Barriers to Enlightenment

I am coming to the conclusion that it is difficult to lead somebody else to the same experience. Heck, I can't even recreate experiences I already had, let alone take somebody else there!

Oh, yes, I've attempted to get back to previous breakthroughs, but it appears that that's like trying to experience one's very first orgasm a second time. It simply can't be done because we're not the same person.

Is meditation, to you, an artificial state, or an absence of an artificial state? I hope you know what I mean.

Do you mean you're trying too hard?

It might be helpful if we came up with a term to describe the lack of that silence. Personally, I call it "brain noise" to highlight one aspect. Does that term sound okay to you?

How pervasive is that silence? Is there any other noise present, or is the silence total? What is the nature of the silence? That's a stupid thing to say, I know: strictly speaking the silence doesn't have a nature. What I'm trying to say is: please write some words about that silence, to the extent that's possible.

While writing about the silence, you might also mention time. I expect you'll be able to write a bit about that, too.

Actually, no, I don't understand that. I'm wondering if you're saying that you cannot communicate from what you're calling the no-mind state.

 

If someone advises me how to avoid tripping as I climb the stairs of the Eiffel Tower, I assume that he or she has been there recently.

So let me ask you: Are you enlightened?

Yes, I can think two or more thoughts at a time. Everybody can. As they read anything I write, most people will have at least two simultaneous thoughts: (1) Okay, he's saying A, B and C; and (2) ... he's wrong because X, Y Z!

 

I suggest. Any statement that is not consistent in premise we throw out. Any statistical claim based on too small a sampling, we throw out. Any statement that can be shown to be false by definition we throw out.

What do you think?

I said I didn't necessarily agree with. I did not say, I didn't agree with it. It is not a point I care about other than in principle. I am not attempting to generate disagreement, but to sharpen our relations.
The reason I make objection to your statement, "it is a fact about human limitations", is such a statement as I allude to above, is a statistical claim, (fact about limitations), based on too small a sampling, or rather there are too many undefined parameters inherent in the statement. As such it is not useful as a segue into any subsequent conclusions.

I am not arguing against you for the sake of a subjective assessment. I demonstrated examples of where human beings are equal in knowledge to the situation and where the all of the parameters of a question, can indeed be answered in full. If a statement is true in one instance but is not true in the next then you have exceeded the parameters of that truth, in addition since it is true in one case and not the next it is inconsistent in premise.

I think you can reliably hold me to the same criteria. Whenever two parties meet anew to discuss significant matters where understanding is the premium, there is always a period of coming to terms or agreeing on definitions. As I suggested earlier, much energy can be saved chasing down phantoms of conception by being concise in our assertions and succinct in our definitions.

It is not just an internet story. Harmonious communication through the use of symbols is difficult. Symbols must be interpreted and the words we use to tell the truth look identical to the words we use to tell a lie.

I have only been on internet forums since oct. 2009 so any past that you may associate my conversation with you with, is yours and not mine. What I am trying to do is establish ground rules that we can both embrace. We share our thoughts so I am not interested in defending my world view against another world view. Beliefs do not contend with truth, only other beliefs.

 

I regard all my experience at this point with equanimity, the least irritation is the same as the greatest catastrophe and the least concern is the same as the greatest devotion. My goal is always transcendence. I but waste time if I do not go beyond what I have learned to what is yet to be learned. So the experience I shared does not represent for me some idealistic point to ascend too. In a world that is precious in all directions, where is there to ascend to.

High and low are not proportions I rely on. The earth travels at 65,000 mph through space they say, yet we have absolutely no sensation of that fact.

I have been thoroughly single minded in my transcendent seeking since 1997.
My worldly affairs are conducted seemingly at a distance according to a gossamer directive, things happen around me to lend material support without the usual investments of energy. The more time I spend in transcendent states of consciousness the more lucrative seems the ambient circumstances.

This is a kind of siddhis that began occurring in response to a specific query I made of all that is. the question was, how can I devote myself to this endeavor to the whole extent required and still meet my current worldly obligations. Before that time, you would have noted me a workaholic. I could not have imagined the solutions that came to bear. None of this change can I attribute to any single experience but to my overall intensity, and it was not something I specifically set out to accomplish. It seems to be a side effect of frequency modulation.

 

Previous learning.

 

thedope, I didn't know you are that old; since 1997,:scholar: huh? But it's only your mechanical age, and if you transcend that knowledge of Cartesion self, it now seems only to be the social knowledge for tolerance OR reconciliation in spite of that other training about fulfilling your duties (I gather you mean mechanical duties towards supervision).

Being enlightened would really be this state finding less importance for their history of unsociable justification that books, records, explanations of national concern happened. Ground zero; what the fcuk is that?:drool5:


Cartesian self, I believe, can only be that conscience for the Hiding of those elements for the required accomplishments of one's determined wealth. Who determines your productivity and honesty for what you own?

 

May it be added: since everything enlightens my mind, that it was the learning which was appreciated that I learned. It was sometimes the learning which I hide as well from myself per not realizing as true.


To me these were, in war time, truer 'Kleshas'.

 

I think you sound like you've been using Internet forums since only October of 2009! I have seen countless attempts to make online conversations work via the application of rules and criteria of acceptance. I've never seen it succeed.

The only thing I've ever seen succeed is resonance between the participants.

I can tell you right away that if we have a rule for throwing out statements that are not consistent in premise then we will end up debating about whether a statement was, in fact, consistent.

This whole discussion about my statement vis-a-vis limitations is a perfect example. I have now actually forgotten what my original statement was. This "topic drift" is what happens much of the time in Internet discussions — even in voice chats!

You misunderstood what I was saying and proceeded to prove that my imagined position was wrong. This is what is called a "Straw Man". It is one of the standard pitfalls that destroy Internet discussions.

Do you speak this way to your friends? The way you are framing our conversation, it will become an exercise in precision. It is very difficult for people to brainstorm and risk error in that kind of discussion.

I've been through all this before. Back in the 90's I used to debate with Christians and other theists, and would carefully lay out the parameters of the interchange. I always won the debates ... and never changed a single opinion. It was a waste of everyone's time.

I don't know how to resolve the communication barrier here, though it is encouraging that we're both working at it.

 

This sounds familiar, and similar to what I'm experiencing, though I don't know what "gossamer directive" you're talking about.

Also, I do not spend time in anything I'd call a "transcendant state", though I seem to be getting similar results. I do get into remarkable states, but to me they are exceptional only in the extent that they are natural and ordinary. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit more about what you mean by "transcendant state".

Things do indeed "happen around me to lend material support without the usual investments of energy". If I had to explain it in simple terms — and I'm hoping we can keep our terminology plain and simple — I'd say it arises from "going with the flow", as the expression goes, or not putting up futile resistance to what the universe is up to.

To some people I simply say that I am lucky. It's an odd thing: the more years that go by, the more I feel like I'm lucky. This may be a question of outlook more than anything else. Heck, right now I'm being treated for advanced cancer, but even though I could be dead in six months I still feel lucky!

I don't remember what "siddhis" is and don't care to look it up just now. Let's try to speak English whenever we can. Not to dumb things down. Rather, it's one way to avoid clashes of representational systems. That, incidentally, is why I am writing in such a casual manner; it'd be absurd to affect precision when my ignorance is so huge.

Interesting question! In my case, I sold my company, gave away almost everything I owned, and vowed to keep going until I reached a point where I could change directions, or starved to death.

Fortunately, I didn't have to starve.

Can you elaborate on this?

I have no idea what you mean by this.

 

QUOTE:Neosimian:

"I think you sound like you've been using Internet forums since only October of 2009! I have seen countless attempts to make online conversations work via the application of rules and criteria of acceptance. I've never seen it succeed."

So ultimately you have failed at that socializing habit. Osama Bin Laden will no longer be aware of that.

 

i'm so sorry. i don't understand what you people (dope and Neo) seem to be saying? could you reiterate that in plain language? enlighten me, please...

 

One of the barriers to enlightenment is previous learning. I don't care about your past and I don't think your lack of success in the past is an indicator of what could occur in the future. Not to be unkind, but if we want to see different results in the future, we change our applications in the present.

Now what do you mean by resonance? I am committed to advancing our understanding of each other and the world at large. If you can modulate your frequency along those lines then there should be no problem whatsoever.

It has not been my experience that what you are saying here is in fact the case. Most of the time when self contradictory statements are made they are not noticed and become part of a larger narrative. What I ask is you assess your statements for consistency, before you make them. I am not looking for controversy but serious attention.

I have not forgotten and I am not confused by topic drift. I would posit that this phenomena, "topic drift", you describe, is not a requirement of nature, but is indicative of not being wholly present to your own statements as well the conversation at large. Like I say, what is needed is serious attention.

Here is how it happens, we go along reading and a certain short combination of words triggers an association in our mind and from that point we begin to have a conversation about those associations rather than what is actually written. You bring up your past long experience, and suggest what I am telling you falls into a category from your past. When you do that you stop processing and it gets "filed away". Our propensity to see only the past is a barrier to enlightenment.

If you choose to frame it that way, that is exactly the effect you will receive, however I will not stop pressing for more. I do not settle for the status quo. I think I understand you well and you in fact may be misinterpreting what I am saying by virtue that you keep associating the words I write with your "past experience on internet forums".
You are, sort of claiming to be the poster boy for failed communication.

Yes, I do. The response is usually that I succeeded in encouraging a new appreciation. The phrase, "risk error", is a statement of a personal attitude that suggests a little fanciful imagining. The only thing that can be threatened, are our illusions. Exercise in precision is exactly what is needed in serving the cause of meaningful communication. That exercise in precision is very useful in maintaining adequate situational awareness.

So far, you have not demonstrated that facility to me. What have you done for me lately.

Seek and you shall find. I use the axiom because it is demonstrably true. If we are both committed to increased understanding then there is no way to fail.

 

Exactly, and this gives you the oportunity to go deeper in you.

Yup.

To me, it's an absence of an artificial state.

I called it mind, but mind is a general aspect, so that term is ok to me.

The silence at the start is very superficial, but with more and more attention on the breath it becomes increasingly pervasive in the Self/Being directly proportional to the breakthoughts. Little by little it is as if we were pulled into the water, but without the same density as it has. One way to imagine it is as if we were alone in a huge city. When silence dwells in us, all the noise of the city becomes a symphony. So we are steadfast and everything becomes silent, an emptiness that makes us feel full.

We realize that the only distraction was us, that everything else is just background music. This perception creates a big and beautiful peace.

There's no time. You live each moment, one by one, you're full in every action. The only way time can arise is if you have something important to do later and you need to search or whatever. But in this way it has no time anyway, you're full in every action, so that future becomes a now.

You have the idea about time, but it don't make you dream, don't take you from where you are.

It's hard to explain.

It is possible to communicate from that no-mind state, it's even better to comunicate because you only say what's necessary, but what I was saying was not that. I meant when you go deeper and deeper you have new perceptions so if you tell one thing to a person, she will understand on her way and it can be totally different from yours. That's why I prefer to comunicate not in a deep level right now.

Btw, cultivate peace and the rest comes after. :sunny:

 

To transcend means to go beyond perception. Through concentration I find myself in indiscriminate vastness. There are no conscious assessments. When I emerge from such concentration, I seem to bring out a lot of information that only settles on form outside of that transcendent state. In other words, if you were to interrupt me at such a time, I could not recall any detail of my focus.

I agree with you.
There is going with the flow. We are constrained only by the self organizing principle of life. It is our only prohibition. In that single prohibition, we may find grace.

There is also however, getting caught in an eddy.

I don't really care to talk about the phenomenal aspects of my life, to me, corporal life is a series of sensations, one followed and replaced by another, some of which I may call pleasant and some not so. But since I was asked I offered what I did, with precision.

siddhis:

1. enlightenment in Hinduism: in Hinduism, the complete spiritual understanding and insight that is the goal of meditation and other practices
2. paranormal power in Hinduism: a paranormal power believed to be acquired by a Hindu ascetic who has attained enlightenment

[Late 19th century. < Sanskrit ]

The term siddhis then is shorthand for a 32 word definition. If you are familiar with the meaning, which comes from an English language dictionary, it simplifies communication rather than complicating it.

I did the same thing and I didn't have to face starvation either. I think we are referring to similar effects. But as regards effects, I take them with a grain of salt. When I am speaking to a person and my mind lights up and the person says to me, "how did you know what I was thinking", I cannot tell, nor is it important for me to tell, whether I was in fact sharing thoughts, or I am just good at reading subtle physical cues like body language. what is important is communication. The body is a communication device.

Fm as opposed to Am. Frequency modulation creates resonance which is large vibration, harmony or high fidelity. Amplitude modulation is like trying to shout above all the other voices and is more subject to static and disruption.

 

Silence can hold any sound and there is always room for more.

 

I don't know what you are referring to in particular. In plainest language most of our problems are self generated.

 

I stand corrected; my statement should have been more specific about the types of conversation I was referring to. I have, in fact, succeeded marvelously at online socializing. I met the vast majority of my close friends online, and also my wife.

The conversations that did not succeed were those in which people had a personal stake in the triumph of a particular viewpoint. I've encountered this situation in political, scientific, religious and philisophical discussions.

 

I have not yet read TheDope's current replies, but so far it appears that we have failed to link up in our communications. So I can't claim that I understand what TheDope is saying.

What I am saying is that there are barriers to enlightenment and that we might be able to identify and overcome them.

Don't ask me how; it remains to be seen if we can work together on finding out.

 

It's remarkable that that is what you extract from my words.

Out of curiosity, have you managed to achieve resonance with anybody else in this forum? If so, I'd like to read a thread where you are fruitfully collaborating with someone. This will help me see things through your eyes.

 

Ah, great, we resonate on that. Can you write more about this?

I've seen the word "mind" used in a pejorative sense, but also in a non-pejorative sense, too. Conversations are confusing when people use the same word for very different purposes!

Okay, let's see if we can resonate on this, too. In a typical day, what is the content of your own brain noise? You don't have to make an exhaustive list; I'm just curious to see if we waste energy in similar ways.

That's an interesting and poetic way to phrase it! Normally, in discussions like this, I consider it best to avoid poetic language, but I have to say that I like your statement.

I have found this to be so as regards physical pain, which I'm experiencing rather frequently this year due to health issues. If I look directly at the pain without flinching or judgment, it does become a kind of music (if I might borrow your analogy). Somewhat later, my attention flags and it does indeed recede into the background.

Agreed, though I could take issue with the words "one by one" since that implies a separation that isn't necessarily there. (I say "necessarily" because sometimes we do perceive legitimate separation; we don't attempt to drink the actual glass holding the water.)

That's a good distinction you've made. We appear to be on the same page, here.

Yes, it is, but from my point of view you've done a fine job.

Yes.

I think I understand you. Are you saying that sometimes we might have a "theory of mind" for the other person so that we can hold in mind a simulation of what they are currently believing about what we're saying?

If that's what you're saying, then that's a really interesting topic. In any case, please elaborate on what you meant.

Thanks.