Thread: Get Yourself Enlightened

Thanks - that's why I'm asking him to prove it

Yesterday is not right now.

As a matter of fact, I am a way different person then 10 years ago. Does that mean there are an infinite number of me's, or Golly Goobers, there IS time.

Originally Posted by slimslowslider

Thanks - that's why I'm asking him to prove it [/b]

See... what you mean is, you him to DISPROVE what you say... not prove it.

Edit: ... and /agreed to what he just said.

Okay... my initial thought here is why do you need to "meditate" to do this? In fact, I think a person learns more about himself when just having experiences and living life and just constantly going through introspection. Meditation seems really pseudo-introspective to me. You do not need to dedicate time to do it - just live life and observe others, things, and how you react to both of them.

Secondly, what is the point of intentionally changing things like heat/water-food/electricity etc. during meditation? I don't really believe it, especially "Generating electricity" (mostly for the fact that you "heard of a person," most likely from not the most reliable source, who can do this). It just seems pointless...

See... what you mean is, you him to DISPROVE what you say... not prove it.
Edit: ... and /agreed to what he just said.[/b]

No, I asked him to prove time exists, not disprove that it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Yesterday is not right now.
As a matter of fact, I am a way different person then 10 years ago. Does that mean there are an infinite number of me's, or Golly Goobers, there IS time.[/b]

Presumably you would agree that 'the past' does not exist, same for 'the future', except as concepts?
Thus we only have the present actually existing.
No matter what your clock might say - it is always 'now'.
Therefore time doesn't exist except as our perception of its passing, or as a mathematical convenience.
A bit like God perhaps?

Okay... my initial thought here is why do you need to "meditate" to do this? In fact, I think a person learns more about himself when just having experiences and living life and just constantly going through introspection. Meditation seems really pseudo-introspective to me. You do not need to dedicate time to do it - just live life and observe others, things, and how you react to both of them.[/b]

Ataraxis, I agree - however, as I see it, meditation is a state of present-centeredness, rather than introspection. IMO this is the best way to approach doing life as describe.

Originally Posted by slimslowslider

Thus we only have the present actually existing.
No matter what your clock might say - it is always 'now'.
Therefore time doesn't exist except as our perception of its passing, or as a mathematical convenience.
A bit like God perhaps? [/b]

Do you have (edit divine inspiration in your rectum or something? It seems like you are crapping out of your (edit mouth. Saying "OH, NOW IS NOW, SO TIME DOESN'T EXIST" would be like saying, after you threw a rock "OH, I SEE THE ROCK 10 FEET IN THE AIR, SO IT IS STAYING THERE".

Time is the change of 'Now'.

You really can't ignore time, at the best you might say that objectively, from a hypothetical (I don't believe in unicorns and Santa after all) 'god' perspective, there is no change of time. However, nothing possesses such objectivity. If you are saying time doesn't exist because objective it can not be felt, it is like saying gravity doesn't exist, because a hypothetical 'god' force would be subjected to it / feel it.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Do you have God in your rectum or something? It seems like you are crapping out of your ass.[/b]

Chill out
BTW I would advise you not to talk like that to people you don't know in RL - you might get a slap.

Saying "OH, NOW IS NOW, SO TIME DOESN'T EXIST" would be like saying, after you threw a rock "OH, I SEE THE ROCK 10 FEET IN THE AIR, SO IT IS STAYING THERE".[/b]

No its just saying what its saying. In terms of the discussion, as it moves through the air, whilst pointing to it I would say "Now it's there, now it's there, now it's there."

Time is the change of 'Now'.[/b]

Yes, I agree.

You really can't ignore time, at the best you might say that objectively, from a hypothetical (I don't believe in unicorns and Santa after all) 'god' perspective, there is no change of time.[/b]

I don't ignore time - though I'm often late. However this subject came up in a discussion on enlightenment. I'm obviously not refering to the 'time' that we all know and love - this is metaphysics.

Part of the reason the present has such focus in Buddhism (and in the mystical traditions of most other spiritual traditions), is that 'now' there is no suffering (altough there may be pain) no fear, no regrets, no guilt, no attachment, no striving. So to suffer on the basis of past or future (non existant) events is delusional. 'Now' is the only time you can actually do or experience anything real.

However, nothing possesses such objectively. If you are saying time doesn't exist because objective it can not be felt, it is like saying gravity doesn't exist, because a hypothetical 'god' force would be subjected to it / feel it.[/b]

"...nothing possesses such objectively..." (presume you mean objectivity?) I disagree.
Time is subjective, and the present objective (though like all things experienced subjectively).
It doesn't require any special skills to be present-centered, we all do it from time to time!
But to stay there probably requires enlightenment.

Originally Posted by slimslowslider

Chill out
BTW I would advise you not to talk like that to people you don't know in RL - you might get a slap.[/b]

I might be into that kind of stuff

No its just saying what its saying. In terms of the discussion, as it moves through the air, whilst pointing to it I would say "Now it's there, now it's there, now it's there."[/b]

Yes, and the place you are pointing at while saying "now it's there" relates to the passage of time as gravity pulls the rock down. Thus there is time.

Yes, I agree.[/b]

Time didn't exist? How can time be 'the change of now' if it doesn't exist I am glad that you agree however.

I don't ignore time - though I'm often late. However this subject came up in a discussion on enlightenment. I'm obviously not refering to the 'time' that we all know and love - this is metaphysics.

Part of the reason the present has such focus in Buddhism (and in the mystical traditions of most other spiritual traditions), is that 'now' there is no suffering (altough there may be pain) no fear, no regrets, no guilt, no attachment, no striving. So to suffer on the basis of past or future (non existant) events is delusional. 'Now' is the only time you can actually do or experience anything real.[/b]

Ah.

I can't say I completely disagree. I just think it is a bit far fetched to say 'time doesn't exist'. While actually you mean -so I think-: passage of 'now' doesn't matter, 'now' matters.

"...nothing possesses such objectively..." (presume you mean objectivity?) I disagree.
Time is subjective, and the present objective (though like all things experienced subjectively).
It doesn't require any special skills to be present-centered, we all do it from time to time!
But to stay there probably requires enlightenment.[/b]

First of all: Yes I did mean to say 'objectivity'. Secondly: Isn't it a bit egocentric and irrational to think YOU have achieved 'enlightenment' or that YOUR path leads to enlightenment? After all, you are referring to a certain religious/Buddhist enlightenment. You don't honestly think YOUR enlightenment is somehow better then the enlightenment some Christians, Muslims, Hindus, or -in a way- even atheist experience?

Also, you over-rate the human brain. If some past event, or just I with a syringe, put a certain substance (hormone or neurotransmitter) into your system that would make you feel depressed or something, try feeling enlightened. The human 'soul', the mind is physical, thus always relative. You can't just disconnect the mind from the brain. The only thing one might succeed in is totally losing all sense of time. That doesn't make time non-existent. If you take LSD reality doesn't stop existing too.

Originally Posted by Neruo

I can't say I completely disagree. I just think it is a bit far fetched to say 'time doesn't exist'. While actually you mean -so I think-: passage of 'now' doesn't matter, 'now' matters.[/b]

It is far-fetched, and I did mean time doesn't exist - but your summing-up is pretty much it - after this its just semantics. Partly I say it that way as a challenge to encourage people to think (me included) but also because I hate time-travel movies, and... I have some problems with Einstein's relativity, quantun mechanics and string/m-theory. I.e. I wonder if it is possible to construct a mathematical description of the universe without time, that doesn't end up needing 10 dimensions to make it all fit!

Secondly: Isn't it a bit egocentric and irrational to think YOU have achieved 'enlightenment'[/b]

You might be right, if I was claiming to be, but wasn't. If I am enlightened - how would you know? Isn't it presumptious of you to think that I'm not?! However I've never claimed to be enlightened, nor even implied it on purpose. However, like many people, I've had mystical experiences (with and without LSD) that concur with my (lengthy&#33 study and interpretation of mystical teachings from most spiritual traditions.

or that YOUR path leads to enlightenment?[/b]

How is it MY path? There's a saying "Many paths on the mountain - all lead to the top." but I prefer (and subscribe to)the Hawaiian version: "Many paths on the mountain - some go to the top, some go to the beach!"

After all, you are referring to a certain religious/Buddhist enlightenment. You don't honestly think YOUR enlightenment is somehow better then the enlightenment some Christians, Muslims, Hindus, or -in a way- even atheist experience?[/b]

No, I think they're all the same, only different (see above). The best path for any particular individual would probably be one that suits their cuture (the Dalai Lama apparently tells westerners to read the Bible) I would say that to get to the mystical understanding of religion - one must get past the 'religion'! I think that a lot of what Christ (and the Bible) said is much better interpreted in these terms.

Also, you over-rate the human brain. If some past event, or just I with a syringe, put a certain substance (hormone or neurotransmitter) into your system that would make you feel depressed or something, try feeling enlightened. The human 'soul', the mind is physical, thus always relative. You can't just disconnect the mind from the brain. The only thing one might succeed in is totally losing all sense of time. That doesn't make time non-existent. If you take LSD reality doesn't stop existing too.[/b]

I agree that consciousness is a product of the brain (I think that's what you were saying). However we are not slaves to the mind - we can control our brain's chemistry - smiling makes us happy etc... If you made me depressed by e.g. depleting my serotonin, I could still be present-centered and make the best of it, rather than worrying how long my depression will last, or thinking about how no-one likes me, or whatever.

RE LSD
Richard Alpert (Harvard psychologist) gave a LOAD of full-on '60s-style Owsley acid to his guru. He watched for some time but saw no reaction - after 8 hours or so his guru said to him "Now you know what I know." Whatever that might mean!?!

Originally Posted by slimslowslider

It is far-fetched, and I did mean time doesn't exist - but your summing-up is pretty much it - after this its just semantics. Partly I say it that way as a challenge to encourage people to think (me included) but also because I hate time-travel movies, and... I have some problems with Einstein's relativity, quantun mechanics and string/m-theory. I.e. I wonder if it is possible to construct a mathematical description of the universe without time, that doesn't end up needing 10 dimensions to make it all fit![/b]

You don't like Back To the Future?!

Personally, I think string theories and such are interesting. Also, Einstein is way cool. - And time? In what way does it NOT exist? You just say it doesn't exist, without argumentation. Saying 'there is just now' really doesn't disprove time's existance.

You might be right, if I was claiming to be, but wasn't. If I am enlightened - how would you know? Isn't it presumptious of you to think that I'm not?! However I've never claimed to be enlightened, nor even implied it on purpose. However, like many people, I've had mystical experiences (with and without LSD) that concur with my (lengthy&#33 study and interpretation of mystical teachings from most spiritual traditions.[/b]

Yet you say with a reasonable certainty that Time does not exist? I find that to be rather contradictionairy. *

How is it MY path? There's a saying "Many paths on the mountain - all lead to the top." but I prefer (and subscribe to)the Hawaiian version: "Many paths on the mountain - some go to the top, some go to the beach!" [/b]

But you are certain of your claims, that relate to a certain spiritually.

No, I think they're all the same, only different (see above). The best path for any particular individual would probably be one that suits their cuture (the Dalai Lama apparently tells westerners to read the Bible) I would say that to get to the mystical understanding of religion - one must get past the 'religion'! I think that a lot of what Christ (and the Bible) said is much better interpreted in these terms.[/b]

I see little people in Iran for instance being very 'enlightened'. Anyhow: You just believe there IS enlightenment? Do you have any reason to believe that? I mean I think you have an interesting Buddhist-like philosophy, but Buddhist are as wrong about the supernatural as the bible, to my opinion. Not even just religions.

Really, why do you believe in stuff like enlightenment?

I agree that consciousness is a product of the brain (I think that's what you were saying). However we are not slaves to the mind - we can control our brain's chemistry - smiling makes us happy etc... If you made me depressed by e.g. depleting my serotonin, I could still be present-centered and make the best of it, rather than worrying how long my depression will last, or thinking about how no-one likes me, or whatever.[/b]

Perhaps. Some people do have a lot of control over their brain. But lets say someone has 100% control over their brain and body? Would that person be enlightened? And if not, why not? And if he is, who set the terms? (I am not saying 100% control is the (only) way, just to say that 100% should include enlightenment since enlightenment can be learned.

RE LSD
Richard Alpert (Harvard psychologist) gave a LOAD of full-on '60s-style Owsley acid to his guru. He watched for some time but saw no reaction - after 8 hours or so his guru said to him "Now you know what I know." Whatever that might mean!?![/b]

Cool.

-

* bottom line really is that A) I wonder why you believe in -mostly Buddhist- 'Enlightenment' stuff, and why you believe in it. Some proof would be nice. B) I would like to know or you Think there is a chance that all this time you are just full of shit As in, mislead by your own mind. For instance, you don't really believe that people that see jesus actually see jesus, or that people that see Bigfoot Actually see Bigfoot? I might be full of shit with my Atheistic-stuff. Might you be?

I consider myself a fairly 'spiritual' person (Although the meaning of the word spiritual is different for everybody) and I hold little to no value to the whole concept of 'enlightenment'

What I feel is most important to me, and I think it was more or less mentioned before by somebody else, is just going with the flow. Just live your life and have fun and learn along the way. Not by searching endlessly and as deep as possible for enlightened wisdom, but by just opening your heart and soul to insights that might come about your path. I feel that if I find unconditional love inside myself and am loyal and true to the person I am inside, following my heart, I'll be fine. And most of all I'll be happy.

'Enlightenment' is just a word to me people put to a 'moment of truth' which I really think is just a gradual process of learning and growth, which never ends. Enlightenment, much like heaven, is a state which you can constantly be in, not just one moment. And I really dont think it is, or should be, that complicated. Much like spirituality, its just simple being. Once you let go of finding something like that, and just live in unconditional love and as your purest self you'll find happiness.

Meditation and study can be good, if thats what you enjoy doing. Above all. If you fiercely dislike meditation or studying religion or such, don't It wont help you. I think every soul's path is a little bit different, not everybody needs that. Though some people do, perhaps. I meditate, but only when I feel like it and when it can help me relax.

I find a lot of buddhist teachings very useful and logical, others are not for me. Like other religions and beliefs, you can find a lot there that might help you along your path once you start working with your own interpretation.

Anyway, yeah. My point is.. I don't try to get myself 'enlightened' because of the above. However if people feel that searching for enlightenment actively makes them happy, then sure, go for it But Im like that with everything. If it makes a person happy, content or otherwise fulfilled and doesnt hurt anybody.. than its a good thing and will help with along their path. Even if enlightenment doesnt exist, persueing it might help them get to realise other things

By the way this topic's name makes it sound like some commercial ad for the latest product that will get you enlightened in 3 weeks

Originally Posted by Chaos

In my opinion, being in the TRUE state of "enlightenment" is FULL realization of "I AM"...[/b]

Ever wondered what's the dynamics of 'I AM'?

Is I AM separated from phenomenality? If I AM is apart from phenomenality... there are stages beyond.

Is there an eternal I AM that is unperturbed by phenomenality... or is I AM within the flow?

I would say. . oneness with I AM, I AM, and I AM BEING THAT I AM

lucius, youre funny! I think you hold a lot of value on the concept of enlightenment, but you dont know it! enlightenment has always been a state of being, a state of being that isnt just a moment. it always ways a state of being of being. but the belief of enlightment varies depending on what you believe is the true state of being.

for example - for those that believe in I AM, and not just I am then 'I am' is a false ego and not your true being. for those that dont believe in I AM enlightenment seems like a strange idea as how can you be anything other than what you are already?

Originally Posted by juroara

I would say. . oneness with I AM, I AM, and I AM BEING THAT I AM

lucius, youre funny! I think you hold a lot of value on the concept of enlightenment, but you dont know it! enlightenment has always been a state of being, a state of being that isnt just a moment. it always ways a state of being of being. but the belief of enlightment varies depending on what you believe is the true state of being.

for example - for those that believe in I AM, and not just I am then 'I am' is a false ego and not your true being. for those that dont believe in I AM enlightenment seems like a strange idea as how can you be anything other than what you are already?[/b]

Well, yeah.. if you look at it that way thats only logical Everybody desires and values their own personal enlightened or heavenly state of being. Which is different for everybody. But, that can be compared to the same desire that everybody has: to just be happy and fulfilled. Just for some people there can be no real fulfilment without spirituality and others can be perfectly happy without it.

Just the 'enlightenment' I meant I dont value is the one some people describe. The one achieved by years and years of meditation, study and living according a certain path or way The moment where you learn everything and escape 'something'. If enlightenment were about leaving this world's circle of reincarnation.. which by the way I think happens whenever the soul feels that time has come. And does when it does, no sooner, no later.

As for the whole -I am- talk about what exactly that might be and how it exists? *shrug* I dont know the answers and I dont have the desire or need to know them. Whats more important that Im just happy being me What is me? Just a word, without the desire to try be all philosophic about 'me' and 'the ego'. I'm just a soul among many others, interconnected through cause, effect and in my eyes: love.

Originally Posted by Lucius

As for the whole -I am- talk about what exactly that might be and how it exists? *shrug* I dont know the answers and I dont have the desire or need to know them. Whats more important that Im just happy being me What is me? Just a word, without the desire to try be all philosophic about 'me' and 'the ego'. I'm just a soul among many others, interconnected through cause, effect and in my eyes: love.[/b]

ah, well, the thing is its not 'I am' its I AM. It has to be typed out as I AM or youre not talking about it!

Originally Posted by Neruo

And time? In what way does it NOT exist? You just say it doesn't exist, without argumentation. Saying 'there is just now' really doesn't disprove time's existance.[/b]

I've given my arguments - if you don't see it that way
I'll only be repeating myself to try and re-explain it...
The objective /subjective issue you raised is a good one. So, perhaps I should rephrase:
Time only exists in a subjective sense. How about that?
We percieve its passing, but since the past and future don't exist - where is Time?

Buddhist are as wrong about the supernatural as the bible, to my opinion. Not even just religions.[/b]

Examples...?
Buddhism, although not worshipping a God as such, still suffers the same 'Religious' problems as Christianity or any of the others.

Really, why do you believe in stuff like enlightenment?[/b]

Personal experience.

Perhaps. Some people do have a lot of control over their brain. But lets say someone has 100% control over their brain and body? Would that person be enlightened?[/b]

I don't know

* bottom line really is that A) I wonder why you believe in -mostly Buddhist- 'Enlightenment' stuff, and why you believe in it. Some proof would be nice. B) I would like to know or you Think there is a chance that all this time you are just full of shit As in, mislead by your own mind. For instance, you don't really believe that people that see jesus actually see jesus, or that people that see Bigfoot Actually see Bigfoot? I might be full of shit with my Atheistic-stuff. Might you be?[/b]

Yes. I know I am deluded. I percieve Time - yet its not there. I percieve substance - but its mainly void. I percieve things - but all is one.

RE A): Permission to waffle?

My Credentials:
I write this with, what I feel is a good theoretical understanding of 'enlightenment' gleaned from studying a wide range of 'mystical'* traditions over the past 30 years or so. I have lived and worked in India, China etc and have talked to a wide range of 'holy' people. I only met one person who actually glowed - a cleaner in a temple in Bodh Gaya (all the 'priests' there were too Religious and primarily seemed concerned about the donantions bowls).

*By 'mystical' I don't mean the 'weird magic and rope tricks' type, I mean the approaches of people (saints, gurus, heretics) from pretty much every major spiritual tradition that I know, who have in some way transcended 'Self' to a state of peace, love and bliss, where miracles may happen.

In addition to the saints and yogis there are whole traditions that have an 'enlightenment' bent - and are a source of sophisticated discussion about being & consciousness. When I realised this I dropped out of my psychology degree. We in the 'scientific/rational' West are still debating mind/ body problems and have but a handful of words to discuss the self and cognition. Wheras the 'enlightenment' cultures had evolved whole 'spiritual' languages.
Hegel - who wrote about 10feet of books on time and being etc, commented on a short Zen text (Zen Flesh Zen Bones) "If I have understood this man correctly, he has said in a few pages, what I ahve struggled my entire life to elucidate."

Geographically the enlightenment cultures, IMO and without thinking about it!, are from Japan, through China and Indonesia, India, Tibet, and Afghanistan. Much further East of this, and we hit the desert gods of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and such as Babylonian heroics, Celtic magic etc.. (who also all have their mystics - they just use different language to discuss 'enlightenment&#39

I enjoy Zen for its 'direct pointing' and humour, Tantra for its 'real' feel, Hinduism for its... sophistication and diversity (long story), Bhuddism for its beauty and compassion... (another long story) etc etc. Although I don't officially subscribe to 'paths' ("...some go to the top, some the beach.") I undoubtedly have my favorite techniques.

However I definitely avoid Religion.

Religion, to my mind, is the framework that grows up around groups of people to promote their particular interpretation of recorded observations of the behaviour/ history of an enlightened person.
So religions create commandments, edicts and so on - often made with the best intentions - often not.
But I don't think they always help in discussing pathways to enlightenment.
That's why I'm more interested in the words of the mystics rather than (likely mis-)interpretations.

Enlightenment in Christianity is 'Christ consciousness'. To my mind this is doing God's will by sublimating the ego to a 'higher/ expanded' sense of self - a state of love. "Become as me, and greater things shall ye achieve".

For someone claiming to see Jesus or God? Maybe they do, maybe they don't - the proof would be in their actions.

"I am the way..." To me translates, not as a statement that Jesus is the only way, but more as an exhortation to a path of oneness. At its core the divine is ONE thing.
Also, its a lot easier to sublimate your ego to a person than 'God'.
To sin - is to be without God ('sin' - to be without/ to miss) and therefore ruled by the deluded ego.
The theory is that the original Self is pure loving compassion - its the Ego which sins.

So, the Self, at its most contracted and selfish, is Ego.
As it expands it becomes more God-like.

We usually feel a sense of care towards ourselves.
I.e. I avoid hurting myself - I even try to love myself.
An expansion beyond this, to identify with one's parents, spouse or children is also the norm.
Expand Self again and you get: family, gang, neighbourhood, nation - all still quite easy to feel compasion towards.
As we expand still further we get race, religion, continent, species (e.g. some vegetarians empathise with non-humans), phylum, kingdom, molecular/ gaian, galactic/ energetic, yin/yang, and finally t'ai chi - the grand ultimate, the whole, God.

With an expanded sense of Self, comes a natural flow of care for all things.
Moral exhortation or laws become unnecessary, because identity is with the whole.
BTW you don't lose identity - you just expanded it.

The Self is still there, the Ego even, and an enlightened person still laughs and cries, and even kills mosquitos.

When seen as a whole with no filters - yin/ yang and other patterns in nature are easier to see - you ARE them in a sense - so various seemingly supernatural/paranormal or miraculuous phenomena could arise (this is where I see the posibility for telepathy etc - but although I have experienced stuff which is VERY hard to explain - I still need more evidence first-hand before I'm convinced (oh me of little faith&#33

Q.
Can you accept the possiblity that things may exist that are beyond your comprehension?
Further... like blue to a blind man, or love itself, some things cannot be proved except by experience?

I believe we all experience simple moments of enlightenment when the ego dies and time stands still e.g. orgasm, stroking a cat, doing T'ai chi, dancing, climbing a mountain, holding a baby, meditation etc etc.

Is that proof?

Other 'proof' might simply be recognising the parrallels in the teachings of mystics.
I was going to give a list of examples of mystical traditions and their proponents / writings/ teachings (and could...)
But its in all of them. And you don't need to be enlightened to see the parallels even though they were written by people of widely diverse cultures. However its easier to understand what they are talking about if you can recognise the experience.

Unfortunately, (you may say 'conveniently&#39, enlightenment is beyond words, except in allegory.
As Lao Tzu opens his Tao Te Ching, "The way that can be named is not the way."
Zen koans teach this with riddles that cannot be answered by the mind / Ego - but that's OK because you are not your mind!

There's a story about a philosopher talking to a Zen monk.
The philosopher says 'Why do you believe all this shit? I spit on your Gods."
The monk smiles and says "OK. You spit - I bow!"

Quite often 'enlightenment' and spirituality is made seem a lot more complicated and over the top than they in fact are. Truth is they're quite simple, I think.

Originally Posted by slimslowslider

We usually feels a sense of care towards ourselves self.
I.e. I avoid hurting myself - I even try to love myself.
An expansion beyond this, to identify with one's parents, spouse or children is also the norm.
Expand Self again and you get: family, gang, neighbourhood, nation - all still quite easy to feel compasion towards.
As we expand still further we get race, religion, continent, species (e.g. some vegetarians empathise with non-humans), phylum, kingdom, molecular/ gaian, galactic/ energetic, yin/yang, and finally t'ai chi - the grand ultimate, the whole, God.

With an expanded sense of Self, comes a natural flow of care for all things.
Moral exhortation or laws become unnecessary, because identity is with the whole (you don't lose identity - you expanded it).[/b]

Now this, is useful I believe in this myself, and find it a more practical, useful explanation of the whole 'we're all one and connected' phrase. Its very simple. You start by loving yourself, and from there you expand your love to others and eventually 'all'. as if you were one being, even though you arestill an individual. Everybody can understand that, and it gives for a lot more happiness and acceptance I think its natural for one's love to expand that way. Just like the wisdom of an open heart and soul will naturally expand.

By the way, slimslowslider, I agree with a lot of what you say. There is a lot of wisdom in your words I myself have kinda given up on trying to explain my spiritual views and to express them in words. Its too difficult, and sometimes pointless, sadly.

I usually keep my exact spiritual views to myself, as a personal faith. And let it reflect outside of myself by actions and love. I just go with the flow and have fun, but those spiritual thoughts remain important to me inside myself. Trying to explain what you are trying you explain, and I think Im feeling what you're trying to explain, really, will fail when you try to with words. And in my case, will often leave me disapointed because I cant express my feelings and others misperceive them. Well for what its worth I think I understand you, just saying

ah, well, the thing is its not 'I am' its I AM. It has to be typed out as I AM or youre not talking about it![/b]

Well you know what I meant, regardlessly =P

[quote]

"I have lived and worked in India, China etc and have talked to a wide range of 'holy' people. I only met one person who actually glowed - a cleaner in a temple in Bodh Gaya" ...

Great post, Slimslowslider. I enjoyed the clear, quiet, wisdom in it.

Zhine
(stroking cat, and smiling - now why isn't there an icon for that?)

Neuro,


Zhine & Lucius,
Thanks for your thanks! Its recycled wisdom of course...

As Van Morrison said - "I'm happy cleaning windows."
Why isn't there an icon for that?

Originally Posted by slimslowslider

I've given my arguments - if you don't see it that way
I'll only be repeating myself to try and re-explain it...
The objective /subjective issue you raised is a good one. So, perhaps I should rephrase:
Time only exists in a subjective sense. How about that?[/b]

Perfect.

We percieve its passing, but since the past and future don't exist - where is Time?[/b]

Yes, we perceive time as a passing thing. The (man-made) concept of time is purely derived from subjectiveniess. It is like math in a way. Have you ever seen a Pi? Sure, it relates to the surface of a circle (r² times Pi), but there isn't an actual Pi to be found anywhere. Time doesn't exist, in the sense that it is purely a representation of something. It is purely abstract, yet derived from a certain factor. It is our creation if you will, yet with a source, but on a whole other level. Actually, I wouldn't say time only exist in a subjective way, but that time can only be 'seen' in a subjective way. In that sense I guess time does not objectively exists.

Examples...?
Buddhism, although not worshipping a God as such, still suffers the same 'Religious' problems as Christianity or any of the others.[/b]

They believe in reincarnation right? It is that metaphysical, proof-less stuff that makes me believe Buddhism looked at from afar is just as 'wrong', no: False, as other religions. However, I must say that Buddhism is way more understanding, more something I relate with. Betting one's self, instead of being a sheep.

Personal experience.[/b]

Why is your personal experience better then people that see Allah or Jesus? If that also is a form of Enlightenment, but in another way, what about the people that see God or Allah and it tells them to kill people?

I don't know[/b]

Honest answer. But does this implicates that Reaching Enlightenment really is above-human, above-physical?

Yes. I know I am deluded. I percieve Time - yet its not there. I percieve substance - but its mainly void. I percieve things - but all is one.[/b]

You say you know to be deluded, yet you say with certainty that substance is mainly void. Don't get me wrong, I agree that it is. Actually, I just thought how ironically it is to 'know' you are deluded. No one can really know they are deluded, otherwise they wouldn't be.

Anyhow, I was talking more in the sense that, what if you are wrong? What if none of what you believe is true? What if enlightenment is just some 'cheat' you can use in our brain, some evolutionary factor that gives us the ability to feel Enlightened.

Really what I would like to know, do you think your personal experience with Enlightenment is Really proper evidence?

My Credentials:
I write this with, what I feel is a good theoretical understanding of 'enlightenment' gleaned from studying a wide range of 'mystical'* traditions over the past 30 years or so. I have lived and worked in India, China etc and have talked to a wide range of 'holy' people. I only met one person who actually glowed - a cleaner in a temple in Bodh Gaya (all the 'priests' there were too Religious and primarily seemed concerned about the donantions bowls).

*By 'mystical' I don't mean the 'weird magic and rope tricks' type, I mean the approaches of people (saints, gurus, heretics) from pretty much every major spiritual tradition that I know, who have in some way transcended 'Self' to a state of peace, love and bliss, where miracles may happen.

In addition to the saints and yogis there are whole traditions that have an 'enlightenment' bent - and are a source of sophisticated discussion about being & consciousness. When I realised this I dropped out of my psychology degree. We in the 'scientific/rational' West are still debating mind/ body problems and have but a handful of words to discuss the self and cognition. Wheras the 'enlightenment' cultures had evolved whole 'spiritual' languages.
Hegel - who wrote about 10feet of books on time and being etc, commented on a short Zen text (Zen Flesh Zen Bones) "If I have understood this man correctly, he has said in a few pages, what I ahve struggled my entire life to elucidate."

Geographically the enlightenment cultures, IMO and without thinking about it!, are from Japan, through China and Indonesia, India, Tibet, and Afghanistan. Much further East of this, and we hit the desert gods of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and such as Babylonian heroics, Celtic magic etc.. (who also all have their mystics - they just use different language to discuss 'enlightenment&#39

I enjoy Zen for its 'direct pointing' and humour, Tantra for its 'real' feel, Hinduism for its... sophistication and diversity (long story), Bhuddism for its beauty and compassion... (another long story) etc etc. Although I don't officially subscribe to 'paths' ("...some go to the top, some the beach.") I undoubtedly have my favorite techniques.

However I definitely avoid Religion.

Religion, to my mind, is the framework that grows up around groups of people to promote their particular interpretation of recorded observations of the behaviour/ history of an enlightened person.
So religions create commandments, edicts and so on - often made with the best intentions - often not.
But I don't think they always help in discussing pathways to enlightenment.
That's why I'm more interested in the words of the mystics rather than (likely mis-)interpretations.

Enlightenment in Christianity is 'Christ consciousness'. To my mind this is doing God's will by sublimating the ego to a 'higher/ expanded' sense of self - a state of love. "Become as me, and greater things shall ye achieve".

For someone claiming to see Jesus or God? Maybe they do, maybe they don't - the proof would be in their actions.

"I am the way..." To me translates, not as a statement that Jesus is the only way, but more as an exhortation to a path of oneness. At its core the divine is ONE thing.
Also, its a lot easier to sublimate your ego to a person than 'God'.
To sin - is to be without God ('sin' - to be without/ to miss) and therefore ruled by the deluded ego.
The theory is that the original Self is pure loving compassion - its the Ego which sins.

So, the Self, at its most contracted and selfish, is Ego.
As it expands it becomes more God-like.

We usually feel a sense of care towards ourselves.
I.e. I avoid hurting myself - I even try to love myself.
An expansion beyond this, to identify with one's parents, spouse or children is also the norm.
Expand Self again and you get: family, gang, neighbourhood, nation - all still quite easy to feel compasion towards.
As we expand still further we get race, religion, continent, species (e.g. some vegetarians empathise with non-humans), phylum, kingdom, molecular/ gaian, galactic/ energetic, yin/yang, and finally t'ai chi - the grand ultimate, the whole, God.

With an expanded sense of Self, comes a natural flow of care for all things.
Moral exhortation or laws become unnecessary, because identity is with the whole.
BTW you don't lose identity - you just expanded it.

The Self is still there, the Ego even, and an enlightened person still laughs and cries, and even kills mosquitos.

When seen as a whole with no filters - yin/ yang and other patterns in nature are easier to see - you ARE them in a sense - so various seemingly supernatural/paranormal or miraculuous phenomena could arise (this is where I see the posibility for telepathy etc - but although I have experienced stuff which is VERY hard to explain - I still need more evidence first-hand before I'm convinced (oh me of little faith&#33

Q.
Can you accept the possiblity that things may exist that are beyond your comprehension?
Further... like blue to a blind man, or love itself, some things cannot be proved except by experience?

I believe we all experience simple moments of enlightenment when the ego dies and time stands still e.g. orgasm, stroking a cat, doing T'ai chi, dancing, climbing a mountain, holding a baby, meditation etc etc.

Is that proof?

Other 'proof' might simply be recognising the parrallels in the teachings of mystics.
I was going to give a list of examples of mystical traditions and their proponents / writings/ teachings (and could...)
But its in all of them. And you don't need to be enlightened to see the parallels even though they were written by people of widely diverse cultures. However its easier to understand what they are talking about if you can recognise the experience.

Unfortunately, (you may say 'conveniently&#39, enlightenment is beyond words, except in allegory.
As Lao Tzu opens his Tao Te Ching, "The way that can be named is not the way."
Zen koans teach this with riddles that cannot be answered by the mind / Ego - but that's OK because you are not your mind!

There's a story about a philosopher talking to a Zen monk.
The philosopher says 'Why do you believe all this shit? I spit on your Gods."
The monk smiles and says "OK. You spit - I bow!"[/b]

I must say, really interesting to read that. You seem like a wise person. However, I can not stop to see all you experience as a psychological thing. A thing that is only true within itself. Within the mind. Does that make it true? Perhaps, to a level.

I can not believe in your truths, but I can somewhat in your philosophies, and I respect them greatly.

Glad we came to some kind of agreement about time!

Originally Posted by Neruo

They believe in reincarnation right? It is that metaphysical, proof-less stuff that makes me believe Buddhism looked at from afar is just as 'wrong', no: False, as other religions. However, I must say that Buddhism is way more understanding, more something I relate with. Betting one's self, instead of being a sheep.[/b]

This is why I don't do Religion - I just cherry-pick!

I do believe in reincarnation - of a sort.
To me it 'exists' at various levels:

We are all made of the same stuff, continually recycled over and over. You die, you get eaten by worms, the worms get eaten by birds, the bird shits, the shit fertilizes an apple tree, the apple gets eaten by a human... etc...
Apparently, it's statistically likely that there are water molecules in your body that were at sometime in the body of Jesus himself (also Herod&#33

At another level there is the collective (un)conscious - archetypes and so on.
Also perhaps we live on/again as culture, science, wisdom etc -"Standing on the shoulders of giants."

I don't currently believe in a soul (as such... but wait... that's another story!!&#33 - however there seems to be lots of anecdotal evidence for the 'standard' kind of reincarnation too - so, although it seems unlikely, I'm open minded.

Reincarnation may be another misunderstanding/ delusion. The goal of Buddhism is Nirvana - freedom from the wheel of life - the cycle of birth and death, freedom from reincarnation and karma (cause/effect). I interpret this as - when enlightened you are fully in the present, so you are not ruled by cause/effect patterns based on attachment to past/future. You become free and immortal in a sense (because the present is eternal/infinite) - this is also what I think Jesus was saying about life everlasting.

Why is your personal experience better then people that see Allah or Jesus?[/b]

Its not better - but it is personal experience, and I respect that. Personally I think its all the same, only different. This is partly why I posted that poem "A Model of the Universe".

If that also is a form of Enlightenment, but in another way, what about the people that see God or Allah and it tells them to kill people?[/b]

They weren't paying attention?

But does this implicates that Reaching Enlightenment really is above-human, above-physical?[/b]

I still don't know, ask her >>>

(Zen joke - 'Mu' in Japanese means not yes or no, but neither not yes, nor not no.)
(Zen jokes are not always funny BTW&#33

You say you know to be deluded, yet you say with certainty that substance is mainly void. Don't get me wrong, I agree that it is. Actually, I just thought how ironically it is to 'know' you are deluded. No one can really know they are deluded, otherwise they wouldn't be.[/b]

Who was it who said "There are things we know, things we know we don't know, and things we don't know we don't know." ?

Anyhow, I was talking more in the sense that, what if you are wrong? What if none of what you believe is true? What if enlightenment is just some 'cheat' you can use in our brain, some evolutionary factor that gives us the ability to feel Enlightened.[/b]

It's possible - but who cares? It's the result that matters - surely? Same could be asked of LOVE?

Really what I would like to know, do you think your personal experience with Enlightenment is Really proper evidence?
I must say, really interesting to read that. You seem like a wise person. However, I can not stop to see all you experience as a psychological thing. A thing that is only true within itself. Within the mind. Does that make it true? Perhaps, to a level.[/b]

My experience is good enough for me - plus it's in accord with other people who I respect.
We can of course question everything - but then we quickly get to such as solipsism - i.e. how do we know anything is real? Not that I don't think we should ask those questions!!! Even 'cogito ergo sum', which seems reasonable enough in that it logically establishes there must be a 'I', does not describe what, where or why the 'I' is.

I can not believe in your truths, but I can somewhat in your philosophies, and I respect them greatly.[/b]

Sounds like a good way of approaching boring old farts like me!

Thanks for your questions - made me think.

Originally Posted by slimslowslider

Glad we came to some kind of agreement about time! [/b]

Yes I am glad to. I can see where you are coming from.

This is why I don't do Religion - I just cherry-pick!

I do believe in reincarnation - of a sort.
To me it 'exists' at various levels:

We are all made of the same stuff, continually recycled over and over. You die, you get eaten by worms, the worms get eaten by birds, the bird shits, the shit fertilizes an apple tree, the apple gets eaten by a human... etc...
Apparently, it's statistically likely that there are water molecules in your body that were at sometime in the body of Jesus himself (also Herod&#33[/b]

Yes probably I have molecules in me from president Bush to.... Ahhh! Get them out of me! Quick! I of course agree on this level of existence, it is the 'scientific' one =)

At another level there is the collective (un)conscious - archetypes and so on.
Also perhaps we live on/again as culture, science, wisdom etc -"Standing on the shoulders of giants."[/b]

One of the few metaphysical-kind of things I find somewhat possible is a sort of collective intellect/conscious. I am still quite the skeptic about it however. Maybe it is just like Chi and such: I think Chi doesn't exist, but the theories are a great representation of how it actually works. All the Chi-techniques really work from what I know, I just don't think it is Chi they are tapping from, but some physiological/physical effect. Maybe the collective mind-theory is correct in some cases, like chi, but doesn't exist, instead there is something that the collective-mind theory just describes. Something psychological or with electronic brain-waves.

I don't currently believe in a soul (as such... but wait... that's another story!!&#33 - however there seems to be lots of anecdotal evidence for the 'standard' kind of reincarnation too - so, although it seems unlikely, I'm open minded.[/b]

I agree that the concept of 'soul' is highly unlikely. Not impossible however, but reincarnation would better be explained with some sort of collective conscious rather then with souls, that evolutionary, make no sense at all.

Reincarnation may be another misunderstanding/ delusion. The goal of Buddhism is Nirvana - freedom from the wheel of life - the cycle of birth and death, freedom from reincarnation and karma (cause/effect). I interpret this as - when enlightened you are fully in the present, so you are not ruled by cause/effect patterns based on attachment to past/future. You become free and immortal in a sense (because the present is eternal/infinite) - this is also what I think Jesus was saying about life everlasting.[/b]

Jesus certainly has a lot of eastern-like teachings.. (this made me think about the 3 wise from the east, maybe they were meant symbolically and represented the eastern influences on Jesus?). However Jesus also has a lot of the old, monotheistic religion that really hardly is about the self, but just about being a blind slave to god.

I understand somewhat what you mean with enlightenment. It reminded me somewhat of this passage in 1984, where this man says that if you lose yourself completely to the party, you become immortal too. Your version of enlightenment is luckily a Whole bunch less totalitarian. But I see somewhat what total loss of Ego might mean..

hmm, you really made me think about this. Thinking is good

Its not better - but it is personal experience, and I respect that. Personally I think its all the same, only different. This is partly why I posted that poem "A Model of the Universe".[/b]

Hmm, I know some Christians that would disagree, and probably say you will burn in hell ; ) I think everyone with a strong belief can especially see god in every rock and cloud. I personally give little value to religious/spiritual experiences, as proof for religion/spiritually, I just see it as psychological event.

However, because your kind of enlightenment is really obtained from psychology, a certain state-of-mind, your whole 'enlightenment' theory might not clash by far as much with science and rationality as religions do.

They weren't paying attention?[/b]

Haha. Perhaps : )

I still don't know, ask her >>>

(Zen joke - 'Mu' in Japanese means not yes or no, but neither not yes, nor not no.)
(Zen jokes are not always funny BTW&#33[/b]

Haha, interesting joke. Really it is just a little loophole in language, right? If you would write it out in logic, with symbols, it would make sense.

Who was it who said "There are things we know, things we know we don't know, and things we don't know we don't know." ?[/b]

I don't know what he said, be he was right. However, there can also be things we know are so, but actually are not so. Santa doesn't exist, no matter how much children know he exists.

It's possible - but who cares? It's the result that matters - surely? Same could be asked of LOVE?[/b]

I actually completely agree with you. Does it matter? Not really.

My experience is good enough for me - plus it's in accord with other people who I respect.
We can of course question everything - but then we quickly get to such as solipsism - i.e. how do we know anything is real? Not that I don't think we should ask those questions!!! Even 'cogito ergo sum', which seems reasonable enough in that it logically establishes there must be a 'I', does not describe what, where or why the 'I' is.[/b]

Yes, I heard that "cogito ergo sum" actually means not that I exists, but that Something exists. The "I" that is thinking could be a warped (dream) personalty that does not actually exist in the way we call existing. Everything can be questioned, yes. I think questioning everything is good, and just draw lines. We could be in the matrix right now, but within this reality, everything makes sense, so lets work from This framework if we are talking about this reality.

Sounds like a good way of approaching boring old farts like me!

Thanks for your questions - made me think.[/b]

Yeah, I didn't know you were so, lets call it mature or wise instead of old , since you studied for 30 years..

And you made me think to, really. = )