UnbornTao

The point is that if it isn't "true," then don't call it enlightenment (or anything similar) in the first place. Then again, the trueness isn't found in what is said, or even in what is gotten across. So it was already the case that, even if you were the only one who is conscious of God, what you said about it wouldn't be accurate either, because this matter is by nature "un-conveyable." So, you are (or may be, for all we know) "enlightened."

What about those who think they're "God-realized"? This is what I mean - it may well be a matter of semantics. And in either case, it is not a domain or just another distinction. That's the point. If it is an "enlightenment," by definition it is authentic, in the way the term is often used. Otherwise, if it's just an experience, don't call it that. If the trueness of direct knowledge sits atop your thinking, you may in fact be self-deceived, whether you label it God-realization, kenshō, or walnuts.

You do know it's just a term, right? As are God-realization and Awakening. It's becoming conscious of the absolute nature of you or existence. When we say this individual is "God-realized," what it's being pointed at is his consciousness and understanding, not a distinction that the term elicits. It's likely you're just using the term differently, but it doesn't change the understanding part. Call Ramana enlightened or God-realized or liberated, it's all the same for him. You think it is just another distinction within a hierarchy or some such. But it isn't relative, and there's nothing higher, lower, or beyond absolute.

Yeah, it's invigorating! Feels great and refreshing. Highly recommended. One step closer to enlig... God-realization!

What would you say a formulation of a thought is? It'll likely take the form of language and internal dialogue, like conceptually reproducing the sound in one's head of: "This is a thought." The thought could simply be the result of identification, like "apple." In this case, how would one go about assessing its quality? I suspect one of the first questions to ask is: What is the thought directed at? What's the relationship that calls for the existence of the thought? Because, in isolation, it's hard to tell its quality. Also, doesn't quality exists relative to you and your own estimation and needs? The thought itself is just a notion or idea, devoid of importance in itself, and this will likely make up a large part of the criteria for establishing its quality. What's your goal for having it?

Ask yourself what it is really up to. Most of the time, it's a form of fantasy.

@Socrates That was a joke, by the way (since you're Socrates.) Should have added an emoticon.

Damn, work it, ramana!

Ramana was dragged kicking and screaming from his cave by his followers.

🤣

Thank you.

"Dingus", am I right?

Okey-dokey.

@Leo Gura Who's the one believing that direct consciousness is a function of the brain?

Not on my watch!

Oh it wasn't directed at anyone in particular. I'm just saying that the same underlying mechanism is already taking place for most of us, probably in different forms. "I'm the 'spiritual person' that knows best', "my experience is the true one and you're a fool," and things like that - just, on a deeper level.

Why does it seem that every once in a while, a new account from a seemingly deeply troubled person starts a thread calling for help - usually with long-ass posts oversharing their life story? No disrespect, but are you a bot or something like that?

Just consider that one can't possibly get enlightened dishonestly. It's usually quite clear when someone is speaking from an intellectual conclusion. Conflating an experience or state with direct consciousness is a common trap. Replying to past mentions.

It's what's true already. There's nothing standing in the way of presently getting it. But we don't think it's really possible for us to grasp it while doing the groceries - we assume something needs to change and be achieved, like a special circumstance and state. (Since you mentioned the brain in the context of enlightenment, I assume).

Consider that you're very likely doing what the Christian is doing in various forms - the religiosity just happens to be a superficial manifestation of a deeper need for a consistent worldview.

I guess I have a bias. @Someone here I hid your answer again, as it probably would've started another fire. Pay attention to your own role in this, too.

It came and it went, so to speak.

A self-identity (whatever is identified as self) could itself be based on fear as it has no fundamental substance in reality. Just a thought.

@ivankiss @Someone here I hid the conversation, avoid making it personal. Grow up a bit. .... so what were we talking about? Survival, fear?

As long as you guys behave, it's fine.