IDENTIFYING 'MARKS' OF A SELF-REALIZED PERSON

[Tuesday]

The thing with god/goddes-thing is, if it's a being that you are describing, it's limited by nature. If it is all there is, then it is irrelevant if god exists or not because everything is already aware.
Personally i do believe in gods, multiple of them, but i don't surrender my life in any of them, because the difference between humans and gods is awareness, which everyone can attain, and as i said, a being is limited, doesn't matter if its a god or a human being.
To answer the original question. A realized being to me can't really be identified as such unless you yourself are a realized being. You can believe someone if they tell you they are (which they might, but without their ego getting in the way), but many people might even turn away from such person. Hate them because their presence shows the aspects of themselves what they might not be aware of. Take Jesus for example, many people hated him, yet many others loved him.
The difference between these two was that the other side was willing to let their issues go and the other side fought against it.

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

What are some of the identifying marks of a self-realized person?

Well, they're not going to be wearing a sign around their neck saying so....

It's similar to what Louis Armstrong said about identifying Jazz,
"If you have to ask, you'll never know."

Meaning...such identifications are largely academic or irrelevant - unless and until that identification becomes real, necessary, and urgent to someone because they have attained a relatively significant measure of coherence within themselves.

And the way it works is very much like how a person who is deeply and sincerely interested in cooking, and assiduously practices such, may therefore determine who is a good chef.

One cannot recognize externally what has not been developed internally.

And since legitimate spirituality is by nature conversant with internal subjective intuitive faculties as practically developed and attained, the presence of, or demand for 'outer' signs and rational logical guidelines although very much desired by such concrete rational orientations by nature, may also be somewhat irrelevant or possibly misleading.

That said, the old Indian scriptures did describe these indications, but with the provision that an appropriately qualified individual would utilize them. If you read the story of Ramakrishna, a sage who was qualified subjectively but also objectively knowledgeable in these scriptures was called upon to determine whether Ramakrishna was insane or God-realized accordingly.

~ J

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by Tuesday

The thing with god/goddes-thing is, if it's a being that you are describing, it's limited by nature. If it is all there is, then it is irrelevant if god exists or not because everything is already aware.
Personally i do believe in gods, multiple of them, but i don't surrender my life in any of them, because the difference between humans and gods is awareness, which everyone can attain, and as i said, a being is limited, doesn't matter if its a god or a human being.
To answer the original question. A realized being to me can't really be identified as such unless you yourself are a realized being. You can believe someone if they tell you they are (which they might, but without their ego getting in the way), but many people might even turn away from such person. Hate them because their presence shows the aspects of themselves what they might not be aware of. Take Jesus for example, many people hated him, yet many others loved him.
The difference between these two was that the other side was willing to let their issues go and the other side fought against it.

There are many different layers to this.

Just staying with the example of the Goddess, she has many aspects.

Universally, she is Shakti, the outflowing of Shiva's (God's) Grace and creative power. She is the creatress of the Universe, but also the stuff we're made of.

Locally, she is Kundalini Shakti, the hidden serpent power present in all, which can be aroused from its slumber.

On the cellular level, she is the double helix serpent of DNA, which creates life.

She can also incarnate or form into individual goddesses, to her own delight. She finds joy in expressing all her forms, yet to her, they are no different from one another.

[Tuesday]

Thanks, interesting info on Shakti. I'm agnostic and haven't really thought about creation that much. My view atm is that it's irrelevant. Either there is a sentinent being that created this universe and is all or then it just exists and is aware just because. I also don't think debating it is relevant because so far i haven't heard any good arguments from either side.

The thing is, once a human becomes realized enough, they can also start creating.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Altair

I disagree. The experiments exist to test whether the claims are true or false. There is no sinister purpose behind it or any agenda to reinforce ''cognitive bias''. Some people make fantastical claims and I think humans, being knowledge seekers, have a right to know whether the claims are true or false. If people really can levitate or have infinite knowledge than what is there to lose to put it to the test??




I'm not really following you here, Shivani.

I agree. At the same time this offers Hindu universalists the means to fill up a religious niche that is available due to de-christianization in a number of countries.

I honestly don't see there's much lack of pettiness and self-centredness in religious people. I also don't see how most humans think there isn't more to life than ''this world'' and that only eating, sleeping, screwing, and toiling matter. Most people ARE religious. You are also presenting a false dichotomy here. People are first and foremost individuals.

By "individuals" you mean separate individuals, do you not?

What I am speaking about is the obsession with materialism. You have even admitted that yourself in another thread. The only dichotomy, is how people can claim to be "religious" yet be a servant of Mammon and God simultaneously.

I observe people...mostly in shopping malls, in public areas and I watch the behavior...I use it as an exercise in trying to remain non judgmental myself, but it is like watching a documentary about chimpanzees.

However, I will agree with NoOne (it always sounds weird when I mentally say that to myself). LOL

I find it very strange how among spiritual people, the concept of "letting go" is a-okay, but the concept of "surrender" is taboo because of the whole "religious vibe" but what are they if NOT the same thing? This is very weird to me.

In the end, there is only Shiva and Shakti, existing as either independent
energetic forces, or combined as one..as Ardhanarishwara within the heart...forget "Self" and "Oneness" and all that "jazz". =)

Those who have never experienced Divine Grace wouldn't even BEGIN to understand what that is...those who haven't felt the presence of the Goddess wouldn't have a clue as to what "Goddess" means and for some, because they haven't personally experienced it, means that it isn't real/true/even there...that is okay too..well and good for THEM, just don't try and get another who has experienced it to try and believe otherwise through dogged, egotistical insistence to the point of verbal harassment...which is what a lot of people out there actually DO and then labeling it as "human nature" because they are fully entitled under free will to BE that way...the concept of "free will" is the biggest bloody excuse that humans have ever invented to justify their inhumanity.

Now, you must excuse me because my mobile phone spell checker is getting every second word wrong and at 3am, I cannot be bothered going back and editing all my posts... probably why you are having problems understanding me...it is frustrating the hell out of me as well..so nope, definitely not enlightened. LOL

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by Tuesday

Thanks, interesting info on Shakti. I'm agnostic and haven't really thought about creation that much. My view atm is that it's irrelevant. Either there is a sentinent being that created this universe and is all or then it just exists and is aware just because. I also don't think debating it is relevant because so far i haven't heard any good arguments from either side.

The thing is, once a human becomes realized enough, they can also start creating.

Yes, we are co-creators of this reality, but the power by which we create is also Shakti. In case you are from a Christian background, Jesus referred to this creative power of God (by which he healed and manifested results) as the Holy Spirit, also known as the Shekinah in Judaism.

The Holy spirit is the Goddess aspect of the Holy Trinity, but this remains hidden. A great clue to this is the Dove Symbolism around the Holy Spirit. That Dove is Ishtar, the Dove Goddess from Mesopotamia, one of her most ancient forms.

[zastrakoza]

I don't think I understand the question. Is it how do we judge whether someone (our neighbor) is self realized? or is it how do we determine if we ourselves have achieved the label of self realization?

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

What are some of the identifying marks of a self-realized person?

If you mean by "self-realized person" what others call "enlightened", it is when, while awake in this life, you become aware that this life is like a dream of your inner self. It is the same way as while sleep-dreaming you realize you're dreaming, and become lucid. Then you have a lucid dream, and you could call yourself being "dream-enlightened".

You becoming enlightened (while awake) is similar to you becoming lucid in your dream (while asleep).

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

What are some of the identifying marks of a self-realized person?

Their are no marks.

They’ve removed them completely, including identifying..

[ocean breeze]

They usually have a tattoo that says "Self-Realized" on their shoulders.