UKC

Happy Solstice everyone .

For any interested in such discussions 

https://tricycle.org/magazine/no-self-or-true-self/

No self , no problem 

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

In work atm but I look forward to reading that as I have a book by Jack somewhere in my bookshelves and I recall it as being very insightful. 

Happy Solstice. 

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

That's a lot to read, that doesn't really say much

I am, therefore,  I can't be arsed.

In reply to krikoman:

That's OK 

Not everyone will understand , you gave it a go I suppose. 

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

Happy solstice dude! 

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

Cheers for posting that. I don't know anything about the Buddhist way of looking at this stuff, but I've been practising a secular, scientific type of meditation for a while that is rooted in some of the same insights and ditching the more airy-fairy bits.

I think if I'd read that without reading first stuff on the scientific/philosophical view of the self, consciousness and free will, I'd have written it all off as mumbo-jumbo, but coming at it from a scientific angle you can get to almost the same place. Either way, I'd recommend that everyone has a go at really observing what consciousness is like and seeing if it shakes some of the common intuitions (or illusions?) about the self and free will. And to do so, you don't need to entertain any mumbo-jumbo: I'm clear that consciousness is a result of physical processes in the brain, and that my desires and experiences and behaviour are the way they are for reasons determined by evolution. The key insights of Buddhism/Eastern traditions (or at least some of them) are consistent with a rationalist, scientific world view.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

It wasn't that I didn't understand it, I'm just not sure of it's relevance.

but each to his own, I suppose.

Happy solstice xx

In reply to Jon Stewart:

the physicist David Bohm was good at exploring the deceptions of self and thought- something that scientists should be more aware of..

youtube.com/watch?v=9447s-qM2b0&

youtube.com/watch?v=x6cPTKHp5KY&

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

Enjoyed the article but are we on the run down to Winter already?

I might take your cue and meditate through it!

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Sounds a good thing to explore. - Mindfulness springs to mind.

I practice meditating myself when I'm well and disciplined .   

I think this is because a lot of this information comes from deep introspection/self discovery/meditation and observation of how the mind works and its qualities. 

I'm glad you found it interesting , this pleases me and makes me glad I shared.

M

In reply to malk:

Thanks, I'll definitely have a listen - looks right up my street.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

And society, surely.

You only have to look at people having affairs to see the effect society can have. I think evolution-wise we'd be having affairs more often (given the chance) than we do in reality.

It the physical process in my body the makes me want to jump ship, it's my conscience that stops me from doing so.

In reply to malk:

There is some very interesting stuff by Penrose and Bohm and their attempts at theories on consciousness  .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

https://www.interaliamag.org/articles/david-bohm-roger-penrose-and-the-sear...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298451592_The_bohm-penrose-hamerof...

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

Yes, the thing I'm on about is Sam Harris' Waking Up app. It's mainly mindfulness meditation, but he throws some other stuff from time to time. He's really keen on finding ways for you to see what's already there (or not there) in the nature of your own consciousness; he's trying really really hard to get you to look for the 'centre of consciousness', the 'self', the 'thinker of thoughts' and find it absent. If you find it hard to stick to the habit of meditation, or you need it to be quite structured and guided (like I do) I'd recommend it, so long as you don't find the sound of his voice incredibly irritating and find him to be an unbearable smug monstrosity (I don't, but this is not a totally uncommon view!).

Occasionally he says stuff that is completely mind-bending, but most of it makes sense to me. There's a load of little mini-lecture things that are part of the app too, often really good no-nonsense philosophy stuff. There's a great one entitled "what is real?" which I thought answered the question very well.

Here's a taster of the type of guided meditation:

youtube.com/watch?v=pzMhLmErz5Q&

In reply to krikoman:

Very interesting! The way I see it, the conventions we have as a society are themselves a result of evolution. Developing a society that disapproves of adultery is in itself an evolutionary strategy, not something separate from, or opposed to, our evolved instincts. Stable pair-bonds are an adaptive behaviour (but not always the best strategy, it depends on the context), so societies often reward it.

That sounds a whole lot like Cartesian dualism. Your brain, which generates your consciousness, is as much a part of your body as your leg or your pancreas.

I think you're describing a tug-of-war within the brain: to simplify horribly, your limbic system (emotional circuitry) and your frontal cortex (executive function, planning, impulse control) are interacting to determine the most appropriate behaviour. It's not a separation of mind and body, it's competing drives within the brain.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I know what he means , even when I am not meditating or even being disciplined enough to try . I still often try to understand what is this thing I am experiencing .  What is the thing that "thinks" not the subject or object or observation but the process.  

It really depends on where I am in my life .   I did local classes on guided meditation years ago.

Now my go to meditation tends to be breath work. 

Cool I will check this out .

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

I'm dead new to it, but I've found it fascinating to get into. I'm not very convinced by people that try to sell meditation as magic-bullet therapy for depression and other mental health problems, which you see from time to time. I can definitely see how it can be helpful, but from personal experience it doesn't stop my mood being all over the show. Whatever is causing those changes (processes in the brain) seems to me to be more powerful than any insight I can gain by introspection - but of course it could just take a lot more practice...

However, I think that understanding what's going on better is always useful. I've found that listening to people like Sam Harris, Jonathan Haidt and Robert Sapolsky has shown me a really sensible way to look at the world and put problems into a useful, rational context/perspective.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

That was a very insightful wee article that just dipped its toe into these matters but showed how different, truly spiritual practice is similar in a few different religious movements throughout the world but are named differently.

There are different methods to attain the same destination but degrees of meditation are required whether it be 1-2 hour meditation every day, vipassana retreats, lots of micro-meditation throughout the day, koans, etc.

But when you reach that place of no self, no duality, emptiness, pure awareness, pure consciousness, heaven, the now the present etc, it is beyond words as you may or may not know. But its qualities are manifest, it is like going home to a place that is beyond birth and death, free from ALL petty ego problems, timeless, vast spaciousness, full of pure unconditional compassion and non-judgemental love for everything and a well of true wisdom. Basically our true self.

Now the hard part comes with maintaining the practice all the time as the only way to bring this newly found liberation into your life (to help you and others) is to keep practicing every other day or every day as the ego is very deviant and strong.

The ego will use this newly found spiritual realization and its source to use it for itself and stop your practicing, you need to be so wary of the ego/monkey mind(in Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism) every moment and be able to see it when it operates but only by maintaining the practice can you do this effectively and it gets easier the more you do it.

Personally speaking I lapsed into previous bad habits(not meditating) a teensy wee bit for about a month but for the past 2 weeks my practice is back on and I'm determined to keep it going for good now.

Good luck to you on your path and to everyone else, we are all connected and the same. I liked this excellent wee quote from your link that sums up our true nature hidden beneath all the conditioning and ego (thanks for sharing🙂) - 

One master with whom I studied used to laugh at how easily and commonly we would grasp at new identities. As for his non-self, he would say, “I am none of that. I am not this body, so I was never born and will never die. I am nothing and I am everything. Your identities make all your problems. Discover what is beyond them, the delight of the timeless, the deathless.”

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Except it might not be the most appropriate behaviour, being selfish I might decide to have the afair, being a planner I might decide I can decive my partner and still have the afair, being fearful I might not have the afair in case my wife found out, again being selfish I might not have the afair because I have comfortable life and don't want to f*ck it up.

I'm sort of with you on the mindfulness / mediatiion, if only because a lot of people tend to NOT be living in the moment. I like to think I'm a person the lives in the moment but know people who find this very hard, eating, watching a movie, having sex, they're always somewhere else.

I know people who like climbing specifically because th eact of climbing, is a little like mindfullness in that for that time you are climbing, you have no otrher thoughts in your head, but finsihng the climb / not falling off /not dying.

The first time someone said this to me it thought it a very wierd reason for climbing, but it think it's quite common, especially for those when might tend towards depression.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

It is very healthy to be sceptical about everything you hear about or try as no one wants to waste their valuable time on things that are a waste of time and don't work. However this natural doubtfulness or scepticism can be a hindrance to spiritual development /experiences as you do require to be fully open, fully surrendered, ready to go beyond everything you know or think you know(sounds like Star Trek 🙂) to reach places beyond what you know or think you know. Its hard to put into words but I think you get my meaning as you insightfully add at the end of your paragraph that perhaps you haven't practiced enough yet. So a part of you is doubting your doubt which is the way to go forward.

In reply to krikoman:

Meditation has nothing to do with helping people with depression, it just happens to be a by product of the process. Meditation is to go beyond what we think we know, to look inwards instead of outward, to experience beyond the senses and see what is there. To know what our essence truly is. The great exploration and mapping of what life is, to truly live, to truly experience the sacredness of all life, to see beyond the veil. 

A pal of mine once said oh I've no need to meditate as I'm quite laid back. She is one of the least laid back people I know in reality but somehow thinks people meditate just for relaxation when again relaxation is just a by product of a much deeper quest.

When thinking of doing a negative act like being unfaithful, like anything in life you must think of the consequences for the people involved ;the life changing pain it would cause to a loved one, breaking their trust to the core, extremely damaging and for what. 

In reply to Pefa:

"I am not this body, so I was never born and will never die. I am nothing and I am everything. "  Pure utter drivel. How can anybody take such utter balls seriously?

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

When you experience it for yourself. 

In reply to Pefa:

How can you have experienced this alleged eternal life, particularly after death, 'for yourself'? What do you expect to happen to your 'soul' (I have to revert to that ancient idea to encompass what you seem to mean) after your body has, in the language of us boring mortal beings, 'died'? I'm bothered by your term 'experience'.  Have you got some insight into what that 'experience' would be like?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I been writing about it up thread with respect to the link that this whole thread is about, haven't you read the link or what I wrote? 

In reply to Pefa:

No, mea culpa. I've just looked at the end of this thread now. I'll look, and hope to find those questions answered.

In reply to Pefa:

Is it though?
If you've spent a lot of time looking inwards, you may realize an intrinsic 'oneness' with the living world (all of it, people, animals, plants and everything in between) - and through this lens, see and feel the great pain mankind is inflicting on the living world. If one is able to remain or become more calm* through this process then I have to seriously question how deep of a quest they are on.

* - A calm rage is not what I mean here, but more a relaxed attitude that somehow the universe will solve the problem.

 

In reply to SenzuBean:

I share some of your scepticism about the "deep quest". To quote Sam Harris rather approximately, meditation "will tell you nothing about the nature of the cosmos". What it does is allow you to understand better the nature of your own consciousness, which is a pretty fundamental starting point to understanding anything about reality.

I'm not really convinced that there is only one morally correct response to the world: that of righteous anger. Yes of course humans have inflicted great damage on each other, and other species, that's not in doubt. But we're all part of that problem, even though we might make some effort to be part of the solution at the same time: and this kind of contradiction is fairly intrinsic to being human.

In reply to SenzuBean:

It is so difficult to put into words but I'll try. When you experience this state you are beyond or separated from suffering but you see its true nature,you see it where it is and that is everywhere. Now I don't know if it is the vast spaciousness or the intense stillness, intense aliveness (it could be happiness and in a way it is but the profoundness for me kind of overrided that) which takes you above suffering, I don't know tbh.

With this comes total compassion for everything;the victims and the perpetrators all locked in suffering in some form or other. You know you are connected to everything else, it is all you and you are all them, there is no you or them. You are one and the same so people hurting others, animals killing others to survive are doing this to themselves.

Anger or rage are not helpful in fact they make everything worse, they are the ego and will create more suffering. To create less suffering for other beings is through love and compassion only, love not only for the victims (which we all are) to different degrees though but for the perpetrators to (which we all are) to different degrees though. 

As a Marxist-Leninist I would like to say that was a hard lesson for me to learn but in all honesty I didn't have to learn anything, I just did the meditations - very focused for long periods - and it arose out of this well of wisdom on its own,spontaneously which happens in deep meditation you get these insights and realizations springing up out of nowhere. 

Previously I thought we need to get very angry to change everything. But I was wrong as that just makes matters worse, always. Oh it might make them better and often does later but changing situations that create more suffering should really be done using your primary reaction which is your true reaction ie. If you see situations that create tremendous suffering you instinctively feel compassion/empathy with the ones suffering and want to change that to help them but if you then get angry with the perpetrators you are separating yourself from them, which is ego, more suffering. To change situations you need to try and do so from love and compassion only. 

Oh I'm rambling now, I don't know if this makes sense but it's what I've experienced and tbh it goes against what I have thought for most of my life. I was always the emboldened activist  at 15 I wanted to go and attack the people killing baby seals and polluting the planet and then I was all Marxist revolutionary wanting to bring down capitalism ( That is still there but not in a violent revolution manner) but that was my ego not my true self. My true self yes still desperately wants to change these situations of suffering but from the proper angle that doesn't try and remove me from everything else which just creates more suffering. 

In reply to Jon Stewart:

True. Meditation won't tell you the air speed velocity of a Swallow but, and correct me if I'm wrong no schools of meditation say they will. Meditation as you point out is about consciousness which is what we are and when you reach that or realized our true nature it opens up insights and realizations that can only help us.

It can help people trying to work out complicated problems that will help mankind, the planet or various species by eliminating the small "I" /ego, therefor not creating more suffering. It can stop the annoying distracting chattering mind by practise on being present in the now which can free up the mind from useless thought patterns. 

Etc. (I know that's lazy but I got things to do) 

In reply to Pefa: That doesn't sound like rambling to me. 

It reminds me of a gay person having compassion for somebody who is homophobic, due to them being 'lost' essentially and not being at peace.

In reply to SenzuBean:

Also someone pointed out that if you swap the "sin" part in Jesus Christian teachings for the word " suffering", 500 years earlier in Buddhas Dharma teachings then they could be kind of saying the same thing. I don't know enough about Christian teachings to say though. 

In reply to Pefa:

What makes you think the 'true nature' you believe you experience after meditation is any more 'true' than the nature you experienced beforehand? Other than that it just feels different and you would like to believe there's something more authentic about it.

In reply to john arran:

That's what I was pondering after reading things by Buddhists about seeing things as they are. It could as much be down to how little I've looked into it, but my best guess is being in a mental state which feels more aware in which people can observe their ego and transient emotions and the different elements of being humans 'happening'. 

In reply to Pefa:

I have been there too, but I came back. Secondly it's (in my opinion) highly wrong to conflate necessary suffering (something must die, be it a plant, such that I can sustain my life) from that of unnecessary suffering (let's cut every forest to the ground, so we can have a slightly faster iphone to play bejeweled on).

Again you're using the justification for intrinsic suffering for unnecessary suffering. I think that's spurious.

This is not necessarily true. Anger is a potent fuel, as long as it is harnessed correctly. Anger can also be mixed with love and compassion (it is possible to feel more than one thing at the same time.. ).

In reply to SenzuBean:

People tend to find that suffering is difficult to deal with. If they are Christian, Jesus is supposed to take it away. If they're atheist and left wing, society is supposed to take it away; if they are right wing, others are supposed to suffer for them.

And so on in endless variety. I can suffer because someone will help me.

The Buddha said however: there is pain, and that is part of life; however suffering is something that you create for yourself, because you have expectations, desires, needs and so on. You do not need to do this. Remove suffering from your life by removing those expectations, desires and needs - recognise them for what they are.

Back to the point made by the OP: no self, no problem.
 

In reply to Pefa:

Yes they seem to be. When Jesus talks about being born again and denying self, etc, I am certain that every day guidance not to be so self important is part of it but he is also referring to this deep loss of self that can be experienced through meditation and fasting. The early Celtic church seems to have seen it this way with its hermits and asceticism but 1500 years of the church being entwined with power and the establishment has corrupted the message somewhat. I think that holy people throughout the ages and in all cultures have been discovering spiritual truths giving us the Bhagavad Gita and Buddhism, etc, but that Jesus is the full revelation of God.

In reply to john arran:

I can only speak personally and for me the reality I knew was the constant thinking voice that we create in our head. If I was not thinking of the future or the past I was judging people or myself constantly or I would be distracting myself by getting lost in music or songs in my head or being negative or positive constantly and making petty issues meaningful as well as much anger and frustration and filling my time with other distractions or escapism.  I would be feeding my ego in a vicious circle 24/7 all the time. Obviously there is much more but you get the jist.I wasn't here I was somewhere else practically all the time. 

I don't want to keep going over the same old stuff but you will see the difference from that to living in the now and trying to bring into your everyday life the profound realizations gained from deep meditation practices, which are all positive and more real than living a false life thinking about a future or past that doesn't exist or listening to a constant flow of trouble from the voice of the ego and thinking that is you. 

When you do experience this then you just know. You don't get told or want it to be and it doesn't arise from your memory or a subconscious as a story you were once told, the experience of this knowing arises when you strip away all the layers to the essence. It is a knowing of the true reality when faced with the true reality, you know it as if you have been reunited with something that you haven't seen your entire lifetime and had forgotten all about. But it  is always there because it's what we all are, right now, all the time but we obscure it in a million ways. 

I am not a teacher who can write it well I'm afraid, I don't have any gifts for that so forgive me if I get the odd word or term wrong in my descriptions, I'm just an ordinary wee person trying to describe the profound and sacred. 

In reply to SenzuBean:

There seems to be a misunderstanding here I'm afraid as I don't and cannot justify people creating great suffering or "unnecessary suffering". 

Edit : Yes even Stalin. (save some people time there) 

Yes we need to express our emotions that is crucial to your bodies wellbeing but getting angry doesn't help matters it just makes matters worse for you and others. 

In reply to cumbria mammoth:

Yes I agree Jesus was an enlightened being like many before and many afterwards. I also wonder if God in Christianity is the same thing as certain Vedantists and Buddhists call non duality, the true self, emptiness, nirvana, heaven. 

That sacred place where answers, insights, realizations on our true nature and how we should and should not behave arise spontaneously as if sent from elsewhere. 

I don't see why it would not be but you may disagree somewhat. Early Christian mystics used meditation and I am 100% positive they would have came to the same places and deep realization that Buddhists etc do but would call them different names. You just have to look at the teachings of love and compassion by Jesus and all the great sages which are very similar. 

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

What? Is there a simple version? Can never make head nor tail of all this, yes I did have a look.

In reply to Timmd:

Spot on Tim and thanks as always. You have always struck me even10 years ago on here as someone that has a certain calmness, balance and humility about you and lack of ego. I see it much more now but it always came through in your writings. 

In reply to Pefa:

Thank you. I put my foot in it with a friend recently, but I do try. Where my ego meets my opinions, it doesn't tend to turn out well. What others do is none of our business if it doesn't affect us. 

In reply to squarepeg:

It is indeed a bit of a nightmare; welcome to the world of Zen. A lot depends on your own views, preferences and needs, but here are some ideas and places to start.

Cheri Huber: a Zen Buddhist monk presiding over a monastery in California, author and teacher. Her classic work is called There's Nothing Wrong with You. Perhaps not for everyone as her style is very direct and simplistic, but fits with what you have asked for.

Bankei: a 17th century Japanese Zen master who specialised in keeping things simple, much to the disgust of his peers who were keen to keep everything mysterious and impenetrable so the people respected (and supported) them. Bankei's line was that we are all born little buddhas, and our job is to remember that and not faff around.

Carlos Castaneda: a 20th century 'sorcerer's apprentice' who had great writing skills but zero ability to become a sorcerer. His teacher, known as 'Don Juan Matus' in his books, clearly had some kind of Buddhist-related background, and much of the material in the books is not only very entertaining but straight down the line with regard to Buddhist teaching. Ignore all the 60's drug stuff, although it does add extra colour. Treat this material as entertainment rather than education.

Translations and interpretations of the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu. The original text is firmly in the land of impenetrable! However it draws you in with the need to solve its puzzles, and it's short. My favourite from the point of view of clarity is the interpretation by the Canadian Ray Grigg, and for insight into how it's regarded in the modern day, the translation by Red Pine (aka Bill Porter).

Good luck with your search.

In reply to Pefa:

You can do that with drugs though, if that's what you really want. I am everything because I'm made from stars, I've still got to put the bins out and got to work.

In reply to krikoman:

You can do that with drugs, from personal observation though, it seems to be the people who meditate their way to feeling tranquil who seem more adjusted, or at peace in a more enduring way. The people who like to take trips and MDMA might seem to be on 'more of a hunt' for stillness while in sober everyday life.  It probably depends on how at ease they are with what they have to do to earn a living in part, but that seems to be a bit of a pattern. 

In reply to Pefa:

The problem being, it's not always negative consequences, though obviously people don't know that at the beginning.

I know a couple of people who think having an affair, strengthened their marriage, and kept them together, I also know someone, who was quite happy their partner was having an affair, as long as they carried on living together ( I don't know how, but it worked for them).

so they, affairs, aren't all the same and don't always cause the destruction we think.

In reply to krikoman: I got the impression she was talking about her own circumstances?

The central tenet of thinking of the consequences for others of one's actions is certainly a good one.

In reply to Pefa:

I've tried meditating, and I found myself feeling quite strangely detached mentally, in a way that I didn't quite like. I might benefit from trying it again and seeing what happens. The best thing I've found so far as somebody who doesn't meditate towards being more mentally relaxed, is questioning whether any negative thoughts I have or perspectives on life are actually true, and whether I need to not act on my negative emotions and fears, or 'let things pass' and let events work out for themselves. In things like interpersonal relations especially, I've found that acting on one's fears and insecurities can in a funny way make what one doesn't want to happen - happen.  

Currently I don't tend to meditate, but think about having a calm mind, and go for cycles if I need detachment from the everyday.

In reply to krikoman:

This.

Seriously, guys like Penrose and Bohm should stick to stuff like maths and physics they actually know something about and leave the question of consciousness to the neurobiologists. After all, they are the first to make actual progress on this question after 50.000 years of speculation and random claims by shamans, philosophers, psychologists, religious types, assorted holy men or gurus, and others of their ilk.

CB

In reply to cb294:

Have you looked into Buddhism in quite an in depth way? 

In reply to Timmd:

Yes. Like all other religious/philosophical systems to date it has no foundation in biological facts. It may even work as a method to improve psychological well being for some (as will other systems for others), but its explanatory power is zero.

CB

In reply to Timmd:

Of course, and we do that every day, empathy with everyone form refugees, Palestinians, Rohingya, ISIS victims, residents of Grenfell tower, or the little girl whose Ice cream has just fallen on the floor.

What I was trying to put forward, and I wasn't aware Pefa was talking personally, was there are myriad outcomes and possibilities for every action, not always bad for either party, especially in the long run, and that something looked at as universally bad might not be.

In reply to cb294:

Right, I get you - explanatory power rather than truthfulness. The reason I asked was due to having read neuroscience related things which talk about what Buddhism says about the self, or rather the lack of, and that both 'schools' turn out to be in agreement. You're quite right, without neuroscience it wouldn't have been found that Buddhism happens to be correct (about the concept self, at least).

In reply to krikoman:

We do, with empathy being to identify with somebody's situation, and compassion acting to improve it somehow. I read something interesting from a psychologist in New Scientist a long time ago, who seemed to think that the 'family unit' which most people now grow up in doesn't do anything against the development of empathy, but may do when it comes to compassion, ie people actually doing something helpful about what they see as unfortunate or sad etc.

It was just from her being posts over time about being in a relationship really, and how loyal she seems to come across as a character, though somebody who didn't see it as a harmful thing wouldn't likely post about it being harmful I dare say. What you say about some things not always being universally good or bad is true of course, I wasn't disputing that.

Edit: Re good and bad, 'somebody I know' once filled their office with extra people pretending to be employees sitting at PC's, towards getting an order, and the right impression was given and their company fulfilled the order, and grew to the size they pretended it was, and they were able to do more helpful things as a result. It was still deception but it wasn't harmful. I vaguely keep it in mind when pondering morality sometimes.

In reply to Timmd:

I always follow 'cause no harm/hurt' as much as I can though.

In reply to krikoman:

If you do manage to attain this spiritual place by taking a particular item on one occasion, you won't be able to keep this up as an everyday practice for the obvious reasons. 

It could and does show people spiritual experiences that can lead them to go on a spiritual path without more assistance from a chemically induced experience that will eventually create problems. 

Putting the bins out and going to work are wonderful things, if you look at them from different angles. Be happy you can put the bins out, and be happy you have a job. Mundane chores we do can be time to focus and just be, nothing more, no thinking, no naming, no complaining, just an action,be right in the now feeling the incredible aliveness. 

Edit : (just seen your reply about affairs) yes I agree there are lots of permutations with lots of outcomes. Most you will agree result in much pain in most cases. All I was doing was pointing that out. 

In reply to Pefa:

I've seen something like what you describe in people I know, they've seemed to get rather into drugs, than have a wobble and a crisis, and find peace in the end by learning to 'just be'.  

Indeed, that we exist at all is cool verging on the exciting.

In reply to Timmd:

And it put you off doing it again ? Maybe you had an off day for whatever reason that day or maybe you were actually progressing and the shift threw you a little.  I have read that this type of meditation is not for a great deal of people and you can do walking meditations for example Thich Nat Han has a wonderful book on that type of meditation. 

Here is a quote of his for you-

"Enlightenment is when the wave realises it is the ocean." 

Perfect. 

In reply to Timmd:

Yes it turns into escapism from everything and only a minute proportion of people have spiritual experiences and that is only with certain stuff and in certain circumstances, usually created for that reason. 

It's incredible and I do love chatting about these matters to. 

In reply to cb294:

Buddha or the others didn't have a CT scanner. 

Have a wee look at this link as it shows many similarities between science and Buddhism. 

https://www.lionsroar.com/christof-koch-unites-buddhist-neuroscience-univer...

https://www.lionsroar.com/buddhism-science-teachings-reports-commentaries-a...

In reply to Timmd:

Actually I think you don't: In science, explanatory power is the litmus test for any theory. Ptolemy's geocentric models with epicycles was "truthful" in that it correctly, at least for the technological options of the time, modelled the positions of the planets. Over time, corrections were introduced by adding even more epicycles. However, the model offered no reason for why the planets should behave like that. Next step up was Kopernikus , who put the sun in the centre, and Kepler who discarded the idea that planets should move on circles. Next up Newton, who offered a reason why the planets should follow the trajectories prescribed by Kepler's laws, then Einstein etc.

Newton's key contribution was to derive Kepler's laws from a simpler law of graviation. Einstein then derived gravitation from an even simpler (not mathematically but conceptually) model of curved spacetime.

This deeper understanding at each of these steps led to improved technology and, in particular, novel, previously unobserved phenomena such as black holes or bending of light rays. Newton's mechanics was good enough to send astronauts to the moon, and we use Einstein's improvement on that model every time we use our GPS.

This is what I meant by explanatory power, and I would demand the same of any theory of or consciousness or our self. 

In that respect the philosophers and religious types IMO simply offer Ptolemy style fluff: None of them offers a deeper basis for their descriptions (I do not buy the post hoc stuff in Pefa's links).

Instead, tell me why (based solely on arguments from developmental biology, neurobiology and evolution) our self should be be organized in a certain way, and show me that it can be manipulated in a manner that could only be predicted working from that model, and I may buy into your biological theory / philosophy / whatever.

CB

In reply to Pefa:

I had a look and am not convinced, seemed like a lot of post hoc rationalizing to me.

CB

edit: This came across unnecessarily harsh, it is not meant that way toward you but towards CK.

In reply to Pefa:

I don't feel the need to attain a spiritual place though, I'm quite happy in the here and now, no astral, ethereal, or buddhic, planes required. Whether chemically induced or through meditation, a handful of mushroom once in a while, if you want consciousness expansion, but what's the point.

Agreed, and that's very easy to do sometimes, lose someone you love to cancer and you'll enjoy being able to put the bins out for a while.

what I don't understand is why you have to conflate this with spirituality, simply being in the present can be enough, open you eyes, ears and nostrils and experience the world around you once in a while, look up instead of at the floor, smell the rain. All of this doesn't need to be wrapped up in spiritualism, it's all there now! It's free, it doesn't take any special skills, time or, a great deal of effort,  you just need to think about it.

Each to their own of course, but I really don't understand why to find some inner peace, we need to "get" spiritual, why not just "be"?

I'm not keen on any religion, but Buddhism and Jainism are probably the least harmful.

In reply to cb294:

I think you might have misinterpreted my post. What I meant, was that Buddhism had no way of proving that the self is essentially illusory, and it was neuroscience which has, it explored things in a way which Buddhism couldn't. By saying there is truthfulness in Buddhism about this aspect of being human, I wasn't ascribing any scientific or exploratory powers to it. I wasn't equating truthfulness to any effectiveness as a scientific approach.

In reply to Timmd:

I see, I have indeed misunderstood your post!

Cheers,

CB

In reply to krikoman:

This. Thanks for saving me the typing!

CB

In reply to cb294:

Having never heard of the guys you mentioned up thread I did a search and it led me to quantum mind on wiki, which I had never heard of. In the page it stated that it was all hypothesis that had not been verified, now perhaps you know more specifics but could the same not be said of Buddhist conclusions?

I'm afraid you will have to put that into man in the street language for me. Sorry. 

That's quite a blunt answer as you stated, not rude or anything or dismissive, well maybe a little dismissive without giving any reasons. Could it be that you are closed to anything out with empirical stuff? I only know as much as the next person about science but do physicists not talk about many weird and wonderful matters especially when it comes to the very tiny world of the sub atomic? Mentioning all sorts of weird stuff about other dimensions and that there is a very great deal we do not understand or know about, and if so then why is the Buddhists experience of one consciousness theoretically any different to these things? 

In reply to krikoman:

Tbh I don't know what these "planes" are either. The point? Good question, why push yourself to do anything I suppose. I have always been curious to know more about life and this is just a part of that, I want answers. To see if there is anything beyond what we normally experience, to see if we have lost touch with ourselves through evolution in the modern world, to see if what great inward looking explorers through the centuries have written is true. It also makes you more aware, inside and outside, less judgemental, less angry, more compassionate, more understanding, more in the present moment, basically more alive, what's not to like as they say. 

"Think", argh! No! 🙂That is exactly what you don't do in times when you are in the now as that is where the trouble starts : you name things, label them, compartmentalise them, conceptualise, you create form. When you are truly in the now and experiencing nature, feeling the intense aliveness, that is when thinking stops just exactly the same as during deep meditation /spiritual practice.

A thought is a form that you create, In deep meditation you experience the formless which is similar to situations when you stop and take in what is without thinking but just being,which is formless. 

Same thing. 

You can be a secular meditator that sees it scientifically. I don't believe all the myriad things in all the schools of Buddhism but the mind science stuff my mind can rationalise and the methods and conclusions of experienced Buddhist meditators I experience first hand to certain degrees.

In reply to Pefa:

That sounds very much to me like experience-seeking rather than truth-seeking. Interpreting what you then experience as containing anything approaching objective truth is what people are pointing out is the step for which there is no rational justification.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

Much of this debate seems to rely on an outdated understanding of the scientific debate. Can’t be bothered to read previous posts so may have been mentioned already. While many neuroscientists/psychologists/philosophers do take a reductionist approach to the mind there is a growing movement which does not and takes seriously the idea that subjective experience can form part of the ‘science’ of the mind, Francisco Varela is a leading proponent. Arguably a reductionist science of the mind lacks explanatory power as it cannot explain our experience of consciousness. 

In reply to sheelba:

I think that's the nub of the issue. If 'proper' science can't explain it, can there be justification in accepting other explanations as being objectively factual?

In reply to john arran:

There is no point in spiritual progression if it does not go to the truth as you will only get false answers which is a waste of valuable time. 

What has happened there is just me not using the correct terminology on that occasion as it is indeed a search for the ultimate truth or ultimate realization of truth and the first hand direct experience of it. In Mahayana Buddhism it is called the two truths one being the conventional or relative truth (that we see all the time) and the other being the ultimate or absolute truth (which is manifest through much meditations) 

Sorry for the misunderstanding. 

https://www.matthieuricard.org/en/blog/posts/ultimate-truth-according-to-bu...

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

I'm out Cheers xx

In reply to john arran:

Interesting question. I can remember my Dad (who used to meditate as a Buddhist) being rather respectful/aware of 'the other place' some monks had gone to mentally*, when (cira 20 years ago now) it was in the news about them fleeing Tibet over the mountains into Nepal and India. There's a certain mental state one can go into apparently, making it easier to deal with the rigors of marching a very long distance. It was more or less continuously that they'd walked from Tibet through the snows.

I'm not sure why the above felt relevant now I've reread it, but for things which your question apply to, 'possibly true' could seem to be the most objective approach, until neuroscience explains what is going on. I perhaps think that 'a state which feels like truth' might be closer to the mark, and along the way something else will be found out about how we function. 

* Slightly amusingly, being a sometimes quite literal engineering type, he didn't like not knowing how he'd know if he reached enlightenment, and basically gave up being a Buddhist and went back to drinking in the pub, which is when he met my Mum.  If it hadn't been for his literal nature I wouldn't exist.

Edit: That's why I was waffling about the meditating to help marching, I think Buddhism is worth looking into because of the altered states one can find through meditating, and what that can teach us when we use neuroscience at the same time. 

In reply to sheelba:

It can seem to be reductionist, and as somebody who has felt 'read' by somebody I later learnt claims to be telepathic, and experienced what some might call a ghost, I think there may be more that we need to learn, but at the same time, it's the best method we have of making sure what people claim to be true, and what might seem to be true, definitely is or not. 

 As I understand it, there are different parts of the brain which are active during feeling different emotions and sensations, which may indicate a promising way forwards, regarding working out what is going on when people feel like the are experiencing things like 'the truth of reality' during meditation, by looking at what is happening in the brain. 

My weird sense of having been read, and what sounded like children chatting and playing from where a little girl was asleep,  which oddly stopped as soon as her mum cracked the door ajar, I've put in the 'not entirely explained' box in my mind. It'd be unscientific to jump to conclusions, or create an explanation without further analysis. It might have been something fairly everyday in both instances, which can include things measurable with equipment we don't currently have.