Thoughts on Death

The main premise of my cosmological model is as follows. The universe is a single awareness (universal awareness, “UA”) that has split itself into multiple perspectives or vantage points (VPs) in order to experience relationships. At the beginning, the relationships were very simple and consisted of interactions like away/towards and up/down. We understand these relationships today as the “fundamental particles” – though this label would model them as objects, in contradiction of my model which asserts that relationships are prime and that objects do not actually exist but are “inferred” from the nature of a relationship (so, the relationship simply implies participating objects, rather than separate objects actually “existing”).

The second premise of my cosmological model is that the universal awareness can be identified with any vantage point and while it is identified with that vantage point it appears, to itself, to be a separate experiencer of relationships (even though, on a universal level, those relationships are with itself). So, the universe looks out at itself from a specific vantage point and while doing so it experiences that vantage point as a separate awareness and perspective. It can do this through (probably) infinite numbers of VPs simultaneously, during which it will experience all those VPs as being separate, standalone perspectives.

The third premise is that the UA can “aggregate” many VPs and experience them as a single, coherent VP. (This point is very, very important, because it explains where the perspectives we call “you” and “me” come from.) Perhaps the most illustrative example is that of your “subminds” – your various drives – which aggregate to form a single VP called “your mind”. You have many drives pulling you in all sorts of directions at once but somehow they become aggregated into a single coherent experience called “you”. However this coherent experience can “drop back” to a more base state if one of the subminds becomes louder than the others (at which point the UA will become identified with that submind’s VP). For example, when you are terrified, you become identified solely with the “fear” submind. During this time you are only able to perceive relationships through this perspective, and all relationships become of the simplest type: “away from danger / towards safety”. Your VP has fallen back to that of the most fundamental particles, showing that we are not so far away from quarks and electrons in our behaviours. So, the universal awareness can quite visibly switch between which perspective (VP) it is identified with at any moment. In this sense it is important to realize that there never was a “you”; there was only identification with some vantage point or aggregation of vantage points at a given moment.

As well as devolving to baser vantage points (subminds) within itself, your human mind VP can aggregate with other human minds to form a temporary “master VP” collective mind. For example, if you go to a football game, dress in your team’s colours, sit with your team’s fans, and sing your team’s songs, you aggregate temporarily into a single mind (“your team’s supporters”) through which you experience the “energy” of that crowd (for better or worse, depending on how comfortable you are being absorbed into a mob) and you experience the game together as one entity. The combined expectations of this “supporters’ mind” probably has an effect on the outcome of the game, hence why loser towns have loser teams regardless of how good the players are. The same principle applies to birds of the same type flying in formation; they are able to turn as one (quicker than the time it would take to process the movement of the bird in front, showing it is not “communication” between birds that causes the turn) because they temporarily form a master VP called “the flock” which the UA can experience the relationship of flying through. One factor which determines whether VPs can aggregate is how similar they are to each other, hence why birds of the same type can form a flock, cells of the same type can form an organ, and so forth. This is due to the fractal nature of the universe and we might call it the “similarity principle”.

Your human mind VP can also become temporarily identified with concepts and perceive relationships from the VP of that concept. For example, you can become identified with your culture or country and temporarily perceive relationships through that VP, at which moment you are said to be “nationalist”. I am sure you can think of your own examples (race→racist, gender→sexist and so forth). An interesting thing is that, in the days of polytheism (which is basically another word for paganism), you could pray to, for example, the sun, and become temporarily identified with the sun and therefore gain energy and fire. Deities could be utilized for the purpose of merging with their VP and gaining some of the properties of that VP. This still exists a little today in monotheism, for example merging with Christ to gain “Christ consciousness” (compassion, bliss, love etc.).

To make it clear, in the preceding paragraphs, “your human mind” and “the universal awareness” are one and the same; “your human mind” was always just the universal awareness temporarily identified with a human experience. In more transcendent states however the vantage point seems to broaden beyond that narrow scope. The universe itself appears to be an aggregation of all VPs currently active within itself; in this sense the whole universe is conscious as a kind of master VP, experiencing itself as a whole, complete “oneness” of all things. This overmind (which you might call “God”) can be tuned into via psychedelics, high-emotion experiences, and meditation practices; this experience is known as “nonduality”. I believe it is on the level of the overmind that evolution and magick are decided, which are expressions of the intentions of all VPs fed into the overmind and aggregated.

Now, I will land the plane on my point in this article. One of the main purposes of spirituality is to attempt to gain some sort of acceptable answer to the question, “What happens to me after I die?” If you ask a layperson however, you will tend to get rather unacceptable answers such as heaven/hell duality (monotheists) or oblivion/ end of awareness (atheists). So, if you’re like me, you then turn to someone you trust more to have done the self-inquiry required to come up with a better answer. This is where you find that, infuriatingly, even so-called advanced yogis cannot just answer this question briefly and to the point. For example, Sadhguru is asked this question all the time and waffles without ever giving a concrete answer. The reason, it appears, is because he doesn’t know.

Well, I don’t know either. But I will tell you what my model implies, and this is as follows. Your current experience of “you” is just a vantage point (among infinite) that the universal awareness is currently identified with. We have already demonstrated that that VP itself switches around from moment to moment even within yourself depending on emotional state (i.e. which submind is loudest), with the perception of relationships changing immediately as it does so. Asking where you go when you die is a bit like asking where the fear vantage point goes after the fearful episode is over. It is a meaningless question: the vantage point itself has no substance. What “you” are, then, is not any particular vantage point, but rather you are the awareness that switches between vantage points. You are the universal awareness; Brahman; formless consciousness.

Therefore, when this body dies, the universal awareness will simply switch to a different vantage point or fall back to a broader vantage point. Will it switch to the vantage point of a different living body? Or will it fall back to a broader vantage point and, if so, what would that broader vantage point be? The Earth, life force, kundalini, Gaia? The sun, God, light, silence? The overmind, universe, awareness itself? I have no idea. But I am at least moderately confident that the vantage point will switch to something – i.e. there will always be awareness, since awareness is the core “stuff” of the universe, and you are awareness.

Now that your immortality is confirmed – though you can be sure you will take nothing from this life onwards in your journey – let us discuss what is to be done in the meantime. I have learned from enlightened beings that, through meditation practice (or just good luck), it can become possible to identify with both the individual vantage point (e.g. this body; this experience) and the awareness that switches between vantage points, simultaneously. That means you can be both “whole” and “separate” at the same time, living your life but also connected to everything. This is what we mean when we talk about “going all the way” in our quest for full enlightenment or awakening. Tony Daniels discusses this shedding of both the “dual” and “nondual” modes from 45 minutes onwards in the following video. However, you should watch the whole thing. It is long, but inspiring:


Need help with your meditation? Book a Skype coaching session →

You may also like...

71 Responses

  1. Kevin says:

    You have a way of describing ethereal subjects in such precise and scientific-like language. Where would you say free will fits into all of this? Is it the intention of a vantage point being perceived by the awareness?

    • Illuminatus says:

      @Kevin: To figure out free will we need to look at the role of INTENT in the above model. Strangely, I had not even considered intent when I came up with it. In the above, the VPs are just passive points of perception for relationships. So I would need to think about what kind of relationship “intent” is (if it even is one).

      So, I don’t know (yet). Though I suspect that the only genuine “free will” (if there is such a thing) occurs at the level of cosmic consciousness, and you need one-pointedness to become that (sex, death, jhana and high-emotion states to name the main four gateways). So, as a VP dies, it becomes cosmic consciousness for an instant to register its intent to be reborn as a better-equipped body regarding its cause of death. That is how evolution works, probably.

      So, free will is probably illusionary EXCEPT for decisions made by universe-as-a-whole (one-pointedness / cosmic consciousness via one of the four gateways described above).

      • Saturnus says:

        Warning: Pure intellectual speculation ahead

        Let’s assume each VP has its own desires and intents. As awareness descends down onto one VP it can hear its intentions and send it up to the sky up the chains of VPs until it reaches the ubermind. The ubermind might hear this intention if it likes it it’ll allow it to happen. I think while the uber mind has a vision of where it wants to universe to go, it doesn’t have a detailed plan on how this’ll happen, and the decisions are made in the moment according to the needs and wants of its constituting elements. In this way the ubermind has distributed the decision making process inside the entire universe.

        If I were the ubermind I wouldn’t want to be the one reviewing every single wish something has. I would create a number of lesser beings and grant them dominion over certain affairs and have them make those decisions pertaining to that matter. In this way I would create my cabinet of angels and demons, and I would only interfere whenever something really needs my word. According to Genesis I used this word to set creation in motion. This word is the fundamental reality of this world and could be the vision that is set in motion in the beginning of time.

        This could explain why ecstatic states or one-pointed awareness can be used for magick. Maybe as ones awareness is closer to the top, the likelyhood of wishes getting granted increases. In the same way you can say an intent that comes from identification with the aggregate VP of self (the individual soul? 3rd eye chakra? Pre-frontal cortex?) comes from a higher plane of being and has a higher likelyhood of manifesting.

        I don’t know if this explains free will at all. Is making an intention free will? Is putting attention on a VP and its intentions an act of free will? If moving around awareness is free will who wills to move the awareness around? Is it the VP? Who makes the intention? Does awareness need to hear an intention for it to happen? What is self? Who are “you”? Aaaaand we’re back in this sink hole again lol.

        • Illuminatus says:

          This is so totally the opposite of what I have in mind that I don’t know if it’s better to debate each point or just tell you to literally invert each sentence then read it back to yourself, since that would essentially be where we’d end up lol.

          So, what you’ve done is, basically, anthropomorphized the VPs then put them into a classical hierarchical pyramid (Ah, humans…) with a wish-granting creator God at the top! Just get out your Bible or Koran if you want that nonsense.

          A little about the overmind (which we’ll call GOD in all caps):

          – GOD is “becoming”. So, he is not finished. He is still in the process of being born.
          – GOD is an unfolding process of which we are part.
          – We are not separate from GOD.
          – We do not petition GOD for wishes — we ARE GOD, and our intent forms GOD’s intent at peak moments (sex/reproduction/creation, death, jhana, ecstatic emotional states) a.k.a. one-pointedness.
          – GOD might not have a vision. I suspect he is doing rebirths by trial and error till he gets a body he can be “born” into (and everything we are doing, including things like this website, are movements along that path). He might not know what that vision looks like until it happens, though!

          “I don’t know if this explains free will at all. Is making an intention free will?”

          It might be — it depends on what level the choice is made. Most free will is illusory, e.g. “Shall I buy a red car or a blue car?” The choices are preconditioned. But at level of GOD (one-pointedness) there might be genuine choice.

          I feel to explain the VPs more I will have to talk about “relationship space” (so you get out of the pattern of thinking that VPs are somehow living entities, which is more an “object space” view). There are some comments where I discussed it a little — try a search.

          • Arpan says:

            An old Alan watts video on this topic. Not comprehensive enough, but makes no disagreeable claims overall:


              • Arpan says:

                Alan Watts “God’s play” perspective was a major ingredient the link I posted.

                Overall, if we elaborate upon the perspectives given in these videos(as opposed to limiting ourselves to their limited detail), like attempted in Edd’s post, we encounter 4 flaws:

                1. Death and Liberation: It’s not clear why Liberation would not be easy on dying. As Edd states, if we(VPs) attain Cosmic Consciousness on Death and are free to choose a new form via intent, why can’t it easily choose Libeeation ? To say that it can, goes against all established mystical experience.

                2. Karma: No explainationof how karmic influences willl bind a VP, especially post death. To say they don’t, flies in face of all mystical experience and rigour of spiritual practices.

                3. God: To say that God probably “does not know” where He is heading, goes against the very concept of God. It an Abrahamic conception of God, where there are powers and potentiality beyond God( Satan). Especially when one asserts that “we are God”, coupled with a primarily Non Dualistic theory, it means God has to be ALL. Thus to say that there exists a potential state that God has no knowledge or has not attained it, creates a subtle duality. So:

                A. If God is All(Non Dual Reality), He has to be Infinity. Because if He is Finite, it implies there is something beyond his limits, in comparision to which we say He is Finite, either in Power or in Knowledge.

                B. Since He is Infinity, he can contain Infinite number of Infinities.

                C. Since He IS infinite number of Infinity-VPs, He can retain his omniscience and ominipotence in the Superset Infinity, while being ignorant and limited in subset Infinities(VP). Thus, VPs are in the process of self-discovery via trial and error, and heading towards discovering their Godhood. This still “allows” God to be “Perfect”.

                D. Since VPs are struggling entities, unconscious of their own power, these Gods can pray to That God.
                Now a person coming from a deep rooted atheistic/materialist viewpoint might find it hard accept that such a “God”(which he envisages as an obscure mathematical infinity, a vague summation of Everything) could have:
                (i) Intelligence
                (ii) Personality.
                In short the 2 essential elements necessary for a theistic-prayer-listening-God.

                As I have stated numerous times:
                If we assume a materialistic universe(most antithetical to existence of a Theistic God): We must accept Causation as the ultimate law(ignoring the question as to how did Big Bang happen). Thus, we have no Free Will in that scenario. Everything we think or do is part of a chain of causation leading right upto the Big Bang. Thus, we can say that Material Universe is an Unconscious Causal Machinery. If so, humans are mere cogs in it. Thus, if humans(cogs) are intelligent, why not the entire Universe(Machine).
                Similarly, if humans(cogs) have a personality, why shall not the entire Universe(Machine) have an Infinite Inscrutable Personality ?
                Else, we need to redefine what we mean by “Intelligence” and “Personality”. It is dishonest to question these things in the Universe and not in us. Many buddhist schools are more honest that way, they call all of it a “conditioning”.

                • Illuminatus says:

                  I have no further insights to add at this time.

                  However, my gut feeling is that exploring RELATIONSHIP SPACE will somehow blow all those questions up (because my gut tells me they are a product of the OBJECT SPACE framework). I will explore relationship space more via both practice and thought and see what happens.

                  • Arpan says:

                    Sure, looking forward to it.

                    I would like to add one less related point as it’s about a less discussed aspect of traditional yoga:
                    The “belief/prayer/devotion” paths carry one special possibility:

                    This acts a “wormhole” leading to extremely rapid progress. Eg. Shravana(Listening) is considered a sufficient practice for those who can actually listen ti the enlightened master with complete self abnegation. Jainism is a path even more exacting than buddhism in terms of self-reliance. Yet, it recognizes Attainment of certain disciples by simple listening to the Trail Blazer of their path(Mahavir). This also comes up in Buddhist anecdotes: Certain ppl would argue and philosophise with Buddha, some others would strictly practice the methods he taught. But once there came a person who just sat before the Buddha silently, and left satisfied. Ananda(Buddha’s attendent) did not understand what had transpired, but Buddha smiled: His being had flowed into the man.
                    Similarly, it’s accepted that direct “grace” or “transmission” of experience can be gained from past or present masters by “receptivity”. Infact many walk -alone yogis get guidance in inner vision after sufficient progress, when they hit a block. Though delusion is also accepted as a possibilituy. Here purity of motive comes into play.

                    • James says:

                      “Listen” as been the single, most used word spread out throughout all of my ayahausca experiences.

                • Saturnus says:

                  Maybe liberation isn’t the ultimate goal of the spirit. Maybe there is joy in playing the game. Upon death it could say “shit I wanna play another round”.

                  Even the Buddha came back from Nirvana.

                  • James says:

                    all I want from meditation is the power to choose.

                    • Illuminatus says:

                      All I want from meditation is to experience life as a wondrous waking dream. I’ve had it before, and I know I can have it again. If I get that permanently, I don’t mind not being to choose anything! I’m not sure I’ve ever really chosen anything anyway.

                  • Arpan says:

                    If you read through my comments, I categorically talk against an “exclusive goal of liberation” (i mentioned that under this post while mentioning the hindu position”.
                    Eg :

                    However, that is besides the point here. What I am addressing here is the “difficulty” of attaining Liberation even if one wanted to, even on Death, unlike how it appears in this post.

                  • Arpan says:

                    And by the way, Buddha lived actively after Nirvana, but he never returned after Mahaparinirvana(Great Nirvana or Death).
                    Infact, the Buddhists hold that it is not “possible” to return after”dissolution” and hence comes the Bodhisattwa ideal(holding back for the sake of others). There is a legend about Buddha shedding his 7 sheaths(the deepest one: Ideative Body being the most important) in a preserved state before entering the Void, so that some worthy person may be able to harness the immense body of his yogic discoveries later(he confessed to Ananda that: I have only conveyed only as much of my knowledge as a leaf is to this forest, but you need to realize what I taught first) .
                    By this theory:
                    Next Buddha: Maitreya could either be someone who is who attained Buddhahood ans started teaching on his own authority Or by also assimilating last Buddha’s ideative body(It has a shelf life of about 3 to 4 millenia by account of how much prana buddha left in it). On this account Theosophists ran a whacky experiment by trying to spiritually prepare a boy called Jiddu Krishnamurty to harness Buddha’s Subtle Body. They fucked up his spine and left him with life long excruciating pain.

                    PS: According to ancient Hindu Non dualism, it is possible to return from Non Being(as from any other state of Liberation) but:
                    1. It is possible only for Ishwarkotis(Godly beings) i.e. those who aspire for more than mere personal freedom, who are few and far between.
                    2. If one has not developed spiritually in outer nature and just sought Liberation, he would be too ill equipped to deal with life again w/o stupendous pain and struggle, even more than average joes. The sudden fall from that High State would be excruciatingly painful, in terms of Wisdom, Power and Bliss. The material world is so dense compared to rarefied heights of Spirit, that it’s almost a law that when one is born here, irrespective of their past, they initially experience great unconsciousness, before their past-greatness starts blossoming and intervening.

                    • Arpan says:

                      One more point: Besides the abovestated reasons, to be reborn poses a great difficulty for not just liberated beings but to anyobe developed enough to belong to higher planes than the material, because finding a suitable parent(especially mother to reside inside) is very difficult.
                      In many eastern traditions there is a practice of engaging in atleast some spiritual practice before conceiving a kid. A kid’s consciousness is heavily impacted by the parents’ (especially mother’s while developing in her womb). Hindu, Buddhist and Jain stories are rife with instances how birth of spiritually advanced kids was denied to couples unless they performed severe austerities.

                      Consciousness during the sexual act that led to conception also matters

                      If the mother happens to have to have a very low consciousness, the child of such calibre usually chooses to die in womb.
                      Buddha chose his parents b4 birth.
                      Sadhguru also says that: if you gain control of your body,you control 15 to 20% of your life. If you gain control of your mind, you gain 50% control of your life. If you control your life energies, yoi control 100% , to the extent that you can choose which womb to be born from.

                      I dunno if this is an authentic christian story but seems strikingly along similar lines:
                      Someone asked Jesus, when to prepare for blessed children ?
                      Jesus: 100 years b4 their birth.

                      PS: I remember meetimg this white guy in Himachal who told me that his mother used to enter jhanas when he was in the womb. Karma!

          • Saturnus says:

            Reading through my comment I can see how the linguistic constructs that I grew up on has influenced my writing on the subject. When I was writing this I had the image of a distributed computational system rather than the rigid hierarchies of the mafia. I’m going to attempt to reword this using the Bitcoin network as an example, but before that I will address a couple of points.

            1- “GOD is “becoming”. So, he is not finished. He is still in the process of being born.” Completely agreed.
            2- “GOD might not have a vision.” I can see how the word vision might bring about the wrong connotation. Maybe goal is a better word? In your model you could say getting born into a body is the goal. I doubt creation is completely purposeless and random, and I suspect there is an order behind all the chaos. In a neoplatonic sense you could say the order is the ultimate form, the ONE or God.
            3- The process of trial and error implies there is a notion of error or wrong. So this creates a duality of right or wrong or good and bad. Which trial should continue? Which trial should be pruned? Reminds me of the process of natural evolution. Almost entirely random but there is a unifying principle that guides all of it. Also the notion of “right” and “wrong” is completely fluid and changes across time. I suspect GOD gets the right and wrong on an intuitive or feeling level and doesn’t have a strict rule on the subject. Though I am projecting my own human faculties onto GOD.

            Now let’s go back to the analogy of the distributed system of the Bitcoin network. There is no one big super computer that is the master control of Bitcoin. There are millions of rather normal computers are connected to each other that process the information getting swapped. The information is transactions and the job of the computers is to approve transaction (grant wishes) by bundling them in a blocks and solving a math problem to append them onto the blockchain (timeline). A number of these computers can gather together in what is known as mining pools with the shared goal of solving blocks. These computers instead of directly competing can cooperate to solve a block and then share the reward (the aggregate VP). Then you can zoom out and look at the network as a whole and see an intelligent system with the “vision” of providing a cryptographically safe internet currency.

            In this model you have a fractal system with multiple hierarchies of resolution with each level resembling the other levels just at a different zoom levels. Each atom, cluster and supercluster in the system is working towards the same goal with each of them having responsibility over their own local domain. Also there is no topdown form imposition. If any form is created, it is created from the bottom up rather than top down.

            • Saturnus says:

              Oh and for a block to get approved to be added onto the blockchain, there is a criteria of its hash value being lower than a certain number of digits. I think this criteria is only top down imposition in the network, besides the reward for solving a block (aka mining Bitcoins) both set by the Bitcoin open-source algorithm. This could be similar to the notion of, dare I say, moralistic right and wrong that I mentioned in the model above?

              Note that this algorithm is out in the open and if you are Neo you might be able to understand how it works.

              I have to admit that I have somewhat drifted away from the free will question. It might be that the physical organism has “free will” in its own domain as it can calculate responses to stimuli based on its own criteria (let’s say survival and reproduction). Maybe because we mistake our awareness with the ego, we really like the awareness to also have free will but it is not only incapable of having free will it is not its job to have free will.

  2. Arpan says:

    “This is where you find that, infuriatingly, even so-called advanced yogis cannot just answer this question briefly and to the point.”

    There is actually a defined tradition to not answer such stuff, especially for newbies, much like Buddha did not answer. Reason is pretty simple: No matter what you say, you will be describing an experience of which others have no close idea in “words”. It’s like being asked to describe the smell of a rose. Each and every “occult” word you have used eg Kundalini, is envisaged by non-yogis in ways that hardly matches up the real thing. This creates false mental concepts which leads to further issues like: Trying to “get” experiences on lines of those concepts.
    Infact, that is exactly what has often pit disciples of one actual yogi against others in India and in the world, where the yogis, owing to their temperament used very different words for the same thing. Also, there are many different modes that One Consciousness may be experienced too, depending on your path. Eg. All Force or All Love etc.(though the one who reached knows the All Love is unreachable w/o All Force and vice-versa).
    Even these Non Duality and Duality are understood very differently by ppl. Ask an LSD addict, he also has a very confident notion of Non Duality which a yogi might laugh at.
    There was a good rule in many yogic schools(some say that to be the case with Buddha too): Ask questions after atleast 5 years of meditation etc. This would break down many deep seated mental conceptions.
    In Adwait(Non Dual) school, the disciple was given a “mahavakya”(Great Utterance) eg. Aham Brahmasmi(I am the Absolute) to contemplate, after a high level perfection in morality and samadhi.
    The answer is difficult not just due to fuzziness of spiritual-words, but even common words eg.: “Me”. The question “what happens to me after that” presupposes an understanding of “what is me”. Which can truly be known only after years of meditation.
    Also, Sadhguru is a public figure with a certain type of western educated audience. He likes to keep his discussions in sphere of testable things. In one video a lady asked him about previous lives: He recounted a bit and said:

    “You make me say all this in public, now you owe a duty to me. You must do the hard work of finding this out yourself too. Truth is not for idle seekers, who are just interested in entertainment”.

    If you visit the Isha site, he has elaborates on his past lives:

    • frosty says:

      Sadhguru talks about death a few times in his book “Mystic’s Musings”, which are his discourses with smaller groups of students. For example, “When prana drops, you drop. Your body drops dead, or in your experience, you drop dead – whichever way. So what you’re calling death is only that the prana has lost its vibrancy.”

      • Illuminatus says:

        He talks about death in dozens of YouTube videos. But I have never heard him discuss it in the form, “After you die, you will experience X.”

        EDIT: I do now recall him discussing the experience of a consciousness after death. It was in the video where he discusses why Hindus tie the toes together. I am trying to find it now. This search however is reaffirming to me just how many videos he has on death where he talks nothing but waffle about prana and what not.

        • frosty says:

          Might be this article. He claims that the experience of “pleasantness/unpleasantness will multiply a million fold”. It’s similar to the “intermediate state of reality” in the Tibetan Book of the Dead where, after death, you mentally project your own heaven or hell.

        • Arpan says:

          Btw, Non Dual experiences are also of broadly 2 kinds:
          1. Cosmic Consciousness.
          2. Transcendent.(Non Being).

          In Hinduism 1st is represented as Vishnu and 2nd as Shiva. Self Inquiry path is Shaivite.
          Some relate 1st with Holy Spirit and 2nd with Father of Christian tradition.
          Buddhist Nirvana and Self Inquiry are inclined to Transcendence, while Karma Yoga and Tantra and inclined to Cosmic Consciousness.
          Cosmic Consciousness too can be had on multiple levels: Body= u feel the material cosmos as ur own body
          Vital= u feel all the astral/vital layer of cosmos as your own vital.
          Spiritual= Enlightenment. You are one in spirit with all life and can feel all life.
          There can also be a mix match in above 3.

          Ppl going towards transcendence can experience cosmic consciousness just at the brink of Transcendence and vice versa. Eg. Buddha felt all creatures in himself before Nirvana.

          So there is no one X experience universally applicable on enlightenment or on death. Like there is no one X thing that happens when one falls on Love.

          • Illuminatus says:

            Arpan, can you explain what “vital” is please? I see it mentioned often with no definition. Thanks.

            • Arpan says:

              Vital is the term for the prana. So vital sheath/body is the pranic body (astral body is a combined term for mental and vital bodies) which is the home of your urges,desire-prompts, energy etc.
              Swadhisthan chakra(beteen navel and genitals) represents lower vital(sex and dug addiction),manipur chakra represents vital-proper(physical health, worldly ambition of a developed kind: Kingship, business etc), Anahat(heart) chakra represents purified vital(artists, poets, lovers) and vishuddhi(throat) chakra represents higher vital(yogic power of speech etc).
              Muladhar chakra is the base of physical sheath and chakras higher than vishuddhi are for mental and supranental planes.

              In yoga, most difficulties arise from Vital. Once conquered And recruited for purpose of yoga(not suppressed and dried), yoga is 70% over.

          • Illuminatus says:

            Very interesting. Psychedelics and dissociatives appear to incline one towards cosmic consciousness in your above model. My earlier meditation (and magick etc.) produced mainly cosmic consciousness experiences. For the last year though my meditation has inclined almost solely towards transcendence.

            • Arpan says:

              Yes that would indeed be the case.
              However, one great problem witn magickal/tantric paths and psychedelics, unless the person is absolutely selfless and blessed with sharp wisdom/guidance is: Intermediate Zone.
              Forces and experiences of this zone are almost “designed” to prey upon sadhakas who carry some ambition, even for bliss.
              They can cause experience of vastness or blissful non-being that somewhat look like the real thing and may be actual steps to the real thing and bamboozle the sadhaka to stop at them. Some can even have great waves of Reverence coursing in their being making them feel like surrendering to “That”. So even devotional types are not safe.
              Only safety, apart from guru is: Motivelessness.
              To “sacrifice” every experience to That, no matter how great it seems.
              The best summary of Intermediate Zone dangers I found:


              This quest for Liberation ids a comparitively recent development in Hinduism(taken from Buddhism and Jainism around 8th century AD onwards, of which modern non dual hinduism is a product).
              In ancient Hinduism, idea was to perfect the body, mind , vital and senses by invocation of their respective deities. Then to perfect cosmic consciousness. Trascendence was to be had only as an experience so as to change one’s life-values. This was so because the aim was: perfecting outer life, and being born repeatedly to participate in the Evolutionary scheme(the World cycles over which consciousness rises from Matter to the Supreme Species is very elaborate), becoming greater and greater contributors to it.

              • Kevin says:

                Can confirm I have been lost in these half illumined states many times. Almost always caused by psychedelic use. Almost always causes a inflation of the ego. I think Carl Jung also mentions something similar about psychedelic use.

                Are psychedelic use and magick left hand path? I very much see the danger in them, but at the same time I can’t hold myself back from being fascinated with them. In a way I want to expose myself to the danger of going in them and either stay fully present or find my way out after getting lost.

                • Arpan says:

                  Carl Jung indeed entered a lot of new territory in psychology hitherto barred to Western psychology. He was quite right about psychedelic use. Infact that’s the major thing that separates shamans from actual yogis: with drugs and other totuous stuff shamans seem to only dabble in vital worlds which lower vatergory hath yogis and tantrics are interested in in India.
                  Self purification/morality is a decisive factor in these stages. Infact, most advanced yogis, throughout history have considered self-purification as the Only true sadhana. Once it is accomplished, rest happens spontaneously. As they say: “Sadhana does not make you enlightened. It makes you the kind of person “Grace” can enlighten.”

                  “Are psychedelic use and magick left hand path? I very much see the danger in them, but at the same time I can’t hold myself back from being fascinated with them.”

                  Yes, they belong to Left Hand Path, but not as how most ppl understand LHP. LHP is called Veer Marg(way of the hero). It is not meant for the most degenerate, but for the most pure. They don’t shun the forces of lower nature, but embrace and use them, encounter them headon, like meeting a wild horse, taming it, riding it. Take the example of sex: Ppl think that some meditation mixed with sex is Tantric Sex. Not so. It can only be a pale reflection of the real thing. In real Tantric Sex, you seat the woman in front of you, often naked or sensually dressed, and conceptualize her as a Devi(female deity)/Bhairavi and meditate on her body, observing the mind’s lustful reactions. This is done till Lust falls away. After that, you conceptualize yourself as Shiva/Bhairav. Then you proceed to make love after you have No desire for sexual pleasure in mind. You make love with the feeling of being the Primal Creator.
                  Other way is to just bring the energy up from sex centre to Heart centre before or during love making(sometimes happens naturally if the couple is actually in deep love, not just sexual or emotional craving/attachment, but a self-giving). One western lady disciple of Sri Aurobindo had her 1st experience of Self while having sex with her husband, because she was in a state of utter self giving. It is often not consummated by an orgasm.(sex and drugs are a taboo if physical-transformation is the aim, not just inner realization).
                  Your “need” to enter these zones is because either:
                  1. You take meditation/yoga/drugs as a means of entertainment/self-worth. Or
                  2. If the momemtum of the need is strong: You just don’t have the maturity to be uninterested in these things right now. In that case, you need to experience life and/intermediate zone and fail/suffer, till you viscerally see the futility of such things, much like how you feel after over-snacking. It’s much like how many ppl need to experience outer life before they find any worth in turning inwards.

                  PS: My earlier comment seemed to indicate that only psychedelics/magick/tantra and other stuff amenable to Cosmic Consciousness has the danger of Intermediate Zone. No, even Transcendence and Bhakti paths can lead there(I mentioned “devotion”). Only thing is: Ppl trying the former seemingly LHP methods usually have less pure motives than those following latter, making them more susceptible. This was one reason why Buddha extricated the “Jnana yog” from the larger family of interralated practices of Hinduism/indic systems: He wanted to shoot sttaight to Non Being, with least hassle possible. Sacrificing development of Being if need be.

                  • Kevin says:

                    Is Jnana yoga one of those things where the mind tries so hard to achieve something (here understanding itself) and then it finally gives up and becomes enlightened? It reminds me of the daath sephira in the kabbalistic tree of life.

                    I have become intensely aware of the transient and dare I say illusory nature of the zones. Yet I cannot say that they haven’t had a net positive effect on my life. Kinda like how bitcoin price shoots up in bubbles and then it bursts but settles on a higher price than when it started. I think impure (motiveful?) yoga and drugs bring a positive leap in ones being and then the mind noticing this jump extrapolates it into the future thinking it will continue at the same pace, hence its self worth and ego inflates waiting to be burst.

                    • Arpan says:

                      “Is Jnana yoga one of those things where the mind tries so hard to achieve something (here understanding itself) and then it finally gives up and becomes enlightened? ”
                      What you state is a small part of the spectrum called Jnana yoga. All methods which chiefly rely on awareness fall under Jnana yoga, including Theravadin Buddhism. Jnana means Knowledge in the sense of Consciousness. What you state is same as Koan practice in Rinzai Zen. I believe it to be very effective for compulsive-intellectuals, else, needlessly tiresome.

                      “I have become intensely aware of the transient and dare I say illusory nature of the zones….”
                      Once the bubble bursts you can actually settle on a state worse than your original one. What I am saying is: You need not be subject to this cycle if you are sincere.

                      As for Impure/motiveful yoga: Well, not everybody who takes up yoga has a “true call” for it. One mugut discover that they just wanted some power or bliss abd their interest would peter out as soon as they get it. You can have “pure” altruistic motivations too(though they are usually self deceptions in most ppl). And if you honestly have great motives, you would progress well and as your awareness grows, those motives will drop too. Infact all non enlightened beings are bound to have some motive. It’s best to keep a rarefied and high one then. It’s said that Liberation is attained when desire for it subsumes all other desires and then this desire too is dropped.
                      “Purity” in yogic sense is not a “moral” concept , to be precise. I wrote about it here:


      • Arpan says:

        Also : He comes from a traditional lineage. And it’s considered an affront and also plain wrong to be subject to idle questions. It’s a disciple’s privilege to be accepted and taught in traditional culture.

        There are many articles online by yogis who casted this rule away and started answering youngsters who had a passing interest in yoga, on Facebook etc. Ultimately they say: you have to give up. People have stupid notions about these things and about sadhakas. Eg one guy was pretty disappinted to know that a yogi did not know of his bad habits as he should have Trikaal drishti” or Triple Time Vision. So, this teacher just says to ppl: you are not progressing. Come to me asking all this 6 years later and I might give you some attention.

        Sadhguru is actually one of the most personable of serious yogis. People have formed wrong expectations from over-friendly media savvy half baked meditation teachers crowding West since early 1900s.

  3. Kevin says:

    I first read about this concept in Hagakure (highly recommended btw) and since then I did this for years now, I meditate on death daily and it changed my life for the better as weird as that might sound, but I am less troubled, angered, you name it because of it. It puts things into perspective daily.

    • Arpan says:

      “I meditate on death daily and it changed my life for the better…”
      Does it impact your motivation for wordly goals/tasks. Many ppl say that it would give you perspective and help you focus on the most important things in life, things you would not wanna feel regret for when dying. Sure, I understand that, but more often than not, it leads me to not value anything atall.
      Someone might say: But don’t you wanna be remembered for doing X ?
      Me: I don’t care about what ppl think of me right now, forget post-death scenario.

      Whereas meditation in general(excluding death-meditation) frees me of wrong priorities and leads to better motivations for work like: Curiosity, Joy, Compassion.

      Also, I don’t think I fear death. I fear long drawn physical suffering/handicap.

      • THEfool says:

        “Also, I don’t think I fear death. I fear long drawn physical suffering/handicap.”

        Heres something to motivate you to practice. Shinzen young in an interview once said this and it really made me excited and motivated.
        (its the first or secound interview dont remember)

        “You could be tortured for 6 months straght and it would be no diffrent then having tea with the queen that is the upper level of meditation”

        In my personal expierence 1 shocking realization was that the breath is made from a variety of sensation. You can even note 10-12 sensation on an in breath and 10 on a outbreath. Thats 21 sensation on a single breath cycle! Then I turned this attention on my pain. I noticed it to is made from a variety of sensation. When perceived as 1 sensation all these multiply for example 2×2×2×2×2=32 pain. when the sensation are broken up they become 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2= 10 pain. It is much more managable.

        • Arpan says:

          I meditate and I know the benefits very well. And I can see how it gradually removes the “suffering” component from any touch of Nature, be it physical or psychological.

          In this comment I am talking specifically about meditation on Death. I find that it takes away all inclination to work. We will all die and I am perfectly fine with that, so dunno what purpose meditating on death fulfills(except sometimes when we are caught in petty things, though even then I have positive things to focus on: Vastness of Spacetime).

          • Titus says:

            I get your point here. What point is there in meditating about death? Doesn’t it all become irrelevant because we all die in the end? If yes, then why even do anything? Quite a nihilistic thought process and I have been there myself many times BUT here is the kicker at least for me. Realizing that there is no real meaning, or point in life because I will die eventually anyway and what I did will most likely be forgotten in time anyway, realizing this gives you the power to give your life meaning or purpose. IMO you removed the shackles holding you hostage and are now free to design your life (within the restrictions of society ofc) and do wtf you want, you become the architect of your life with no holds barred, that’s what meditating on death does for me. It helps me to realize that there is basically no point in anything and therefore I am free to design life as I see fit until it’s over.

            Many can’t handle this nothingness though and then resort to things like religion or spiritual practices to cope with this nothingness. Weak IMO but whatever floats your boat I guess.

            • Arpan says:

              In my original comment I alluded to how I think meditation on Death works. It attacks “abhinivesh”, instinct of sepf-preservation, considered as one of the shackles in yoga. Thus freeing the individual from limited egoic viewpoints that arise from non-realization of the temporary nature of one’s existence, that chokes one’s life.
              I was just saying that IF someone(like me) is already quite detached from life and its fleetimg joys, why take a negative subject atall( a lot of the benefits of having such a subject are already possessed by one of a detached nature). Why not take No Subject(this is the real “manly” approach, if one considers use of supports unmanly) or a positive subject(infinity/bliss).
              Btw, considerimg “Nothingness” to be the “ultimate reality” is itself a limited point of view. As a devotee-yogi poinyed out:
              “I was told that behind Personality, is Infinite Existence. I went there, and found my Lord just behind the Existence, in Infinite Personality”. (Can replace Existence with Nothingness. They are two twin-schools in India). Positive subjects can be much more powerful at certain times with certain individuals. Eg. I find thinking of Cosmic Power coursing in me, much quicker than Witness method/death, when feeling dull or weak. Or to view the One Divine in every person(including myself) and object, much more amenable for feeling universal compassion and unshakeabke confidence, rather than seeing everything as an unconscious temporary mechanism of Nature. Indian greeting “Namaste” means: I bow to That(Divine) within you, which is also in me. I used to bow down with the same intent to my opponents in Karate class,and Joy/love interpenetrated the fury of action seemlessly as I fought.

              Nothingness itself is a rather wrong translation of Shunya. Shunya(literally Zero) did not mean something negative to the ancient Indian mind. It rather meant a blissful Fullness, which does not need any support, which just Is, which is indescribable abd undefinable, where all mental conceptions come to Naught(including that of Nothingness).

              As to what approach one uses, is more about personality, rather than “strength”, I guess. As an example a an energetic Tantric may consider Buddhist Shunya as rather a sedate concept. He likes to jump into the fierce play of all forces of nature and mind thst oppose yoga and conquer them head on. Historically, practices focussed on positive subjects have produced much more virile individuals and societies(ancient Greeks and Hindus). Both have a shadow aspects: positive paths can lead to powerful individuaos straying from what is right for society. Negative paths can produce individuals indifferent to society which needs to be preserved, in order to provide the safe coccoon for others to attain such realization too.
              Thus, in the end it is all totally relativistic, depending on personality, station in life, and situation in the moment.

  4. Anon Regular says:

    Random question:

    Do you think the neurological correlate of the Madonna/whore complex might be the locus of processing in the brain? In the former case, the sensory input is being processed in the “person” neural-net, and in the latter in the “object recognition” system?

    Just a random thought I had, what do you think?

    • Illuminatus says:

      I am afraid you have lost me with this question. I understand none of it.

      • Anon Regular says:

        We can process people as people, kind of the “spiritual” thing to do. We can also process them as objects (more of a fight-flight-fuck circuit). I was wondering if that might be the basis of good and bad archetypes. Kinda hard to explain what I mean.

        On another note, I had an insight the other day that time is flowing both ways – back and forth. We are adapted somehow to sense the “entropic pattern” of forward-time, giving rise to our notions of logic and such (again – hard to explain), whereas we can still perceive signals from the future – they have a distinct pattern which breaks our time-binding detector a bit and seem like odd logic – I think this is the basis of most psychic manifestation methods (you’re actually getting thoughts from the future, the causality is just opposite of what makes sense to us).

        All of this is very vague to me still, and more of an intent to express something than a clear expression thereof – I am not offering an implicit statement of high confidence, rather the opposite.

        • Illuminatus says:

          I may come back to your other questions.

          However, I just wanted to say that the methodology on that link seems utter bullshit to me. Not surprising since the experiment was conducted by a feminist psychologist whose aim was to prove that people objectify women.

          Here’s why the methodology sucked: the test manipulated images of men’s and women’s chests and waists. These items are already far more pronounced in women. So you would store a sharper memory of those areas. It’s like altering a rhino’s horn, then saying we objectify rhinos as “parts” because we noticed which photos of horns had been altered. Can you see how that makes no fucking sense whatsoever? Shit like that actually makes me MORE sexist because it’s such an illogical way of doing things, it’s almost like only a woman could have come up with it.

          • Illuminatus says:

            In summary: She altered a part, thus turning women into parts, to prove that we turn women into parts. Like me shooting myself in the head to prove that humans like shooting themselves in the head. Fucking cunt.

          • Anon Regular says:

            Sorry, mate, I didn’t read the article properly – it was merely something I threw out to show an example of “there is a thing like processing people as objects, not as persons”. I should have found a more worthy source to exemplify that.

            My point is something like: it is possible to process people as transcendent patterns, something that interacts with a higher logic, something that is not limited, something that is an end in itself, and it is also possible to process people as simply means to and end, something we use, a tool or an object basically. Maybe this maps to something on the neurological logical, and maybe it is possible to bring in the language of Jungian archetypes and such here (processing people as objects would then be seen as something negative and dark, to be transcended by introspection).

            On a side note, I believe there is such a thing as female and male logics – similar to how nouns can be male / female, I also believe this is the case with logic – something to do with whether you start with model and attempt to prove that, or whether you think from “first principles” from the terrain. I have to think on it more, but I think there is a distinction to be made there.

            • Anon Regular says:

              * on the neurological level

              * start with a model

              Male and female logics = ways of achieving evolutionary hunter-gatherer goals – so, starting from the terrain and reasoning from that, with a model that has to prove its weight through the whole process, or starting with social / received reality and reasoning from that, with the terrain being used to prove the model.

              Epistemic certainty on the above = low to medium – throwing out ideas, not making a solid claim on the truth-value of the above.

            • Illuminatus says:

              >My point is something like: it is possible to process people as transcendent patterns, something that interacts with a higher logic, something that is not limited, something that is an end in itself, and it is also possible to process people as simply means to and end, something we use, a tool or an object basically.

              Right brain = relationships
              Left brain = objects

              I think it is just about as simple as that.

              We are used to working in “object space” scientifically (and this is also where time comes from, as a force which acts between objects (not sure if “force” is the right word there)).

              I have written some comments about “relationship space” (my own term); I don’t know if you can search comments but have a look for them.

              Regarding female/male logics, just be careful not to make either one a correlate of “right brain / left brain” because this is not what goes on. Rather, both genders use both brains, with both mainly using left brain objects/methods to “prove” intuitive right brain maps about “the way things are (or should be)”: the genders just have different PRIORITIES, leading them to manipulate the objects in different ways.

              I have had many stupid arguments over whether “women are more right-brained” (and all the other vice-versas) but the reality is that both genders are trying to GET somewhere with their reasoning (and therefore are very left-brained in their methods). I do not know of anyone from either gender setting out to establish the truth of something with no goal in mind (if you know of any examples, let me know).

              • Anon Regular says:

                “Relationship space” sounds interesting, do you have a link perhaps?

                Yes, I believe you are right – it is the weighting of factors which makes the difference, and hence logic is always an expression of the will and priorities of a particular entity – if we wanted to know a universal logic it would have to entail knowing God’s will (or rather, what the Universe “wants” to do). Short of the infinite view, a particular logic always encapsulates a certain “project” or “viewpoint” which means that it needs to narrow down reality and operate within its own purview – by growing as entities, we can of course subsume other logics and understand them from a meta-logical perspective (which is just the logic of seeing other logics for what they are).

                Man, I am at the edge of my meta capability when talking about this stuff – good practice.

              • Anon Regular says:

                Forgive me the random flights of fancy, but I wonder if there could be a link between “logic genders” and also hand-gestures? I’ve noticed that men and women tend to have slightly different ways of gesturing – and since “logic” is basically “program for mentalizing reality – shaping the flow of information in order to get to certain outcomes” then it makes sense that there should be an embodied component as well – cf Leary’s “Symbolic-Dexterity Circuit” – perhaps the hands serve as some kind of bridge between “physical” and “mental”?

                I know you’ve written about mudras before, but I wonder if there is any link (in scripture, etc) established between logic and hand gestures?


                “Movements of the hand, however, offer continuous streams of output that can reveal ongoing dynamics of processing, potentially capturing the mind in motion with fine-grained temporal sensitivity.”

                This makes “logic” much more “analog” than how we typically think about it.

                • Anon Regular says:

                  Male logic is combative and wants to break things apart and select the winner – female logic is about flowing from scene to scene, kinda – hard to explain, but that’s the vision I got when I tripped on hashish the other day (I get very deep insights from that stuff, or am just deluding myself).

                  Also I saw that r vs K is really barbarian vs civilized and that it is a female vs male dynamic – history can be described as the dance of God and Goddess. We would need to find a form of society that “marries” these dynamics, otherwise we will be stuck in endless cycles and swings – the challenge is to combine the mythological, feminine-primary and non-rule bound nature of Barbarians with the rational, masculine and rule-bound civilization – finding a calibration function, kinda, that allows both to coexist.

                  Don’t ask me how I know this – it’s cannabis indica, as I said.

          • Anon Regular says:

            Interesting! This should have some theological implications – it might resolve some questions around how to prove God’s existence for instance (because thoughts would be primary evidence – not just possibilities – so, the ontological argument basically).

            • Illuminatus says:

              Whenever anyone says something like this, I’m always thinking, “What kind of ‘God’ are they looking to prove?” — because, if it’s an old man in the sky, I am OUT of that game immediately.

              Not saying that that is what you’re thinking; it just tends to “feel” that that is what people are thinking of when they pose the question (and it comes from Judeo-Christian descriptions).

              • Anon Regular says:

                A bearded guy in the sky would force-fit God into Kant’s mental categories – causality, time, space – rather, “God” is the thought of absolute transcendence – it’s a thought without any content but it still is thinkable.

                • Arpan says:

                  Read Kant more carefully man. Noumena of Kant is not “thinkable” that is why it is Noumena and not Phenomena.
                  If something is beyond mental categories, it is axiomatic that it is beyond the scope of logic. Logic is premised on mental categories and gives mentally conceivable results.

                  That was the brilliance in Kant’s concept of Noumena. He made the western philosophical world , still bickering over Rationalism vs Empiricism , aware of something that both the “hot” schools of that time were overlooking:
                  All their philosophy(like his own) is based on mental-processes, while mind itself is confined to certain categories, and there could be something beyond those categories such that mind could not grasp it.

                  PS: “Absolute” is itself a limit/conception placed on God.

                  • Arpan says:

                    Absolute Transcendence*

                  • Anon Regular says:

                    Quality comment, thanks!

                  • Anon Regular says:

                    I wonder if Kant’s Noumenon – or Radical Alterity (Otherness) as we might call it – could be the building-block of a new logic, that goes beyond analysis and synthesis, and adds a third dimension: that of space – or the land of Koans and “unask the question” type thinking.

                    Two people engaging in a dialectic conversation go back and forth, building up and tearing down – but do they every stop to see what they are doing? Do they see the Legoness of their Lego block stacking? Can they see the Z dimension? Is there a logic beyond Lego-stacking?

                    Maybe this third mode might be called something like “omnesis” – the ability to hold the full picture in mind without logic-glue – being able to think a thought AND its inverse as one, without analysis (which selects one) or synthesis (which seeks to build up to a common form).

                    Again, hashish visions – needs to be fleshed out.

                    • Arpan says:

                      You thinking is correct.

                      ” being able to think a thought AND its inverse as one, without analysis ”
                      This has become my normal mode of thinking since nearly last 8 years. I can rightfully be bold enough to say that I can look at any debate(especially philosophical) and straight away understand why people are differing and what common ground they are missing. Most entrenched differences come from differing “subconscious” definitions of same terms. That is why debates belong to the left brain that works strictly with surface information.

                      Lastly, these musings are as much an indulgence and waste of time as a physical orgasm is. These give you mental orgasms(aha moments) that, quite like their physical counterparts, can never satiate your thirst. Only purpose they serve is to inflate the ego into thinking that one has a fertile intellect, w/o actually producing stuff. Been there , done that. Real life problem solving is where one realizes the immensity of life’s complexity, utter dwarfness of logical mind and the need for stuff like “skill” and “intuition”.

                    • Illuminatus says:

                      >Lastly, these musings are as much an indulgence and waste of time as a physical orgasm is. These give you mental orgasms(aha moments) that, quite like their physical counterparts, can never satiate your thirst.

                      Glad you are calling Anon Regular on his addiction to “mental orgasms”. I’ve been doing it for years!

                    • Anon Regular says:

                      I do agree – intellect must be situated in a context of practical craftsmanship – condensing hyperdimensional potentialites down into concrete artefacts that are infused with “heart IQ”. I hear you, brothah.

                      I may come off one way here – as someone who is very indulgent into thought- but you perhaps should know that I also have another life – focused around practical things like business and social dynamics.

                    • Anon Regular says:

                      ‘Glad you are calling Anon Regular on his addiction to “mental orgasms”. I’ve been doing it for years!’

                      Is it something you want me to change or are you just calling me out? As someone who wants to evolve – I’ll take practical pointers!

                    • Illuminatus says:

                      >Is it something you want me to change or are you just calling me out? As someone who wants to evolve – I’ll take practical pointers!

                      Well I will be blunt. I have for some time been answering your questions mainly because I feel the answers will be of value for the other readers. Within this very thread you asked for a link for more information on “relationship space” and I was rather dismayed (but not surprised) to find that it was you yourself I had had the entire conversation with in the past. The impression I get is that this is somewhere you come to get your “hit” — a mixture of attention (from me and anyone else who replies) plus some intellectual fodder for you to chew on for a moment before moving onto something else.

                      Do I want you to stop? Ideally the behaviour would have smoothed itself out by now (I have been bringing it to your attention for a few years). But I’m giving you what you want so I am complicit too (and I enjoy answering questions and appearing as an authority, so we are both enablers in some sense).

                      I guess at this point I’d like you to identify the pattern and move beyond it for your own sake. I don’t really see what you’re getting out of this besides your “hit”. I don’t think you really listen and absorb any of the interaction, and I base that on your coming back with similar questions over and over, and questions that don’t really seem to matter much in any meaningful way. At the same time however I am not really in the business of “correcting” anyone and don’t really feel qualified on “improving someone as a person” so I guess this will simply go back on the queue of “we’ll see”.

                    • Arpan says:

                      No one’s doubting that your life has other aspects. Let me put it this way:
                      You are trying to master astronomy with naked eyes because you have a 6/6 vision.
                      Use a telescope man.
                      This is not a sphere of intellect, is what western philosophers seem to have forgotten post Plato(Kant and perhaps Spinoza being exceptions). This website is based on meditation, a huge evolutionary leap beyond intellectual-speculation. So going back to it is a needless regression.

                    • Illuminatus says:

                      I guess I would describe your behaviour as “question bot” (which is sad).

                    • Anon Regular says:

                      Interesting insights – I am committing to a path of being less robotic 🙂

        • Illuminatus says:

          Regarding perception of the unidirectional forward-flowing of time, I did think about it a bit in the past and came up with something like the following:

          The illusion of time only flowing forward (for each individual) is a result of the dualistic split which places:
          – Environment events OUT THERE as PRIMARY
          – Feeling/perceiving events IN HERE as SECONDARY

          So, events “out there” happen “to” you, and there are body feelings and thoughts that happen “in here” as a result (and these “in here” feelings are where we get the illusion of a “self who suffers”).

          Now, if you present this to someone who doesn’t meditate, they will feel strongly and state unequivocally that: “OF COURSE things happen OUT THERE which “I” respond to IN HERE.”

          But if you do a lot of meditation then you come to notice that the EVENT and the PERCEPTION of the event occur exactly simultaneously and are in fact the same thing.

          It is this noticing that seems to sort people neatly into two categories:
          – They either write it off as an illusion, a trick of the mind, and double down on DUALITY (e.g. Sleazy)
          – Or they switch to NONDUALITY (usually with a Dark Night during the transition) and come to the acceptance that events and awareness of events are actually the same thing.

          The only instances a non-meditator would experience this mind-blowing revelation are:
          – Psychedelic drug use
          – Certain specific flow states, e.g. playing sports and noticing for a moment that you are in fact creating the game while playing it (this is the state whence all great shots come)

          Does this help re time as an illusion? It only flows forwards continuously if one assumes one is a separate passive “receiver” of events rather than, in fact, being the SOURCE of events (True Self). During True Self experiences, time vanishes completely. When it comes back in it is seen as a mental construct.

  5. Kautilya says:


    Has Guru Nanak’s life and message been part of your spiritual journey?

  6. Arpan says:

    No. Though I dunno how different the message is. He just sought to synthesize Hinduism and Islam in times of muslim invasions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *