An important part of self-inquiry for me is observation of the body, looking for tensions, and breathing into them so that they can be let go of. You could call that mindfulness I guess, but what I think is usually understood by mindfulness practice (e.g. the way it is taught by Shinzen Young), is paying attention to sensory input without any further "letting go" or looking for a 'self', and that never worked for me: doing that, a strong meditating ego arose, a "doer", trying to notice all the sensations as good as I could... This became a huge obstacle.

In which case one is being mindful of the 'doer' which tries to notice the movements of the mind. One stopped that ego habit which one did not like through mindfulness. This sounds contradicting and unclear, but it depends entirley on what you know was that "doer' and how it manifested itself (I imagine that it manifested as a controlling voice in the head, and indeed this is a hindrance)

"[sati] should be understood as what allows awareness of the full range and extent of dhammas; sati is an awareness of things in relation to things, and hence an awareness of their relative value. Applied to the satipațțhānas, presumably what this means is that sati is what causes the practitioner of yoga to "remember" that any feeling he may experience exists in relation to a whole variety or world of feelings that may be skillful or unskillful, with faults or faultless, relatively inferior or refined, dark or pure."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(Buddhism)

Yes. Apart from our definition of mindfulness we seem to agree on the fact that a doer emerging and then the doer being seen for what it is, is the way the path unfolds

This reminds me very much of moral guidance. Intellect is not responsible for assessing moral guidance. Deductive reasoning is not the process that leads to assessing morals.

When we are exposed to something a feeling is produced within us that is completely divorced from any form of logical choice.

Where something lies on a moral reference frame is purely and only felt. It is pure experience. No intellect, logic, or decision making behind it.

This is one of the reasons I believe in idealism, because the physical world simply becomes a physical representation of concept.

And the irony is not lost on me that my reasoning for primacy of mind is that feeling is absent of reason.

Scylla, thanks for your response! I had to read through your whole thing a few times to understand your point, and I think I got it. There were a lot of questions and points which you made, and I hope I addressed them all respectfully.

It can be difficult to be precise with language, but I don't think that's a language's fault. I think with enough practice, almost anything can be expressed through language. I will use the word "Spirit" or "Consciousness" here to ease things up.


" But consider this argument. If we are not discrete entities....if we are not simply marbles...but are components of a whole.....how can "we" ever stop existing?"
--That's because the "We" or the "I" never existed in the first place. The feeling of being a unitary self-passing from moment to moment is a bio-chemical illusion. Consider these questions as analogies: Where does a song go when it's done being played? Where does a dance go when it's done being danced? Imagine your brain is a million intersecting laser beams. The point at which they all meet is consciousness. It's not a "thing," its a cross-section of other processes, much like a song. This is testable in the lab. If you "turn off" or alter certain "lasers," people's experience of the world changes fundamentally. A marble implies the existence of a localized self which travels from moment to moment (a “you” that rides around in your head), but we are not separate from ourselves. The feeling of being an experiencer in addition to the experience; to be a marble in addition to a maze. This is consciousness, but this is an illusion. We are not separate from anything, we take a distinguished form, much like a wave in the ocean, or sound waves in the air, but that form is all part of the whole.

What I hear you talking about here is the "Play itself" and not the "Props or the stage" so to speak- and you're wondering how could the experience of reality arise out of a "dead" universe? Does that seem to be what your quotes are saying? That physical correlations don't explain away the experiential side of consciousness? Because I would agree there.

Here, I think its good to make a distinction between the 2 sides of commonly recognized reality. The heads and tails of this coin, so to speak. The physical side we are aware of. That's matter and energy, and chemicals which make up drugs and emotional states, and photons and electricity, space, time and gravity.. etc...
Then there is, as you are pointing out with your quotations, the subjective - experiential side of reality. This is the experience of emotions and memories and dreams. Its consciousness and consciousness is irreducibly subjective.
One side cannot be reduced to the other, both sides "exist." This doesn’t, though, mean both sides can be separated.
(I've come to understand these two sides of reality as the "above" and "below" of the Emerald Tablet.)

Side note In my Ocean and sandcastle analogies, the waves/sand would fall back into the sea/beach. This visualization is simply meant to show that, even though we have a distinct form, the feeling of separation from the ocean is an illusion from the start. The feeling that our conscious selves are separate from the universe around us, separate from our bodies, is important for survival, but we find that there is no place for your “you” to be riding around in your brain. In this respect, You ARE your body, and matter is the body of God.

You say that if this analogy were true, we would not have an individual awareness to talk about these things. I don't see how that follows. A complex system can be self-aware and still that "awareness" doesn't have to be localized in the system. Would you care to elaborate, friend?

IN fact, to better understand you, I’d like to ask you some questions because your passages seem to contradict themselves a bit:
"We hold a great many things to be external to ourselves, but I am gradually of the view that "consciousness" is not derived from matter"
- Is your conclusion not the very notion that the spirit is separate from matter? That the universe is external to your spirit? That they are not the same?
”It is not isolated marbles that engage in disappearing acts of non-existence upon the death of our bodies.
- I would agree that awareness is a fundamental aspect of the universe, but the idea that the pure essence of the self is somehow localized in the body and can float freely of it. THAT is the marble in the maze. In the analogy I bring forth you are a corner of the maze, not a marble in it. The corner may feel distinct and ask itself how the other corners feel, but its all one maze.

You say you cannot accept that emotions are physical systems, but this is a two-fold problem. You then emphasize this with the idea that "Most neuroscientists agree that color is produced in the mind. Surely there are wavelengths of light there, but the color is a property of our perception of the light, not the light itself."
1- Our ability to feel emotion, or perceive light, is a physical system, and that's proven pretty well by neurochemistry at this point.
2- What we don't understand is WHY these physical systems produce experience. No matter how tight the correlations you make in the lab, they dont explain away the fact that the physical change produces a change in the side of the user.
This is all true, but its important to remember that none of it is evidence that consciousness floats freely of the physical system that produces it. As mentioned above, we cannot reduce one side of a coin to another. Experience cant be reduced to physical correlations in the body, and physical correlations cannot be reduced in favor of the primacy of spirit.

Spiritual people attempt so much to separate spirit from matter because they see the matter as dead. For some reason matter doesn't strike them as the very body of God itself; we just see it as "dirt" so to speak. Dead clay which couldn't possibly produce the beautiful experiences we have or the range of life we see. "How can something dead produce awareness" - as the old argument goes.
I think a better way to look at matter is not dead material, but the precursor to awareness. If consciousness is a complex form matter, then matter is simple and undeveloped consciousness, right? All would be one in that respect- without subscribing to a cold and dead materialist universe, or a permanent ego riding throughout space and time.

You say that people are content with assuming the spirit or consciousness is created and destroyed, again I would point to the song analogy. You cannot create or destroy matter, but it can change form. You cannot destroy a wave, but it can change form. The form itself was a temporary expression of the whole. In this philosophy, life is a temporary expression of the universe. Why should that mean matter and physical systems are mundane and dead? That matter isnt good enough to produce the spirit? It seems to me matter and physical systems are the tools “God” used to express itself. It makes perfect sense to me that the body is the instrument and the spirit is the song.

Also I disagree with your notion about morals. Deductive reasoning is the entire basis for my moral philosophy.

Interesting Note: The "Type" of blindness one has may or may not Barr them from experiencing color. CEV's are possible for people who still have a functioning visual cortex- If I remember correctly.

I also, think you can prove the existence of things you're not immediately aware of through your senses. Evidence can be left and tests can be done. Chemistry is a good example of that.

I hope this didn't come off as combative in any way, <3 I respect what you’re saying and this is simply my take on it.

Fran Lover! Thanks for the comment.

I have to admit I got a bit jealous when you thanked scilla for the analogy because it was mine (Post #12). xD

The Ocean analogy came to me during a heavy DMT experience. I respectfully disagree with scillas' take on the imagery because he says WE continue to exist, and I formed the analogy to emphasize that "we" never existed. It was all part of the whole, and never truly separate from it. That's where the waves come in. Unless we can think of the distinct form which ocean waves take as separate from the ocean? A disembodied spirit seems to me more like a ship in the water and not waves in the ocean.

He gets close when he says "we are nevertheless part of it ... because we always were and always will be
That's exactly what I mean when I said "and so reincarnation seems more like a description of the way waves in the ocean become distinct and then fall back into the ocean they were never really separated from in the first place, but there's no way to make "That" wave again, but I emphasize that I disagree with the part where he says "WE continue to exist," because the whole analogy is to express that the distinct "we" or "I" never existed in the first place.

I ask about dinosaurs to point out that there are no reports of such things. If ghosts truly existed then WE could not melt back into the ocean. We would continue to exist. You cant continue to exist as a singular entity and also melt back into the ocean. Were either boats or waves in this analogy. When we die we are either fading waves or sinking boats. I like to think of it as waves. Where a ghost would be a sunken ship. Distinct from all that is around it.

It seems to me the idea that "we" as individuals exist after death is the enshrinement of the ego. We like ourselves so much we can't stand the idea that we as individuals might stop, and have to again become everything.

Edit: I hope this didn't come off as combative, I am told quite often that the way I type is too formal or dry and I don't mean to "Push" anything spiritual. These are just musings.

Salem dont be jealous I thank you too xD And thanks for the fascinating conversation.

I live acording to what you are expressing, thats to say 'I agree' that there is no one home, so to speak, except life itself, the divine plan itself, the properties of the plains of existence themselves, and further beyond what can be conjectured.

I am pretty sure Scylla agrees with us on this. Scylla explained:



To me that is very clear. Maybe it can be worded like this: I am an expression of Life and when I die the 'I' dies (thats to say, the five agregates and the body), but the expression of life which gave birth to the life in me lives on.

This akin to hinduism's use of the word Atman, The Self, The Soul, etc...in contrast to Gotama's Anatman, Emptiness, No Soul. While that Gotama's wording is more precise and preciseness is beneficial to right understanding, to me they are refering to the same thing and both are correct and deserve praise.



I agree. Scylla is not saying that though, on the contrary.



Most spiritual people speak of their bodies as 'temples' and exercise and practice yoga incessantly, eat the healthiest foods from natural sources, dont take intoxicants, and praise the body for its awesome qualities which are a manifestation of the ultimate (thus we say that God created us in his image.)

So it is not that the body is detested, though for some that may be the case (see; self mortification), but rather that the fact is that all must depart—all beings that have life must shed their compound forms. All compounded things are subject to vanish. So for the spiritual person, the ultimate truth lieth not in the body. This is experientially verifiable; where consciousness goes the body can not. It is what can be called The Mind which precedes all things, the mind that dominates all things, the mind that creates all things

By any chance did one read this Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta ?

But we don't know for sure if counsciousness has ever truly been separated from the body.

I personally tend to belief in "the primate of counsciousness", counsciousness being the source of reality. But it is not just that this is only just a personal belief, but also that i have no idea as to how it would actually work if it was true.

If it is true, then the "source counsciousness" is probably radically different from all forms of counsciousness that we are aware of.

And maybe it would even include, cause or permeate all the material things like rocks or sand.

If we must one day leave this world, then what does that mean?

You could conclude that this world is only temporal and therefore less real. And then you could say, like some people do, that this world is not what matters. But you could just as likely say that the fact that we must leave this world, means that we must learn to love it as much as we can.

Both materialism and the rejection of materialism have the potential to alienate us from ourselves and the world around us.

I'm pretty sure consciousness is only seperated from the body at death. I dont think DMT or near death experiences or samadhi experiences are a form of leaving the body. I think they grant insight into what lies beyond the body and conditioned phenomena. But the fact is every experience we have in this life is a product of the body. The only way to go beyond the body is to die.



Is not this very realization of the meaning of 'radically different' what DMT teaches?



The idea is precisley that. The fact that there is something bigger going on behind the scenes makes the wise take this one life very seriously in order to make the absolute best of it, so that one has learned all that needed to be learned. No stone unturned. This is what it means to live as an enlightened being.

"One who gives, who is a master of giving, is dear & charming to people at large. And the fact that who is generous, a master of giving, is dear & charming to people at large: this is a fruit of generosity visible in the here & now."

"Furthermore, good people, people of integrity, admire one who gives, who is a master of giving. And the fact that good people, people of integrity, admire one who gives, who is a master of giving: this, too, is a fruit of generosity visible in the here & now.

"Furthermore, the fine reputation of one who gives, who is a master of giving, is spread far & wide. And the fact that the fine reputation of one who gives, who is a master of giving, is spread far & wide: this, too, is a fruit of generosity visible in the here & now.

"Furthermore, at the break-up of the body, after death, one who gives, who is a master of giving, reappears in a good destination, the heavenly world. And the fact that at the break-up of the body, after death, one who gives, who is a master of giving, reappears in a good destination, the heavenly world: this is a fruit of generosity in the next life."



I think a confused and erroneous rejection of materialism may alienate one from oneself or the world around one, but that rejecting materialism in and of itself--intrinsically--is not bound to alienate one from oneself or the world around one, but to the contrary, that a rejection of materialism for the right reasons and in the right way elevates one to higher and higher states of consciousness and further and further levels of happiness and well being.

“Venerable sir, it is said, ‘right view, right view.’ In what way, venerable sir, is there right view?”

"By & large, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one."


~~Kaccayanagotta Sutta
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.15/en/bodhi

Hi Salem, nothing has been interpreted as combative! I greatly appreciate you having this conversation with me. I merely am very interested in engaging people on thoughts like this. It simply helps challenge my ways of formulating ideas as language and helps develop my philosophy. When the opportunity arises I always engage, because choosing not to denies contemplation of the mystery. And I always prefer to contemplate.

Also, very pertinent quotes Fran.



Yes, I agree; but I do not agree in so far as to what, exactly, is the illusion. Is matter not the illusion just as much as "consciousness" is?



You are understanding what I am attempting to communicate perfectly.



Exactly exactly. All evidence in modern physics suggests that indeed NO, they cannot be separated. Look up Particle in a Box, Delayed Response Quantum Eraser, and Bells Theorem here in relation to quantum entanglement; if not already familiar.



The quote above you mention that "one side cannot be reduced to the other." And yet here you assert the opposite "You ARE your body."



Not what I was attempting to convey. Rather that they are inseparable. This is a monistic stance. Or from an idealistic point of view, that matter is a derivative of consciousness rather than the inverse.



Exactly exactly. But my fundamental stance here was to point out it is only reasonable we consider the inverse of the statement just as equally. This is all true, but its important to remember that none of it is evidence that the physical system floats freely of the consciousness that produces it.



Yes, this is precisely my point. I am not attempting to explicitly argue for the presence of a spirit floating freely from matter, NOR matter floating freely from spirit. They are entangled. This is the essence of monism. But if that is the stance, we can't make statements like "What we don't understand is WHY these physical systems produce experience" because it is just as accurate to ask "What we don't understand is WHY conscious experience produces these physical systems."

It is the ultimate "chicken or the egg" concept.



What if consciousness is not a complex form of matter, but matter is a distinct form of consciousness? Consider that our ability to interpret the presence of physical reality is completely dependent on what questions we seek to ask of it. Do you have any memories prior to your ability to formulate questions about the reality around you? What do you think came first...your ability to distinguish two shapes from each other, or your ability to see those two shapes? Is that one and the same question?...how did you ever see two different shapes if your mind didn't first ask the question "How are they different?" Is the formulation of a question a conscious task, or a material task? Do you think your tissue box has questions about you?



I think we are understanding each other perfectly. But you have indicated you believe the "song" is temporal and the "instrument" is eternal. How can this be if they are one and the same thing, permanently entangled? A couple questions above this we were in much agreement about inseparability of mind and matter, but now they are different again.



So when you hear about something atrocious, concentration camps or rapist serial killers, is your aversion a product of deductive reasoning? Do you sit there for a moment and think to yourself (A+B)-(C+D) = IMMORAL, with the subsequent emotional state a product of choice? Isn't the only choice whether or not you place the value of other lives in a moral reference frame that demands you to respect them? And how is that a choice of deductive reasoning? Isn't it a moral choice to assert that independent of space and time you wish to facilitate peace, harmony, and love? How do you personally come to the conclusion you love someone? Do you summate x, y and z and CHOOSE to love them based on the result....or do you just "know" because it simply happens that you undeniably experience something you can only assume is referenced by the word "love"? Wouldn't a logical choice be to simply maximize your own positions in the here and now? To rape and pillage? But even then, isn't a decision to rape and pillage dependent on the failure to acknowledge the existence of moral questions, reducing everything to logic? Is this just? Is this moral? Is choosing to make moral decisions nothing more than a logical decision to try to separate yourself in space and time from those that do not make moral decisions? If emotions are a logical choice, do you never get angry or sad? Why would you choose to get angry or sad if you could deductively reason to choose not to? Or do you make a decision based on deductive reasoning that says "I am going to be sad right now because it is in my best long term interest?"



I completely disagree here. If you use instruments as physical extensions of your mind you still must be aware of the result of the experiment if you wish to prove anything about the results. Your awareness of the result is fundamentally done through your awareness of your five senses.


And if this topic intrigues you, which it seems it does, I suggest reading "Physics and Philosophy" by Werner Heisenberg. Philosophy books written for laymen by physicists are very very interesting. A modern one is "Quantum Enigma." But of course, Heisenberg and Schrodinger are the OG's.

Good conversation, I'll check out those books Scylla (gosh I need a vacation)

Some ideas;

Consciousness, or what is called God or The Light of God or the Source, creates its body, peers into material form, because God experiences all things everywhere and in doing so learns valuable insights and lessons in order to reach higher levels of well being--this is part of its higher purpose.

It refines itself and learns from itself. Its a self referential system. This is why nature evolves. The human being, as powerful as it is today, millions and millions of years ago was a very humble creature. This was the case for all beings.

Long ago Dinosaurs reigned supreme... and now humans. This is the refinement process going on in the entire cosmos (the universe is expanding.)

The beautiful combination of the manifest and unmanifest is why our psychies, the psychies of Beings with all their awesome emotions, are so fragile. The psychic realm is the invisible realm, sort of. Yet the visible realm, the physical body, is just as fragile; one wrong move and a cub could break its leg and with a broken leg its destiny is most likely to be left behind and consequently death: the fragility of the body is the same as the fragility of the internal movements of Being. The strength, fluidity, versatility, creativity and brilliance, of the physical body is the strength, fluidity, versatility, creativity, and brilliance of the psyche. The play between these two complementary opposites manifests itself as the play between the two complementary genders (mother and father) which are the givers of Life (seed and soil.)

The reason why children are so imaginative and with their 'head in the clouds' is because they have just recently been born and they were born out of that awesome imagination and intelligence and inquisitiveness which is No Thought (Emptiness) and so that is the natural expression of all Beings. Anyone who has dogs can see that they love to learn and are good willed by nature: loving by nature. Plants and trees are beautiful. The planets and galaxies are beautiful and orderly and majestic. This is Life and these are the forms it manifests in.

Yes, I feel this strongly. I feel like my mind, like my ability to think, ESPECIALLY create moral judgement, is a component of some sort of system that is creating gradients of something non-physical. As if my choices in physical reality are indicative or affecting some sort of immutable ledger of morality that exists in a non-material plane. It is a hard concept to explain. But when I have the opportunity to make choices, I feel some sort of indication or pressure about what that choice says about myself. As if I can feel an immaterial force field that is telling me "this leads towards x" or "this leads towards y" with x and y being either good or evil. But of course the "myself" is simply a component of a whole.



Forgive my ignorance here Fran, but where does this quote come from?

hello my sweet friend, those are the words of the buddah Gotama, the line comes from the Siha Sutta of the Pali Cannon (Buddhist scripture) https://accesstoinsight.org/tipi.../an05/an05.034.than.html


I understand this too ^_^ This is natural law; the colors and shapes of the leaves of the tree, all that variety and dynamism is product of the colorless sap of the tree; from the colorless sap all colors and shapes and different expressions arise. From formlesness arises form. From emptiness arises dynamism, etc. This invisible force is the totality. This divine value of reality is within each individual naturally because all beings reverberate to the vibration of life

God bless you and keep you safe and strong