|
|
Post by frankshank on Mar 14, 2010 11:42:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by question on Mar 14, 2010 19:36:46 GMT -5
1 hour in and... meh, sounds to me like same old poetic jargon, at least it didn't do much for me. But wacky yeah that's right.  I'd much rather hear an actual scientist talk about this (and I don't mean like "the world is made of the four elements" blah blah). Anyone got any of those? |
|
|
|
Post by frankshank on Mar 15, 2010 3:40:56 GMT -5
1 hour in and... meh, sounds to me like same old poetic jargon, at least it didn't do much for me. But wacky yeah that's right. I'd much rather hear an actual scientist talk about this (and I don't mean like "the world is made of the four elements" blah blah). Anyone got any of those? Hi question. Why don't you do a search for 'no freewill' on youtube. There are plenty of scientist types on there who offer an explanation as to why we don't have freewill. That leads to the logical conclusion that there is no separate self. If there is no separate self then everything and everyone is empty and all there is is life. All of the experiences and ideas mentioned on this site and in books are kind of irrelevant as they are simply expressions of life. That's the way I look at it anyway. As for Benjamin Smythe I included him because I think he's an interesting character but he is just one flower in a field of flowers! |
|
|
|
Post by question on Mar 15, 2010 8:26:48 GMT -5
Understanding that there is no free will and that there is no seperate person is kind of trivial imo. But having the actual experience is an altogether different matter. I don't believe you when you say that it's irrelevant.
I want scientific studies made on enlightened people, how do their brains work, what got them to attain enlightenment, did they have a genetic predisposition for enlightenment, what are the most efficient techniques to bring about enlightenment. I want these questions to be answered in a scientific way. I want hard facts and numbers, not pretty stories and poems. I don't buy the lazy explanation that the universe somehow magically chooses who awakens or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankshank on Mar 15, 2010 8:59:41 GMT -5
Understanding that there is no free will and that there is no seperate person is kind of trivial imo. But having the actual experience is an altogether different matter. I don't believe you when you say that it's irrelevant. I want scientific studies made on enlightened people, how do their brains work, what got them to attain enlightenment, did they have a genetic predisposition for enlightenment, what are the most efficient techniques to bring about enlightenment. I want these questions to be answered in a scientific way. I want hard facts and numbers, not pretty stories and poems. I don't buy the lazy explanation that the universe somehow magically chooses who awakens or not. There have been studies carried out on meditators and it's been found that their brain structure is different to the average person. The problem is the scientists that you so revere don't know enough about how the brain functions in order to be able to give you the answers you crave. You're asking people who have had spiritual experiences what the score is but you don't like the answers. Just be careful you don't lose your sanity trying to figure it out lol |
|
|
|
Post by karen on Mar 15, 2010 10:18:53 GMT -5
Question: are you waiting for proof before you dip your toe in? What if there is no proof *out there*?
|
|
|
|
Post by question on Mar 15, 2010 20:50:02 GMT -5
Karen: Of course I want proof. Don't you? I'm already knee-deep in this sh*t, I can't go back to a normal life knowing that there are people out there whose state nullifies everything I am or ever will be. Ben Smythe triggered something negative in me, whenever I see him do his wacky laugh in his videos I feel like Buddha spits in my face.
Frank: I know of those brain studies, that's exactly what I'm talking about. They are just in the beginning stages and I'd love this research to go a lot deeper, it should be Nr.1 priority. I understand that a thousand years ago enlightened masters had to use language, their bamboo stick and some magical powers as the primary means to transmit their understanding, but nowadays, for the first time in millenia, there is the possibility to go so far beyond that. It's time to cooperate with contemporary science. Science is not the enemy of spirituality, it's time to stop creating false dualities.
|
|
|
|
Post by karen on Mar 15, 2010 23:34:37 GMT -5
Question: I do want proof. But the proof is in the water where I must swim. It ain't *out there* - or I'm too skepticle that it would ever be found in my lifetime *out there*.
So here I am with my big toe in the pool. Looking for proof yes. But I'm (trying) to look for it in my subjective experience only.
Get my drift?
|
|
|
|
Post by karen on Mar 15, 2010 23:42:15 GMT -5
BTW, as Nissargadatta has asked: "What is the proof you are looking for? What exactly constitutes a valid proof?" So like how "The Amazing Randy" has his criteria for what it would take for him to fork over his million bucks, what is your criteria to fork over some existential effort? I'm just curious here. |
|
|
|
Post by elduderino on Mar 16, 2010 4:47:27 GMT -5
2 question,
Incredible opinion! I totally agree with you on the necessity of a scientific and rational approach to enlightenment, spiritual matters etc. I am tired of "the advaita talk" too. We need a method which applied to 10 different people from various points across the globe would give us 10 people in the natural state.
Considering the latter, we may actually have something already.
A couple of months ago I discovered John Sherman and was blown away. The guy completely removed almost all philosophical, poetical, advaitic, "you name it" stuff from his message including the notion of enlightenment itself. He just describes the "malfunctioning" state of seeking anxiety perfectly and gives a method to cure it. This method works (at least for me).
I highly recommend everybody to check out this guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankshank on Mar 16, 2010 5:39:15 GMT -5
Karen: Of course I want proof. Don't you? I'm already knee-deep in this sh*t, I can't go back to a normal life knowing that there are people out there whose state nullifies everything I am or ever will be. Ben Smythe triggered something negative in me, whenever I see him do his wacky laugh in his videos I feel like Buddha spits in my face. Frank: I know of those brain studies, that's exactly what I'm talking about. They are just in the beginning stages and I'd love this research to go a lot deeper, it should be Nr.1 priority. I understand that a thousand years ago enlightened masters had to use language, their bamboo stick and some magical powers as the primary means to transmit their understanding, but nowadays, for the first time in millenia, there is the possibility to go so far beyond that. It's time to cooperate with contemporary science. Science is not the enemy of spirituality, it's time to stop creating false dualities. It would be great if science could provide definitive answers I agree. How often does that happen though? There always seem to be different camps, even if the differences in opinion are not far apart. I think you're just looking for a camp that doesn't exist yet that you feel most comfortable with based on your story. My answer to your question earlier was perhaps oversimplistic but I like to be oversimplistic. I'm not after a camp, I just want to sit and watch (and sometimes play). I think it's good that you are challenging ideas and I positively encourage it but be careful with the language you use. Using words like trivial to describe someones viewpoint and referring to enlightened masters as lazy is disrespectful. You can dig deep and engage people on this board without dissing. It's not clever. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Mar 16, 2010 14:36:27 GMT -5
Karen: No choice for me but to look at it in what we call "subjectivity", at least when it comes to enlightenment. The proof would be the undeniable experience. But my current experience is incompatible with what spiritual masters teach, it is much more compatible with what contemporary science teaches.
Frank: I don't care about camps. It's just that, like I said, for the first time in millenia there is a chance to gain a completely new perspective on what enlightenment is and I see no reason why we shouldn't explore it. I don't expect "final answers" from science, that's not what science is here for. From a possible cooperation I expect the development of much more efficient techniques. I apologize for my language. Whenever I'm frustrated and angry I tend to project it on others. Whenever I talk trash it's a sure sign that I'm not well.
Dude: Thanks, I watched 2h of his talks and I really like him. Let's see how it develops.
|
|
|
|
Post by karen on Mar 16, 2010 18:06:04 GMT -5
Question: perhaps it will be you who will give us that new perspective. I'm not being sarcastic.
BTW, I'm a bit skeptical of Benjamin Smythe's laugh as well. There's been too many times where I've been like that, but it was always me knowing more than others that gave me that kind of laugh. Though, I too could be projecting that is for sure.
I watched a few of the clips by John Sherman this morning, and he resonates with me.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankshank on Mar 16, 2010 19:17:13 GMT -5
It's all good. Whether Benjamin Smythe is the real deal or not (if there is such a thing) doesn't really matter but if he's sparked something in people then surely there's got to be a lesson in there somewhere. Leonard Jacobson (Present's offering) states in his video that if you get involved in the energy of judgement the ego won't surrender. Just got to let the feelings and thoughts arise and fall naturally. So easy eh! |
|
|
|
Post by karen on Mar 17, 2010 18:49:19 GMT -5
Hey Frank, I didn't mean to diss your link there! You're right about it not mattering. In my experience, when I'm earnest, I find earnest pointers from whomever/where-ever.
|
|
