The Metaphysical Consciousness

[doronshadmi]

* How about some evidence that this invariant deep calm actually exists?

This is direct awareness without any mental activity, it is actually existence in itself, and as long as you don't use the right mental practice in order to directly know it, the best you can do is only think about it.

* Do you know that there's nothing more under/beyond it?

It is the simplest awareness that does not need any thoughts process (any mental activity) in order to directly be known, I can tell you that from my own direct experience.

* How can you say it's truly invariant?

This is exactly its own true nature.

Donn, as long as you try to comprehend what I wrote only from your thoughts process, you surely miss it.

For most people it can be known only if they are using a mental practice that enables to actually transcends any mental activity, more you practice it less you lose it during your thoughts process.

To make a long story short, this state of mind is the most concrete awareness exactly because it does not need any thought in order to be known.

It simply can't be imagined, which means that it is only directly known.

 

[dlorde]

It's a grand and metawoozical principle that existence exists, and the laws of being are all, like, lawsy and stuff.

If you concede that an equation equates and a ratio is a ratio, you've secretly acknowledged the great wisdom of the grand poohbah.

Yah. Some things can be viewed as constant and some variable; formulae describe constant relationships between variables, water is wet, the sun is hot... dress it up how you like, there's nothing deep about the bleedin' obvious.

 

[zooterkin]

Please keep to the topic of the thread.

Other members, and what they may or may not have said in another thread, are not the topic.

Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin

 

[realpaladin]

It simply can't be imagined, which means that it is only directly known.

Then why pretend with all the discussions and unscientific scientification?

Me seems a contradiction is found here? Willful misdirection or is it that you figured out none of Orme-Johnson's work, or *any* work from the MU for that matter, is scientifically acceptable?

 

[bruto]

I think I got up out of the wrong side of the bed this morning. Apologies if I got a little snarky.

Now back to the subject at hand which is, I think, the observation that existence itself implies duality. What have we learned, really, except that, in part owing to the limitations of language, everything that is anything presumes that everything else is not. If one thing moves, it moves relative to another. If it is light, it is lighter than something that is darker. It illustrates a grand cosmic thingamabobby, no doubt, to point this out. We can, like many metaphysicians of old and no so old, see a principle of being here. We can also, like many linguists of old and not so old, remember that we must always trip over our own limitations and our own language. We dualize being and non-being, but they are not two varieties of being. We can wax poetic about the grand principle of stability and instability being exemplified, but we have no evidence that they exist in an absolute form. Not everyone slammed the library door shut when they finished reading Plato.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I think I got up out of the wrong side of the bed this morning. Apologies if I got a little snarky.

Now back to the subject at hand which is, I think, the observation that existence itself implies duality. What have we learned, really, except that, in part owing to the limitations of language, everything that is anything presumes that everything else is not. If one thing moves, it moves relative to another. If it is light, it is lighter than something that is darker. It illustrates a grand cosmic thingamabobby, no doubt, to point this out. We can, like many metaphysicians of old and no so old, see a principle of being here. We can also, like many linguists of old and not so old, remember that we must always trip over our own limitations and our own language. We dualize being and non-being, but they are not two varieties of being. We can wax poetic about the grand principle of stability and instability being exemplified, but we have no evidence that they exist in an absolute form. Not everyone slammed the library door shut when they finished reading Plato.

D00D

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Well

is both "unchanged" and "changed" if you want to do "mystical", but it doesn't solve how you ought to live your life nor does it stop other humans from living differently; i.e. cognitive relativism.

 

[asydhouse]

Consciousness is a property of brains. It is action in the brain that affords awareness. Without that action, there is no awareness. So anytime you are aware of your deep stillness, you are not actually not thinking at all, because being aware is itself a thought.

By experiencing "thoughtless stillness", you are having active brain creation of awareness, i.e. thought.

So your subjective description of what you believe is a state of pure existence without thought is just a delusion that you are creating for yourself, with no objective validity.

Why on earth you think it worth your time to come here and try to pretend otherwise, and get all obsessive and defensive and emotional and argumentative (and probably generating sensations of frustration/aggression in yourself to boot)… is beyond me.

Oceanic states of mind are great, however you achieve them. Arguing about them and falsely representing them with pretentious appeals to sciencey jargon and flawed analogies is just … I dunno, what is it, doronshadmi?

Why bother? Do you get a commission or something? Shouldn't you be practicing what you preach, instead of wasting your time preaching your practice?

Bizarre.

 

[Donn]

* How about some evidence that this invariant deep calm actually exists?

This is direct awareness without any mental activity, it is actually existence in itself, and as long as you don't use the right mental practice in order to directly know it, the best you can do is only think about it.

Your reply raises a sub-question:
What evidence have you that awareness without mental activity is possible?


* Do you know that there's nothing more under/beyond it?

It is the simplest awareness that does not need any thoughts process (any mental activity) in order to directly be known, I can tell you that from my own direct experience.

Your reply does not compute, it merely restates the question. How do you know it's the simplest awareness?


* How can you say it's truly invariant?

This is exactly its own true nature.

You reply is a definition. If this is the only answer you have, I must tell you that you are then doing philosophy and not science.

For most people it can be known only if they are using a mental practice that enables to actually transcends any mental activity, more you practice it less you lose it during your thoughts process.

I understand your position in this: it is a practice and must be experienced. I am asking the above questions because you go beyond the boundaries of practice in your discussion here; you make many statements as if they were facts, so I am going to chase your facts.

If you concede it's purely perceptual and there is no actual science of meditation, yet, then I will change my approach.

 

[bruto]

My direct experience contradicts that of Doronshadmi, with relation to the idea that one can experience anything without "brain activity."

I have actually been without brain activity. It is called a coma. Believe me, there is no direct experience, no wisdom, no nothing. Experience returns when the brain turns back on.

Sure, you may discard certain thoughts and dedicate your brain activity to something new. Maybe you can even train your brain to transcend certain kinds of thoughts and go someplace else. But your brain is working. It is not itself being transcended. If you're having any experience at all, your brain is on.

All the rest, as far as I'm concerned, is new age baloney, perpetrated by people who do not understand what actually happens when your brain shuts off.

 

[Donn]

Thanks for the reminder bruto, one can get swamped by the tactics and the bs.

 

[asydhouse]

…. and? Silence.

Looks like there's nothing behind the handwaving distractions of ticky tacky metaphors then, now that we've shifted the discussion away from that diversion and onto the actual substance of the experiences in question….

 

[realpaladin]

I think he is thinking. My prediction (and I have been successful about 90% of the time in a different thread) is that at some point we get a new position/argument/claim, quite out of the blue.

And to be honest, that is his good right; after all we are discussing things on the jrEf boards and discussion hones the hypotheses.

 

[doronshadmi]

I am asking the above questions because you go beyond the boundaries of practice in your discussion here

Not at all.

For most people TM practice enables to directly know the calm state of mind, that is the only aware state of mind that by principle can't be imagined, exactly because all possible imagines are done only during the thoughts process.

I have actually been without brain activity. It is called a coma.

The calm state of mind that is directly known without the need of any thoughts process, does not eliminate the existence of thoughts process in once brain, nor the ability to measure once brain's wave.

Moreover if brain's waves are measured during this direct calm state, they manifest higher correlations among brain's parts that are defiantly not systematically measured during comma.

In other words, brain's function during comma, are essentially different from brain's function during direct awareness of the calm state of mind.

bruto, you still do not comprehend that the discussed framework is at least invariant AND variant.

If you're having any experience at all, your brain is on.

Directly know the calm state of mind is done only if the brain is on, where "brain is on" does not mean that the known is achieved only during the thoughts process.

Here is some analogy (and please remember this is only an analogy that is done at the level of thoughts process that can't actually address the discussed subject):

Please think about a radio which is turned on.

By analogy (which is no more than analogy and not the actual thing) the calm state of mind is a radio which is turned on but the volume is = zero.

Also by this analogy (which is no more than analogy and not the actual thing) the active state of mind is a radio which is turned on but the volume is > zero.

So in both cases the fact that the radio is turned on is independent on any particular volume, or in other words a turned on radio is invariant AND variant.

 

[Donn]

In other words, brain's function during comma, are essentially different from brain's function during direct awareness of the calm state of mind.

Perhaps some evidence?

* How about some evidence that this invariant deep calm actually exists?
** What evidence have you that awareness without mental activity is possible?

* Do you know that there's nothing more under/beyond it?
** How do you know it's the simplest awareness?

* How can you say it's truly invariant?
ANSWERED: "This is exactly its own true nature." i.e. It's a definition.

Please concede that there is no actual science of meditation.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Non-cont.png[/qimg]

is both "unchanged" and "changed" if you want to do "mystical", but it doesn't solve how you ought to live your life nor does it stop other humans from living differently; i.e. cognitive relativism.

Your logical reasoning does not fit in order to address Absolute (invariant) AND Relative (variant) as one unified consciousness.

By using an analogy, the calm state at the bottom of the ocean and the wavy activity on its surface are simultaneously aspects of the same ocean.

 

[doronshadmi]

Perhaps some evidence?

During TM one is fully aware of itself (whether there is thoughts' process, or not), unlike under comma.

* How about some evidence that this invariant deep calm actually exists?
** What evidence have you that awareness without mental activity is possible?

It can't be imagined, only directly known.

* Do you know that there's nothing more under/beyond it?
** How do you know it's the simplest awareness?

The simplest awareness can't be imagined, only directly known.

Please concede that there is no actual science of meditation.

Actual science is at least invariant AND variant and so is the case about TM.

 

[doronshadmi]

We can wax poetic about the grand principle of stability and instability being exemplified

Stability can't be imagined, only directly known.

, but we have no evidence that they exist in an absolute form.

The invariant is absolute, the variant is relative, and useful reality is at least Absolute AND Relative.

 

[Donn]

During TM one is fully aware of itself, unlike under comma.

Sorry, this does not help give evidence that "brain's function during comma, are essentially different from brain's function during direct awareness of the calm state of mind."

* How about some evidence that this invariant deep calm actually exists?
** What evidence have you that awareness without mental activity is possible?

It can't be imagined, only directly known.

I didn't ask about imagination.


* Do you know that there's nothing more under/beyond it?
** How do you know it's the simplest awareness?

The simplest awareness can't be imagined, only directly known.

I didn't ask about imagination.

Please concede that there is no actual science of meditation.

Actual science is at least invariant AND variant and so is the case about TM.

I did not ask for your interpretation of science.

 

[doronshadmi]

Sorry, this does not help give evidence that "brain's function during comma, are essentially different from brain's function during direct awareness of the calm state of mind."

During TM one is fully aware of itself (whether there is thoughts' process, or not), unlike under comma.

is helpful to anyone that directly knows that self awareness is independent of thoughts' process. It is probably not your case.

* How about some evidence that this invariant deep calm actually exists?
** What evidence have you that awareness without mental activity is possible?
I didn't ask about imagination.

* Do you know that there's nothing more under/beyond it?
** How do you know it's the simplest awareness?
I didn't ask about imagination.

The calm state of mind is only directly known (and therefore can't be imagined). Furthermore, also be aware that you try to get a satisfied answer at the level of your thoughts' process, which is simply impossible as long as you were not directly aware of yourself without thoughts.

Please concede that there is no actual science of meditation.
I did not ask for your interpretation of science.

This is not only my personal interpretation of science.