UnbornTao

Just that it might be communicating something deeper, different from what we think. It's poetry, after all. We're supposed to be a bit perplexed by it, and hopefully experience something new.

Ask Kabir. Yes, it sounds like that's what he's referring to. But where's your sense of the mysterious?

No, you!

@rudirotbart Are you a troll or a past user? Using AI?

That's sensible, although you can also read others' accounts, at least to seed in your mind the possibility - for example, Ramana. But hey, you can pursue it yourself too, this is what will make a difference in the end.

Oh yeah, I just equated spirituality exclusively with awakening here due to OP's framing. Psychedelics can definitely help with those things, and they can also facilitate insight into the relative domain - enhancing awareness, sensitivity, learning, and so on - but those are about you: healing yourself and improving your experience in some way. What is true, on the other hand, is independent of you. They can't produce an experience of the absolute, just as drinking coffee within a dream won't wake you up from it. Every method is confined to the dream, as if - this is just a metaphor. I wish there were a pill that one could just take and get enlightened as a result, but there isn't. Enlightenment is neither an effect nor a result, and it is neither perceived nor experienced.

At best it might provide us with an interesting notion or possibility. The reason engaging in these discussions is so appealing is that exchanging beliefs is easy. It seems to offload responsibility from our shoulders. We simply make up our minds one way or the other and "pick" the system that feels most agreeable to us. In the end, what have we actually become conscious of by doing that? The result is just a guess or conclusion. It is better to stay open and investigate these matters experientially.

I'd add that possibility is open-ended. That applies to context too, in the way I'm holding it as 'possibility.' But a context obviously has to be particular. It can't not be nothing, or anything. Otherwise there would be no use for the term/distinction. But it is not a thing - it is neither objective nor found, it isn't formed, and it seems to precede perception. Language is language, not something else. What is that particular context? Not the content of language, such as symbols or metaphor, but what allows you to think about such distinctions in the first place? We may say that Mind is the larger "house," without which the subcontext - in this case, Language - can't manifest. But I don't know.

Why do people care about this in the first place, and what do they get out of it? Essentially, it's the dissemination of a belief system. Whatever is true - notice that this is left as an open question - must be personally realized.

Could you clarify what you are afraid of again? Also, what do you mean by nondual states?

You can always inquire into what you are, beyond any particular character or behavioral pattern you're engaged in. In ancient China, there were enlightened warriors who fought and killed in battle. We can distinguish between what one is conscious of and how one lives life. The things you could do prior to awakening remain the same - the difference lies in consciousness of what you are. Please don't take the example out of context.

One thing is to recognize the potential value of these drugs; another is to believe they can increase consciousness. What most people mean by that is cognition or mind state, but they've likely been conditioned to think otherwise ("consciousness-raising" drugs) - confusing a radical state change with things like awakening. If there were a pill to enlightenment, everyone who took it - or at least the majority - would already know their nature. But we see they don't, regardless of their use of substances. Still, is awakening a state? After all, alcohol changes your state too, as do fasting and meditation. You could just as well hit your head on the bathroom counter and call it enlightening. Does that imply you've become conscious of something? Not really. One might feel more sensitive, open, calm, or aware, though. And insight may well be facilitated that way. That said, circumstances are secondary when it comes to direct experience. Most of the time it's all too easy to get lost in subjective mind states - usually shaped or triggered by one's beliefs, expectations, and desires, and the drugs can exacerbate that aspect, too.

Why the bigger font size?

@ExploringReality "So what things are, therefore, depends on the context in which they're found."

The game series Monument Valley is a fun way to get a hint of recontextualization.

We're using language, so a single term must suffice. The distinction associated with the term has to point to some experience or notion, however nebulous it may be. As for context, it is specific, yet it is not a thing. Go figure. Again, the analogy of space is apt. What is space? Where is it found? Space is the source of the "where." Oh, I'd add that possibility is open-ended. Anyway, some raw reflections that might not have directly addressed your point, sorry. Hopefully others can contribute to that.

Thanks, I'd say I largely agree with you on the core aspect of context: it's a kind of precondition... But it is a challenging topic. My definition: the possibility for new domains of distinction to arise. That, in itself, is a creative act of consciousness. But you're approaching the matter merely intellectually - that's why it seems pointless. Consider the influence of language in our lives. It's immense. Think of the inventions it enables: communication, art, science, philosophy, religion, "talking" with yourseld. You couldn't even be reflecting on this topic now, questioning the usefulness of the inquiry, without this backdrop! The leaps in consciousness required to create language are now taken for granted. Yet gaining insight into language is earth-shaking. Consciously experiencing its nature transform the way you relate to your overall experience. Self, mind, and value are also contexts - and that's significant. It's like Newton's insight into gravity - what did he personally get out of it? An understanding of a principle that helped shape modern physics. Or a fish glimpsing a reality beyond its watery world. As useless as it may be to us, in the end it's about what's true.

@Keryo Koffa I'm probably not the only one who doesn't get what you're saying. Be as clear as possible, or just dumb it down for us plebs.

Something like that, yes. The mind is also a context.

@Keryo Koffa Well, you put on your socks before your shoes, so give it a try.