UnbornTao

Anything done mindfully and with attention works. It's about you being conscious, looking into stuff, rather than the activity bringing you consciousness. You could start by asking what's in front of you (in your experience), like: What is this emotion? Wash the dishes, walk, play, write, do Tai Chi, cook.

Chicken on pizza isn't good! I'll die on this hill.

Talk is cheap.

Not the first time The Simpsons would get it right.

Who said you should behave in this or that way? You might as well cure cancer, play video games, or anything else; reality ultimately doesn't care, but you of course do. "Should" comes from a value system or ideal. However, you don't want to use this as a justification for harmful or foolish actions. Treating others reasonably well leads to a more seamless interaction (with exceptions) and is overall an intelligent collective survival strategy. On an individual level, you wouldn't want to be treated poorly or disrespectfully. You'd realize the consequences that such behavior has on the other person. Conversely, being "good" (depends on what that means to you) generally leads to mutual benefits, even though you could spit at their face.

With mastery in mind, it ultimately isn't about what you choose to pursue, but rather that the pursuit brings to the fore your relationship with yourself and with life.

I started writing a different response and then realized that it wouldn't cut it. We're basically talking about a possibility called "realizing the absolute" while living and being stuck in a world of relativity, so to speak. Having a few enlightenments is the answer. It would save us all this pointless intellectualization. Convenient thing to say but for some of us this is the main goal. Ramana Maharshi's first teachings, and presumably his most potent ones, were said to consist of him just being silent. Something to consider.

What do you want me to say? He's deeply conscious and knows what he's talking about. I would first study a given teaching that's promising and do some real work, then make up my mind about it. Frankly, I don't think anything I'll say will make much of a difference at this point. This is similar to the issue above; trivializing Ramana's teaching. Assuming that knowing the right spiritual terms implied any real personal understanding of what's being offered.

I've been meaning to watch it.

Brad Goodman self-help!

@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 mentally or emotionally, it means there's an unconscious, conceptually-based activity operating in your experience 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.