# Am I enlightened? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 25, 2008, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581 "2008-05-25T18:44:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/141 "2008-05-29T21:30:57Z")
You think of love in this context as an emotion? ---
**Author:** ![Friedah35](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecb155/32.png) [@Friedah35](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Friedah35)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/142 "2008-05-30T01:18:44Z")
**Liberal** You can refer to post 108 for a detailed commentary on exactly what I think of love in the context of enlightenment. In short, loving acceptance is our natural state. However, the incessant drama of the mind eclipses our access to our natural state (being the state without mind). So to understand love in the realm of enlightenment is to lose the attachments and associations our mind has been conditioned to link to the conceptualization of love; namely need and certain set, often societal, expectations. This leaves only freedom and acceptance of the result of that freedom. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/143 "2008-05-30T02:27:04Z")
[QUOTE=Friedah35] **cosmosdan** I agree completely with your post, most particularly this part which I have quoted here. It reminds me a bit of two things: Consider walking on water as a metaphor for enlightenment (being in this world, but not of it): So Peter walks on water after Jesus, but the moment his egoic mind tries to wrap itself around this event taking place (ie: "Gee, I’m a really spiritual guy, equal to Christ??!!), he begins to sink. And, of course, Jesus has no way of lifting him back up (even He cannot force enlightenment in another), so he says, “Oh ye of little faith!”, indicating that it is entirely unto you to find your own enlightenment. Thus it seems that if you bring about this faith of self through faith in Jesus, that is sufficient, but not necessary. The key element is faith in self. It also reminds me of Wily E. Coyote for obvious reasons. 🙂 [/QUOTE] Or faith that the self is an illusion. Woah, that was quite profound, and I said it. Cool!! 😃 Kidding aside, I think different vehicles work for different people on the spiritual journey. Jesus for some, Buddha for others, Muhammad, Bahá’u’lláh, etc. If their honest desire is to seek the truth, self discovery, spiritual awareness, then they will find their way through whatever vehicle seems to work for them. I’m not a huge fan of organized religion because I think people often get hung up on the dogma and tradition and loose sight of the purpose of personal spiritual growth, but, I know it works for lots of folks. For me it boils down to seeking love and truth through all of life’s experiences and understanding how those things apply to our day to day , moment to moment life. It’s easy to be holy and high minded if we meditate in a cave away from the world. Much harder when dealing with the details of life and it’s challenging cast of characters. ---
**Author:** ![ToeJam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@ToeJam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ToeJam)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/144 "2008-05-30T05:49:23Z")
[QUOTE=Merhouse] I agree wholeheartedly. Thank you for pointing it out! [/QUOTE] :blushes: Thanks, I’m still searching on my own, but I do love my uncles a lot. When I have kids, I know I won’t be able to answer their questions on religion very well- because I myself am unsure of it. So instead I want them to just learn to want to desire knowledge- to find out for themselves. Read everything, learn from ALL texts of all religions, and realize that life in itself is a learning experience. So I’ll probably tell them lots of stories like that one, because they are the things that meant the most to me. But thank you again. As for the answer to “are you enlightened” I don’t think it matters, at least you’re trying [I hope]. If you posted this thread truly to learn more about yourself, then that’s all that really matters. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/145 "2008-05-30T12:55:32Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Ooooooo-kay… [stepping away quietly] [/QUOTE] In order to think? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/146 "2008-05-30T13:00:29Z")
[QUOTE=Friedah35] **lekatt** By the way, I am curious as to what you thought regarding my take on the emotional aspects of enlightenment, namely love. [/QUOTE] I thought it covered all the bases. I have been reading this thread with great interest. We think alike on nearly all points. You use many words and I only a few. You are the teacher and I the healer. You are young and I am old. But the message of love is clear and resonates in our being. I am glad you are here, consider joining. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/147 "2008-05-30T13:06:05Z")
[QUOTE=Friedah35] **lekatt** That link was perfect in its relevance to the discussion. Thank you for sharing that. I remember attending a lecture about practiced Buddhist meditators, who underwent a study whereupon their brain activity was measured against novice meditators, and average controls. The crucial difference was that the Buddhists had extreme right brain activity peaks with very low valleys of left brain activity. Compare that with the novices, who were, to a lesser extent, in the same way, and then compare that to the controls who had it going the opposite way, with high left brain activity, and relatively low right brain activity. [/QUOTE] Yes, it is a very valuable video, she has written a book and does lectures. It is so hard to put into words the feelings of connection to the inner spirit. She does it so well. Millions have made the connection, but most have not. But they will in their own time. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/148 "2008-05-30T13:09:09Z")
All this business of becoming enlightened, and calm, and detached, and in peaceful harmony with everything is great, if that’s what floats your boat, but what if I _don’t want to?_ What if, for me, the highest goal of existence is to strive - to experience the highs and lows - to taste the bitter and sweet, to fail, succeed, or just exhaust myself trying, then relish the sensation of lying there gasping for the next breath - not to simplify, but to complexify - not to smooth out, but to roughen, then find interesting things in the cracks and crevices - to take anything apart, terrified that it might not go back together again, but doing it anyway - to break open the bones and suck out the marrow? What if your ‘heaven’ is my ‘hell’? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/149 "2008-05-30T14:32:16Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] All this business of becoming enlightened, and calm, and detached, and in peaceful harmony with everything is great, if that’s what floats your boat, but what if I _don’t want to?_ What if, for me, the highest goal of existence is to strive - to experience the highs and lows - to taste the bitter and sweet, to fail, succeed, or just exhaust myself trying, then relish the sensation of lying there gasping for the next breath - not to simplify, but to complexify - not to smooth out, but to roughen, then find interesting things in the cracks and crevices - to take anything apart, terrified that it might not go back together again, but doing it anyway - to break open the bones and suck out the marrow? What if your ‘heaven’ is my ‘hell’? [/QUOTE] Enlightenment doesn’t mean you can’t do all those things you listed, not at all. As for heaven and hell, they are what people want/make them to be. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/150 "2008-05-30T14:52:31Z")
But if it can be everything, how can it be anything? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/151 "2008-05-30T15:23:47Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] But if it can be everything, how can it be anything? [/QUOTE] Being everything is being anything. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/152 "2008-05-30T22:42:40Z")
[QUOTE=lekatt] Being everything is being anything. [/QUOTE] At the same time as being nothing in particular. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/153 "2008-05-30T23:03:45Z")
[QUOTE=Friedah35] When I lose someone close to me, which will inevitably happen, I will accept it wholly, head on, and feel gratitude for the time I was given, by life, to have with that person. [/QUOTE] Before the battle, every soldier is a hero. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/154 "2008-05-30T23:10:59Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] All this business of becoming enlightened, and calm, and detached, and in peaceful harmony with everything is great, if that’s what floats your boat, but what if I _don’t want to?_ What if, for me, the highest goal of existence is to strive - to experience the highs and lows - to taste the bitter and sweet, to fail, succeed, or just exhaust myself trying, then relish the sensation of lying there gasping for the next breath - not to simplify, but to complexify - not to smooth out, but to roughen, then find interesting things in the cracks and crevices - to take anything apart, terrified that it might not go back together again, but doing it anyway - to break open the bones and suck out the marrow? What if your ‘heaven’ is my ‘hell’? [/QUOTE] Does it seem like Jesus was all peaceful harmony? Plenty of spiritual greats led lives that tasted the bitter and the sweet right? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2008, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/155 "2008-05-31T02:04:08Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] At the same time as being nothing in particular. [/QUOTE] At the same time being everything in particular. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2008, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/156 "2008-05-31T21:01:04Z")
[QUOTE=lekatt] At the same time being everything in particular. [/QUOTE] Everything is not particular, Everything cannot be particular. Everything is _general_. But what I mean to ask is this: What is the point of saying “ **This is the path to enlightenment… Well… this _and every other_.** ” ? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2008, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/157 "2008-05-31T21:35:23Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] Everything is not particular, Everything cannot be particular. Everything is _general_. But what I mean to ask is this: What is the point of saying “ **This is the path to enlightenment… Well… this _and every other_.** ” ? [/QUOTE] Don’t know what you mean. Enlightenment is self-discovery, connecting to your inner self. There are many ways of becoming enlightened. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2008, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/158 "2008-06-01T03:32:11Z")
Sorry for only now getting back to you on this! [QUOTE=Friedah35] The ego, as I speak of it, is the totality of the egoic mind. The on-going commentary of your head which creates your narrative, makes “sense” of it, and gives it a very specific, and therefore limited, sense of purpose and self. So that would include the Id and the Superego, too, technically I suppose. [/quote] Ah, ok then. Just as a general pointer, if you’re using a term differently than how the majority of people would use it, it’s helpful if you point it out. I thought you meant ego as in the ego/id/superego trinity, and though I guessed you weren’t referring to the other common definition it was confusing. 🙂 > [@](#): > > Further, it is not about ignoring an input. But, like you say, the exact opposite of that. It is complete acceptance of the input, and further, acknowledgement of WHAT the input is and WHERE it is coming from! If one is defining the ego as within their control, and NOT THE defining aspect of self, then they recognize the whining and self-deprication of the ego as nothing more than temporarily fabricated nonsense, the flavor of the week, and therefore separate from their permanent self; their consciousness of oneness, love and acceptance, ideas that the egoic mind cannot fully conceptualize but which can be felt wholly by the soul. But you’re defining and then rejecting it; and rejecting it purely because it falls into one category. It’s like looking at your foot, evaluating it, examining it, poking and prodding at it a bit, and then chucking it away. No matter the amount of analysis you do to it you’ve already admitted that you will be disregarding totally any inputs that come out of it. It wouldn’t be accepting your whole if you said “Ah, yes, my foot is there, and I know what it does, but I always ignore any inputs that come from it!”, so why is it so with a part of the mind? > [@](#): > > I don’t think I have agreed to this. What I may have said is that there is no NEED for enlightenment, in that you certainly can live without it. You can live however you choose. But, given this, why not choose a path which leads one outside of the realm of suffering? Because an enlightened person, as you have suggested, feels no suffering. And thus they have no reason to choose a path outside that realm; they don’t need to. They have zero motivation to choose to avoid suffering because it has no hold over them; likewise, joy has no hold over them either. They have no motivation to do one or the other. > [@](#): > > The enlightened person does not merely feel love… they ARE love, expressing nothing but love, in all of their actions, thoughts, and feelings. Why? I can’t speak for you. But if I look at my life, and my mental state, and I had to evaluate where my happiness and loving feelings come from - i’d have to say they pretty uniformly came from my attachments. To people, places, whatever. Just as my suffering when a friend is hurt comes because i’m attached to them my joy when they’re happy too comes because i’m attached to them. Love is all about attachments; even in it’s most lonely form of narcissism it requires an attachment to yourself. Love and suffering are, in my eyes, from the same place; so I would say unless you can convince me that they have different sources, or are uniquely different in form, I don’t think you can eliminate suffering attachments without also harming your love ones. > [@](#): > > The type of enlightenment you have understood from my explanation seems to be one of a callous nature, unfeeling, and emotionally deadened. However, now perhaps you can see that is not the case at all. It is the mind which emotionally deadens life. Here is an analogy which may work: > > Have you ever watched an exciting sporting event, and you are trying to pay attention to the game, but the commentator is either very irritating or, on the other hand, very captivating? You find yourself entranced by the commentary, and quite entertained by it, perhaps. Then, all of a sudden, an amazing play happens, but you MISSED it! You were too busy focusing on the comentary to pay any attention to the game! This is the mind’s relationship to life, merely commentary: mere words which can never fully articulate the beauty of the game itself. Hoist by your own argument, I feel. “and quite entertained by it”? I could, as you’ve said, ignore the commentary - but then I wouldn’t get the entertainment out of it either. And likewise, by watching the game I might miss a particularly funny bit of banter. I believe the mind can relate to life well, otherwise we would be totally unable to produce beautiful articulations ourselves. Authors, artists, writers, and those very same atheletes in that exciting sporting event need to be able to articulate that full beauty or they would not be able to produce great works, books, paintings, or a neat cross into the box. 😉 After all, if we can’t fully concieve in the mind the full majesty of the world, then all we can do on purpose is drudgery, and all we can do that matches that wonder is luck, and not based on anything we can do. The next time you are moved by a fantastic piece of music or moving poetry, remember that that _came_ from a mind. > [@](#): > > So, on this note, you will truly feel love, because you have no conceptualization of love which tries to constrain love into a box, blocking you from the true experience of it. This point worries me, and it leads me to ask you a question; Can love ever be a bad thing? > [@](#): > > And so then why wouldn’t an enlightened person cause suffering, you ask? Because they are incapable of it, by their very nature! They can act only in a loving way, because they recognize that the self, absent of the selfish, greedy, egoic mind, knows only dispositions of love, and therefore, can only express love to others! In addition to this, on a more trivial note, they realize they cannot CAUSE suffering in another, but instead, they may or may not be able to cause a reaction in another which may or may not be suffering. I don’t believe the self, absent of the egoic mind you describe, would only know love. Why would it? That which makes us greedy or selfish is that we attach worth to things. A selfish person attaches worth to money, or love, or delicious cake, and tries to hoard it or take more than their fair share. But a person in love attaches those they love with worth. A charitable person attaches the money they give away with worth, or they wouldn’t think giving it would help. You as a person seeking or having had sought enlightenment attaches worth to that goal and to the truth. What about these attachments means you’ve been able to look over them all and come to the understanding that only the bad ones come from what you call the ego? What quality is it they have that both seperates the good attachments from bad, and also associates the bad attachments only with the “commentating” mind? I honestly do not see them. > [@](#): > > Yes, I believe such a way of life is possible for everybody. And yes, I do believe that you honestly disagree. And no, subconsciously you don’t know what I’m saying is right. But you are speaking on behalf of your mind. It may be the case that you may not know how to speak THROUGH your mind (the mind as a filter from the heart, which is what I am doing; I am not thinking as I write, it comes out). Now, I say this not to fault you. This, again, is the nature of the “Fall”, “Original Sin”… the adding of the egoic mind to the experience of oneness, the illusion of individuality and separateness. The fact that I know I am in control of my mind, and it is my servant, NOT the other way around, makes me the unusual one, only due to my awareness, not any inherant nature. You, being very logically sound in your arguments against the possibility of enlightenment, are very well-versed and intelligent. But you will not see what I am saying through intelligence, but the lack thereof; the silencing of the mind would make this clear. Well, then as I’m not really willing to let go of that, I think i’ll keep it. But let me ask you this question. For you to see my way of thinking, I don’t think you need to let go of anything. On the contrary, I would say that the best way I can think of that would get you to agree with me would be both judging the situation from where you are at now, also including the reports from your egoic mind (if only temporarily; as your servant, i’m assuming you can go back to discarding it afterwards ;)); reading books, debating all the people in this thread and also trying to see things from their particular points of view, and going off in general to search for a look at both the learned people who’d agree with you and the learned people who don’t. For me to see your way of thinking best, you’ve suggested I try to _not_ take into account particular things. Now, in general, I would say that we can’t ever know anything for certain. There’s no point at all at which we can really say “This is, with 100%, a fact of the universe”. That we say there are facts or things are so is just a way we have of speaking; we can never really be entirely sure of anything, and theoretically the odds are incredibly long that we’re ever right at all. But I would say if we tried to find the truth of a matter, the best way is to take everything into account. That the good things, the ones that correctly point us to the truth, will outweigh the things that are false and don’t. So when I hear someone say “To truly understand, you must consider this input as entirely worthless”, it kinda makes me wonder why they think their position is so untenable that the removal of \*one single factor against it \*will stop people believing. IOW, if the only things stopping me agreeing are intelligence and well-versedness (and I think if I were truly either i’d know the correct word to use there), then the only things stopping you agreeing with me are those same things. And if agreement hinges on just those two piddling factors in a world of billions upon billions, if the line between them is of a metaphorical atom’s width - what value does the truth of either side have that it can claim superiority over the other? > [@](#): > > You can spread the feeling of love. You can be “real” with others. You can see through the transparency of their egoic wall and truly accept them for who they are… an extention of you, as you are extention of them. This breakdown of social norms, this connection, is an incredible feeling. I would say that is a very good thing, if I had to label it. 🙂 Sounds attachment-y, to me. 😉 I would say that a problem with your outlook is that you’re assuming a bit too much the extension of you part and bit too little the extention of them part. That is, you’re assuming too much that people are like you and would react like you would to your situation and ideas. I don’t doubt you’re a good person; but I don’t think you can assume from that that another person with the same ideas could be a bad one. > [@](#): > > Once you realize the source of your attachments, the egoic mind, it is easy to pick and choose what you prefer to experience and express during your life. But, I see your conflict. The egoic mind, alone, CANNOT pick and choose. It takes the ability to silence the mind to get the result which is preferable. > > But let me be clear. There is one “attachment”, if we can call it that. It is the present moment, the here and now. So this is the confusion in our language. In a state of acceptance, you must accept the existence of this ongoing singular moment, and that may be perceived as such an “attachment”, if we are going to get technical. > > An “unnecessary” attachment then, is one where you try to extend a past moment into a present moment, a conceptualization into the present moment, a future worry into the present moment, etc. To truly be one with the present moment, the here and now, you have to silence all else. Perhaps this makes more sense? It does make sense. But I don’t agree with it. Removing stage fright, for example, also means the loss of anticipation. Half the fun of something is the build-up to it. You can’t discard worrying about the future without also discarding looking forward to it. I wouldn’t be willing to give up my memories of a not-entirely-fun school life if it meant I lost my nostalgia as well. It’s not so easy to seperate the good from bad in this way. > [@](#): > > It is not necessarily that the experience of love leads to enlightenment, per say, but more a matter that moments of enlightenment leads to moments of love. It is the reversability issue, as we see in scientific study. What causes what? > > I would say that if you feel pure, unconditional love towards another, you are on your way toward enlightenment. This means that there is absolutely nothing that person could do to you which would lessen your love. The egoic mind does not understand this concept, as it sees love as an economy, or as people put it earlier, a battlefield. That is only because your mind makes it this way. My egoic mind doesn’t see it that way, to be honest with you. > [@](#): > > But for enlightenment, one needs to have this unconditional love for ALL OF LIFE. That means, every single person, every single experience. Now, of course, I am not talking about romantic or sexual love here, but more of a totality of acceptance; that your loving emotional state is unconditional- it cannot be altered by your next experience, or any for that matter. This is how Christ, as His body is being destroyed, could say, “They know not what they do” in defense of His torturers. His love never changed. That is the example He set. The problem of that being, of course, that a world of Christs would not _stop_ the torturers. Unconditional love for all might be nice, but being crucified kinda stops you doing that. Accepting all means accepting other people stopping you from doing so. I’m an atheist, but I have to imagine that if Christ believed after he was dead he’d have no more chances to spread his word, he probably would have got out of that situation. Unconditional love is only a good thing when you’re able to bypass the conditions others place on you as well, and the rest of us don’t have a get out of jail free card. > [@](#): > > Bad emotions, like hate, anger, aggression, envy, etc; they cannot lead to enlightenment because they are all products of the egoic mind. Love is not a product of the egoic mind, and as I established, it cannot truly be experienced through the egoic mind either. That is why love drives so many people “crazy”, their mind simply cannot wrap around it. It is why people act so illogical; they are trying to use their mind to determine how they will act, while they feel this love, often ending in ways which are not preferable. One must flow with love, accepting its grace, not conceptualize it and limit it by way of the mind. I don’t believe you did establish that. You just said it was so. I would argue that people act illogically because love is just a part of the mind as the rational parts are, and so we act crazily because the two (and everything else) is in conflict quite a lot. > [@](#): > > This seems awfully convoluted, but I will try to respond. > > If you have the realization of enlightenment, and you are able to accept it for what it is (not a transient experience, but the stage upon which our transient experiences take place), you will prefer to live life in that way from then on out. Why would you prefer egoically created suffering? This, if anything, seems terribly illogical to me. You make the point that you COULD, technically do this. Yes, you could. But why? You’ve hit upon the exact nub of the problem. There is zero reason why. But there is equally zero reason why _not_. > [@](#): > > Further, everyone has a different CONCEPT of enlightenment. But that is the thing, you CANNOT fully conceptualize enlightenment. Again, how many times did Christ say “The Kingdom of Heaven is…” Because conceptualization is through the mind and use of words, there is an absolutely unlimited number of different ways to understand and articulate enlightenment. That is the beauty of it, not a fault. I would say that if we cannot conceptualize it, we cannot experience it. Experiencing it is true and present conceptualization, after all. I don’t believe you can both say “This is something we cannot fully understand” and “I am experiencing it, I know what it is, this is the way to it” - if you don’t know what it is, how do you know you’re experiencing it? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2008, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/159 "2008-06-01T04:24:43Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] I would argue that people act illogically because love is just a part of the mind as the rational parts are, and so we act crazily because the two (and everything else) is in conflict quite a lot. You’ve hit upon the exact nub of the problem. There is zero reason why. But there is equally zero reason why _not_. I would say that if we cannot conceptualize it, we cannot experience it. Experiencing it is true and present conceptualization, after all. I don’t believe you can both say “This is something we cannot fully understand” and “I am experiencing it, I know what it is, this is the way to it” - if you don’t know what it is, how do you know you’re experiencing it? [/QUOTE] You may have missed the video if you just now enter the thread which explains how enlightenment may happen. > **[My stroke of insight](https://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_my_stroke_of_insight)** > > Jill Bolte Taylor got a research opportunity few brain scientists would wish for: She had a massive stroke, and watched as her brain functions -- motion, speech, self-awareness -- shut down one by one. An astonishing story. I have not seen a post from Friedah35 for several days, I hope he will be back. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2008, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/160 "2008-06-01T05:07:08Z")
[QUOTE=lekatt] You may have missed the video if you just now enter the thread which explains how enlightenment may happen. > **[My stroke of insight](https://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_my_stroke_of_insight)** > > Jill Bolte Taylor got a research opportunity few brain scientists would wish for: She had a massive stroke, and watched as her brain functions -- motion, speech, self-awareness -- shut down one by one. An astonishing story. [/QUOTE] By having a stroke? I’m surprised to find you championing a concept of self that exists as the mind. Anyway, I don’t think the woman in the video’s lecture makes sense. She claims to be able to step back into that enlightenment, that nirvana, whenever she wants. Yet, she must be choosing not to, as she could not do her lecture whilst in it. But if that is so, then it cannot be true nirvana, as she prefers to do something else than to exist in it. I would also say that her assertion that because she has done something, everyone must be able to, is wrong. I can’t write fantastic musical compositions because Mozart could. And generally I would say that i’m not willing to give up my happy memories for my bad ones. She apparently feels that way, but hey, i’m not her. 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581.md?page=9)