The human condition and awakening
Earthninja
WandererWest Australia Veteran
Hi guys, so I really wanted to write down exactly what I'm coming to perceive is what is happening. Thanks for reading my ramblings.
Years and years ago, before language was developed. The human experience was the same as animals. The human/animals back then had no concepts of time and space. Everything was happening spontaneously in awareness. But they were not self aware. They did not perceive a separation between themselves and what was happening.
As our brains evolved we began to develop language to try and explain what was happening to each other. The brain also developed a sense of being aware it is existing, it knew it was alive. This was a felt sensation and a knowing.
What then happened was that humans began to more and more point things out to each other until one day a human defined himself as someone using language. All this was a thought coupled with that feeling of knowing one is alive.
Eventually over time this concept of I am a separate person to other "things"
Began to spread.
This was then taught to the next generation. Over time the whole human population began believing that were a somebody living a life.
Then all the trouble started, if you were a somebody. That meant you have to defend yourself from the others.
More and more humans used thought to define the world. This created a feeling that the world is full of things(thought). It is more than intellectual. It was a deep felt sense. "I am definitely me, and that is you!"
Now 99.9999 percent of humans think they are a me, in a separate world. The problem is this is the root of suffering, the me believes it needs good things and avoids perceived bad things. It fails to see the oneness that is already present and always has been. The me defines itself in time and space and then suffers.
Because anything that happens to the body/mind. Is happening to me!
The deep sense that there something not quiet right with how we are. Like something is missing, is because of that feeling of being separate. So we look to religion, drugs, sex etc... Anything to try and fill that void.
But it will never be filled, because the imagined me is trying to fill it.
Now it happened many many years ago that a few brains saw through this illusion of separation and a me. They tried to explain it to people back then.
The "me"a couldn't understand it, because that is the nature of me. It is finite and trying to understand the infinite.
So they misinterpreted the words and such religion was born. Just another way for a "me" to feel better.
So yoga arose, meditations, mindfulness, satsangs, discussions, psychedelic drugs...
All ways the person tries to see the oneness they sense to be true. All the while trying to fill the void in a new way. So the spiritual seeker emerges.
Now it so happens that somewhere in the prefrontal cortex of the brain, a shift in perception can occur. The brain realises the person is completely illusory. A story, a made up character.
This seeing through of the story immediately makes the human being aware that it is all experience. That time and space are illusions. That there is no separation between me and you. Because there is no me and you. Just this... Life.
All ideas of personal choices, right or wrong, beliefs about enlightenment fall off. Life has been playing the role the whole time,
The character or person is now just and after thought commenting on the world. But it's not real. Every action or choice ever made was never by a person. It was just life dancing.
This is the end of karma, birth and death. There is no person this happens to.
Now see for the seeker, this is all they've ever wanted. They've tried so hard to become oneness. Not realising g that everything is oneness already.
The seekers believed existence is what stops the being from seeing the already present oneness.
Now this is the seekers worst nightmare, to see oneness will mean the end of the seeker.
I've read four enlightenment stories and ALL of them were accompanied with extreme fear and terror. One guy wept for two days straight after realising he didn't exist.
After that it settles down into oneness and the dance of life is sheer awe.
Realising that your ARE life/existence itself is incredible beyond words.
No suffer, no chooser, no thinking.
Yet pain can still arise and choices are made. Yet this happens for no one.
No many many people ask these enlightened humans, how did you do it?
The ones that have actually seen through the illusion completely always say.
"There is no way for the seeker to get this"
It isn't something to get, it's a shift in perception that happens in the brain. It's also energetic in the body.
There is nothing the seeker can do, it's all just a story. The dream character tries to meditate to realise it is a dream and to get the dream for itself.
Yet it's always been just a story. Some brains just seem wired to see through this illusion. But it never had anything to do with what the seeker did. The seeker has only ever been an afterthought accompanied by a feeling in the body. The story can meditate for 20 years and wake up or it could live on the streets and with no spiritual vs ground just wake up.
That's why very very few actual enlightened beings teach, you can't teach this. There is no person to reach too. Thinking there is merely perpetuates the illusion. So as long as you are seeking, you are defined by the dream.
The so called teachers are trapped in the illusion of separation, they still believe they are a somebody who can teach something. Many may have an awakening and think they know something but it's only when a permanent shift in the brain takes place is the illusion over. And very likely they won't teach. Only a separate me wants teachings. Just another way to keep the story going.
Another great analogy is what would you say to your night time dream character who says they want to realise the dream?
They can never realise they are the dream, because they are being dreamt.
So there really is nowhere to go and nothing to get. This is it, whatever it looks or feels like. Pain or pleasure. There never was anybody seeking. Just life dancing a story. And just sometimes life realises it was all just make believe.
Thank you.
Love Chris
Comments
This is so true @Shoshin
Such a beautiful and eloquent quote! Thanks for sharing, it is so relevant.
Some people resist the dance, some people try to enjoy the dance. A few realise they are the dance.
We used to sing this at school.
Please don't ask me why but it always makes me cry when I hear it.
It's such a jolly tune..... why, oh why... I haven't figured it out.
@Earthninja
Just dance the dance, play the game and be happy and content with what "is"
Bearing in mind that later in his life Mr Nietzsche's mental state was somewhat questionable ...
So don't take life too "seriously", otherwise it will be just that....'serious' and the music might pass by unnoticed .....
I think everyone's mental state is questionable, ALL the time....
You've delivered the same sermon here many times. And so? How does it relate to Buddhist practice?
I think to nutshell it down.... it relates to Form is Emptiness- Emptiness is Form ! but then that might just be me ...Hold on while I just turn the music down.....
Incredibly... Why do people practice Buddhism? Exactly what do they want?
Freedom from suffering?
That is what underpins everything... We don't want to suffer. We mask it by saying we want enlightenment, or one with the universe, or peace.
But really all humans want is not to suffer.
The problem is that deep deep belief we have. About what we think we are, this is so ingrained it becomes a part of our lives.
So Buddhism is practice to end suffering? Right?
Well this is talking about what causes suffering and how it ends.
In Buddhism the cause of suffering is craving, attachment to desire. In the Pali it's "tanha", literally "thirst".
By the way I'm not convinced by your rambling thesis, I think the root problem is much more to do with evolutionary survival instinct. Such instincts are pre-conceptual and were present before language developed.
Self-awareness and self-identity are aspects of higher intelligence and not the bogey-men you want to portray them as.
If you think you are a person, you will desire something. Even desiring to give up desire is desire. Craving to be free from suffering so we use a religion as a means to do so. So we think.
It's really the human condition isn't it?
Whether it's war, sex, religion, love, caterer, spiritual seeking....
The person is never at peace, there is this feeling something is a bit off. So we seek a way to fix it...
Not ever realising, we are what is creating the problem. There never was a problem.
I'm not trying to convict you of anything, don't believe me. Don't believe anything.
You don't need a book to tell you it's raining,
I hope you are well spiny!
love our deep debates haha 
Like Ripley said to Call in Resurrection, "It's too late."
Different aspects of all life has its time in the sun.
This is just one thin slice - our time...
I read or heard somewhere that for the first 18 months or so of a human beings life we aren't self aware and don't understand the concept of self and others.....I wonder then if it's a learned behaviour or is part of human evolution?
I enjoy your ramblings Chris.....
Hope all is going well with the little'un mate!
@Earthninja. I also enjoy those ramblings of yours.
What has @Earthninja's ramblings got to do with Buddhism?
Well 'Dukkha' for a start...
It would seem that the written or spoken words, has magical and mystical powers, an ability to transform/transport one from peace and tranquillity to anger and frustration and visa versa ...
One reads what's been written and as it is processed/conceptualised (due to the level of ones attachment) feelings and emotions arise ...Ones of likes, dislikes, or neutral, then perhaps one feels compelled to express what these words made them feel....
Or one could simply see them for what they are just 'words' with this potential .....
Oopss sorry for the ramble on...."I" just got a little carried away
Thanks guys, it's nice to share
@Bunks cheers mate, little one is doing well. I hope you and are family are doing great!
Yeah I've also heard the same, new born babies and animals have no concept or notion of self.
That's why birds still sing even if they are caged.
It seems like it's evolutionary however it's been taken too far, language is mostly to blame.
We mistake thoughts for the real, so we suffer. And we can't even control that.
Newborns seem to have a sense of self to me but that could just be their instincts at work.
Instinct is a rather curious phenomenon.
@Earthninja your ramblings were simply amazing!! There are specific aboriginal tribes that have no concept of self and others. They actually have a different genetic make up from other humans. There actual chromosome composition is different from ours. I believe The rock band Tool had a track called "46&2" that had something to do with this. We are the genetic mutants causing havoc to "self and others" and the origional humans had a the same chromosome composition as some specific aboriginal tribes. Therefore the origional humans were genetically different from us which explains why they did not see a separate self!
All good here thanks mate.
You affected by those fires over there?
@David you can see them become more aware of their surroundings but my little guy, when he was just a few weeks old. You could see his eyes going everywhere, just one kaleidoscope of experience! Beautiful innocence.
@StingRay wow I never knew that, that's really interesting. Might have to look into that. Thanks.
@Bunks we did have large fire here down South, mainly destroyed mass bush land but thankfully no one hurt. Up near yarloop the whole town has pretty much burnt down
Even water bombers couldn't stop em
Well sure, everything is brand new. My point is they reach out for things, smile and coo when amused and have the grasping and suckling instinct. To me, that is a sign of self awareness which is only the ability to distinguish between self and other. Yes, it is all just a trick of consciousness but it serves a purpose.
My daughter was holding my thumb less than 5 minutes in.
Animals do this as well, yet are not self aware. Eg. They don't know they are an animal. They just respond to stimuli.
It's the same with babies. Without the thought and belief. "This is me" there is no separation. So it's a learnt thing
linguistic and cognitive development is a huge area ... just a starting point:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_development
That's just not true at all. I have two cats and their personalities are as different as it gets.
Most animals can distinguish between themselves and the rest of the environment and that's basic self awareness. The difference with us is we question it.
I don't think that's true. The words don't have to do with it as they notice things and are curious about them. Words come in later when things get labeled.
Personality has nothing to do with being self aware, animals are aware. But they are not aware of their awareness. They are not aware of their personality. We are.
There isn't a thing called a dog that navigates an external environment.
It really appears that way I know. The dog and it's environment are one field of experience.
Only our objectifying minds separate. There are no separate things at all.
Then they believe the things are separate to them. Things don't get labelled. Labelling creates things. There is no time, no space, no separate things.
Where is the lines?
Only in thought...
@Earthninja
While I have no disagreement with your posting ofThe human condition and awakening, it can end up being a little like asking about the origins of karma.
It's initiating origins was never considered to be germane or even helpful in addressing sufferings cause.
The Buddha's story of the man stuck with an arrow who does not wish to have it removed until he can first ascertain who fired it... comes to mind.
They can distinguish between themselves and the environment. That is self awareness in my books.
You are again only trying to see the objective and completely missing the reality of subjectivity.
Nonsense. Things are noticed before they are labeled.
A child says "What's that?" and we say "That is a pine cone". The pine cone will not appear just because you label it.
If what you say is true, we would never have labeled anything because we would not have noticed anything.
This is a step beyond self awareness where we see the individual self is the environment and not separate from it.
It is sufferings cause. It is how the idea there is a sufferer emerged.
There is no sufferer. There is no doer.
There never was one,
It's not helpful to the seeker... The seeker wants a method, something he or she can do. Whether it's a practice or a technique, but it's got nothing to do with the brain seeing the seeker is an illusion.
The birth of suffering is the origination of an imagined sufferer.
The Buddhists text refers to craving or desire. But that's as far as it goes. People tried to give up desire but it never works.
Why? Because there is an imagined person desiring to give up desire to make their life better.
But all there ever was, was this.
I've done the mirror test on my cats and they know it is a reflection. I'll stand behind them and say their names (they each only answer to their own name unless they think food is involved) and they will look up at my reflection into my reflections eyes and give me a "s'up" face all casual.
Again it doesn't seem like you're actually interested in Buddhism, just here to lecture us about your personal theories.
Children before the age of 2 have no 'self-awareness' They conducted an experiment where they put a dot of coloured paper on the nose of a young toddler, then put it in front of a mirror.
The child tried to take the dot off the nose of the reflection.
Beyond 2, the child would look into the mirror, and try to get the dot of its own nose.
Hence the 'terrible two's'. That's when they realise they are one of many, and actively strive to stay on top. Tantrums abound....
I posted this following comment in another thread:
(Chris's) Earth Ninja's post has everything to do with Buddhism. "Self, others and no self" I don't think he has been lecturing us, it has been a discussion verging on a debate at times. All healthy and all good!
I was interested in Buddhism as a religion, there was a deep resonance that there was a truth in all this. I dived head first into it, my only agenda was to understand this... Why am I here? Why do we suffer? What is this enlightenment.
Only these questions were important to me, as some beliefs started to crumble I began seeing another side of all this. So my nose was always onto the truth of this... Weed out the bullshit and find the truth.
That's what lead me into more of the Advaita and non dual teachings. They pointed directly... Not in past or future or scriptures but actually LOOK. Don't think. LOOK.
More beliefs and ideas dropped off... They still had an air of I AM consciousness, or the absolute or whatever. Still a separation.
Then I was walking home one day with the dogs, I was feeling agitated about work and I remember thinking about Mondays problems. Suddenly all lines fell away, I couldn't find myself anymore. There were thoughts about it but they were just a tiny happening...
Chris walked into the house and made a coffee... There was nobody doing all this.
My father then walked into the house and a conversation took place.
I remember looking at my fathers face and knowing this was it... Life was doing all of it. It completely felt like realising you were dreaming. Except there is no dreamer.
All your senses heighten and the vividness and luminosity of seeing were incredible. No separation anywhere. Everything is happening in this... It's made of this... Both one and not one.
I then wanted to try and recapture this, more than anything. I knew this was the sages were pointing too. It all made perfect sense now... Only it was later I realised I couldn't do it.
The thing that dropped off during this, was me. I never had an awakening. Because I wasn't there.
This lead me onto further lectures and listening to others and I found out that many people are fully awake. They describe this and I know without a doubt, this is it. This is why we suffer, and this is the cessation of it.
So it's not that I'm not interested in Buddhism, the emptiness teachings, non self, Anatta, anicca are all true.
But it's the methods, ways of getting this, meditations, the middle way...
Are all ways the seeker tries to grasp this.
But it can't be grasped. It already is.
I can't help but share this, we are all seekers in a way so I share. Just like everybody else does.
There is no right or wrong path to this, there is no path.
Sorry for the long winded reply but it's better to be clear.
^^^ tee hee.
Sounds like a good basis. Every Buddha starts with a simple step. What fun
I'm pretty sure my daughter knew she was separate from us quite before 2 so I don't really buy that one. She just turned 2 and she knew herself in pictures months before that.
Have you tried that experiment yourself or just read about it?
And who is "they"?
They certainly would not survive alone.
It's not a fixed parameter. Some children are spatially aware before the magic age of 2, some a while after.... But generally speaking, that is the age at which spatial awareness, and an understanding of 'separation' begins to blossom in an infant.
I agree, my children were the same. And let's be blunt:
You and I are of an adequate intelligence to be able to check and monitor our children's progress, because we have a deeply abiding awareness and responsibility for their upbringing and welfare.
Not all parents are like this. ('Nuff said I hope,......)
I watched the 'experiment' as part of a programme talking about the brain, and its functions, and what we know for sure, what we understand, what we don't understand and what we have absolutely no idea whatsoever, about.
This came up during the programme.
It just doesn't seem like a credible experiment and doesn't line up with my experience.
2 years is pretty far fetched in my opinion.
I think spatial awareness happens once the kid can crawl around and see things getting closer. That's usually long before they reach 2.
Spatial awareness was perhaps the wrong term.
The term I'm looking for would define their recognition of being a separate entity.
Bear in mind that for the most part, when a young child, pre-walking age, is with others, it is cuddled, held, nursed, cradled and carried everywhere.
So it has no sense of being independent.
It is under the impression that for it to engage with others, it has to have others seeing to it. Therefore, these people must be part and parcel of its existence.
So it follows that it - and they - are a unit.
It may seem an incredible concept to consider, but it's actually true. Children consider matters with the logic they have developed to that point. Not ours.
Young children can be very selfish. If you watch young children at play (pre 2 years) and they're sat together, on the floor, sharing toys is usually an anathema to them. Teaching children to share their toys, at this age, seems like a betrayal to them, and they cry if something is taken from them, or snatched by another child.
And so many times I have been in situations where a child, walking by its parent, will scoot to the front, arms aloft as if to say "carry me". It's not only, or solely a question of tiredness. It's a question of being held and transported, as they always have been hitherto....
I have worked extensively with young children, in my capacity as a Parent Governor, heavily involved with the 'pre-school playgroup' and watching child behaviour, in groups, where their primary carers (parents) and siblings are absent, is utterly fascinating....
I'm not saying I'm an expert, and no, I most certainly do NOT know it all. But I have had the benefit of on-hands experience with children that were not mine, and it lasted for 3 years, on a twice-weekly basis....
Well, we're just talking about the ability to distinguish between their self and anything else around them. That's all it takes for a rudimentary self awareness and spatial awareness covers that.
Once they are moving around, they can sense distance between themselves and their toys or parents.
You're mistaking distance with connection.
I'm not talking about the metrically-measurable distance. I'm talking about the psychological, mental awareness, the recognition of a child seeing itself as a separate essence.
How could they not while seeing things get closer and further away as they move?
I still don't buy it and would need a better experiment to convince me as it simply doesn't line up with experience.
As rudimentary as it is, self awareness and the illusion of separation starts with the recognition of distance (spatial awareness).
Good heavens, I don't know what I need to do to convince you.
Jeesh.
Just because a child is physically spatially aware, does not indicate a mental ability to distinguish something psychologically.
A child, at that age, is acting very much on basic 'animalistic' instincts. It cries when it's hungry and tired, or needs its nappy changing.
Those are not thought-out processes, they're responses to physical sensations.
Let me clarify.
A dog - as I well know - can memorise a vocabulary of up to around 200 words. But never exceeds the human mental age of around - guess what? - 2.
A child of around that age, will have the mental capacity to memorise the same amount of words by that age; it can react if you say "go and get your ball!" by turning round, and crawling, or toddling to fetch its ball, but it cannot articulate "ok, here you go!"
That's because certain physical attributes develop before others.
The power to hear is the first sense we have, or develop. The ability to hear, is the last sense-organ to die, when we die.
Speaking, being articulate in speech, develops later.
Therefore, please let me assure you, from long and extensive experience, that some psychological traits ALSO develop at a later point than others.
The physical connection to others, prior to the cognitive recognition of being a separate entity, leads children prior to that time, to believe they are NOT separate from others because every time they perform a function (hunger, tiredness, dirty nappy) older humans respond. So they have no reason to believe that whatever they want, will not be followed by an appropriate response.
Kid needs: We provide.
Kid thinks this will always be so.
Around the age of two, there appears to a sufficient cerebral development to indicate that there is a distance, mentally, between them and another person.
Now. Let me tell you something else:
The two front lobes of the brain do not effectively and completely connect, until a person is around the 23 - 26 years-of-age mark.
If the brain has been shown to not be fully-developed until this age - as it has been shown that the reason teenagers act like - well... teenagers! - why would it be beyond the scope to understand that it's only around the age of 2 that a child begins to comprehend the rudiments of individual existence?
You can't explain condition and awakening to a 2 year-old.
Why not?
Because it does not have the mental capacity or agility to be able to digest such information.
If you know a child of that age, couldn't possibly really understand, why do you doubt what I have explained so far?
You cannot convince me because it's a mix of opinion and flimsy science.
We are only talking about awareness of self. Of being. We do not have to be fully cognizant to have the most rudimentary sense of self awareness.
No amount of moaning and groaning will convince me that it takes a complex understanding of anything to have the most basic sense of self awareness, sorry.
Another clue to all this is that it's still the case. There isn't separation! That's the joyous news!
@David when you look at your hand right now, where exactly is the line between "you" and the hand?
The mind quickly puts an image of an imagined head behind the vision of the hand... But it's just an image. Or the thought will say. "I am here, the hand is there!, duh" but it's just a thought...
It's so simple, there is nobody seeing the hand. Just seeing. All the lines are imaginary. Babies haven't imagined the lines at a young age yet... It's learnt.
The problem is the mind can not grasp or understand this. It can not see the unity that is already present.
Sure it can.
Right.
Well, in that case, rather than rely on my opinion and flimsy (flimsy?!) science, do your own research and tell me what you find. I really, honestly look forward to being proven completely wrong.
But I'm not going to hold my breath.
(Moaning and groaning is really quite rude, BtW. I haven't moaned or groaned. Using that terminology is both patronising and dismissive.)
You have to do a better job trying to prove you are right before I go and try to prove you are wrong.
You would have to try and prove that we need a fully or even a highly developed brain to have the most basic sense of self awareness. Nothing you have shown me would suggest that however.
Where have I actually said that?
I didn't say, anywhere, at any time, that the brain never has a sense of self-awareness. You're putting words into my mouth. I'm saying the brain develops and understanding of individuality and separation.
Awareness is always there, even in its primary development.
Sorry if I misread somehow.
Ok. So if there is an awareness that can see distance between things and self, recognize itself in photos and steady/balance the body in relation to other stuff how is that not a basic form of self awareness?
It's a FORM of awareness. But it's disassociated from self until a cognitive recognition of others develops at around the age of 2.
Awareness is always there.
But an infant brain does not have the level of intelligence sufficient to be able to discriminate between 'me' and 'them'.
It's always 'me' and extension-of-me', until such a time as their brain develops an understanding of being not only PHYSICALLY but also PSYCHOLOGICALLY separately-functioning.