Enlightnment.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

my question is, if you were truly enlightened, why would you even care that you were or were not enlightened?

anyway the way you put the question it is obviously jsut another ego-based concept to get fooled by

You said that as though you think there is something wrong with ego-based concepts even though, from a nondual perspective, it would be Oneness appearaing as such.

By the same token it would be Oneness appearing as you saying that, so all is perfectly in order. Both you and I saying whatever as the One Love in action dreaming difference where there is none. Why does Oneness manifest as such? Perhaps because it can I guess, but also I like the idea that, whatever it manifests, automaticaaly maintains a perfect balance on the infinate scale, even though that balance may not be apparent 'locally'.

Always a perfect balance has a nice ring to it dont you think? And means that it is never why is this or that happening, but that this is always how it must be for that balance to be maintained.

:)

Perfect!

:)

[Nowayout]

Oneness/mind...

Ego, mind, self, all is nothing if it knows not love?

Love has degrees, self-love, the beginning of love because it begins there, love for others because you can now love and live with yourself, and universal love, that transcended way of "being".

Love is the right path is it not regardless of mind games?.

Is it our mind games that take us down another path?

[Nowayout]

Anyway, I'm not enlightened, but I try very hard to be a loving person.

Traffic jams bring out my true nature..

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Nowayout

Oneness/mind...

Ego, mind, self, all is nothing if it knows not love?

Love has degrees, self-love, the beginning of love because it begins there, love for others because you can now love and live with yourself, and universal love, that transcended way of "being".

Love is the right path is it not?.

But if Oneness is All, it would be both sides of all conflict. There would only be the illusion of distinction and discrimination where there was no distinction or discrimination whatsoever. If there is the absense of distinction and discrimination thats another way of describing unconditional love.

So it would not be that Love is the right path as opposed to some other path but rather that unconditional love is All There Is, and therefore unavoidable.

!

[Nowayout]

Yes, I see....

If we are all one why hurt the other.

When the personal passions are quieted then that need to be filled by others ebbs away. Then one is freed from the fetters of personal exploitations upon others and lives for the moment, and all the greatness it contains.

Love flows logically from this point because it awakens in the heart of the one illumined this way.

But it happens from the heart.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

anyway the way you put the question it is obviously jsut another ego-based concept to get fooled by

Originally Posted by Iamit

You said that as though you think there is something wrong with ego-based concepts even though, from a nondual perspective, it would be Oneness appearaing as such.

We see that enlightenment is continually challenged

[ajay00]

Originally Posted by Iamit

How would one ever know whether one or an other was enlightened or not? It could only ever be an alledged state which may or may not exist.

Yet some claim to be in such a state, and/or followers claim that the person they follow is in such a state.

Attempts are made to describe the characteristics but who is the authority on such matters and where do they get their authority from? Is it from some supernatural being or extraterrestial whose existance is easily challenged, or his/her representative on Earth?

Enlightenment means a state where all unconscious tendencies or vasanas have been dissolved by the light of awareness or total love, leading to the cessation of cravings and aversions , which create the structure of the separative ego.

Since this is a subjective phenomenon, it is the one who is enlightened who proclaims this fact , mainly for the purpose of teaching. There are many who do not teach and are just content the way they are, and hence do not state their enlightenment.

From what I have learnt from direct contact with an enlightened master, they are perpetually in a state of awareness without the domination of thoughts or emotions as is the state of the vast majority of people.

They can think at will and switch off when thought is not needed effortlessly.

An another aspect which distinguish them is deep peace, joy and tranquility. They are also very graceful as all their actions are balanced and centered in present moment awareness without any of the mental agitation, emotivity or haste which is the characterestic of the unconscious.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by ajay00

Enlightenment means a state where ...

Since enlightenment exists only through imputation it may mean everything depending on the definition provided by the one who is interested in enlightenment.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Iamit

How would one ever know whether one or an other was enlightened or not? It could only ever be an alledged state which may or may not exist.

Yet some claim to be in such a state, and/or followers claim that the person they follow is in such a state.

Attempts are made to describe the characteristics but who is the authority on such matters and where do they get their authority from? Is it from some supernatural being or extraterrestial whose existance is easily challenged, or his/her representative on Earth?

We could always go by the 'rule of Jesus' which states: "by their deeds, ye shall know them".

If a person was enlightened, they wouldn't really 'know' it, as if enlightenment was ever a thing to be known or rationalised.

If somebody made the 'claim' to be enlightened, others would simply say "no, you are not" but how would they know? others may just simply say "well, good for you".

There is a member of this forum who tends to follow me around, PMing me to show him some "siddhis"- a few days ago, he asked me to ask God to tell him what 'secret code' he had written down as that would make him believe that God exists. I sorta told him that he had to believe in God first before that could ever happen.

He then asked me to get God to tell him what guru he should accept as his master and the 'message' I got from the universe was 'none, because he isn't ready for one yet...he is unable to obtain the Grace of one'.

I told him so and he said "if a guru could show me God's power...if I could get the guru to tell me what code I had written down...if I saw him walk on water...if he did all of these things for me...then I would accept him as my guru".

To which I replied "do you honestly think a real/true guru is going to do all of that, just to have you, an atheist, a skeptic and a non-believer as his disciple? what makes you so special? Usually you will see a guru do all of that only after you have been with him for a while...siddhis are not there to display 'on command'...there is no control over them...they just happen spontaneously and in concurrence with a true soul-need".

Anyway, the conversation kept going around in circles and I realised I was only wasting my time with this member. His heart and mind both were totally closed off and I tried to open them and failed...but why was I trying? why did I want him to feel what I felt inside? I wanted for him to be happy...content within himself but why? he seemed pretty happy and content anyway, being an atheist and a skeptic...who was I to try and change that?

It was a lesson for me to just exist in my own awareness of Self and let people judge that for what they want to judge it as because people will believe whatever they want to anyway...they will believe it until there is no more belief because they understand it...they know it...which goes way beyond any knowing or understanding that an egoic mind can ever have.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by The Necromancer

We could always go by the 'rule of Jesus' which states: "by their deeds, ye shall know them".

If a person was enlightened, they wouldn't really 'know' it, as if enlightenment was ever a thing to be known or rationalised.

If somebody made the 'claim' to be enlightened, others would simply say "no, you are not" but how would they know? others may just simply say "well, good for you".

There is a member of this forum who tends to follow me around, PMing me to show him some "siddhis"- a few days ago, he asked me to ask God to tell him what 'secret code' he had written down as that would make him believe that God exists. I sorta told him that he had to believe in God first before that could ever happen.

He then asked me to get God to tell him what guru he should accept as his master and the 'message' I got from the universe was 'none, because he isn't ready for one yet...he is unable to obtain the Grace of one'.

I told him so and he said "if a guru could show me God's power...if I could get the guru to tell me what code I had written down...if I saw him walk on water...if he did all of these things for me...then I would accept him as my guru".

To which I replied "do you honestly think a real/true guru is going to do all of that, just to have you, an atheist, a skeptic and a non-believer as his disciple? what makes you so special? Usually you will see a guru do all of that only after you have been with him for a while...siddhis are not there to display 'on command'...there is no control over them...they just happen spontaneously and in concurrence with a true soul-need".

Anyway, the conversation kept going around in circles and I realised I was only wasting my time with this member. His heart and mind both were totally closed off and I tried to open them and failed...but why was I trying? why did I want him to feel what I felt inside? I wanted for him to be happy...content within himself but why? he seemed pretty happy and content anyway, being an atheist and a skeptic...who was I to try and change that?

It was a lesson for me to just exist in my own awareness of Self and let people judge that for what they want to judge it as because people will believe whatever they want to anyway...they will believe it until there is no more belief because they understand it...they know it...which goes way beyond any knowing or understanding that an egoic mind can ever have.

When we are conveying our thoughts and feelings as you have just done, what is communicating?