As mindblowing as this talk is, equally mindblowing is the lack of comments. One would have thought millions would be interested.Thank you for posting this video which I found hugely inspiring.
This is amazing. Appreciative that someone with this much deep knowledge is willing to share publicly and not afraid to ruffle feathers. This kind of very specific parsing through different realizations seems rare. Thank you Hameed!
In this model: What is the spiritual purpose of the alleged human invention of FEAR; and feelings of unconsolable loss eg when a mother loses a young child from self-inflicted injury? Why then are so few people self-realized and the knowledge to change one's perception to create happiness downloaded to only those chosen?
+Fazia A: You know, this is not Ala Adin's magic lamp that you're rubbing here -- you don't get TWO or THREE wishes (questions). Ask ONE thing at a time . . . and maybe someone will be so kind as to share their experience with you.
Not only is there no collective consciousness, but consciousness itself does not exist (IMO). What sentient creatures "perceive" is nothing more than code. What we call red is merely Life's code. I thought about this a lot and got to the conclusion that a system is sentient if it can convert physical stimuli to code. So, as far as I'm concerned, an analog-to-digital converter is sentient. Sentient does not mean conscious. "Consciousness" is word/name humans created because we intentionalize everything, including inner experiences. Please Google "Intentionality."
Dan Jacob I thought conciousness was the the ability to realize space and time, which is really nothing more than a code in translation. So you are right about conciousness. I was writing a journal entry about artificial conciousness and came to a very similar conclusion. I said that purpose is like a bot in a game scripted to do such. And that script will choose the best way to execute such a task based on past inputs (memory). Thus is how we learn and make choices (which is what people think conciousness is) So consciousness itself is pretty much a mainframe script.
Ben M Right - an extremist. A nicer word would be a purist. Dan Dennett came close, but he doesn't have the guts to go the whole way. He says we are zombies, but then he always adds a "but", "however" or "except" blah blah. Sam Harris goes as far as the self doesn't exist, but he's still sold on consciousness. Neil DeGrasse made a comment on one of his debates saying "Well, maybe consciousness does not exist." The Churchlands are two of the few purists.
Dan Jacob Yes, in my journal entry, I said we are like natures robots. Most people say we differ from robots, because we have emotions. I countered that by saying that, because of the fact emotions are "felt". The nervous system is involved, so, therefore it is one of the 5 senses. If you didn't feel the emotion via the nervous system, then it would just be a thought. Which is as emotionless as most would say, as a code. I find it is very easy to understand this view of conciousness when you look at basic forms of life. You soon realize they behave like a scripted entity. Then you realize, what humans have are just more senses and more scripts. We are lost in our own complexity is the problem. I did a breakdown in my journal of a man robbed of his 5 senses. Remember what I said about emotions being not apparent when there is no nervous system. Which made me wonder if a computer program had the same scripts as a human, would be just the same as the man robbed of the 5 senses.
If you open any particles heart you're going to see universe insight rumi دل هر زره را كه بشكافي افتابيش در ميان بيني مولانا رومي What a beautiful explanation for oneness thank you so much
If there is an overall pure consciousness that belongs to everyone, what is stopping me from becoming you and you me? What is stopping someone who has experienced this pure consciousness from transferring that experience to another? This a basic flaw in this model of an overarching pure consciousness.
Hi Sam,as Hameed says around 16.54, consciousness is everywhere, is everything. All is consciousness, the perception of separate bodies is just that, a perception. I have 5 fingers on each hand, they are all part of my body, but each finger "believes" it is separate from the others. Pure consciousness does not belong to everyone, it is everyone. Another way is saying we are all energy. Consciousness and energy are the same. This at least is my view, with love and peace, Nemir
Hameed is confused as to what he meant by consciousness. What he is really saying is not consciousness but some form of precursor to consciousness or some pre-consciousness. In the process, he confused people like you as well. If you insists that he meant consciousness to be consciousness and not a precursor to consciousness, then the flaws that I have pointed out in his arguments remained intact.
Sam O hello Sam, unfortunately I did not see the whole video, so I cannot respond to what Mr Hameed says about consciousness. I was in fact speaking about the "overall pure consciousness" experience , which is not a theory or argument but an understanding of reality. I do not insist on anything, each person is free to believe what they want, and I am not confused. If you follow self enquiry to the end you will see that all there is is consciousness, whatever you know is consciousness, you know nothing else. You will also realize that it is what you are, not who you are. Whatever is not consciousness, a precursor for example, cannot be spoken about it, by definition it is completely unknown. with love and peace, Nemir
My argument was against an overall pure consciousness. An understanding that is not even logical can never be a correct understanding or a correct experience. Either that, or you responded to me without understanding my argument.
Sam O If we leave out for the time being superlatives and adjectives such as overall and pure, then just by following reason and logic you will realize that you know nothing really about the external world, it is all a phenomenon of consciousness. You look at the sun and see it in your mind, but what you see is the image of the sun in your mind, illuminated by immaginal light, not by the light of the sun. In fact the sun is completely dark, "light" only exists in your head. That part of the reality which does not make it through your perceptive apparatus effectively does not exist. This is one way in which we can come to the logical conclusion that everything is consciousness, there are no "things". I don't believe that one can say an experience is correct or incorrect, all knowledge is interpretation, except the knowing of consciousness, which is achieved when the mind is brought to a still point and it reflects the truth, that consciousness is all there is. Any attempt to convey this experience will fail, there is no way to convince anyone of its truth, they must experience it, through Yoga or other practices. Perhaps I am completely missing your point as you suggest, in any case I have said all that I can say on the matter. Love and Peace, Nemir
Almaas takes too much time and too many words expressing what is already obvious to poorly explain what is timeless and ineffable. He should go home and enjoy what time and mental dexterity he has left playing with his grandchildren.
His point is clarity and distinctions between the intricate traditions and varieties of religious experience, because he is laying the foundations for a scholarly discipline that does not separate consciousness from psychology, rather than painting everything with some big mystifying brush and turning the intellect to mush. There is a history and a strong case to be made for the rigorous study of consciousness, if its not for you you can watch Oprah and sing yourself to sleep with self-affirming platitudes.
