I find the concept of Enlightenment problematic

a reply to: blujay

Yes, in a way I value the mind, and I feel proud that I am capable of thought. So many things in this world are attainable by thoughts put into action, and for those to say that thought is something that they want to rid themselves of, to say that they want to eliminate their mind, to me, sounds like something that I do not believe to be a wise choice.

a reply to: SystemResistor
No way in hell to rid oneself of thoughts! The key is not to believe them. Pick and choose.

originally posted by: blujay
a reply to: SystemResistor
You're trying to understand something that has nothing to do with the mind, from the standpoint of the mind. It can be pondered and picked apart mentally 'till the end of time and never understood. But I see the puzzle you are playing with, it's fun to try to figure out. Good luck!

Philosophical fun is the infinite loop on the tail of the bhavachakra demon or the self that upholds and tows the line of samsara (the ideological poison of extremes, as I poop all over trying to describe release) It is both the way out and the trap at the same time, it is the flower to stop and smell along the way, the one to hold behind the ear as you continue on, and the one to sit and twirl after you have arrived, to show someone else the flower they also they refrained from smelling but wanted too, or stopped to smell... but refrained to pick, or picked up and carried along... the flower never actually goes anywhere as long as the mind holds onto it (this is what enlightened Ananda) he watched the Buddha washing his feet earlier that day, then saw him twirl the flower when the Buddha was talking about no coming and no going.

The Cula Malunkyovada Sutta or (poison arrow sutra) is a fine example of this freedom/trap process in action. Discriminatory thought is a recursive loop, the duality, the yin/yang, samsara. The person being deluded in it is oneself as you are (buddha/mara) at the same time, red pill/blue pill... stay awake watch the details or go back to sleep and get lost in the details? Either way, the main roof beam is shattered after the first glimpse... and we feel we can point the way, we think we are at the end of the path pointing at the destination...

If one thinks they are at the end and pointing the way to others? That's one amazingly long and curvy finger. Try standing at the beginning of the path and pointing.

Om Mani Padme Hung!

a reply to: SystemResistor

Clinging to no thought, is just as bad as clinging to thought... the middle where thought becomes one and none is bliss.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

There are thoughts that arise by themselves, however I can choose to think, and choose to cease thinking. I have made the mind my tool. Thoughts can be a problem when we define them as "real" and with that there is a link between thoughts and reality, where reality is stained by thoughts perturbing the mind. However, thoughts in the pure sense are harmless and are only "real" when they are put into action, not before (anticipation) and not after (memory).

a reply to: SystemResistor
The mind has an 'idea' of what enlightenment is like.

This video may dispel the confusion - or not?

originally posted by: SystemResistor
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

There are thoughts that arise by themselves, however I can choose to think, and choose to cease thinking. I have made the mind my tool. Thoughts can be a problem when we define them as "real" and with that there is a link between thoughts and reality, where reality is stained by thoughts perturbing the mind. However, thoughts in the pure sense are harmless and are only "real" when they are put into action, not before (anticipation) and not after (memory).

You are what 'notices' thought.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I see that there are many levels to the mind and thoughts, some have highly developed minds, and others, not so much so. I engage in contemplation regularly, and as such, I can "think about thoughts". At the basic levels, it is simply the "dialogue" of the personality or "ego" and when we hear it "speaking" in our minds, with our voice, we mistake it for being "ourselves" as opposed to a series of sounds (i.e. speech) in the mind. I have already passed this stage, my thoughts are complex and multiple and they are reaching what you would call "calculations" as they have been "speeding up" over time. I have had many "epiphanies" and realisations about the nature of myself, however, I still find that there is always "more" to discover about the self, and this can only happen when we think about ourselves as being multi-faceted and also capable of being subverted if one chooses to. Being in a state of equilibrium, and to observe ones actions and thoughts in a detached manner, is simply a "trick" in my mind, and I can do exactly the same thing if I want to, however, I do not want that state to be permanent.

Eternal bliss - the end, the goal, what is next?

I find that absolute concepts are a challenging problem because they propose a "finality" or a "fate" - it really scares me.

Of course, one would say, that you have to experience the state "first hand" to truly understand it, and I propose that I can, really what is happening is that your spatial awareness has enveloped the surrounding environs, creating a lack of "distinction" between the reality that is "you" and the reality of your surroundings. Likewise the teaching is to absolve the self so that one has the realisation that they are in unity with the absolute balance or the innate "equilibrium" of existence. This "equilibrium" is always present and experiencing it only really is a reassurance that you will not "die" because you have realised you can exist without your "ego".

To me, it is just another experience, there is nothing that is "special" about it and I do not see why all kinds of experiences cannot be had asides from one permanent "state". A permanent state means that it cannot change, it remains the same - this means one will lose many other experiential possibilities, whether or not they are tied to the "ego" does not matter.

I believe that reality is infinite, the nature of existence is simply the presence of all conceivable possibility, and all that exists is a result of pure chance, and that includes the birth of consciousness. Thus, all states of awareness are equally valid and equally "real" - in that sense, there is "unity" however there are no real "absolutes" in reality, all is dynamic and changing and it is the chaos that spawns existence, and we do live chaotic lives with equally chaotic states of being. So, the "ego" is a real thing because it is a part of all possibilities, and one can choose to indulge in it or choose not to, it doesn't really matter.

a reply to: SystemResistor

To me, it is just another experience, there is nothing that is "special" about it and I do not see why all kinds of experiences cannot be had asides from one permanent "state". A permanent state means that it cannot change, it remains the same - this means one will lose many other experiential possibilities, whether or not they are tied to the "ego" does not matter.

What permanent state are you referring to?
Aliveness is happening - it is constantly being different.
If you listen to the Tony Parsons video I posted, you will hear him say that 'enlightenment' is nothing like the mind thinks it is - it is not all blissful- it has everything - nothing is excluded.

You seem to have replied to the posts without listening to the videos? If you listen to them, your concept of 'enlightenment' may change and you might not find it so problematic - if all depends on what you believe 'enlightenment' means. Maybe hearing it said from different angles might dispel some confusion.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I just don't find that the answer is universal, each of us needs to find their own solutions to their problems, and I don't think that enlightenment is necessarily it.

originally posted by: SystemResistor
a reply to: Itisnowagain

I just don't find that the answer is universal, each of us needs to find their own solutions to their problems, and I don't think that enlightenment is necessarily it.

The answer to all 'your problems' is the realization that there is no separate you. When you are no more then what problems could there be?
All there is, is life happening. The fact that you think life is happening to you makes life problematic (for you).
This right here and right now is aliveness happening - it is just happening, no one is doing life and life is not happening to anyone - there is no thing individual.
All is DONE on Earth as it is in Heaven.

a reply to: SystemResistor

Whatever enlightenment might be, it is not gained in death, it is gained in life. We must accept all the things that we find here, including our physical senses, but we must become privy to their true nature.

This world is not an illusion, try hitting yourself over the head with a rock and tell me it is imagined.

The illusion lies within the qualities we assign the 'things' we see. This world is very real, you and I are very real, but in which ways?

When one awakens to the truth of this reality, one does not stay in a 'continual state of bliss.' This would be a contradiction to how reality works, nothing is permanent, including any states garnered from awakenings. If there is a truth about life it is that it is filled with strife, with stress, with suffering, along with all its good qualities found in pleasure, happiness, joy, peace, love. It is all rising and falling away consistently.

If through our enlightenment we are to graduate to a higher plane, it is not through death, but in life. It is here that we gain the kingdom of heaven, nowhere else. There is nothing wrong with rebirth, it is just the volitional force of our karma making its way through. The wave of our life force touching and reverberating through all of existence. As long as we have attachment, clinging, aversion, ignorance, we will fuel its propagation and thus find ourselves again and again.

There is nothing wrong with our physical senses, it is our ignorance that causes us suffering. But suffering can be a good teacher, for through suffering we can gain the dissatisfaction and disillusionment with normality that gives rise to the first steps of our awakening. Examination of our physical senses is a powerful meditation, one that can give us insight into the inner workings of our body, heart and mind.

Do not detach from the physical senses, detach from your clinging to your perceptions of the qualities of them. Accept your physicality fully, you have them! Use them!

There is no permanent bliss. What one can attain is a deep dwelling in peace, an undisturbed heart, that we can use to traverse the realm of space and time.

Follow the Bing Crosby way.

Do; Be; Do; Be; Do.

Firslty, what is wrong with reincarnating on Earth?

OP, you have a biased perspective on life here and what's really going on. If your life is a relative bubble of cushyness, money, good job, etc...then of course you like it. On the other hand, I remember pre-exsiting prior to being born in the body, and when I got a preview of Earth, I literally wanted to puke, its a negative prison planet. The highest perspective is that of people who have broken through into enlightenment, out of body and near death experiencers who have mapped out what exactly is going on.

You have to look at things objectively beyond your subjective bias bubble. The cycle of reincarnation sucks and you aren't even originally from here (earth), you have another source and place you came from, that is a trillion times better than anything here.

Secondly, what is wrong with the physical senses?

Nothing is inherently wrong with them, its just that they are programmed to keep you looking outward, instead of going inward and knowing thyself from within

Thridly, is living in a continuous state of bliss a constructive thing?

Yes, because then you transcend all things and become Christ-like, Buddha-like

1) Lets say that I've only got one lifetime to live, for whatever reason, there is going to be no reincarnation for me, no ascention to the spiritual plane, just this lifetime. When I look at my life, what do I really have to complain about? Earth is beautiful is it not, I have so many friends, family, and there are so many interesting things to do. If I get come back again (reincarnate) of course I would, and of course I will have learnt many lessons. Think about it, reincarnating on Earth indefinitely, that means that I will always be able to come back here and enjoy life.

Just wait, give it some time and you'll start to experience the death of your loved ones, the downs that come with the ups, the decay of your own body, eventual sufferings of various sorts, and then death itself. You sound like a young buck who's hypnotized by all the pretty lights on the Xmas tree (the lights being things to do, and tree being earth). When you take a few trips around the block, you'll realize everything here is empty and you can never be satiated. This is what Buddhists talk about, that this realm is like a carnival/circus where you can never get enough, never become whole by it. So these 10,000 things you can get wrapped up in, are attachments that will eventually keep you reincarnating.

2) The goal is to be detached from the physical senses, what would happen if we took this a step further, what if, we had no senses - no touch, no smell, no sight, no hearing and no taste? What happens if one does not feel pain, of course, they would likely die as they would not be able to know if thier body was injured. Without a sense of touch - think about all the things we touch, would one want to be disattached from it? If I were to ask a blind man if he would want to see again, of course he would - would the desire to see again be the cause of his suffering, being too attached to his senses?

You're missing the point. Detaching from all the senses, from the body, will eventually open up access to Enlightenment, where you feel everything all at once beyond the limits of the senses.

3) The state of "bliss" is supposedly a permanant sensation, when one is in this state, they no-longer need to be preoccupied with reality, they can sit in this state eternally. What can be accomplished if one is just immobile, steadfast in thier state of "unity"? In addition, isn't "bliss" just another sensation, were not we suppoed to be detached from them?

The bliss just ends up being there on its own, like breathing, and yes it too is eventually detached from. Can you still work, walk, live, breath, and do things in life while breathing? Of course you can, so too can you do while on fire with Bliss.

Do some more studying. This post literally sounds like you are 12-14 years old and just starting to read the books that the world has to offer

a reply to: SystemResistor
Enlightment is an easy word to know and yet when it comes to what it really stands for, one may need to be open to update throughout ones life. Just to steer your view right in one concern, enlightment is about liberation from everything. That includes heavenly realms, as these are seen as a limitation to liberation and enlightment. Detachment does not mean that one has to dispise anything, a human life is seen as a great important gift in the attainment of enlightment. Detachment also means to not be over ruled by anything. A simple example is the following one, when driving we have rules and laws that govern us. Traffic lights, zebra crossings speed limitation, we can take them as a dictatorship or as a guide to enable harmony. We can get upset about driving or we can simply be detached, what does that mean? We still drive on earth and governed by certain rules, but we are not bound by it and we dont take it to be the ultimate reality.Also the real idea of bliss is to be in that state whilst you are active in your life and engaged with temporal reality. Whilst I write there is bliss, whilst I think there is bliss, whilst i walk there is bliss. But when Im aggresive the connection to bliss has gone, but bliss has not gone. It is the I that goes and disconnects from the source with its belief systems. It is the I that thinks it is separate. Attached to thought patterns one can loose connection to the truth, the list goes on and on. To be detached is bliss, just this is worth while for this very life right now.

a reply to: SystemResistor

No, enlightenment is actually humanistic and grounded in reality with the hopes of eventually transcending. It began during The Enlightenment which led to the Renaissance.

Self-actualization is another word for enlightenment. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is always interesting to check out. There's not much to dispute, really.

All experiences are channelled through the "self" and when we give concept to "ourselves" we create an entity, made from our own thoughts, that we identify as being who/what we are. Enlightenment seeks to disassociate this "self" from what we are in the absolute sense. When we do not make the mistake of identifying with the "ego" all the associated emotional stressors that hinge upon the "ego" are nullified.

I feel, as though, there is a good reason for one to strive for having an "ego" - I feel as if, "in the beginning", we were all "one" sentience, and this had gotten boring, and as a result, we formed into "individuals" that can experience their own slices of reality.

Many do want to "return" to the ever-present "one" and likewise see that having a distinguishable "self" has caused them too much suffering and turmoil.

What enlightenment implies is the eradication of the "self" and as such an enlightened person will eventually return to being one with everything - the collective consciousness.

I believe that many do not really realise what enlightenment implies, it implies that you will cease to have an identity altogether.

I really want to have a "self" because without it, I would simply just be "everything" yet "nobody".

If all sentience were to lose all self-concept, we would turn into one universal entity, and would cease to have any individual identities anymore.

Is this really what people want?

originally posted by: SystemResistor
All experiences are channelled through the "self" and when we give concept to "ourselves" we create an entity, made from our own thoughts, that we identify as being who/what we are. Enlightenment seeks to disassociate this "self" from what we are in the absolute sense. When we do not make the mistake of identifying with the "ego" all the associated emotional stressors that hinge upon the "ego" are nullified.

I feel, as though, there is a good reason for one to strive for having an "ego" - I feel as if, "in the beginning", we were all "one" sentience, and this had gotten boring, and as a result, we formed into "individuals" that can experience their own slices of reality.

Many do want to "return" to the ever-present "one" and likewise see that having a distinguishable "self" has caused them too much suffering and turmoil.

What enlightenment implies is the eradication of the "self" and as such an enlightened person will eventually return to being one with everything - the collective consciousness.

I believe that many do not really realise what enlightenment implies, it implies that you will cease to have an identity altogether.

I really want to have a "self" because without it, I would simply just be "everything" yet "nobody".

If all sentience were to lose all self-concept, we would turn into one universal entity, and would cease to have any individual identities anymore.

Is this really what people want?

You're missing the point again.

When you lose yourself, you gain everything. When the I dies, the All is who you really are.

Do you want to be this tiny limited suffering fragment that will one day die?

Or the infinite beingness which is uncreated, doesn't suffer, and never dies.

I thought like you when I was a teenager too once. It'll pass eventually

a reply to: dominicus

To encompass, there is the "I" and the "all".

Assumedly this "all" is all existence, all sentience that exists in unity, the eternal state of connectedness to all that "is" and not to those things that are transient or impermanent.

Assumedly, the "I" is the identity or division that one has between themselves and the "whole".

The argument is, is that the "ego" is transient, and the "whole" is eternal.

The point therefore of enlightenment is to realise the transient nature of the "ego" and submit oneself to the "whole".

Suffering is thus caused by the fact that the ego will "die" one day and thus we cling onto an "illusion".

Does that really matter when it comes to purpose, does something being "impermanent" mean that it must not exist for a reason?

I see much purpose in the existence of the ego and "attachment" for although one might be "deluded", the self that we can define, for ourselves, is our meagre attempt at conceptualising what we are when we purport that we are unique.

The very fact that we hope to be "unique" - what the "ego" clings to - is the essence of the human desire for individuality.

Perhaps, individuals come and go, perhaps their "egos" dissolve, however, for the period of time that they did have an "ego", they did believe that they were separate and special.

It seems like those whom have chosen enlightenment are steadfast in their reasoning that the "ego" creates more trouble than it is worth, willing to sacrifice their self-concept in order to attain an eternal bond to existence.

I do not regret having an "ego" because I have realised that I want to be different, it is a choice that I have made, and I continue to pursue it.

The way I see it, the more interesting we become as individuals, the greater extent we can experience the fun of being individuals, by interacting with each other and sharing our experiences. Otherwise, just rolling together like a giant snowball and becoming "whole" would only serve to standardise us all and really we only can define purpose to our lives when we have our own individual paths - and individualities.

That concept comes from religions like Hinduism. The ultimate idea of God in Hinduism, is called Brahman, "the unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world" (equivalent to the "all" you're talking about). If you study enough of the religion, you'll understand that, directly or indirectly, enlightenment ultimately means that you are your own god, and that you and Brahman are one.

I also don't agree the slightest with the concept. Being your own god is essentially what Satanism is all about. (not trying to use the word "Satanism" with any connotation, although I do think it is very much evil; I just used the word because I had to name what I was referring to!)