UnbornTao

I meant Razard's attempt at making up a cosmology. You're conflating a psychological condition with direct consciousness.

Avoid making up bullshit as much as possible.

yep

Of course he's just doing it out of the pure goodness of his heart.

You know you can use four, and even five, laughing emojis, right?

@Princess Arabia @Bazooka Jesus stop the childish behaviour. Instead of downplaying a communication, contribute something useful, or not. Keep to the original thread.

What is boredom all about? Why does one need distraction? What may lie behind this drive? What is one trying to get away from, if anything? What is one trying to accomplish? Why boredom?

People are easily fooled by the appearance of things. Go look for decent role models if that's what you want. There are highly intelligent and mature options out there unlikely these ones. There are men to look up to and yet you guys choose to follow opportunistic, cool-looking children.

Leo's busy playing Starfield. No new episode until 2024.

Unless you were totally and completely conscious, which is highly unlikely, there is always more stuff to become conscious of. And consciousness doesn't make you dumb, distinctions such as contemplation and inquiry can still be operative in your experience.

If you keep increasing consciousness, fear will subside, won't it? Maybe it's a matter of not having gone far eough. The point is not to stop with the fear but to keep investigating.

I would postulate that a genuine increase in consciousness is never scary. As a matter of fact, the more consciousness, the less fear. You'd become conscious of what something is which tends to reduce fear in relationship to it. But I don't know. I'd say don't confuse altered states, especially psychedelic-induced, with direct consciousness. After the trip, what are you conscious of?

Belief undermines openness, curiosity, questioning, learning and discovery. Don't take them seriously and extinguish as much disempowering ones as you can find.

What is generated for a purpose of survival other than what is is a manipulation. Since it is not what something is for itself, it is done to accomplish some end, to affect (produce an effect on) the perceived condition. For example, you may assess that others are not perceiving you as you would like them to, so you set up to affect that condition so that the desired result is produced, which is to be perceived a certain way. Everything we do, think, say and emote is a manipulation. In other words, it is created to change conditions. You get angry in order to protect yourself from the hurt underlying the anger. The purpose of anger is manipulating your condition of hurt. You tell a joke so that another likes you. You act in such a way that another finds endearing, etc. This is an on-going dynamic in your experience. What is for itself is not useful for survival. Within the context of survival, there is no reason for experiencing something for itself. Survival is all about what things are to me. It occurs within a self-referential perception of conditions. It is about how something relates to you, not about the thing itself. Can you begin to see the difference? Now, there are two distinctions that can be made within the domain of manipulation: Direct manipulation: being straightforward and transparent about how you manipulate. Example: "Give me the pencil please" Indirect manipulation: the one commonly called manipulation. It is indirect, covert, deceptive. It is made to appear as not a manipulation. It entails hiding away your motives, not showing your actual intention by deliberately misrepresenting it, playing coy, etc.

You already likely sense or suspect how to go about this practice. Tell the truth. Be clear about your experience. Accurately represent your experience as it is. Be straightforward about your intentions. Avoid withdrawing relevant facts if a situation calls for them, don't lie or conceal. Become completely aware of your internal state and of situations. Call things by their name. Notice how you pretend and gradually move towards authentic expression. Don't assume that being honest has to always be painful. Practice and learn it on your own.

Nora Bateson criticized stage theory a few years ago. This article attempts to answer the question: Is stage theory BS? https://www.sloww.co/stage-theory-nora-bateson/ She wrote a comment at the end that may be worth a read.

Noticed that 2 days ago too.

You think enlightenment is a process and that a practice can get you there. When it comes to Truth, near is too far. After all, it is already the case! The only requisite is becoming conscious. This business might have nothing to do with use and utility. Consider the dream analogy: Is doing X going to produce awakening as opposed to doing Y? They are both "dream stuff". X might be more useful than Y for mastering the mind and such, however, waking up is always done by you now. That's the meaning of direct. Actions still have consequences. Clearly, meditating is worthwhile as it provides many benefits, especially compared to disempowering activities. Mastery, transformation, mind control, a study of the body, etc. are extremely worthwhile to pursue. But enlightenment is another matter. The best you can do, it seems to me, is contemplating; want to know. A breakthrough doesn't seem to have factors, though; it occurs when it does, and it is a mystery to me why this is so.

To be clear, I'm not invalidating the relative domain. I think it should be studied and mastered. I'm just saying that enlightenment is not a thing (man I'm obnoxious). So we're in a dilemma: no action produces enlightenment, and yet it is possible for oneself to become conscious. How come? No idea. Sure, different definitions of this matter can work (for what, though?) as long as we don't take them seriously. It is up for grabs. I'm clear that no practice by itself can ever produce consciousness, it may help increase it by focusing the mind, etc. It is a breakthrough -- always sudden and now. I contemplate organically "Who am I?" while recognizing that it is something I do, not the practice, so to speak. Not saying meditation, yoga, reading, breath-work, semen retention, psychedelics or fasting shouldn't be done. As beneficial as certain practices can be, their purposes are different from enlightenment. In this regard, what can be done and is helpful is intending to know, being open that such a breakthrough is possible for you now. You'd be as if waiting for it to occur, aka contemplation. At some other time, we could tackle what language is. In any case, until after several enlightenment experiences, all of this belongs to the category of mere hearsay and speculation. All my posts on this thread, in retrospect, seem to be quite pointless too. So everyone, go get enlightened, then you can tell us what it is. Happy contemplation.

Historically, women have been suppressed and discouraged from engaging in various pursuits, "mysticism" included. This might be one reason why not many female teachers have become widely known. They also probably used an overly cryptic, socially acceptable rhetoric for fear of being found out.

It makes little difference. Survival is a struggle for everyone, and countless humans have had awakening experiences in totally different circumstances. Having some space and free time helps, though. Enlightenment is pursued while life happens. For example, Gautama renounced wealth in order to pursue freedom from life and death.

Everything is relative. Nothing can be said that is absolute. No problem with that. Holding enlightenment as a relative thing can be problematic, which you insist on doing. This is a trap. You still assume it is something that can be correlated with brain functions, an attainment to aspire to, a process, a goal facilitated by tools and practices, etc. This is false, enlightenment is another matter. With this I'm basically saying that it is up for grabs. Nothing short of direct consciousness into the matter will make a real difference. And yet, we can still chat about it. But this should be acknowledged as fun speculation that will lead nowhere, except entertainment. This issue goes deeper than language, though. The way one talks represents how we hold things to be.

What if they are two different matters? You may be conflating the way life is lived with consciousness. These are not the same. In fact, as only a few examples, teachers such as Nissargadatta, Chogyam Trungpa and Alan Watts had addictions. What's more, Jesus presumably had an anger management problem. How come? Weren't enlightened people supposed to always act in a loving, sensible manner? It is possible to be awake and do stupid things. After all, teachers have different personalities and dispositions. Do you think there hasn't been ruthless teachers that contradict your ideals about gurus being loving and soft-spoken (or whatever fantasy you hold)? Besides, what can be done prior to awakening can be done after it, including emotions.

How we talk and the language we use shows how we hold things. It isn't just a game. There's no way to grasp this through mind, perception or language. Chatting and speculating are already the norm. No need to add to that, imo. Having a bunch of concepts about enlightenment does more harm than good. Let's personally settle the matter by having several enlightenment experiences right away.