It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


How You Know Somebody is Enlightened

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:36 AM

Originally posted by prepared4truth
How You Know Somebody is Enlightened?

You won't, really.
Unless you yourself, are one.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:42 AM

Originally posted by ImmortalThought

Originally posted by Student X
I question whether it's possible to become enlightened without mystical experiences. I question whether simply believing something that enlightened people believe is enough, or whether knowing a lot of wise sayings is enough, or whether reading the right books is enough, or having the right diet, the right moral code, the right practices, etc.

I think that maybe one has to undergo ego-death first.

edit on 5-10-2011 by Student X because: (no reason given)

I agree, I think. But may I ask, is there a difference between the human ego and the divine ego?

Or is there such thing as the divine ego?

I ask myself this on a daily basis.

I don't know whether there is such a thing. All I know is that I have undergone ego-death, and I feel more enlightened than I did before. When my ego died I became something more. I was absorbed into a larger being. Maybe that larger being was a 'divine ego' and maybe not. Can't really say for sure.

Looking at the before-and-after, it's clear to me that the before doesn't hold a candle to the after.

edit on 5-10-2011 by Student X because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:07 AM

Originally posted by ImmortalThought
In the sense that you have been able appoint yourself an authority on what enlightenment is and who is enlightened. Where you taught by the illumined?

Enough learning, listening, reasoning, objective analysis, testing and of course time, will get many humans there.

I have the ability to put the pieces together, at least many of them. I don't know if most humans do, even if they tried in earnest. Maybe not. They'd be better off trying, at least. I try to only fault people for their chosen failings, rather than their innate ones, but that is definitely a hard struggle. I also try not to take credit for the innate traits of me which I did not earn, but only in how I have chosen to use them.

Who taught Socrates? And did Socrates not then gain more wisdom and illumination through his own personal intellectual exploration of truth? Why do you think you need someone's permission or someone else's illumination in order to start searching for it yourself?

Originally posted by ImmortalThought
What does your worldview look like? Can you describe this in detail?

Not enough characters remaining in the post to even begin to answer this right now.

Originally posted by ImmortalThought
by not taking part in the evil, you are just as equally opposing the evil as you would if you were aggressive in nature.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Originally posted by ImmortalThought
Both a passive and aggressive view have their time and place. The idea that one is better then the other is a half-truth.

A quote I recently heard (and liked) said that a "half-truth" is often a whole truth that doesn't quite fit someone's worldview. I think that's the case here. I don't recall saying that violence is preferred. I said violence has its place, and one of those places is in the defense of freedom and noble ideals against evil and corruption. That is a whole truth, not a half-truth.

Originally posted by ImmortalThought
If we were to watch another innocent human being to be cut with a knife from one side of their neck to the other and essentially killed, we would mostly cringe (amongst other emotions). BUT, we seem to have no problem watching a tree be cut down. They are both violent and they are both an act of killing. What separates the two?

Humans are sentient, trees are not. If we somehow discovered the ghastly truth that trees were sentient, then the acts would be comparable. Maybe it IS technically a matter of degree, but personally I see the comparison itself as almost an affront, comparing 1 human life with 1 tree. There is a difference between absolute detached logic, and the real, human implication you are making with the comparison. We are human and thus our limitations must be recognized, including limitations of perception. Maybe if you compared a human with a forest...

Originally posted by ImmortalThought
They are the same only separated by a matter of degrees. So I agree with your statement, but being angered over humans killing humans and not over humans killing trees is only seeing half the truth. O and intent does matter, but again it is not the only thing that matters. Just because I intend to ask a simple and passive question does not mean that simply by intent I will get a response I want or think I deserve (because I do not believe my question deserved you resorting to childish name calling of naive, yet there it is). Maybe once I become enlightened my intent will become more pure and able to manifest such things.

But it's enlightened to get defensive, petty and sarcastic as above? OK. I'm sorry for directing the label "naive" at you personally. It would have been better to simply say "it would be naive to subscribe to a philosophy of equating enlightenment with non-violence."

Originally posted by ImmortalThought
Enlightened people most likely stray from society because they understand half truths and instead of being distracted by meaningless values they intend to find whole truths in a natural and peaceful setting. I continue to stand by my original statement.

I don't find the current modern age to be one where we have the luxury of sitting around dreaming up academic notions of truth, while not acting to preserve what we already know to be true and just.

While your ideal enlightened pacifist is meditating while watching an ocean sunset, Tepco and BP are killing that ocean with radiation, oil and corexit. Which is worse, then, by your own example: 1 human throat cut, or 1 billion ocean creatures killed by corporate greed?

I would urge any person of conscience and "enlightenment" to not only pursue personal enlightenment, but preach and enact what you know to be true and right, as soon as possible, at every opportunity.

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 09:19 PM
mmmm ok. Completely the opposite of what you just posted.

You cannot tell if someone is really in love do you? You need proof right? being enlighten is like being in love. You
don't know about it, you just know it.

How can you tell for sure if someone is enlighten when you are the observer? You cannot feel what he feels or the way he feels and what he is seeing. Then you cannot know, there is no way to really know if someone is really enlighten or not except if you are that person.

This world is focus on things they observe... That is the reason why science is at a stop light as we speak and waiting for the green light to come on.

Now it is the time to feel, stop observing, stop thinking, just do it.

Please understand

reply to post by prepared4truth

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 10:31 PM
reply to post by Observer99

Again I said most likely, not every enlightened person will have a passive-agressive take on life. Maybe you see yourself as enlightened and in some respect you are. And you most def. seem nobel and righteous because I too will when the time comes fight for those less able to. Don't get me wrong when it comes to a life vs death situation I think most enlightened persons will fight, but you are speaking about a VERY SPECIFIC situation.

If you read the Kybalion you will find that Socrates has very similar ideas. Socrates ideas are not original.

A simple I am well-traveled would have sufficed for a worldview but, I am sure you have a grand view of the world.

Isn't it ironic that a whole truth would not agree with everyone's perspective? Law of the paradox

I would agree with you about the tree thing a few years ago. But, then I found out that though there is an definition of sentient that is agreed amongst most and printed in books, the idea and where sentient came from (Bhuddism) the definition is still debated.

You should understand that I never claimed to be enlightened. Nor do I have any sarcastic tone even though you take it that way. Maybe from your perspective it is petty and naive, but from mine I am attempting to be as clear as possible. And sure its defensive are we both defensive in any debate? Again I apologize for the confusion (I think you keep missing my apologies?).

I agree in today's society we don't have the time to dream up anything, but we still take the time to debate don't we (your "dream" vs. mine)? It's funny many people on here always want to make a point that its wrong to meditate on anything (maybe in front of a sunset if that is your choice) and that we should be doing something against the talking .s, but have no plan to do so.

I think the saying "a dog with a big bark and no bite" is at play here. Come up with a solid plan my enlightened revolutionary and I will follow because in no way shape or form am I saying I will allow myself to be assimilated by tptb, but until then all I can do is think and watch the sun go down on another day.

I too would urge any person of conscience and "enlightenment" to not only pursue personal enlightenment, but preach and enact what you know to be true and right, as soon as possible, at every opportunity.

Hey isn't it funny how your tag is "observer" yet you disagree with that idea?

Honestly, I think our only problem here is that you skipped over my "most likely" meaning not in every case. And if you can agree to disagree on a small degree of seperation I think you will find we can be more productive in conversation next time instead of beating the dead horse.

new topics

top topics
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in