Am I enlightened?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Friedah35

1. *Learn how to silence the mind, *and in doing so, feel the bliss of the present moment. The mind is the source of all suffering. If you can quiet your mind, you can experience life as it is, and not by what you have overlayed upon it by way of your conditioning.

I think it’s somewhat more complicated than that. The mind is only an interpreter of what happens, but without the mind, there would be no suffering. I would say that the mind is a necessary component to suffering, but not the source. Merely a required process.

However, I disagree with your seperation of the mind and “life as it is”. What about my or your interpretations of the world mean it is less valid than one without overlayed prejudices? Are we not also part of life? I’d also point out that escaping the prejudices of the mind means escaping the good things, too; doing so perfectly would leave you with neither positive nor negative thoughts, not bliss - and I would add that to suggest that bliss is a good thing is itself conditioning of the mind. A truly enlightened person would not seek enlightenment nor consider it a good thing - they would have no reason to.

2.* Rather than forming attachments, accept the present moment as it is* (as a constantly changing entity of which can only be what it is), and form a constant sense of gratitude for the things you have, and, likewise, a sense of acceptance for the things you have not. This also includes attachment to your body, your mind, and your beliefs.

Again, you place value on the things you have, and the things you have not. Seeking to avoid attachments is itself an attachment.

3.* Do not be at the mercy of society’s (and your own), ultimately arbitrary, judgments and labels.* Such methods at understanding our world not only will come up short (due to the inherant nature of language), but also limit an entity to a singular conceptualizaton, and imply all of what something is not. In this way, if you label something as bad, you limit your ability to see the goodness in it. Likewise, if you label someone as evil, you limit your ability to see your common ground with that person, which could be a way to bridge your gap and come to peaceful resolution to any conflict.

But you yourself are saying that limiting yourself is bad. That being at the mercy of society’s judgements and labels is bad. That peaceful resolution is preferable to conflict. These are all society’s labels, and by your own argument must come up short (and, again, you assume that coming up short is something to be avoided).

4. • Understand that you have the ability to react to events however you’d like. * With the absense of attachments or judgments, now you see that you were causing your own suffering by having had such arbitrary, mind-made conceptualizations.

You still have your attachments and judgements, i’m afraid, as shown by your judgement of attachments and judgements to be bad - as shown by your judgement of suffering to be bad.

And I would point out that such a person is still capable of causing suffering in non-enlightened people, and indeed having no attachments would have no reason to not. And thus a problem; an enlightened person, by your definitions, is right to seek and be enlightened. By doing so, it is more likely they will cause harm (having no reason not to) than nonenlightened people. Yet since enlightenment is a silencing of the mind, an enlightened person is pretty likely to cause “noise” for others. Thus the nonenlightened are much better off listening to society than they are listening to the already enlightened. And indeed a paradox; enlightenment is a good thing. Enlightenment is more likely to cause bad things to occur than nonenlightenment. Therefore, to be good is to cause badness.

One interesting anecdote I would include which is related to this (4) is one in which a friend and I encountered a nice car with an intense keying of profanity on the side. My friend started empathizing with the owner of the car, and actually got a bit enraged himself, saying such things as, “A man doesn’t touch another man’s car. That is off limits. How dare this person wreck such a fine car” etc. The response which came to me was interesting. I said, “If we are to feel sorry for someone, I feel sorry for the one who keyed the car. This is because we know, through evidence, that the person who felt they needed to key this car, felt enough rage and discomfort to commit such an act. They may have felt a strange sense of satisfaction after, but I am sure it didn’t end there. That person probably told their friends, bragged about their “victory”, all in an attempt to get others to side with their righteous keying cause. They likely carried with them remnants of the original rage which caused the act, perhaps for hours, maybe days. Meanwhile, the one who was keyed, could have simply looked at it and laughed at the misguided futility of the other person’s action. They could have been, albeit unlikely, of no-mind, non-reactance. The point is, there is a GUARANTEE that the one who acted aggressively felt some sort of anger in their heart. But there is no such guarantee that the one who was the receiving end of the anger felt anything at all. So I pity the aggressor.”

Again, you apply value to anger, negative value. And there’s no reason to assume anger anyway; it may have just been for fun. I would say that your associations of certain words with a mental state to the point of 100% certainty implies a considerable acceptance of society’s values on your part.

Yeah, I knew this would come up eventually. The idea is that a person who is enlightened, in a Socratic sort of way, would never acclaim himself to be so. The problem is that somebody claiming to be enlightened would, presumably, only be doing so to appease his ego (IE: get attention, praise, etc), and therefore, cannot be enlightened after all.

But I would say this. If I am, in fact, enlightened, awakened, wise, etc, then I will be the first to admit that this potentiality exists in all humans, that it in no way makes me better than anyone else, and that it is, instead, simply a matter of becoming aware of this capacity which makes the difference.

But if it doesn’t make you better - what’s the point?

[Friedah35]

If–or rather when, human existence being what it is–you find yourself in a situation where you’re being crushed to death by a collapsed building, or just dying of cancer, or whatever suffering fate or random chance has in store for you, I suspect you will find the body can be pretty insistent concerning its attachments.

It certainly can be insistent, but even without such extreme scenarios. The ego has a way of spinning its tale of suffering into an engaging, convincing narrative, no matter what the narrative is. Like Dale Carnegie, the self-help guru once said, “One person’s toothache means more to him than an earthquake in China which kills thousands.” The relevance of this quote could not come at a more somber time, when in fact, such an incidence did happen in China, and where, meanwhile, our news-cycles blather on about the most innane of things, almost completely overlooking this incredible death toll in the process.

The point is: suffering is suffering. You only realize how small your suffering is once you experience greater suffering. Consider teenage suicide statistics. You talk about “true” suffering, implying “false” suffering. I say there is no difference. People make their suffering true, even when, relatively speaking, their suffering is miniscule in a grander perspective. It is a misguided notion to suggest that one person’s suffering renders another’s moot in comparison. All suffering comes from the same source: attachment, desire, and expectation: All offspring of the egoic mind.

But you bring up Darfur, Myanmar. You could continue and bring up concentration camps, or any number of scenarios where suffering seems inevitable. But again, it all comes down to attachment to body. If you have no fear of death, then nothing can harm you, nothing can force you to suffer. Think of Christ on the cross. He has shown us the way, in this action; how it is possible to be in the most dire of physical scenarios and still have grace, acceptance, and non-attachment.

Mind you, I am not a Christian, but I believe wholeheartedly in the wisdom of Christ. I feel His path is sufficient, but not necessary to understanding enlightenment.

[jaydotbeedot]

Friedah, all is impermanent, and we cannot know the future, and yet I feel confident in saying that if you save this thread, and look at it again later in your life, verily will you cringe.

[Friedah35]

Revenant Threshold, I think you make some excellent points, but many of them are due to inadequacies in language. When discussing these matters, it is impossible, due to the nature of discussing, to avoid the pitfalls you point out. But I will try to make a few things more clear.

“Nothing is inherantly bad or good, but thinking makes it so.” -Shakespeare

So, with this in mind, when I say something is “bad”, I mean that it is a misguided notion, in that it cannot lead to enlightenment. In this way, the egoic mind is not bad, but simply an obstacle to reaching fulfillment. It is perfectly natural; in fact, it is our very nature as humans.

Seeking to avoid attachments is itself an attachment.

Agreed. You do not seek to avoid attachments, as that implies that you have them. In this way, you do not desire, because that implies that you do not have. It is more a matter of, quite simply, not forming attachments. There is no seeking involved.

That being at the mercy of society’s judgements and labels is bad.

It is only as bad as you are uncomfortable with the idea of not being in control of your own mind, and therefore your own experience of life. If you are fine with this, then it is not bad at all.

That peaceful resolution is preferable to conflict.

We can have preferences without attachment. I would prefer a peaceful resolution. The difference is that if a peaceful resolution does not manifest, I do not cause myself suffering in response. Attachment is causing the self suffering in response to losing, or not having, said attachment.

I would point out that such a person is still capable of causing suffering in non-enlightened people

And I would point out that an enlightened person would consistently act in a heartfelt way, incapable of any intent to harm another. Further, nobody can force suffering upon another. Like I had mentioned before, Christ on the cross did not suffer. He accepted and surrendered to his fate. He felt pain, sure. But it was bodily pain which He was able to separate hHimself from. He did not define himself by his body. Rather, suffering comes from a self-imposed, controllable reaction on part of the mind.

Yet since enlightenment is a silencing of the mind, an enlightened person is pretty likely to cause “noise” for others… Enlightenment is more likely to cause bad things to occur than nonenlightenment.

Sorry, but I do not understand how this makes any logical sense.

Again, you apply value to anger, negative value. And there’s no reason to assume anger anyway; it may have just been for fun.

Anger is only so bad in that it cannot lead to enlightenment.
There is no definitive proof of anger in this case, sure. I acknowledged this in the story. But intent to harm another, if perceived as “fun”, is a sign of an unenlightened being who, therefore, must logically suffer.

But if it doesn’t make you better - what’s the point?

It is an experience of fulfillment, without suffering. Many would perceive this to be a “better” way of life. BUT, what I am trying to articulate is that there is nothing inherantly, by nature, better about an enlightened person over an unenlightened person, in that there is nothing the enlightened person has which the unenlightened person does not. It is then merely a matter of realizing you have it which makes all the difference. In this way, an unenlightened person could awaken in a moment, if they are able to drop their attachments, etc.

[Friedah35]

yet I feel confident in saying that if you save this thread, and look at it again later in your life, verily will you cringe.

There is absolutely nothing, no action I have ever taken in my life, which I look back now at and cringe in response to. This is because, without following a misguided path, I would have never found myself on a guided path. Everything I have ever done in my entire life, every thought, every action, has led to this present moment. Who is to say that if I didn’t steal that candy bar in that supermarket back when I was ten years old, that I may be in a completely different place today? It sounds silly, but the fact is: I am here where I am now due entirely to the moments that have led me here. Therefore, since I am fulfilled in the present moment, I cannot logically regret the past.

Of course, it helps that I have not committed any serious acts of destruction or hate in my life. I am sure that if I killed someone, I may have a different point of view on the matter. But then again, perhaps for some people it takes such an extreme act to find their true self. They have to know and experience what they are not (hate, aggression) to know what they are (love, acceptance).

[Merhouse]

I’m not enlightened enough to read through all this, at least not now.

In the meantime, however, Friehdah35, I was wondering what you think of the teachings of Ian Crossland.

PS – what happened to Friedahs 1 through 34? See, told you I’m not enlightened. And I’m 2.5 times 22. There’s no hope for me whatsoever.

[Friedah35]

lekatt-

Thank you for your supportive words.

Merhouse -

I am unfirmiliar with the man, but I will go ahead and look into it and let you know.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Friedah35

Revenant Threshold, I think you make some excellent points, but many of them are due to inadequacies in language. When discussing these matters, it is impossible, due to the nature of discussing, to avoid the pitfalls you point out. But I will try to make a few things more clear.

“Nothing is inherantly bad or good, but thinking makes it so.” -Shakespeare

So, with this in mind, when I say something is “bad”, I mean that it is a misguided notion, in that it cannot lead to enlightenment. In this way, the egoic mind is not bad, but simply an obstacle to reaching fulfillment. It is perfectly natural; in fact, it is our very nature as humans.

How can we reach fulfillment by denying a part of our very nature? Surely in trying to erase an innate part of ourselves we are more likely to cause a metaphorical hole?

Agreed. You do not seek to avoid attachments, as that implies that you have them. In this way, you do not desire, because that implies that you do not have. It is more a matter of, quite simply, not forming attachments. There is no seeking involved.

But a person with no attachments has no reason to do so. Them forming attachments or not is a matter of chance and other people. If reaching enlightenment is entirely dependent on others, then such a person is in exactly the same position as one of those people; and thus enlightenment requires that as long as one person is not enlightened, no-one can be.

It is only as bad as you are uncomfortable with the idea of not being in control of your own mind, and therefore your own experience of life. If you are fine with this, then it is not bad at all.

But surely, if I recognise that I have attachments, and I actively choose not to unform them, then I am equally in control? I, like the enlightened person, have chosen the state of my mind.

I would point out also that control in this way seems to me a bit like removing parts of your car that you can’t get to work the way you want; the engine doesn’t start when you turn the ignition, so you take it out. The wipers don’t start when you press the button, so you remove them. Certainly what you’re left with is all stuff under your control, but it’s no longer *all * your stuff.

We can have preferences without attachment. I would prefer a peaceful resolution. The difference is that if a peaceful resolution does not manifest, I do not cause myself suffering in response. Attachment is causing the self suffering in response to losing, or not having, said attachment.

But if a peaceful resolution does manifest, you cause yourself happiness, or enjoyment, or some other experience you like - otherwise you wouldn’t prefer it. You can’t have preferences without attachment.

And I would point out that an enlightened person would consistently act in a heartfelt way, incapable of any intent to harm another.

Why? Just as they have no reason to do harm, they have no reason to do good. If I had no attachment to anyone, why would I when driving avoid pedestrians?

Further, nobody can force suffering upon another.

They can if the person does not know, or does not believe, they have the ability to force their mind to loose their attachments. If someone does not see any way they can not suffer, then we may certainly cause them harm - since by your definition enlightenment is a conscious process, a person with such beliefs has no means at his disposal to not suffer if some is caused to them.

Like I had mentioned before, Christ on the cross did not suffer. He accepted and surrendered to his fate. He felt pain, sure. But it was bodily pain which He was able to separate hHimself from. He did not define himself by his body. Rather, suffering comes from a self-imposed, controllable reaction on part of the mind.

I do not believe that the body is totally under the control of the mind in the way you state. Whether or not Jesus was able to do this is somewhat of another question entirely.

Sorry, but I do not understand how this makes any logical sense.

You’ve described enlightenment as a silencing of the mind; being able to ignore or not form/unform attachments. Suffering is a bond that ties us into those things; suffering strengthens an attachment. Since enlightened people under your definition have no reason to do good, and assuming most people are essentially good, an enlightened person is much more likely to cause suffering in others than an unenlightened person; essentially causing in others the opposite of silence, metaphorical “noise”.

Anger is only so bad in that it cannot lead to enlightenment.

Is enlightenment a good thing? If enlightenment is entirely divorced from notions of good and bad, entirely divorced from objective standards of good/bad, then we must judge it by the only standards that exist; the subjective ones.

There is no definitive proof of anger in this case, sure. I acknowledged this in the story.

You also said this;

The point is, there is a GUARANTEE that the one who acted aggressively felt some sort of anger in their heart.

I assumed that when you said there was a GUARANTEE the aggressive person felt anger, that you were saying it was GUARANTEED that they did. My apologies for misreading you; it’s an attachment of mine from society that capital letters tend to imply emphaticness.

But intent to harm another, if perceived as “fun”, is a sign of an unenlightened being who, therefore, must logically suffer.

True. But likewise, had there been a present of a box of chocolates on the car, this would be a sign of an unenlightened being who, therefore, must logically suffer, and you must equally be as sympathetic to their inability to seperate from their compassion as the keyer is to his potential anger.

It is an experience of fulfillment, without suffering. Many would perceive this to be a “better” way of life. BUT, what I am trying to articulate is that there is nothing inherantly, by nature, better about an enlightened person over an unenlightened person, in that there is nothing the enlightened person has which the unenlightened person does not. It is then merely a matter of realizing you have it which makes all the difference. In this way, an unenlightened person could awaken in a moment, if they are able to drop their attachments, etc.

But then if it’s purely a matter of realizing that it’s possible, then someone who rejects it is equally as enlightened. And that a person who is correct in believing they are enlightened is in exactly the same position as one who erroneously thinks they are, since both realize it.

[ToeJam]

This might be a silly question…

But Do I know you? :dubious:
Ie: Are you a Former College Roommate of Mine? (He too was a psych major/interested in Psychology, but now currently is applying himself to Law School).

[Friedah35]

How can we reach fulfillment by denying a part of our very nature? Surely in trying to erase an innate part of ourselves we are more likely to cause a metaphorical hole?

It is not a matter of ignorant denial. One must accept that the ego exists, but, in doing so, recognize that it does need to be in control. Sometimes it helps for the ego to come out. In this way, the ego is a double-edged sword, in that the ego goes hand in hand with intelligence in many ways. However, it is important to recognize the inner ability to distance oneself from the ego, so that it does not cause you suffering.

“If reaching enlightenment is entirely dependent on others,”

I’ll stop you there, because it is not dependent on others. It is entirely dependent on your self, more specifically, your recognition of what your self is, and what it isn’t.

But surely, if I recognise that I have attachments, and I actively choose not to unform them, then I am equally in control? I, like the enlightened person, have chosen the state of my mind.

Yes, you have. People are in a constant state of chosing their state of mind. The question is, whether they realize this or not. I agree with your statement.

I would point out also that control in this way seems to me a bit like removing parts of your car that you can’t get to work the way you want; the engine doesn’t start when you turn the ignition, so you take it out. The wipers don’t start when you press the button, so you remove them. Certainly what you’re left with is all stuff under your control, but it’s no longer all your stuff.

You are comparing the inner-workings of a car to the bond of the Holy Trinity; mind, body, soul. They do not compare.

Why? Just as they have no reason to do harm, they have no reason to do good. If I had no attachment to anyone, why would I when driving avoid pedestrians?

Enlightenment is also a recognition of the oneness of all. This is where, as I see it, the golden rule comes from. Do unto others as you would have do unto you, or as I take it, do unto others, knowing that they are a part of you. Once you realize that we are all spiritually connected, you would act only out of love, knowing that the love you give will return to you, and likewise, any acts of aggression will also return to you. So that is the reason to do good, and to not cause harm.

They can [cause suffering in another] if the person does not know, or does not believe, they have the ability to force their mind to loose their attachments.

Well then this is a case of semantics. All people have this ability, to create their own reactions, and therefore by logical extention, their ability to lose attachments. We see varying self-imposed reacitons on a daily basis, how two people can react to the same circumstances in entirely different ways. It is self-evident in life, to those who think about this, that we are the creators of our own bliss, as well as our own suffering… Anyone who does not recognize this is overlooking a very key aspect of the experience of life.

Since enlightened people under your definition have no reason to do good…

I will stop you here, since that is your definition, and certainly not mine.

Is enlightenment a good thing? If enlightenment is entirely divorced from notions of good and bad…

A state of enlightenment can embrace the good wholeheartedly, live and feel such a moment, in the moment, and have gratitude for the experience of the moment, without having unnessessary attachment to the moment after the moment has passed. It is not about divorcing oneself from pleasure. It is about the here and now, and complete acceptance and accountability for what the present moment is.

I assumed that when you said there was a GUARANTEE the aggressive person felt anger, that you were saying it was GUARANTEED that they did. My apologies for misreading you; it’s an attachment of mine from society that capital letters tend to imply emphaticness.

You’re right. I was not clear. But I did say, “some sort of anger” which I meant to mean, “some sort of negative emotional state”. Thus, sadistic fun at another’s expense seems to be a negative emotional state, and certainly one which cannot possibly lead to enlightenment. I apologize for the confusion.

True. But likewise, had there been a present of a box of chocolates on the car, this would be a sign of an unenlightened being who, therefore, must logically suffer, and you must equally be as sympathetic to their inability to seperate from their compassion as the keyer is to his potential anger.

It is not the action itself which defines enlightenment, but the how and why behind the action. Does the person present the chocolates as some sort of conditional exchange? Does the person do it to improve their reputation? Does the person do it to convince themselves they are a “good” person? Or does the person do it simply for the bliss of giving and spreading the feeling of love? If it is the latter, then I would say that certainly the person could indeed be enlightened, at least in that moment of giving.

But then if it’s purely a matter of realizing that it’s possible, then someone who rejects it is equally as enlightened. And that a person who is correct in believing they are enlightened is in exactly the same position as one who erroneously thinks they are, since both realize it.

If you reject something, that means you are saying something is impossible. You cannot, logically, conclude that anything is impossible. You can only guestimate to the degree of improbability. So, no, it is not the exact same position.

[cmyk]

I think “enlightenment” is another word that pretends there is some other aspect and absolute border to our consciousness that simply doesn’t exist as such.

“Love” is another such word. “Hate” as well. These are all flawed and inadequate concepts that some people take way too seriously and romantically. In reality, such things are part of a huge gradient and continuum of the human experience, and I lump “enlightenment” in with those.

I consider myself “enlightened” in that I’ve come to accept my humanity, and the world as I perceive it around me. Pleasure and suffering are all part of what an indifferent universe will serve up for a being, such as myself. I am by no means special, only in that I believe I am self-aware. I indulge in moments of pleasure, am content in moments of silence and peace, and lament in moments of pain and suffering.

To fool oneself that they are not dealing with pain or suffering is a trick of the most self-delusional, and not one I buy into. But, acceptance is another story, and I think that’s all one can do not to go down the road of bitterness. Not that it makes suffering any more fun, either.

[ZebraShaSha]

This is all so absurd!

(Please?)

[don_t_ask]

Maybe.

What were you thinking that led to the lengthy replies to all the questions?

Can you not bother answering that question or any others?

[Friedah35]

cmyk

From what I perceive from what you wrote, I think we completely agree on the matter. I’ll go point by point because I think I may be able to expand on some of your ideas.

I think “enlightenment” is another word that pretends there is some other aspect and absolute border to our consciousness that simply doesn’t exist as such.

I agree. Many people conceptualize enlightenment as some end-all status, whereupon you can take a deep sigh and relax, knowing you have reached the zenith of human experience. However, as you pointed out, it is merely a word, and no number of words could possibly explain the complexity of a subective state of consciousness. So then can somebody be more enlightened than another? Perhaps. How could we ever know? We couldn’t. The point is, and again, I agree, that there are no borders to consciousness, that no level of enlightenment is the end-all, as there is always infinitely more to experience and learn.

In reality, such things are part of a huge gradient and continuum of the human experience, and I lump “enlightenment” in with those.

Like I have so many times referred to, we exist in a realm of relativity, and you are articulating this idea as well. Everything we experience is relative to something else we experience, and thus, our mind gives it a certian relative significance. But, the idea of enlightenment being based on no-mind, allows one to experience something as it IS, without comparison to prior events; to instead live in the here and now, the present moment, and take in life in a natural state of experience.

I consider myself “enlightened” in that I’ve come to accept my humanity, and the world as I perceive it around me. Pleasure and suffering are all part of what an indifferent universe will serve up for a being, such as myself. I am by no means special, only in that I believe I am self-aware. I indulge in moments of pleasure, am content in moments of silence and peace, and lament in moments of pain and suffering.

Wise words.

To fool oneself that they are not dealing with pain or suffering is a trick of the most self-delusional…

I suppose this is where our paths come to part then. Like I have reasoned, suffering is the creation of our own mind. Case in point: Event A happens to Person A, and we react in Reaction B. It turns out B is a rather unpleasureable reaction. Meanwhile, event A happens to Person B, who reacts in Reaction C. Reaction C turns out to be a pleasureable reaction. This implies that the Event doesn’t directly cause the Reaction, since the Reaction is a product of the Person. The Person, then, is the middle man who is in control, all along.

Now, one can always resort to extreme examples, but then all you have to do is imagine a possibility of a person in such said extreme example, somehow finding a way to experience the good in that supposedly terrible moment, and now we see how suffering can be avoided in even the most dire of circumstances; Christ on the cross being the most obvious example of this. He turned the other cheek until the very end, praying for his torturers, etc.

[Friedah35]

don’t ask

What were you thinking that led to the lengthy replies to all the questions?

That is the interesting thing. I don’t really think. I type and it flows right out of me. I remember, years ago, being in a poetry class, and trying to write a certain poem. Took me hours to get something on the page that worked. By the end of it, I sort of gave up, wrote some BS and turned it in. The difficulty was that I tried to think about it. I was trying too hard.

In contrast, I recently sat down, quieted my mind, and wrote the following out of what I can only call inspiration, in about twenty minutes. I never went back to edit a word:

Imagine a perfect community, one built upon a foundation of oneness and unity, where one cannot differentiate, between love and hate, because its all one in the same, individualism is just an illusion of our brains, versus the real reality, what we now experience is merely a temporary disparity, but an experience nonetheless, a lifetime in the flesh, we do it for a body high, come standard with a mind’s ego reply, a divinely created feedback system, for the spiritually blind and dumb, who want nothing more than to be king, of this flash in the pan kingdom. All to feed their self esteem, that can easily evaporate like water’s steam, and this can happen anytime, ego gone, yours and mine, without in mind, a grander design, that reminds us all, this is nothing but a temporary fall, where there is no ground, only bodily feelings to be found, only the here and now, and POW! The moment hit you, wow! And now its gone, to never be found, but we try as often as time allows, to relive the past and make it last, a method futile like redigesting stomach bile, because all the while, time has been digested, moving and finally rested, eventually in eternity’s toilet bowl, to be flushed away with a silent lull, and all the while, the now is happening, overlooked like closed captioning, while the noose of death is fastening, and all along, the writing was on the wall, life’s just a playground where all of time is at your disposal! Naughty or nice? Nope, just a disguise, to experience a relative sense of wrong and right. But once you realize, you aren’t constrained to any container, you cannot be limited to the past or later. Time exists all at once you see, the past the present the future, all in me, creating a great dichotomy, an ultimate onness between you and me, yet we are clearly individuals, so how can you take this all literal? Just open your mind to see, how two opposite truths can exist in perfect harmony. Oh, don’t believe me? Well, let’s see, the earth is both in motion and at rest, your worst is another’s best, you make love but you hate to caress, you’re intelligent, yet in life you live on the fence! You’re so confident yet you compensate, if you’re always early then why worry about being late, what? You believe in both free will and fate? And what about love and hate? If they exist on opposite sides of the spectrum, why such a fine line between them? Less is more, we earn peace by way of war. When you’re sad, you hate to be consoled, yet you bluff when you should fold, and you’re young but you feel old, you need someone else for your self to feel whole, your own mind is out of control! Why do you feel so low when you’re high? You choose to breath but you don’t want to be alive! Why just slide by when you know you can fly high? In the darkness you can feel the light, you know you’re wrong but it feels so right, you’re a peacenik but with the other side you fight! As an infant, you were wiser than you are this instant, when you speak for yourself, you are speaking on behalf of someone else! You’re obsessed with cleanliness, yet you’re life is a mess, you say you’re into fitness, you’re health conscious, yet you smoke and drink yourself unconscious, you attempt to be polite, yet you can’t help but be obnoxious!

This is all a human condition, a tip of the tongue premonition, so pick up your early edition late in the day, buy it and then just don’t pay, get on track and then go stray, but realize that the track that lays ahead follows you! Sounds crazy, but absolutely true, so accept it, and don’t be blue, move with it, and it moves with you! So whatever the case may be, as long as at some point in my time, you came alive, and you said “Hey! That’s me”, then you yourself have experienced the grand dichotomy!

[glee]

@Friedah35

don’t ask

That is the interesting thing. I don’t really think. I type and it flows right out of me. I remember, years ago, being in a poetry class, and trying to write a certain poem. Took me hours to get something on the page that worked. By the end of it, I sort of gave up, wrote some BS and turned it in. The difficulty was that I tried to think about it. I was trying too hard.

In contrast, I recently sat down, quieted my mind, and wrote the following out of what I can only call inspiration, in about twenty minutes. I never went back to edit a word:

@Friedah35

Imagine a perfect community, one built upon a foundation of oneness and unity, where one cannot differentiate, between love and hate, because its all one in the same, individualism is just an illusion of our brains, versus the real reality, what we now experience is merely a temporary disparity, but an experience nonetheless, a lifetime in the flesh, we do it for a body high, come standard with a mind’s ego reply, a divinely created feedback system, for the spiritually blind and dumb, who want nothing more than to be king, of this flash in the pan kingdom. All to feed their self esteem, that can easily evaporate like water’s steam, and this can happen anytime, ego gone, yours and mine, without in mind, a grander design, that reminds us all, this is nothing but a temporary fall, where there is no ground, only bodily feelings to be found, only the here and now, and POW! The moment hit you, wow! And now its gone, to never be found, but we try as often as time allows, to relive the past and make it last, a method futile like redigesting stomach bile, because all the while, time has been digested, moving and finally rested, eventually in eternity’s toilet bowl, to be flushed away with a silent lull, and all the while, the now is happening, overlooked like closed captioning, while the noose of death is fastening, and all along, the writing was on the wall, life’s just a playground where all of time is at your disposal! Naughty or nice? Nope, just a disguise, to experience a relative sense of wrong and right. But once you realize, you aren’t constrained to any container, you cannot be limited to the past or later. Time exists all at once you see, the past the present the future, all in me, creating a great dichotomy, an ultimate onness between you and me, yet we are clearly individuals, so how can you take this all literal? Just open your mind to see, how two opposite truths can exist in perfect harmony. Oh, don’t believe me? Well, let’s see, the earth is both in motion and at rest, your worst is another’s best, you make love but you hate to caress, you’re intelligent, yet in life you live on the fence! You’re so confident yet you compensate, if you’re always early then why worry about being late, what? You believe in both free will and fate? And what about love and hate? If they exist on opposite sides of the spectrum, why such a fine line between them? Less is more, we earn peace by way of war. When you’re sad, you hate to be consoled, yet you bluff when you should fold, and you’re young but you feel old, you need someone else for your self to feel whole, your own mind is out of control! Why do you feel so low when you’re high? You choose to breath but you don’t want to be alive! Why just slide by when you know you can fly high? In the darkness you can feel the light, you know you’re wrong but it feels so right, you’re a peacenik but with the other side you fight! As an infant, you were wiser than you are this instant, when you speak for yourself, you are speaking on behalf of someone else! You’re obsessed with cleanliness, yet you’re life is a mess, you say you’re into fitness, you’re health conscious, yet you smoke and drink yourself unconscious, you attempt to be polite, yet you can’t help but be obnoxious!

This is all a human condition, a tip of the tongue premonition, so pick up your early edition late in the day, buy it and then just don’t pay, get on track and then go stray, but realize that the track that lays ahead follows you! Sounds crazy, but absolutely true, so accept it, and don’t be blue, move with it, and it moves with you! So whatever the case may be, as long as at some point in my time, you came alive, and you said “Hey! That’s me”, then you yourself have experienced the grand dichotomy!

One of life’s lessons is that you should look back and edit.

[Friedah35]

One of life’s lessons is that you should look back and edit.

I see you lead by example, in that you felt the need to edit your one line post.

[don_t_ask]

Close but no cigar.

We don’t need convincing and you don’t need to convince us.

I had hoped for no reply - and I’m sure that somewhere you know why.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Friedah35

It is not a matter of ignorant denial. One must accept that the ego exists, but, in doing so, recognize that it does need to be in control. Sometimes it helps for the ego to come out. In this way, the ego is a double-edged sword, in that the ego goes hand in hand with intelligence in many ways. However, it is important to recognize the inner ability to distance oneself from the ego, so that it does not cause you suffering.

I’m not sure your use of the ego is entirely accurate. I don’t see why the id or superego cannot likewise cause you suffering. And i’m not talking about denial of existence, but denial of affect; you’re suggesting we accept it exists and then simply try to ignore whatever it says. I would consider the ignoring of an input like that to be the opposite of fulfillment.

I’ll stop you there, because it is not dependent on others. It is entirely dependent on your self, more specifically, your recognition of what your self is, and what it isn’t.

It most certainly is, by your definition. An enlightened person has, as you have agreed, no reason to seek enlightenment, nor to avoid it. If we accept that’s so, then we must say that that person will then be affected by what’s around them, and not their own wants and needs. And if the people around them are unenlightened, and disagree that attachments are bad, then these things will affect the potentially enlightened person. And so enlightenment depends on others.

You are comparing the inner-workings of a car to the bond of the Holy Trinity; mind, body, soul. They do not compare.

I believe it’s a good analogy. But fair enough.

Enlightenment is also a recognition of the oneness of all. This is where, as I see it, the golden rule comes from. Do unto others as you would have do unto you, or as I take it, do unto others, knowing that they are a part of you. Once you realize that we are all spiritually connected, you would act only out of love, knowing that the love you give will return to you, and likewise, any acts of aggression will also return to you. So that is the reason to do good, and to not cause harm.

But if suffering and all things come from the mind, then no, they won’t come back to an enlightened person; having removed all their attachments, they have no way* to* come back. The enlightened person can no longer feel suffering, and so they have no reason not to cause it. Likewise they will not feel love, and so love will not come back to them. You cannot on one hand say enlightenment rejects suffering, and that on the other enlightened people can suffer.

Well then this is a case of semantics. All people have this ability, to create their own reactions, and therefore by logical extention, their ability to lose attachments. We see varying self-imposed reacitons on a daily basis, how two people can react to the same circumstances in entirely different ways. It is self-evident in life, to those who think about this, that we are the creators of our own bliss, as well as our own suffering… Anyone who does not recognize this is overlooking a very key aspect of the experience of life.

I have a question. Do you believe it is possible for all people to think like this? For example, I am disagreeing with you. Do you believe that I honestly disagree, or that subconsciously I know what you’re saying is right?

I will stop you here, since that is your definition, and certainly not mine.

Not being able to cause suffering means equally not being able to cause good things.

A state of enlightenment can embrace the good wholeheartedly, live and feel such a moment, in the moment, and have gratitude for the experience of the moment, without having unnessessary attachment to the moment after the moment has passed. It is not about divorcing oneself from pleasure. It is about the here and now, and complete acceptance and accountability for what the present moment is.

Ah. “Unnecessary” attachment. I thought you were talking about rejecting attachment utterly, but it seems what you’re actually talking about is rejecting attachment if it causes suffering but accepting it and allowing it when it doesn’t.

To which I would say that is impossible, since picking and choosing which to reject and which to accept itself shows attachment. By choosing to accept the good and not the bad you show attachment to your values of good and bad.

You’re right. I was not clear. But I did say, “some sort of anger” which I meant to mean, “some sort of negative emotional state”. Thus, sadistic fun at another’s expense seems to be a negative emotional state, and certainly one which cannot possibly lead to enlightenment. I apologize for the confusion.

No problem.

But you seem to be saying - and I could be wrong - that good emotions can lead to enlightenment. If that’s so, why can’t bad ones?

It is not the action itself which defines enlightenment, but the how and why behind the action. Does the person present the chocolates as some sort of conditional exchange? Does the person do it to improve their reputation? Does the person do it to convince themselves they are a “good” person? Or does the person do it simply for the bliss of giving and spreading the feeling of love? If it is the latter, then I would say that certainly the person could indeed be enlightened, at least in that moment of giving.

You seem much more willing to ascribe potentially-enlightened motives to a person who does good, rather than one who does bad. Nevertheless, i’d point out that you are still required to feel the same sympathy and pity for the one who is motivated by ego.

If you reject something, that means you are saying something is impossible. You cannot, logically, conclude that anything is impossible. You can only guestimate to the degree of improbability. So, no, it is not the exact same position.

No, I disagree. I reject eating apples, because I don’t like them, but that doesn’t mean it would be impossible for me to eat one.

And my point was that if it is purely a state of mind, then an erroneous state of mind can also be enlightened. If, as you say, enlightenment is all about realizing you have it, then all that matters is the realization, not the actual possession. A person who has an entirely different concept of enlightenment to yours, yet has realized the possibility of their form,is as equally enlightened as yourself. That one of the two of you may be right has no bearing on the situation.

[cmyk]

@Friedah35

cmykI suppose this is where our paths come to part then. Like I have reasoned, suffering is the creation of our own mind. Case in point: Event A happens to Person A, and we react in Reaction B. It turns out B is a rather unpleasureable reaction. Meanwhile, event A happens to Person B, who reacts in Reaction C. Reaction C turns out to be a pleasureable reaction. This implies that the Event doesn’t directly cause the Reaction, since the Reaction is a product of the Person. The Person, then, is the middle man who is in control, all along.

Now, one can always resort to extreme examples, but then all you have to do is imagine a possibility of a person in such said extreme example, somehow finding a way to experience the good in that supposedly terrible moment, and now we see how suffering can be avoided in even the most dire of circumstances; Christ on the cross being the most obvious example of this. He turned the other cheek until the very end, praying for his torturers, etc.

You’ve brought up Jesus a lot here. And I’m curious to ask if you think you are as “enlightened” as He was? Only because I don’t think Jesus was able to ignore his fate, or his pain and suffering. On the Mount of Olives, He asked the Father for the cup to be taken from him. On the cross, He cried out “I thirst!”. Why would He say those things if He wasn’t feeling the full brunt of attachment and suffering?

I hear what you’re saying, and there is some truth in it. But, I really raise an eyebrow if someone tells me it’s possible to achieve some sort of intellectual or awareness plateau that allows one not to experience suffering, mental or physical. The mental stuff is easier to ignore, but when it comes to physical agony, there is no off switch other than unconsciousness or drugs.

I don’t think it’s possible, and any example I’ve seen, I believe that person to be stifling the pain to “prove” their “enlightenment”. In that case, you can call their enlightenment that of amazing will not to cry out in agony.

I just went through passing a kidney stone this month. How would you propose that I become enlightened enough to be able to truly filter out the renal colic, and only feel peace and calm?