Spiritual Enlightenment: what is it/what it is.

[Polymath257]

You can think/believe yourself enlightened, but not be enlightened, or truly be enlightened, in which case you know it beyond a shadow of any doubt. The difference is huge.

Except that some have no doubts when they should.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, a cascade of dreams is possible, one within another. However, the very fact of dreaming points to a real awakened state at some point. You cannot have all dream state without a corresponding awakened state, just as you cannot have night without day.

On the contrary, a ream state only impies that ther eis a higher state, which may itself be a dream state.

And yes, it is true that there are many who think/believe themselves to be enlightened (as Sheon did) only to eventually discover their delusion. But as I said, Enlightenment is not based upon thought or belief, and therefore cannot be mistaken for delusion. It is the cure for delusion.

On the contrary, it is even easier to be mistaken when there is no thought.

 

[Kirran]

On the contrary, it is even easier to be mistaken when there is no thought.

I've never found that to be true, myself. Although it's not something I can bring a logical argument to back up.

 

[Polymath257]

There is nothing there that is unique to you.

On the contrary, I am certain that I have thought things nobody else has. That is the whole point of mathematical research, after all.

 

[Fool]

I believe goal of enlightenment, like in Taoism, is to know less.

In general humans claim to know too much.

The empty glass contains the most.

the cup is never empty. nature abhors a vacuum.


You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.

 

[godnotgod]

On the contrary, a ream state only impies that ther eis a higher state, which may itself be a dream state.

In order for you to even conceive of dreaming, you must know what being awake is. The one implies the other.

On the contrary, it is even easier to be mistaken when there is no thought.

How so?

 

[Polymath257]

All snowflakes/humans appear to be unique and different, even separate, but all are composed of universal water/consciousness. Just as the water that is in the form of a snowflake is not the property of the snowflake, the consciousness you say we have is not the property of an ego called 'I', although the ego wants you to think that it is 'my' consciousness. The ego itself is made of consciousness, so that is impossible.

Snowflakes don't just appear to be different, they *are* different. yes, they are all composed of water, but that isn't enough to define a snowflake.

Think of it this way: A singular, Universal Consciousness is manifesting itself as the world, which includes you and I. It is The Formless, projecting itself as all the myriad forms of the Universe. These myriad forms are illusory; only That which manifests them is Reality. Why that is the case is the real question. And why man sees The Universe as he does is reflected in a cogent statement by the Hindu mystic, Vivekenanda:

I understand the concept. I just find it to be flawed. We are each, individually, conscious...is a property that we have. That doesn't mean there is a single consciousness that divides to be each of us. Just like with the snowflakes, consciousness is *part* of who we are, but it isn't the *sum* of who we are.

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"

BTW, sharing water is not a common property of snowflakes; it IS what snowflakes actually ARE. A tree is not made of wood; it IS wood.

Snowflakes are *composed* of water, but the water in my glass is not a snowflake. To be a snowflake is to be water *in a particular pattern* or range of patterns. Even an ice cube is not a snowflake even though both are frozen water. The commonality is in composition, not in being the same thing.

 

[Polymath257]

In order for you to even conceive of dreaming, you must know what being awake is. The one implies the other.

On the contrary, we only need to know it is possible to wake to a higher level.

How so?

Because experiences can miss reality. In fact, seldom is our experience that of reality.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Would you like to know what Enlightenment is? What it's about? What it's like?
Rather than simply ridicule and abuse anyone daring to suggest he knows?

Sure. If you see anyone who actually knows, let me know.

 

[YmirGF]

Sure. If you see anyone who actually knows, let me know.

You're such a covfeffing hater...

 

[godnotgod]

And some people *still* think they are enlightened, even by that criterion, and yet are not. So, why should we believe that *you* are?

Did I ever claim to be?

The fact is that, no one attains Enlightenment, because Enlightenment does not involve a self with a self-view. Everyone is enlightened, but most have not yet realized it. You are enlightened, but your thinking mind does not allow you to realize it. Enlightenment is not something you do; it is something you realize is already the case.

 

[shunyadragon]

the cup is never empty. nature abhors a vacuum.

True, that is one aspect of why the empty cup contains the most.

You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.

You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint their heads and my cup contain less.

 

[YmirGF]

Did I ever claim to be?

The fact is that, no one attains Enlightenment, because Enlightenment does not involve a self with a self-view. Everyone is enlightened, but most have not yet realized it. You are enlightened, but your thinking mind does not allow you to realize it. Enlightenment is not something you do; it is something you realize is already the case.

How would "you" know though? (I'm not meaning that as a body slam against you, btw.) If "you" are not around.... what is there to doing any realizing?

 

[Kirran]

How would "you" know though? (I'm not meaning that as a body slam against you, btw.) If "you" are not around.... what is there to doing any realizing?

Very much a yes and no thing, that one. Different perspectives.

 

[Polymath257]

the cup is never empty. nature abhors a vacuum.

Try having a cup on the moon.

 

[Araceli Cianna]

@Sheon I just wanted to give a heartfelt thanks for your courageous post. I'm so happy you were able to pull back from the abyss. I'm sorry that your experience has left your permanently damaged. It is my hope that your life gets a little bit better every day now that you're back. Thanks again, for your important post in this strange thread of faux enlightenment.

BTW: I'm with you, I no longer believe in "Enlightenment" either... though I did find your post to be both enlightening and inspiring.

Thank you so much for your kindness and warm wishes.

 

[Fool]

Try having a cup on the moon.

space isn't empty

 

[Nakosis]

A bit better. I'd change that last line to read, "Being is a fearless journey into uncertainty."

I agree with that. Before seeing your answer I thought to myself how I would answer that question. I would have said enlightenment is the letting go of certainty.

 

[Nakosis]

I have read through about seven pages thus far and would like to share my own experiences and opinions.

TLDR: I experienced enlightenment which made me psychotic and now I'm messed up for life.

I had similar experiences, not as difficult but came to similar conclusions. It is interesting to come to realize first hand what the mind is capable of. Even to the thought there was an enemy presence in my head who's purpose was to leave me as confused as possible.

Perhaps because I exposed myself to so many conflicting religious ideas, questing for the truth.

At some point I suppose I came to realize the possession of the truth is not all that important. What I found that was important to me was being happy and discovering what it was that actually made me happy. It was family, friends and being able to help others.

 

[Polymath257]

space isn't empty

Considering the distance between hydrogen atoms is on the order of a meter in interstellar space, I would say that most square decimeters are empty.

In any case, it is certainly a vacuum.