UnbornTao

Wrong Krishnamurti. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

A suggestion: turn it into an open question, without filling in the blanks.

That could work, too. Reminds me of one time when on truffles. I looked at my hand and was astounded by what it was, and by the fact that it was there, somehow considered mine.

You can simply tell them you'd rather have some quiet time, or at least make it count: ask them good questions and the chatting could be more fruitful and enjoyable for both.

Teach the material, even if only to yourself, and notice how much of it arises from personal experience versus intellect. Use this as a practice to make the work real for you.

It omitted some important details but it is manageable now!

It depends on your goals, but a good one is: Gently pay attention to the breath, or to a physical sensation that is rather constant, like the tip of your fingers touching. When you notice you've gotten distracted, immediately bring attention back to the object of your focus. It is useful to keep the practice dynamic instead of mechanical, letting what arises to be fully experienced. Or do nothing facing a wall and see what comes up.

It is useful not to think of it as an ideal called "Truth." Just: What is true at any level? What is ultimately or absolutely true, and also what is true regarding X or Y, such as experience, relationships, skill, your field of work, emotions, etc. True as what is.

Because it is what's true. What else?

This seems to apply to any model, in the sense that none are true in and of themselves, but some can be useful. As a simplistic analogy: We can categorize every variety of apple and create an intricate model of their distinctive traits, yet this effort doesn’t provide access to what the object is, nor does it change our fundamental relationship to it. More concepts are added to the experience, which is further from the presence of it, if getting closer to it is our goal. Besides, we tend to confuse proficiency in the workings of the model with an experience of the things that are being referred to, which is much easier to do than experiencing things for yourself.

Sounds like a sensible decision.

Sounds obvious, but falsehood or lying may be the antithesis of truth, or illusion perhaps. A big picture point: One problem here is trying to fit reality into a model, overlooking what anything is for itself. This blinds us to the presence of things.

Asking good questions can help.

Alrighty.

You keep dodging the question. Try, that's what communication is about. It is there to represent an experience. Again, intellectual understanding is a different matter than coming from experience.

Communicate what you became conscious of, if anything. You being in the exact same "place" as the thing realized, its nature.

OK, call things by their name. Stories are stories. You misunderstood the part regarding intellect. It points to an insidious and prevalent dynamic of conflating belief, conclusion, state, drug-induced or not, with direct consciousness.

What is being conveyed? What is the purpose of the storytelling and the rhetoric? If it is thought of as a direct encounter with the nature of something, such encounter doesn't produce that kind of communication. It is something else, likely a conflation.

It seems to me like you confused a drug-induced state and your stories about it with a direct consciousness of the nature of something. I'm not saying there's isn't any wisdom there, but it is clearly coming from intellect. What would you say did you become conscious of?

Perhaps. Also, people like to talk and call anything "awakening." You can tell, by paying close attention, whether they're being authentic or not based on the expression used since it gives clues as to where their minds are coming from.

It could also not be a direct experience, so the deception might start there.