UnbornTao

What I said included us (humanity), hence the use of the plural form. Relative to Da Vinci, virtually no one has been able to accomplish what he was able to. It's similar with Ramana, in a sense - not that he was special or anything, or that others can't realize that truth. The thing to acknowledge is that we, in fact, do not currently grasp what he did, nor to the degree that he did - allegedly, presumably. There's something being missed here when we assume we fully understand what Ramana was conveying. This is simply about being honest with oneself, and it relates to my point about the imaginative intellectual worlds we all inhabit. Look at the solipsism and psychedelic "bubbles" on this forum, for example. It might be a similar mechanic as when someone does not see that their religion is not true; it just seems that way for them. I think we're talking past each other at this point, so I'm going to step back from dissecting what another person says. It's irrelevant in the end. What makes a real difference is what one becomes conscious of. And the truth he was conveying won't be found by concentrating efforts on analyzing his words or conflating them with a cosmology his mind may have constructed.

I'm going to revisit the Teal Swan thread.

Forgot to answer @Sincerity.

I think this reveals the gap in listening that I was talking about. Only recently have I begun to notice how poor a listener I am, and how profound this principle is - especially in the context of 'consciousness' communications. It doesn't help that the mind can conjure worlds and states consistent with the input it receives. It not only "observes" reality, but also helps create it. For example, notice how all of this remains purely intellectual for you. You don't even grasp that he was trying to communicate something real and profound. It wasn't just theory, conjecture, philosophy, belief, or hearsay. He was actually and directly conscious of something real and profound. The guy likely transcended life, death, and himself. And again, for real. He wasn't just jerking off in his mind like most of us do. That reality is distinct from the imaginative world everyone else is immersed in without realizing it. I do share the skepticism toward his followers and everything around him; I'd just stick to his original teachings and not get caught up in the culture and fantasy surrounding his image. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what anyone else says. What makes a difference is your own work and contemplation, and whether you produce breakthroughs. This case could be used as a reality check for us, to avoid fooling ourselves - which we do all too readily. Insofar as it is real, experiential, and true, that seems to be the best criterion here.

Oh, I meant it as a replacement for the wild animal in this post: https://www.actualized.org/insights/actualized-quotes-364

Law 6: No one ever thinks they are the stupid one - though in certain contexts, anyone may behave stupidly.

It's a bit of a long one. That's what she....

Woohoo. Books!

Keep it cool guys

You would have to do it with a Buddhist, though.

This kind of person is not suited for truth-seeking: https://shorturl.at/LVTMF

Just for entertainment, might change it for another video.

life's a bitch (and then you die) ?

If what you're trying to do is assess the realness or depth of the consciousness he had, it's okay to doubt it. Who can really say? There's no way to verify it. Essentially, he just seems "convincing," in ways that can't really be faked - like we might try to do. It's said he refused treatment for his cancer and faced his death without fear. But then again, we really can't tell from here, can we? Where would we even place our attention - body language, nationality, following, expression? At best, we might be able to sense a certain mysterious quality in his transcribed talks. Not sure. Maybe we could try to focus on where he's coming from. I'm not holding my breath, since most of us, as a whole, are pretty poor listeners without even realizing it. Still, his stories might give some insight into his awakening, though in the end they're more like side effects. Either way, this doesn't mean you have to believe him. Like I said, that's beside the point. Perhaps the best we can do in this conversation is let his words inspire us, opening a few contemplative doors along the way. And even better, it's useful to notice that none of us truly understands what he was trying to convey - unless you do, which is extremely unlikely. Not to be disparaging, just realistic. If you think he was talking about nonduality, advaita, or any of that, you're wrong. It's like the difference between Gautama on the one hand, and a Buddhist on the other. Night and day. Buddha wasn't a Buddhist. Because he actually knew what he was talking about.

You jump into a pool, you get wet. Stuff has consequences. Now, as stupidly simple as this claim may sound, there's a profound principle underlying it. Understanding it intellectually is just the first step. If you pay attention, you'll probably notice actions and thoughts whose consequences you're currently unaware of. You might not even be conscious of what it is you're doing in the first place, let alone its consequences. Becoming aware of your habits and actions helps you recognize this.

Yeeeeeppp

Fear is a product of the mind. If anything, it is a feature of your mind, although I suspect the weird psychedelic cosmology you're pushing isn't going to help with this point. Don't give reality the burden of your fear.

Isn't it the case that we won't know until each of us gets there? His expression can be dissected all you want, yet that is not the same endeavor as truly listening. Neither believing nor disbelieving are relevant here. The claims he made are secondary to the consciousness from which they arose.

That's not really what his work is about, but okay.

¿Por qué no los dos?

No problem.

I have a fixation on plain honesty (or at least that's what I like to think). Understanding as in "real knowing."

If you think you already understand what Ramana was conscious of and trying to convey, you're most likely not paying close attention.

It's even more prevalent considering that any action taken is a form of manipulation, though your examples provide food for thought too.

Why? Where has he talked about those topics?