Death Is

[Jason]

Jason, I don't like your style so I'm not going to reply to you.

What don't you like about my style?

[Jason]

Jason, I find your way of thinking quite interesting. Would you mind elaborating on your philosophical methods & what conclusions you have reached? Perhaps in another thread.
.

Yeah ok. I'll probably put something together and post it in a new thread.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But why then recounting such experience at all?

Other than my reference to having been beyond death, it was to put the issue away that I have been asked to talk about "who I am".

So you are saying you are the miraculous that you described?

I do not need you to explain to me what is real and what is illusion. I am capable of experiencing my reality without the interdiction of 'higher authority'. I am the highest authority - there is no one more qualified to discern my experience. You would only expect the same Diebert.

Sure, that's why I wasn't trying to discern your experiences here, but your logic and reasoning around it - the general attitude towards it.

Are you envious of my experience Diebert? This is a question not an assumption.

From my perspective such experiences have become totally irrelevant. You can keep them. I have thrown away already more in my life than most have managed to gain.

The unexplainable happens but it's more distracting and deceiving in its spectacle than it's serving truth. Perhaps I was trying to warn you a bit, not being sure if it would be heeded or not. Or if it was needed or not.

[Cory Duchesne]

Sschaula wrote:

Scott: Jason, I don't like your style so I'm not going to reply to
you.

Style? I thought Jason's thoughts actually had some heart.

Whereas I find your theory that 'false conceptions of causality' can undermine ego, rather spineless.

Obviously your false beliefs have failed to undermine your ego.

Furthermore, I see no reason why false beliefs will ever undermine your ego or anyones ego, and so one hopes that you drop your false beliefs and pay some respect to those like jason who are doing their best to express themselves as honestly as possible - rather than focusing on ingratiating themselves by working on their style.

Hopefully these comments of mine dont send Jason on an ego trip, as praise tends to due.

Anyhow,

Why this concern with style anyway? This isnt a fashion show Scott.

I think Jason's main point is that valuing a conception of causality that is linear and domino-like is quite silly.

And I think this is a significant point, considering how destructive linear conceptions of causality have proven to be.

[sschaula]

Style? I thought Jason's thoughts actually had some heart.

It seems like there's honesty there, when he is trying to penetrate to the absolute truth. My problem is that he doesn't live that way. It's easy to say "Causality may not exist!" then go on and believe in it in your day to day life. That's why I didn't like his style, and that I actually think it's spineless of him.

Whereas I find your theory that 'false conceptions of causality' can undermine ego, rather spineless.

Obviously your false beliefs have failed to undermine your ego.

I'm not the smartest man. I'm full of ego. I do have false beliefs. But I'm not spineless.

Lets get to the core of this, though. Do you think the truth is the only thing which can undermine the ego? Where's your proof of that? Why can't something else, which is probably false, undermine the ego? Where is proof that it can't?

Furthermore, I see no reason why false beliefs will ever undermine your ego or anyones ego, and so one hopes that you drop your false beliefs and pay some respect to those like jason who are doing their best to express themselves as honestly as possible - rather than focusing on ingratiating themselves by working on their style.

What false beliefs do I have? A false belief in causality? I don't believe it's a false belief. I think it's true. How can things be without processes causing them to be? Prove causality as false! I dare you or Jason to!

Hopefully these comments of mine dont send Jason on an ego trip, as praise tends to due.

I'm sure my comments will immediately pull him off his high horse, so don't worry.

Why this concern with style anyway? This isnt a fashion show Scott.

No it isn't, and he isn't parading around in high heels. I was talking about the way he is - he tries to say I'm stupid for believing in cause and effect while he does as well. He needs to work on his own delusions before attacking others'.

I think Jason's main point is that valuing a conception of causality that is linear and domino-like is quite silly.

And I think this is a significant point, considering how destructive linear conceptions of causality have proven to be.

What do you mean? "Linear"?

Things come to be...how do they come to be? Do they just appear? Whatever force causes them to appear is the cause. Can a thing appear without a cause? No! What could possibly cause it to appear without it having a cause? Nothing.

Are you getting what I'm saying? I'm making it as clear as I can. Effects need causes. Without a cause, there is no effect, and obviously there are effects. You're reading this. That's an effect. Did that just magically come to be, or did things cause it to happen?

So once again, my problem with Jason is his dishonesty. You like him because you think he was being honest. I hope you see my point.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory: Style? I thought Jason's thoughts actually had some heart.

Scott: It seems like there's honesty there, when he is trying to penetrate to the absolute truth. My problem is that he doesn't live that way. It's easy to say "Causality may not exist!" then go on and believe in it in your day to day life.

That's why I didn't like his style, and that I actually think it's spineless of him.

Look scott – it was a bit harsh to call your thoughts spineless. I was at work and feeling rather agitated by my position and probably allowed myself to take my frustration out by uttering harsh words.

I guess I was also confused by what you meant by the word style. To me style is a very superficial thing that shouldn’t matter much. It’s the heart and substance that you bring to the table that matters.

But I suppose, by style – you meant – simply logic?

You just thought he was incorrigibly lost?

Well that’s fine.

I also got the impression that your abandonment of Jason was kind of lazy.

But that is just a mere opinion – ultimately worthless.

But anyways – all judgments aside – lets face this issue anew, with fresh eyes.


---------------------------------------------------------

Cory: I find your theory that 'false conceptions of causality' can undermine ego, rather spineless.

Obviously your false beliefs have failed to undermine your ego.

Scott: I'm not the smartest man. I'm full of ego. I do have false beliefs. But I'm not spineless.

Lets get to the core of this, though. Do you think the truth is the only thing which can undermine the ego?

The truth is that the belief you have in the ego as something real, is, in part, preventing you from seeing that a fixed, concrete ego doesn’t even exist to begin with.

There is no ego there to be undermined. (suergaz, don’t even bother saying anything – we all know what you think about this sort of thing)

So anyways -- all that you are, all that I am, and all that everyone is, is simply a undivided common pre-determined tendency.

Now, you can belief all this, you can nod your head, you can (by apply increasingly advanced conceptions of causality) perhaps see how all of this is true. Or you can deny.

However.

The involuntary chatter within you and within me remains. The brain’s habits, it’s conditioning, its pain is real. Suffering remains. The ugliness, the messiness, the irrationality of life outside of us and within us remains.

At this point, a good question to ask is: why do I want ego-less-ness to begin with? What is the motive?

Surely it is to escape misery.

The next question to ask is: why am I, as well as other people I know - miserable?

You see, most people, instead of asking themselves this question – they try to use techniques to end their ego.

So rather than pursue the ideal of ego loss (which is irrational), I will instead study the science of my misery. I will face up to my relationship to the world, to people and to things with great subtlety and detail.

My misery is the quality of my relationship to the world.

My consumption/diet. My vulgarity/sophistication of my pleasures/gratifications. My thought patterns. My thinking habits. My attachment to my songs, to my guitar, to my fantasies of being praised, etc, etc. What goes on between me and my friend? Is there comparison? Wicked vicious games? Envy? Jealousy? Pride? Malice? Bondage? Am I contriving to exploit and escape into the talents, skills or personality traits of certain people in my life in order to not only advance my monetary position in life, but also to destroy and dominate the very person I am trying to use to get what I want? Do I want cartoon-ish heroism? Do I want to smother my envy through a fantasy of achieving superiority? Or do I prefer to submit my being and be a slave to someone else’s regime? What do I want? Am I unconsciously hoping to be in a comfy guru position where I can cravenly indulge in fantasies of self esteem, condescend to, and exploit the naïve and vulnerable?

And is this only because I have been or am being exploited? Is this only because I am being used by someone in my life? Am I aware of this? Am I afraid of hurting the people in my life by abandoning them? Or by telling them the truth of what I think of them? Am I masochistic? Timid? Does my well being depend on treating people like they are stupid?

The classic trick is: First I’ll work on ending my ego - -- and then understanding all the subtleties and tricks will come naturally. No! It’s the other way around. People like to say, “first I’ll end my ego, then I’ll make the necessary abandonment’s and confrontations”. The goal of ending the ego is an escape from the necessity of suffering the truth.

The classic escape from responsibility.

Responsibility and rationality are synonymous.

We are not responsible because we are not rational. And we are not rational because we are not responsible.

It is the image I have of ‘Cory’, the concept I have of Cory’s ego, it is my assumption that there is something concrete there - - that is the problem.

And it is this very point that most (who want to end the ego) refuse to acknowledge, investigate, or whatever.

I am not supremely enlightened and absolutely clear – but I am clear enough to know that no amount of conceptualization, idealization, and belief, can alone bring clarity.

Now don’t go and try and contradict me by saying that what I just asserted was a belief, a concept!

Do you see that there is a difference between thought and fact?

And do you see there is a difference between thinking/thought and ‘insight’?

Insight is what is needed. Beliefs, concepts, even thought in it-self – clouds and even totally blocks insight.

Scott: Where's your proof [that the ego cant be undermined]?

Can I prove to you that the ego isn’t even there?

All there is is the fact of ones relationship to the world – ones relationship to ones work, ones co-workers, to ones family, friends, to nature, to food, sleep, to sex, to internet, to reading, to sensation, to the constant chattering thoughts, to ones indulgence and escape into dreams of success, ones hopes, ones lazy sluggish mind.

The quality of involuntary movement of memory and emotion in relationship to the quality of environment – that is what ones being is.

What is the quality of that movement of thought and emotion? What sort of inputs am I allowing in? What sort of unchallenged assumptions do I have? Do I realize they are dictating and determining what it is I can fathom?

Scott: Why can't something else, which is probably false, undermine the ego? Where is proof that it can't?

Are you sure you don’t have a very overly-simplistic concept of ‘how things are?'

Are you sure that what you have all worked out in your head is actually real?

There are some basic assumptions that I think need to be destroyed.

Cory: Furthermore, I see no reason why false beliefs will ever undermine your ego or anyone’s ego, and so one hopes that you drop your false beliefs and pay some respect to those like Jason who are doing their best to express themselves as honestly as possible - rather than focusing on ingratiating themselves by working on their style.

Scott: What false beliefs do I have? A false belief in causality? I don't believe it's a false belief. I think it's true. How can things be without processes causing them to be?

Yes, there are causal processes - but your thought can only capture an infinitely limited frame of the total process. No matter how advanced your conception of causality is - the truth is always infinitely more advanced.

How advanced can your conception of causality be? You can push it so far that you realize the ultimate. That you are the whole body of cause and effect – and that body is uncaused . Therefore you are uncaused.


A causal conception can be useful for making computers and what not, but a causal conception is a useless lie when it is used to achieve enlightenment.

Enlightenment is, in part, the realization of the futility and falseness of the very techniques and assumptions that one vainly uses to become enlightened.

Scott: Prove causality as false! I dare you or Jason to!

I can only emphasize – causal relationships are apparently there – however, there is always a more advanced conception of causality that our thought cannot capture. What our thought captures is not true. What our thought captures is only a map.

No conception of causality is true – because conception is by nature – a limited frame.

Whereas, the body of cause and effect is both infinite, as well as uncaused.

That is why it’s absurd to indulge in linear conceptions of causality such as: “The flap of a butterfly wing caused a hurricane, the hurricane caused a power outage, and the power outage left my parents bored, my parents being bored caused them to have sex, and them having sex caused me to be born”.

Such a conception is far from the truth even though it seems logical enough. All attempts to use such conceptions of causality in order to aid in ones enlightenment is like expecting to become nourished by menus or fossils. One needs actual food, rather than descriptions of food, or mere fossilizations of a life-form.

Conceptions of causality are born from breadth, width and depth of perception, of insight, of factual observations. Perceiving deeply and coming back with unusual conceptions of causality is indeed a good exercise for the mind, however, there needs to be the ultimate perception that what one is, is everything, and everything is a quality of energy that is uncaused.

Cory: Why this concern with style anyway? This isn’t a fashion show Scott.

Scott: No it isn't, and he isn't parading around in high heels. I was talking about the way he is - he tries to say I'm stupid for believing in cause and effect while he does as well. He needs to work on his own delusions before attacking others'.

Well, I must have overlooked the part where he called you stupid. Personally however, I do have a problem with the mere belief in cause and effect conceptions. They are indeed false. There is no conception of causality that is true. That being said, causal relationships are however true.

Cory: I think Jason's main point is that valuing a conception of causality that is linear and domino-like is quite silly.

And I think this is a significant point, considering how destructive linear conceptions of causality have proven to be.

Scott: What do you mean? "Linear"?

Things come to be...how do they come to be? Do they just appear? Whatever force causes them to appear is the cause. Can a thing appear without a cause? No! What could possibly cause it to appear without it having a cause? Nothing.

You can’t absolutely explain a particular appearance (a tree, a bird, a cloud, a rock) by considering it to be an effect that is brought about by particular causes. Even though causal relationships are certainly involved in the appearance of this, that and the other – your conceptualization of causal process is always infinitely incomplete.

The intellect cannot formulate a conceptualization that is absolutely true – only relatively true. And that which is relatively true, is not absolutely true.

This is what I though Jason meant, but maybe he didn’t.

Scott: Effects need causes. Without a cause, there is no effect, and obviously there are effects. You're reading this. That's an effect. Did that just magically come to be, or did things cause it to happen?

The most truthful conceptualization of causality expressible is: everything caused you to type what you typed.

To get hung up on particular causes is an endless, fruitless journey. Ones conceptions of causality should be of the greatest breadth, width, and depth you can possibility perceive. Because such perceptions come so close to the infinite, an awareness of thoughts limitation becomes natural.

When ones conception of causality is very small-minded, narrow and feeble, then the awareness of thoughts limitation is very far away and difficult to face up to.

The absolute truth involves bridging this division between cause and effect to the point where there is only an uncaused body of causality that you are.

Everything is Nothing.

An appearance is caused by everything, and everything has no cause.

I thought Jason’s thought was coming close to this sort of realization – and, judging by your earlier writing on this thread and your later responses to Jason, I felt like you were further away from it.

[R. Steven Coyle]

Cory,

I think you are over-complicating the issue.

Lao Tzu defines enlightenment as, "knowing yourself."

Buddha said that truth is a pathless land, and that you should be a light unto yourself.

Also, saying that what is esoteric is within.

Though these statements appear overly-simplistic, I know you'd agree that they are profound.

[R. Steven Coyle]

Not to imply that reason and logic aren't useful tools for analysis. I think that feeling and intuition must also play an important, if not equal role in exploring reality.

[sschaula]

Cory,

But I suppose, by style – you meant – simply logic?

You just thought he was incorrigibly lost?

Well that’s fine.

I also got the impression that your abandonment of Jason was kind of lazy.

By his style, I meant the way he was dealing with the issue. I do get lazy when dealing with some people. If they seem to be stuck in some way, I don't find it possible to sit there and continually tell them they're stuck. I just try to leave them be.

The truth is that the belief you have in the ego as something real, is, in part, preventing you from seeing that a fixed, concrete ego doesn’t even exist to begin with.

There is no ego there to be undermined. (suergaz, don’t even bother saying anything – we all know what you think about this sort of thing)

So anyways -- all that you are, all that I am, and all that everyone is, is simply a undivided common pre-determined tendency.

Now, you can belief all this, you can nod your head, you can (by apply increasingly advanced conceptions of causality) perhaps see how all of this is true. Or you can deny.

However.

The involuntary chatter within you and within me remains. The brain’s habits, it’s conditioning, its pain is real. Suffering remains. The ugliness, the messiness, the irrationality of life outside of us and within us remains.

At this point, a good question to ask is: why do I want ego-less-ness to begin with? What is the motive?

The ego doesn't truly exist, but we deal with that delusion on a daily basis. I agree. Why do I want egolessness? Because it's where I'm headed. I chose to learn the truth of everything when I was younger, and this is my unfoldment. Maybe it used to be about suffering, but not anymore.

So rather than pursue the ideal of ego loss (which is irrational), I will instead study the science of my misery. I will face up to my relationship to the world, to people and to things with great subtlety and detail.

My misery is the quality of my relationship to the world.

My consumption/diet. My vulgarity/sophistication of my pleasures/gratifications. My thought patterns. My thinking habits. My attachment to my songs, to my guitar, to my fantasies of being praised, etc, etc. What goes on between me and my friend? Is there comparison? Wicked vicious games? Envy? Jealousy? Pride? Malice? Bondage? Am I contriving to exploit and escape into the talents, skills or personality traits of certain people in my life in order to not only advance my monetary position in life, but also to destroy and dominate the very person I am trying to use to get what I want? Do I want cartoon-ish heroism? Do I want to smother my envy through a fantasy of achieving superiority? Or do I prefer to submit my being and be a slave to someone else’s regime? What do I want? Am I unconsciously hoping to be in a comfy guru position where I can cravenly indulge in fantasies of self esteem, condescend to, and exploit the naïve and vulnerable?

And is this only because I have been or am being exploited? Is this only because I am being used by someone in my life? Am I aware of this? Am I afraid of hurting the people in my life by abandoning them? Or by telling them the truth of what I think of them? Am I masochistic? Timid? Does my well being depend on treating people like they are stupid?

"What do I want?" was a question you asked. Perfect enlightenment. A greater question to consider is: do I have the balls to give up all other wants for this one want of mine?

Am I willing to give up my relationship to my mom, dad, sister and little brother? Sure, it's easy to say the word "yes", but when thinking of it, it's hard to come to terms with. Thinking of moving to an ashram, or something, to only pursue truth, and leaving everyone.

Have you ever heard of shaktipat? It's where a Siddha-guru touches you and awakens your kundalini, so that you are guaranteed speedy God-realization. Am I willing to take that last step off the diving board, in the name of pure understanding? There's so much shit that comes along with an awakened kundalini. You truly go through hell to get to heaven.

It's easy to say what we want, but it's hard to follow through. It's hard to want perfect enlightenment without the enjoyment of it in this world. All of our wanting is relative to this world. What if we left this world completely?

Personally, I get scared thinking about these things. I feel like I'll miss everything. I think about my family, my friends, my things, my potential...

I realize you were talking about investigating your misery, but I've been through that. I know myself pretty well. I know that there's the delusion of an ego, and without emotion, I seek to destroy it by any means possible. It was an emotionless choice. It's my destiny.

What more is there for me to uncover about myself? I just need to follow through.

The classic trick is: First I’ll work on ending my ego - -- and then understanding all the subtleties and tricks will come naturally. No! It’s the other way around. People like to say, “first I’ll end my ego, then I’ll make the necessary abandonment’s and confrontations”. The goal of ending the ego is an escape from the necessity of suffering the truth.

Perhaps for some, sacrificing the ego is an escape. For me, it's a necessity. I've come to this challenge, seeing through the ego, and it's what must be done....are you trying to get me to do otherwise? Why do you assume I'm irresponsible in my life? I have to face everything that comes, just like anyone else.

It is the image I have of ‘Cory’, the concept I have of Cory’s ego, it is my assumption that there is something concrete there - - that is the problem.

And it is this very point that most (who want to end the ego) refuse to acknowledge, investigate, or whatever.

Yes, the assumption of "Cory" is partly false. I don't know if it's a problem for you. The ego seems to work quite well for many people. It can get them money, fancy cars, girlfriends, fame, success...etc. It gets them food in the day, and sleep at night. I don't think it's a problem. It's just not real.

Remembering it's not real is a problem, when you want to live in the truth.

I don't refuse to acknowledge, investigate, or "whatever" (haha)....and I don't need to prove to you how I am. I can say "what you say about me is not true" all day long. Who cares? I really don't care. All I care about is knowing the truth. Removing the ego is essential. You can say there's no ego to remove, but like you originally said, its manifestations still arise...

Do you see that there is a difference between thought and fact?

And do you see there is a difference between thinking/thought and ‘insight’?

Insight is what is needed. Beliefs, concepts, even thought in it-self – clouds and even totally blocks insight.

The difference between thought and fact...some thoughts aren't factual.
The difference between thought and insight...thought is done by the ego, and insight is stumbled upon.
Perhaps you're right that insight is needed. Why don't you find out, by using your system of insight, to make yourself perfectly enlightened?

Then it would make more sense to tell me what's needed...you know?

Can I prove to you that the ego isn’t even there?

We both agree that the ego is false.

Are you sure you don’t have a very overly-simplistic concept of ‘how things are?'

My concept of how things are is very simple. "Things have no inherent existence".

Are you sure that what you have all worked out in your head is actually real?

No, most of what I've worked out in my head is not real and the first step to fully realizing that is destroying the false concept that I've worked a bunch of things out in my head.

Yes, there are causal processes - but your thought can only capture an infinitely limited frame of the total process. No matter how advanced your conception of causality is - the truth is always infinitely more advanced.

Which is why I said to Jason that causality exists, yet I don't know how things are caused. We are agreeing.

How advanced can your conception of causality be? You can push it so far that you realize the ultimate. That you are the whole body of cause and effect – and that body is uncaused . Therefore you are uncaused.

"Cause and effect" doesn't have a body, it's just a principle of reality. It isn't reality itself. There is no body to reality...but of course, reality is uncaused.

Enlightenment is, in part, the realization of the futility and falseness of the very techniques and assumptions that one vainly uses to become enlightened.

If you're unenlightened, why do you talk about what enlightenment is or isn't? This type of thing is the reason why I've devoted myself to understanding the truth.

That is why it’s absurd to indulge in linear conceptions of causality such as: “The flap of a butterfly wing caused a hurricane, the hurricane caused a power outage, and the power outage left my parents bored, my parents being bored caused them to have sex, and them having sex caused me to be born”.

Such a conception is far from the truth even though it seems logical enough. All attempts to use such conceptions of causality in order to aid in ones enlightenment is like expecting to become nourished by menus or fossils. One needs actual food, rather than descriptions of food, or mere fossilizations of a life-form.

Conceptions of causality are born from breadth, width and depth of perception, of insight, of factual observations. Perceiving deeply and coming back with unusual conceptions of causality is indeed a good exercise for the mind, however, there needs to be the ultimate perception that what one is, is everything, and everything is a quality of energy that is uncaused.

You sum up my answer to this later on, I'll point it out...

Well, I must have overlooked the part where he called you stupid. Personally however, I do have a problem with the mere belief in cause and effect conceptions. They are indeed false. There is no conception of causality that is true. That being said, causal relationships are however true.

No conception of causality is true, yet causal relationships are true? That makes no sense. I can have a concept that all things are caused, and it is true. Don't start thinking all ideas are false because they're ideas, Cory.

You can’t absolutely explain a particular appearance (a tree, a bird, a cloud, a rock) by considering it to be an effect that is brought about by particular causes. Even though causal relationships are certainly involved in the appearance of this, that and the other – your conceptualization of causal process is always infinitely incomplete.

The intellect cannot formulate a conceptualization that is absolutely true – only relatively true. And that which is relatively true, is not absolutely true.

This is what I though Jason meant, but maybe he didn’t.

I don't think Jason meant anything...he was just picking my ass. However, I agree with this. I don't think I ever said I knew the process of how things come to be...such as pool balls being scattered by a cue ball. I said I could only assume, and never be completely sure about that. You agree.

I also said that causality is true. Things need to have causes. You also seem to agree with this. So if this is all what Jason meant, then I don't see what he was questioning me about. Maybe he just didn't understand what I was saying, because I was certainly saying this same thing the whole time.

The most truthful conceptualization of causality expressible is: everything caused you to type what you typed.

This is it...the thing I said I'd point out. This is my answer to all questions about cause and effect. In fact, nothing more needs to be said on the issue.

The absolute truth involves bridging this division between cause and effect to the point where there is only an uncaused body of causality that you are.

Everything is Nothing.

An appearance is caused by everything, and everything has no cause.

You seem to be oversimplifying (Steven says you're over-complicating). Everything is not nothing. Everything is everything. An appearance is certainly caused by everything. But "everything" doesn't have no cause...nor does it have a cause...because everything is not a thing. I'm sure you know this.

Absolute truth certainly is this understanding...yet the issue with the ego remains. When the mind doesn't focus on absolute truth, and instead focuses on the brief appearances of the world, that's definitely not enlightenment. When the mind only know absolute truth, that's perfect enlightenment.

[sue hindmarsh]

Earlier on this thread, Beingof1 wrote of an experience he had which can be described as a near-death experience.

Bof1: I died for about three hours and after I came back I was thrust into a vision. I saw things and heard things while I was gone but the vision, after I returned, let me know what my life would now consist of.

Near-death experiences are quite common, as are out-of-body experiences. And most consider their experience a positive one. They also often feel that they have experienced death.

Bof1: One would have to experience death to be able to discern its full implications. I am one who can speak from experience that consciousness transcends what is believed to be limited to a physical body.

It is logical that we can not ‘experience’ death, because death is when consciousness is no more. So what Bof1 and others have had is a ‘life’ experience. To understand why we have these experiences we only have to look at how we perceive the world.

What we perceive as ‘real’ is based on what our senses tell us. Like all animals, our senses have developed to match our specific survival needs. When we speak of an “I” and “my reality”, we are really speaking about a model built by our senses to best serve our needs. This construct is the bases of how we judge the world: for example, we divide our world into what is ‘real’ (the base model), and what is not: imagination, fantasies, daydreams, nightmares, hallucinations, etc.

When we are put under extreme stress, the stability of our base model begins to fail. In this new situation, fantasies and hallucinations can become the new stable model. When the stress ends and our normal base model returns, we then interpret the ‘stress caused model’ from the perspective of our normal stable model. It is at this time we either ascribe our experiences to be illusions or insights. Either way, the base model adapts our experiences to fit our present needs.

Sue

[Beingof1]

Diebert:

But why then recounting such experience at all?

Me: Other than my reference to having been beyond death, it was to put the issue away that I have been asked to talk about "who I am".

Diebert: So you are saying you are the miraculous that you described?

These were my experiences. What you choose to define your memories as is up to you. I can only call them memories of past experience of reality.

I defy all descriptions, definitions, and catagories.

I do not need you to explain to me what is real and what is illusion. I am capable of experiencing my reality without the interdiction of 'higher authority'. I am the highest authority - there is no one more qualified to discern my experience. You would only expect the same Diebert.

Diebert: Sure, that's why I wasn't trying to discern your experiences here, but your logic and reasoning around it - the general attitude towards it.

It lead me to the understanding (from multiple experiences) that we live in a reality in a constant state of flux that has no boundaries or limits. We could say there are probabilities but no impossibilities. It is a logical conclusion that is irreducible that all possibilities are viable in an infinite state of change.

It keeps us humble and open beyond preconceived formatting.

Are you envious of my experience Diebert? This is a question not an assumption.

Diebert: From my perspective such experiences have become totally irrelevant. You can keep them. I have thrown away already more in my life than most have managed to gain.

Then what is relevant and what have you gained? What part of your life experience did you throw away?

The unexplainable happens but it's more distracting and deceiving in its spectacle than it's serving truth. Perhaps I was trying to warn you a bit, not being sure if it would be heeded or not. Or if it was needed or not.

I have never experienced reality and it turned out to be fantasy. I have never imagined something and it turned out to be reality. Am I alone in this or are there others at this forum with the same memory? Is this your experience Diebert?


Sue:

Earlier on this thread, Beingof1 wrote of an experience he had which can be described as a near-death experience.

The description you chose makes it more palatable - it does not in any way redefine my experience however.

Near-death experiences are quite common, as are out-of-body experiences. And most consider their experience a positive one. They also often feel that they have experienced death.

Interesting; could you describe my experience so we can all get a clear picture of what actually happened?

It is logical that we can not ‘experience’ death, because death is when consciousness is no more. So what Bof1 and others have had is a ‘life’ experience. To understand why we have these experiences we only have to look at how we perceive the world.

According to this logic we can not 'experience' conception, because precognition is when consciousness is no more. Since consciousness does not exist until awareness - birth is logically impossible.

What we perceive as ‘real’ is based on what our senses tell us. Like all animals, our senses have developed to match our specific survival needs. When we speak of an “I” and “my reality”, we are really speaking about a model built by our senses to best serve our needs. This construct is the bases of how we judge the world: for example, we divide our world into what is ‘real’ (the base model), and what is not: imagination, fantasies, daydreams, nightmares, hallucinations, etc.

Everyone is an expert at explaining to me what I have experienced. Its strange how that I can answer any question put to me - yet most would rather tell me my own reality.

What appears in the mind is a creation of the mind and does not interdict reality. I repeat myself - I am quite capable of discerning my reality with clarity. That allows me to know what is truth as I do not deceive myself.

The implication here is that I had a mystical experience and somehow misconstrued this with reality. That has never, ever, happened to me. Does this happen with you?

When we are put under extreme stress, the stability of our base model begins to fail.

You have no idea; mine got swept away.

In this new situation, fantasies and hallucinations can become the new stable model.

Oh brother; the implication here is that I experienced a mirage and confused it with reality. How comfy - it does keep the belief system intact and that way we can all keep from expanding our state of being.

But hey, whats more important, belief system or actual reality? If we can keep from expanding we give the appearance of being right, and what is more important than being right?

At the risk of being redundant, have you ever had "fantasies and hallucinations" that you now believe were actual reality itself?

When the stress ends and our normal base model returns, we then interpret the ‘stress caused model’ from the perspective of our normal stable model. It is at this time we either ascribe our experiences to be illusions or insights. Either way, the base model adapts our experiences to fit our present needs.

I dare you; in fact I double dog dare ya. Ask me a question about the nature of reality that you think a deluded mind could not possibly answer.

It is something to behold. Its like when you encounter a fundy, they cannot actually talk about reality, just what is and is not possible within the structured belief system.

This is one of many reasons I wanted to avoid giving my "bio". It always seems to challenge belief systems and these seem to be more sacred than reality itself.

If it appears I am being 'tough' on you, well think about what you just implied. The two conclusions are; I am either a liar or insane.

[Sapius]

Beingof1

I dare you; in fact I double dog dare ya. Ask me a question about the nature of reality that you think a deluded mind could not possibly answer.

Please take it easy. What I don’t understand is what exactly are you trying to prove?

A deluded mind can possibly answer any thing at all, but that would still be according to his personal experiences, as are yours. The problem I see is, you cannot make others experience what you have, so I think you better wait for all others to have the same experiences. Or is it that you want all others who did not have your experiences to believe you?

You yourself could not have believed if told until you came to experiencing it, would you? so how can you expect others?

Let all others have their own experiences. What's your hurry? Are we running out of time?

My question about the nature of Reality - Does Reality end with you, Beingof1?

.

[sue hindmarsh]

Sapius,

What Bof1 is asking me to accept is that when he had his near-death experience, he had a powerful insight into the nature of reality. And that this changed his life markedly.

Even though I did not know Bof1 before this episode in his life, I am quite positive that he has been altered in some ways by it.

All this doesn’t alter the fact though that he is stuck in this one small insight and is unprepared to explore any further. His insight that the self is God can be used to begin thinking about the self’s casual relationship with the universe, which would then lead him to a deeper understanding of existence. But he is yet to begin thinking about any of these consequences.

Bof1 considers that what he experienced was rare, but that isn’t true, because we are all experiencing Reality directly every moment of every day. Reality does not stop, or hide away, or wait to appear during altered states of consciousness – it is ever present and all we need do to understand it is open our eyes, and our minds, to it.

Sue

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I defy all descriptions, definitions, and catagories.

But your words do not. Because they are descriptions, definitions and categories that can then be examined, which is the purpose of this board. Not to advertise ones wonderful being.

It lead me to the understanding (from multiple experiences) that we live in a reality in a constant state of flux that has no boundaries or limits. We could say there are probabilities but no impossibilities. It is a logical conclusion that is irreducible that all possibilities are viable in an infinite state of change.

Experiences alone do not create proper understanding as by magic. This is the function of reasoning. A finding like 'Reality is in a constant state of flux' must be examined, not only by sense experiences (we might be dreaming) but by higher faculties.

It keeps us humble and open beyond preconceived formatting.

No, ongoing investigation and re-evaluation using reason keeps us humble and open. Any other road leads to 'weed' growing back and fool us - again.

Then what is relevant and what have you gained? What part of your life experience did you throw away?

I gained nothing. What was thrown away was 'preconceived formatting' and attachments to what was happening.

I have never experienced reality and it turned out to be fantasy. I have never imagined something and it turned out to be reality. Am I alone in this or are there others at this forum with the same memory? Is this your experience Diebert?

I cannot imagine any serious spiritual or philosophical journey without the discovery of something what was once thought to be real turning out to be illusion, and what was once only considered as remote possibility to become an actuality.

Does this mean you haven't started seriously yet? That would mean all the understanding you demonstrated so far must be a product of some intuition of yours, not reasoned out, not weeded out, not tested yet to a higher degree. It needs further growth Being, can you imagine there might be a long road ahead still?

[Jason]

It seems like there's honesty there, when he is trying to penetrate to the absolute truth. My problem is that he doesn't live that way. It's easy to say "Causality may not exist!" then go on and believe in it in your day to day life. That's why I didn't like his style, and that I actually think it's spineless of him.

To be accurate I said that domino-causation is uncertain, not simply plain causation. Domino-causation is the idea you used in the first post that started our disussion on this thread. Since you don't want to respond to me I won't address any more of what you have written. Instead I would like to point out that David Quinn's "Wisdom of the Infinite", which you said in a recent post contained absolute truth, agrees with what I have been saying about domino-causation:

"One of the great myths of our time is the belief that David Hume, the 18th century Scottish philosopher, undermined the concept of cause and effect, or at least undermined our ability to establish with certainty that things are caused. Hume argued that it is impossible for the mind and senses to directly perceive causal links between the things we observe in the world, that there will always be "gaps" in our perception, as it were. Moreover, since we can never know what lies beyond our field of perception, we can never be sure of what influences this unknown realm has on the observable world, if any.

When we observe a match being struck to produce fire, for example, we cannot be certain that the striking of the match was the actual cause of the fire. Our minds merely observe a succession of events - first, the match being struck and, second, the flame erupting into being - and it is only through our past experiences of watching a similar succession of events that enables us to assume the two are causally linked. But we can never be sure that this assumption is valid. The fire might well have been produced by something else entirely, by an event or force that our minds, for whatever reason, are unable to observe. It could be that hidden space aliens orbiting the earth produced the fire, to use an extreme example. Who knows? And even if we were able to observe the aliens producing this fire, we would have no way of knowing whether this was really happening either. Perhaps there are yet further hidden factors involved?"

---

"Now, I do not dispute this reasoning from Hume. It is undeniable that our brains and senses are limited and that all of our empirical theorizing, which ultimately rests on what we perceive through our senses, is inherently incomplete and uncertain. However, where I begin to diverge from Hume, and from modern thinking in general, is the idea that it is inherently impossible for us to establish with certainty that all things are caused. Granted, we will never be able to uncover the precise causal linkages between things in an empirical sense, but nevertheless, what we can do is logically prove that causality is a reality which links all things together. We can do this by proving that it is logically impossible for anything to arise uncaused."

http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... sdom02.htm

[sschaula]

Jason,

I don't see how that's in opposition to what I've wrote.

[sue hindmarsh]

Beingof1 wrote:

Sue: Near-death experiences are quite common, as are out-of-body experiences. And most consider their experience a positive one. They also often feel that they have experienced death.

Interesting; could you describe my experience so we can all get a clear picture of what actually happened?

Near-death experiences (NDE) and out-of body experiences (OBE) can first be understood by looking at the neurochemistry, physiology, and psychology occurring during these episodes. Philosophically, it can be understood through causality.

Science has been looking into these experiences for some time, documenting cases from numerous countries. With any science, research is on-going. Below, is what I consider to be among the most logical conclusions made by scientists over the past twenty or so years, along with some of my own thoughts on the subject.

* * *

Near-death experiences:

Five main stages have been documented: peace, body separation, entering the darkness (the tunnel), seeing the light, and entering the light. Not all those documented reached the last two stages.

Age, sex, religious background, or culture: all relate very similar experiences. However, there are a few differences: for example, adults speak of meeting up with dead loved ones, while children meet up with living friends (being too young to have experienced the death of their friends). People of strong religious persuasions tell of meeting up with their respective gods or religious leaders. But all recount a sense of connectedness with everyone and everything, and the feeling of complete joy.

Not all those documented were in near-death situations, some relate similar experiences having taken certain drugs, during seizures, during meditation, when extremely tired, or, occasionally, when they were just carrying on their ordinary activities. But after the experience, every person documented said they were now not so motivated by greed and material achievement, and instead felt more concerned about other people and their needs.

Most people believe in a self that exists inherently. A lot of people also believe there is a soul, or spirit, that can leave the body. During NDE and OBE's, many people tell of traveling down a tunnel towards a bright light. Some tell of traveling to “other worlds”, “higher planes”, or floating above their own bodies. Some NDE folk tell of floating above their bodies and looking down at the doctors and nurses working on them.

The ‘tunnel’ is not a rare experience as many of us experience this when we are falling asleep. Others see them when they have migraine, or during meditation. Many epileptics and users of LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline also know this experience. Physiologically, the origin of the tunnel lies in the structure of the visual cortex, the part of the brain that processes visual information. In the cortex there are lots of cells representing the center of the visual field, but very few for the edges. This means that you can see small things very clearly in the center, but if they are out at the edges you cannot. The sense of moving through the tunnel comes from our brain interpreting random movements in the periphery of the visual field as outward rather than inward movements. The brain also infers our own movement to a great extent from what we see. Therefore, presented with an apparently growing patch of flickering white light your brain will easily interpret it as yourself moving forward into a tunnel.

OBE can be understood as the brain replacing the normal stable model (My Post: Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:11 pm) with the fantasies and hallucinations model. People who often dream or daydream using the ‘bird’s-eye view’ (spectator) are more likely to experience OBE, because they already have experience of seeing things from this position.

Seeing medical staff working on you, or remembering a conversation held during an operation can be explained by the fact that hearing is the last sense to be lost when we become unconscious. Building a fairly accurate picture from what we hear isn’t difficult for us, since we do it all the time.

Seeing dead loved ones, gods, etc, has to do with the way our memory works. When we are dying, the noise in the dying brain stimulates cells associated with memory. These memories become the most stable model and will therefore feel ‘real’ to the person experiencing them. And they are ‘real’ at that time. But this experience is no more ‘real’ than any other moment we experience. People say that this experience “changed” them, and this is correct. But because change is constant, change is also inevitable.

The major cause of this change comes from the experience of the self no longer ‘existing’, along with a sense of the interconnectedness of all things. Once they “come back”, they reassess their lives according to this new found “understanding”. Perspectives change: past fears, worries and ambitions seem unimportant. Death is no longer feared. And a strong feeling of love for all endures.

When correctly understood, this ‘insight’ into the interconnectedness of the universe, can cause the person to begin to look at the reality of the self and how cause and effect is constantly at work. But the documented stories do not mention any people doing this. Instead, many often give up their normal jobs to help the poor and needy. Others become more dedicated to their families and friends. Some donate much of their wealth to medical research, or animal welfare. Others turn to preaching religion or New-Age ‘feel-good’ philosophy. The examples of the “change of perspective” continue in this vein. As you can see, some of these changes may be useful to society, but none of them have anything to do with wisdom. The changes are purely superficial: changing one egotistical attachment for another equally egotistical one.

When these NDE folk are confronted by others questioning their experience by use of reason and logic, they become violently enraged, or smugly reticent. This is evidence of the fragility of their understanding about their experience. If they had used reason and logic to interpret their experience, they would have been better able to make wiser judgments about it.

The thing is; these people are no different than most other people, in that they need to feel 'special'. Some buy a new dress, others pray to Allah, some become astronauts, while others run marathons. They all want to be someone. Even those NDE folk, after experiencing the self’s non-existence, they still rush around creating 'lives' for themselves – small jails for the self to be confined in.

Sue

[R. Steven Coyle]

What if the "tunnel" is passage through the visual cortex - and into the hidden void?

[sschaula]

There's not a hidden void...that's why it's called a VOID.

[R. Steven Coyle]

A good counter-statement, for balance.

But, are you sure . . .

"the hidden maulau?"

[sue hindmarsh]

R. Steven Coyle wrote:

What if the "tunnel" is passage through the visual cortex and into the hidden void?

-
Next time you nod off to sleep, take a look.
-

What is the relationship between this world, the ‘tunnel’ and your “hidden void”?

Sue

[frank]

Sue wrote:
They all want to be someone. Even those NDE folk, after experiencing the self’s non-existence, they still rush around creating 'lives' for themselves – small jails for the self to be confined in.

And what do you do Sue?...Not Be someone?...Not Being someone takes as much effort and skill, probably more, than crafting a 'Be'..
One day you'll get the Joke Sue and we'll crack out the Champagne..it'll be a Celebratory Day..an Historical Event..the Day Sue 'got' Her Script...Sue's Animus Integration!..yaya woohoo...

One can 'fashion' a Life within the prevailing Social Hypnosis and feel Free...enjoy Freedom.
Bondage and Freedom travel together as 'two sides of a coin'...the only difference being the Meaning a Mind gives it...

It's Freedom AND Bondage if your Mind can cope with the Integration.

frank

[R. Steven Coyle]

Next time you nod off to sleep, take a look.

To program my day?

What is the relationship between this world, the ‘tunnel’ and your “hidden void”?

This world is your brain, the hidden void is your mind.

The tunnel would be transition from the physical to the mental.

[sue hindmarsh]

R. Steven Coyle wrote:

This world is your brain, the hidden void is your mind.

The tunnel would be transition from the physical to the mental.

How is your brain and mind separated from one another?

How is the physical separated from the mental?

Sue

[sue hindmarsh]

Frank,

Did you bleat in my direction?

Sue