UnbornTao

It is about one's relationship to beliefs. Also, most assumptions aren't recognized as such, but are subliminally-held and these make up how we experience reality--like fish in water. Observe how belief tends to close people off, as it effectively displaces openness. Acknowledging their beliefs as beliefs is difficult for people, much less questioning them, as this inquiry, done sufficiently deeply, would invalidate their reality. They'd have to admit that their cherished convictions are but affectations, intellectual indulgences adopted from without in order to make up for their unwillingness and incapacity to experience things for themselves. What if your self (what you take yourself to be) is itself an assumption? This is how deep this belief business goes. About the realization, you hold it as relative, as a process. You think there is something there, or a "there" to be found, as if under a rock, or in the depths of our unconscious minds. It is a sudden event, and why it occurs is a mystery to me--not sure it is even possible to know that--you just do it, you make a leap in consciousness. You could get enlightened while walking the dog or cooking a lasagna. In this context, I was taking knowledge to be direct apprehension of what is true. Such recognition is true in so far as the depth of it goes--assuming it is authentic. "Knowledge", then, is everything else that is indirect--a product of mind and perception. I might be leaving some of your points unaddressed.

It might be a emotional state or disposition that is generated when, after having sufficiently met your needs and wants, you cling unnecessarily to the pursuit of more for its own sake, hoping it will fulfill something it cannot--such as emotional needs, a longing for meaning, intimacy, or recognition. Regardless of that, What is so-called greed when experienced for oneself? For example: What about the functional pursuit of money might eventually turn into a "greed" relationship?

@Razard86 You try to defend your position so firmly, it makes me think that you might be speaking from intellect rather than personal, experiential insight. Why the strong, even defensive, assertiveness? If at this moment the truth is unknown, better to acknowledge that. That helps us investigate with fresh eyes, or in a new light.

Learned a new word.

Reconsider what contemplation is.

I can imagine what this thread might turn into.

Haven't you noticed yet that he lies all the time? Not that hard to see, in my view.

Take it deeper than memorizing content. It's about understanding the workings of something, what something is, etc. An observation or valid insight doesn't need to be remembered, in the same way you don't need to remember that your experience of breathing right now.

And a principle. Like the finger pointing at the moon. When it comes to your nature (or anything else for that matter), belief is actually an impediment, as it precludes questioning. Bring to mind what you believe about yourself--I bet that set is considered to be true or descriptive of yourself, at least in some way, if we're honest about it. That certainty gets in the way of a genuine and open inquiry. After all, why question in the first place if "the answer" is already known (assumed)? It's just that in this context, "knowledge" is covered up ignorance, as the underlying condition remains the same--we have no clue about what being is. Besides, no method for itself can achieve it for you--it might help in a lot of ways, too, such as by focusing the mind. Similar to how no action within a dream can wake one up. See above. If you "know", then there's no possibility for discovering something new, or beyond what you currently hold as the truth. It could be said that on this thread I'm advocating for a change in how we relate to this matter. That relationship would go like this: Inquire and grasp your nature. Direct is the way to go. Reading, research, dialogue, are useful for certain things. However, the absolute must be gotten in a direct fashion--the breakthrough itself is what's important. Recognize your knowledge and beliefs as what they are, and set them aside when questioning the nature of anything. If it is a genuine recognition, which might not be as common as it is thought, then it is self-validating, yet the validity isn't found in mind, preference, conviction, but rather on the consciousness if the thing itself. As far as the enlightenment goes, your consciousness of what was realized is clear and by definition true. Do we? To what degree? Do we experience that difference deeply? Isn't it mostly a notion? This recognition can still be deepened. For example, consider that most of what you call yourself is conceptual in nature, yet it appears to be solid and real. You apply meaning to things. Is it true? is the question to ask, in my view. In any case, why you engage in something determines the meaning it has for you. Forget about the formless unknowable. Like I said, it just gets in the way. This is why I shared that fancy zen quote on my other post. Now we are focusing on the words, missing an experience of the truth that might lie underneath them. Depends on what you mean by meaningful. As a term, it points to a possibility. Any other use apart from that might cause more harm than good. What's a meaningful conversation? As it isn't a thing, my guess is that it can't be shared.

I'm saying there is no substance to enlightenment and so no property or thing that can be pointed at--that's one reason why I recommended checking out guys like Rinzai and Ramana. Consider that Ramana's "deepest" teachings were said to consist of him sitting in silence, and you'll notice a lot of "nonsense" in Rinzai's communications. I can understand the desire to understand enlightenement via the mind and intellect, yet taking this too seriously is counterproductive. Rather than adding more notions onto our experience of self, what we want is to substract what's false from it, so to speak. Also, trying to fit a square peg in a round hole leaves out the reality of what's being referred to--this dilemma is encountered every time we deal with "enlightenment." I do want to acknowledge the possibility of transmission, too, but don't know anything about it. Who knows? Mu!

That you hold such a relationship to what I said is your contribution, not mine. And it shows we don't like our fantasies being destroyed. Consider that there might be some truth to it.

Those are more experientially-oriented terms while "philosophical" ones are more difficult to relate to. As an example, "me" and "I" were probably one of the first words you learned, while many people haven't even heard of nonduality, which is a term abstracted out from experience. (?) A spiritual term can be intellectually apprehended, yet highly abstract ones might in some ways preclude personal discovery. Abstraction is convenient for the mind because nothing or very little gets confronted within your self-experience--just notions being discussed, refuted, agreed upon, etc. In the context of enlightenment work is where this negation or mindset, if you will, comes in--I wasn't very clear about that from the beginning. About understanding and communication, it depends on what you are up to, but it is obviously needed and valuable. We would have to start by clarifying for ourselves what is being communicated and for what purpose.

You might conclude at some point that "everything is constructed by the mind." Whether that statement is based on an authentic insight or not remains to be seen. In the meantime, these are two possible dispositions to approaching that notion: "Fuck it, nothing matters" (taken as a negative thing) and, as a result, engage in bad quality creation, or; "Okay, let's make sure the things I construct are functional, effective, healthy"

If a name is given, people cling to it and miss the reality. If no name is given, we remain unaware of its existence. This is a principle. Faith, adopting ideas as true. In essence, your intention is to fit what by nature is "unknowable" and formless into a thing that can be intellectually grasped, which we could then share and discuss about. Hence why I brought up that point. It is not that realization can't be exhaustively described, it is that the desire to do so is problematic and might be based on false presumptions--such as that there is something that is there to be handed over to others through language. If you study Rinzai and Ramana, you might get a better sense of why this matter is unassailable (unapproachable?) In any case, we like to chat, and some value may be gained from that--yet a kensho is a kensho, talk is talk. This forum isn't exclusively about "awakening talk". But in the end all talk about the absolute is chatter, not a recognition of the thing itself.

Call it the truth, you, one's nature, real self, existence, absolute, not a highly abstract, vague philosophical notion--or banana. Bring it down from the land of airy fairy concepts to your present experience. In what ways do you consider it to be useful? Curious. To be clear, there might be some value to talking from an "experience" of it--probably the most valuable being pointing to its possibility. Talking is symbolically representing (which gives rise to misrepresenting) things, it is not the same as saying what they are (we might not know that)--you are referring to the process of identifying (naming) things.

Yes, that applies to many things. However let me add: That runs the risk of turning into a religion. Some things are unknowable but still true--there's no way around this obstacle, except "consciousness". Imagine hearing: "form is emptiness, emptiness is form", or claims of that nature. What do you make out of that? What can be made out of that? The effort to systematize absolute matters is doomed to fail, and with time it tends to degrade into a form of religion.

Which is to say, in this analogy, that Rome stands for relative, and Greece for absolute. But I don't want to get ahead of myself or speculate.

Me pica el pie.

Rinzai is one of the good ones, yet the "answers" aren't to be found within explanations and notions, not even within the mind or experience. This is why someone like Rinzai talked the way he did. Becoming conscious of absolute existence—of you—is a clear definition of “enlightenment.” When stripped of fantasy, terms like kensho and satori might provide useful direction in order to open the mind. But these definitions don’t say much on their own. No amount of talk will change our condition on this matter. Better than reading, is working to generate insights for oneself. Thanks for the feedback, though.

It actually isn't. I was challenging the self-conviction we often build up with our "knowledge" of the absolute, which is just a form of ignorance. Breakthrough is what solves this problem. We unquestioningly adopt hearsay as if it were a personal experience. "The tea is hot; everyone else says so. Surely, the authorities on the subject must be right." And yet, we make this claim without ever truly tasting the tea ourselves, perhaps a sip here and there. Suffering must be tackled on its own, as it is a result of activities and of your mind. Measurement requires something there to be measured. To put it poetically, nothing cannot be measured in any way, or even "approached." That above is one type of conflating I’m pointing to. The way you cook omelets (self and life) will generally stay much the same—unless it is a profound shift, which is uncommon. What awakening does is reveal what is already the case. Much work has to occur on your part for healing, transformation, mastery, to happen, which aren't "provided" by a couple of kenshos. It sounds like what you are describing is self-transformation. To be clear, I'm not talking about an ideal state, or complete enlightenment--I'm talking about you, right there, grasping your nature. The experience of this is different from what we imagine about it.

No, and in my view you are not being sufficiently self-honest. To be clear, my gripe isn’t with any particular set of teachings. It’s also fine if you want to think that about yourself. I wanted to distinguish belief from experience, as they are easily conflated. Understanding this difference isn't as simple as just hearing about it, and there are degrees to it. Coming from genuine experiential insight is completely different than the impressions the individual makes on us. It's about being straightforward with oneself and one's experience and level of understanding.

There might be some arrogance disguised as humility in there. It's easy to think of oneself as more advanced than one actually is, even tempting. I'd say we tend to generally overestimate our own level of understanding in this work. Logically piecing things together is often conflated with experiential confrontation and insight, especially in relation to existential subjects.

There are roads to Greece too