UnbornTao

Can you elaborate?

I see, thanks.

Appreciate it.

Is conceiving - imagining what isn't - what you are referring to as 'unknown' here? Rather than Being as what is immediately known, I'd just consider that to be the act of perceiving and experiencing. Depending on what you mean by that, but if Being were already immediately grasped, that would suggest that direct knowledge of its nature has already occurred. Still, it is only graspable through consciousness, instead of any other conventional means. I'm not getting where you're coming from. I need my fucking coffee.

What allows the whole to contain the pieces? Ok, maybe that's not a good question. As @ExploringReality said, what is the substance of context? This is mighty abstract. Can you provide examples of holarchy, part, and whole?

Nothing, perhaps? - as nonsensical as that might sound. Or space. Although how is it space? Certainly it isn't or doesn't need to be physical space - but there's something there. At the risk of oversimplifying it, the frame of a picture is the space, or the possibility, for "picture" to exist. You mentioned the context of language, and I think that helps us focus on something a little bit more tangible and less abstract. Bring up another example of what you mean by whole and by part - if you think of 'whole' as context.

What? Quite the leap.

I'd suggest dropping all ideas about it and going after what's true.

What is?

Or the space in which the part is held.

What whole?

I wonder the same thing.

I noticed that too.

Checkmate, Kant.

The truth is already the case, so why not? Yet possibility is not the same as probability. For all it's worth, you can get enlightened while taking a shower or walking the dog, because it's not about the circumstances. If you truly grasp it, and to degree you do, then you can't not know it. By definition, it is direct, which is self-validating in itself. A single enlightenment won't dissolve all your ignorance, though, even though it is absolute and true. There's no room for doubt because you're there, in the same place as the consciousness, as if. It isn't a method, way, or technique. Circumstances can't do it for you, and there's no pill for it either. The only requirement is to stay open, to question, and to maintain the possibility that getting it is possible for you now. The mind will try to figure it out by every means available, but it will eventually hit a wall of uncertainty and impossibility - and that's where the possibility for a breakthrough is most ripe. Still, the potential for deception here is so high that it's almost guaranteed to happen. We can call awakening all sorts of things that are not it, so this trap must be taken into account. You must be honest with yourself about what it is you encountered.

@aurum What you call embodiment work, I simply call the work. If it's just an intellectual conclusion, it is just that - a figment of mind. A breakthrough is something else entirely - like the difference between drawing a meal vs eating it. It all boils down to making it real for you. I was trying to ground the conversation. A useful question to ask oneself is: What does my experience tell me about this or that? This shifts our focus to something more inmediate and tangible - something that is somehow more 'real' and objective - as opposed to what our minds concoct or believe. Consider this principle. If we regard perception as biologically based - which is a sensible take - then it depends on the body; as such, it is an activity, hence relative. Again, without a body, perception doesn't occur, wouldn't you agree? It's precisely the fact that you can see the screen in front of you that allows you to respond here; without the perceptive organ of the eyes, you couldn't be doing that. So what's going on here? Don't just say that consciousness is everything - it might be true, but it doesn't directly apply to this discussion. We're discussing what perceiving something is about. If you disagree, I'd invite you to clarify what exactly you mean by perception - and consider using a more accurate term for whatever it is you're refering to.

It sounds like what he's pointing at there is our ignorance of the nature of things in and of themselves. In my view, he's essentially saying that what we call knowledge is entirely based on how things relate to ourselves, which is distinct from what they are in themselves. For example, we perceive and make sense of objects, and this is what tends to fall into the category of 'knowledge' for us, while the being or presence of the thing remains unknown. The conclusion at the end is reasonable, but ultimately mistaken - that's where direct consciousness comes in.

Definitely.

Lying on the floor with your legs on the bed?

That's good to hear. Yeah, it's happened to me with most ultra-processed foods too. And don't forget legumes! If you like them, they're just as great once you figure out how to prepare them in a way you enjoy.