On Enlightenment

a reply to: Murgatroid

heh to picture meditation in such a bad way is ... way out of touch with reality. You just flushed down the toilet all the spiritual history of eastern world where meditation is the focus point of almost every religious, spiritual or philosophical system or teachings. In some cases older than Christian teachings or Islam or other Abrahamic religions....

good luck with that. it is your choice. Believe what you want. I am not writing that to change minds. But to maybe inspire someone to try meditating and see how it goes from personal experiance...you know, instead of being fearful of the unknown, without even giving it a try?

Look, bad experiences can happen, but in many cases we are the main reason for that ourselves! Law of attraction and all that. Also Intent, karma, emotions, thoughts, ... , many factors are involved in experiences. We are each unique even in the present and also have different imprints left from previous lives on our "Soul". That is why there are so many different experiences. And ALL of them can be resolved in more ways than one. Usually there is a nice natural way of dealing with things or entities, at least in my experiance, but if or when the fear takes over...well contemplate, inspect, examine all that comes to mind or did come to mind when it happened...There is some reason and more than one solution to every problem and fear is just a pointer to something deeper.

As far as saint go. They are everywhere, I cannot pick just a few, but I have a very strict standard, and do not like most modern teachers or "saints". Real ones are mostly dead or out of public view in my opinion. All saints have usually a few signs of being one, but a few of them have all the signs, like: healings, "talking" with animals, seeing in the past or the future of a person or in general, unconditional love or compassion and other Siddhis.
But all of them without a fault have strict moral standards and have none of the vices and only cultivate virtues all the time and everywhere.

Use intuition and pick the ones they feel right for you. Google them and study what they teach. After a while one can notice, that there are some and some not so much obvious clues in explanations and teachings which are the same for all of them. They just use different words and metaphors but with same or similar concepts behind them.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Pray to be Saved thru His Grace and you will be enlightened
a reply to: Belcastro

Who's grace? One's own; or one manufactured by others? I am of the thought all grace comes from within ones own beingness/introspection/questioning existence (why are we here); a compromise of sorts. I am here to exist and serve myself first then others at once understood I am a material being that has a limited life span yet has an eternal spirit/consciousness not locked into a 3D material vessel existence that actually 'travels' and is is not locked into any locality. I am free to roam.

No part of you is eternal unless you are Saved by the mighty Grace of Jesus
a reply to: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: auraofblack
a reply to: childofapoet

I am grateful. I'm a lucky guy, but if God is sentient, I need to hear it from him direct why he needs to know that...... If it's explained and it's reasonable, I can do it.

You see, I don't really see our creator as something we have conscious relalationship with. I also think it's slightly silly to humanise and try to apply human behavioural responses to God.

If He/She is sentient it's okay, I'm Roman Catholic, and I I'll be looking to get some of that forgiveness.....

Forgiveness for what? What did you do? Why do you have to confess as a Roman catholic? Do you know the Pope. The Vatican's official twitter account. Is offering time off purgatory if you follow. Don't forgive me but I LOL a lot.


www.theguardian.com... nces-pope-francis-tweets

originally posted by: Nochzwei
No part of you is eternal unless you are Saved by the mighty Grace of Jesus
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I have a better idea; rather than having to be 'saved' by a dead person that may have caused more deaths on this planet other than Mohammed, Hitler or Stalin combined; live by his tenants (in Christ Consciousness awareness).

originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

You seem of an opinion that experiences in meditation and dream mind states are false and everything is only blind belief?
Well at least this is normal for a lot of people on ATS to think, I am sorry if I am wrong to say that about you.

Not at all, it's a fascinating subject and there is one type of experience in particular that it is difficult not to be open minded about (yes, heathen atheists have experiences also), that there could be far more to all of this. Though the utter absence of such a thing as the limited and finite "self" is what gives it it's (seemingly infinite) beauty. Such things could hint at some greater reality, it's just as possible that neuroscientists could be right and it is a trick of neurons and chemistry. Though claiming "enlightenment" from such things is nonsense.

The majority of such experiences (certainly not all) have easy psychological explanation anyway. In fact many groups (particularly cults) use subtle manipulation techniques along with their teachings, knowing that a percentage of people will correspondingly have certain experiences. Then these people don't have to believe, they know, they have experience! lol.

BOTH can be a great tool for learning about the Self. If you would experience other mind states in meditation you would probably understand and realize that. Science relies only on our waking state, ignoring the rest.

Agree there, it can be great. It's not necessarily such experiences themselves that are the problem, they are what they are. It is the complex interpretations and belief systems that stem from them, where people claim all sorts of titles (enlightened!), that is more of a problem. It's bs.

If someone tells you they are "enlightened" regarding some deep understanding of existence itself, there is usually an easy way to tell if they are exaggerating. If you pay attention carefully, you will notice their enlightened lips move, when you notice this it can be a good indication lol.

Science certainly isn't everything, but it's useful and shouldn't be discounted simply because we would prefer to believe something else.

Only our EGO has expectations and attachments and this is the part we want to get rid of in this context.

Yet without this "ego" we probably wouldn't have been able to dominate the planet, in fact our species might have been brought to extinction. So that seems a bit simplistic.

Everything is a process and can be experienced, don't just believe but try it for yourself!


imho.

What "enlightened" people usually teach is not only to experience and not form blind beliefs, but also that if you reach a different understanding to theirs... you are wrong. lol.

There is a wonderful story about Socrates and one of his detractors, Aristophanes, who dressed in rags in an effort to be humble. Socrates remarked when he met him that his vanity was showing through the holes in his tunic.

Humility seems to be also what he was getting at when asked what set him apart from other "wise men". It had little to do with his knowledge, other than he at least knew when he didn't know something, unlike the others. This genuine humility can be difficult to find amongst the "enlightened" ones who , underneath it all, wear their enlightenment like Aristophanes wore his tunic and usually haven't reached that point in wisdom yet, of realizing what they don't really know.

At some point every "enlightened one" is a believer. In every system, no matter how much it is supposedly based on experience, there will be a point at which a "leap of faith" is required to go further....at which point "abandon all hope, ye who enter here", and delusion follows.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

wow, you are an awesome poster!
this is such a nice response, I am glad I have decided to engage you.

You are right on all accounts and you make perfect sense.

The only thing I can really say is, that seem appropriate:
the ones who know don't talk, and the ones who don't know talk.

That means that final Self realization is beyond ego or ANY thoughts, senses or even experiance....well at least that is what ancient saints are all in agreement with. That is a permanent and final realization of the Self. This can only be achieved through own self effort and no one can show you that. One must learn oneSelf.

But I am not there yet .... so I talk : )

originally posted by: childofapoet

originally posted by: auraofblack
a reply to: childofapoet

I am grateful. I'm a lucky guy, but if God is sentient, I need to hear it from him direct why he needs to know that...... If it's explained and it's reasonable, I can do it.

You see, I don't really see our creator as something we have conscious relalationship with. I also think it's slightly silly to humanise and try to apply human behavioural responses to God.

If He/She is sentient it's okay, I'm Roman Catholic, and I I'll be looking to get some of that forgiveness.....

Forgiveness for what? What did you do? Why do you have to confess as a Roman catholic? Do you know the Pope. The Vatican's official twitter account. Is offering time off purgatory if you follow. Don't forgive me but I LOL a lot.


www.theguardian.com... nces-pope-francis-tweets

Haha, really? I was saying it tounge in cheek. It's a big thing for a RCatholic to seek God's forgiveness for just being born.... Sin after sin, we are an evil bunch it would seem.

Blessed are those with social media accounts.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Cogito, Ergo Sum: At some point every "enlightened one" is a believer. In every system, no matter how much it is supposedly based on experience, there will be a point at which a "leap of faith" is required to go further....at which point "abandon all hope, ye who enter here", and delusion follows.

Not so. To be enlightened or one in awareness (gnosis) does not mean one has identify with any belief system at all. What is experience? There is no reason for a 'leap of faith to occur'; as you say if so: delusion follows because belief systems are inherently flawed as were created *by others* to manipulate you.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Cogito, Ergo Sum: At some point every "enlightened one" is a believer. In every system, no matter how much it is supposedly based on experience, there will be a point at which a "leap of faith" is required to go further....at which point "abandon all hope, ye who enter here", and delusion follows.

Not so. To be enlightened or one in awareness (gnosis) does not mean one has identify with any belief system at all. What is experience? There is no reason for a 'leap of faith to occur'; as you say if so: delusion follows because belief systems are inherently flawed as were created *by others* to manipulate you.

Guess that depends on your definition of "spiritual enlightenment". Which, from what I see, doesn't seem to require much apart from being being able to claim such or perhaps even have a firm yet delusional belief. Self praise is no recommendation and all idols have feet of clay. Though some are without belief as you say, this is because they don't believe it themselves. It falls into one of several categories...charlatan...delusional or...well... there really doesn't seem to be a third option.

If someone wishes you to believe they are some great "grand poobah/guru" type, it's worth being skeptical of such claims.

a reply to: UniFinity

Thanks UniFity but flattery has no place here, I had to look to make sure we were still in "conspiracies in religion" forums.

I have spent some time with "spiritually enlightened" ones and their high ups and even discussed philosophy with them at times (more from an interest in beliefs and why people believe). Some of them give far better philosophical anecdotes and in fact usually have such a well rehearsed logic that they could probably sell ice to the Eskimo's, as they say. I have never found one that wasn't obviously (sometimes laughably) not what they claimed to be. If a run of the mill homo sapiens claims to be more than that and especially if they gather followers, it's worth being a bit skeptical of it.

That doesn't mean such things are unobtainable (who knows?) or that you can't try to find your own way and that's great if you are. Though mainstream religions are not usually cultish in the same way as many new age type groups, I occasionally wonder why religious people don't do something similar with their god, without clinging to scriptures or the need for middle men.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Cogito, Ergo Sum: At some point every "enlightened one" is a believer. In every system, no matter how much it is supposedly based on experience, there will be a point at which a "leap of faith" is required to go further....at which point "abandon all hope, ye who enter here", and delusion follows.

vhb: Not so. To be enlightened or one in awareness (gnosis) does not mean one has identify with any belief system at all. What is experience? There is no reason for a 'leap of faith to occur'; as you say if so: delusion follows because belief systems are inherently flawed as were created *by others* to manipulate you.

Cognito, Ergo Sum: Guess that depends on your definition of "spiritual enlightenment". Which, from what I see, doesn't seem to require much apart from being being able to claim such or perhaps even have a firm yet delusional belief.

Not mine, yours obviously has degrees of enlightenment as attached aphorisms (would like to see those).

CES: Self praise is no recommendation and all idols have feet of clay. Though some are without belief as you say, this is because they don't believe it themselves.

Self praise as in Demi-Gods manipulating the human? Those without belief are the Gnostics (those in knowledge pure) not needing a structure/belief system someone else matrix'ed for them.

CES: If someone wishes you to believe they are some great "grand poobah/guru" type, it's worth being skeptical of such claims.

It is your choice as can become one as well; if courageous enough (not easy).

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

a bit of flattery has a place anywhere, we are using to little nice words in general, imo : )
Your response made a LOT of sense and I cannot really add anything to it and I was really glad I read it.

Yes, science is useful for a lot of things, but not for understanding the real nature of universe at present moment. We should use "machines" given by nature for that. But this is again a wired contradiction, why?
we need to use body and mind in the right way, so we can realize that we are more than that. wired and vague isn't? But so are majoraty of spiritual topics, and in here is the problem in my opinion.
There seems to be endless contradictions, metaphors, etc... to describe our real nature. Exactly the opposite of science in a way, in the sense of the exactness of information provided.

And you seem to at least be open to such possibility that there are some truths maybe in there and this brings a smile on my face : ) Many people who abide by science would say you are crazy or delusional for just thinking about it ... no evidence and all that, it happened a few times on ats with me...

Nothing else but our own hard effort and courage can bring self evidence and at some point final realization. Do we blindly trust self evidence? I think NO - due to our doubts and fears. But it happened and ignoring it is also no good, so we should at least learn from it... and if it happens more time, than we can learn from it more, that is my approach in a nutshell.

What is the final Self realization ?
I don't know. But I know that it cannot be expressed in words nor feelings or anything we can now probably imagine. Maybe the closest thing would be if I said it is like waking up from a dream at the morning. Well that is how they describe it...in a some of cases.

It is not a thought, it is not an emotion, it is not an understanding, it is a different level of being. And people who discovered that are felt by animals and humans instinctively that they have found THE truth, peace and clarity within and much more... At least that is a small bit of how I feel about it at the present.

So the answers we are looking for will not be found in:
- books
- science
- religions
- gurus
- anything external

But we should use all of them if we want to navigate our self to the truth and Self realization. We should be sceptical about anything else than experiance, and even then it is possible that we are just projecting our fears, emotions, desires, etc...but this gets easier to filter the more we know of our Self. practice makes perfect : )

a bit of the truth is revealed when a new experiance arises during practices or study. But arasing of experiance is still just playing games in a way. The ones who have gone through all the games and merged with Self have come to the end of arising experiences and of suffering (waking, dreaming, deep sleep, death, life) and to the beginning of something new...the truth.

Maybe?



A short video of what I am wanting to convey here.

originally posted by: childofapoet
I believe if you was to read all the ancient scriptures. You would quickly realise where the Bible got it all from.

You've got it backwards...

I'm 100% sure of it.

This is also THE most important fact you will ever learn.

Never forget this.

a reply to: Belcastro

Before you were born, you were one with the void.
After you die, You are one with the void again.

What are you now?

Notice that the mind can only speak about 'before' and 'after'. The void is 'present' - it never went anywhere - it never goes anywhere.
Thoughts, words, speak about 'other' than what is happening presently - because the present is unspeakable (it is void of meaning). Do not worship 'other'.
But what is seeing and knowing the present happening?

That which is seeing and knowing the present happening never appears to be seen so is overlooked.

The ever present seeing/knowing space is the void in which all appearances arise and subside - out of nothing appears everything.


'Enlightenment' is the realization that 'you' are not a person - that there are no persons - no separate things - that there is simply what is happening - and that no one is doing anything - it is all done.


What are you? Now!
Presence is all there is. Can now begin or end? Or is now the beginning of a story about 'a person in time' or the end of a 'story about someone living in time'?
Now (the present) is where words happen that speak about a 'you' that is separate from now (presence) - but that separate person is just a thought happening now.
Now is what there is and now continually appears different.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Cogito, Ergo Sum: At some point every "enlightened one" is a believer. In every system, no matter how much it is supposedly based on experience, there will be a point at which a "leap of faith" is required to go further....at which point "abandon all hope, ye who enter here", and delusion follows.

vhb: Not so. To be enlightened or one in awareness (gnosis) does not mean one has identify with any belief system at all. What is experience? There is no reason for a 'leap of faith to occur'; as you say if so: delusion follows because belief systems are inherently flawed as were created *by others* to manipulate you.

Cognito, Ergo Sum: Guess that depends on your definition of "spiritual enlightenment". Which, from what I see, doesn't seem to require much apart from being being able to claim such or perhaps even have a firm yet delusional belief.

Not mine, yours obviously has degrees of enlightenment as attached aphorisms (would like to see those).

CES: Self praise is no recommendation and all idols have feet of clay. Though some are without belief as you say, this is because they don't believe it themselves.

Self praise as in Demi-Gods manipulating the human? Those without belief are the Gnostics (those in knowledge pure) not needing a structure/belief system someone else matrix'ed for them.

CES: If someone wishes you to believe they are some great "grand poobah/guru" type, it's worth being skeptical of such claims.

It is your choice as can become one as well; if courageous enough (not easy).

There is no "self" to begin with (in the way it is customarily believed), there is only an illusion of self. This is well known to most neuroscientists, as it was to many mystics.

It should be very basic and obvious to anyone who takes notice, just how illusory this notion of "self" that we have, is.

Thinking the "self" can become enlightened, is really just beginning with an illusion and changing it into delusion. It seems people are so enamoured with this illusion they have of "self" that they conceive of all sorts of notions in attempt to edify it..."higher self", "self realisation", "inner self' and so forth. No wonder "spiritually enlightened" ones are so deluded and self centred. The "self" is a trick of the mind, a useful evolutionary adaption.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

yes. I agree with you on that.

our real Self is always as is. It is perfect already and never was anything else.

So who get Self realization?
what is the soul?
what is the ego?
what is body and mind in relation with it?

Interesting questions. They are more meant as a rhetorical kind...But they are questions which individual should have real experience (soul, Self, ...) and not just imagined.

That is why searching with words can get you only so far...experiences are most important, and experiance can be
achieved in pure silent meditation.

And at the end, one discovers, that there is no Self at all...just like you said.

I am surprised about how much you understand about all this already. It seems you were or are a bit spiritual or maybe agnostic? At the beginning of this thread I thought of you more as a scientist kind of guy : )

originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

yes. I agree with you on that.

our real Self is always as is. It is perfect already and never was anything else.

It seems we agree on many things UniFinity , only that terms like "real self" could be misleading and ultimately, as you say, there could be no self at all. The "real", "higher", "eternal", "inner" or whatever other notion of self, seems like the illusion.

The notion most people have is of a "self" in their heads that is somehow running things. This is the very opposite of what really happens. Experiments have been showing this for some time, yet even some neuroscientists are horrified by what it implies and won't yet accept it. Though mostly because it challenges the idea of free will. The "self" does not cause activity in the brain. On the contrary it is a result of such activity, as is consciousness. So there is a fundamental difference there between a more scientific pov and those of most other systems.

We don't need fMRI experiments to see this. Where do thoughts come from? We give credit to our "self" for thinking them and it even appears we can focus on certain thoughts, but do we really? When they impinge the little bit of "awareness" we have, they are already done. When happy, sad, angry, whatever where does this originate? Does our "self" choose these things? It seems that the "self" is an illusory puppet to processes it knows nothing of. The fascinating thing is, why do we have it at all?

None of this rules out the "mystical" side, in fact it makes things more fascinating. I like the idea put forward by one neuroscientist, of a type of "panpsychism". Not that the universe is necessarily conscious itself (it might be, but how would we ever know?) but that there must be at least potential for consciousness within matter and it might be far more common than we realise. It could arise naturally as a result of complexity.

So who get Self realization?
what is the soul?
what is the ego?
what is body and mind in relation with it?



Interesting questions. They are more meant as a rhetorical kind...But they are questions which individual should have real experience (soul, Self, ...) and not just imagined.

The spiritual term "self realisation" could be replaced with "self transcendence" and we might benefit far more. The soul is a fanciful notion that makes people feel a lot better about their existence. It's for those terrified by the possibility that they won't go on forever and must be an easy sell. Similar notions and claims seem to be made about "love" as some grand cure all. Yet if we look, more than enough problems have been largely motivated by love itself and it can be an excuse for all sorts of nonsense.

I also don't believe in a mind/body type of dualism. Nothing really supports this idea other than folklore and experiences interpreted to arrive at or coincide with this belief. I think it might end up being far more fascinating when we do understand it.

That is why searching with words can get you only so far...experiences are most important, and experience can be
achieved in pure silent meditation.

Yes, meditation is good and can be enjoyable. It's a shame so many "wise ones" teach about it within strict guidelines or goals based on some dogma that turns people away from it. The greatest help I ever found was from a "wise" teacher who made all sorts of claims rather matter of factly about the nature of "virtue". Attempts at further explanation and resulting airy fairy nonsense made it obvious this was simply being parroted as a belief.

So I decided to experiment, incorporating everything I could that I thought might help to learn about it, including meditation. No expectations about it at all but one of the reasons I stuck at it was because I enjoyed the meditation aspect. I genuinely looked forward to it. At worst it resulted in a refreshing nap lol. There are things that as a science based atheist, I still treasure from this.

I am surprised about how much you understand about all this already. It seems you were or are a bit spiritual or maybe agnostic? At the beginning of this thread I thought of you more as a scientist kind of guy : )

I have been interested for a very long time and there aren't many belief systems I haven't considered. From discussion with monks at their temples, to christians, new age to the claims of scientologists and just about everything in between. It became apparent very quickly that belief was rife and those claiming to be "spiritually enlightened" were the least likely to even understand such a concept.

It also is fascinating the "inner experiences" people gain generally either reinforce whatever belief they have, or are interpreted accordingly. Either that, or they later choose a belief that makes them feel the best. lol. There is only one type of such "inner experience" that seems beyond interpretation of any kind. It simply is, there is no more description than that, that isn't misleading. Yet many "enlightened ones" do their best to mislead and own such things, so I doubt these people truly have such experience.

Science is a great tool but we don't know it all, or even much at all really (in an overall sense). We can't even account for the other 96% of the energy and matter in the part of the universe we can observe yet. The problem with many faiths is that usually from the very beginning they are in contradiction to the little bit that we do understand scientifically lol.

One of the things I find amazing about certain experience is that it seems consistent with science (as in special relativity). There is something about some aspect of "consciousness" that seems consistent with the properties of light, when viewed or experienced a certain way. How would the universe appear, from the pov of light?

It has also crossed my mind that this might have a source itself and I wonder if this could be what is termed god? I don't really know (atheist) but it isn't the concept of god, as much as certain specific depictions of god that I see no reason to believe in at all. Neuroscience could also well be right about such things, that they are simply a result of mundane chemical and electrical interactions. Yet that doesn't necessarily invalidate the experience itself nor rule out what such experiences seem to indicate IMO. It makes them more fascinating.

I can only offer this (though could be wrong, it could also be delusion). There is no possibility for any type of "self", real or otherwise to be found underneath it all. Instead it seems the utter lack of such illusions. Therefore titles people claim such as "spiritually enlightened" seem IMO, rather vain. If the universe is infinite (who knows?) they would be irrelevant also.

originally posted by: Belcastro

"In the beginning there was nothing, somehow out of this nothing, came everything.
Matter, mind, consciousness emerged."

This Is a myth. Or at least a claim that hasn't been backed up as yet. No one knows this. There is no point at which we can observe, when the universe didn't already exist. If we go back further to the proposed singularity that GR predicts (and which very few physicists seem to still find viable), that certainly isn't "nothing". It is the complete opposite of "nothing".

The "nothing" that quantum physicists propose also has definite properties and isn't the literal "nothing" that most people think of.

As a little conundrum (possibly)...can "nothing" ever exist? Or to put another way, can there ever be... literally nothing?