UnbornTao

That should have been the name of the second channel.

Systematizing "contemplation work" is a bitch. Any attempt to intellectually piece things together will be inaccurate, and it can't be a consciousness of the truth. It can also be counterproductive because we're now comparing systems of ideas with each other as if we were directly in touch with what's being conveyed by presumably authentic sources. And generally we don't seem to notice this trap. So, zen stick.

Write from scratch, with nothing to stand on except your own experience . Face the blank sheet. No external input of any kind, no overly extraneous concepts. Confront the matter at hand; investigate it, then communicate your experience of it as it is -- without distortion, preference, withdrawal, or bias. You can approach this exercise in many ways, but one I favor involves contemplating what true creativity means: creating something new for yourself and in your own case, like a thought.

The purpose of this journal is to share questions, humor, and half-baked considerations on personal empowerment and consciousness. A few goals in doing so are to deepen my understanding and improve my communication skills, have fun, and help others see things in a new light.

MONEY!

@Someone here Real questioning is experiential and not vague. It seems to me that you often just want to debate and pass the time. Nothing wrong with that, but if you want to get more serious, I'd suggest contemplating 'Who am I' in addition to an aspect of experience, such as perception or an emotion. Hope that helps.

Make that $6200.

It is fine but not the reason why I post for the most part. Why are you asking?

@Someone here It was an actual question, hopefully in order to move us toward increased consciousness. But entertainment is fine.

I wouldn't frame it as a negative per se. Leisure and socialization have their place -- to a certain extent they're necessary. Life might consist mostly of mundane moment after mundane moment. Here's a great quote that relates to this sentiment: By J. Krishnamurti.

Probably, if you pay attention, you could respond the questionnaire in way that aligns with the result you want.

A new thought is that it might not be an experience. If we want an answer: Mu. How's that?

I've got to sell an energetically charged rock for $1,600 -- supercharge your meditation by a factor of 100!

Nice.

Being bored for days at a time, the ultimate spiritual practice. And the most painfully mundane.

So what are you asking in this thread? Leave the absolute aside as the chitchat doesn't seem to help at all. It is an unknown possibility for us. Talk is easy and isn't the same as coming from a consciousness of what's what, and recognizing this difference can be tricky -- that's essentially my point here. But again, ask in a way that's real for you in your own experience and that would help you move toward something more genuine.

Cheer up. The role of yourself in creating whatever is experienced shouldn't be overlooked.

Stolen from admin.

You must see this is as a feeling you are generating, perhaps having to do with hopelessness, maybe in order to justify or defend a complacent attitude. But that's up for you to find out. A question that can be can continually asked is "What is this in front of me?" This referring to your experience of anything. "Is limitation bad, or is it rather a necessity for anything to exist? How could a possibility be actualized without limitation to ground it in reality?" Maybe the expectation that our every desire must be fulfilled sets us up for endless disappointment. "Is it possible for one to be happy and experience suffering -- or pleasure, joy, boredom, and so on?"

You are putting the cart before the horse. Once you realize that you truly don't know what anything is, you can begin questioning what's in front of your nose (experience) and move forward from there. Investigate this and that, generating insights, until you become a "Buddha". Then, you can return to the world to wrestle and dialogue with us.

At the same time, even seemingly universal agreements do not equate to understanding what is actually being agreed upon. What’s objective and what’s subjective? The laws of physics may apply universally, but notice that disagreement is rarely about “objective” realities. An apple is an apple, but what occurs if you consider it ugly? Is that the same world/experience for you and me? The act of complaining itself, as you mentioned, isn’t a fact of the universe but an action. It is likely experienced very differently from one person to another; it is not a “fixed” reality. Also, it is within this shared, taken-for-granted world that humanity, at some point, “knew” that the Earth was the center of the universe, that witches existed, that storms were caused by angry gods, etc. Notice that we live as if our cultures were “true,” but none of them are. They are invented worlds we unknowingly operate within and yet consider to be reality, much like fish don’t recognize they’re swimming in water. This suggests we have a hard time distinguishing between what’s objectively there and what’s subjectively added. For example, football fans watching a game share a particular “fantasy” of what’s happening -- it is a little world to engage in, not a fact of the universe, even though we think we’re just encountering what is there.

It depends on what you want to accomplish with the exposure. At the end of the day, what you can do is putting the word out, exposing others to the work. People will always interpret and handle the material in their own way -- kind of like the Telephone game. Obviously this is simplistic but the point is made.

If someone is profoundly conscious (which is not a given and rarer than we often think), there wouldn’t be much disparity between two such people. This isn’t to say their beliefs or opinions would necessarily be the same -- they might differ greatly -- but a consciousness of what’s true is a consciousness of what’s true. The issue seems to arise when attempting to communicate the absolute, along with the sheer rarity of an individual truly "listening" to that transmission. As a game, imagine if we were to put Ramana, Buddha, and Rumi in the same room (and they somehow understood each other through language), there wouldn’t be much disparity in their “view.” But I imagine this mutual recognition would be incredibly difficult to convey to us, who are ignorant of any ultimate truth. As for the disagreements between people, most of them are really just posturing; they believe something and conflate a statement with consciousness of existence. What they're up to for the most part is entertainment, defending their beliefs, and engaging in various social games. Another story: In a gathering of monks, the Buddha was giving a lecture. He is said to have raised a flower, at which point Ananda smiled and was said to have “got it.” He grasped what his cousin was trying to convey. That seems like a magical occurrence. We must admit that such a thing is a complete mystery to us. So, the issue isn’t simply about making claims, agreeing on them, or being convinced by them. Also, you seem to be talking about relative matters too.