UnbornTao

Shit, this was heartbreaking. Watch the whole episode.

I like red cabbage, haven't tried bok choy though.

If you're looking to understand what mind itself really is.

We already conceive, experience and are aware of "mind", but that doesn't seem to provide access to its nature. The sentence boils down to "mind is mind". It's a rhetorical question. Insight into what it is is what we should be after if understanding the thing itself is our goal.

Regardless of stories, contemplate what and why it is. What happens in your experience that is called procrastination?

I acknowledge to be coming from speculation and you might be, so it's useful to do that, which is to say I'm ignorant. Most people don't notice that this is what they do. You tell me. Survival seems to be the reason, so that you eat an apple, not a stone, and pet the dog rather than the tiger. Since I'm speculating: Consciousness is absolute and sources experience, also there's a reason why two words are used here. A distinction is made within consciousness. Experience is a particular way in which consciousness shows up. We might be confusing awareness with consciousness. Experience is relative, and consciousness absolute. Experience as a distinction is relative, it occurs as a process and depends on a body, etc. Absolute is absolute, so it could be said that the true nature of experience is absolute. This relative/absolute business is paradoxical. Enlightenment is independent of perception. Unless by perception you mean something different, you're describing something relative, awareness perhaps. Experience, hence perception, are transient, too. My point about object, body, another is that insight can be had into the nature of these relative phenomena, and that enlightenment, as in consciousness of one's nature, doesn't necessarily provide understanding of what these are, even though it's absolute. Let's have some enlightenments.

@FreeRangeEarthling You might claim to be conscious of your nature, then each of us individually asserts whether you're being authentic or not. That seems to be the gist of it. Credentials on this topic aren't a matter of collective agreement, it is about the teacher knowing what she talks about, whether she's coming from personal insight. It is possible to be deeply conscious and yet people dismiss her teachings, and this wouldn't make her consciousness any less true. It's tricky to discern. I didn't suggest to believe in anything anyone says, enlightened or not, so use your brain. What do you mean? update: Ok, I just read the rest of the thread.

Thanks, might take a look. @Carl-Richard But what is mind? @Davino Just a way to contrast the tendency to idolize the person, what you say can of course be helpful if done with care.

Hello there.

Would it be correct to rephrase that as "understanding concepts about the mind and the world"?

A distinction is made for a reason. Call a dog a dog. Without a body, experience can't occur. Consciousness might be at the source of experience, but believing hindrances an open investigation. Also, what is experience, and how does it come to pass? We shouldn't paint everything with the same brush. Absolute consciousness is whatever it is, the point is to become conscious, it doesn't provide consciousness into relative phenomena. What is a body? What is anger? What is an object? What is another? Realistically, these additional questions has to be worked on independently even when "enlightened." Which principles allow for mastery in a certain field? This is a clue that even when awakened, ignorance in some form is still present. Does that help?

@Osaid I think you misunderstood the reasoning behind the "enlightenment" joke. And I think you're misinterpreting some important things, but anyway, that's an opinion.

@Davino Yep, but worship the truth and not so much the deliverer!

Consciousness is at the source of experience. Materialism is an assumption, albeit a very persistent one (Einstein hint). What are experience and consciousness? Those remain to be contemplated.

I said and, not so. A teacher communicates, you listen and pay attention, then assess whether he or she is being sincere through an intuitive sense, knowing it could be wrong. You might be looking for a reason to believe what's asserted by any given author. That you trust a teacher implies you're willing to listen to what's said, not that it is believed. In the end, what's received by you must be set aside, and contemplation must be done from scratch. As an acknowledgement of the fact that awakening remains hearsay, a possibility at best, until direct consciousness is revealed. Welcome to spirituality. Very few people are actually deeply conscious and are charlatans. If people were ruthlessly honest with themselves, there wouldn't be that much "spiritual" teachers. People confuse entertainment and sharing a cosmology with genuine realization. Anyhow, better to focus on oneself.

@FreeRangeEarthling I updated my response above. Has had several enlightenments and might as well be conscious of his nature. Basically, it's tricky to evaluate. For all we know, enlightenment is a scam and Buddha, Ramana, etc. were lying.

I don't know. In any case, I'd refrain from judging one's consciousness based on a belief system (nonduality, et al.) One might directly know his nature, or not. Assessing the presence and "degree" of such consciousness in others is made yet the more difficult without one's self-realization. Intuition might serve here if you're able to pay close attention; ultimately, though, who knows? Unless you've been in the presence of an enlightened individual and can perhaps sense something "unusual", all we've got to evaluate are their communications. In the end, we might be limited to our own assessment of their authenticity.

@Leo Gura Is he enlightened? Why the emphasis on mapping, models, stages? What is he trying to measure? It can be good, even brilliant, work, although it seems to be conceptually-based. It is putting the cart before the horse when it comes to enlightenment. Even with profound consciousness, I seriously doubt mapping consciousness is necessary or possible at all. As a sidenote, Ken was influenced, among others, by Adi Da and Franklin Merrell-Wolff, which is interesting.

Probably because it is highly intellectual, abstract and based on a complex system of implicit assumptions.

@Water by the River Not agnostic but thank you.

Does it get delivered to Spain?

@Squeekytoy I'm basically saying be honest (about what you're conscious of or not), not that it is bad not to know oneself. Notice I haven't claimed to be enlightened either. Contribute as much as you want. Also it's good that you feel angry, something in you might have been threatened in relation to what I said. If it's not true or as true as possible and it's dropped, that's progress.

@Water by the River You might as well convincingly parrot enlightened individuals as much as you want but without the essential direct consciousness that sourced such communication in the first place, that's basically pretending. Unless you in fact are talking from direct consciousness which doesn't sound like it. "Coming from" as if your stance on this which looks like an adopted cosmology. I'm pointing out that it sounds like no one here knows his nature deeply, and that it's easy to confuse dialogues like this as resolving that fundamental condition. Or you are directly conscious of your nature and I'm being unnecessarily obnoxious.

I'm judging where I assess you're coming from, which sounds to me like hearsay and intellect, no interest in engaging in this. I'm saying, if it's the case that direct profound consciousness is lacking, then conclusions and parroting cosmologies is of no use, so better be honet about that. It's entertaining, but looking for agreement or validation for what is essentially a belief is looking in the wrong place, but have at it.