UnbornTao

I'll take that, and I agree for the most part. It would be better not to mistake the self-image of being 'highly conscious' for something real and grounded in actual consciousness. What's actually happening underneath, beyond the claims? If that's what's going on, it needs to be called out plainly - the justifications people use to feel superior to others, because they believe they've landed on the right set of ideas, don't hold up. The whole story is convenient, but false. I shared a video on authenticity earlier that's quite relevant here. To put it crudely and oversimplified: your shit stinks just like everyone else's. If you think otherwise... pay attention. You're not special. Also, take a hard look at your ideals. And if you want to socialize, do it. Don't dress it up as you being the reluctant outsider forced to play along with 'lesser' games, or anything like that.

We use terms differently. The way I use 'becoming more aware' refers to a process that encompasses perceptive experience. Becoming more mindful and attentive may be seen as forms of increasing awareness. Noticing one's state of mind, body, mood, thinking, emotions, feelings, etc., too. This is more aligned with a meditation session.

Same underlying dynamic. But if it helps, then great. At some point it may be seen as irrelevant whether it resonates or not.

And it's already been settled by you that that's going to be me, right? It's also possible that neither party is right, and that we're engaged in conceptual games to which we may have attributed the characteristic of absolute truth. Hopefully the interchanges bring to the fore dynamics that are taking place - without us noticing - as we operate here. To put a spin on my response, consider the nature and process of your verification.

My questions above, yes. If what you want is to become more aware, there are better questions for that than 'what am I?' For example: What is attention? What is awareness?

It actually makes complete sense, if what's actually true is the goal. (Not our mental picture of "the truth.") Of course we don't want to investigate what pain or hate are, for example. We want love and spiritualism and to feel good. But this will subtly and grossly taint the investigation throughout. What is dislike?

Direct relative to what? He said he wanted to become more aware, and that he was going to meditate. I get the sense we fall into worldviews and forget that the truth doesn't fit into any of them. Why exclude things? What are awareness, deception, fantasy, preference? What is value? Why do we like some things and not others? What is pain?

"Who's the tree that is asking?" before considering what the nature of that tree is - kind of thing. If we start with what resonates the investigation is already biased from the beginning. As an aside, if we use the question in the background to subtly validate our own already-established "knowledge," it's not really a question but a confirmation of preference, ideas, etc.

If it is a meditation, then maybe focus on "what is the act of being aware of being aware?" Or again, focus on what's present in your experience now. Just pay attention and "ask" what is there - not intellectually but actually. Maybe it's just boredom, it doesn't have to be transcendental or fancy, just what is really going on for you.

'Who' first.

It's fine

For sure. We can also get easily confused about what we're calling 'direct experience.' We already live as if our experience were absolute - that, for example, what we perceive has some kind of ultimate status when it comes to the nature of things. It's also possible for us to, either deliberately or unconsciously, 'generate' experiences consistent with our mental input, knowledge base, assumptions, or whatever we want to call it. I don't think that most propositions here, or rather, what they're based on, would stand if you were to take away conceptualization. Huge influence on our experience.

Fuck me. Hatewatch unsuccessful.

Ask that. But your assessment of 'best' will be decided according to your own criteria, based on your personal values. Make it real and about your experience. For example: What is pain? Look into that as you sit bored and pained by having no distractions.

It's worth taking a serious look at the self-fulfilling nature of beliefs. When people say they've 'personally verified it,' be wary of that, and dig into what has actually been said. You start with the idea and run with it, perceiving everything through the filter of your own mental content. If I say that what I've personally verified is different from your own system of beliefs relative to this body of work, what are we really doing?

https://www.reddit.com/r/funnyvideos/comments/1upf3nr/ugandan_minister_of_finance_on_corruption/

I honestly don't think he's even so-called enlightened or awakened. Weird thing to say for most people, I know. If you ask me, I'll just answer with 'magic' or 'attention.' He's gone down a false pursuit, conflating experiences and subjective states (almost always externally and chemically produced) with 'consciousness.' I don't think people grasp the implications of his insistence on, and inability to produce, the promised video. That instance showcases a bit of the inherent assumptions behind such a path. Anyone can talk. Talking is cheap. God, Consciousness, Quantum Uncertainty, perception, skandhas, kundalini, chakras. Thread those into a convincing worldview that you and others like and feel validated by, and people won't know how to tell a 'faker' from a real source. (Now, imagine that you did this unconsciously.)

SUUU

That's what I like to hear.

What's your prediction for Portugal vs Spain?

I wonder what use these discussions ultimately have, other than people liking what they hear and agreeing with it (or not.)

Also, "Everything is Absolute," "Nothingness is the source of Absolute Consciousness," "Everything is relative," "Imagination is everything", "limitation is a hallucination," "The Mind is absolute imagination," and so on and so forth - these kinds of assessments, once believed or claimed, can be used for pretty much any purpose. It might be true that "God is infinite imagination." (whatever that actually points to, which may be different from your conception of it and your mind-associations.) But then, as a concrete example, how is it that, given the inability to record such a video, you're confronted with something that can't be explained away with an "Imagination Awakening"? Tricky tricky. I'm not explaining this very well.

Bay leaves in swimming pools. Patent pending.

Spot on. I think that people can be quite gullible, and this is conflated with so-called open-mindedness. Leo is obviously not excluded from this. If anything, this is a good, practical case study of these things. Sounding like this or that person and using shared terminology doesn't necessarily mean they're talking about the same thing. The more I pay attention, the more I'm convinced Leo is far more dizzy when it comes to this "awakening" business than he'd like to admit - to himself. The situation wouldn't be so exacerbated were it not for the grandiose, superior claims. I don't have a problem with them coming across as egotistical; I simply see them as unfounded.