UnbornTao

Open or unrestricted perhaps - and ill-defined, in a sense. Not easy to locate its source.

It'd be like Shangri-La - an ideal.

I haven't even personally verified the existence of Antarctica, let alone aliens. Communist aliens.

Or turn you into the Lisan al-Gaib.

Hey, who's hallucinating whom?

In our experience, the truth is profoundly unknown, is it not? That said, your post is somewhat vague. While bias is likely universal and the tendency to deceive oneself should be guarded against, I would argue that as long as you uncover what is really true about your subject of inquiry, other concerns are largely secondary.

Cheers! Still, you should've asked more and better questions.

God helps those who help themselves? God-help - a new subgenre.

You have a point. The power of a belief comes largely from the fact that it's seen as "reality," not as an adopted or made-up notion. It makes sense to say that recognizing your beliefs as such can feel threatening to your self-identity. Still, I think there's room for someone to consciously hold a belief and operate from it while remaining aware of what it is. For example, you might think of yourself as a kind person (or reserved, loud, whatever), and behave according to that self-image. Yet you can also see that as a "belief" - an aspect of yourself that was adopted at some point and isn't inherent to your person. It isn't who you are, existentially. The main distinction to be made is that no belief is, or can be, the truth. Even when a belief is valid or sound, it's still a thought about - a representation - and in that sense, untrue.

Check whether it's truly existential. Is it actually there? Pay attention to your objective, physical surroundings, and ask where the suffering can be found. Certainly, existence itself seems quite "unconcerned and at peace." So where is the suffering?

Unsolved riddles everywhere.

The first "supplement" in his stack is a joint.

The term awakening gets thrown around willy-nilly.

We keep looking for an answer. I don't know.

Hmm, how accurate is that? For example, you can't have 'positive' without 'negative.' Perhaps what you're referring to is the experience of equanimity, or a kind of peace. But this shouldn't be confused with the absence of emotion, whether positive or negative. If something is regarded, recognized, or distinguished as positive, then negative - and vice versa - is created when that initial assessment is made.

And your state never stays the same. The contrast is what allows you to recognize one state from another. You might ask what the substance of such open-mindedness is - what it's based on. You're essentially asking for a drug high to be permanent and then complaining that it wears off. It's best to see whether you could generate for yourself a state of radical openness, this will be different (perhaps more real and grounded) than a chemically-induced one. I'll agree that it is an experience - hopefully, you gained some insight from it.

Having been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and on his deathbed, Ramana was basically 'whatever.' He even refused treatment - for the cancer, not death. I get OCD-like symptoms if I don't mention the guy every three posts or so. Just an anecdote.

You likely think that you are a mind. Even in the title of this thread, notice the separation we often create between "me" and the body. We tend to look down on the body. Sure.

States come and go.

- asked Socrates.

Thank you, though it was meant as a meditation rather than a questionnaire.

So, who wants the retreats?