The nature of enlightenment

But enlightenment can be given up in exchange for another ride on the rollercoaster of earthly life and the ignorance that comes with the experience.

It's fun to get scared sometimes.

To do that, you have to hide a part of yourself away to experience it.

That means YOU. Everyone of you.

You're the part that's hidden away. And in your ignorance, you're able to drink in all this world has to offer.

At least until you learn you don't have to...


x

 

Hi kaminoishiki,

You've said can see what's in reality. But your words have not been enough to convince other people of what you recognized, because you didn't include any problems. We need the way to verify what is in your words. If you can answer my questions, then I'll work hard to recommend your teaching to others...

So, what do you mean by reality? What do I need for convincing others that your teaching will be helpful for their life?

thanks, Paul.

 

My 2 cents:

1. Appearances are misleading. A spiritual teacher who oozes peace and serenity may be completely absorbed in ego in the effort of seeming to ooze peace and serenity, while someone cussing and swearing at a video game he is playing may just be allowing his personality to be what it always has been (even feelings can become habitual reactions) while at the same time he is aware of his true non separate nature and very little absorbed in ego because he is just being his habitual self which requires no effort.


2. Someone who is enlightened feels no need to prove it or get special recognition...realizing that the real you has done every great thing ever accomplished kind of makes being recognized as enlightened just a little anticlimactic, so don't expect all enlightened people to go about showing the world how enlightened they are.
They don't all glow or exude peace and serenity. Enlightenment does not replace ones personality with all it's human quirks and sillinesses with some angelic demeanor that is above it all.

3. Ego and enlightenment are not mutually exclusive. When you are playing a competitive game, you are aware that it's just a game and that winning or losing isn't really a big deal, but that doesn't necessarily stop you from getting involved in it enough to start reacting emotionally to how it's going for you...that's part of the fun of games and if you never care at all about winning or losing, then the game gets boring. I think of the best enlightenment as not being all the way absorbed in oneness all the time, but staying in the middle between ego and oneness and moving from one to the other as necessary---just like you would playing a game; you don't want it to get too boring by not taking it seriously at all, but neither do you want to take it so seriously that it makes you really upset.

My guess is that kamnoishiki is at the stage where he has learned that it's just a game, (become enlightened) but now has to learn to still take it somewhat seriously (take on ego) so as to live the kind of life that people consider normal. Based on my own experience, be careful kamnoishiki. Finding a new way of experiencing reality does not mean that the old one can no longer function...you'll find it's all still there, fully functional just waiting for you to sit in the driver's seat and turn the key. It just depends on how involved in the affairs of ego you allow yourself to get. It can still suck you in to the point where it seems like reality again. I'm sure though that one can always come back to enlightenment once one has been "there" (so to speak) and each time you go back the transition gets easier.

The comedown can be hell though if you get too caught up again too fast in the separation illusion. That's what I did. I spent two or three months walking on air and then decided I was ready to tackle all my worldly problems...ended up in the hospital after a suicide attempt. (There were other factors involved though too...mainly chronic biological depression and withdrawal from painkillers that I had been taking for two or three weeks following a foot operation.)

I definitely believe there is a continuum though, not a toggle. By my definition, enlightenment is an awareness of oneness. We can be partially aware of something, just like we can be fully aware of something, it just depends on how focused we are on what we are aware of...if you are completely focused on the reality of oneness, you are fully enlightened, if you are more focused on appearance, but still cognizant of what's really true, then you might be said to be partially enlightened at that moment.

This is all just my own opinions on the matter based on my own experiences and those of others that I've read about. Agree or disagree, I'm not claiming "teacher" status..just voicing opinions.

 

the nature of enlightenment is the realization that we live in surroundings that all of us togather influence, each of us adding our own little part to that influence, but of which, we are neither its begining, end, sole purpose, nor neccessarily even purpose of at all. (no more so collectively then individually and not individually at all)

when we realize the universe doesn't HAVE TO give a dam about us, but that we CAN avoid screwing everything up for each other and everything else, and choose to avoid doing so, THEN we can all get along with it and each other just fine.

and things we don't know, probably, almost certainly, can and do exist too, but don't have nearly as much to do with it, as it and they leave up to us.

=^^=
.../\...

 

Well, I believe it really has to experienced to be believed fully. And, also, I don't like to consider I as the giver of any truth. By accepting what I say as truth you effectively create your own beliefs over what I said exclusively, I think truth is something which can only be experienced from within, which is why I say to disregard anything I say if it doesnt resonate with you ( that being if you didnt already come to the same or similar consclusion on your own.) I will, however, tell of the experience I had of such things.

I have come to know reality as the universe/world around us being channeled through us, all of these things coexist in order to exist, so they effectively become a whole. Therefore "I" is reality, "I" is the universe and everything within it and "I" is consciousness.

It's definitely difficuly to explain so I apologise if it doesn't make any sense to you.

 

I tend to differ and would call that survival.
Namaste.

 

Enlightenment is the most sophisticated means of survival capable of attaining. It is the only survival mechanism that has the capacity to sustain all life, not just the life of the solitary being striving to maintain its illusory separate existence.

Travis

 

Well attuning your awareness with the awareness of God, is surely what I consider to be enlightenment, considering that (according to my belief) this consciousness is what this dream reality is birthed from and sustained by. I just dont see it as any final, fixed state of existance, nor do I see it as simply flowing with the changing nature of our reality. A constant state of pleasant revolt is what I prefer to know as valuable, and I dont mean revolting against the Oneness concept. That we are connected and in fact one consciousness is fairly obvious to me, but that never helped anyone directly but the person who experiences the further evolution into the cosmic realms of mind. It is by being unsatisfied with the state of this reality which brings about positive change, this much I feel is also painfully obvious. But to consider yourself without need to be disatisfied? Is a tad lazy, in my opinion. One does not exactly have to live soley in this illusory seperative existence in order to help, you can and in fact do (until death) live in both states. Yes, they are one in the same, but while you have a physical body still covering your astral and causal, you have work to do, and just accepting all as is without realizing that you have much more to absorb spiritualy while you are here, is again, lazy, in my opinion.
But that's just how I see it, even my own opinion I tend to revolt against.

 

The work of an enlightened being arises naturally, compelled by a desire to serve others (which upon the attainment of enlightenment is realized as a form of serving oneself). There is no "dissatisfaction" required. On the contrary, dissatisfaction is a form of resisting what is, and only serves to reinforce ego-identification. Positive change is instigated by a willingness to accept external conditions exactly as they are. The change you seek in your circumstances and the cirumstances of the world is an inherent manifestation of this natural state of being.

What's more lazy, allowing your reactive, instinctual emotions (such as dissatisfaction) to dictate your perceptions and behavior, or to relinquish the ego paradigm that sustains these dysfunctional emotions through a rigorous process of self-purification? The answer to me is "painfully obvious".

Travis

 

Well that entirely depends on what means with which you put to work in order to attain this evolved consciousness, and is in actuality not what I was getting at. The laziness I was referring to is that when one attains to (what they deem to be) enlightenment and refuses to be questioned about it. The laziness you are defending is actually the process by which one attains this state, and not the state itself.
And since when does being disatisfied have more to do with emotion than the desire for enlightenment? Because the way I see, both desires can and are loving in nature. If the desire to move into Oneness is not born out of a desire to cure a certain lingering satisfaction you have growing in your heart, then I guess I need to re evaluate just what Love actually is.
Namaste

 

Whichever means are effective.

I'm not referring to egoic mimicry of enlightened states, which your above example is a form of. I'm referring to actual enlightenment.

Dissatisfaction can be a legitimate catalyst for the pursuit of enlightenment, but only during the initial phases of the path. Ultimately, one must abandon all "away-from" motivators such as fear as dissatisfaction, and instead adopt a consciously surrendering mentality, a willingness to relinquish all remnants of the their illusory separative existence.

Travis

 

Which in my opinion, is determined by personal self reflection and therefor an impossible state to ever realize considering that doing yoga and reading guru's books is the same as hunting deer in the woods and eating peyote if your heart is in the right place. It's really nobodies place to determine what is and what isnt enlightenment, nor wether it is possible to attain it or not, but if we dont express ourselves then we are truly being lazy :tongue:

And that is what I call physical death. No matter how moved I feel by Love, no matter how selfless I become, no matter how much attachment I sever to the parasitic ego, I have to say that I will never realize it to be finished, and as long as I still have this body, I still have a karmic debt to pay, and therefor shall remain unsatisfied with my present condition. Perhaps this is the sign of a weak mind, perhaps it is the sign of a mind still wrapped in many layers of maya, but this is how life manifests itself to me and regardless I find it beautiful as well as fair, every moment of it.

 

It's amazing to me just how many people here seem to think that they're already there. It kind of reminds me of this guy I knew in high school who took a lot of acid and thought he was super-spiritual-- but basically, when it came right down to it, he had a lot of problems that he didn't want to face, and liked the idea of having something that other people didn't.

Honestly, I don't think anyone here really knows what enlightenment is-- it seems like people are using it very loosely. Like 'I had a good day at work and feel very generous, so I'm thinking of others, therefore I have no ego and must be enlightened.', but then, the next day 'Work sucks, I feel selfish, so I must be at a stage where I'm going back to my ego again, even though I'm enlightened, so I have to be careful'. Basically, you're taking common everyday states of mind and treating them as if they were special... and not doing it because you genuinely have an understanding or appreciation of them, but because it feeds your ego to think of yourself as special, or holy, or different... not to mention the huge ego trip of being able to 'pass information down' to those who have 'not yet attained your level of consciousness'.

It has actually gotten to the point where you spend enormous amounts of time convincing yourself that your own thoughts are somehow special, or eternal, or important... but it's so easy to convince ourselves that we're enlightened and talk in nature-referencing metaphors when we haven't any idea what it means to be enlightened because the term is so loosely defined... and also because we enjoy putting on a show so much that we've lost ourselves into our character.

 

that's why I quit thinking.

 

And that's why I realized that we will never deserve God's Love, so let's just be filled with bliss that we are able to experience it for free

 

This is a logical inconsistency. Yes, doing yoga is equivalent to hunting deer if your heart is in the right place -- but that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not enlightenment is capable of being realized.

This is, ironically, an egoic mentality. True humility and commitment to truth allows one to employ one's discerning faculties in an effort to dispel illusion and ascertain the nature of enlightement. As long as one does not form attachments to these discernments, then they can and often do help to facilitate the process of spiritual evolution.

Enlightenment encompasses the realization that one's true nature isn't confined to the physical body, but it is not the same as physical death.

Except for the moments you're feeling dissatisfied, right?

Travis

 

If I said no, would you believe me?

 

And I guess I was just put in check mate right there :tongue:
Now if only there was a universal truth as to the definition of enlightenment, damn :&

 

Low level stuff. It's understandable, however, that you would project the tendencies of your own ego onto conversations that transcend your capacity to conceive of them. In actuality, you are basing your above judgements entirely on assumptions, which are the refuge of an ego that has been threatened by knowledge capable of exposing its illusory nature.

If it's so easy to speak in these terms, how about you actually address some of the assertions I've made throughout this thread instead of making broad, dismissive generalizations?

Apparently you didn't read my initial post. And if you did read it and you still believe that enlightenment is defined too loosely, you should spend less time conceptualizing and more time pursuing experiential realizations of the concepts being discussed here.

Travis

 

I agree with this concise well worded definition, but at the same time I don't think man is capable of a permanent state of alignment, because we are inherently weakened by the flesh, regardless of how hard we try to overcome it.

Only when we die is our soul unencumbered by the limitations of the flesh, then we are truly free, yet our instinct of self preservation, the most primitive manifestation of our ego, resists death.

Exactly, there is no universal truth, only our individual interpretations and opinions, which was my point to begin with.