UnbornTao

That someone is yourself. How would you know it is your family if it didn't relate to you? See how you and not you are still operative? Self might be taken as a superficial construct similar to a conventional thought, yet the self principle appears solid and is tightly intertwined with survival -- they might be synonymous. I think we may be approaching the matter superficially. Essentially we're asking, among other things, what is self? Ironically enough, you might to some degree realize your nature, yet unconscious self aspects remain to be discovered and let go of. This is why enlightenment doesn't necessarily transform the individual. Getting completely free from self seems to be about personal transformation, which isn't the same as enlightenment. I define enlightenment as being conscious of your nature. And then the laundry.

@puporing Sounds like you might have conflated an insight or unusual experience with interpretation. This is subjective, as what we've got of historical figures is legend and hearsay. Be honest. In any case, don't sit on your laurels. Keep up the contemplation.

@Osaid Why would you care about something at all? Survival isn't, and doesn't have to be, based on what's true, which you disagree on. There is no self, but you still manage your finances and fix your car whenever's broken. There's self-survival demands behind these, and this is a fundamental thing that no amount of wishful thinking will overcome. One of my points is that there's more work to be done on this domain. Perhaps Ramana would be one of the few people to have actually transcended self, I don't think a couple of enlightenments will do it. No-self as in what's outside self, however you hold yourself to be. I'm not sure what you mean by the second sentence. I think you can be enlightened and have some sort of self, even if you recognize its nature, for example by having a family and a certain degree of attachment towards them.

Wow, thank you. Is there a document where all of these are combined?

Fun discussion based on exchanging beliefs.

Don't know. Beyond speculating, figure it out for yourself and then come back and tell us. Then, we'll have to do the same.

You may be thinking of distinction as a thought you have in relation to something. However, that you experience something is the distinction. The distinction itself is and determines (your experience of it) what's experienced. It is operative because you're imagining it. Despite its conceptual nature, self can and still is likely being used/operative experientially. Without a self, how could worry show up, in relation to whom? There must be an identity that you're holding (self) that feels threatened by something outside of itself (not-self), hence the possibility of fear, worry, etc. About the arm example, it isn't just an object. The point is that it is your arm; you're likely attached to and identified with it as well as with the rest of your body -- and with plenty of other stuff, too. A few enlightenments won't free you from self either. You can identify with humanity as a whole, the universe, the world, a group or an organization, yet that would still depend on the dynamic between self and not-self. It'd be a radically different experience as the one we now have, as our respective selves would be expanded a great deal, although it'd be based on the same dichotomy/building block (of itself versus what's outside it, what's not it). I'm leaving the nature of existence aside. We're dealing with the relative domain. Everything is a distinction -- experience, something, anything, part, whole, nothing. Without distinction, you wouldn't be going through this particular experience you're having now. Refer to the first paragraph above. In relation to you bringing up concepts such as non-duality. Again, absolutely, no difference. Relatively, there are. We live within the relative. You don't eat absolute consciousness, you eat spaghetti. That shows up as a specific experience.

No, it's a belief system.

Survival isn't based on the truth. Knowing what's true is unnecessary for survival. A distinction creates the difference; it is itself the basis of relativity. Whatever is existential is up for grabs. I'm saying in your experience you likely have a sense of self --a relationship between object and subject-- however enlightened, unless deeply enlightened perhaps, as in the case of Ramana. Which is to say, self and not-self is a distinction already operative in your experience, regardless of belief system. If your arm were to be cut off, you'd be really pissed; if the apple is cut off, you'd be fine. This isn't to say it's existentially true, but it exists as an invention that might be taken as real. Again, I like being honest and grounded. If you know your nature deeply, good. But I wouldn't reference externalities nor abstract terms to communicate what I'm conscious of. People already fool themselves, thinking that their cosmology is special and makes them enlightened. This is fundamentally pretending even if spiritual concepts and language have been mastered to a certain degree. The point is for the individual himself to come from genuine insight and breakthrough. People don't make this distinction.

@Emotionalmosquito That's what I call a Thursday.

@Osaid Why clarity of perception if you're talking about consciousness of what is, perception being done through something -- body, etc? Unless you don't know what enlightenment is and are confusing it with some thing. The room is made by you and in a way has already been made by us having chosen to bring up two different words -- existence and experience. I think we're playing back and for with absolute and relative. Experience as a process shows up in some way; what way is it? Before you were born you didn't have any experience. Some correlation is there about the body and awareness being requisite for an experience of being alive to occur. Why wouldn't there be a relationship between subject and object? Consciousness doesn't make you stupid, which is to say you likely have that relationship going on, even if enlightened. Survival demands some of that. Notice you eat apples and not your arm. I think you might be conflating enlightenment with a relative phenomenon. My position is: no matter what's believed, get conscious of what's true.

That sounds good. Knowing what you are would probably dissolve the question.

An important, unrecognized assumption that's being made is that of taking decision-making as a process of picking between predetermined options. This fails to acknowledge the creative nature of making a decision. It is created by you.

I use macOS and don't dislike it.

Sounds like the same thing.

Stop the silly exchange.

@Osaid What are you conscious of now? Direct consciousness is the key. What else would you care about in the context of enlightenment work? Any distinction is made for a reason - it serves a purpose. We distinguish between experience and consciousness because they're seemingly not the same. Experience is a relative phenomenon, as in seeing, hearing, and feeling, dependent on organs, etc. Consciousness might be everything, but you still differentiate between a fork and a star. Could be one of the uses of such distinction -- to point out how one shows up as a process while "the other" might source it. Awareness is a function of mind, which is itself a form of consciousness. You may be holding enlightenment as some state or unusual experience perhaps. By saying permanent absolute, you might be holding it as dependent on time. If it's absolute consciousness, it was the case even before your self existed and had a body to perceive. It is true now regardless of experience and perception. It wouldn't be absent, but independent of experience. At some point talking about the absolute gets silly real quick. You and I need to draw a sharper distinction between existence and experience as they aren't necessarily the same. Clarity of perception is good although not enlightenment. Seems to be more a function of awareness. Our bodies can't hear certain sounds and can only see within a limited spectrum of light. If your eyes were cut off, obviously you wouldn't be able to see, etc. Banana. Not going to make up a cosmology. At this point we should focus on having, and deepening, enlightenments.

What does this refer to? Too abstract. Is it even grounded on an authentic experience?

When shit hits the fan, no amount of wishful thinking will cut it. The reality of death is passionately avoided by the self, as it is the end of self. This is the real test of enlightenment, being OK with the fact of your impending death. Get who and what you are. Otherwise, relax, everything's OK.

Seems to boil down to this: Whichever stand you hold to be the case, you'll live as that, and then die.

Shit, this was heartbreaking. Watch the whole episode.

I like red cabbage, haven't tried bok choy though.

If you're looking to understand what mind itself really is.

We already conceive, experience and are aware of "mind", but that doesn't seem to provide access to its nature. The sentence boils down to "mind is mind". It's a rhetorical question. Insight into what it is is what we should be after if understanding the thing itself is our goal.