Discussions

A TRANSFORMATIVE CONCEPT

Posted Nov. 22, 2013 by Jim Centi in Open

Anonymous Icon

commented on Nov. 24, 2013
by dustproduction

Quote

12

This transformative concept comes from Neuroscience, the Institute of Noetic sciences (IONS) and a tradition that involves ancient wisdom.

Tracing this ancient wisdom to its origins is difficult because scholars differ as to its precise age. Some say it goes back to the dawn of civilization, others say 8000 years ago and still others say 6000 years ago.

Some say it began in North Central Asia others say it has always existed in India. One source contends that it draws from ancient forms of both Buddhism and Hinduism.

Within a broad sense and for the sake of brevity; it has gone through several phases such as the Vedic Hymns, the Vedic period, Epic period, Sutra period and the Scholastic period.

The current version of this ancient wisdom is Advaita Vedanta. The easiest way to explain Advaita Vedanta is through a short story copied from an Advaita Vedanta site.

THE PLANET ADVAITA

Imagine if you will that you awaken one morning in another world. As you rub your eyes to get accustomed to the bright sunshine, you see that it is in many respects a world not unlike this one. All around you there are creatures that, to your eyes, look identical to the human beings with whom you are used to sharing the world. You observe them going about their daily activities, living their lives, engaging in conversation with others, making the myriad choices and decisions that life inherently demands. The picture looks reassuringly familiar and normal.

But in this world, you soon discover that things are not necessarily as they seem. For these are not human beings. No, these are "body/mind organisms" which, unlike their human counterparts, do not have the ability to choose between options or to make decisions. In fact, these organisms do not have anything even resembling what we would call free will. The scripts of their entire lives were written in stone long before they were born, leaving them only to go mechanically through the motions of acting out their programming. These seemingly human creatures, it would appear, are not unlike machines.

While to all appearances they seem to behave like ordinary freethinking individuals, busily engaged in daily activities, strangely, when asked, they maintain that they are not doing anything at all. In fact, in this peculiar world, they say that there are "no doers." Furthermore, no one in this world is ever held accountable for anything. Even when one of these beings appears to harm another, there is no remorse felt and no blame attributed. If you were to ask one of these body/mind organisms about it, the response would be that there was no one who had done anything. Ethics is an unknown concept here. The laws of nature do not seem to apply in this brave new world. Or maybe they have been rewritten here, since the beings do seem to observe some strange laws. You wonder where on Earth you could be. But you are not on Earth. You have landed on Planet Advaita. (THE END)

Neuroscience stands at the plateau of scientific authority along with quantum physics and it proclaims that there is no “me” or “I”. It proclaims that the self does not exist and free will does not exist.

The cornerstone of IONS science proclaims is that consciousness is not confined within individual brains. All the research it does involving telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, psychokinesis etc. is to provide evidence that consciousness is not confined within individual brains.

As members of IONS, most of us should be aware that the universe is a one single interconnected field of energy. Humans are not separate from this field of energy; we exist within it and it exists within us. And yet, most humans experience a “self” that is separate from or exists independent of the universe.

I have been exploring the illusion of self or the experience of no-self, for several months and have been oscillating between two states or awareness or consciousness.

In the state I’ll refer to as the ego state, there is the presence of ego and judgment. In this state, it is common to find fault with situations, events and find fault with the behavior of others. There are degrees of discontentment in performing certain mundane tasks that are required in maintaining a household such as paying bills or mowing the lawn.

In the other state of no-self there is no ego or judgment. Mundane tasks are simply performed without any degree of discontentment and there is a pleasant piece of mind experienced, along with a sense of freedom or liberation.

A few months ago, the ego state dominated my experience and it would last for several days or weeks. Since thinking about writing this topic, I’ve been exploring the no-self state more and the dominance of the ego state is lessening. The no-self state has been occurring with greater frequency and duration. As I proof read this topic, I realize that the ego state has lost its position of dominance.

We have been conditioned since about age three to believe in and therefore experience a self. We have been conditioned to believe in a person that does not exist.

The no-self state involves existing within the domain of experience; not the domain of belief where judgment is consciously or unconsciously persistent.

A self is not required to either experience or observe. Observation and experience continues to occur in the no-self state. Repeating, a self is not required to either experience or observe.

Are you willing to consider the possibility that the human species is in the early stages of a metamorphosis into an entity that abandons the illusion of a self?

Originally this topic was much longer as it continued to promote the no-self experience and encourage the abandonment of the illusion of a separate self.

Only a few minutes ago the decision was made to end this topic now and refer you to links devoted to the experience of no-self. The first two links are talks lasting about twenty minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2UnnObWkgw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2g4qaDGpTU

The following link is the website from which the first two links were taken. Many hours could be spent exploring this website. Once you have fully grasped the message and experience the no-self state, the site has served its purpose. You can return to it and explore it further when you feel the urge.

http://liberationunleashed.com/index.html

  • 12 Comments  
  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 24, 2013

    This leaves little to discuss in a mutual way,

    G'day

  • mrmathew1963 Nov 24, 2013

    G'day dustproduction

    RE: "How do you refer to someone that is unaware of spirit? What do you label them?"

    Unaware!!

    RE: 'What is your interest in IONS? I have asked this before. Do you subscribe to the paranormal?"

    My interests are my own business & yes I do subscribe to the paranormal , so what?

    RE; "Have you researched the links that were provided in this discussion?"

    No, mainly because I am on limited downloads.

    RE: Why not check them out and join those discussion along with JC?

    Again I am on limited downloads.

    It would be nice if you answered all my queries but that's obviously not going to happen of course!!

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 24, 2013


    Mathew,
    All of your comments refer to spirit. You know all the labels for people that engage in the spirit debate; atheist, theist, agnostic, etc.
    How do you refer to someone that is unaware of spirit? What do you label them?

    What is your interest in IONS? I have asked this before. Do you subscribe to the paranormal?

    Have you researched the links that were provided in this discussion?
    Why not check them out and join those discussion along with JC?


  • mrmathew1963 Nov 24, 2013

    G'day dustproduction

    RE; "Jimbo,

    What happened to your vow to ignore me. hahahaha
    It seems you cannot help yourself.

    Best,

    "Dusty"

    This is so childish it's not funny.........You didn't live in Howard Queensland Australia at one time did you??

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 23, 2013

    I going to post the rest here since it applies to the poster:

    The Buddha was silent to the questions of the paribbajako (wandering ascetic) Vacchagotta of “Is there a self?” or “Is there not a self?” [SN.5:44,10]. When Ananda later asked about his silence, the Buddha said that to affirm or deny the existence of an eternal self would have sided with sectarian theories and have disturbed Vacchagotta even more. The early Suttas see even Annihilationism, which the Buddha equated with denial of a Self, as tied up with belief in a Self.[32] It is seen as arising due to conceiving a Self in some sort of relationship to the personality-factors. It is thus rooted in the 'I am' attitude; even the attitude 'I do not exist' arises from a preoccupation with 'I'

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 23, 2013

    This discussion amounts to a reinvention of "Anatta." a non-self, while abandoning the rest of Buddhist teachings.

    In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit: अनात्मन्) refers to the notion of "not-self" or the illusion of "self". In the early texts, the Buddha commonly uses the word in the context of teaching that all things perceived by the senses (including the mental sense) are not really "I" or "mine", and for this reason one should not cling to them.
    In the same vein, the Pali suttas (and parallel āgamas, both referred to collectively below as the nikāyas), categorize the phenomena experienced by a being into five groups ("khandhas") that serve as the objects of clinging and as the basis for a sense of self. In the Nikāyas, the Buddha repeatedly emphasizes not only that the five khandhas of living beings are "not-self", i.e. not "I" or "mine", but also that clinging to them as if they were "I" or "mine" gives rise to unhappiness.
    According to the early texts, while on the path, one should develop oneself in healthy and liberating ways, only letting go of the attempt to improve the self as it becomes unnecessary.[1]

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 23, 2013

    Terms are tossed around a if people knew what they are talking about.
    The fact is, it is easier to invent terms like "no-self state" than it is to apply a scholarly academic approach to these discussions.
    Define "no-self state"
    Define "ego state."

    Re: "that cause me to shift from the no-self state to the ego state"

    This is akin to "the devil made me do it;" shifting responsibility away from one's SELF.

    Has no one here read William James? See "William James's theory of the self"

    http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/9608146713/william-jamess-theory-self

    http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/jamesqs.html

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 23, 2013

    Jimbo,

    What happened to your vow to ignore me. hahahaha
    It seems you cannot help yourself.

    Best,

    "Dusty"

  • mrmathew1963 Nov 23, 2013

    G'day Jim

    Thanks for this, much appreciated & sorry if I seem a little negative to you as that is not my intention. I'm using a different reasoning process to see things in a different light to what I was & have found out we can only see what our reasoning tells us to see at any given time, maybe I shouldn't be expressive of this.

    The funny thing about free will is there is no need for free will, it's the ego telling us we must have free will otherwise we will feel entrapped. It's funny when we use a different reasoning process how our psyche changes in accordance with our reasoning. If we accepted not having or needing free will we wouldn't feel entrapped but when we change our reasoning process to believing we need free will we then feel entrapped again & act accordingly creating a reality like this one.

    Good post.

    All the best,
    Mathew

  • Jim Centi Nov 23, 2013

    Dustproduction,

    Your lack of knowledge relative to the proclamation of Neuroscience i.e. that self and free will do not exist, reflects that your knowledge of Neuroscience is superficial.

    Your other comment indicates that you are unable to recognize that the cornerstone of IONS science is to provide evidence that consciousness is not confined within individual brains.This indicates that your understanding of the purpose of IONS science is below superficial.

    Regarding your comment relative to the position that humans experience a self that exists separate from or independent of the universe; this reflects that either you are unable to cognize this or you have no subjective experience.

    With reference to your comment “We might ask "How can an argument that attacks the construct of a "self" include other references to constructs such as "ego?" This reflects that you cannot cognize that one can experience oscillations between the no-self state and the ego state.

    The ego state was being experience when in another topic when I referred to you as an asshole.

    I must give you credit for creating comments that cause me to shift from the no-self state to the ego state, because once again, you are viewed as an asshole.

    Dusty, I do not accept the responsibility to move you to a higher step on the ladder of mental and spiritual evolution.

    I previously took a vow to completely ignore anything you write. You’re conditioning to consistently function as a nuisance that is capable of only criticism of higher states of perception has caused me to temporarily break that vow.

    I would be required to lower myself to your level if I inquired if you clicked on the links provided in this topic. It is obvious that you have not done so, as it was obvious in previous correspondence that you refused to review the evidence for psychic phenomena provided by Dean Radin.

    I do not believe that someone could express the degree of intelligence that you occasionally reflect and be as obtuse as your comments reflect. I am beginning to believe that you have been hired by some small group of traditional scientists to disrupt these Discussions that are supported by the Institute of Noetic Sciences.

    For those of you who have not read the topic DISCUSSIONS AND REVOLUTIONS, a revolution is occurring in science. Organizations such as IONS are attempting to bring a new paradigm into the world which expresses interconnectedness between humans and the universe. This is done by providing evidence that consciousness is not imprisoned within individual brains, but it is an expression or characteristic of the universe.

    Traditional Science, which is the paradigm Dustproduction adamantly supports, is what is inhibiting this new paradigm from appearing in the world.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 23, 2013

    "The idea that science cannot explain consciousness seem to be rooted in particular views rather than based on familiarity with scientific inquiry. In other words it's just an ideological position."

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 23, 2013

    We might ask "How can an argument that attacks the construct of a "self" include other references to constructs such as "ego?"

    Re: "Neuroscience stands at the plateau of scientific authority along with quantum physics and it proclaims that there is no “me” or “I”. It proclaims that the self does not exist and free will does not exist."

    Citations needed.

    Re: "The cornerstone of IONS science proclaims is that consciousness is not confined within individual brains."

    Citation needed.

    Re: "most humans experience a “self” that is separate from or exists independent of the universe."

    I'll stop here because this argument is so weak it does not measure up to a conjecture and is based in an supported foundation.

    Conjecture: n, an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. v, form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.

    It can be stated that humans experience the self as a subjective experience. Neuroscience does not state that there is no "I" or "me."
    In fact I have and can offer research that explores the subject self, the "I" and the objective self, the "me" (see previous reference to research by Elizabeth Pinal, University of Vermont).

    While others here may cast stones at me for my views they cannot say that my arguments are unsupported.

    Michael Graziano's new book "Consciousness and the Social Brain"

    I've been researching a lot about consciousness and the connection it has to the self and other relationship, so Graziano's new book seems like a must read. Princeton University's Neuroscience Institute posted a tantalizing review by Timothy P. Waldron on its website that includes the following points:

    "What is consciousness and how can a brain, a mere collection of neurons, create it? Michael Graziano, on the neuroscience faculty at Princeton University, is developing a theoretical and experimental approach to these questions. The theory begins with the ability to attribute awareness to others. The human brain has a complex circuitry that allows it to be socially intelligent. One function of this circuitry is to attribute a state of awareness to others: to build the intuition that person Y is aware of thing X. In Graziano's hypothesis, the machinery that attributes awareness to others also helps attribute the property to oneself."

    So, this tears down one of the pillars of this argument. Neuroscience does address selves (as well as 'other' than a self).

    In my opinion, the author needs to conduct further research to support his claims. This would be a great place to start:
    http://jayarava.blogspot.com/2013/04/what-is-consciousness-anyway.html

  • or Sign Up to Add a Comment

Stay in touch with IONS