Near Death experiences and the scientific method.

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes you do attribute characteristics and actions to spirits, as though they are known to exist. You've done it several times in this thread.
The rest is just a repetition of the same old world salad.

You would need to quote me wrt attributing actions to spirits, I do not recall. Of course I can confirm that there is a reality represented by the concept of spiritual realm if that is what you mean.

You need to understand that the spiritual reality of which I speak is not of this world, but the human ego self is of this world, so the latter cannot experience the former. To experience the reality itself, the mind must be free from all thought. When the mind is free from all thought, the I that conceives does not arise and so there is just the egoless awareness present. This state of mind is non-dual, pure awareness beyond this world, beyond conception by the mind's ego self, ie., I. When thought arises again in the mind, the mind returns to its dualistic state of the thinker and its thoughts.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think it's irrelevant.

Well so long as you think anything, you cannot realize reality which is beyond thought.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There is no reality represented by an concept of spirit that I'm aware of. I keep asking people for evidence of spirits and spirit worlds, and all I keep getting is word salad.

There is a reality represented by the concept of spirit, but it is not of this world so the ego self cannot be aware of it. There is no point in asking other people's ego selves about evidence because they have never experienced its reality either, and cannot ever.

If you want to understand what the reality is, you must cease thought completely and then reality is present as non-dual reality, meaning there is no you experiencing the reality, there is only pure awareness present. So when the experience ends as the I resumes its thinking, there is remembrance of the awesome state of non-duality, reality itself, but this remembrance is of this world and is a dualistic state of mind.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, but I see no value in chasing any shadows - hence why I am still agnostic to some extent. I prefer the more concrete things that we can change to make our lives better, and in my view many religious beliefs just don't help.

The most important change one can make in their life is one that will bring a sense of completeness and peace. When and if you realize this state, it becomes self evident that everything that has happened in your life, the good and the bad, to you and by, was essential to creating the peace experience of the here and now of the present, Change one thing in your past and it would all unravel and you would lose that peace. Life is a learning experience producing growth/evolution of the soul.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So we just have to believe every single claim anybody makes, regardless of whether or not there is evidence for it.
No thanks. I'd be believing in a ton of false things if I did that, and I'm only interested in believing true things.

You do not have to believe every single claim, in fact you do not have to believe any claim, life is an opportunity to learn, it's up to you. But if you want to learn, the most important first thing to ask yourself is what and who you really are in the context of all existence? If you self identify with your body and your given name as what and who you are, then your life will be a guaranteed failure. It is the truth that will set you free.

 

[night912]

Pure awareness mean the experience of awareness without an experiencer. Non-dual state of awareness. Some use the expression awareness of awareness

That's a contradiction. If there's no experiencer, then there is no experience. If awareness is being experienced, it was experienced by an experincer. And "awareness" itself, is a concept. So a "concept" is still there.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The most important change one can make in their life is one that will bring a sense of completeness and peace. When and if you realize this state, it becomes self evident that everything that has happened in your life, the good and the bad, to you and by, was essential to creating the peace experience of the here and now of the present, Change one thing in your past and it would all unravel and you would lose that peace. Life is a learning experience producing growth/evolution of the soul.

Well thanks for the sermon - just aim it at those with more fixed beliefs than myself, and who tend to be the ones causing a lot of the friction, divisions, and harms in this world - like the devoutly religious so often.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's a contradiction. If there's no experiencer, then there is no experience. If awareness is being experienced, it was experienced by an experincer. And "awareness" itself, is a concept. So a "concept" is still there.

It may seem so to the uninitiated but when there is no thought, the I does not arise though the mind is still aware. The mind state is non-dual, meaning the mind is not divided into a perceiver and perception. So long as your mind has not realized the transcendent state, there is no way it can be conveyed with concepts. However if you still your mind so there is no thought whatsoever, there it is, pure awareness.

So instead of asking questions, just practice stilling the mind. If you do not want to still the mind, then that's fine by me, but don't bother trying to understand with your dualistic mind state, it won't work.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well thanks for the sermon - just aim it at those with more fixed beliefs than myself, and who tend to be the ones causing a lot of the friction, divisions, and harms in this world - like the devoutly religious so often.

That's fine, all the best to you.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's a contradiction. If there's no experiencer, then there is no experience. If awareness is being experienced, it was experienced by an experincer. And "awareness" itself, is a concept. So a "concept" is still there.

I'm sorry. I did not address in my reply to you the part concerning "awareness" itself being a concept. I have explained earlier the irony of my using concepts to teach that concepts are not real, this from my post #1379

Just to be clear, naturally I am using conceptual language to try and teach you that the real is on the other side of conceptualization. It is an unavoidable irony as there is no other way to convey this teaching that the real is on the other side of conceptual teaching, but I am sure your mind is subtle enough in its perception to see this.

So there is a reality represented by the concept 'awareness', in the context I've used it, it is referring non-dual awareness. If your mind has never been in the non-dual state, the awareness of which I speak will be unknown to you.

 

[night912]

It may seem so to the uninitiated but when there is no thought, the I does not arise though the mind is still aware. The mind state is non-dual, mea8ning the mind is not divided into a perceiver and perception. So long as your mind has not realized the transcendent state, there is no way it can be conveyed with concepts. However if you still your mind so there is no thought whatsoever, there it is, pure awareness.

I'm not talking about the state of mind and/or the thoughts of the experiencer, I'm referring to the actual reality of experiencer.

I'm sorry. I did not address in my reply to you the part concerning "awareness" itself being a concept. I have explained earlier the irony of my using concepts to teach that concepts are not real, this from my post #1379

I've already read that explanation that you gave above and that's why I objected. You are using the word, "concept" in two different ways. You used it as being just the actual idea/thought, then you also used it as being the actual thing that idea represents.

So instead of asking questions, just practice stilling the mind. If you do not want to still the mind, then that's fine by me, but don't bother trying to understand with your dualistic mind state, it won't work.

How about you stop assuming what others think and just address what they've said. You don't need to tell me to practice doing it because I've been doing it for years and reached that state of mind.

So there is a reality represented by the concept 'awareness', in the context I've used it, it is referring non-dual awareness. If your mind has never been in the non-dual state, the awareness of which I speak will be unknown to you.

I don't consider that as a different reality from this one or being supernatural. Your belief in dualism made you used concepts in different ways.

For years now, I've been reaching this state of mind during meditation, that's why I disagreed with you and raised my objections to your argument regarding it being a different reality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm not talking about the state of mind and/or the thoughts of the experiencer, I'm referring to the actual reality of experiencer.


I've already read that explanation that you gave above and that's why I objected. You are using the word, "concept" in two different ways. You used it as being just the actual idea/thought, then you also used it as being the actual thing that idea represents.


How about you stop assuming what others think and just address what they've said. You don't need to tell me to practice doing it because I've been doing it for years and reached that state of mind.



I don't consider that as a different reality from this one or being supernatural. Your belief in dualism made you used concepts in different ways.

For years now, I've been reaching this state of mind during meditation, that's why I disagreed with you and raised my objections to your argument regarding it being a different reality.

If you are referring to the ego mind of the person in the still mind state, then please understand the 'I' is not existing, it is not present. The personal 'I', say in your case 'you', ceases to arise, ceases to exist in the still mind state. This is logical, if there is no thought, there is no thinker, if there is no thinker, there is no 'you' present who is in the still mind state, there is just egoless mind awareness. Now I refer to the reality beyond the conceptual mind's state by many names, spiritual awareness, transcendence, higher consciousness, pure awareness, etc., but in all cases I can never claim that I have ever been experienced that state because ironically, the higher state is only present when 'I' am NOT present.

A thought is a concept, a word is a concept, an idea is conceptual, all concepts are meant to represent some reality. Much of the time I may preface the use of some concept with 'the reality represented by the concept of', other times I may not. For example, "do you understand what the reality is represented by the concept of God?", or "do you understand what is God"? In the latter case, I presume you know word God is a concept. However I am certain that my best attempts to be consistent with what I've just explained sometimes is not perfect and so there will be times when I may leave my self open to some inconsistency, in such a case I trust you understand my position.

Fine, if you have reached the still mind state, it is now just a matter of understanding how we each are expressing our respective understandings. Obviously we are expressing our understanding in ways that are different at the moment.

It is not that I believe in duality, it is just that in my understanding, the concept 'duality' represents the state of mind when a person thinks, there is a thinker and there are the thinker's thoughts, thus there are the two aspects present. However when the mind is in the still mind state, there is no thinker, no thoughts, just pure awareness and thus this state of mind is non-dual.

I am pleased to hear you are a serious meditator, we each aspire to the same goal. Does your practice fall under a certain 'school' such a yoga, zen, etc., or just trying different techniques you come across to find that which works best?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can't, not now, not ever, for as I've explained, the 'I' is of the physical body, not the non-physical. The experience of which I am talking about is not of this world, it is reality itself, not a secondhand claim about the real.

All the words you post here are mere concepts, you can't convey even one truth directly here on these pages, as an atheist, that is the limit of your experience of reality, the shadows on the cave wall, the thoughts about what is real, but reality itself evades your apprehension.

Of course it is possible to experience the real, but never in all eternity can it be experienced by the ego, the personal I.

So I guess all you have is word salad.

 

[night912]

If you are referring to the ego mind of the person in the still mind state, then please understand the 'I' is not existing, it is not present. The personal 'I', say in your case 'you', ceases to arise, ceases to exist in the still mind state. This is logical, if there is no thought, there is no thinker, if there is no thinker, there is no 'you' present who is in the still mind state, there is just egoless mind awareness.

That's illogical. Like I said, it's contradictory.

Since there's mind, there's no awareness that is being experienced by the mind. That is logical.

A thought is a concept, a word is a concept, an idea is conceptual, all concepts are meant to represent some reality. Much of the time I may preface the use of some concept with 'the reality represented by the concept of', other times I may not. For example, "do you understand what the reality is represented by the concept of God?", or "do you understand what is God"? In the latter case, I presume you know word God is a concept. However I am certain that my best attempts to be consistent with what I've just explained sometimes is not perfect and so there will be times when I may leave my self open to some inconsistency, in such a case I trust you understand my position.

And all those things that the concepts are representing, still exist.

Fine, if you have reached the still mind state, it is now just a matter of understanding how we each are expressing our respective understandings. Obviously we are expressing our understanding in ways that are different at the moment.

It is not that I believe in duality, it is just that in my understanding, the concept 'duality' represents the state of mind when a person thinks, there is a thinker and there are the thinker's thoughts, thus there are the two aspects present. However when the mind is in the still mind state, there is no thinker, no thoughts, just pure awareness and thus this state of mind is non-dual.

I am pleased to hear you are a serious meditator, we each aspire to the same goal. Does your practice fall under a certain 'school' such a yoga, zen, etc., or just trying different techniques you come across to find that which works best?

You're in a state of mind of clarity, but you're still in the same reality as the one where you have thoughts. So no different reality and no supernatural reality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So I guess all you have is word salad.

So I do my very best to explain that reality is on the other side of your words, and you see that as a word salad. The irony is that your expressing your opinion verbally on any subject whatsoever is merely a word salad.

So let me put it in words you better understand, there is an unavoidable irony that I must use a word salad to convey to you that reality is forever on the other side of word salads.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's illogical. Like I said, it's contradictory.

Since there's mind, there's no awareness that is being experienced by the mind. That is logical.


And all those things that the concepts are representing, still exist.


You're in a state of mind of clarity, but you're still in the same reality as the one where you have thoughts. So no different reality and no supernatural reality.

You are not understanding, the 'I', the thinker, is not the mind, the mind is independent of the thinker. the mind can be in a thinking state which is a dualistic, or in a non-thinking state which is non-dual. Do you know the meaning of the word 'yoga'? It means union, oneness. When a yogi realizes union, there mind is no long operating dualistically, but it is in a state of non-duality.

The mind is always aware, it does not depend on thinking.

There is a reality that is represented by concepts, yes, but that reality is not the concept. The real is forever on the other side of concepts.

Not so, the thinking process involves the physical part of existence, the 5% that science observes, when the mind is still, the influence of the 95% comes into play. It's influence is vey subtle, and thinking obstructs its influence. The reality represented by the concept of the '95% part of existence' is not the same reality as represented by the concept of the '5% observable physical universe'.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So I do my very best to explain that reality is on the other side of your words, and you see that as a word salad. The irony is that your expressing your opinion verbally on any subject whatsoever is merely a word salad.

So let me put it in words you better understand, there is an unavoidable irony that I must use a word salad to convey to you that reality is forever on the other side of word salads.

When you have to acknowledge that you can only communicate your ideas through word salad, then I'ld guess that that's the first hint that some self-reflection might be in order.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Based on my understanding, there is no magical easter bunny, it would be an absurd waste of time discussing the possibility that one exists. However if you believe you have either subjective or objective proof that a magical easter bunny actually exists, I am prepared to hear you out.

You may be trying hard to focus on reality, but in fact you are not doing so, you are merely thinking about reality. There is a difference between the thought about reality and reality itself.

What I was trying to convey is that if you really would like to discuss how to experience reality rather than just thinking about experiencing reality, then we can. But from the get go, you must understand that reality can't be experienced through conceptualization, it's now up to you.

I'm trying to discuss how we discern fact from fiction.
You don't seem to be interested in that so I'm going to have to give up now.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

When you have to acknowledge that you can only communicate your ideas through word salad, then I'ld guess that that's the first hint that some self-reflection might be in order.

When you use a word salad to imply that my communication of my explanation is a word salad, then that's a dead giveaway that you do not understand what is being explained you. That will continue to be the reality as long as you continue to self identify with your physical body as to what and who you are in the context of the totality of existence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm trying to discuss how we discern fact from fiction.
You don't seem to be interested in that so I'm going to have to give up now.

I know you were, but prior to understanding how to do that wrt the totality of existence, it must be done wrt you yourself. In doing so all will become clear.