Quote from Exilement

So where did this 'consciousness' come from? How did it come to exist separately from humans, which are essentially organic self-replicating machines, yet grow to become completely compatible with them?

Why does this process happen if the thought-processes and "mind" are an inherent basic cause of suffering? Why would two separate entities co-exist if there's no benefit to it?

I don't know where the consciousness comes from, I'm guessing that's the sort of thing that you would come to understand when you realize the self.

The mind is, as you say, "an inherent basic cause of suffering" because we have become identified with it. Society's emphasis on rules, judgement, condemnation etc has been pummeled into us since birth, and our mind is best suited to handle this kind of world. As a result, when we say "I", we think of the voice in our heads, our mind.

It is like watching a good movie. You may become identified with the hero, and forget that you are in a theater watching. After the movie, you will look back and think "I was laughing, I was afraid, I was whatever emotion, but now I laugh because I forgot it was all just a movie". But during it, you can totally forget yourself.

That is what is happening, except instead of watching a movie, it is our lives. We have just forgotten that we are an observer, and that nothing we do will ultimately have any effect on the universe.

As for the benefit of co-existing entities: The mind is supposed to be a tool for us to use, so that we can think when we absolutely need to, but we have allowed "thinking" to take over our lives completely.

Have you noticed that the mind simply does not be quiet? I goes on talking, rambling, holding your attention, even over the most mundane things. You see a pen on your desk and you think "this is a pen". Why? You can see it is a pen. You don't need your mind to tell you "this is a pen". You could just look at it, actually SEE it, instead of glancing at it and then thinking about it. My point is that because we have become identified with the mind, we have forgotten what legitimate first hand experience is because we are always thinking about the experience instead.

Quote from Exilement

There is no inherent meaning, but you're a fool if you think that equates to meaninglessness.

An ultimate reason for existing wouldn't be good anyway. The best part about our existence is the fact that it is just killing time, we have no pre-mandated purposes to fulfill, no reason for existing that we're pressured to follow. We're completely and absolutely free to create our own meaning, our own purposes.

If you're jaded because of society, that's one thing. Humans generally kind of suck. But taking it out on our existential situation seems a little unfair. It's without a doubt one of the most amazing aspects of this universe, and we're a part of it.

I don't mean to say that it's a particularly bad thing that there's no point in our existence. All it means is that life is just a joke, a cosmic play. When you can realize that, a great freedom can come with it.


Anyway, I don't pretend to be enlightened, I am still learning. But believe me, I am very hard to convince of anything to do with spirituality. I am just relating what I have understood myself, and I am nowhere near as good a teacher as Osho. If you're interested at all in what I'm saying but still need convincing, I recommend you start reading this transcript. It's extremely (i repeat: EXTREMELY) long, but if you start reading a couple chapters, you will get more and more interested (A note, though, that website has some weird shit on it. I just use it for the index of books by osho. I still haven't even managed to figure out what kind of weird extremism the guy who runs that website is trying to sell, but he's left the books intact so I guess I don't really care).

If you don't have a lot of patience, maybe just try reading this chapter (maybe Ctrl+F and skip to "And we are never doubtful. We can doubt everyone but we never doubt our own minds.") as it's a bit more related to what I'm talking about.

Quote from Exilement

There is no inherent meaning, but you're a fool if you think that equates to meaninglessness.

An ultimate reason for existing wouldn't be good anyway. The best part about our existence is the fact that it is just killing time, we have no pre-mandated purposes to fulfill, no reason for existing that we're pressured to follow. We're completely and absolutely free to create our own meaning, our own purposes.

If you're jaded because of society, that's one thing. Humans generally kind of suck. But taking it out on our existential situation seems a little unfair. It's without a doubt one of the most amazing aspects of this universe, and we're a part of it.

i enjoyed reading this

Quote from Scarecrow

As a result, when we say "I", we think of the voice in our heads, our mind.

This just seems fallacious to me. I don't see how you can draw a distinct separation between the "self" and the mind that it inhabits if neither can exist separately. There is no mind without a "self", and vice versa, so it seems more like a way to just draw a distinction between two aspects of the same thing.

I mean I understand, if I'm just sitting here at work daydreaming about.. I dunno, the last episode of Breaking Bad that I just watched. That's not the "self" thinking about that. That's my mind making up for a lack of external stimulation by thinking back to prior sensory input, and re-analyzing/re-imagining it for no reason beyond its incessant need for activity.

That episode has nothing to do with the self, and I didn't make a conscious choice to think about it, but yet I'm distracted because the human mind craves stimulation, and without any, it turns internally to find some. And what it finds is usually a by-product of other external things like society, entertainment, media, etc.. so these "thoughts" we identify with are nothing more than a physical byproduct of our biology, directed towards things that we've experienced in the past which are irrelevant to the self. It's little more than detached observation.

So if that's what you're getting at, I already understand the distinction, but I think of it more as the "self" being a part of the mind, and when I think of "me", I identify with both. I am a consciousness, which arises from a flawed, yet pretty fucking awesome biological computer, which is also part of who and what I am. Along with all of the activity that arises from it.



But maybe I'm missing something, I dunno. I read most of that chapter you linked to but it seems to describe people with a lesser mental capacity for objective reasoning than myself, as arrogant as that might sound, but I can't really identify with the examples they presented.

Quote from Exilement

But maybe I'm missing something, I dunno. I read most of that chapter you linked to but it seems to describe people with a lesser mental capacity for objective reasoning than myself, as arrogant as that might sound, but I can't really identify with the examples they presented.

Well, yeah, the whole speech is from an extremely intelligent man dumbing it down as much as possible to an audience that completely misunderstands 90% of what he is saying anyway. He goes around in circles quite a bit, but it's mainly to paint a picture as perfectly as possible to try and avoid being misinterpreted repeatedly.

Quote from Exilement

This just seems fallacious to me. I don't see how you can draw a distinct separation between the "self" and the mind that it inhabits if neither can exist separately. There is no mind without a "self", and vice versa, so it seems more like a way to just draw a distinction between two aspects of the same thing.

I mean I understand, if I'm just sitting here at work daydreaming about.. I dunno, the last episode of Breaking Bad that I just watched. That's not the "self" thinking about that. That's my mind making up for a lack of external stimulation by thinking back to prior sensory input, and re-analyzing/re-imagining it for no reason beyond its incessant need for activity.

That episode has nothing to do with the self, and I didn't make a conscious choice to think about it, but yet I'm distracted because the human mind craves stimulation, and without any, it turns internally to find some. And what it finds is usually a by-product of other external things like society, entertainment, media, etc.. so these "thoughts" we identify with are nothing more than a physical byproduct of our biology, directed towards things that we've experienced in the past which are irrelevant to the self. It's little more than detached observation.

Yeah, this is exactly what I'm talking about. The idea is that you should be capable of just being completely at ease and aware, without any unnecessary thoughts constantly keeping you occupied. The mind's "incessant need for activity" is exactly what this is all aiming to shut off. If you notice, it is literally impossible to "think" about the present. When you think, it is always in terms of the past, or the future, which means that whenever we are thinking, we are distracted and missing what is actually going on around us.

The idea is that because we have become identified with the mind, we have completely forgotten that it is a non-essential process, and we let it take us on all kinds of psychological trips because we don't remember that we can just stop. We think, and we think, and we think about how bad our day has been so far, and we feel sad, and we keep thinking, and we try and think of solutions, and we continue to feel miserable, and if we eventually run out of things to think about, we think about how bored we are, and feel miserable about how boring this is.

Identified with the mind, humans are basically bound to become miserable.

Quote from Exilement

So if that's what you're getting at, I already understand the distinction, but I think of it more as the "self" being a part of the mind, and when I think of "me", I identify with both. I am a consciousness, which arises from a flawed, yet pretty fucking awesome biological computer, which is also part of who and what I am. Along with all of the activity that arises from it.

Have you noticed that, for example, birds, never seem to be unhappy unless there is actually something wrong at that moment? They just go on doing whatsoever they feel like doing, and singing, and eating and being absolutely content. A bird is content because it doesn't think about how that other bird five minutes ago stole that worm it was trying trying to eat. The same is true for all other animals; they do what they want and they are completely content, even if something went wrong earlier. A bird doesn't get depression because it thinks life is too hard.

It's because they don't think, they just live and do. Humans have evolved further, we have developed the ability to think. But it's just that - an ability. It's what sets us apart from all of the other animals. But is "thought" fundamentally a part of us? Absolutely not. As I mentioned earlier, it's just a function that we can use to solve problems. But because we have developed society, we have been forced to think almost constantly. People have told us what to do, how we should act, what we should condemn - to the extent that we cannot even remember that we can just be and do like the birds.

And, as a result, and I mentioned before, we become miserable.

Does that make more sense?

Actually animals can be depressed, and they have become so before.

Yeah but it's usually only when they're in a state of helplessness for a long period of time.

Then again we're aware of the fact that we'll die some day, and we're helpless to stop that, so I suppose it's not too different.

Eh, we're aware of it, but the fact doesn't really sink in for most people.

Those people are usually pretty damn happy, too.

That's the only reason I imagine religion hasn't been laughed out of town by now. suddenly the end of life, of experience, it's not the end anymore. nothing to worry about, we're just gonna go to heaven. without that comfort I can't imagine it'd even be around today. it's fucking goofy the sort of things people believe to be real and true. god loves us, but he also had no problem sending us to hell for eternity, so to save us from himself he sent his son (who is also god) to die on earth. and now he sits at the right hand of.. himself.

oh and he really hates it when marriage occurs between two same-species specks in a secluded corner the universe he single-handedly created, so we can't do that. along with plenty of ot-

..fuck. I'm getting preachy, I'll shut up now.

yeah, as much as I love "let's talk about how fucking stupid christianity is" threads, 3/4 of our userbase is religious now. sad times.

Eh, whatever. The smartest person I know thinks he's the reincarnation of a universal god meant to prevent the destruction of humanity, and the second smartest person I know is majoring in world religion. they're also dating, which seems a little weird to me.

I don't mind religious people as long as they have the capacity for intellectualism. it's just that most of the time, if they do, they quit the whole religion thing pretty quickly.