The Vanity of Enlightenment

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by InTheLight

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by InTheLight


Well, I was thinking about this John Locke quote:

It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth.

But, he would be putting people in possession of his truth, not 'the truth'. Again, this is the question, is there one, or 'the truth', or is there only individual perception?

John Locke is not saying that he or anyone can put anyone in possession of truth. In the quote he is not claiming that he knows the truth or can put another in possession of it..
So no it would not be 'his truth'.

edit on 24-2-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

If he wanted to make it clear he should added "their" truth. The way is reads is "the truth", so this would allude to there being only one truth. It's a quote open to interpretation.

Truth does not belong to anyone. The truth is singular.

A truth can also be plural, as in multiple individuals perceiving a singular experience exactly the same way. I have to go now, please watch the videos I posted and let me know if you detect vanity from the Dalai Lama.

Originally posted by InTheLight

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by InTheLight

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by InTheLight


Well, I was thinking about this John Locke quote:

It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth.

But, he would be putting people in possession of his truth, not 'the truth'. Again, this is the question, is there one, or 'the truth', or is there only individual perception?

John Locke is not saying that he or anyone can put anyone in possession of truth. In the quote he is not claiming that he knows the truth or can put another in possession of it..
So no it would not be 'his truth'.

edit on 24-2-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

If he wanted to make it clear he should added "their" truth. The way is reads is "the truth", so this would allude to there being only one truth. It's a quote open to interpretation.

Truth does not belong to anyone. The truth is singular.

A truth can also be plural, as in multiple individuals perceiving a singular experience exactly the same way.

If there are many versions of truth, they are mistruths or interpretations.
There is just the one truth. However - no one can put you in possession of it.

I would not say the Dalai Lama has been liberated so it would not matter if I thought him vain or not.
Anyone who claims that they have achieved enlightenment has not realized the complete truth.

reply to post by InTheLight


Has the Dalai Lama ever claimed that he has achieved enlightenment?

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by InTheLight

 

Has the Dalai Lama ever claimed that he has achieved enlightenment?

He certainly speaks as if he knows exactly what his interpretation of the enlightened state is.

Originally posted by InTheLight

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by InTheLight

 

Has the Dalai Lama ever claimed that he has achieved enlightenment?

He certainly speaks as if he knows exactly what his interpretation of the enlightened state is.

He does speak of the concepts relating to enlightenment (notice how many times he says 'according to.....') but because his English is not so good it is not easy for him to elaborate. However, he does find the question hilarious! He speaks of other names given for enlightenment but I did not hear him say that he has achieved it - unless I missed that bit.

I have a problem with people who say they have 'achieved' enlightenment because when oneness is realized it is realized that there is no one - there is just this.
It is one.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by InTheLight

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by InTheLight

 

Has the Dalai Lama ever claimed that he has achieved enlightenment?

He certainly speaks as if he knows exactly what his interpretation of the enlightened state is.

He does speak of the concepts relating to enlightenment (notice how many times he says 'according to.....') but because his English is not so good it is not easy for him to elaborate. However, he does find the question hilarious! He speaks of other names given for enlightenment but I did not hear him say that he has achieved it - unless I missed that bit.

I have a problem with people who say they have 'achieved' enlightenment because when oneness is realized it is realized that there is no one - there is just this.
It is one.

edit on 25-2-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-2-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

He said "I think" in regards to his interpretation of enlightenment.

Originally posted by InTheLight


He said "I think" in regards to his interpretation of enlightenment.

When some says 'I think' it usually means they don't know for sure.

Or maybe I misunderstand you, please let me know the time on the video so I can verify please.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by InTheLight


He said "I think" in regards to his interpretation of enlightenment.

When some says 'I think' it usually means they don't know for sure.

Or maybe I misunderstand you, please let me know the time on the video so I can verify please.

edit on 25-2-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

You'll have to review it yourself, I think.

Originally posted by InTheLight

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by InTheLight


He said "I think" in regards to his interpretation of enlightenment.

When some says 'I think' it usually means they don't know for sure.

Or maybe I misunderstand you, please let me know the time on the video so I can verify please.

edit on 25-2-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

You'll have to review it yourself, I think.

It is not about reviewing it - I have watched it three times. I don't understand what you are implying when you say that he says 'I think' in his interpretation.

At no point do I hear him claim enlightenment.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by InTheLight

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by InTheLight


He said "I think" in regards to his interpretation of enlightenment.

When some says 'I think' it usually means they don't know for sure.

Or maybe I misunderstand you, please let me know the time on the video so I can verify please.

edit on 25-2-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

You'll have to review it yourself, I think.

It is not about reviewing it - I have watched it three times. I don't understand what you are implying when you say that he says 'I think' in his interpretation.

At no point do I hear him claim enlightenment.

You may interpret it any which way you choose.

Originally posted by InTheLight

He said "I think" in regards to his interpretation of enlightenment.

It would be nice if I understood what you mean by this - I don't ever like to assume. Everything is open to interpretation and as I am in discussion with you it would be nice if you would clarify because I like to talk with understanding, it prevents unnecessary conflict and misunderstanding.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by InTheLight

He said "I think" in regards to his interpretation of enlightenment.

It would be nice if I understood what you mean by this - I don't ever like to assume. Everything is open to interpretation and as I am in discussion with you it would be nice if you would clarify because I like to talk with understanding, it prevents unnecessary conflict and misunderstanding.

edit on 25-2-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

He explained, with authority, what he thinks (not guess, not assume, not surmise, not imagine) enlightenment is, therefore, in my opinion he is drawing upon his thoughts and he actually explains what he thinks enlightenment is for him; that being a state void of negativity. Why would he think this, instead of assume it?

Originally posted by InTheLight

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by InTheLight

He said "I think" in regards to his interpretation of enlightenment.

It would be nice if I understood what you mean by this - I don't ever like to assume. Everything is open to interpretation and as I am in discussion with you it would be nice if you would clarify because I like to talk with understanding, it prevents unnecessary conflict and misunderstanding.

edit on 25-2-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

He explained, with authority, what he thinks (not guess, not assume, not surmise, not imagine) enlightenment is, therefore, in my opinion he is drawing upon his thoughts and he actually explains what he thinks enlightenment is for him; that being a state void of negativity. Why would he think this, instead of assume it?

edit on 25-2-2013 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-2-2013 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)

To me 'I think' is not 'I know'.
He draws from his 'thoughts' and explains what he 'thinks' is enlightenment.
His definition is not complete in my opinion.

I can not assume that he has said that he is enlightened because he did not actually say 'I am enlightened'.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Has any of these supposed people who are enlightened ever said anything that demonstrates that they are enlightened?

Have yet to be impressed.

reply to post by poet1b


Hey...I finally figuered out how to open a bag of chips without it blowing out all over! LOL!

I get someone else to do it.

Split Infinity

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Has any of these supposed people who are enlightened ever said anything that demonstrates that they are enlightened?

Have yet to be impressed.

Where are these 'supposed people'?
Maybe you or others can actually present someone who is actually saying 'I am enlightened'.

Can you give an example of who has not impressed you?

reply to post by Itisnowagain


The person who is capable of saying...I have absolutely no idea what it is all about. Is truely enlightened.

Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity


Can you say that you do not know what it is all about?
What 'it' are you speaking about?

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Life, Death, how to open a pickle jar without getting juice all over you.

Split Infinity

This thread is like a bunch of blind men arguing over the definition of the colour red.
They have no idea what red is but they still have so many opinions about it but none of them actually know what they are talking about!