« In living, focus on "differences that make a difference" | Main | There's more, and less, to reality than we believe »

March 02, 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I am enjoy your take on Patricia Churchland. I love how clear she is.

Here is an interview of her that you may have seen. One of my students back in 1990 conducted it.....

http://www.integralworld.net/lane23.html

"There is no such thing as unprocessed perception."

Yes, the brain processes immediate experience according to past experience. Consciousness is the past responding to the present.

Should a guru tell you that the brain can bypass the past, bypass that guru because there's no explanation of how such magic is possible, nor a shred of evidence to support the notion.

"There is no such thing as unprocessed perception."

Answer, no and yes and no.

The first impressions are met with the
subsconscious. That cannot be stopped.

Krishnamurti would say watch how the
self comes up with all thought.
So did Ramana Maharshi.

You realize this self is coloring all actions for selfish reasons. Krishnamurti
said watch how the self controls all
actions.

You realize you have no self. Science
is not necessary to tell you, you can see
this directly. But, it is nice to
have late commer science on our side now.

Now, with direct perception of the self in action, we suddenly realize the self never existed.

So called enlightenment occurs.

Now, the person can act directly without
the self coloring all actions.

1. You are born and are a baby almost nothing colors your perception, because you have no self image.

2. You learn from mistaken people you
have a self. This self colors all actions
for the rest of your life.

3. You see you never had a self and
the self explodes as a myth. All at once.

4. Direct action and perception occurs
without the self as controller. The false
immage of the self is now gone. The automatic survival mechanisms are still there and will still color everything.

But, the self, can no longer produce action to wax a self image.

This is the state Krishnamurti talks of.

Krishnamuti was fully aware of these things.

It is the Guru whom tells us we have a permenent self. An eternal soul. A continuous consciousness.

That's why Krishnamuti was the Anti Guru.
He said we have none of those things.

Now days science confirms Krishnamurti.
And, debunks Gurus.

A group of blind rats gathered around a human, trying to find out what the creature looked like. One of them happened to touch its stomach and said, "It is like a wall".
Another touched the humans ears and said, " It is like another dimension beyond its own senses". One put his arms around one of the beast's legs and said, "it is like a tower to heaven". Another touched its forehead, and said: "A human being is only a brain and its internal processing". They then fell to arguing with each other.

Shawn, those rats sound like religious believers, not scientists. I guess they didn't have a functional MRI, X-ray equipment, DNA analyzer, and the scientific method with them.

Scientists know all about emergent properties, integrated systems, and how the whole is more than the sum of its parts. (I was into Systems Science for several years as a graduate student.)

On the other hand, religious believers often take a reductionist approach to understanding themselves, considering, for example, that the brain and body are irrelevant to understanding their true mental/soulful selves.

CC said, "Yes, the brain processes immediate experience according to past experience. Consciousness is the past responding to the present".

Though I agree that what you are saying as a happening occurrence, this is not the whole picture. I am sure that Churchland would agree with me that humans have innate (before thought and experience) involvement in our processing of things. There are strong forces pre-built within to our processing.

The following is an interesting experiment that was on 60 Minutes a while back that you might find thought provoking; http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50135408n

Following on from my comment on 'Spiritual sages were clueless about how the brain works', I think it comes down to what different camps intend by the term 'direct experience'.

There is clearly a difference between what might be described as 'being present with our experience' and being consumed by narrative as experience unfolds.

But I would certainly agree that even the case of 'being present with experience' involves brain processing and coloration.

It's interesting to consider the experience of a newborn baby. A baby has no conception of history or time, it has no narrative or conceptual apprehension of the world. Its ever-fresh experience of perceptual datum is not filtered through conceptual narrative and labelling. In this sense some may (perhaps lazily) call this direct experience. Yet I have no doubt that this experience involves much pre-conscious brain processing.

The BABY

The BABY learns the English language
by the time it is 3 years old. No
one teaches the BABY how to speak it.

Now, I had 3 years of Spanish in
High school. I was taught by experts.

When I tried out my
new found language in real life
with a hooker in Mexico, she slapped
me across the face.

Susan Blackmore is the foremost scientist
in the world on understanding the self
and continuous consciousness. And,
debunks both with hard facts.

She has it nailed perfectly.

But, she learned from Zen and Alan Watts.
And, Alan Watts learned from Jiddu
Krishnamurti, whom was preaching these
things 80 years ago.

Can you find a modern day neuro scientist
whom has not read Krishnamurti ?

Krishnamurti would love Susan Blackmore.

But, if Churchland had a conversation
with him, he would turn her over
and spank her bare butt.

Churchland is not enlightened. Blackmore
is fully enlightened. Until Churchland
sees directly for herself, she will not
come out of the fog, nor can she help
others out.

Churchland will continually mix fact
with fiction. She does not have
the extreme brilliance of Blackmore.

It is my belief Susan Blackmore and Ramesh
Balsekar are two of the most important
people alive.

What they are saying will echo through
the ages. Their works will someday
fill bookstores.

Shawn,

"There are strong forces pre-built within to our processing."

---This is an intersting point. How our direct perception or non-direct perception is effected or not is a rather fascinating topic to discuss. Keep up the good messages and further information.

"A baby has no conception of history or time, it has no narrative or conceptual apprehension of the world. Its ever-fresh experience of perceptual datum is not filtered through conceptual narrative and labelling. In this sense some may (perhaps lazily) call this direct experience."

The baby's brain has memory, so it's accumulating experience from the beginning, and that experience is responding to the present. So yes, its all new to begin with, but as more of it accumulates, the new is understood through the old. The process of perception begins immediately, but it's always the past reading the present.

Certain gurus and sages would have you believe otherwise because they believe they're doing it, but so-called direct perception can neither be explained nor demonstrated; to believe in it is to ignore what you can see for yourself for what you'd rather imagine.

I am trying to catch up on some questions people asked me recently.

Someone asked me about past life regression
via hypnosis. Seems pretty convincing..right ?

Well.... not really. Here's what happens.

As the person is regressed into the past
the the doctor suggests where they
should go into the past.

Such as to women they might say, do
you remember Egypt ?

Do you remember the pyramids ?

Do you remember Marc Antony ?

In a hypnotic state you are lucid dreaming.
You instantly see what you think about.

THE ‘SENSE’ OF MIND

I have a tabby cat, his name is Dylan and, he is a joy to watch and to have around. He is on the one hand independent; going out for hours at a time and not sparing a thought that we might be wondering if he is ever coming back and on the other hand, he is affectionate and loves to curl up on our laps or stretching out full length on the sofa or on the bed. He lays on his back, legs outstretched, with not a care in the world; he enjoys his food, loves ‘helping’ in the garden by rolling around in a newly dug border and playing with weeds and twigs we have thrown down. In short, he is a ‘cat’, nothing more, nothing less, just totally a ‘cat’.
We all love our furry friends. We also love young children – watching them at play, listening to their chatter and answering their stream of questions. We naturally find them more endearing than our own friends and family. Why is this? What do they give or convey to us that makes us love them so? Or could it be that it is more of what they do not give us? Perhaps that is it, they present, can only present to us what they are.
Cats have no ego; they certainly have some excellent instincts and no doubt have a mind – that is a basic accumulation of learned information – but an ego is characterised by the advanced ability of the brain to use this information to further the security and protection of the concept of a ‘me’, an ‘I’. The cat has no identity, no name, no history and therefore no ‘I’ concept An ‘I’ concept requires identification with the brains information – its contents.
And this is where the difference lies. In identifying with our contents we believe they are who we are, they become ‘me’ and a ‘me’ to be protected. And, what we are protecting is not ourselves, our bodies, but information; information of where we were born, our religion, our culture and so on. As all this has come to represent ‘me’ it feels it has to be protected so we end up protecting a set of thoughts and ideas. We become very complicated, we become easily threatened and insecure; we also become easily offended. No physical injury may be done to us; it’s just a mass of contents that have identified themselves as ‘me’ feel threatened. We have drowned ourselves in a sea of concepts and agendas.
No wonder we often find human relationships fraught and problematic – while our little furry friends being agenda free are a source of unconditional affection and comfort.


Memory is a highly complex topic. Neuroscience tells us that there are at least three major types of memory - which are then further subdivided. These types involve different but often overlapping networks of the brain.

The type of memory that would first appear in a baby is known as sensory memory or iconic memory. This is a form of super-short memory that enables us to perceive things. Without this we wouldn't be able to make sense of a moving object or a sound. Yet iconic memory does not allow us to recall things. Next is echoic memory (about four seconds recall). Then we have short-term memory (or working memory) which allows us to retain information for about 20 or so seconds.

Sensory and working memory are the means by which we interface with the ever-fresh flux of present actuality.

For storing and recalling information over long periods of time we require long-term memory. Long-term memory is not like a database of discrete, fragmented records, it is a complex, interconnected web. It's this complex interconnected web of associations that is necessary for imagination, stories, narrative and abstraction/conceptualisation.

So we can see two distinct type of interfaces emerging here. One that allows for the perception of moment by moment events - and one that allows for the construction of stories and narrative.

In the ever-fresh experience of the new baby, the mindful, the spontaneously 'present' etc... this second type of interface is dampened/in recession (or absent in the case of a new baby.) Of course all this occurs along with other complex shifts in neural networking (as indicated in the Psychology Today/Farb report.)

"Now days science confirms Krishnamurti.
And, debunks Gurus."

Not true. Science debunks "direct perception", and that notion is the key element of Krishnamurti's teaching.

Mikey,

It would be awesome if you could answer my question, what do you think of 'law of attraction'? I dealt with a fake psychic ,reiki and shaman healer and this person stated that they can achieve anything regardless of what deeds she does due to the law of attraction.

Thanks

G

"Now, with direct perception of the self in action, we suddenly realize the self never existed.

So called enlightenment occurs.

Now, the person can act directly without
the self coloring all actions."

This is basically what Krishnamurti taught, except that he called it "transformation" - not enlightenment, and he believed it to be true for himself, at least, because upon his death he said that no one else had "got it".

The idea is that the observation of the self is the end of the self, and it's a glorious delusion that, to this day, many old K-heads are still smitten with, though I don't think any young people are buying it.

One doesn't need knowledge of neuro-science to see that the notion of "direct", immediate perception is unsupportable because, unlike perception, it can't be explained. That there exists no evidence of anyone actually having this magical ability goes without saying.

Nevertheless, it is a notion that dies hard, if at all, in the mind of the aspirant. It come as a shock to realize that there is no way out of yourself and your peculiar and unique way of experiencing existence, but when you gather your wits, you realize there is no other way to be human.

cc

Science debunks the direct perception
of Gurus, not the just born baby.
We can develop the direct perception
of a new born baby. Ramana Maharshi
used to sit around reading comic strips
while the great religious scholars sat
at his feet questioning him.

Krishnamuti was a key in scientific advancement. Susan Blackmore can verify.

G

Shamans and psychics are fake.

The shaman legend has it people from outer space came to earth and inbreed with women.
This is a true legend.

But, the closet science has come is
the star child found in Mexico
900 years ago. It has been proven via DNA
he had 1/2 human and 1/2 non human DNA.

Recently a 6 million year old skeleton
was unearthed. It was proven it was
our ancestor and not Lucy, discovered by
the Leaky's. Lucy's type died out.
So did the Neanderthals.

"Now, the person can act directly without
the self coloring all actions."

---Yes, this could be called "direct" perception, direct experience, etc. With the perception being 100% non-conceptual.

This should be the only fascinating issue, imo, to talk about. This would delve into whole mind and not divided mind. But, what is it like to be whole minded? To describe such, one needs to go into divided mind or relative mind to accomplish.

Is there a degree of whole mind, one can obtain, and experience some sort of realization of the non-dualistic? This is what I find very interesting and fascinating.

That is, what Absolutely is the bird?

cc
First you misquote Krishnamurti
then pretend to answer a misquote
as if he said it. This is from 1975
by Krishnamurti. quote :

Beauty is related, I think, to clarity of perception, and you cannot perceive infinitely, deeply, profoundly if there is any movement of selfishness, of the self, the 'me', the problems that one has, which act as a screen that prevents you from looking at the whole world. And as we are going to examine, what is the mind or the heart that is capable of observing? How do you observe the things that you see around you? Those hills, those mountains with the snow, these lovely trees and the green grass, your wife, your husband, your girl or your boy, how do you observe? How do you observe your belief in god, or in Jesus, or in Krishna or in something or other, how do you observe? I wonder if you have ever gone into this question of observation, of seeing. We think we see; we hardly pay any attention to that which we see.

So it is very important, I think, to understand and to learn the art of seeing, without that one can never possibly understand, go very deeply, not only into the world's problems, but also into ourselves. What does it mean to see? To observe? And who is the observer that sees? To see something very clearly, you must look. To look at the mountain or the tree, or at yourself, or your wife, or your husband and so on, your politicians and the leaders that one has, if you have any, and I hope you haven't any, including the gurus who are mischief makers, how do you observe all this? Do you observe them with your background, with your fears, with your hopes, with all the things that man has accumulated as knowledge through centuries? Do you look at all this through the screen of that which you have experienced, which you have acquired, or the image that you have built about another or about yourself?

Please, as we said a little while ago, we are doing this together, not just merely listening to a series of words, or to a picture that the speaker is painting. But together we are investigating what it means to observe, to see. If you have an image about another, obviously you are not looking at that person, you are only looking at the image that you have built about another. That's obvious. Therefore you never see. If you are sitting there and listening to the speaker, because unfortunately he has some reputation and so on, then you are not listening, observing, you are merely concerned with the reputation that you or someone else has built about the person. If you want to see those mountains very clearly, not only the word, 'the mountain', the word itself must disappear, because the mountain, the word 'mountain' is not the thing that you see, the word is not the thing. So one must be free of the word to look. The word means the image, the symbol. And I hope you are doing this as we are talking, actually being aware that you have these images, descriptions, words, a network of reactions in which you are caught and therefore prevents you from looking. In the mind, your mind must be actually free to observe.

So the impediment of a word is as important as your reaction to the word, so that one can observe. And can one observe without any image - image being that which you have gathered, or that which you have built about another - so that you can actually see. Because we are going to ask a question presently whether knowledge has any place in the transformation of the human mind and heart, and so his society. Because society needs to be changed totally, radically, fundamentally, because the present society in which we live is immoral. And whether knowledge can transform man's relationship to man, and therefore society. And that implies, can you observe your relationship with another, however distant, however close, however intimate, however foreign, can you observe that relationship without any image, picture, memory, remembrance? Because we have used knowledge as a means of action, as a means of accumulated knowledge, as a means to bring about in ourselves a fundamental change. Please do understand this, because it is very important as we are going to go into this question.

Knowledge is the accumulated experience of man, stored up in the brain as memory, accumulated through experience of thousands and thousands of years, knowledge accumulated by the scientists, by the philosophers, by the analysts, psychologists, all that immense knowledge in every field of life - in the world of art, in the world of science, in the world of technology, in the world of our own relationship - can that knowledge bring about change fundamentally, psychologically in man. And to find that out, one must be capable of observing the whole phenomenon of action with knowledge, with its skill, and whether knowledge can bring about, or change man. Or is there a perception which is direct and which is not related to knowledge? Are you following all this? Are you interested in all this? I hope you are, because that is why you are here and I am here.

We have accepted knowledge as a means of transformation, as a means of change of the human psychological structure. And we are questioning that totally. And is there a direct perception which will transform man without all the accumulated knowledge gathered, however important it is in certain areas? Right, are we meeting each other? Please do take some interest in this. Don't make this as an entertainment, or some kind of philosophy - the word philosophy means the love of truth in daily life, not some theory invented by some clever brain. And to understand this question very deeply, that is, man has accumulate knowledge in every field, he has got an immense collection, and that apparently we rely on to bring about a sociological and psychological revolution. And we are saying we question that whole structure; and we are saying that a direct perception is the only way to bring about transformation. You understand the question?

Hi Roger,

Krishnamuti says in 1975 regarding
the question of duality on the same day(continuing from my above post) :

So I want to find out how to observe without an image, without the word, without the picture, without the symbol, without remembrance. You know all that is implied - it implies great attention, doesn't it? So I learn to look at myself non-verbally. It's the word, the image that divides the observer from the observed - when the image, the word, the symbol, the remembrance is not, then the observer is the observed. Then there takes place a tremendous transformation, because in that there is no duality, there is no conflict. When there is no conflict then you have all the energy to go beyond 'what is'.

http://jkrishnamurti.com/krishnamurti-teachings/view-text.php?tid=1153&chid=857&w=knowledge

this talk was about direct perception
and non duality, 1975

"So I want to find out how to observe without an image, without the word, without the picture, without the symbol, without remembrance. You know all that is implied - it implies great attention, doesn't it? So I learn to look at myself non-verbally. It's the word, the image that divides the observer from the observed - when the image, the word, the symbol, the remembrance is not, then the observer is the observed. Then there takes place a tremendous transformation, because in that there is no duality, there is no conflict. When there is no conflict then you have all the energy to go beyond 'what is'."

Thanks for this excerpt, Mike, because it shows so clearly what Krishnamurti's delusion was. He believed that his brain had bypassed "the image" and "the word", and was able to behold and understand immediately and directly "what is", and not merely one's own conditioned response to it.

People believe fervently in this magical ability whether they first heard about it from Krishnamurti or from some other spiritual authority - it's a very seductive notion.

cc
Krishnamurti said you must watch
your conditioned response directly.
That's the only way to see the myth
of the self directly.

The myth drops and leaves one
in view of reality as it is.

Very simple, nothing magical about it.

Nothing religious, or mysterious.

Krishnamurti did not teach spirituality.

He debunked it.

He was an anti guru.

If you had even read one of his books
you would know that.

Your projecting rediculous notions on him.
Completely absurd.

"Krishnamurti said you must watch
your conditioned response directly.
That's the only way to see the myth
of the self directly."

He also said "the observer is the observed", so who's watching what?

It's one thing to believe in seeing "directly", and quite another to explain how it's possible or to demonstrate it. Krishnamurti couldn't do either and neither can you or anyone else, though admittedly, fervent desire for this magical ability does bring about a transformation...from a skeptical inquirer into a bug-eyed believer.

Thanks Mike,

"Then there takes place a tremendous transformation, because in that there is no duality, there is no conflict."

---Mike, what do you think Krishnamurti meant by a "tremendous" transformation? What is the transformation? I understand, more explaining brings more dualistic wordage, however, what is he getting at?

"what do you think Krishnamurti meant by a "tremendous" transformation? What is the transformation?"

He believed that his "brain cells", as he put it, underwent a "mutation" (his word).

I don't know how much you know about Krishnamurti, but he underwent what he called, "the process", and it was witnessed and written about by two of his biographers, Mary Lutyens and Pupul Jayakar. They both described him undergoing what many believe was a Kundalini experience which also involved discorporate entities "preparing the vehicle" for his role as the World Teacher. Quite a story.

Hi Roger,

Good point "tremendous transformation".

Yes, Krishnamuti did say this.

First Jiddu told people to examine their
religions without all the baggage of the past.

....then their politics, then the notion
of the self and God.

...people were left hanging on the gallows
without any support... except compassion.

But, your "tremendous transformation" you
have picked up on, which he also called
going beyound "what is", is indeed Something
Else quite remarkable. Ramana Maharshi
also refered to it.

When a void opens Something Else must
come in and fill the gap.

This Something Else is not for everyone.

Enlightenment is good enough for mankind.

But, Something Else, Higher Heart (Ramana)
or pranahuti (Ram Chandra) is something
rarely spoken of and rarely known of.

This is the tremendous transformation.

People think in a box, atheist, believer,
dualist, non dualist, Republican, Democrat.

The tremendous transformation occurs when
people realize they are thinking in a box
and their logic will not help them out.

For example Churchland is in the box,
Susan Blackmore is outside the box.

The person realizes they cannot see the future
and everything is a matter of luck, or chance.
Even Einstein was in the box and could not
perceive a chaotic universe due to his preconceived
notion of order.

So, what is the Final Solution ?

It can only be to contact Something Else that
can see the future and is competent to take
one by the hand. Something Else that has
nothing but good wishes for mankind.

But, to take this great leap beyond belief
and the suconscious, requires the humilty
of a Child. Someone who knows they do
not know.

Everyone pretends to know. That is the whole
problem.

Thanks cc and Mike,

"The tremendous transformation occurs when
people realize they are thinking in a box
and their logic will not help them out."

---Well, there is a possible Realization occuring. But with reduced divided mind? Or, some sort of whole mindedness, maybe. I don't see this Realization as being anything supernatural or tremendous. Just something very simple.

"But, your "tremendous transformation" you
have picked up on, which he also called
going beyound "what is", is indeed SomethingElse quite remarkable."

---Yes, I can see the topic being fascinating or remarkable. However, the going beyond "what is" may be in theory, only. Mike what do you think?


"I don't know how much you know about Krishnamurti, but he underwent what he called, "the process", and it was witnessed and written about by two of his biographers, Mary Lutyens and Pupul Jayaka."

---cc, don't know much of him. He does sound kinda interesting, but I find little value in what others have witnessed and written about. I think you kinda know where I come from on such stuff.

"discorporate entities "preparing the vehicle" for his role as the World Teacher."

---again, this sounds kinda gimmicky, and goofy.

"So, what is the Final Solution ?

It can only be to contact Something Else that
can see the future and is competent to take
one by the hand. Something Else that has
nothing but good wishes for mankind."

Well, Mike, I must say that your notion of the "final solution" is much more appealing than Hitler's was. You really are something else.

"don't know much of him. He does sound kinda interesting, but I find little value in what others have witnessed and written about. I think you kinda know where I come from on such stuff.

"discorporate entities "preparing the vehicle" for his role as the World Teacher."

---again, this sounds kinda gimmicky, and goofy."

Yeah, sure, form an opinion based on what you can't bother to google. Kinda silly nowadays, don'tcha think?

Bill Wilson, one of the founders of Alcohol Anonymous, describes his tremendous transformation experience. Please note that Bill Wilson was not a Christian. The twelve step program that he wrote was an attempt to replicate this experience by going though different challenging stages. He later even experimented with LSD in hopes of reliving this experience. After Bill's transpersonal change, he never drank again.

Here is what Bill said; "Lying there in conflict, I dropped into the blackest depression I had ever known. Momentarily my prideful depression was crushed. I cried out, "Now I am ready to do anything - anything to receive what my friend Ebby has." Though I certainly didn't expect anything, I did make this frantic appeal, "If there be a God, will He show Himself!" The result was instant, electric beyond description. The place seemed to light up, blinding white. I knew only ecstasy and seemed on a mountain. A great wind blew, enveloping and penetrating me. To me, it was not of air but of Spirit. Blazing, there came the tremendous thought, "you are a free man." Then the ecstasy subsided. Still on the bed, I now found myself in a new world of consciousness which was suffused by a Presence. One with the Universe, a great peace came over me. I thought, "So this is the God of the preachers, this is the great Reality." But soon my so-called reason returned, my modern education took over and I thought I must be crazy and I became terribly frightened".

I agree with Mike Williams in that "what we think we know" needs to woefully come to an end. It isn't what Bill Wilson asked that lead to his experience but rather his lowly state of humility. It is not the right or correct question that matters but rather the state of the heart of the questioner.

Please note that I do not have any affiliation with AA or support its doctrines. From my view, Bill Wilson experienced what I call as being a "partial transcending experience".

I chose this example because it is not about eastern thinking. The experience transcends culture, both east and west.

Shawn,
Now heres the kicker. It is absolutely
non essential for a person to be
enlightened, for Something Else
to enter.

Not necessary.


Shawn,
Notice when people have a weird spiritual
experience they always attribute it to "GOD".

What if it isn't God ? What if there is a
3rd alternative to the Devil and God ?

Something outside the box of philosophy.

Neither the Devil, nor God.

I am all with you regarding the default of the mind referencing to God in relationship to a profound spiritual experience. I refer to God as a joking gesture from time to time but I am not in the God-camp. I think Bill Wilson's mentioning of God came from the cultural conditioning of his mind. Familiar words and reference points rose to his mind because that is how mind works. Mind needs some kind of content to put its feet on. This is one reason why I said that Bill had a "partial" transcending experience.

Just like I do not like the word God as a reference, I really do not like the word enlightenment either. I am not too sure what some people mean by God or enlightenment. Those are both wide reaching words with many different meanings to people. I use the word enlightenment as meaning a moment of seeing outside the box. Others use it to describe it as Ultimate realization. You seem to use it as a certain level of consciousness but far from complete.

I can't remember the exact words in Mitchell's translation of the Tao Te Ching, but he said something like this; "Tao is older than God". I like that a lot. Since Tao is a reference to mystery, this implies that God is an invention of man. This is why Tao is older than God.

"Such are the inscrutable ways of Divine Providence,
that good is sometimes made to proceed from evil."
quote From an Essay on Napoleonic Medals

Hi Shawn,
I use the word enlightenment as the realization
of no self. Enlightenment is not such a big deal.
And, it may not necessarily make the person good.
They can still be a messed up doing evil and
not have a clue. Sush a person may be selfless,
but unless they use direct perception to analyse
their politics and worldly affairs, they may be
unwittingly harming the world. The person with
direct perception could never be a Republican
or Democrat for example. Nor, a Catholic or Jew.

The word Something Else refers to a Power which can
see the future, help the person do the right thing.
The right thing to do is very much different than
one would think. Sometimes you have to do all
the wrong things for the right result. The modus
operandi of Something Else is completely uncanny.

I believe all experiences come through the brain.
The inner planes of the brain are fake, the inner
dimensions real.

The problem in the past is people surrender to their
Guru, or God. But, their rotten subconscious still
messes up reality. The subconscious still hides
the notion of a delusionary self. They whitewash
reality. Bakti yoga does not work.

The Taoists are very very close to reality.

"I use the word enlightenment as meaning a moment of seeing outside the box."

Please explain what you mean by this, Shawn. What exactly is "the box", and what is it that sees outside of it. I ask because it seems to me that the box and the seer are one and the same.

CC,

That is a fair question and I do very much appreciate your added comment. First of all, I need to mention again that when I use the word enlightenment, it is just my personal usage of the word. And the problem so often with using words is that misunderstandings typically occur. What I mean by the words "out of the box", is any moment that brings light and insight to a misunderstanding in our mind. This can be very mundane and at times can appear as being very profound. It is an "out of the box-within the box" experience. I am not saying that some "outside the brain" activity is taking place. If there is any type of outside the brain interaction taking place (not saying there is or isn't), the experience is still within the brain. When the sun is out and blazing hot, I feel that sensation "within myself". The experience is "in the box". The same might be imagined that if we do interact with the Oneness of everything, that experience is still "in the box". Though a sense of being One with everything may occur, that sensation is "in the box".

Brian, my last post this morning was lost in cyberspace. Is it still there ?

The "box" could represent the duality of mind. Thinking outside the box is just an expression of possibly not thinking so dualistic. How much one can do this "outside" stuff is relative to one another.

Shawn, your messages are very good, honest and sincere. Keep up the good work.

Shawn,


Look at 3:39 AM. today. A on post I
put on just surfaced. it
is quite detailed.

http://romanumismatics.com/auction/lot/0687/

Mike, your post went into the spam filter. I found it and restored it to published non-spam status.

"What I mean by the words "out of the box", is any moment that brings light and insight to a misunderstanding in our mind."

Thanks for clarifying that, Shawn. It's important to realize that "the box" is ignorance and misunderstanding, and being "out of the box" is seeing the ignorance and misunderstanding clearly.

It's a useful metaphor when you understand what it represents, and a very misleading one when you don't.

Mike and Brian,

What do you guys think of the big pharma?
IMO they are dictating America and other countries.

Krishnamurti was not a profound thinker in any sense. 90% of his words are just questions.

Experience without words or images sounds like some kind of infantile state and probably therefore a million miles away from God.

It is Bhakti with "h", not Bakti.

Bhakti is the only game in town. Every decent yoga book will say as much, the Vedas certainly do. And God and Self-Realised people like Amma stress the importance of bhakti, which is humility and love to the highest degree. Ramakrishna also. Yogananda also. Do not buy into the idea that some kind of advaita vedanta non-dualism is the be all and end all of everything. A final solution indeed, which has more questions than answers.

Those who know, say not. Those that say, know not. This is what experiencing God in reality is all about. Nobody on this website blog knows God or the experience of God clearly. If they did, they wouldn't be here talking uselessly.

big pharma ?

Horrible. Flu shots porven to not work.
My father in law took one and was in the
hospital 6 months paralized. He had a rare
condition which could not accept such.

Vaccines proven to kill you many years later.
Many people who got polio shots will die
prematurely due to impurities in the vacine
we all took as kids.

85% of all corn sold in world is genetically
modified. Kellogs corn flakes, Corn Checks, etc. Tests have shown animals die from horrible tumors and France may have banned it now. In USA Monsanto is culprit.

But, the politicians are all paid off.
WE HAVE NO POLITICIANS.

59% of all tuna sold is not tuna. Its a fish
which can cause severe problems in humans.

Worse than even pharma is the Federal Reserve
Bank which has ALL POLITICIANS bought and paid for. J. P. Morgan, Bank of America,
Goldman sachs, Rorhschilds, etc, all
privately own the USA Federal Reserve Bank.

All presidents have taken huge donations
from them.

"No matter whom you vote for, you always vote
for one of us."
quote Joseph Stalin (Freemason)

All documented.

cc,

"Thanks for clarifying that, Shawn. It's important to realize that "the box" is ignorance and misunderstanding, and being "out of the box" is seeing the ignorance and misunderstanding clearly."

---the "outside of box" seeing is still one of divided mind, or one using dualistic thinking. But the dividedness or dualistic is more of clearity regarding ignorance and misunderstandingness.

Those who know, say not. Those that say, know not. This is what experiencing God in reality is all about."

----Plenty of people, that say not, and still don't know.


"Nobody on this website blog knows God or the experience of God clearly."

---Yes, yes this is very true.


"And God and Self-Realised people like Amma stress the importance of bhakti, which is humility and love to the highest degree."

---What would it be like to experience humility in the lowest degree? Any thing wrong with low level humility?

david r, how can you be sure that "Those who know, say not. Those that say, know not. This is what experiencing God in reality is all about."

I assume you got that idea from somewhere. It isn't original. The Tao Te Ching says something very similar. So someone said "those who know, don't say." Yet they said that. I guess we shouldn't believe them, since if they said it, this shows they don't know what God is all about.

I don't understand how "those who know" and "those who say" are related in the fashion you seem to believe in.

For example: dancing is something you do, something you experience, something that can't be described in words. I know this. I'm just an average dancer, but I've done a lot of ballroom dancing, in a lot of styles. I've seen a lot of excellent dancers much better than me.

And I've heard them say lots of things about how to dance. There isn't any conflict between them (1) knowing how to dance really well, and (2) being able how to talk about dancing, including instructing people in how to dance better.

Every dancer knows the difference between talking about dancing and dancing. I assume you believe that every God-seeker knows the difference between talking about knowing God and knowing God. Why is it that you believe you can't do both?

Not at the same time. At different times. Again, this is not an astounding idea. Every dancer, like every skier or every skateboarder, knows that you can't talk and think about what you're doing while you're doing it -- if you want to really do it. Doing requires an immersion in the activity that talking and thinking interfere with.

But this is the case with every activity. So why is knowing God any different? Why can't someone have an experience of knowing God, and then later talk as best he/she can about that experience? Everyone knows the difference between direct experience and talking about experiences. Again, dancers sure do. Skateboarders sure do.

So what reason do you have for believing that only when it comes to God, is it impossible to both experience God and later say something about that experience?

" Nobody on this website blog knows God or the experience of God clearly. Bhakti is the only game in town."
quote david r

The people here practiced bhakti of their
Radhasoami Guru.

Why should the disciple love God ?

Is God starved for affection ?

God gets tons of love from people.

When will God get off His lazy ass
........ and love people ?

Mike,

LOL........very good comment.


Brian,

Good point, regarding saying something about a god experience. It's just good talk, nothing more.

Is there anything you don't know Mike? You're an expert on everything, Brian if you're reading this you should give Mike the 'top blogger award'.

Yes, I'll tell you another thing, cancer could have been cured a long time ago but the big pharmas exercised their leverage over the meek who found the cure.
Chemotherapy is very deleterious, as a matter of fact chemo has killed cancer patients more than the actual cancer.
Ever heard of Vitamin B17? There are people that take it and have never got any illnesses due to consuming it. Some have even cured cancer via B17. But the big pharmas and the corrupt FDA (both connected) exert great amount of efforts to make sure people don't know about the benefits about vitamin B17.

Also Mike, what do you think of Swami Ramdev? I have an extensive amount of respect for Ramdev. This guy has helped over 400 million people with their overall health. It's a shame that some of the mp's in India made a lot of false allegations against him.

The only truth in this existence is a materialistic one. Everyone has know this from when man first discovered that he can think. So to all out there any suggestions for a accumilation of wealth so to enjoy this materialic reality to its fullest , are most welcome. Being a leader of a sect is not an option.

Hi G,

I don't know Swami Ramdev. You stumped
me on that one. grin

quote Oscar Wilde
There are only two types of interesting
people in the world, the ones that know
everything and the ones that know nothing.

My friends call me the most interesting
man in the world. (that guy on Dos Equis commercials)

Previously my friends thought the movie
Indiana Jones was based partially off my
life. I always wear this exact hat and
have an extreme interest in ancient coins
and ancient history and have traveled
to very stange places in the world.

Honestly, I don't know much history beyound
68 A.D.

Now, some fellow on this club thinks
I am the fellow played by Frank Langella
in the movie the 9th Gate.

But, my passion right now and greatest
concern for humanity ? Trying to get
the Federal Reserve Bank abolished.

Krishnamurti at the Oak Grove. When Jiddu Krishnamurti first arrived in Ojai during the summer of 1922, he was already the leader of his own worldwide religious organization, the Order of the Star. During his 1922-23 visit, he spoke at the Hollywood Bowl to an audience of over 16,000 followers. In 1924 he began giving talks in Ojai at the Oak Grove (above), which continued until his death in 1986. Krishnamurti established his Ojai home at Arya Vihara (below), making Ojai one of four worldwide centers for his teachings. He held many discussions and private interviews at Arya Vihara. Among those who visited Krishnamurti here were Annie Besant, Charlie Chaplin, Aldous Huxley, Jonas Salk, John Lennon, Greta Garbo, Igor Stravinsky, D.H. Lawrence, and David Bohm.
(Alan Watts)

http://ojaihistory.com/postcard-krishnamurti-at-the-oak-grove/

Mike,

Any close up pics of Krishnamurti?

I first met Krishnamuti when I was very young. My father had met him and his friend
would take me up with him to Ojai with my older cousin.

One night it was too late to drive back
to L.A. and I slept on the couch. Next morning I awoke to the smell of something burning in the kitchen.

I walked in the kitchen and Jiddo was standing there over the stove. It looked
like he had burned chapatis.

I was so young and naive I said to him,
"If you are so smart, how come you can't cook ?"

Being a young kid people there liked me.

When people asked me something I would always say, I don't know.

Reminds me of Babe Ruth driving up to
a gas station on his red motorcycle.

As he was pumpimg gas, a woman asked
him how many miles per gallon he got.

Babe said, " I have no consumption madame."

But, my passion right now and greatest
concern for humanity ? Trying to get
the Federal Reserve Bank abolished.

I wish you the best of luck, my passion and greatest concern for humanity? Trying to get people off the deleterious Doctor medicines and onto something safe and effective. I want people to live long and healthy lives.
I'm trying everything now, once I can heal myself i want to help others out.

Check out Swami Ramdev, his goal is to eradicate everyone's illnesses via his herbs and yoga. Also he wants to eradicate poverty in India and other countries.

Is Baba Ramdev the guy who dressed up as a women to escape from the police india?

Hi G,

There are millions of people around the world whom will die from polio vaccines,
given when I was a kid. There is something
called impurities in that vaccine. It
waits till older age to strike.

They knew this soon after it was released
and did not tell the public. The concern right now is genetically modified corn.

85% of all corn is GMO. They now know
it will kill millions of people and do
nothing to stop it. Corn is feed to livestock, along with antibiotics.

It could easily be predicted this will
be a greater scandal than asbestos ever was.

Whatever you do, do not get a flu shot. But,
I am sure you already know that. Same with
high colesterol medication.

Yes, this is a good goal for you in life.
The corporations have gone rampant. They
donate to politicians.

This system will collaspe. It is the most
corrupt in history. The fiat currencies will fail and there will be bank holidays
like 1933.

Get out of banks (rehypothecation), stock
accounts. You must own hard assets THAT
ARE IN YOUR POSSESSION.

This is the first time in my life I have
long term storage food and lots of gold
and real estate.

There is no such thing as law anymore.

The situation is completely out of control.

I have even self taught myself how to live off the land.

(P.S. I am a degreed accountant and have worked at the absolute highest levels
of accounting for a few of the largest companies in the world.)

40% of what the USA spends now is purchased with debt.

We are over 100 trillion dollars in debt
(including unfunded liabities
Social Securiy and Medicare.)

No fiat currency has ever lasted more than 40 years. We are 41 years into being taken
off the gold standard by Nixon.

Enlightendend,

Yes, but the guy is saving lives, people would otherwise have to rely on deleterious medicines and have their life spans shortened.

Another belated comment but hopefully interesting to someone...

"Pure awareness" and "direct perception" are experiential terms. In my view they originated in perfectly valid observations of subjective experience, in people who did not do neuroscience. This isn't so awful. Life is a 100% subjective experience after all, even when the objects of that experience have been shaped with lots of good science. So, just like our forebears, we can and should be able to navigate experience without putting neuroscience at the front the whole time (though it may be at our side along significant parts of the way.) (Much the same way we can navigate the forest while keeping maps, torches, bandaids and so on at our side. Those things are very useful and make life much safer, but the actual purpose of our trip is to enjoy a day in the forest. How many people who are obsessed with their tools, actually know how to do that?!)

Key of course is that we are not deluding ourselves, and this does require objective thought and science and (occasionally) the overturning of centuries old wisdom. But first, to avoid straw men, lets please be sure we're "debunking" our highest conception of the opposing view rather than our lowest?! Science is increasingly producing evidence that the states reported by advanced meditators are reliable and persistent.

So... just because some (many) of them insist on mind/body dualism does not mean that "direct perception" is a meaningless term, as used by Krishnamurti say. As far as I know Krishnamurti never made any claim that the brain was not involved in it - on the contrary he often seemed to associate this kind of perception with a brain that is functioning correctly and efficiently. So, if there's a controversy we must surely begin by addressing what kind of experience he was actually referring to rather than just *assuming* it's all nonsense?

Same goes with "pure awareness". I feel the term has a bona fide origin, with an actual experiential reference and no mumbo jumbo connotations required. Just because there are numerous distorted or dumbed-down notions of it doesn't change that.

Tom, good points. I've just read so many "non dual" writings where the modern-day author appears to be clueless about how their brain actually works. To me, this is inexcusable if someone is claiming to be revealing something true about human consciousness/awareness.

Yes, there certainly is something that could be called "purer awareness" or "more direct perception." I agree that it is possible to filter out some of the mental crap that often interferes with our ability to see reality rightly.

I just also believe that spirituality needs to be stay in touch with findings of science. No one should accept a spirituality which denies evolution or the big bang, and also no one should accept a spirituality which denies neuroscientific verities -- like how the mind is the brain in action, not a free floating "pure awareness."

Neuroscience is interesting and useful, yes, and I'm sure will deliver countless valuable insights. But you really can't go through life thinking you are a brain in action, can you? You don't drive the car from the other side of the dashboard, even if you know how it works and have figured out how to get the best performance out of it :-)

BTW I note your use of the comparative forms of the terms we're been using. I presume you're not so fussy at the supermarket when buying spring water or OJ ;-)

Interesting article. I would just like to say that the Greek philosopher Epicurus said essentially the same thing in 400 BCE. In a very small nutshell, after death that's it.

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 saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. 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

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

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.