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

page: 31
28
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by midicon
I stand on my first statement ' the concept of enlightenment is illusion'.It is self supporting! and surely should not require explanation.

The concept is not the illusion!!!
If you want people to understand what you are saying without an explanation then you should correctly state your point. If you still believe that concepts are illusions then you must not be "thinking properly". Concepts are not illusions!!!

Originally posted by midicon
I am no self knower merely a self observer and I can easily see how even simple words can lead to an endless circle of definitions where the original thread is lost. We all of course live in the 'now' where else can we be.

Many many people do not live in the now, they are oblivious to any experience except their worries about the future or their regrets over the past. And since we are the product of our experiences they are not growing by obsessing on the past and future. So they by not experiencing the present their bodies may technically be living in the present, but their minds are living elsewhere.

By way of a little diversion may I enquire what you think of this statement ' the self can only be observed through relationship' ?

That is a very vague statement and I am not sure if I understand the message. It is not self-explanatory, so please explain.

[edit on 31-1-2009 by cancerian42]




posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
"By way of a little diversion may I enquire what you think of this statement ' the self can only be observed through relationship' ?"


If you say the self needs to see its self through a relationship with itself then you have already split yourself into two! You have you and then yourself..do you see? In the now you are one, how can" one" have a relationship? As soon as you have a relationship with your self (self reflecting and analysing your thoughts and actions) you instantly remove your enlightened being into the mind. It is not "self" you are having this reflective relationship with, it is the mind who is engaging you in this relationship.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by midicon
reply to post by cancerian42
 
Let's look at this simply. You have brought up the terms 'subconscious' and 'symbols'. Perhaps we can come at this from a 'Jungian' viewpoint.Jung says that the ego is only a small part of the self and as a result of this the self is always seeking wholeness. This is achieved by the assimilation and integration of its unconscious parts. He calls this process 'individuation' and this is accomplished through the practice of 'active imagination'He calls the result of this self-realisation and this is indeed 'the treasure hard to attain'.On the other hand we have the concept of non-self where enlightenment is achieved by self surrender or death of the self.I repeat enlightenment cannot be attained! Thankyou for your input.

So you believe that neither Jung's view of enlightenment nor the concept of "self surrender" is correct? Please explain why you believe this. It is not self-explanatory.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by cancerian42
 
There was a slight error here due to constant repetition.Original statement reads 'the concept of enlightenment is an illusion.Then I said in the hope of clarification would it be easier to understand if I changed the word 'the' to 'any' . "does this help? Everyone lives in the now wether they realise it or not. 'The self can only be observed through relationship' What is vague about this? Thankyou for your responses.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You might be starting to understand why many deeply spiritual people take vows of silence. I'm getting a headache myself.


Yes, and so am I. Imagine if our symbol of music was fingernails scratching a chalkboard, that is how language is. So many mixed symbols and chaotic links, yet it is necessary for what our society defines as order and is important for communication of ideas and relationships. The symbols that man has created are not right, and that is why it frustrates people to use them sometimes. However there are symbols that are right, that is they convey messages very simply with no chaos in between, like sound, sight, feelings, etc. Experience.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by cancerian42
 
Please don't assume what I believe.I was merely answering your questions.Although both concepts do seem at first glance to be 'contradictory' are they? Tell me what you think! thankyou for your attention.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by midicon
 

I do not believe you are thinking properly.
I would appreciate answers to my previous questions, but I understand if you wish not to answer them.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by midicon
reply to post by cancerian42
 
Please don't assume what I believe.I was merely answering your questions.Although both concepts do seem at first glance to be 'contradictory' are they? Tell me what you think! thankyou for your attention.

You said yourself that enlightenment did not exist, you also said any concept of enlightenment did not exist. Was I wrong in thinking you meant that these concepts were false?
At first glance I cannot understand either, I will have to read more thoroughly into both to get a better understanding.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Green
 
Please pay attention. I did not say the self needs to have relationship with itself. This is just silly! Why not re-read the statement. Thankyou.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by midicon
reply to post by Mr Green
 
Please pay attention. I did not say the self needs to have relationship with itself. This is just silly! Why not re-read the statement. Thankyou.



"By way of a little diversion may I enquire what you think of this statement ' the self can only be observed through relationship' ?"

No you did not say the self had to have a relationship with itself , this is true, but what you did say was "may I enquire what you think of this statement" so I was giving you my thoughts on what I saw in its meaning.

Now I have a headache too!! Is it just me or do you all really have to concentrate when reading the posts lately. You cant just quickly read them or your doomed


No its not silly to think of the self having a relationship with itself, many do this without even realizing they are doing it, the constant self reflectivness is a self/mind relationship.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by midicon
 
What do you even mean by the self?



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Originally posted by cancerian42


Everything is not illusion just because it is constantly changing. Let's take ice cream for example. When heat is applied it melts, but does that mean that the ice cream was an illusion just because it has changed?


As I tried to point out in a post at 4 am sorry
, Yes the term "Ice cream" is an illusion because when it melts it is just cream as such. The labels, meanings, feelings and associations we put on objects, forms, feelings, concepts are illusion, because non of them are truly permanent, never ever last for ever.

So any name or word we give to an object situation feeling experience is in-fact a falsehood, Satans deception if you like, as that thing, feeling, form object experience, meaning will change eventually.

So all the images, emotional reactions of the world we have is based on the premise of a Lie initially, the seed of our understanding and experience of the world is always based on a falsehood.

The only correct term for anything is "It is" or "currently it/I/we...."

We attribute concrete terms to everything which is not soo. When you eat the ice cream, and it is in your stomach and absorbed by the body, the chemicals changed and broken down is it still Ice cream?

This way we label and explore the world, describe it, give it meaning as mentioned by others is the trap of language or labels.

It is infact just as honest and truthful to call the Ice cream Grass. The ice cream would not exist without the cows eating grass and making milk. we can follow this indefinately, and call ice cream frozen clouds, or white cold buddhas Piss


The interdependance shown above is the only truth the Oneness, lack of any self inherent everlasting properties of anything except that everything is part of the whole, is forever changing and contained in the ONE.

Logically therefore the only truth is ONE.

We base our lives on lies from the beginning if we see and refer and feel the world as "this" and "that" "us" and "them", all is the ONE it is the only truth.



Is it an illusion that you exist? You are part of everything, so you must be an illusion according to your first statement.


When I die I will end, no more as I am posited now as on here mischevious elf. So yes it is an illusion, my body will rot down and become earth and I will become ice creams for the worms. It is just as honest to call me a worm as "My Name" just perspective and time the changing nature. A Buddha may even drink from a well that a worm died in that ate me, and the energy, atoms etc that were in me then the worm, then the water in the well become the Buddhas Piss and ice cream in the future!

If that happens I am as much Ice Cream or Buddha's Piss as "name".

This never ends, the belief that it is ok for me step on a worm and not care, is infact killing a great great great etc mother of the bits of me "name" in the future!

Oneness is all that is truly.



Change does not mean illusion.


It does if you perceive yourself as separate from anything else in the universe, a separate entity, a personality or your ego is of any inherent nature.

Change from a perspective of "this" "that" is illusory.

Change as viewed from an enlightened point of view though is not an illusion as all you see and understand is the "one" the change becomes the dance of One/GOD and as you do not have any belief in labels or separate positions the change is just natural. The breathing in and out of One/God.

So it seems all is illusion, all is ONE the illusion is to see it differently without Love otherwise you get on a maglamanaic trip, and God does not self harm.

When you see past this illusion, Love yourself as much as the rest of yourself ALL, though I am using the lies of "yourself" for trying to convey the understanding, then the illusion drops away, full of Compassion for all and merging with the One.

Kind Regards,

Elf.

[edit on 31-1-2009 by MischeviousElf]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by midicon
It is easy to fall into the trap of endlessly defining words when plain speaking would suffice.I'm sure what I am saying is perfectly obvious.If you say to a man in the street 'now think properly' he would know exactly what you mean but don't say that to a philosopher! you'll be there forever.


I am watching to see the great success you surely will have in "plain speaking."



J.Krishnamurti was a great teacher, and he did speak rather plainly. However, as you pointed out in a later post than the one I quoted above, he despaired ever "getting his message across." One of my favorite tapes of his is one that was never released to the public. It is of him talking to those who ran his school at Ojai, trying to discuss a problem at the school.

He was trying to tell them to "look" at the problem to find the solution. His devotees would come back with, "And what do you mean by this "looking?" They would discuss if it was some special faculty of the mind, some metaphysical term, on and on, and finally Krishnamurti snaps, "You look, you see it." There is silence for a moment. Then one devotee tentatively asks, "And what do you mean by this "seeing?"

There is the sound of *fumble fumble fumble* as Krishnamurti takes off his microphone and stomps off.

He of course meant that you place your present awareness, that you actually literally "look" at it, see it for what it is, and take appropriate action in the moment. His devotees were hoping for some magical rule, some way of avoiding actually doing that, (as the mind tends to prefer.) No matter how plainly he stated it, it was not conveyed.

As for your statement that the self can only be observed through relationship. Of course. (I know I may have phrased differently than you did, so I apologize.) Awareness itself is observable in the moment it is aware of something. Consciousness itself is apparent when it is conscious OF something. In relationship to whatever it is that is is conscious or aware of. I dont know that that means if there is no "other" to observe that is would cease to BE, but it may cease to be "Conscious."

I personally do not think too deeply about the arising of Consciousness within the singularity. I am in agreement with the conclusion of the "Hymn of Creation" from the Rig Veda,

www.boloji.com...


Who really knows?
Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced?
Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?

Whence this creation has arisen
– perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not –
the One who looks down on it,
in the highest heaven, only He knows
or perhaps He does not know.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I fear I have given everyone a headache.For this I apologise . Let me just try and clear up these points a little if I may."The self can only be observed through relationship" was a quote from Jung which I recall from years ago. I thought it would be interesting to hear views on it before revealing the source.For me, I always thought it was self explanatory really and I can't understand the confusion.Any concept of enlightenment must surely be illusory? How can one conceive of something that can't be described.I feel in some way I've spoiled a 'happy mood' I truly felt I would recieve some opinions, viewpoints etc maybe some feedback positive or negative would have been welcome rather than being caught up in definitions of words etc.As I have said I'm new to this and perhaps a little naive. Let me just sit back and observe for a while what type of wordplay ensues before jumping in with statements. Thankyou for your responses and patience.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 
Thankyou for your kind response it is appreciated.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by midicon
I fear I have given everyone a headache.For this I apologise .



No need to apologise, I think it has more to do with the wine I had last night than your posts!!

Your contribution to the thread is good, please feel free to say what ever is in your heart. These comments are you, they are what make you who you are, and you should not feel you cant post. I dont think you've upset any body and you certainly have not upset the mood. The mood of the thread is what it is, you have only added to its depth not taken any thing away from it.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by midicon
Most of what you say is true and is so obvious that it did not require saying.


I doubt you really got what I was trying to convey then. Maybe it's my fault. I said to read through words, but you only read them on the surface, which is why it all just struck you as being obvious. I should probably say that you won't figure ANY of what we're trying to tell you out if you don't actually put some real thought of your own into this stuff and carry it further to other examples you will encounter in daily life, etc.


Language is of course necessary for communication.With a little 'tweaking' and plain speaking it is not so hard to find common ground.


It's not always that easy.


Look again at this statement 'the self can only be observed through relationship' Thankyou for responding.


What didn't you like about my response? You don't think this state of mind exists? I realize what Jung is talking about; I'm a big fan of Jung and especially his work with archetypes and synchronicity. There was a similar thread recently pointing out that we Westerners think almost exclusively in metaphor. I say "almost," again, because of those other modes of consciousness that have fallen through the cracks and hardly anyone in this country has heard of.


How can one conceive of something that can't be described.


Here you basically limit yourself to being able to experience what you can talk about. Big time shooting yourself in the foot. Why do you think so many people here are frustrated by not being able to get a point across?



Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I am watching to see the great success you surely will have in "plain speaking."


>.<

^-- XD


Maybe midicon would better understand our nonsense if he read nonsense in the form of Zen koans: www.ashidakim.com...

[edit on 31-1-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 
Why would you assume that I cannot grasp what you are talking about?There is nothing you can say that I cannot understand! I was only attempting to keep things simple in the interest of conversation and not to wander off into flowery descriptions of what is or what is not.Of course pretty words,sayings, metaphors etc can contain truths I have not said otherwise and of course they can lead to insight or whatever.What made you think I didn't like your response? Was it my 'tone' if so then I am sorry.Are you angry?Have you assumed I have no knowledge of Carl Gustav? I was a big fan of volume 8 although I always found his chapter on synchronicity a bit obscure.Greater thinkers than me have said the concept of enlightenment cannot be described and they can only be signposts on the way! And yes my foots fine. Thankyou for your response.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Thanks for this link its very good. www.ashidakim.com...

May I pose a question for all,

Ive just had a slightly heated debate with a friend regarding fear. They say it is not only needed its essential, but to me to have fear is to be controlled. I see fear as a form of control and a factor that will limit you finding enlightenment. I dont see any point to living in a state of fear. Im talking about fear that is baseless, fear of what MIGHT happen. Yes if your house is on fire, you will feel fear and use this fear to escape but Im talking about fear that has no base or immediate danger to ones self.

I dont think its possible to become enlightened and have a psychological fear of "what if" do you? We will always be able to cope with our now but how can we ever cope with future fear? If you think about it fear does seem to always be about the future.



[edit on 31-1-2009 by Mr Green]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Green
 

Exactly, so I guess this is the link between my definition of enlightenment being a path of love and others, and non-enlightenment being of fear and self. Fear is not necessary at all. Even if your house is on fire, you don't have to fear the fire or death.
Enlightenment=living right now (not being stuck on the past or future), allowing fate to take its course in your life, having empathy for others.
Non-enlightenment=fear, controlling, selfish, stuck on past or future events





new topics
top topics
 
28
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join