See if you already realize

Discussion
, ,
1

See if you already realize:
All this is virtual reality.
All this is the product of a huge program.
That all are numbers, relationships, everything fits and also rules that are simple …
Also, this is digital (quantum).
Moreover, there is nothing that is not conditioned (or programmed): everything depends on causes.
Moreover, even the dimensions are absolute, linear dimensions depend on the time (expansion gap) and the time, in turn, if it was “something” would depend on the mass, and mass is nothing more than a concept . No one can experience the “mass” can only intuit or conceptualizing.
In addition, if we descend to the smallest components of reality, they are “wave functions” that is, programs.
In addition, the number of particles is unusually small.
In addition, the number of chemical element is ridiculously finite and not only finite but also scarce.
In addition, there is no randomness.
Moreover, there is nothing. The bare minimum is the quantum vacuum is not empty. (His energy is the equivalent of 3 H atoms / m3)
In addition, there is the infinite.
All that is stable and these are concepts only live in the mind, as God, the soul, the essence, the eternal, nothing, etc.
In addition, nothing out of consciousness can ensure that there is.
Where is the sound? Where color? Where is the touch? Or taste? Or smell? Or proprioception?
And consciousness is pure software.
And what lies beyond our consciousness interface?
We can only check that changes constantly, that is, if we receive external impulses, but its nature is not known.
We can build a universe, and will be the same for all consciences that share the same operating system.
It will be the same for all humans.
It will be the same for all dogs.
And completely different for a human and a dog. And a cat and a fish, and a spider, and tardigrade …
Is our universe is “better” than others?
In addition, given two objects belonging to the same class (for example, two electrons) behave exactly the same. If they were something in themselves, and not depend on their class, they might behave slightly different. But there is a strong dependence on its fully class. This dependence is only programming.
In addition, all life is pure programming (DNA).
In addition, in a few years, we will be able to program consciousness exactly like us: that is the future of computing.
And what great is this? It’s nothing. The time it takes a photon from the other end of the universe to reach us is 0s.

Everything is conditioned,
everything is impermanent,
everything is insubstantial,
everything is unsatisfactory.

What more proof do you want?
If you still think this is no ordinary program tries to refute.
This is the cruel reality you see, when you see the reality as it is.
This is the final product knowable about meditation.

2

From the different ideas you present, I like this one the most - that the fact of two elements belonging to the same class might show their insubstantiality. An unconditioned element of substance would then be unique, a law in itself. Does that idea come from any tradition of logic or is it your own spin on it?

3

It is funny how the Abrahamic religions started talking about the Book of Life (a process especially prominent in Islam) after writing had been established as the ultimate media of the day and we assume the world is a software program after the digital media became essential to our everyday life. Just think about all the letter characters we use for writing mathematical equations, referring to chemical elements, or spelling DNA-based gene words. The alphabet is or any writing system is just as ridiculously limited as the number of elementary particles, so why not think abiout the world as a book someone (God? Brahman?) is reading?

Considering that the primary medium of the Buddha’s age India was still oral communication, it would be extremely interesting to find out whether there are any traces of it influencing the Buddhist concepts in the Canon. There certainly are lots of them in the Brahmanist tradition.

More importantly, the traces of dominating media influencing religious traditions always suggest a dialogical structure of the Universe, since every medium has at least two communicating sides, a sender and a receiver, which is partially maybe where the entire ‘subject-object’ dychotomy and philosophical concepts of substratum and Absolute have their origins. To my mind, if you look at the core of the Buddha’s message, it is among other things about the fact that the whole message-sender-receiver things is irrelevant and they possibly don’t even exist. The world is just that: the world.

2 Likes
4

Unconditioned element would not be conditioned or time, or by the metric, or any kind of energy. That is, it would be everywhere, at all times, and could not be experienced

5

Even world. World is a concept. A concept is information in consciousness. Information is a kind of energy.

6

It is easy to see that it could not be experienced, at least not in its entirety. It might ‘seep through’ consciousness, but not fully.
‘Everywhere’ would not be clear logic. ‘Everywhere’ is space. But again, it might ‘seep through’ space.
Same with ‘at all times’ - it would be more logical to say like some advaitins “Nothing ever happened”.

In the way you present ideas I see the possibility of interrupting one’s own intellectual game and get rid of elaborated concepts. But there is the danger of empty philosophy.

Everyone who hung out with neo-advaitins for a while knows the game - you discuss dhamma and after a while they would ask ‘Who is the one who raises this question?’. It’s an absolutely legitimate spiritual question, as it hints to the absence of an independent entity, a coarse self. But after a while, after many discussions like this, the effect changes from profound to boring. ‘Ok, nothing exists, I’m not the doer, the universe is an illusion. I get it. I still wake up with bad breath and back pain…’

So where at many spiritual presentations there is not much besides “Wake up! See the truth!” the advantage of the Buddhist path is that it starts with profound intellectual concepts (‘He hears the dhmma’ in the gradual path) and then offers a life style of practices and exercises to bring about a realization.

We shouldn’t be too full of ourselves either. Buddhism never produced 100% arahants, not even at the Buddha’s time. And we might be surprised to read in Ajahn Chah’s talks that he expected many of the listening monks to disrobe. We think ‘I would have practiced so hard if I stayed with Ajahn Chah’. Neither do most of Ajahn Brahm’s monks master the Jhanas. So it’s not that ‘Buddhism works’ - it works for some.

I just feel more comfortable in the Buddhist framework because after the flashy concepts are gone, and the reality of the mind shines through, I have less possibilities to lie to myself about spiritual progress. I like the sobriety and coolness and the applicability. Sorry for the longer story line, but @tommit, can you please show the practical aspects of your ideas? You mentioned for example a method for 80% of practitioners to establish jhana. Could you share the general approach? Maybe there are other practical aspects you work with. Thanks

7

The Dhamma works. That I can tell. And it works the way it should work logic that is after practice.
In this business practice is 90%. The problem is that the available practice is highly inefficient and is only available to 15% of the way. That a person must use 17 years and 7000 hours to achieve jhanas it has made people invent absurd meditations and sell them to new agers accompanied by weekend courses and retreats eight days.
Jhanas is the door. No jhanas no progress. No jhanas no Dhamma.
No Jhanas is impossible to understand the suttas. It is absurd to “study” the suttas. The suttas do you recognize what you have seen in practice.
However, from there, there are many more levels to be scaled with own meditations. Meditations that are not in the suttas.
In addition, the road to progress terrible has two impediments:
1- Knowledge “Buddhist” than the suttas.
2- The erroneous practice. According to the Buddha those of bad practice are “bad people” and those who teach this are “worse than bad people”.
The latter is terrible malpractice prevents any kind of progress in the right practice. This I have studied and measured. If you have practiced and not properly (ie, you have not achieved jhanas) jhanas the way to have it blocked.
Jhanas is accessible to people who have never meditated, to street people who know nothing of meditation. And that, once achieved, the physical-psychological changes overwhelm them and leave.
At this time, once tested the effectiveness of the method jhanas, I’m trying to design a “therapy” for experienced meditators, after trying to start generating factors jhana (endogenous drugs), mix, and fly.
In my beach with friends from various countries who come on holiday, I have accomplished more in three months jhanas some famous monastic tradition in its history.
That if. Nobody follows.
It is a devilishly absurd situation: who wants to can not, who can not want.

8

Thanks for the teasers :slight_smile: But it would be helpful to back it up with actual practical suggestions. Until then for us outsiders it’s just another promise in the spiritual supermarket…

10

I am preparing a comprehensive book, where one of its three parts is a manual of procedures different meditations.
The first level are the jhanas, and begins with a trigger effect neurotransmitters eight of which are five jhanas necessary.
Then follow six levels of increasing complexity.
This is the least developed part.