The nature of enlightenment

its usually more of a distraction then useful, but it certainly isn't a sin, other then that of inconciderately imposing it on others, who would rather not have their connectiedness with what the're relating to interfered with by it.

meditation is far more useful any day, although exploring and creating while in a meditative state is even more so, or even just doing mundane chores as a form of walking meditation.

the use of shairing observations is that maybe yours might make something easier for someone else to see, or you theirs, but it is almost never a bennifit to be disruptively imposed. and i don't mean like someone you know personally, but in a context like this online, with its degree of anonymity, where you can let go of owning your insights when that's what they are, and let them belong to everyone, which i should talk, i have just as hard a time doing as anyone else.

=^^=
.../\...

 

Uh huh. Well, if you can honestly tell me that the point of this whole post wasn't to glorify your own ego by getting everyone to agree that your 'are you enlightened?' checklist is the be-all end-all test of spiritual supremacy, then I guess I am missing the point.

On the other hand, please be aware that the kind of language you seem so keen to use at all times (ie, numerous uses of the word 'paradigm' and useless, overwrought terms like 'experiential realizations') does not equate with spirituality or insight-- mostly it reeks of someone fresh out of some godawful academic environment where everyone is desperate to use ornate language to exclude instead of communicate.

Sounds to me like you love thinking of things in terms of 'high' and 'low', as opposed to 'universal' (ie, bluntly stating that my writing was 'low level')... which, by your own admission (ie: transcendence of duality) would mean that you are not only unenlightened, but actively employing dualistic concepts in order to reinforce your own sense of superiority.

Maybe I didn't think you had a point, and maybe, just maybe, you actually objectively don't. It sounds more to be like you're saying any disagreement with your so-called 'insight' is a refusal to accept a blaringly obvious truth, as opposed to disagreement. Which shows that not only do you have an ego, but that it is both very large and very fragile.

The blaring lack of humility in your posts (ie: your own self-perception is far too complex and requires a knowledge of those cryptic terms you use to describe it accurately, or something to that effect) suggests to me someone who does not like to be challenged, and who revels in any opportunity to condescend to those younger, less articulate and/or less experienced than he, and who always prefers to accept his own word as law... even when he is probably unsure or too lost in his own love of oration to ever fully confront any sort of real truth, most especially those spiritual truths which most often reveal themselves only in a condition of the most basic and essential simplicity, ie silence.

Couple that with your wordy defensiveness over what you perceived to be a personal attack by those who were making a lighthearted joke, and once again the insecurities reveal themselves.

Discussion, definition, and conceptulization are by their very nature the antipathy of true spirituality... the second you attempt to synthesize a concept intellectually, it becomes yet another obstacle to your true goal. The second you imagine your goal as having definable properties, you realize that your construct has become a threat to the goal itself. The spirit can manifest inside of the idol, but eventually the idol must be destroyed as you will inevitably come to worship the idol instead of that which it was intended to host. Developing a resistance to the patterns of dualistic reality often requires an outright rejection of all properties, and a willingness to 'travel the dialectic', or embrace the movement between the poles, and then reject the movement. Ultimately, you must allow your words to fail before you can allow them to shine... it's not the actuality of your things (and by 'things' I mean any or all things) that constitutes experience, it's the relationship you have with them, and whether or not you allow that relationship to dictate the course of your existence... 'enlightenment' is the attempted grounding of a state that cannot be grounded or confined to any set of aspects... it is the description of a thing that cannot exist, and for that reason it will always fail, but the spirit itself succeeds... or at least, it succeeds beyond its current confines, perhaps.

 

Ironic isn't it, that the very concept of enlightenment, as it pertains to who is and who is not enlightened, is subjective and judgemental, and is therefore connected with the ego, which is by it's nature not enlightened.

 

That's why you need a definition that cancels itself out.

 

Yes, I can honestly tell you that I wasn't attempting to "glorify my ego" by getting everyone to agree with me, and like I said in my preface, I'm not claiming to be an authority on the matter. Actually, I expected to encounter more resistance to the concepts I was attempting to convey than has actually arisen.

Verbosity is definitely one of my weakpoints in terms of writing and I can see how some of the terminology I use could be interpreted as being "overwrought" or "ornate". However, I would at the same time suggest to you that due to the adversarial nature of our dynamic (which I take most of the responsibility for), you are fixating on this particular weakness of mine at the expense of the legitimate spiritual insight that my posts have to offer.

Yes, well, if I had to write that post again, I wouldn't have used a term as blunt as "low level". However, I stand by what it represented with regard to that particular post of yours, which was fairly condescending towards some of the contributors to the conversation at the time.

One must understand the distinction between judgement and discernment. Yes, we are ultimately all one universal consciousness, and at the core's of our beings we share an interconnecting awareness that transcends separative distinctions. One of the many paradoxes of the spiritual path, however, is that there is in addition to the state of universal equality a hierarchy of consciousness. This hierarchy does not encompass value judgments or implications of superiority or inferiority, which are simply egoic mechanisms for reinforcing illusions of separartion. Instead, it is dependent on discernment, which is a perceptual capacity capable of being implemented for the purposes of realigning oneself with spirit. As long as the ego remains detached from these discernments, then they are a completely legitimate aspect of any authentic spiritual path.

Not at all. I encourage disagreement with any and all assertions I've made throughout this thread. However, I encourage them within the context of what I like to call "enlightened debates". I have already explained this during my conversation with Neodude, but I will reiterrate here. An enlightened debate is a debate that prioritizes the enhancement of one's conceptual framework over the ego-gratification inherent in "winning". If someone were to offer a counterpoint that's relevant in the context of the conversation and that refutes an assertion I've made, I would gladly concede my "defeat". But of course, in enlightened debates, both the winner and the loser ultimately both win.

Yes, I had a feeling that one would be interpreted as arrogant. It certainly doesn't mean it's not true, though.

I don't think Neo felt condescended, and being condescending certainly wasn't my intention. But perhaps we could ask him how he felt?

Oh, it was most certainly a personal attack. Relayer had been offended by one of my posts, much like yourself, and was unable to continue responding in a rational manner and so instead resorted to demeaning inside jokes. My "defense" was simply to point out that this type of scenario is a common occurence during internet-based exchanges and is enabled by the anonymity provided by the internet.

That depends a great deal on the nature of the discussion. If discussion exists for the purposes of ego-aggrandizement, then yes, it exists in opposition to true spirituality. However, discussion compelled by a sincere desire to discover truth and enhance one's conceptual framework is without doubt a spiritually enriching practice.

This is only true if the "conceptualizor" allows their ego to form an attachment to the concept.

Not at all. One can imagine their goal as having definable properties long before they realize that the construct has become an obstacle to the goal. This is quite common amongst more cerebral spiritual aspirants.

The idea is to circumvent the need for an idol in the first place.

Absolutely. I have not yet reached that stage, however.

Yes, it is the the utilization of effort in order to transcend all effort -- amongst many other paradoxes.

Travis

 

that's it MY...the mind ad the ego are co-conspirators in their dirty deeds to convince us that they must be included in the Essence.

Our ego's will battle it out all day long with help from our minds on who is, who is not, what is, what isn't. Soon the ego's will be attacking the other ego's posts in threads such as this...and on and on.

It's Here Now. We can Be In It or not. It's up to us.

 

"You are that."

"Who am I?"

 

Well, I guess the words of Peter Gabriel will forever ring true "You've got to get in to get out."
Namaste

 

Yes, or that others must be excluded from the Essence in order to validate the ego.

Agreed. There is no "winning" in a discussion such as this, except in the sense that the exposure to someone else's dissenting viewpoints can provide us with a broader perspective, that by questioning the foundations of our own logical framework, we are advancing ourselves on the path to enlightenment.

As humans, we are entrenched in the concepts of right and wrong, black and white, when reality is somewhere in between. Logic is a man made construct, which in some areas such as science and mathematics can be very useful, but in the spiritual realm can be very limiting.

 

I dont exactly agree. To me mathematics hold far more truth as to the nature of reality than any other language or approach other than silent meditation. The difference is that meditation's benefits yeild the same results in a way that is very personal, whereas mathematics hold the potential to reveal the universal truth in a language which everyone could understand. It hasent come even close to revealing truth as the neglecting of desire has yet, but I feel that math is given to us by God to lead us all that much faster towards Her. It just takes longer and this is why I feel that it appears to be limiting, since we will never live in our current state to see the results.

 

This is by far the most important post in this entire thread.
The problem with enlightenment and coming to God is that there is no orientation, the circle that has been draw is the distracion itself, God is beyond all of it. The mobius strip that is not only this argument but the search for enlightenment and/or God Herself must be transcended. When you are under the impression that you are not enlightened and feel that you should work towards it, you are missing the point. Close your eyes, smile, relax, and be happy. You were born out of God's love and will die back into it and none of us deserve it more than anyone else. Wether you are a lofty yoga practioner or of lesser intelligence but do your part without complaining, you are on the same path. The rest of it is mental masturbation. God is right now, always has been, and always will be, and the same applies to you.

 

It is the ego that clings to such predetermined notions of an afterlife to counteract its fear of death and impermanence.

Yes, "God's" (or Tao, Spirit, Beingness, etc.) love is omnipresent and constitutes the fabric of our reality, but in our false identification with an illusory separative existence we sever our connection with that love. We must absolutely work to remove these deeply engrained attachments to our egoic identities, though it is not the same work that one does when one is building a house or filing papers in an office building. It is, as the Buddha called it, the middle path, the razor's edge, the willingness to consecrate one's being to the process of self-purification through absolute impeccability of awareness, until nothing remains but the infinite love of our true natures. It is simultaneously the hardest and the easiest work you will ever do.

So yes, close your eyes, relax, be happy -- but know that a belief that some form of salvation awaits you in some type of romanticized conception of an afterlife only reinforces the ego's tendency to look outside itself, into the past or future, to gain a sense of well-being. And if you die and there remains even an iota of fear tainting your soul, that fear will be reflected in your afterlife experience. True happiness can only be attained through total devotion of one's being to the process of spiritual evolution. Only following the permanent attainment of enlightenment do we have the luxury of speaking of the process that culminated in its attainment as being illusory.

Escapism through belief in diluted, conceptualized versions of spiritual principles does not reflect God's love.

Travis

 

"You cannot make the egoless state into a future goal and then work towards it...buying more time for yourself is just that...the "self" wanting more time...Look carefully to find out if your spitiritual search is a disguised form of ego."

Eckhart Tolle

 

Excuse me Travis. But when did I mention an afterlife? I said you were born out of God's Love (the fabric of reality) and you die back into it (the fabric of reality). Thus, my previous statements concerning my opinion that ego separation is not entirely possible until physical death. When you see the ego and the mind as two distinctly separate entities, is that not fragmentation of God's One Love? I think it is.
And since when do you know what happens to our essence upon physical death? I believe my statement is quite matter of fact, we go back into what we are created from. It is you who is twisting my words with this romantic loving arms of God phantasy, I never once said anything of the like. I stated a fact, you assumed an opinion. Again.
And I would disagree as well with your opinion that true happiness can only be attained by total surrender and devotion to spiritual enlightenment, thus my circle analogy. I would say that true happiness can only be attained once you stop searching for it, which is much more simple than saying you stop searching for something once you find it. It is as simple as saying that true happiness is what you ALREADY ARE, so why bother looking any further? Sure, you've gotta get in to get out, I realize that universal fact. None of us are born happy in our current form. But one mans definition of enlightenment is another man's nightmare, and who is to say which one is right? When you know happiness, you feel it, you dont need to read books about it, you dont need to practice different form of yoga and dhyana, you have it and it's good enough for you. And if it's good enough for you, I dare say that it's more than likely good enough for Her.
Btw I've been receiving some funny comment on my signature quote, and simply because I refer to God as Her means nothing. It's my ego's bloated preference so you must excuse me.
Namaste

 

Who said anything about a goal?

Travis

 

Well where else does this complete devotion to the spiritual path end, off a cliff? I hope your not messin with us lost souls rad

 

You spoke of "dying back into God's love". It seems to me that this is a direct reference to an afterlife, because it implies that we're somehow ensured safe passage into higher consciousness despite not having overcome the blockages that prevent the experience of God's love.

When did I say anything about the ego and mind being two separate entities? And how does this pertain to your belief that ego must remain until physical death?

I think you just don't like to be pinned down. Clearly, your post was romanticized. Me twisting your words? It is you who is attempting to shift the emphasis of your original post by claiming that "dying into god's love" is a fact. I wasn't disputing this "fact", only your application of it.

Total devotion encompasses the willingness to stop searching.

Because we're not identified with what we ALREADY ARE.

If I were to tell you that you enlightenment is only possible when you perform a sacrificial ritual for the demon Kabhanda, I would hope that you would be the one to say that this is not a legitimate definition of enlightenment. The whole, "who is to say which one is right" argument exists in defiance of common sense.

Sure, but we're not talking about knowing happiness, we're talking about how to know it. And I dare say, my approach to knowing it is a great deal more practical than yours is, with all due respect.

Travis

 

Enlightenment is the goal of no-goal.

Travis

 

.

 

It's not my fault if you like to assume that I am as simple minded as you make me out to be When you make statements such as "fabric of reality" I, and excuse me for this, assumed we were on the same page with the Nature of Reality considering the prior neglect to bring into question the depth of my mental image of God.

Then what is the purpose of separating the from it? Cant you just as easily quit beating yourself for no reason other than gratification and rather come to terms with your ego and come out on top of the wresting match? I never said that the ego's desires shouldn't be silenced, I simply said that the ego is part of what you are and therefor will remain with you until your awareness quits your bodily host.

Excuse me for not enjoying being pinned down, I guess that's a fault I need to work on in order to be perfect Yes, you twist my words, dying into God's love is a fact when you are under the impression that reality is composed of that very Love. If you disagree with that, by all means, let's start up a new thread to discuss it. Otherwise your just trying to dig some ignorance up out of me and further your so called discussion to make us all winners.

And never will we be while we posses a human body and mind.

Does it really? Or is that yet another egotistical comment on your part? You need to think these things through a little more before you decide to go ahead and assume you know what this supposed 'enlightenment' is while claiming at the same time to not have it (yet )

A great deal more practical? What is that, check mate again bro? Get off the throne and down on your knees and be thankful that your even alive, that's devotion to spirit. Not telling kids how to attain to what you believe is happiness, because the way you hold yourself on this forum, you don't seem to have much of it at all, save for when you think you've 'pinned' someone and slide in a every now and then. Or should I say every other post. I mean seriously, if that's not instant ego acknowledgment I dont know what is!

Anyway, happiness is something you chose to have or not to have. You can read all the fairytale books ever written on this Earth, amass your own giant collective of esoteric truths, call it the right path and tell us all what to do, but anyone with half a brain will not take that seriously. You either accept happiness and know what it is, or you waste your time looking for it with the hope that one day, you will understand. That is not practical at all and I would never consider it again (after my own mistakes when I assumed I knew anything at all besides what I could feel in my heart) as to me, it is a wasted lifetime. Again, God is here now, you can touch Her or you can keep reaching for Her. But YOU ARE HER and SHE IS YOU and the sooner you realize that, the sooner you give up trying to do anything but help others and be happy about it.
Namaste