Spirituality Revealed

meditation is just one way to develop a particular set of neuro-circuitry.
It is a hell of a skill to command your directed attention, but I wouldn’t
say it’s necessarily “beneath” or deeper than other states, of being swept
away, unaware, by romanticism, of adrenaline coursing, even of
catastrophizing and worrying. These are all amazing things trillions of
neurons reacting in concert can do. It is all really amazing. Though the
ability to command one’s attention through meditation, shrink the amygdala
and feed emotions back through the prefrontal cortex etc, is a very useful
skill to someone who feels they are getting swept away in anxiety,
depression, anger etc, no doubt. But someone who is content with just being
and experiencing that versus a total mindless hedonist isn’t really
objectively better or having a deeper experience. 

Good talk. Funny though that his ideas are so heavily influenced by
Buddhism yet he never says it. He talks about suffering and oneness and
everything else that Buddhism is based on yet he doesn’t admit that he’s
preaching Buddhist philosophy. I’m not sure how i feel about that. 

The importance, relevance and clarity of this speech is beyond belief. 

You are not even consciousness or energy or I´m, what you really are is
beyond that…there is neither a world nor people, its all an ilusion.

This is buddism in a scientificly sounding way. Taking away your
personality and becoming a happy kid can’t happen. When you take the you
from you you will take out the bad stuff , yes, but you will take the good
too. Watch the movie Equilibrium – it portrays a future of mankind where
everyone takes a drug to stop emotions and desires. Christian Bale and
other great actors play in it. The cause of human suffering is sin and
death – and Jesus is the only answer to it.

This guy is spiritually enlightened. He must be indigo.

Alan watts

in this place, humans are not the only ones that suffer…billions of non
human animals are forced to suffer and die at the hands of humans.

This man is absolutely correct! Life is an illusion more people need to get
connected with mother earth & the universe and open their 3rd eye. By
eating magic mushrooms, drink ayuasca and smoke marijuana! 

i dont know wtf this ni99a talkin bout

The root problem in Empirical Science is the positing that
consciousness/mind is mere by-product functioning of brain. Mathematics,
reason and logic would be results of this mere by-product functioning of
brain called “Mind”. If morality, self awareness, emotions and choice
(freewill) are also mere results of Mind (the brain by-product) it would
then seem to be just picking and choosing to trust logic over
self-awareness or mathematics over morality and in the end become some form
of “begging the question”.

The only real questions are, “is consciousness trustworthy to know reality
and if so, is it also a necessary part of reality itself?” We have in fact
only consciousness to rationalize consciousness. All rational inferences,
testing models against experienced reality, conceptualizing models, logic
and probability theories; arise from consciousness/mind and all of these
listed don’t and can’t exist without consciousness. “Consciousness” or the
“Mind” accounts for all reasoning with nothing left outside of this
self-awareness that is able to encounter or reason reality otherwise.

Consciousness is the substrate of any possible claim to knowledge and thus
the starting and ending point to posit a reality or any truth. Why would
one limit themselves to posit empiricism (science’s founding principle) as
true, which is also a product/idea of “Mind” but a world-view that denies
one’s self, the objective reasoner, as no more than mere biochemical
illusory as the result of it’s assertions. Empiricism states that knowledge
must be restricted to those objects which can be perceived by our senses.
At the same time empiricism requires non-empirical foundational
presuppositions and these presuppositions are not material themselves, they
are metaphysical. Empiricism must assume mathematics, logic and human
reason trustworthy; and that the Universe is rational and in line with a
rational human consciousness/mind because these are not physical objects
which can be perceived by any of our five senses. Mathematics, logic and
reason originate and reside in the metaphysical consciousness, the mind.
These metaphysical conceptual constructs can not be tested/falsified
outside of themselves empirically thus are asserted as objective.

Empiricism alone is self-refuting layer upon layer. The theory that all
knowledge is limited to what can be empirically known is itself, incapable
of being known or demonstrated empirically. When adding the fact that
empiricism can not answer for any trustworthy substrate for knowledge that
is solely metaphysical (one’s self, the objective reasoner); and the fact
that the only substrate for claimed knowledge is “one’s self, the objective
reasoner”, shows empiricism as fallacious at it’s core claim of being the
only methodology for knowledge. Mind/consciousness is “one’s self, the
objective reasoner” and only possible source for any claim of knowledge to
and of reality. Science may be able to explain what humans are but science
can never inform us of who we are; one’s self, the objective reasoner to
and of reality.

C.S. Lewis describes the moral issue from within conscious beings reasoning
like this;

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust.
But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line
crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing
this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and
senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part
of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels
wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish
would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by
saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that,
then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on
saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen
to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that
God did not exist–in other words, that the whole of reality was
senseless–I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality–namely
my idea of justice–was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be
too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have
found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the
universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was
dark. Dark would be without meaning.” ~C.S. Lewis

Are human observations objective and rational? Is the Universe rational?
Because we can not escape our consciousness to test or falsify these
question, they are assumed to be objective and rational. Every claim to
knowledge originates and is filtered by consciousness and no knowledge
exists outside of consciousness to prove otherwise. Calling one conscious
experience “objective” over any other is fallacious; including logic over
emotions or mathematics over morality. Logic and mathematics can not be
falsified/tested outside of their own claims as being objective. Emotions,
morality, freewill and self awareness are also emergent phenomena of
consciousness. Why posit logic, reason and mathematics as trustworthy and
objective and the first group not? The second group can not be validated or
falsified outside of their own assertions; so what are you appealing to in
order to claim the first list as mere biochemical illusory but value the
second list as trustworthy and objective?

I don’t deny the practical use of science just as I don’t deny the
practical use of objective moral truth in the justice system and laws. I
simply appeal to morals being objective as one would claim mathematics to
be objective as in 2+2=4. One first has to assume consciousness is rational
and that the universe and experience holds these same rational limitations.
Is truth in morality of less value than logic, or less true? Is the life of
a psychopath with a 140 IQ but without any empathy of more value than the
life a kind man with just a 60 IQ?

Freewill to choose ill-moral behavior or even prefer ill-moral behavior may
seem to not be objective but once the ill-behaved is treated “badly” they
will always contests this as cruel or wrong. Anyone as the victim of
ill-moral actions will always desire to escape said ill-moral actions
placed on them. This seems to lead to moral objectiveness. Many people may
claim to be pro-abortion but if given the “choice” that they themselves
stand in as the aborted, only the suicidal would volunteer. No one that
values “Choice” would want to be aborted themselves other than the
suicidal. The question then would be, not if abortion is moral but is
suicide moral. This leaves no doubt about the question that abortion is
ill-moral; meaning that the normal person that is pro-abortion would not
want to be aborted themselves unless suicidal. Suicide is already against
the law, so why is suicide against the law but abortion not?

I don’t deny logic or mathematics as objective, I just understand the
assumptions one must make to assert they are “objective” and apply the same
to all results of un-testable consciousness. The error is with someone
asserting objectiveness in some results of consciousness and subjectiveness
in others without outside “proof”.

Right on! Jeff drives home the vital point of life… how everything
including ourselves are energy~…. Attention = Consciousness = Soul =
Energy of our true selves. Thank you. Keep up the positive work! Wonderful
to see & experience the awakening in us all. Namaste ~

Think of the ocean as the whole of humanity, and the waves as the
individuals that comprise that whole. The reason why there is so much
suffering in the world is because of the perception of the waves as being
separate from the whole. This is a gargantuan illusion. We are ALL a part
of the whole. One ocean, but many waves; one body, if you will, but many
members. There is no separation or distinction; we are ALL ONE.

Because each wave in the ocean can represent an illusion of separateness on
the part of the “perceiver,” the perceiver can feel free to judge and
condemn those he or she “perceives” to be different than he or she is, or
that thinks differently than he or she does.

However, LOVE is the be-all and the end-all of our existence. If each of us
could generate love from within, realizing that “you are me and I am you,”
and if we could treat EVERYONE (no exceptions) as WE want to be treated, we
could instantly change the perceptions, and therefore the realities, of the
entire globe, because each individual mind is a part of the Infinite Cosmic
Mind, and thus we are ALL interconnected.

God is love, not a “being” someplace in the literal heavenly realms, and
love is the POWER and the ANSWER to ALL that ails humanity. Seeing
ourselves as separate from each other is the source, the greatest cause, of
all suffering in our experience, both personal and global. Condemnation of
others is a FORCE in our universe — a force generated by thought and
expressed by the tongue — that is the single greatest cause of what we
refer to as natural disasters, which are nothing more than the cumulation
of our collective consciousness, and is revelatory of the change of heart
that is necessary on both the personal and global scales. Hatred is the
second greatest power in our universe. The only power greater than hatred
is LOVE!

Thoughts are things. Thought is energy, and if could all change our
thoughts of hatred toward people who are not like us, into thoughts (our
prayers) of love, we would see a massive change in our world. LOVE is the
fulfilling of the “law of God.” To love God means to love LOVE. “Love your
neighbour as yourself” is a scriptural exhortation that, if followed, would
completely eradicate all suffering. One may deny this, but the only way to
understand it is to DO it. Love is law. This law of love is as immutable as
the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics. It cannot change, and it
cannot be changed. We transgress it at our peril. As we would have others
do unto us, so must we do unto others. Why? Because as we do unto others,
so it is done unto us. We reap what we sow. This, too, is immutable law.

Absolutely tremendous video! One of the best I’ve ever seen.

This guy either doesn’t understand science or is being intellectually
dishonest. 

“And if it’s true — if the true end of all human psychological suffering is
actually possible — it is the most important thing science could be
studying.”
Thank you for this, Jeff. We’re on our way.