winterknight

Yes. But possibly not in the way that you think you are.

Not quite. The "I" that is the opposite of "you" -- both of these are false names. There is an I which has no opposite. That's the truth.

That's an interesting question. Yes and no. I certainly have had some powerful and memorable psychedelic experiences which I would call spiritual. But ultimately these experiences are just experiences, adjuncts. They are magical and cool side roads, and shed insight on certain questions. But they do not form part of my core path.

That depends on various definitions of want and should. But I can tell you that what it is that you want to know -- that for sure is something you should know.

That depends entirely on what you want to know apart from "what question should I ask you?"

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46

Right, I know what you're saying, but the consciousness that you know as consciousness is only the reflection of the real consciousness. When that real consciousness is recognized, then the consciousness that you think you know right now -- it will become clear that it doesn't make sense to call it "your consciousness."

Solipsism is not true if we take it to mean that the ego is all that there is. That's precisely the opposite of the truth. As to whether "other people" really exist, we can't know -- though really, the question is misconceived. There is neither "I" nor the other... so solipsism is not true not because we know there are other people, but because even the solipsist doesn't exist (well, not in the way that they think they do).

Nah, no worries

No. The enlightened person is not their body. The body may react one way, but that has not bearing on the inner experience of the enlightened being. Being able to withstand stabbings without pain may be some kind of weird yogic discipline, but it has nothing to do with enlightenment. I don't really prefer the mixing of brain processes and atman-brahman language... but whether or not we accepted this model, I'm not sure it has much bearing on the spiritual quest either way. That is based on an exploration of our own personal experience of the "I," not the brain. Because it didn't seem like a serious question... but ok, ask the question to which you truly want to know the answer. Well, "conquering" the subconscious doesn't make a lot of sense as a way of thinking about things. There are certain things you need to see about yourself, but there's a lot that remains unknown. But either way I wouldn't call it conquest.

That's a question not of consciousness but of the mind. It's the mind's limitation. Why is there that limitation? I don't know.

Yes. Ramana Maharshi's self-inquiry is without a doubt the most efficient way, but the real issue for 99% of the people is various psychological obstacles that have to be overcome first. People have to be honest with themselves about what they really want, and pursue it, whether or not it is enlightenment. That is the path. If someone tells themselves that they are interested in enlightenment but they are not, they will get nowhere. Self-honesty is itself a process, however. Psychodynamic or psychoanalytic psychotherapy can be helpful in this regard. Consciousness has many definitions. One of them is: that which knows. Even the idea that ego is an illusion is not strictly correct; it is not even that. Even the illusion doesn't exist. We are not our bodies, so we do not die. Consciousness never ends. Kids do have consciousness of themselves, only that consciousness reflects objects that are rudimentary and undeveloped.

It is not I who sees that difference, and therefore not I who has to deal with that problem. There is in fact no world. Whoever accepts the world has to deal with the world. But you have to see this in your own experience by inquiring into the self. Hearing it just as words, it will of course sound like gibberish.

Ha! It's what I should have expected if I were halfway thinking. And thanks....

Consciousness does not turn off during sleep. Consciousness never turns off. Conventionally, in Vedanta, we'd say consciousness is aware of the pure ego and it alone in sleep. I certainly agree that the body does not generate consciousness. Yes, you can say the brain receives consciousness if you want.

I've already answered it multiple times, but you're not accepting my answer. The idea of an experience in a mind is a misconception. There are no actual experiences in minds. There's no stabbing, no stabber, no stabbee. But if you insist on me distorting the truth and accepting the existence of experiences and minds and knives and putting things into those terms, then there will be the appearance of suffering in the mind.

There are multiple answers to this question, depending on the level of understanding of the listener. The truest is that I can never be stabbed. The true I is not stabbable. If you insist on identifying me with the appearance of a body in a world, then I will say that there appears to be pain. But that is all a dream, an appearance, an illusion, a misconception.

There is no such person as the "I" who is reacting to this. That's the fiction.

Actually, the Buddha started just that way: he called himself Tathagata, the awakened one. It's right in that set of Buddhist scriptures known as the Pali canon.

Yes.

What can be enlarged can be reduced. The only enlightenment worth its salt is the realization of something that is already and always has been perfect and needs no further adjustment.

How would you intend to get back to that place?

So there are two answers to this question. If you insist on answering the question "in duality," these questions will be unanswerable mysteries. We can just accept that. The other path is the nondual path -- find out who is the one who is aware of all these perceptions and all these questions will disappear.

Neither you nor I came into being. We are both nothing but the Self, that which is beyond all dualities and which cannot be described. Yet, since we are trying: it is the complete, perfect, unchanging ever-present which knows itself by itself.

There are lots of different ways to answer the question. If you want I could say there is pain. The body might appear to be doubled over, a voice might appear to scream. But is the true I really suffering for one moment? No.