« "The Prize," my ready-to-steal spiritual screenplay idea | Main | Please keep comments on-topic »

December 17, 2017

Comments

Sant-mat / Yogic system may look innocuous , peaceful way but it is not , actually it is brutal war / Jehad against carnal self also known as " Jehad-al-Nafs". This war is so brutal it can kill the disciple before attaining Samadhi/ Trance/ Fana. Conversely , after attaining Samadhi / Trance effect of time on the body & psyche of disciple may well be zero. See the example of Tat Wale Baba who stopped ageing after 35yrs.

I suppose Tat Wale Baba is dead now. Or is he perpetually 35?

What I want to say is merry Christmas to Brian and all the people that comment on his blog.

Blessed are the cheesemakers.

Hi guys, this is like a chat room! Thanks Brian.

I watch these types of videos every now and then, very uplifting to see love and connectedness. Just wanted to share...

Animal Reunions - 7 Most Heartwarming Animal Reunions With Owners (10:24)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEmMW62StO8&t=305s

hello D.r , Tat Wale Baba didn't die by ageing , he was shot dead by jealous rogue.

Recently a strange thought occurred to me; for the past few years posting here and over at the RSS forum, I realise I very rarely, if ever, discuss my own realisations and experiences (and when I do it's with very little "passion" as they're ideas I've already expressed in the past, perhaps such as my experiences with RS or kundalini etc). Instead, I engage with the ideas and beliefs of the participants on these forums. So, as it's a new year, I thought I would do something different and write out my own current experience and understanding without any self-censorship. This is a daunting task; imo, normally on these forums what we do is merely express concepts and beliefs, as if moving around chess pieces on a board, trying to win the game of which concept or belief is the intellectual/rational victor. One may notice that there is very little actual experience of any sort which even remotely confirms the "reality" of these concepts & beliefs - if any experience at all. I know a lot of RS satsangis will dispute that, but to understand what I mean, one must understand that seeing the radiant form of a guru, experiencing synchronicities or miracles, feeling ecstasy in their presence etc does not prove the reality of reincarnation or "chaurasi" or needing a "perfect living master" to escape it, for example. That adding 2 plus 2 and getting 3,274,956.

Anyway, this post is an attempt at something else. It is attempting to describe actual experience, profound, infinite and beyond concept (ie. non-linear, non-rational etc), into as simple words and concepts as I can possibly manage.

This is the experience/realisation which unmistakably consumes all the gurus and paths, all the religions and teachings, and leaves you at total peace, without fear of death or grief or loneliness or incompleteness etc It cannot be disproven by any subsequent experience, philosophy or science...indeed, at their pinnacle, they all point to this truth. This is also a very simple and self-evident truth. It is a grand mystery - once realised - how astonishing it is that we are able to hypnotise ourselves into not realising this self-evident truth and reality. It is absolute perfection, nothing to do, nothing to worry about. It is without boundaries or gatekeepers, no gurus or spiritual paths which can connect you to it, or withhold it from you. It is merely the illusory construct of ego which prevents it's realisation and insists upon the "need" to do something to attain "it". But that is fine, there is no real need for "realisation" of it, as it's just perfect as it is, and our very seeming "forgetfulness" of it is as much a part of the "point" as is it's "realisation" of it, there is no higher or lower here, no chosen ones or forgotten ones!

What is the experience? it is that the entire creation of dualistic experience, from heavens to earths to hells, all the living organisms contained therein and their experiences, are manifestations of one undivided consciousness that we call God, dividing Itself endlessly to create infinite worlds, beings and experiences. The ego is a necessary construct, a tool of forgetfulness. Once it disappears, the universe disappears - and if Consciousness didn't want all this wonderous display, why did it create it in the first place? This One consciousness did this because - and here words are a mere echo of the experiential reality - when it remains as Oneness knowing it's Oneness, it is "lonely".....the universe, all it's infinite dimensions and experiences, is a kind of gift to Itself. But this can only be understood through direct experience, words are too limited to describe that which is meta-lingual.

What we call our selves, our egos, are actually merely "masks" worn by this singular consciousness. It is both woman and man, simultaneously, making love together, wearing masks to create the illusion of separation. It is both guru and seeker, consciousness has created this wonderful game of hide and seek! But do not think the consciousness in the guru is any different than that of the seeker. Neither is liberated at "death". Consciousness is ever-liberated, ever-free. It is merely the mask which is shed....of what sense does it make to speak of the reincarnation or liberation of masks? Once a bubble bursts, it has gone forever, and air returns to air. it is it is only the ego which clings to these narratives of bondage & liberation and feels fear pondering it's demise, the more puffed up it becomes, the more elaborate the eternal heavens and sach khands it creates for itself.. Death is an illusion, but not because when one dies their soul carries on. It is an illusion because this entire existence, along with all others, is contained within Consciousness as an appearance only (that we, mistakenly, identify with and take to be "real"). A mask is shed and that is all. This is experienced directly, immediately, and without any ambiguity or doubt possible, in deep spiritual experience.

As limited, embodied, conscious beings, as egos, we forget, due to the mechanics of embodiment, that we ARE THAT (One Consciousnes, infinitely dividing itself). This is essential, otherwise duality hence creation and experience, would not be possible. Once the ego is unravelled (either through death or deep spiritual experience), one returns to this natural state, there is nowhere else one could possibly go. All else are fantasies, desires and wishes of the illusory egotistical self, projecting itself into eternity. Actually, this should be obvious if one has the courage to face these beliefs and where/to whom they originate.

So what is the purpose of gurus, spiritual paths and religions etc? Nothing at all like what most people believe. These are structures created within Consciousness to diversify experience, there is no real or right "path", as they're all plays or illusions within consciousness, and there is no path from consciousness to consciousness. Indeed, and I can understand why the ego of many will struggle to accept this, but there is no difference from the perspective of Consciousness (or God etc) between the crack addict dying for a hit, and a Satguru giving darshan, no difference whatsoever, they are both illusions, both are manifestations of One Consciousness forgetting itself and experiencing itself as "other", the "quality" of consciousness remains the same in both experiences.....

There does exist varying degrees of "realisation" of this, though. Somewhat paradoxically, though, the greater the degree of "realisation", the less "neccessary" it seems "realisation" of this becomes imo...because one realises nothing is gained or lost to consciousness. Everything is perfect as it is, self-fulfilling it's purpose. Beware those who threaten you with hell or eternal transmigration, they are trying to sell you something foreign and hook you in by fear. This realisation cannot be had via paths of fear, initiation, rules, dogmas, vows etc, as it transcends them all. "Realisation" is had for it's own sake, because one cannot breathe without it, not because one is scared of incarnation or hells, or desires eternal bliss in eternal heavens. Only follow a spiritual path if it is one's innate nature or tendency to the core, otherwise you are born a sheep who is trying to be a racehorse, and that can surely only lead to an unhappy life. And it IS one's innate nature or tendency which defines how "far" one goes on these "paths", not the path or guru or religion itself......they are all masks, pretences. Indeed, there is no limit or barrier to how one can access this realisation, there is not even any need for any outer "path" or guru at all, it can be attained just as easily by spontaneous chance, observing the flight of birds, an entheogen, a long run, a hike up a mountain etc.

So, Consciousness is everything, dividing itself infinitely to create infinite regions and realms of experience, each with their own limits, laws and boundaries, and infinite egos with an illusory sense of individuality to inhabit and experience them. One can actually experience these realms, as well as identifying completely with the unitary Consciousness behind them all, experiencing all these infinite realities simultaneously, sensing how everything is connected to everything else, through little openings unfolding in consciousness etc. It's a grand Divine Play, purely for entertainment! There is no limit to the worlds or experiences that can be experienced in consciousness, this cannot be over-emphasised. Every possible thing you can imagine to the power of infinity, and with infinite inter-connections, endlessly......

Love? Love is the energy Consciousness feels for itself when it believes itself to be a separate being, to drive itself back to unity, it's natural state. We are all loved because we are all conscious beings who believe ourselves (nost of the time!) to be separate....the universe can manifest this love in many ways, but we, in our own consciousness, must be open & receptive to it, not keep it out with walls of belief and thought (particularly materialistic and atheistic). What we believe in our consciousness becomes our reality, as reality is constructed by consciousness. However, in deepest identification with God/Consciousness, even love is absent, in my experience. There, the idea of "love" makes no sense at all, as there is only One being, contained within itself, with no "other" to love. That said, in dualistic "realms", "love" is the supreme driving force for most experience.

Science? Having spent decades deeply studying the science related to consciousness and reality, I am struck by how profoundly indicative they are of the reality of the experiential "truth" I state above. And we should not mistake pseudo-science or the philosophy of materialism (based on 18th century science) to distract us from that. From quantum physics to science's abject lack of comprehension of consciousness, everything points to the inexplicable, mysterious yet fundamentally important role of consciousness in creation & reality. We are literally unable, scientifically, to disentangle consciousness from matter. And the experience I speak of makes this abundantly clear in incredibly complex & clear ways....but ways so outside of our linguistic structures that it would be impossible to express. All the seeming randomness, "determinism", materialism etc is shown, clearly, to be an illusion/appearance within Consciousness, seemingly "random" and without meaning because we have lost touch with Consciousness and instead identify with a ego-mind with all it's intellectual & belief limitations; we lose sight of the bigger "Consciousness" picture. But, there is no need for grand spiritual visions to understand this. It's simple, are any of you able to describe an experience, a law of science, a physical observation etc that exists OUTSIDE of someone's conscious? Scientism & materialism, incredibly, seek to eliminate consciousness from our observations of the universe "out there"......pretending, magically, as if they are observing through something other than consciousness! It really is cognitive dissonance par excellance. It is one of the our current culture's grand delusions, that everything can be explained in materialistic terms, despite stating this from a position of pure non-materiality; consciousness itself! This I have understood directly and experientially in so-called "spiritual experience". It remains obvious to my mundane intellect, too. I really don't think this can be argued against, and it is deeply held beliefs that prevent materialists from understanding this.

Okay, this has gone on much longer than I expected! Finally I just wanted to add, what I write above is the REAL "perennial" mystical vision, encountered as the highest spiritual understanding, amongst many well-known religious founders such as Buddha. However, beyond that it is encountered by millions of other lesser known people, spontaneously, through a variety of means and contexts, by gurus, shamans, monks, during NDEs, entheogen use, spontaneously etc. The doctrine of cults, gurus and religions which disconnect you from what is more intimate to you than your breath - consciousness - who impose locks, keys, rules, initiations, vows etc, who tempt with bliss and heavens, who scare with hells and transmigration etc......these are traps, self-imposed prisons. Doctrines and dogmas which have evolved in and through time....they are not the timeless which can be grasped by anyone anywhere, without mediation! Think, who can come between you and you God/Consciousness?! They merely impose further limitations on consciousness and what it can experience. No doubt radiant forms and 5 regions exist - what can't Consciousness conjure up!

Ultimately, we are all loved, and there is nothing to fear or worry about. Except perhaps that we are all drowning in an Ocean of Self, of Love. Surrender!


Happy New Year to all!

Hi Manjit

There is a lot I agree with in what you wrote. A LOT.

Thank you.

A really interesting post Manjit - I shall read it again later today. You have conveyed my own experience of existence in different words from those that I would use, but the essence is very similar. I began having out of body experiences as young as 7 years old. They were both wonderful and terrifying. However they were the genesis of my search for meaning although I didn't realise it at the time. I will soon be 71 so there has been a lot of water under the bridge since those early beginnings.

Everywhere there is the story of spirituality and our origins - informally in life and formally in the religions and spiritual doctrines. But it is simply a story to convey that there exists a different essence than mind and matter. When I speak to initiates of Masters they tend to revert to the story in a doctrinaire fashion. That is why I found your piece refreshing - it also hints at what lies beyond the story.

Have a very good year.

Well put, Manjit.

Here is how author Wei Wu Wei said it (adjusted to suit my understanding):

Birth:
I (Consciousness) move
Space becomes
The universe appears
Time is born
I have objects
Dualism is established
I identify myself with my objects as illusory egos and things
I experience myself as these objects and things and as the joy and suffering they bring

Death:
I (Consciousness) rest
Space vanishes
Time ceases
There are no objects
Dualism is no more
The universe disappears
There are no illusory egos or objects
There is no joy or suffering
Only equanimity remains
I am, but there is no me.

Infinitely in a circle. Round and round it goes. When it stops? Who knows?

So here's my rant.

Meditation is completely selfish behaviour.

No matter which way you look at it, it is completely anti social. It has nothing to do with real "religion", certainly nothing to do with Christianity and Judaism and Islam, which is most people in this world, hence social, but it is extremely anti social and selfish behaviour that appears to cause hallucinations and all kinds of delusions.

It's something to be avoided like hell.

Hi D. r.

Those Christian monks who spent their life in prayer might disagree with you.

From the perspective of someone who has not engaged in continuous prayer, continuous worship in Spirit of the father (real Christianity as taught by Jesus), who have not followed Christ directly into death daily, for them this makes no sense.

Trying to make sense about life whilst living in the duality of this world is confusing. When my brain goes into a kind of spin from thinking too much I tend to look up quotes till I find something that resonates with me:

Eckhart Tolle - "When you live in surrender, something comes through you into the world of duality that is not of this world."

Cheers folks

hi D.r,

I would quite agree with you on the notion of the statement:
"Meditation is completely selfish behaviour"

If I am getting the meaning correct. I hope I am.
Basically you meant to say "Meditation is a completely selfish practise"

That appeared to me as more true than rant.

Of course it is, as it aims towards realising the self
Also, it's not as easy as to socialise on the forums,
in the religious meetings in temples, gurudwaras, mosques.

All those who socialise more are selfless.
And why not ? because they are socialising and are not aware of the self thus selfless.

And in that sense really,
Meditation is the best of all the selfish practices.

Quote Dr.
Meditation is completely selfish behaviour.

__ its just your oppinion nothing more.
Its like saying runnjng is selfish behaviour.

Hi SPencer - thank you :)

Hi Tucson - long time no read, hope you are well! And agreed!

Hi Pooh Bear - thanks for your comment! Can I please ask, have you shared your story and or experiences anywhere? I think I would dearly love to hear them?!

Thanks,

Manjit

Bin, it appears you missed the purpose of meditation, which is to try to find God. It is not to promote health. And running is good for your body and keeps you healthy and alive, which is good for your family and friends. Not selfish at all.

By the way, who doesn't have opinions? Perhaps you are a robot that speaks nothing but facts all day long. Sigh.

The way to avoid Hell, is to deny it exists, and smoke a Joint.

Kabir Sahib says that those people who consume intoxicants like cannabis, tobacco etc. are destined to hell irrespective of whether they do yog, recitation of God's name, meditation or not.

Jim Sutherland

Dr. you can sigh all day if you want. Do you have problem with robots? Yes i am a robot.

aDr.........the purpose of meditation, which is to try to find God

Dogma

Bin (it), God is not dogma. God is a word that signifies the purpose and meaning of life. Hardly a dogma...

Hi Manjit. A lot of what you say rings true regarding selves, ego's etc. - in my experience. It's just the concept of consciousness (not being conscious itself) that I feel can be misleading. Of course all that we experience we are conscious of; what we are not conscious of is not experienced. We are creatures who have the ability to be conscious, but to infer it is a quality (conscious 'ness') is to turn it into an attribute that we have rather than what we are. What we are is just this - done and dusted - but what we 'have' (consciousness) is just another quality amongst many others to unconsciously maintain the ego/mind.

How our brain/bodies produce the conscious experience is something that science will someday be able to explain and demonstrate - as they can with NDE's, OBE's, experiences of oneness and prescence so will undoubtedly be something to argue about – probably being the last bastion of a spiritual view of the universe.

I have long ago 'ditched' words (concepts) such as spiritual and consciousness to describe 'this', favouring instead to just experience this 'life', this being that we are. It gives one nothing to hang on to, nothing to sustain the 'me' (ego) that has answers. Of course, it is the ego/mind that is writing here, explaining and so on, though that does not detract from being.

We don't even have to come up with any answers to account for 'this', it is merely our peculiar human way of doing things – the rest of the universe doesn't come up with answers, it just is. There is totally nothing to do – except get up, work, eat, go to bed etc.

Perhaps when this amazing 'life' with all its pain and sorrow, its joy and wonder is totally experienced - without being experienced through beliefs and concepts - then the possibility of we humans can live together inteligently.

Science cannot explain consciousness now, in the past, and never will, because consciousness or mind is non-material, whereas the brain is made of matter. Attempts to correlate the brain with the mind has so far failed and it is indefinitely true that they will never fully succeed. Consciousness is different to language, which is abstract thought versus literal rational thinking. Consciousness contains emotion or feeling as well as mental rationalistic content.

If you want facts, science has not explained consciousness yet. That is a fact. And you cannot refute that.

People living together has almost nothing to do with deep thinking and concepts - it has to do with assholes and normal people not getting along. So long as the assholes, the stupid assholes, are mentally deranged by deeply thought-out hubristic ideologies, peace is impossible.

D.r, actually attempts to correlate consciousness with the mind have been spectacularly successful. Whenever anesthesia is given, for example. Bingo! A drug is given and consciousness goes away. Same applies with concussions, caffeine, alcohol, other drugs. These material substances affect consciousness. Brain injuries also, plus Alzheimer's.

There's lot of evidence that the mind is the brain in action. There's zero persuasive evidence that consciousness is separate from the brain. And theories seem to be homing in on the nature of consciousness, such as that favored by Tononi:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-fundamental-nature-consciousness-giulio-tononi-excerpt/

Intellectuals use words. Lots and lots of words. Words cannot explain the inexplicable. Mathematicians and scientists use numbers and symbols. Mathematics is just another language. How can mathematical symbols explain the inexplicable. Its all mind boggling.

The word Consciousness has all sorts of meanings (dictionary): state of awareness; perception of something; emerges from the operations of the brain. We can't help trying to understand this life and we can't even find a word that describes What Is? accurately.

Turan is correct "It just is".

Sorry Brian, it's not so simple as that. People report very detailed experiences when the brain is measured as inactive, even dead. And as you know correlation and causality are also two different things.

"George Mashour, a professor of anesthesiology at the University of Michigan Medical School. There are two intertwined mysteries at work, Mashour told me: First, we don’t totally understand how anesthetics work, at least not on a neurological basis. Second, we really don’t understand consciousness — how the brain creates it, or even what, exactly, it is."

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/magazine/what-anesthesia-can-teach-us-about-consciousness.html?referer=https://www.google.com/">https://www.google.com/">https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/magazine/what-anesthesia-can-teach-us-about-consciousness.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

Spencer, you're welcome to your own fantasies, but not your own facts. Send me some links to peer-reviewed studies that shows solid evidence of people reporting very detailed experiences when the brain is inactive or dead. I'm pretty sure you won't be able to do this, because it would be front page news if it were true. Which, it isn't.

Sure, after they've recovered they can talk about their condition. But this is very different from someone being conscious when their brain is dead. Such has never happened, and it never will, because consciousness requires a brain.

Hi Brian
You wrote

"you're welcome to your own fantasies, but not your own facts. Send me some links to peer-reviewed studies that shows solid evidence of people reporting very detailed experiences when the brain is inactive or dead. I'm pretty sure you won't be able to do this, because it would be front page news if it were true. Which, it isn't.

Sure, after they've recovered they can talk about their condition. But this is very different from someone being conscious when their brain is dead. Such has never happened, and it never will, because consciousness requires a brain."

Brian, you are welcome to meet your own criteria and provide peer reviewed studies of consciousness. You can't.

The scientists, an example of whom I cited above, acknowledge that they cannot prove or disprove a perfect link between your experience and your brain's activity. In fact the New York Times article details the dilemma of Anesthesiologists who cannot be sure their induced patient is actually unconscious, and in some cases the patient is fully aware of the surgery, even if pain receptors have been effectively shut down by drugs.

The awareness of deep meditators when their brain is largely shut down is often reported as heightened. Ie; mindfulness. You should have long ago discovered this for yourself.

As for near death reports, these anecdotal accounts report a very active scenario even when there had been no rem activity.

As for whether someone is conscious when their brain is dead, that is reported. Whether it actually happened as they reported or was a fantasy we may never know. But the reported experience is vivid during a time when little or no detectable brain activity was taking place.

I get the heat in your argument. But you are welcome to provide some actual light.

The materialist perspective is honorable, but by no means established scientific fact. When it becomes fact the known physical world will be a lot larger and somewhat different than we understand today.


Brian said: "Send me some links to peer-reviewed studies that shows solid evidence of people reporting very detailed experiences when the brain is inactive or dead."

Well, of course, if a person is actually "dead" (like the brain was consumed by six hyenas) I think a "report" by such a person to those who would peer review it is unlikely notwithstanding Ouija boards and the like. And if the brain was just inactive or kinda dead temporarily for some reason, any report by said brain ("I saw God") would be subjective and impossible to verify by various "peers" anyway.

So it comes down to the old chicken vs the egg question. Does consciousness manifest out of materiality or does materiality appear as a result of consciousness. I think they are the same thing. I defer to Manjit's explanation above on January 2... 10th paragraph. (long comment, whew!)

Spencer, I predicted that you couldn't come up with any peer-reviewed studies, and I was right! Of course, that was a pretty safe bet, since demonstrable evidence of consciousness in a person who doesn't have at least a minimally functioning brain would have been known to everyone by now if it existed.

How can one person on this planet insist on

that when you multiply zero ( nothing )
the result is this a garden in Salem,
with people


777

Hi Brian

You wrote

"Spencer, I predicted that you couldn't come up with any peer-reviewed studies, and I was right! Of course, that was a pretty safe bet, since demonstrable evidence of consciousness in a person who doesn't have at least a minimally functioning brain would have been known to everyone by now if it existed."

Yeah, I like the criteria for hard fact, but you haven't met it, either in your claim physical brain activity causes consciences. No literature proves that.

And the reason was well described by Manjit, that if you are dead you can't give a report.

And this brings up the false basis of your rhetoric Brian, that if rigorous scientific investigation hasn't yet established something as scientific fact, it must there be false.

That argument is false.

All science proceeds actively where that evidence doesn't exist yet. Science never dismisses what has not yet been explored or measured, nor claims that lack of scientific evidence is proof something doesn't exist. That's not actually the scientific method.

My earlier point, which was in the spirit of actual dialogue, is that there are three sources of evidence against your claim that brain activity is directly causal to consciousness. One is the anecdotal accounts of near death experiences. The brain was inactive for a period,but the individual,
Now restored to life, claims vivid out of body, or deeply internal experiences. Obviously consciousness, even heightened levels of consciousness, existed (or at least was reported) to have happened during a period of nil brain activity.

The second source of evidence is the self reports of deep meditators of their experiences of greater awareness, greater insight during meditation : heightened consciousness during a period where brain activity is minimal, and several brain centers have actually been switched off.

Third is the exhaustive hard research on the physiological effects of meditation, including strengthening and thickening of the cortex, basically keeping brain health for decades longer. It's as if meditation were a brain exercise, like physical exercise. Yet this happens but by heightened activity, but the opposite, purposeful reduced brain activity. Conscious awareness has been expanded, even while brain activity has been reduced.

Finally, your presumption that brain activity causes consciousness is not proven. All that can be proven is that brain activity is highly correlated to reports of varying levels of consciousness. And in some cases, as mentioned above, that hard evidence is the opposite correlation : lower brain activity under specific circumstances leads to reports of higher consciousness, and results in healthier brain tissue.

D.r “People living together has almost nothing to do with deep thinking and concepts - it has to do with assholes and normal people not getting along.”

Just a cursory look at history or the news today shows how thinking is largely influenced by concepts and beliefs. Wars and terrorism are fuelled by religious beliefs, nationalistic beliefs, cultural beliefs, racial beliefs, political beliefs etc., etc.

All these beliefs boil down to mainly one fact; the fear of loosing ones identity, an identity that has been formed to protect and maintain an insecure mind/self structure – the seat of our concepts and beliefs. The mind being accrued information 'stored in the brain' and the self structure being the assumption of who I am derived from this information. These are on-going mental activities that the brain is constantly processing.

Both the mind and self are necessary for day-to-day living but when they are believed to be 'me' they automatically demand that this 'me' has to be protected as much as the protection of the body. This protection of the mind/self (protecting its beliefs) can only result in conflict with other mind/self structures.

These processes can be verified by simply watching them in action most of our waking lives - a sort of meditation. Admittedly, it sounds scary to question what we believe to be 'me' but in reality there is nothing to loose, only an illusion.

I've run out of time at the moment but would like at some later time to talk about how NDE's, OBE's, consciousness, oneness and free will are among some of the activities that proceed from the brain.

Hi Turan

You wrote
"Both the mind and self are necessary for day-to-day living but when they are believed to be 'me' they automatically demand that this 'me' has to be protected as much as the protection of the body. This protection of the mind/self (protecting its beliefs) can only result in conflict with other mind/self structures.

These processes can be verified by simply watching them in action most of our waking lives - a sort of meditation. Admittedly, it sounds scary to question what we believe to be 'me' but in reality there is nothing to loose, only an illusion."

So eloquently stated. So true.
When " we" see ourselves this way, it is easy to let go of our own opinions, in favor of agape.

Brian wrote: "D.r, actually attempts to correlate consciousness with the mind have been spectacularly successful."

This is a spectacularly revealing comment!

It demonstrates a lack of understanding or awareness of the difference between the contents of consciousness, and consciousness itself. If such a simple and basic distinction is failed to be made, it demonstrates how utterly clueless science and rationality is when it comes to consciousness.

It also reveals a mind clouded by dogmatic beliefs and ideologies. It takes quite some level of belief based delusion to believe that science has correlated any aspects of consciousness - even merely its contents - to our brain "spectacularly successfully". Believers of religious & ideological beliefs often disconnect from reality entirely trying to defend their beliefs. I wonder if there are any belief-based statements more disconnected from actual reality by any believer of any religion on this blog than this comment by Brian? I suspect one would be hard pushed to locate it if there is.


Brian wrote: "Whenever anesthesia is given, for example. Bingo! A drug is given and consciousness goes away. Same applies with concussions, caffeine, alcohol, other drugs. These material substances affect consciousness. Brain injuries also, plus Alzheimer's."


Again, Brian provides us with cliched, unexamined & incoherent arguments in support of his dogma & ideology. These are profoundly weak arguments that are very, very easily shown to based on circular thinking akin to "it must be true because the bible says it is true". But to expand on that fact we need to bring in a subsequent & equally incoherent comment from Brian: "

Brian: "since demonstrable evidence of consciousness in a person who doesn't have at least a minimally functioning brain would have been known to everyone by now if it existed."

The inherent unintentional absurdity of this comment is simple; there is no "demonstrable evidence" consciousness exists anywhere. Period. Whether outside or inside the brain, there simply is no scientific evidence it exists, anywhere. It is misleading and dishonest to shift this fact to somehow suggest it is only consciousness "outside" of the brain we have no evidence or proof for. We have no scientific proof of consciousness, period. That does not, however - obviously some of us may notice - prove there is no such thing as consciousness (the lack of scientific evidence for this self-evident fact of our existence) at all.

Further, intelliegent readers may notice Brian's use of the cliched argument about how our consciousness changes (contents) or ceases to "be" when our head is hit by a hammer, or we are given drugs such as anesthesia. Please note here the sceptic and materialist readily retreats into the subjective and anecdotal to "prove" the reality of their contention. This is because we ONLY have subjective and anecdotal evidence for the existence or reality of consciousness in the first place, there is absolutely no objective measurable indicators or measurments to show such a "thing" as consciousness even exists.

Please also note that whilst the materialist readily accepts the subjective and anecdotal testimony of somebody who is hit over the head with a hammer or is given anesthesia and recalls nothing but unconsciousness, they do not accept, at all, the testimony of those who have been hit over the head, given anesthesia etc, but DO recall consciousness - and such evidence is vast, copius and existed for thousands of years. (the reason for such a lack of integrity is obvious, this is the normal reaction when one's beliefs and ideologies are challenged - ignore-ance of contradictory information).

Further, we know the vast majority of us dream at night, yet the majority of us do not remember these dreams. It is utterly simplistic and naive for somebody to say upon awakening, "I do not remember a dream, therefore I did not dream last night". The error here is obvious. The same flaw in logic applies to those who say consciousness doesn't exist when one is hit over the head with a hammer or given a chemical specifically to eliminate conscious awareness because they could not remember it.

Even further, here is a recent article from the New Yorker which highlights the fatal flaws in Brian's arguments. It is well worth a read, but here's a pertinent quote from it which really does get to the heart of Brian's dogma & ideology:

https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/are-we-all-awake-during-anesthesia

“Obviously we give anesthetics and we’ve got very good control over it,” one doctor tells Cole-Adams, “but in real philosophical and physiological terms we don’t know how anesthesia works.” The root of the problem is that no one understands why we are conscious. If you don’t know why the sun comes up, it’s hard to say why it goes down."

So a professional doctor who deals specifically with trying to "knock out" consciousness by chemical means says they don't really understand what consciousness is, but Brian thinks he does. Good for him!!


As for Tononi's integrated systems theory of consciousness - this is as absurd an explanation for consciousness as the previous decades believing there was just one site in the brain for the location of consciousness. Having been proved an absurd and ridiculous notion, the natural extension of this materialist approach to consciousness is to say, therefore, it must be different groups or systems of matter combining together to generate consciousness.

This will be proved, without doubt, wrong. (there is currently zero scientific proof to this idea - how can there be, we still only have zero proof consciousness even exists, let alone it's physical "causes"!!).

Etc etc.

Good post Manjit - I think one of the problems with this whole debate is the use of the single word, 'consciousness' to describe quite different things. The physical sciences use the word to describe brain impulses etc. while those people who have practice and experience of the 'inner' sciences use the word to describe the life essence that permeates sentient beings.

The examples that Brian has used indicate that a person can lose consciousness from anaesthesia. Yes, they have become unconscious. Similarly in sleep etc we are unconscious. This is the use of the word from a purely physical perspective. The 'inner' sciences utilise the word synonymously with soul or spirit.

So one conversation is about flowers and the other about pastry.

Brian wrote: "Whenever anesthesia is given, for example. Bingo! A drug is given and consciousness goes away. Same applies with concussions, caffeine, alcohol, other drugs. These material substances affect consciousness. Brain injuries also, plus Alzheimer's."

.....
My friend had Caesarean section...however she was under a drug like you say Brian and no "bingo" ...she awkened she felt all cuts fully awake but could not tell doctors so she was totally aware of operation and felt all the pain.

Originally posted by Blogger Brian:

Spencer, you're welcome to your
own fantasies, but not your own
facts. Send me some links to
peer-reviewed studies that shows
solid evidence of people
reporting very detailed
experiences when the brain
is inactive or dead. I'm pretty
sure you won't be able to do
this, because it would be front
page news if it were true. Which,
it isn't.

Brian, you made a good argument. But with a flaw because you left Spence no fair grounds for any peer-reviewed study in which to supply the facts you hold in question.

The grounds you left out regarding NDEs was that they have only been recorded by 'Clinical Deaths':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_death#Clinical_death_and_the_determination_of_death

Not the newly defined clinical term; 'Brain Death' which wasn't presented until around 1968 by the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death:

https://hods.org/English/h-issues/documents/ADefinitionofIrreversibleComa-JAMA1968.pdf

But there have been and are peer-reviewed research studies on NDEs, one in fact found in the Princeton catalog:

https://pulsearch.princeton.edu/catalog/10434024

Another I was able to pull up at the Harvard Book Store Website -which has both brief 'Contents', and 'Look Inside' book tabs:

http://www.harvard.com/book/near-death_experiences_understanding_visions_of_the_afterlife/

And yet another, which is a scholarly article on NDEs (similar to the inner experiences derived or theoretically reached by ardent practitioners of RSSB meditation, or other yogic systems) found here at Yale Scientific:

http://www.yalescientific.org/2013/12/the-brink-of-death-a-new-perspective/

Dear Manjit,

Hello, once again! Long time!

I’m afraid I’m late to this party! So late, that it is likely that you may not even get to see this comment at all, but no matter, more words “sent up to the sky” in that case. But if you do happen to see this, I wanted to say this to you :

I absolutely loved reading the comment that you posted on 2nd January. Where you talk of your experience of oneness, and how it all links up, all that.

Without in any way detracting from the beauty of that post, I have to ask :

1) How do you know you aren’t carrying out some quantum addition here and ending up with 2 + 2 = 3274956 yourself? (Not a rhetorical question, nor a challenge ; just a simple, sincere question. How do you know your “feelings” have any correlation with the actual reality “out there”? How do you know this isn’t simply a figment of your imagination? Imagination as in simply whimsy, or perhaps as in some strongly held idea, or even, perhaps, as in some kind of psychosis?) (Absolutely no snark or ridicule intended! I emphasize this because I included that last possibility there, the psychosis bit. But you do see that all three possibilities I outlined there are, well, possible, don’t you? How are you sure that your own explanation is the correct one, as opposed to one of those three?)

2) If the scheme of things is indeed as you describe it to be, then how is it, do you think, that a few (like you) manage to slip out of this grand all-encompassing net of make-believe and stumble on to knowledge of the actual state of affairs? You seem to not only have found out the actual reality, but are even able to publically speak out about it! Wouldn’t that sort of thing put to risk the whole grand edifice of make-believe that the One has built up so carefully?

3) This third (and last) question of mine is a purely personal take on what you say, basis my purely personal predilections. So I’ll ask you to bear with me as I try to explain clearly what I mean here. I find that I myself am able to spend very long periods of time wholly absorbed within myself. While I do participate fully in an active life, I am not compulsively driven to it. If I happen to find a couple of hours that are fully free, say when some flight is delayed by a couple hours (or even when I find myself with a full day that is wholly free of any kind of engagement, although that seldom happens), then I’m perfectly happy to be by myself, and am not forced to seek out diversions in the form of books or movies or the Internet or the company of other people, not that is unless I particularly want to engage with those things for themselves. That is, I am under no compulsion to seek out “entertainment” simply to escape my own solitude. I’m afraid your “One Consciousness” appears unable to do this! Like some ADHD-afflicted child unable to sit still, like some crack addict unable to let go of the diversion that they derive from their poison, or like some compulsively driven excitement-junkie, the One seems to be compulsively seeking out more and more extreme forms of entertainment! Doesn’t that appear somewhat incongruous to you? That something that I am able to do, the One seems unable to? (Again, no snark intended. This isn’t intended as some smarty-pants “gotcha” argument. I may or may not have been able to express this well, but I’m hoping you’ll be able to understand my point, and my underlying question, and be able to answer it.)

4) You’ve already (in terms that I myself found beautiful) said that there’s no way to seek this experience out, and also that there’s no point, really, to these experiences. So I won’t revisit those two particular questions that I’d asked you once on this blog, some months ago. I won’t ask you how to bring this experience about, since you say nothing one does or doesn’t to can really take one towards it or away from it ; I won’t ask you the point of all this, since you say clearly that there is no point ; and I won’t again ask you if you’ll be any more (or less) dead when you die than any other random person, since although you don’t spell it out in so many words, I think you do imply that your post-death experience won’t be any different on account of this experience and this understanding of yours. (But please do correct me if I’ve got anything at all wrong here in this last point/paragraph.)


Very happy new year to you, Manjit. And should you happen to read this, and, having read this, should you feel able to respond, I’ll look forward to hearing back from you.

My best wishes,
--Appreciative Reader.

Karim, how do you do that box thing there?

Thanks!

Originally posted by Appreciative 
Reader:

how do you do that box thing
there?
Thanks!

Just a little HTML miracle -I mean magic. I have faith you can figure it out thyself.

To Karim,......

Jim prefers to think outside of the Box. 😇

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...