UnbornTao

Don't make stuff up intellectually or otherwise; go after an insight.

@Davino What is advanced? You'll likely references another's creation that you follow, which the creator himself may be believing in. All models are wrong when it comes to this work. It's not about intentionally deceiving others, but about being unaware of your conflating things such as opinion, preference, ideal, etc., with insight. "Authentically lying" isn't a thing. If it is authentic, it has to be honest. Why would being a teacher imply being arrogant? Doesn't have to be that way. I brought up Ramana as probably the best contemporary example of profound awakening, a trustworthy teacher. Not promoting blind faith.

@Davino Why take their word for it if you don't know whether it is authentic or not? For example, advanced according to what? What criterion is used? What are they even talking about? A process comprised of stages? It is likely coming from something that was adopted artificially from an external source, perhaps by the author himself, too. I'd be wary of potential unjustified arrogance that stems from making conclusions about "surpassing" teachers, especially when psychedelics are involved. They may not have been as deeply authentic or genuine as originally thought. Additionally, there's the trap of not listening to the teacher, which is common without realizing it. We can count on Ramana.

But what is happiness? If it is independent from circumstances (perhaps it is a relationships that you adopt towards life and events), then why would it have to imply complacency or laziness? You won't just be motivated to pursue stuff in order to compensate for your sense of lack or inadequacy, which everyone seems to experience at least from time to time. In other words, you may be able to be happy and ambitious at the same time, pursuing whatever you want while being happy. The issue is that we may not know what happiness is. Hey, maybe happiness increases your effectiveness, so why not consider that perspective?

If you're suffering, it means there's something you are still ignorant of and is yet to be recognized.

We often start (and continue) this work with mental constructions in the way, like assumptions and fantasies. However, I would have admitted it if what you said about "direct" were the case. Maybe Ramana was being authentic. This isn't a process or dependent on the mind. Look up the terms kensho and satori. They aren't about "figuring things out" or convincing oneself of one's beliefs. Direct means prior to intellect, perception and experience. Only a breakthrough will do, which is, in itself, self-validating, though the potential for self-deception is abundant. If someone hasn't grasped it directly, it is difficult to convey what that word represents. In the meantime, it could be held as a possibility in one's mind. In any case, if you don't think of direct consciousness as possible, then we might as well go have a beer.

You can pay attention to how you're looking at your life, which is clearly generating unnecessary suffering for you. Notice that you're doing that and stop seeing the situation that way. I could think about what I want to create, etc, or look for things to complain about in life. Take a look at what you're doing, thinking and focusing on. Otherwise, enjoy your current state, let it go, and welcome the next one. Positive framing.

Sure, and it's also possible to grasp it directly, as in the case of Ramana Maharshi, for example. This breakthrough allegedly doesn't pertain to the domain of relativity or mind. It is consciousness of what is. The legend of Gotama exemplifies this possibility. Even though it remains hearsay for us, the moment one has a kensho or first glimpse, one's relationship to the matter changes.

You're saying: we don't know. But can it be "known"? That's what the pursuit is about. Beware of conflating failing to grasp one's nature with thinking or concluding that it is impossible. After all, it is you already. Also, better not to confuse this work with an exercise in speculation and self-conviction. It is tempting for the mind to keep it in the domain of abstraction and intellect where it is safe, whereas honestly confronting oneself and one's experience isn't necessarily comfortable. Throwing some things around.

Intellectual speculation isn't the same as true questioning. Absolute isn't "lots and lots." Whatever associations your mind makes up in relation to the word "absolute" is just an idea and isn't it; assuming that it is Y or X puts us in the wrong footing.

Distinguishing between authentic teachers vs charlatans is useful: Are they profoundly conscious? Coming from a real experience? What and why are they communicating? Do they intend to facilitate or to entertain? This should leave out many individuals. Ramana and Ralston seem to know what they're talking about; as for the rest of us, I'm not so sure.

@Rishabh R You have to take ownership of your anger. It is your experience. Perhaps you can look into the hurt behind the anger and contemplate what in you felt threatened by whatever you assess as having helped precipitate that hurt for you. Start by acknowledging that you're responsible for your experience.

Whatever experience is, it is best if one contemplates it for oneself, setting aside what essentially boils down to hearsay. So, investigate and find out.

Depends on what you're talking about. Generally, it is simply becoming conscious directly of the nature of an absolute aspect of existence. Either that, or you could hold it as a relative process, such as having an insight into a dynamic, principle, or condition -- "awakening" to the reality or origin of something in a way that is authentic and based on experience.

Can you clarify what you're asking and why?

That may be the case but it doesn't mean you're enlightened or that you're using effective distinctions and talking about something real and grounded, even if it is abstract. Consciousness can't be mapped, so that emphasis is off-putting and misleading from the get-go. Certain foundational, flawed assumptions may be conceded with such an undertaking. Although he sounds to be stuck in intellect, Wilber does seem to be a smart guy overall. But hey, either you grasp your nature for real or you don't, no matter what others, including yourself, say or have heard.

You changed "want" to "want to receive" after I mentioned that self-generated suffering serves a purpose for us, implying that we (unconsciously) want it. And morality is relative and humanly constructed, no matter how useful or intelligent, so "absolute" is a misnomer and "universal" or "broadly applicable" might be more accurate terms.

@nuwu Okey dokey

Some social sensitivity is appropriate and at the same time don't get bogged down by social expectations. The principle of balance is helpful in this case.

@nuwu just clarify whether you are actually attempting to communicate something real, or using intellect and jargon and conflating this act with plain communication. Then, if you're going to communicate, clarify the purpose of your communication. If you want to show off or look smart, that's also fine by me, but your posturing isn't helpful to others.

Kylian Mbappeee

Clarifying what the activity is about and its purpose is invaluable. Meditation is aimed at controlling the mind, producing positive states, healing, and stillness. No method can produce it as method itself is indirect. You can be at the bus stop (contemplation) so that when the bus comes, you're ready to jump onto it. This kind of contemplation is having the intention to "experience" the nature of something or have insights into it, openly and actively questioning with that purpose in mind. Meditate, if that's what you want.

Help from Claude: Translation: yes.

I consider other teachers such as Vernon Howard and Adyashanti to be more authentic and grounded, but thanks for the recommendation. Selling Cosmologies By The River