Sunya

Yes it seems that the biggest fallacy made by most spiritual seekers is that they assume ignorance is purely at the conceptual level, when in reality the seeds of ignorance lie much deeper in a pre-conceptual or pre-verbal level of mind. Therefore, the goal of true realization cannot happen by getting rid of all concepts and ignoring them, hoping that realization exists beyond concepts, but rather only through integrating concepts properly. Since the tendency to cling to something inherent runs deeper than concepts, the right view (no-self and emptiness) is necessary to overcome this tendency or else one will have a non-conceptual experience that is still not pure and true. Concepts and views are not the problem. Wrong concepts and views are the problem (including the view that concepts are the problem).

Walk outside and feel the wind blowing could mean 100 different things to 100 different people. We all come with our conditioned beliefs and interpretative habits. Clear communication is necessary because true wisdom lies in subtlety.

If past conditioning and memories and desires and thoughts, etc. are all that make up the self, where is the self apart from these elements? They're all aspects of a story that point to a central character. If we can agree that this central character doesn't ultimately exist, then we would be in agreement. But the very nature of the 'I exist' statement is that this character is quite real. No one. A self is not required for awareness. No 'one' is in control. The actions are simply done due to many complex processes and conditions. Where do you draw the line between 'you' and 'not-you'? For instance if someone walks up to you and hits you, and you instinctively react to defend yourself, did you do that or was it automatic? If you perform the same action with intention, are you still doing it? Why? The only difference is that conscious thought is involved. The meaning of 'self' and how I'm referring to it is an autonomous agent separate from the world that persists from moment to moment (unchanging). A mindstream, which is a momentum of consciousness, is not separate from the world and changes every instant, thus not-self, but also is not 'one' with the world, since that would mean that the world is one giant self.

There is no one that causes anything. An idea will come into your mind from seemingly nowhere to tell me to jump, maybe you heard about the idea on TV or in a book, but you didn't create the idea. Past conditioning and a myriad of events take place which then lead to the intention to speak those words, and then the vocal command is given. The sound vibrations come to this ear over here, enters this mind and goes through all my past conditioning and filters, etc. and perhaps the intention will arise to move this body. What causes the heart to beat when you are typing? 99% of bodily functions are outside the control of intention, and yet because 1% can be controlled by intention, there is the assumption that this intention = self. Where do ideas come from, like the idea to move the body? The ideas come from nowhere. If the self exists, can the self know what the next thought will be? The next intention? The 'self' has no clue because the self is just another thought which arises from nowhere and vanishes. No self doesn't mean everything is one consciousness. That's just the other extreme, All-self.

There is no self to not be here, and there is no where to be but here, so here I am!

Referring to the belief that there is something which persists moment to moment and that something is separate from and somehow in control of thoughts and actions. I guess that's the ego, eh? There is no self in awareness either though, thus thoughts like "I am everything" are still referring back to the ego and not awareness, which can't possibly be identified with. Do "I" exist? No. Of course not. This whole paragraph was written automatically without any 'doer' -- and during the process of writing, this body changed biologically. I'm actually a whole new person now than I was when I began writing this.... There is nobody here to point to and say 'ah, there you are.' I'm just like the tree, a collection of intricate processes all working together because of the proper conditions.

Look at a tree. What do you see? Looks like there is something actually there referred to as 'tree' when in reality tree is a continual process lacking any inherent self. Cut open a tree and you won't find some immutable 'treeness' which makes a tree a tree. I wouldn't say that the tree doesn't exist at all, because there it is, but certainly there's no 'self' in tree. Why are 'you' different? Because 'your' thoughts assure you that you exist as a substantive being which persists from moment to moment and is peering out through the eyes?

Where is the 'I' that is everything? The great cosmic joke is that you assume that thoughts require a thinker, actions require a doer. There is no you. That's the joke.

Really interesting stuff. Thanks for posting!

Ya. The point of cultivating a peaceful mind in Buddhist practice is to first, well, attain some peace for once (haha). But it's a step by step process. It's not the end goal. Once you can rest in stillness, you then begin insight meditation, like contemplating no-self and emptiness or practicing letting go into awareness and integrating that state into actions. A quiet mind in and of itself won't lead to wisdom, but it's a nice pit stop on the way there.

For there to be a dream, there has to be a dreamer. Who is the dreamer? Everything that you write is a story with the assumption that there is a dreamer, someone to control the dream, a self which acts, creates, and actually has control. Who is infinite and without limits? Who is it that has woken up? These are serious questions. Please contemplate them and see what happens.

Who is creating all of it? Who are you? Just a thought? A feeling? Presence? Awareness? Where is this 'I' that you cling to so strongly? Does it really exist? Has it ever?

Anatta takes you to 'isness' -- Buddhist masters have referred to 'suchness' (tathata) as another way of describing enlightenment. The Buddha himself spoke of tathata as the goal of practice. But without anatta, people cling to the experience of 'isness' by identifying with it. Anatta then is a remedy from clinging to the experience of isness and whatever may arise in the moment.

Congrats on your realization, Seth

She studied at Naropa in Boulder

Earthquakes are not caused by human activity. The environment is not a perfect place without humans. Shit like this happened before and will happen again. It's just the nature of the game.

that was awesome... thanks

Or you can skip the long path of playing with energy and go straight to the source. The Chan practice of huatou is very powerful self-inquiry -- energy takes care of itself once you rest in your original mind. dnice, go deeper - http://www.westernchanfellowship.org/methods-in-chan-hall.html

Why are you still with her? Afraid to be alone? The beauty of my current relationship is that neither of us are afraid to be alone, and so we aren't really that attached to each other. This is my ideal situation. I would never stay in a relationship that was detrimental in this way. She needs you to ejaculate for whatever emotional reason, and you don't to. She won't change. Give it up. Move on. Plenty of girls out there, and being alone is great too.

Scientology is the opposite of science. They have strange beliefs and their methods are not scientifically valid. Venus Project embraces science and technology, critical thinking, and global reform to better mankind, so it's the complete opposite of Scientology.

you guys should watch Zeigeist Moving Forward -- this guy was a major part of that movie

Very interesting. Thanks. I'll definitely watch it. Just to note though that he is not a scientist. He's a philosophy professor, not that there's anything wrong with that (I have a degree in philosophy), but I was referring to scientists. I'm sure there are some renegade open-minded scientists running around, but scientists for the most part do not talk much about consciousness.

I don't hear many scientists talking about consciousness. It assumed that awareness is a byproduct of the brain. I think you have a very idealistic view of science. Mysticism deals with universal laws as well. Impermanence, dependent origination, the unfindability of the subject, these are all universal laws. They are true for everybody. If you mean laws like the speed of gravity, then yes mystics doesn't care about that. Not really sure what you mean by subjective since everything experienced is always through your own mind. I'd rather focus on these 'subjective realizations' and attain great peace, bliss, and wisdom then spend my life on a theorem to conceptually explain the universe. Concepts can be non-verbal as well. Babies are born into this world and immediately are conditioned, actually even before birth this begins, and they have a sense of I before they are taught the word I. The feeling of mystical oneness is not beyond concept. There is still subtle conceptual non-verbal grasping there. Self being the whole is still a self. There is still identity. There is still a reference point. No-self means everything exists without a reference point or identity, and there is multiplicity. Buddhist enlightenment is not just nonduality, which you are talking about. The deeper realization is non-inherency. Arithmetic was created by humans who are products of an environment that conditions us to see duality. The concept of 'two' requires there to be two separate objects which are each considered 'one.' Even if you have the same looking object, like two red apples, since they occupy different locations in space, they are considered separate. Within time and space, we see this differentiation, but to say everything is the same is just jumping to the other extreme. Instead of labeling everything as 'different' you label everything as 'same.' Multiplicity does not come from one source, and this isn't a logical necessity, not according to Buddhism. You misunderstand what no-self means. It does not mean non-existence or no-ego or anything like that. It just means that I don't exist inherently and independently. Saying a realization is deeper than another has nothing to do with ego really. If you experience a deeper realization, you'll want to clarify to others out of compassion or just wanting to share something deeper so others can experience it too. Not all realizations are made the same. For example, the mystical Christian traditions have much clearer realizations than fundamentalist Baptists. I don't think it's correct to lump all realizations into one and say only language separates them. Why nothing? I don't understand. Why is an independent variable necessary? I just used perfume as a metaphor for everything. Hindus say that the world is the perfume and God is the source, so I just pointed out that Buddhists say that source is an illusion and there is only the world.