Who here is enlightened?

[Ben Dhyan]

But that's my question.

Why are there any "you's" that believe themselves to be separate at all? Why does this problem exist in this universe, in your worldview?

It is not a problem for the universe as you put it, it is only a problem for the an indivisible differentiated 'you' that is not able to realize its underlying true nature of enlightenment due to its using a dualistic conceptual apprehension of existence instead of non-dual. That the 'you' exists is due to creation, birth, and evolution.

 

[Penumbra]

It is not a problem for the universe as you put it, it is only a problem for the an indivisible differentiated 'you' that is not able to realize its underlying true nature of enlightenment due to its using a dualistic conceptual apprehension of existence instead of non-dual.

Why does the 'you' have this problem?

Most religions have a narrative, which consists of:
1) an assessment of the status quo
2) a description of the objective
3) a method for moving from the status quo to the objective

My question to you is, in your worldview, why is the status quo of all that exists (including all parts of it, all 'you's') not already in the objective state? Why is there this need to move from one state to another state, rather than having everything and all parts of it already exist in its objective state?

That the 'you' exists is due to creation, birth, and evolution.

Why does any of that exist?

 

[Thief]

Why does any of that exist?

All encompassing....or just the items at hand?

Enlightened means to see when others cannot.
Particular to those items not seen by eye.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why does the 'you' have this problem?

Most religions have a narrative, which consists of:
1) an assessment of the status quo
2) a description of the objective
3) a method for moving from the status quo to the objective

My question to you is, in your worldview, why is the status quo of all that exists (including all parts of it, all 'you's') not already in the objective state? Why is there this need to move from one state to another state, rather than having everything and all parts of it already exist in its objective state?

Why does any of that exist?

Who says it is or isn't in the objective state, so long as there is a you asking this question, there is duality at play and all perception is conceptual.

Experience based evolution naturally moves sentience from lessor to higher states of awareness.

Because it is existence and existence exists because it exists, once 'you' question the reason, duality is at play. Conceptual reality is not reality, it's merely a mental construction representing the real.

 

[Leilaniana]

Unless one has experienced enlightenment, shibumi, satori, baptism by fire, crown chakra opening, nirvana, or any of the other number of names it has in many religions, unless you've experienced it then your just arguing and debating other peoples experiences. Have your own experience.

 

[Penumbra]

Unless one has experienced enlightenment, shibumi, satori, baptism by fire, crown chakra opening, nirvana, or any of the other number of names it has in many religions, unless you've experienced it then your just arguing and debating other peoples experiences. Have your own experience.

Cool thanks for your contribution.

 

[Leilaniana]

I'm not saying it was, far from it. I'm saying naturally-induced experiences like this sound awfully similar to what certain chemicals do.

they probably do. Medically speaking I believe when you die to self and your brain believes this deep in meditation you release DMT or whatever chemical your pineal gland makes when people have near death experiences or flatline. It is a way to do that without almost dying physically. Which is why people have such a profound experience during and after near death, dmt, or enlightenment.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Unless one has experienced enlightenment, shibumi, satori, baptism by fire, crown chakra opening, nirvana, or any of the other number of names it has in many religions, unless you've experienced it then your just arguing and debating other peoples experiences. Have your own experience.

How do you know that other posters have not experienced the reality represented by those various concepts, and that they are in a position to explain to the unenlightened who claim to be enlightened that there is more to it.

Enlightenment is a timeless state, experiencing involves time, also there is no duality present involving an experiencer and an experience, there is only non-duality.

 

[Penumbra]

Who says it is or isn't in the objective state, so long as there is a you asking this question, there is duality at play and all perception is conceptual.

You're presenting duality as something to move away from, correct? To move from the status quo of perceiving duality to the objective of perceiving oneness.

I'm asking why duality ever seems to happen in the universe ever. Why not just source, oneness, for all points of perception, all the time?

Experience based evolution naturally moves sentience from lessor to higher states of awareness.

Because it is existence and existence exists because it exists, once 'you' question the reason, duality is at play. Conceptual reality is not reality, it's merely a mental construction representing the real.

Do you believe that oneness can be lost once it is found? If a 'you' ceases its duality and becomes one with the source, can it fall back into a perception of duality?

 

[Penumbra]

they probably do. Medically speaking I believe when you die to self and your brain believes this deep in meditation you release DMT or whatever chemical your pineal gland makes when people have near death experiences or flatline. It is a way to do that without almost dying physically. Which is why people have such a profound experience during and after near death, dmt, or enlightenment.

In your view is enlightenment a biological phenomenon?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You're presenting duality as something to move away from, correct? To move from the status quo of perceiving duality to the objective of perceiving oneness.

I'm asking why duality ever seems to happen in the universe ever. Why not just source, oneness, for all points of perception, all the time?

Do you believe that oneness can be lost once it is found? If a 'you' ceases its duality and becomes one with the source, can it fall back into a perception of duality?

Apprehension using the dualistic approach needs to give way to non-duality. Nothing separate, a second if you like, moves to or perceives oneness, oneness is non-dual.

Dualistic apprehension is only present in yet unenlightened creatures. Creation is the eternal nature of existence, creatures emerging forth suffer from accepting the maya produced by dualistic apprehension as reality, and will suffer thus until enlightenment is realized. Enlightenment as mentioned, is timeless unity, it isn't altered by the ever changing movement of the manifested universe.

The oneness is beyond losing and finding, however the ego of the unenlightened may sometimes forget itself when the human mind beholds some extraordinary cosmic glory, in which case there is an apparent temporary state of enlightenment present while the mind is in a state of thoughtlessness, only to apparently disappear when the ego reestablishes its control over the mind by thinking about it.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram ben ji :namaste

Agree totally, enlightenment means selflessness, and hence the wisdom in the old saying,...."the one who says does not know, the one that knows does not say".

another to agree with yourself and vouthon in that enlightenment is a state of humility that dosent need to asert it self , all that an enlightened being might want is for others to become realised , and for no reason other than enlightenment as there is nolonger any illusion of self to assert .

In zen understanding, so long as there is a 'you' that claims enlightenment, or does not claim enlightenment, that 'you' is as far from enlightenment as the day they were born. It's a the 'you' that separates 'you' from the underlying non-dual nature of God/Nirvana/Tao/Brahman/etc.. A house divided can not stand!

the real problems come when an unenlightened being asks a question on enlightenment as it is something he can only theoreticaly or interlectualy perceive ,
the sensation of an us and them exists then only in the mind of the unenlightened .there is no claim only knowing .

Still, many of those that claim enlightenment have generally had a expansion of consciousness that has changed their life, but while the first drops of rain may herald the coming storm, it is not the storm.

nice analogy , I had previously tried to draw peoples attention to the fact that there are levels of enlightenment , one can become enlightened as to the truth regarding one area of understanding but still remain unenlightened in other areas , thus is the purpose of our existance , to realise . in this way one realisation rests upon the firm foundation of another .

The biggest obstacle to realizing enlightenment is the ego, not that the ego is bad, but that it must surrender to higher consciousness in order for there to exist an enlightened being. And there's the rub, the ego would generally prefer to remain in control and thus separate itself from its Source, inducing therefore a conceptual based reality rather than the non-conceptual reality which alone is an indivisible whole.

and the ego , yes it is the obstical to realisation , if we are using ego in the same sence ? then ego being the false identification with the self limits understanding of anything beyond the self .

therefore an enlightened being can only iluminate that which is in darknes so that ignorance can be removed , but it is up to the recipiant of that wisdom to surrender the ego and look beyond its confines . which ever religion you follow the same message is given whether it is jesus saying , ''I am the truth and the light '', or it is atisha saying'' lamp on the path '' , .....still the wise acknowledge that it is a path and that enlightenment is an ongoing process .

 

[Vouthon]

Agree totally, enlightenment means selflessness, and hence the wisdom in the old saying,...."the one who says does not know, the one that knows does not say".

In zen understanding, so long as there is a 'you' that claims enlightenment, or does not claim enlightenment, that 'you' is as far from enlightenment as the day they were born. It's a the 'you' that separates 'you' from the underlying non-dual nature of God/Nirvana/Tao/Brahman/etc.. A house divided can not stand!

:clap

I am reminded of St. Catherine of Genoa from my own tradition:

"...My being is God, not by participation only but by a true transformation and annihilation of my proper being...I am mute and lost in God...God so transforms the soul in Him that it knows nothing other than God; and He continues to draw it up into His fiery love until He restores it to that pure state from which it first issued...This is the beatitude that the blessed might have, and yet they have it not, except in so far as they are dead to themselves and absorbed in God. They have it not in so far as they remain in themselves and can say: `I am blessed.' Words are wholly inadequate to express my meaning, and I reproach myself for using them. I would that every one could understand me, and I am sure that if I could breathe on creatures, the fire of love burning within me would inflame them all with divine desire. O thing most marvelous!...I no longer see union, for I know nothing more and can see nothing more than him alone without me. I do not know where the I is, nor do I seek it, nor do I wish to know or be cognizant of it..."

- Saint Catherine of Genoa (1447 – 1510), Italian mystic

 

[Sunstone]

So far as my very limited experience goes, whether or not a person is enlightened or even perhaps anywhere near to being enlightened is more easily and surely discerned by how that person treats other people, and by how he or she makes them feel, than it is discerned by what that person says about god, the cosmos, enlightenment, spirituality, or any other such thing.

That's to say, someone can "experience god" or "ultimate reality" through meditation, drugs, or by some other means, and come away from that experience with new and fascinating ideas about those things -- and yet they are not necessarily enlightened. Consequently, I do not believe that what a person says is necessarily a good indicator of their spiritual state no matter how profound or valuable what they say is. For me to think someone is enlightened, I must know how they treat others, how they make them feel. But perhaps that's just me.

 

[preeti22]

Sorry But we all are enlightened. The ones who are not enlightened are the ones who kill human being and other animals..
A higher power is present in each one of us .. So we all are enlightened until we don't do sin..

 

[Muffled]

I believe your first sentence isn't true. What us so-called enlightened beings say might differ quite a bit from each other, but what is certainly true of all who believe themselves to be enlightened is that they believe that they've realized profound truth. If a realization of profound truth is an acceptable definition of enlightenment, and I believe I have demonstrated it to be so, then to examine the validity of said revealed truths seems to be the most rational way to determine the validity of said enlightenment. Isn't this better than taking someone at their word?

I don't agree with your second sentence either. But, one disagreement at a time.

I believe it is like Plato's story of the people in a cave and one goes out into the light. The people in darkness think only the darkness is valid because they are not in the light.

I believe the person in the light is the only one with a valid experience of the light. One must heed the word of the person that leaving the cave will result in entering the light. That is taking the person at his word.

 

[Muffled]

^^ be patient, the migration is from this thread...http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/you-new-religiousforums-com/151244-i-attained-nirvana.html

Somehow I find what I believe is a false image of religion less than an enlightened position.

 

[Muffled]

In terms of having obtained awareness of my ignorance, I suppose in many ways I have transcended my previous assumption of certainty of knowledge - I have obtained the wisdom of recognizing my limitations and maintaining the desire to further my comprehension whilst I appreciate that such remains completely fallible.

I beleive that doesn't make you enlightened but only reveals that you have discovered the reality that you are in darkness.

 

[Vinayaka]

So far as my very limited experience goes, whether or not a person is enlightened or even perhaps anywhere near to being enlightened is more easily and surely discerned by how that person treats other people, and by how he or she makes them feel, than it is discerned by what that person says about god, the cosmos, enlightenment, spirituality, or any other such thing.

I agree with you a lot. If a person has a mystical experience, then what happens? If it makes the person treat others better, then it's great. But the general trend when a person has a mystical experience, when they have no training to the contrary, is to immediately go tell everyone (anyone who will listen) all about it.

But besides the treatment of others, the way I would discern it is the way the individual reacts. Enlightened souls are free from anger, from doubt, from fear, and free from all the other lower emotions. In the very least they have control of their own awareness, and can move it around at will. There is non-reaction, a lot of silence and observation, and when they do speak, it is highly relevant to the situation at hand, not meandering hither thither. They have incredible self-discipline.

 

[idav]

So far as my very limited experience goes, whether or not a person is enlightened or even perhaps anywhere near to being enlightened is more easily and surely discerned by how that person treats other people, and by how he or she makes them feel, than it is discerned by what that person says about god, the cosmos, enlightenment, spirituality, or any other such thing.

That's to say, someone can "experience god" or "ultimate reality" through meditation, drugs, or by some other means, and come away from that experience with new and fascinating ideas about those things -- and yet they are not necessarily enlightened. Consequently, I do not believe that what a person says is necessarily a good indicator of their spiritual state no matter how profound or valuable what they say is. For me to think someone is enlightened, I must know how they treat others, how they make them feel. But perhaps that's just me.

Yes the fruits of the person produce outward manifestation that can indicate to others a persons nature. If the person thinks they are enlightened and are not then it may show on how they treat others, other than that there is no way to know if someone is enlightened, they would know it themselves and they would either correctly know that they are enlightened or they are delusional.