“You are not your body”—and other contradictions.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


9 out of 10 cells in our body is actually bacteria, not our own biological material. So only 10 percent of our body is actually our own organic material. About 60% of our body is water. So out of the 40% that is not water, 10% of it is us. And now take that 10% and realize that it is 99% empty space.

That which we call our bodies is actually not much at all. It's more the world and the creatures we share it with than it is ours. One could argue that every human being that has ever existed is an actual sample of the universe. The same materials and principles observed in the human body are replicated everywhere. Take a human being and you have a physiological sample of the universe.

AfterInfinity
So out of the 40% that is not water, 10% of it is us. And now take that 10% and realize that it is 99% empty space.

Maybe the 99% is what you really are but because you are seeing the apparent solid things you forget about the nothing embracing all together and in all things.

Have you ever entertained the thought that you are the holodeck and all apparent 3D images are actually made in you, made of what you are - just a light show?

NiNjABackflip

As a thought experiment, I imagine reverse engineering my body, taking it apart piece by piece until I find out what’s left of myself at the end. I imagine removing my eyes, and with it, everything I’ve ever seen. I remove my ears and every sound I’ve been privy to becomes silent. The lungs are removed; the draw of breath has ended. My brain confiscated, and with it every thought and memory and imagination. This goes on and on until at last I’m at my heart, which then, without the rest to pump blood to, dries and withers into dust, along with every living moment of my existence. What remains?

It is to me both interesting and paradoxical that in arguing your case against the existence of formless spirit, you describe a process of mental de-construction of the body... a thought exercise that is often taken as the classical initiation rite for shamanism - which in turn necessitates belief in the existence of a vibrant and sustainable 'nothing' beyond the physical. Truly fascinating and thought-provoking... like one of those logic arguments they use to break the minds of computers.

reply to post by nwtrucker

I find your post amusing. Those of us that have the certainty that we are not our bodies, or most anyways, don't have a need to proclaim it, any doubt, any need for re-enforcement.

Yet you seem to have that need.

My desire is that people quit slandering themselves, me and everything else that is bodily in nature.

You answer your own question, your beliefs have been a lie. A fearful thing to have to even consider, without epiphany.

It's either a sublime desire on your part for help reaching that epiphany or a demand for validation/re-enforcement in your uncertain beliefs.

I do answer my own questions. They were indeed rhetorical.

I don't think my beliefs were a lie. They were only a transition to a more practical and useful set of beliefs.

Look inward, not on these boards. That''s about the best I can do to assist you in your self-made adventure.

Here's one more...try forgiving yourself. Your self imposed "incarceration" holds you back.....

I appreciate the assistance, but I am not on a search. I am trying to express myself for my own enjoyment. And I'm not sure how I've incarcerated myself; I can still do the same in thought as everyone else.

reply to post by Unity_99

I guess associating with the body brings comfort to some. It would be mind boggling for them to realize that there is no time. Its a program in the brain, ie compared to a computer program in wordpad, that makes the program operate the way it does and helps define the realm its in in an ocean of channels, that are all at once. And all the timelines are more like snapshots laid out in the Now. so all the lifetimes you've ever lived, and will ever live all exist around you in the Now. Past/Present/Future, all at once. You are in many diverse bodies, all of which are not you. you are the driver of the car.

It must be pointed out that computers are models of the human mind and not the other way around. I think people saying the mind is like a computer is misleading and confuses those who ponder it. It should be stated that the computer is like a mind.

Can a computer think? That's like asking if a submarine can swim. It is irrelevant. There is actually a lot of debate about this in the philosophy of mind and language over the past 100 years.

Consequently, we are not drivers of the body, simply because it is not a vehicle in any shape of form.

reply to post by crankyoldman

The idea here is the body is used as an expression for you, an Avatar in a video game, which gives you a temporary experience. In case some folks are confused, the only way into Earth is to get a body, and the only way off Earth is to DIE. So, the body is temporary by any definition.

The next level of discussion is what animates that vehicle? The OP wants to believe it is them that animates - the OP is right. There is no conflict there, what the OP seems to be expressing in a fearful manner is the idea that once without a body, there is no more OP, but a blob. This is incorrect, once out of the body you will still be you, just without the body.

These are good points.

We must remember that things such as avatars, video games, simulations, vehicles are all human built entities emulating nature. Nature, however, does not emulate what humans create, and never has. So I think it's fallacious to compare our bodies to avatars and vehicles, because those creations would not exist without us being bodily in nature. It's like comparing the birdsnest to the bird, when there is no comparison. The body is a prerequisite for the existence of all avatars, vehicles and simulations.

I believe the "you" that we often believe persists beyond the body still exists in the memories of others. In that sense, sure, there is an afterlife, however it is not who we once were, but someone else, experiencing it.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Maybe the problem is with the word 'body', which one usually associates with the dumb material of the world. I would say, the word 'body', like the word 'soul', is still an abstraction of what stands before us. So by me saying we are bodies, I am limiting our organism, as it doesn't fully encompass what I am. However I am using the term body to relate our physicality in a commonly used term.

reply to post by meridie

It is to me both interesting and paradoxical that in arguing your case against the existence of formless spirit, you describe a process of mental de-construction of the body... a thought exercise that is often taken as the classical initiation rite for shamanism - which in turn necessitates belief in the existence of a vibrant and sustainable 'nothing' beyond the physical. Truly fascinating and thought-provoking... like one of those logic arguments they use to break the minds of computers.

I am using the thought-experiment technique of philosophy that necessitates no such belief. I am using words, imagination, reason, experience and logic as tools to test my intuition. No sustainable nothing is required.

reply to post by woodwardjnr

I guess it depends upon perspective. One could argue the body is just a bunch of atoms vibrating at a certain rate to give the image of form. If you magnified your had to such a degree that you could only see the atoms in your hand, you wouldn't see them as being all connected, the closer you looked, you would see huge casts of space between each atom, magnify further and you would see the bits that make up the individual atoms in your hand. There would be a lot of empty space inbetween. A whole lot of nothingness.

Yes, if we lived on a scale where we could wander through atoms, there would be a whole lot of empty space. However, we don't exist there; we are not small enough for it. That space has little to no significance on the scale we exist on.

reply to post by NiNjABackflip


you're absolutely right to think that because it is the trap of language. nearly 2000 years ago, a fella by the name of Nagarjuna in India figured out that the only way to even come close to approximating "truth" is to accept that there are always 2 of them....truths that is. you can say "you are not your body" and be speaking the Absolute or Ultimate Truth because, I mean really, your cells are being reborn and every 7 years you are completely new cells...where did "you" go? if "you" are your body, are you no longer "you" if you lose a finger, an eye, or even a memory......? however, there is also the Conventional Truth where things "exist" (temporally) and things like the senses, science, and concepts all come into play.
you might say America is a cacophony of almost-affordable escapes for those unable or unwilling to play by the rules of the "conventional".
just for the record- Buddhism is the middle path between the 2 Truths because no matter what "they" are, they're dual, binary, conceptual, illusory extremes and the only way out of suffering is to walk that razor's edge. this is advanced stuff- most people don't ever get past understanding the true nature of Self which is a pre-requisite for even seeing the path, much less keeping balance.

reply to post by NiNjABackflip


I realized that your motives and conclusions were directly opposite to that of the shamanic initiate. But the parallel in methods amused me.

NiNjABackflip
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Maybe the problem is with the word 'body', which one usually associates with the dumb material of the world. I would say, the word 'body', like the word 'soul', is still an abstraction of what stands before us. So by me saying we are bodies, I am limiting our organism, as it doesn't fully encompass what I am. However I am using the term body to relate our physicality in a commonly used term.

What is "Body" it cant exist without the air envelope around it ,neither the skin envelope ,light or even the food to power it from the environment, is the environment the body? it wouldn't be to much of a stretch to say that the body is that which focuses consciousness. So as you remove each layer much like an onion what is left?, a load of composite parts. Which unless reassembled in the correct way are just a chaotic jumble of elements. So where did consciousness go?, probably where it always was all around.

reply to post by NiNjABackflip

Since you seem quite sure that I haven't had an OBE, I'd like to hear how your experience was different than mine, and how you are more of an authority than I am.

It was you who said you didn't have an OBE. You said it was probably a daydream or a hallucination. I think you were right. A real OBE wouldn't leave you with that impression, it would shake you down to the very foundations of your being. I don't see that reflected in your writing that's all.

Secondly, perhaps you can explain some difficulties I find regarding your conclusion. - How could you remember your experience if you had nowhere to store those memories? Are memories stored somewhere other than the body

You don't drop the body in an OBE, you keep the body but dis-associate your consciousness. For an absurd lack of a better word. It is purely energy work with the body to do this. The body, and to some degree the mind, is still very much attached to you. Though it is not processing the experience at the time, the mind is, nevertheless, receiving the impressions from the experience and is able to generate a memory out of it. But I'm not an expert on how experience is transmuted into energy and converted into memory cells. Neither are any scientists to date.

The experience is much more vivid and real than the memory of it. A profound experience can imprint itself deeper than memory. The experience of witnessing a bomb go off in front of you, is deeper than the memory of what you were doing when it went off. it's almost like there are two different levels of memory. One within the brain, and one within our soul. Nevertheless, one can somehow retain the experience long enough to imprint it within their memory when they come back. Like taking a glowing toy from a bright light, into a dark room . There is still some glow left. Its only understood through DIRECT experience.

Being that the senses are of the body, how were you able to sense that you had left the body?

In your dreams, you have the SAME sensory input. Smell, taste, hearing, touch and sight. How are you able to sense that you have awakened? By using the same sensory perception? No, it's something else which is more fundamentally obvious even though difficult to describe.

When you wake up from a dream, you realized, once again, you've been fooled by your five senses. And every time you fall into a dream, you deny what your 5 senses was telling you a moment before. So sensory perception, does not provide sufficient information to determine if you are asleep or awake. Yet somehow you know, without a doubt, when you wake up.

If you were able to see your body from above, how did you see without the eyes?

The same 'eye' we use to view the final image from our brains (one of which being the light received from the eyes) is the same one that can see from outside the body. You, being the OBSERVER of the processed image of your eyesight, can also see the world from countless other vantage points. Other OBE'ers will attest to that.

How did you experience anything without the instrument through which we experience life?

An OBE is not an experience 'through' the body. That's why it's specifically called an Out of Body Experience and why people, who've had them, say things like 'you are not your body'. That is why it is such a profound experience because through it you find out that the body/mind complex is not the only instrument through which you can experience life.

And lastly, how is your experience different than a dream or hallucination?

Well how is your experience of wakened life different from a dream? In both, you process 5 sense data. There is something undeniably more real about the wakened state. It could be difficult to explain, but its undeniable at the very least.

Thank you. I hope you find time to help me with these problems.

If you are really curious, you should try doing some energy work and go for it. Then once you recover from the shock of it, you can come back and try to explain it to someone who's never experienced it before.

This topic is a slippery slope. Because people who've never experienced it, say that it's imagination and hallucination. And most of them will hold onto their own philosophical nonsense about life and reality, and won't even bother attempting it themselves and experience it first hand.

Interesting topic indeed.

reply to post by NiNjABackflip


Think of our tech, then conceive of levels to infinity, progression to infinity. What we're in is not primitive like our idea of computers, but our body is an organic, warm, natural to us, ai body suit. Its akin to a robot. Higher Ups could create hybrids and yet not alive with a soul, and have them as suits to wear in any environment they're needed in, Or, some of what would interact with may not be what we think, for Its really entering into a movie, and yet in it we feel its all real. But in it, we can color the scenes up, heaven or hell kind of, its highly interactive.

There is no way however that I want to go in depth into this discussion for many people hold very strong beliefs on Spirit in everything, and react to this, whereas to me its completely neutral for I 've always wanted out, and was given the gift in a very lucid meditation, of standing outside, on the poster of the universe, and understood what this meant. So reset the meditation rather than end the lucidity, and was shown the way out again, and a life review was offered. That was kind of like versions of the white room, a very white zone, inbetween landscape.

Waking up from the dream is something quite eager to do, while realizing that this is still a gift, so not to waste moments either if at possible, for they are all gifts. A chance to grow, or assist another or even mend something between people, its precious really, yet so very wrong feeling too to me, in that there are limits to what can happen, and when any means are used for an outcome, that just isn't right. We can't use any means for even a positive outcome and this planet violates both free will of individuals (might does not make right and never will, right should make might).

People can feel really strongly about beliefs, what is mind boggling, freeing and wonderful to imagine for one, makes another really upset. So I don't want to push anything, just bring up what I believe and have been shown, and not push it, for some also feel liberty and freedom in wide open possibilities, whereas another may wish to commune with every aspect of nature personally and the concept that some things might be illusion, that we could be in a private room in earth motel and have things arranged for us, with some things coming through as perception. This is positive ideas for some and really disturbing for others.

So don't want to push it. But don't like seeing boxes, and walls slamming down around people either.

reply to post by Unity_99


I appreciate your views Unity. I am only skeptical because I do not understand how people can arrive at these conclusions without being able to produce or provide anything concrete for us to ponder.

Think of our tech, then conceive of levels to infinity, progression to infinity. What we're in is not primitive like our idea of computers, but our body is an organic, warm, natural to us, ai body suit. Its akin to a robot. Higher Ups could create hybrids and yet not alive with a soul, and have them as suits to wear in any environment they're needed in, Or, some of what would interact with may not be what we think, for Its really entering into a movie, and yet in it we feel its all real. But in it, we can color the scenes up, heaven or hell kind of, its highly interactive.

The difficulty I have is that people are only able to say we are body suits. But every time it is their body suit that is saying this.

People can feel really strongly about beliefs, what is mind boggling, freeing and wonderful to imagine for one, makes another really upset. So I don't want to push anything, just bring up what I believe and have been shown, and not push it, for some also feel liberty and freedom in wide open possibilities, whereas another may wish to commune with every aspect of nature personally and the concept that some things might be illusion, that we could be in a private room in earth motel and have things arranged for us, with some things coming through as perception. This is positive ideas for some and really disturbing for others.

I absolutely agree. I can see that for you and others, these thoughts are perhaps comforting, enjoyable, and imply that there is something outside of this world to live for. To me they are a slander against all that is real, the universe and nature, which are things in the world to live for. Perhaps it is wrong of me to poke holes in such ideas, but it would just as wrong to poke holes in nature by insinuating that the world and the human body are but dumb machines.

So don't want to push it. But don't like seeing boxes, and walls slamming down around people either.

And neither do I. I specifically don't like seeing walls that are self-imposed.

reply to post by Visitor2012

It was you who said you didn't have an OBE. You said it was probably a daydream or a hallucination. I think you were right. A real OBE wouldn't leave you with that impression, it would shake you down to the very foundations of your being. I don't see that reflected in your writing that's all.

I said I had an OBE. It didn't shake me to my core because I perhaps understand what the body is capable of, that it can provide such imagery when asleep or when hallucinating.

In your dreams, you have the SAME sensory input. Smell, taste, hearing, touch and sight. How are you able to sense that you have awakened? By using the same sensory perception? No, it's something else which is more fundamentally obvious even though difficult to describe.

When you wake up from a dream, you realized, once again, you've been fooled by your five senses. And every time you fall into a dream, you deny what your 5 senses was telling you a moment before. So sensory perception, does not provide sufficient information to determine if you are asleep or awake. Yet somehow you know, without a doubt, when you wake up.

I am completely aware of the similarities between dreams and OBEs. Could it be that both are one in the same?

The same 'eye' we use to view the final image from our brains (one of which being the light received from the eyes) is the same one that can see from outside the body. You, being the OBSERVER of the processed image of your eyesight, can also see the world from countless other vantage points. Other OBE'ers will attest to that.

Yes, which is exactly the way dreams work. We imagine we are somewhere else, seeing things, hearing things, while we lay asleep.

An OBE is not an experience 'through' the body. That's why it's specifically called an Out of Body Experience and why people, who've had them, say things like 'you are not your body'. That is why it is such a profound experience because through it you find out that the body/mind complex is not the only instrument through which you can experience life.

Or it could be just a dream, and the body is the instrument that is dreaming and providing OBEs. It could be argued that both are valid points, except that one is more likely.

Well how is your experience of wakened life different from a dream? In both, you process 5 sense data. There is something undeniably more real about the wakened state. It could be difficult to explain, but its undeniable at the very least.

If we are to continue comparing OBEs to dreams, what's stopping us from taking the next step and saying that OBEs are in fact dreams? I wish to know what is different between a dream and an OBE? So far I can see no difference.

If you are really curious, you should try doing some energy work and go for it. Then once you recover from the shock of it, you can come back and try to explain it to someone who's never experienced it before.

I have done that and explained it is exactly like a dream or hallucination.

Susan Blackmore may be more of an authority than I. She is a new age parapsychologist who has studied OBEs for quite some time. Here's her article on the subject if you wish to take a look.

OBEs and Sleep Paralysis

reply to post by NiNjABackflip

The Op has asked about the body and how the idea of we are not our body came to be and how it is ridiculous of a concept. The op finds it funny and wonders how little one must think of himself to declare such a thing. Yet the message is missed in the observation. To that end there are a few things that can be stated:

What the statement ultimately represents is part of a philosophical argument, to determine what is and is not real, and ultimately, sounds like something that a person who is following an eastern belief would state, that in particular Buddhism, and is a means to achieve enlightenment. The arguments are more personal in nature, designed to help a person overcome the attachment to life and the physical form by refuting the actual body itself. It is part of a 2 part argument the first being the very center of being or the “I”.
But back to the statement of the body, and stating that the body does not exist. If the body exists as it appears, it must exist in one of two ways: as its parts or separate from its parts. If the body is one with its parts, is it the individual parts or the collection of its parts. If it is the individual parts, then is it the hands, the face, the skin, the bones, the flesh or the internal organs. Is the head the body? Is the flesh the body? By going through that way you can see that none of the individual parts of the body is the body.
If the body is not is not its individual parts, it is a collection of its parts? The collection of the parts of the body cannot be the body. Why? The parts of the body are all non-bodies, so how can a collection of non-bodies be a body? The hands, feet, and so forth are all parts of the body, but not the body itself. Even though all these parts are assembled together, this collection remains simply parts; it does not magically transform into the part-possessor of the body.
We should recall how our body appears to us when it is praised or insulted. It appears to be, from its own side, a distinct unit. It does not appear as something that is merely designated as a unit but which is in fact made up of many separate parts, like a forest or a herd of cattle. Although the body appears as a single entity that exists from its own side without depending upon the limbs, trunk and heat, reality it is merely designated to the collection of these parts. The collection of the parts of the body is an aggregation of many distinct elements that function together. This aggregation may be thought of as a unit, but that unit has no existence independent of its constituent parts.
If the body is not its parts, the only other possibility is that it is separate from its parts; but if all of the parts of the body were to disappear there would be nothing left that could be called the body.
Ultimately the statement, that you are not your body is a paradox of truth. On one hand, no you are not just your body, there is more to any one person than what they would or are willing to imagine, at the same time, the ultimately paradox exists as part of the argument that was laid out that we are not our bodies in the sense that we would see such.

Many posters here have gave wonderful answers.
My favorite quote from a very wise guru:
"There is no cloud inside the cloud, no tree inside the tree; there is no man inside the man".

If you want to ponder something, ponder this:
I say "my car", so I am not my car, "my" house, so I'm not my house. I say "my feelings", "my thoughts", "my ideas' but obviously I am none of these since they are there and I am here observing them. They come and go and I always stay. I say "my body" but if I am my body, who is aware of it? Who is watching it? Can an eye see itself?

Isn't the body just one of "my" things like the rest of the things exemplified above? Then WHO AM I?

reply to post by WhiteHat

Isn't the body just one of "my" things like the rest of the things exemplified above? Then WHO AM I?

Great observations. I can only try to rationalize an answer as best I can.

The "I" is that which says "I". The "I" is that which points to itself when it says "I". The "I" is that which asks the question "who am I".

Where do these words come from? The body. What thinks the question? The body. What calls itself "I"? The body. But in reality, there is no "I", because the body isn't an "I". It can never produce an "I", it can only do an "I".

If so, the "I" or ego is not any sort of concrete thing, but the body performing a function.

I realize "body" is an insufficient term, but I'm using it for clarity's sake.

NiNjABackflip
reply to post by WhiteHat

 

Isn't the body just one of "my" things like the rest of the things exemplified above? Then WHO AM I?

Great observations. I can only try to rationalize an answer as best I can.

The "I" is that which says "I". The "I" is that which points to itself when it says "I". The "I" is that which asks the question "who am I".

Where do these words come from? The body. What thinks the question? The body. What calls itself "I"? The body. But in reality, there is no "I", because the body isn't an "I". It can never produce an "I", it can only do an "I".

If so, the "I" or ego is not any sort of concrete thing, but the body performing a function.

I realize "body" is an insufficient term, but I'm using it for clarity's sake.

But then again, there is a body and there is an awareness of body; two different things. Yes they are connected, but not the same. The body is changing; you look in the mirror at the age of five, then ten, then twenty, and see a different body. Yet "you" are the same you. The awareness never feels older, or different.
A body is just a sum of parts; you know the body but the body doesn't know you.
Everything that you can observe is different than you; everything an eye can see is different than the eye.
Again, can an eye see itself? can a knife cut itself? Can a self see itself?
You cannot observe yourself, you can only BE yourself; so if you can observe your body, your feelings, your memories and so on, you are different than them.