Sunmaster

Waking up at 5? That's perfect. Use that time to do a meditation routine and your life will improve on all levels. You think you are being handed lemons, so make a nice lemonade out of them. 😉

As far as I know, nobody is forced to follow this thread, so feel free to leave any time you feel threatened by new ideas. If I remember correctly, you already left 2 or 3 times, yet (inexplicably and regrettably maybe) you came back every time. The mysteries of life....

I've never heard about Vishwananda before watching this video, but it took me all of 2 minutes to find out that he is not Indian nor does he live in India. As far as I can see, he is not marketing himself as a cancer healer, so your allegations of him being a money-hungry fraud are just baseless accusations. If Jesus himself were to make his long-awaited comeback tomorrow, I'm sure you'd be first in line to throw stones at him. It's not the first time you start a smear campaign without evidence, and probably won't be the last. And what you say about his attire isn't even worthy of a reply.

Yeah...got home and commented at 01.30 in a not so crisp condition. 😅

Your points are valid on some level, but I think you are overthinking it. The point is not to find some alternative explanation to what is being described, but to examine the explanation given by those who are studying the phenomena and more importantly, those who are actually doing it. In this case it is mastering a specific mediation technique that, as a byproduct, allows for a remarkable control over the body and the senses. Would this explanation be really so preposterous that other even less likely scenarios have to be conjured up? I mean, you could think of a hundred different explanations, but why not focus on the one given? Instead of investigating 100 different explanations, investigate the one offered and come to your own conclusion whether it is true or not. That's just common sense really.

You'd be surprised at what the mind is capable of doing when trained properly: Meditation changes temperatures — Harvard Gazette

Excellent. Very nice life you have carved out for yourself. The perfect time and environment in life to direct the focus within. Astute observation about the mind observing the mind. I think it's true that the mind is observing itself, at first. It's the ego looking at itself, playing both the role of the thief and the policeman simultaneously. At a certain point however, something else emerges behind the mind, and the mind becomes just another object that can be observed. This perspective allows you to see the body and the mind as parts of a bigger "I". They appear like a costume you have to wear for a limited period of time. And when you slip into that costume and take on the role it comes with, you also take up its duties and responsibilities. You are also given the tools (a body with senses and a mind to process them) to enjoy life if you choose to do so. From this perspective, life looks a lot different. The bit you said about the environment is also true, to a certain point. As a beginner in meditation, I'm still easily distracted by the environment. It's much easier to quieten the mind in an environment that promotes this silence. Silence in the sense of sound and in the sense of other senses. Meditating in a cave has a different quality compared to a room or in a forest. I've tried. However, people more advanced than me have mastered this "shutting down" the outer senses that they are not perturbed by external inputs. Some people can meditate on the snow in the Himalayas, for example. Of course, these are 2 extremes and there are many shades of grey in between. But the important thing here is to remember that you can train your mind to shut down the outer senses and thus find the silence within. Silence is the fertile ground from which all else emerges. As you see, so far the instructions are very simple and straightforward. They don't require you to change your beliefs. There is no admission fee, nor do you have to read any manuals. They only require you to divert the focus from the outside to the inside. Not just by thinking about it, but really taking the time to sit down and practice. It might sound extreme, but I think that if you are not the master of your mind, then you are its slave. If you believe you are the mind/body, then you are its slave. There is only one way to find out whether this is true or not. Practice looking within regularly. Of course, the question for all of us is, is there a desire to do so?

What is the source of all experience? One thing we all have in common is the fact that we are all conscious/aware. Without that, we wouldn't be here discussing anything. So, I would say that this consciousness is at the base of all experience. Our 5 senses perceive the environment and send signals to the brain. The mind then evaluates those signals and categorizes them in 2 main boxes: good "I want more of that." or bad "I don't like that, avoid!". Perhaps we can agree on this. Where we might not agree is on the nature of consciousness. As a materialist, you probably believe that consciousness is a product of brain activity. It's a belief as good as any, because ultimately there is no concrete scientific evidence either way. Sure, the brain and the mind are linked to consciousness, but correlation is not equivalent to causation. We can say that the 5 senses are like sensory tentacles that take inputs from the external world, feeding data to the mind by way of the brain. So, in this case, the mind is turned outwards. But the mind can also be turned inwards. To do this, we don't need the 5 external senses. Actually, when we do this, we try to "switch off" the 5 senses (sitting still, eyes closed, in a silent room), and only focus our attention on a mantra or the breath or a personal God (whatever the personal preference is). We become a detached observer of the breath. We learn to observe the mind itself. That's why we can say "We are not the mind". If we can observe it, it logically means that we are not it. In regard to happiness then, I can see 2 sources: one is from the outside, perceived through the 5 senses, and one is from the inside. I think we all start out to find happiness in the first one, and we all know that this type of happiness is temporary. Fame, wealth, sex, relationships...they come one day and are gone the next. There comes a point when a person gets tired of this endless chase and starts questioning the whole rat race. Such a person will then look for a different type of happiness, one that is not dependent on external factors, but always available, wherever they are. In my case, I found it on the inside. Don't get me wrong, I still experience happiness from the outside (a good meal, good company, a walk in the forest, playing with my cats, creating art). In fact, these external joys are amplified by the happiness I find within. So, it's not a renunciation of the outside at all, but rather a full embrace of it, while being firmly anchored in the inside. You haven't answered the first question though. What is your source of happiness?

Maybe it would be even more precise to say that the source of happiness is in the mind first, which then translates into physical effects such as the release of endorphins, serotonin, dopamine and oxytocin. The brain doesn't release these hormones by itself but needs an input from the mind. I'm sure you'll agree to this. Science does. Take sport for example. Practicing sport can be a source of happiness for some and a source of pain for others. We can't say it is a universal source of happiness. It's a variable. Or fishing, or mountain climbing. It makes some people happy and leave others completely unfazed. Some brains produce happiness hormones, some don't. Why? Different temperaments, different expectations. Where are these expectations formed? In the mind. The mind then interprets which activity gives pleasure and which doesn't. In this process, the brain is the last one in line, producing the physical results we can measure. So be careful....the brain and the mind are not the same thing. Red Phoenix's quote of M Aurelius is relevant because it highlights exactly this. Thoughts are formed in the mind. The mind uses the brain, and the brain responds to the mind. The mind also changes the brain. People choose their actions—their brains do not force them to do anything. There would be no conscious experience without the brain, but experience cannot be reduced to the brain's actions.

Interestingly, neurologylive.com states the following: 1. Happiness activates several areas of the brain, including the right frontal cortex, the precuneus, the left amygdala, and the left insula. This activity involves connections between awareness (frontal cortex and insula) and the “feeling center” (amygdala) of the brain. Apparently, happiness activates areas of the brain. It doesn't say that the brain produces happiness. So where does happiness come from??

Where exactly? Left side, right side, frontal lobe, medulla oblungata, cerebellum....?

I, on the other hand, stopped wondering why people post ignorant comments and seem to be proud of them too. Evidently, their brains aren't receiving enough signals...

Sure. The difference is where one expects to find happiness. Where do you find it?

The difference between knowing and realizing....

I think that on the most basic level perhaps it's "removing ignorance about one's own Self".

Quod erat demonstrandum...

In the beginning of this thread it was very chaotic. There were dozens of people posting every day and most of them were materialists or atheists venting their frustration at religion. There were a couple of bible thumpers who were hammered into silence by a rather vociferous and aggressive atheist majority. There was absolutely no chance in hell these 2 groups would find any kind of understanding. Zero. There was another small minority who I will call the Seekers. The seekers are people who refuse the reductionism of the atheists/materialists, they refuse the dogmatism of both science and religion, and seek a more dynamic, deeply personal approach to the question of divinity. I was one of them. As the years passed, the balance in the thread shifted. The troll posts became less and less while there were more and more quality posts. A few atheists, agnostics and seekers tried to battle it out, debating a wide range of topics: religion, science, spirituality, aliens, psychedelic drugs, music, mystical experiences, philosophy, consciousness and consciousness research and many more. This was the time where I looked at myself and started to see that I was little more than a fraud. Here I was, fiercely defending spirituality from the attacks of the material reductionists, often frustrated at them for not getting what was so clear to me, praising direct experience over intellectual knowledge. But what about me? The main personal experience I had was that one time I experienced the Kundalini Awakening. This was all I could use to back up my point of view. But that was 30 years ago....what about now? During this time I decided that it was time to "walk the talk", and so I started a daily practice of meditation. Most definitely one of the best decisions in my life. During the last year or so, the atmosphere in the thread changed. The usual posters were now a few materialists and a handful of seekers. The discussions were for the most part civilized and revolved around the topic of science, spirituality and how consciousness fits in both. There was a distinctive change in quality in the posts, but also in myself. I no longer got frustrated and irritated by the occasional troll posts (well, at least much less than before 55) and only focused on trying to convey the essence of spirituality in the best way I could. This is where my meditation practice came in handy. Among the seekers there was a fervent individual. A very rational and educated person who would debate everyone else into the ground by the sheer number of lengthy posts promoting his map of reality. I won't name him to preserve his privacy. 😄 At first, I considered him a sort of "ally" for the seekers. We had the same "opponents" after all. Lately however, another dynamic started to emerge and become clear: he was a scholar and not a seeker. What is the difference? Scholar: Focus: Acquires and accumulates knowledge through formal study and research. Tools: Relies on data, evidence, logic, and critical thinking. Strengths: Deep understanding of specific fields, expertise in analyzing information, ability to identify and solve problems within their area of study. Potential Limitations: Can be focused on details and miss the bigger picture, may prioritize theoretical knowledge over practical application, limited understanding of human nature and emotions. Seeker: Focus: Understands the essence of things, seeks deep insights and meaning beyond intellectual knowledge. Tools: Relies on experience, intuition, empathy, and discernment. Strengths: Offers sound judgment, guides others with practical advice, sees complex situations from multiple perspectives, promotes peace and well-being. Potential Limitations: Cannot always explain their intuition logically, may not have formal academic credentials, their advice may seem subjective or anecdotal. It became evident that he was the epitome of the scholar. He would post very long and verbose posts, almost always heavily sprinkled with quotes from his bible, outlining what his teacher teaches about this or that topic and how wrong everyone is who doesn't see the truth in those teachings. Total intellectual rigidity. A bit like the bible thumpers we all know. He and I started to drift more and more apart, at least philosophically. The main point of contention being that direct experience trumps intellectual knowledge. He would not concede that there are levels in awareness and understanding of consciousness, and this belief created all sorts of distortions. The same way I gave up hoping that materialists would "see the light", I also started to lose hope that he would understand. The more I thought about it, the more it became clear that there was a qualitative gap between our points of view. I could see his position because I've been in the same place, but he couldn't see mine. In fact, he got so confused as to where I stand, that he even called me "religious", a "hater of books" and a hater of my ego! 😄 So, what is this all about? Qualitative gap? Levels of awareness/consciousness? Levels of understanding? I picture it a bit like a tree. A tree grows in 2 directions: horizontal and vertical. On the horizontal line we find quantitative knowledge, on the vertical line qualitative knowledge. Let's see this in more detail with some examples. If we look at our own personal evolution, we can detect several "jumps" in understanding: from child to adolescent, to a more mature understanding. These jumps are always connected to an increasingly wider and more inclusive awareness and understanding of the world and oneself. As a child our world is very small. We only care about ourselves, our body and our needs. A little older, we expand this world to include others. At first our immediate family and gradually friends as well. Then we discover our sexual nature and a whole new world opens before us. The previous levels of childhood are still there, but like the growth in a tree, new rings are forming around the core. Each new ring incorporates the old one and goes beyond it. The tree grows. Let's take these 4 jumps or steps as we are all familiar with them. A - early childhood/"My world is whatever I need", B - late childhood/ "My world is my family and friends" C - adolescence "I'm a sexual being", D - adulthood "I'm finding my place in society" (Please note: this is not the only way to categorize development. This is not meant to be a psychological treatise, but is simply a way to pave the road for my main point) Each new step is a new level of branches on our consciousness tree. Once we set foot on a new level, we are forced to learn as much as possible about this level in order to navigate it successfully. This then is the horizontal knowledge we need in order to deal with the challenges of the new level. For A it will be learning to get that toy by pointing at it or screaming. Making yourself heard when you're hungry or when you are in discomfort. Everything revolves around you and your needs. For B it will be learning how to get emotional gratification, feeling safe and loved. Lots of new boundaries are explored here. Everything revolves around "How far can I go?" and "Which behavior brings be benefits, which one will get my in trouble?" What is accepted and what not? For C it will be learning how to navigate the world of mating, how to present yourself in a way to facilitate it and relate yourself to people outside your close family and friend's circle. We all know how difficult and stressful this learning process is! For D it is learning how to be a productive and valuable member of society. We have now identified vertical growth (various developmental levels) and horizontal growth (the knowledge accumulated on a specific developmental level). A refusal to acknowledge the existence of such levels and stages is for me as ridiculous as the flat earth madness. Funnily enough, it's one of the few topics most materialists and seekers seem to agree on. Not all though... Now, most people will "climb" this tree of consciousness to a certain level. Our world here consists of strategies to get our physical needs fulfilled (A), our emotional needs fulfilled (B), our sexual needs fulfilled (C) and our social needs fulfilled (D). Some people however, develop a new kind of need, a need for meaning (E). This new need comes with its own set of challenges and with its own new level of understanding. Just like all previous levels, it transcends and includes the levels that preceded it. Questions like "Who am I?" and "What does it all mean?" become central. New questions receive new answers and new answers are then incorporated into a new framework. What has all this got to do with the scholar and the seeker? First of all, there is a qualitative difference. The seeker is just a person who has climbed onto a higher branch of the consciousness tree and is now expanding the horizontal knowledge on that level. It has to be said that the jump from A to B to C to D all come quite naturally and effortlessly. You grow into them as part of your natural development as an individual. Jumping from D to E however (or man 3 VS man 4 [Gurdijeff]; or first tier VS second tier [Ken Wilber]), is much more radical and requires more of a conscious effort. E is neither required nor necessary to survive in our society, hence it is not pursued by many. The scholar is a person who is firmly established on the mind level and has explored and mapped this level in great detail. Whatever unknown there still is out there, is believed to be made known by simply more horizontal knowledge on that level. The seeker however, knows that more horizontal knowledge will not provide or insure that qualitative jump onto the next higher branch. The seeker knows that holding on to that horizontal knowledge is the very thing that prevents the jump. The scholar reduces everything coming from above the tree into the framework of his own level. The scholar is unable to gain any real understanding from the seeker. The only thing he gets are catchy quotes and feel-good ideas. Would an 8 yo child know what it's like to be in puberty? You can try to explain it to him, he can see it in his older siblings maybe, but he will never truly know what it's like until he himself gets flooded by those hormones. Direct experience trumps intellectual, second-hand knowledge. When will the child know? When the child is ready to know. When will the scholar know? When the scholar is ready to know. On to the main point: The difference between a scholar and a seeker is the direct experience of the inner world. Here is an analogy I thought of early this morning.... Direct experience gives a man a multi-dimensional "image" of the truth (what we usually call insight). After receiving this image, he then employs his rational mind to write the caption to this image. The caption however, despite his best efforts, is merely a very crude approximation of that image. It can never express the full impact of the image on the man, nor its multidimensional proprieties. Unfortunately, the caption is the only thing he can share when communicating with others. (Note: People further up the tree are capable of transmitting knowledge by presence alone. Captions are used sparingly or not at all.) This process transforms a normal man into a seeker. Picture first, caption later. The scholar on the other hand, goes at it in exactly the opposite way. He starts from the captions (building up his worldview by accumulating horizontal knowledge) and uses them to paint the image. Of course, being limited by words that only describe the image in such a crude fashion, will result in an equally crude and two-dimensional image. The image gained in such a manner in no way resembles the image gained by the seeker. It would be like comparing a stick figure drawing to Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam", times a million....and even that doesn't fully convey the difference in quality. Yet the scholar will insist that his stick figure is in no way of lesser quality than Michelangelo's painting, simply because he doesn't accept the concept of quality (stages of development) in the first place. He only accepts quantity (horizontal knowledge) as a means to gain knowledge and reveal truth. In the same way an adult can not force a child to jump levels (for instance jump from late childhood to puberty) but has to wait until that level emerges in the child as a consequence of his natural development, the seeker can not force the scholar to jump to the next tree branch. The scholar must first reach the limits of his level and see that those answers are no longer enough for the new arising questions he has. This creates a vacuum, a new need. The old is rejected, but there is nothing yet to take its place. This is the perfect condition for the next jump. So, what can we do? We can not force the development (neither in ourselves nor in others), but we can facilitate it by supplying the right conditions. Ideally, the body should be healthy (good food, enough sleep) and the mind should be cultivated by avoiding harmful distractions (TV news, dysfunctional relationships, irrelevant and superficial information and habits). A very effective method is meditation, which trains the mind to become still and thus allows that which is beyond (or beneath) the mind to emerge. What will the scholar do at this point? He will insist that all possible knowledge to be gained on the vertical line (which he doesn't believe exists in the first place) is in fact to be found on the horizontal line. That means that all present unknowns can become knowns by simply reading and thinking. If it were as easy as this, the world would be filled with wise man, but where are they? There are intelligent people, there are people with high morals and ethics, and there are some who are a mixture of these attributes. But there are very, very few wise men. Why is that? Because it takes more than reading books to become wise. And no doubt will this very post go through the scholar's meat grinder of intellectual inquiry, chopped down and picked apart in search of the image. The scholar will certainly, once again mistake this caption for the image. And for this reason, despite the incessant demands of the scholar, the seeker (wisely) refuses to answer his questions, as the answers would merely be colorless captions of the actual images. That's all the scholar is looking for...more and more captions in order to form and strengthen the image he's painting. And that is fine....for the scholar. That's how he fulfills his needs. The seeker however, prefers to generate his own image by practice and direct, personal experience. It may not be perfect, it may have flaws and inaccuracies, but it's an authentic and unique image, not an empty copy of someone else's masterpiece. The seeker too is trying to fulfill needs, but he knows that this can not be achieved by more intellectual learning. Image first, caption later. And this is the crux of the whole debate. The whole endeavor is futile. The seeker doesn't need the scholar's knowledge because he has already transcended that level and he already knows that the answers to his current questions are not to be found there. The scholar doesn't recognize nor accept the level of the seeker and mistakes it for just another place on his own level/branch. The 8 year old looks at his brother going through puberty and scratches his head..."He must have gone crazy!" Disclaimer: No books were harmed during the making of this post. Live Long and Prosper

You say you can see my point of view very clearly. By calling me "Swami" and "religious" you demonstrate that you clearly don't. I'm not surprised at all, tbh. I will post the promised MO now as it is, since you're about to leave this place for good. It's not perfect, but not too bad either. This will settle everything on my side...I hope.

Sorry, but this is just nonsense. Of course everything is Brahman, there is nothing that is not Brahman. The distortion is in your head. And of course, this body and this mind are also spiritual. Everything is "spiritual", even the dump I produced this morning. You are saying "Oh, everything is spiritual. We are all already enlightened. No need to do anything. Why striving to realize Brahman?" And another thing is BEING Brahman...having realized it in your life...living it. There is a simple test: Do you think you are enlightened right now? Do you think you are speaking from the One Consciousness now? Are you a wise saint right now? Don't be modest. If you are, please tell us. The old issue....intellectual knowledge tells you that everything is spiritual and already illuminated, so the ego tells you to just sit back and pat yourself on the back, oh enlightened one.😁 The rest of your post is based on this false assumption.

Ok, you are my new spiritual guide, oh wise one. 😁 How could I be so blind until now?

2 people discussing a topic in a civilized manner is "a sad sight to behold"? "Cult leaders"? 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Please go on posting your videos about lizard people controlling your mind and don't worry about us. You seem to have a talent for that. Thanks

Before I bestow my Magnum Opus upon you (not sure when), I will try to untangle this hot mess. I'm not sure if you just wrote this as a provocation or you really believe what you wrote here. 🤔 Time and again you've told me that my book learning amounts to nothing compared with direct experience. It's barren, are the words you once used, I believe That invalidates book learning as having any true value. And since book learning is experience, a part of our experience, then by extension it devalues the rest of experience. This is not what I said. Feel free to go back and quote every post I made about this. I will try to make it as clear as possible and settle this once and for all. Intellectual knowledge gained through books and rational processing of data is important! It's important and valuable for those things that pertain to the realm of the mind (that includes the material world too). If you want to build a good bridge, you have to learn how to build it properly. If you want to know how the market works, you have to study economy. If you want to be a surgeon, you have to study medicine. This kind of knowledge is not the same as "spiritual" knowledge (= the knowledge of your true nature), though. The first is of the mind (doing), the second is beyond the mind (being). Trying to gain spiritual knowledge by intellectual inquiry alone is what I object to. If your aim is to explore your inner, subjective world, you have to quieten the mind first. Only after can the mind be allowed to process the experience. If book-reading alone could give you spiritual knowledge, the world would be filled with saints. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this is the case. You've a piss poor estimation of your own ego, for instance, which you've expressed many times. It's internal dialogue is nothing more than monkey chatter. How demeaning. It inhibits you from realising your "true" self - again I remind you that your idea of identity is extremely limiting - and works against you. And yet your ego is a portion of you. How can you then speak so poorly of your own self and believe that a portion of it is your enemy? Again, there is a time and place for everything. Here too I said it many times that the ego (and the mind it stems from) is a tool that fulfills a function. This has nothing to do with self-flaggelation, becoming a renunciate or denying this part of me. What I said is that in order to access the deepest parts of our being, the mind has to become your ally. As it is with the vast majority of people, the mind runs amok and produces an army of naughty little thought-monkies that constantly take us on thought-rollercoasters. Have you ever tried closing your eyes and focusing only on your breath? How long can you sustain that focus before a thought monkey takes your attention away. "Oh, I still have to reply to Sunmaster"..."The internet is slow today. I wonder why."..."Btw...what should I eat for dinner?"...."I really should eat less meat."...."I'm getting a bit fat."....and on and on it goes, the whole day, every day, the whole life. This chatter, this mental noise is what the problem is. The mind is a knife that has to be sharpened so that it becomes most effective. The mind has to be tamed like a wild horse. Only this way can the true identity (which is not the ego) reveal itself, otherwise you'll spend your time being catapulted from one thought to the other. The mind, along with the ego it produces, are a part of you, like you rightly wrote. They are not you. They are a part of you. So, if they prevent me from revealing this bigger me, I will sure as hell tame that wild horse and kick the thought-monkies where the sun doesn't shine. To summarize....the mind is not the enemy. The restless mind is the enemy. The ego is not the enemy. The tyrannic ego is the enemy. Hope this settles it.

No worries, something is coming very soon. I woke up this morning at 4am with a fully formed idea and had to get up to write it down. I'm still working on it, but have to leave now and will be back this evening. Then I'll have to read it again and most likely rewrite it too. Some parts may be a bit too "in yer face" German, even for you. 555

You put those words in my mouth. I never said that our experience as a physical creature is invalid nor meaningless. Hence, your whole indignation is built on a faulty interpretation of what I said.