UnbornTao

@Rishabh R You have to take ownership of your anger. It is your experience. Perhaps you can look into the hurt behind the anger and contemplate what in you felt threatened by whatever you assess as having helped precipitate that hurt for you. Start by acknowledging that you're responsible for your experience.

Whatever experience is, it is best if one contemplates it for oneself, setting aside what essentially boils down to hearsay. So, investigate and find out.

Depends on what you're talking about. Generally, it is simply becoming conscious directly of the nature of an absolute aspect of existence. Either that, or you could hold it as a relative process, such as having an insight into a dynamic, principle, or condition -- "awakening" to the reality or origin of something in a way that is authentic and based on experience.

Can you clarify what you're asking and why?

That may be the case but it doesn't mean you're enlightened or that you're using effective distinctions and talking about something real and grounded, even if it is abstract. Consciousness can't be mapped, so that emphasis is off-putting and misleading from the get-go. Certain foundational, flawed assumptions may be conceded with such an undertaking. Although he sounds to be stuck in intellect, Wilber does seem to be a smart guy overall. But hey, either you grasp your nature for real or you don't, no matter what others, including yourself, say or have heard.

You changed "want" to "want to receive" after I mentioned that self-generated suffering serves a purpose for us, implying that we (unconsciously) want it. And morality is relative and humanly constructed, no matter how useful or intelligent, so "absolute" is a misnomer and "universal" or "broadly applicable" might be more accurate terms.

@nuwu Okey dokey

Some social sensitivity is appropriate and at the same time don't get bogged down by social expectations. The principle of balance is helpful in this case.

@nuwu just clarify whether you are actually attempting to communicate something real, or using intellect and jargon and conflating this act with plain communication. Then, if you're going to communicate, clarify the purpose of your communication. If you want to show off or look smart, that's also fine by me, but your posturing isn't helpful to others.

Kylian Mbappeee

Clarifying what the activity is about and its purpose is invaluable. Meditation is aimed at controlling the mind, producing positive states, healing, and stillness. No method can produce it as method itself is indirect. You can be at the bus stop (contemplation) so that when the bus comes, you're ready to jump onto it. This kind of contemplation is having the intention to "experience" the nature of something or have insights into it, openly and actively questioning with that purpose in mind. Meditate, if that's what you want.

Help from Claude: Translation: yes.

I consider other teachers such as Vernon Howard and Adyashanti to be more authentic and grounded, but thanks for the recommendation. Selling Cosmologies By The River

If he is enlightened, I can't seem to find much clarity on his part regarding direct consciousness. I suspect he is mostly speaking from intellect rather than from authentic experience. Speaking from authentic experience tends to come out differently, in a way that is more immediate, present and clear, not tainted by hearsay and so much schematics and cosmologies. But I could be wrong.

Remember? What do you mean? I'd say this isn't exclusive to enlightenment, in fact it may be a common phenomenon. Regarding advice, you can meet them where they are. If you've had genuine enlightenments, you may be facilitated in contemplating their experience, and perhaps communicating yours better. This is about communication.

Drink wine and sing to the beloved. Those authors should suggest some practices, but don't conflate rituals and religion with instrospection.

What about contemplating your experience of things?

Al-Ghazali, Rumi, Hafiz, Kabir.

It's funny that you mention Wilber as being above Kant in any way. Ken strikes me as being bound by intellect and by his own fabrications. I don't sense any experiential clarity coming from him. He overemphasizes the map in detriment to the direct exploration of the territory. It's all a map for him.

Not entirely related:

Kant would precisely be the exception to that. He was brilliant. He might even have had an enlightenment experience or two. That level of genius requires some leap in consciousness. What you said above may apply to others, like Ken Wilber and Alan Watts.

@bambi "He who has ears to hear..."

Confronting your experience as it occurs isn’t a matter of intellectualizing--and it’s not necessarily easy or comfortable, either. The mind prefers to keep this kind of work in the realm of abstraction, where it feels safe and no real confrontation takes place. But what we think about our experience may not match how we actually live it.

Eloquent and seemingly profound talk that isn't sourced from your own experiential understanding is an adopted artifice, a mere conclusion or belief. As such, it adds to our sense of personal inauthenticity. What's significant isn't the expression being used but the communication or realization itself - the experience behind it. If there's no insight, then share a question; wonder about something.