UnbornTao

@Davino How would you go about describing what "advanced" is pointing to? You're likely referencing someone else's creation that you follow - something its creator may genuinely believe in. Yet, when it comes to this kind of work, all models fall short. It's not about deliberately deceiving others, but about being unaware that you're conflating things like opinion, preference, or ideal with genuine insight. “Authentically lying” isn’t a real thing. If something is authentic, it must be honest. Why should being a teacher imply arrogance? It doesn’t have to. I mentioned Ramana as perhaps the clearest modern example of profound awakening - a "trustworthy" teacher. That’s not a call for blind faith.

@Davino Why take their word for it? You don’t even know whether it’s authentic. For example, advanced according to what? What criterion is being used? What are they even talking about - a process comprised of stages? It’s likely something adopted artificially from an external framework, perhaps even by the author himself. I’d be wary of the potential for arrogance that can arise from making claims about “surpassing” teachers, especially when psychedelics are involved. The experience might not have been as deeply authentic or genuine as initially believed. There’s also the common trap of not truly listening to the teacher - often without realizing it. We can count on Ramana...

But what is happiness? If it is independent from circumstances (perhaps it is a relationships that you adopt towards life and events), then why would it have to imply complacency or laziness? You won't just be motivated to pursue stuff in order to compensate for your sense of lack or inadequacy, which everyone seems to experience at least from time to time. In other words, you may be able to be happy and ambitious at the same time, pursuing whatever you want while being happy. The issue is that we may not know what happiness is. Hey, maybe happiness increases your effectiveness, so why not consider that perspective?

If you are suffering mentally or emotionally, it means there's an unconscious, conceptually-based activity operating in your experience that has yet to be recognized. And you are the one generating it, by the way.

We often start (and continue) this work with mental constructions in the way, like assumptions and fantasies. However, I would have admitted it if what you said about "direct" were the case. Maybe Ramana was being authentic. This isn't a process or dependent on the mind. Look up the terms kensho and satori. They aren't about "figuring things out" or convincing oneself of one's beliefs. Direct means prior to intellect, perception and experience. Only a breakthrough will do, which is, in itself, self-validating, though the potential for self-deception is abundant. If someone hasn't grasped it directly, it is difficult to convey what that word represents. In the meantime, it could be held as a possibility in one's mind. In any case, if you don't think of direct consciousness as possible, then we might as well go have a beer.

You can pay attention to how you're looking at your life, which is clearly generating unnecessary suffering for you. Notice that you're doing that and stop seeing the situation that way. I could think about what I want to create, etc, or look for things to complain about in life. Take a look at what you're doing, thinking and focusing on. Otherwise, enjoy your current state, let it go, and welcome the next one. Positive framing.

Sure, and it's also possible to grasp it directly, as in the case of Ramana Maharshi, for example. This breakthrough allegedly doesn't pertain to the domain of relativity or mind. It is consciousness of what is. The legend of Gotama exemplifies this possibility. Even though it remains hearsay for us, the moment one has a kensho or first glimpse, one's relationship to the matter changes.

You're saying: we don't know. But can it be "known"? That's what the pursuit is about. Beware of conflating failing to grasp one's nature with thinking or concluding that it is impossible. After all, it is you already. Also, better not to confuse this work with an exercise in speculation and self-conviction. It is tempting for the mind to keep it in the domain of abstraction and intellect where it is safe, whereas honestly confronting oneself and one's experience isn't necessarily comfortable. Throwing some things around.

Intellectual speculation isn't the same as true questioning. Absolute isn't "lots and lots." Whatever associations your mind makes up in relation to the word "absolute" is just an idea and isn't it; assuming that it is Y or X puts us in the wrong footing.

Distinguishing between authentic teachers vs charlatans is useful: Are they profoundly conscious? Are they coming from a real experience? What and why are they communicating? Do they intend to facilitate consciousness and growth or something else, like entertaining, selling a belief system, telling you what you want to hear, and so on? This should leave out most individuals. Of course, as students, making these estimations isn't straightforward, and we could be mistaken. We'd need to pay close attention and know how to observe impartially. Guys like Ramana and Ralston seem to know what they're talking about. As for the rest of us (humanity as a whole), I'm not so sure.

@Rishabh R You have to take ownership of your anger. It is your experience. Perhaps you can look into the hurt behind the anger and contemplate what in you felt threatened by whatever you assess as having helped precipitate that hurt for you. Start by acknowledging that you're responsible for your experience.

Whatever experience is, it is best if one contemplates it for oneself, setting aside what essentially boils down to hearsay. So, investigate and find out.

Depends on what you're talking about. Generally, it is simply becoming conscious directly of the nature of an absolute aspect of existence. Either that, or you could hold it as a relative process, such as having an insight into a dynamic, principle, or condition -- "awakening" to the reality or origin of something in a way that is authentic and based on experience.

Can you clarify what you're asking and why?

That may be the case but it doesn't mean you're enlightened or that you're using effective distinctions and talking about something real and grounded, even if it is abstract. Consciousness can't be mapped, so that emphasis is off-putting and misleading from the get-go. Certain foundational, flawed assumptions may be conceded with such an undertaking. Although he sounds to be stuck in intellect, Wilber does seem to be a smart guy overall. But hey, either you grasp your nature for real or you don't, no matter what others, including yourself, say or have heard.

You changed "want" to "want to receive" after I mentioned that self-generated suffering serves a purpose for us, implying that we (unconsciously) want it. And morality is relative and humanly constructed, no matter how useful or intelligent, so "absolute" is a misnomer and "universal" or "broadly applicable" might be more accurate terms.

@nuwu Okey dokey

Some social sensitivity is appropriate and at the same time don't get bogged down by social expectations. The principle of balance is helpful in this case.

@nuwu just clarify whether you are actually attempting to communicate something real, or using intellect and jargon and conflating this act with plain communication. Then, if you're going to communicate, clarify the purpose of your communication. If you want to show off or look smart, that's also fine by me, but your posturing isn't helpful to others.

Kylian Mbappeee

Clarifying what the activity is about and its purpose is invaluable. Meditation is aimed at controlling the mind, producing positive states, healing, and stillness. No method can produce it as method itself is indirect. You can be at the bus stop (contemplation) so that when the bus comes, you're ready to jump onto it. This kind of contemplation is having the intention to "experience" the nature of something or have insights into it, openly and actively questioning with that purpose in mind. Meditate, if that's what you want.

Help from Claude: Translation: yes.

I consider other teachers such as Vernon Howard and Adyashanti to be more authentic and grounded, but thanks for the recommendation. Selling Cosmologies By The River

If he is enlightened, I can't seem to find much clarity on his part regarding direct consciousness. I suspect he is mostly speaking from intellect rather than from authentic experience. Speaking from authentic experience tends to come out differently, in a way that is more immediate, present and clear, not tainted by hearsay and so much schematics and cosmologies. But I could be wrong.