UnbornTao

Experiencing what context is as itself. So far, what we have are notions about it. These notions themselves aren't the same as context. Recognizing our unconsciousness regarding the matter helps us notice that possibility. For example, we often assume that our experience is merely a reflection of what's "out there," and so we fail to grasp the reality that is created along language. He realized that objects don't fall upward or move sideways! In that story with the apple hitting his head, he consciously experienced a principle of the physical world - he had a sudden, personal encounter with something real. He wasn't just making something up or having a new thought. Now we take it for granted as obvious, but so did others before Newton. We tend to overlook the possibility of personally discovering shit, especially when it is profound.

Can you give it a try at pulling subcontext out? Wouldn't subtext be a subset or type of context? Subtext relates to communication, which is based on language-context. There has to be an environment (space) first before there can be an implicit meaning beneath the surface (the source of this surface may be the context for it.) Context as the possibility for new domains of distinctions to arise - is how I define it. When consciousness creates it, the content within it can come to pass. When thinking of language, the content is usually what comes to mind. Selling molasses by the river.

It isn't just about words or semantics. Then again, there is an experiential insight to be had - that's why we contemplate in the first place, based on that observation. If it were simply a matter of receiving an answer, we could have just Googled it and moved on with life. And yes, topics like these can seem aggravatingly irrelevant when it comes to our self-concerns and our daily lives. Despite that, what is true in the matter? It's a bit like Newton grasping a principle: every idiot knew that objects fell down, so what was overlooked that only a genius like him realized? I suspect that virtually no one truly grasps the nature of context, even though it could be discussed intelligently. Simply concluding something intellectually isn't the goal. And this being a forum thread, its function may be more akin to stimulating conversation and opening a few doors, taking into account that insight can happen for anyone at anytime. The insight occurs as an increase in consciousness.

Not sure. You could say that there's a perceiving and interpreting of objects. Those two sentences of yours directly address several subjects - objects, space, perception, self, context.

@StyxNStone Nice, will try with that one.

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.