Who here is enlightened?

[InChrist]

Thanks for the clarification.

You're welcome. Happy New Year.

 

[skinker]

Skinker, so far as I'm aware, your interpretation of Newberg and Aquili's experiments does not jive in some important respects with Newberg and Aquili's own interpretation of their experiments. At least, that would seem to be the case if I'm understanding you correctly. If I recall, Newberg and Aquili do not arrive at the conclusion that mystical states are "just" or "merely" about brain states and have no bearing on external reality, or correspondence to it. Instead, they hold that conclusion is logically unwarranted.

No, they don't say that at all and you are making a strawman argument again to divert the discussion from my main point: A philosophy of life based on severe brain manipulation that shuts down a significant part of normal brain functioning is not a healthy way for humans to cope with the complexities of life. It takes a whole brain to deal with those complexities, not one deliberately disabled to achieve a state of mind that avoids psychic pain and "higher" consciousness including in some, bliss consciousness, by brain manipulation. The world outside the brain is still the same world despite one's interior change of perspective with brain manipulation techniques.

Yes, Newberg and Aquili do not take the logical next step which as can plainly be seen here would involve them in a huge controversy with Buddhists and all Eastern religionists, something I doubt very much they wanted to get into. Can't do more brain research if the people are p.o.'d at you. But I am under no such constraints to please or appease anyone's philosophy or religious beliefs. God has given me information that directs me to the Fatal Flaws of all other religious and philosophical paths so that I will know why God put me on the one I'm on, Celestial Torah Christianity, which is about God and the Spirit of Christ, something that will not be encountered in brains made to march in one direction only.

 

[Student of X]

Maxfreakout it is reasonable how you have described enlightenment. I think I can say my experience is similar.

The question I see repeated on this thread by Penumbra is "are we united?". I think it means does enlightenment include being able to see into another person? Or... does enlightenment include insight into others.

You guys might be interested in these:

An Exploration of Degree of Meditation Attainment in Relation to Psychic Awareness with Tibetan Buddhists

Abstract

Many traditional Mahayana, and modern Tibetan, Buddhist texts relate meditation attainment to psychic ability. This teaching served as the hypothesis—that more advanced meditators would choose a psi target correctly, significantly more often than beginners. A basic free-response design was used in which a computer programme (PreCOG) chose a target picture at random from a 4-picture set. There were 25 sets, all pictures of Tibet. PreCOG guided the participants through the procedure, in which they aimed to become aware of the target. 18 participants, Tibetan monks, nuns and Western Buddhist meditators, completed 8 sessions each. Half the sessions used a clairvoyance, and half a precognition, protocol.

Age and years of meditation practice correlated significantly with the psi scores (Pearson r = 0.52, p , 0.05). This suggests that, as one practices meditation, psychic awareness begins to manifest more reliably. This result was confounded by a non-significant psi-missing trend. There was no significant difference between the clairvoyance and precognition trials (t-diff (142) = 0.800). There was, however, significant psi-missing from the group of Rinpoches (t ¼ 2.09, 2tail p , 0.05). The three participants who scored most strongly in the psi-missing direction all reported childhood memories of previous lives as monks in Tibet.

[...]

Conclusion

This first formal experiment of the hypothesis, that years of practice of meditation affects one’s change in awareness at the clairvoyance and precognitive level, gives support to the Yogic and Buddhist teachings which state that such abilities arise as a result of meditation attainment. This conclusion is qualified by the fact that the correlation occurs primarily owing to extensive psi-missing by many of the participants. The cause for this psi-missing is uncertain.

Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments

Abstract

A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit to single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused towards the double-slit as compared to away. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-towards and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 seconds. Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicated that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z = -4.36, p = 6 x 10-6). Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z = 0.43, p = 0.67).

Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem.

 

[apophenia]

Your understanding of buddhist theory and practice is totally flawed.

I told you all defending the seeking of personal enlightenment that it isn't the particulars of the Buddhist or Hindu religious paths of which I am fully aware there are probably thousands of variants; it is the basic neurology of a human brain that is deliberately deprived through meditative technique instead of drugs of a major normal brain function in order to achieve "higher" consciousness, one that avoid psychic pain.[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]
[/FONT]

It seems that you are determined to not learn anything about buddhist meditation from someone who has practiced and studied it.

Your point may have some validity in relation to people who are persisting in a form of trance induction which they call meditation. As I, and Crossfire, have already said, that approach to 'meditation' is considered a fundamental error by teachers of buddhism.

You are currently unaware that the 'fatal flaw' which you are attributing to buddhism is precisely a mistaken approach to meditation which teachers take pains to discourage.

But you are so intent on dismissing buddhism that you refuse to hear or consider this.

There are indeed some forms of hindu teachings which encourage what I consider to be an artificial shutting down of aspects of the mind, and there are people who think they are practicing buddhism who meditate this way. But, as I keep trying to inform you, that is NOT buddhist meditation. It is trance-induction and reality-avoidance, and I would certainly agree that this is not a healthy and valuable practice. If you studied what Gautama taught, and how he arrived at it, you would know that he also warned against this 'fatal flaw' which you choose to believe characterises buddhism.

Tell me what you think is the instruction for, and the practice of, buddhist meditation, so that we can clear up your misconceptions about what it is and is not.

Please don't dance around this point and avoid it - tell me precisely what you think buddhist teachers teach regarding what is meditation.

 

[apophenia]

A philosophy of life based on severe brain manipulation that shuts down a significant part of normal brain functioning is not a healthy way for humans to cope with the complexities of life. It takes a whole brain to deal with those complexities, not one deliberately disabled to achieve a state of mind that avoids psychic pain and "higher" consciousness including in some, bliss consciousness, by brain manipulation. The world outside the brain is still the same world despite one's interior change of perspective with brain manipulation techniques..

I told you all defending the seeking of personal enlightenment that it isn't the particulars of the Buddhist or Hindu religious paths of which I am fully aware there are probably thousands of variants; it is the basic neurology of a human brain that is deliberately deprived through meditative technique instead of drugs of a major normal brain function in order to achieve "higher" consciousness, one that avoid psychic pain.[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]
[/FONT]
I gotta say - there is a strange hypocrisy here. You are very critical of "brain manipulation", yet you are really pushing the idea that changing your brain chemistry with drugs is a valid and valuable path.

You have major objections to the idea of deliberately maintaining a "single brain state", yet you want to maintain the state of artificially modulated CB1 and CB2 receptors ! And you consider this a way to "achieve "higher" consciousness" - despite your statement "The world outside the brain is still the same world despite one's interior change of perspective with brain manipulation techniques."

I'm sure you have a theory to explain that inconsistency ...

 

[skinker]

[/font][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]
[/FONT]
I gotta say - there is a strange hypocrisy here. You are very critical of "brain manipulation", yet you are really pushing the idea that changing your brain chemistry with drugs is a valid and valuable path.

You have major objections to the idea of deliberately maintaining a "single brain state", yet you want to maintain the state of artificially modulated CB1 and CB2 receptors ! And you consider this a way to "achieve "higher" consciousness" - despite your statement "The world outside the brain is still the same world despite one's interior change of perspective with brain manipulation techniques."

I'm sure you have a theory to explain that inconsistency ...

Yes, it's called using Tools. Tools are useful but to glorify the tool instead of aim for which the tool is used is mistaken ideology. Yes, I do use marijuana as a spiritual reception enhancement tool, and yes, like all substances taken into the body, it has psychological aspects affecting perception. But that's one of the nice things about pot: it is the mildest of intoxicants for a Christian to have as a sacrament. Certainly far less dangerous than the wine sacrament of Pauline Christianity. I do admit cannabis has been incorporated into my own Christian theology but my theology has no place in it for demanding anyone else do what I do to achieve spiritual reception capability. And as anyone who reads the Celestial Torah Christianity information will quickly discover, there's not even any tenets to it because it's purely astrological and historical information available to anyone who looks for it. No pot induced state of mind necessary at all to look for yourself and make up your own mind without any need for altered state of consciousness.

When you read how at the very beginning of my Christian walk as typical hippie homesteader you'll find out that I actually had to put away my daily pot smoking routine when God came into my life and blasted my atheist mindset to pieces in three days of intense spiritual boot camp religious conversion experience.

 

[apophenia]

Yes, it's called using Tools. Tools are useful but to glorify the tool instead of aim for which the tool is used is mistaken ideology. Yes, I do use marijuana as a spiritual reception enhancement tool, and yes, like all substances taken into the body, it has psychological aspects affecting perception. But that's one of the nice things about pot: it is the mildest of intoxicants for a Christian to have as a sacrament. Certainly far less dangerous than the wine sacrament of Pauline Christianity. I do admit cannabis has been incorporated into my own Christian theology but my theology has no place in it for demanding anyone else do what I do to achieve spiritual reception capability. And as anyone who reads the Celestial Torah Christianity information will quickly discover, there's not even any tenets to it because it's purely astrological and historical information available to anyone who looks for it. No pot induced state of mind necessary at all to look for yourself and make up your own mind without any need for altered state of consciousness.

When you read how at the very beginning of my Christian walk as typical hippie homesteader you'll find out that I actually had to put away my daily pot smoking routine when God came into my life and blasted my atheist mindset to pieces in three days of intense spiritual boot camp religious conversion experience.

You are acknowledging that you have a preference for a specific brainstate. And cannabinoids have a long half-life, so even if you use it just twice a week, you are permanently affected. And, you are affected in a way which totally changes how you respond to life stresses - generally speaking, people who use pot regularly are prone to anger when the pot is unavailable, because pot suppresses anger. So although you may be experiencing what you call "higher consciousness", you are also chemically avoiding the issues which cause you to be angry - rather than dealing with those issues behaviourally and socially, even if you are unaware that you are doing that.

So, give up pot and other drugs for at least 3 months, and see whether or not your religion is actually working for you.

More importantly though -

Tell me what you think is the instruction for, and the practice of, buddhist meditation, so that we can clear up your misconceptions about what it is and is not.

Please don't dance around this point and avoid it - tell me precisely what you think buddhist teachers teach regarding what is meditation.

You did not answer this.

This is the central issue in our dialogue.

 

[Penumbra]

I read a lot, and understand well much of what I read.

I may fairly deem myself as "more enlightened" that those that do not, or might otherwise exist within their own self-imposed seclusion and isolation from "enlightening" ideas, concepts, or compelling evidences that may challenge entrenched beliefs, dogma, or faith-based claims...

Select a specified topic, and perhaps we may then debate the contestable merits of any presnted premise as an exampled and "enlightened" perspective, beyond promotion of just some ideological meme/testimonial/manifesto....

Fair enough?

There is a big degree of variance for what sort of experiences people are invited to share here and call it by different names, but what you describe is not really what the thread is about.

 

[Penumbra]

dear penumbra ,

happy new year :namaste

Happy new year to you too.

what you imply is what I had assumed ,

however "big guns" they are not , they are fully realised beings , generaly the most simple and humble beings on earth .

more like they are no guns

who if asked would I very much doubt ever claim to be fully enlightened .

"if" you were talking to , ....... but you are not ,

That's why it's called an example.

you are asking people here whom are no more than words upon a page , we none of us know in truth who the other is or what their true acheivements are , so , .... in my humblest opinion , ... we need to listen very carefully to what each is saying ,
and to judge each on the merits of their speach , this way we will benifit much by learning , by the use of our own discriminationg wisdom .

what however will be benifited by asking me directly .....are you identifying as enlightened ?

I may be a deluded fool and reply yes ....,

I may play with you , ....
then you will want to hear some proof ! .....and I will send you climbing up a gum tree
but still you will have to use some descriminating wisdom , because you will want to know if the proof stands up !

I understand your analogy ,
but here you are talking about material accheivements , in which case there is something material by which to judge ,

here you are talking about physical acheivements through physical and mental training , in which case there are also atainments to be judged .

I beg your pardon , I foolishly followed this thread, out of interest as to how different people would describe not only their experience but also what was to be said of enlightenment it self .

I also followed it because it said .......
any sane being might admit to areas of , or partial enlightenment , but to profess full enlightenment ? .......... you have got to be kidding !

to be fair in the early stages a few knowing persons commented that an enlightened person was hardly likely to openly say so of them selves !

these people are talking of the concept as read and understood through partial experience , and comenting on that which feel they can identify with .

when what is read and taught confers with ones experience , one verifies the other , but still we are talking about partial enlightenment ,

I can explain areas of partial enlightenment as might many , but I am not going to " Identify as ......"

in ways even were I to describe an element of enlightened or realised being it would not be understood by any other than one with the same experience .

however it can be more fully explained by telling you what it is not , .....that way a being may be led to his own realisation by process of ilimination ,

this we tend to do naturaly by hitting our heads in a brick wall untill we realise for our selves that this is not the solution , however this may take countless lifetimes ! some one guiding you simply shortens the process , but if one is constantly looking for proof and wont examine advice without it , that explains the amount of fraudsters and delusional monsters there are out there at this moment !

The purpose of asking who is enlightened is to see what people propose to have already experienced rather than to see what people believe can be experienced.

Then, depending on what they say, to ask more detailed questions.

 

[Penumbra]

I dont want to compete with drug-war censorship, it isnt the substances that are important anyway; the really important thing is the mind-manifesting altered state of consciousness, and in particular the experience of ego death and transcendent rebirth which people commonly report in the altered state.

Yes, IF this is what you mean by 'enlightenment'. I have undergone the process of transcendent/mystical mental model reconfiguration, if that is 'enlightenment', then i am enlightened. My mental model takes into account a higher level of reality beyond the manifest world, because of an experience of higher reality in an altered state of consciousness. If that is what it means to "be enlightened", then i must be enlightened.

What does it mean to have a mental model that 'takes into account' a higher level of reality? Do you directly experience this reality or merely entertain it in thoughts?

What are some details of this higher reality?

it isnt something i 'achieved' rather it is something that *happened to me*, i was transformed/reconfigured/reprogrammed by something which seemed to be entirely out of my control.

The way you organise your question into 'former ego vs latter ego' captures the essence of the process, i used to think one way (former ego), then my thinking was drastically and profoundly disrupted by a shattering divine revelation which permanently changed my way of thinking, such that i now think in a new way (latter/transcendent ego)

The former ego modelled itself as a self-sustaining existent, whereas the latter ego acknowledges its absolute dependance on a higher reality. It was revealed to me that i am absolutely dependent on God for my very existence, at every moment. The former ego tacitly (ie unconsciously) assumed that the manifest physical universe is the ultimate basis of reality (i was an unconscious materialist); the latter ego models the manifest physical universe as a mere shadow, or lower-dimensional projection of an all-encompassing higher reality. Plato's cave analogy reflects this dynamic.

I think most people realize they are dependent on something. Parents, biology, etc.

There are people like terrorists that commit violence and stuff but then believe they're dependent on their deity, so this doesn't seem to be unique to enlightened individuals unless we'd consider these individuals enlightened as well.

I am united with you in the sense that both you and i are separate parts of a higher, overarching process (the evolution of consciousness) which entirely subsumes both of us and everything else. I ordinarily experience myself as an independent controller (= ego), but in the divine revelation i see behind the illusion of ego.

It's all about levels, there are 2 fundamental levels, the personal and the transpersonal. At the personal level, you and i are separate; at the transpersonal level, you and i are united.

When you see behind the illusion, do you acquire non-local knowledge?

 

[Penumbra]

Maxfreakout it is reasonable how you have described enlightenment. I think I can say my experience is similar.

The question I see repeated on this thread by Penumbra is "are we united?". I think it means does enlightenment include being able to see into another person? Or... does enlightenment include insight into others.

It might, but what blocks the way between you and me is nature's tendency to fear, lie and be superior. At least three things that I am aware of is a wall between people. The three things are not always generated by the un-enlightened one, but more commonly so.

There are people whose minds can read others. I do not know if that power means the person is enlightened. It is my opinion it means they are intelligent.

There is a difference (I am supposing) between enlightenment and intelligent comprehension.

It is not a currently known fact that there are people whose minds can read others. There's emotional intelligence, but actual direct knowledge of another person's thoughts is not currently something with a large degree of documented peer reviewed research. In fact, anyone who has the ability to read minds can easily win $1 million from the James Randi Educational Foundation; it's the prize they've been offering for proof of supernatural abilities for quite a while now.

I don't really see how intelligence and mind reading are related either.

The purpose of asking people how we are united has to do with various proposals of 'oneness' that are common from mystics, Hindus, New Age practitioners, and to a lesser extent, some Buddhists.

In my observation, in most matters of life people have a habit of exaggeration or using poetic language rather than directly descriptive language. Saying that we are all 'one' is a pretty major and broad proposal. Asking questions about specifically what they mean is useful. One in what way? What links exist?

Some people, when they say they experience oneness or cosmic unity or similar concepts, really mean that there is monism in the universe. Other people instead mean that they experienced the interconnectedness of all things, but interconnectedness between parts is different from literal monism.

So clarifying the proposals of people is useful.

 

[Penumbra]

Penumbra do you consider yourself enlightened? You sound it cause many people spend a lifetime trying to master their emotions.

Me, enlightened?

Nah.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

For real understanding to come out of brain scan research in the context of 'spiritual' experiences, one must not confuse effects with cause...

That the brain will register unusual neural activity when being subject to the incarnate life force leaving the body as happens in the case of death, NDE, still mind meditation, adept soul (astral) travel, etc., is to be expected, merely a natural artifact that correlates, but correlation does not in this case imply cause.

 

[Penumbra]

For real understanding to come out of brain scan research in the context of 'spiritual' experiences, one must not confuse effects with cause...

That the brain will register unusual neural activity when being subject to the incarnate life force leaving the body as happens in the case of death, NDE, still mind meditation, adept soul (astral) travel, etc., is to be expected, merely a natural artifact that correlates, but correlation does not in this case imply cause.

There are some studies (like here, for example) that show that meditation and intense prayer, especially among individuals that are highly trained with a lot of experience, can reduce activity in the parietal lobe of the brain. This area, among other things, is responsible for spatial and temporal interpretation. In other words, it gives us a perception of being grounded in spacetime so that we can appropriately interact with our environment, and there's good research that with training some people can reduce activity in that area. So I can see how people would report feeling oneness, or infinite space, self-transcendence, or things of that nature, if they can train themselves to reduce activity in that area or consume a substance that has a similar effect on the brain.

In this case, if trained individuals are reducing activity in their parietal lobe, then they may feel a sense of oneness but will not have any access to non-local information or any experiences outside of the scope of their body, because they're merely reducing their brain's spacetime organizational area. I can see how it would be entirely probable that practitioners conclude that they're accessing mystical states rather than undergoing a biological event, especially before the brain was even partially understood.

There's also evidence (like here, for example) that damage to the parietal lobe can cause spiritual experiences, which is evidence of causation rather than mere correlation.

Doing research into various types of meditation and other methods is interesting, because it shows alteration of activity in brain areas or brain waves. Being able to measure things can help show what's working and what's not working, if an individual is desiring to have a certain experience.

 

[apophenia]

There are some studies (like here, for example) that show that meditation and intense prayer, especially among individuals that are highly trained with a lot of experience, can reduce activity in the parietal lobe of the brain. This area, among other things, is responsible for spatial and temporal interpretation. In other words, it gives us a perception of being grounded in spacetime so that we can appropriately interact with our environment, and there's good research that with training some people can reduce activity in that area. So I can see how people would report feeling oneness, or infinite space, self-transcendence, or things of that nature, if they can train themselves to reduce activity in that area or consume a substance that has a similar effect on the brain.

In this case, if trained individuals are reducing activity in their parietal lobe, then they may feel a sense of oneness but will not have any access to non-local information or any experiences outside of the scope of their body, because they're merely reducing their brain's spacetime organizational area. I can see how it would be entirely probable that practitioners conclude that they're accessing mystical states rather than undergoing a biological event, especially before the brain was even partially understood.

There's also evidence (like here, for example) that damage to the parietal lobe can cause spiritual experiences, which is evidence of causation rather than mere correlation.

Doing research into various types of meditation and other methods is interesting, because it shows alteration of activity in brain areas or brain waves. Being able to measure things can help show what's working and what's not working, if an individual is desiring to have a certain experience.

I think the "oneness" thing is largely a sentiment. Not that I'm refuting the idea of interconnectedness, and the value of that idea when applied to how we treat one another and the environment, but I think it is more of a 'guided contemplation' than an experience for most who talk of it.

Also, I think the term can refer to an experience which is about the recognition, to a greater or lesser degree, that all we experience is our own mind ( that is to say - the visual world we perceive is actually our brain's visual system, regardless of any ideas about an objectively existing universe, and ditto for all the senses).

In that sense, "all is one, and I am that" .

As for induced mystical experiences - it is very easy to hyperventilate and pass into a state of empty luminosity devoid of our ego. Or breathe some nitrous oxide and experience what seems to be total illumination ( which is impossible to remember later ).

Extraordinary states are easy to produce and really don't mean much.

Also - 'meditation' is a catch-all term for just about any internal activity (or lack of it) done sitting still. There are countless varieties of internal behaviours which can be enacted while sitting cross-legged on the floor. Treating them all as being the same is very wrong.

The assumption that what you are doing when you are sitting cross-legged on the floor is the same as what I am doing, or what the buddha was doing, or whatever, is pretty sloppy thinking.

btw Penumbra - I assume you already realise that - I was making a general statement to anyone and everyone.

 

[Kemble]

Adding to Penumbra's excellent commentary for anyone further interested is Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief by Andrew Newberg, M.D., Eugene D'Aquill, M.D., Ph.D., and Vince Rause. The authors call that aspect of the brain the OAA,

"The primary job of the OAA is to orient the individual in physical space - it keeps track of which end is up, helps us judge angles and distances, and allows us to negotiate safely the dangerous physical landscape around us. To perform this crucial function, it must first generate a clear, consistent cognition of the physical limits of the self. In simple terms, it must draw a sharp distinction between the individual and everything else, to sort out the you from the infinite not-you that makes up the rest of the universe."

Though they do take the idea that the ability to shut down the OAA could be an evolutionary step and a meaningful experience, it doesn't seem likely. Higher brain functions tend to use greater aspects of the brain or more precise integration rather than a shut down of a bundle of neurons.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There are some studies (like here, for example) that show that meditation and intense prayer, especially among individuals that are highly trained with a lot of experience, can reduce activity in the parietal lobe of the brain. This area, among other things, is responsible for spatial and temporal interpretation. In other words, it gives us a perception of being grounded in spacetime so that we can appropriately interact with our environment, and there's good research that with training some people can reduce activity in that area. So I can see how people would report feeling oneness, or infinite space, self-transcendence, or things of that nature, if they can train themselves to reduce activity in that area or consume a substance that has a similar effect on the brain.

In this case, if trained individuals are reducing activity in their parietal lobe, then they may feel a sense of oneness but will not have any access to non-local information or any experiences outside of the scope of their body, because they're merely reducing their brain's spacetime organizational area. I can see how it would be entirely probable that practitioners conclude that they're accessing mystical states rather than undergoing a biological event, especially before the brain was even partially understood.

There's also evidence (like here, for example) that damage to the parietal lobe can cause spiritual experiences, which is evidence of causation rather than mere correlation.

Doing research into various types of meditation and other methods is interesting, because it shows alteration of activity in brain areas or brain waves. Being able to measure things can help show what's working and what's not working, if an individual is desiring to have a certain experience.

Ahh, but my understanding is that it is an unavoidable error of the novice to claim the experience of whatever is happening spiritually during a realization of the underlying unity of cosmic being. If the realization involves a temporary leaving of the body, and the 'I' is confined to the brain, how can it claim it has an OBE or what not? No, the brain does register the associated unusual neural activity, but only while the 'I' has ceased to arise, the so called spiritual experience ends as soon as the ego self reasserts itself as the reference point of consciousness,...and mistakenly imagines it had gone out of body.

So long as there is an 'I' claiming enlightenment, etc., there is error or understanding. not that the events aren't happening, but they are happening when the ego self is subdued.

I mean, the concept of spirit represent a subtle energy that is omnipresent, how can the ego self which relies on the brain to interpret reality acutally leave the body? It's a no brainer!

 

[apophenia]

Extraordinary states are easy to produce and really don't mean much.

Further to that point - some induced states, particularly drug-induced states, seem to trigger some part of the brain, or a specific neurotransmitter, which assigns great significance to an experience - so any experience can seem profound.

So it is interesting to ask the question - "what exactly did you realise which is so profound ?"

Generally, you don't get a sensible answer to that question.

I have asked it here in this thread and got zero response.

Just as a humorous aside re psychedelia, here is a great pic ...

 

[Penumbra]

I think the "oneness" thing is largely a sentiment. Not that I'm refuting the idea of interconnectedness, and the value of that idea when applied to how we treat one another and the environment, but I think it is more of a 'guided contemplation' than an experience for most who talk of it.

Also, I think the term can refer to an experience which is about the recognition, to a greater or lesser degree, that all we experience is our own mind ( that is to say - the visual world we perceive is actually our brain's visual system, regardless of any ideas about an objectively existing universe, and ditto for all the senses).

In that sense, "all is one, and I am that" .

Well, there's the thought experiment where it's argued that, technically, you can't prove anything exists outside of your mind. All people could be NPCs (non-player characters) rather than other conscious minds.

I think it's true to say that all we experience is our own mind, but it would not necessarily to be accurate to say that all that exists is our own mind, objectively.

As for induced mystical experiences - it is very easy to hyperventilate and pass into a state of empty luminosity devoid of our ego. Or breathe some nitrous oxide and experience what seems to be total illumination ( which is impossible to remember later ).

Extraordinary states are easy to produce and really don't mean much.

I think it depends on what the specific proposal is.

Some people linguistically elevate it to something more. The value of a biological mystical state would be arguably of different value than a mystical state that is deathless and supernatural. If people are proposing that an experience which is actually biological, is instead deathless and supernatural (possibly in addition to superficial biological changes), then they may be mistakenly increasing the significance of the experience. On the other hand, if people are proposing that an experience which is actually deathless and supernatural is instead merely biological, then, they'd be incorrectly downplaying the importance.

Also - 'meditation' is a catch-all term for just about any internal activity (or lack of it) done sitting still. There are countless varieties of internal behaviours which can be enacted while sitting cross-legged on the floor. Treating them all as being the same is very wrong.

The assumption that what you are doing when you are sitting cross-legged on the floor is the same as what I am doing, or what the buddha was doing, or whatever, is pretty sloppy thinking.

btw Penumbra - I assume you already realise that - I was making a general statement to anyone and everyone.

Yes, there are a variety of meditation techniques, ranging from concentrating on something (like rotting meat, to work through feelings of lust), to focusing on loving-kindness, to attempting to be the cloudless sky of consciousness rather than identify with clouds of thought, to non-Dharmic techniques like stoic practice about visualizing death. Plus, the study I mentioned included prayer: deep, intense, focused prayer by nuns. In another thread, I mentioned subspace.

Different forms of meditation almost certainly do have different affects on the brain. Depending on what specifically we're talking about, they'd be relevant. There are studies that show changes in brain waves under certain forms of meditation, or increased activity in the brain areas associated with concentration, or physical thickening of certain parts of the brain as though it's being worked like a muscle (useful for Alzheimer's research). In this case, if we're talking about feelings of oneness/unity/transcendence, changes in the parietal lobe are noteworthy.

 

[Penumbra]

Ahh, but my understanding is that it is an unavoidable error of the novice to claim the experience of whatever is happening spiritually during a realization of the underlying unity of cosmic being. If the realization involves a temporary leaving of the body, and the 'I' is confined to the brain, how can it claim it has an OBE or what not? No, the brain does register the associated unusual neural activity, but only while the 'I' has ceased to arise, the so called spiritual experience ends as soon as the ego self reasserts itself as the reference point of consciousness,...and mistakenly imagines it had gone out of body.

So long as there is an 'I' claiming enlightenment, etc., there is error or understanding. not that the events aren't happening, but they are happening when the ego self is subdued.

I mean, the concept of spirit represent a subtle energy that is omnipresent, how can the ego self which relies on the brain to interpret reality acutally leave the body? It's a no brainer!

There are those that propose they can remove their observation from their body (out of body experience). Or those that propose that they can experience oneness/unity/transcendence with all things.

Depending on whether they can actually acquire non-local information or not is a differentiator between what kind of experience it actually is. If they have a subjective sense of oneness but are entirely limited to knowledge that only their body would have, then this is a very different thing from the concept of a being that is able to experience oneness and attain omniscience or specific non-local information.

That's why it's worth sorting out precisely what proposals people are making.