SeriesOfTubes

It is a detailed stone relief carving where everything is made of stone with multiple panels to show passage of time.. ?

Small Universe is in a general sense very similar to the basic Pranayama of Lahiri Mahasaya's Kriya Yoga. Instead of 2 separate phases for rotating around the spine and then touching each center individually with awareness, with SU, it is as if these two phases were combined and the focus moves with the breath from one center to the next. Of course different centers are used but with either technique at the end of the practice, you have rotated energy is around spinal centers, and used sound currents on each center. That said I think the effect of each technique is very different.

My understanding it that salvia is "diviner's sage", for extracting specific bits of information. Not something you would want to go into in an open thoughtless state, but rather the opposite, that you would go in with a specific purpose or focus. That at least explains to me why so many people have such experiences and feelings of chaotic "wrongness" going at it haphazardly

Same here, thoughts and prayers to everyone effected. I think alluding to atrocities of the past is just a cheap way to bail on feeling empathy or compassion in the present. Thats not directed at anyone in this thread but rather what I had seen comments elsewhere on the web of people just reactively and instantly evoking pearl harbor. The world and everyone in it is connected and becomes more so all the time, what happens in one part of the world has ripple effect (all the more so if nuclear activity is involved).

nice story, were you strict with the diet beforehand? that might explain why you were bored for a few times, the b. caapi/MAOI aspect of the brew might not have been given 100% chance to give the chacruna/DMT free reign, or maybe you just needed another cup.

Thanks for the link, I've experienced this many, many times, though not as much now as in the old land-line days. Sometimes it manifested as picking up the phone to call someone I hadn't spoken to in several weeks who was simultaneously calling me and waiting on the line before it rings (I don't know if that is possible with cell phones) .. I had heard of this research before and thought I had it bookmarked but hadn't been able to find it.

was that a spam email? if so that is some dark manipulative marketing.

true he's not a physicist but he is making a case almost entirely with neuroscience and psychopathology research

did you ever see this? I made a thread about it 2 months ago but I think only me and marblehead watched it because its a bit long, but relates directly to anatta, phenomenology, subjectivity and neuroscience. I'd say it really gets into the meat after 20:00

were you struck by lightning? thunder shaman would imply both siberian / indigenous asian heritage or connection and being literally chosen by the spirits via lightning strike (as opposed to more common initiatory sickness). http://www.tengerism.org/becoming_a_shaman.html

yeah man I'll put it on the list. I just figured the logic to that would be easily demonstrable and not just an idea repeated.

thanks. but don't most philosophies that hold to the creator idea assert that it became many and endowed it's creation with free will, hence the possibility of suffering, inter-dependance, and a non-singular will? thanks, I think I get where that is coming from, though I might be misunderstanding empty.. The the cup of coffee in front of me is empty of inherent existence, or dependently originated in that: It was made from recycled materials (causal dependance) It depends on it's pieces and parts, recycled material, coffee inside of it, molecules and so on (mereological dependance) It is not a "cup of coffee" outside of my cognizance. (conceptual dependence) but I still don't get how this quantum of something impacting my senses as a "cup of coffee" could not interact or in fact be broken down at the most fundamental level as *something* that exists inherently.. especially if the idea is that it is part of a something that it keeps getting recycled in a cosmic crunch. I'm also not fully sold on the conceptual dependance part, I mean things don't exist (out there) as labels in our mind, yeah, but to say there is nothing at all causing an appearance as this cup of coffee until I lay eyes on it seems a bit like an artifact of the infant developmental stage before "object permanence" is grasped

can anyone remind me why exactly this is?

Sorry to hear man, broke mine when I was nine attempting some judo on someone twice my age. I didn't do any cultivation then but it did seem to heal fast, maybe because of young age.

is that info published, or going to be? I would definitely be interested in purchasing a copy if so, or seeing the analysis of the data.

My perspective on this (and this is really just the fringe perspective of hypnoanalytic theory and hypnotists who work with emotion and insight, so feel free to take this with a grain of salt, I'm not trying to claim ultimate authority here) is that things can only come into consciousness as data, and will not accepted or defended by the mind as factual if they are in opposition with existing beliefs and experience held in the subconscious mind which generates emotion and governs the smooth muscle movements. I think when we speak of contraction we are describing differing states of "affect". The DSM definition of "affect" is visible expression of emotion such as subtle facial expressions and manifestation of bodily tension, that such muscle tension by definition corresponds to emotion but does not cause it. From this perspective, the critical factor of the mind (the comparing mechanism that says "yeah right!"), would still be there to stop it. The mind is likely to defend it's stored ideas about reality based on it's past experience, accepting as true things that are consistent with previously held beliefs and rejecting things that are inconsistent. My sense it that these prior beliefs would still be there to stop new information from taking hold without specific insight based on overwhelming or visceral experiential evidence sufficient to topple the old belief. I think if you were to be sedated to the point of profound muscle relaxation, and be flooded to the max with sensation of what you are or reality or what-have-you, it would still just be information and temporary at best without some insight, e.g., "this is how things truly are", to create a new belief about reality for the mind to defend and accept within consciousness as part of itself.

I agree. I would put the chain of causation as follows (with specific example in parenthesis): experience (ex: an event with potential harm to a body/mind) perception containing both a subject and an object (ex: event perceived as potentially harmful to body/mind) thought/cognition(ex: something bad going to happen) emotion is generated (ex: fear) feeling in body experienced (ex: hormones released such as cortisol/muscle contraction results) optional: another thought/cognition based on feeling in the body, emotion, or prior thought creating a feedback loop. I think the muscle contraction is the last unique link in the chain, so altering the cognition will cause both the emotion to subside and the feeling / muscle contraction to release. But altering the muscle contraction may create a new temporary feeling but will do nothing to alter the cognition. If a deeply held cognition/belief is transformed, toxins are likely to be released which were held in the musculature by contraction in the smooth muscle group so it is good to drink a lot of water. Notice the tendency for the bowels and bladder to become active after an emotional shift that ends in a big sigh of relief.

good find.. wow messing with microwave radiation in the open air sounds really dangerous.

yeah that was one of the reasons I wanted to chime in. it seemed that the concept of no-self was being equated with self denial, monastacism, asceticism etc which I'm pretty sure is not strictly included within of the idea of Anatta, which to me means moment to moment experiencing prior to a redundant pulling away from the immediacy into subject/object thinking.

I don't really get what people find so threatening about Anatta. I think of it as a sort of doorway into the present. I find it refreshing to consider that the self concept (which I consider a subject and object relation) is basically just another habitual thought, no more or less substantial. This seems to be consistent with experience, I mean if you're in your car and you suddenly need to slam the brakes, there is just the action of slamming the brakes, no need for a self concept or "doer" to explain the phenomenon as it occurs in the present. It would also seem to be fairly consistent with plant-based entheogenic experience across the board, that the first thing such a plant medicine alters (or removes) is a stable sense of self, i.e., dissipation of the background feeling of subject and object relations in order to teach. It also seems consistent with many indigenous cultures where the orientation is more toward the communal purpose and good or ceremony rather than individual. I don't think it denies the senses but rather affirms experience, just not an "experiencer", which is an abstraction, a pulling away from the senses into a concept. to each their own though. I always found the idea of the "witness" to be a boring and useless culdesac so maybe it's just my orientation. *edit* I guess not literally useless since dissociated states can produce anesthesia as well as temporary relief from emotional pain that taxes an individual beyond their current resources and environmental support.

I like this essay, I have a copy in my bathroom magazine rack. However I do wonder if what he describes is full enlightenment. He seems to have negated too far, erring on the side of nihilism (not middle way) which perhaps correlates with not having any energy to do much of anything, e.g., a colossal effort to write an essay or play guitar? Since it was written in 2003 probably this sort of thing has been balanced out by now. Also in Buddhist terms wouldn't this level still be a reification of U=C?

the self is no one's illusion

don't know if this is a repost, thought more than a few bums would find it interesting.

Hi Marblehead, yeah it's a bit long. I would say for me it was the way the last 20 minutes tie everything together. you could probably abbreviate the whole thing and pop in at about 20:00 till the end and get the point more or less. If you have no interest in the nature of the self or first person perspective, than it probably won't interest you. What gained my attention is mostly the ideas put forth that the "sense of self" i.e. mine-ness, ownership, and perspectivalness is a virtual model that the body system has at the genetic or possibly molecular levels. That it is an invisible map that plays a role for the system. The self-model is the best hypothesis that the system (body/mind) itself has to regulate its own current state. It becomes an immovable center due to being a captive audience to a continuous source of internally generated input, e.g., such as the background sensation of the body. Metzinger puts forth several hypotheses about why we are beings that are basically "naive realists" that can say and actually believe such a dubious statement as: "I myself, am seeing this object, right now, with my own eyes". Why isn't our self model easily recognizable as a model? Why was there no evolutionary pressure to represent reality? My thoughts are that perhaps we are at a juncture where this is changing.

doing some dishes in the sink.. there is just the doing. perfectly non dual shoveling snow, same + opportunity to notice and dissolve any sense of ownership that tries to overlay. splitting wood, balancing each piece just right on the stump and taking aim, love the feel of it splitting right where you intend. (more of a weekly activity)