UnbornTao

@bambi Calm down. Pay attention and listen to it first before dismissing his work. Not gonna argue with you.

One can dream.

@bambi @Scholar Your disposition is the epitome of ignorance. Instead of taking your first impressions at face value, pay some attention.

What did the solipsist say to the solipsist?

Any statement can be interpreted as an assumption. But could there be a real recognition underlying the communication that validates such view? Say someone "gets it" and then claims something like "Consciousness is all", if that were consistent with their breakthrough. First, you don't have to believe in it. You can try listening to it and the "experience" may get across to you, that is, you grasp your nature (this would be like a transmission in zen). The key is the consciousness itself, not anything else that comes after it such as the expression. It must be validated through personal "experience." Hence the role of self-inquiry. One challenge is that we may not understand what "direct" means. Do you hold it as possible--becoming conscious of the thing itself without intermediary, absolutely, prior to experience, mind and perception, beyond a doubt? The terms kensho and satori can give the mind something new to ponder. If you don't think it as possible, then this awakening business is a mere fantasy to you. And relatively, why close oneself off? We may be able to understand directly the nature of things beyond assumption. We just shouldn't conflate our failure to do so with concluding that it is impossible. This is where the principle of openness comes in. Why is Gautama known as the awakened one? Leaving legend aside, he exemplifies the possibility of "complete enlightenment", whatever that is. Can we understand everything there is, as the Buddha presumably did? I'd say yes. If a human could do it, then it means that it is possible. There, an incoherent mess.

I'd start by making a distinction between thought and experience. This is the problem with "cosmologies." If you take Ramana's case so lightly, comparing this and that so trivially and superficially, as if you knew what Ramana was talking about, you're likely coming from the wrong place. Thanks for the interchange.

Why insanity?

I recommend you study a few ancient, original sources on Buddhism--Huang Po, Rinzai, Dogen, Bodhidharma, Gautama--and make up your mind about it. Also remember to leave it all aside (any belief) when questioning existence on your own.

Where else would you be able to create distinctions within such and such domain, than by dealing with experience and states which are relative and everything we "know"?

Don't make stuff up intellectually or otherwise; go after an insight.

@Davino How would you go about describing what "advanced" is pointing to? You're likely referencing someone else's creation that you follow - something its creator may genuinely believe in. Yet, when it comes to this kind of work, all models fall short. It's not about deliberately deceiving others, but about being unaware that you're conflating things like opinion, preference, or ideal with genuine insight. “Authentically lying” isn’t a real thing. If something is authentic, it must be honest. Why should being a teacher imply arrogance? It doesn’t have to. I mentioned Ramana as perhaps the clearest modern example of profound awakening - a "trustworthy" teacher. That’s not a call for blind faith.

@Davino Why take their word for it? You don’t even know whether it’s authentic. For example, advanced according to what? What criterion is being used? What are they even talking about - a process comprised of stages? It’s likely something adopted artificially from an external framework, perhaps even by the author himself. I’d be wary of the potential for arrogance that can arise from making claims about “surpassing” teachers, especially when psychedelics are involved. The experience might not have been as deeply authentic or genuine as initially believed. There’s also the common trap of not truly listening to the teacher - often without realizing it. We can count on Ramana...

But what is happiness? If it is independent from circumstances (perhaps it is a relationships that you adopt towards life and events), then why would it have to imply complacency or laziness? You won't just be motivated to pursue stuff in order to compensate for your sense of lack or inadequacy, which everyone seems to experience at least from time to time. In other words, you may be able to be happy and ambitious at the same time, pursuing whatever you want while being happy. The issue is that we may not know what happiness is. Hey, maybe happiness increases your effectiveness, so why not consider that perspective?

If you are suffering, it usually means there's an unconscious, conceptually-based activity occurring that has yet to be recognized. And you are the one generating it, by the way.

We often start (and continue) this work with mental constructions in the way, like assumptions and fantasies. However, I would have admitted it if what you said about "direct" were the case. Maybe Ramana was being authentic. This isn't a process or dependent on the mind. Look up the terms kensho and satori. They aren't about "figuring things out" or convincing oneself of one's beliefs. Direct means prior to intellect, perception and experience. Only a breakthrough will do, which is, in itself, self-validating, though the potential for self-deception is abundant. If someone hasn't grasped it directly, it is difficult to convey what that word represents. In the meantime, it could be held as a possibility in one's mind. In any case, if you don't think of direct consciousness as possible, then we might as well go have a beer.

You can pay attention to how you're looking at your life, which is clearly generating unnecessary suffering for you. Notice that you're doing that and stop seeing the situation that way. I could think about what I want to create, etc, or look for things to complain about in life. Take a look at what you're doing, thinking and focusing on. Otherwise, enjoy your current state, let it go, and welcome the next one. Positive framing.

Sure, and it's also possible to grasp it directly, as in the case of Ramana Maharshi, for example. This breakthrough allegedly doesn't pertain to the domain of relativity or mind. It is consciousness of what is. The legend of Gotama exemplifies this possibility. Even though it remains hearsay for us, the moment one has a kensho or first glimpse, one's relationship to the matter changes.

You're saying: we don't know. But can it be "known"? That's what the pursuit is about. Beware of conflating failing to grasp one's nature with thinking or concluding that it is impossible. After all, it is you already. Also, better not to confuse this work with an exercise in speculation and self-conviction. It is tempting for the mind to keep it in the domain of abstraction and intellect where it is safe, whereas honestly confronting oneself and one's experience isn't necessarily comfortable. Throwing some things around.

Intellectual speculation isn't the same as true questioning. Absolute isn't "lots and lots." Whatever associations your mind makes up in relation to the word "absolute" is just an idea and isn't it; assuming that it is Y or X puts us in the wrong footing.

Distinguishing between authentic teachers vs charlatans is useful: Are they profoundly conscious? Are they coming from a real experience? What and why are they communicating? Do they intend to facilitate consciousness and growth or something else, like entertaining, selling a belief system, telling you what you want to hear, and so on? This should leave out most individuals. Of course, as students, making these estimations isn't straightforward, and we could be mistaken. We'd need to pay close attention and know how to observe impartially. Guys like Ramana and Ralston seem to know what they're talking about. As for the rest of us (humanity as a whole), I'm not so sure.

@Rishabh R You have to take ownership of your anger. It is your experience. Perhaps you can look into the hurt behind the anger and contemplate what in you felt threatened by whatever you assess as having helped precipitate that hurt for you. Start by acknowledging that you're responsible for your experience.

Whatever experience is, it is best if one contemplates it for oneself, setting aside what essentially boils down to hearsay. So, investigate and find out.

Depends on what you're talking about. Generally, it is simply becoming conscious directly of the nature of an absolute aspect of existence. Either that, or you could hold it as a relative process, such as having an insight into a dynamic, principle, or condition -- "awakening" to the reality or origin of something in a way that is authentic and based on experience.

Can you clarify what you're asking and why?