The nature of enlightenment

Wow how deep! However did you come up with that gem? More streaming God consciousness?

 

I've never assumed you're simple-minded. You strike me as having a quite advanced conception of spiritual principles, generally speaking.

Yes, we are on the same page with regard to that issue.

The ego is the antithesis of what we are, by definition.

I'm not trying to impose perfection on you, but I also don't want to argue with your ego distortions.

Like I said, I'm fine with "dying into God's love" -- just not it's use in the context of your initial post.

Yes, you've made this belief clear about 5 times now.

Yes, it really does. Again, I'm speaking in relative terms. By engaging in debate with you, I'm assuming to understand more about the nature of enlightenment then you do. I would relish the opportunity to proven wrong, however, so feel free to stop being antagonistic and evasive and start addressing my points.

Checkmate was your word choice, not mine, "bro".

I was under the impression that it was levity. Clearly, it's exposed one of your ego-distortions, however.

Sounds good to me. Out of curiousity, when were you planning to begin helping others and being happy about it? (Oh, whoops, was I not supposed to include a wink? Does that make me an egomaniac? )

Travis

P.S. Hey Neodude, if you're reading, do you still think Relayer's responses qualify as nonthreatened and detached?

 

This comment coming from the person complaining about their words being twisted. Classic projection.

Travis

 

'

 

Yes Radar, your post's have deeply hurt my volatile emotional state, and I am now in a dreadful place where I no longer have as much faith in what I am as I did before coming into contact with you Holiness

Radar this argument is now entering, again, into a very childish condition and I will have to refrain from replying to someone who is so deluded in illusion that fingers are being pointed and in fact, nothing is being gained save for MORE self obsession.
You feel free to continue sharing with everyone your rigorous training method with the promise of attaining something that you dont even know what it is, and I'll let you be. But realize first what my initial argument was in regards to being unsatisfied coupled with inner and external revolution. Until you have happiness and know what it is and realize that you can always have that happiness without even having to try, you are not free. You are a part of a small program which thinks it can unlock the secrets to the Big program. Being free is being in love and that is true ego death. Being free is not chained to the fear of the blocks that some books told you will prevent you from ever truly realizing God. Being free is being yourself and not bowing to any man or womans authority concerning that which is not written in stone and remains personal as well as improvable on a mass scale. Being free is deciding that you know God and that's good enough, now onto helping others and being happy about it.
You can assume all you want what you know about me and I about you but it's a cosmic blink and is entirely pointless. Either be happy and free, or beat yourself and take other sheep with you. As long as your all having fun, I got no qualms.
Namaste

 

You're the only one that's attempted to portray me as some type of self-proclaimed guru. I've never made any statement even remotely implying that I envision myself in that manner.

You just did.

When have I ever mentioned anything about a "rigorous training method"?

So, why are you not embodying these qualities? Why do you instead wish to engage in petty ego-battling with me?

So stop feeding into it.

Beat myself? Sheep? You're in a world of your own creation, my friend. I sincerely hope you find whatever it is you're looking for there.

Travis

 

Hierarchy is always subjective, as it always exists relative to one's subjective goal, however what about those for whom enlightenment isn't a 'path' or a goal or any kind of mystical structure? You seem to presuppose that enlightenment is always a linear progression-- a series of slow and careful footsteps from point A to point B. Who's to say it's not a circling motion? Or that at any time, anyone is not as close to it as anyone else? Why does it have to be a root, or a stairwell or a line? Why can't it be a lake, or even an accident??? Or for that matter, that we can't get out of it once we get into it?

Attachment is a subtle thing-- it can manifest as pride, or love, or hate, or even just focus. Really, by just engaging a concept you are creating an attachment to it... especially if that concept is intended to function as a means to an end... because it ultimately distorts or conceals its own cause or purpose. Maybe the trick is to get out of concepts entirely.

Everything is an idol.

 

Ty for that

 

oh snap!

yes, actually. I've yet to see any reason why he should feel threatened in any way. At the most, I think he is just aggravated, and understandibly so.

rad, I think your ego has been shinining through more post than you realize, no offense. Im just saying maybe you should re-evaluate how you phrase things and the manner in which you write.

 

The nature of enlightenment, as I envision it, is a moment of clarity the instant after death, a nirvana, the culmination of life, the true meaning of karma, in which everything comes full circle between birth and death.

Everyone experiences it, not just the "enlightened." However, the quality of the experience is determined by the karma, so those who have achieved a high level of spiritual awareness, along with those who have lived a virtuous life of generosity and compassion, are more comfortable with the experience, because it is a reflection of the life we led, so the suffering we've inflicted on others comes back to haunt us, we experience the suffering.

If death is a goal, then so is enlightenment. We can come close to that experience through meditation and detachment, but we cannot achieve it until death, death being the membrane between the circles of life that manifests itself as enlightenment.

 

Thanks for the feedback, but I think I'm good.

Travis

 

The process that culminates in enlightenment is quite abstract, and manifests differently for different people. One of its defining characteristics, however, is a type of microcosmic pattern of realization, wherein the spiritual aspirant experiences "enlightenment" but only in proportion to how much of their being is encapsulated by their own conscious awareness. This process also conforms to the parameters of a threshold pattern, or as I like to call it the "always darkest before dawn" pattern, characterized by a gradual build-up of egoic identification that reaches a critical mass and then dissipates, leaving the spiritual aspirant with a sense of great relief and expansive awareness. This awareness must then be applied to more subtle ego-attachments until all awareness has been unobscured by the illusion of separative existence and one's true nature is revealed.

Ultimately the trick is the get out of concepts entirely, yes. However, in the interim, concepts will be present in one form or another. I'm just advocating a proactive approach to relating with them.

That would again depend upon one's relationship with their external circumstances. If one maintains an internal-orientation despite the temptation that the material realm's sensory stimulation offers, then nothing is an idol.

Travis

 

Very cool, but when you speak of enlightenment in terms of proportion, you're contradicting your previous assertion of it being an all-or-nothing property (which is how I see it), although I note that you've got it in quotes, so perhaps you mean the perception of enlightenment, rather than the state itself.

 

I was actually using quotes in an attempt to imply a sort of "mini" enlightenment, the beginning of a new phase of the individual's path. To clarify, I think that the ultimate attainment of enlightenment, the final realization of one's true nature, is an all-or-nothing property, like you've pointed out, but that the continuum of consciousness that one must ascend prior to this final attainment is experienced in the form of gradations, and more particularly gradations that conform to the parameters that I defined in my response to Heywood. A bit of a paradox, I realize, but as I think you and I would agree, paradoxes just come with the territory.

Travis

 

enlightenment is the opposite of fanatacism, which is also called belligerance and prejudice. and rightfully so.

there is NO enlightenment in emotional attatchment to familiar assumptions, no mater how popular, nor reputable their supposed source.

that is the big weakness in looking for it in the dogmas of familiar beliefs, it may be between the lines of them, but you'll never find it in the assertions of fanatacism of any kind.

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

 

Go read my anti-christ thread in christianity, it's good for you.

 

Already have. As with most of what you post here, I like the spirit of the message, but the content has some glaring deficiencies. Care to hear about them?

Travis

 

I think several individuals would. Please expound.

 

Sure, I'll add my 2 cents.

The corruption of Christ's teachings and Christianity has nothing to do with a "grand conspiracy of all conspiracies", and everything to do with fear and ignorance. In our belief that we are confined to a separative existence, we project the qualities that characterize that existence onto the essence of spiritual teachings, and in the process, impede their capacity to illuminate the truths of our beings. The egos of most humans have been conditioned to defer to a higher authority. Many of us learned as children that "plea-bargaining" with our parents was an effective means of getting what we wanted, and our willingness to conform to social hierarchies in our schools enabled us to find our "niche", be safeguarded from antagonism and ensure the acceptance of our peers. Consequently, we have applied these same survival mechanisms to the teachings of the bible (as well as all other religious scripture), and as a result have distorted its message. Most Christians think that they can plea-bargain with God much as they would during a scenario involving one subordinate and one dominate ego, but of course God is omnipresent and makes no hierarchal distinctions -- thus the fallacy of the conventional approach to prayer. In our insecurities, we often attempt to convince others of beliefs that we ourselves lack conviction in, almost as if their being convinced will prove that we are in fact right. This one, simple ego-distortion, in addition to the false power and security derived from an association with an institution like organized Christianity, is the cause of all of the atrocities perpetuated by religion throughout the millenia -- all of the inquisitions, forced conversions, prejudice and hatred commited in the name of God and Christ (and Allah and Mohammed and Krishna, etc. etc.).

So you see, to attribute the corruption of Christianity to a vast conspiracy is nothing more than a reactionary response -- an attempt to turn it into something more than it is (the ego likes its drama ). Those with a sufficient understanding of the nature of ego and Spirit do not dwell on the inherent deficiencies of organized religion. They instead seek to penetrate the shroud of deception that organized religion represents, and utilize the truths revealed in the process for the purposes of facilitating the expansion of their consciousness.

This section is all accurate.

This section is absurd. The "higher-ups" by definition do not understand the nature of enlightenment -- if they did, then they wouldn't be acting in opposition to it. Those who are sincerely pursuing its attainment operate on a level transcendent of any elite organization referred to in this post. Such organizations may or may not exist, but this subject is of no concern to a soul who has devoted their life to the attainment of self-realization.

In actuality, when you dig deeper, what you will find are the great spiritual truths to be found in the bible, truths that have been obscured by fearful, ego-based interpretations. Yes, of course there exists forms of religious fundamentalism that endeavor to exploit the weak-minded for the purposes of monetary gain or control, but these organizations are isolated and self-contained, and they're certainly not "running the show from behind the scenes" as the above section implies. Again, they have absolutely no ability to manipulate an individual who has aligned themselves with Spirit.

This is partial truth. The paradigm-shift of the collective consciousness predicted in 2012 may or may not be many things. It's characteristic of Blackened's duplicity, however, to mention the permanence of enlightenment here and then dispute it in my thread when it threatens to expose his "god-complex".

Enlightenment is the realization of What Is. It is transcendent of any particular age and is by no means ensured by the dawning of the Age of Aquarius (the "age of enlightenment") that we are currently experiencing. To attain it, one must sacrifice all illusory aspects of their being through a process of self-purification. The Age of Aquarius does not effect this universal truth in any way, shape, or form.

Travis

 

And is the process of self purification that leads to enlightenment only achieved by intent?.