UnbornTao

It depends - do you have any hobbies? Since you're already going to be spending on personal development resources, you might also want to invest in things that help you decompress and relax, like a good video game, a sport, or something similar. Just a suggestion.

bump

Holy fuck the conversation is all over the place now

The bitch of it all is that consciousness ain't a state. Hence the conflation. @Leo Gura - you may not be as awake as you think. You keep bringing up your drug of choice and associating the trip with "Awakening," which makes me think you're still referring to experience and perceptive phenomena. There might be a fundamental blunder in there. That's probably the genesis of the "sober" narrative. You're literally denigrating truth into a drug high. You really think the Absolute is accessed through a change in physiology. You know, Ralston, Ramana, Meher Baba, Adi Da - they might have a point. When you asked Ralston about the impossibility of him being in "constant" Satori, you were still holding direct consciousness as a state that one has. And he told you it wasn't an experience - that you were looking at something other than Satori. Something like that. "Consider this possibility," is what he told you. Did you listen? "Do you think Ramana would be less God-realized if he had dementia, a brain tumor, or were drunk?" To go one step further: Do you think he'd have been less God-realized after his death (at which point his brain obviously didn't function)?

You keep resorting to that when it suits you.

I don't think that. What I'm saying is that the way enlightenment is used refers to becoming absolutely conscious. So there's really no "greater" "weaker," or "beyond" as far as the absolute goes, because it isn't relative. Those terms describe relative distinctions that don't apply to the absolute - even though one might be more deeply conscious of it, it's still absolutely true. So again, from the way I use the word, it's a matter of semantics. Exchange the term enlightenment for God-realization, and it's no different. Ramana was "God-realized."

Well, consider Brendan's point. Again, his position is based on direct consciousness, not on his experience with the substances. I think he actually tried 5Meo and said something along the lines of: "it's not it." And how could it be?

Why are you taking it personally? Again, when I had my 5-MeO breakthroughs, I could've come here and fooled you into believing I went through a God-realization or Awakening - and most of you would've eaten it up. But I passionately avoid doing that. I know the kind of things you guys like to hear; it would just be a matter of adopting that mental framework, position, and terminology. But I'd be describing an experience, and it wouldn't be "true." It'd have started with me fooling myself about what it is that "happened" while high. Shulgin and Leary were both people who took a bunch of drugs. The latter earnestly tried to get God-realized, but without success - he was barking up the wrong tree. He was hoping to change his physiology and as a result of a process produce an absolute result, which is not possible.

Pay attention, Leo. It's a different one.

You said it was correct to claim that infinity is everywhere, as if it were an infinite object, but OK.

When you say that, you're holding infinity as something subject to space - a "limitless" location. Accordingly, it isn't anywhere, because it isn't just another 'item' among other items. In short, it cannot be thought. Whatever comes to mind in relation to it will miss the mark and be incorrect. Notice that this is very likely everything you have regarding it - notions about infinity: a mentally apprehensible form of knowing. This is not infinity.

Weak relative to what? Are you sure you're not referring to a state? Again, Maharshi was "enlightened."

The point is that if it isn't "true," then don't call it enlightenment (or anything similar) in the first place. Then again, the trueness isn't found in what is said, or even in what is gotten across. So it was already the case that, even if you were the only one who is conscious of God, what you said about it wouldn't be accurate either, because this matter is by nature "un-conveyable." So, you are (or may be, for all we know) "enlightened."

What about those who think they're "God-realized"? This is what I mean - it may well be a matter of semantics. And in either case, it is not a domain or just another distinction. That's the point. If it is an "enlightenment," by definition it is authentic, in the way the term is often used. Otherwise, if it's just an experience, don't call it that. If the trueness of direct knowledge sits atop your thinking, you may in fact be self-deceived, whether you label it God-realization, kenshō, or walnuts.

You do know it's just a term, right? As are God-realization and Awakening. It's becoming conscious of the absolute nature of you or existence. When we say this individual is "God-realized," what it's being pointed at is his consciousness and understanding, not a distinction that the term elicits. It's likely you're just using the term differently, but it doesn't change the understanding part. Call Ramana enlightened or God-realized or liberated, it's all the same for him. You think it is just another distinction within a hierarchy or some such. But it isn't relative, and there's nothing higher, lower, or beyond absolute.

Yeah, it's invigorating! One step closer to enlig... God-realization!

I suspect one of the first questions to ask is: What is the thought directed at? What's the relationship that calls for the existence of the thought? Because, in isolation, it's hard to tell its quality.

Ask yourself what it is really up to. Most of the time, it's a form of fantasy.

@Socrates That was a joke, by the way (since you're Socrates.) Should have added an emoticon.

Damn, work it, ramana!

Ramana was dragged kicking and screaming from his cave by his followers.

🤣

Thank you.