UnbornTao

Yes, an absolute is absolute - but do we really grasp that as itself? Or is it merely intellect? Either way, this is the problem of conflating these domains. A thing gets to exist thanks to its being limited. So when you say something like my hand, that's a particular, and this is what we call relative. Your toes aren't a cup, or a cat, or joy - they're that particular thing. Otherwise, there would be no need to distinguish it from what it is not. So here's a new thought: We live in the relative. The relative is everything. Everything you experience is relative. A thing exists in relation to what is not that thing. And then we have the so-called absolute as a possibility for us to realize. Perceiving may well be impersonal, so the fact that it occurs shouldn't be extrapolated into some observer lurking behind it. We could take a deeper approach here, but with this medium it is tricky. What is experience? What is self?

Sure.

Only a cappuccino will do.

Look into that. They're still phenomena occurring within perceptive experience. In the end, it's not much different from having a concussion, or meditating. The state change can be dramatic, but, by setting aside the expectations, beliefs, memory, and fantasy, often nothing has been realized. Certainly when the concussion, meditation or drug effects wear off, the insight doesn't vanish. You can have a breakthrough regardless of circumstances, and state is secondary to that. Being drunk doesn't make you less conscious of your nature. The point is that waking up isn't accomplished by events within the dreams - and everything is.

How is seeing absolute? So, in your view, perception is direct?

Believe in Gautama

As entertaining as they might be, they are ultimately misleading. At their core, they amount to hoopla and fantasy, based primarily on hearsay. What are they when those aspects are set aside? They are abstract, subjective inventions. Viewed symbolically, or as ways to direct the mind, they might help cultivate a positive or life-enhancing mental state - but neither these things nor the drugs lead to awakening. A more powerful direction, in my view, is setting out to uncover one's own beliefs, with the aim of experiencing the truth, at any level.

Love the photo above, haha.

I don't know, Rick.

Take that, solipsists!

Ok - without those things it'd likely stop being a 'cow' for you. Pure perception is a meaningless phenomenon. It's simply sensory input until it is made sense of by us. That a particular sentient object or being appears as a cow for us might be a function of interpreting it as such. So we have work to do on clarifying this entire process of encounter. But then, what do we have relative to the object except our experience of it? Are you suggesting that perception is a direct encounter with reality? I suspect that, setting aside our experience of any object, we'll arrive at the observation that we don't know what objects are. But I see your point that objective reality has rules and principles - it isn't random and isn't controlled by us. So: perception, experience, interpretation, objects. Quite significant contemplations indeed.

Can't drink coffee within a dream to wake up from it.

Just a silly joke on my part, nevermind.

Well, the drugs sure aren't touching that sweet nothing! Nor do they increase consciousness. What they do is change one's state of mind.

Ouch, that hurt my sense of self-importance.

Oh no. Don't extrapolate. Just this thread. I also like the entertainment from time to time.

@Someone here The fact of perceiving is hard to deny - you yourself relied on your own experience, treated as absolute, as evidence that you are at the source of the reality you claim does not exist. This doesn't have to imply a self running the show behind the scenes. So what are we talking about? Anyway, I'm not very interested in pursuing these discussions further. They're mostly entertainment, in my view. It seems to me that your relationship to this matter remains abstract, as another form of knowledge. No matter how convinced we may be of notions like no-self, in your lived experience you likely still carry a very solid and consistent sense of "self." The main issue is that we keep talking as if it were something else, but it is your very experience right now - you. Knowing our nature allows us to clearly see that what we are is distinct from one's self. Until then, we'll fail to make that distinction for real, in our lived experience.

@Sugarcoat I see, let's say nothingness is neither of that, it's up for grabs. Sounds good, good luck.

@Someone here

No, I'm just saying that an imposter could be living in your house. You refer to cognition and perception, and drawing conclusions from that is premature. Consider that not-you isn't in your control. But again, figuring things out won't cut it, only an insight. - That's the thing. Perception is what you're dealing with, and these matters go beyond this activity. Observe that you don't perceive yourself, that you can't locate or find the one you are. That's because experience is all you have, and you'll search there.