It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Enlightenment. What is it and how do we know when we have achieved it?

page: 25
28
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
When people go without food for 8 weeks, it is not without consequence. It may be without death, but the body is not going without sustenance, it is slowly consuming itself. That cutoff is the point where one can consume ones own tissue without consuming the organs that are essential for remaining alive. Without dying. (Maybe, some do die sooner) You burn fat, then muscle and organ tissue. When the body turns to the only thing it has left, its own organs, permanent damage and death will eventually follow. The exact time in which this will occur is individual, the fact that it will happen is not.


I agree that that would be the standard physiological response, but although we are fundamentally made of the same composite parts that does not mean that we all react the same. You surely can see that 'freaks' of nature from time to time emerge. Some humans will perish after a few days without food, others can last for many weeks. There are any number of possible explanations for that, some seemingly more rational than others, and sometimes what seems impossible is merely a matter of us not yet having an explanation for that particular behaviour. Yet.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Some "facts" are more relative than others. Gravity, for instance, effects all people and things on Earth equally. Death is a fact for every living organism.


Death is a fact of life admittedly but it is still relative to perception. For some it may be the end of all things, for some the pathway to a new existence, so although 'all things must die' is a 'fact', our individual experience will effect our perception of that fact. And, as is proven in survival stories, it is reasonable to see that the 'will to live' can overcome to body's expected response to die. Similarly, ask yourself what is gravity? We know that it is the force that pulls us to the earth because that is how it is defined for us, and therefore when we jump from a high place and land then that is the force of gravity at work. What creates gravity? Can we see it? Feel it? Smell it? I can't, I don't know about you. I can though rationalise based on the available information that it is a 'fact', that science has correctly defined it's existence based on known parametres. I also know that based on that knowledge scientists apply their minds to defying gravity. They have not, as far as I know managed so far, but it doesn't stop them applying their powerful minds to that thought.

My parametres are personal to me. I am able to see that it is possible to live without food, at least theoretically, due to personal experience and acquired knowledge. I do not know it, but nor do I need to. I can rationalise any number of ways in which it could be feasible based on my combined knowledge and experience. Therefore it is easy for me to trust the word of an individual who makes that claim without any hope of gaining anything from me based on my belief. You on the other hand would require further enquiry, and that is great, for you. I don't. It is merely a matter of perspective.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
And what have you come up with in regard to how religions become tools of oppression? As I see it, generally, there is some one, some central figure who realizes an "enlightened" state, and then afterward, the memory of that person, (often after the direct remembrance of that person has faded somewhat,) is embellished by others with miraculous tales of supernatural powers, superhuman states, etc., that can also be yours if only you believe.


You are telling me how a cult or sect or breakaway group develops into a religion. We could go further and debate how religious beliefs evolved in the first place, it is hardly relevent. If you are unaware how the Roman Catholic Church, for example, attempted to enforce it's belief on millions of otherwise happy people in order to profit territorily then it would be a lengthy discussion indeed. As soon as a religion or church begins to generate income, whether collected a taxes or not, it has a vested interest in maintaining the conditions in which it thrives, that usually involves the maintenance of ignorance and the suppression of information. That to me equals oppression.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
If one could and does choose to "live on Prana alone" what is ones motivation for telling others? For announcing that "fact?" When one begins proclaiming to others, it is no longer personal is it? Does one proclaim special powers to have others look at one differently? To elevate oneself in the opinion of others? To gain the pretense of having a "secret" that if the other were worthy might be shared? Simply because you yourself did not pursue that secret does not mean that that person is not hoping for followers, for attention, and aggrandizement. The study of charlatanism and scams themselves is fascinating. A stage hypnotist, for instance, is watching his/her audience to see whom among the crowd are susceptible, those are the ones who are chosen for the tricks, not the skeptics who are non-responsive to the suggestions thrown out.


Because sometimes people simple talk to share information, if you build up trust and rapport with an individual then they will be inclined to share their most personal or hidden secrets. People do not always convey 'special' information to feel 'special', they convey it because they want to be understood. If you tell someone a secret, there is a human compulsion to do the same. If you handle that information with care and respect, they will be compelled to reveal more. So for example, I may have told this individual about my long term experience of anorexia, and how it has affected me, how I do not respond normally to food, can go days without eating or even thinking about eating. That even though I am medically cured of the disorder, my mind is still programmed in a particular way due to that long term behaviour. That person therefore may have felt that they could confide to me about their otherwise private practice of prana because she knew that I would not ridicule her.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I just recognize a spectrum of "profit." From the guru with hundreds of thousands of followers, and expensive cars and homes, to the neighborhood guru who makes little money if any but who needs the currency of "specialness" and who get high on the awe and respect of those around them. There is no difference between the two as I see it, save one is a mogul and the other less successful. The moguls often start from such humble beginnings, but get more adept with their art as they go along. As with any business, there are many who never reach the "big time." And, for me it is not a matter of being "right." I dont care one bit if one can or cannot live on Prana. If I had to choose, I would rather we could, because as I say the potential for eliminating hunger and starvation live there. I am not going into it with an assumption and then only seeking facts to support it, I am seeking the truth to the degree we can know it. Whatever that is.


Then by all means research it if that is what you believe, but since you don’t believe it you won’t, instead you question my belief in it’s possibility and wonder why I don’t investigate further. I don’t feel for one minute that it would end starvation because I know the self-discipline and control that is required to not eat, initially. Most people have no motivation to do that, and I only did so because of depression or whatever.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Agreed, I do not just pooh pooh a claim and refuse to look. I do look. I looked to see if people were known to have consumed lethal doses of poison and lived, and I looked to see how reputable the claims of living off Prana alone were. The claims simply arent borne out. Science also was hindered in "latinization" by the insistence of some that faith should prevent secular inquiry. No good scientist enters into experiment or observation assuming the answer. You look, and see what really is. If it isnt what you wanted, oh well, you adjust your belief to it, not the data to support your belief.


For your benefit here is one example that I found;

news.bbc.co.uk...

This is a very interesting read too;

chestofbooks.com...

I am not refusing to look, I simply don’t want to look or don’t need to look. It would make no difference to my perception of that individuals belief that they lived by prana for sustained periods. My mind may chose to ponder or rationalise how that may be possible, but it would not cause me to question that persons belief in themselves. And, more fundamentally, I can find both rational and by others standards, irrational reasons how that could be possible because I do believe that the mind can consciously control physiological responses, and we would not be around today as a species if it wasn’t for our incredible adaptation abilities.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I would say in part the reason "enlightenment" is interpreted in such "inexplicable" ways is because it is littered with false claims. One of the things I did after my own experience was to begin to read the spiritual texts, to see if it were in any way similar. And, it was. But not to the whole of the texts. There seemed to be a "core" message, that most likely did come from the enlightened person, and then there were the remnants of many other traditions, beliefs, embellishments, ritual, etc. all loaded on top of it.


I have been told of a number of experiences, most did not define it as enlightenment, I only learned about that when I came to ATS, but that ‘awareness’ was the same in all cases, it was different though in the interpretation of meaning. Those that work towards an experience seem better able to deal with it, in others when it is perhaps drug related, it can undermine the individual’s psychology. So although the experience may be identical in nature, expression, texture, whatever, it will differ between individuals based on the information that they have available to explain that. You, as an intelligent, rational human being, will seek out that information that explains it to you, or that you think best explains it to you, others will look elsewhere. Some will feel special simply because no one else that they know has ever had that experience. That can lead to cultism, it can also lead to total social withdrawal. It is totally dependent on all the other experiences that contributed to bringing us to that point in time.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I would add the greater our understanding of our self to the list, but I agree. Which is why I feel it is important to suss out, (if not publicly than for ones own understanding) when a person is telling an untruth about their differences and samenesses. How can we use that method, of greater understanding of each other and self, if we do not actually seek to know the difference between a lie about the difference or sameness and the truth. (To the degree that is humanly possible.)


I think that we disagree on very little in reality, but we do have different means of expression and reference. I find, the more I understand myself and my idiosyncracies, and accept them for what they are, the better I am able to understand others. No matter how much you and I may have in common there are going to be differences. I noted for example that you and I came out with the same personality type in the Meyer’s test, Mastermind. But I would guess that the percentile breakdown of characteristics would be quite different, I, for example am only 1% judgemental, and that makes sense, I have a very open mind, too open for most tastes, and as I say, I do get into trouble from time to time because of that, but all in all I wouldn’t want to be any other way. For me therefore, if an individual tells me something, I see no reason to question that unless there are other reasons to do so, ie that I think they may be trying to exploit me or others. And, the very nature of belief is that it cannot be treated as a ‘lie’ per se, it will not show up physiologically, if that person truly believes what they are saying. Therefore to call it a lie, or to seek to disprove them, would be me imposing my beliefs on another and potentially destroying something within them that is important to them.


[edit on 21-1-2009 by KilgoreTrout]




posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   
era-music.artistes.universalmusic.fr...

A friend sent me this link. To me the words say everything about what we need to feel in our hearts and prayers. Who we are and what we believe in does matter, what matters is that we have faith and love in god.

I found this very moving and I thank her for sending me it.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
You surely can see that 'freaks' of nature from time to time emerge. Some humans will perish after a few days without food, others can last for many weeks. There are any number of possible explanations for that, some seemingly more rational than others, and sometimes what seems impossible is merely a matter of us not yet having an explanation for that particular behaviour. Yet.


I would agree that IF we had any, even one, case of someone surviving without food with no negative physiological effects and no explanation this could be the case. The problem is, we DO have a reasonable explanation for the minor differences we actually do see. Starting body fat levels, climate, (extreme hot or cold) activity, etc., differing metabolic rates, etc. We have not yet one verified example of a "freak of nature" in this regard whose physiology in relation to diet defies our understanding. IF we did, then yes, it could be a matter of our simply not understanding how it works. However, every single person observed has had the same physiological response at a predictable rate considering all variables.


Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
And, as is proven in survival stories, it is reasonable to see that the 'will to live' can overcome to body's expected response to die. Similarly, ask yourself what is gravity? We know that it is the force that pulls us to the earth because that is how it is defined for us, and therefore when we jump from a high place and land then that is the force of gravity at work. What creates gravity?


You are right in that the "will to live" can seemingly change a "death" outcome in the short run. And we dont know why or how. But we have no known cases of it ever overcoming death itself in the long run. Even someone who "beats cancer" will die. Their life has not been "saved" but prolonged.

Gravity is very much so a case of something that we do not know "how" or "why" it works. But "that" it works is observable, repeatable, and predictable. However the fact that we do not know "why" is not really support for your argument about inedia. For the two to be comparable, one would have to have it be the case that inedia IS observable, predictable, and repeatable, and we simply could not explain it. This isnt the case. We have no known observations of someone not eating and not suffering the same physiological response as any other human.


Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I can rationalise any number of ways in which it could be feasible based on my combined knowledge and experience. Therefore it is easy for me to trust the word of an individual who makes that claim without any hope of gaining anything from me based on my belief. You on the other hand would require further enquiry, and that is great, for you. I don't. It is merely a matter of perspective.


Well, no, it is not merely a matter of perspective any more than the belief in the existence of Santa Claus is a matter of perspective. One is a belief, based only upon heresay and faith, and the other is a belief based upon physical evidence. (And in mundane terms we call belief supported by physical evidence "knowledge") They may both be beliefs, but one is supported by our collective body of physical evidence and the other not only is not, but you are arguing need not be. You have "faith" that it is the case. Which is fine, but a faith based claim is not the same as an evidence based claim. In your opinion it may be equivalent in value, (that one is not better than the other judgmentally) but they are not literally equivalent claims in terms of foundation.


Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
As soon as a religion or church begins to generate income, whether collected a taxes or not, it has a vested interest in maintaining the conditions in which it thrives, that usually involves the maintenance of ignorance and the suppression of information. That to me equals oppression.


Or using your own argument, they are not maintaining ignorance, we simply cannot explain how and why the claims they make work. It is simply a matter of perspective, and if the people want to believe it, then it shouldnt be a problem. We cannot DISPROVE the core claim, that Jesus rose from the dead, and then ascended to heaven. So what if some number of people who believed what the church said suffered or died? Why doesnt the logic you apply to belief in inedia apply to ALL faith based claims?


Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
A persons choice to attempt to live by Prana, should only affect that person, it is not something that I would support or condone being offered as lessons to others. If others, sheepishly think that it seems like a good idea, and simply stop eating, then sadly, I see some Darwinian balance if they find themselves somewhat the worse for wear as a result.


I am of the opinion that it is because one claim suits your existing belief system, and the other does not. And, I am of the opinion that this is the case with all matters of "faith." We have faith that requires no evidence if and when it suits us to do so. We require evidence when a claim contradicts our existing beliefs, and even upon being presented evidence we often rationalize rejecting that evidence in order that our pre-existing belief system can remain in place unscathed.



Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
That even though I am medically cured of the disorder, my mind is still programmed in a particular way due to that long term behaviour. That person therefore may have felt that they could confide to me about their otherwise private practice of prana because she knew that I would not ridicule her.


Much like that. One person who has a certain belief about food, shares a belief with another person similarly inclined.


Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Then by all means research it if that is what you believe, but since you don’t believe it you won’t, instead you question my belief in it’s possibility and wonder why I don’t investigate further.


I do not question the fact that you believe, that is very clear. And, there is nothing I, nor anyone could do about it. Nor do I delude myself into thinking there is anything I could say to change your belief. Nor do I really have any vested interest in doing so. I do think it is irresponsible to present faith based belief as what we call commonly "knowledge" however. Which is why this;


Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I have also met people who practice Prahna, who effectively do not eat a single morsel, at all, with no detriment to their overall health and well-being.


prompted this;


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
No offense, but other than self-reporting, how do you know this is the case? There are a few instances known of people who claimed they did not eat, but under controlled circumstances this was not borne out.




Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I don’t feel for one minute that it would end starvation because I know the self-discipline and control that is required to not eat, initially. Most people have no motivation to do that, and I only did so because of depression or whatever.


Now see, here is where our trains of logic run different tracks. I would assume that imminent death from starvation would be a very powerful motivator. They dont need self discipline or control to refrain from eating, they have no food. What they would need is the knowledge that they could survive that way if they could just learn the secret. Most people do find impending death a fairly strong motivation.


Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
For your benefit here is one example that I found;

news.bbc.co.uk...



This gentleman was also in the Wikipedia article. As was his doctor. His doctor has been involved in other claims of inedia too.

en.wikipedia.org...


However, despite Jani's claim to have gone without food for decades, Jani was not engaged in strenuous exercise during the ten-day trial, and longer trials were not recorded under similarly strict observation. Further, his weight did drop slightly during the 10 days, casting some doubt on his claim to go indefinitely without food.




Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I am not refusing to look, I simply don’t want to look or don’t need to look.


And that, for certain, is the truth of the matter. And, it is not only the case for you, but for any of the "faithful" anywhere in the world, no matter what the article of faith is. Catholicism to Inedia. The matter of "profit" you seem concerned with is rather a moot point. A clever and unscrupulous human can and will easily profit from the "faith" of others. Not all practitioners of a particular belief system DO profit. Some are, even in Catholicism, believers themselves. But if you are looking for the "how" this works, and the "why" there it is.

Is it unscrupulous to profit from another persons faith? I tend to feel it is, but the closer I look at faith, the more I realize that there are no oppressed. It isnt a matter of some "evil" one or many simply lying to and maintaining forced ignorance on others. The faithful are not being forced into darkness and exploited, but rather they are paying someone to keep the light at bay. Generally speaking, it is those who attempt to turn on the lights that are dragged out and shot, (Jesus, many scientists and philosophers, Socrates, etc.)






[edit on 21-1-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   


Gravity is very much so a case of something that we do not know "how" or "why" it works. But "that" it works is observable, repeatable, and predictable. However the fact that we do not know "why" is not really support for your argument about inedia. For the two to be comparable, one would have to have it be the case that inedia IS observable, predictable, and repeatable, and we simply could not explain it. This isnt the case. We have no known observations of someone not eating and not suffering the same physiological response as any other human.


The video i posted does a great job explaining what the final unified field theory will be. It explains gravity quite well. Please take the time to watch it.

great responses to him by the way


[edit on 21-1-2009 by Wertdagf]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

And I DO like to analyze. Not to become "enlightened." My own experience came seemingly out of the blue. However, after the fact, I became curious as to "why?" I knew I had done nothing to "deserve" it as far as many of the religious are concerned. I had not studied, sat in meditation, prayed, lived on bread and water, etc. etc. What I learned through analysis is that it is not a matter of deserving. It is not a matter of earning. Enlightenment is the natural state of all "selves" or consciousnesses, and it is only blocked by the assumption that the mind IS you. "YOU" who you really are, is already enlightened. "You" are "enlightenment" itself, pure aware intelligence without thought. Your mind can never become enlightened. It IS thought.

I analyze because I wanted to know how the process actually DID work. What were the conditions in my life at that time that allowed the light to come on. And then, I began to look through the various traditions that are written, to see HOW the other "methods" prescribed by the masters actually were intended to work. Some hit you over the head, (much like your falling the the Thames story) some had you build towers, some had you sit in meditation. They ways in which different masters asked their students to behave actually varied widely, but the destination they were trying to get them to reach was the same. Their own consciousness before thought.

It was, as you suggest, a state of "realizing" intuitively, the ineffectiveness of trying. It was to bring the mind to surrender, so Consciousness itself can shine through.

However, even this "giving up" needs be seen, not intellectualized. If you are thinking, "ok I give up. I give up! Enlightenment come now, I have given up!" It is only your mind itself that can think such a thing. You would be stuck in a more subtle level of mind, not freed from it. The only freedom from the mind is to see it, and to see that it is not YOU.

Sitting in meditation can work because over time when trying to silence the mind you may notice you are the watcher of mind, not mind itself.


I too have analysed a lot of what has happened to me . I possibly think there does come a point when too much analysis can not be a help, one starts to analyse the analysed so to speak. However reading around subjects, say like meditation and yes analysing them can help greatly in "understanding" what is happening to you but it whont "make" it happen to you. You could read an entire book on how to fly fighter jets and analyse what you've read, but it whont enable you to get in one and fly it. To do this we need experience , it is the same with meditation and enligtenment, we need to have an understanding of the subject , and yes analyse it but the real "aahh" or "insight" moments come from experience.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
I would just like to add to the debate on whether its possible to go without food and water for years . The following link was sent to me by member Caveman DD.

www.youtube.com... It is in 5 parts and is very interesting.

Its about the Buddha boy of Nepal. He was born only 150 miles away from Buddhas birth place and to a mother of the same name. The locals say he is the reincarnation of Buddha.

Prior to this programme being made this boy had reportedly sat under a tree for 10 months with no food or water. He is constantly exposed to the elements and dangers. At one point he was bitten by a fatal snake bite with no ill effects and tiger prints have been found around his tree.

Stories are told of how lights and auras are seen around him. The locals say because the modern world has not reached Nepal God can still be found there. The boy planned to sit and meditate for 6 years after which he would find total enligtenment and become Buddha. His family control the environment in and around the boy, no one else is allowed within 25 metres of him.

Money is changed hands, donations are given, CDs sold, books wrote and he has brought many riches to his village as hundreds of pilgrims visit every week.

During the filming the BBC find it hard to have a continuous camera placed on the boy, excuses are found to stop filming often, also the boy is covered for parts of the day and night time filming is almost impossible.

The scientist state that to prove his claims of no food or water , filming needs to be continous for at least 4 days as this is the point a person deteriorates.

The film also features Prahlad Jani who has been posted about in this thread. This man is actually filmed for 10 days and is seen speaking . He claims he is living off the sun, the sun light is feeding his chakras with spiritual energy and has no need for food.

Experts have claimed the Buddha boy is practising ancient yogi techniques involving absorption meditation, possibly feeding on air.

At one point the boy is seen bursting into flames (not filmed unfortunatly) leading many to think hes mastered the technique of Tummo. Tummo is where an individual through meditation controls the inner heat. This technique has been put forward for cases of spontaneous human combustion, where a person has burst into flames with no known cause. At this point a red cloak is placed around him.

Finally the BBC get to film him for a full 4 days but no tests or investigations are allowed. Within these 4 days he is seen slightly moving to balance out blood flow. He shows no signs of dehydration or decline , no fits or fainting which should normally happen after 4 days. Apparently the human kidneys fail after 4 days of no water.

An observer states that the red cloak has been placed over him to hide signs of starvation and under closer inspection his bones can be seen sticking out from under this red cloak.

An underactive thyroid gland is given as a possible explanation.

Whatever the truth the boy and his village seem to have been turned into a circus attraction and much money is made.

In the end the boy disappears!! Some say he ascended, others say he was kidnapped for ransom. ( He returned some two years later)

Not sure what to make of it, miracle or myth but its very interesting whatever the truth.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by Mr Green]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Brilliant MG you worked out what I was talking about, and you explained it so much better than I did brilliant analogy


However it’s hard explaining the depth without giving somebody too much to think about. The true understanding only comes from insight.

This is the only way I can explain it for those who haven’t worked out my meaning yet, knew it was a tough one.

Here goes:

You can analyze too much on this journey, if so your every experience has already been put into words by your analysis, but your analysis always becomes you experience and them experiences have very little insight

WHY?

Because you’re already attached to your analysis so you already think you understand the experience thus it takes away the “Aha” moment and your understanding and knowledge is based on the original analysis, so very little is gained. There is nothing wrong with analysis, just the attachment to analysis. It’s a never ending loop, everything you experience you could explain in the first place (Or you think you can).

Through Insight analysis/understanding/knowledge come from the experience, as the experience is observed for what it is, always in the present moment. Why put so much into analyzing an experience before you experience it?


Probably because there is a certain fear of something, the fear of not knowing. However only you can observe that.

P81



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
when you crave nothing more ever more.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Maybe it's when you have no need to question anything/everything anymore.

Has enlightenment ever been explained absolutely, is it supposed to be.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by nuisance value

Maybe it's when you have no need to question anything/everything anymore.

Has enlightenment ever been explained absolutely, is it supposed to be.


Explained absolutely? No probably not and your right it probably isn't meant to be.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by nuisance value
 



Maybe it's when you have no need to question anything/everything anymore.

Has enlightenment ever been explained absolutely, is it supposed to be.


Yup I agree with that myself or more to the point when you no long have the obsession of analyzing everything before you experience it.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Green
 


Some say and argue that when we give something a label, a name we define it's limits by default. In describing the detail we lose the nature/essence of what it is.

In reflection is it the summation of all our lessons upto that point, do we reach an understanding and then we make the realisation that leads to knowing.

Just musings Mr Green
nice thread by the way.

reply to post by psycho81
 



Yup I agree with that myself or more to the point when you no long have the obsession of analyzing everything before you experience it.


Yeah just accepting, it's a realisation that brings with it alot of peace.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by nuisance value]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by nuisance value
reply to post by Mr Green
 


Some say and argue that when we give something a label, a name we define it's limits by default. In describing the detail we lose the nature/essence of what it is.




Maybe this is why we find it hard to actually put a label on what enligtenment is. If we were able it may as you say define its limits. Its also very hard to explain the details or feelings that accompany its path. If we were able to just come out and describe it it would lessen its importance. I can say its a feeling of oneness and total understanding of all that there is, but does this really explain it to another...no not really. People experience things differently and also describe things differently. I guess we cant ever totally pin it down.

"Just musings Mr Green nice thread by the way."

Thank you and thanks for your post.



[edit on 22-1-2009 by Mr Green]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
And I DO like to analyze. Not to become "enlightened." My own experience came seemingly out of the blue.



Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Your mind can never become enlightened. It IS thought.




Originally posted by Mr Green
I too have analysed a lot of what has happened to me . I possibly think there does come a point when too much analysis can not be a help, one starts to analyse the analysed so to speak. However reading around subjects, say like meditation and yes analysing them can help greatly in "understanding" what is happening to you but it whont "make" it happen to you.


Which is precisely my point. Analysis cannot make it happen, but analysis can bring you to understand that you cannot "make" it happen with the mind.

Analysis cannot ever touch enlightenment itself, because the enlightened state is that state where your consciousness is aware of mind as "not Self." It is a state where "thinking" is the observed, and and "you" are not the thinker, but the watcher without thought.


Originally posted by Mr Green
You could read an entire book on how to fly fighter jets and analyse what you've read, but it whont enable you to get in one and fly it. To do this we need experience , it is the same with meditation and enligtenment, we need to have an understanding of the subject , and yes analyse it but the real "aahh" or "insight" moments come from experience.


Realization or experience IS the only way one can actually fly. And you are right, reading about flying is not the same as flying. But surely you are not saying that understanding has no bearing on the likelihood of actually having that experience? If two would be pilots are sitting on a runway, one is a cardboard box, and the other in an f-16, which one is more likely to have the experience of flying? You analyze so that you understand what it is not, not what it is. It is not sitting in a cardboard box on a runway for 50 years. Your mind is the cardboard box. It doesnt matter what you do in that box, you will not fly in it. To fly, you need a vehicle capable of flight, and only consciousness itself has the capability to fly.

My "motive" for analysis is not so that someday I will fly, it is so that I can understand why not everyone has flown when every single one of us owns a plane. And what I have discovered is that many people do not fly because they are sitting in the cardboard box on the runway. Having faith that it can fly. It is possible to understand that a cardboard box cannot fly because it is not a flying thing. Unless, you are actively deluding yourself into another understanding.

Faith will not turn a cardboard box into an F-16. Faith will not turn anything into something that it isnt. Enlightenment is not the magical change of one thing into something it was not, it is the seeing of things for what they really are.

For me, analysis of this is not pointless. Nor is discussing it. My goal is not to convince anyone. I am actually well aware that I am highly unlikely to convince ANY one, much less many people. But, that isnt my motive. My motive is simply to understand how the process of "self delusion" works. My mind uses the exact same techniques everyone's mind does. But the problem with trying to see ones own delusions are similar to trying to see ones own face without a mirror. Your perspective is an inherent limiting factor.

In a fractal like universe, there is repetition of the same "pattern" on every level. Which means if I see confusion, anger, hate, delusion, etc., reflected in the "mirror" of apparent reality. (The sensible world, the world we call "reality") then this state must also exist in "that which is reflected" or "me." If I do not realize that there is this "reflecting" going on, if I mistake the world in the mirror as truly separate from my Self, then when I see a speck of dirt in the eye in the mirror, I will try to rub it off the mirror. (I will try to change others) If I realize there is a mirror there, and that I am looking at my reflected Self, I will not reach out to remove the speck from the eye in the mirror, I will reach up to the eye of that which is reflected, (me) and I will use the mirror to remove the speck from my own eye. And, like magic, the speck in the mirror will disappear as well.

In this apparent reality, we have had many people who have had an enlightenment experience. What we are NOT seeing is a universally enlightened humankind. What we ARE seeing is a mankind that then fights itself in the mirror more and more vehemently. I am interested as to why this is so. I may or may not be able to come to any conclusion, but I have nothing better to do than keep looking. Simply not fighting the monkey in the mirror is enough for me, in terms of "personal" satisfaction. We call an animal "intelligent" when it has awareness that the image in a mirror is not another animal but itself.

Although many of the enlightened masters have realized that the world is a "mirror" there must be a way that even they get dragged back into the illusion of "otherness." I am interested in learning how this occurs.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf


The video i posted does a great job explaining what the final unified field theory will be. It explains gravity quite well. Please take the time to watch it.


I would like to watch it, but I am having trouble finding the link to it. This thread has become fairly large.


Would you mind reposting it? Or linking back to the original post?

Thank you.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Here it is...

Nassim Haramein

There are 2 parts each is almost 5 hours long.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Green

www.youtube.com... It is in 5 parts and is very interesting.


It was indeed very interesting.

It was documentation of an amazing feat of self control. That that boy can sit so still for so long is in itself an amazing thing.

And, that is how I view the video. A documentation of a human being with amazing control over their body.

What it isnt is proof that a human being can survive indefinitely without food or water.

It is amazing enough for what it is, in my opinion.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


This may take awhile then.
Unlike the buddha boy, I lack the ability to remain motionless for extended periods of time.

I do look forward to watching it, however.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Realization or experience IS the only way one can actually fly. And you are right, reading about flying is not the same as flying. But surely you are not saying that understanding has no bearing on the likelihood of actually having that experience? If two would be pilots are sitting on a runway, one is a cardboard box, and the other in an f-16, which one is more likely to have the experience of flying? You analyze so that you understand what it is not, not what it is. It is not sitting in a cardboard box on a runway for 50 years. Your mind is the cardboard box. It doesnt matter what you do in that box, you will not fly in it. To fly, you need a vehicle capable of flight, and only consciousness itself has the capability to fly.

Your right here. We can understand so much more if we do analyse the experiences we have. Yes the pilot who has read how to fly has a much better chance of flying the jet than the one who has not read around the subject.

Im interested in what triggers that initial interest in enligtenment, I had the spiritual experiences before I read around spiritual enligtenment. What lead me to look into enlightenment and spirituality I wonder? Prior to this Id never really had any spiritual moments, why did I suddenly think it was a spiritual experience? What is the initial "light bulb" moment that sends us out to seek information on enligtenment?



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Green

Im interested in what triggers that initial interest in enligtenment, I had the spiritual experiences before I read around spiritual enligtenment.


My experience was the same as yours. I had the experience before I began reading about enlightenment. I had prior interest in religion, I was raised agnostic, and I believed in something, but the mythologies of the major religions were just that to me. Stories. I was interested in what they said about human psychology, but at that point, I did not have any understanding or belief that there really were enlightened humans. It wasnt until after my own experience that I felt compelled to begin to really read the sacred texts to see if this had happened to anyone else.

When I did, the stories looked different. All of a sudden I could see the parts that were an honest attempt to illuminate the experience, and I could also see the ritualistic rubbish. Before, I had thought the whole thing fairy tales, and after, I could see the "pearl" at the heart of the oyster. I could see what they others had been trying to convey, and I could see how horribly twisted that had become over time as the stories were made more and more self serving by the religious establishments. And, I also began to see that there were many "masters," that not everyone who had the experience became a central figure in a religion. Some were relatively unknown, very obscure, and these were actually the most informative and interesting texts because they had not been deliberately tampered with by businesspeople looking to make a buck.



Originally posted by Mr Green
What lead me to look into enlightenment and spirituality I wonder? Prior to this Id never really had any spiritual moments, why did I suddenly think it was a spiritual experience? What is the initial "light bulb" moment that sends us out to seek information on enligtenment?



The question about what made you think it was a spiritual experience intrigues me. For me, even as a life long analyzer, skeptic, and logician, the experience was just indisputable. It was complete "gnosis" I knew, not thought, and there was absolutely no question that what I had merged into was "God." It was the most profoundly real experience of my life, and one that left no room for question.

What made me start to read was that immediately following the experience, I told everyone I knew.
I tried to share it with anyone who would listen. And, I was met with "uh ok, thats nice, do you want to have lunch? Im hungry." Lol. I thought I was conveying the enormity of it, and I just wasnt. I couldnt share it with anyone at all. What I was saying meant nothing to them.

So, as time went on, I began to wonder if I was all alone. Maybe no one had ever had this experience. Maybe, in fact, it was a hallucination of some kind, and I was going crazy. The God I had experienced was NOT the God in the mythologies. Including Christianity as I knew it at the time. (from the words of people) Now that I was back in my mind, my mind began spinning, asking questions, trying to understand. In my observation, this is what happens to most afterward. The mind grabs the experience and tries to make sense of it, somehow, even if that means thinking you have lost your mind.

So, I decided to go look for help. I just walked into a bookstore, not even knowing what I was looking for, and I just stood there looking at the shelf of books on spirituality, and the spine of one book caught my eye. It just said, "pick me." So I did, I just bought it. And, I took it home and started to read it. (It was on Buddhism) And thats when I first met others who had had the experience. There among all the nonsense mythological trappings, was someone who had seen the same thing. And so I kept doing the same thing, just allowing the books to pick me, not searching them out with purpose, and I kept reading, and suddenly I wasnt alone. I found others that though I could not talk to, I could listen to. I could feel a sense of community with, shared experience.

That was in 2000. Since then, via this board and other means, I have found others that I am certain have seen the same thing. Not everyone has come out of it the same way, some seem to be having trouble getting their mind to harmonize with the experience, but that doesnt mean to me that they have not seen it, only they have not yet figured out the answer to the question we are all left with. "Given THAT, how do I live in this world?" Not that I have figured out "the answer" completely, but my technique (which is heavily influenced by others who have had the experience in the past) is simply one of feeling my way along, finding the most harmonious way through each moment, and it doesnt really require a perfect plan for all occasions.

I might have figured it all out on my own, eventually, my technique of letting the book pick me was already a foot on that path, but I am the sort who likes to hear what my elders have to say. I dont always agree, I use my own discernment, but I listen and look to see it if actually works and if it does, I analyze to see if I can see "why" it works, to see if the underlying dynamic is discernible.

So that is why I began to read the things I did. I was lonely, and my lack of shared experience with others who claimed to be spiritual made me question my own sanity, and I wanted to see if anyone else had ever been where I had. And, if they did, what did they do next? How do you live in a world where most of the people you will meet cannot communicate with you about the most real experience of your life? How do you live in a dream without falling back asleep yourself?

Have you come to any conclusions about why you began to read and search? I am always curious how others handle integrating the experience into their "real" life.




top topics



 
28
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join