UnbornTao

If we ignore its nature, what are we declaring war on?

Why not grasp your own nature first, then move on to investigate others? Leave aside anything that isn't direct consciousness – which is everything.

We don't even know what life is.

"Isn't it so?"

We really love to chat away.

@Keryo Koffa cool!

Unless the one who intends, even though appearing as solid and real, is a convenient construction. If we consider intention and its components, it might be able to arise with no self behind it. But then again, I think we're taking intention and identity differently. @Salvijus OK, I just read the rest of your posts.

It's something other than a simple communication with some other purpose. A state is being referred to. Doesn't sound like an enlightenment experience, and there is no content when it comes to this.

Trying to shoehorn that Chopra book?

These acts don't mean much in my view. Like changing shirts.

What is prior to interpretation?

Another take: self and not-self are building blocks of our current experience, yet, in the end, they might not be existentially true. Even though they appear solid and as occurring, there was no subject or self behind actions in the first place. This is still overly simplistic, suitable for a forum post. I guess this would take us into the essence and origin of both self and instinct which are tricky subjects. Grasping these dynamics for real is a different beast.

I wouldn't project emotions on animals except perhaps certain apes, like us! Instinct may be a rudimentary act that can exist without self--it already does. Your body, for example, doesn't need a sense of self for it to function. However, since we identify with or as our bodies, we say we do stuff. Again, what did we have as babies? What was our experience like? Not much fear, perhaps none. I doubt we had an identity developed at that point and yet we did stuff, pretty basic, but it was done. Neither were we aware of "threat" or "benefit." Why don't we have any memory of that period? Identity, ego, and self are not the same. What are they? And what is instinct? Nisargadatta was a heavy smoker, Alan Watts and Chogyam were alcoholics, Osho had problematic personality traits, enlightened Japanese warriors have killed people in the past, etc. We're talking about two different domains here, the absolute and the relative domain--relationship. Access to one doesn't necessarily endow you with knowledge of the other even though it might facilitate it.

That's up for grabs. At some point, rumors and intellect have to be set aside so that a direct encounter is sought after. Direct is being in the same location as the subject being addressed, to speak metaphorically. Yeah

@Breakingthewall then I would describe it clearly as what it is. Why add fuss and so much embellishments? This only lends itself to more fantasizing.

Hey, no insulting. Not even yourself.

@Wizardking Our Inner Ape The Psychology of Money Laws of Human Nature by Greene (loong) The Path of Least Resistance or Your Life As Art by Fritz. This latter one may not be available as audiobook, though. Freedom from the Known by Krishnamurti. Some suggestions.

@Breakingthewall The bottom line is, where is the clarity regarding the presumed direct consciousness? What I hear is fantastical rhetoric and too much this and that, intellect, experience and state. Hey, why not revisit someone like Ramana afresh?

Here it comes guys. Enlightenment 2.0

Magic Fantasy-ridden and is referring to perceptive experience. May have had a genuine glimpse or perhaps state change but it seems to me his mind is heavily filtering it through a bunch of stuff. But it is soothing nevertheless.

I don't know about that. Preservation instinct, yes. Hmm. Didn't we act when we were babies? What was there for us? We could act and there was not a conglomerate of past history and identity. @Keryo Koffa "What is one's nature?" Get it yourself and then tell us about it. My contemplation goes loosely like this: get an honest sense of who you take yourself to be and question what that experience is about.

Sometimes I put on classical or instrumental music as it helps me focus on what I'm doing.

Hey, I'll take that as a compliment.

Haha, okay then.

I wasn't talking about you in particular. I was pointing out a dynamic that tends to happen, which may go like this: We read about Gautama being peaceful and magnanimous and compassionate. We miss that those traits arose for Gautama as side effects of the increased consciousness and understanding; they were natural expressions for him. Then, without the understanding, we go about adopting those characteristics as affectations, which might not arise authentically in us or to the same degree. So, for example, even though at times we may feel hurt and angry, we suppress these emotions and decide to put on a mask of a peaceful, calm spiritual persona. Which is to say, action is action, who you are is who you are (identity). What's identified as oneself in this regard is the repeated behavior patterns you engage in, and those can be changed. We'd perhaps be talking about two different domains here. Enlightened people can do stupid and dysfunctional stuff, etc.