UnbornTao

Does it get delivered to Spain?

@Squeekytoy I'm basically saying be honest (about what you're conscious of or not), not that it is bad not to know oneself. Notice I haven't claimed to be enlightened either. Contribute as much as you want. Also it's good that you feel angry, something in you might have been threatened in relation to what I said. If it's not true or as true as possible and it's dropped, that's progress.

@Water by the River You might as well convincingly parrot enlightened individuals as much as you want but without the essential direct consciousness that sourced such communication in the first place, that's basically pretending. Unless you in fact are talking from direct consciousness which doesn't sound like it. "Coming from" as if your stance on this which looks like an adopted cosmology. I'm pointing out that it sounds like no one here knows his nature deeply, and that it's easy to confuse dialogues like this as resolving that fundamental condition. Or you are directly conscious of your nature and I'm being unnecessarily obnoxious.

I'm judging where I assess you're coming from, which sounds to me like hearsay and intellect, no interest in engaging in this. I'm saying, if it's the case that direct profound consciousness is lacking, then conclusions and parroting cosmologies is of no use, so better be honet about that. It's entertaining, but looking for agreement or validation for what is essentially a belief is looking in the wrong place, but have at it.

Assuming any of us really knows what's he's talking about. Seems to me like a chitchat and exchange of beliefs. Giving assertions about the nature of reality while not acknowledging the real possibility that they are believed to be true. I'm judging the way it comes up as it stinks of intellect. In this context that might not be useful, may even be a hindrance. But then again, one might know what he's talking about and being honest about it.

@Squeekytoy Pointing out this social game is not producing direct consciousness, whether an agreement is reached or not.

Agreeing our way to enlightenment!

Plus 20 warning points to OP.

That's deliberate. At best, debates on this matter open doors for introspection; at worst, the exchange and mutual agreement validate what might fundamentally be a pretension of knowing. Regardless of what's said, start by confronting your experience. If you're ruthlessly honest with yourself, are you deeply conscious of your own nature, beyond dogma and philosophy?

@Leo Gura Blueberries for me.

Thank you! Good team.

My dog.

You should just contemplate the fundamentals, like what a belief is.

The principle itself seems to be applicable to many aspects of experience. In a social context, you might be a dick and yet be able to effortlessly question your own stance on other topics. But I don't know.

A lot of intellectual content is likely conflated with genuine comprehension, especially when it comes to the nature of things themselves -- self, mind, emotions, existence, relationship, communication, perception -- whatever. When you set aside the crap (everything that isn’t direct apprehension), what do you actually know -- within your experience or beyond it? What are you deeply conscious of -- truly and directly? So, it is useful to be honest about that.

Highly biased, low-quality.

@Osaid You seem to be holding enlightenment as something experienced. Experiencing is indirect as it is a process mediated by biological senses. You perceive, say, a pencil, but what is it? It can be easy to confuse state, beliefs and unusual experiences with enlightenment, it's better to remain open and to keep contemplating.

At last.

Speculation and make-believe, it seems to me.

What is this discussion grounded on?

Hey, relatable. Actually recently added an article to my reading list on this topic: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/25/style/sleep-problem-late-night.html You can bypass the paywall with a browser extension.

Experience is a process and about something, direct consciousness is realizing what the thing itself is. For example, we experience objects through our senses, and yet seem to be unconscious of the nature of object-ive reality, what objects are. That we perceive something doesn't imply we are conscious of what it is existentially. It is absolute, not an experience.

Experience is indirect. I'd refrain from conjuring up cosmologies around this topic however convincing they are; direct consciousness is what does the trick.

Replace "Gordon Ramsey" with "all of humanity".

You're exchanging opinions and beliefs, which is fine. @Osaid enlightenment ain't an experience.