UnbornTao

Yeeeep.

Call it whatever you want but no absolute can accurately be conveyed, this was already the case. When you mention higher and lower, supernatural, and all such distinctions, make sure it isn't a state that's being talked about and conflated with what underlies it. As for your last sentence, it depends on what you mean by the real work. It is if you mean changing the activity of the brain, yet what that produces is still a relative result. You're suggesting, essentially, that there's such a thing as a pill for enlightenment, which is misleading.

The Buddhists broke the blog

I'd add: don't operate from an ideal. You may be comparing yourself to an idealized, imagined version of a future self - finding your current experience lacking, and then blaming circumstances for your suffering. Notice that you can take action without engaging in many of the dysfunctional and ineffective forms of mental activity we often fall into unconsciously. This may be hard to perceive experientially, but becoming aware of it is absolutely worth it. You might be referring to superficial manifestations of a deeper, shared condition - such as not feeling real as a self. You might be asking for an easy, 10-step method to tackle a much bigger dynamic. But I don't think addressing that subject is necessary for your purposes. Ask yourself what your goals are, and what's required to move closer to them each day, through every small action. Also, most importantly perhaps, recognize that you are already complete as a being - feeling broken isn't required in order to take meaningful action toward your goals. This is an assumption we tend to operate from. The overall sentiment could be phrased as: "But if I am happy, what will motivate me to move?" Still, it is a false assumption. Hope this helps in some way

In a sense it was never strictly necessary in the contemporary world for most people, but we'll likely continue doing it - for quite some time, at least. Overall, it sounds like a pipe dream.

When you say that it's mediated by something else, you're referring to something relative - awareness, perhaps. The universe could collapse and it still wouldn't touch the absolute - so why would an activity or chemicals in your brain do it? Again, work for what? To what end? The claim is that no practice is going to do it for you, as it isn't a result or a new experience. The best it can do, perhaps, is leave you where your consciousness presently is - ignorant of what's true - and then you somehow make the leap, as if by magic. There's no method or pill to produce direct consciousness. But we imagine such consciousness will change something. How - or that - a breakthrough occurs remains a complete mystery… and I suspect that's unavoidable as a "feature." Even after having had enlightenments, each breakthrough is completely up in the air and must be faced anew, from scratch.

A process has a beginning and an end, and it suggests some kind of activity unfolding. Writing a book and perceiving are processes. Look at how everything is a process in the relative, as are practices and states. Consider it is not a process as it transcends time and space. But personally contemplate what it is without presumption.

Maybe awareness or cognition, and consciousness.

A process is a doing. You're referring to something relative that can be cognized - perception, perhaps. Even when we say now, notice how it's often still not quite Now - it's still a point in time. Even if it occurs in a millisecond, it'd still be a process.

Sure you are. Why do you care? You can always ask what another is, or what life or sentience are, but usually, one would start with oneself.

I addressed some of your points in my other reply, even if only indirectly. It's like assuming that wearing a different shirt will build muscle. Direct consciousness isn't a function of brain chemistry or physiology, which is what you claim. Why would any activity have anything to do with or touch the Absolute? That was your suggestion, not mine. You still ascribe "requirements" and possibilities where they don't apply. What I said is that a state is a state, and an experience is an experience - all of it ultimately irrelevant when it comes to this direct business - including this very hallucination and its contents, of which the drugs are a part. They can open your mind, but only you do it, whatever the circumstances. Likewise, practices like fasting or chanting won't make you enlightened either. There's no how or method to get you there, and no way for us to know why an awakening happens for you. We assume that since we might have had an enlightenment, we'd now be able to reproduce more breakthroughs or access them - yet the "reason" why it occurs still remains a mystery for us. We just do it - we become absolutely conscious. The work always starts from scratch. It may seem discouraging, even hopeless, that no practice or path can lead to enlightenment. But that's just how it is. The good news is that you're already here - hence, direct. Something in the relative world isn't going to produce an Absolute result.

I hear the logic, but it doesn't apply to enlightenment. I suspect it's impossible for us to hear that it is not an experience, because we have no contrast for us to understand that. All we have is our experience - this is where we'll look. We tend to think it requires a method, or that it is a process - that it will change something or improve our experience - that being in a Zen monastery is more likely to "cause" it than being in a library or on a beach - or that it couldn't occur while we're depressed, miserable, distracted, or even taking a shower. Bring up what you think enlightenment is, and then consider that it isn't any of that. This is the point that is very easily overlooked. Experiencing this impossibility for oneself is more powerful than just believing it. It’s an analogy: obviously, waking up is what we're calling enlightenment. The idea is that action occurs within the dream, and so it is different from the realization itself. Hence the impossibility argument. It's impossible to get "from here to there." It isn't an experience. It is sudden and direct. And yet, it is possible for you to "get" it now - go figure. That's the gist of it. One enlightenment doesn't make you all-knowing overnight; ignorance remains. It usually takes several breakthroughs before one would be considered awakened. Yet this "over time" process doesn't change what you are, nor does it change the fact that each breakthrough is sudden. You may know your nature, but not what an emotion is, for example. At some point the attempt to fabricate a worldview out of this will crumble because it isn't mappable or able to be fit into an mentally graspable form. Something like that. You are already you. (!) The best one can do within the dream seems to be to remain open and genuinely want to know what's true - yet even this is just the action you take while "waiting" for enlightenment. What I said doesn't invalidate that certain experiences can help focus the mind, for example - which may put you in a better state to question, among other things. The Zen master is simply telling the monks to pay attention - or helping them stay awake. From the perspective of the dream, direct consciousness generally has to be "worked on," as it's unlikely to just "fall on your ass," as it seemingly did with Maharshi. But in actuality there's no real requirement other than to get it now. And you can do since it isn't something different from you, nor a grandiose state, spiritual fantasy, or achievement - it's what you are. I don't know why or how, but it turns out we are ignorant of our nature. Maybe because we're so distracted by or involved with our perceptive-experience. It's a bit ironic that the truth of ourselves seems so elusive while untruth is so easy to come by. And I'm not against conceptualization - conceptualize all you want; we already do it anyway. The suggestion is simply that you won't arrive at enlightenemnt by a process of figuring things out. It transcends the mind and perception. Nor am I against psychedelics as a stance, by the way. I'm just saying they don't increase consciousness. They may assist in transformation, healing, opening your mind, learning, or generating insights - but they don't lead to enlightenment. There. Now throw this out and get enlightened.

A truly conscious person drives a second-hand Toyota.

You can't say consciousness is absolute and then attribute to it relative features and dependencies, as if it were a process. You're talking about awareness or cognition, that's where drugs have their effect. Consciousness itself isn't mediated by anything, because it isn't relative, or an activity. Do you think Ramana would be less conscious if he were drunk, had dementia, or a brain tumor? His consciousness would remain unmoved and untouched by drugs as well. That's why I said it's prior to the brain. Even death itself would make no difference to it - so much for mediation.

A definition is different from a realization, essentially.

For sure.

I wanted to start a shared contemplation with you: What is experience?

I wasn't looking for a definition with my initial question, but rather trying to ("magically") sense the place the OP is coming from. Maybe there was never a big hairy dick to begin with - nor a self. Get enlightened and then tell us the secret. Either way, we'll have to grasp it for ourselves, so that's the rub.

@Sincerity I see, thanks. More people should contribute to this thread.

Not sure. Are you implying that self is objective?

Since you mentioned drugs and seemed to be looking for validation, I'm inclined to say it might not be as profound or genuine as you think it is. Even if it is, clarify that for yourself: What did you go through or are conscious of now? And the hearsay isn't useful. Keep going.

What's God?

Seems quite interesting. Love the design.

™️