UnbornTao

Good to hear. On the other hand, it's more like recognizing that one might not actually know what enlightenment is about. That, in turn, gives rise to an even more powerful opening, beyond knowledge and assumptions. Looking good!

That itself is the context being discussed - the space for things like emotions and thoughts to occur. How could one think of those distinctions without a mind context? Depending on what you're talking about, the "mind" didn't exist at some point. We think it was just a reality that evolved over millennia of human development, just as we discovered fire or agriculture. But that might not be the case. I don't understand your first claim. Okay, that's good.

It's best to make sure one's assessment is accurate - it is easy for it to be biased and partial. Again, being precedes state. At that point, it might better be called condition. State comes and goes; consciousness does not, as that would imply it is some thing that is subject to process; at that point, we'd be referring to something relative - possibly, cognition or awareness. What would be the point if the truth changed with state X or Y? Even the qualifier of "highest truth" is a claim belonging or relating to the relative. A form is relative. That limitation is what allows it to be a form in the first place. It doesn't mean it is separate from the absolute, though. Being is the same whether applied to the experience of a rabbit or to apes like us humans. And consciousness too! Like I said, it seems to me you're talking about a process, perhaps that of perceptive faculties, or experience, as you said. As for the absolute, it is absolute - better left as a possibility to grasp. Still, it is not what is though about it, or the result of combining relative things. Not separate - we're making a distinction. You don't put your socks on before your shoes. Distinction itself is non-conceptual, although distinctions of that kind can be made. The mere awareness of the existence of something is that distinction. And awareness is a limited form of consciousness. As said, it is thanks to the "absence of another" that you can be alone. In any case, that is still referring to the distinction between self and not-self, which is relative. Psychedelics only shift one's mind state. Phenomenal possibilities within experience shouldn't be conflated with a direct consciousness.

Yeah, this shows where you're coming from and how you're holding the matter.

What?! Nonsense. Desiring is something you do. Feeling like the victim of your own actions is disempowering and untrue. It isn't just a part of you - it is you! Your entire self-identity. Don't turn it into a war between two aspects of yourself. The self will be the winner either way.

It's late at night, and I understood none of that.

Oh yeah, I agree.

That's the panacea, and the answer to all questions.

Maybe, yes... An experience like tripping over a rock, or feeling pain, doesn't seem to be context in and of itself. Another claim could be that context determines or influences everything - although that's still a bit vague and could be clarified further. What an object is is not the same as it being a context. I'd rather not speculate too much, but we could imagine a Neanderthal, even without "mind" and "language", having a simple experience or perception. Regarding your second question, I don't think so. You seem to be treating context as something interpreted, at least in that question. There might be something like raw emotion itself, for example, but without the context of mind, there's no conception of a possible location for emotions to occur.

I don't know about that. The mind was invented as a distinction by the ancient Greeks - as the "place" where thinking and similar activities occur. Othwerwise where would it be found?

Listening to this now: Like to have instrumental music on the background while reading, working, etc.

Share with whom? Given you've already established in your mind that you're alone, by definition, that leaves no possibility of "sharing" something with anyone in that belief system - except by pretending. Nor would there be any need to. Besides, you fail to grasp the reality that "being alone" only exists thanks to the "other." As for your concern: master what you do, create high-quality shit, whatever field you're involved in.

Why would you react like that? It's fine either way. You may still find someone who's going through something similar, provided it is diagnosed or assessed accurately. Physiology tends to be a very grounded subject, as far as I can tell. The point is that if you have appendicitis - as an example - you go to the hospital (to get your appendix removed), not to a Reiki healer.

I remember liking Jacque Fresco's ideas and vision. Probably too romantic or unrealistic at this point in time, though.

@PurpleTree Common sense is still useful.

An object does not seem to be a context in and of itself... The implication being that something physical or objective isn't what context is, or where it is located - as if.

OK. I suspect resisting it won't help, so might as well embrace it and ask what it is made out of. It is possible your mind might be contributing to that in some minor or major ways, too. But again, you might want to consult with a doctor.

I'm clear on the distinction mentioned above. You want to feel validated, but a state is a state; consciousness is prior to the body, as if. The possible side effects awakening may have on you are, well, side effects. They are not the consciousness itself, but rather a function of the depth of realization and how your mind relates to that increased consciousness. This seems to vary on a case-by-case basis. You are already inherently selfless - how about that? Don't confuse healing or transformation with awakening. These are different pursuits.

I'm saying that what's true is already true, so the changes in your body would have to be assessed as something distinct from that. Without the fantastical thinking behind it, the reality of it would be much more grounded and real. Really, you're going to try to fit the image you have of awakening into various phenomena, but it just isn't true. Enlightenment isn't an experience nor is it perceived. Was Ramana less enlightened when he had cancer? Or after he died? Did the changes in his body throughout the years influence his enlightenment or viceversa? The questions are irrelevant. It is not a relative matter. What is your self, and what is the body? Ask yourself that. Not saying that there's nothing of value in these things, because there is, but it is a different domain.

High cholesterol: the ultimate frontier of awakening. Seriously, though, I'd avoid falling into spiritual fantasy. One's preferences and beliefs shouldn't be mixed with an assessment of bodily states or such phenomena. They should be dealt with on their own terms, without a spiritual "filter" adding unnecesary interpretations. Your body already works without your self, so to speak. But what you do with your mind does influence your body. So, paying attention to that is in order. If a belief helps you calm down, for example, then that is beneficial and there's no reason to discard it as long as it is recognized for what it is. As @Princess Arabia said, you might want to check with a qualified health professional.

I recommend throwing out all that stuff about awakening. It remains stuck in the domain of intellect and assumption, which isn't useful. What's possible is to consciously be your nature - and that very act is the same as apprehending it. This is immediate, self-validating, uncommon, yet available to anyone exactly as they are now. To put it poetically, it's like knowing whether your tea is hot or cold. This is only a metaphor, though, as enlightenment isn't perceived or experienced. As for drugs, why the automatic conflation with awakening? They only shift one's state of mind, sometimes dramatically. They can be beneficial in many ways, but they don't increase consciousness any more than being dizzy does. These are states and experiences, bound to perception and cognition. That said, such openings may yield relative insights, facilitate emotional release, support psychological healing, etc. Yet none of this is enlightenment or realization of the Absolute. After the trip - beyond the phenomena, visions, states, preferences, and beliefs - what is it that one has become directly conscious of? Usually, nothing. The memory of a powerful state may remain, and a conclusion as to what it all meant. The mind may manufacture stories to confirm its worldview, but that's just the mind at work, not a consciousness of anything. It's like believing that drinking coffee in a dream could wake you up from it. Insight can occur under any condition, regardless of circumstance - so it's not impossible. But we shouldn't mistake states and stories for truth. Checking out Ramana is recommended - if only to get a taste of where he's coming from and perhaps draw inspiration.

A smart person, indeed. It's often recommended to pair it with coffee when you want to reduce the jitteriness caused by caffeine.

The what? I'll take a look at the other thread.

You seem to be referring to perceptive-experience and the myriad of phenomenal (from phenomenon) possibilities within it. Shifts in mind state and the recognition of perceptive phenomena relate to experience or awareness, and consciousness isn't limited to either. Would it not follow from your sentence above that consciousness is an appearance? "God-realization is how reality is appearing to be." Etymology of state: "to stand." An insight can be had, yet the side-effects of that, or of the practice undertaken, are different matters. A distinction must be made between the effects of taking psychedelic drugs, and whatever possible consciousness one might have achieved.The consciousness itself "stands alone." "What? The primacy of state, and solipsism, confirmed, then." (This is a joke.) Direct consciousness cannot be imagined in any way by the mind, and it does not involve process. Consciousness itself is not a process and it precedes state - perceptual experience and mind states alike.

We're far from the point - that relates to experience, and it is based on you. Consciousness is not a state. You're taking Being to be a verb, and that is relative. Regarding "self is all" - you don't exist, and neither do I - so it's irrelevant. There's no one to be alone in the first place. Without the "absence of another," which is based on 'other', how could aloneness come to pass? 'Alone' exists relative to this distinction of "other." One thing is having the beginning realization that "everything that exists exists in my experience"; another is prematurely extrapolating that to something else, like direct consciousness or solipsism. It's fine, "the ability to conveniently interpret our perceptions - and so virtually “create” a world that we believe in or wish to be so - is very strong in humans. We do it all the time, especially with “spiritual” pursuits." Awareness is a limited form of consciousness, as are intelligence, attention, the mind, and perception. The question of what consciousness is is really up for grabs. These refer to the various phenomenal possibilities within perceptive-experience. The description above is full of "this and that", process and action. Psychedelics states can be dramatic, and yet they are still experiences, not much different from seeing a sunset or falling in love. Beyond the phenomena, thoughts you have, what you believe, visions you might have had, etc., what are you actually and presently conscious of? Usually the answer is nothing. Certainly an insight does not disappear when the drug does, when you stop meditating, or when your state changes. And the insight is different in nature from memory and conclusion.