"e" Beings

[fu*]

How can you tell an "E" (enlightened) being.

Anyone searching for "truth" should be searching for this.

In my view they can not be "sickened", or "upset", or "angered", or made "happy". They do not have "friends". They see beyond these black dots on a white screen. They don't tell about themselves, or there feelings. they have no buttons to push. (I do test by pushing B) )

Is there such a thing as an " E Being"?

Is there now? Or has there ever been? Jesus? Buddha? Smurf?

I say yes/maybe, but I could be convinced otherwise.

fu

[Thomas Knierim]

In my view, enlightenment is analogous to spiritual realisation, and it certainly exists. In fact, it does exist at various levels and stages which are not always easy to recognise.

What fu mentioned here, the incapacity of being angered and upset, and the absence of psychological "push buttons" is traditionally known as equanimity. Equanimity is an indicator of spiritual realisation. But it is more complicated than that. Equanimity is not the only indicator. Moreover, it is possible to enter and leave the state of equanimity if it is not established permanently.

Similarly, the absence of "friends" indicates the absence of attachments.

Although I am convinced that spiritual realisation/enlightenment is independent of religion and culture, I believe that the ten perfections or paramitas of Theravada Buddhism deliver a particularly clearly defined virtue-ethical prototype for what is universally recognised as spiritual realisation. The ten perfections are: generosity, morality, renunciation, wisdom, diligence, patience, truthfulness, determination, loving-kindness, equanimity.

So, an enlightened being does have these qualities -among others- and these qualities are prominent.

A friend of mine, who is a transpersonal psychologist, suggested that spiritual awakening proceeds in stages:

1) Separation. Birth of the ego, personality, and sense of “I".

2) Individualisation. Development of sexuality, awareness of one’s basic individual qualities.

3) Differentiation. Consolidation of self, gradual growth beyond dependency, exploration of relationships. Appropriate establishment of ego.

4) Actualisation. Focus on self-esteem, development of one’s potentials, aligning with one’s calling, contribution to the community, assuming responsibility, maturing emotional body.

5) Insight. First glimpse of profound spiritual awakening, beginnings of an authentic spiritual life.

6) Awakening. Self-realisation, God-communion, etc. realizing one’s true nature, and the illusion of duality. Grasping interconnectedness of all things, full transcendence of ego.

7) Enlightenment. Full extinguishment of the ego. Sole purpose is teaching. Sole motivation is compassion.

Thomas

[...]

..good to have you back FU*...

Is there such a thing as an " E Being"?

..i bet there is, i mean, there will always be someone that fits the discription invented by someone else for whatever reason. Who isn't an "E being"? Selfpercieved guru's have it easy, they just have to maintain a general projection understood by many to be characteristics of being enlightened, and they will be seen that way. The modern messias' more often than not were exposed as frauds, altough it was good to 'meet' John de Ruiter a couple of years ago. A couple of months later he came into the café i worked at at that time, and he was just like any other guy ordering a sandwich :)

[...]

..the nondual approach does not view anyone or anything as not enlightened, it would therefore be nonsensical to attach attributes to a specific state of being as all states of being are seen as enlightenment. It could be argued however that there can be states of consciousness that differ greatly from everyday consciousness, and because of that difference one is enlightened. Now, this is a matter of preference, and calls for the existence of an idea that tells us there's something better than our current level of perception. Religion is based on this notion, and it has gotten us nowhere. A shining paradox manifests as soon as that notion is let-go, and perhaps then you can return to chopping wood and carrying water :)

[fu*]

Thank you Thomas for your understanding, and ability to expound on what i was trying to express..

i bet there is, i mean, there will always be someone that fits the discription invented by someone else for whatever reason.

And maybe that would fit with Thomas' freinds stages to "enlightenment". And I would so like to think that these are the steps towards.....

But alas, unless one is "enlightened", how would one know? One might believe that this is what it takes/what it is. And so he/she is on the road. Like... I am maybe at step 5, maybe even pushing a little into 6, and so only a short way to go.

Unless this "transpersonal psychologist" is/has become "enlightened", then he must be somewhere less than a complete 7. And if you are a 5 or 6, how would one know truley what 7 is? ( or even that there is a 7, or that there is not a 777 )


altough it was good to 'meet' John de Ruiter a couple of years ago. A couple of months later he came into the café i worked at at that time, and he was just like any other guy ordering a sandwich

A shining paradox manifests as soon as that notion is let-go, and perhaps then you can return to chopping wood and carrying water


So are you saying that because he seemed like a regular guy, he was not "enlightened"? Maybe he was just back to chopping wood and carrying water.

i am convinced there are enlightened beings...in fact in my view the whole of 'life' is to achieve self realization...

Well, I am not "convinced" this is to "enlightenment", but is it is truly a trip, cause every time I have found something of 'self', I have found something of others. And then if the 'others' haven't found... WOW....look at all those buttons !! ...should I push the red one? Or the green one?


the guru said something else that aided my understanding...in order to achieve enlightment you need to come into contact with someone who is enlightened.

Guru......means teacher.... Right? So if "guru" is not "enlightened", he/she is really just guessing, right? So did the "guru" not come in "contact"?


That is my problem....... my search......


To tell me there is no "problem", or no "search" doesn't do it for me.

So who is the/them "enlightened "one? Otherwise true honesty will say I DONT KNOW.

fu

[...]

And maybe that would fit with Thomas' freinds stages to "enlightenment". And I would so like to think that these are the steps towards.....

..but you also know FU* that this thought is the very reason why you don't realise you're already enlightened?

But alas, unless one is "enlightened", how would one know?

..one does not know as long as one believes there is a way to become enlightened...

One might believe that this is what it takes/what it is.

..that very belief is the obstacle. You are enlightened FU*, why don't you realise this?

So are you saying that because he seemed like a regular guy, he was not "enlightened"? Maybe he was just back to chopping wood and carrying water.

..what it taught me was that what people percieve as enlightenment is in fact simply total and utter attention. In everyday life this kind of attention is not handy, and even an 'enlightened' person goes about life just like you and i. There is no difference because even if we don't realise this at the time, we all have total-attention experiences: watching a movie, listening to music, feeling her body against yours, gazing at beautiful vista's and so on. It's just that we don't relate those experiences with enlightenment, but if you pay attention to those small happenings 24-7, you'll see...

[...]

To tell me there is no "problem", or no "search" doesn't do it for me.

So who is the/them "enlightened "one? Otherwise true honesty will say I DONT KNOW.

..either we're all enlightened, or none of us is. Let me ask you a question FU*: what is more important to you; enlightenment or the search?

[Thomas Knierim]

psyche: ...the 'i am more enlightened than thou' attitude seems so prevalent...and so misquided...

Misguided is the right word. I have seen more than a few exchanges (online and in the "real" word) where the participants' chief objective was to convince the audience of their personal enlightenment, which -in my view- is patently absurd, because the only thing that is convincing in such banter is the ego attachment of the involved parties to the repute and "spiritual prestige" connected with the word enlightenment. Hardly anything could be more counterproductive.

Enlightenment cannot be claimed.

Perhaps the most farcical case I came across is that of David Quinn (http://www.theabsolute.net/dquinn/) who runs the Genius Forum. David, as well of two of his colleagues, claim to be enlightened and propound a pseudo-philosophy that is mainly based on Mahayana metaphysics and misogyny. This may sound odd, but they are surely not alone. If one rummages the Internet, one probably finds that "enlightened teachers" abound. There is no scarcity of individuals immersed into personality cult.

Apart from that (and perhaps more regrettably), there is also a business aspect to it. Enlightenment ranks high among personal ideals, and this has opened up a market for self-help books, speakers, courses, and gurus of any couleur. There are a considerable number of traditional and non-traditional teachers who sustain themselves economically by selling books, tapes, talks, and courses connected to the topic of enlightenment. There are even commercial companies that do so.

Whether this is good or bad is debatable. One may argue that spiritual teachers need to eat, too, and that there is nothing like the Eastern tradition in the West, which sustains their spiritual community economically. However, in the West there is also a tradition of supporting spiritual institutions by donations. The recent commercialisation of spiritual teachings is misrouted in my view, even devious, because it pollutes the whole enterprise.

psyche: but somehow i think that enlightenment may not necessarily encountered in a logical manner...

Certainly not. These stages are meant to illustrate the process of emancipation from the world in a theoretical manner. They are not meant to be prescriptive in the sense that logical or natural laws exist by which such a progression must occur. Moreover, they can rarely be pinned down precisely. Hence, it sounds silly to say: "Hey, you are a level four." It represents pretty much the psychologist's view by drawing parallels to the developmental process known from developmental psychology.

For example, the first stage, separation, is initiated at birth, when the child separates from the mother and becomes an autonomous being. The baby and toddler must first learn how to be that separate being. The second stage, individualisation, occurs during childhood and adolescence. At that stage, the individual discovers its qualities, such as physical and intellectual prowess, interests, talents, and so on. During the third stage, differentiation, the individual explores various relationships, matures emotionally, and defines its role in society. It occurs at adulthood.

Differentiated people are normal, adjusted adults who play typical roles in society, e.g. the role of employee, parent, official, friend, and so on. At the differentiated level, people usually identify with these roles and have no problems performing them, albeit in a humanly flawed manner. Almost everybody reaches this level, though certain mental conditions might prevent the individual from reaching it. Conventional psychiatry tries to get people to this level of development.

The fourth level, actualisation, is characterised by a significant growth of self-esteem and integrity. The common aims in life, e.g. material wealth, sexual fulfilment, comfort, prestige, etc., become less important, whereas virtues, wholeness, honesty, honour, etc. become more important. The individual is getting "on track" in life and is geared towards a "higher purpose". Typical examples are vital, healthy individuals, often leaders, teachers, healers, scholars, advisors, although professional achievement is not always an indicator.

The stage of actualisation is frequently reached at middle or late adulthood as a consequence of disenchantment with worldly pursuits and/or existential experiences. Not everyone develops full actualisation; in fact many people do not progress beyond differentiation. Humanistic psychology aims at getting people to this level of development.

The next three stages, insight, awakening, and enlightenment are exeedingly rare. In particular, very few make it to the level of full enlightenment. At the stage of insight, the spiritual quest becomes the singular aim in life and all other pursuits become meaningless. People at this stage often (but not necessarily) choose unconventional paths, i.e. that of a monk/nun, ascetic, teacher, hermit, mentor, and so on. They are loved and admired by many, but they also attract suspicion and antagonism from people who fear them. The stage is characterised by the development of radical insight, true compassion, total honesty, trust in the universe, and transcendental pursuits. According to my friend, transpersonal psychology aims at getting people to this level.

dotdotdot: ..the nondual approach does not view anyone or anything as not enlightened, it would therefore be nonsensical to attach attributes to a specific state of being as all states of being are seen as enlightenment

Well, that's a clever argument; a bit too clever for my taste. ;) While it is ultimately true, that there is no intrinsic value attached to these stages of spiritual realisation, it certainly does matter to us, who are the subjects. At last, all theories and all descriptions -including the one I have presented here- are figments of imagination, mere pointers, but that does not mean they are meaningless.

dotdotdot: It could be argued however that there can be states of consciousness that differ greatly from everyday consciousness, and because of that difference one is enlightened.

I think this is a fallacy. The properties of consciousness are not an indicator. Different states of consciousness can indicate many things ranging from disturbance, intoxication to medical conditions. The "right" properties of consciousness are requisite rather than resultant.

fu: But alas, unless one is "enlightened", how would one know? And if you are a 5 or 6, how would one know truley what 7 is?

That's a good question. I guess one has to rely on the account of people who do know. It's a question of accepting or rejecting authority.

fu: So are you saying that because he seemed like a regular guy, he was not "enlightened"? Maybe he was just back to chopping wood and carrying water.

Maybe. But unless you are into personality cult, the question whether John de Reuter (and by extension any other teacher) is enlightened or not is actually not very relevant. What is relevant is whether his philosophy/teaching is helpful/meaningful to you. Frankly, I don't know much about him, and I did not read any of his writings, so I can't comment. I have seen some good teachers and some very, err... 'crappy' ones (which may be my personal bias), but somehow, even the crappy ones were useful to some people.

A good indicator for guru quality is perhaps, how many high-functioning (as opposed to gullible and crisis-ridden) disciples a teacher is able to attract.

Cheers, Thomas

[...]

Well, that's a clever argument; a bit too clever for my taste.

..i can imagine, but let's look into it a bit deeper. As one realises the truth of enlightenment already being the search ends, the struggle within ends. What is there to attain but relaxation? What else is enlightenment but relaxation? So, what is enlightenment exactly, from your POV?

I think this is a fallacy. The properties of consciousness are not an indicator. Different states of consciousness can indicate many things ranging from disturbance, intoxication to medical conditions. The "right" properties of consciousness are requisite rather than resultant.

..i agree...

[Thomas Knierim]

psyche: in fact go here and let me know what you think/intuit/sense...it is his website...

Thank you for the link, psyche. I have looked at Swami Jyotirmayananda's website and -since there's a radio link on it- I have also listened to one of the lectures spoken by him. From what I can gather, he is a bona fide teacher in the traditional line of advaita vedanta. He seems to have a special capacity to communicate his message to Westerners. He also seems to have a sense of humour. I have a positive feeling about him and his teaching.

I have also looked at John de Ruiter's website, who is apparently a Western style guru unattached to any tradition/lineage. I must admit that I can't make much sense of what he says. His message seems to be that one must surrender to truth/honesty (which is somewhat self-evident IMHO). He offers some free audio and video files on his site that reveal a very peculiar way of speech, almost like that of a hypnotist, in which he makes ample use of silence. He sits almost motionless and stares at the audience with piercing eyes. It appears a bit like a theatre performance to me.

I would definitely gravitate towards the Swami, but this may be personal bias of course, having lived in Asia for 12 years.

psyche: now there is another sense of guru which i would equate with the term master...now a master is enlightened and received enlightment from his guru who received it from his guru in an unbroken lineage...and he does have the ability to lead the disciple/chela to enlightenment...because he is enlightened he can perceive which methods will clear the dust from the mirror of the chela's mind and bring him step by step to the point where the ego is so weakened that it can be blown out like a candle flame...usually by tradition a young aspirant skips the the stages of establishment and family life and concerns of success and places his dependancy on the guru...this bond is karmic and is never broken...even death has no affect...and this meeting with 'your' guru is the most important event of all your lifetimes...as it is he that is your true soulmate...whose love is unconditional infinte and eternal...

Wow. This is something unusual for a young American to say. Are you American? How old are you?

dotdotdot: What is there to attain but relaxation? What else is enlightenment but relaxation?

It must be something else than relaxation, simply for the reason that it is possible to be infinitely relaxed while at the same time being infinitely ignorant. :lol:

dotdotdot: So, what is enlightenment exactly, from your POV?

Enlightenment is the absence of illusions.

There are several metaphors that illustrate this. One is that of a mirror. A perfect mirror without dust and dirt reflects reality precisely as it is. There are no distortions and obscurations. Hence, the perfect mirror is likened to enlightened perception, whereas the distorted and obscured mirror is likened to unenlightened perception. The flawed mirror produces a reflection that is riddled with imperfections, and thus, ignorance and illusions arise.

The other frequently used metaphor is that of the sky. Enlightenment is like the blue radiant sky, whereas clouds are obscurations. The unenlightened mind mistakes cloud formations for reality, but the nature of reality is like the cloudless sky.

Cheers, Thomas

[...]

He sits almost motionless and stares at the audience with piercing eyes. It appears a bit like a theatre performance to me.
..what i got from his satsangs was an undiluted presence of being. No thinking present, just presence. To be honest though, i found it all to be a bit boring, or rather... obvious. Despite some hilarious reactions from the public, i never stayed longer than 1,5 hours...

It must be something else than relaxation, simply for the reason that it is possible to be infinitely relaxed while at the same time being infinitely ignorant.

..what we don't know greatly exceeds all we do know, so how would you define ignorance? Why would ignorance matter when infinitly relaxed? <_<

Enlightenment is the absence of illusions.

There are several metaphors that illustrate this. One is that of a mirror. A perfect mirror without dust and dirt reflects reality precisely as it is. There are no distortions and obscurations. Hence, the perfect mirror is likened to enlightened perception, whereas the distorted and obscured mirror is likened to unenlightened perception. The flawed mirror produces a reflection that is riddled with imperfections, and thus, ignorance and illusions arise.

The other frequently used metaphor is that of the sky. Enlightenment is like the blue radiant sky, whereas clouds are obscurations. The unenlightened mind mistakes cloud formations for reality, but the nature of reality is like the cloudless sky.

..what is illusion and what is not? Is reality illusion, or are our perceptions of reality illusion? If there is truth, it must be absolute. This absolute truth must also envelope everything in reality, for what can exist outside of truth? Yes, ignorance and imperfection arise and exist, but just as perfect as the cloudless enlightened mind. Both exist on the same plane, both are enveloped by truth, so neither is better or more important than the other, they are the same. Only in preference they differ...

..and who is there to prefer the enlightened state? Who is there to become enlightened? Who searches for it, who wants it and why? Searching for enlightenment is looking for your glasses when they're perched on top of your head. It prevents you from seeing the obvious; that enlightenment is this, and nothing more...

[Boondoggle]

"In my view they can not be "sickened", or "upset", or "angered", or made "happy". They do not have "friends". They see beyond these black dots on a white screen. They don't tell about themselves, or there feelings. they have no buttons to push. (I do test by pushing ) "


By this definition an enlightened one feels nothing. I reject this definition. My computer satisfies it. An enlightened person does not trancend nature. An enlightend being embraces nature, and strives to understand it, with awareness and acceptance of the imperfection with which that objective is persued.

There is nothing wrong with being happy.

[Thomas Knierim]

dotdotdot: .....what i got from his satsangs was an undiluted presence of being. No thinking present, just presence. To be honest though, i found it all to be a bit boring, or rather... obvious. Despite some hilarious reactions from the public, i never stayed longer than 1,5 hours...

Interesting. I can imagine that de Ruiter's technique is effective with some people. Your opinion about him appears to be quite neutral. Is it? What is his message?

dotdotdot: ...what we don't know greatly exceeds all we do know, so how would you define ignorance? Why would ignorance matter when infinitly relaxed?

Ignorance -in a spiritual sense- is not the absence of knowledge of facts and concepts. It is the lack of cognitive capacity to look into things and truly understand them. A form of mental dullness if you like. To understand things truly, it is necessary to develop determination, keen perception, a sharp intellect, and a compassionate heart (compassion is a cognitive capacity). Ignorance does matter, because it is the root cause of suffering. It inevitably leads to suffering. Even when 'infinitely relaxed', the state of relaxation is temporary (as well as rare) and suffering follows, as sure as God's in Glasgow.

dotdotdot: ...what is illusion and what is not? Is reality illusion, or are our perceptions of reality illusion?

Illusion can take many forms. It is always based on wrongful identification. The more obscure a phenomenon is, the greater the possibility for wrongful identification. Reality is real by definition. However, our perception of reality is conditioned and limited, therefore wrongful identifications, therefore illusion.

dotdotdot: If there is truth, it must be absolute.

Yes, but this absolute truth is beyond the conceptual. Within the conceptual, there are many 'greater' and 'lesser' truths. It is possible to express these 'greater' and 'lesser' truths through language. However, due to the properties language itself, these truths sometimes contradict each other. Language often defeats logic, while truth itself is beyond logic. The best way to understand this is to study formal logic and become aware of the limitations of inferences and logical operations. Nevertheless, conceptual 'greater' and 'lesser' truths are often useful for us. But they also carry certain dangers. Wrongful identification is often a consequence of failing to see the limitations of the conceptual/symbolic and counfound relative truth and reality.

dotdotdot: Yes, ignorance and imperfection arise and exist, but just as perfect as the cloudless enlightened mind. Both exist on the same plane, both are enveloped by truth, so neither is better or more important than the other, they are the same. Only in preference they differ...

From my perspective, the human perspective, insight is superior to ignorance, knowing is superior to not-knowing, truth is superior to illusion, not suffering is superior to suffering, and so on. Of course, we all swim in the same pond, and we are part of the same reality. There are lower and higher states of existence in that pond. At the human level, I believe, it is natural to strive towards higher states of existence. In fact, striving is the very expression of existence.

dotdotdot: ...and who is there to prefer the enlightened state? Who is there to become enlightened?

That is a very good question. The enlightened teachers tell us that there is no seeker. Alright. But there is still seeking. There is still striving. Even if there is no subject. If seeking and striving do not require a subject, why should enlightenment require one?

Cheers, Thomas

[...]

Your opinion about him appears to be quite neutral. Is it? What is his message?

..it became neutral after seeing him in the 'wild'. Before that i had my opinion about him that was based on my view of socalled enlightened people. In real life he was no different from any other tourist ordering a chickensandwich, and that did the trick nicely. His message? Embrace life, don't worry be happy, the basic stuff really...

It is the lack of cognitive capacity to look into things and truly understand them. A form of mental dullness if you like. To understand things truly, it is necessary to develop determination, keen perception, a sharp intellect, and a compassionate heart (compassion is a cognitive capacity).

..i understand where you're going with this, but it is seen from an intellectual perspective. What about the old farmer who had no formal education, is barely able to read, but knows his land and the changing of the seasons, who understands that us humans are also subject to the laws of nature and accepts the mystery of life without question? What i'm pointing at here is that we invent characteristics and then expect reality to adhere accordingly. It is this that perpetuates the search...

Reality is real by definition. However, our perception of reality is conditioned and limited, therefore wrongful identifications, therefore illusion.

..so enlightenment is still perception of reality only without wrongful identification. So, how do we go about establishing what is right and wrongful identification? Or is any identification wrongful? Can we stop all kinds of identification?

From my perspective, the human perspective

..woudn't this be a case of wrongful identification? If it is, aren't your conclusions based on that identification also wrong?

But there is still seeking. There is still striving. Even if there is no subject. If seeking and striving do not require a subject, why should enlightenment require one?

..because enlightenment doesn't require one. Seeking and striving happen within/as enlightenment, without a subject. It is all THAT. All that happens, happens within truth: seeking, striving, loving, hate, ignorance, enlightenment, anger, fear, happiness, objectivity, subjectivity, thought and silence; it all comes from the same brush, from the same mystery, in equal value...

:)

[...]

An enlightend being embraces nature, and strives to understand it, with awareness and acceptance of the imperfection with which that objective is persued.

There is nothing wrong with being happy.

..well said :thumbsup:

[fu*]

And I would so like to think that these are the steps towards

Dot ..but you also know FU* that this thought is the very reason why you don't realise you're already enlightened?

What I posted was..."I would so like to think"...Which really means...I don't think.

QUOTE*
One might believe that this is what it takes/what it is.



..that very belief is the obstacle. You are enlightened FU*, why don't you realise this?


Again, I think you misunderstood. "one might believe" does not mean I believe.

Dot but if you pay attention to those small happenings 24-7, you'll see...

I do know/feel/have felt what you are saying here.....and....

we all have total-attention experiences: watching a movie, listening to music, feeling her body against yours, gazing at beautiful vista's and so on.

This has been fairly easy....movies, music, her/his body, beautiful vista's.

How about a bomb being dropped on your house, your father laying dead, your mother screaming as blood pours from gapping holes in her chest and legs, the putrid smell of smoke and burning flesh as you crawl out of the wreckage. Would you notice the sunrise and think "what a pretty day"? ( just to be clear, this did not happen to me )



Thomas At the stage of insight, the spiritual quest becomes the singular aim in life and all other pursuits become meaningless. ..............The stage is characterised by the development of radical insight, true compassion, total honesty, trust in the universe,


"trust in the universe"...?

Trust is not a knowing, is it ? Seems to me it is a 'thinking', a belief.

fu: But alas, unless one is "enlightened", how would one know? And if you are a 5 or 6, how would one know truley what 7 is?

That's a good question. I guess one has to rely on the account of people who do know. It's a question of accepting or rejecting authority.

Rely on the people who "know"? That was my original question. Who does know ?

Thomas A good indicator for guru quality is perhaps, how many high-functioning (as opposed to gullible and crisis-ridden) disciples a teacher is able to attract.

I am probably rejecting authority, but one must first have to judge "high-functioning" (does that mean smart?) "disiples".

If that is true, lets list them here.
I think Jesus started with twelve..seems now there are millions ( I dont know how many are "high functioning" )

Then we could move to Buhda....How many...who knows?

David Quinn?....there was a couple I think. ( I wasn't one)
Thats enough to see the problem there.

Dot ..and who is there to prefer the enlightened state? Who is there to become enlightened? Who searches for it, who wants it and why? Searching for enlightenment is looking for your glasses when they're perched on top of your head. It prevents you from seeing the obvious; that enlightenment is this, and nothing more...

And who is posting this?

psyche.....i once had a dream where the divine mother was holding me in her arms as if i were a baby...

I had a similar dream...... but there was no "divine mother", and I wasn't sleeping.....indescribable comfort...... years...but still close as breath......so I still express this human......knowing something else, some other time.


Boonboggle....By this definition an enlightened one feels nothing. I reject this definition. My computer satisfies it. An enlightened person does not trancend nature. An enlightend being embraces nature, and strives to understand it, with awareness and acceptance of the imperfection with which that objective is persued.


"My computer satisfies it" ? I didn't get that one. :huh:

An enlightened person does not trancend nature.

So you know what an e being does not transend ? What an e being embraces?
There are plenty of other threads to tell feelings/beliefs. Here might be a good place to tell exactly why/how you know.....I'm listening.

fu

[...]

How about a bomb being dropped on your house, your father laying dead, your mother screaming as blood pours from gapping holes in her chest and legs, the putrid smell of smoke and burning flesh as you crawl out of the wreckage. Would you notice the sunrise and think "what a pretty day"? ( just to be clear, this did not happen to me )

..shit happens. Aside from preferences, life is a-moral. Life, and everything that goes along with life, happens on it's own accord. I've never experienced horror in real life, so i can't comment on what i'd say or do, but if it happens you are left with only one option: acceptance...

And who is posting this?

..what i am is what you are. These words come from the same place the words you write come from. Most have forgotten that we are without difference, and that is simply how it is, but in reality :P we're one and the same...

edit: you have a PM

[fu*]

"so i still express this human"...by this do you impy that becoming or being enlightened is not 'human'..

I do imply that..... In this way.... the human is the body, the thoughts

as for the authority...i decide who the authority figures are in my life...so it would be your own choice for whatever reason you make that choice as to who had this type of authority...or you might have to be enlightened to know...that knowing would be enlightenment...

"i decide" or "choice" ?
Would "enlightened" have to "decide" or choose ?

since there are masses of sacred texts available

So were there "masses" of "enlightened" ?

To me "sacred texts" is meaningless.. YOU decide "sacred"......YOU chose to believe words/symbols that resonate with you. Don't you? And so you look further into this, and find/agree this must be "it". But "must" slips gently into....."IS".
I think you may have misunderstood my meaning in asking for more from "Boondoggle". It was an invitation to go beyond belief.... to explore/explain these thoughts.

It took many years of fighting this "truth" to understand this one simple thing................................. You are posting to yourself...........as I am posting to myself.......these black dots on the white screen are an expression of self. and although it may seem, or you are convinced, that you are posting to someone "other", you are not.
If I compiled your posts since you came here, will I find me ? No, I will find YOU.... expressed in words/symbols. I will find your likes, your dislikes, your preferences, your beliefs, your experiences, what you feel strongly about. Etc. Etc.

ask 'who am i'...i am not this body...i am not this mind...i am not the sum of my experiences...

Umm, Yes.... awareness 101....after exploring, even without any sacred text, this becomes obvious. I feel like I am back to my young catholic days, damming myself to hell for questioning Jesus, but your guru seems to have quite a snazzy website, and an online store to boot !

I had a choice here to post honestly, or to post for more responses/more feedback to comfort self.

'the peace that surpasses all understanding'

This expresses the common thread in all religious/spiritual writings that I have explored/searched for.

If you, or anyone, can describe this "peace" without just an intellectual understanding, without quoting some teacher, or writting....,,,,,,,,


You and dotty both seem to be telling me that you are "enlightened", but haven't the courage to say so... exactly....just telling ME how to..... So are you, or aren't you ? Be brave. Courage

So my original question was

Is there now? Or has there ever been? Jesus? Buddha? Smurf?

It wasn't ....can we enlighten fu.

Sorry, I am an ASS posting to self, but at least I know it.

fu

Edit...Dotty....The past might/will skewer your perception

[Thomas Knierim]

dotdotdot: ..i understand where you're going with this, but it is seen from an intellectual perspective. What about the old farmer who had no formal education, is barely able to read, but knows his land and the changing of the seasons...

One has to look at the word 'ignorance' from a spiritual point of view, not from the demotic point of view. In everyday language, an 'ignorant' person is someone without formal education, without academic knowledge, or without professional qualifications. Spiritual ignorance is different. It signifies incapacity to look into things thoroughly, to gain insight, and therefore being susceptible to wrongful identifications. In modern language, one might call it intrapersonal intelligence. This doesn't have much to do with academic skills. So, the old farmer -although being ignorant in the conventional sense- may not be ignorant in the intrapersonal/spiritual sense.

dotdotdot: So, how do we go about establishing what is right and wrongful identification? Or is any identification wrongful? Can we stop all kinds of identification?

To establish what are justified and what are wrongful identifications is a difficult and interminable process for us, simply because humans are less than omniscient. It is a lifelong learning process. Many pursuits are conducive to it. Learning at universities, learning from nature, learning from relationships, learning from suffering, and so on. Your second question is trickier. All identifications are ultimately wrong, but not wrongful. They are wrong in the sense that they are not ultimately true since ultimate truth is non-conceptual, but some identifications are justified/useful/skilful, while other are unjustified/disadvantageous/unskilful. Normal human consciousness cannot stop identifying. It is one of the basic functions of consciousness.

Thomas: From my perspective, the human perspective...
dotdotdot: ..woudn't this be a case of wrongful identification?

Why? I am quite certain that I am human. :lol:

dotdotdot: All that happens, happens within truth: seeking, striving, loving, hate, ignorance, enlightenment, anger, fear, happiness, objectivity, subjectivity, thought and silence; it all comes from the same brush, from the same mystery, in equal value...

I think that’s where my opinion differs from yours. I don’t think that everything has the same value, just because everything is true. In fact, that point of view appears nonsensical to me. Do you value war and violence because 'it is true'?

Fu: "trust in the universe"...? Trust is not a knowing, is it ? Seems to me it is a 'thinking', a belief.

With "trust in the universe" I mean an inner acceptance of the way things are. It means that you understand that things are what they caused to be and establish a proper relationship to them, even to the uncomfortable and painful ones. It also means you have understood that you are not separate from the universe. You are comfortable where you are.

Fu: Rely on the people who "know"? That was my original question. Who does know?

You rely on your teachers. When you were in kindergarten, you relied on your kindergarten teacher to teach you the alphabet in proper sequence. In high school, you relied on your teacher to teach you proper algebra. Likewise, you rely on spiritual teachers or experts to answer spiritual questions you cannot answer yourself. In case of the seven stages of enlightenment, this comes from a transpersonal psychologist with more than twenty years of experience with spiritual (especially Eastern) training and communities.

Cheers, Thomas

[...]

You and dotty both seem to be telling me that you are "enlightened"

..what i'm saying is that either we all are enlightened, or neither of us is. I'm saying that to me the notion of enlightenment is irrelevant because it isn't an attainable worthwhile state of being, it is thisnow, as you are NOW FU* complete with desires, fears, frustrations and odd habits. You are effortlessly you, simply be this, that is all...

but some identifications are justified/useful/skilful, while other are unjustified/disadvantageous/unskilful. Normal human consciousness cannot stop identifying. It is one of the basic functions of consciousness.

..it is the hierarchy you maintain between the above that facilitates and necessetates enlightenment. As if it is important to differantiate between aspects of life, as if life has unwanted aspects to it. It remains a matter of preference and it is exactly that which makes us continue to search as if enlightenment is not NOW, as you are...

Do you value war and violence because 'it is true'?

..they are not valued or unwanted. Life is not segmented in subjective parts that seek to kill one another. What appears to be a segment of life is exactly the same as another. So, war and violence happens, as love and tenderness happens. Destruction and creation happens and beauty and ugliness. These aren't opposites, they are the same appearing as differences...

[...]

i agree with this in the sense that enlightenment is inherent but it requires realization to be known...that is what self realization means...realizing your inherent nature...your authentic self...

..yes, but the realization consists of knowing that what you are, that which you know to be you, ís your authentic self. There is no requirement for being you, therefore enlightenment is what you are...

no enlightenment dispells fear frustration etc...it is serenity...equanamity...unalloyed...

..enlightenment has no qualities, no attributes, no groundrules to follow. Whether it's frustration or serenity, it arises and it whithers as an integral part of it...

[...]

so by this definition one could be a serial killer...and be an enlightened being...

..yes and no. The serial killer may think and believe [just like most of us] to be a separated entity, and act on unresolved hurt and trauma, or very intens obsessions, but even a serial killer is just an aspect of the same mystery. Frankly, there's no reason why a serial killer would stop killing once he realised this, he could stop but could also continue...

enlightenment may have no attributes but an enlightened being does...compassion and humilty at the very least...buhdda mind is not troubled with psychic afflictions...of fear or frustration or anger or greed...etc.

..any mind will have those afflictions, even a buddha mind. The difference is that a realised one can observe any impuls to arise and whither without acting upon it. There is no difference between a dalai lama and yourself psyche...

as for arising and withering i disagree...enlightenment or nirvana once experienced is a permanent state...you are now freed from the sufferings of impermanence...

..this is something you've experienced? Do you believe this to be true and desire it for yourself? You are seeking this state of being? Why? What if enlightenment or nirvana is unlike anything you believe it is? Aren't you chasing dreams?

[Smurf]

Is there now? Or has there ever been? Jesus? Buddha? Smurf?

I know this isn't in formal debate form ...
but ..

Heeyyy

I do exist you know? want proof? I could give you a picture :P

[VossistArts]

Originally posted by @--
How can you tell an "E" (enlightened) being.

Anyone searching for "truth" should be searching for this.

In my view they can not be "sickened", or "upset", or "angered", or made "happy". They do not have "friends". They see beyond these black dots on a white screen. They don't tell about themselves, or there feelings. they have no buttons to push. (I do test by pushing cool.gif )

Is there such a thing as an " E Being"?
I think the idea of enlightened is somehow misunderstood. I dont think its intended as a concept that can be generally and fully applied to a person. Enlightenment happens little by little, when weve gathered enough pieces of some particular puzzle in our lives where the full reality or truth(s) of that particular puzzle become clear. It is fully displayed in the light of more than understanding, but in realization. Whenever we think were speaking of a person who is an "enlightened" person, it is almost always because the person exhibits a sound grasp of a particular thing, or concept. The great spiritual masters of our time that we consider to be enlightened may well be enlightened.... to their particular fashion or choice of way to see thing, such as by way of Buddhism, or Hinduism, or some personally invented scheme that works to sum things up into. So the master is enlightened to buddhism, but does that enlightenment then extend to everything else? can the master necessarily farm corn in an enlightened manner, or if you set out before him all the neccessary parts for assembling a television set, could he assemble it in an all knowing enlightened fashion?? how about running marathons? does a fully enlightened person have enlightened physical abilitiess as well ? I dont think so.
I disagree with the statement that anyone searching for truth should be searching for this (enlightened beings). Why is that true? What do you imagine finding such a person, if there is such a person, will potentially get you? No one can hand another person enlightenments. Sure a person can help you to understand things, even very deep and intense things, but understanding something conceptually, intellectually, is not the same as enlightening to the subject. Enlightenment is more than understanding.. i think its more like becoming. It requires one to have involved themselves in pursuit of knowledge on the subject through experience most effectively first hand experience and contemplation, to the extent that at some point to sum total of this gathering becomes enough to assemble the full insight into the whole picture of thing. Realization. I dont think anyone can supply everything necessary for another person to become enlightened to the thing. The only reason I can see for searching for a person who is enlightened in some subject of your personal interest woould be to check the experiences and temporary conclusions youve arrived at thus far in your quest to enlighten to the thing. Even for that reason, I dont see how having enlightened people in your life is a necessary thing at all. The life you percieve around you and the mind you access is the Guru.
Sooo, I guess I cant see arguing the qualities of what an enlightened person has on them. Id hate to think that the saturation and distillation of experience and understandiings leads us all to become essentially the same person, with the same conclusion and ways about us as everyone else in our like shoes. Id think nearly every person who has some measure of enlightenment about them lesser or greater, has arrived at their seeming ends in a unique way. I dont think enlightenment is necessarily typified by by emotionless , friendless, detached characteristics. It depends on what youre talking about, what the person is enlightened to exactly. Its not all about spirituality necessarily. I personally dont think there is or ever will be a person who comes to a place where they are fully enlightened in all ways to all things, despite what is said about Buddhas. Perhaps they have a full understand of all the things that go on in this world, but I think it would be shortsighted somehow to believe that this is all there could possible be, that the mind and the realms of possibilities are somehow finite. But maybe...

I dont know. I always come back to some vague memory of having read of the Buddha and like him explaining that we find our way to enlightenments on our own, through our own self, and that no one can do it for us, and that truly no one else is required to make the journey a success. I follow my own road. If I thought I had the opportunity to meet someone who could enlighten me psychically somehow, in an instant, Id decline to participate in the experience. Its a beautiful thing, unravelling some of lifes mysteries, solving some of lifes puzzles.. despite how we may suffer some along the way. Personally its what I love most about my living, I wouldnt short cut it that way if i could. collectivism sounds pretty good I guess, but Im much more interested in seeing what I can come up more on my own in this life. Maybe it will be something wonderful, and unique, and maybe I will fail to satisfy my hopes. The bottom line always is though: Im all ive got when it comes right down to it. Given that thats the way it is, I feel compelled to give it my best to make the best of what ive been given that way.. yknow>?
But dont misunderstand me. I love to talk to people who are enlightened in whatever theyre enlightened in. Its refreshing, entertaining, interesting. But only for a diversion. Then its back to work.

[Michael]

When you're sitting up there on a branch of the tree of life, ready to come into existence, it seems easy. Then you hit the earth plane and everything becomes confused.

Even for 'enlightened' beings it's hard, there is risk.

There is an old Chinese adage which goes, 'Between the best of us and the worst of us, there is only a membrane difference'.

One thing I can say to you all with utter confidence is beware of those who tell you they 'know'.

And before you go on reading my words I should say that I am unhappily stumbling around in the confusion, and not making a very good job of it. I don't 'know'.

My search has led me to believe that this is a protean universe. Which is to postulate that there is no 'unified field theory' and actually no 'enlightened' person, at least no permanently enlightened person.

In my deepest feeling, my deepest intuition, I have a strong suspicion that the 'bad' is just as important as the 'good'. I'm not saying that 'bad' is 'good', I'm saying it has a significance which should be considered and given respect.

The contemplation of this brings up fear - for many of us are afraid that we are 'bad'.

This fear leads to all kinds of negative activety and defensive attitudes.

But the Buddha observed that the lotus grows from the rotted matter at the bottom of the pool.

This is an observation worthy of much contemplation.

In order for things to be born other things must die.

Our negative attitudes to these matters must be addressed in order that we can progress.

The underlying nature is love. As the bloom is loved, so is the dying for we cannot have one without the other.

This I do know and that is that we are loved. Not just 'we', but each one of us, personally, for our uniqueness. I know YOU are loved, however I think I feel about you. I know I am loved, however I think I feel abut me.

There is an Inuit legend of a man who went around breaking a whole lot of taboos(if anybody can give me a reference to this story I would be grateful). Got himself condemned to living many, many lifetimes. To cut a very long story short he eventually managed to die. The Great Spirit welcomed him with love. Other spirits objected, pointing out that he was disobedient etc. The Great Spirit replied that that was why he loved him.

And so each of us is loved enlightened or not.

These are just a few half digested thoughts which I hope may give someone out there pause for further thought.

If anything here strikes a chord with you I would be pleased to continue the exchange.

























++











































































































































0