UnbornTao

First we'd somehow need to realize the nature of what we're talking about, which is consciousness.

Not familiar with this topic. Perhaps someone else can offer some help.

I'm not convinced he's conscious of his nature at all. Nobody with that wig can be enlightened.

Taking up an invention and being familiar with it is not the same as understanding how it comes to exist and work and being able to reproduce it in your own experience. Discoveries and inventions are made by individuals. Ways of thinking are created based on those discoveries and then gradually adopted by the rest of us. Yet, the initial creative component of such inventions often goes unnoticed. We live as if familiarity implies understanding. Looking closely, however, we see that there are many things we don't truly comprehend, yet adopt as givens. For instance, we overlook the fact that it took a genius like Newton to make a breakthrough into the principle of gravity. We now say that gravity is obvious since "everyone knows that objects fall down." But we're missing something fundamental here. What Newton understood was that objects don't float, go sideways, or rise! He grasped a principle experientially. More examples of this point: Confusing an expression or the form something takes with the potential insight underlying it. Picasso's art died with him; the ability to create that art was unique to him. As a culture, we are somewhat familiar with the Ancient Skeptics, yet very few of us can generate that kind of rigorous, deep, intelligent, and multi-faceted thinking. We take on the invention of language and presume to know what it is since it is a prevalent construct paramount to our survival, yet we remain unaware of its real nature. An insight might precipitate the invention of new “isms,” which almost invariably degrade into forms of shared conjecture, missing or overlooking the original discovery.

Blueberries, oreo and weed.

Dodo and red cabbage pizza.

Pain is a process. What is it really about? Leave God alone.

Anything done mindfully and with attention works. It's about you being conscious, looking into stuff, rather than the activity bringing you consciousness. You could start by asking what's in front of you (in your experience), like: What is this emotion? Wash the dishes, walk, play, write, do Tai Chi, cook.

Chicken on pizza isn't good! I'll die on this hill.

Talk is cheap.

Not the first time The Simpsons would get it right.

Who said you should behave in this or that way? You might as well cure cancer, play video games, or anything else; reality ultimately doesn't care, but you of course do. "Should" comes from a value system or ideal. However, you don't want to use this as a justification for harmful or foolish actions. Treating others reasonably well leads to a more seamless interaction (with exceptions) and is overall an intelligent collective survival strategy. On an individual level, you wouldn't want to be treated poorly or disrespectfully. You'd realize the consequences that such behavior has on the other person. Conversely, being "good" (depends on what that means to you) generally leads to mutual benefits, even though you could spit at their face.

With mastery in mind, it ultimately isn't about what you choose to pursue, but rather that the pursuit brings to the fore your relationship with yourself and with life.

I started writing a different response and then realized that it wouldn't cut it. We're basically talking about a possibility called "realizing the absolute" while living and being stuck in a world of relativity, so to speak. Having a few enlightenments is the answer. It would save us all this pointless intellectualization. Convenient thing to say but for some of us this is the main goal. Ramana Maharshi's first teachings, and presumably his most potent ones, were said to consist of him just being silent. Something to consider.

What do you want me to say? He's deeply conscious and knows what he's talking about. I would first study a given teaching that's promising and do some real work, then make up my mind about it. Frankly, I don't think anything I'll say will make much of a difference at this point. This is similar to the issue above; trivializing Ramana's teaching. Assuming that knowing the right spiritual terms implied any real personal understanding of what's being offered.

I've been meaning to watch it.

Brad Goodman self-help!

@bambi Calm down. Pay attention and listen to it first before dismissing his work. Not gonna argue with you.

One can dream.

@bambi @Scholar Your disposition is the epitome of ignorance. Instead of taking your first impressions at face value, pay some attention.

What did the solipsist say to the solipsist?

Any statement can be interpreted as an assumption. But could there be a real recognition underlying the communication that validates such view? Say someone "gets it" and then claims something like "Consciousness is all", if that were consistent with their breakthrough. First, you don't have to believe in it. You can try listening to it and the "experience" may get across to you, that is, you grasp your nature (this would be like a transmission in zen). The key is the consciousness itself, not anything else that comes after it such as the expression. It must be validated through personal "experience." Hence the role of self-inquiry. One challenge is that we may not understand what "direct" means. Do you hold it as possible--becoming conscious of the thing itself without intermediary, absolutely, prior to experience, mind and perception, beyond a doubt? The terms kensho and satori can give the mind something new to ponder. If you don't think it as possible, then this awakening business is a mere fantasy to you. And relatively, why close oneself off? We may be able to understand directly the nature of things beyond assumption. We just shouldn't conflate our failure to do so with concluding that it is impossible. This is where the principle of openness comes in. Why is Gautama known as the awakened one? Leaving legend aside, he exemplifies the possibility of "complete enlightenment", whatever that is. Can we understand everything there is, as the Buddha presumably did? I'd say yes. If a human could do it, then it means that it is possible. There, an incoherent mess.

I'd start by making a distinction between thought and experience. This is the problem with "cosmologies." If you take Ramana's case so lightly, comparing this and that so trivially and superficially, as if you knew what Ramana was talking about, you're likely coming from the wrong place. Thanks for the interchange.

Why insanity?