Alex Tsakiris, Four Questions About the Future of Skeptiko |414|

***
Well, I think a bunch of us better stay connected worldwide. This is why I talk to people all over the world, to see what is really going on. The U.S. doesn't even talk about the "yellow vest" in France. I've told people about it & they are ALWAYS WTH? What did you say? What? Are you sure? I tell them yeah, there are thousands in the streets of Paris protesting. It's been going on for months. I'm telling educated well connected people. Granted they are business people, stock brokers, agents, accountants, busy living their lives. So they don't have time to dig.

I'll tell you something else going on (we all know) but something odd, it's not just Google, FaceBook, YouTube that are in some kind of cahoots, they ARE. Now this Mark Zuckerberg... think about that face a second. He wants to get into cryptocurrency. THAT guy. He can't even write code.

Now he wants to control billions of people's money. Let that sink in. You guys saw Veratas right? Where a Google insider was caught saying they let 2016 get away from them, but they won't let 2020 happen. In other words control our elections.

Remember that Christ Church shooting? That Muslim place that got all shot up? Okay, so when the videos came out, I downloaded them, then uploaded them to YouTube (because they were being deleted). YouTube took mine down & gave me 2 strikes (like I care). ANYWAY, the point is, I had 2 videos one was the guy who did the deed (he videotaped himself) I got that. AND, the after math video.

The first video shows him entering the Mosque... automatic blazing. Just walking into each room & down the halls guns a blazing. Not aiming but rapid SPRAY gun fire at everyone & EVERYTHING. Killing everyone & anything that moved. Some rooms had maybe 25 people in there, other rooms less people. But, he was just spraying those rooms with auto fire. Some people were standing up, some praying or huddled. But, he fired from the opening of the doorways into the rooms, broadcast shooting.

Now the aftermath video with the people all bloody & crying... yeah, if you look at it, you all of a sudden notice a few things, no broken windows, no holes in the walls. Even one guy acting dead, but when he thinks he isn't being filmed he is smiling. WTH? Just WTH. Let THAT sink in. No bullet shots in any walls.... no broken windows.

Now, I'm a pretty good shot, but nobody is THAT good. Ask me where all the bullet casing are? Not a lot of them, just a handful.

I can't say it is all fake cause I wasn't there. But they sure as hell don't want anyone talking about it or showing ANY videos.

BTW, I took Google off my computer. I use Brave and it works great for me if any of you guys want to install a new browser. Probably another psyop but at least I tried: https://brave.com/ I like it better than Google actually. You can transfer all your liked links to Brave. I used it a few weeks before I uninstalled Google, because I was worried about uninstalling Google. But, I just went ahead & uninstalled stupid Google. Nothing bad happened.
Atlantis,
I found a copy of the shooting vid. IMO, it's real. Then I went and read some of the conspiracy theories about the event. IMO, the usual sloppy, lazy BS.

Conspiracy theorists have the weird ideas that 1. video footage is the undeniable final answer and presents a perfect picture of reality. 2. That events happen just as the theorists imagine it would. 3. That they completely and perfectly understand complicated science, like physics, gunshot wounds and ballistics, etc

To answer your some of your questions; in the video it's obvious that many of the victims were cowering on the floor when the shooter entered some of the rooms. They were shot as they lay there. Hence, no blown out windows or holes in the walls in some rooms. I see spent brass everywhere, as expected. One conspiracy guy says that the ejected brass "disappears" before it hits the deck. However, that is also obviously not true in some segments of the video and in the few instances where it does seem to disappear, it can be explained by gaps in the film's recording speed, kind of like Kennedy's head moving forward when struck, but appearing to the unaided eye to move back (stop action enhancement clearly shows moving forward before jerking back, as expected from a shot from behind).

This just confirms for me, once again, that conspiracy theorists are usually wrong as wrong can be.
 
Atlantis,
I found a copy of the shooting vid. IMO, it's real. Then I went and read some of the conspiracy theories about the event. IMO, the usual sloppy, lazy BS.

Conspiracy theorists have the weird ideas that 1. video footage is the undeniable final answer and presents a perfect picture of reality. 2. That events happen just as the theorists imagine it would. 3. That they completely and perfectly understand complicated science, like physics, gunshot wounds and ballistics, etc

To answer your some of your questions; in the video it's obvious that many of the victims were cowering on the floor when the shooter entered some of the rooms. They were shot as they lay there. Hence, no blown out windows or holes in the walls in some rooms. I see spent brass everywhere, as expected. One conspiracy guy says that the ejected brass "disappears" before it hits the deck. However, that is also obviously not true in some segments of the video and in the few instances where it does seem to disappear, it can be explained by gaps in the film's recording speed, kind of like Kennedy's head moving forward when struck, but appearing to the unaided eye to move back (stop action enhancement clearly shows moving forward before jerking back, as expected from a shot from behind).

This just confirms for me, once again, that conspiracy theorists are usually wrong as wrong can be.
***
Love it. Well, I'm going to put your idea in the hat. I have no idea. When it comes to death, I don't want to be the ass that starts up with all the IT NEVER HAPPENED. That is so rude.

When the videos were being removed faster than you could upload it, I was like wth, don't we want to look & see if it is real? It's graphic I guess, there is something to be said for removing that. But, when someone said, there were no holes in the walls, I thought yeah, that does't seem right.

I also, thought they were on the ground, maybe he's a crack shot (?). wth is with the music at the start of his video?

Something is off. The reaction by the other people. But, I've never been a mosque shooting.

Ever since 9/11 I don't trust so much anymore.
 
Something is off. The reaction by the other people. But, I've never been a mosque shooting.

Ever since 9/11 I don't trust so much anymore.
I think there's a fundamental problem with the luxury of after the fact analysis via video. A lot of crisis situations do not stand up to deep rational scrutiny. There always seem to be 'problems'. We like to imagine that reality flows rationally all the time and maybe it does not. In my professional life I have investigated situations that have turned out to be nothing at all like they were claimed to be by people who should have been safely regarded as professional and reliable witnesses. Often, in fact, what I found to be so was the opposite of what was believed to be so.

If things are not what we imagine they should be we are right in thinking we need to be cautious about conclusions. But that maybe mostly because we are wrong. As an investigator I knew not to presume that the information I was given as the basis for the investigation was valid. The authority to initiate the investigation was. But authority and perception are not equal.

If I thought "something was off" I would use that as a trigger for thinking there may be possible misconduct, not evidence of misconduct. It would be a reason for initiating an inquiry to determine whether that impression was factually based. The first step would be to review what triggered the sensation. Why did I think that?

I encounter a lot of 'conspiracy theories' and the few I have bothered to examine in any detail have, in my view, turned out to be complete bollocks. Only one has convinced me there is a thing. Another has left me wondering and acknowledging I need to pay more attention. I don't have a lot of time to spare, so I give my time to those conspiracy theories that really grab my interest. The rest I ignore because I know I will not have the time or resources to dedicate sufficient energy to confirming their validity.

I have friends who are devotees of conspiracy theories I choose to ignore, and none have convinced me to be less rejecting than I am. I was going to say less 'skeptical', but I do actually find the basis for acceptance put to me to be rubbish. I am not skeptical - I reject and deny the claimed validity. Now I admit I could be wildly wrong. I am prepared to live with that.

I haven't been to a mosque shooting either. But then I haven't been to any mass shooting. I did work in Tasmania after the Port Arthur shooting as the Comment Recovery Officer for a time. So I have some reports in my head from people who were there. Nothing more than that. My point is that I would not dare to make any critique about a shooting scene, make no comment about what should or should not be. I do know that theory and reality often do not coincide - and theory often wins out because mistrust and ignorance swamp reality.

I have to say that nothing I have ever investigated in a professional capacity has ever matched the claims and beliefs conveyed to me by my supposedly professional peers.I want to be quite clear about this. Every single instance of an alleged misdeed that has triggered an investigation I was involved in turned out to be the opposite of what conveyed to me as interpretation or opinion.

I get being doubtful, but just don't trust your suspicious mind as the basis for asserting a belief. You will be wrong most of the time.
 
I think there's a fundamental problem with the luxury of after the fact analysis via video. A lot of crisis situations do not stand up to deep rational scrutiny. There always seem to be 'problems'. We like to imagine that reality flows rationally all the time and maybe it does not. In my professional life I have investigated situations that have turned out to be nothing at all like they were claimed to be by people who should have been safely regarded as professional and reliable witnesses. Often, in fact, what I found to be so was the opposite of what was believed to be so.

If things are not what we imagine they should be we are right in thinking we need to be cautious about conclusions. But that maybe mostly because we are wrong. As an investigator I knew not to presume that the information I was given as the basis for the investigation was valid. The authority to initiate the investigation was. But authority and perception are not equal.

If I thought "something was off" I would use that as a trigger for thinking there may be possible misconduct, not evidence of misconduct. It would be a reason for initiating an inquiry to determine whether that impression was factually based. The first step would be to review what triggered the sensation. Why did I think that?

I encounter a lot of 'conspiracy theories' and the few I have bothered to examine in any detail have, in my view, turned out to be complete bollocks. Only one has convinced me there is a thing. Another has left me wondering and acknowledging I need to pay more attention. I don't have a lot of time to spare, so I give my time to those conspiracy theories that really grab my interest. The rest I ignore because I know I will not have the time or resources to dedicate sufficient energy to confirming their validity.

I have friends who are devotees of conspiracy theories I choose to ignore, and none have convinced me to be less rejecting than I am. I was going to say less 'skeptical', but I do actually find the basis for acceptance put to me to be rubbish. I am not skeptical - I reject and deny the claimed validity. Now I admit I could be wildly wrong. I am prepared to live with that.

I haven't been to a mosque shooting either. But then I haven't been to any mass shooting. I did work in Tasmania after the Port Arthur shooting as the Comment Recovery Officer for a time. So I have some reports in my head from people who were there. Nothing more than that. My point is that I would not dare to make any critique about a shooting scene, make no comment about what should or should not be. I do know that theory and reality often do not coincide - and theory often wins out because mistrust and ignorance swamp reality.

I have to say that nothing I have ever investigated in a professional capacity has ever matched the claims and beliefs conveyed to me by my supposedly professional peers.I want to be quite clear about this. Every single instance of an alleged misdeed that has triggered an investigation I was involved in turned out to be the opposite of what conveyed to me as interpretation or opinion.

I get being doubtful, but just don't trust your suspicious mind as the basis for asserting a belief. You will be wrong most of the time.
It scares me to think that these conspiracy theorists sometimes end up on juries.
 
It scares me to think that these conspiracy theorists sometimes end up on juries.
Mate! not just that! Juries scare me in general because of a lack of ability to think critically.If I had the option of a just trial versus a panel of judges there is no way I'd go jury if I was innocent. A guilty person would take a jury every time. Judges can be complete asses and utterly incompetent, but reliably so, apparently. Juries are a real risk.
 
Mate! not just that! Juries scare me in general because of a lack of ability to think critically.If I had the option of a just trial versus a panel of judges there is no way I'd go jury if I was innocent. A guilty person would take a jury every time. Judges can be complete asses and utterly incompetent, but reliably so, apparently. Juries are a real risk.
I have never sat on a jury. Each time I've been called, I've been dismissed after the lawyers ask the questions. I'm clean cut, dress well and often told that I look like an "All American" type. When I meet people for the first time they usually peg me immediately as former military (or they guess a cop if they're on the shady side and paranoid). I always answer the lawyers' questions truthfully and quite rationally/sanely. It actually bothers me that every time I get sent home. I think I'd be a good jurist on a serious case.

My wife was on a jury for a murder case. A young man (the accused) had gone to an apartment in a large complex on the shady side of town to buy drugs. He was not armed when he went into the apartment. Something went wrong and one of the dealers pulled a gun and the other a knife. The accused ran out of the apartment, down the stairs and out to his car. He opened the car door. Meanwhile one of the drug dealers was following, but was some distance away. The accused could have - and should have - driven away at that point. Instead, he produced a handgun from under his car seat (totally legal in the state in which the event occurred)) and shot and killed the dealer that was following him. The dealer was maybe 50 feet away when he was shot.

The prosecution was asking for first degree murder (meaning premeditated and carrying the most serious sentence). The defense tried to argue self-defense, but added that if the jury couldn't determine self-defense (resulting in a dismissed case), then manslaughter should be more appropriate; certainly nothing more than second degree murder.

The jury deliberation went on for days. My wife explained that the problem was that the jury wanted to convict on first degree murder because the accused had hollow point bullets in his revolver; which they argued was proof that the accused wanted to kill someone. My wife was the sole holdout. She countered that many people load with hollow points just in case they must use the weapon in self-defense, they want the best chance of stopping the attacker. But the rest of the jury fixated on the hollow points (my wife is well versed in these matters).

Some other members of the jury began to threaten my wife verbally, but she held firm. Finally, after a few days, the jury decided on 2nd degree murder and handed in their decision. My wife tells me that it was one of the most disturbing experiences of her life (participating in the inner workings of the justice system).

The jurists remind me of conspiracy theorists. They latch onto one or two items that they don't understand and then draw battle lines. It's just nuts.
 
I think there's a fundamental problem with the luxury of after the fact analysis via video. A lot of crisis situations do not stand up to deep rational scrutiny. There always seem to be 'problems'. We like to imagine that reality flows rationally all the time and maybe it does not. In my professional life I have investigated situations that have turned out to be nothing at all like they were claimed to be by people who should have been safely regarded as professional and reliable witnesses. Often, in fact, what I found to be so was the opposite of what was believed to be so.

If things are not what we imagine they should be we are right in thinking we need to be cautious about conclusions. But that maybe mostly because we are wrong. As an investigator I knew not to presume that the information I was given as the basis for the investigation was valid. The authority to initiate the investigation was. But authority and perception are not equal.

If I thought "something was off" I would use that as a trigger for thinking there may be possible misconduct, not evidence of misconduct. It would be a reason for initiating an inquiry to determine whether that impression was factually based. The first step would be to review what triggered the sensation. Why did I think that?

I encounter a lot of 'conspiracy theories' and the few I have bothered to examine in any detail have, in my view, turned out to be complete bollocks. Only one has convinced me there is a thing. Another has left me wondering and acknowledging I need to pay more attention. I don't have a lot of time to spare, so I give my time to those conspiracy theories that really grab my interest. The rest I ignore because I know I will not have the time or resources to dedicate sufficient energy to confirming their validity.

I have friends who are devotees of conspiracy theories I choose to ignore, and none have convinced me to be less rejecting than I am. I was going to say less 'skeptical', but I do actually find the basis for acceptance put to me to be rubbish. I am not skeptical - I reject and deny the claimed validity. Now I admit I could be wildly wrong. I am prepared to live with that.

I haven't been to a mosque shooting either. But then I haven't been to any mass shooting. I did work in Tasmania after the Port Arthur shooting as the Comment Recovery Officer for a time. So I have some reports in my head from people who were there. Nothing more than that. My point is that I would not dare to make any critique about a shooting scene, make no comment about what should or should not be. I do know that theory and reality often do not coincide - and theory often wins out because mistrust and ignorance swamp reality.

I have to say that nothing I have ever investigated in a professional capacity has ever matched the claims and beliefs conveyed to me by my supposedly professional peers.I want to be quite clear about this. Every single instance of an alleged misdeed that has triggered an investigation I was involved in turned out to be the opposite of what conveyed to me as interpretation or opinion.

I get being doubtful, but just don't trust your suspicious mind as the basis for asserting a belief. You will be wrong most of the time.
***
Love it. Agree with most of it. I never bought the WMD excuse. Building 7 should give us all pause. Sorry, I'm holding a grudge because of 9/11. Buildings do not just fall in their own footprint, not building 7. I also don't buy the Oklahoma city (Morrow) bombing. Not after hearing the first responders & looking at the situation. I also lost all respect for the FBI (I give you the Bundy (rancher) shot to death.

All I can say is there are a LOT of psychopaths running around (and running things).

But, I hear you Michael Patterson, I hear you.
 
Alex,



I am also not convinced the four stages of PNSE are correct based on my own experiences. One of the experts he interviewed in his original research believes he forced the data to fit his preconceived beliefs:
https://www.dharmaoverground.org/discussion/-/message_boards/message/6458099#_19_message_6492333


...
The PNSE stages are the underpinning of the system of assigning the right technique to the student. If the PNSE stages are flawed the whole basis for the course and its high tuition is flawed.
To be fair, I don't agree that qualities described in stages of Buddhist awakening are necessarily developed in the order they are claimed to be either.
 
To be fair, I don't agree that qualities described in stages of Buddhist awakening are necessarily developed in the order they are claimed to be either.
*****
Okay then, PNSE (stands for Persistent non-symbolic experiences) < in case anyone asks. Are we still talking about mystical experiences, remote viewing, NDE & seeing ET's? All those things are NOT related.

Also, the "four stages" is stupid, "to get to the path & fruit". I didn't spend much time on this, just kind of scanned over it. The link said the "arahant" needs to be free of conceit, restlessness & ignorance. NOBODY is free of those things unless they are dead or a liar OR possibly stupid.

People I'm telling you now, do not drink the purple cool-aide, do not join Scientology & nobody needs to be sweeping up around the ashram or prayer hut. If you are that desperate, you can come over & pull weeds in my gardens to cleanse your souls & be "awoken".

Song of the night:

You'll be "woke" soon enough. "Neuralink" wait for it.
 
Last edited:
The link said the "arahant" needs to be free of conceit, restlessness & ignorance. NOBODY is free of those things unless they are dead or a liar OR possibly stupid.

People I'm telling you now, do not drink the purple cool-aide, do not join Scientology ...
;;/? +1

If anyone would like some empirical evidence::

https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/scandals-buddhist/
Will Sanghas Learn from the Scandals in the Buddhist World?
Sexual assault allegations and ethical violations have exploded in Buddhist communities over the last year. Are they equipped to handle what comes next?

By Wendy Joan Biddlecombe AgsarJAN 28, 2019
Any organization religious, spiritual, political, or otherwise where they claim that the leaders are morally superior to regular people are wrong and anyone involved should see that delusion (if it is not outright deceit) as a reason for extreme caution.. Catholic scandals are in the news, I have also see unethical conduct among high ranking spiritualists (mediums bragging they like to make their grieving clients cry, ministers orchestrating political machinations to rise in the church hierarchy - destroying their church in the process) who are supposedly "spiritual" and understand the law of karma.

I have seen it over and over again, the people who rise to the top in any hierarchical organization are the sociopaths who like power and control, And if they are not sociopaths, they are still not immune from the corrupting influence of power. Cognitive bias, confirmation bias, the human ability for self deception exists in everyone leaders and followers, and no one is immune.

I benefited from my experiences with spiritualist churches and Buddhist temples and other people may benefit too. But I never believed anyone was beyond ordinary human frailties and everyone should be just as skeptical as I was.
 
Last edited:
;;/? +1

If anyone would like some empirical evidence::

https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/scandals-buddhist/


Any organization religious, spiritual, political, or otherwise where they claim that the leaders are morally superior to regular people are wrong and anyone involved should see that delusion (if it is not outright deceit) as a reason for extreme caution.. Catholic scandals are in the news, I have also see unethical conduct among high ranking spiritualists (mediums bragging they like to make their grieving clients cry, ministers orchestrating political machinations to rise in the church hierarchy - destroying their church in the process) who are supposedly "spiritual" and understand the law of karma.

I have seen it over and over again, the people who rise to the top in any hierarchical organization are the sociopaths who like power and control, And if they are not sociopaths, they are still not immune from the corrupting influence of power. Cognitive bias, confirmation bias, the human ability for self deception exists in everyone leaders and followers, and no one is immune.

I benefited from my experiences with spiritualist churches and Buddhist temples and other people may benefit too. But I never believed anyone was beyond ordinary human frailties and everyone should be just as skeptical as I was.
***
100% correct. The sooner everyone knows this as fact the better. BTW, I was watching a video of a Buddhist stealing a cell phone of a guy who was trying to help him. Went to look for video clip (too many) BUT, I did get one of a Buddhist stealing woman's underwear! LOL

My preacher tried to drownd me as a kid (I must have been ALL in the sin or something). Catholics same, Jews same. Man is a rather nasty creature. Hate to say it, I try to be nice myself. I promise I won't steal your cell phone OR your underpants!

PS: yes, I also benefited from teachings from my church & the Bible, but I know what reality is. I also learned from Asophs fables.
 
Love it. Agree with most of it. I never bought the WMD excuse. Building 7 should give us all pause. Sorry, I'm holding a grudge because of 9/11. Buildings do not just fall in their own footprint, not building 7
Yeah Building 7 gets me too. I recently heard a respected person comment that he believed that the American government knew something was about to happen and let it. He (whose name now escapes me) was not the kind of person who you'd expect to buy in to the doubt, given his prominence, so that remark from a relative insider was telling. He stopped short of the standard 9/11 conspiracy theories in a hesitating manner, but allowed the sense that 'they' knew.
 
...​

Chamath Palihapitiya, former Facebook vice president for user growth was quoted in a article in The Verge[Vincent]

Chamath Palihapitiya, who joined Facebook in 2007 and became its vice president for user growth, said he feels “tremendous guilt” about the company he helped make. “I think we have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works,”​
...​
“The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops we’ve created are destroying how society works,” he said, referring to online interactions driven by “hearts, likes, thumbs-up.” “No civil discourse, no cooperation; misinformation, mistruth.​

https://www.facebook.com/MichaelYon...64.-2207520000.1565288018./10156495759520665/
Pay attention: tonight I talked for about an hour with a "Google Snowden" who will soon go public. A deep insider.​
Fascinating stuff. I cannot say much now other than pay attention to what is coming out starting in a week or so from now.​
Source said many interesting things about how Chinese are flooding into tech companies like Google, and some of the incredible techniques they can use to brainwash or at least mislead millions of people.​
Take this as an example that I am making up based on our conversation. Again, I am making this up but it is based on our conversation:​
A politician tweets saying we must protect our national interests.
Google, or whoever, immediately promotes all stories that translates, "must protect our national interests," to "nationalism," and then in almost real time rewrites the meaning of "nationalism" to include traits such as xenophobic, racist, and references Nazis as nationalists.
This happens so quickly and so comprehensively that most people never will notice that in the 30 seconds the curtain was closed, Google (or whoever) rewrote part of the dictionary, and history.
To state this more clearly: they can basically rewrite what you say, write, sing, wear, or hand gesture -- name it -- and they can rewrite that faster than we can make popcorn.
They can do this anonymously saying the algorithm is doing it when in reality they write the rules that make the rules.​
Anyway, the insider told me much more. I do not know how much already is public but I do think that if the source is correct, President Trump and a lot of others in powerful positions will be extremely angry with some of the internet players who already have hired half of China.​
Imagine what this can do to an election.​

I don't feel that I am that susceptible to this sort of brainwashing - at my age I am not that flexible anymore and I don't get my news from search results or news aggregators. On the other hand, if I am being influenced I would not be conscious of it, young people who do not have fixed ideas will be much more susceptible, and elections are won on the margins, shifting a small % can tip an election - they only need to influence a fraction of the population.
 
Last edited:
Dr Martin may have used best-in-class methodology to measure the results from his classes, but his original research on PNSE was done differently it was based on interviews. There is no way to tell whether his personal bias influenced his results. That's fine for an exploratory study, but it needs to be tested objectively before it is taken as fact.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2019/08/enlightenment-what-is-it-and-what.html
I have been having discussions over at another forum where enlightened folks hang out, asking questions and doing what I think Dr. Martin should have done: Trying to figure out what enlightenment is, the process by which it happens, the effects of awakening, and how awakening produces those effects. With that knowledge, it is possible to understand how different practices work. With the knowledge of how different practices work, each person can chose or develop a practice or that works for them - something they think they will be able to stick with because it is congenial and meaningful to them.

What we have come up with is:
  • The source of unenlightenment is a person's mental model of self that develops in stages from infancy to adulthood.
  • The way practices help produce awakening is by helping a person to realize their mental model of self is fabricated.
  • When a person sees how their mental model of self is fabricated, it no longer filters their view of reality and they no longer make a distinction between self and non-self, They feel that they are the universe and each part of it and everyone and every creature in it.
  • The "suffering" that awakening cures is our psychological reaction (agonizing and craving) in response to emotions. Awakening does not end emotions it changes our understanding of them in a way that stops us from craving or agonizing over them. That "craving or agonizing" is the "suffering" which awakening ends.
  • When the mental filter of self is removed, "suffering" is ended because at the root of all that agonizing and craving is a reactions to perceived threats to the self (to the ego) such as being insulted, losing, being embarrassed, not having what someone else has, someone else having what you think should be yours, etc etc.
  • Practices help a person to give up the filter of self that they have fabricated in various ways:
    • Allowing yourself to feel emotional pain is the way to let go of it and that weakens the ego (the feeling of self).
    • Practices that quiet the mind help you to see the activity of the mind and make it possible see more clearly what is happening in it.
    • Observing the mind, seeing you are just awareness observing thoughts, emotions, and impulses:
      • Shows a person that if they look closely they cannot find a self anywhere they look for it.
      • Helps a person to get closer to a state of consciousness without the mental filter of self.
    • When the mind becomes still during some types of meditation, the filter stops too.
  • You can understand the reason awakening is so difficult to achieve by considering what it would take for you to not agonize over assaults to your ego - not agonize over to losing your job, not agonize over breaking up a relationship, not agonize over being embarrassed, etc etc.
  • After a person first sees the the filter of self is fabricated (the first stage of awakening in Buddhism) the effects are large and permanent even though they still have a lot of work to stabilize that view to make it a constant (persistent) state of consciousness.
 
Last edited:
  • When a person sees how their mental model of self is fabricated, it no longer filters their view of reality and they no longer make a distinction between self and non-self, They feel that they are the universe and each part of it and everyone and every creature in it.
If that is enlightenment, then I would never want to become enlightened. Your version of enlightenment could be summarized as follows: suicide = enlightenment.
 
If that is enlightenment, then I would never want to become enlightened. Your version of enlightenment could be summarized as follows: suicide = enlightenment.
The people who experience it like it, and they can switch perspectives at will. Like if you are watching a movie and are so caught up in it you forget your surroundings, but then you realize where you are and that you're watching a movie. Ordinary consciousness is like being caught up in thoughts, emotions, impulses and events around you so you forget what you are. Awakening is like stepping back from all that and realizing you are just watching a movie. The reason people like it is that unpleasant thoughts and emotions don't take over their mind and create a lot of unhappiness. But it is not like death, they keep living ordinary lives going to work, raising their children but with a lot less trouble from unpleasant thoughts and emotions.

Individuality and unity are not mutually exclusive. Unity does not eliminate individuality. There is nothing to be afraid of or unpleasant. Unity is not like forgetting, it is like remembering.
 
The people who experience it like it, and they can switch perspectives at will. Like if you are watching a movie and are so caught up in it you forget your surroundings, but then you realize where you are and that you're watching a movie. Ordinary consciousness is like being caught up in thoughts, emotions, impulses and events around you so you forget what you are. Awakening is like stepping back from all that and realizing you are just watching a movie. The reason people like it is that unpleasant thoughts and emotions don't take over their mind and create a lot of unhappiness. But it is not like death, they keep living ordinary lives going to work, raising their children but with a lot less trouble from unpleasant thoughts and emotions.

Individuality and unity are not mutually exclusive. Unity does not eliminate individuality. There is nothing to be afraid of or unpleasant. Unity is not like forgetting, it is like remembering.
Fair enough. However, it is still wise to keep in mind what David Sunfellow said about this topic:
This world is about becoming individuals, not merging back into the primordial soup that we came from.
One of the great dangers associated with classic eastern perspectives that thumb their noses at this world and focus mainly on leaving it is that if we do manage to experience non-dual states, those states tend to turn us into zombies. We can loose ourselves in the primordial soup.
David Sunfellow, Can the Scientific Study of NDEs Reveal the Purpose of Life? |413|
 
Fair enough. However, it is still wise to keep in mind what David Sunfellow said about this topic:




David Sunfellow, Can the Scientific Study of NDEs Reveal the Purpose of Life? |413|
Raimo,
I share your distaste for blobbist philosophy.

My own view is that one would seek to become "one" with a higher force/organization as a musician becomes "one" with a band or orchestra. Plays in harmony with others, but is still unique and adds individual flourishes to the over all music.

Actually, it's probably not even always a matter of seeking. We are all aligned with some force all of the time. However, one can elect to align with more positive fields of mind and energy and work at it by maintaining a focus and working out distracting kinks in one's soul.

IMO, the Buddhists and other blobbists - especially of of the new age bent - are basically getting it wrong. They deny the reason they were created. They seem to hate their own existence, even if they deny that is the case.
 
Last edited:
Top