Spiritual Enlightenment: what is it/what it is.

[Araceli Cianna]

Enlightenment does not make people psychotic; it makes people enlightened as to the true nature of Reality. That is why it is called 'Enlightenment' and not Madness. That you experienced deluded thought, demons, and even insanity is not enlightenment; it is delusion.

I do not want to get embroiled into the argument, I just wanted to share my own views. And now I do not believe in the phenomenon of enlightenment at all. I believe it to be delusion.

 

[godnotgod]

I do not want to get embroiled into the argument, I just wanted to share my own views. And now I do not believe in the phenomenon of enlightenment at all. I believe it to be delusion.

There is no argument here, but your beliefs have nothing to do with Enlightenment, whereas they have everything to do with delusion.

You thought yourself enlightened, but were mistaken; fooled by your ego. It is your false belief that got you into trouble, not actual Enlightenment, which is the cure for delusion. As long as you entertain beliefs ABOUT Reality, you leave yourself open to yet more delusion, as delusion feeds on beliefs. Without beliefs, where can delusion take hold?

"Where there is Light, there is no Nescience"

Understand: Enlightenment is not some doctrine that you believe in or not believe in, but something you experience beyond the shadow of any doubt. The very fact that you developed doubts about your experience points to the fact that you still entertained delusive thought based on your beliefs. But if you fall into a cold mountain lake, there is no doubt that the water is cold.

 

[Vinayaka]

Perhaps some (many?), upon hearing the words of the enlightened, see them as condescending through the filter of their own egos.

I have and the words are never condescending. They're kind, helpful, and loving, and wise.

 

[Polymath257]

Again, it cannot be Enlightenment if it is a dream-state. The thing is, however, that for a dream-state to exist, there must be a corresponding awakened state, even though you haven't a clue as to its existence, since the former cannot be a reality without the latter, and since, when in the dream-state, one is unaware that one is in such a state. Imagine for a moment that you are asleep, dreaming that you are a famous dragon-slayer, a hero, and that I can see what you are dreaming from a higher awakened state. Were I to ask you if you were a dragon-slayer during your dream, you would, of course, answer emphatically in the affirmative: 'Of course I am Polymath, the world-famous dragon-slayer! Why would anyone doubt me?', you might say. So on that level of conscious awareness, it is reality for you. But when you awaken from such a dream, and I were to ask the same question of you, you might say: 'Of course not! Why, it was but a dream!', and you might have a good belly laugh. And then you might also say: 'Oh, no, that was only a dream, but THIS is reality, perhaps not realizing that you have simply awoken into a higher dream-state made to appear as if it is concrete material reality. And because of science, you would never question whether it were real or not. Everything about it is real to you, just as everything about your dream of being a dragon-slayer were equally real when on that level of consciousness. In this scenario, the only way you could possibly know you were dreaming is for you to awaken. And since you obviously have not experienced a further awakening from what you see as 'material reality', for you, there is no such thing. But I just wanted to set the stage for further discussion, and make you realize that such a higher state of consciousness can indeed be the case, based upon what you already know to be true. OK?

And, with that, what's to say that the 'enlightened' state isn't just another, higher level dream state? And perhaps there is an inifinite tower of dream states? And that NONE of them is 'reality', but merely a dream state for the next higher one?

Have you ever had the experience of waking up twice in quick succession? So, you wake up from a dream and then wake up from *that* dream? You realize that both were just dreams at the same level, but that you were dreaming that you were dreaming. The first wasn't a lower level dream than the second. They were both simply dreams.

And what I would claim is that what you *think* is an enlightened state is actually just another type of dream state where you are *dreaming* the unity that you experience. It is an altered state of consciousness. And frankly, I speak from experience: I know the state you are speaking of and I realize it to be a dream.

Finally, you must have much more vivid and detailed dreams than I do. I *never* dream I am anyone other than myself, usually in rather typical situations. Sometimes the laws of physics are a bit distorted or a building has strange properties. But I don't dream of being anyone other than who I am.

 

[Araceli Cianna]

You thought yourself enlightened, but were mistaken; fooled by your ego.

I think, this was my point. People who consider themselves enlightened, are likely deluded. Just as I was.

 

[Polymath257]

You can come down from your position of pseudo-superiority if you like. It's getting rather boring and obnoxious, and makes you look really, really silly, OK?

Each snowflake is a unique form, but all snowflakes are made of water, so in that sense, each snowflake is the entirety of what all snowflakes are.

How in the world does that follow???? Each snowflake is made of water, so all snowflakes share a common property. But that doens't say that each snowflake is 'the entirety of what all snowflakes are'. In fact, quite the opposite.

You have a unique way of presenting yourself to the world, but at its base, the consciousness you are using to do so is the same consciousness inherent in all conscious beings, and behind the manifested Universe. Only your mind falsely separates itself from such universality, from which it has always been at one with, and has never at any point been separate from it.

Same objection as above. yes, we all have consciousness. But that in no way says we are all the same.

 

[pearl]

Mystery simply means we can learn more. All mysteries can be investigated and once we have answers, they are no longer mysteries. So, I do not embrace 'Mystery'. In fact, I fight it at every turn by attempting to answer the questions and learn something new.

The biggest mystery is ourselves. Try answering the question; Who are you?, without the usual means of self identification; name, where you were born, who your parents are, who you married, where you went to school, what you do, or where you live, or not that you are a human being as these are only descriptive. Seek 'enlightenment' in incomprehensible Mystery is also enlightenment in who we are.

'Learning is gotten by reading books or listening to lectures. Wisdom by reading the book that is you. Not an easy task at all, for every minute of the day brings a new edition of the book! '

deMello

 

[Polymath257]

The biggest mystery is ourselves. Try answering the question; Who are you?, without the usual means of self identification; name, where you were born, who your parents are, who you married, where you went to school, what you do, or where you live, or not that you are a human being as these are only descriptive. Seek 'enlightenment' in incomprehensible Mystery is also enlightenment in who we are.

Yes, of course it is descriptive. If you asked me what book I am reading, I would give the title, the author, and perhaps a brief *description* of the plot and characters. In that way, you would be able to tell this book from all other books. So, in the same way, I when asked who I am, I would give my name, my history, and some of the ideas that I like to think about. That is what would allow you to tell me from all the other people around. By excluding description, you negate the ability to answer the question. At that point, all I can do is point to myself and say 'see?'.

But, like saying the color of a tree is the color that it is, that would be both circular and non-responsive. But if you ask for the color of a tree and demand that no color names be used, you won't get much of an answer.

'Learning is gotten by reading books or listening to lectures. Wisdom by reading the book that is you. Not an easy task at all, for every minute of the day brings a new edition of the book! '
deMello

OK, I see part of the problem now. Learning what other people have found is done by reading books and listening to lectures. To learn something *new*, you have to go beyond what others have done and learn to think for yourself and probe where others have not yet probed. But that is still learning.

Wisdom is the ability to use that learning and knowledge appropriately. And that is a different thing. But even wisdom goes beyond the self and must ask how our actions affect others.

 

[crowfeather]

To ever become Enlightened, one first must entertain the notion that it can exist.
To achieve this state of openness to it, is the first step towards Enlightenment itself.
Where ego goes, Reality can not. Where Reality goes, ego can not.
Mutually exclusive.
Reality is there, always, but completely off the map of the judging mind.
To the judging mind, Reality does not exist.

 

[crowfeather]

I have and the words are never condescending. They're kind, helpful, and loving, and wise.

Sure they are. Until, finally, under the relentless avalanche of disrespect, pointless argument, and evil intent, they become less so.
Evil knows only evil. Evil turns everything to evil. Everything is evil, for the evil.
Meanwhile, the master inhabits a realm in which the evil can never set foot.

 

[Kirran]

Sure they are. Until, finally, under the relentless avalanche of disrespect, pointless argument, and evil intent, they become less so.
Evil knows only evil. Evil turns everything to evil. Everything is evil, for the evil.
Meanwhile, the master inhabits a realm in which the evil can never set foot.

He just said that they're not from his own direct experience. That's not something you can contradict with validity.

 

[crowfeather]

He just said that they're not from his own direct experience. That's not something you can contradict with validity.

You see a contradiction, and you find fault. This is why you argue, and fail to understand.
He has not argued with, and disrespected his guru. This is why it went well, and he is happy with the result.
Hardly rocket science is it?

 

[Kirran]

You see a contradiction, and you find fault. This is why you argue, and fail to understand.
He has not argued with, and disrespected his guru. This is why it went well, and he is happy with the result.
Hardly rocket science is it?

That seems quite tangential.

 

[crowfeather]

That seems quite tangential.

As does every single thing you swingin' dicks hurl at me.
It's a sight to see, for sure.

 

[Kirran]

As does every single thing you swingin' dicks hurl at me.
It's a sight to see, for sure.

Was that you just calling all posters here dicks?

Also, you're not under some kind of attack here, as you seem to imply.

 

[crowfeather]

Was that you just calling all posters here dicks?

Dream up whatever you like, assign any meaning to anything, think your way into delusion, auto-defend yourself against imaginary attack.
These are things swingin' dicks do, which is why I call swingin' dicks 'swingin' dicks'.
A turn of phrase, a manner of speech, a cultural vernacular. I'm diverse, see?

Of course you're not attacking me. Nobody ever is. That's how attackers see it, every time. I beg to differ.

 

[Kirran]

Dream up whatever you like, assign any meaning to anything, think your way into delusion, auto-defend yourself against imaginary attack.
These are things swingin' dicks do, which is why I call swingin' dicks 'swingin' dicks'.
A turn of phrase, a manner of speech, a cultural vernacular. I'm diverse, see?

Of course you're not attacking me. Nobody ever is. That's how attackers see it, every time. I beg to differ.

Right, but personal insults against other members are against the rules you agreed to when you signed up.

 

[crowfeather]

Right, but personal insults against other members are against the rules you agreed to when you signed up.

You might apply that rule to every other member and admin, as well as to me. As opposed to only to me.
If you did that, everybody would get along just fine, don't you think?
See, I don't play the ever-popular delusion game, and you realize it. Which is why you, and others, react so negatively to every word I write.
I see what you don't see. About yourself and about everything else besides.
That is one facet of Enlightenment.
Another is that I fearlessly deal with whatever presents itself to me. Why would I not?
Unless, of course, I play the ever-popular delusion game, and respond to your delusion with my own delusion that supports the delusion you present me with.
Doh! I can't be bothered with all that stuff. I prefer the Real world.

You know, you could enjoy my presence, simply by embracing all those high-sounding values you purport to have, and wondering at the wonder.
Instead of resisting every word, as it writes itself, turning it into something it isn't, and expressing outrage at nothing.

Enlightenment isn't for everyone, as you can see. The deluded need not apply. As a previous poster observed: it can render the insane even more insane.
But the sane...
Ah.
Mana from Heaven.

 

[Kirran]

You might apply that rule to every other member and admin, as well as to me. As opposed to only to me.
If you did that, everybody would get along just fine, don't you think?

They're applied to everybody, dude.

 

[crowfeather]

They're applied to everybody, dude.

So you say, therefore it must be true, eh?
As I like to say, sometimes: "Whatever you say, Jack."