A word on Enlightenment

reply to post by LifeIsEnergy

Believers affirm this word as a means of boosting their egoic sense of self, and skeptics negate this word for the same reasons. One says, "I know it is real", the other says, "I know it is not real", both are equally deluded. Peace

I think there may be another category you forgot to add.

There also experiencers of enlightenment, who experience Enlightenment directly, and since they see that the egoic sense of self is Illusion, then there is no sense, or even becomes impossible to boost an imaginary sense of self.

But I do agree w the rest of your post about the believers and skeptics of such things.

reply to post by dominicus


It does not have to be proved. I know you know and you know you know.
But the most important thing is i know i am. And that is the only thing i know for sure.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

It does not have to be proved. I know you know and you know you know

Brilliant!! Yes of course. In That, there is freedom from having to prove or not prove.

But the most important thing is i know i am. And that is the only thing i know for sure.

yes, exactly!!! That's the start, investigate and go from there.... what you find is Enlightening, troubling at first, freedom at last.

Great song here and relevant to this discussion.



Can't find the lyrics though. Enjoy.
"Ego Killer"

Originally posted by Theophorus
This goes out to all you New agers.To be enlightened is to be aware. To have an awareness of something, one must have KNOWLEDGE of the existence of that something. In this case that something being enlightenment or awareness which in turn can only be boiled down to knowledge itself.Now, People are finite beings meaning we have limited boundaries. The knowledge we gain is also finite. Point being made is that in our finite state enlightenment is un-obtainable.Anyone looking into there finite self to find infinite knowledge is just kidding themself.

We are not finite beings. I dont know where you got this information, but it's wrong.

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy

 

Believers affirm this word as a means of boosting their egoic sense of self, and skeptics negate this word for the same reasons. One says, "I know it is real", the other says, "I know it is not real", both are equally deluded. Peace

I think there may be another category you forgot to add.

There also experiencers of enlightenment, who experience Enlightenment directly, and since they see that the egoic sense of self is Illusion, then there is no sense, or even becomes impossible to boost an imaginary sense of self.

But I do agree w the rest of your post about the believers and skeptics of such things.

I know what you are saying. However, if you are using "enlightenment" to point to that which is outside the boundaries of time, then there is no one there to experience it, because the experiencer is bound to time. Same for the sense of self, that which sees the translucence of a self is not that which claims the self is illusory, that which claims or 'knows' the self is illusory is the egoic self, the illusion. This is the problem with talking about these things and why they cause so much confusion. He who claims enlightenment is real is just as deluded as he who claims the opposite. When time is seen as illusory, as non-existent, then there is no one there to claim such a thing. In deep states of meditation, all awareness just becomes still and there is no time or doer/self, yet this is not known until there is the reflection upon this state, which then is not this state. So the very supposition that this state exists, or that time and self do not exist, is just as much speculation/belief as the claim that time and self DO exist. No one is there to experience such things, so who is claiming such things exist or don't exist?

reply to post by LifeIsEnergy

oh yeah I agree with you 100% w/ everything thats there. I still think its vital for One to come back and say, "Hey everybody, there is a state that exists in which you are not." Which allows others to see for themselves.

Then how far One wants to go down the rabbit whole is up to them. I got what your saying tho.

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy

 

oh yeah I agree with you 100% w/ everything thats there. I still think its vital for One to come back and say, "Hey everybody, there is a state that exists in which you are not." Which allows others to see for themselves.

Then how far One wants to go down the rabbit whole is up to them. I got what your saying tho.

Right, again, I feel you. But do you see the craziness in such a claim?

2. "Oh, I don't exist? Then what and where are you?"

1. "I don't exist either! Not in this state at least"

2. "Okay... then what are we talking about here?"

1. "There is another state you must get to! One beyond time and self!"

2. "How do I get there?"

1. "You can't get there, because that implies time and self."

2. "fjajflkncanfjOJFODIJOOEFOWNOW!!!!!!! HAAA!!!!!!"



The point being, it is understandable why so many people think this kind of talk is crazy. They are right, the only thing they don't know is that what they think is NOT crazy talk, is also crazy talk too. It is like the person who claims time does not exist. Well, time must exist for them to claim time does not exist, hence the contradiction. On the other hand, someone can claim time does exist and be totally ignorant to its illusory nature.

Peace friend

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by rwfresh

 

"Again, the Reality i am speaking of is without Time. So if Reality did create something separate from, or within itself, with characteristics that are not of itself.. then that is not the Reality i am talking about. "

this is what i meant before when i asked your definition of real......... What is the reality you are speaking of? what does it consist of? where is it? explain it please..... how did you come to know about it,,,, did you use your senses which created your thoughts to think about this reality you are speaking about? does this reality you speak of exist "in reality" in itself?

"But "reality" sure.. it is apparent. Doesn't require a ton of discernment or contemplation. Just look out and within and say it is what is it. Right there with you. "

but it does need a TON of discernment and contemplation...... it doesnt,,,,,, if you are a baby or turtle,,, not at all,,,,, waddle around,,, eat when hungry,,, sleep when tired...... but as a human being,,,, knowing what is possible to be known and done as a human being,,, knowing how intricate and complex and massive this reality is,,,, it does need a ton of discernment,.,..,.,,.,. try not to take modern civilization for granted........ you, me and itsnowagain are wandering in the woods 100,000 years ago,,,,,, do we use our discernment of reality to create fire? or catch fish and animals in more efficient ways? how about noticing wood floats on water and making a raft? or a rock can sharpen wood to make a spear? how about collecting the seed of fruit and vegetables and planting them all in one controllable area? how about creating a language to label all these discernible details of reality?

Back from lunch.

I've said this before and i don't mind repeating it. I cannot express, communicate or experience Reality/Truth. That is the point.

There is a paradox. The paradox is we want Truth, but cannot have it without BEING it. We hear about it, we have delusional experiences of it and we seek it. But we do not and have not experienced absolute, eternal Truth which is Reality. I am expressing THE PARADOX. Not absolute, eternal Truth which is Reality. I am pointing at the paradox. You call the paradox "reality". I call it delusion. How do i know Reality exists? I don't. It's a belief. I don't actually know anything that actually exists. Lots of people tell me they do but are incapable of communicating it or expressing it to me. Likely has something to do with my delusion.

There is only one thing that would end the discussion, eternally.. And that is Truth. And neither of us is bringing it to the table. If you are actually living in Reality and i am not you are demonstrating that illusion seemingly "exists" outside of Reality. You are in Reality and I am "not". It doesn't make sense.. it doesn't jive with me. One of us is wrong and if both of us are right we are demonstrating the paradox.

In Reality, everything would have to be in Reality for it to be real. So if someone tells you they have or are experiencing Reality while failing to communicate it to you then you know they are delusional. Don't let them convince you it's your lack of understanding. In Reality, there would be no limits. Expressing, communicating, understanding Truth is already complete eternally.

It's not some failing of you or my's ability to communicate the Truth that we are. The problem (if it's one at all) is we are not Truth. We are not in Reality.

It's my deluded belief that Reality does exist eternally. It is also my belief that i am not (in) Reality. I am not Truth. I am not Real in the truest sense of the word. So it would go without saying that i would be incapable of 1. Experiencing Reality. 2. Communicating Reality.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by rwfresh

 

Truth is expressing itself always (eternally presently), it is laughable that people are looking for it somewhere or somewhen else.

edit on 21-6-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

What's funny is people who claim to be in Reality are able to acknowledge others aren't experiencing it. How do we acknowledge a lack without actually acknowledging it? Quite a trick!

reply to post by rwfresh

I am expressing THE PARADOX. Not absolute, eternal Truth which is Reality. I am pointing at the paradox. You call the paradox "reality". I call it delusion.

Boom! And that is it right there.

Thanks!

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by rwfresh

 

I will agree with you that Reality is the ONLY thing with substance. I am under no delusion that i control Reality, communicate it, recognize it, create it etc.

Then how do you claim It is the only thing with substance, or exists at all? I've enjoyed your posts so far, made a lot of sense, but this question continuously arises. If you are "reality" then how do you know, or claim, there is Reality? Is it just a 'all that could be left after reduction' kind of thing? The Buddha spoke of similar things and this question always arose when reading it. How do you know there is the unspeakable, unknowable, unrecognizable, if you cannot recognize or experience it?

Peace

It's a belief without substance that i hold. I don't know anything. I know nothing. And nothing is an illusion. So i don't know nothin'

There is no substance to my beliefs. If you understood what i was talking about even better than i did you would be no closer to the Truth.

Buddha came to believe the illusion was an illusion. That is the sum total of it. He had nothing to offer for those seeking actual Truth. At least i have yet to experience actual Truth/Reality through him.. Could be a lack in me? Or it could be that what he concluded was "true".

reply to post by rwfresh


this is the evil share of buddha kind with all evil oness

he refused to say that truth is killed on purpose in all existence creations dimensions, as rights are the first targets to hit down before meaning anything to build upon for fallacies

buddha is that kind of reactions in knowing the truth that tried to keep gaining smthg positively from the situation, as if u know how gods with all their monster nature have a weakness towards intelligents in loving to see individual conscious accepting them, so kind of buddhas mean advantages from that in never talking bad about gods

Desiring "enlightenment", or having the idea that one needs to attain absolute knowledge, or a complete understanding of all things in order to obtain fulfillment may be a detrimental state of mind.

One would always be in a state of want, especially as you mention, that we may be limited in our faculties.

Maybe it is better to let go of that state of mind, or that state of 'wanting' and those feelings of being unfulfilled.


That doesn't mean we cannot gain understanding into our selves (regarding our own well-being) and our existence to improve our state of being.

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
In deep states of meditation, all awareness just becomes still and there is no time or doer/self, yet this is not known until there is the reflection upon this state, which then is not this state.

It's freeing to be able to admit this. That's my experience. These "states" can happen through practice, drugs, spontaneously, traumatic events.. It is the ego that interprets it. The illusory self. Yes the experience can have a profound impact on the "self".. But it certainly doesn't make the self real.

And the other thing i would add is this: A mouth cannot see. And eye cannot taste. Human eyes can see light within a certain frequency range. Ears are the same with sound. The illusory self is also limited in that it can only experience illusion. It cannot experience, express or communicate Truth. It is not possible. If it was possible, only ONE illusory self would need express Truth into time based existence for it to cease.

Originally posted by absolutely
reply to post by rwfresh

 

this is the evil share of buddha kind with all evil oness

he refused to say that truth is killed on purpose in all existence creations dimensions, as rights are the first targets to hit down before meaning anything to build upon for fallacies

buddha is that kind of reactions in knowing the truth that tried to keep gaining smthg positively from the situation, as if u know how gods with all their monster nature have a weakness towards intelligents in loving to see individual conscious accepting them, so kind of buddhas mean advantages from that in never talking bad about gods

One who claims moral authority over Buddha while still allowing the illusory manifestation to persist is the most evil one of all.

Can you express Truth?

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Originally posted by Realtruth
reply to post by Theophorus

 

Here is my word on enlightenment, well actually four words.


"Live in the now"

Peace out,

RT

What you experience as "now" actually occured in the past.....

Prove it!

Originally posted by nOraKat
Desiring "enlightenment", or having the idea that one needs to attain absolute knowledge, or a complete understanding of all things in order to obtain fulfillment may be a detrimental state of mind.

One would always be in a state of want, especially as you mention, that we may be limited in our faculties.

Maybe it is better to let go of that state of mind, or that state of 'wanting' and those feelings of being unfulfilled.


That doesn't mean we cannot gain understanding into our selves (regarding our own well-being) and our existence to improve our state of being.

What of the one's that do not have a choice? Like a starving child in Africa, choice of relief is not always a choice. I can tell myself i am not hungry right up until i starve to death. So those who hold onto and struggle and seek may just as well be a product of the illusion we find ourselves in as anything else.

I sincerely wish there was no suffering of any kind. But acknowledge suffering persists in many different forms.

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by rwfresh

 

I am expressing THE PARADOX. Not absolute, eternal Truth which is Reality. I am pointing at the paradox. You call the paradox "reality". I call it delusion.

Boom! And that is it right there.

Thanks!

Anytime! Thank you right back!

Originally posted by rwfresh

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by rwfresh

 

I will agree with you that Reality is the ONLY thing with substance. I am under no delusion that i control Reality, communicate it, recognize it, create it etc.

Then how do you claim It is the only thing with substance, or exists at all? I've enjoyed your posts so far, made a lot of sense, but this question continuously arises. If you are "reality" then how do you know, or claim, there is Reality? Is it just a 'all that could be left after reduction' kind of thing? The Buddha spoke of similar things and this question always arose when reading it. How do you know there is the unspeakable, unknowable, unrecognizable, if you cannot recognize or experience it?

Peace

It's a belief without substance that i hold. I don't know anything. I know nothing. And nothing is an illusion. So i don't know nothin'

There is no substance to my beliefs. If you understood what i was talking about even better than i did you would be no closer to the Truth.

Buddha came to believe the illusion was an illusion. That is the sum total of it. He had nothing to offer for those seeking actual Truth. At least i have yet to experience actual Truth/Reality through him.. Could be a lack in me? Or it could be that what he concluded was "true".

Ahhh... yes. If there is such a thing called profound wisdom, it is this.

Again, thanks!