UnbornTao

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, thank you.

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.

™️

I thought he was being sarcastic.

- Men

What's a self?

Sounds like an experience, so keep contemplating. Good luck.

It's a genocide

I see. Bring to the fore assumptions you guys hold by asking specific and yet open questions and dialoguing about a particular subject. This helps you open up your minds.

Quick thought but it's useful not to take what you feel as the decisive factor when assessing the accuracy or veracity of something, if that's what's taking place here. Sometimes the truth is threatening to the self; it not only unsettles you but goes against you in a certain way. It's easy to assume that something or someone agreeable and validating meets the criteria of truth, so to speak. Yet, consider that some enlightened Zen masters would beat you with a stick and be strict or harsh with you - quite the opposite of the common image of the charismatic, loving, and lovable figure who tells us what we want to hear in a pleasing way.

Shame on you - I can be both philosophical and stupid.

Works for what? Seriously. (I'm not saying it doesn't work, it's a real question.) Whatever it works for isn't going to be it nor "lead" to it. It's out of the picture so to speak, as it doesn't play by the rules. I invite you to consider it isn't like that, because we don't currently know what direct consciousness is about. You still think it is an experience or perception. Actually, Ramana just went through or imagined what his death would be like. He didn't know about or was pursuing awakening, he simply grasped the truth. It's not a fucking process, hence "direct." It just looks like that for us outsiders.

They do know a thing or two about direct consciousness, and that's where they're coming from. This isn't to say psychedelics can't be beneficial, but that's the point: beneficial at what? Point to anything they do, and it's going to be relative. Nothing can produce direct consciousness because it's not a process. Changing brain activity is still just changing brain activity. There's no causal relationship between what happens in your experience and this direct business. Enlightenment isn't an event that happens or is experienced. I've had breakthrough 5‑MeO experiences that I'd categorize as "bliss." Even though they're moving - and as impossible as it is for the mind to accurately assess what may have occurred - in the end it's only a state, another experience. People can easily gum up their preconceptions with what happens in the trip, and this seems incredibly common, almost inevitable to a point. It would also be incredibly easy and tempting for me to delude myself into thinking I had an awakening or actually grasped something for real. You get swayed by the experience. I'd talk about bliss, Love Awakening, God, my spiritual journey, Oneness, freedom - this and that - and most of you guys would eat it up indiscriminately, not knowing the difference between phenomena and direct apprehension. But I don't do that, because it isn't true. I once had a "no-self" insight (I don't even like saying that) while walking the dog. Who's up for that religion? Dog-walking your way towards enlightenment. It's a bit like believing you can get dressed by using clothing design software. No matter the design or sophistication of the software, these are entirely separate domains. It's the dream‑stimulant analogy again: wherever you look and whatever you do isn't it, and there's no way to get from here to there. This impossibility has to be deeply experienced. At the same time, it is possible to grasp it now - for everyone.