Erlend K

I do, Robert. I practice the three trainings of the Dharma: Concentration, Wisdom and Morality. Currently, my main spiritual practices are Samatha-Vipassana and generosity/random acts of kindness.

Put your alarm clock on the opposite side of the room, and use an annoying alarm bell. That way it's not possible for you to snoose. When you first get out of bed to turn of the alarm you are up already and can just get on with your day.

Intuition is not an oracle. It's a set of coars-grained heuristics that the autopilot part of your mind use for making snap judgements. No, you shouldn't blindly trust the judgements of this mental mechanism.

The question asked was "What is truth" (with a lower case "t")? The essence of "Truth", with a Capital "T" is an entirely different question. I agree that we should be careful with Western philosophical notions of truth. Not cynical or dismissive, but careful. Just like we should be careful with Eastern, mystical and 'new-age' notions of Truth. What's right in front of us is mere appearances - the proverbial shadows on the cave wall. The wise approach would be (as your last paragraph seems to suggest you agree on) - adopting a Socratic stance, knowing that we don't know what "Truth" is. From there we can open-mindedly cull glimpses of Truth from the multitude of available sources, mindfully resisting the temptation of labeling whatever seems true at our current stage of insight "The Truth". Not throwing out the proverbial babies of either western or eastern philosophy, but accepting that we might never fully grasp the essence of "Truth" - Yet keep looking.

I wonder how you got the impression that I'm a hedonist. As my previous posts in this tread should make clear, I'm a buddhist, i.e. I practice the middle path between hedonism and ascetisism. If I interpret this quote correctly, you are not actually asserting an equalization of Truth and joy, but rather that nonresistance of truth inevitable gives way to joy. If so, that sounds easier to swallow for me.

Hi @Torkys I have a few questions relating to your post. 1. How do you conceptualize "the Unshakable"? When I google this term I'm led to the christian apologetic book "The Unshakable Truth". Are you refering to the concept it outlines? 2. Could you offer a few concrete tips on how one would go about "basing one's psychology on the Unshakable"? 3. What would it mean for Truth and Joy to be equivalent? This equalization seems unpalapaple to me, but I'm open minded about learning why it seems true for you.

Hi @Quanty! I would appreciate an elaboration on this. What do you mean by "Kundalini centering depiction"? I am not familiar with this concept. As far as I am aware Sotapanna has nothing to do with kundalini. "Kundalini awakening" implies about the same as "insight into arising and passing away" which is a major landmark on the path towards sotapanna, not with sotapanna itself.

That's a tough question. There is a multitude of options for piercing deeper and transmuting consiousness. The optimal permutation of the contemplative path depends on your individual dispensations and willingness to gamble with your mental health in order to speed up the process. One respectable answer is that the best practice is the one you will actually be able to stick to in the long turn. "Dry" Vipassana, whether of the Mahasi or Goenka variety, is the touchstone for the expedient, but slightly perilous paths. Particularly in lenghty retreats "Dry" Vipassana reliably invoke transformative insights, but includes some risk of mental issues and notoriously appalling "Dark Nights Of The Soul". Psychadelics reliably invoke mystical experiences that may or may not be transformative. My contention is that tho psychadelics may incite some initial progress, they are ultimately a puerile dead end on the contemplative path, if alowed to substitute for dilligent practice. Proselytization of Maharshi-inspired Self-Inquiry is endemic on this forum, but I consider myself unqualified to make and insightful comment on this approach. My own practice is a more balanced approach. My preference is working on the introspective, bodily, moral and intelectual planes simultaniously. My practices are: Introspective ("wet" samatha-vipassana combined with psychodynamic therapy); Bodily (weightlifting and yin yoga); Moral (Perform a chosen number of random acts of kindness per week); Intellectual (reading and discursive contemplation). This is not the most efficacious path, but in all likelihood a salubrious one, and a good fit for my dispensations.

I think Sutta Pitaka contains the Pali Canon's sole reference to the four stages of awakening. This map is, of course, further elaborated in the Visudhimaga. I am unfamiliar with "Perceiving the Bull". Is this a dharma concept?

The colloquial meaning of "True" is something like "in accordance with my experience of reality". This is obviously a grossly facile concetualization. What "Truth" means, in a strict sense, has been a central point of contention among philosophers for millenia, for good reason. "Truth" seems to to be one of those truely acaleptic concepts, without any plausible consensus-conceptualization. A few uncontroversial (and insipid) statements about truth: Some pedantic teutologies like "Every apple is an apple" and "1 = 1" seems incontestably true. A cartesian contention of the type "subjective experiences exists" seems incontestably true. Then there's socially constructed, definitional truths of the type "two" is defined as "the sum of one pluss one" => It is true that "1 + 1 = 2" within the context of this edifice. Organons like the laws of logic are mostly assumed to be true, but are occationally challenged. Any deeper/more interesting claims about truth thruth tends to be fraught with speculative assumptions, contrived definitions poorly maping onto the concept of "Truth" or just plain old sophistry.

Kudos to you, @Viking, for staying true to your own experience, instead of reflexively clinging to the new-age edifice of the thaumaturgical wonders of the Now. I only partly skimmed through this thread, but didn't see a lot of insightful responses. Mostly mindless platitudes about how you must have missed the true essense or greatness of the present moment. I suspect this is mostly a way of signaling spiritual capital/ status. Comming form a Buddhist perspective, the experience you describe is precisely the purpose of present moment awareness. That is, recognition of the first noble truth: Life in samsara is a continous string of near-infitesimal, unsatisfactory 'present moments of time'. Complete, vivid attention to experience, reveals the degree of unsatisfactoriness (dukkha) contained in every single one of these moments. In our everyday life we don't always notice this quality of experience. Our minds instinctively seeks distractions from the dukkha of the now. The more mindfulness one is, the clearer the everpresent dukkha becomes. Despite new-age hearsay, the present moment dosn't hold any deep, sublime, secrets. So, why stay in the present moment at all? Becourse only full integration of the insight of dukkha can free us from the distress stemming from clinging/attachment to fleeting sensations. Ideology (including religion) can have powerful placibo effects: If your ideology deeply convince that a mental illness is caused by demons, an exorcism might heal you; If your ideology (f.i. some new-age schlock) deeply convince you that "the precent moment is wonderful" it can create an illution of this being true. If you sit with the present moment just like it is, not projecting illutions of trancendance and wonder upon it, you will notice the everpresent unsatisfactoriness characterising every moment of samsara.

Care to expand upon this? Wouldn't you agree that the only place the phenomenological representation of this object can appear is in awareness, and that awareness itself is knowable (as meta-cognitive awarness)?

By "non-objective" you mean subjective? If so: Yes, language is obviously unable to perfectly capture a subjective experience. That is pretty mutch a tautology. However, this dosn't render our choise of words arbitrary. Certain formulations surpass their rivals in serving as pointers to the ineffable. I recognize the significance of the problem with getting caught up in the proverbial finger. This is exactly what I allude to. The words selected for directing someones gaze towards the moon affects the odds of them actually raising their gaze, figuring out what is pointed at. My oppinion is that certain anthropomorphised platitudes like "The Watcher" tends to obfuscate what is pointed at.

You might not exacly "go back to your old ways". Some change might have occured, but nothing as radical as perpetual bliss. I don't know much about Sadhguru, so I cannot answer your first question. All I know is that he's a savvy businessman and a charismatic, entertaining speaker. I don't know anything about his emotional health tho. If he occasionally suffers, it probably wouldn't be rational for him to admit it anyway. I assume that would be bad for business. When you are in the business of selling fantasies of emotional perfection, you need to uphold a certain image.

Im not 100%"sure I understand your question then. Of course you will get upset and suffer. No, you will not live in a state of perpetual bliss.

There is no sutch thing as a permanent mood/feeling. If you change your lifestyle your moods will change as well. Self development is like brushing your teeth or taking a shower - you have to keep doong it day after day, year after year. It dosn't mather if I dedicate a whole year to brushing my teeth. My teeth will not become permanently clean. I still have to brush them next year and every year for the rest of my life.

I always found anthropomorphisms like "The watcher" to be unhelpful and unneccesary obfuscations. Even tho they are meant as methaphors our minds are too easily confused by metaphors (Anyone read Sapolsky's book "Behave"? It includes a facinating review of the research on how metaphors can confuse our minds). I find it more fruitful to talk about mental mechanisms in non-metaphoric and non-anthropomorphic terms like "conciousness" "focus" and "awareness". Some form of subject-object duality seems reasonable to me, even tho it's anathema on this forum. I don't, however, believe in a Subject with capital S (a personified "Self"). I view consciousness as simply a bunch of overlapping information-streams with various phenomenological representations combined with the faculties of awareness and focus. Once a stream falls outside the awareness-spotlight it ceases being conscious. In conventional language: "I know I am thinking". I can think without consciously knowing that "I am thinking" (daydreaming) - I can breathe without consciously knowing that "I am breathing". The "I that knows" is clearly not the same mental mechanism as the thought. The idea that the first "I" in "I know I am thinking" is a different "I" than the second I is just lingustic confusion. There is a "thought" and there is "awareness of the thought": Object and Subject. These are just two parallell mental mechanisms. For me the term "I that knows" seems like just a confusing synonyme for awareness. The faculty of awareness can be aplied on itself: "I am aware that I am aware". Again, there is no subect observing another subject - no one "watching the watcher". There is just a conscious state charachterized by phenomena, awereness of phenomena and awareness of awareness of phenomena.

For me maturity is closely tied to willingness and ability to take on responsebility/long-term commitments and acting in keeping with character and values rather than feelings.

You might as well just go for it. McMindfulness has grown to become a billion-dollar industry. Spend a couple years of your youth in a monestary/ashram can be a great foundation for building a career in this field later in life.

Depends on your definition of enlightenment. Arahat aka tradtitional Buddhist fourth path awakening, as described in the Sutta Pitaka and the Visudhimaga, is not realisticaly achieved in two months.

What does it mean for consciousness to be infinite?

Goals vary among practicioners. Some chase mystical experiences or pleasant mental states. Some practice in order to feel special/superior to "normal people" or as a part of something. Some wants to improve cognitive abilities like focus and awareness. Some practice spiritual bypassing, as meditation is easier that dealing with the issues in their lives. Meditation/"spirituality" allows them to retreat into their own little worlds and avoid/delay the hard work necessary for dealing with messy, confusing real-life issues.

There is no universally agreed upon answer to that. Some contemplative traditionds consider kundalini awakening as a significant milestone. Other traditions, including Buddhism, considers it as an irrelevant distraction.

This is just nonsense. Im not sure if you are just trolling, or if you honestly believe this.

touché?