UnbornTao

No.

I'm not sure I get what you're saying, could you clarify?

Huh. You assume that a practice will get you there, even when there is actually here, is true now and is an unknown. It's absolute. Only direct will do, no matter what you want to believe. Process doesn't apply when it comes to direct consciousness. What precedes an enlightenment experience is rather secondary. The mind may make up a story about what it did before the realization in an attempt to replicate such an experience, but that's not possible. You must come at each enlightenment anew, so to speak. That's the meaning of direct! What is the possibility of direct consciousness? How many of us have actually experienced it? How can changes in state and "increased" consciousness be distinguished?

Even after awakening experiences there's the possibility for confusion. Enlightenment isn't a result. What territory? You've just said it. It's a feeling. Feeling one with the universe is also a state albeit a positive one in this case. You're still holding this as a process, whereas such experience would entail direct consciousness. Again such things have negative connotations which makes me think it wasn't an enlightenment experience. The key is what is one conscious of, regardless of state, even if it's blissful?

You can count on Ralston to be incredibly grounded and honest even to the detriment of "sales" -- what people want to hear. He's a master and definitely not a teacher for newbies. You can't go wrong with a teacher such as Ramana either. These are very rare. What most of us are overlooking is that no one has become enlightened through psychedelics (and never will), and that he's coming from deep consciousness, not belief, preference and conjecture. I got a glimpse while walking my dog. Quick, everyone start walking dogs and achieve enlightenment. That'd be a hell of a religion.

No, it's always positive. If there's fear more consciousness is needed. Enlightenment has a freeing and joyful effect on the mind. I wouldn't apply "ruthless and unforgiving as characteristics of it. A lot of description about what happened in the perceptive field, conclusions about what the experience might entail, and ambivalence about what consciousness was achieved. Again I hear some intellect there and little clarity. This type of things are always tricky to discern. Sounds like it might have been a change in state, maybe an insight. I remember me having one about my self not being me. I thought t might have been an enlightenment but was likely an insight. @patricknotstar what are you conscious of now that you weren't of before?

@Holykael you should ground yourself. What you've got about this work are mostly opinions and beliefs. Open up and contemplate. Be honest. And then be even more honest.

Smells to intellect. It likely is a change of state, perhaps precipitated by beliefs. Consciousness is joyful and freeing.

Can't happen. It may lead to various physiological and emotional benefits, though.

When it comes to enlightenment -- becoming directly conscious of your true nature -- there's no process involved because the consciousness that's required is absolute. It is direct, similar to waking up from a dream. You wake up by waking up, no matter what worthy things are done within the dream. I'm not talking about transformation, which includes giving up attachments, building a more effective self, healing, improving vitality, etc. Since these are relative they must invariably come about as the result of a process. Enlightenment is what happens while you're contemplating. And enlightenment is true now. You become conscious of it. That's ultimately the only way. The mind can be focused and disciplined but no method will produce such consciousness, it is an impossibility.

That is a vacuous statement as "life" itself is an unknown. Contemplate what is life?

@Leo Gura You're holding enlightenment as a "thing" (relative), that is presumably mediated by brain chemistry. If it's absolute, it isn't a thing. Do you think enlightenment "happens" when the right chemicals are in place? Is enlightenment lost after the "right" chemicals change? You may be talking about a change in state, which is always temporary. His work is also aimed at understanding the relative domain -- transformation, healing, empowerment. Peter isn't saying that certain activities can't help or that they're useless, but that nothing produces direct consciousness but you. Exactly, he's saying just that: nothing -- no activity, process, method or accomplishment -- can take you to the absolute because enlightenment isn't relative nor is it a process. Nothing done within a dream can wake you up. Best you can do is contemplate with the intent to make a leap in consciousness which is always direct. The point is that the brain, genetics, methods are irrelevant here. By that logic, without the pertinent chemistry, awakening can't occur, which is silly. There's no such thing as requisites to awakening, except you personally becoming conscious.

The key is how deeply conscious a teacher is, not the terminology and concepts he uses. Otherwise, anyone could parrot the right words and fool others into thinking he knows what he's talking about. Is he coming from intellect and beliefs or from authentic experience? That's the key.

We must confess that most, if not all of us are coming from ignorance, so I'm gonna share some worthless opinions and conjectures based on hearsay. Enlightenment can't come about as the result of a process. It is direct. There's nothing you can do that will bring it out, except becoming conscious now. You can focus on a question, aka contemplate. But this is meant to focus the mind, no method can possibly produce consciousness. And a metaphor: Could you wake up from a dream by drinking coffee within the dream?

Your ability to trust yourself diminishes, too, as you're unable to keep your word. Lower self-esteem.

Yep, Meher Baba was presumably a deeply awake teacher.

They may or may not be interested in these things at first. You can't control them. Invite them to look into it. I'd advise against trying to convince others -- what does that get you? Let them make up their mind whether this material is worthy or not. Make it clear to them that the work is real, encourage them to come from a grounded and yet open disposition, not from intellect and fantasies. The material has to be studied, contemplated and validated in one's experience. Needing to convince others can easily be seen as cultish behavior. What is there to fear about buying a booklist? If they show interest, let them consider the material and let them know of the value you've gotten from it, if any.

In theory, it's not a mystery: learn to control your mind. When it comes to mind mastery, it's more about what you don't do. So yeah, don't do it if you don't want to.

Three things: Be honest Love him, and make sure you're doing all of the above

You question with the intent to discover what's true about any given subject. What is X? What is a body? What is emotion? What is perception? What is skill?

Would they accept a transfer to Arabia if their salary remained the same or if it were slightly increased? Likely not. But I get your point of how they may also be doing good.

Yes, that's a practice worth developing. Any action can be done as a form of meditation, regardless of state and environment. It doesn't come naturally, it takes mind control, constantly paying attention and being mindful.

I enjoyed Mass Effect 3 as a kid. I think it was 3, yeah.