UnbornTao

Whether it is true or false is beside the point here. Recognize whether it is believed or experienced. A personal experience is, in this context, encountering the reality or fact of some condition, event, or dynamic, as in becoming aware of something. This recognition is grounded on the presence of something, not just your thoughts about it. Another distinction to make is whether the information source is valid–science, etc. The exercise helps us acknowledge our "epistemic" ignorance about whole domains and subjects, without necessarily having to disbelieve the given assessment, which would be doing the same activity.

Experience what's actual and have insights. Create a thought you've never had before for yourself, this new experience is what real thinking entails.

Are you operating in accordance to what you currently estimate to be as "rock-bottom" true as possible in your own experience, or do you, by contrast, purposely ignore, withhold, embellish, that awareness? Then, the direction to go is deepening that recognition of whatever is the case at any level in whatever domain we are dealing with.

It is about the principle rather than any individual. New age is another worldview but all in all, fair enough. A good thing about principles is that they exist and work independent from your mind.

@Carl-Richard I cleaned up my post a bit.

Why are we framing this in such an oddly specific way? We could take "activity," distinction or process as the starting point.

My question on Buddha exemplifies a principle, that of authentic experience. What you said fails to acknowledge the possibility of eliminating beliefs rather than being suck into new ones.

Why wasn't Buddha a Buddhist? May be missing a crucial distinction here.

What does it mean to experience something directly? How much of our knowledge is sourced externally–coming from family, teachers, culture? What is the difference between experience and idea? What is assumed that hasn't been personally experienced?

Will this one cover relativism or is that topic reserved for another video?

Thank God, I was beginning to worry.

I thought you already did that in real life.

Kastrup Kuantum Konsciousness

It's a misnomer. It is always about what you are if it's a consciousness of what you are.

Of the same substance when it is about one's nature. Then depth and expression are different factors.

I guess that would pertain to a "deeper" consciousness about his nature although I am ignorant of what that is.

Ha, gotcha!

Doesn't flavored water undergo additional artificial chemical processing?

With the capital C?

When it comes to consciousness of your nature the substance doesn't change; your nature is already your nature. The depth of the realization might change and that doesn't make it different than or less true. It is you, after all, whether grasped superficially or with increasing depth. Of course there are also realizations into the nature of now, others, space, etc. I was talking about what you are.

I was being cute. Not sure what he meant by flavor of enlightenment – perhaps something like the expression or personality behind it.

Does water have a flavor?

Jagadish Vasudev not enlightened.

It is useful not to engage in fantasies regarding this idea and to dispel the ones we might have.

But what is a self? You've got a point.