winterknight

The path is not about trying to make your actions less egoic. It is about obtaining an intellectual framework, becoming more honest about what you want, and engaging in self-inquiry. The one who would want to make actions less egoic is the ego.

I don’t think contemplating these questions is helping your quest.

This “diffuse sense of presence” occurs to someone. That someone is you. It is the object of awareness. By what light is that object known? Of course the “I” doesn’t seem like some kind of localized I object when you look for it... that is indeed the whole point of self-inquiry. What is obvious is in fact hard to localize.

That very I which knows it doesn’t know is what I’m talking about.

Don’t just think about the questions. Follow this guide to self-inquiry.

Follow the guide to self-inquiry. No, not the result of chemical imbalance. The result of ignorance.

There really are no enlightened beings, only enlightenment.

Yeah, that sounds like a plausible problem. I can't say for sure based on my experience... It's probably a toss-up whether psychedelics open more eyes to spiritual possibility or keep them stuck chasing mystical experiences instead of going further.

Sorry I couldn’t satisfy you. Hope you find what you're looking for elsewhere.

There are no absolute definitions of relative concepts.

Sure, that's one definition. My point is that whole libraries of philosophers have written on this topic. If you really are interested, time to start reading...

I do disagree. Though frankly, regardless, there's no question that the brain cannot account for consciousness either way. Though it's such a boring debate to have, I've had it so many times. That depends on the context in which that term is used. This kind of question is way too broad. You might consider reading more books on philosophy if you're seriously interested in the answer. But basically science is any systematically testable means of acquiring information about the world.

It is not. It is the realization that the category called "experience" is itself incoherent as a concept. It is the realization that the category called "realization" is incoherent as a concept. It is the realization of the non-existence and incoherence of all categories, and the meaninglessness of all language. See where I'm going with this?

Thanks

It might appear to be, but it isn't. That's what's impossible to explain about it. You are not looking at something and finding it isn't there. The finding is the realization of the non-existence of "you."

Correct, that's exactly so. Enlightenment is looking into something that appears to be there, but isn't. When you look into it, you find that not only is it not there, but even the belief that it was there -- isn't there and was never there. Therefore enlightenment itself isn't there.

No, enlightenment means that the dichotomous choice between "I am one with my experience" and "I am not one with my experience" is itself incorrectly put. It does not. Enlightenment isn't a feeling. True, you cannot access the truth by concept. If we believe there's such a thing as a body, sure.

Well, that's the problem. That's not what enlightenment is. Enlightenment is the destruction of ignorance. Ignorance is the belief that "I" am separate from my experience -- and ignorance includes the idea that ignorance ever exists. Thus it is ignorance to believe that enlightenment exists. And yet this is the end product of enlightenment; it cannot be taken as true at the beginning by the seeker. In short, enlightenment cannot be understood with the mind. It can only be understood by getting there. If enlightenment could be destroyed by something as trivial as a brain change, it would be worthless.

Matter itself is a thought in the cosmic mind, that's all. So is the brain. The cosmic mind has created a universe that appears to operate by certain laws, and among these is that brain states influence states of consciousness. But you might compare the brain to a radio. Break the radio and the sound changes, but that doesn't mean the radio is the ultimate source of the music. No, the radio station is. And these issues have nothing to do with enlightenment. However many lesions one has it does not affect enlightenment in the slightest. But to understand why this is one must dispel ignorance. Witnessing is just a thought - the idea that "I am witnessing." What does it mean to witness? What is this thing called witnessing? To investigate that question by trying to focus attention on the seeming witness... is self-inquiry. Identifying with a purported witness is definitely an advance over identifying with the simple body, but it is not enough. They happen in proportion to the purity of one's mind and the intensity of one's desire for liberation (and these are connected). There are probably conflicting desires, identifications, and attachments that pull the mind away from the search... because there are doubts, or because psychological/emotional work has been done (this is why I recommend psychoanalysis so often, though that's not the only way). Without that work, the mind will be cloudy and insights will be difficult. For some people, they can help concentrate and quiet the mind, help prepare it for inquiry or surrender.

Sure, that seems reasonable. Just to be clear, the kind of meditation that this involves is not self-inquiry. Certain kinds of meditation are about generating the pleasurable concentration states. Sure, that all seems fine in broad strokes. The devil's in the details.

If this state is peaceful and clear and you can maintain it while going around the world, whatever you are doing -- typing, talking, reading, cooking, working, etc. -- then stay there. If it's limited to eyes-closed situations, it's not enough.

Just to be clear, psychedelics of course need not be used at all, and for some people -- those with a family history of psychosis, for example -- they are contraindicated. They may facilitate by perhaps instilling greater desire for the Truth in the person by giving them a glimpse of it, or perhaps by helping them face some trauma or unconscious psychological issue or gain some intuitive guidance. But that's about it. Yes, and the Buddha and other say just this. Not really, because there are only really two aspects to seeking realization: purification of mind, and looking inward (inquiry). Psychedelics can help purify the mind under certain circumstances, and can give motivational glimpses of truth, but there's no such thing as "transformation of being" beyond looking inward. There's no idea of crossover effects and synergy. All that complexity is misleading.

They're a hindrance when believe that people can be taken to Truth (i.e. enlightenment) through them and so neglect other parts of the spiritual path. The problem with believing that psychedelics can take you to Truth is that it misunderstands what Truth is. Truth is not a place to which one can be taken. It is not a state of consciousness, no matter how amazing, mind-blowing, or infinite. It is not a samadhi, no matter how extraordinary. Nor can any samadhi, no matter how profound, result in the realization of Truth. These -- at best -- can be glimpses or intimations or partial awakenings, but never Truth itself. Not even with integration and embodiment. Actually, Truth cannot be integrated and embodied. To realize Truth is to understand why that's so. The realization of Truth -- and there is only one such thing, and in fact not even that -- is fundamentally the destruction of certain incoherent unconscious beliefs which are at the root of suffering. These beliefs are based in thinking, that is, in words. These beliefs can only be unraveled through a clear introspective investigation of them. That investigation happens through intellectual discernment, not through any particular experience. Words destroy words, logic destroys logic, thinking destroys thinking. No quantity or type of experience can do it, because what is investigated is something common to all experiences. It's a belief that has to be unraveled through examination of experience itself. So it can have nothing to do with any particular experience, however cosmic, nor can it be the result of such a thing. If it did, it would then become provisional -- temporary -- limited -- and that would defeat the point of Truth. Truth is effortless perfect peace eternally. If that isn't the case, it can't be called Truth. When glimpses become an obsession instead of enlightenment. The pursuit of glimpses is exactly the same as the pursuit of mystical experiences. Actually the pursuit of glimpses is fine if done through self-inquiry, really, because they are happening because of the progressive weakening of the "I" concept.

1. There's definitely some connection, but the relevant differences go beyond sensations and even judgment of good or bad into context. An example might be the difference between when a random person sees a cobra vs. a scientist who studies snakes. In both cases they see a snake, and maybe even both feel some fear, but the whole context of the knowledge in the second case is very different. 2. When fear becomes extreme, some people are able to let go in a way they otherwise wouldn't, and the letting go is probably what enables a certain kind of quietness of mind that's interpreted as depersonalization. 3. It's not really about cultivating acceptance, really, probably, but curiosity. They would be ripe to become seekers, likely, and maybe would make progress quickly. 4. Not the same. The anatta is seeing that the you is false, not that you're here and an alien force is controlling your mind.

I did, actually. I've never said you were God imagining all this. And your identification with Nic Terpstra is an illusion in the sense that it might seem to exist but doesn't. It's not something anyone can prove to you, only suggest its plausibility, and then you have to look into the matter yourself.