Andrew Holecek, Lucid Dreaming and Yoga |459|

Alex

Administrator
#41
I think Alex missed a BIG CHANCE in this interview. Andrew dangled before Alex that which Andrew advertised as "fundamental to consciousness."

How could Alex have not jumped on that??!! At least ask him what that might be! At least ask him to explain it! Maybe its BS, but gosh... how can we know now?
why don't you email him. I'd be curious to know
 
#43
Hi Andrew and thanks for having the discussion with Alex,

I am writing because at one point in the interview you said -

"I’m thrilled to talk about my understanding about consciousness and why it’s illusory and what’s more foundational than even consciousness, because the wisdom traditions as I’ve come to practice and understand them obviously speak a great deal about this, and consciousness has a very limited kind of bandwidth, in terms of the spectrum of mind. There’s something actually more foundational."

...and it saddened me that Alex didn't let you go there...

I wish to add that my "big awakening" happened in 2005 and happened all at the hands of one book. Ken Wilber's One Taste... for in reading that book, contemplating, meditating on where Ken takes the reader in little snippets between what otherwise seems like heartfelt, but personal, journaling... Ken words led me to that place of one taste and then... to the Absolute (as some call it). Only years later did I come upon a book entitled Consciousness and the Absolute by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj where he shares his last talks before departing. I read the words that reinforced this understanding of that which seems only known via direct apprehension, the Absolute.

Was that (essentially) where you were offering to take the conversation?

Kind Regards
Chester from the Skeptiko forum

Andrew's reply:
"You're a good listener Chester, that is exactly where I was going...
Andrew"
 
Last edited:

Alex

Administrator
#44
Hi Andrew and thanks for having the discussion with Alex,

I am writing because at one point in the interview you said -

"I’m thrilled to talk about my understanding about consciousness and why it’s illusory and what’s more foundational than even consciousness, because the wisdom traditions as I’ve come to practice and understand them obviously speak a great deal about this, and consciousness has a very limited kind of bandwidth, in terms of the spectrum of mind. There’s something actually more foundational."

...and it saddened me that Alex didn't let you go there...

I wish to add that my "big awakening" happened in 2005 and happened all at the hands of one book. Ken Wilber's One Taste... for in reading that book, contemplating, meditating on where Ken takes the reader in little snippets between what otherwise seems like heartfelt, but personal, journaling... Ken words led me to that place of one taste and then... to the Absolute (as some call it). Only years later did I come upon a book entitled Consciousness and the Absolute by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj where he shares his last talks before departing. I read the words that reinforced this understanding of that which seems only known via direct apprehension, the Absolute.

Was that (essentially) where you were offering to take the conversation?

Kind Regards
Chester from the Skeptiko forum

Andrew's reply:
"You're a good listener Chester, that is exactly where I was going...
Andrew"
excellent Chester. thank you very much for pursuing this and sharing it with everyone. I really love when people take the initiative to be part of this project. I must say it always peeves me a little bit when people make suggestions about what I should do and then are unwilling to do anything themselves.

regarding the above, I feel like I'm must be missing something... I mean isn't the "absolute" beyond ordinary or even extended consciousness what were always pointing towards? isn't this what in the NDErs are talking about? isn't this what most of the great wisdom traditions are talking about?

and regarding this particular interview, isn't this exactly what susan blackmore is obfuscating with her ridiculous buddhist atheism?
 
#45
Well OK - go on, why not expand on how that would work.
Well, I've already stated that putting it into words will be unsatisfactory to many, and that dissatisfaction matters little either way. That said, this article is worth a read (with an open mind):


Unlocking the "Mystery" of Consciousness
Explaining it requires neither supernatural intervention nor any new fundamental physics




It is tricky.
Conceptually impossible when part of it, perhaps.

Are you happy with that simplification - consciousness embodied in a computer?
It appears to be a feature of biological systems with advanced, complex sensory systems. Once you’ve read and processed the above article, comparisons to (what we consider to be) computers seem a little trite.
 
#46
Well, I've already stated that putting it into words will be unsatisfactory to many, and that dissatisfaction matters little either way. That said, this article is worth a read (with an open mind):


Unlocking the "Mystery" of Consciousness
Explaining it requires neither supernatural intervention nor any new fundamental physics






Conceptually impossible when part of it, perhaps.



It appears to be a feature of biological systems with advanced, complex sensory systems. Once you’ve read and processed the above article, comparisons to (what we consider to be) computers seem a little trite.
Well if you want to make that distinction, what exactly does a layer of chemistry add? I think the very reason why AI took off (back in 1980) was that it seemed plausible that you could remove all the squishy chemistry and just use computer logic.

David
 
#47
Well if you want to make that distinction, what exactly does a layer of chemistry add? I think the very reason why AI took off (back in 1980) was that it seemed plausible that you could remove all the squishy chemistry and just use computer logic.

David

I will respond more fully later. Did you read that link?
 
#48
regarding the above, I feel like I'm must be missing something... I mean isn't the "absolute" beyond ordinary or even extended consciousness
I think it can be seen that way, yes... in fact, that was what Andrew was suggesting - "something fundamental to consciousness."

isn't this what in the NDErs are talking about?
I don't think one needs to grasp The Absolute via an NDE though, I assume one could experience the direct apprehension of The Absolute in an NDE just like I did even while anchored in ordinary consciousness and then finding myself in Turiyatita (just another word for it)

isn't this what most of the great wisdom traditions are talking about?
In my experience, when I come upon a written or spoken expression of the heart of the perennial philosophy (which can be found in the most esoteric teachings within just about all known religions (maybe all), they use their own words to point to this "Absolute," and so I would say Yes to that question.

and regarding this particular interview, isn't this exactly what susan blackmore is obfuscating with her ridiculous buddhist atheism?
Ohhh yes, but IMO, she doesn't even seem to get to consciousness in the way I grasp it.

COMMENT: I have gotten to the point I don't wish to waste my earthly time I have (for the rest of this life... and I'm not telling anyone there's more but I sure as hell am "betting on it") with these blackmore's etc. It's their journey... and if they derive some reason to keep going in whatever way they do, as they say... "God, bless them," though I don't "do" spirituality that embraces an external 3rd party "God thingie" so I mean that expression to say, "That's their life... they must live it and deal with their reflections both here and hereafter (be there such)."

All I can say is, I read one book (Ken Wilber's One Taste) and it opened the door to that direct apprehension because (at least I think this made the difference), I accepted the paradox (because it can't be otherwise), and I understood The Absolute - intellectually... and then BAM when I experienced the real deal samadhi (true, direct apprehension), and it all fell together (2005).

But then, I had to dig a deep hole which led to 2012 and a true, waking state NDE, followed by a 3 month long despair filled 'dark night of the soul' and then a good 7 more years redesigning my soul from the ground up (a metaphor) for it to all come together. So in 2019, when I read Consciousness and the Absolute by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj... a book transcribing the final recorded talks by this man in his last stages of dying from cancer, you could see the difference in what seemed important to him from when he wrote the book he is famous for, "I Am That."

Even consciousness was no longer THE important "thing" for him because even consciousness is filled with change and thus impermanent, fleeting, and cannot be "Ultimate Reality" for its form is ever changing... and so he fully embraced The Absolute. And in that book, he distinguishes one from the other many times in many places and, well, because I could recognize that, I felt I finally, really got it. - and thus, the title Consciousness and the Absolute.

And so what folks like Andrew seem to achieve, is an ability to live with the outrages by falling back on that ultimate fundamental (The Absolute - the only true, ultimate reality) while, at the same time, living, living with vigor, with gusto, with love leading the way (doing... as an expression of their being, like Icke was talking about in your recent interview)... I got it when Icke said, one isn't separate from the other... what one is doing is an expression of their being and an agency of consciousness is still, at the end of the day, consciousness which is illusory (always changing) and thus the ultimate reality can only be The Absolute.
 

Alex

Administrator
#49
And so what folks like Andrew seem to achieve, is an ability to live with the outrages by falling back on that ultimate fundamental
I have nothing against andrew but discussion brings to mind the beautiful point by donald hoffman -- "if we're going to talk then we need to be precise as possible"

in this case that precision would lead me to conclude that andrew hadn't understood the deception that was being perpetrated upon him by susan blackmore. then again, maybe I'm wrong... but at least I'm trying to be more precise. saying"that's not how I roll" ( andrew's quote) is not being precise :)
 
#50
I have nothing against andrew but discussion brings to mind the beautiful point by donald hoffman -- "if we're going to talk then we need to be precise as possible"

in this case that precision would lead me to conclude that andrew hadn't understood the deception that was being perpetrated upon him by susan blackmore. then again, maybe I'm wrong... but at least I'm trying to be more precise. saying "that's not how I roll" (andrew's quote) is not being precise :)
Ahhh well, when I heard Andrew say that, I took away that he didn't agree with her but that he isn't interested in confrontation, especially if he might already assess susan blackmore as "unaccessible" - why waste the time?
 

Alex

Administrator
#51
Ahhh well, when I heard Andrew say that, I took away that he didn't agree with her but that he isn't interested in confrontation, especially if he might already assess susan blackmore as "unaccessible" - why waste the time?
ok, but chester this whole thing came about because he quoted blackmore in his book. I would never quote susan blackmore, sam harris, neil deGrasse tyson or michael shermer without pointing out their silliness when it comes to consciousness.

and again, I got the impression that he did it fully comprehend his oversight regarding blackmore. it's not like he said "oh you didn't read the part where I totally distanced myself from her Buddhist atheism nonsense.
 
#52
ok, but chester this whole thing came about because he quoted blackmore in his book. I would never quote susan blackmore, sam harris, neil deGrasse tyson or michael shermer without pointing out their silliness when it comes to consciousness.

and again, I got the impression that he did it fully comprehend his oversight regarding blackmore. it's not like he said "oh you didn't read the part where I totally distanced myself from her Buddhist atheism nonsense.
Ahhhh, ok... If you stated that in the interview as well, then I failed to "register it" but also, this clarifies your coming into that part of the discussion already ready to do "Skeptiko battle." This is another lesson for me. I know there are times (not many but a few), where I felt you seemed to... to be too quick to become a bit charged up. But I think I better understand now, you have much more info/prep than me (and likely most of us) as listeners.

In fact, in my experience of your interviews, it is clear you do a lot of preparation in advance which includes reading people's books and watching/listening to other interviews and podcasts.

I will strive to keep this in mind. Life continues to teach me... uggghhh, not always so easy.
 

Alex

Administrator
#53
Ahhhh, ok... If you stated that in the interview as well, then I failed to "register it" but also, this clarifies your coming into that part of the discussion already ready to do "Skeptiko battle." This is another lesson for me. I know there are times (not many but a few), where I felt you seemed to... to be too quick to become a bit charged up. But I think I better understand now, you have much more info/prep than me (and likely most of us) as listeners.

In fact, in my experience of your interviews, it is clear you do a lot of preparation in advance which includes reading people's books and watching/listening to other interviews and podcasts.

I will strive to keep this in mind. Life continues to teach me... uggghhh, not always so easy.
thanks... But to be fair there is almost no way you could have decipher this just by listening... so I'm glad we hashed this out.

I think this topic is actually quite deep... and central to the whole Skeptiko project. I mean, Andrew is not a bad guy... in fact, he seems to be quite a good guy. but I think he was been intentionally deceived, or at least "played" in an intellectually dishonest way. of course, I have no way of knowing whether susan blackmore say stays up at night scheming about how to advanced some evil agenda of atheistic buddhism, but I do know she's smart enough to know better and should be held accountable for being intellectually dishonest.

And secondly, and maybe most importantly, I gotta call out andrew for not course-correcting when he finds out he's been duped. look, we all get duped. I'm still working through a couple of dupings that are going to be the subject of future skeptiko episodes. being duped is the price we pay for being on the cutting edge and being willing to take in a lot of controversial data. the real magic comes from course-correcting once we realize we've been duped :)
 
#54
I have no way of knowing whether susan blackmore say stays up at night scheming about how to advanced some evil agenda of atheistic buddhism, but I do know she's smart enough to know better and should be held accountable for being intellectually dishonest.
YES!!! and yet... the more I see this (and this same type of "thing" is happening so, so much - just look at all the Skeptoko shows that have exposed this type of deception - yes, I see it as deception) screams at me that so, so many of these folks actually believe what most likely is "self-deception" and that the only thing that makes sense as to what might be at the core of this all too common trend in humanity can be traced back to a common, shared, mass trauma experience.

I have the feeling I am going to be exploring this hypothesis more and more.

But back to what I wanted to say as a point. These "intellectuals" (the ones that also get the attention along with all the material perks from "the system" as well as all the psychological "high fives" from those who are "up there" in the social structure (media, Hollywood stars, TV, and the "book club") are able to avoid their personal traumas and thus, are able to get away with behaviors that perpetuate the illnesses generated by these suppressions and pass the same "thing" on to their children and friends, associates, etc.

All along this route is a total avoidance of what may be the actual shared human trauma (the Fentons' scenario) which all this other suppressive activity "protects" (Tom Zinser and a single sub personality that only lives in "the now") the primary personality from ever getting to the primary root cause. This means the collective soul will never heal unless we get through all our personal BS and face what may have started it all for us all. (Again, if there's any merit to my hypothesis).
 
#57
Alex - Great interview! I'm catching up on some of the summer shows. This is a great one. You do a superb job of laying out your viewpoint. Andrew is clearly unprepared to defend his views. From the start, he was giving his stump speech and explaining to you his vast and deep understanding of Tibetan Buddhism. Woe to him.

Last summer, I participated in a 5-day Tibetan Buddhism meditation retreat in Grass Valley. It was my first time. At the meal breaks, I found myself having roughly the same conversation as you and Andrew, expect it was me and 6 Buddhists at the table. I was just beaten back every time.

The limit of deep spiritual training is it becomes a straitjacket the further the learning goes. Who wants to spend 3 years in monastic meditation, come out and write a bunch of books and then go on a podcast to be confronted by the host about the fallacies in their core positions?
 
#58
Alex - Great interview! I'm catching up on some of the summer shows. This is a great one. You do a superb job of laying out your viewpoint. Andrew is clearly unprepared to defend his views. From the start, he was giving his stump speech and explaining to you his vast and deep understanding of Tibetan Buddhism. Woe to him.

Last summer, I participated in a 5-day Tibetan Buddhism meditation retreat in Grass Valley. It was my first time. At the meal breaks, I found myself having roughly the same conversation as you and Andrew, expect it was me and 6 Buddhists at the table. I was just beaten back every time.

The limit of deep spiritual training is it becomes a straitjacket the further the learning goes. Who wants to spend 3 years in monastic meditation, come out and write a bunch of books and then go on a podcast to be confronted by the host about the fallacies in their core positions?
Reminds me of what happened to Rick Strassman over his DMT research.
After initially having the support of his spiritual homies, he was then roundly and publicly condemned when he wanted to further the clinical research.
Religion - any religion - can indeed become a straitjacket.
 

Alex

Administrator
#59
Alex - Great interview! I'm catching up on some of the summer shows. This is a great one. You do a superb job of laying out your viewpoint. Andrew is clearly unprepared to defend his views. From the start, he was giving his stump speech and explaining to you his vast and deep understanding of Tibetan Buddhism. Woe to him.

Last summer, I participated in a 5-day Tibetan Buddhism meditation retreat in Grass Valley. It was my first time. At the meal breaks, I found myself having roughly the same conversation as you and Andrew, expect it was me and 6 Buddhists at the table. I was just beaten back every time.

The limit of deep spiritual training is it becomes a straitjacket the further the learning goes. Who wants to spend 3 years in monastic meditation, come out and write a bunch of books and then go on a podcast to be confronted by the host about the fallacies in their core positions?
thx Dan... but I'm having a hard time squaring this comment with yr reaction to:

Alex Tsakiris: Some people get offended when their religious beliefs are challenged. They feel like religious beliefs are protected beliefs, but others see religion as an extension of the social engineering project.

David Icke: I call it the “God program.” All of the different names and different rituals obscure the fact that it's a very simple blueprint: “What are you?” “I’m a Christian.” “What does that mean?” “Well, I go to church and this man in a frock (women often now) tells me what God wants me to do.” “Okay, well that’s interesting.” “And he tells me the consequences of me not doing what God wants me to do.” “Okay, you?” “Oh, I’m a Muslim.” “What does that mean?” “Well, I go to the mosque and this man in a frock, he tells me what God wants me to do, and what God will do if I don’t do what God says, which is what this man in a frock tells me he says.” “Okay, you?” “Oh, I follow Judaism.” “What does that mean?” “Oh, I go to the synagogue and this man in a frock, he tells me what God wants me to do, and they’ll be hell and damnation if I don’t do what he says, and that’s what Judaism is.”

And so you go on and you go on and you go on. What are those people in frocks actually doing, Alex? They’re getting in the spaces between the five-sense mind and expanded consciousness. They do not want a direct connection. Even the word connection is not correct, it’s only human language...it’s not even a connection because [in essence] one does not connect, it just is. And what happens is we get a disconnection of influence. It doesn’t mean we’re not still part of the great forever, we always are and always will be. It’s that it’s not influencing us because of this perceptual isolation, which religion has played a major part in.

What you had were forms of culture that for all their flaws, and there were many, practiced a direct connection with what they perceived as the creator, or what I call The One. And then religion came in and created that blueprint and we got the, “Only through this can you get to God, only through me, only through believing me and what I say, can you get there. And by the way, we’re going to give you a story. We’re going to give you a series of rules and regulations, and if you don’t follow them, well, have you ever stoked the fires of hell? That’s where you’re going, mate.”

And then, the impact of all of that, what was it? It was a tiny, tiny perceptual state that’s being sold here. You can’t question it because you’re a blasphemer. If you do, you’re out, you’re not one of us anymore.

But as people started to reject that, [next] came mainstream science, and we went from a situation where you can only get to the state of expanded consciousness, as I would call it, if you do what we tell you, because we know what God wants...actually, there is no state of expanded consciousness. There’s just you and you come out of nowhere, three score years and ten if you’re lucky, and then you go back into nowhere.

And now basically, you’ve got these two working simultaneously, science through technology and the technocracy that’s developing, controlled by technocrats, is now becoming more and more dominant, and there’s a common theme. Just look at the common themes everywhere that this system, the cult behind this system, is emphasizing everywhere that you cannot have a direct connection with expanded states of consciousness.
 
#60
Brilliant post. Dr. Cohen hasn't involved himself well enough with Icke to understand, to see his core message. In addition, Dr. Cohen appears to have chosen to allow others to influence his conclusions about Icke regarding "antisemitism" as it is called by those who either do not understand the term as it has been used. Icke has explained that a.) those of us who can be genetically traced back to a specific "race" of people's that supposedly are the descendants of one of Noah's three sons, Shem. In addition, the term has been used to refer to ancient "Semetic-speaking peoples."

When Icke brought forth his information related to "the Zionist" movement, where he believed it originated from and why, he made it clear that the term "antisemitism" was actually being transformed into meaning - anyone who was anti-anything that is related in any way to Judaism and/or people who are Jewish or descendants of those who practiced any form of Judaism. Icke believes the purpose in making the usage of this term a "blanket protection" for anything I just described is, at least in part, meant to protect what he believes are things such as "Zionism" and/or Frankism (as it was purportedly practiced by the inner circle of the Frankist-Sabbatean movement).

Icke has consistently made it clear the distinction between the folks who are either descendants of anyone or any group who has, in any way, been associated with Judaism, whether these descendants practiced Judaism or were only connected through genealogy as well as folks alive today and who are either descendants or practice Judaism and who experience life and add to life in the way most regular folks do on this planet regardless of any connection to Judaism as I described above and that any form of identification as "bad" or "evil" or "genetically evil" that is misused by making those connections is exactly NOT what he supports and in fact, in consideration of his message as a whole, should be easily understood as his own, personal view of humanity's potential in the very best light - inclusive of ALL human expression that supports life and the life force... the core values we all wish for everyone as well as ourselves, love, respect for others, respect for all life, etc.

But because Icke's message had grown to reach millions and millions all across the globe, those who are in positions of power and who recognized the threat to their agendas of Icke's messaging and reach decided they needed to shut him down and so they used their friends in governments and the media to do so and THAT is what Dr, Cohen has apparently failed to understand and/or failed to grasp in his research (if he has actually done any specifically with regards to this particular component of Icke's messaging) and instead has chosen to believe the messaging of Icke's opponents' henchmen.

Understand, I do not have a dog in this hunt. I don't claim to know what is actually true with regards to the history of the Zionist movement and what might be its actual agendas. I do not know what is actually true with regards to Frankism. I do not know if the dark picture Icke paints about each is closer to truth or closer to fiction, but what I do know is that when efforts come forth to shut down a voice that has the reach Icke had developed... a voice that might be so powerful, it makes implementations of goals of the powerful on this planet much harder to achieve, and to do so with complete dishonesty by painting Icke with the "antisemite" brush (as the word has come to mean... and as I pointed out is a manipulation itself), then I have to ask... what are these folks so afraid of?

And that is what some of us are asking, Dr. Cohen. And so when you come on this forum and treat Icke as you did, you may actually be assisting the darkest of forces in achieving the darkest of intentions. I hope you have the courage to consider you lack the truth with regards to labeling Icke accurately in terms of "antisemitism."
 
Top