GENIUS FORUMS

That's good because if you saw it, you would really think I was serious. :)

I guess the problem may be that only people that know me can tell when I'm joking. Sorry, Scott.

Apology not accepted.

Ok, now you're developing a sense of humor.

Shahrazad wrote:I hate when people do that. It is an insult to people's intelligence. Plus, jokes are funnier when told with a straight face.

Could you explain what's funny about the line, "I don't believe in kundalini"? I like to do dry humor, too, without the aid of emoticon or haha j/k cues. But I didn't get that this was a joke, it came off more like personal bias.

Carl,

Yes, I realize now that it was a poor attempt at a joke. Trying to explain it would just make it unfunnier.

Scott has said many times "I don't believe in enlightenment." I thought it would sound funny for me to say "I don't believe in Kundalini", particularly since I have no idea what it is. The implication is that Scott may not know what enlightenment is either.

See? Now you made me explain a dumb joke.

sschaula wrote:CG: The natural state of man is not anything to be aspired to, it is something to be transcended.

SS: I think UG had the belief that the natural state of man was uncorrupted. He wasn't speaking of the natural state of mankind, which is pretty violent and stupid most of the time. He was transcending that...at least in theory. So in my opinion your idea of "the natural state of man" isn't in line with his.

Right, I used to agree with the theory of a pristine state behind each person's worldly conditioning, which U.G. seems to say one can reach (and which is, no doubt, the basis of some people's advocacy of the idea that we are already enlightened, we just need to realize it). I no longer buy that. I think we start as rough clay, and can refine ourselves with education and practice (or ruin ourselves with unconstructive thinking and actions).

Carl,

I see what you're saying. I think whether we are rough clay or not depends entirely on when you think we start. At birth? Then I agree with you. It's obvious newborns aren't in any pristine state...that they are in need of refinement. But if where we start is beyond all of our attachments and burdens, then I'd say that state isn't rough clay.

So I still agree with UG's whole idea. To me, the ideal is a mix of the two ideas. On one hand, abandoning all that binds us and being in our natural state, and at the same time, learning and refining our knowledge.

Sapius wrote:

One can consider them 'outlandish' only until one experiences them himself. And even after that, one will still consider them outlandish until he can logically comprehend “outlandish” things through reason and existing knowledge. That is if he can at all.

That’s a good point. The comparative judgment is only based on what I’ve experienced so it has an inherit limitation. Moreover, I have experienced other outlanish states so I probably shouldnt have judged it as so.

For instance: another strange experience happened while in mediation, and perhaps someone can relate to it. It occurred while in the depths of attention, and as brain went totally silent, suddenly the brain itself simply shut off totally, and I fell into what I’d call an “infinite and vast nothingness that went well beyond the field of the brain. I was quite horrified because I couldn’t force myself to think about anything no matter how hard I tried. There was a short duration of panic, but I calmed myself down, and eventually my brain functioning returned and I was able to think again. However, while in that state I felt rather insane and helpless, but I also came to the realization of how much security I had been deriving from familiar and habitable modes of thinking.

Can anyone relate to this experience?

How were you horrified if your brain shut off?

I can relate a little bit. Once my ego shut off, or flipped inside out, and my brain identified "myself" as anything that was occuring in my awareness. That was pretty scary.

Scott wrote:

How were you horrified if your brain shut off?

Because thinking wasn’t even possible. The only reality was this vast emptiness, with an incredibly intense alien presence that made one feel totally insane due to its magnitude. And it existed far beyond the brain itself. Moreover, the kicker was that my ‘thinking apparatus’ was totally non-functional, so there was nothing to cling onto, no familiarity, no cycles of repetitive thought to give feelings of security.

Here is a metaphor: Suppose you take a dog, that typically derives security through licking itself, smelling the genitals of other dogs, chowing down on dog food, curling up to its owner, guarding and expanding its territory, fantasizing about future bones it might unearth, and so on. And then suddenly the dog’s brain is replaced with a vast alien presence that lacks all the above conditioning. How do you think that entire bundle of conditioning that is ‘Dog’ would react to such an experience? Total horror perhaps? yeah maybe.

Ahh yeah, you've had a taste of samadhi.

Ryan R: ...take a dog, that typically derives security through licking itself, smelling the genitals of other dogs, chowing down on dog food, curling up to its owner, guarding and expanding its territory, fantasizing about future bones it might unearth...then suddenly the dog’s brain is replaced with a vast alien presence that lacks all the above conditioning.

Scott: Ahh yeah, you've had a taste of samadhi.

New brand of kibble?

"Can not process...going into up-tight robot mode..."

Ryan,

For instance: another strange experience happened while in mediation, and perhaps someone can relate to it. It occurred while in the depths of attention, and as brain went totally silent, suddenly the brain itself simply shut off totally, and I fell into what I’d call an “infinite and vast nothingness that went well beyond the field of the brain. I was quite horrified because I couldn’t force myself to think about anything no matter how hard I tried. There was a short duration of panic, but I calmed myself down, and eventually my brain functioning returned and I was able to think again. However, while in that state I felt rather insane and helpless, but I also came to the realization of how much security I had been deriving from familiar and habitable modes of thinking.

Can anyone relate to this experience?

I had a similar experience a few months ago, and it was scary as hell. I had just woken up, and all of a sudden my sense of self was gone. I knew I was alive, but my "soul" was gone. It must have only lasted a few seconds, maybe ten, but I was so scared that to me it seemed like a long time. The scariest part was not knowing that this was just a temporary state.

I remember thinking right after I came back: "I wonder if this is what enlightenment feels like?"

.

Shahrazad wrote:

I remember thinking right after I came back: "I wonder if this is what enlightenment feels like?"

Here is my metaphysical interpretation of the experience, and it maybe incorrect. Based on some of these experiences, I have speculated that perhaps at the most fundamental level of reality, all that exists is this ‘Vast, Infinite, and Unfathomable Nothingness’, which involuntarily creates the circus show around us, which is the world. Now, the paradoxical part of about this nothingness is that it needs a healthy ‘Brain’ to function through as a means to create a ‘Unique Conscious Signature’. So based on what happened to me, perhaps I was in some sort of limbo state – meaning that my own thinking apparatus was non-functional, and whatever new field of consciousness I had entered, I also didn’t have access to its thinking apparatus either.

Moreover, perhaps the ‘unfathomable nothingness’ should be considered the most foundational aspect of reality, instead of the intellectual construction of causality that the QRS value.

Ryan R wrote:Shahrazad wrote:

I remember thinking right after I came back: "I wonder if this is what enlightenment feels like?"

Here is my metaphysical interpretation of the experience, and it maybe incorrect. Based on some of these experiences, I have speculated that perhaps at the most fundamental level of reality, all that exists is this ‘Vast, Infinite, and Unfathomable Nothingness’, which involuntarily creates the circus show around us, which is the world.

Why would those experiences lead you to that conclusion?

Now, the paradoxical part of about this nothingness is that it needs a healthy ‘Brain’ to function through as a means to create a ‘Unique Conscious Signature’.

How does nothingness have 'needs'?

So based on what happened to me, perhaps I was in some sort of limbo state – meaning that my own thinking apparatus was non-functional and whatever new field of consciousness I had entered, I also didn’t have access to its thinking apparatus either.

How do you even have the memory that it happened then?

And what makes you conclude that there is super-consciousness beyond the human brain which has its own thinking apparatus?

Moreover, perhaps the ‘unfathomable nothingness’ should be considered the most foundational aspect of reality, instead of the intellectual construction of causality that the QRS value.

You mean, 'cosmic consciousness' should be the foundation of reality?

Ryan R wrote:another strange experience happened while in mediation, and perhaps someone can relate to it. It occurred while in the depths of attention, and as brain went totally silent, suddenly the brain itself simply shut off totally, and I fell into what I’d call an “infinite and vast nothingness that went well beyond the field of the brain.

Consciousness experiencing the infinite nothingness eh? That doesnt sound right. Consciousness can only experience limitation.

I was quite horrified because I couldn’t force myself to think about anything no matter how hard I tried.

If your brain shut off totally, then how could you be horrified?

What is it that is being horrified? Certainly the 'functioning' brain.

There was a short duration of panic, but I calmed myself down, and eventually my brain functioning returned and I was able to think again.

It would be more logical to conclude that your brain was panicking, but then it calmed down. Doesnt it seem more evident that your brain never stopped functioning?

Perhaps you just abandoned your hopes, dreams and neurotic thoughts and imagined yourself as a speck of sand in the ocean, a speck of matter devoid of inherent purpose, importance, and will. This sort of thinking can cause a bit of panic, no doubt.

Cory,

How does nothingness have 'needs'?

It doesn’t have needs in itself, but if there is to be a thinking individual, then nothingness needs to use something to accomplish that end, and a brain is the only way.

Why would those experiences lead you to that conclusion?

I think it is a better hypothesis than suggesting that causality creates everything we see around us.

And what makes you conclude that there is super-consciousness beyond the human brain which has its own thinking apparatus?

Intuition based on experience, but its not as if there is only one super-consciousness. there is the 'unfathomable nothingness' that only becomes conscious when it penetrates some sort of brain structure.

How do you even have the memory that it happened then?

The use of memory was suspended momentarily, meaning thought was not possible, but there was still awareness of the event. There was an intuitive perceiver.

You mean, 'cosmic consciousness' should be the foundation of reality?

An unfathomable nothingess at the foundation of reality does not imply one single cosmic consciousness. It implies many, wherever it touches a brain structure.

Consciousness experiencing the infinite nothingness eh? That doesnt sound right. Consciousness can only experience limitation.

Yes of course, it was still limited, it wasnt the whole thing, but it extended well beyond the brain. So there was an instantaneous perception of something much more vast than the actual brain itself.

If your brain shut off totally, then how could you be horrified? What is it that is being horrified? Certainly the brain.

Horror is felt at the very center of ones being. The brain is only the processor, the computer. It was as if the feeling could not be translated into thought because the brain was totally inactive.

Doesnt it seem more evident that your brain never stopped functioning?

It functioned in the sense that oxygen went through the neurons, and all that, but thought was not possible. So in that cognitive sense, the brain was not functioning.

For eg:// in response to the horror, I tried to forced any thought into my mind, but nothing happened. Only a state of vast nothingness was present. And eventually I realized the futility of it, so I simply allowed the experience to pass.

Ryan,

I am just recovering from a bad flu, and am actually quite tired, but I may have much to say on the subject. And they will not really be outlandish at all, even if one doesn’t actually experience it; IF, one can only keep an open mind and listen to some reasoned probabilities, which will be in accordance with the “good” point that I made. :D

Give me a day or two to recover my strength.

Ryan,

I tried to forced any thought into my mind, but nothing happened. Only a state of vast nothingness was present. And eventually I realized the futility of it, so I simply allowed the experience to pass.

If you tried to force a thought into your mind, it should be obvious that the mind was working...that you were having thoughts. Maybe you just aren't used to subtle thoughts such as these.

U.G. was a significant influence on me. I hope nobody bothers with his funeral or remembers any of the crap he had to say.

Those familiar with U.G. will understand that as a tribute, which is how it is intended.

U.G. did an awful lot of talking for someone who didn't want anyone to take any notice of what he said. Smacks of piss and wind to me. I am somewhat ambivalent about his significance.

Scott wrote:

If you tried to force a thought into your mind, it should be obvious that the mind was working...that you were having thoughts. Maybe you just aren't used to subtle thoughts such as these.

When I say that the brain was non-functional, I only mean it was non-operational in a cognitive sense, however, the brain was still functioning bio-chemcially. And as a said before, this was only a temporary state that was only short lived.

Moreover, forcing the mind to try to think is not thinking, so the attempt does not characterize a thought itself because no thinking actually occurred. Just like trying to start your car with a non-functional starter is not driving. Turning the key is not a subtle form of driving because you are not actually moving.

Thought is a material movement that involves images, so if there were no images possible then they were no thoughts, subtle or otherwise.

Unidian wrote:

U.G. was a significant influence on me. I hope nobody bothers with his funeral or remembers any of the crap he had to say

.

UG wanted people to listen to his words as a means to eventually abandon them completely. So his teaching still have some value for seekers that are at a certain level of awareness. Like all philosophers that speak some level of truth. UG was effective because he called for the total negation of everything. Other philosophers said this at all, but UG had a certain ruthless ruggedness about him that proved effective.

Dan wrote:

U.G. did an awful lot of talking for someone who didn't want anyone to take any notice of what he said. Smacks of piss and wind to me. I am somewhat ambivalent about his significance.

I think UG did this because he was constantly bombarded with very low quality followers that were easily attached to any charismatic guru; this is why he went through such extraordinary lengths to ridicule the enlightenment movement in India. He’d criticize every guru in India, and then tell the entire herd of sycophants to get lost and never come back.

UG had two teachings in that sense. Some of his material isn’t all that useful, and some of it is very provocative. I think it all depends on who he was speaking to.

I noticed that he talked very differently to individuals who he thought had any intellectual potential at all.

Ryan R wrote:Cory,

Cory wrote:How does nothingness have 'needs'?

It doesn’t have needs in itself, but if there is to be a thinking individual, then nothingness needs to use something to accomplish that end, and a brain is the only way.

This seems like the intelligent design argument dressed up in a fancy new dress. 'Unfathomable nothingess' is the power-word used to make your intelligent design argument seem more legitimate.

Here is my metaphysical interpretation of the experience, and it maybe incorrect. Based on some of these experiences, I have speculated that perhaps at the most fundamental level of reality, all that exists is this ‘Vast, Infinite, and Unfathomable Nothingness’, which involuntarily creates the circus show around us, which is the world.

cory: Why would those experiences lead you to that conclusion?

Ryan: I think it is a better hypothesis than suggesting that causality creates everything we see around us.

I agree that a sense of existing which involves all these appearances and sensations seems very unlikely - however, how is it that you think a super-intelligent creative force is any more likely? It seems even more unlikely.

Cory: And what makes you conclude that there is super-consciousness beyond the human brain which has its own thinking apparatus?

Ryan: Intuition based on experience, but its not as if there is only one super-consciousness. there is the 'unfathomable nothingness' that only becomes conscious when it penetrates some sort of brain structure.

Oh, so now it's only conscious after it permeates your brain.

Earlier you said:

So based on what happened to me, perhaps I was in some sort of limbo state – meaning that my own thinking apparatus was non-functional and whatever new field of consciousness I had entered, I also didn’t have access to its thinking apparatus either.

So tell me more about how this unfathomable nothingness has a thinking apparatus.

Cory: How do you even have the memory that it happened then?

Ryan: The use of memory was suspended momentarily, meaning thought was not possible, but there was still awareness of the event. There was an intuitive perceiver.

A perciever? The perciever, observer, whatever you want to call him, is thought. That was one of the most truthful and useful things about Jiddu Krishnamurti's work.

If there was a state of no-thought, you would have no way of knowing it. When thought returned you wouldn't even know what happened. To say your brain totally shut off, yet you were horrified, panicking, and struggling to think during this 'process' - is all quite absurd. Who is struggling to think? It's memory, thought. You can't try to think unless you think with memory, with egoistic identity.

Cory: You mean, 'cosmic consciousness' should be the foundation of reality?

Ryan: An unfathomable nothingess at the foundation of reality does not imply one single cosmic consciousness. It implies many, wherever it touches a brain structure.

Right, but you also said the unfathomable nothingess has a thinking apparatus.

You seem to be saying that the unfathomable nothingness is not conscious, yet it creates consciousness. How does it do that?

Cory: Consciousness experiencing the infinite nothingness eh? That doesnt sound right. Consciousness can only experience limitation.

Ryan: Yes of course, it was still limited, it wasnt the whole thing, but it extended well beyond the brain. So there was an instantaneous perception of something much more vast than the actual brain itself.

I'm sorry, but it doesnt require a special cosmic force to creep into a persons brain for a person to realize a vastness that extends beyond the actual brain itself. It's really not that major of an achievement. I can recall thinking about the vastness of outer space, about the possiblity of infinity, and boggling over how a begining was possible, even before I was teenager.

Cory: If your brain shut off totally, then how could you be horrified? What is it that is being horrified? Certainly the brain.

Ryan: Horror is felt at the very center of ones being.

So emotions like horror are not brain processes, but belong to a methaphysical center of ones being - a soul?

Cory: The brain is only the processor, the computer. It was as if the feeling could not be translated into thought because the brain was totally inactive.

So - tell me again, how is it that you remember all of this if the brain was totally inactive? You seem to have a good recollection of the event.

Cory: Doesnt it seem more evident that your brain never stopped functioning?

Ryan: It functioned in the sense that oxygen went through the neurons, and all that, but thought was not possible. So in that cognitive sense, the brain was not functioning. For in response to the horror, I tried to forced any thought into my mind, but nothing happened.

The 'I' is thought. Who is this person trying? You can't try without thought.

Ryan,

Thought is a material movement that involves images, so if there were no images possible then they were no thoughts, subtle or otherwise.

What an interesting interpretation of the word thought.