meaning Makers here unwise...and thanks for authentically expressing yourself...
Interestingly, one of the venerated QRS Heroes, Jesus, made the comment that 'to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, one must come as a Child'.....that is quite a lovely Spin on it and well worthy of mention...

Dave feels he is and certainly has potential for the Mentor or Guiding Parent Role...but somehow his Passion for his 'Winning Formula' often has him doing the Controlling or Critical Parent thang...

I thought of compiling a list of 'Things QRS likes to Perp'...but I decided to condense it into the simple 'everything under the Sun'..

Life is for enjoyment and enjoyment of even the simplest things is where it's at...

Peace,

frank

No, it's not OK for me. I don't think you have any intention of abandoning that poet's heart of yours, despite your protestations against my reckless venom. You look on it with such admiration whilst it bleeds all over the place.

And, on top of that, you ask me to abandon what I consider to be the most compassionate cause (not that I could, even if I somehow wanted to being that I am a compassionate individual).

Do you really not understand that -- or are you just playing some sort of sordid game?

How many times have I heard such a plea from men that I've known who seek my "love" in some form or another? Do you not understand how mind-breaking it is for a woman (or, should that be man??)!

If you cannot see my compassion for you, Steven, then I have nothing else to give but reckless venom.

I suppose David could be right about my experience. I perhaps should not call it 'enlightenment' although that it what it has meant to me - and, it does bear remarkable resemblance to what many Hindus meant by the term. He may be correct in saying that it is a mere return to some embryonic consciousness where only 'I' existed. I have no reply to that. Could be.

My own formulation of reality may be simplistic. But I like the simplicity of it. The modern trend has been in the direction of non-dualism, advaita. Buddhism is in this direction, the QVC here, and also Vedanta has 'evolved?' in this direction. It is very popular now in all the New Age books. Everything now is advaita. So, my own dualism formulation is really old-fashioned and uncool and unhip.

I am the only person I know of today who describes reality in the way that I have done so here. At least I have not seen it anywhere else. You described it as the old god/world formulation, but that is not very accurate. In my view, there is no god. Certainly no creator god. Gods perhaps who are doing their own thang like you and me.

With all the insults that fly around here, it is difficult to understand how reality is being formulated on this site. This is not a challenge or anything; I would just like a similar lay-out of 'reality.' One that accounts for the world we see, planets, star fish, our experience, consciousness etc.

One of the weaknesses I see here is that there seems to be no acceptance of what I would call paranormal phenomena. These are seen as delusions in the perceiver. I sort of harp on this because any theory of reality would have to account for EVERYTHING that one may experience. The problem with paranormal experiences is that they are often witnessed by more than one person, and sometimes even leave 'tracks' that are empirically observable. I've even seen Jung's work on synchronicity totally thrown out here at this site despite many years of careful work in detailing these experiences.

In my own formulation, ANYTHING is possible as the universe is more like a dream weaver. What can't it do? There is also a very close connection between the perceiver and the perceived world - even a CREATIONAL connection - which is what synchronicity describes. These are ignored here as impossible, but they make perfect sense in my dualistic description.

Finally, if I am mistaken, it has at least provided me with a model that seems to work very well in understanding the world. Also, it has had a deep psychological calming effect. You may call this a 'benumbing.' Perhaps. But it has certainly taken away the common fears of the ego, because I saw that I could exist without the ego - or that the ego was not important - or a dream etc. I can fully imagine another existence in which a new body is obtained, a new brain is built, a new ego is installed....and 'I' would return just as now. So it is clear to me that I cannot die. What is clear to me is that this existence cannot be extinguished and neither can the experiencer.

I am like a man having a lucid dream. I see that the world is a dream, 'I' am not the protagonist in the dream because I'm in bed - not in the dream at all. I act in the dream as though everything is normal, but where is my deep fear? How can I have any? Also, not fearing, the dream is even more beautiful to me - a miracle of my own creation. The star fish is totally blowing my mind.....and the cup cake.

Why would I want to throw all of that out?

Leyla Shen wrote:No, it's not OK for me. I don't think you have any intention of abandoning that poet's heart of yours, despite your protestations against my reckless venom. You look on it with such admiration whilst it bleeds all over the place.

I wish I had more of it: A poet's heart doesn't necessarily equal a weak heart.

And, on top of that, you ask me to abandon what I consider to be the most compassionate cause (not that I could, even if I somehow wanted to being that I am a compassionate individual).

I respect your cause, Leyla. I've even applied your A=B argument.

...

I have some advice for you.

You have a compassionate mind, but it, too often, gets conflicted with meaninglessness. I don't think you fully appreciate your compassion.

Pay close attention to the seeds that you throw.

...Do you not understand how mind-breaking it is for a woman (or, should that be man??)

When you use venomous cunning, to support your ego, it affects me. Mainly, because the majority of the time, its directed at me.

Use those discerning fangs to progress your cause, and your self.

--

I would also like to see you grow.

[edit: a new record]

Beela Sham,

Typical

What? You expected a substantive response to the drivel you posted to me? try again. I give respect when I get it in return. You are beneath respect so far. Care to try again?

Respect is not something you are given; it's something you possess. You either have it, or you don't. When you don't, you blame others for its lack.

The truth of this is apparent -- if unconsciously -- even in your own statement to me:

I give respect when I get it in return. You are beneath respect so far. Care to try again?

One who is wise is quite capable, therefore, of commanding respect but ultimately has no more use for it than love.

You should have done better. Your petticoat is really beginning to show now.

Mainly, because the majority of the time, its directed at me.

Hey, what part of compassion don't you get?

I have more to say, but it will have to wait.