UnbornTao

OK. I suspect resisting it won't help, so might as well embrace it and ask what it is made out of. It is possible your mind might be contributing to that in some minor or major ways, too. But again, you might want to consult with a doctor.

I'm clear on the distinction mentioned above. You want to feel validated, but a state is a state; consciousness is prior to the body, as if. The possible side effects awakening may have on you are, well, side effects. They are not the consciousness itself, but rather a function of the depth of realization and how your mind relates to that increased consciousness. This seems to vary on a case-by-case basis. You are already inherently selfless - how about that? Don't confuse healing or transformation with awakening. These are different pursuits.

I'm saying that what's true is already true, so the changes in your body would have to be assessed as something distinct from that. Without the fantastical thinking behind it, the reality of it would be much more grounded and real. Really, you're going to try to fit the image you have of awakening into various phenomena, but it just isn't true. Enlightenment isn't an experience nor is it perceived. Was Ramana less enlightened when he had cancer? Or after he died? Did the changes in his body throughout the years influence his enlightenment or viceversa? The questions are irrelevant. It is not a relative matter. What is your self, and what is the body? Ask yourself that. Not saying that there's nothing of value in these things, because there is, but it is a different domain.

High cholesterol: the ultimate frontier of awakening. Seriously, though, I'd avoid falling into spiritual fantasy. One's preferences and beliefs shouldn't be mixed with an assessment of bodily states or such phenomena. They should be dealt with on their own terms, without a spiritual "filter" adding unnecesary interpretations. Your body already works without your self, so to speak. But what you do with your mind does influence your body. So, paying attention to that is in order. If a belief helps you calm down, for example, then that is beneficial and there's no reason to discard it as long as it is recognized for what it is. As @Princess Arabia said, you might want to check with a qualified health professional.

I recommend throwing out all that stuff about awakening. It remains stuck in the domain of intellect and assumption, which isn't useful. What's possible is to consciously be your nature - and that very act is the same as apprehending it. This is immediate, self-validating, uncommon, yet available to anyone exactly as they are now. To put it poetically, it's like knowing whether your tea is hot or cold. This is only a metaphor, though, as enlightenment isn't perceived or experienced. As for drugs, why the automatic conflation with awakening? They only shift one's state of mind, sometimes dramatically. They can be beneficial in many ways, but they don't increase consciousness any more than being dizzy does. These are states and experiences, bound to perception and cognition. That said, such openings may yield relative insights, facilitate emotional release, support psychological healing, etc. Yet none of this is enlightenment or realization of the Absolute. After the trip - beyond the phenomena, visions, states, preferences, and beliefs - what is it that one has become directly conscious of? Usually, nothing. The memory of a powerful state may remain, and a conclusion as to what it all meant. The mind may manufacture stories to confirm its worldview, but that's just the mind at work, not a consciousness of anything. It's like believing that drinking coffee in a dream could wake you up from it. Insight can occur under any condition, regardless of circumstance - so it's not impossible. But we shouldn't mistake states and stories for truth. Checking out Ramana is recommended - if only to get a taste of where he's coming from and perhaps draw inspiration.

A smart person, indeed. It's often recommended to pair it with coffee when you want to reduce the jitteriness caused by caffeine.

The what? I'll take a look at the other thread.

You seem to be referring to perceptive-experience and the myriad of phenomenal (from phenomenon) possibilities within it. Shifts in mind state and the recognition of perceptive phenomena relate to experience or awareness, and consciousness isn't limited to either. Would it not follow from your sentence above that consciousness is an appearance? "God-realization is how reality is appearing to be." Etymology of state: "to stand." An insight can be had, yet the side-effects of that, or of the practice undertaken, are different matters. A distinction must be made between the effects of taking psychedelic drugs, and whatever possible consciousness one might have achieved.The consciousness itself "stands alone." "What? The primacy of state, and solipsism, confirmed, then." (This is a joke.) Direct consciousness cannot be imagined in any way by the mind, and it does not involve process. Consciousness itself is not a process and it precedes state - perceptual experience and mind states alike.

We're far from the point - that relates to experience, and it is based on you. Consciousness is not a state. You're taking Being to be a verb, and that is relative. Regarding "self is all" - you don't exist, and neither do I - so it's irrelevant. There's no one to be alone in the first place. Without the "absence of another," which is based on 'other', how could aloneness come to pass? 'Alone' exists relative to this distinction of "other." One thing is having the beginning realization that "everything that exists exists in my experience"; another is prematurely extrapolating that to something else, like direct consciousness or solipsism. It's fine, "the ability to conveniently interpret our perceptions - and so virtually “create” a world that we believe in or wish to be so - is very strong in humans. We do it all the time, especially with “spiritual” pursuits." Awareness is a limited form of consciousness, as are intelligence, attention, the mind, and perception. The question of what consciousness is is really up for grabs. These refer to the various phenomenal possibilities within perceptive-experience. The description above is full of "this and that", process and action. Psychedelics states can be dramatic, and yet they are still experiences, not much different from seeing a sunset or falling in love. Beyond the phenomena, thoughts you have, what you believe, visions you might have had, etc., what are you actually and presently conscious of? Usually the answer is nothing. Certainly an insight does not disappear when the drug does, when you stop meditating, or when your state changes. And the insight is different in nature from memory and conclusion.

I tried it once, and it might have caused me an allergic reaction. I like L-Theanine.

But what if mind is a context too?

It's not a science. On the other hand, some basic theory can be useful to orient one's mind a bit, as long as the theory is given its proper place of placeholder or possibility. Practice is ultimately what anchors your mind and attention and what produces the results, even if they are relative. Study and contemplation round out the trifecta of this endeavor - contemplation being the only main practice in this case. Everything is relative, including the practice you may take up. That said, actions still have consequences. Generally speaking, inquiring is "better" than watching TV when enlightenment is the goal. Why is that? Who knows? At the same time, while living in the relative world, it is also possible for you to apprehend your own nature. Go figure. For sure, and we don't want to put the responsibility out there either - in a practice, method, or another person. It must be clear from the beginning that you are the one to make the leaps in consciousness. Everything else is indirect. Actually, I'm not entirely clear on what doing nothing would look like in practice. The more we look, the more we can find a plethora of activities that we're continuously engaged in, even if they are subtle and unrecognized. But I get your point. Yes - can't transcend what you are not conscious of.

@PurpleTree Got it, thanks.

The dream of being someone who doesn't care about consciousness may turn out to be made of consciousness! By the way, which thread do you mean? Hey, being busy isn't the same as ignoring. You just wanted an instant answer.

😂 Tiny emoticon.

I see, taking preemptive action to shield yourself from disappointment.

It depends on the distinction you draw with that term. But it's better to ask what it actually is. You are conscious - and aware, perceiving, cognizant, attentive - not necessarily in that order. Try to sort out those distinctions or directly ask yourself: Who's being conscious? Who is this one? After that, you can ask what that is made of. Those are some of the instructions we hear.

State is not the same as consciousness!

Oh no, no such thing. It's about the potential to refine our listening abilities. There, that sounds more elegant.

I'm sorry you think that. Nice twist to the name

Becoming directly conscious of your nature or the absolute nature of existence. I'd avoid trying to sort this out into a playbook or anything like that. Whatever's ultimately true is the goal with that. @Sugarcoat @PurpleTree you guys have no patience

I see, thanks for that.