UnbornTao

sauce

A joke, insinuating that you were @mmKay's nazi friend and are now apologizing to him.

Jerry?

*Personal reminder to watch.

I'm a puzzle

Yeah, seems like matching their energy (for lack of a better term) through words didn't help much.

Oh, I was just randomly coming up with ingredients. Good to know.

Mmm hmm.

No cinnamon, lemon, or mint. What were they thinking?

👍

Breathing your way to enlightenment.

What is anything? As a distinction, 'bear' is relative. A thing comes to exist by virtue of being relative; otherwise, it would not take a discrete or particular form. Difference and language are not the same. Difference comes prior to language, it seems to me. What comes to mind when considering 'bear', for example?

Agree for the most part. I'd also make a distinction between an experience and a philosophy. Communication is about the former. Notice that no philosophy or additional conceptual structure is required for experiential insight; in fact, they can get in the way. Our deep need for, or reliance on, belief suggests that we (the entire world) may not truly know what we're talking about. In this existential context, one might attempt to mask that fundamental ignorance by adopting certain systems or practices such as nonduality, idealism, scientific hearsay, atheism, religion, ritual, psychedelics, materialism, solipsism, Scientology, Buddhism, "no-self," or any of the rest.

Get him!

Still, why use an abstract term for a presumed breakthrough? Why wouldn't Ramana use terms like X or Y? In fact, for a long time he reportedly remained silent unless asked, if I recall correctly. Anyhow, even if it was a genuine breakthrough, one might not be entirely clear in their mind about what it is they became conscious of. Also, the mindset behind phrases such as "my truth" can be problematic, in my view. We could think of truth as impersonal, even the truth of one's self and of existence. The way language is used hints at the experience someone is coming from. The way I see it, such claims tend to suggest the person is speaking from intellectual conclusions. What is not a concept? According to Wikipedia, the term derives from Latin as a combination of solus ("alone") and ipse ("self"). Again, why would abstract terms be necessary to communicate an experience? I imagine that experience is still what one is referring to. It's useful to observe that everything that happens occurs in your experience. But to claim that this is ultimately true is premature. This is not too dissimilar to when someone talks about "no-self" and all that, claiming they understand it or live free from their selves. Sure thing, buddy. (As a general remark, not directed at you, since you admitted that this was a memory and not a presently operative realization.) I appreciate the honesty. The chances are slim that this is an actual reality for the one claiming it. More often than not, they are stuck in an intellectual world without even noticing - especially when it's taken trivially or as an aspect of a cosmology. That suggests a concept being believed in and adopted. The reality of it is very different from our conception of it. And even though we already "know" that difference, do we really know it in our bones? Granted, it's also possible they may have achieved some degree of freedom from self, though that's still a long way from "no-self." Perhaps it's like rationally explaining the event at the very moment one is being kicked in the balls, abstracting it, instead of simply going "ouch." By their own account, it makes one wonder whether the person was actually kicked at all. Not the best analogy, but it may help clarify the contrast. That said, hopefully it was genuine and real, and/or had a positive impact on your life - which it seems it did. As for the arbiter, whatever is ultimately true is the final arbiter; you, me, or anyone else have nothing to do with it. The video on listening I shared in the blog thread may be helpful here.