The nature of enlightenment

The alignment may be influenced by our incarnation in physiological form, but if it's an authentic one, it is both permanent and infallible. The state of consciousness capable of being "weakened by the flesh" is referred to by certain branches of Hinduism as "Savikalpa Samadhi". This is as opposed to "Nirvikalpa Samadhi", which allows the self-realized individual to be transcendent of the inherent limitations of the body despite remaining in an incarnated form.

To die an egoic death is the death that truly liberates. Experiencing physical death without having first self-realized only perpetuates the cycle of death and rebirth, and reinforces the bondages of suffering that accompany ego-identification.

Individual interpretations and opinions are only relevant within the realm of conceptualization. Universal truth is only revealed through the act of directly perceiving the nature of reality, unobscured by the mind's projections.

Travis

 

Let me ask you, have you ever spoken with anyone who has attained to Nirvikalpa Samadhi? Or have you ever received/given deeksha? Just curious because you seem to be leaning towards Hinduism?
I mean your claiming reincarnation to be a fact in order to perpetuate your reasoning for having a firm grip on the truth of enlightenment. I dont think anyone here is disagreeing with you that ego-death is liberation, but at least what I am disagreeing with is that its possible to completley seperate from the ego, forever, while still inhabitng the bodily host for your consciousness. I mean it sounds like something to look forward to and Yogananda and the like paint a really pretty picture, but in reality your basing your arguments off of books and ancient religions and philosophies instead of sharing your own opinion. Dont get me wrong, I read the Gita and turn to it constantly for advice, but none of this is solid fact, it's just a belief.

 

I'm basing my arguments on my own perceptions of the nature of reality gained through personal experience. I supplemented my response to Mellow Yellow with terminology that originates in a Hindu paradigm simply to provide a frame of reference. No authentic spiritual knowledge can be transmitted through words, it must always be directly experienced.

As far as your contentions that ego must remain in some form while inhabiting a bodily host go, it seems to me that you're fixating on semantics. Upon the attainment of enlightenment, I somehow doubt you'll be worried about the exact nature of this relationship. My sense is that you and the others who are dwelling on this minor issue are either a) Wanting to perpetuate an argument with me for the sake of arguing or b) Uncomfortable with the idea of an absolute state of attainment due to the fact it would require a greater devotion of your being to the process of spiritual evolution than you're currently willing to devote. Or perhaps, both.

Travis

 

When you walk out of the darkness into the light, the eyes sometimes need time to adjust to the new view of things.

The ability to transmit these experiences into words is always a fleeting effort. It will only be as good as that person's abilities allow for. Being enlightened won't cure you of being a bumblehead.

Its very difficult to not shoot the messenger sometimes.


x

 

Lovely. No... I wasn't talking about your original post, I was mostly addressing the posts of people who claim to have already been enlightened and seem to feel qualified on 'guiding' others. So it was a digression.

On the other hand, all the mention of 'low levels' and 'ego' and 'illusory nature' seems to prove that you're just as 'low' as I am. No amount of circumabulating or hiding your insults behind 'spiritual' terms is going to cover that. And talking about assumptions-- 'transcend your capacity to conceive of them'? What kind of pompous ass goes around saying that? Why not just say 'are you sure you understand what we're discussing?'. It's more charitable, and makes you seem less willing to jump on people you feel aren't as smart as you. If you're not going to do that, then stop acting like you're so benevolent and willing to take the high ground just because you try to fit as many academic words as you can into every sentence.

Again, I wasn't talking about enlightenment itself but giving an example of the ways in which people can convince themselves that it has already happened to them.

And here's another way: you think and think and think until eventually you feel like you've described enlightenment so well that you hang onto that definition as if it makes enlightenment closer to you. After that, you put your definition out there in the hope that someone will agree, and give your definition greater power.

So I could tell you that you're a genius and you completely understand what you're talking about, but what will the result be except that you have one unenlightened person's opinion on your definition of enlightenment?

I suppose my point is: how are we supposed to talk about something that no one here has experienced as if we already understand it? I could actually understand the point of this thread better without all the academic drivel and all the calm, cold, objective language. Your definition sounds very cold and very clinical, like something you could induce in a laboratory or something... there's absolutely no reason to think of things that way.

'Experiential realizations'. What a fantastic term!

 

enlightenment is when people stop beating their heads against spliting hairs of gratuitous pseudo-controversy.

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

 

Well your sure full of personal assumptions aren't you?
Im not going to speak for the other's who are having you defend your argument, but since you aren't gathering my point I'll spell it out for you. What I am getting at is that, at least to me, your entire concept of enlightenment is just as ego gratifying as my concept of inner revolution. It's as simple as that really. Who are you to say that what you experience with God which cant be tranferred in words is somehow greater than mine to give you such an authority on the metaphysical and spiritual reality? I realize you havent said that but your intentions are quite clear my friend.
In all honesty, what you have said in this thread so far doesnt amount to much personal experience at all, and what you actually have here that is your own experience comes off as if somehow you hold a truth that the rest of us have never seen and makes you therefor, somehow, a higher authority on the matter.
You've made this thread to go forth and 'clear up' what enlightenment is for the rest of us lost souls, claim that your not an authority (yet ), and dont realize that you are just yet another one of those who started a thread, the only difference is that you dont claim to have the full time job of being enlightened (yet ).
And my friend, no one has ever said that an authentic spiritual experience can be transmitted through words, I simply asked you a question regarding your spiritual alignment which I now see is to God in Spirit alone. That's wonderful, same with me. But Im not here to doubt a person's spiritual experience, nor to make assumptions about other's reasoning for argument unless Im certain that I understand where they are coming from.
Your free to believe what you will, I completley respect your opinion and in fact find it quite noble (though still sense gratifying). But the manner in which you return contributions to the points I've brought up is a sure sign that your just as much an asshole at heart as me, at least when it comes to an online spiritual dick measuring contest.

 

Hello
I'd just like to talk about a few of the things you said which I don't quite agree with.

I think that drugs might be able to help get onto the spiritual path but don't think they can do much more than that (i've never taken drugs though so I can't speak for anybody else .) I can't speak on behalf of your high school friend either because, as you say, he may have just thought he had entered this state simply because of the drugs. However, I will speak of the experiences that I have gone through.

To realise the true nature of "I" leads to the dissolving of ego identification - therefore the bonds that tie us with material reality are severed, so 'problems' aren't problems anymore. Everyone is capable of realisation, it's not really something which can be claimed (the same applies for the 'higher' stages of awakening) if it is claimed (ie ' I am enlightened' or i've become self realised') then 'I' becomes 'I am', identifying with something other than 'I.' This reinforces ego identification.

"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"

This seems contradictory, and well, just not true. Realisation and "Enlightenment" (I don't use this word) are two separate things. One can realise one's nature yet not fully understand the nature of oneness. A sort of semi - state perhaps, where "I" is everybody yet everybody (and everything) is not yet "I'. Awareness of "I" destroys the ego boundaries and all of the bonds that connect "I" with material reality are dissolved.

So, 'work' becomes something with which "I" has no connection with, it was bondage that reinforced ego identification. Therefore, no satisfaction can be gained from work, it becomes fruitless, it makes "I" neither happy or sad. If there is awareness of this then work can not possibly make one unhappy and nor can it make one feel selfish.

Upon realisation the ego is dissolved over a short period of time (atleast in the experience that I went through) and it can never be remade to it's fullest again. "I" can be immersed in material reality, and aspects of an ego identity can return again, however the seeds of awareness have already been sewn so to speak, therefore there really is no going back. You seemed to have confused 'enlightenment' with realisation.

"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'."

When "I" is aware, as was said earlier, the ego is dissolved. The feeling of destiny, self importance and individuality is erased. Everybody (and eventually in a higher state, everything) is recognised as "I"

From experience, I don't think that anything can be taught to those who aren't seeking answers. I think 'information' can only truly be passed on to those who are already aware that they are missing something , or simply need to put words to the things that they have come to know themselves.

And because of this,as always, I ask that you disregard anything I say that doesn't resonate with you ( the truth comes from within you.)

 

Feel free to try to prove that in one of your posts. The last time you tried, I believe it came to you being placed in a "checkmate", to put it in your words.

I'm me.

It's quite likely.

If you can disprove my assertions about your motives for fixating on the semantics of our debate, feel free to take your best shot. My sense is that I've simply struck a nerve.

Before you choose to respond to this post and further reduce my opinion of you (which was actually quite high when you demonstrated the humility (or at least, faux-humility) to bow out the the conversation when you felt there was nothing left for you to legitimately offer) with another semi-self-righteous diatribe, you might want to spend some time reflecting on your true motives for perpetuating this argument. You would do yourself a further disservice otherwise.

Travis

 

Do I even need to point it out?

 

Because it was apparent that you didn't -- and still don't.

You really didn't get my point about assumptions, did you? You actually managed to dismiss it with another series of assumptions, characteristically enough. Of course, I'm partly to blame as well -- tactfulness was never one of my strongpoints.

Travis

 

No, I guess you're right -- a nerve having been struck explains it quite nicely.

Travis

 

I've got a question radareyes, b/c Im pretty sure I know why you began this thread.

How do you view your own self? Do you consider yourself "enlightened"?

 

No, in my current state I have not yet attained enlightenment. As far as the exact nature of my self-perceptions -- they are quite complex and enigmatic, even to myself at times. To fully elaborate would require much time and esoteric understanding that most don't have access to.

I can tell you one thing, however -- there's absolutely no way that you know why I began this thread.

Travis

 

but how do you know that I dont know? = D

 

Well, I guess technically there's an infinitesimal possibility that you may know. But I strongly suspect that you don't know for several reasons, some logical, some intuitive. For starters, my most recent posts could easily be interpreted as egomaniacal and/or deluded in some way due to how "self-righteous" they are (from a conventional perspective ), which could lead one to believe that I am some type of self-proclaimed prophet. But perhaps more importantly, because in some sense I don't know why I started this thread. This is due to a certain idiosyncrisy of my path involving my own willingness to surrender my conscious actions to my intuition. Sometimes, this willingness results in what might conveniently be described as the acts of possessed person -- I will do something with absolutely no conscious intention to do it, and will often only understand the reasons behind the action in retrospect (which due the inherent impeccability of authentic intuition are always legitimate). Of course, this is already getting into the esoteric and elaborate territory that I referred to in the previous post, as you may have noticed.

Travis

 

yeah but, I think you forgot about this statement.

= p

So either you are/were lying, or you do/did know.
At any rate, this thread was needed.

There's too many self-proclaimed prophets around here for my egomanical taste.

 

Like I said, in some sense I don't know why I started this thread. When I wrote those words, I was writing completely stream of consciousness. When I reflect back upon them, they don't constitute a motive for writing this thread.

Nice try though.

Travis

 

Im beginning to think radar is in fact a 4xi! :tongue:

 

So basically, you think I'm some sort of artificial intelligence. Ha! I'll take that as a compliment!

Travis