UnbornTao

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.

Great, don't believe it or anything else for that matter (unless you deem it positive in certain ways), especially systems that are aimed at explicating what the universe and existence are. That would ultimately just interfere with an open personal investigation. These theories are doomed to be misunderstood. Even intellectually grasping them is not the point. The requirement is realizing what is the case for yourself. And this occurs independent of opinion and conjecture, even beyond the capacity of the mind. The main problem is that we do not know what we are—our nature. From this may come the impulse to engage in fun extrapolations that don't actually increase our consciousness. For example, you assume (live as) to be your self. Is that true? That's a good place to start.