UnbornTao

So... who is this Jesus guy again?

Was this AI-generated?

People really believe they do. And they want to believe the substances can. But it's always about a relative phenomenon. Again, the analogy of taking an stimulant within a dream may illustrate this point. At the end of the day it's an experience. Not that one cannot grasp it regardless of circumstance - and independent of whatever's perceived, etc.

He doesn't base his take on his experience with drugs, but on his direct consciousness!

Ramana went through an experience of terror while simulating his own death on the floor - before his massive enlightenment. What you think enlightenment is is not what it is. It's like drinking coffee within a dream in order to wake up from it. You may be stimulated but it can't wake you up; only you can do it, directly. Oh, and it has nothing to do with the brain either. It's not an experience, so that is irrelevant in this context.

Don't insult dinosaurs.

Is this your first account on the site?

Why so abstract? Ground your questioning: What's opinion, in your experience? Besides, you could clarify your take above.

Guys, focus: porn.

And what I said above is that enlightenment isn't an experience nor a state change. The difference is like being bored at one time, and hungry at another. No difference in that these are experiences. Now apply that to your state changes.

😁 No need to sing, though:

This doesn't change the fact that both are perceptive-experiences. Reread what I wrote above.

Sure, but not just me. So are Ramana, Ralston, Adi Da, Meher Baba, and Ken Wilber - for a reason. The destruction of the universe would still be irrelevant when it comes to enlightenment. So why would changing the chemicals in your brain be any different? I'm afraid buying into this belief is just a mistake born of having had moving experiences and dramatically unusual changes of state. No state is direct consciousness, it is only a state, no matter how grand or exciting or mind blowing it is. Altering the brain can't produce enlightenment - what it does is change its activity. In essence, it's not much different from getting drunk, hitting your head on the bathroom counter, or falling in love - they're experiences. This is not enlightenment no matter how much people want it to be.

Keep it civil guys.

@Daniel Balan Drugs cannot produce direct consciousness or lead to enlightenment, so you'd take your breakthroughs as simply "experiences" that might inform you of something or open your mind in some way, but aren't "true."

What are reality and meaning?

@Hojo Personal opinion is determined by you, whereas fact is not - what you feel, prefer, or believe is often irrelevant, except perhaps when it pertains to your subjective world ("I feel bored," for example.) The point is that a fact doesn't change or stop being "real" when you forget about it - you're simply ignorant of it. We don't have to be dense either: in your examples, that you fell, hit your head, and got amnesia can itself be called a fact. That you are alone may also be considered factual. It's an observation that we can agree on (even though consensus isn't the only criterion for establishing fact). Even when alone, it's still valid to say that other people exist, though at that moment their existence may only be a concept for you. This may help us ballpark the investigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion "Factual" doesn't have to mean "ultimately true," but it does require accuracy and grounding in something real - usually something objective, observable, or consistent. You don't have to solve the mysteries of the universe to know that lasagna is made with certain ingredients. Opinion isn't an existential aspect of reality, so there's no reason to conflate the two. It's more like thinking you can fly and then being confronted with the reality of gravity. So, look at what an opinion is. Sorry, no synonyms for 'fact' today.

I thought it was clear

Maybe, just make sure it isn't merely wishful thinking or pretension.

It has to be real, though - a breakthrough. In your experience you likely take yourself to be somewhere behind your eyes and between your ears - and this is perceived as a solid reality, despite whatever spiritual hearsay you may have adopted. Notice that you can't find yourself wherever you look. Whatever is found is perceived or received by you. You can't locate yourself within your experience or perception, which is where you're going to look.

"... but Mr. Führer, I'm Jewish." He'd probably make you pay for his coffee.

@Someone here The point is to actually do the practice: try to locate yourself. This solid sense of oneself - what is it comprised of? @Princess Arabia Left pinky toe.

@Hojo I lost track of what we were talking about. Your writing feels a bit opaque to me - that's just my opinion, though. Why are you focused on what others tell you in order to discern fact from opinion? How does that connect to this discussion? Anyway.... after this chat, you still have five fingers on each hand, right? I think you're being unnecessarily contrarian at times. We can still acknowledge the workings of certain aspects of reality, even the basic stuff everyone considers obvious. We don't want to claim everything is relative and so "anything goes." Not exactly sure what you mean by your second sentence, but I'd say I agree for the most part. This doesn’t sound accurate. Again, you're painting with a broad brush. Inventions like math may not be existentially or absolutely true, but in the relative sense they're quite grounded and objective - hence factual. You can't just mess around with physics, for example. Let's not relegate fact to mere imagination or arbitrariness. Is this deeply experienced for what it is? Even if it's true, as a notion it is just a starting point. Not happy with this, may edit.