Mechanism questions everything: a quest toward pure awareness

[northape]

Split from:

blig-blug's Ayahuasca experience log

XXI log update: Dose: 230mg harmala freebase (from Rue) @ T-00:30 + 45mg DMT freebase @ T+00:00. Started at 6:30 AM. I'm going back to my weekly aya/pharma schedule. This was supposed to be a re-introductory experience to get back into it, as I had resistance to it due to more time than usual...

forum.dmt-nexus.me

@Mechanism @Transform @northape

Some years ago, I realized that this all-seeing eye or God watches me through my own eyes. There is no hiding because this presence is always here.
However, it's not something other or alien, but a deeper part of me. After that insight, I stopped hiding from myself. Occasionally, I would feel like someone was watching me, but then I realized that it was me

Oh, hello me. Me, me, me. What a pickle we've gotten ourselves into.
Anyway, sorry for the digression, I hate it when I interrupt myself.
Great thread. Self discovery really warms my heart. So many parallels that it can't be coincidence.

Oh wow - I missed @northape's quote that you were responding to. I noticed this same thing when I was a teenager. Maybe I ought to have paid more attention to the idea, although forgetting may have been as much a part of the experience of life, just as I've often forgotten that many of my previous, er, behavioral aberrations were part of an uncontrolled and distinctly unsystematic psychosocial experiment.

In that sense, it's hard to say what difference an ongoing remembering of any of this may have made. There is little that can be changed about the past besides its interpretation.

You know, I'm noticing more and more people waking up to this. Even people you wouldn't expect, though they might describe it using different terms. I guess you could write it off as a quirk of human psychology but I don't think so. Maybe McKenna was right about his spiritual singularity.

EDIT: @Transform and @northape Hey, question for you guys: when you realized what was happening, did you feel like you could exert some control? Or did it feel more like you were watching a movie?

More and more, I feel that this whole life is out of my control. The voice inside just says that I can change something, but it doesn't look that way at all. I just watch this life happen; my character does some stuff, and the voice keeps saying, "I did it." When I connect with the awareness that knows and live from that perspective, life starts to flow, and stuff doesn't catch me that easily. Sure, strong emotions consume me and I forget about what's what for a moment, but like after a deep dive, I come back to the surface and breathe again.

Life just flows. What is that space of knowing where it all happens? Who is asking?

You mean your internal monologue not the awareness right?

Yes, I meant internal monologue.

There seems to be a difference between thought and intent. Intent seems to come from somewhere else (the awareness you speak of?) while thoughts are executed by the body to carry out that intent.

I'd agree with you. Intent seems to be of a deeper order than thought. It's more like attention, meaning a function of the mind. I don't know if you necessarily need any thoughts to execute your intent. Flow states are a good example where your intent leads to action, and any thoughts would be counterproductive.

We need to use some system here, though. In different philosophies, they change the definition of basic concepts. Just to have a civil dialogue, we need to define reality, thought, awareness, and so on. Or at least state the system of knowledge that you use. It's so complex with us humans.

Not sure, but intuition seems to come from the same place as the intent. Whenever you confuse intent/intuition with your thoughts the results tend to be suboptimal.

For me, intuition is silent. It translates into words by some internal process, but the message itself is complete on arrival. It's more akin to pure knowing, and I create stories around it later on.

 

[Voidmatrix]

We could say thought is a broad category, and intent is a type of thought that fits into that category. This works well if we consider empty thoughts as well, which is in line with what @northape posits above about not needing thought to execute the intent. However, the intent itself is a thought of some kind. However, I wouldn't say that there is an absence of thought in a flow-state, instead I'd say that through the flow-state itself, thought is more seamless and easy, but not non-existent.

I'd say intuition has "formless content" and so it's hard to say how it "arrives" once it "dawns" on us.

One love

 

[northape]

I feel it's very important to put everything in a coherent, logical structure for others to understand and implement in their own minds if needed.
That's why I wanted a separate thread for this topic. @Mechanism can make his own picture more easily that way.
You're very good at it, as always. I learned from you that one needs to be very careful with concepts. They could mean very different things to people.
Thank you

 

[Mechanism]

LOL hey man I really appreciate it but I was more interested in hearing from you and Transform. Please change the title it's embarrassing lmao.

Anyway, based on your other posts in that thread, I'm under the impression that you combine meditation and yoga(asanas) with psychedelics right? This is why I'm really interested in hearing about your take on this awareness that you've perceived.

Did the psychedelics alone reveal it to you? Or did you come to the realization after intensive practice in other ways?

We need to use some system here, though. In different philosophies, they change the definition of basic concepts. Just to have a civil dialogue, we need to define reality, thought, awareness, and so on.

Most of my knowledge on this subject comes from Culada's "The Mind Illuminated". So with that in mind this is what I'm working with:

- Culadasa compares (peripheral) awareness to a field of vision, saying that it's composed of internal mental objects and sensations. He also says its purpose is to provide the overall context for how objects relate to one another and the whole. (Would plain awareness have a different definition?)

- Culadasa's defines attention as the ability to single out a small part of the field conscious awareness in order to analyze and interpret it.

- Thought: Internal mental objects? Something that arises from the hard rules of this immediate reality (which may not be fundamental). Dependent on cause and effect?

- Reality: Tough one, but mahayana buddhists believe that it's independent of consciousness and exists as pure and formless potential (see "The Supreme Array"). (sounds kind of like the quantum foam doesn't it? )

Something tells me you're a lot more knowledgeable about this than me. So I'd be more than happy to adopt your interpretation of things.

@Voidmatrix

We could say thought is a broad category, and intent is a type of thought that fits into that category. This works well if we consider empty thoughts as well, which is in line with what @northape posits above about not needing thought to execute the intent.

Could you expand on what you mean by empty thoughts? Also do you have any ideas or observations about the source of intent? I'm super interested in reading other perspectives on this.

 

[Voidmatrix]

LOL hey man I really appreciate it but I was more interested in hearing from you and Transform. Please change the title it's embarrassing lmao.

I like the title and find it endearing, however if you would like the thread title changed just give me what you'd like it changed to.

Could you expand on what you mean by empty thoughts? Also do you have any ideas or observations about the source of intent? I'm super interested in reading other perspectives on this.

One way I think of thoughts is on a converyor. The converyor always has boxes on it (thoughts) but not every box has anything in it. This way of thinking about it is predicated on the idea that the underlying process of thought, which is also thought is always running, like an endless stream. I consider this because I don't know if there's actually been a moment in which there was no thought, or if I just can't remember anything from that period.

Relative to intent, the genesis may likely depend on various factors. An "egoic" intent can be viewed differently the a "ceremonial" intention. While both can be reduced to the individual, the direction of energy and scope are very different. The distinction I would make between an egoic intent and a ceremonial intent is purpose. In an egoic intention, the purpose is recursive (buying one's dream car) whereas a ceremonial intent is felt or seen as necessary and sufficient (connection with something greater, facilitating experiences for others, etc). One is more selfish and the other is more giving. As such the genesis of each is different. We could likely create further distinctions as well which may also lend itself to the idea of different sources for intent.

For example, and this aligns in ways with my idea of ceremonial intent, but inspiration is something different but can be influencing to an intent.

One love

 

[Mechanism]

I think I follow. Are you saying that the source of both ceremonial and egoic intents are internal mental objects? I'm getting the impression that you're coming from an actual academic philosophy perspective which is a bit outside of my wheelhouse but I'm more than willing to try and tackle it.

The reason I'm so interested with intent is that Culadasa advises you to "Set a conscious intention and let the body act on its own", without forcing anything. And as you put that into practice, you start to recognize a very clear line between the body's actions/mental chatter, and intention.

Now what's REALLY interesting is that if you read books written by high level practitioners of other things (shooting, martial arts, soccer), they say the same thing just in more grounded terms. Maybe something like: "Visualize what you want your body to do and let it move on its own". Or "Let your body figure things out at its own pace, don't force it, just direct it". See the parallels? Makes me nerd out!

Anyway, this might circle back to what you said about inspiration. Could you expand on that? Maybe it's closer to my own ideas about intention.

 

[northape]

Anyway, based on your other posts in that thread, I'm under the impression that you combine meditation and yoga(asanas) with psychedelics right? This is why I'm really interested in hearing about your take on this awareness that you've perceived.

Awareness is one and the same. The more I use psychedelics, the more this fact becomes apparent. This medicine is a kind of maturation agent that removes mental knots and reveals what is. Sure, you need to do your part and engage in a serious practice with integrity, curiosity, and courage. It's far from an easy path if you really go into it. All the darkness that we harbor inside (our hate, greed, lust, and so on) puts up one hell of a resistance.

Meditation would be a form of integration in that context. It's not about sitting for 30min a day watching your breath, but about opening to reality fully. Ideally, you do it all the time. Any technique that works for you could do the job. The path reveals itself because your own mind is the teacher. To paraphrase Ramana Maharshi: focusing our mind outside, we see illusion, and focusing the mind on itself, we uncover reality.

Did the psychedelics alone reveal it to you? Or did you come to the realization after intensive practice in other ways?

I'd say if you have an earnest longing to know who you are and where you find yourself, reality will reveal itself. It's not farther than your own mind. Psychedelics are some karmic outcome we face in this life, and they're a nice tool to explore consciousness in these hard times. I see them as a path towards something, but the day will come when we part ways. Once again, I wouldn't distinguish between the psychedelic state and sober reality. The awareness or basic knowing I'm talking about is present throughout. That's the mystery.

Most of my knowledge on this subject comes from Culada's "The Mind Illuminated".

We can say that you're looking through a Buddhist lens, more or less. I think most of us are somewhat familiar with that system.

Something tells me you're a lot more knowledgeable about this than me. So I'd be more than happy to adopt your interpretation of things.

If I have something over you, it'd be only time spent on these questions and in a ceremony, but even that is not a given. I prefer to just share ideas, and you take what is useful. Creating some superiority is a harmful game to play.

 

[Voidmatrix]

I think I follow. Are you saying that the source of both ceremonial and egoic intents are internal mental objects? I'm getting the impression that you're coming from an actual academic philosophy perspective which is a bit outside of my wheelhouse but I'm more than willing to try and tackle it.

The reason I'm so interested with intent is that Culadasa advises you to "Set a conscious intention and let the body act on its own", without forcing anything. And as you put that into practice, you start to recognize a very clear line between the body's actions/mental chatter, and intention.

Now what's REALLY interesting is that if you read books written by high level practitioners of other things (shooting, martial arts, soccer), they say the same thing just in more grounded terms. Maybe something like: "Visualize what you want your body to do and let it move on its own". Or "Let your body figure things out at its own pace, don't force it, just direct it". See the parallels? Makes me nerd out!

Anyway, this might circle back to what you said about inspiration. Could you expand on that? Maybe it's closer to my own ideas about intention.

I would say that what we may experience is a mental object, but there's often some input that leads to said mental object. Take a psychedelic experience where someone feels they have connected to God and feel inspiration. This inspiration informs their feelings and thinking simultaneously. This then informs their desires in some manner or other, and this then leads to their choice in intent and subsequent actions. If someone sees and is impacted by witness another person save the life of another and are inspired to do similarly. Same thing happens.

What the examples you share highlight for me is this idea of primordial balance. It's not that we don't do anything or that we don't make choices, but that the movement of our being becomes more seamless through the understand and application. To add to the examples you gave, like Bruce Lee said, be like water my friend.

These principles can be applied to many things; the goal is to put in effort until it seems or feels like you're not putting in effort.

I encourage you to keep geeking out on this. It'll take you far.

One love

 

[northape]

The reason I'm so interested with intent is that Culadasa advises you to "Set a conscious intention and let the body act on its own", without forcing anything. And as you put that into practice, you start to recognize a very clear line between the body's actions/mental chatter, and intention.

Most likely, it's a bit over my head to answer, but I'll give it a try. Firstly, I feel that his statement describes the whole medicine ceremony very well. You set an intent in the beginning and let it all unfold without forcing anything. It's easier said than done, though. I've become a bit doubtful about this advice in general. I see where he's leading with it, but the body kind of acts on its own by default. Is he after intentional flow states?

Secondly, I'd argue that the power of intent differs from person to person. The capacity may be the same, but the amount of force behind it differs. Some people can kill with a word, and here comes the notion of presence. If one is highly present, their power of intent is on another level.

 

[Voidmatrix]

@Transform Your presence is requested in this thread.

One love

 

[Mechanism]

I see where he's leading with it, but the body kind of acts on its own by default. Is he after intentional flow states?

It's hard to describe man. I don't want to give the impression that I'm an expert because by his metrics I'm still teetering between "novice" and "skilled" (which means intermediate). But things start to get really weird. For example, instead of going to the fridge to get something to drink, it feels like you're telling your body to go to the fridge and get a drink. And when it decides to do so, it feels like you're just riding along. Sounds kind of crazy, reading that aloud lol.

Secondly, I'd argue that the power of intent differs from person to person. The capacity may be the same, but the amount of force behind it differs. Some people can kill with a word, and here comes the notion of presence. If one is highly present, their power of intent is on another level.

You wouldn't be referring to siddhi's would you? I think I'm inclined to believe there's people walking this earth that can do such things. I've seen some really interesting personal anecdotes involving siddhi's.

Now I know a bunch of people are probably going to jump down my throat for this so I'll just say that I don't fully believe anything that I haven't seen or experienced myself, but I like to keep an open mind.

 

[Pumpy]

Most likely, it's a bit over my head to answer, but I'll give it a try. Firstly, I feel that his statement describes the whole medicine ceremony very well. You set an intent in the beginning and let it all unfold without forcing anything. It's easier said than done, though. I've become a bit doubtful about this advice in general. I see where he's leading with it, but the body kind of acts on its own by default. Is he after intentional flow states?

Secondly, I'd argue that the power of intent differs from person to person. The capacity may be the same, but the amount of force behind it differs. Some people can kill with a word, and here comes the notion of presence. If one is highly present, their power of intent is on another level.

Mechanism said:
The reason I'm so interested with intent is that Culadasa advises you to "Set a conscious intention and let the body act on its own", without forcing anything. And as you put that into practice, you start to recognize a very clear line between the body's actions/mental chatter, and intention.

This discussion about setting intention and allowing the resulting action to occur freely reminds me of The Master and His Emissary by Iain McGilchrist. In the book he refers to the right hemisphere of the brain as the Master which <snipped from google--->pays broad, vigilant attention to the whole context, understanding implicit meaning, relationships, and emotions as opposed to the left, the emissary, which pays narrow, focused attention to details, manipulating parts to grasp and organize them, but can impose a fragmented and less vibrant view of the world when dominant<>. It sounds like Culadasa's advice (in the context of this book) is meant to allow the two hemispheres to cooperate more ? While shifting emphasis to the right hemisphere too

 

[Mechanism]

I would say that what we may experience is a mental object, but there's often some input that leads to said mental object. Take a psychedelic experience where someone feels they have connected to God and feel inspiration. This inspiration informs their feelings and thinking simultaneously. This then informs their desires in some manner or other, and this then leads to their choice in intent and subsequent actions. If someone sees and is impacted by witness another person save the life of another and are inspired to do similarly. Same thing happens.

What the examples you share highlight for me is this idea of primordial balance. It's not that we don't do anything or that we don't make choices, but that the movement of our being becomes more seamless through the understand and application. To add to the examples you gave, like Bruce Lee said, be like water my friend.

These principles can be applied to many things; the goal is to put in effort until it seems or feels like you're not putting in effort.

I encourage you to keep geeking out on this. It'll take you far.

One love

Haha! You really managed to fit a lot of meaning into this post so I had to mull it over for a bit for it to click. But I think what you're alluding to is that EVERYTHING is internal right? Inspiration, intention, whatever isn't really coming from somewhere else because the entire construct of this reality is contained in one object? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Could be that I'm just a midwit, but I got a really pleasant churn in my brain from reading that.

This discussion about setting intention and allowing the resulting action to occur freely reminds me of The Master and His Emissary by Iain McGilchrist. In the book he refers to the right hemisphere of the brain as the Master which <snipped from google--->pays broad, vigilant attention to the whole context, understanding implicit meaning, relationships, and emotions as opposed to the left, the emissary, which pays narrow, focused attention to details, manipulating parts to grasp and organize them, but can impose a fragmented and less vibrant view of the world when dominant<>. It sounds like Culadasa's advice (in the context of this book) is meant to allow the two hemispheres to cooperate more ? While shifting emphasis to the right hemisphere too

Is that the book where they inject saline into a guy's carotid to allow the right hemisphere to take over temporarily? I mean it would make sense. Maybe his method causes the right brain to take a more active role? EDIT: Actually you're probably right because in his 10 stage system, mastery of stage 7 involves complete unification of the mind. He has a whole section describing the different facets of the untrained mind as a bunch of unruly cats and meditation is like herding them into focusing on a single thing.

 

[Voidmatrix]

But I think what you're alluding to is that EVERYTHING is internal right? Inspiration, intention, whatever isn't really coming from somewhere else because the entire construct of this reality is contained in one object?

You're close. And I'll be the first to admit that what I'm trying to say isn't easy to say. Such is the nature of philosophy.

Anyway, if EVERYTHING were truly internal then the erroneous interpretation of solipsism would be true and none of us would exist to each other (see problem of other minds). To be more on the nose, solipsism posits that the one thing anyone can know for sure is the existence of their own mind. This doesn't say that nothing else exists, which the erroneous interpretation jumps to: the only thing that exists is one's own mind.

This is important because it raises an important distinction. You only have your phenomenology of reality and in this way, "all" you experience is the output of your own mind. However, we mustn't neglect the very strong appearance of necessary inputs from, say, the world, to seemingly generate the cascade of outputs that we call our phenomenological experience.

Kant makes a distinction between noumena and phenomena. We have plenty of phenomena of the world (the likely shows up somewhat differently or is processed somewhat differently by virtually every individual), but because of the filter of the senses (they process inputs in particular ways that are limiting to the totality of information) and the orientation of the array we call the brain, we never reach the heart of things, things in and of themselves: the noumena of the world.

So I'm saying it's a little of this and a little of that

One love

 

[Mechanism]

You're close. And I'll be the first to admit that what I'm trying to say isn't easy to say. Such is the nature of philosophy.

Anyway, if EVERYTHING were truly internal then the erroneous interpretation of solipsism would be true and none of us would exist to each other (see problem of other minds). To be more on the nose, solipsism posits that the one thing anyone can know for sure is the existence of their own mind. This doesn't say that nothing else exists, which the erroneous interpretation jumps to: the only thing that exists is one's own mind.

This is important because it raises an important distinction. You only have your phenomenology of reality and in this way, "all" you experience is the output of your own mind. However, we mustn't neglect the very strong appearance of necessary inputs from, say, the world, to seemingly generate the cascade of outputs that we call our phenomenological experience.

Kant makes a distinction between noumena and phenomena. We have plenty of phenomena of the world (the likely shows up somewhat differently or is processed somewhat differently by virtually every individual), but because of the filter of the senses (they process inputs in particular ways that are limiting to the totality of information) and the orientation of the array we call the brain, we never reach the heart of things, things in and of themselves: the noumena of the world.

So I'm saying it's a little of this and a little of that

One love

I had to look up Kant and his noumena and now I'm about 90% sure that you probably studied this in college. Sooo, I was wondering if you ever encountered anything related to the Buddhist "Dharma Realm" in your studies, because it seems somewhat related to Kant's idea of an underlying reality.

Actually, I skimmed through some information about Kant, which reminded me of the general idea of the Supreme Array, which is the 1800 year old text that defines the "Dharma Realm". It goes something like this:

All phenomena (in the dharma realm) are tied to consciousness, but consciousness itself depends on the appearance of these phenomena. Therefore consciousness can't be the basis for reality, but instead the "pregnant void" of the dharma realm.

Pretty based for an ancient religion no?

To save people some googling, the Dharma Realm is basically an infinite, formless void of pure potential with no rules that is believed to encompass this reality.

P.S. I'm not a Buddhist so you don't have to worry about offending me!

P.P.S: If you look into it a little further, it's kind of freaky how much the Dharma Realm resembles the quantum void from modern physics. (At first glance at least, I'm not a physicist).

 

[redbird]

The dharma realm is also the ain soph of kabbalah and the alternatives space of reality transurfing.
There's a lot in this thread that can be translated in to reality transurfing terms and then expanded on in a how to sense. As much as I want to do that right now, I am too tired to do it justice at this moment.

For now, I'll settle for stirring the pot:
We have no proof of the existence of noumena outside of our logical reasoning supported by phenomenally generated models.
Further, our own interactions with "external" entities assume there is a plurality because of a veil preventing our knowing their true intentions but that concept of a plurality of conscious "external" entities is itself a phenomenally derived assumption.
We take it for granted that things exist when even our senses are not even directly connected to the objects they generate models of. Vision is a collection of light reflections. Sound is detection of fluid disturbances. Atomic forces prevent actual touch from occuring. Smell and taste are arguably the most direct senses but even they involve intermediaries.
Even this conversation here, outside of matters of faith, I struggle to know without doubt that it exists outside of my perception of it in this moment.

 

[northape]

It's hard to describe man. I don't want to give the impression that I'm an expert because by his metrics I'm still teetering between "novice" and "skilled" (which means intermediate). But things start to get really weird. For example, instead of going to the fridge to get something to drink, it feels like you're telling your body to go to the fridge and get a drink. And when it decides to do so, it feels like you're just riding along. Sounds kind of crazy, reading that aloud lol.

I had my time with Theravada teachings and couldn't get into them fully. Thai Forest Tradition of Ajahn Chah was the only one that hooked me somewhat. My benchmark for any spiritual path is the final shift of attention onto yourself. Who is meditating? Who is thinking? Thai Forest Tradition is the Dzogchen of Theravada; they question awareness right away. My fascination with different teachers and their interpretations kind of ended when I started to question their own conduct. You can only get up to a teacher's level, and I just saw too much ego in them. Maybe I'm spoiled that way, but there are quite a few examples of real achievement even in our age. Look at Ramana Maharshi and how he lived his life; his conduct was flawless, without any fluctuation or games. H.E. Garchen Rinpoche is another modern example; just observe that person.

My feeling is that you don't need to overcomplicate things. The whole game is about your own Being. Developing focus is good, but it's just a tool. How would you apply it? Dharmadhatu is right here; there's no need to be swayed by fine Sanskrit terms. Sit alone in Silence, and it reveals itself. Just open to everything and ask: Who sees it all? It's a subtle shift of awareness, but it holds the entire path. Point a finger at yourself and ask: Who is pointing? Stand before a mirror and ask: Am I the same as the reflection? Who asks? You see, I can give you pith instructions all day. What a real master does is find just the right moment and ask just the right question. No book can give you that.

You wouldn't be referring to siddhi's would you? I think I'm inclined to believe there's people walking this earth that can do such things. I've seen some really interesting personal anecdotes involving siddhi's. Now I know a bunch of people are probably going to jump down my throat for this so I'll just say that I don't fully believe anything that I haven't seen or experienced myself, but I like to keep an open mind.

Siddhis are very counterproductive. You see, we have none and are already talking about them with fascination. Imagine what would happen if you had any, even a minor one. Most likely, you'd end your quest and focus on it for many years, open a cult and make lots of money. Siddhis come when one reaches true one-pointed concentration. Wisdom is not necessary to achieve them because they are part of a highly developed neurological system. However, don't worry. Shamatha is out of reach for modern people. We can get to some level of proficiency, but true one-pointed attention is hard. You can check Alan Wallace, who is a true Shamatha aficionado. He practiced his whole life and honestly said that he met just a few who reached it. You need a specific environment, which is hard to get today. And even then, Siddhis are not a given. All the teachers say to see them as a fleeting phenomenon without paying too much attention.

I was referring to the maturity of awareness; the more you clear your mind of its tendencies, the more the light of awareness shines from within. We can feel this heightened energy of a person as a presence. Some people have a particular kind of authority just by being. Such a level of presence would give much more force to the intent. My command to "sit" and a Buddha's would produce quite distinct effects. The word is the same, but the power behind it would differ tremendously.

 

[northape]

Pretty based for an ancient religion no?
To save people some googling, the Dharma Realm is basically an infinite, formless void of pure potential with no rules that is believed to encompass this reality.
P.S. I'm not a Buddhist so you don't have to worry about offending me!
P.P.S: If you look into it a little further, it's kind of freaky how much the Dharma Realm resembles the quantum void from modern physics. (At first glance at least, I'm not a physicist).

If you're into Buddhism, I'd advise you to follow a well-defined, authentic system. There are lots of so-called gurus who teach their own spin on things. How can they compare with any tradition that produced countless success cases?

Books won't get you there, but you can get a good map of the territory. The best one I found to build a systematic understanding from the ground is "Wake Up To Your Life: Discovering the Buddhist Path of Attention" by Ken McLeod. Don't change anything in your approach; just read the book. Lots of your questions would just fall away. His Western presentation of this old tradition goes past Hinayana, up to non-dual teachings. I feel you will benefit quite a lot from it.

I love the simplicity of Ken's meditation instruction: Return to what is already there and rest.

 

[Voidmatrix]

I had to look up Kant and his noumena and now I'm about 90% sure that you probably studied this in college. Sooo, I was wondering if you ever encountered anything related to the Buddhist "Dharma Realm" in your studies, because it seems somewhat related to Kant's idea of an underlying reality.

Actually, I skimmed through some information about Kant, which reminded me of the general idea of the Supreme Array, which is the 1800 year old text that defines the "Dharma Realm". It goes something like this:

Pretty based for an ancient religion no?

To save people some googling, the Dharma Realm is basically an infinite, formless void of pure potential with no rules that is believed to encompass this reality.

P.S. I'm not a Buddhist so you don't have to worry about offending me!

P.P.S: If you look into it a little further, it's kind of freaky how much the Dharma Realm resembles the quantum void from modern physics. (At first glance at least, I'm not a physicist).

You will find many related ideas throughout time around the globe. This idea is also similar to theory of forms for example. You could also look at it as the inverse of Akashic Records. There are similarities also to Aristotle's Prime Mover.

Regardless, what I really want to highlight about this flavor of thinking is how paradoxical it is... I think there's something important there.

One love

 

[Voidmatrix]

I had to look up Kant and his noumena and now I'm about 90% sure that you probably studied this in college.

Ironically, while I am formally educated in philosophy, it was in continuing my own education that brought me to Kant, not my classes in college.

One love