Who here is enlightened?

[methylatedghosts]

ahhh, mon frere, you forget yourself...

Haha. Either way, it's a memory problem. Maybe it's just a matter of rebooting.

"Is it plugged in? Have you tried turning it off and on again...?"

 

[apophenia]

Haha. Either way, it's a memory problem. Maybe it's just a matter of rebooting.

"Is it plugged in? Have you tried turning it off and on again...?"

LOL. I needed a good laugh to start my day. Have a frubal.

 

[apophenia]

Frankly I think Penumbra's comments and questions throughout are brilliant.

Agreed.

 

[Sir Doom]

For me, that's hard to say. On the one hand, I seem able to disassociate myself from myself in a different way than most people do. I see myself as an actor on the stage of life, just like all the other actors except that I can manipulate my actor directly. I run AmbigGuy through various scenarios, watching for his most likely fate. I know this must be odd because other people give me weird looks when I speak of AmbigGuy in the third-person. So I've stopped speaking it, even as I continue thinking it.

I never try to detach myself while acting.

It is an interesting thought exercise you describe, though. I think I'm much too self-involved to give it a go, however. Haha!

On the other hand, I love to argue for my own perspective on things, and that seems the essence of egotism. But even that little trap is easily slipped. As a prophet of God, I'm merely arguing for His position, not my own. My ego is totally subsumed.

Ah, see I naturally assume that god and I can't possibly see eye to eye on everything unless we are one and the same person. I'm fine with either of these options.

So many possible ways to see things.

Billions, really. And not a wrong one in the bunch.

Anyway it seems to me that whatever the state of my self-love, it is true that the longer I live, the harder it becomes to feel any anger toward those who see life differently than I do.

I never really expect anyone to love me quite as much as I love myself. I just expect that they love themselves as much as I love myself. Then everything works out beautifully.

Heck, I don't even get mad at folks who deny my prophethood, much less those who disbelieve in my enlightenment.

That would be a lot of anger.

Everyone is entitled to be wrong, after all.

Yes, but do they have to flaunt it so!?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yes, but do they have to flaunt it so!?

It's curious that the wrongest ones seem to also be the flauntiest ones.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Would an enlightened person claim to be enlightened?

That would be a horrid practice of duality.

Or would they be enlightened enough to know that they have more to learn?

That would make quite a paradox! :0)

 

[apophenia]

Ah, see I naturally assume that god and I can't possibly see eye to eye on everything unless we are one and the same person. I'm fine with either of these options.

But if you and god see eye to eye because you are one and the same person, wouldn't that mean you see eye to eye with everyone ?

Of course maybe you do, and the superficial disagreement is just a way to pass time ...

I guess that must be how enlightened non-dualists see it

"When the Great Delusion ends, the Great Pretense begins"
- ancient Illuminati aphorism

"Fug defino"
- recent apopheniac aphorism

 

[Sunstone]

Nope. This thread is not from the seeking, burning, open heart of a student in the proper posture. This thread was made "to see if anyone here actually claims to be enlightened."

And then when someone comes along and claims to be enlightened, the OP waits to see if they "have the wisdom to say the perfect thing at the perfect time to convince" the OP.

Because that is her self-serving criteria for enlightenment. Perfection.

And when a self-proclaimed enlightened person fails to meet that oh-so-perfect criteria, the OP can rest assured that he or she is an imperfect phony. Because they haven't convinced her, see. All she has to do is make sure no one convinces her. Her strategy is to just keep cranking out knee-jerk questions until words fail. Because sooner or later they always do. Then, you see, you've failed to meet her perfect criteria, so you aren't enlightened. Or at least, not as enlightened as her, because she sniffed out your inadequacy.

It probably feels pretty good to make self-professed enlightened people jump through hoops only to fail to live up to her perfect criteria in the end. So why would she let anyone convince her of anything? Where's the pay-off?

This thread is a joke.

Would an enlightened person possess such bad faith? Serious question.

 

[Penumbra]

Indeed. Perhaps you might have mitigated the "degrees of variance" by being a bit more specific in lending direction towards the "correct" or applicable answers you seek?

Just fer nothin', what does the "Age of Enlightenment" signify or define within your own understanding of the terminology?

The Age of Enlightenment and the experiences in this thread are largely separate concepts.

The only major link between the two is that westerners sometimes use the word 'enlightenment' to refer to Dharmic, New Age, or mystical concepts about ego transcendence and mystical experiences. I find that it remains a useful word because it doesn't use any specific religion's terminology, such as Moksha or Nibbana.

Because I'm aware that 'enlightenment' is a muddy term that stems from and shares terminology of the Age of Enlightenment and is often used liberally and broadly to refer to Dharmic and mystical concepts, and because I see that members often look for objections in terminology (like if you give a poll with X options you'll generally be asked why there weren't X + 1 options) the OP specifically uses Nibbana, Moksha, or One with the Universe as pointers to the general direction of what kind of experience I'm referring to, and specifically invites members to use their own word.

So rather than referring to an accumulated body of knowledge or a merely intelligent disposition, it more or less refers to some sort of transcendent/mystical experience that many spiritual traditions reference, which may or may not also include knowledge, but is generally not considered merely knowledge.

 

[Penumbra]

I don't know it started wherever ego started and ultimately it doesn't matter.

I along with 99.9% of everyone else has this habit ingrained into them. As whether I believe I am enlightened or not is irrelevant along with the rest of ego. Everyone is already enlightened, that is what matters.

In many worldviews that include an enlightenment or transcendent stage, it's a theme that enlightenment is not something to be achieved, but rather something to be remembered or re-realized that all people currently have or are.

For any members that are participating with that worldview, then terminology has to be adjusted to 'actively realizing or experiencing that they are enlightened' rather than merely 'being enlightened'. So any questions regarding what their experience is like, what they define it to be, what benefits or aspects it has, would be directed towards those that identify as being partially or completely actively and consciously enlightened or propose to have experienced such things.

 

[Penumbra]

it means a model that *includes* the higher level, as opposed to the former model which was entirely unaware of the higher level and which therefore believed (a fundamental, axiomatic assumption) that the ordinary level (ie the physical, manifest 3D universe) is the highest level.

The former model didn't include (ie have a place for, or an understanding of) God, because it had never experienced God. By contrast the latter (enlightened/transcendent) model does include God, because it includes the memory of the direct experience of God (the transformative divine altered-state revelation) which was lacking in the former model.

I directly experienced it firsthand, in the form of an overwhelmingly intense altered state of consciousness.

The ancient world religions all provide many accurate and detailed portrayals of transcendent reality (or altered state experiencing), in the form of myths and artistic depictions. This is precisely the subject matter of all religion - mapping and describing the higher reality. So to answer this question, just have a look at religion, but learn to interpret it as allegorical descriptions of altered state experiences. The higher reality is overwhelming and beautiful.

Dependance on parents is a significantly lower degree of dependance than absolute, ultimate and helpless dependance on God. If your parents both die now, you would still continue to exist, and the universe would continue to exist. But if God decided to remove the veil of illusion which creates the appearance of egoic separateness, the entire universe dissolves instantly.

a person is enlightened (in this specific sense) when they undergo the experiential revelation of divine dependance, which leaves the individual mind permanently and profoundly transformed. This has nothing to do with daily mundane ethics, ie personal ethical conduct during everyday life. This is about intense altered state experiences and world-model transformation.

Thanks for your descriptions.

I've looked at religions and see many different descriptions of it. Some of them agree, some of them disagree, etc. Which is why I'm asking people directly for their experiences and their worldview.

You acquire knowledge of God, knowledge of higher reality beyond ordinary appearances (beyond the appearance of a physical universe and a self/world duality). I dont know if you consider this 'non-local', it is non-ordinary.

Non-local in this sense refers to obtaining information that the body cannot physically obtain. It's not an asserted requirement of 'enlightenment' but it's a general theme I've been asking people about based on what their description of their experience is like.

 

[Penumbra]

Nope. This thread is not from the seeking, burning, open heart of a student in the proper posture. This thread was made "to see if anyone here actually claims to be enlightened."

And then when someone comes along and claims to be enlightened, the OP waits to see if they "have the wisdom to say the perfect thing at the perfect time to convince" the OP.

Because that is her self-serving criteria for enlightenment. Perfection.

And when a self-proclaimed enlightened person fails to meet that oh-so-perfect criteria, the OP can rest assured that he or she is an imperfect phony. Because they haven't convinced her, see. All she has to do is make sure no one convinces her. Her strategy is to just keep cranking out knee-jerk questions until words fail. Because sooner or later they always do. Then, you see, you've failed to meet her perfect criteria, so you aren't enlightened. Or at least, not as enlightened as her, because she sniffed out your inadequacy.

It probably feels pretty good to make self-professed enlightened people jump through hoops only to fail to live up to her perfect criteria in the end. So why would she let anyone convince her of anything? Where's the pay-off?

This thread is a joke.

I sense quite a bit of animosity and defensiveness in these words.

The thread largely allows people to identify what their definition of enlightenment is, with gentle nudging towards broad concepts of mystical or transcendental experiences by use of examples or clarifications. And then depending on their statements, more specific questions are asked or specific critiques or clarifications may be raised.

A student/teacher relationship begins with a student recognizing that the teacher has a skill or knowledge to provide to the student. (No offense, but I don't view you as a teacher for me, other than in the sense that any person or experience can provide some teaching depending on how events are interpreted.) This thread is in the debate section and is not about student/teacher stuff. The purpose is to have intelligent discussions about the various experiences people have had, what they believe them to be, and what benefits or abilities they propose were included in the experience.

Considering that many members on the forum have been generally acquainted with each other around here for months or in some cases years, including between me and some of the members of this thread, with the shared purpose of being here to talk to one another, asking people what the "pay off" is for participating in this thread kind of misses the point and probably implies that maybe you're not currently in an optimal state of mind to continue posting in here. If you don't see a "pay off", you can simply decline the invite to participate.

Fortunately I've had several interesting post exchanges with members in this thread, and based on how some of them replied to this post of yours, several of them seem to agree.

Either way, happy new year to you, best of luck and all that.

 

[ratikala]

dear penumbra ,



it might seem from reading your reply that you are dissinterestad in any coment or point raised unless I actualy declare to be an enlightened being !!!!!

you seem to dismiss the idea partial enlightenment or that areas of enlightenment are possible to acheive .

you claim to be interested only in the "big guns "

the people who like lord buddha have experienced the true nature of phenenomena ,

as simple as that the true nature of phenomena , ...... all phenomena , .... so vast that it canot be realised by the entire of mankind by conventional means over the span of countless lifetimes , ........

Happy new year to you too.

That's why it's called an example.

The purpose of asking who is enlightened is to see what people propose to have already experienced rather than to see what people believe can be experienced.

Then, depending on what they say, to ask more detailed questions.

ok , .....

I am an enlightened being , I have seen the true nature of phenomena ,

what question would you like to ask ?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I do not claim to be enlightened and to be honest I am not sure I want to be since I don't really know exactly what that means.

I also tend to feel that if someone actually was enlightened I doubt they would go around telling everyone, they may teach but I do not think they would be walking around wearing an enlightenment badge….but what do I know…I’m not enlightened

Welcome to RF Wu Wei...

From the the wisdom of Wei Wu Wei....

There seem to two kinds of searchers, those who seek to make their ego something other than it is, i.e. enlightened, holy, unselfish (as though you could make a fish the ocean), and those who understand that all such attempts are just examples of delusion, imagination, and play-acting,

The wise dis-identify themselves with the ego, by realizing its unreality through becoming aware of their eternal identity with pure being. - Fingers Pointing Toward the Moon by Wei Wu Wei

 

[maxfreakout]

I do not claim to be enlightened and to be honest I am not sure I want to be since I don't really know exactly what that means.

I also tend to feel that if someone actually was enlightened I doubt they would go around telling everyone, they may teach but I do not think they would be walking around wearing an enlightenment badge

These ^ 2 sentences directly contradict each other, Which one do you really believe? Do you know what enlightenment means, or don't you? Do you think enlightenment concerns a person's ethical conduct, as your second statement suggests?

 

[Desert Snake]

These ^ 2 sentences directly contradict each other, Which one do you really believe? Do you know what enlightenment means, or don't you? Do you think enlightenment concerns a person's ethical conduct, as your second statement suggests?

No they don't, and I agree with him. How can someone state emphatically that they know what enlightenment is when the word itself is ambiguous?

 

[atanu]

------'enlightenment' to refer to Dharmic, New Age, or mystical concepts about ego transcendence and mystical experiences. I find that it remains a useful word because it doesn't use any specific religion's terminology, such as Moksha or Nibbana. -----

Can you help me out here?

If someone has experienced and abides in the firm knowledge that beneath the sensual surface, the existence is indivisible, then what kind of proof he can offer to your so-called rational mind? What will be acceptable to you?

Suppose, if I take an example of Guru Ramana. He spent a large chunk of time in caves. Then suddenly people in hordes sought Him out to obtain peace. Why? What we get? Is it really Opium? Or Buddha or Shankara; their teachings survive all onslaughts. That is proof for me. That may not be any proof for you however.

In India, it is said that a person who can calm the turbulent minds of thousands of people together, without even talking, is a satguru.

And this peace is the knowledge substratum that is our very nature. But, I know that science cannot measure that; just as Libet measures brain activity after the event. Best that science can do is to invent a pill to stupefy an area of the brain. That is not liberation, however.

 

[DanielR]

For those of you here who are not enlightened, aren't you scared that if you don't get enlightened in this life you'll never make it? I mean , how I understand it, next life you will forget everything anyways, all the knowledge that's been accumulated!

Or will Karma take care of that? So that I continue there where I have stopped in a previous life??

It seems like so frustrating, some people probably work very hard for their goal (enlightenment) but will never make and next time they forget everything

 

[savagewind]

If what I have observed in myself and others can be called enlightenment it seems to be what a person is with, not what a person is.

Reading this thread it has occurred to me some people believe enlightenment should make a person good. I don't think it is something that makes a person good. If it is real it is something that makes a person wise, but not good or fair. It also does not take away a person's natural human tendencies. But I might be wrong.

Edited for example:

I had a complex spiritual problem. I felt there was a not one soul in the whole world that understood it. My husband is so far away from spiritual it is sometimes pathetic. Haha. But cute! He came to my help with perfect advise and comfort. How? He was with enlightenment for a time. I have observed it in less obvious situations too. Many times. Turn it around and I wonder if I have appeared enlightened by others? I do not know. How would I know?

 

[Wu Wei]

These ^ 2 sentences directly contradict each other, Which one do you really believe? Do you know what enlightenment means, or don't you? Do you think enlightenment concerns a person's ethical conduct, as your second statement suggests?

Actually they don't

I said I don't know "exactly" what that means and that I "tend to Feel"

I did not say I do not know what it means but it means this.

I other words I said I do not have a solid definition but I think this may be part of it.

I did not say I "beleive" anything I did say I am not sure but I suspect part of it is.