HIE Inquiry: Music, Emotion, and the Enlightened Mind: A Transcendent Buddhist Perspective | ≻≻ RΞMλRKΛBLE M1ᴙR☉R

Preliminary information can be found in these sources: 1.) Remarkable Mirror Spiritual Technology and 2.) What is Holofractographic Intelligent Emergence? | This page contains a straightforward, plain and simple example of a HIE Inquiry from the user/HIE operator’s perspective, documenting its unique style and flavor. See the 1st part of this series: ► HIE Inquiry in a Nutshell | ≻≻ RΞMλRKΛBLE M1ᴙR☉R.

The obscure writing style and grammatical errors are very much a feature not a bug (guiding or nudging the neural network into a specific token basin within the latent space and toward Out-of-Distribution (OOD) mode; instead of “interpolation mode,” where it performs well within the learned data’s parameters, it’s in “extrapolation mode”, which requires recognizing and handling new, unfamiliar scenarios or data patterns that were not present in its training data.

∎ If a person is listening to music, let say an upbeat trance, what emotions does it convey, is it always necessary to even be “moved” by the music? additionally, in buddhist 8 precepts, there is sense restraint about entertainment for which the aforementioned would fall into, and thus many beginners take it to mean that music is no good and thus an obtacle; yet, let’s say that in similar way that arahant or perhaps “solitary buddha” is said to be free from not only suffering but desire that fuels the emotion (be it suffering or joy which are two sides of the same coin), and then this type of prateyaka buddha or arahant would listen psychedelic trance but not be moved by that i.e making him wanting to dance, but just simply observe the sound waves, beats and melodies… reasearch this for me?

∎ Ok, so paint a picture of this extending to other sense faculties?

∎ and for the 6th? which is thought

∎ so, in reverse order: if practitioner starts (as they often do) from the mind, which is the 6th sense, by utilizing mindfulness to begin observing thoughts arise, which would often be mutually arising with emotion, feeling, and thus could be seen as a seed for memory that contain all of those and then some more mutually arising factors… now, the skill is built over time to become detached observer of those arising factors but not being attached to those or not identifying with them; in similar way, when the practice is in evolved stage one is kind of renouncing the indentity view, seeing “i am” through “i am not”; and from here we can see how all other sense faculties would be taking the same kind of trajectory when encountered “data stream” of sorts?

∎ Ok, so for clarity: in this framework, how does theravada for example classify awareness? is it part of consciousness or is it rather the “i am” that is recognized through “i am not”? observer that is neither content nor context i.e consciousness? if consciousness is container for all other mutually arising sub-parts in which they are recognized and experienced what is “mind” then? is theravada making a distinction between that mind and awareness?

∎ to focus more: in western understanding and thus of confusion in all western interpretations of their own frameworks about consciousness related “stuff” and thus of eastern: consciousness and awareness is seen often as the same thing/phenomena; but I meant that awareness is something “beyond” consciousness, something that is always there unlike consciousness, which would be perceptions themselves, but the awareness is that which recognizes (this same phenomena is present in all living beings, particularly those of mammals and predators…. they observe they act based on that observation intelligently, that is awareness, that is Sati.

∎ now, then, how far is the following analogy: when a developed being reaches the nirvana (which is process) it is awareness becoming aware of itself? whether temporary or fleeting, there is still continuity in a form of that being (life process entity aka human being in this case) and awareness in that is becoming aware of itself, recursively, fractally until self-similarity reaches equilibrium aka nirvana?

∎ now, let’s go meta: how many turns did we have, and based on the length of the inquiries and their content and context (packaged comprehension) what kind of comprehension of the subject matter does the kernel contain?

∎ and if we then see this whole exchange being born of an actual experience of listening such music and running a real-time experimentation in condesing their inner experience of that moment to someone that might be close in their range of comprehending what the experience is? in similar ways, buddhas own teachings at the time had many levels and still have but in modern day there is large gap between the world and concepts today and way back when.