UnbornTao

Locked for low-quality. No speculating.

Is happiness circumstantially-derived?

Entertainment. Now go after what's true.

Sure. Seems to be the case, too. For example, you're rarely valued by who you are but by what you do. Not only communicate, but also think, emote and behave. We can consider new possibilities, but generally there's an interesting phenomenon in which we take culture to be real, but it's not. It's agreed upon and made up. Another example: in our culture, when another culture practices cannibalism, we relegate that to the domain of sickness, which is quite arrogant. The implicit assumption is that whatever we consider culture to be is real and the right way to go about survival, with room for some variations (while we eat pork and goat, not dogs, say, the Chinese do, etc.) Cultures are ways we've come up with to survive as a collective; it doesn't have to be a certain way except by mutual agreement. It can be more or less functional and intelligent, but as itself it is not real or true. There's some rambling.

@Osaid What is uniqueness about? You may recognize differences between what you consider to be different individuals, hence the possibility of something being unique. Differences might be invented, including self and uniqueness and notice how uniqueness is acknowledged while self isn't. The distinction of not-self as what lies outside one's self, not as a lack thereof. Self might be a construction but a rudimentary form of it seems to be present for most people, even if transcended to some degree. No one has completely transcended self here. Analogous to computer software, some identified "uniqueness" is the kernel for survival, a very basic sense which might better be called instinct, perhaps. Still, for example, the social domain is an invention and yet appears real to our selves. Someone is enlightened. Do you know everything there's to know? Have you transformed? No, there's still plenty of stuff to be grasped, and chances are you can become more deeply and absolutely conscious. Knowing one's nature doesn't automatically imbues you with insight into emotions, mind, experience, space, time, skill, interaction, principles, etc.

Where did you take this from? Avoid making up BS. If the truth is unknown, first go after it, that means beyond speculation and hearsay, then whatever use you give it to is up to you.

Rephrased it but never mind.

You make it up. Society is based on implicit agreements. Many times they're useful and conducive to a more functional collective survival. Are galaxies collapsing with each other wrong? And stars exploding?

@Osaid I'll take your word for it -- that it is your direct experience or something you're conscious of. I'd say that enlightenment is realizing the nature of what's already true rather than a shift, and it doesn't change anything. The dynamic between self and not-self is present as an invention to some degree for us to function in the relative domain. How could we survive otherwise? Some form of self-identification is there. For example: Why do you wash your car? Who says it is yours? Why wouldn't you try to wash other people's cars? Also, if a chair's leg is broken, you don't consider that it was your leg that got broken. There's a practical reason for that. That points out the fact that you hold your self to be some way. Relatively speaking, you "say" --live as-- that you are here, and not there. This seems to be a basic recognition for survival, and it doesn't have to mean that you conflate your nature with something invented. Enlightened people seem to come in all shapes and sizes. How come they hold different values, interests, traits? One reason might be that they have their own particular way of showing up, and that we might call self. They may have awakened, however there're particular self-aspects and a personality aligned with their respective character. This is an interesting phenomenon. Attachment and fear seem to be related although the former is based on the past. It is about you wanting for a past experience or memory to remain in some form, something you've identified yourself to, or knowledge as you say. Have yet to look deeply into it. These topics are more profound than we are making them out to be, and I think we could be more grounded. Anyway, more work to be done.

Are you essentially referring to a form of suffering that might be identified as feeling unsettled?

Depends on your criterion. What I pay attention to are honesty and clarity, so Krishnamurti is a good example of those qualities. Alan Watts was a good speaker, but sold you a bill of goods. That's the difference that's overlooked by many. Unfortunately, most people are followers who prefer being entertained and being fed beliefs as a replacement for receiving an authentic experience, which is what communication is about.

@Someone here You're right, thanks.

@Osaid But is it your direct experience or something you've heard? By concept I just don't mean a thought, it is reality for you. The drive to persist is incredibly powerful. It is based on the possibility of dying as a constant background sense! Survival isn't just existing. It is the force behind your perception, thinking, acting, emoting, relating. It is you, yourself. As a self, you can and will die -- your body will decay, etc. About people who claim to not be afraid of death, they don't know what they're talking about, unless deeply enlightened, so extremely unlikely. They're talking about their idea of death, not the reality of it. Not minding death isn't about needing it in order to be motivated to survive; it is seeing what life and death are. I haven't said that. I think we're talking about not-self differently. It wouldn't be about not having self but about knowing what it is, perhaps. It is incredibly hard to transcend the self, not-self dynamic. Again, you likely do take yourself to be some way, even after a few enlightenments. For example, you don't take yourself to be a microwave, a notebook or your pet, although in a sense they might relate to your self-concept and thus you might be attached to them in some form -- as your possessions. Gautama still showed up a particular way. Fear might be "imagined" and relates to the future. There's still work to be done to transcend it at large.

@Thought Art let them ask

What is the purpose of these discussions?

From the get go, we should acknowledge the fact that we don't really know what consciousness is. Commonly, it is held as a by-product of the brain although the possibility that it is prior to the brain should be considered as well as this might be the case. We should be open. Usually, what's meant by consciousness is something akin to awareness or cognition, while consciousness sources those two and is absolute. Some speculation to set aside, and confront what it is through deep contemplation.

Learn to anticipate and handle challenges and potential problems before they arise. Ask yourself: What results are my actions creating? Where are they leading me? What long-term outcomes do I expect from my current behavior patterns? Pay close attention to their trajectory, and adjust course immediately if needed. Don’t wait for potential issues to gain momentum--the stronger the inertia, the more discipline it will take to change direction.

@LfcCharlie4 Do some work on assumptions.

Ego is an aspect of self. Self is who you take yourself to be. Leaving spiritual fantasy aside, you likely take yourself to be some way. Yes, it may be a form of knowledge. But it isn't recognized as such; it appears to us as "reality". Concept isn't just a thought you have about something, as if you experienced things objectively, and then superimposed thoughts onto them. Concept creates the experience of self. Again, as a stark example, if I point a gun at you, certain feelings will come up -- these are based on self, on you wanting to remain in some way. Notice how it'd come up as a very real sense of you, your survival, being threatened. And then there's your nature, whatever that is. If you were completely free of self, you wouldn't mind dying as you'd be deeply conscious of what you are. Pay attention whether you assume to be the one behind the scenes, behind your eyes and between your ears, the "owner" of those habits and beliefs. Easy to overlook this fundamental assumption that shows up as reality for us, especially if you've studied spiritual literature. Be experientially honest with yourself, I don't doubt you may have had enlightenments, but that freedom from self has been "achieved." It's true and it isn't.

That someone is yourself. How would you know it is your family if it didn't relate to you? See how you and not you are still operative? Self might be taken as a superficial construct similar to a conventional thought, yet the self principle appears solid and is tightly intertwined with survival -- they might be synonymous. I think we may be approaching the matter superficially. Essentially we're asking, among other things, what is self? Ironically enough, you might to some degree realize your nature, yet unconscious self aspects remain to be discovered and let go of. This is why enlightenment doesn't necessarily transform the individual. Getting completely free from self seems to be about personal transformation, which isn't the same as enlightenment. I define enlightenment as being conscious of your nature. And then the laundry.

@puporing Sounds like you might have conflated an insight or unusual experience with interpretation. This is subjective, as what we've got of historical figures is legend and hearsay. Be honest. In any case, don't sit on your laurels. Keep up the contemplation.

@Osaid Why would you care about something at all? Survival isn't, and doesn't have to be, based on what's true, which you disagree on. There is no self, but you still manage your finances and fix your car whenever's broken. There's self-survival demands behind these, and this is a fundamental thing that no amount of wishful thinking will overcome. One of my points is that there's more work to be done on this domain. Perhaps Ramana would be one of the few people to have actually transcended self, I don't think a couple of enlightenments will do it. No-self as in what's outside self, however you hold yourself to be. I'm not sure what you mean by the second sentence. I think you can be enlightened and have some sort of self, even if you recognize its nature, for example by having a family and a certain degree of attachment towards them.

Wow, thank you. Is there a document where all of these are combined?