Forget about Enlightenment

[divine focus]

Read it and find out. According to me, the "enlightened mind" is not a mind at all in the traditional sense. It is "mind" in that it is awareness. Awareness doesn't think, but thinking happens. Thinking happens within the awareness, but it's not the awareness that is "thinking." "I am" is true before "I think." The awareness is directing of thought when it has expanded or "advanced" sufficiently to know itself beyond the thinking itself.

[Shahrazad]

Are you the author, divine focus?

[brokenhead]

Maestro, I believe since you refer to enlightened people or how they expressed themselves, or specially the death of the ego they recommended, you might be interested in U.G. KRISHNAMURTI. Do you know of him? Videos here.

Krishnamurti had some well-publicized discussions with the physicist David Bohm several years ago. I'm trying to dig them out at the moment - I remember being enthralled that these two facile minds found so much to agree upon.

[mikiel]

L: " How else do we improve ourselves if not by evaluating ourselves and working out how we can do better?"
Laird,
First, in response to your first (rhetorical) question above:
Your firm grip on the concept of "personal self" as "identiy" leaves no room for any dialogue in the transpersonal realm.
I have been a transpersonal counselor ( exploring the extremes of human potential) for 14 of my 22 yrs as a psychotherapist. The first 8 were spent as a family crisis counselor dealing daily with all the usual dramas and hangups of all who live in the illusion of ... (Dramatization:) "This is 'me'... these are "my needs"... my happiness depends on their fullfillment." (The programed robot... "self.")

Enlightenment is not about "self improvement" but "self" transcendence. The latter word requires direct experience to "grok" its meaning. You apparently have no such experience (compare my 38 yrs of meditation) so there is no common ground here for communication.
All "self improvement" programs (and individual efforts) have as their goal a "new, improved 'self'." Enlightenment transcends "self."
(Am I repeating "myself?" Yes... not heard the first time... trying again in "time"-altered context. ...See my "time" thread contribution.)

I will repeat my above ref. to the "enlightened" use of "I", as the point seems to have already escaped you.
-----------
The opener, in either scenario would require some understanding of the gramatical use of first person singular as a designator of this individual without the misunderstanding that it denotes an actual identity... this just a housekeeping (semantics) consideration. I say "I" lke anyone else... very awkward to say "this one" or whatever instead... but the experience of "self" disappeared with the hardwired bio-computer program of "me." This is undeniable as the common experience of all enlightened ones.
---------------
Now to the body of your paragraph addressed to me (comments in context in bold):

mikiel, this is turning into a fruitless discussion because you refuse to engage seriously.
I am quite seriouly responding with my best effort, under the circumstance that you have already disregarded the essence I have already communicated... as it "does not compute" in your world of strict limits ... thinking and reason only, sans any sense of what transcendence is.)
I challenged you to explain what use alcohol might have to an egoless man and you dodged the question.
I answered from "my" context about such use, including calling you on your false judgement on what an "enlightened one" might engage in... in the spirit of joyful celebration. We didn't even open the can of worms on "sex, drugs and rock&roll"... as to what an enlightened one might engage in and enjoy in that realm... (the joy of living... unique to each individual)... or how much one can eat without one such as yourself judging him/her a glutton. I said that all this is judgemental morality with an ideal of "perfection" that excludes all the above... if they violate your personal moral code. It wasn't avoidance... just a more cryptic ref. to all the detail just elaborated.
I requested that you give me some idea of what enlightenment is like for you by providing a blow-by-blow description of an everyday enlightened experience and you dodged that too.
It's interesting that you use a pugelistic metaphore here. I have already shared that I might do a thread on how "my life" (can I drop the quotes now?) has changed since my robotic conditioning programs blew away. So my "now" (blow by blow) with you here has been sharing my sense of a perfect (for me) attempt to share what enlightenment is, firsthand with you. And this is ongong at this moment as I speak this truth sincerely, with no wish that I had "improved communication skills" more "perfect" than these inadequate words as they go down.
Let alone that what you're saying is flat-out irrational - if you no longer had a self then you plainly and simply wouldn't be alive,

This is petroglyph written on your fossilized concept of "having a self", totally ignoring everything I have said so far about it. And "irrational" is not the last word on Reality unless you are Star Trek Vulcan. (How do you tolerate paradox with such a severe censor as rationality... the judge of all Reality? Rhetorical Q obviously.

...unless we speculate that you have been possessed by the Devil so that your biological shell is now a robot and your true self has been destroyed in hell. Should we be calling for the exorcist?

Cute! Fits with a certain comic book mentality I detect here. The "robot" is your lifelong conditioning as a personal, *separate* (again, from The Whole) SELF. In this context, as I said, over your head... oblivious to transcendence... the separate self is an illusion... the brain and all its concepts of self... as "this is me."[/quote]
I can not get you over your "self." I said, in all Truth, there is One Light in all. This Light is consciousness, TRANSCENDING ALL CONTENT... same One in all.... In this unity, there is no "separate identity" tho each individual remains unique in all ways, just like all other "parts" of the "Whole."

(I live off the grid, so my replies, if any, may be delayed (like this one) 'til I get back into the wireless computer environment in Eugene.

mikiel

[Sapius]

Maestro, I believe since you refer to enlightened people or how they expressed themselves, or specially the death of the ego they recommended, you might be interested in U.G. KRISHNAMURTI. Do you know of him? Videos here.

Krishnamurti had some well-publicized discussions with the physicist David Bohm several years ago. I'm trying to dig them out at the moment - I remember being enthralled that these two facile minds found so much to agree upon.

That would be quite interesting. I have never come across it.

[maestro]

That one is J Krishnamurti
http://video.google.com/videosearch?cli ... a=N&tab=wv

[Sapius]

That one is J Krishnamurti
http://video.google.com/videosearch?cli ... a=N&tab=wv

Thanks, I too thought so, since I knew about that, but I was wondering; UG and Bohm??

[divine focus]

Are you the author, divine focus?

No. Not me, personally.

I could say yes and not be lying. It is written in my voice, so to speak, but I am not the one through whom it was written.

[Laird]

mikiel,

Enlightenment is not about "self improvement" but "self" transcendence. The latter word requires direct experience to "grok" its meaning. You apparently have no such experience (compare my 38 yrs of meditation) so there is no common ground here for communication.

Right, I have no such experience. I'm interested in your experiences, because they have clearly been revolutionary for you.

The opener, in either scenario would require some understanding of the gramatical use of first person singular as a designator of this individual without the misunderstanding that it denotes an actual identity... this just a housekeeping (semantics) consideration. I say "I" lke anyone else... very awkward to say "this one" or whatever instead... but the experience of "self" disappeared with the hardwired bio-computer program of "me." This is undeniable as the common experience of all enlightened ones.

I'm going to try to explain to you why I don't think that you make sense. Imagine that I told you that on my desk is a cup of liquid water. Then imagine that I told you that this particular liquid water in the cup was not wet. Your response would probably be something like: hang on, that's impossible mate - if it's liquid then it's wet by definition, wouldn't it? And that's kind of the response that I have to you. You're telling me something that's flat out impossible. You're trying to tell me that you're conscious but you don't have a self. Umm, sorry, but if you're conscious then you by definition have a self. It's as simple as that. To be fair to you though, you seem to have had some significant experiences in your life that have led you to make the claim that you no longer have a self, and I'm sure that there's some value in them - it's just that they can't possibly be what you claim them to be.

Laird: I challenged you to explain what use alcohol might have to an egoless man and you dodged the question.

mikiel: I answered from "my" context about such use, including calling you on your false judgement on what an "enlightened one" might engage in... in the spirit of joyful celebration.

You know what? That's still not an answer. I contended that inebriation is an act one of whose primary intents is to pleasure the ego. You haven't refuted that at all.

Laird: Let alone that what you're saying is flat-out irrational - if you no longer had a self then you plainly and simply wouldn't be alive,

mikiel: This is petroglyph written on your fossilized concept of "having a self", totally ignoring everything I have said so far about it.

You haven't actually explained to me how it's possible to be conscious and simultaneously not have a self. All of my "nonsense" detectors are flashing at full strength.

Laird: ...unless we speculate that you have been possessed by the Devil so that your biological shell is now a robot and your true self has been destroyed in hell. Should we be calling for the exorcist?

mikiel: Cute! Fits with a certain comic book mentality I detect here.

I'm glad that you liked it. But really, the comic book is your own work of art. The enlightened man who loses his self - it might even do better than Superman.

I can not get you over your "self."

To the best of my understanding, that's because it's impossible. I'm sure you could give me some great advice on how to be a little less selfish though.

I said, in all Truth, there is One Light in all. This Light is consciousness, TRANSCENDING ALL CONTENT... same One in all.... In this unity, there is no "separate identity" tho each individual remains unique in all ways, just like all other "parts" of the "Whole."

It's funny - immediately after saying that there's no "separate identity" you go and use a word that connotes exactly that: individual.

[brokenhead]

Maestro, I believe since you refer to enlightened people or how they expressed themselves, or specially the death of the ego they recommended, you might be interested in U.G. KRISHNAMURTI. Do you know of him? Videos here.

Krishnamurti had some well-publicized discussions with the physicist David Bohm several years ago. I'm trying to dig them out at the moment - I remember being enthralled that these two facile minds found so much to agree upon.

That would be quite interesting. I have never come across it.

Yes, Sapius, just google for "Krishnamurti Bohm." I just know of the one book I read and I was going to get its title for you, but there's apparently much more than that. The two became friends in the 1960's.

[Sapius]

.
BH; I think there is some mistake here. J. Krishnamurti and U.G. Krishnamurti are two different people, and most probably you are talking about J who did have a discussion with Bohm, and I know about it, but not UG. Check out the link above and I think you shall see that UG is a different person with totally different ideas.

[mikiel]

Laird,
Just checked in... gotta go soon, but I suggest you study some Advaita Vedanta for background on "selflessness." I do not "belong" to any religion/tradition, but have come to selflessness independently (see my site) but with the excellent guidance of my teacher, Joel Morwood ...
(see his site,www.centerforsacredsciences.org )

Here is a quickie, tho from Wiki's section on the Atman:
------------------
"The soul or the self (Atman) is identical with Brahman. It is not a part of Brahman that ultimately dissolves into Brahman, but the whole Brahman itself. Now the arguers ask how the individual soul, which is limited and one in each body, can be the same as Brahman? Adi Shankara explains that the Self is not an individual concept. Atman is only one and unique. Indeed Atman alone is {Ekaatma Vaadam}. It is a false concept that there are several Atmans {Anekaatma Vaadam}. Adi Shankara says that just as the same moon appears as several moons on its reflections on the surface of water covered with bubbles, the one Atman appears as multiple atmans in our bodies because of Maya. Atman is self-proven, however, some proofs are discussed—eg., a person says "I am blind", "I am happy", "I am fat" etc. The common and constant factor, which permeates all these statements is the "I" which is but the Immutable Consciousness. When the blindness, happiness, fatness are inquired and negated, "I" the common factor which, indeed, alone exists in all three states of consciousness and in all three periods of time, shines forth. This proves the existence of Atman, and that Consciousness, Reality and Bliss are its characteristics. Atman, being the silent witness of all the modifications, is free and beyond sin and merit. It does not experience happiness or pain because it is beyond the triad of Experiencer, Experienced and Experiencing. It does not do any Karma because it is Aaptakaama. It is incorporeal and independent.
----------------
Here is a link to the "Selflessness" section on the Center for Sacred Sciences site:
http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/ ... l#selfless

I'll be back for discussion when I get back from "my" Center for Conscious Unity.
Enjoy.
mikiel

[Laird]

Thanks for that link mikiel - interesting page.

[mikiel]

Hi Laird,
(I'm back to the grid, briefly.)
I'm not sure how well the quotes in the link answered your questions/objections. They were more eloquent on selflessness than "myself" (It's a designator of this individual, still unique and present after losing the illusion of "identity-separate-from-the-Whole.")
I'm open to dialogue if you still have questions not answered by the quotes, Joel's commentaries, and the "Atman" piece.
(Will again be gone for at least a couple of days. I know it disrupts continuity, but I do live "off the grid.")
mikiel