UnbornTao

@Inliytened1 I didn't want to give leeway to speculation, but chat away.

Moved to Entertainment section.

— Kaoru Nonomura, Eat Sleep Sit.

@Osaid Uniqueness as a distinction may be equally conceptual as self. Without non-uniqueness, there's no being unique. However, why concede to one and not the other? If enlightened, you realize the nature of the absolute, not necessarily that of experience, which is a relative phenomenon. Again, not everything is known after awakening. What is every relative phenomenon that we experience? What is object, another, life, pain, happiness? Enlightenment facilitates investigation and learning but the work to grasp emotions, mind, etc. has to be done regardless of that. A conceptual explanation isn't enough; insight can be had into the nature of mind, etc. It goes beyond concept, everyone has concepts about mind, etc. Insight is an experiential encounter with the reality or nature of something. After that, it might degrade into intellect, but it's about the experience, not the memery. I'm saying that self-survival is an incredibly powerful force and isn't completely transcended with a few enlightenment experiences.

@StarStruck Don't be offensive. "Reinventing the wheel" as in understanding its nature, from scratch. This demands experiential investigation, not adopting hearsay as true. Otherwise, reading books would suffice.

Coincidentally, I heard about him a few days ago. May be interesting.

Nice, thank you.

– John Searle

We could consider that we don't really know what's being said by that to begin with.

"I'm less enlightened than you!"

Locked for low-quality. No speculating.

Is happiness circumstantially-derived?

Entertainment. Now go after what's true.

Sure. Seems to be the case, too. For example, you're rarely valued by who you are but by what you do. Not only communicate, but also think, emote and behave. We can consider new possibilities, but generally there's an interesting phenomenon in which we take culture to be real, but it's not. It's agreed upon and made up. Another example: in our culture, when another culture practices cannibalism, we relegate that to the domain of sickness, which is quite arrogant. The implicit assumption is that whatever we consider culture to be is real and the right way to go about survival, with room for some variations (while we eat pork and goat, not dogs, say, the Chinese do, etc.) Cultures are ways we've come up with to survive as a collective; it doesn't have to be a certain way except by mutual agreement. It can be more or less functional and intelligent, but as itself it is not real or true. There's some rambling.

@Osaid What is uniqueness about? You may recognize differences between what you consider to be different individuals, hence the possibility of something being unique. Differences might be invented, including self and uniqueness and notice how uniqueness is acknowledged while self isn't. The distinction of not-self as what lies outside one's self, not as a lack thereof. Self might be a construction but a rudimentary form of it seems to be present for most people, even if transcended to some degree. No one has completely transcended self here. Analogous to computer software, some identified "uniqueness" is the kernel for survival, a very basic sense which might better be called instinct, perhaps. Still, for example, the social domain is an invention and yet appears real to our selves. Someone is enlightened. Do you know everything there's to know? Have you transformed? No, there's still plenty of stuff to be grasped, and chances are you can become more deeply and absolutely conscious. Knowing one's nature doesn't automatically imbues you with insight into emotions, mind, experience, space, time, skill, interaction, principles, etc.

Beliefs are thoughts about what's true. As long as you recognize them as such, keep the beliefs that you find empowering. Relating to beliefs in this way is both more functional and sincere since it leaves the door open for the truth to be unknown. This uncertainty persists as our underlying condition regardless of how much we play with beliefs.

Where did you take this from? Avoid making up BS. If the truth is unknown, first go after it, that means beyond speculation and hearsay, then whatever use you give it to is up to you.

Rephrased it but never mind.

Make, and increasingly sharpen, the distinctions of intellect and experience. What are they really? How does each of them show up? In this work, rather than being stuck in intellect, which is convenient and comparatively easy, you need to ground yourself in your experience.

You make it up. Society is based on implicit agreements. Many times they're useful and conducive to a more functional collective survival. Are galaxies collapsing with each other wrong? And stars exploding?

@Osaid I'll take your word for it -- that it is your direct experience or something you're conscious of. I'd say that enlightenment is realizing the nature of what's already true rather than a shift, and it doesn't change anything. The dynamic between self and not-self is present as an invention to some degree for us to function in the relative domain. How could we survive otherwise? Some form of self-identification is there. For example: Why do you wash your car? Who says it is yours? Why wouldn't you try to wash other people's cars? Also, if a chair's leg is broken, you don't consider that it was your leg that got broken. There's a practical reason for that. That points out the fact that you hold your self to be some way. Relatively speaking, you "say" --live as-- that you are here, and not there. This seems to be a basic recognition for survival, and it doesn't have to mean that you conflate your nature with something invented. Enlightened people seem to come in all shapes and sizes. How come they hold different values, interests, traits? One reason might be that they have their own particular way of showing up, and that we might call self. They may have awakened, however there're particular self-aspects and a personality aligned with their respective character. This is an interesting phenomenon. Attachment and fear seem to be related although the former is based on the past. It is about you wanting for a past experience or memory to remain in some form, something you've identified yourself to, or knowledge as you say. Have yet to look deeply into it. These topics are more profound than we are making them out to be, and I think we could be more grounded. Anyway, more work to be done.

Are you essentially referring to a form of suffering that might be identified as feeling unsettled?

Depends on your criterion. What I pay attention to are honesty and clarity, so Krishnamurti is a good example of those qualities. Alan Watts was a good speaker, but sold you a bill of goods. That's the difference that's overlooked by many. Unfortunately, most people are followers who prefer being entertained and being fed beliefs as a replacement for receiving an authentic experience, which is what communication is about.

@Someone here You're right, thanks.