UnbornTao

You can also just go for an experience of real being now. Why wait until one's self has been stripped? I suspect in practice those aren't mutually exclusive: to perceive Being, the self must be seen for what it is. Bless them. Sure. We can pursue it, and at the same time, direct consciousness is always sudden. There really isn't a path, but often, prior to this kind of realization, there's a process of dwelling on a question, investigating, discussing, and perhaps studying pertinent material - which might help put you in a good state, even though awakening isn't a result or effect. Like waking up from a dream.

That is a sloppy statement.

Perhaps. But consider that the now is an absolute and might even be the source of time, prior to "before and next", or the context for them. That is, we have yet to become conscious of the Now - it's likely being heard as the way we experience "the present moment", which is fine. At the same time, they aren't quite the same thing. I can't really tell because I'm not conscious of that now.

Do we actually grasp the significance of that, though? That's the key question. Intellectually, we can understand it. It's relatively straightforward if one understands English. But what does our experience say in the matter? It's a fascinating contemplation. For example, we likely keep holding the present as a moment in time, and don't quite perceive the Now. Anything we point to - whether it happened years ago or a millisecond ago - seems to be process-based, which isn't the same as an experience of now. Now it's an absolute, and naming things is one of the functions of language, so things can be named; another thing is whether that is an accurate representation of what's so. It's still a representation and not the thing itself. Some food for thought, sorry if I sidetracked the thread.

Thoughts are a form of concept, after all. But what if "my" and "hand" were also conceptual, in some strange way? Never mind. The claim is that it is challenging to locate a raw experience of reality once concept is set aside. What remains is an unfamiliar, open presence - a bare-bones sense of awareness. We tend to assume that "thinking" is just a fringe activity, like commentary tacked onto the "real reality." Maybe this distinction isn't so clearly delineated as we like to believe. You mentioned this above. On a different note: how do stress and related states contribute to effectiveness? It's a different matter believing that they are useful in that sense. And if this so-called "enlightenment" is direct, then it is neither a path nor an endpoint to reach. It's a sudden realization available to us right now.

We're all selfish. Embrace it. It's not a negative thing. Investigate the depths of your own selfishness. Since you seemed to react defensively to the suggestion, what was threatened? In essence, you: some aspect of experience you identify as yourself, or as part of you.

I'm saying struggle is a deeper dynamic, not limited to spirituality, and of course, I'm not exempt from that. But yeah, I do like to show off every now and then - not just shitpost.

Struggle, loneliness, and feeling stuck - in one form or another - are part of the human condition, or at least constitute a virtually universal background experience for us humans. Notice that no one truly "has it easy" in life. Why is that? Even though it may seem that some people act in a more graceful or "effortless" manner, take a closer look at their underlying experience of life. Even when someone is effortless at a particular field or activity, this is often accompanied by tons of effort and correction. Most importantly, as a particular self-character, this form will inevitably confront events and circumstances that are inconsistent with its self-agenda. At the risk of oversimplifying, this is essentially what struggle is. Being and having a self is what creates struggle in the first place. And interestingly, we can observe how much we actually want it! In many ways, we are both driven toward and attracted by this dynamic. It is not a random occurrence. Add to that the fact that this kind of spiritual work forces us to notice this dynamic, instead of resist it or ignore it. We could create an axiom now: to the extent that one lets go of the self (or a particular aspect of the self), struggle will subside. By not identifying with or latching onto something extraneous, this contraction naturally subsides in that particular area. Hope that helps in some way.

Don't take it too personally - even though it is hard not to! Also, it's useful for us to hear it as a fact or neutral observation, rather than as a form of condemnation or blame. It's deeper than the common use of the term - it points to the self as our operating system in life. We may feel tempted to hear that as a negative, but it's just what's already so. Nothing necessarily wrong with that.

Figured it could be looked at even more deeply. How can it exist without the memory of a past? This takes us into the nature of time and the Now. Anyway, branching off from your main assertion…

Right. We could ask: What is Now?

You're essentially asking what time is.

What is limitation? As for the direct aspect, we would need to personally have a few kenshos (using a synonym) to truly understand what it points to. It is not what we think. Does suffering help? Taking action doesn't require a negative motivation to drive it. In your example, does stress really accomplish what we assume it does? Not really; in fact, it often deflates and diminishes, and this applies to almost every form of non-physical suffering. And it is currently accessible, too. "See" what is already here. Remove the layers that prevent this clear seeing, so to speak. That is useful. Also, there are concepts that pertain to a deeper domain and are currently taken to be "reality." For example, living according to a self-story might seem convincing, yet it exists only as a product of imagination. By examining our sense of reality, we may come to realize that much of it is a figment of the mind. We could ask: What is experienced, and what is conceptual? It can be difficult to identify anything that isn't influenced by the mind, if not downright generated by it. There's a video on actuality that may clarify this point a bit further.

Just another incomprehensible quote by Ramana. Incomprehensible as in not currently realized/experienced.

@Yimpa Hello there!

Sure, thanks. By directly conscious, what's meant is an awakening. To add to what you said: it is easier to be happy than to suffer. Suffering requires doing something, whereas happiness may simply be the realization of your completeness in the present. But why limit the consideration to a psychological framework? Suffering is about what you do in your experience, while happiness is an unknown, although psychological well-being is clearly foundational for the conventional kind of happiness. You - You are the one who uses your mind. It is not an it that comes up with stuff on its own, as if it were an external force out of your control, like the weather. It's an activity one actively engages. I think the depth of what a concept is still eludes us, though we do have concepts about it. Pain is a concept. How do we reconcile that fact with the way we currently hold concept to be? So, we can see that it is much deeper than a mere idea or frivolous notion.

Brian is wrong! Anyway, thanks for that.

I wouldn't be so quick to presume what being conscious means in this context. You may be referring to being aware or cognizing things. Realizing what something is is direct. That's something to find out for oneself. It's about the truth of you now, so why separate that from our so-called "real life"? Questioning can occur at any time and under any circumstances. This may help shift our relationship to how we experience things - or reframe them, as you said. Doesn't the subtext of this whole thread suggest that we don't actually know what happiness is in an existential sense? We still reduce it to an achievement within the realm of survival. This isn't to imply that "being happy all the time" is realistic for most people, or even that it's what we imagine it to be. In that sense, it's more about "freedom." There's no reason why we couldn't be happy in that regard. Simply realize you are complete now - it isn't elsewhere or separate from you. Definitely. This includes training how we use our minds - not engaging in disempowering thoughts or actions. This suggests that happiness may actually be our natural condition, as hard as it might be to see in the midst of daily life. In any case, it's better to set everything aside and begin investigating the matter from scratch.

@Joshe I hid your duplicate post.

A pleasurable sensation is fleeting and physiologically based. If happiness were like that, it would be limited to a temporary sensation or "high," similar to what one might feel after eating a piece of chocolate cake. That is pleasure. "Bliss" is a new distinction to make here. Consider Ramana once again: from our perspective, his experience may have seemed lacking or poor, and yet he was said to be quite happy regardless. It may sound fantastical, but it gives us a sense of what that condition might have been like.

Real happiness is different from pleasure, gratification, and relief. It doesn't seem to be a feeling or the result of getting one's needs and desires met either. Notice that pain underlies both the search for pleasure and the act of desiring. That's about survival. Nothing wrong with it, but it's a process aimed at persistence, not happiness. A mouse running on its wheel, chasing a piece of cheese that is never meant to be reached — it's just there to keep the mouse running. Happiness, on the other hand, could be seen as being happy with, and independent of, your experience. There's an aspect of it that makes it "independent of self." This is more related to Being, whatever that is.