Who here is enlightened?

[YmirGF]

You're quite correct. Were my goal to convince them of my viewpoints, my approach would be much different.



Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. -Jesus Christ

I am levying the same accusations against modern feigners of knowledge.

Messiah complex much?

 

[Prophet]

Outside of context it appears that Jesus is leveling a catch 22 at the pharisees. He damns them for honoring prophets that their fathers killed and damns them for their father's killing the prophets in the first place.

Inside context its even worse as the people he is talking about have left. He's leveling accusations and damnation at people that aren't even there to defend themselves. Further, he (again in context) is literally attempting to replace the pharisees' importance with his own saying, "Do not be called teacher for you have one teacher, the Christ". It's stated in lots of different ways depending on which translation you favor, but the basic message is. "You should be listening to me and no one else."

Yes, this reveals quite a bit about the nature of Jesus. Additionally, it sheds further light on your attempted emulation of him.

Catch-22? I'm not seeing it.

They professed a high regard for the dead prophets of old, and claimed that they would never have persecuted and murdered prophets, when in fact they were cut from the same cloth as the persecutors and murderers

The Wikipedia entry on the "Seven Woes" quoted above is more well thought out than your understanding.

 

[Prophet]

Messiah complex much?

Thank you for this so much sir.

 

[apophenia]

-Jesus Christ from Matthew 23:29-35

Does Jesus Christ "reveal his nature" here as well?

In my thread in "The Interview Place", you were beyond belief. You would try to debate me, watch me crush every point you make, and then convert your operation to giving me unsolicited advice, talking down to me as if I'm the subject of an A&E Intervention. And then repeat. I'm onto your rope-a-dope game, show me debate, get owned, return fire with Dr. Phil.

Well, you have got one thing right about me, I am 'beyond belief'. LOL

I suggest that if you plan on continuing this claim that you are a prophet of god, you must expect to be closely scrutinised, and so when making claims such as you made in your first post on this thread you must be prepared to back them up with more than just ad hominems when challenged.

You made an unambiguous statement indicating that the religious establishment of eastern teachings murders prophets like Jesus. Clearly this was an inflammatory remark, and utterly false. You cannot provide even one example.

Since being asked to justify this accusation with any historical evidence, your only response has been a personal vitriolic attack on me.

I guess that if you consider yourself to be one of these prophets who have been consistently murdered, then you are declaring that you expect similar treatment. This appears to be a self-fulfilling prophecy for you, in that you are providing good reasons for people to doubt your ongoing startling claim about being a prophet of god.

I am surprised that the experience you had in the previous threads you mention has not taught you that claiming to be a prophet and then basically abusing people who doubt you does nothing to support your claim.

Responding with this ...

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. "

... is just more inflammatory drama. Making inference that all those here on RF who doubt you are a brood of vipers who are condemned to hell is just a tad over the top.

 

[Sir Doom]

Catch-22? I'm not seeing it.

A catch 22 is when you are damned no matter what you do. How can you not see it? They are damned for being sons of murderous fathers and when they attempt to make amends he calls them hypocrites for... no longer being murderous? What kind of nonsense is that?

 

[ratikala]

dear ymir ,
firstly lets start by acknowledging the limited nature of words and try to look beyond our concept bound understanding .

In one sense of the word, obviously, there is no real difference.

then you understand my meaning !

I'm more incline to go with "whole" as it implies the sum of the aggregates, as it were, and is not specifically saying the thing in question is complete. It is merely the sum of the parts.

forget whole , and the implication of it implying the sum of the aggrigates or sum of the parts, .....

Personally, I take great exception to the notion of so-called "completeness".

lets forget completeness , ....

In a very limited sense, yes, one does have a sensation of "coming full circle" or "reaching the summit" and completing that stage of the journey into the dawn of expanded consciousness, but more importantly, at that stage one also realized that very little is actually completed.Well, I can see you are in for a few surprises. Don't worry though, as it's all good.

In some terms, so-called "enlightenment" is really just the first baby step on yet another road, without the aid of a map, exploring a territory that is vastly larger than what one has already explored. I hope that makes sense.

It makes sence , in that I understand what you are saying , but it is not completeness in the sence that I was using it .

Well, I can see you are in for a few surprises. Don't worry though, as it's all good.

that is assuming that I am surprisable ?

When I say nothing is complete, I am meaning, precisely, nothing is complete, regardless of the realm that nothing finds itself in. Is that clear?

do you mean that 'nothing' being empty of thinginess , is complete ?
as in completely lacking in thinginess ?

or do you mean it is not possible for anything to be complete ?

You may limit this to the so-called "material" world if it helps you to sleep at night, but I meant no such limitation. Change never stops, get used to it.

I have no problem with change on a conventional level , and no problem with sleeping either , when I sleep I sleep !

Aside from this, I also reject, somewhat contemptuously, all notions of any "ultimate realization". Again, don't sell yourself short. Realization never ends, and once again, get used to it.

how then do you explain the comonly held notion that upon ataining realisation the buddha atained the realisation of the true nature of phenomena ?
are you suggesting that he only realised some of the nature of phenomena and that he was not in truth a fully enlightened one ?

Well, that is what the books would tell you, yes. However, it isn't really correct. It is a gross distortion, to be truthful. I am quite sure that those who encountered the original purveyors of this myth may well have assumed such beings were indeed All powerful, all blissful and all knowledgeable, but my guess is that they didn't tax those assertions very hard.

not at all my freind , what ever I have read in books I have examined , contemplated , meditated upon , and waited with patience for the truth to surface , what I then find to be true , I find to be true !

Like, c'mon.

who was it who said , ......Well, I can see you are in for a few surprises. Don't worry though, as it's all good.

Sat = All powerful. Ok, to me that means "godlike" power to do practically anything. Do we see much evidence of this? No, not really. In fact, there is almost nothing in the historical record, outside of fanciful mythologies, that would support this notion - and yet it stands...

sat ; ...pure , eternal , timeless , .....no it dosent mean god like as in power to do anything , .... it means god like as in absolute , uncoruptably pure , without tracre of contamination , unchanging , eternal .

Chit - All knowing - Again, we don't have much evidence to backup this claim. One would think that the Eastern world would be light years ahead of the Western world, if this was the case. Given that it is not, one does have to take this as a mere tug to the legs of the unwashed. My guess is that there has been practically zero research, by anyone, to verify this claim - and yet, it stands...

cit ; ....consciousness , so in tne context of sat-cit it is sugesting pure consciousness ,eternal and un adulterated conciousness , so yes omnicient , all knowing , .....

Anana - All blissful - Well, there IS a distinct bliss that accompanies expansions of consciousness, but one soon gets used to it. It simply becomes the new "normal".

ananda ; ....bliss , absolute bliss . ......but we are not talking about some expansion of consciousness , giving 'a' distinct bliss to which one simply becomes acoustomed, we are talking about an ireversable state of consciousness that experiences pure un adulterated absolute bliss , it is not a drunken sence of atainment that wains it is the pure and constant level which trancends all conditioned sences , it is freedom from craving , desire and any subtle level of expectation , it simply is !

To be fair, I think that the purveyors of Sat-Chit-Ananda were happily ensconced in Ananda and were only joking about the All Power and All Knowledge. No doubt their disciples lapped it up... and were likely in on the joke too. In any event, it's hard to take the concept seriously.

when you reach the point of being thoroughly bored with endless change , when the excitement wears of , and the thrill and the intrigue loose their facination , ......
prehaps it will be time to sit on that cushion and examine satcitananda for your self .

If anything, it's where the fun, adventure and intrigue really begins. In some terms, so-called "enlightenment" is really just the first baby step on yet another road, without the aid of a map, exploring a territory that is vastly larger than what one has already explored. I hope that makes sense.

yes it makes sence , you are talking about levels of partial realisation , I am talking about full enlightenment .

full , ... total , ..... absolute !

jai ho !

 

[Infinitum]

I'm still trying to work out what exactly means being enlightened. I've read some personal accounts of people claiming to have gained it, then other just trying to explain what enlightenment is. Lots of it sounds familiar. In fact a bit too familiar. When I started looking into it I had hoped to find something exciting to strive for and I guess there is some interesting sides to it, but in general... I don't know. I might have been enlightened or very close to it a few times and I might or might not be enlightened now. I haven't paid much attention to it at the time, but when looking back my rapid growth in spiritual knowledge at the times I've been wondering whether it's actually me or some other (higher) person.

According to some when you are enlightened once the world will come and kick you up every time you've "fallen asleep" again. The statement makes a weird kind of sense, since that's what I experience has happened to me. I've climbed high, lost the connection for some reason, got shaken up and driven to do the climb another time, again and again.

Whatever it is, enlightenment or just madness I've known a few people who've been disturbed by it. If you're above a certain level of... I don't know, humanness, people notice and start asking about it. It was weird to have people pointing it out and when I started paying attention to it myself, even weirder. So I've pretty much stopped climbing for now. I rather spend a time on the ground where those around me are.

If I sound incoherent, I'm sorry, but I really don't know what to think of my experiences or how to describe them. I don't even want to claim them real, since I could be fooling myself. So that's me.

 

[Gui10]

I think anyone who claims to be enlightened is a fool because to me, being enlightened means knowing the whole truth, and I believe no one is even close to knowing it.

 

[ratikala]

dear prophet

You're quite correct. Were my goal to convince them of my viewpoints, my approach would be much different.

what are your veiw points ? ...how are you seeing the kingdom of god ? do you beleive that he may be reached by many paths ?

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to" -Jesus Christ

I am levying the same accusations against modern feigners of knowledge.

please it would be helpfull if you give chapter and verse , I like to read in context where possible ,
what then did jesus say ?
what then did jesus do ?

 

[crossfire]

I think anyone who claims to be enlightened is a fool because to me, being enlightened means knowing the whole truth, and I believe no one is even close to knowing it.

Being enlightened in this regard might simply be realizing how much you don't know. (It greatly increases your capacity for enlightenment, at least. At least it can get you out of the dim bulb rut.)

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm still trying to work out what exactly means being enlightened. I've read some personal accounts of people claiming to have gained it, then other just trying to explain what enlightenment is. Lots of it sounds familiar. In fact a bit too familiar. When I started looking into it I had hoped to find something exciting to strive for and I guess there is some interesting sides to it, but in general... I don't know. I might have been enlightened or very close to it a few times and I might or might not be enlightened now. I haven't paid much attention to it at the time, but when looking back my rapid growth in spiritual knowledge at the times I've been wondering whether it's actually me or some other (higher) person.

According to some when you are enlightened once the world will come and kick you up every time you've "fallen asleep" again. The statement makes a weird kind of sense, since that's what I experience has happened to me. I've climbed high, lost the connection for some reason, got shaken up and driven to do the climb another time, again and again.

Whatever it is, enlightenment or just madness I've known a few people who've been disturbed by it. If you're above a certain level of... I don't know, humanness, people notice and start asking about it. It was weird to have people pointing it out and when I started paying attention to it myself, even weirder. So I've pretty much stopped climbing for now. I rather spend a time on the ground where those around me are.

If I sound incoherent, I'm sorry, but I really don't know what to think of my experiences or how to describe them. I don't even want to claim them real, since I could be fooling myself. So that's me.

[youtube]ky7DMCHQJZY[/youtube]
Wizard of Oz - YouTube

Some folks just need the medal or diploma of Enlightenment. No harm in giving it I suppose.

 

[Infinitum]

[youtube]ky7DMCHQJZY[/youtube]
Wizard of Oz - YouTube

Some folks just need the medal or diploma of Enlightenment. No harm in giving it I suppose.

Haha. Brilliant video response.

You're probably right.

 

[SageTree]

please it would be helpfull if you give chapter and verse , I like to read in context where possible ,
what then did jesus say ?
what then did jesus do ?

Hope it's okay to jump in here, Friend. :namaste

The Gospel According to Matthew. Chapter 23, verse 13 is the exact line, if you want to do some more reading.
The answers to your questions are in there


:namaste
SageTree

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I think anyone who claims to be enlightened is a fool because to me, being enlightened means knowing the whole truth, and I believe no one is even close to knowing it.

I used to know everything, but then one day I forgot where I left my boots.

It's the little things that can ruin a good Enlightenment.

 

[Sunstone]

I think anyone who claims to be enlightened is a fool because to me, being enlightened means knowing the whole truth, and I believe no one is even close to knowing it.

Perhaps someday you will understand how silly your reasoning is here. But will that mean you are enlightened?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I used to know everything, but then one day I forgot where I left my boots.

It's the little things that can ruin a good Enlightenment.

Ha Ha Ha...I know what you mean. They tend to be located just as soon as you get a new pair. Never fails.

 

[Prophet]

A catch 22 is when you are damned no matter what you do. How can you not see it? They are damned for being sons of murderous fathers and when they attempt to make amends he calls them hypocrites for... no longer being murderous? What kind of nonsense is that?

This is the kind of nonsense you would infer if you were trying to look at what someone is saying in the least charitable light possible. This type of nonsense generation is commonly practiced by rhetoricians, professionals (i.e. lawyers) and amateurs (i.e. you) alike in order to make a weaker argument look like the stronger argument to the common man.

Jesus is saying that these "teachers of the law" were actually taught ignorance by their teachers before them who, when faced with prophets, murdered them as heretics. He is saying they still possess that murderous belief and offers his blood as a means for them to "Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!" In case you've forgotten how Jesus' story ends, the teachers of the law eventually take his invitation and murder him, proving their hypocrisy beyond a doubt.

 

[ratikala]

Hope it's okay to jump in here, Friend. :namaste

The Gospel According to Matthew. Chapter 23, verse 13 is the exact line, if you want to do some more reading.
The answers to your questions are in there


:namaste
SageTree

thankyou prabhu ji ,

Ha ha , .... of to read a BOOK

 

[Sir Doom]

This is the kind of nonsense you would infer if you were trying to look at what someone is saying in the least charitable light possible.

As is often my custom. I don't give people a pass just because they are dead and lots of people like them.

This type of nonsense generation is commonly practiced by rhetoricians, professionals (i.e. lawyers) and amateurs (i.e. you) alike in order to make a weaker argument look like the stronger argument to the common man.

Is this some attempt to paint me as an inferior? It really shouldn't have any bearing on the argument.

Jesus is saying that these "teachers of the law" were actually taught ignorance by their teachers before them who, when faced with prophets, murdered them as heretics.

Right, and he damns them for being related to those men despite HIS declaration that they venerate these very prophets. Which he additionally damns them for. In other words, regardless of how they treat prophets they have no recourse but damnation.

He is saying they still possess that murderous belief...

But he doesn't say so until they leave, which means he is leveling accusations at people who have no ability to defend themselves from those accusations just as I said. What's more they WERE there just before asking him questions, but instead of standing up and ranting right in front of them, he waits until they take off before bad-mouthing them to his cronies. Take him at his word if you like. I'm a bit more skeptical, myself. In either case... its all interpretation.

and offers his blood as a means for them to "Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!" In case you've forgotten how Jesus' story ends, the teachers of the law eventually take his invitation and murder him, proving their hypocrisy beyond a doubt.

This accepts the divinity of Jesus from the start. Otherwise it doesn't work. Since I don't. It doesn't. See? Of course you don't.

 

[YmirGF]

dear ymir ,
firstly lets start by acknowledging the limited nature of words and try to look beyond our concept bound understanding .

I'm game. Best of luck, in advance. :yes:

then you understand my meaning!

One might conjecture that that was perhaps my reason for clarifying the matter. Given my replacement for one word, it should be assumed that I was not meaning the same thing. But, yes, I did understand what you were saying. I just disagree.

forget whole , and the implication of it implying the sum of the aggrigates or sum of the parts, .....
lets forget completeness , ....
It makes sence , in that I understand what you are saying , but it is not completeness in the sence that I was using it.

Obviously, LOL. I understand precisely what you are talking about, I simply disagree. Completeness is a finite concept generated for finite minds to cozy up to. It doesn't take much imagination to comprehend it.

do you mean that 'nothing' being empty of thinginess , is complete? as in completely lacking in thinginess?

It's not everyday that one is asked to describe nothing, LOL. I think I understand. English is not your first language, correct? If not, you may miss some of the nuances in what I am saying.

Nothing, including "nothing", is complete; just as "nothing" is perfect, beyond change.
(I'm not sure I can put it any more simply than that.)

or do you mean it is not possible for anything to be complete ?

Bingo! Now you're getting it. The larger point, if you are interested, is that ALL THAT IS is in a perpetual state of becoming - more.

I have no problem with change on a conventional level , and no problem with sleeping either , when I sleep I sleep!

Forgive me, I am old and admit I grow impatient with other human animals at times.

how then do you explain the comonly held notion that upon ataining realisation the buddha atained the realisation of the true nature of phenomena?

I think human animals are being generous with such notions. Sounds great from a marketing standpoint but is a tad difficult to prove.

are you suggesting that he only realised some of the nature of phenomena and that he was not in truth a fully enlightened one?

Beats me. I would speculate that there could be a gulf between what the Buddha actually did and what is widely reported.

not at all my freind , what ever I have read in books I have examined , contemplated , meditated upon , and waited with patience for the truth to surface , what I then find to be true , I find to be true!

That is amusing. Very amusing... and most instructive. So, in effect, you want me to take your word for it? That's so delightful on so many levels...

who was it who said , ......Well, I can see you are in for a few surprises. Don't worry though, as it's all good.

*snort*

sat ; ...pure , eternal , timeless , .....no it dosent mean god like as in power to do anything , .... it means god like as in absolute , incorruptibly pure , without trace of contamination , unchanging , eternal.

Thanks, now tell me something I don't know. I still bridle at the description of "incorruptibly pure", "without trace of contamination" and specifically "unchanging". I don't believe it is helpful to ascribe to the rest of reality that it is corrupted and contaminated, as that is what the concept is saying. If it is so wrong on that, how much stock can we put into the "unchanging" and "eternal" aspects?

cit - consciousness , so in the context of sat-cit it is suggesting pure consciousness ,eternal and unadulterated consciousness , so yes omniscient , all knowing...

Thanks again, but I know what it means and have for nearly 4 decades. Again, I am somewhat revolted by the allusions to the rest of reality as being impure and adulterated. From my standpoint, there is only consciousness and these artificial value judgements are unhelpful. It really does detract from what is being alleged.

ananda ; ....bliss , absolute bliss . ......but we are not talking about some expansion of consciousness , giving 'a' distinct bliss to which one simply becomes accustomed, we are talking about an irreversible state of consciousness that experiences pure unadulterated absolute bliss , it is not a drunken sense of attainment that wains it is the pure and constant level which transcends all conditioned senses , it is freedom from craving , desire and any subtle level of expectation , it simply is!

Yeah, tell me about it, LOL.

when you reach the point of being thoroughly bored with endless change , when the excitement wears of , and the thrill and the intrigue loose their fascination, perhaps it will be time to sit on that cushion and examine satcitananda for your self.

Binder, dundat - burned the T-shirt. Thanks for the thought though. :drool: I understand you perfectly. I rather doubt you have the faintest idea of what I am talking about though. As a personality energy essence, I am first and foremost - energy! Energy is action. I will never tire, due to the inherent bliss, I will never become bored and the thrill is in knowing I will never know everything.

yes it makes sence , you are talking about levels of partial realisation , I am talking about full enlightenment .

full , ... total , ..... absolute!

I know what you are talking about. I disagree. I see an open-ended reality with no upwards/inward limits. You a proposing a "closed system", as it were, and it's not a vision of reality that I care to entertain.