UnbornTao

@nuwu just clarify whether you are actually attempting to communicate something real, or using intellect and jargon and conflating this act with plain communication. Then, if you're going to communicate, clarify the purpose of your communication. If you want to show off or look smart, that's also fine by me, but your posturing isn't helpful to others.

Kylian Mbappeee

Clarifying what the activity is about and its purpose is invaluable. Meditation is aimed at controlling the mind, producing positive states, healing, and stillness. No method can produce it as method itself is indirect. You can be at the bus stop (contemplation) so that when the bus comes, you're ready to jump onto it. This kind of contemplation is having the intention to "experience" the nature of something or have insights into it, openly and actively questioning with that purpose in mind. Meditate, if that's what you want.

Help from Claude: Translation: yes.

I consider other teachers such as Vernon Howard and Adyashanti to be more authentic and grounded, but thanks for the recommendation. Selling Cosmologies By The River

If he is enlightened, I can't seem to find much clarity on his part regarding direct consciousness. I suspect he is mostly speaking from intellect rather than from authentic experience. Speaking from authentic experience tends to come out differently, in a way that is more immediate, present and clear, not tainted by hearsay and so much schematics and cosmologies. But I could be wrong.

Remember? What do you mean? I'd say this isn't exclusive to enlightenment, in fact it may be a common phenomenon. Regarding advice, you can meet them where they are. If you've had genuine enlightenments, you may be facilitated in contemplating their experience, and perhaps communicating yours better. This is about communication.

Drink wine and sing to the beloved. Those authors should suggest some practices, but don't conflate rituals and religion with instrospection.

What about contemplating your experience of things?

Al-Ghazali, Rumi, Hafiz, Kabir.

It's funny that you mention Wilber as being above Kant in any way. Ken strikes me as being bound by intellect and by his own fabrications. I don't sense any experiential clarity coming from him. He overemphasizes the map in detriment to the direct exploration of the territory. It's all a map for him.

Not entirely related:

Kant would precisely be the exception to that. He was brilliant. He might even have had an enlightenment experience or two. That level of genius requires some leap in consciousness. What you said above may apply to others, like Ken Wilber and Alan Watts.

@bambi "He who has ears to hear..."

Confronting your experience as it occurs isn’t a matter of intellectualizing--and it’s not necessarily easy or comfortable, either. The mind prefers to keep this kind of work in the realm of abstraction, where it feels safe and no real confrontation takes place. But what we think about our experience may not match how we actually live it.

Eloquent and seemingly profound talk that isn't sourced from your own experiential understanding tends to be an adopted artifice, a mere conclusion or belief. As such, it adds to our sense of deep, personal inauthenticity. What's significant isn't the expression used but the realization itself. If there's no insight, then share a question; wonder about something.

Take a look; you guys should find plenty of personal examples. Start with: "I was wrong not to "find" anything I was wrong about." For example, broadly speaking, consider ways in which you: justify your excuses, think that X or Y are going to finally make you happy, play the victim, avoid pain, complain about things without doing anything about them, say one thing and do another, blame your life on this or that, use white lies for self-benefit, pretend to be something you're not. Bring to mind your own biases, hypocrisy, selfishness and self-deceptions. These are some of my personal examples: Taking oneself to be unique and special as if it were a fact of the universe (honestly, who doesn't?) Acting arrogant and righteous in subtle ways Making interactions about oneself, letting irrelevant stuff, such as the occasional impulse to be right, get in the way of the exchange Being cynical at times Engaging in superficial honesty. The more I move in that direction, the more I feel like that Being dismissive towards others Misusing humor at inappropriate times Being eager to judge before making an attempt to really listen Complaining about not being heard while simultaneously not listening to others Invalidating everyone, including oneself, under the guise of deconstruction (done with selfish intent) Making sharp remarks when hurt to get revenge Being too contrarian or disagreeable Some of these are vague; I'm not going to share a detailed analysis here. Brainstorm and introspect for some time. They don't have to be monumental fuckups such as robbing a bank. Subtle, small, specific cases work, too, as long as you asses them as such.

@Danioover9000 thank you.

For the same reason that drinking coffee within a dream won't wake you up. We're talking about different domains.

What do you mean by emptied? Did you perhaps mean embodied?

@Leo Gura Seriously though, I'm very appreciative of your work.

Control your mind and use it to create what works, in short. Easier said than done, yet it's simple--not easy.

Stating that one is absolute morality isn't saying much, is it? If morality is relative and constructed, I don't see how your nature could be that. Why would you bring up 'absolute' when morality relates to life, experience, and action? Do you perhaps mean universal or broadly applicable? Also, it's easy for formulations like this to become 'rules' set in stone or to be taken as an ideal. For example, chances are that you've been hurt by someone and have attempted to hurt them back, even if subtly. The thing is, there are many forms of suffering that we actually "desire" or like and actively partake in, albeit unconsciously. This is because we get something out of them and think them necessary, which is why we experience--generate--them in the first place. Would we want to impose these onto others? Your model would be hard to follow in practice, I'd imagine. As a construction, though, it sounds appealing and intelligent. It's a positive direction, even if it isn't perfectly met.

That's the way you hold perception, so it's fine. I take it as a process, hence relative, mediated by biological inventions. And then there's the possibility of enlightenment which is neither a process nor relative. These distinctions help us create a space in our minds between a relative phenomena and absolute consciousness, being in the same place as the thing contemplated, so to speak. If it's true and deeply experienced, not to be confused with an intellectual conclusion or a believed formulation, then I think it'd be solid, but I don't know.

Set aside what comes up for you, as it will get in the way of an open inquiry. Take a serious look, have a breakthrough, then tell me what it is.