UnbornTao

@Razard86 Edited my response above a bit. All you talk about is relative.

What does it take for you to create your own feedback? One thing that comes to mind is paying closer attention to what you are aware of, thinking, and doing throughout any given process, activity, event. Increase your conscious sensitivity--openly aware to what's in front of you. And keep going in that direction of increasing awareness.

@Razard86 Too much "this and that" and asserting things. Things like "there is more than one absolute" are BS. It is clear to me that is not coming from a breakthrough. You can take it as it is.

@Razard86 That's a bunch of intellectual ideation, you are not clear on your nature.

It's a tricky situation. Essentially, talk him out of it. I don't know the person, and this isn't therapeutic advice. I could point out that this ideation might be based on a desire for acknowledgement, or on a belief that one's emotional pain is unbearable for oneself. This isn't true. Maybe bring up situations when you've felt similarly to him, and tell him they just pass and life moves on. Show him he's stronger than he thinks. Situations of that nature can be used as lessons in many ways. But suicide itself is an act of cowardice, and rather foolish. Maybe getting grounded and detaching oneself from the circumstances help him see the situation more dispassionately, impersonally, free of so much drama and turmoil. Just some thoughts.

Learn to make new, subtle distinctions within the sense of smell and your experience of aromas. Use these to learn about learning, and to understand and apply principles such as correction and feedback into your life: fragrance-analysis - Unknown.docx fragrance-terminology - Unknown.docx I know the documents could be a bit more detailed, but that's enough to get us started.

Tried to polish up my post above. You take it to be something, perhaps a result of a process, or a hidden, inaccessible piece of knowledge lying somewhere. Certain things seem to help (but aren't a requisite), yet why it happens is an unknown. Perhaps the notion that it is something to be triggered reflects my point that it is considered relative--but I'm nitpicking. I'm going to be even more pedant now. It is a sensible question to ask and sounds coherent on paper, but is based on flawed assumptions. See above. That said, while we are not enlightened, we are going to be engaged in something, doing something. So, contemplating--being open and wanting to get it--seem to help. It is rare, but not impossible, that a breakthrough falls on your ass. Yet again, why this happens is a mystery--there's no causal relationship (there is nothing really), and it is "done"--the insight occurs. Because it doesn't "happen", and why relates to motive, function, purpose, which are invented and applied. Being is as itself already, rather than a result or occurrence, which are relative. At this point, someone like Rinzai could point the way. Believing decreases wanting to inquire into things, in this case your nature. Consider for example how we tacitly live as if our perception were an accurate reflection of objective reality. If we were to experience that as something presumed, we'd be more open to questioning it. But we don't, and so we keep on operating from such presumption. We can see that belief isn't just a thought that you hold as part of your internal dialogue--they can show up for us as reality. Again, are they recognized as beliefs, which implies recognizing that they are not the truth, nor can they be? If or when they are recognized as such, then I don't have a problem with that. In another context, believing yourself to be a capable person, for example, is immensely valuable and positive. You might as well believe yourself to be worthless and live as if that were true. However, both of those are beliefs, not the truth of you. Our main assumption is that our beliefs are mostly cognized by us--yet most of them are just assumed--they are reality for us. This is the point that's easily missed. I think you're considering one particular category of beliefs, that of consciously adopted ones. Assumptions are the most profound of all. The trick lies in recognizing them as such, in a deeply experiential way. From that, increased openness radically empowers your capacity and willingness to question stuff. Depends on the practice, and whether they are "going after" it instead of merely going through the motions. But it isn't about how much time a technique or ritual is followed, or about the practice itself--the practice at best provides direction and focus for the mind. That said, likely the one who is more open. Belief, or the way it is held in one's mind, effectively displaces an experience of openness. Luck doesn't apply; I'm saying we don't know why it happens, and yet it does. A bit like living as a dream character, doing this and that, and all of a sudden waking up from the dream.

I'm not saying lying or self-dishonesty has to be deliberate or conscious; it's just that things might get over our heads, and to varying degrees. Be open. We might think we apprehend the nature of something while in reality we concluded, believed something, etc., and confused these acts with perceiving whatever is true. Just a reminder.

Sounds good. Make sure that that is a true statement for you.

It is about one's relationship to beliefs. Also, most assumptions aren't recognized as such, but are subliminally-held and these make up how we experience reality--like fish in water. Observe how belief tends to close people off, as it effectively displaces openness. Acknowledging their beliefs as beliefs is difficult for people, much less questioning them, as this inquiry, done sufficiently deeply, would invalidate their reality. They'd have to admit that their cherished convictions are but affectations, intellectual indulgences adopted from without in order to make up for their unwillingness and incapacity to experience things for themselves. What if your self (what you take yourself to be) is itself an assumption? This is how deep this belief business goes. About the realization, you hold it as relative, as a process. You think there is something there, or a "there" to be found, as if under a rock, or in the depths of our unconscious minds. It is a sudden event, and why it occurs is a mystery to me--not sure it is even possible to know that--you just do it, you make a leap in consciousness. You could get enlightened while walking the dog or cooking a lasagna. In this context, I was taking knowledge to be direct apprehension of what is true. Such recognition is true in so far as the depth of it goes--assuming it is authentic. "Knowledge", then, is everything else that is indirect--a product of mind and perception. I might be leaving some of your points unaddressed.

It might be a emotional state or disposition that is generated when, after having sufficiently met your needs and wants, you cling unnecessarily to the pursuit of more for its own sake, hoping it will fulfill something it cannot--such as emotional needs, a longing for meaning, intimacy, or recognition. Regardless of that, What is so-called greed when experienced for oneself? For example: What about the functional pursuit of money might eventually turn into a "greed" relationship?

@Razard86 You try to defend your position so firmly, it makes me think that you might be speaking from intellect rather than personal, experiential insight. Why the strong, even defensive, assertiveness? If at this moment the truth is unknown, better to acknowledge that. That helps us investigate with fresh eyes, or in a new light.

Learned a new word.

Reconsider what contemplation is.

I can imagine what this thread might turn into.

Haven't you noticed yet that he lies all the time? Not that hard to see, in my view.

Take it deeper than memorizing content. It's about understanding the workings of something, what something is, etc. An observation or valid insight doesn't need to be remembered, in the same way you don't need to remember that your experience of breathing right now.

And a principle. Like the finger pointing at the moon. When it comes to your nature (or anything else for that matter), belief is actually an impediment, as it precludes questioning. Bring to mind what you believe about yourself--I bet that set is considered to be true or descriptive of yourself, at least in some way, if we're honest about it. That certainty gets in the way of a genuine and open inquiry. After all, why question in the first place if "the answer" is already known (assumed)? It's just that in this context, "knowledge" is covered up ignorance, as the underlying condition remains the same--we have no clue about what being is. Besides, no method for itself can achieve it for you--it might help in a lot of ways, too, such as by focusing the mind. Similar to how no action within a dream can wake one up. See above. If you "know", then there's no possibility for discovering something new, or beyond what you currently hold as the truth. It could be said that on this thread I'm advocating for a change in how we relate to this matter. That relationship would go like this: Inquire and grasp your nature. Direct is the way to go. Reading, research, dialogue, are useful for certain things. However, the absolute must be gotten in a direct fashion--the breakthrough itself is what's important. Recognize your knowledge and beliefs as what they are, and set them aside when questioning the nature of anything. If it is a genuine recognition, which might not be as common as it is thought, then it is self-validating, yet the validity isn't found in mind, preference, conviction, but rather on the consciousness if the thing itself. As far as the enlightenment goes, your consciousness of what was realized is clear and by definition true. Do we? To what degree? Do we experience that difference deeply? Isn't it mostly a notion? This recognition can still be deepened. For example, consider that most of what you call yourself is conceptual in nature, yet it appears to be solid and real. You apply meaning to things. Is it true? is the question to ask, in my view. In any case, why you engage in something determines the meaning it has for you. Forget about the formless unknowable. Like I said, it just gets in the way. This is why I shared that fancy zen quote on my other post. Now we are focusing on the words, missing an experience of the truth that might lie underneath them. Depends on what you mean by meaningful. As a term, it points to a possibility. Any other use apart from that might cause more harm than good. What's a meaningful conversation? As it isn't a thing, my guess is that it can't be shared.

I'm saying there is no substance to enlightenment and so no property or thing that can be pointed at--that's one reason why I recommended checking out guys like Rinzai and Ramana. Consider that Ramana's "deepest" teachings were said to consist of him sitting in silence, and you'll notice a lot of "nonsense" in Rinzai's communications. I can understand the desire to understand enlightenement via the mind and intellect, yet taking this too seriously is counterproductive. Rather than adding more notions onto our experience of self, what we want is to substract what's false from it, so to speak. Also, trying to fit a square peg in a round hole leaves out the reality of what's being referred to--this dilemma is encountered every time we deal with "enlightenment." I do want to acknowledge the possibility of transmission, too, but don't know anything about it. Who knows? Mu!

That you hold such a relationship to what I said is your contribution, not mine. And it shows we don't like our fantasies being destroyed. Consider that there might be some truth to it.

Those are more experientially-oriented terms while "philosophical" ones are more difficult to relate to. As an example, "me" and "I" were probably one of the first words you learned, while many people haven't even heard of nonduality, which is a term abstracted out from experience. (?) A spiritual term can be intellectually apprehended, yet highly abstract ones might in some ways preclude personal discovery. Abstraction is convenient for the mind because nothing or very little gets confronted within your self-experience--just notions being discussed, refuted, agreed upon, etc. In the context of enlightenment work is where this negation or mindset, if you will, comes in--I wasn't very clear about that from the beginning. About understanding and communication, it depends on what you are up to, but it is obviously needed and valuable. We would have to start by clarifying for ourselves what is being communicated and for what purpose.

You might say "everything is constructed or an invention". Even then, do we actually know that's true? In any case... Two possible dispositions to approaching that: - "Fuck it, nothing matters" (and so you may go on to create "bad" things as a result), or; - "Okay then, let's make sure the things I construct are functional, real, effective, healthy things"