False/half awakenings (spiritually speaking), getting through it.

reply to post by Harman

Yes, I recommend the cds if at all possible.

Originally posted by Harman

Originally posted by RogerT
Cool, I also have the hemisync sound files, but have been just to busy to get started with them. Maybe next year

Just be sure you have the FLAC versions of the files, MP3 messes with the sound or something, not sure what but FLAC is better for files like that

.

Yep, i got the FLAC version. Apparently the codec needs to be lossless to avoid messing with the hemisync or something like that. Huge files, but free thanks to file-sharing

Originally posted by v01i0

I am sorry that I brought these Jungian Archetypes into the conversation. I've researched them some and I merrily seem to assume they're being present when they're not

No problem at all. Jung has some really interesting ideas. On another thread, someone posted some information about his theory of tarot cards and synchronicity that I am hoping to look into further. He was an amazing man, and clearly had some experience of the things we are discussing here. Bringing that in did lead me to consider how the brain does try to make the unknowable knowable by translating, (poorly) into that which it can know, which can include archetypes and other sensory experience.

Originally posted by v01i0
IMHO (and I think you are referring the same, yes?) there is knowledge and there is understanding, and the last is really the thing which we talk about when we talk about 'enlightment'. And by intiuitive understanding, you perhaps need no knowledge a priori. But of course, knowledge helps one in understanding.

Yes. Very well put. I always go out of my way to elaborate when the word "gnosis" comes up because my philosophy professors took the term to mean "knowledge." And left it there. I wrote endless papers trying to show that the way the word was used sometimes meant "knowledge" as we are using it, but it also was used to mean "understanding" the way we are using it. Philosophy itself I love. As a field, it is very frustrating. There are many people who are very well regarded in the field that seem to be reading an entirely different Plato than the one I read and love.

Have you read the Seventh Letter? If you havent I suggest it. In it Plato goes over some of the same issues we are discussing here, how understanding is shared, and how inadequate language is to convey the "spiritual" or "enlightenment" experience. He comes to the conclusion that it is best never written, and I agree with him, which makes it uncomfortable for me since I like to try to write about it even knowing it is impossible. Lol. One of my favorite intellects would classify me as sort of dumb for wanting to try to convey the experience or understanding with words, but I console myself with the thought that at least I dont expect to succeed. We find comfort where we can get it I suppose. You would have to sort through or skim a lot of political talk about what was going on in his time. The actual part on the language and understanding issue is late in the middle, and it is an unexpected gem in the middle of some pretty average talk about current (at the time) events.

classics.mit.edu...

His works for me were a light in the darkness. He is clearly not the only one to know the experience, many, many, people have had it, and some of them have written it down in some form. Often in poetry, or what we now consider religious texts, but Plato and the other Greek mystics appeal to me because they, like me, want to understand it as well as experience it. It is that combination of the spiritual, or mystical and the scientific that appeals to me in their works. Modern scientists, (not all though) reject "that which cannot be managed with knowledge" as do many modern, (academic) philosophers. At the root of both traditions however, we find people who accept that science, philosophy and the unknowable are deeply entwined, and they accept the limits of science, and the mind, while at the same time stretching the boundaries of what the mind and science can know. Like you said, there is this yearning to "know" with the mind even what one understands is fundamentally "unknowable." A pushing against the boundary, and even the slightest gain is a huge victory. There are those who argue that rather than the evolution of the brain driving culture, (our knowledge base) that it is perhaps the other way round. That the way we use our brains, (culture) is driving the evolution of the brain. I like that idea. Perhaps all the pushing at the boundaries will pay off in the end.

Originally posted by v01i0
Back then in eighties, there was no internet, and I was not the 'reading' type, so I had no knowledge basis on which build up these theories. So where they come from? I guess from intuition. Someone might disagree, but it is all the same for me.

I know what you mean. I too have had since childhood that intuitive understanding flood in about the things I contemplated. Although I personally did not contemplate black holes at the time. I was more interested in human behavior, the "whys" and the motivations for the things people do. Seeing the larger picture rather than just their self reported motives. Like you, there was also a time in my teens when I "turned it off." I had my first small taste of some oneness experience then, and I immediately shut the door. Firmly. I knew enough about psychology to know that if you have an experience of feeling no difference between you and God, that was a sign of insanity. Lol. So I didnt even let the experience unfold, I just said "No." I didnt even want to go there. I put away all of my things on the metaphysical, and never looked at it again till the experience I had as an adult broke down that resistance.

I went far, far, in the other direction, much like many scientists and other "knowledgeable" sorts do, and I focused entirely on the material, sort of like a charm to keep the weird mystical thoughts and such at bay. Fortunately for me, it was a crappy charm and one day the dam broke. So I empathize with your love of "the daughters of the Earth," lol, I didnt focus on romance, but on the other "things of the Earth" like financial security and "knowledge." I dont know if your reasoning was similar, or just hormones, but I think in the adolescence something happens to the ego to strengthen it, and I think for most of us there is some firm turning away from the Self in those years. Whether because it is "childish nonsense" or like me, one thinks perhaps one might be going mad.

I am so glad you wrote. It has been a lovely conversation and in this thread I have been so happy to find so many who have had such similar experiences.

If I were going to sort and categorize, I would actually say there seem to be three separate things going on, but that they are all related somehow. There seems to be the "oneness" understanding, and the "near death" sort of experience, which so far in the descriptions sounds more personal, just the person and their higher Self, and some paranormal sensory things that allow some visual experiences of energy and such. So far, the paranormal sensory things seem more tied to the "personal" experience, the near death sort of thing. Of course, there really hasnt been enough (in number) of participants to really say.

It is interesting to me because the personal near death type experience seems to be much more in line with the results that were obtained in that study of whether or not the "enlightenment" experience can be induced. Many of those also had quite a lot of "visuals" (lights, tubes, colors) where in my own there were none. It was as we discussed more of an experiential thing that bypassed the senses entirely. Though later when I was trying to think about it and understand it with my mind, I did notice that my brain was interpreting it and used words like voices, and images, etc. But in truth, the experience itself contained none of those. It is just the way my brain HAS to handle the input because what it really was is out of its realm. I wonder if that is the case for some of those who describe visuals?

Edit to correct italics gone wild.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]

Originally posted by RogerT


The only problem with the 'sober' method is it is soooo sloww. Of course, you have a whole lifetime so what's the rush, but I never was very good at the patience thing.

Or if you have infinity, rather than just a lifetime. One of the things I walked away with, (but it took a while for that part to be apparent, maybe a year after the whole thing) was that it doesnt matter at all if it is "me" that understands it ever.

If "I" am only one aspect of something that contains all things in all times, there is no need for "me" to worry about my enlightenment. In this lifetime or any other that this "me" may have were reincarnation to be a fact. It doesnt matter at all if I am a sinner or a Buddha, except in how I feel while I am living. I feel that you "feel" best, most at ease, happy and peaceful when you are performing whatever role you are designed to play, but I feel the play itself is self correcting. You cannot mess it up. It has infinity to perfect itself or to experience not only the "one" ending we assume it wants, but all possible endings. (If it can end at all.)

So, for me, I had the experience, and I do what I feel I am meant to do not because if I dont I will mess anything up, or because the universe or the Divine needs me to, but because my own subjective experience of the "play" or "dream" is more pleasant if I do. I dont need to be the Buddha. Someone, sometime will. And if I am not separate from anything, in a sense, I will be too. If I did have some great awareness that changed the world in this lifetime, it still wouldnt be personal. Everyone else, (also being connected) would have the same "result."

In Oneness, it seems to me, what happens to any one of the aspects has an effect on the whole. How any one aspect manages sends ripples through the whole, either disturbing, (allegorical) or gentling it. So, it seems to me my only "job" is to do the best I can to smooth things, accept rather than reject. My reward (as an individual as an Ego) is not after death, but here on Earth as I reap the rewards immediately for "loving" or accepting "What Is." In theory, it would only take one of us individuals to completely become Divine Acceptance embodied, and, also in theory, that should transform the whole. ( And like Douglas Adams says, "no one has to die or be nailed to a cross or anything.") Perhaps that was what Jesus was aiming to do. Or the Buddha. But as I see it, if I dont do that, (and it looks highly unlikely that I will, I have trouble with 60/40%) even just smoothing the ripples a bit in my own way will still change things, and maybe if not me, someone else will manage what I have not and push the percentage of Awareness while embodied fully to the 100% mark.

If one takes Oneness all the way, any one of us could, and which one of us does is absolutely irrelevant.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Nice This is merely a quick reply to let you know that I have read (and I will re-read) your post and that I really do appreciate it. I will hopefully comment it later on, but I first have to read that 7th letter of Plato you linked. Thanks for that too, I think I have never read it. A quick note in the end; yeah, it seems like we really had similar experiences in the past, altho we may have reacted to them in different way. Anyways, it very informative to share these thoughts and I really hope that even some other people than just you and me get something out of it!



All the best,

-v

PS. Oh just wanted to say that other people has posted good info as well. I somehow like RogerT's post too

[edit on 5-9-2008 by v01i0]

If you want to take the short path, Google "salvia divinorum".

Of course this post will be deleted in short order, even though nothing illegal is mentioned.

Just like the last time.

I don't think that will get your post deleted.

The rules state we cannot turn the thread into a discussion about our personal 'drug' experiences, but including discussion of plants and their plant chemistry should be ok (mods step in if I am wrong)

Anyway, I've been banging on about plants for half this thread, so either you didn't read it, or you think Salvia is 'different'.

Personally, my research has led me to conclude that the closer to '___' you get, the more 'pure' the experience, as it is likely that the '___' infusion into the pineal is the root cause of the 'spititual enlightenment' experience. (see my posts regarding the dark room (cave) retreat etc. and Rick Strassman's work)

The plants have their own teachings, so when you ingest a psychoactive plant, you get enlightenment plus.

What I mean by that, is the plants have their ways of teaching, and although the destination may be similar, the journey can be quite distinct:

Aya can be quite terrifying and visceral
Yopo is more out of body and visionary
San Pedro is very 'love love'
Mushies are hilarious etc.

Peace



[edit on 5/9/08 by RogerT]

Originally posted by RogerT

What I mean by that, is the plants have their ways of teaching, and although the destination may be similar, the journey can be quite distinct:

Aya can be quite terrifying and visceral
Yopo is more out of body and visionary
San Pedro is very 'love love'
Mushies are hilarious etc.

I have had very little experience with hallucinogens, but I must admit that it scares me. A lot. I have a very dark imagination, and if there was a chance that those ideas could become the reality of the moment...ugh. Then again it also has to do with "who you know" so that keeps many of us safe.

The truly enlightened understand that you cannot have "light" without "dark". Attempting to stomp out the "dark" leads to the blindness of "light" and you're right back where you were in the "dark" only blinded by "light" instead; and vice versa.

-Euclid

Roger...Illusions...others..this is an awesome thread. I do not have anything to say at the moment, but I do hope it continues.

Originally posted by Sonya610
this is an awesome thread [...] I do hope it continues.

Don't you worry about that! And I do agree with you

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Jung has some really interesting ideas. On another thread, someone posted some information about his theory of tarot cards and synchronicity that I am hoping to look into further.

Oh yes he has! Just read his Memories, dreams and reflections unless you haven't. I guarantee you'll find it worthwhile. By the way, do you have link to that thread? I tried searching with keywords 'jung' and 'tarot' but got quite many results and I didn't have time to skim through everyone of them. I'd like to have time to reply also

By the way, I am still reading that 7th letter of Plato, it'll take while since it quite long text and I have lots of other things to read as well. I've read perhaps some 1/5 of it, and it is interesting. But I am not ready to comment on that yet.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
His works for me were a light in the darkness. He is clearly not the only one to know the experience, many, many, people have had it, and some of them have written it down in some form. Often in poetry, or what we now consider religious texts, but Plato and the other Greek mystics appeal to me because they, like me, want to understand it as well as experience it. It is that combination of the spiritual, or mystical and the scientific that appeals to me in their works.

I know what you mean. I've tried to comprehend Plato about a decade ago, but I was such a noob in these matters back then that I guess I couldn't comprehend it properly. And if I recall correctly, I didn't read Plato himself, but some 'Plato Essentials' - book of selected quotes or comments, or something like that. And that would be like getting know of bible merely by listening someone preaching Wouldn't work I guess. I barely got crasp of his 'theory of forms', but never bothered to look beyond that. I must quickly run into the library and get all the Plato's works A.S.A.P.

Instead of Plato, in recent times I have put effort on trying to understand Pythagoras. As far as I know, Pythagoras was Plato's predecessor in esoteric knowledge. Pythagoras formed his school in ancient Greece much like Plato, and I think they are pretty much same on essential parts. Some even claim that Pythagoras hold more knowledge than Plato, but who knows? I truly wish that Pythagoras texts would have been preserved, but I think they burned them like Nazis Luckily there are some other references to his teachings.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Modern scientists, (not all though) reject "that which cannot be managed with knowledge" as do many modern, (academic) philosophers.

Yes this is sad. Everything 'occult' is left for religion to handle; and since modern science refuses to touch these things, yet it has more authority over giving explanation to people than religion does, many of these important things will remain untouched! It is sad really. Then, because these things are left for "religion", they become "evil", since church puts stamp of "satan worshipping" on most of these important occult anomalies. And if not that, they fail to explain anything altogether.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I was more interested in human behavior, the "whys" and the motivations for the things people do.

Well IMO thats the second part of our universe isn't it? And perhaps the more important one afterall. All the experiences we have about the world is experienced from within, not from those black holes hehe.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I dont know if your reasoning was similar, or just hormones

Later really I never understood that I was kinda a connected, and when I hit teens I went with the flow. And everyone can imagine where these 'flows' tend to lead nowadays Not towards enlightment, thats for sure.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Many of those also had quite a lot of "visuals" (lights, tubes, colors) where in my own there were none.

Well heck That sounds very similar to my experiences. I went even so far that in one point I was quite certain that all this was imagination of very wild minds. Basically story telling and fantasies really. I neither had any of those visuals or audibles, so I was quite ready to dismiss them as nonesense. Somehow I managed (luckily) to keep my mind open and not just dismiss it, and lately I've been capable actually to have some such experiences (maybe I am going nuts ) I don't know, but maybe you want to check out my thread 'about mystical experiences' (if you haven't already!), which can be found on my signature. It is not exclusive and no way a complete theory, merely some immature pondering with some Jungian thoughts.

Well, I have almost used the characters allowed for single post so I'll quit here. I wish the best for all of you!

Sincerely,

-v

[edit on 6-9-2008 by v01i0]

Here is the thread;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And the post you are looking for is Bsray's. The work he is recommending is "Synchronicity an Acausal Connecting Principle."

Originally posted by v01i0
By the way, I am still reading that 7th letter of Plato, it'll take while since it quite long text and I have lots of other things to read as well. I've read perhaps some 1/5 of it, and it is interesting. But I am not ready to comment on that yet.

He doesnt get into the part that directly relates to the mystic elements till perhaps the last 1/3 of the letter, the bulk of the letter reports on current events of his time. This is the beginning of the part where he goes firmly into his theory of why these mystic things are best left unwritten in direct form, in case you want to skip right to the meat of the mystical discussion.

classics.mit.edu...

On my arrival, I thought that first I must put to the test the question whether Dionysios had really been kindled with the fire of philosophy, or whether all the reports which had come to Athens were empty rumours. Now there is a way of putting such things to the test which is not to be despised and is well suited to monarchs, especially to those who have got their heads full of erroneous teaching, which immediately my arrival I found to be very much the case with Dionysios.

Originally posted by v01i0
I know what you mean. I've tried to comprehend Plato about a decade ago, but I was such a noob in these matters back then that I guess I couldn't comprehend it properly. And if I recall correctly, I didn't read Plato himself, but some 'Plato Essentials' - book of selected quotes or comments, or something like that.

You can, rather than purchase or borrow the works, get them directly online. Since they are classics, they are freely available there.

I DO recommend, if you are drawn to Plato, that you ignore what others say about what he is saying. My own finding is that the non-philosophic human mind is lazy. (And many who call themselves philosophers Plato would NOT call a true philosopher.) It wants an "answer." Plato gives you no answers in a concise and succinct form. What his works do is lead the mind through an exercise in each of his works in the art of looking, questioning, and reasoning. If one is reading the work with no firm expectation, and just following the argument, trying at every step to "see" what is happening, ones mind is practicing the type of reasoning Plato believes is consistent with fluid intelligence capable of handling the "unknowable." If one is reading the works looking for "the answer," one is left unsatisfied and annoyed at Plato for being so vague and non-committal. (As many readers of Plato are) He is not giving you "the answer" he does not intend to, as you will see when you reach that part of the "7th Letter." He doesnt think it is good to give "the answer" until you understand how to think about mystical things in general. What he is doing, in the texts, is showing you over and over and over what the answer is NOT. He believes, as I do, that "the answer" cannot be spoken with words.

You can no more truly share YOUR experience with someone "uninitiated" than could I, or he. You can only point at it. The problem with pointing at it is described in the Buddhist tale of the person who tries to point the moon out to someone and they persist in staring at his finger. Words are like that with mystical things, they are fingers, pointing towards something each must actually "see" for themselves. What has happened in every tradition is that the words, the fingers, have become sacred when in truth they are virtually meaningless except as pointers. The moon is sitting right there behind the words, and no one is even looking because they are so busy killing and hating each other because the "fingers" are different.

So Plato, in his infinite wisdom as an analyst of human behavior, chose NOT to use his finger, (words) to directly or explicitly point at the moon, but rather to give you exercises in the art of "looking." In seeing past the particulars to the "form" of anything. He is trying to give the mind naturally inclined to "see" all the examples he can of particulars being mistaken for the underlying "form" or essence of the thing. And he is trying to give you some understanding of the "whys" this mistake occurs psychologically. To make the word "form" make more sense, it is in incommunicalble part of the mystic vision. That underlying "Truth" that none of us can share with someone else. Others who have experienced it can understand that the form you have seen is the same form I have seen, and we can look past the particulars of how we choose to describe it, but the form itself is unsharable.

Each has to "see" or experience it on their own. It is truly a "secret" not because the individual mystic wishes to keep it to themself, but because as the etymology of the word suggests, it is "unspeakable." Most mystics desire nothing more than to give it to another. It simply cannot be done directly using language or other symbols. All that can be done is to attempt to recreate the "loosening" of the mind and its controlling tendencies, its desire to KNOW in a concrete way in hope the crack in the "ego" will occur and the realization will flood in.

Originally posted by v01i0
Instead of Plato, in recent times I have put effort on trying to understand Pythagoras. As far as I know, Pythagoras was Plato's predecessor in esoteric knowledge.

You can even go back to Hereclitus, or Parmenides. Or the Rig Veda. I dont know that this "mystic" vision has a human "originator." If it is fair to attribute authorship of it to any person at all. I was ignorant to all of the ancient "fathers and mothers" of the experience when I had mine. There seem to be times in the human continuum where the experience floods many minds, in many places. Those that can write it in some form, tend to. Women are lacking in the "mystic tradition," but I think not because they lacked the experience, but because in many of the cultures where writing existed, women had no access to the skill at the time. I think many, many more than we ever know of "see it" and that it is an accident of fate if one is acknowledged as a mystic for it, or burned or ignored. None of us owns it. None of us can claim it. Parmenides wrote it out fairly well, for those who can already "see" it. And Plato criticized him roundly in "The Sophist" not for what he he describes, (which is what many "philosophers" today believe, that Plato disagreed with him on the vision itself) but because he put it in writing where it could be so thoroughly misunderstood and twisted as he has his "Sophist" do in the work.

www.gmu.edu...

I cannot really say that I think everyone should read Plato. I think the truth is that everyone has to find the way it makes sense to them the best. Each individual "mind" is primed for understanding by habit, culture, nature, and preference. Plato's way of describing it, (and the Tao de Ching) make very good sense to MY mind. The vision itself is everywhere. In Rumi, in the Rig Veda, in the teachings of Jesus, Jung likely, (I havent yet read him) Spinoza, etc., etc., I dont think there is an author ALL should read, but rather one should follow ones own interests and inclinations to the version that will work best for you.

What is fantastic about this point in time in the human continuum, is that for the first time ever that we know, many of us can, share and point to each other various things in real time in a way that probably has never occurred before. We can have a gathering of many that have had the experience, where before, each was left virtually alone in the wilderness.

Originally posted by RogerT

The 'real' dark room experience is very different, as prolonged periods without light cause chemical changes in the brain. Very basically, melatonin gets converted eventually to '___' via a couple other chemicals. It takes about 9 days though, and ANY exposure to light nullifies the effect, so you gotta live in the dark for a while. Traditionally, a cave retreat was the final spiritual 'exercise' for the would-be initiate, where he/she would experience death and rebirth - see the light.

You might be interested in the work of a philosopher named Peter Kingsley.

Like me, he is a mystic student of the ancient Greeks. Unlike me, he chooses as his intellectual "father" Parmenides.

What he has done, which is what I think you would find interesting, is come to the same or similar conclusion to the one you hold that this experience can be precipitated in the darkness. He has uncovered a tradition of "initiation" in the Greek "mysteries" that includes being led into a cave and kept there for a period of time with someone who has "mastered" the experience as a guide or watcher over you.

When I first read that, I was intrigued, but my first thought was that it may be some gas or something that collected in the cave that induced the experience. Scientists are theorizing that the chamber of the Oracle at Delphi was built right over a fissure that they believe in those times released some gasses that could have been inducing the trances which allowed the prophesying.

www.sciam.com...

Now a new study, published in this month's issue of Geology, reveals that the purported trance-inducing gases may have been very real after all. Following up on the ancients' assertions that the gases rose from fissures in the bedrock, J. Z. de Boer of Wesleyan University and his colleagues located several young geologic faults that fit that description. The scientists say that hydrocarbon gases from bituminous limestone probably brought on the Pythia's trance. In fact, the team found ethane, methane and ethylene in spring water located near the oracle. Ethylene, which has served as anesthesia in the past, is known to produce euphoric effects similar to those described by Plutarch.

Now, in light of what you have shared, I am considering the possibility that your '___' rush induced by the lack of any light may well be the agent. (Or acted in concert with any possible emissions)

You may find his work interesting.

en.wikipedia.org...(scholar)

My main disagreement with Mr. Kingsley is his interpretation of Plato. I feel he may have interpreted the "Sophist" as many moderns do as an argument against the vision of Parmenides, where I am quite certain it was not, but rather was an argument against the danger of using an explicit way of expressing it, as opposed to an argument against the vision itself. Perhaps someday circumstances will allow me to press my case, but as he is a fast rising star in the spiritual "scene" I rather doubt it at this point, though I was able to have a brief conversation with him once about the experience itself after my own. Although we disagree about Plato, I wholly support his read of Plato's predecessors, and if you have any interest in that tradition, you will likely enjoy his works.

Originally posted by euclid
The truly enlightened understand that you cannot have "light" without "dark". Attempting to stomp out the "dark" leads to the blindness of "light" and you're right back where you were in the "dark" only blinded by "light" instead; and vice versa.

-Euclid

I agree. Once the definitions of light and dark are clarified.

I do not believe "good/bad," "life/death" or any of the dualistic concepts are in truth separable. I think the attempt to do so by the human mind is indeed, as the Christian Bible indicates in the story of the fall from grace in Genesis, is indeed the original "sin" (which translates to "mistake" as well as how we currently think of "sin").

I also reject this idea of a "battle" between good and evil, the forces of "light and darkness" waging some war as it is commonly held forth by many religious people both traditional and "new age." I feel that those who hold this belief in this battle are both mistaking the use of "light" or "illumination" as a synonym for "goodness" and misunderstanding the teaching on non-duality or non-judgment that many many teachers have tried to share.

When I personally, (and I do not speak for everyone or anyone but myself) use the term "light" I am speaking of "illumination" or "understanding" not "goodness." Including and especially the understanding that one cannot "know" everything about Absolute Truth with the mind in any real and concrete way that satisfies the "mind." For the mind, there will always be "shadow" or ignorance of the Truth, though the person may very well have become "enlightened" via an experience that has "shown" the Truth in a way that allowed no "shadow" of ignorance. Illumination that is complete is possible, for the Self, that aspect of us that is part of the undivided One that contains all the many, but it is impossible in the physical world, the physical mind. What we think of as "bad" is simply that which our understanding of is incomplete. If we could have with the mind complete understanding, we would see the perfection of the "whole" and the label "bad" would fall away, but not the circumstance that we previously labeled "bad" itself.

Once the experience is over, and the mind is left with the memory of it, aspects of the experience immediately become obscured in "shadow" again, as the mind it not capable of sharing completely the "understanding" that the Self, the part of a being that is Aware without thought, can experience but also not "know." We again are left with the dualistic mind, the judgmental mind, the question is, for those that have had this experience, can we deal with this dualism and judgment as "real" to our minds while maintaining the understanding that it is illusory that was shown to our "Self?"

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Rgr, thanks for posting the link to the thread. Will take a look on it at some point when the time starts bending to my will

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I DO recommend, if you are drawn to Plato, that you ignore what others say about what he is saying.

I definately agree. And besides Plato, this is true almost with every and thing. It is like believing in rumours that are told about your neighbours.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
You can even go back to Hereclitus, or Parmenides. Or the Rig Veda. I dont know that this "mystic" vision has a human "originator."

Yepz. It is ages old wisdom, or practical knowledge learned from empirical experience due the time (old, old time). I guess they all are saying the same thing; this knowledge flows from time thousands (or even ten of thousands) years ago; It flows from the Hierarchs of Egypt, from Brahmans of India, it mixes in with teachings of Zoroaster and Judaism - all these tells the same story, which is the psychology of human being.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I cannot really say that I think everyone should read Plato. I think the truth is that everyone has to find the way it makes sense to them the best.

Definately we have to listen our intuition about the way we need to go. I'm glad to you too are perfectly aware of this. But don't worry, I know I like Plato now that I propably may be able to understand him At least I do hope so.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
What is fantastic about this point in time in the human continuum, is that for the first time ever that we know, many of us can, share and point to each other various things in real time in a way that probably has never occurred before. We can have a gathering of many that have had the experience, where before, each was left virtually alone in the wildern

This is a very valid and important point. I've often thought as well that this online communication has unimaginable potential for information to spread. Of course there is that other side as with every "tool" we use. Propaganda also flies around fast now

Thanks again for your comprehensive post, it has been so far pleasure to read your thoughts and answers. May you find your way into Israel

Sincerely,

-v

PS. Sorry Illusionsaregrander, but I have to quote your answer to Euclid because you are almost the only person I've seen on ATS that understand this (apologies, of course there may be many others who understand this, but it is rare nevertheless) - In my opinion this thought needs visibility:

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I do not believe "good/bad," "life/death" [...]
I also reject this idea of a "battle" between good and evil [...]

While I rarely want to impose anything, but I'd like to make a humble wish that people would make attempt to understand this: There is no good and evil, there is only the observer who may think that something is either good or evil.

And I have to comment that life/death conception. Yes, they are merely two fundamental conditions of single anomaly which is eternal existence. Single coin, two sides, as they say

[edit on 6-9-2008 by v01i0]

'there is no good or evil, right or wrong, hot or cold, left or right, up or down ...'
uh oh!

Well of course, in the presence of 'oneness' this may be so, however we do live in 3d do we not, and dualistic distinctions are as necessary for us in this world as our egos.

There's this dryness, this pomposity about intellectualising/philosophising (or are they the same thing). I mean, we have to trawl through a hundred flowery words to find something to connect with. It's elitist isn't it? Come on, cut to the chase

sorry, love me love me.

If you stick your head in a vat of boiling oil, you aren't going to say, 'hmm, well then, that is neither hot nor cold, good nor bad, it is what it is and I am the observer.' You are going to say, 'holy #, that's hot, it hurts, it's bad and I did a wrong thing'

Question: why are we here in 3D? If it were to achieve oneness, then surely we would have stayed right where we were?

I know some say there is no point or purpose to life, but (after lots of philosophising) I have to disagree. Not saying I have any idea what the purpose is, but I have a sneaky suspicion it's got a lot to do with doing, rather than being.

I went through a decade with the 'just being' crowd, and it was really nice, we felt very wise, important and we were 'really in the flow man', however, I could never pay the rent and ended up financially destroyed and homeless. Thank god for the buddhists who'll let anyone shack up with them for free and even get the poverty stricken locals to feed you

The just doing crowd are even worse though, like manic androids running left and right at the ego's whim, praying they'll stay busy enough to not have to confront life and more likely death.

I decided that the trick to life (whilst you're waiting to die) is to throw oneself into doing, and learn to 'just be' whilst you're fully in the process of doing

Wu Wei - 'Pooh way? , 'No Wu Wei'

xx

edit to make post more interesting

[edit on 6/9/08 by RogerT]

reply to post by RogerT


I am not sure if your attempt to mock the 'philosophers' were appointed to me, but I still gonna give you a quick reply.

Originally posted by RogerT
If you stick your head in a vat of boiling oil, you aren't going to say, 'hmm, well then, that is neither hot nor cold, good nor bad, it is what it is and I am the observer.' You are going to say, 'holy #, that's hot, it hurts, it's bad and I did a wrong thing'

The reality is always dependant of the observer of course. For the observer, there is good and evil, hot and cold and so on. No doubt someone stealing all my property, clothes and even the ashes from the stove, would appear as evil to me. But isn't it all good to the one whom just stealed those from me? for the one just had a nice pile of ashes, clothes and some other crap.

I am not sure of course, but I think what Illusionsaregrander meant is, that those words meant to value something (value statements) are merely subjective. Unless you can completely deny yourself, you cannot never get beyond this boundary. But from really objective perspective they don't exist. Something else exists however. Maybe the hot and cold are appearances of some specific energy? Maybe good and evil are also appearences of some specific capability?

I'm bit disappointed that you didn't hook on that life/death concept, cuz that would (may) be something more explainable for me. Guess I gonna explain it nevertheless, so bear with me!

Birth and Death, what fascinating phenomenons they are! When we live, we are experiencing the short period in this material world. But we have already existed before we were born - not consciously of course. Not in the way so that that we could have memories or personalities. And also the material we are made of existed before our personalities were born, and it will continue to exist once we die! Also the will of our shape existed in potentiality in our race, in our parents and ancestors. So in this light, life and death are merely phases in our eternal existence.

Much love brother

Sincerely,

-v

PS.

Originally posted by RogerT
Question: why are we here in 3D?

Are we? Well I don't know! (looks around) Guess we are? I think I can only say that's because we've sinned? We fell in love with daughters of earth, which is material, the 3D. I'm sure we can get past 3D yet I don't know how!

[edit on 6-9-2008 by v01i0]

Yeah yeah I've read all that stuff too. So what. So we are eternal infinite beings just vacationing in 3d for a while. So now what?

OK, I'm being too glib, that's a biggie to get for most. I wonder if I get it even now - probably not, that's why I like to have the aya experience as a reminder.

Still, when you go to a football match, do you spend your time kicking the ball, or do you spend your time trying to 'experience' yourself out of the game, or philosophising about how the ball doesn't really exist and if only everyone would get that, then we wouldn't have to run around after it?

Philosophy is fun as a mental exercise, but I'm gonna say it's highly overrated as a means to living. when you're thinking, you're usually missing the experience!

edit for better analogy

[edit on 6/9/08 by RogerT]

[edit on 6/9/08 by RogerT]

Originally posted by RogerT
OK, I'm being too glib, that's a biggie to get for most. I wonder if I get it even now - probably not, that's why I like to have the aya experience as a reminder.

Or, and this is a possibility that you could consider, the Aya experience may not take you the whole way. It could go either way, of course, and the natural experience falls short of the whole "view" as well, but you appear very certain that the Aya dose of '___' is the ultimate, where I personally question that. I could not know any more than you could if there is more beyond what I experienced. I can only know the limits of what I experienced. The same definitely applies to you. You cannot know if your experience of the '___' rush is "more" than or even equal to the "un-induced" version. However, I see in the outcome of the two types of experience a difference. By your own words, the Shamans that go there daily into the experience come back not so changed by it in their daily life. You say you feel the need to keep going back to it. Plato, and the other mystics, describe an experience that changes the entirety of a person while they are living their day to day lives. So, while I cannot make a sound "better than" judgment of the two experiences, I will say they do not seem to be the same experience at least in their "result."

In the philosophies that you make light of, there is no similar fixation on the experience itself, no addiction to it, no need to keep going back for more. The "fixation" if there is one, is "given THAT, how do we then live?" Which, ironically, is basically what you seem to be asking with your sports analogy. It seems to me, that while you are doing less philosophizing verbally, you are still not finding the answer to that question by just randomly "doing." Nor by repeating the experience. Even my own experience while it changed my profoundly was not "enough" it was the years of sorting it through that allowed that experience to change the way my life "feels" to me as I live it. It was a catalyst. Not the whole thing.

The past couple posts aside, which were not about the experience itself as much as about the technical difficulties of expressing it to someone who hasnt had it, and while not of interest to you, it is definitely an interest of my own, and others who write. Those posts were not about the "how to live?" question. They were about the "can we talk/think about it meaningfully?" question. They were primarily directed to Void, though for anyone else who wanted to hear it as well, as he seems to consider the language/intellect problem which interests me as well.

The experience and a few years of contemplating the implications of it HAVE left me with a very real and practical understanding of how to DO as you prefer, or BE as I prefer, in this apparently dualistic world. It has to be practical, as I said earlier, or the experience itself would be a waste in my opinion. It would just be another "rush" in a world that provides a lot of opportunities for a sensual "rush."

Originally posted by RogerT
Still, when you go to a football match, do you spend your time kicking the ball, or do you spend your time trying to 'experience' yourself out of the game, or philosophising about how the ball doesn't really exist and if only everyone would get that, then we wouldn't have to run around after it?

Of course not. But, the experience can teach you how to kick the football like a star more often than not. And, it can show you how to enjoy the game, "win" or "lose" rather than get so caught up in the "reality" of the game that only one side, "winning" satisfies. What the hell is the point of life if there are only "islands" of pleasure in a sea of pain and dissatisfaction? What the experience of "wholeness" or "non-duality" shows is that the "Whole" can be experienced for what it is, without the mental "anguish" that so many suffer from.

Sure, hot will still burn and hurt physically, that aspect cannot be taken away from the "3D" experience that we are a part of. But, what can be done away with is the story line that says "OMG, this is so AWFUL. It is HORRIBLE. I am SUFFERING. Make it STOP." You can get burned, pull your hand away and move on to the next experience, feeling it, experiencing it, without fixating on it and dramatizing it, and in the process, re-living it intellectually over and over and over and thus creating a mental hell for yourself as well as the physical pain, that blocks the vast majority of your "experience" here on Earth which is by far and away NOT unpleasant. Most here are so busy in the past agonizing about events that happened, or in the future, worrying about what may never happen that they miss the 99.9% of life here that is just damned fine and beautiful. They walk right past the gorgeous natural scenery because they are fixated on an image or story in their minds, and often times, it is a pretty ugly and frightening one.

And, you can learn to use the "unpleasant" as a guidance system for how to move in the 3d world so that even more of your life is spent in "pleasant" experience, rather than misunderstanding the nature of "suffering" and wallowing in it, or railing against it, never getting the point that suffering is there to deter you from moving in a particular direction. It is the result of misstep, and that only. You can see that repeated, or intense suffering is a result of your own refusal to turn and move in another direction, which you COULD see, if you were able to sit above the label "bad and good" and not give it a "reality" or "concreteness" it doesnt merit objectively.

Originally posted by RogerT
Philosophy is fun as a mental exercise, but I'm gonna say it's highly overrated as a means to living. when you're thinking, you're usually missing the experience!

I would say it is overrated as a substitution for living. However, thinking about Aya, and that experience, is still thinking. For me, philosophy has helped me in that is has allowed me to apply the enlightenment "experience" in such a way that it colors my entire living experience. The whole of it, including my thoughts about it. There is no "on" and "off" nature of it. It has allowed me to understand the "game of life" maybe not in a "why this game exists at all or what is the meaning of the game itself" but rather in a "how the game can be more enjoyable and less tragic while I am a character in it."

I play MMO's and I have seen, with amusement, how even something EVERYONE is aware is a game can contain the same suffering and unpleasantness that "life" does. The first time I was hunted down and killed online by another player, my heart pounded in my chest so that I thought I was literally going to have a heart attack. I was scared, and made more mistakes in the fight because of the fear, I ended up losing and then was looted and lost all my "stuff" on my toon, and I was traumatized by the whole experience that I had paid for to have "fun" in.

Now, after innumerable "deaths" I am much more comfortable with the game, (all of them) and it is much more enjoyable. I no longer am so "attached" to the characters I play that their death is a tragedy, that the fear takes me over to such a degree I cannot strategize in the moment, and I no longer care so much about the loss of my "possessions" in the game that a "loss" spoils my own enjoyment of the entirety of the game. Nor am I so goal oriented in the game that I "grind" levels trying to get to the highest level and suffer the whole while because I am only seeing the "goal" and not the scenery where I am at that moment. If I "suffer" by losing something, or dying, I learn, apply the lesson, and move on. Even the "bad" becomes only a tool to become more skilled as an overall player, and the game becomes more and more pleasurable as my skill increases.

I have to wonder if those that have "seen it" are happier after the fact. Now I know we could point to people like the Dali Lama, but lets keep it to people that we are exchanging live ideas with here.

I will say it did not make me "unhappy" it was pretty wonderful but I surely have not found that I have been "happier" after the fact. Sure it dulls the pain because intellectually one realizes it is all temporary, all an illusion etc... And maybe my own views color my views on the experience of others.

But how many can honestly say life seems better "after" rather than before? The extreme highs and lows maybe muted, the "desire" for many things maybe deadened, but is existence better or worse?


[edit on 7-9-2008 by Sonya610]