Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2022 12:08:32 GMT -5
What is there to discuss? I sgree with you that consciousness coming from the brain is a ridiculous conclusion. That is also the conclusion of Advaita Vedanta. It seems that everyone agrees with you. What's there to discuss?! Just because consciousness has nothing to do with the brain opens a can of worms. How do you account for the fact that I neither know nor have access to your secret thoughts? Have you played the card game of poker where no one knows what cards the others at the table are holding?
Taking the brain out of the equation changes our conception of humanity as a collective of individual human beings to what?
Have you told anyone at your place of work that the consciousness does not come from his or her brain? Have you told your wife that? How about your boss, the guy you report to at work?
Chatting with folks in a spiritual forum gives you license to make any statement about the consciousness. Out there in the real world, you would be given a one way trip to the mad house.
Really? Then i suggest you aquaint yourself with the many discussions in academia among neuro scientists and others about that very subject. As far as I'm aware none of them have been locked up in a mad house. What about Christians. They believe in an eternal soul which is obviously not of the body. I dont recall any of them being rounded up my men in white coats and taken away in unmarked vehicles. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on May 20, 2022 12:49:12 GMT -5
Your self wasn't there. Your ordinary every day mind was inactive. The perceiver of the circular rainbow was, and always will be the whole of reality itself. You can't own that moment. Though you can give it it's rightful ownership. Oh no. I was there, and my ordinary everyday mind was active. My senses were not affected but I lost the ability to orientate "myself" in a spatial context.
Ordinarily, we - constantly - know where we are in relationship to things around us: the sky above (even when we don't see it we know it is "there"), the ground beneath (through the sense of touch detecting the body's weight supported by our feet), the waves of the sea at the waterline some ten feet below the boat's deck I was standing on (I know its free board), and the horizon 20 miles away (I remember learning that in school and never questioned it). And when we see a rainbow, we automatically place it in the space we are in, in relationship to where we are. One of its ends was on the sea surface quite close because it rose high before me, and I estimated it was about two hundred yards away. As it formed, the arc extended till it touched the horizon (say 20 miles out?). What a huge rainbow, I said to myself. But it continued forming. The arc got rounder, and rounder till both ends met in a circle hanging in the air before me. If I had been a devotee of Hinduism (like satch), the sight of that awesome ring of brilliant colors would have brought me to my knees and compelled me to uncontrollably cry out "BRAHMA!" But I was not a devotee of anything. I was a goddam American with two engineering degrees under my belt confronted by a reality-defying phenomenon. I lost all coordinates of reference. I just needed to figure out how that happened. The circular rainbow wiped out three-dimensional space. The horizon 20 miles away is an idea. The perceiver doesn’t move forward or backward through space. Space is an idea. Movement is an illusion created by change. The perceiver doesn’t move and never moves even if I am an astronaut flying 250,000 miles to the moon. This was an amazing insight into the nature of human perception. I doubt the squirrel cares. It sees without the distortion of human knowledge. We see as informed by science. I played golf. To locate how far the pin was on the green, I used a rangefinder. It shoots a laser beam to the flag stick and computes the yardage based on the time it took the beam to get reflected back to the rangefinder. 150 yards, it says. I pick an 8 iron and hit the ball to the green and walk up to it. I never once questioned the depth of field, the nature of the space I was “walking through”, not ever. I believed I was living in 3-dimensional space from the time I was running around as a kid playing with my dog. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on May 20, 2022 13:14:54 GMT -5
Really? Then i suggest you aquaint yourself with the many discussions in academia among neuro scientists and others about that very subject. As far as I'm aware none of them have been locked up in a mad house. What about Christians. They believe in an eternal soul which is obviously not of the body. I dont recall any of them being rounded up my men in white coats and taken away in unmarked vehicles. Who in the secular public space takes faith-based people seriously? After all, it is a personal thing.
As for academics, it's all theory and the Phds know the ideas they publish ad nauseum won't be read by other Phds let alone budge consensus worldview.
As long as you believe that you are a human being living on planet Earth, you are trapped.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2022 14:28:19 GMT -5
Your self wasn't there. Your ordinary every day mind was inactive. The perceiver of the circular rainbow was, and always will be the whole of reality itself. You can't own that moment. Though you can give it it's rightful ownership. Oh no. I was there, and my ordinary everyday mind was active. My senses were not affected but I lost the ability to orientate "myself" in a spatial context.
Ordinarily, we - constantly - know where we are in relationship to things around us: the sky above (even when we don't see it we know it is "there"), the ground beneath (through the sense of touch detecting the body's weight supported by our feet), the waves of the sea at the waterline some ten feet below the boat's deck I was standing on (I know its free board), and the horizon 20 miles away (I remember learning that in school and never questioned it). And when we see a rainbow, we automatically place it in the space we are in, in relationship to where we are. One of its ends was on the sea surface quite close because it rose high before me, and I estimated it was about two hundred yards away. As it formed, the arc extended till it touched the horizon (say 20 miles out?). What a huge rainbow, I said to myself. But it continued forming. The arc got rounder, and rounder till both ends met in a circle hanging in the air before me. If I had been a devotee of Hinduism (like satch), the sight of that awesome ring of brilliant colors would have brought me to my knees and compelled me to uncontrollably cry out "BRAHMA!" But I was not a devotee of anything. I was a goddam American with two engineering degrees under my belt confronted by a reality-defying phenomenon. I lost all coordinates of reference. I just needed to figure out how that happened. The circular rainbow wiped out three-dimensional space. The horizon 20 miles away is an idea. The perceiver doesn’t move forward or backward through space. Space is an idea. Movement is an illusion created by change. The perceiver doesn’t move and never moves even if I am an astronaut flying 250,000 miles to the moon. This was an amazing insight into the nature of human perception. I doubt the squirrel cares. It sees without the distortion of human knowledge. We see as informed by science. I played golf. To locate how far the pin was on the green, I used a rangefinder. It shoots a laser beam to the flag stick and computes the yardage based on the time it took the beam to get reflected back to the rangefinder. 150 yards, it says. I pick an 8 iron and hit the ball to the green and walk up to it. I never once questioned the depth of field, the nature of the space I was “walking through”, not ever. I believed I was living in 3-dimensional space from the time I was running around as a kid playing with my dog. Ok, the way I understand it. Consciousness is what orientates you, it constantly wants to know where it is and it is informed by the mind that has learnt names and measurements as you've shown here. The every day mind is a treasure trove of memories that you build your present moment out of, as you've described in this post. If that every day mind momentarily stops functioning, as it did in your awe and fascination of the forming of a full rainbow. Then the experience of this present moment can become expansive, non-local and completely inclusive. Don't forget that every rainbow is unique to each observer. The relationship between the light, the human eyes and the rain make each perception of a rainbow a unique experience. As in, no one ever sees the same rainbow. What interests me, is that you haven't described how the event ended. The return of time and space and the feeling of a world back 'out there' happened. Can you remember how? You are right about the nature of perception, the observable universe is happening in perception, rather than 'out there' as an objective reality. Though don't let that go to your head. It's the same for everyone.  |
|
|
|
Post by sree on May 20, 2022 22:14:01 GMT -5
What interests me, is that you haven't described how the event ended. The return of time and space and the feeling of a world back 'out there' happened. Can you remember how? Jesus Christ! You are sensitive. And I think you've got it. At least, the perfume of it, as Krishnamurti would say. Are you a woman? Men are pretty dead in the head, rational and dead. Anyway, it's late and I need to go to bed. I will work on a reply to you tomorrow. And thank you for wanting to chase that rainbow with me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2022 23:05:24 GMT -5
Really? Then i suggest you aquaint yourself with the many discussions in academia among neuro scientists and others about that very subject. As far as I'm aware none of them have been locked up in a mad house. What about Christians. They believe in an eternal soul which is obviously not of the body. I dont recall any of them being rounded up my men in white coats and taken away in unmarked vehicles. Who in the secular public space takes faith-based people seriously? After all, it is a personal thing.
As for academics, it's all theory and the Phds know the ideas they publish ad nauseum won't be read by other Phds let alone budge consensus worldview.
As long as you believe that you are a human being living on planet Earth, you are trapped.
Yes absolutely. So how do you think you find out that you're not? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2022 11:51:02 GMT -5
What interests me, is that you haven't described how the event ended. The return of time and space and the feeling of a world back 'out there' happened. Can you remember how? Jesus Christ! You are sensitive. And I think you've got it. At least, the perfume of it, as Krishnamurti would say. Are you a woman? Men are pretty dead in the head, rational and dead. Anyway, it's late and I need to go to bed. I will work on a reply to you tomorrow. And thank you for wanting to chase that rainbow with me. Sounds like a troll. Collective labels and ideas like "women are __", "men are __" are actually the dead things, ironically. See people uniquely, alive, in the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 21, 2022 12:59:31 GMT -5
I don't know what led you to that conclusion. I don't think anyone here thinks that consciousness is personal. It's taking yourself to be yoked to the human body and therefore identifying with the human body which contradicts your view that consciousness is not personal. It's good to exchange ideas. I get a real spiritual high from writing good posts to guys like you. Everyone believes that consciousness is personal and it comes out from the human brain. Those who don't think so are you, and guys like Ramana and Ramakrishna. You think consciousness can switch from personal mode to eternal timeless nature while still living a mortal life yoked to the body. This is similar to the steptronic transmission in my BMW X5 that allows me to shift from automatic to manual when I want to floor the pedal and power past an annoying guy revving his pony car at the traffic lights. Deep down, I am as much of a showoff as a celebrated guru from India.
Look, satch. I am here to inquire, to find out, as Krishnamurti said. I want to find out if the knowledge that has been handed down, through science and religion, is distorting our perception of reality in living mortal life. If we can't see straight, we continue to suffer.
My rejection of the belief that the brain gives rise to consciousness doesn’t contradict my view of the nature of consciousness mainly because I don’t have one. I am certain that it doesn’t come from the brain and that’s about it. Zendancer said that it comes from Source. You said it’s explained in Advaita. Science says it comes from the brain. Even Krishnamurti muddied the waters when he said that thought comes from the brain cells. I will give Krishnamurti a pass because he had no formal education and was trying to communicate with academics in terms they could relate with. Here's another explanation to add to the list |
|
|
|
Post by sree on May 21, 2022 15:32:57 GMT -5
What interests me, is that you haven't described how the event ended. The return of time and space and the feeling of a world back 'out there' happened. Can you remember how? ...catching up with your above question.
The event ended when that circular rainbow began to fade. The feeling of a world back ‘out there’ happened when the horizon looked normal again: 20 miles away as before. Does this answer your question? A circular rainbow is unusual and appeared only once in my life. I couldn’t locate it in space. It messed up spatial reality as I know it. In itself, that unnerving experience is not a big deal. People do have dizzy spells and momentarily lose their bearings when their visual focus fade out. In this case, I was fully alert and did not fade out, reality did. The one thing about Krishnamurti that fascinated me is his recount of his bizarre state of awareness when spatial boundaries dissolved and he became what he saw. You can find it in his Notebook, Journal and Commentaries on living. The writing is masterful and I did wonder if some ghost writer wrote those books. Krishnamurti was a poor student in the classroom (according to his biography), had no interest in schoolwork, and couldn’t even graduate high school. Anyway, inquiring into the nature of reality is my obsession. I surmise that the “Krishnamurti consciousness” was untrainable and predisposed to float off into “the wide blue yonder”. When that happens, knowledge loses its hold on human cognitive response. Squirrel cognitive response would be totally unconditioned by human knowledge. Krishnamurti, when he “drifted off” would be somewhere in between. What do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by sree on May 21, 2022 16:03:46 GMT -5
You are right about the nature of perception, the observable universe is happening in perception, rather than 'out there' as an objective reality. Though don't let that go to your head. It's the same for everyone.  Let what go to my head? That I am something special because I saw a circular rainbow and had an insight into the nature of perception?
Being right about the nature of perception doesn't free one of objective reality. So, what is the point to being right without being free? The squirrel doesn't know squat about the nature of perception but is free of objective reality. This is not a speculation about squirrel consciousness. I know for a fact that other animals have no idea of an objective world conceivable only to us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2022 16:08:30 GMT -5
You are right about the nature of perception, the observable universe is happening in perception, rather than 'out there' as an objective reality. Though don't let that go to your head. It's the same for everyone. Let what go to my head? That I am something special because I saw a circular rainbow and had an insight into the nature of perception?
Being right about the nature of perception doesn't free one of objective reality. So, what is the point to being right without being free? The squirrel doesn't know squat about the nature of perception but is free of objective reality. This is not a speculation about squirrel consciousness. I know for a fact that other animals have no idea of an objective world conceivable only to us.
Could you explain this sentence further please? I don't understand it at the moment. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2022 16:40:07 GMT -5
What interests me, is that you haven't described how the event ended. The return of time and space and the feeling of a world back 'out there' happened. Can you remember how? ...catching up with your above question.
The event ended when that circular rainbow began to fade. The feeling of a world back ‘out there’ happened when the horizon looked normal again: 20 miles away as before. Does this answer your question? A circular rainbow is unusual and appeared only once in my life. I couldn’t locate it in space. It messed up spatial reality as I know it. In itself, that unnerving experience is not a big deal. People do have dizzy spells and momentarily lose their bearings when their visual focus fade out. In this case, I was fully alert and did not fade out, reality did. The one thing about Krishnamurti that fascinated me is his recount of his bizarre state of awareness when spatial boundaries dissolved and he became what he saw. You can find it in his Notebook, Journal and Commentaries on living. The writing is masterful and I did wonder if some ghost writer wrote those books. Krishnamurti was a poor student in the classroom (according to his biography), had no interest in schoolwork, and couldn’t even graduate high school. Anyway, inquiring into the nature of reality is my obsession. I surmise that the “Krishnamurti consciousness” was untrainable and predisposed to float off into “the wide blue yonder”. When that happens, knowledge loses its hold on human cognitive response. Squirrel cognitive response would be totally unconditioned by human knowledge. Krishnamurti, when he “drifted off” would be somewhere in between. What do you think? Yes, I was only interested in the ending that was all, thanks. I've never really looked into J. Krishnamurti's non-dual experiences. I don't doubt that they were genuine, and that he tried to conceptualise them for the sake of communication. You're the first person I've known who walked away from their intended life because of him. Have you ever channelled him to gain more insight? |
|
|
|
Post by sree on May 21, 2022 22:20:12 GMT -5
Jesus Christ! You are sensitive. And I think you've got it. At least, the perfume of it, as Krishnamurti would say. Are you a woman? Men are pretty dead in the head, rational and dead. Anyway, it's late and I need to go to bed. I will work on a reply to you tomorrow. And thank you for wanting to chase that rainbow with me. Sounds like a troll. Collective labels and ideas like "women are __", "men are __" are actually the dead things, ironically. See people uniquely, alive, in the moment. People are alive? You wish. Perhaps, you live in a different world. Mine is the world of the living dead, robots who are uniquely alive in the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on May 21, 2022 23:00:24 GMT -5
Yes, I was only interested in the ending that was all, thanks. I've never really looked into J. Krishnamurti's non-dual experiences. I don't doubt that they were genuine, and that he tried to conceptualise them for the sake of communication. You're the first person I've known who walked away from their intended life because of him. Have you ever channelled him to gain more insight? Channelled him? You mean channeling the spirit of Krishnamurti? No, I am not into spiritualism.
Don't let the name "Sree" mislead you. I am a yank and not a native of India.
When I went to Chennai to visit the Krishnamurti Foundation, I was besieged by urchins in the city wherever I went. One boy was insistent on showing me around for 100 rupees. He was the only one with a smattering of English. His entrepreneurial drive resonated with me. I gave him the rupees and appropriated his name.
Walking away from my "intended life" was not because of Krishnamurti. I viewed him as a fellow traveller. There is something "off" about the nature of reality. I first sensed that when I was looking at myself in the mirror at the age of eight. I asked my father how come there was a "me" and what life was all about? He said he didn't know and nobody knew. What kind of an answer was that? Nobody seemed interested in my question. Not then, not now. When Krishnamurti came along and said things that resonated with me, I knew I couldn't go on like the living dead. Despite having jumped off the conveyor belt of conventional life, I feel that I am still mucking around in the casket.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2022 2:47:34 GMT -5
Yes, I was only interested in the ending that was all, thanks. I've never really looked into J. Krishnamurti's non-dual experiences. I don't doubt that they were genuine, and that he tried to conceptualise them for the sake of communication. You're the first person I've known who walked away from their intended life because of him. Have you ever channelled him to gain more insight? Channelled him? You mean channeling the spirit of Krishnamurti? No, I am not into spiritualism.
Don't let the name "Sree" mislead you. I am a yank and not a native of India.
When I went to Chennai to visit the Krishnamurti Foundation, I was besieged by urchins in the city wherever I went. One boy was insistent on showing me around for 100 rupees. He was the only one with a smattering of English. His entrepreneurial drive resonated with me. I gave him the rupees and appropriated his name.
Walking away from my "intended life" was not because of Krishnamurti. I viewed him as a fellow traveller. There is something "off" about the nature of reality. I first sensed that when I was looking at myself in the mirror at the age of eight. I asked my father how come there was a "me" and what life was all about? He said he didn't know and nobody knew. What kind of an answer was that? Nobody seemed interested in my question. Not then, not now. When Krishnamurti came along and said things that resonated with me, I knew I couldn't go on like the living dead. Despite having jumped off the conveyor belt of conventional life, I feel that I am still mucking around in the casket.
Yeah sometimes when a student gets deep into the teachings of a deceased guru, they become open enough to receive the presence of the teacher and therefore gain more understanding of what they were saying when they were alive. I would imagine that it benefits both. If I remember right there are a handful of books from Gurdjieff post death. How genuine they are I don't know. Just because you were born in America doesn't mean you can't receive transmissions. You bought an online name for 100 rupees? That young boy would feel mighty proud if he knew.  Ok.. so you're revealing quite a 'poor me' picture, if you don't mind me saying. Is there any joy in this painting of yourself and your life so far? Like anything that you can seriously and concretely build on? |
|
