UnbornTao

I already designated myself as that. First come, first serve.

Let's invent a religion based on Ramana: you get enlightened now or are going to advaita hell.

Return the purse to the owner or to the store staff. They'll give it to him.

Why do you say he was grasping? The main difference is that Gautama got it! Realizing it is one thing; what we believe preceded the event, another. There are no requisites besides realizing it oneself. Certain practices may have aided his efforts in some ways, but how come emulating Gautama's path isn't necessarily going to make us enlightened? This is what religion is about: leaving out the direct consciousness, then inventing rituals and "choreographies" around the life and actions of an individual. The tacit assumption is that, if followed, an ideal (that we don't know of nor have experienced) will be reached, and that belief is essential or needed. The practices can't produce it, only you can. Grace makes it sounds like the leap comes from an outside force while intent is putting your ass on the line. You want to label the pursuit so that it fits with your theories but this is mistaken. We already superimpose stuff onto it by limiting it to a framework or system. It is better left as an open search for what's absolutely true. Ramana's sudden awakening exemplifies that the "leap" is always made now and irrespective of circumstances and history, since you are already you. That's the main thing to strive to here. Dropping assumptions and beliefs, understanding one's mind, transforming as a self, mastering a skill, understanding experience, emotions, language and everything else are invaluable practices to take up in life while also pursuing the absolute.

What are most people in religion/spirituality up to? The Buddha wasn't a Buddhist!

No, in those cases I'd say I "became aware" or "had an insight." Both involve becoming conscious, "seeing" something you didn't see before, relatively.

You don't know what you are now. If and when you become conscious of your nature, we call that an increase in consciousness. And you can keep having breakthroughs into what emotions, mind, space, context, experience, language, etc., are. Go figure.

For happiness in life, what's needed, essentially, is to enjoy your current experience as it is - no matter what it is - and to set goals for yourself to move toward every day. This creates a sense of hope and meaning.

We're talking nonsense. Belief systems are impediments to this goal. Become conscious of you and everything there is.

Yes and no. It is a form of becoming conscious, like an insight. Then you've got direct consciousness which is about realizing the absolute. But they could be used interchangeably when the word direct is put before the words experience or consciousness.

It ain't much, but it's honest work.

Because they're enlightened!

Direct experience is a misnomer as it isn't an experience. It's a sudden leap in consciousness into what something is, like becoming the object being contemplated. Experience is a process, hence indirect, generated and mediated by biological inventions. Seeing, touching, smelling an object. For example, a color-blind person experiences sight differently than you do, and she can directly experience what perception itself is.

@Carl-Richard Instead of taking it for granted, distinguish between what's intellectual and what's experiential. Also, what is belief and believed? Concepts must must be set aside, and the guidance is towards newly adopted ideals. The "goal" is just what's true now. "Have I experienced God? Have I experienced no-god?" Then everything that I claim to understand about this matter is belief. It sounds to me that you're talking about a state or an unusual experience. Your mind may have made stuff up in relation to the presumed breakthrough which isn't a sign of clarity. What might have driven committed individuals in the past, before having taken up any form of hearsay on faith? Wouldn't there be a simple want to know what's true underlying such pursuit? Here the main instruction is: intent to grasp your nature now. You focus on that until you make a breakthrough. Then all of this will become meaningless mental masturbation.

We bullshit ourselves. That's the main issue. If we don't clearly and personally "experience" our nature or that of existence, of what use is pretending? Even worse, a conceptual system may be confused for consciousness, which is why many people may think and imply to be enlightened. Is it true though? If we were honest to ourselves in the first place, acknowledging one's lack of consciousness in the matter wouldn't be that big of an issue. That insight would provide some openness. If someone were to point a gun at us, most would be hard-pressed to admit that we're ignorant, and this is OK. This is when inquiry can begin.

I'd go in the direction of what @Vajra is pointing out. acknowledge that you enjoy the mental gymnastics and entertainment, or; cut out the bs and start contemplating, discovering stuff in your experience

Keeping up that positive spirit!

What do you want to be up to before you die?

@Carl-Richard Religion is a confession of having failed at personal experience. It denigrates the movement towards honesty by adopting more beliefs. Granted, there might be some benefits for some people to gain from engaging in either religion or spirituality, such as a sense of communion and shared values, but these are social. Even what so-called spiritual people are up to is being followers, not serious contemplators. Entertaining stories and theories that approve of their worldviews are much preferred over a personal investigation. And then, there are a few individuals who want to know.

A sense of emptiness accompanies the lack of authentic self-expression.

@MellowEd Stop the nonsense already. "Whatever one frequently thinks and ponders upon, that will become the inclination of his mind."

I think this is a common phenomenon. Without the expectation there wouldn't be disappointment. It is an ineffective mind pattern, renew your wonder each time and question now.

Most of them seem to be engaged in one form of believing or another.

Depends on how you define each. If spirituality is defined as the pursuit of direct experience, I'd say very few are spiritual. At that point it'd be more accurate to call it truth seeking. Humans may be driven to believe, regardless of form. Belief does occur in both; it is fundamental in religion while in spirituality it is also significant but given some leeway. Depends on what each person is up to. A direct inquiry doesn't seem to be commonly pursued, believing is much easier and keeps one off the hook. Having breakthroughs must step beyond the realm of belief; this is what people like Gautama presumably did. Also there's the phenomenon of trust which is another thing to look into.

Good. Set those beliefs aside, they're ultimately hearsay, pointers at best. You seem to be pointing out a common dynamic with students – getting disappointed with the teachings after some time, based on the sense that it might all be "bullshit", that it might not be true. This sense is based on the recognition that what you had about the work was essentially conceptual and believed, therefore their reality hasn't been yet directly experienced and verified. Now the real work of going after what's true can begin. Question, wonder, contemplate.