UnbornTao

One can dream.

@bambi @Scholar Your disposition is the epitome of ignorance. Instead of taking your first impressions at face value, pay some attention.

What did the solipsist say to the solipsist?

Any statement can be interpreted as an assumption. But could there be a real recognition underlying the communication that validates such view? Say someone "gets it" and then claims something like "Consciousness is all", if that were consistent with their breakthrough. First, you don't have to believe in it. You can try listening to it and the "experience" may get across to you, that is, you grasp your nature (this would be like a transmission in zen). The key is the consciousness itself, not anything else that comes after it such as the expression. It must be validated through personal "experience." Hence the role of self-inquiry. One challenge is that we may not understand what "direct" means. Do you hold it as possible--becoming conscious of the thing itself without intermediary, absolutely, prior to experience, mind and perception, beyond a doubt? The terms kensho and satori can give the mind something new to ponder. If you don't think it as possible, then this awakening business is a mere fantasy to you. And relatively, why close oneself off? We may be able to understand directly the nature of things beyond assumption. We just shouldn't conflate our failure to do so with concluding that it is impossible. This is where the principle of openness comes in. Why is Gautama known as the awakened one? Leaving legend aside, he exemplifies the possibility of "complete enlightenment", whatever that is. Can we understand everything there is, as the Buddha presumably did? I'd say yes. If a human could do it, then it means that it is possible. There, an incoherent mess.

I'd start by making a distinction between thought and experience. This is the problem with "cosmologies". If you take Ramana's case so lightly, comparing this and that so trivially and superficially, as if you knew what Ramana was talking about, you're likely coming from a wrong place. But thanks for the interchange, no need to stretch it further.

Why insanity?

I recommend you study a few ancient, original sources on Buddhism--Huang Po, Rinzai, Dogen, Bodhidharma, Gautama--and make up your mind about it. Also remember to leave it all aside (any belief) when questioning existence on your own.

Where else would you be able to create distinctions within such and such domain, than by dealing with experience and states which are relative and everything we "know"?

Don't make stuff up intellectually or otherwise; go after an insight.

@Davino What is advanced? You'll likely references another's creation that you follow, which the creator himself may be believing in. All models are wrong when it comes to this work. It's not about intentionally deceiving others, but about being unaware of your conflating things such as opinion, preference, ideal, etc., with insight. "Authentically lying" isn't a thing. If it is authentic, it has to be honest. Why would being a teacher imply being arrogant? Doesn't have to be that way. I brought up Ramana as probably the best contemporary example of profound awakening, a trustworthy teacher. Not promoting blind faith.

@Davino Why take their word for it if you don't know whether it is authentic or not? For example, advanced according to what? What criterion is used? What are they even talking about? A process comprised of stages? It is likely coming from something that was adopted artificially from an external source, perhaps by the author himself, too. I'd be wary of potential unjustified arrogance that stems from making conclusions about "surpassing" teachers, especially when psychedelics are involved. They may not have been as deeply authentic or genuine as originally thought. Additionally, there's the trap of not listening to the teacher, which is common without realizing it. We can count on Ramana.

But what is happiness? If it is independent from circumstances (perhaps it is a relationships that you adopt towards life and events), then why would it have to imply complacency or laziness? You won't just be motivated to pursue stuff in order to compensate for your sense of lack or inadequacy, which everyone seems to experience at least from time to time. In other words, you may be able to be happy and ambitious at the same time, pursuing whatever you want while being happy. The issue is that we may not know what happiness is. Hey, maybe happiness increases your effectiveness, so why not consider that perspective?

If you're suffering, it means there's something you are still ignorant of and is yet to be recognized.

We often start (and continue) this work with mental constructions in the way, like assumptions and fantasies. However, I would have admitted it if what you said about "direct" were the case. Maybe Ramana was being authentic. This isn't a process or dependent on the mind. Look up the terms kensho and satori. They aren't about "figuring things out" or convincing oneself of one's beliefs. Direct means prior to intellect, perception and experience. Only a breakthrough will do, which is, in itself, self-validating, though the potential for self-deception is abundant. If someone hasn't grasped it directly, it is difficult to convey what that word represents. In the meantime, it could be held as a possibility in one's mind. In any case, if you don't think of direct consciousness as possible, then we might as well go have a beer.

You can pay attention to how you're looking at your life, which is clearly generating unnecessary suffering for you. Notice that you're doing that and stop seeing the situation that way. I could think about what I want to create, etc, or look for things to complain about in life. Take a look at what you're doing, thinking and focusing on. Otherwise, enjoy your current state, let it go, and welcome the next one. Positive framing.

Sure, and it's also possible to grasp it directly, as in the case of Ramana Maharshi, for example. This breakthrough allegedly doesn't pertain to the domain of relativity or mind. It is consciousness of what is. The legend of Gotama exemplifies this possibility. Even though it remains hearsay for us, the moment one has a kensho or first glimpse, one's relationship to the matter changes.

You're saying: we don't know. But can it be "known"? That's what the pursuit is about. Beware of conflating failing to grasp one's nature with thinking or concluding that it is impossible. After all, it is you already. Also, better not to confuse this work with an exercise in speculation and self-conviction. It is tempting for the mind to keep it in the domain of abstraction and intellect where it is safe, whereas honestly confronting oneself and one's experience isn't necessarily comfortable. Throwing some things around.

Intellectual speculation isn't the same as true questioning. Absolute isn't "lots and lots." Whatever associations your mind makes up in relation to the word "absolute" is just an idea and isn't it; assuming that it is Y or X puts us in the wrong footing.

Distinguishing between authentic teachers vs charlatans is useful: Are they profoundly conscious? Coming from a real experience? What and why are they communicating? Do they intend to facilitate or to entertain? This should leave out many individuals. Ramana and Ralston seem to know what they're talking about; as for the rest of us, I'm not so sure.

@Rishabh R You have to take ownership of your anger. It is your experience. Perhaps you can look into the hurt behind the anger and contemplate what in you felt threatened by whatever you assess as having helped precipitate that hurt for you. Start by acknowledging that you're responsible for your experience.

Whatever experience is, it is best if one contemplates it for oneself, setting aside what essentially boils down to hearsay. So, investigate and find out.

Depends on what you're talking about. Generally, it is simply becoming conscious directly of the nature of an absolute aspect of existence. Either that, or you could hold it as a relative process, such as having an insight into a dynamic, principle, or condition -- "awakening" to the reality or origin of something in a way that is authentic and based on experience.

Can you clarify what you're asking and why?

That may be the case but it doesn't mean you're enlightened or that you're using effective distinctions and talking about something real and grounded, even if it is abstract. Consciousness can't be mapped, so that emphasis is off-putting and misleading from the get-go. Certain foundational, flawed assumptions may be conceded with such an undertaking. Although he sounds to be stuck in intellect, Wilber does seem to be a smart guy overall. But hey, either you grasp your nature for real or you don't, no matter what others, including yourself, say or have heard.