Why I know no one is enlightened here

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:54 pm

Carl G wrote:How could you possibly know that the following are not real: gods, higher entities, higher self, dream weaver, gods within one's own psyche, angelic being, demon, and magic.

How do you surmise this?

Same answer. A "god" is anything we choose to call a god - and the same goes for all those other things.

For example, if my little finger nail were called a "god" then gods, or at least one of them, would be a reality.

Similarly, if "demons" is a term that refers to all beings, say, shorter than 6ft tall, then demons too are real.

brokenhead · Post by **brokenhead** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:57 pm

Kevin wrote:

Carl G wrote:
How could you possibly know that the following are not real: gods, higher entities, higher self, dream weaver, gods within one's own psyche, angelic being, demon, and magic.

How do you surmise this?

Same answer. A "god" is anything we choose to call a god - and the same goes for all those other things.

Now don't be difficult, Kevin. Forget "we." That automatically equivocates everything from every religion. What do YOU choose to call a god? Or THE god?
I swear to you there are more things visible than you can see, you just have to look hard enough.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:48 pm

brokenhead wrote:
A "god" is anything we choose to call a god - and the same goes for all those other things.
Forget "we." That automatically equivocates everything from every religion. What do YOU choose to call a god? Or THE god?

Personally, I find it useful to refer to great people as "gods". For example, Bach was a "god" of sorts, as was Weininger.

As for the one God, I call the Totality, the All, "God", but that is entirely different to what we were talking about.

I swear to you there are more things visible than you can see, you just have to look hard enough.

It doesn't matter what we can see or not see; all finite things are fundamentally the same.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:14 am

I said:

Talking about enlightenment when you're not enlightened is irrational.

To which Carl responded:

Scott, so why do you do it in nearly every one of your posts?

I don't know what enlightenment is, but I know what it isn't. That's how I can kind of say how it is.

sky · Post by **sky** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:10 am

scott

I don't know what enlightenment is, but I know what it isn't. That's how I can kind of say how it is.

sky · Post by **sky** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:15 am

kevin

"God desires" can be a poetic way of saying, "if Nature determines", or "if cause and effect determine".

poetic is good at least in my value system

and someone said something that seemed to imply that fun might be acceptable also

things are definitely looking up ;)

brokenhead · Post by **brokenhead** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:02 am

From Kevin:

As for the one God, I call the Totality, the All, "God", but that is entirely different to what we were talking about.

So you think we are speaking of a personal God, God as being a person. I for one cringe when I hear people reject the "Old Man In The Sky With a White Beard." He is a person and probably doesn't have a beard, okay?

I say, stop driving around at night if you refuse to put on your headlights. First you take the leap of faith. Then you start getting your proof.What have you got to lose? What you see in your new headlights may not make sense at first, but many things don't, dont' worry, things happen in cycles, you get another crack at it. Dare to be naive, Kevin. And don't say, "Why?" Because I'll just say "Why not?" You don't have to tell anyone you're being naive, so no one has to know. I promise you that you will start to notice coincidences occurring that are inexplicable and have meaning just for you.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:11 am

Sky,

vedanta - neti neti neti - not this not this not this

whatever is left that does not qualify as not this is enlightenment in this particular format

Hey sky. That's not what I'm talking about. I personally think Vedanta is a bunch of bull. Maybe I don't know enough about it...but I spent a year of my life doing intense "neti neti" meditations and came out the other end as the same person I've always been. I've not found satisfaction in any system people have created.

Also, I want to say to you that you can't find enlightenment in yourself when you're unenlightened. That's why neti neti doesn't work for it.

I should have said to Carl that another way I can talk about enlightenment is through other's definitions of it. So, for instance, I will say that enlightenment is an experience. That means if you're not experiencing it, then you aren't it. So you can't find it in yourself by saying "it's not this, it's not that". It just won't happen...and you may end up thinking it doesn't exist at all...which may be the case! Observing the enlightened people's actions, whom I've been in contact with, it seems either enlightenment makes you stupid, or stupid people claim enlightenment.

What I believe in is reality. I have absolute faith in it! If enlightenment is part of reality, then I have absolute faith in enlightenment...but so far it seems that such a thing is not part of reality but just a part of fantasies of unrealistic people. Or perhaps they were realistic people, but they misinterpreted things.

Either way, Vedanta is a bunch of bull.

sky · Post by **sky** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:43 am

sky

What I believe in is reality. I have absolute faith in it! If enlightenment is part of reality, then I have absolute faith in enlightenment...but so far it seems that such a thing is not part of reality but just a part of fantasies of unrealistic people. Or perhaps they were realistic people, but they misinterpreted things.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:13 am

Sky,

btw the very few people i have ever encountered whom i suspected might be enlightened never actually said they were enlightened

Well, why did you think they were enlightened?

a true virtuoso never refers to himself as a virtuoso other people do it for him/her

That may be so. But if a supposed enlightened person says, "I am not enlightened!" do you really still think they're enlightened? To be enlightened, wouldn't you have to know about it?

now define reality :)

Reality is what is true, and not a delusion.

sky · Post by **sky** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:09 am

That may be so. But if a supposed enlightened person says, "I am not enlightened!" do you really still think they're enlightened? To be enlightened, wouldn't you have to know about it?

unwise · Post by **unwise** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:32 am

btw the very few people i have ever encountered whom i suspected might be enlightened never actually said they were enlightened

a true virtuoso never refers to himself as a virtuoso other people do it for him/her

If you asked an enlightened man if he was enlightened, should he LIE to you and say 'no?' Would he not tell you the truth and say 'yes?' Should he evade your question and PRETEND he did not hear you? Which is more reasonable?

Besides, you are all misguided in thinking that enlightenment is an ACHIEVEMENT which it IS NOT. Since it is not an achievement, it does not take ego to say that one is enlightened. One who is enlightened is very clear why he knows he is enlightened and says so. Furthermore, he says that enlightenment is the basic state of every person, SO WHY WOULDN'T HE CLAIM IT?

Also, saying that 'Vedanta is bull' because you never got anything from studying it is quite foolish. You might as well say algebra is bull because you never understood it.
]
Also, it is not very useful to say that 'you know what enlightenment IS NOT.' This is not a very useful guide. Why not find out what it IS?

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:34 am

Hey Sky,

Add this question to your list of questions to answer for me....

maybe their love affair with god or truth is intensely private maybe they are stunned into silence by 'it' *

but if it serves others then i think they could declare it and would

Why do you think that enlightened people would want to serve others?

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:36 am

Unwise,

Also, saying that 'Vedanta is bull' because you never got anything from studying it is quite foolish. You might as well say algebra is bull because you never understood it.

I didn't merely study it. I became an expert at it, then tossed it aside because I don't personally think it's useful for any truth finding.

Also, it is not very useful to say that 'you know what enlightenment IS NOT.' This is not a very useful guide. Why not find out what it IS?

Because it's not in my power to enlighten myself. Besides, I have no way of knowing how to go about enlightening myself if it were in my power.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:50 am

sschaula wrote:I said:
Talking about enlightenment when you're not enlightened is irrational.
To which Carl responded:
Scott, so why do you do it in nearly every one of your posts?
I don't know what enlightenment is, but I know what it isn't. That's how I can kind of say how it is.

Therefore, by your own definition, you are being irrational.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:19 am

Wrong.

If you have never had a banana dipped in chocolate you shouldn't talk about how it tastes. You can say how it doesn't taste...it doesn't taste like oranges, or apples, or chicken pot pies, etc. You don't know at all what it is until that moment you put it in your mouth. Then BAM, you can talk about how a banana dipped in chocolate tastes because you've tasted it.

So saying things like "the sage would blah blah blah" is only speculation...but it's a FACT to say that "the sage experiences no delusion"....because enlightenment by definition is a gaining of the knowledge of truth...it's an utter lack of delusion. So it's sensible to say that a sage would act a certain way because of that..

Does that make sense, Elizabeth?

Okay I'll give you a "for instance". You ready for it?

For instance, when Brokenhead said, "The sage is always active, always learning" he must either be enlightened himself or just making a guess. Because there's no way to tell whether a sage continues learning after enlightenment beyond that. If you witness a so called sage learning more after enlightenment, that could be reliable....yet how do you ever know a person is a sage? That's entirely based on a leap of faith. If I think Kevin Solway is enlightened, I have to suspend my thinking and just believe!

Faith is good sometimes...but it's much better to accept the truth. That you could be wrong about the things you believe in. Your life will be much more balanced that way. Instead of devoting your life to Kevin Solway, and building a temple for him...that would be kind of imbalanced. What would happen to such a person the day they find out that Kevin's not enlightened? They'd probably feel angry, frustrated...etc.

So anyway...this all stems from thinking logically before anything else. Keep that in mind at all times. It may lead you away from all of this "enlightenment" stuff and into reality....so be it, I say.

Always search for the TRUTH.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:04 am

Scott wrote:

I have to suspend my thinking and just believe!

Don't forget to click your ruby slippers together and say "There's no place like Kevin's mind."

(Just so you don't think I'm trying to talk over your head by using humor without your ability to understand, the above is a joke referencing The Wizard of Oz)

I think you slipped on the banana peel.

(edited to add explination of humor, then edited to explain the reason for the edits)

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:06 am

Kevin Solway wrote:
Carl G wrote:How could you possibly know that the following are not real: gods, higher entities, higher self, dream weaver, gods within one's own psyche, angelic being, demon, and magic.

How do you surmise this?
Same answer. A "god" is anything we choose to call a god - and the same goes for all those other things.

For example, if my little finger nail were called a "god" then gods, or at least one of them, would be a reality.

Similarly, if "demons" is a term that refers to all beings, say, shorter than 6ft tall, then demons too are real.

Right. I think I get it. Nothing is real save what we make it.

For example an apple is anything I choose to call an apple. If a red, yellow and/or green orb-like appearance about the size of my palm were called "apple," then apple would be a reality.

Similarly if "peach" were to refer to all women I find attractive, then peaches too are real.

Everything takes on the meaning we give it, and it is we who ultimately give it reality.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:17 am

Elizabeth,

Are we on the same level now?

Carl,

I don't think he meant what we make real in our minds is actually real.

brokenhead · Post by **brokenhead** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:21 pm

Scott wrote:

yet how do you ever know a person is a sage? That's entirely based on a leap of faith. If I think Kevin Solway is enlightened, I have to suspend my thinking and just believe!

If sages are rare, then it should be easy to spot them because they stand out, right? For a particular person, I'd imagine a few minutes of interlocution would do the trick nicely.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:24 pm

It may or may not be easy to spot them.

So many people used sagely words.....yet very often I find them to be unenlightened people who are just trying to be better, or are deluding themselves into thinking they actually are sages.

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:35 pm

sschaula wrote:
Carl,

I don't think he meant what we make real in our minds is actually real.

How else am I to interpret Kevin's clear-spoken statements:

A "god" is anything we choose to call a god - and the same goes for all those other things.

For example, if my little finger nail were called a "god" then gods, or at least one of them, would be a reality.

Similarly, if "demons" is a term that refers to all beings, say, shorter than 6ft tall, then demons too are real.

How else am I to take his words but to understand that gods, higher self, and apples, demons, angelic beings and peaches are all spun from the mind, and pretty much totally given meaning, context and value by me?

That is some heavy concept, definitely food for thought. But is it objectively true?

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:44 pm

Carl G wrote:That is some heavy concept, definitely food for thought.

Scott,

Be careful not to get indigestion on that.

(This is humor designed to match the barbs you give me. Perhaps you will understand humor if I deliver the same kind you normally use).

sky · Post by **sky** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:01 pm

brokenhead · Post by **brokenhead** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:39 pm

Grist for the mill:
Time (duration) and energy are complimentary the same way position and momentum are complimentary.

Hey, symmetry arguments never hurt anyone.