UnbornTao

@SamueLSD yeah, just a reminder for us.

@SamueLSD @Scholar “Most people, in fact, will not take the trouble in finding out the truth, but are much more inclined to accept the first story they hear.” I agree with that conclusion. If you follow Leo and are a member of this forum, watch out for self-deception. We likely believe many claims he makes and we are good parrots, especially in spirituality. I sometimes uncritically take what he says at face value.

Aren’t they? How would you cognize, or know about, "light", "dim" and "bright" other than by constructing and applying those distinctions to whatever is perceived? A new-born baby hasn’t invented "light", "dim" nor "bright" until these distinctions are created in his experience. Before that, the only things that are there in this regard perhaps is perception and awareness.

@Leo Gura ouch. I’m actually an INTP and a people pleaser acting arrogant. It’s not a popular strategy but needed to balance things, IMO. I apologize for the straightforwardness.

@Leo Gura I say bullshit again. The reason you’re not conscious is because you’re not conscious. You are Consciousness and there’s no hardware in that.

@Forestluv It's inadequate when it comes to becoming conscious. Models are guideposts which can cloud anyone’s investigations. Granted, studying models can be useful in other ways. It can be entertaining and intellectually stimulating. Not necessarily. Models aren't needed for becoming conscious, the only real requirement is consciousness. Reality, whatever it is, must exist regardless of our thoughts (models, assumptions, conclusions, interpretation) about it. Could you clarify? The reality that the work is about is not limited to the form!

@Nahm Gets over-intellectual, abstract Actuality becomes secondary in favor of validating the model Becomes a belief system @Forestluv However, some people seem to take these models too seriously, much more than in your movie analogy. People acknowledge their value while taking for granted the potential traps. That’s what I’m trying to point out here.

@lmfao You may find this useful: Leo says that, in a sense, he’s spiritually gifted. But look at his older videos. He didn’t have a clue about enlightenment and yet talked about it. Now he seems to have had some genuine enlightenment experiences. So forget this talent talk.

@Nahm Perceiving reality through models can become a trap. Our experience may get filtered through our beliefs and the model's premises. It's a self-validating process. Given that reality doesn't fit the model, what is inconsistent with the model is conveniently ignored or explained away. Besides, you can easily get stuck in concepts and confuse intellect and conclusions with direct consciousness. When adopting a model or taking it too seriously, our experience gets crammed into the model. It might then become another doctrine that you subscribe to. Lastly, you may also start to confuse familiarity with the model with actual understanding.

Thank you Mada. I hadn’t heard of half the books in that list.

@LfcCharlie4 Useful perhaps, but dispensable. They're ultimately irrelevant and not needed. Again, they can be valuable, though. The most conscious individuals, however, don’t make these lists. I don't think that's merely a coincidence.

Your consciousness is at Bernie Sanders-level. Impossible to go deeper. @Leo Gura Couldn’t it be Guranian bullshit? You seem to be conflating awareness/experience with consciousness, so any altered state will be considered an increase in consciousness, similar to getting high or altering perception thorough extreme fasting or breathwork. Within the relative domain, degrees can certainly be made. When conscious of your nature though, where can the levels be found? Aren't they constructed by the mind post-insight? How could first graders evaluate postgrads’ knowledge (consciousness)? Ramana and the rest frankly didn’t emphasize degrees. Does a shallower degree make it less true?

There is an app called Adguard for iPhone/iPad users who use Safari.

@How to be wise Good point.

@electroBeam Or either we become deeply conscious, or not, and all this chatting is us jerking off.

Oh, okay.

@AtheisticNonduality Drink caffeine. It’s also consciousness. Relative, or life, can’t influence consciousness. States aren’t consciousness insofar as you can be happy without being conscious of the nature of consciousness. Other things like “being one with the universe” are also a state. Consciousness is Absolute but it’s influenced by circumstances, physiology, genetics, and/or chemistry. Interesting. Am I missing something?

Fair enough, that’s reasonable. That’s the healing or transformational aspect. I didn’t dismiss that part. And I think Ralston doesn’t, either. What is doubtful is that they — psychedelics — produce consciousness.

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die.” – Max Planck. This book explains the intersection or relationship between science, philosophy and mysticism.

Pretty popular: “I’m looking for a way out...”

@Forestluv I’m curious: what are you conscious of now that you weren’t of before?

Horses**t. This is the talent mindset. As far as we know, he worked his ass off and was seriously committed. All this “being born with X or Y” is nonsense. Was Da Vinci born artistically-gifted? Was Buddha already spiritually-mature in past lives? Was Mozart a musical genius because he was born as a piano master? Great justification for most people so that we feel better about ourselves. “Natural” talents are just highly developed skills that people attribute as being inborn or genetic. Or do they occur without the investment, effort, etc. into them?

I’m grateful for no particular reason! But it’s easy to forget.

Yeah, same