UnbornTao

Control your mind and use it to create what works, in short. Easier said than done, yet it's simple--not easy.

Stating that one is absolute morality isn't saying much, is it? If morality is relative and constructed, I don't see how your nature could be that. Why would you bring up 'absolute' when morality relates to life, experience, and action? Do you perhaps mean universal or broadly applicable? Also, it's easy for formulations like this to become 'rules' set in stone or to be taken as an ideal. For example, chances are that you've been hurt by someone and have attempted to hurt them back, even if subtly. The thing is, there are many forms of suffering that we actually "desire" or like and actively partake in, albeit unconsciously. This is because we get something out of them and think them necessary, which is why we experience--generate--them in the first place. Would we want to impose these onto others? Your model would be hard to follow in practice, I'd imagine. As a construction, though, it sounds appealing and intelligent. It's a positive direction, even if it isn't perfectly met.

That's the way you hold perception, so it's fine. I take it as a process, hence relative, mediated by biological inventions. And then there's the possibility of enlightenment which is neither a process nor relative. These distinctions help us create a space in our minds between a relative phenomena and absolute consciousness, being in the same place as the thing contemplated, so to speak. If it's true and deeply experienced, not to be confused with an intellectual conclusion or a believed formulation, then I think it'd be solid, but I don't know.

Set aside what comes up for you, as it will get in the way of an open inquiry. Take a serious look, have a breakthrough, then tell me what it is.

The guy was a buzzkill. I'd not adopt a pessimistic philosophy and project it onto one's worldview.

Depends on what we're talking about. Becoming conscious sounds more fitting than to perceive oneself. But direct consciousness itself isn't about perception. But then again, if it's held loosely or as "metaphorical", no problem. I might be a bit pedantic about it, though.

Mu!

You beat me to it.

@Something Funny Enjoyment seems to be a relationship or disposition towards events rather than a reaction or effect dictated by pleasurable circumstances. Take a look at your willingness to let this negative pattern go. If you're not willing, then enjoy it nevertheless, since you want it. You get to be a victim and to defend your position, or whatever it gets you. If you're generating it--experiencing it--it means you want it. Become conscious of what that's about and drop the assumption/s underlying the motivation to act in such a way. I hope this helps, good luck.

Your logic is foolish. To start with, don't take yourself so seriously. Enjoy life without needing things to be different from how they are now. You'd first need to allow things to be themselves, even one's resistance, and from that love and beauty come more easily to the forefront. So, it's fine—whatever you're going through is just a state. Let it come and pass. Then, you'll experience something else, and that is life for everyone. Enjoy the ride.

No point in keeping this thread up anymore. I suggest you first look into your own disposition to see what you can discover and transcend.

Your habitual impulses lead you down the same roads. Discipline is stopping that movement, creating a result that wouldn't naturally arise for you as a result of your habitual patterns.

I'd suggest there isn't a shift in perception because it's absolute. What shift would there be? Perception likely would go on as it is now. As a side effect, likely, but they do not share the same purpose, one is aimed at consciousness, the other at growing and healing. As the Buddha said, I'm paraphrasing, "I didn't gain anything by becoming enlightened". In a way, I also take that to mean "my experience didn't change." Afterwards, there might be a different relationship towards one's experience or a recontextualization, but I wouldn't know.

A whole week of crocodile meat for lunch.

Scene from The Last Samurai:

Yes. Even pursuing pleasure has a component of pain behind it.

I see healing as pertaining to the domain of transformation, but metaphorically, I guess you could call it that. I prefer becoming absolutely conscious. I'd imagine that even after direct consciousness there'd be some healing to do. So, we're talking about two things, not just one.

turn it on when needed.

It is foundational so definitely worth exploring.

Not even us humans are conscious.

I've heard that the word "meditation" originally comes from "med-", which means to heal. Therefore, the way I think of meditation is as a healing process, generating positive states, controlling one's mind, etc; it is not about direct consciousness. That'd better be called contemplation, which is intending to discover what's true about anything, with no particular ritual or cosmology behind it. That's the distinction I like to use. At the risk of oversimplifying: Pain is at the root of suffering, although the latter can more easily be seen through and to some degree, transcended Pleasure and pain are part of the same dynamic Bliss could be regarded as freedom from the pleasure-pain dynamic, so it could be a "natural state," although it is rarely experienced Understanding can be interchangeably used with insight, breakthrough, enlightenment and consciousness, depending on how you hold each of them

@Princess Arabia Disgusting.

Why would they think in ways similar to ours?

It is becoming conscious of your nature, what you absolutely are prior to knowledge, perception and mind. Could also be the nature of other, life, space, now.