UnbornTao

@Osaid But is it your direct experience or something you've heard? By concept I just don't mean a thought, it is reality for you. The drive to persist is incredibly powerful. It is based on the possibility of dying as a constant background sense! Survival isn't just existing. It is the force behind your perception, thinking, acting, emoting, relating. It is you, yourself. As a self, you can and will die -- your body will decay, etc. About people who claim to not be afraid of death, they don't know what they're talking about, unless deeply enlightened, so extremely unlikely. They're talking about their idea of death, not the reality of it. Not minding death isn't about needing it in order to be motivated to survive; it is seeing what life and death are. I haven't said that. I think we're talking about not-self differently. It wouldn't be about not having self but about knowing what it is, perhaps. It is incredibly hard to transcend the self, not-self dynamic. Again, you likely do take yourself to be some way, even after a few enlightenments. For example, you don't take yourself to be a microwave, a notebook or your pet, although in a sense they might relate to your self-concept and thus you might be attached to them in some form -- as your possessions. Gautama still showed up a particular way. Fear might be "imagined" and relates to the future. There's still work to be done to transcend it at large.

@Thought Art let them ask

What is the purpose of these discussions?

From the get go, we should acknowledge the fact that we don't really know what consciousness is. Commonly, it is held as a by-product of the brain although the possibility that it is prior to the brain should be considered as well as this might be the case. We should be open. Usually, what's meant by consciousness is something akin to awareness or cognition, while consciousness sources those two and is absolute. Some speculation to set aside, and confront what it is through deep contemplation.

Cultivate something consciously: a skill, a hobby, a business, a relationship, a creative project, understanding some field, an optimist disposition, a contemplative attitude.

Deal with problems before they originate. Where are your actions headed? What results are they creating for you? What results do you extrapolate your actions will produce in the long term? Pay attention to where your actions are headed and change course immediately if necessary. Don't wait for potential issues to gain momentum. The stronger the inertia, the more discipline it'll take to shift direction.

@LfcCharlie4 Do some work on assumptions.

Ego is an aspect of self. Self is who you take yourself to be. Leaving spiritual fantasy aside, you likely take yourself to be some way. Yes, it may be a form of knowledge. But it isn't recognized as such; it appears to us as "reality". Concept isn't just a thought you have about something, as if you experienced things objectively, and then superimposed thoughts onto them. Concept creates the experience of self. Again, as a stark example, if I point a gun at you, certain feelings will come up -- these are based on self, on you wanting to remain in some way. Notice how it'd come up as a very real sense of you, your survival, being threatened. And then there's your nature, whatever that is. If you were completely free of self, you wouldn't mind dying as you'd be deeply conscious of what you are. Pay attention whether you assume to be the one behind the scenes, behind your eyes and between your ears, the "owner" of those habits and beliefs. Easy to overlook this fundamental assumption that shows up as reality for us, especially if you've studied spiritual literature. Be experientially honest with yourself, I don't doubt you may have had enlightenments, but that freedom from self has been "achieved." It's true and it isn't.

That someone is yourself. How would you know it is your family if it didn't relate to you? See how you and not you are still operative? Self might be taken as a superficial construct similar to a conventional thought, yet the self principle appears solid and is tightly intertwined with survival -- they might be synonymous. I think we may be approaching the matter superficially. Essentially we're asking, among other things, what is self? Ironically enough, you might to some degree realize your nature, yet unconscious self aspects remain to be discovered and let go of. This is why enlightenment doesn't necessarily transform the individual. Getting completely free from self seems to be about personal transformation, which isn't the same as enlightenment. I define enlightenment as being conscious of your nature. And then the laundry.

@puporing Sounds like you might have conflated an insight or unusual experience with interpretation. This is subjective, as what we've got of historical figures is legend and hearsay. Be honest. In any case, don't sit on your laurels. Keep up the contemplation.

@Osaid Why would you care about something at all? Survival isn't, and doesn't have to be, based on what's true, which you disagree on. There is no self, but you still manage your finances and fix your car whenever's broken. There's self-survival demands behind these, and this is a fundamental thing that no amount of wishful thinking will overcome. One of my points is that there's more work to be done on this domain. Perhaps Ramana would be one of the few people to have actually transcended self, I don't think a couple of enlightenments will do it. No-self as in what's outside self, however you hold yourself to be. I'm not sure what you mean by the second sentence. I think you can be enlightened and have some sort of self, even if you recognize its nature, for example by having a family and a certain degree of attachment towards them.

Wow, thank you. Is there a document where all of these are combined?

Fun discussion based on exchanging beliefs.

What is now without concept?

Don't know. Beyond speculating, figure it out for yourself and then come back and tell us. Then, we'll have to do the same.

You may be thinking of distinction as a thought you have in relation to something. However, that you experience something is the distinction. The distinction itself is and determines (your experience of it) what's experienced. It is operative because you're imagining it. Despite its conceptual nature, self can and still is likely being used/operative experientially. Without a self, how could worry show up, in relation to whom? There must be an identity that you're holding (self) that feels threatened by something outside of itself (not-self), hence the possibility of fear, worry, etc. About the arm example, it isn't just an object. The point is that it is your arm; you're likely attached to and identified with it as well as with the rest of your body -- and with plenty of other stuff, too. A few enlightenments won't free you from self either. You can identify with humanity as a whole, the universe, the world, a group or an organization, yet that would still depend on the dynamic between self and not-self. It'd be a radically different experience as the one we now have, as our respective selves would be expanded a great deal, although it'd be based on the same dichotomy/building block (of itself versus what's outside it, what's not it). I'm leaving the nature of existence aside. We're dealing with the relative domain. Everything is a distinction -- experience, something, anything, part, whole, nothing. Without distinction, you wouldn't be going through this particular experience you're having now. Refer to the first paragraph above. In relation to you bringing up concepts such as non-duality. Again, absolutely, no difference. Relatively, there are. We live within the relative. You don't eat absolute consciousness, you eat spaghetti. That shows up as a specific experience.

No, it's a belief system.

Survival isn't based on the truth. Knowing what's true is unnecessary for survival. A distinction creates the difference; it is itself the basis of relativity. Whatever is existential is up for grabs. I'm saying in your experience you likely have a sense of self --a relationship between object and subject-- however enlightened, unless deeply enlightened perhaps, as in the case of Ramana. Which is to say, self and not-self is a distinction already operative in your experience, regardless of belief system. If your arm were to be cut off, you'd be really pissed; if the apple is cut off, you'd be fine. This isn't to say it's existentially true, but it exists as an invention that might be taken as real. Again, I like being honest and grounded. If you know your nature deeply, good. But I wouldn't reference externalities nor abstract terms to communicate what I'm conscious of. People already fool themselves, thinking that their cosmology is special and makes them enlightened. This is fundamentally pretending even if spiritual concepts and language have been mastered to a certain degree. The point is for the individual himself to come from genuine insight and breakthrough. People don't make this distinction.

@Emotionalmosquito That's what I call a Thursday.

@Osaid Why clarity of perception if you're talking about consciousness of what is, perception being done through something -- body, etc? Unless you don't know what enlightenment is and are confusing it with some thing. The room is made by you and in a way has already been made by us having chosen to bring up two different words -- existence and experience. I think we're playing back and for with absolute and relative. Experience as a process shows up in some way; what way is it? Before you were born you didn't have any experience. Some correlation is there about the body and awareness being requisite for an experience of being alive to occur. Why wouldn't there be a relationship between subject and object? Consciousness doesn't make you stupid, which is to say you likely have that relationship going on, even if enlightened. Survival demands some of that. Notice you eat apples and not your arm. I think you might be conflating enlightenment with a relative phenomenon. My position is: no matter what's believed, get conscious of what's true.

That sounds good. Knowing what you are would probably dissolve the question.

An important, unrecognized assumption that's being made is that of taking decision-making as a process of picking between predetermined options. This fails to acknowledge the creative nature of making a decision. It is created by you.

I use macOS and don't dislike it.

Sounds like the same thing.