UnbornTao

The main question would have to be "What is it?" What is it to be attached?

The purpose of this journal is to share questions, humor, miscellaneous creative content, and raw reflections on personal empowerment and consciousness. My goals are to deepen my experiential understanding of these topics, improve my communication skills, have fun, and help others see things in a new light.

It seems that the motivation to feel special - even though it isn't very glamorous to admit - might underlie, in large part, this search for originality; also, arrogance, in a sense. Not sure why. Might elaborate at some point. Aside from that, yes. Although those domains were rarely invented by a single individual, so it's hard to pinpoint the source of what might have enabled their creation. Regarding your last point, insight, yeah. That already includes possibility. Not sure about recontextualization, though.

It is about whatever is true - and it's not going to be what you think. If it turns out that nothing is true, then that will be the truth of it - and it will be a direct encounter, not just a thought or a belief. Then again, that's currently an unknown for us. In any case, we're spinning our wheels. If you don't grasp that you really don't know, there won't be any real questioning.

Like Homer Simpson, Trump would've killed for the peace prize.

Why do you seem to be continuously rage-baiting? Is this your first account here?

This can be both true and, at the same time, exceptionally vague. For instance, how does originality come about?

It's just becoming personally conscious of what is ultimately true about yourself or existence. That statement is intentionally left blank because whatever we think about it is, in the end, a moot point. I'm not sure that is what Ramana would say, but in any case, it is not our experience. Speculation aside, the above is the goal.

How does that look in practice? After all, what others see are appearances - the way you, or things, show up in life. We might say that someone like Da Vinci was original. But what are we actually talking about? Perhaps I'm conflating things like uniqueness, inventiveness, or creativity - things that should be distinguished from this.

That's just doing the same thing differently. It's what he's stuck with. Doing judo with only one arm is not what originality is about, in my view.

Maybe originality overlaps with creativity?

Good questions. Was going to post something along those lines. Interesting topic.

By that logic, neither Jesus nor Buddha would have existed. Or, alternatively, we would have far more enlightened people today, proportional to humanity's accumulated knowledge. One could argue that contemplation was actually easier in ancient times, with far fewer distractions. Consider the contrast between the average Western lifestyle today and that of a monk in a monastery. Unless you're talking about intellectually constructing new worldviews, the requirement for direct consciousness has remained constant throughout history. The accumulated "content" or knowledge does not change that fundamental requirement. Perhaps there's a reason we don't see many figures like Plotinus or Heraclitus today. If they were born now, they'd likely spend their days scrolling TikTok rather than reading Kant - and even reading Kant wouldn't guarantee understanding. The Dark Ages emerged after the Greeks, demonstrating (perhaps) that this dynamic is not linear. Also, the ancient skeptics would demolish the average person's reasoning today - and that was thousands of years ago. The common ground is this: a lack of authentic experience applies equally to the average person today as it did in past eras. Knowledge alone cannot alter this fact. And you can be a profoundly awakened "barbarian." Experiencing what's true does not depend on cultural context or environment. Development and "what is" are not the same thing. --- "Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" - T.S. Eliot What a tryhard.

Of course that increasing consciousness includes enlightenment. And becoming aware isn't the same pursuit. You may become aware of previously unrecognized aspects of your experience - like parts of your body or a feeling - while becoming conscious goes beyond mere noticing to insight - revealing the truth of something. It's a bit of a sloppy distinction but hopefully it gets the point across.

Downgma.

Nice quote.

I know, I found his look funny. But in any case, it shows that your point about time is rather secondary. Truth does not change with time. He was an oblivious teenager when he had the breakthrough. Cultural developments probably don't hurt, though.

What are you talking about?

Agreeing.

Turn this into a belief system! https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi

Add to that the cosmology it is coming from.