The Vanity of Enlightenment

Originally posted by 1nf1del
Because it wasn't an "I win, you win" thing, I was not going to argue semantics and conceded, in other words I left the argument, there is no winner so to insinuate that I claimed I won is ludicrous!

We are having a massive breakdown in communication here... Ill take my responsibility in it. You are free to do as you wish. What you claim are semantics were, to me, actual points to be considered. You even said:

Originally posted by 1nf1del
you win and he wins

and I said its a shame that it needs to be a case where someone wins and someone loses (the "I win, you lose" type scenario). I never said anything about "I win, you win," nor did I imply that you won. Really, in the "I win, you lose" scenario, everyone involved generally loses (so I agree there was no winner, even when you said there was). It came down to you dismissing my points as nothing more than semantics. That means I failed to communicate clearly, and you might have failed to comprehend.

We dont seem to be on the same page here, to say the least...

"Who is on first?!"

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Who is enlightened? Only he who declares himself so. There is no supreme judge who bestows such an honor. There is no voting process through which we can rationally choose and appoint an enlightened individual. Enlightenment is always self-declared, and the enlightened ones are always self-proclaimed. What is the reason behind this proclamation? Why does one have the desire to label himself enlightened?

To be enlightened in your own soul on the inside is one thing but to be able to express it on the outside so everybody knows and accepts your philosophy about enlightenment is another thing.

If you are male then expressing it to a male nowadays, a common problem might be people would see you as a homosexual as most people don't understand their sexuality fully yet (spoiler: sex is only maybe 10% of 'you'). Or another common problem is males think you want to beat them at their philosophy, which is natural as they are probably still learning and need a role model. They would either love you instantly with all their body, mind, soul or do the exact opposite, hate you forever. All these things would happen ofcourse as the enlightend wouldn't need marriage but probably just create another of himself/herself/it but the opposite.

Expressing it to a female is even more problematic as every female would want you instantly. This is natural as women need to be concerned about the eggs they carry within their physical bodies (which is not the same as their idea of those eggs). So any conversation would soon resort to sex and she will probably not be able to stop until she believes her body gives some sign she has enough children. This is complicated matter but feel free to ask more.

full comprehension

Ofcourse you mean an instant full comprehension of a given situation the body is exposed to, so the stimuli from that situation is processed by the brain and made into a story for the spirit that develops in the body to see, hear, feel, taste or the entire experience (out of body or astral travel or lightbody).

But not the full comprehension of all of existence all at once (like everything and everybody) because that would be a lot of stimuli to process and the spirit might become too busy with processing instead of experiencing, all senses would shut down and so there would be no spirit anymore (or half the expression which I described) just a soul and that is not the way to enlightenment. Although it can but you would have to be like Maitreya who went to tu#a heaven, which is the most closest comparison I know of, still all alone but the world is the opposite really like heaven, not the hell I just described. But if anyone would survive and nobody had done it yet you would become super-duper-supremely enlightened!

Full comprehension is usually impossible for the western mind as existence is a neverending story, so once one has seen a situation, it might have changed a bit so the comprehension is outdated therefor invalid because someone else witnessed the change and that truth became valid.

Could there be other reasons?

Yes, what I've said above leads to become supreme ruler and god of all of existence. Every new being coming into existence would pass through that soul, every conflict would show up on that souls scanners for injustice, it would have every weapon ever invented and every weapon which would be invented as they would all pass through that one soul. That one soul could be anywhere it would want, it wouldn't want anything from anyone as it already has everything. Except ofcourse entertainment and that is when we would come in.

Thank you for reading,

LesMis

You're welcome and thanks for posting.

Originally posted by Serdgiam

Originally posted by 1nf1del
Because it wasn't an "I win, you win" thing, I was not going to argue semantics and conceded, in other words I left the argument, there is no winner so to insinuate that I claimed I won is ludicrous!

We are having a massive breakdown in communication here... Ill take my responsibility in it. You are free to do as you wish. What you claim are semantics were, to me, actual points to be considered. You even said:

Originally posted by 1nf1del
you win and he wins

and I said its a shame that it needs to be a case where someone wins and someone loses (the "I win, you lose" type scenario). I never said anything about "I win, you win," nor did I imply that you won. Really, in the "I win, you lose" scenario, everyone involved generally loses (so I agree there was no winner, even when you said there was). It came down to you dismissing my points as nothing more than semantics. That means I failed to communicate clearly, and you might have failed to comprehend.

We dont seem to be on the same page here, to say the least...

"Who is on first?!"

edit on 11-2-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)

My only point was no two humans are exactly the same! Take it and run with it!

reply to post by 1nf1del


I know exactly what you were trying to say and it wasn't what you were actually saying.

You were trying to say no two humans are identical.

What you said was no two humans have any properties, characteristics, habits, tendencies, or anything that are the same.

Yes, as a whole object, no two humans are identical. But humans can have the same ability to sleep, the same ability to see, the same preference of Coke over Pepsi, etc.

Just a misunderstanding of language. Don't beat yourself up over it too much.

reply to post by 1nf1del


And my point was that the similarities and differences go much deeper than that. There we go.

I said that any two given humans will be exactly the same in many respects, even if just looked at from the human perspective.

Then, if we look at it from the perspective of say.. a being the size of hundreds of galaxies (a thought experiment, go with me here), there would be zero discernable differences depending on perceptive faculties of this hypothetical being. Much the same as we would struggle to tell the difference between two atoms using just our senses.

They have individual properties, indeed, but they are exactly the same in many respects as well.

Originally posted by Wang Tang
reply to post by 1nf1del

 

I know exactly what you were trying to say and it wasn't what you were actually saying.

You were trying to say no two humans are identical.

What you said was no two humans have any properties, characteristics, habits, tendencies, or anything that are the same.

Yes, as a whole object, no two humans are identical. But humans can have the same ability to sleep, the same ability to see, the same preference of Coke over Pepsi, etc.

Just a misunderstanding of language. Don't beat yourself up over it too much.

I will quote it so you can read it in it's entirety, maybe then you will see the bigger picture instead of picking out one sentence and splitting hairs!

Originally posted by 1nf1del


Not everyone will have the ability to jump on a dirt bike and ride like Travis Pastrana, some will have some natural talent some will never pick it up, no two humans are the same in any aspect of life or beyond!

Originally posted by Serdgiam
reply to post by 1nf1del

 

And my point was that the similarities and differences go much deeper than that. There we go.

I said that any two given humans will be exactly the same in many respects, even if just looked at from the human perspective.

Then, if we look at it from the perspective of say.. a being the size of hundreds of galaxies (a thought experiment, go with me here), there would be zero discernable differences depending on perceptive faculties of this hypothetical being. Much the same as we would struggle to tell the difference between two atoms using just our senses.

They have individual properties, indeed, but they are the same in many respects as well.

edit on 11-2-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)

Why don't you tell me what I meant?

reply to post by 1nf1del


I.. dont know what you meant. I even said so!

I thought that was why we are having a conversation. (?)

Its all good my friend, dont worry about it. Maybe in another thread, at another time, we might not clash as much.

Les Misanthrope stated in another thread that he looked for the path to enlightenment, no two paths are the same, your path is not going to be the same as my path, no two paths are the same! Do you get my point?

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Why don't you tell me what I meant?

It doesn't matter what you meant to say, what matters is what you said, because we comprehend your views based on what you said.

Unless you are awesome like me and can see what someone means to say without them actually saying it.

Originally posted by 1nf1del
Les Misanthrope stated in another thread that he looked for the path to enlightenment, no two paths are the same, your path is not going to be the same as my path, no two paths are the same! Do you get my point?

No two paths are the same!

No two snowflakes are the same!

No two people are the same!

Originally posted by Wang Tang

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Why don't you tell me what I meant?

It doesn't matter what you meant to say, what matters is what you said, because we comprehend your views based on what you said.

Unless you are awesome like me and can see what someone means to say without them actually saying it.

Please excuse me while I ignore you and your ego!

reply to post by 1nf1del


Yes, I do. I even am agreeing. I am just expanding on it and clarifying it in the way I perceive things to be. Wang seems to be doing the same thing.

A quote I heard once pertains to this, and it is; "There are many paths to the top of a mountain, but they all lead to the same place."

This seems like it might be getting frustrating for you. Like I said, maybe in another thread, at another time, we wont clash as much. There wasnt even really a clash to begin with..

Originally posted by Serdgiam
reply to post by 1nf1del

 

Yes, I do. I even am agreeing. I am just expanding on it and clarifying it in the way I perceive things to be. Wang seems to be doing the same thing.

A quote I heard once pertains to this, and it is; "There are many paths to the top of a mountain, but they all lead to the same place."

This seems like it might be getting frustrating for you. Like I said, maybe in another thread, at another time, we wont clash as much. There wasnt even really a clash to begin with..

No, first you read one sentence and took what I said out of context as seen here in this quote where you only quoted that sentence!

Originally posted by Serdgiam

Originally posted by 1nf1del
no two humans are the same in any aspect of life or beyond!

Except for the fact that they are both currently human as well as alive, no?

edit on 11-2-2013 by Serdgiam because: lil add

And then tried to prove me wrong with the one sentence you took out of context, go back and read my WHOLE post again and you will see your mistake!

Originally posted by Serdgiam
reply to post by 1nf1del

 

My point was very simple, though perhaps not entirely clear.

You said "no two humans are the same in any aspect."

I pointed out that they are the same in some aspects. One being that they are both human.

reply to post by 1nf1del


My friend, just take a step back for a while. We are both pointing to the same moon, but with different fingers. It seems that you do not see it this way, but I truly do.

There is beauty to be had in the diversity, and understanding to be gained in the similarities.

How do you go from this

Originally posted by Serdgiam
reply to post by 1nf1del

 

I.. dont know what you meant. I even said so!

I thought that was why we are having a conversation. (?)

Its all good my friend, dont worry about it. Maybe in another thread, at another time, we might not clash as much.

To this?

Originally posted by Serdgiam
reply to post by 1nf1del

 

Yes, I do. I even am agreeing. I am just expanding on it and clarifying it in the way I perceive things to be. Wang seems to be doing the same thing.

A quote I heard once pertains to this, and it is; "There are many paths to the top of a mountain, but they all lead to the same place."

This seems like it might be getting frustrating for you. Like I said, maybe in another thread, at another time, we wont clash as much. There wasnt even really a clash to begin with..

How are you agreeing with me if you don't know what I'm talking about, are you confused? Because I'm not, I'm following this "discussion" man and you are jukin and jivin left and right, either you knew what I was talking about and were just being an ass or you didn't have a clue and are now covering yourself!

reply to post by LesMisanthrope
The only thing that keeps coming to mind as I read your OP is what my father told me once long ago: The definition of achieving true enlightenment is when you finally realize that in the grand scheme of all things you know absolutely doodley squat!

reply to post by littled16

The definition of achieving true enlightenment is when you finally realize that in the grand scheme of all things you know absolutely doodley squat!

The problem here, is that Enlightenment isn't a knowing, or what you do/don't know. Its a direct experience of the Absolute nature of reality prior to knowing

You claim to know more than you know, and this is a result of your excessive ego. Your ego is bigger than everyone else in this thread although your intelligence is not.

You are creating conflict where there should be none, and the reason for this is your inflated ego. You sense that people are attacking you where there is no attack. You are getting overly defensive of yourself where there is no need to. No one attacked you in this thread, yet you felt threatened and start lashing out. Your attacks have been largely incoherent and unsystematic, and I sense it is the work of an ego trying to defend itself.

There is nothing wrong with admitting that you have a big ego, and admitting you don't know as much as you originally thought you knew. Embrace your ego, at least realize it is there. From there you can control it better and use your large ego to your advantage in arguments instead of to your detriment.

I know I have a big ego, and I clearly display it for all to see. I don't deny it. But it doesn't get in the way of me realizing what I don't know because I recognize acting like I know something I don't know is more detrimental to my vain public and self image than admitting I don't know.

Now before you start lashing out at me again please realize you lashing out at me won't accomplish anything. I'll just deflect it like I do all of your other comments. If you want to be constructive, criticize me, tell me how I can improve as a person, tell me anything I can do better.

What's funny is through all of this derailing and bashing on your ego, we have actually stayed somewhat on topic. It has been vanity on display at its finest.

Originally posted by Wang Tang
Infidel: You claim to know more than you know, and this is a result of your excessive ego. Your ego is bigger than everyone else in this thread although your intelligence is not.

What do I claim to know?