UnbornTao

Why would the truth need to be sugarcoated? Seems to me like you're saying that communication isn't enough, therefore turn the truth into something that it's not so that it makes us feel good and entertained. Got it. But I'm talking about spirituality.

Which categories will you be using? For me it's either OneNote or Obsidian. Right now, I built a fairly simple structure on Obsidian, and I'm happy with that as it is efficient. Local file saving is key. Obsidian uses a text-based format, readable by any computer. To start from scratch, I'd make an Archive page, transferring all the old content into that folder. The book is going to evolve as time passes. You could also change your software at some point, that's a possibility to consider. Start with something good and go from that.

Why? That focus will mislead people. The goal should be facilitating, not hyping the content.

Mu

What is is already the case. What changes is your consciousness in the matter. Ignorant happiness vs conscious perception. In the latter, you see reality as it already is and has always been. So why be afraid? God is Unborn, so can't die.

What is the principle of alignment? What about joining something, such as the experience of another?

Investigate your own selfishness, including its subtle forms.

What allows for someone to "stand on their own two feet"?

Thanks for answering. It still smells weird to me, though. But hey, you know you. Enjoy.

If the person is committed, no matter her genetics, she will get it done. That's the point of commitment. Just more work will likely be required.

Some do it for entire years, so maybe try doing it for longer periods. Also, channel that energy into something constructive/creative like exercise and art. Reading, writing, cooking, exercise, watching TV, meditating, contemplating and doing nothing. Look up dopamine detox.

I'd say that writing in a journal can be more effective overall, since you are putting your experience out there, whereas in your mind, it's easy to get lost in subjectivity. That said, the method itself is secondary, as long as you are engaging in questioning, in my view.

As a teenager, Ramana was a normal kid. He didn't meditate and was clueless about spirituality. Then, in a matter of minutes, he had a complete, abiding awakening out of the blue. Now you attribute that awakening to special powers, providence, predestined karma or some such. It is uncommon. But that doesn't mean he had special genetics. Isn't your nature and mine the same, so to speak? Then what is "special" about you except the the degree to which you're conscious of the truth?

Validating your claim would go first. What is mind? What is self? What is consciousness? What is the nature or substance of you? What are you made out of, so to speak? What is another? What is life?

Be skeptical, especially if the explanation (chi) comes from a belief system, which it does. Ask him what he's doing. What happens in his experience that presumably allows him to do those things? I can't boil eggs with chi, I use fire.

What about Ramana? Surely not having any (intellectual) knowledge of the possibility of enlightenment would be a huge impediment to realizing it, and yet it happened for him. As far as we know, he was just a normal kid. Then he got profoundly enlightened, and now we attribute him special genetics or powers.

This is similar to saying that skinny individuals are that way exclusively due to genetics. Genetics play an important role, I hear tell, but being fit/healthy mostly relates to lifestyle factors that you can change. Habits then get compounded over decades to create the apparent end result. You're looking for an excuse to load off your responsibility in the matter. "Buddha was born that way." Horseshit. Gotama threw himself into transcending suffering like very few humans have done before, that we know of. It wasn't about his genetics but about being really serious. So I don't think that "having special qualities" is true in this field. The work isn't done without your participation and commitment. That's ultimately what brings results, not genetics, environment or logistics.

Chatting is convenient and easy, so it is much more prevalent than carrying out a serious investigation of a particular subject or activity. Prior to having insights, care should be taken not to confuse one's conclusions, preconceptions, and preferences with understanding anything of substance regarding the topic at hand. Contemplate instead.

Emotions come and go, you don't. The relative can't affect the absolute. Consciousness ~~of your true nature~~ can't be touched by anything you experience.

"Spectacular, grandiose, huge" are ~~relative~~ distinctions. What process?

I don't know how they're using the term but literally the first question relates to emotions, which are irrelevant when it comes to enlightenment. There's no way or methodology to verify enlightenment except by becoming conscious yourself. Perhaps another realized human can sense it on another.

Knowing what consciousness is vs exploring altered states: Is that what you're talking about? Seems to me like it is.

First, let's question the validity of such claims. What did he went through? This "ask me anything" attitude is predicated upon false preconceptions -- assuming that enlightenment implies knowing everything. It doesn't. It's being directly conscious of the absolute nature of you, existence, life or another. It's only the beginning. It doesn't tell you what time, self or space are, as examples. OP doesn't clarify what enlightenment is in his experience. He also seems to be coming from a cosmology.

Nobody knows whether genetics have anything to do with "spiritual attainment". Honesty and hard work, on the other hand, do seem to have a correlation with producing insights. Genetics isn't an impediment to enlightenment because it is relative. In the end, what matters is what you become conscious of, not whether it happened on the beach or on the mountain (relative).

Sounds good. Too much rhetoric though. Your description is too dramatic and doesn't sound like it's grounded on experience. Another issue is that you bring up irrelevant stuff when it comes to enlightenment: Why bring up life purpose, meaning, good and evil, shamanism? These are relative matters. That it is beautiful and that many people get convinced doesn't mean it is authentic. To be clear, I'm not denying the possibility that you might have had an enlightenment or insight. If that's the case, you might be confusing the consciousness with what your mind did with it. Only you can know. Coming from a cosmology and referencing external sources doesn't sit right with me. Phrases like "I'm the father, I'm the bodhisattva, I've crossed the stream, holy grail, winning love, true vine" sound like your experience doesn't stand on authentic enlightenment. You seem to want to convince others with rhetoric instead of simply communicating what you went through.