UnbornTao

Thank God, I was beginning to worry.

I thought you already did that in real life.

Kastrup Kuantum Konsciousness

It's a misnomer. It is always about what you are if it's a consciousness of what you are.

Of the same substance when it is about one's nature. Then depth and expression are different factors.

I guess that would pertain to a "deeper" consciousness about his nature although I am ignorant of what that is.

Ha, gotcha!

Doesn't flavored water undergo additional artificial chemical processing?

With the capital C?

When it comes to consciousness of your nature the substance doesn't change; your nature is already your nature. The depth of the realization might change and that doesn't make it different than or less true. It is you, after all, whether grasped superficially or with increasing depth. Of course there are also realizations into the nature of now, others, space, etc. I was talking about what you are.

Denigrating "enlightenment" into an experience, state, or perception, however new, healing, or dramatic, is a trap.

I was being cute. Not sure what he meant by flavor of enlightenment – perhaps something like the expression or personality behind it.

Does water have a flavor?

Jagadish Vasudev not enlightened.

It is useful not to engage in fantasies regarding this idea and to dispel the ones we might have.

But what is a self? You've got a point.

Great, don't believe it or anything else for that matter (unless you deem it positive in certain ways), especially systems that are aimed at explicating what the universe and existence are. That would ultimately just interfere with an open personal investigation. These theories are doomed to be misunderstood. Even intellectually grasping them is not the point. The requirement is realizing what is the case for yourself. And this occurs independent of opinion and conjecture, even beyond the capacity of the mind. The main problem is that we do not know what we are—our nature. From this may come the impulse to engage in fun extrapolations that don't actually increase our consciousness. For example, you assume (live as) to be your self. Is that true? That's a good place to start.

Not only when it is unwanted but when it is actively resisted and put up with. Notice that pain (or anything unwanted for that matter) can be allowed to be present and felt, for instance for the purpose of contemplation. But I digress. I was wondering why these activities would relate to a direct consciousness, in the sense that they are separate events, so to speak. It'd be like freaking out at having discovered that you have five fingers in each hand. The discovery is one thing, your reaction is another (and this is what can be changed). Granted, if what he's going through is a dramatic state, whether "belief-induced" or not, then it is difficult to make this connection between what he is doing (believing) and his resulting experience. He might have convinced himself of rumors and is clearly relating negatively towards that newly-adopted "world-perspective." That said, I'd be honest and let go of thosev ideas, whatever their content, they can't ever be true. That would provide a more solid footing from which to investigate this condition. Not sure, although it is a potent drug. Then again, a dramatic state shift and kensho are different. As you say, it is a sense, a feeling, an experience –– one that is radically open and potentially blissful and freeing, but relative nevertheless. It is the "feeling one with the universe" state. And you are you regardless of state That sounds fascinating and is all relative. If it turns out to be something different from awakening, it is best to acknowledge that so that it is dealt with on its own. Is awakening any of those things, though? Would it be possible to resist a real direct apprehension of the absolute? Again, it is already true. Actions can be investigated separately and belong to the domain of mental activity. If it is a direct experience, I'd say relax and allow whatever it is you think you are resisting to be. Get grounded on your body, then try to clarify what you became conscious of, as soberly as possible. Keep going in that direction since it is likely that the insight will degrade into a memory and its "reality" will again be missed in favor of an intellectual conclusion or some other graspable form. If it is something else, breathe; it is perfectly fine. In both cases, tackle the matter openly again.

The perfect koan.

Using fire to extinguish fire. I guess direct experience is the method.

Okay.

Something weird which you'll have to ask Leo about.

- student: master, pacify my mind - master: find it first - student: can't find it - master: there, I pacified it for you –– This might be pointing towards the fact that there already is no such thing as mind except as a prevalent historical construct, and we overlook those steps (that it had to be invented and then adopted as a distinction in one's experience). We often hold the mind to be the activity of conceptualizing and the contents of thought, or the "place" where these take place. We also tend to conflate it with internal dialogue and imaging. But where is it? And what is it?

Then I'd frame the discussion that way.

Focus on action and the "success" part. You keep talking about books which by itself won't make anything happen.