Heartmind

[Informer]

[Informer]

If the ego is expanded, it creates a blockage before the heart, so the only experiences you could know would be solar-plexus down to the root.

 

Once getting over yourself is achieved, you can begin to experience heart and what it entails. It becomes really obvious.

 

True love doesn't play attachements.

[Vmarco]

[Oolong Rabbit]

I see Intuition is correlated to the third eye. It does appear that the thought I am generally rises within the solar plexus. (ego)

 

Heart's only mind is love.

 

Mind's only love is heart.

 

Combining the two creates a compassionate empathy.

 

Usually "intuition" gets associated with the solar plexus (gut feeling). The third eye is more alligned with visions, clairvoyance and seeing the energetic body etc... I have had experiences where I was able to intuit something by feeling the impressions in my body. It was when I was playing around with remote viewing, but what I downloaded had nothing to do with viewing. More like sensingor feeling. You can see how sticky it gets trying to define these things.

[deci belle]

[Aaron]

Many excellent points! We all have Heart-Mind. Belief is a condition that obscures Heart-Mind. Freethought Buddhism (Short Path) is not a belief system.

 

It is useless to seek for Heart-Mind,...one should rather seek and understand all the barriers one has built against it. Belief cannot enter Heart-Mind, as the false cannot enter truth, or conditions enter the unconditional.

 

Heart-Mind is neither form or formless,...at best, one could say it's what's beyond the sum of all form and formlessness. Personally, I would have figured that Taoist's could uncover Heart-Mind the easiest,...it's right in front of them, within their everyday symbology. The Abrahamic religions appear to be the most difficult way,...if not impossible.

 

Take Christianity for example,...John C. Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron in Ohio, said "that despite many variations, Christians generally adhere to four core beliefs: the Bible is without error, salvation comes through faith in Jesus and not good deeds, individuals must accept Jesus as adults and all Christians must evangelize." If that is one's focus, you would have more luck seeing a tornado forming a Boeing 747 out of a Kansas junk yard, then a Christian stumbling upon Heart-Mind.

 

Where your attention is, you are,..and where you are, your attention is. Seeking Heart-Mind through Christian or Sufi mysticism is a akin to those who jumped off cliffs a thousand years ago in search of flight.

 

To put it another way,....Jim Walker, in “The Problems with Beliefs,” mentions: Aristotle believed in a prime mover, a god that moves the sun and moon and objects through space, and that with such a belief, one cannot possibly understand the laws of gravitation or inertia. Isaac Newton saw through that and developed a workable gravitational theory; however, his belief in absolute time prevented him from formulating a theory of relativity. Einstein, however, saw through that and thought in terms of relative time. Therefore, he formulated his famous theory of general relativity, yet his own beliefs could not accept pure randomness in subatomic physics and thus barred him from understanding the consequences of quantum mechanics.

 

V

 

Very interesting. I enjoy reading your views on Buddhism, you obviously have a great deal of knowledge on the subject and I hope I can learn a bit more about Buddhism in our discussions. As an aside I tend to prefer to discuss things by providing evidence that doesn't require the denigration of other religions. If my evidence is sound and it makes sense, then there will be no need to say, "these guys are sooo bad" or "these guys really got it right" and rather I can just say, "this is how I see it."

 

Aaron

Edited July 23, 2011 by Twinner

[Aetherous]

I always have problems with Buddhist lingo, which is why I find it so challenging to want to get into it. Especially when the end result is simply: this. The way we already are: awake and open.

 

Here's an example:

 

* Emptiness is the usual translation for the Buddhist term Sunyata (or Shunyata). It refers to the fact that no thing -- including human existence -- has ultimate substantiality, which in turn means that no thing is permanent and no thing is totally independent of everything else. In other words, everything in this world is interconnected and in constant flux. A deep appreciation of this idea of emptiness thus saves us from the suffering caused by our egos, our attachments, and our resistance to change and loss.

 

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/heartsutra.html

 

Why use the word "emptiness" which implies something is missing or lacking? That is very confusing.

 

Then to apply "not permanent, not independent" to the heart sutra itself...

 

Body is nothing more than emptiness,

emptiness is nothing more than body.

The body is exactly empty,

and emptiness is exactly body.

The other four aspects of human existence --

feeling, thought, will, and consciousness --

are likewise nothing more than emptiness,

and emptiness nothing more than they.

 

So the body, feeling, thought, will and consciousness are all "not permanent, not independent". That's cool with me...

 

All things are empty:

Nothing is born, nothing dies,

nothing is pure, nothing is stained,

nothing increases and nothing decreases.

 

Wait now. Just because everything is "not permanent, not independent" doesn't mean that there is no birth or death, etc. Those things still exist as they are regardless of the horrible term "empty".

 

So, in emptiness, there is no body,

no feeling, no thought,

no will, no consciousness.

There are no eyes, no ears,

no nose, no tongue,

no body, no mind.

There is no seeing, no hearing,

no smelling, no tasting,

no touching, no imagining.

There is nothing seen, nor heard,

nor smelled, nor tasted,

nor touched, nor imagined.

 

There is no ignorance,

and no end to ignorance.

There is no old age and death,

and no end to old age and death.

There is no suffering, no cause of suffering,

no end to suffering, no path to follow.

There is no attainment of wisdom,

and no wisdom to attain.

 

Bullshit! There is obviously a body, and it's easy to say that it's "not permanent, not independent". All of the other things listed also too exist, and are prone to the condition of "not permanent, not independent".

 

So that's an example of Buddhist lingo making no sense.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

Wait now. Just because everything is "not permanent, not independent" doesn't mean that there is no birth or death, etc. Those things still exist as they are regardless of the horrible term "empty".

 

 

 

Bullshit! There is obviously a body, and it's easy to say that it's "not permanent, not independent". All of the other things listed also too exist, and are prone to the condition of "not permanent, not independent".

 

So you've never experienced being free from the body in meditation?

 

The perspective being taken here Scotty, is that of the ultimate, that there ultimately is no body, are no senses, ect. They only exist on a relative level, not an ultimate level.

 

Even scientifically, through a high powered microscope, our body is taken apart to a point where it doesn't even exist anymore, it's just a inter-connected mass of quantum particles and dark matter, etc.

 

You perceive having a body only through the 5 senses, but beyond that, where is there a real and truly existing physical body?

 

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense from another perspective Scotty.

[Aaron]

Other than that part about cancer, of which i have not aaa clue as to its origins, thus have no wish to speculate, i'd say this is a very good, insightful post. So thanks for adding some spice to the topic Twinner!

 

I especially liked the last couple of paragraphs. Well said.

 

In my experience, its as if there are two worlds, both discernible, both useful... one that arises thru contact (of the gross senses) and another, subtler one, which can be discerned thru coursing in sheer awareness, where all gross contacts subside. In this second world, nothing moves. Just awareness being aware, of both the world, and of the one who is aware -

 

Within, so without.

 

In this second world there are no cause, no effect, no karma, no birth, no death, no non-cause, and no non-effect, in fact, its an existence within an existence, but just no graspable thing present. Once in a while, i get to extract some of this no thing-ness and spread it out among this mundane existence, making it a tad lighter.... One of these days, when these two worlds become closer to merging, i hope to be able to catch flying bullets like Neo.... ( half kidding... )

 

 

Hello Cowtao,

 

Thank you for the kind words. Yes, within, so without. I appreciate your insights. I was thinking about your experience within an experience and at first that seemed like an odd description, but after some reflection, I think you hit it on the head. It's funny trying to find the words for something that really can't be explained through words or images... it's like trying to gather water with a spaghetti strainer.

 

As far as The Matrix goes, I've never thought of it in regards to Buddhism. I might have to watch the first one again and see what comes up.

 

Aaron

[Aetherous]

Vajra,

 

So you've never experienced being free from the body in meditation?

 

Everyone experiences "being free from the body" each night while dreaming...but we require a body for dreaming, anyway...it's an experience occurring within the body+mind.

The perspective being taken here Scotty, is that of the ultimate, that there ultimately is no body, are no senses, ect. They only exist on a relative level, not an ultimate level.

 

But there ultimately IS a body. You'll need to communicate this for me in another way if I'm going to understand it, and accept it.

Even scientifically, through a high powered microscope, our body is taken apart to a point where it doesn't even exist anymore, it's just a inter-connected mass of quantum particles and dark matter, etc.

 

That's looking at the body from one perspective. It still exists, of course, and you're viewing a part of it. If it didn't exist, you wouldn't be seeing that particular mass of quantum particles and dark matter.

 

You perceive having a body only through the 5 senses, but beyond that, where is there a real and truly existing physical body?

 

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense from another perspective Scotty.

 

If I don't understand it, and you wish that I could, then you'd have to explain it in a way that makes sense.

 

In my view, if a Buddhist thinks it makes sense, it's solely because of the fact that it's a Buddhist sutra and they are supposed to accept it as truth. I'm hoping to find a Buddhist who actually understands it, finds it to be true regardless of personal belief, and can explain it to someone else who isn't a Buddhist.

[Aaron]

So you've never experienced being free from the body in meditation?

 

The perspective being taken here Scotty, is that of the ultimate, that there ultimately is no body, are no senses, ect. They only exist on a relative level, not an ultimate level.

 

Even scientifically, through a high powered microscope, our body is taken apart to a point where it doesn't even exist anymore, it's just a inter-connected mass of quantum particles and dark matter, etc.

 

You perceive having a body only through the 5 senses, but beyond that, where is there a real and truly existing physical body?

 

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense from another perspective Scotty.

 

 

Hello Vaj and Scotty,

 

I don't think using ultimate is necessarily a good example of Heartmind, since it is not ultimate in any sense, but rather simply the beginning state, the original nature, or if you prefer Buddha nature. To say that the body doesn't exist isn't true at all, but rather (imo) when one achieves heartmind, they understand the nature of the body and all that flows from it, which I've already explained, as have others just as well, so I don't think that requires any more explanation.

 

Scotty, the idea (imo) isn't that the body doesn't exist, nor that we don't have thoughts, but the idea is to understand where these things come from, as VMarco mentioned somewhere, understanding who we were before we were born. In understanding our face before we were born we realize we have no face, that everything that has arisen and become self, has come from our face, the physical manifestation of our consciousness on the Earth.

 

When we become aware of heartmind then we can begin to see through all of this and become aware of where it arises from, but even more so, we can begin to allow our Buddha nature to arise and from that nature Compassion and virtue can arise of its own accord.

 

I would recommend that it's not so important to understand what heartmind is, so much as it is to experience it yourself and that ultimately can't be done without insight into the nature of self. So look within and it will become apparent without.

 

Aaron

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajra,

 

 

 

Everyone experiences "being free from the body" each night while dreaming...but we require a body for dreaming, anyway...it's an experience occurring within the body+mind.

 

 

No, that's a different experience. So, I guess not.

 

But there ultimately IS a body. You'll need to communicate this for me in another way if I'm going to understand it, and accept it.

 

Not when you die, and your bodies elements feed the plants, animals, birds and bees in other ways without being a physical collective. Thus, ultimately, there is no body, it's a relative truth, not ultimate.

 

 

That's looking at the body from one perspective. It still exists, of course, and you're viewing a part of it. If it didn't exist, you wouldn't be seeing that particular mass of quantum particles and dark matter.

 

It's going to take some imagination for you to make the leap, and then you're going to say it requires a body to have the imagination to make the leap.

 

 

If I don't understand it, and you wish that I could, then you'd have to explain it in a way that makes sense.

 

Some people are too attached to body consciousness and not open to another perspective due to this deep subconscious attachment to a particular view.

 

In my view, if a Buddhist thinks it makes sense, it's solely because of the fact that it's a Buddhist sutra and they are supposed to accept it as truth. I'm hoping to find a Buddhist who actually understands it, finds it to be true regardless of personal belief, and can explain it to someone else who isn't a Buddhist.

 

Well, you're wrong, but there's obviously no convincing you of this. Maybe on your death bed you'll open up to another perspective? You seem pretty brick on this and I don't have the linguistic sledgehammer heavy enough to break this brick.

 

I find what I said about the body/no-body paradox to be true due to direct experiences through meditation which transcend mere dreaming, even lucid dreaming. I had theories reflective of this pryer to having read a single scripture. These experiences cannot be explained to someone without them, as ones mind must have touched the non-physical in order for any logic from this paradigm to ever make any sense.

Edited July 24, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Hello Vaj and Scotty,

 

I don't think using ultimate is necessarily a good example of Heartmind, since it is not ultimate in any sense, but rather simply the beginning state, the original nature, or if you prefer Buddha nature. To say that the body doesn't exist isn't true at all, but rather (imo) when one achieves heartmind, they understand the nature of the body and all that flows from it, which I've already explained, as have others just as well, so I don't think that requires any more explanation.

 

Scotty, the idea (imo) isn't that the body doesn't exist, nor that we don't have thoughts, but the idea is to understand where these things come from, as VMarco mentioned somewhere, understanding who we were before we were born. In understanding our face before we were born we realize we have no face, that everything that has arisen and become self, has come from our face, the physical manifestation of our consciousness on the Earth.

 

When we become aware of heartmind then we can begin to see through all of this and become aware of where it arises from, but even more so, we can begin to allow our Buddha nature to arise and from that nature Compassion and virtue can arise of its own accord.

 

I would recommend that it's not so important to understand what heartmind is, so much as it is to experience it yourself and that ultimately can't be done without insight into the nature of self. So look within and it will become apparent without.

 

Aaron

 

Nice!

 

Yes, through self inquiry and meditation as well as reading the words of great masters and I didn't just stick to Buddhist masters for the inspiration on heart-mind.

[Aetherous]

No, that's a different experience. So, I guess not.

 

What is your experience of being free of the body in meditation like?

Not when you die, and your bodies elements feed the plants, animals, birds and bees in other ways without being a physical collective. Thus, ultimately, there is no body, it's a relative truth, not ultimate.

 

In that case, there ultimately WAS a body. You're talking about it directly...how can it possibly be said "ultimately there is no body"?

 

This is a major problem I have with Buddhist lingo, and seeing as how you can't reconcile it, I suppose the problem is legitimate!

 

It's going to take some imagination for you to make the leap, and then you're going to say it requires a body to have the imagination to make the leap.

 

I'm very capable.

 

Some people are too attached to body consciousness and not open to another perspective due to this deep subconscious attachment to a particular view.

 

Well, you're wrong, but there's obviously no convincing you of this. Maybe on your death bed you'll open up to another perspective? You seem pretty brick on this and I don't have the linguistic sledgehammer heavy enough to break this brick.

 

I'm open to any perspective, but can easily recognize false statements.

 

I find what I said about the body/no-body paradox to be true due to direct experiences through meditation which transcend mere dreaming, even lucid dreaming. I had theories reflective of this pryer to having read a single scripture. These experiences cannot be explained to someone without them, as ones mind must have touched the non-physical in order for any logic from this paradigm to ever make any sense.

 

Bull.

[Informer]

Usually "intuition" gets associated with the solar plexus (gut feeling). The third eye is more alligned with visions, clairvoyance and seeing the energetic body etc... I have had experiences where I was able to intuit something by feeling the impressions in my body. It was when I was playing around with remote viewing, but what I downloaded had nothing to do with viewing. More like sensingor feeling. You can see how sticky it gets trying to define these things.

 

Check out this.

 

http://www.kundalini-teacher.com/chakras/3rdeye.php

 

Not sure what you have been reading?

[Aetherous]

1. The Ultimate Truth - This is the ultimate state of reality that is devoid of all ephemeral, temporal, transitional things that are found on this Earth. This is the destination of the perfect, enlightened being, and the ultimate liberation of all suffering.

 

2. The Relative Truth - This is the perception of reality as it exists on this Earth. So named because social conditions, human wisdom, lifestyles and human achievements are constantly in a state of flux. Growing an attachment to any Relative Truth is a cause of suffering.

 

http://www.urbandharma.org/udnl2/nl031604.html

 

I had to look up Buddhist definitions of the words 'ultimate' and 'relative', in order to begin to understand what you were trying to say...

 

It's still my opinion that this way of speaking is way too confusing. These terms aren't used this way in the English language.

[Aaron]

I had to look up Buddhist definitions of the words 'ultimate' and 'relative', in order to begin to understand what you were trying to say...

 

It's still my opinion that this way of speaking is way too confusing. These terms aren't used this way in the English language.

 

 

Scotty,

 

Don't believe everything you read. If you just want to argue about this, then you can, but if you actually want to understand, I'd suggest you listen and think about it, rather than just dismiss it because of some distrust you have in the religion and semantics. As I mentioned before (I'm not sure if you're reading my posts or not) heartmind isn't an exclusive Buddhist concept.

 

Anyways, good luck in figuring it out. It's by no means something you should accept, but I do suggest that there's no harm in coming to an understanding of heartmind before you actually question it.

 

Aaron

 

P.S. There's no evidence that Ultimate Truth exists, except for the experiences of others, hence there is no reason why you should accept it on blind faith, but if you want to understand the ideas surrounding it, then you need to examine the foundations of those beliefs and go from there.

[Aetherous]

Hey Aaron,

 

Don't believe everything you read. If you just want to argue about this, then you can, but if you actually want to understand, I'd suggest you listen and think about it, rather than just dismiss it because of some distrust you have in the religion and semantics. As I mentioned before (I'm not sure if you're reading my posts or not) heartmind isn't an exclusive Buddhist concept.

 

Well, I am asking questions hoping a knowledgeable Buddhist can answer me. I'm very open to actually understanding what the heart sutra was saying.

 

I'm not talking about "heartmind"...I agree with the way you describe that. I apologize, my diatribe about Buddhist lingo is a bit off topic. Might make a new thread just for that.

[Vajrahridaya]

What is your experience of being free of the body in meditation like?

 

No body, never having been a body, earth, sun... etc. and no reference for there ever having been a body or a phenomenal universe, no time either. These are called formless jhanas or samadhis of which the Buddha labels 4 different types, the samadhi of infinite space, infinite consciousness, infinite nothingness and the meditative absorption of neither perception nor non-perception. You cannot imagine this experience, as there is no central point of reference in these experiences, so it's an entirely different experience of the potential that is sentience or consciousness. Sometimes considered an experience of the mahashunya or great void in Hinduism.

 

I had this experience before reading a single spiritual scripture. The experience is so powerfully beyond the senses that the senses don't hold a cup, or are merely a cup in the vast ocean of human potential which is actually self transcendent. As in a human can transcend being locked into this idea of self limited human identity. Coming back to awareness as confined and defined by the 5 human senses and reality as excepted and as detected through the 5 senses, believed to be a literal fact based upon previous habitual mental patterns surrounding this assumption based on experience previously limited by the 5 senses. I realized that this is merely a relative truth but that there are subtler truths that are more stable than those detectable through the 5 senses only accessible through meditative absorption or meditative contemplation along with meditative absorption, or a conscious death.

 

 

In that case, there ultimately WAS a body. You're talking about it directly...how can it possibly be said "ultimately there is no body"?

 

Because your perception of a body is relative to the 5 senses detecting a body and you assume that these 5 senses are the sole definer of ultimate reality based upon your experience, while I do not - based upon experience beyond the body.

 

This is a major problem I have with Buddhist lingo, and seeing as how you can't reconcile it, I suppose the problem is legitimate!

 

This is a problem I have with lingo arising from those with 5 sense bondage and those that limit their consciousness by this very popular assumption.

 

I'm very capable.

 

Yes you are, there is always hope.

 

 

I'm open to any perspective, but can easily recognize false statements.

 

Only according to your thus far remembered limited personal experience as reference.

 

Bull.

 

Actually, you are an example of evidence proving the validity of my statement.

[Aetherous]

Vajra,

 

No body, never having been a body, earth, sun... etc. and no reference for there ever having been a body or a phenomenal universe, no time either. These are called formless jhanas or samadhis of which the Buddha labels 4 different types, the samadhi of infinite space, infinite consciousness, infinite nothingness and the meditative absorption of neither perception nor non-perception. You cannot imagine this experience, as there is no central point of reference in these experiences, so it's an entirely different experience of the potential that is sentience or consciousness. Sometimes considered an experience of the mahashunya or great void in Hinduism.

 

BTDT. It's generally the essence of my direct experience, as well. To only be aware of things when they appear. No mind.

 

But that doesn't mean these things (body, earth, sun, etc) don't exist! You aren't in a higher or more true state of existence when not aware of anything. It doesn't have any implications regarding the "relative" world. And it doesn't mean you are EVER "beyond the body" since you're the body that's meditating and having the experience (or lack of one).

 

I realized that this is merely a relative truth but that there are subtler truths that are more stable than those detectable through the 5 senses only accessible through meditative absorption or meditative contemplation along with meditative absorption, or a conscious death.

 

What are those truths?

 

In that case, there ultimately WAS a body. You're talking about it directly...how can it possibly be said "ultimately there is no body"?

 

Because your perception of a body is relative to the 5 senses detecting a body and you assume that these 5 senses are the sole definer of ultimate reality based upon your experience, while I do not based upon experience beyond the body.

 

I don't assume that the 5 senses are the sole definer of ultimate reality at all.

 

This is a major problem I have with Buddhist lingo, and seeing as how you can't reconcile it, I suppose the problem is legitimate!

 

This is a problem I have with lingo arising from those with 5 sense bondage and those that limit their consciousness by this very popular assumption.

 

5 sense bondage? Buddhists are so strange sometimes...

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajra,

 

 

 

BTDT. It's generally the essence of my direct experience, as well. To only be aware of things when they appear. No mind.

 

But that doesn't mean these things (body, earth, sun, etc) don't exist! You aren't in a higher or more true state of existence when not aware of anything. It doesn't have any implications regarding the "relative" world. And it doesn't mean you are EVER "beyond the body" since you're the body that's meditating and having the experience (or lack of one).

 

 

Like I said, it's impossible for a person to relate without the experience. If physicality were ultimate, it would never transform into non-body things, but it does, therefore the body is only a body due to 5 sense designation of it being so. Once your awareness ejects from living through the physical body, either through meditation or through death, you will know that consciousness is not dependent upon the physical make up.

 

What are those truths?

 

There are experiences available to an individual consciousness that are not limited to physical perishability.

 

I don't assume that the 5 senses are the sole definer of ultimate reality at all.

 

Ok, good.

 

5 sense bondage? Buddhists are so strange sometimes...

 

Yes, they are a limitation, assumed by most to be the end all be all of reality detection. Thus, most are bound by these 5 senses and not liberated in and through there higher self transcending potential available to meditators and spiritual contemplatives.

[Aetherous]

Like I said, it's impossible for a person to relate without the experience.

 

It is every human being's experience, whether they know it or not...

 

If physicality were ultimate, it would never transform into non-body things, but it does, therefore the body is only a body due to 5 sense designation of it being so. Once your awareness ejects from living through the physical body, either through meditation or through death, you will know that consciousness is not dependent upon the physical make up.

 

The body is not dependent on the 5 senses...our perception of it is. You only believe the universe exists when you are aware of it? It doesn't exist when you're not paying attention?

 

There are experiences available to an individual consciousness that are not limited to physical perishability.

 

I asked you about the truths you realized while in what you consider to be "bodiless" states...not experiences you had.

 

5 sense bondage? Buddhists are so strange sometimes...

 

Yes, they are a limitation, assumed by most to be the end all be all of reality detection. Thus, most are bound by these 5 senses and not liberated in and through there higher self transcending potential available to meditators and spiritual contemplatives.

 

What other reality would a person care to detect? I'm honestly asking this, not just being snarky.

[Vajrahridaya]

It is every human being's experience, whether they know it or not...

 

Potential to be experienced directly as well. Yes, formless, beyond 5 sense levels of reality are a part of the 5 sense level of reality.

 

 

The body is not dependent on the 5 senses...our perception of it is. You only believe the universe exists when you are aware of it? It doesn't exist when you're not paying attention?

 

No, that there is actually a dimension of experience available to all sentient beings where there is no universe and never having ever been a universe, which is basically just a subtler dimension of the universe beyond it's appearance as the phenomenal universe as apparent through the 5 senses.

 

I can see how my words can be interpreted in many different ways. To know what I mean, you would have to know where I'm coming from referentially.

 

I asked you about the truths you realized while in what you consider to be "bodiless" states...not experiences you had.

 

 

There was a sense of perfect peace, total bliss beyond the body sense of joy happening through brain chemicals and the fulfillment of sense desires. Really, I learned enough through the experience to fill many books. It also ignited in me a longing to know more deeply my own potential. Love and compassion for all beings was automatic and still is to a greater degree than I notice in other people without deeply formless states of meditation to access. It's as if I've been inside the deepest unconscious of all sentient beings, thus I feel more physiologically attached to them, while mentally on a deeper than body level, more detached from myself and them.

 

What other reality would a person care to detect? I'm honestly asking this, not just being snarky.

 

Other realities which the story of the physical universe arises dependent upon. Kind of like string theory attempts to discuss. Learning of other dimensions of experience beyond the 5 senses helps one understand the 5 senses without getting as lost in them anymore. Like seeing them from beyond them, one becomes more objective about them and not so lost in their pulls and tugs. From here one can have more control over the impulses arising in the senses as well as a deeper understanding of what the impulses mean and also how they can truly be fulfilled through deeper insight into reality instead of excess over indulgence in happiness through sense friction. Those that have these levels of meditative experiences have a natural sense of deeper intuition regarding perception in general.

[Aetherous]

Thanks for attempting to answer my questions, Vajra. I am deeply dissatisfied with what I know of Buddhism, as a result. If I were to ever truly learn about it, for some reason which I can't fathom, I guess I'd need a teacher who was more capable of addressing my questions honestly and sensibly.

 

But don't let that reflect upon my opinion of you...I like you.

[tragblack]

No body... These are called formless jhanas or samadhis... the samadhi of infinite space... an experience of the mahashunya or great void in Hinduism.

 

About a fourth of the times I meditate, my body doesn't feel like it's there anymore, like I have no boundaries, but that's about as far as it goes.

 

Once your awareness ejects from living through the physical body, either through meditation or through death, you will know that consciousness is not dependent upon the physical make up.

 

I have experienced the feeling, but that doesn't mean it doesn't originate within the body... though I would like that to be the case... I just can't say I know things like this for certain.