UnbornTao

It was directed to you. Sorry, @randydible. @Breakingthewall Train your listening abilities.

@Breakingthewall Blah blah. You'd even try to dispute the Buddha before actually getting what he's getting across. You can't, or won't, tell the difference between your own conceptual bubble, on the one hand, and what's being pointed at.

I think it was the part on defining context through telepathy, or some such. Frankly, I have no idea about either. I'm confused. 🤔

What's the point of this thread again?

Sure.

Could that happen without the context of language? I don't think there would be the possibility or notion of "an experience being communicated." Why would it? Again, language isn't the symbols or concepts, in my view. And I'd say communication is a subset or function of language. I'm derailing the topic.

@Hyperion Maybe. What do we get by adopting hearsay, though? Notice everything regarding the absolute comes to us - they are ideas and concepts, beliefs and conclusions, states and experiences. Neither of those are enlightenment. What is it? A possibility for each of us to personally and directly become conscious of. What's that? We can't know until we start having some breakthroughs. Everything else regarding "absolute truth" is highly irrelevant. So why not go after a personal breakthrough into the matter? This is where the real work happens.

Start by recognizing that we most likely don't know what we're talking about when it comes to enlightenment. It is a direct consciousness into your nature, or into the nature of absolute reality - and that's as far as a definition can go. People often confuse talking about it with having a breakthrough. As a result, it tends to be a rare occurrence, and deep enlightenment is even rarer. That said, anyone can have a breakthrough. But you shouldn't fill your mind with junk; instead, leave it as a possibility to be personally realized through contemplation. By its very nature, it is seriously not what you think - or can think - it is.

@Cathy92506 Are you Pretty India?

Loved Superman.

Sounds good. It'd be tricky to render the real truth, though - I'd imagine.

That'd be more like purpose. Funnily enough I once learned to create purpose and confused that with context too.

Glad to hear that - it's still a work in progress. Did you mean language or communication in your first paragraph? We often think of language as the symbols or concepts being presented. Otherwise, I'm not sure. I might give it some thought over the weekend.

What does that have to do with context?

Got it.

I guess I'm stuck with suffering that, then.

Okay now, wasn't this thread supposed to be depressive? Come on guys. Enough happiness and more hopelessness. "What have I done to deserve my experience? Why me?"

And yet, it might be illustrative of many of our dilemmas in life. Points to the principle: become aware of what you're doing, and this suffering stops, because it is recognized for what it is - something one does. Stop doing it, and it doesn't exist. Less self, less suffering.

I'd say, one thing at a time. Start with what's in front of you - what is currently experienced.

Thanks, that's good to know. This time I was the one joking. 😃

Shhhh, it's a test to see if it's a fake account.

For sure. Feel free to post anything, as long as it meets the forum guidelines.

What's a paradox? An absolute is always paradoxical - it must contain all possibilities. It is nothing, everything, and infinite at the same time. And understanding that, I'd say, isn't a function of rationality or intellect, not even of mind or perception. How could it be? It is, in fact, both incomprehensible and inconceivable - and yet also graspable. The story goes that it requires a so-called "direct consciousness." That's regarding the absolute truth - whatever it is. I'm not sure about the more conventional meaning.