UnbornTao

What truths? This is my point: pursuits like comparing philosophical systems or schools are purely intellectual and have nothing to do with genuine direct consciousness. They are speculation and are worthless. Such questions stem from a fundamental misunderstanding: the attempt to intellectualize the absolute or force it into a conceptual framework. This approach works backwards from assumptions. It overlooks the fact that they are not a real assertion based on real consciousness in the matter. It's like forcing a square peg into a round hole - the mind attempts to transform the absolute into a knowable form, but in doing so it degrades the reality and completely misses the point. Consider someone who has an authentic enlightenment experience, only for the mind to dilute it into familiar religious interpretations. The absolute can't be reduced to anything, and what you deal with afterwards is not the consciousness itself but a human interpretation imposed after the fact. In simple terms: it cannot be grasped by the mind in any way - though the mind will try regardless. Anyway, reducing such matters to a mythical story or conclusion only serves to distract from any reality that might be true. Only direct consciousness makes a difference. Probably not what you were looking for. In short: you must get it yourself, all the intellect in the world isn't going to make any difference at all in such matters.

@zurew Fuck Zen too, by the way. It falls into the same trap, and your response reflects that stuck-in-the-intellect pattern. This is why consciousness pursuits almost inevitably degrade into a belief system or religion in the end. The main point is that if we haven't had enlightenments yet, we don't really know what we're talking about, so it exists only as a placeholder in our minds. You want to "figure it out" by turning reality into a cosmology, a neat little package. When all is said and done, you find yourself in the very same place as before - not knowing what you and existence are -, only this time with more knowledge piled onto your "knowledge mountain" - guesses and conclusions, no matter how smart. But that is nothing. The matter is not relative. Relative to the possibility of direct consciousness, these discussions are worthless. And what other purpose is there other than increasing consciousness? This is the only way to access what's ultimately true about yourself and existence. Standing on a world of assumption undermines that possibility. Generally speaking, we don't seem to grasp that Jesus didn't invent Christianity, or that Ramana didn't talk about Advaita Vedanta or nonduality. There's a crucial distinction to be made here: grasping the truth versus creating, adhering to, or spreading a belief system. The majority of people are followers engaged in the latter. Still, one can contemplate and personally get it for themselves.

Making that distinction requires grasping what being is. Until some headway is made on that front, it's not an "it." It's not just a part of you, or some object - it's you. So I'd invite you to start using "I" statements whenever you want to say things like "the self does this or that." Pretty much everyone works on improving their self-image, in both subtle and obvious ways. My point relates to the sentence above: you think you know what the self is because you've intellectually turned it into "another," as something separate from you. But you need to grasp that you're really talking about yourself. It's immensely powerful - and, most importantly, it has to be put into practice for it to make any difference in one's experience.

OK - pretend you're a helpless victim of your experience and circumstances. Imagine your role is that of a passive watcher: things just happen to you, and the only option available is to superficially manipulate yourself and events in order to fulfill your needs. Everything feels imposed on you, and enduring it is pretty much all you can do. Now, make it real.

Maybe the real context was the friends we made along the way.

The kinds of realizations we're talking about here - no, they are not. They could be called enlightenment experiences, although that's a misnomer.

I wouldn't be so quick to presume that. It's probably coming from some form of hearsay, and it's likely just conceptual.

I didn't say that. My point was related to "the absolute." What I meant is that a direct consciousness can't be accurately conveyed, or passed along like a ball. Among other things, language is ill-equipped for that task. Nor is the realization itself an experience. And so, we face our dilemma. This might be one reason why Zen has a reputation for being disconcerting or baffling. You talk about sharing experiences, and that's fine.

That's good. I'd recommend you clarify your subject of contemplation so as to not get distracted or overly abstract. "Who am I?" is a good one to start with, and remember that it isn't about simply reciting the words but about wanting to know and wondering about it. Formulating the question is done to help your mind stay focused on the subject matter. The basic instruction is: grasp you. Do that first, then move on to another subject. Then again, stop thinking of self as something different or separate from you. When contemplating, look for the very one doing the looking instead of a notion or some "self" hidden away behind the curtains, or some such metaphor. Seriously, throw out all the nonsense you think you know about the self, it just gets in the way. Pretend you know nothing.

@yetineti I just meant that when someone has an enlightenment experience, they may try to communicate the direct consciousness, but it will inevitably be misunderstood.

What are they useful for beyond those things? In the end, they're just guesses or conclusions, aren't they? They might be entertaining but they don't increase consciousness. You can escape them. One important distinction to make here is between communication on the one hand, and what is not communication, such as the dissemination of a philosophical system. An enlightened person may attempt to convey such consciousness, which is very different from sharing opinions or expounding beliefs. Direct consciousness isn't a function of intellect or mind - not even of perception. It will be misunderstood, but it's worth a try.

It seems that assessing something one did as wrong or bad - and recognizing it - as in "I screwed up" - is an element of shame, which is pretty much what you said above. Adding that it occurs in a social context - "how my actions may be perceived by others" or "how I interpret that others may see them." And the action or its effects are considered socially unacceptable in some way. It can also apply to the actions of another person or a group. Not sure how it differs from embarrasment - you native speakers probably have a better sense of that. Right and wrong might ultimately be unreal or not existential, yet we keep experiencing shame. So the nature of value (I think these are based on value) would probably need to be experientially clear to us first, although dropping shame is more straighforward. Just in case, for anyone else reading, please avoid using this point to justify dysfunctional stuff. Make your beds. Anyway - some incredibly raw reflections. Blame and shame - what are they, really? Something worth questioning. I get the sense of where that quote is coming from and somewhat agree with it, but I think it conflates enlightenment and healing. Nothing needs to change to grasp the truth. It's already true and you... thinking of a synonym apprehend it.

Nice, you seem to be refining your ability to recognize what a concept is. I recommend you sort out what's what. When you say attention, make a distinction between that - which is more about sensitivity or heightened awareness - and the activity of thinking, which is what you might be calling mind in this case. Attention isn't necessarily the same as thinking, and it might even be empowered by a kind of "mental silence." The mere awareness of something, like an object, is that very distinction, and this comes prior to thinking. You recognize lamp prior to your labeling of it, but this noticing is, as if, a background or very subtle activity. Anyway, this isn't really relevant here. Just take your most present sense of yourself at this moment and ask: Who am I? You aren't looking for a notion or a "self," but you - the very one reading these words right now. The mind will provide a plethora of answers, yet these are received by you. It's you - not something else. Just stay grounded and open.

@Carl-Richard The philosophical interchanges can be entertaining and mentally stimulating. At best, they might present a good intellectual argument, but all the intellect in the world won't make any difference at all in these matters. In the end these kinds of things are just guesses or conclusions or possibilities. They are not a real assertion based on real consciousness in the matter. Such pursuits are only intellectual and have nothing to do with genuine direct consciousness in such matters. They're worthless, really. My attempt was more about sorting out what's what in one's experience and pointing out that states and drugs are not direct consciousness. To me, it's clear the OP is conflating phenomena and mind states with any breakthrough that might have been achieved. His descriptions are full of "this" and "that" which are relative considerations, such as a process in time, "losing" the experience, "coming back" from the state, and so on and so forth. A breakthrough doesn't come with all this baggage.

@Natasha Tori Maru Definitely. You don't even need that depth of recognition to see that, regardless of external influences and extraneous factors, it is your experience, not somebody else's - the main implication of that fact being that you are at the source of it. Of course, deeply experiencing this principle of responsibility, not blame, is different from just thinking about it. I might rephrase that.

Investigate your experience. You move your body - who did that? You have a thought - who thought that? Who's playing the victim? Who's reading this now? This isn't self-inquiry - it's simply owning your experience. Now, create a desire for something. Actually do it - something minor: desiring ice cream, an object not in your vicinity, or more comfort while sitting. Desire arises from an assessment: that something deemed wanted is not present in your experience right now, and that obtaining it will lead to an improved experience in the future. That assessment is yours. “I did this, but I didn't really want to - others or circumstances made me do it.” This may be the basic premise of that disposition, and it is not true. The point is: if you took a certain action, you wanted to do it. You may not have desired to do it, but you had the intent, which was reflected in the fact that you performed the action. I'm not saying every action comes from desire, or that owning your experience means you're now in control of every aspect, and therefore things like disciplining yourself comes naturally. There're still habits and forces you're engaged that seem to push you around. Contemplate them: what's drive and impulse? What's a habit? There are further distinctions to be made in the domain of motivation or drives - such as want and intent. Desiring doesn't involve or demand action - it is more like wishful thinking or daydreaming. Yet the basic observation remains: you are not a victim of your desires. You may say you don't want to have a certain desire because it seems dysfunctional or unhealthy or whatever. Fine - you can deal with that while still recognizing that you are the source of the activity, even if it seems to be out of your hands. You need to clarify for yourself what’s what in your experience, and strip away as many assumptions as possible along the way. I haven't explained myself very well, and there's more to be said about this topic, but I hope this is useful.

Sounds good. Is space not a context for objects, though ('dimension' being a function of space)? You addressed the above question in your second sentence. So "the time-space or space-time dimension" might be missing the mark. You may well be using that figuratively, but is context not unformed? Other than that, the sentence makes sense... Still, you might start calling that "consciousness" instead. If it's infinite it goes beyond being a background.

Try clarifying it some more. You insist on being an adept in the religion of Victimhood. To start with, do you even know what a desire actually is? Naturally, then, you might want to consider that first. What is the activity composed of? What occurs in your experience as 'desire'? Certainly, there are external influences. Triggers can seem powerful at times, but they don't do it for you. The presence of a trigger doesn't mean you have to react according to its demands. In many cases, you can even stop it from being a trigger at all. Who or what controls your experience? Can someone else make you angry, for example? Normally, we'd respond in the affirmative - but look closer. Among other things, and beyond the cultural programming, we tend to overlook the lightning-quick process of interpretation and meaning-making that precedes the reaction. This is entirely made by you, even though it might not have been recognized yet. At the risk of oversimplifying the matter, "not taking things personally" is also an option, at least in this and related examples. And what, after all, is an emotion? Becoming more aware of the genesis of your experience eventually shows that you are the author of it. Still, this depth of understanding isn't necessary to see that you generate desire. You're already in the driver's seat, so it isn't a matter of "taking control," but rather of simply recognizing what's already happening. It's like the driver complaining about where the car is taking them. Recognize that you are the driver of your experience, and notice how that's the case.

I share the sentiment. For this thread: Why context?

Put down the pipe.

I mean, by all means contribute whatever you guys think is useful.

Sounds accurate. What about existential context? Like the mind. The "place" where thoughts occur.

@MuadDib

Yes, that's better put. Having other minds contribute to the discussion helps too, in any case. I'd say that insight is something generated - sudden - and that one has to work for it: by focusing, questioning, staying open, and wondering about something. It can be intellectual in nature, but it isn't limited to that realm. It's a Eureka moment, one that usually demands experiential investigation, depending on the subject.