UnbornTao

A process is a doing. You're referring to something relative that can be cognized - perception, perhaps. Even when we say now, notice how it's often still not quite Now - it's still a point in time. Even if it occurs in a millisecond, it'd still be a process.

Sure you are. Why do you care? You can always ask what another is, or what life or sentience are, but usually, one would start with oneself.

I addressed some of your points in my other reply, even if only indirectly. It's like assuming that wearing a different shirt will build muscle. Direct consciousness isn't a function of brain chemistry or physiology, which is what you claim. Why would any activity have anything to do with or touch the Absolute? That was your suggestion, not mine. You still ascribe "requirements" and possibilities where they don't apply. What I said is that a state is a state, and an experience is an experience - all of it ultimately irrelevant when it comes to this direct business - including this very hallucination and its contents, of which the drugs are a part. They can open your mind, but only you do it, whatever the circumstances. Likewise, practices like fasting or chanting won't make you enlightened either. There's no how or method to get you there, and no way for us to know why an awakening happens for you. We assume that since we might have had an enlightenment, we'd now be able to reproduce more breakthroughs or access them - yet the "reason" why it occurs still remains a mystery for us. We just do it - we become absolutely conscious. The work always starts from scratch. It may seem discouraging, even hopeless, that no practice or path can lead to enlightenment. But that's just how it is. The good news is that you're already here - hence, direct. Something in the relative world isn't going to produce an Absolute result.

I hear the logic, but it doesn't apply to enlightenment. I suspect it's impossible for us to hear that it is not an experience, because we have no contrast for us to understand that. All we have is our experience - this is where we'll look. We tend to think it requires a method, or that it is a process - that it will change something or improve our experience - that being in a Zen monastery is more likely to "cause" it than being in a library or on a beach - or that it couldn't occur while we're depressed, miserable, distracted, or even taking a shower. Bring up what you think enlightenment is, and then consider that it isn't any of that. This is the point that is very easily overlooked. Experiencing this impossibility for oneself is more powerful than just believing it. It’s an analogy: obviously, waking up is what we're calling enlightenment. The idea is that action occurs within the dream, and so it is different from the realization itself. Hence the impossibility argument. It's impossible to get "from here to there." It isn't an experience. It is sudden and direct. And yet, it is possible for you to "get" it now - go figure. That's the gist of it. One enlightenment doesn't make you all-knowing overnight; ignorance remains. It usually takes several breakthroughs before one would be considered awakened. Yet this "over time" process doesn't change what you are, nor does it change the fact that each breakthrough is sudden. You may know your nature, but not what an emotion is, for example. At some point the attempt to fabricate a worldview out of this will crumble because it isn't mappable or able to be fit into an mentally graspable form. Something like that. You are already you. (!) The best one can do within the dream seems to be to remain open and genuinely want to know what's true - yet even this is just the action you take while "waiting" for enlightenment. What I said doesn't invalidate that certain experiences can help focus the mind, for example - which may put you in a better state to question, among other things. The Zen master is simply telling the monks to pay attention - or helping them stay awake. From the perspective of the dream, direct consciousness generally has to be "worked on," as it's unlikely to just "fall on your ass," as it seemingly did with Maharshi. But in actuality there's no real requirement other than to get it now. And you can do since it isn't something different from you, nor a grandiose state, spiritual fantasy, or achievement - it's what you are. I don't know why or how, but it turns out we are ignorant of our nature. Maybe because we're so distracted by or involved with our perceptive-experience. It's a bit ironic that the truth of ourselves seems so elusive while untruth is so easy to come by. And I'm not against conceptualization - conceptualize all you want; we already do it anyway. The suggestion is simply that you won't arrive at enlightenemnt by a process of figuring things out. It transcends the mind and perception. Nor am I against psychedelics as a stance, by the way. I'm just saying they don't increase consciousness. They may assist in transformation, healing, opening your mind, learning, or generating insights - but they don't lead to enlightenment. There. Now throw this out and get enlightened.

A truly conscious person drives a second-hand Toyota.

You can't say consciousness is absolute and then attribute to it relative features and dependencies, as if it were a process. You're talking about awareness or cognition, that's where drugs have their effect. Consciousness itself isn't mediated by anything, because it isn't relative, or an activity. Do you think Ramana would be less conscious if he were drunk, had dementia, or a brain tumor? His consciousness would remain unmoved and untouched by drugs as well. That's why I said it's prior to the brain. Even death itself would make no difference to it - so much for mediation.

A definition is different from a realization, essentially.

For sure.

I wanted to start a shared contemplation with you: What is experience?

I wasn't looking for a definition with my initial question, but rather trying to ("magically") sense the place the OP is coming from. Maybe there was never a big hairy dick to begin with - nor a self. Get enlightened and then tell us the secret. Either way, we'll have to grasp it for ourselves, so that's the rub.

@Sincerity I see, thank you.

Not sure. Are you implying that self is objective?

Since you mentioned drugs and seemed to be looking for validation, I'm inclined to say it might not be as profound or genuine as you think it is. Even if it is, clarify that for yourself: What did you go through or are conscious of now? And the hearsay isn't useful. Keep going.

What's God?

Seems quite interesting. Love the design.

™️

I thought he was being sarcastic.

- Men

What's a self?

Sounds like an experience, so keep contemplating. Good luck.

It's a genocide

I see. Bring to the fore assumptions you guys hold by asking specific and yet open questions and dialoguing about a particular subject. This helps you open up your minds.

Quick thought but it's useful not to take what you feel as the decisive factor when assessing the accuracy or veracity of something, if that's what's taking place here. Sometimes the truth is threatening to the self; it not only unsettles you but goes against you in a certain way. It's easy to assume that something or someone agreeable and validating meets the criteria of truth, so to speak. Yet, consider that some enlightened Zen masters would beat you with a stick and be strict or harsh with you - quite the opposite of the common image of the charismatic, loving, and lovable figure who tells us what we want to hear in a pleasing way.