meditation

[Checkmite]

But be aware after meditation session for some time person is able to accept more suggestions from others.

I'm afraid I find it a little unbelievable that a person would be more or less "suggestible" after meditation than he usually is any other time.

 

[quarky]

Quarky, I find descriptions of experiences such as yours very interesting and valuable. That's true whether from the most skeptical skeptic, or the wooest woo, or anyone in between. But practicing skeptics embellish less; they seem more able to focus on the actual experience rather than interpretations/extrapolations of the experience, such as "feeling the presence of God." (The downside is that, it might be harder to have certain types of experience, in the absence of prior expectations from a pre-conceived narrative.)

Narratives, experiences, practices. When examining other systems of practice, Skepticism focuses on the former, which is a good starting point. But once satisfied that qi, psi, ghosts, and Noah's Ark don't exist, how do you approach the experiences? You have to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that they do exist (as experiences), but the tendency is to dismiss them as interchangeable (dream = drug trip = creative flow = meditative state = orgasm = etc.) and/or irrelevant. That's overlooking an opportunity for understanding and common ground.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Yeah, i hear you, and its the damnedest thing.
I actually miss reported my experience, to accommodate skeptics, of which I am one. Maybe two. Not sure.

The pond and its barrier, and the stuff outside of that for instance, presented as a vast field of warm, golden, liquid love-light.I left that out of the description. I have no wooish affiliation. Well, I think raccoons are cute, and i don't kill insects just because I can...stuff like that...but when the container melted and i touched down with something incredible in my mind,
an inner voice said "The spirit is immutable".

I left that out of my description, and it was dishonest of me.
It was stunning to me, as I had no prior expectations or leanings toward such an overwhelming experience.

Its not like I won points with my mom, or the Pope, or the Dalai Lama or even Carlos Castanada, via this experience.

I'm telling it like it was, for the sake of being honest.
I'm not claiming to have seen UFOs, or Big Foot.

What I'm reporting here is way more fantabulous.
Yet, I'm science guy enough to point out the subjectivity of the event, and even request that it all be moved to a more appropriate forum.

Still, how is someone supposed to report, objectively, on the most extraordinary moment of their life?

I doubt that my honesty now has cheapened meditation.
Early on, i explained that I'm promoting nothing.
I bent over backwards to illuminate my own present shortcomings.


I've got absolutely nothing to sell in this. In fact, I've rather exposed myself, and a potentially embarrassing past, at least by jref standards.

Yet, that was a sober exploration, taken on during a time of higher learning, in the nerdy sense of the word.

Hope I don't sound defensive.
I honestly don't know what I would be defending.

Skeptics embellish less, sure.
Possibly because they've experienced less?
Suppose this was a description of a solo trek to the North Pole?

Would one want to discard the visions one had as they nearly froze to death?
I have been careful to avoid the 'presence of god' in this narrative, as well as 17.651 other posts here.
I have no idea what god is or isn't.
Its not an area of my concern or curiosity.

It sure is freaky, though, to examine the inner workings of one's thoughts.

I don't even want to recommend trying it. Its a fairly disturbing revelation, in spite of the bliss.

 

[quarky]

It's in the examination of one's thought processes, and especially the pre-thought impulse in the brain, that one comes to face what it is that they are.
Or aren't. Scarcely matters.

It's akin to lifting the curtain on the wizard of Oz, and finding out it's been you. all along.
There is no possible way to address this sort of thing in a scientifically acceptable way.

My hunch is that that is a salient feature of consciousness.

 

[Chunol]

Hi Quarky,

I thanks for sharing you experience.

But If you were looking at this from a scientific point of view, I don't think you have finished your investigation.


If your intent was to see what would happen when you "experienced reality without the cloud of constat thought process", then what was the scientific result of your test?


Since none of the scientific posters seem interested, I would be more than happy to look into this with you, if you don't mind.

Chunol

 

[annnnoid]

It's in the examination of one's thought processes, and especially the pre-thought impulse in the brain, that one comes to face what it is that they are.
Or aren't. Scarcely matters.

It's akin to lifting the curtain on the wizard of Oz, and finding out it's been you. all along.
There is no possible way to address this sort of thing in a scientifically acceptable way.

My hunch is that that is a salient feature of consciousness.

I'd also say thanks for sharing the experience. As Yoda would say...' Fortunate you are to something find of significance such...' There is so much more to this thing called life (and so much evidence to support it)...it cannot help but annoy me to hear it reduced to such lurid sludge by so many science obsessed souls.

 

[quarky]

Hi Quarky,

I thanks for sharing you experience.

But If you were looking at this from a scientific point of view, I don't think you have finished your investigation.


If your intent was to see what would happen when you "experienced reality without the cloud of constat thought process", then what was the scientific result of your test?


Since none of the scientific posters seem interested, I would be more than happy to look into this with you, if you don't mind.

Chunol

Good question. I don't have an answer. I'm open to suggestion. How could I put this anecdotal experience to a valid test of some sort?
What's to test?

The paradoxical 'effort' involved in allowing thought to subside, on purpose, is not something one could whip out on demand.
At least, I sure couldn't.

Yet, even a minimal attempt should make some aspects of my tale more digestible. It could be that there is a subjective aspect to reality.

Clearly, this is fringe study of the brain, and how it works.
yet, there is a body of sub-evidence in this sort of exploration.

Sub-evidence?
Wtf is that?

Self-inquiry, i guess.
And the discovery of the non-existence of the individual self...and possibly the co-commitment of that...the discovery of the universal self.

Raw consciousness.

I'm willing to go on, yet am quite aware of the general pointlessness of that.
It's analogous to someone claiming that if you cross your eyes for 3 minutes, and then recite the Gettysburg Address, you will see a dinosaur.

Evidence?

Well,
You have to try the cross eyed Gettysburg address thing, I guess, and report back. Or not.

I can't really un-do what I experienced, nor can I adequately explain it in easily digestible scientific chunks.

I could try, of course.
Though it's likely to get ugly.

 

[Furi]

(JM2C)

I have been meditating for years, I do it to help with periodic anxiety attacks and frequent migraines (luckily without the headache).

If I am trying to stop the adrenaline waves from multi panic bouts, I will sit and focus on a brim full glass of water, a compass and a candle flame (vertigo usually kicks in during these bouts so I have all three axis referenced to stop all the bloody motion tricks of that effect) and rather than clearing my mind, I try and occupy it fully to minimise the effect of the distractions, mentally reading a book, coding, inventing food dishes, Recalling Electronic data tables etc or even using "Fox in Socks" as a spoken mantra

I find that using the same setup (the set up ritual sort of sets a switch) I can enter into a form of calming can also assist in times when I am not trying to keep my noggin from driving me to distraction, and I can utilise it to remove the majority of other input and by keeping a thought thread active can analyse it a lot faster than usual, as well as sorting out my mental filing system.

I can also remain in mentally lucid state if I just need a good nap (used to do the 15-20 minutes a few times a day thing for years), I can also use it to try and force a long deep sleep (long for me is 2 hours), I just don't do the Water Compass and Candle but it is nowhere near as relaxing.

With the more prone to suggestion thought, after a bout (I use the candle to time so can be 1-9 hours depending on the candle) I do find myself very focused on what I was thinking of, I suppose this is what some people refer to as hypnotism or just self positive reinforcement, and depending on direction of focus I find the aftermath tends also to have a short lived euphoric experience (I also find the same effects on a comedown after a good sesh on the shrooms or blotters but normally lasts a lot longer) If someone or something, background noise or a radio station etc was present, I find it will be present and linked in my focused thought,

I still cannot remove all senses, Sight I can render to non important as my eyes are screwed and because of the aura from the migraines I am used to suppressing aspects of my vision, Hearing I have learned to also ignore through occasional tinnitus and Hearing damage from concerts and working at airports, I can not switch off my sense of smell and I have often found that I have the urge for something after a bout only to find a neighbour ordered a curry or burned a fryup whilst I was space cadetted, or that the same scent can trigger a major flashback.

I haven't been schooled in any particular form of meditation I just sort of worked it out from when I was young, so have had no need to attempt to explore any deeper meanings or self discovery, I have merely used it as a tool to control my distractions, and regulate my thoughts.

I have never really had a spiritual bent of any kind was never brought up with it, So I attribute any 'inner calm' Euphoria or Ecstasy to brain chemistry and hormones, and as I am not looking for anything in that arena I will probably never experience it, I don't think my imagination would know where to start.

I do not think I would ever like to voluntarily totally clear my mind, I went under General anaesthetic once for an operation, afterwards when my wetware rebooted I went into a complete kernal panic, frenzy ensued as my brain tried to comprehend what had happened to it and had to be knocked out again, got brought around slower and in a sedated state so was able to explain the staff the source of the panic, which was essentially missing time in my memory.

I have in the past stopped meditating and started medicating instead as the bouts got too much to control and was given Halo Peridol, after several months realised (in a rare moment of non drugged up clarity) that I am not going live with that crap so quit the meds and went back to self control, I have recently gone back to a GP and have been prescribed Beta Blockers to help with the panic side which function well (and don't turn me into a total braintard) and am very glad SSRIs or Halo never even came up in the discussion, as I would probably just never see a GP again for another 10 or so years.

 

[quarky]

In my experiment, early on I noticed the discomforts in my body; trying to be still.
So, I trained my body to accommodate sitting still for hours.

As I got closer to observing my thoughtless mind, vertigo reared its nauseating head. Our inner dialog holds together our self reflection and our focus on our physicality.

As that becomes 'threatened', in my case, anyway, there is a very disturbing sense of vertigo, combined with nausea.

I dealt with that, over the course of years, by leaving little to digest during these experiments.

This is vaguely analogous to being advised not to eat a big meal before you trip,
If your energy is diverted to your brain, and not to your digestive tract, then the food in your gut will fester and cause you misery.

My breakthrough meditation session happened after a 2 week fast.
I'm not advocating this, honestly.
fasting is very interesting, mentally and physically. It primes one's willing removal from the norm. I won a bike race (college level) on a 3 day fast. Climbed a mountain on a six day fast; did long hikes on an 18 day fast.

This was my wooish, possibly neurotic past. At least with fasting, no snake oil is involved, and you do get in touch with your body; you soon realize how much of eating is about nutrition, and how much is more like a drug addiction.

After emerging from all that, relatively unscathed, i took on a fairly esoteric diet for years.
I had extraordinary vitality during those years, but I was constantly hungry, and engaged with an internal battle of wills. I want a freaking twinkie. Now, it's too late.

My mental chatter is pretty loud and constant. I can't assume it's that way for others.
But for me, experiencing a quiet mind, on purpose, was the culmination of an awesome struggle. And release.
You wouldn't think it would be that hard...to just not have thoughts, and be awake.
For me, it was an extraordinary focus of will; and the complete letting go of that.

Sounds crazy. Why would it be difficult to observe your mind when it wasn't thinking?

Give it a try.
report back.

 

[Chunol]

Good question. I don't have an answer. I'm open to suggestion. How could I put this anecdotal experience to a valid test of some sort?
What's to test?

QUOTE]



I am not questioning your “scientific” experiment.

What I am saying is that you have done the experiment.
You have the method you employed.
And you have the results.

But I think you are not satisfied with your interpretation or explanation of your experiment.

You started out attempting to objectively understand the experience of a time of “no thought” and ended up with a subjective experience that you cannot explain.

The way I see it, is that somewhere along the way we went from an objective (logical, reasonable, shareable, investigative) point of view to a subjective experience.

And it seems you are at not quite sure how to deal with the subjective aspect of your experiment.

Is this a fair assessment so far?

Chunol

 

[calebprime]

A link to a Scientific American article that explains the mysterious "system 1" and "system 2" reference above:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-critical-thinkers-lose-faith-god

 

[quarky]

Good question. I don't have an answer. I'm open to suggestion. How could I put this anecdotal experience to a valid test of some sort?
What's to test?

QUOTE]



I am not questioning your “scientific” experiment.

What I am saying is that you have done the experiment.
You have the method you employed.
And you have the results.

But I think you are not satisfied with your interpretation or explanation of your experiment.

You started out attempting to objectively understand the experience of a time of “no thought” and ended up with a subjective experience that you cannot explain.

The way I see it, is that somewhere along the way we went from an objective (logical, reasonable, shareable, investigative) point of view to a subjective experience.

And it seems you are at not quite sure how to deal with the subjective aspect of your experiment.

Is this a fair assessment so far?

Chunol

Sure.

I can't imagine how to de-subjectify this.
Open to suggestion.

 

[casebro]

My observations of your observations: You have succeeded in becoming a 'thoughtless mind'. And it made you crazy. And you want more of same. It sounds like the perfect definition of 'mental masturbation'.

Relaxation via mental control of various body systems, or the easing of that control, I can see/do. But how can you observe what happens to your thought processes without thought? Aren't you thinking about how thoughtless you are? That takes thought.

But I just don't see any thing like "ascension to a higher plane" kind of effect. So you can day dream at will. Big deal.

 

[quarky]

gee-wiz, Casebro.

i'm not claiming accession to higher realms, or any god-like mysticism here.
This sort of activity is the opposite of day-dreaming.
Being aware of thoughtlessness is paradoxical, for sure.

 

[h.g.Whiz]

gee-wiz, Casebro.

i'm not claiming accession to higher realms, or any god-like mysticism here.
This sort of activity is the opposite of day-dreaming.
Being aware of thoughtlessness is paradoxical, for sure.

Is there a "be aware of unawareness month?

 

[quarky]

november

 

[annnnoid]

gee-wiz, Casebro.

i'm not claiming accession to higher realms, or any god-like mysticism here.
This sort of activity is the opposite of day-dreaming.
Being aware of thoughtlessness is paradoxical, for sure.

...not necessarily. I think the answer is rather simple...though maybe not that obvious. It is generally regarded that we posses two varieties of intelligence. Intellectual and emotional. Both provide us with the ability to adjudicate / navigate / orient. The emotional / embodied variety is, I think, of much greater and more fundamental relevance. It is that which inhabits us with meaning that moves and lasts. Your experience is evidence of this. Thus...it is quite reasonable to occur in a 'non thinking' state. It does not mean a condition of no intelligent activity...only a different variety of intelligent activity. Awareness can simply occur in other forms. An interesting discovery to make. If there is anything worth envying, it must certainly be such a thing.

 

[h.g.Whiz]

november

Knovvember

 

[Chunol]

Sure.

I can't imagine how to de-subjectify this.
Open to suggestion.

Quarky,


In order to deal with this scientifically, we must first be sure we agree on the ideas of subjective and objective.

So we can try to figure out why “the personal (subjective) experience of reality (nature) without the cloud of constant thought process” cannot be dealt with scientifically.

And also try to get a handle on where the ‘constant thought process’ fits in the mix.

For starts I would say that subjective experience would first and foremost be considered to be personal. That is, it is available to everyone on an individual basis.
In other words there is no one who does not have subjective experiences.

Whereas the “objective” would be the public or shareable accounts of these experiences.

Is this close?

Chunol

 

[Chunol]

I'm an atheist and I always live in the now. I find living in the future or the past to be an impossibility.

Hi Dafydd,

Why do you think it’s impossible?

How long does your ‘now’ last?

How can you prove you live in the “now”?

If it is impossible to be alive in any other time than “now’, why would Sam Harris have to “cajole” someone into trying to live in the ‘now’?

What is the status of ‘past” and “future”, if there is only the ‘now”?

Just trying to get a handle on your “now”.

Chunol

 

[Chunol]

Good question. I don't have an answer. I'm open to suggestion. How could I put this anecdotal experience to a valid test of some sort?
What's to test?

The paradoxical 'effort' involved in allowing thought to subside, on purpose, is not something one could whip out on demand.
At least, I sure couldn't.

Yet, even a minimal attempt should make some aspects of my tale more digestible. It could be that there is a subjective aspect to reality.

Clearly, this is fringe study of the brain, and how it works.
yet, there is a body of sub-evidence in this sort of exploration.

Sub-evidence?
Wtf is that?

Self-inquiry, i guess.
And the discovery of the non-existence of the individual self...and possibly the co-commitment of that...the discovery of the universal self.

Raw consciousness.


Evidence?


I could try, of course.
Though it's likely to get ugly.

Just a few points. (IMHO)

I never heard a Scientist say he was going to explain the workings of reality, when push comes to shove they say they are investigating nature.

The subtle difference that I see is that ‘reality’ is pretty intellectual, and it would mean that one would conceivably have to study to understand it; on the other hand nature is pretty much available to everyone. You can know it up close and personal without too much strain on your brain.

The other point that scientists generally make is that there is nothing that is not based in nature, ie. There is no super-natural. So anything we want to investigate will start from the understanding that we are dealing with our interactions with nature.

So, yes I think there is a subjective aspect of reality (nature).

Evidence of “Sub-evidence” of the “the personal (subjective) experience of reality (nature) without the cloud of constant thought process”

First, there are some who feel that this is a physical impossibility that you cannot exist or function without a “constant thought process”. That it cannot be done.

On the other hand, yes there is a wide and varied body of sub-evidence of this sort of investigation, from all over the world and from all times throughout history.

It is a human phenomenon.

People feel that there is something going on where “thinking” about it just falls short, that
all “intellectual’ descriptions and explanations are not addressing the question at hand.

However, this sort of investigation does not lend itself well to an intellectual investigation, which is why you won’t find this activity on the curriculum at your average academy.
In fact going into this investigation with the mindset that you can ‘get it’ intellectually is actually a hindrance to your understanding of the experience.

For example, do you think that someone can understand what a sexual experience is by having someone else describe it and explain it to them, or do you think there is something we can ‘know’ about a sexual experience by actually “experiencing” a sexual experience?

Would you agree that there is a wide gap of difference between the two approaches?

For everything we can say about trees and rivers and forests, for all of the facts we can prove about them there is still some aspect of trees and rivers and forests that we can “know” that is not on the intellectual, describable, shareable level of understanding.

To attempt to understand this experience by intellectual investigation alone is using the wrong tools.

To claim that this experience can be explained by intellectual descriptions alone is missing the entire point.

To tell someone they have to take our word for it on ‘faith’, or on our “authority” is also missing the point, as the “understanding’ is available to anyone who wants to indulge in the exercise being described.


Thanks again for your time.

Chunol