UnbornTao

Pretend to be humble and gracious, yet act dogmatic and closed-minded. I don't hear a real attempt at listening on your part - you always know everything. You'd even try to dispute the Buddha before grasping what he's actually saying. The arrogance! It's like a child who hasn't yet learned to walk, criticizing Messi's football ability. First, learn to walk. Then, master the subject. At some point along the way, you might begin to see the folly of your earlier judgments - and perhaps even recognize that some masters truly deserve the title.

It was directed to you. Sorry, @randydible. @Breakingthewall Train your listening abilities.

@Breakingthewall Blah blah. You'd even try to dispute the Buddha before actually getting what he's getting across. You can't, or won't, tell the difference between your own conceptual bubble, on the one hand, and what's being pointed at.

I think it was the part on defining context through telepathy, or some such. Frankly, I have no idea about either. I'm confused. 🤔

What's the point of this thread again?

Sure.

Could that happen without the context of language? I don't think there would be the possibility or notion of "an experience being communicated." Why would it? Again, language isn't the symbols or concepts, in my view. And I'd say communication is a subset or function of language. I'm derailing the topic.

@Hyperion Maybe. What do we get by adopting hearsay, though? Notice everything regarding the absolute comes to us - they are ideas and concepts, beliefs and conclusions, states and experiences. Neither of those are enlightenment. What is it? A possibility for each of us to personally and directly become conscious of. What's that? We can't know until we start having some breakthroughs. Everything else regarding "absolute truth" is highly irrelevant. So why not go after a personal breakthrough into the matter? This is where the real work happens.

Start by recognizing that we most likely don't know what we're talking about when it comes to enlightenment. It is a direct consciousness into your nature, or into the nature of absolute reality - and that's as far as a definition can go. People often confuse talking about it with having a breakthrough. As a result, it tends to be a rare occurrence, and deep enlightenment is even rarer. That said, anyone can have a breakthrough. But you shouldn't fill your mind with junk; instead, leave it as a possibility to be personally realized through contemplation. By its very nature, it is seriously not what you think - or can think - it is.

@Cathy92506 Are you Pretty India?

Sounds good. It'd be tricky to render the real truth, though - I'd imagine.

That'd be more like purpose. Funnily enough I once learned to create purpose and confused that with context too.

Glad to hear that - it's still a work in progress. Did you mean language or communication in your first paragraph? We often think of language as the symbols or concepts being presented. Otherwise, I'm not sure. I might give it some thought over the weekend.

What does that have to do with context?

Shhhh, it's a test to see if it's a fake account.

For sure. Feel free to post anything, as long as it meets the forum guidelines.

What's a paradox? An absolute is always paradoxical - it must contain all possibilities. It is nothing, everything, and infinite at the same time. And understanding that, I'd say, isn't a function of rationality or intellect, not even of mind or perception. How could it be? It is, in fact, both incomprehensible and inconceivable - and yet also graspable. The story goes that it requires a so-called "direct consciousness." That's regarding the absolute truth - whatever it is. I'm not sure about the more conventional meaning.

I complain, and yet I keep bringing language into the conversation, as a model for investigating context. For example: without language, internal dialogue (talking with yourself) and a big part of what we call thinking - maybe even the entirety of it - couldn't exist. Communication, relationships, culture, others, metaphor, influence - if some of these could exist without language, they'd be radically different from our view of them now. Consider how much of your experience is influenced by those things! I've been trying to look for a graspable "item" that is there, but there doesn't seem to be anything that is the substance of context. I'm facing a wall. Turns out context isn't an object or a thing per se. Space and possibility - perhaps condition and freedom - are some terms that come to mind. Haven't had a direct consciousness into what space is yet. Lots to question.

Hey, I think a thread could be opened for each of those topics.

I was playing around with that reply, but I'd say I agree with your take for the most part - except for your last paragraph. Substances may alter your physiology, state, and cognition, potentially precipitating relative insights, facilitating greater awareness, and generating varied ways of "perceiving" and thinking. But ultimately, the one who increases their consciousness is you - not the drugs or the environment. We can see that even though similar terms might be used, the experience or distinction being referred to often varies between individuals. We could start by distinguishing between "independent" and "original." To tell you the truth, I'm not interested in engaging in such arguments. To me, those worlds are purely based on fantasy, and my inquiry is much more grounded currently. As a whole, we can't even tell our asses from a hole in the ground. For example: what is thinking, in the first place? Do we really know what that activity is or entails? Not what we think thinking is, but what it takes to generate it, and how it differs from other activities that are easily conflated with it, like judging and opining.

Hi, nice stuff. Where do you live?

Noo, it was just a silly joke.