You know, neuroscientist Erik Hoel already wrote a whole book (The World Behind the World) arguing neuroscience is in shambles, and that perhaps it is not possible to produce a theory of consciousness, as science itself is set up to tell you about what is observed: it can't tell you anything about the observer. The hard problem of consciousness is a real bitch.
I also happen to claim enlightenment myself, but I disagree with Ingram that his take on enlightenment unifies what everyone claims about enlightenment, or even that it's necessary to shred reality into ribbons, as he put it, to get to enlightenment. His' is just a take, and it seemingly works for some, but there are other ways. Probably countless other ways actually.
It is spirituality after all: this stuff isn't actually tractable to systems. Tear the sutras, as Huineng did!
This was a welcome way of thinking for someone like me who has been increasingly looking at enlightenment as something which is tangibly possible in this very life, while at the same time realizing it's not some pie in the sky phenomenon that makes you godly like most religions/proponents claim.
I have always been an experimenter, dabbling with different schools of meditation and thought and not really committing to one for life as they ask you to for success. Earlier I believed this to be an impediment to my enlightenment, now I see it as an accelerator all thanks to you.
I absolutely loved the thought of being a competitor to the Buddha, who is just another guy. And speed running enlightenment - I am hungry for more.
(P. S: Most practitioners look down on this hunger for more as craving which should be avoided at all costs. I do not believe it works this way. You need desire to even be on this path. You can keep the desire aside when you are on the mat, but without the desire for more off-mat, no progress is possible)
You know, neuroscientist Erik Hoel already wrote a whole book (The World Behind the World) arguing neuroscience is in shambles, and that perhaps it is not possible to produce a theory of consciousness, as science itself is set up to tell you about what is observed: it can't tell you anything about the observer. The hard problem of consciousness is a real bitch.
I also happen to claim enlightenment myself, but I disagree with Ingram that his take on enlightenment unifies what everyone claims about enlightenment, or even that it's necessary to shred reality into ribbons, as he put it, to get to enlightenment. His' is just a take, and it seemingly works for some, but there are other ways. Probably countless other ways actually.
It is spirituality after all: this stuff isn't actually tractable to systems. Tear the sutras, as Huineng did!
This makes me think of Wittgenstein too, and Kant's noumenal vs phenomenal world
This was a welcome way of thinking for someone like me who has been increasingly looking at enlightenment as something which is tangibly possible in this very life, while at the same time realizing it's not some pie in the sky phenomenon that makes you godly like most religions/proponents claim.
I have always been an experimenter, dabbling with different schools of meditation and thought and not really committing to one for life as they ask you to for success. Earlier I believed this to be an impediment to my enlightenment, now I see it as an accelerator all thanks to you.
I absolutely loved the thought of being a competitor to the Buddha, who is just another guy. And speed running enlightenment - I am hungry for more.
(P. S: Most practitioners look down on this hunger for more as craving which should be avoided at all costs. I do not believe it works this way. You need desire to even be on this path. You can keep the desire aside when you are on the mat, but without the desire for more off-mat, no progress is possible)
This was so good 😭
Well said.
I love this. Quite the journey. Excited to see this continue.