UnbornTao

Well, that is relative and dependent on you, it seems to me. In the conventional sense, it's clearly relational. For example, we generally don't regard disgusting things as beautiful, because a distinction is being made! If there were such a thing as absolute beauty, then why even call it "beauty" at that point, if it's absolute? The point is that our experience suggests otherwise - that it is conditional. Could it be that whatever is aesthetically (or otherwise) pleasing or agreeable to one's self-concerns is what determines (or a core component of) whether something or someone is deemed beautiful? Why don't we tend to say that dog poop is beautiful? We can also see how it tends to be applied to objects and people - someone is beautiful to me. Is it always a subjective assessment? What's the criterion based on? For example, can so-called beauty exist prior to the application of interpretation? If we say that perceiving an object is different from the application of value and meaning, does perceiving it imbue us with the "beauty-value" of that object? Is the object beautiful in itself? Going a step further, does the object have meaning to itself? A bit all over the place...

Should this be merged with the other one? @Leo Gura

Without exercise, astronauts' bodies quickly deteriorate. I'm not sure what their diet is like, but even if you were to fast for a week, I doubt the consequences would be as severe as those of complete physical inactivity - like in zero gravity.

He doesn't fall into that misunderstanding in the first place. It's like having a realization while drunk - do you think the presumed increased consciousness would be attributed to the alcohol? They're completely different domains. It's not even about context, what you're describing is experience. Everything that they do is affect your experience. It isn't a state either, and the points above still apply to the yoguis. Reread and pay closer attention.

Who hasn't done what?

They said it - informed by their "sober" enlightenments. And I've done my fair share of thinking. Not only that, but I've had 5-MeO breakthoughs too. It's an experience.

I find that incredibly hard to believe, unless the books are very short and/or he breezes through them. In any case, he likely reads a ton, so that's probably good.

Arguably, exercise and moving your body are even more crucial. Bring to mind astronauts who spend weeks living in a space station - a zero-gravity environment. Without the force of gravity, their bodies quickly deteriorate unless they exercise in some way. The effects on the body wouldn't be the same if they simply took up fasting, for example - abstaining from food. (Which is obvious but I wanted to highlight the contrast between lack of physical movement and lack of food.) Anyway, just a quick sidenote.

Precisely. Although, if we're talking about the nature of reality, that might turn out not to be an experience. But that's speculation. It does apply to the world we live in.

Thanks.

That's a good question. Here's a series of initial questions that might help get the ball rolling (a rough list made quickly): The estimation that something is beautiful seems to be an assessment. An assessment is made or created. Can something be beautiful to itself? For example, can a rock be beautiful to itself? Is beauty limited to physical objects? Imagine you have no perceptive faculties: no sight, hearing, smell, etc. Where is the quality of beauty then found? When we say that someone is beautiful, what could we be referring to?

From A Course in Miracles?

Yes, and coming from your present experience. Beyond intellect. Based on real wondering.

What would you call it in your experience if you had never heard of the term, and its associated worldview, in the first place? How would you go about describing this apparent principle?

Definitely. Still, I'd watch for the tendency to keep these considerations in the abstract. Asking experiential questions helps counter this tendency.

@TheGod A suggestion that comes to mind: Start by spending a few couple of days with no distractions whatsoever, allowing yourself to feel bored. Sounds easy enough on paper, but look at what we tend to do throughout the day (and throughout our lives.) Many activities are undertaken in order to avoid confronting that fact. And then, we can question what that condition is all about. It might not be true in the ultimate sense.

Inherent to one's self - the very experience of "me" as it's currently taken to be.

@Natasha Tori Maru Lonely. And it's felt deeply, like a constant background hum, even when we're surrounded by people. The function of distraction often seems to be to cover up this raw condition. It's not that entertainment or socializing are bad, or that they should be avoided - just in case some people start assuming that. Again, it's something profound. Krishnamurti probably explained it better above.

Vernon Forward

Right. Which isn't to discount the potential value and benefit of his work, by the way.

@zurew Probably because the questioner - who isn't shown - has been misinformed and is approaching the subject with wrong preconceptions. Not everything is about enlightenment. Obviously, practices like focusing the mind help in that regard, by giving you more control over your mental state. That's likely what the "real work" sentence refers to - at least, that's my guess. Desire, intention, and intent aren't the same. Intent co-arises with the "doing" of something. In that sense, it's almost indistinguishable from the action itself, though in this context it isn't an action per se. So, if something ends up being done, intent was a component of it, whether one is aware of it or not. You might want to ask him, but what you're probably referring to is awareness - being aware of something. For example, there may be aspects of your current experience that you're not aware of: a sensation, an object, a part of your body, an emotional disposition, a belief, or a thought. This occurs entirely within experience.

Sadhguru isn't even enlightened. Check out Spira, Adyashanti, and even Shinzen Young and Vernon Forward.

I'd add that loneliness is a deeper condition than we might initially think. I enjoy solitude too.

It's about the inherent limits of representation. But yes, language remains incredibly useful in many ways, despite that. It can draw attention to certain realities and open doors.