UnbornTao

Good thread. Contemplation, essentially. That's the practice aimed at discovering the truth, in one form or another. But it depends on what you mean by awakening. Hmm...

Cool!

The issue I see with this is that you seem to be talking about cognition, or a state of mind - which we could define here as the process of making sense of experience through interpretation. And consider this: existence was the case before you were born and had any state or the ability to cognize it. Yeah, belief is powerful. Not denying that. People may be so convinced of their beliefs as to die for them. In certain cases beliefs can also be very beneficial. Imagine that when Leo says "consciousness," he may well be talking about a different distinction from what someone like Adi Da or Ramana might be referring to. I think you're one of the believers in the psychedelic camp who think drugs can increase consciousness. And, by the way, I've watched the videos and done the drugs, too. I was in that camp as well - until I had to be honest with myself and eventually outgrew it. There was a video by Adi Da - an actually enlightened guy - who made the point that this path is wrong (in this particular sense) and potentially deluding. This notion is something people here are passionately unwilling to give up. The Buddha himself - the legend of complete awakening - could come back, try a bunch of these substances, and claim, "That's not it," and people here would still have a hard time accepting it, or would just come up with excuses as to why that would be. I guess the closest we have to that are Ralston, Adi Da, and Ramana. And what do they have to say about this? Seriously ponder that for a moment. It'd be a real bitch if they were telling the truth, right? You'd be chasing - what? A state? A fantasy? All while thinking that you were pursuing the truth along the way. And to be clear, they can be incredibly beneficial in therapeutic work and so on. It's an easy trap to fall into: denigrating this thing called awakening, whatever it is, into an experience. I've certainly fallen for that before. OK we should probably start another thread.

No matter your state, the truth remains what it is. A state, on the other hand, is a state. Otherwise, what are we talking about? State may be constructed. Be happy now. Fall in love now. Be sad now. Mess up with your brain chemistry (don't, just to be clear). And then ask: What is true regardless of state? Maybe consciousness "precedes" state, or isn't a state. What is consciousness? What is it that you're calling state?

What do you believe to be true that you've picked up from him - or from any other source, for that matter? Anything you believe to be true relative to his way of viewing the world - you believe it and live as if it were true. That is, you fail to recognize it as a belief. That's the short version. Leo should make a video on fantasy. The fake spirituality one might not have gone deep enough. This should make for a good four-hour episode.

Only bald people can.

If you try hard enough, even if unknowingly, you can create an experience consistent with whatever input your mind receives and thus perceive it as 'true' and real. And this can be fervently claimed and died for, like a religion - but it doesn't make it true, even though it can be convincing. Your entire experience is dominated by this kind of thinking right now.

How fitting. I don't mind teachers. You think I'm just believing someone. I was talking about Adi Da, in fact. If you got out of your paradigm and were as open as you like to think of yourself, you'd be able to listen to him. I'm not betting my money on that, though. The beliefs and fantasy are really what the followers find appealing here. It's all connected, really. How do people relate to your teaching? They love the fantasy of it.

Exactly, it's an essential component.

The only thing you have is your experience. Listening requires a shift in how you experience reality, such that you grasp another's experience rather than your own - and from their point of view, not yours. "Listening" to yourself leaves you alone with your viewpoint - perhaps clarifying it or something like that. It's still about you.

Sounds good.

Right. When are you going to set aside your arrogance and actually listen to Adi Da, for example? Notice how, behind what you "say", there really is a demand for belief, even if implicit, and despite what you claim to the contrary.

The notion of Infinity is extremely convenient, actually. You can literally say anything about it, and it wouldn't have any significance either way. That doesn't mean there's a real breakthrough behind it, though. There likely isn't. More often than not, it sounds like a convincing and powerful conceptual fabrication that is being forced onto some sort of experience.

I'm not sure you're as enlightened as you think, to be clear. You tend to disseminate a particular cosmology. And come on, you are quite arrogant too. States are great - and are not awakening.

@PolyPeter @Leo Gura 'Lots and lots' is still relative. Notice how the matter is being held essentially in that manner.

When you say something like "beyond absolute", what are you talking about? You're not hearing what I said. And if we combined our arrogance... Jesus. I always forget that you're likely talking about psychedelic states and not enlightenments.

It isn't "Infinity" when something is said to be beyond it. There has to be one thing that is not another for the distinction of 'beyond' to be made. This is to point out that when you talk of things in this way, it might not be enlightenment. And voilà - bullshit uncovered.

It's funny how infinity is actually held relatively. You understand that infinit-ies is referring to something relative, no? To Infinity and beyond.

Spitting facts!

The point is that you already "listen" to yourself. There's no one else you "listen" to except yourself, since your experience of reality is all that you have. I'm not saying this as a fantasy of spiritualism. The possibility being presented here is hearing something different from the way it is for you now. Otherwise, it could be regarded as metaphorical listening, introspection, or noticing - perhaps. However, this matter is within the context of communication. Communication requires two people. (I can see how your mind might react with its so-called knowledge in response to that). Since this topic is about listening, you have to get out of the way.

Should write about being grounded.

And what's really going on beyond the surface for you? What do you "do" with "it"? Performing a ritual isn't necessarily the same as listening. It goes beyond hearing the words coming from their mouth, and even understanding them - once again.

There does seem to be a connection between those, definitely. It's called an art, after all.

There is the possibility of two people creating the same experience as a result of interacting with each other in this way. It just isn't rational. This is what K is talking about in his quote.