Enlightenment

[It Is]

Originally Posted by iamthat

Consciousness on its own level is not confused. But consciousness extends downwards into personality to experience the worlds of form, and identifies with that personality and all its limitations. When we withdraw our identification from personality then consciousness rests in itself, free from the limitations of form. The next stage is identification with spirit or Being.

Peace.

Okay thanks. That makes sense.

[lemex]

double post

[lemex]

In my wholly personal view, I go by definition #3:

'Enlightenment' means different things to different people....

I've heard this told to me time and time again growing up pretty much and every time I hear it I feel it's like we want to personalize it, like a suit of clothes trying to make it fit. So is not seeing a thing wholly under the same definition. I've always felt it was more logic and justification, smoke and mirrors. Plus everyone seeks it so what are we seeking? Then this something is not real. What does it feel like to say it, what do we think about when we say it, eximine these to and meditate on them. Did the view change? It is totally logical to say this. This is merely a perspective I see so we understand an alternate view from experiencing.

Everyone is enlightened but you don't feel it. Have you ever had a realization about something only to say this, I never saw it, it was always right there, right in front of me, to be in awe of it, the experience. I know and expect you will tell me, no! Barriers and defenses of the mind.

I know this is bold statement and I sense even in the conversation going on all you must do is access it, the higher self. It is in you already.

To be enlightened is to see to be aware to transend. Enlightenment transcends bounderies, borders, cultures, lanuages, even teaching. imo it should cross all these things, but that is a dream that can't happen. So don't be amazed you can't, you've told yourself no. Maybe a small quanity of LoA, cause and effect. Oh no it can't be that becuase it's real, it's that "no". It is not that it should be but that it is. To say it should be fails to see the choice, the decision, how it is stopped. We are most profecient at telling ourself we can't do things. I've noticed that. Does it transcend the mind. Does it mean to not try even. Does it really actually mean different things to different people or are those defenses we put up to make it fit the ego. It is a choice and it does make me sad that we will always remain apart because we choose it. It is impossible, let's be even a little more negative. Do we think negative thoughts not even realizing it.

Enlightenment is more cosmopolitain then indivulaism or being an idividual or a group (imo). People must be able to measure enlightenment to. What if I don't believe I'm not enlightened and told I'm not say becasue you see I do negative things? Am I enlightened, you say no. Is this is an example of it being different things to different people or false , because we seem to know that which we claim we can't. Maybe levels to enlightenment mean different things. When we speak of enlightenment we mean experience and enlightenment can only be achieved as experience which you cannot have.

So I was wondering, have two people that are said to be "enlightened" ever gotten together to talk in the same venue and did they agree? Enlightment is not one sided but a lable maybe.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just had a thought. The perspective I was speaking to was the unique selves today. Would anyone ever take the chance (opportunity) of teaching their children (giving them the opportunity) what isn't accepted by you, like the subject of enlightment. Be postiive about it. Would they disagree and teach us what they see and how they arrived at their idea. God, we even teach it.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by lemex

I've heard this told to me time and time again growing up pretty much and every time I hear it I feel it's like we want to personalize it, like a suit of clothes trying to make it fit. So is not seeing a thing wholly under the same definition. I've always felt it was more logic and justification, smoke and mirrors. Plus everyone seeks it so what are we seeking? Then this something is not real. What does it feel like to say it, what do we think about when we say it, eximine these to and meditate on them. Did the view change? It is totally logical to say this. This is merely a perspective I see so we understand an alternate view from experiencing.

Everyone is enlightened but you don't feel it. Have you ever had a realization about something only to say this, I never saw it, it was always right there, right in front of me, to be in awe of it, the experience. I know and expect you will tell me, no! Barriers and defenses of the mind.

I know this is bold statement and I sense even in the conversation going on all you must do is access it, the higher self. It is in you already.

To be enlightened is to see to be aware to transend. Enlightenment transcends bounderies, borders, cultures, lanuages, even teaching. imo it should cross all these things, but that is a dream that can't happen. So don't be amazed you can't, you've told yourself no. Maybe a small quanity of LoA, cause and effect. Oh no it can't be that becuase it's real, it's that "no". It is not that it should be but that it is. To say it should be fails to see the choice, the decision, how it is stopped. We are most profecient at telling ourself we can't do things. I've noticed that. Does it transcend the mind. Does it mean to not try even. Does it really actually mean different things to different people or are those defenses we put up to make it fit the ego. It is a choice and it does make me sad that we will always remain apart because we choose it. It is impossible, let's be even a little more negative. Do we think negative thoughts not even realizing it.

Enlightenment is more cosmopolitain then indivulaism or being an idividual or a group (imo). People must be able to measure enlightenment to. What if I don't believe I'm not enlightened and told I'm not say becasue you see I do negative things? Am I enlightened, you say no. Is this is an example of it being different things to different people or false , because we seem to know that which we claim we can't. Maybe levels to enlightenment mean different things. When we speak of enlightenment we mean experience and enlightenment can only be achieved as experience which you cannot have.

So I was wondering, have two people that are said to be "enlightened" ever gotten together to talk in the same venue and did they agree? Enlightment is not one sided but a lable maybe.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just had a thought. The perspective I was speaking to was the unique selves today. Would anyone ever take the chance (opportunity) of teaching their children (giving them the opportunity) what isn't accepted by you, like the subject of enlightment. Be postiive about it. Would they disagree and teach us what they see and how they arrived at their idea. God, we even teach it.

For myself, it's totally different.

I personalise it and add all of the necessary disclaimers and go totally overboard with doing so just to shut everybody else up, when I don't want to endure all the argumentative fallout that happens when this is not done.

Basically, people just love to nitpick me over it and it annoys me when they do, because they know what I mean, but they're being totally pedantic and contrary about the whole thing, so to stop myself feeling a negative emotion whenever that happens, I try and stop it all from happening in the first place.

What you are reading and seeing happening there is the end-result of that process.

For me, enlightenment is way more intense and explosive than you have described - often leading to very deep trance states full of endless bliss, unconditional love, peace etc...and it's not as benign and a matter of course as you point out (as the result of LoA), but then again all I can keep saying is 'in my experience' because if I do not, I could bet a hundred dollars that the very next poster will come on and go "nope, it's not like that whatsoever" and me going *SIGH!*

When it happens, there's absolutely no doubt it could be 'anything else' as all logic and reason falls into total, comparative non-existence, so it simply cannot be explained whatsoever, despite trying our best to convey the actual experience into language.

So now you know.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by lemex

I've heard this told to me time and time again growing up pretty much and every time I hear it I feel it's like we want to personalize it, like a suit of clothes trying to make it fit. So is not seeing a thing wholly under the same definition. I've always felt it was more logic and justification, smoke and mirrors. Plus everyone seeks it so what are we seeking? Then this something is not real. What does it feel like to say it, what do we think about when we say it, eximine these to and meditate on them. Did the view change? It is totally logical to say this. This is merely a perspective I see so we understand an alternate view from experiencing.

Everyone is enlightened but you don't feel it. Have you ever had a realization about something only to say this, I never saw it, it was always right there, right in front of me, to be in awe of it, the experience. I know and expect you will tell me, no! Barriers and defenses of the mind.

I know this is bold statement and I sense even in the conversation going on all you must do is access it, the higher self. It is in you already.

To be enlightened is to see to be aware to transend. Enlightenment transcends bounderies, borders, cultures, lanuages, even teaching. imo it should cross all these things, but that is a dream that can't happen. So don't be amazed you can't, you've told yourself no. Maybe a small quanity of LoA, cause and effect. Oh no it can't be that becuase it's real, it's that "no". It is not that it should be but that it is. To say it should be fails to see the choice, the decision, how it is stopped. We are most profecient at telling ourself we can't do things. I've noticed that. Does it transcend the mind. Does it mean to not try even. Does it really actually mean different things to different people or are those defenses we put up to make it fit the ego. It is a choice and it does make me sad that we will always remain apart because we choose it. It is impossible, let's be even a little more negative. Do we think negative thoughts not even realizing it.

Enlightenment is more cosmopolitain then indivulaism or being an idividual or a group (imo). People must be able to measure enlightenment to. What if I don't believe I'm not enlightened and told I'm not say becasue you see I do negative things? Am I enlightened, you say no. Is this is an example of it being different things to different people or false , because we seem to know that which we claim we can't. Maybe levels to enlightenment mean different things. When we speak of enlightenment we mean experience and enlightenment can only be achieved as experience which you cannot have.

So I was wondering, have two people that are said to be "enlightened" ever gotten together to talk in the same venue and did they agree? Enlightment is not one sided but a lable maybe.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just had a thought. The perspective I was speaking to was the unique selves today. Would anyone ever take the chance (opportunity) of teaching their children (giving them the opportunity) what isn't accepted by you, like the subject of enlightment. Be postiive about it. Would they disagree and teach us what they see and how they arrived at their idea. God, we even teach it.

Yes - the word 'enlightenment' has different meanings, but in this spiritual context the meaning is very specific. Because it pertains to 'the truth of yourself', people might think it's an individual truth regarding personalities, but 'enlightenment', as used in this context, regards that which is true of everyone.

In that there are two parts, self-realisation and purification, so there are both universal and individual aspects, but self-realisation is 'you as you are right now' regardless of degrees of individual purification.

Purification has been called 'the healing', 'alignment' and other things, but on the whole it involves the dissipation of obstacles or blocks in the lifeform to open as the channel for universal love.

The funny thing is, there's nothing to be done because all this involves 'as it is'. The realisation is so sudden there's no way of expecting it or seeing it coming. The purfication is similar, but it is a process. The fastest path is to get out of the way and let it happen, but there are bound to be limitations to the intensity any individual can endure, so this is a timely process of unfolding.

[Shivani Devi]

How I like to conceptualise this label of 'enlightenment'.

According to all religions, all philosophies, there's a word/phrase to describe it. Not only that, there are varying gradations of the experience according to individual evolution and that distinction is made.

For example, in Hinduism, it is called Samadhi and there are quite a few stages of it:

Savikalpa Samadhi - Enlightenment where notions of 'Self' are also included (I am Brahman).

Nirvikalpa Samadhi - Enlightenment where notions of 'Self' are not included (Brahman is everything).

Sahaja Samadhi - Being able to stabilise the experience of Nirvikalpa Samadhi to the extent where one doesn't lose consciousness whilst being immersed in it.

The Buddhists have a similar distinction between "Satori" and "Nirvana"

Christians call it "the Grace of God" or "being immersed/slain in Spirit".

The Sufis call it "Fana".

Many words in many languages that have exactly the same meaning.

In my own system of ideology, I'm somewhere between Savikalpa and Nirvikalpa Samadhi, but making the transition into total and full awareness is difficult because I can't seem to 'come down' enough to make the ecstatic, divine bliss a workable model.

With all due humility, I would consider myself to have reached that point - others may say I have not, but that will always be an objective viewpoint irrespective of the experience and so all I could ever say in regards is 'thank you for your opinion about my relative state of existence'.

This is why it becomes personalised...but who knows if two people who have experienced enlightenment feel exactly the same way?

I have described throughout this thread about how the whole experience affects me on an individual level, others may agree/disagree but then again, it's their minds doing that and the mind itself plays no part in the latter stages of enlightenment once the transcendence happens.

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by The Necromancer

With all due humility, I would consider myself to have reached that point - others may say I have not, but that will always be an objective viewpoint irrespective of the experience and so all I could ever say in regards is 'thank you for your opinion about my relative state of existence'.

This is why it becomes personalised...but who knows if two people who have experienced enlightenment feel exactly the same way?

I have described throughout this thread about how the whole experience affects me on an individual level, others may agree/disagree but then again, it's their minds doing that and the mind itself plays no part in the latter stages of enlightenment once the transcendence happens.

I'd have to say that I agree with all of this.

Necromancer is a spiritual PHD where as I am self taught - if we reach the same state then does the path matter?

The vegetarian thread has been interesting & eye opening as alot of them cannot conceptualise that a meat eater can actually do more good in the world than a vegetarian. What I mean by that is that just being a vegetarian isn't a spiritual promotion.

People misunderstand when I talk about karma being a point scoring exercise - I'm not saying that karma isn't important but I ask why it is important to some people?

If you know that you have had a spiritual journey & are learning lessons then that is all that anyone personally needs. I pick at those that insist on imprinting their own path over that of others - advice is fine but it may not always apply this time.

Some use "enlightenment" as a free pass to selfishness or bigotry without seeing that this is so - I often point that out but the doctrine becomes more important than the lesson & it becomes more like:

"I have passed my spiritual exams".

Without modern transport in the west we wouldn't have access to certain eastern concepts but it would not stop us becoming enlightened.

Sometimes a person will not need an others guidebook or spiritual road map but it's like a mountain - we may have taken different paths but if we are overlooking the land below we both "got here".

I have to self teach & I do so via trial & error, I'm not scared of being wrong as it points me in the right direction.

To me that is enlightened.

But I know that there is always more..

.

[Ahriman]

I don't think there are any enlightened people. A truly enlightened person would be able to end all suffering, or at least all human suffering.

Originally Posted by Ahriman

I don't think there are any enlightened people. A truly enlightened person would be able to end all suffering, or at least all human suffering.

Are you confusing enlightenment with omnipotence?

[shivatar]

Originally Posted by Ahriman

I don't think there are any enlightened people. A truly enlightened person would be able to end all suffering, or at least all human suffering.

You sound like you are just beginning down the spiritual path.