A question for the enlightened.

[Glostik91]

I was wondering who here claims to be enlightened?

[Animus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue3M_kxb ... re=related

[Kunga]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd6KdyGrzA4

[Dan Rowden]

I was wondering who here claims to be enlightened?

Why do you care and why do you think it matters? Those are serious questions, btw.

[Blair]

'enlightened' is a false view put forward by the Buddhist idea. It proposes that you can achieve such an enlightened state, by being like Buddha. It's inherently wrong.

You can't become God, or close to him, only become subservient to him.

[Steven Coyle]

Can't because of a bunch of clothes...

[Kunga]

Can't because of a bunch of clothes...

LOL

[Animus]

'enlightened' is a false view put forward by the Buddhist idea. It proposes that you can achieve such an enlightened state, by being like Buddha. It's inherently wrong.

You can't become God, or close to him, only become subservient to him.

Why is that inherent? Because God is infinite while man is finite? What does that mean for Jesus Christ, was he not God? imitatio Christi is a Latin phrase meaning; Imitate Christ. It is generally held to be the goal of any Christian. A similar doctrine is that of imitatio Dei (imitate God). Or imago Dei (being made in the image of God).

Let's look at some scripture:

Leviticus 19:2: "Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: 'Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy.'"

Matthew 5:48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Luke 6:36 "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful."

Ephesians 5 "Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children"

1 Corinthians 11:1: "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ."


These passages from Colossians 2 seem applicable:

18Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

That sounds pretty close to God to me, completely dependent in fact.

Here are a few preceding passages in Colossians 2:

6So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, 7rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.

Again, "rooted and built up" sounds pretty close to me.

What then, in your account does it mean to be in union with God? Is this just claptrap added on by Saul of Tarsus and Jesus disciples?

What does it mean:

John 17:10-11

10And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

11And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

John 17:20-23

20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

[mensa-maniac]

'enlightened' is a false view put forward by the Buddhist idea. It proposes that you can achieve such an enlightened state, by being like Buddha. It's inherently wrong.

I agree, enlightenment is not something you reach but something you develop, it is something you already possess, not something which is attainable, you either have it or you don't.
Enlightenment is the ability to reason, logic in other words.

You can't become God, or close to him, only become subservient to him.

God created mankind in his own image, this gives to humanity a likeness of God, therefore, we can be close to him. Being subservient would be the natural inclination. Also, God said the wisest among us will serve.

[Pincho Paxton]

I don't claim to be enlightened, but I do claim that nobody is enlightened, because I'm pretty sure I know a few things that nobody else knows.

[Cahoot]

One knows what one must know, don Pincho. (Or, in biblical usage, one knows who one must know.) One knows one known, then the next. One known, one known, one known. One cannot know more than one knows now. Thus, what one knows now is all that is known, until the next moment of now and all that is known, since “is” exists only now. Different knowns are varieties of the same reality, or variations in perspective. At the moment when you taste tutti-frutti, I may taste pistachio, but we’re both directly knowing ice-cream, unless ego seizes control to assert the knowing of an illusion at that moment, such as memories of naked space monkeys.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Pinto,

I don't claim to be enlightened, but I do claim that nobody is enlightened, because I'm pretty sure I know a few things that nobody else knows.

So let try to understand your your logic here - just because you know some things that some people don't, and you are not enlightened, then it must follow logically that no one else is enlightened either?

a few holes in your logic there.

[Cory Duchesne]

Pincho seems to define enlightenment as knowing everything as opposed to simply knowing the nature of everything. Pincho's definition isn't wise because knowing everything is impossible.

The nature of empirical knowledge is that it always creates a concomitant unknown.

[Tomas]

I was wondering who here claims to be enlightened?

In the human sense, yes.

In the common sense, no.

In the eternal sense, I would certainly hope so :-)

[Glostik91]

I was wondering who here claims to be enlightened?

Why do you care and why do you think it matters? Those are serious questions, btw.

I care because I want to know the truth.

It matters because the truth matters.

[Glostik91]

'enlightened' is a false view put forward by the Buddhist idea. It proposes that you can achieve such an enlightened state, by being like Buddha. It's inherently wrong.

You can't become God, or close to him, only become subservient to him.

To be enlightened just means you know the truth. It doesn't mean you are all powerful as I think you are implying.

[Glostik91]

I don't claim to be enlightened, but I do claim that nobody is enlightened, because I'm pretty sure I know a few things that nobody else knows.

What do you think it means to be enlightened?

[Pincho Paxton]

I don't claim to be enlightened, but I do claim that nobody is enlightened, because I'm pretty sure I know a few things that nobody else knows.

What do you think it means to be enlightened?

To know everything about the Universe, like my 'Theory Of Everything'... which still has some gaps in it.

[Glostik91]

One knows what one must know, don Pincho. (Or, in biblical usage, one knows who one must know.) One knows one known, then the next. One known, one known, one known. One cannot know more than one knows now. Thus, what one knows now is all that is known, until the next moment of now and all that is known, since “is” exists only now. Different knowns are varieties of the same reality, or variations in perspective. At the moment when you taste tutti-frutti, I may taste pistachio, but we’re both directly knowing ice-cream, unless ego seizes control to assert the knowing of an illusion at that moment, such as memories of naked space monkeys.

Speak meanings that I can understand. If you truly want to express truth then express it in a way the average person would understand.

I got lost when you said "One known, one known, one known." and "but we're both directly knowing ice-cream, unless ego seizes control to assert the knowing of an illusion at that moment, such as memories of naked space monkeys."

[Glostik91]

Pincho seems to define enlightenment as knowing everything as opposed to simply knowing the nature of everything. Pincho's definition isn't wise because knowing everything is impossible.

The nature of empirical knowledge is that it always creates a concomitant unknown.

Because our perception is always limited we cannot gain concrete truth through empiricism.

So, how can we begin to know something that is concretely true? (which could logically lead us to enlightenment or a knowledge of all truth)

[Glostik91]

In the human sense, yes.

In the common sense, no.

In the eternal sense, I would certainly hope so :-)

I do not wish to assume in this post. Please explain.

[Glostik91]

To know everything about the Universe, like my 'Theory Of Everything'... which still has some gaps in it.

Is this even possible?

[Tomas]

I don't claim to be enlightened, but I do claim that nobody is enlightened, because I'm pretty sure I know a few things that nobody else knows.

We're all just eyes in the same head. Everything is everything. Everything is nothing, too.

[Pincho Paxton]

To know everything about the Universe, like my 'Theory Of Everything'... which still has some gaps in it.

Is this even possible?

It is supposed to be possible if you get all of the materials right in your head. If you have some matches you can light a fire, and all sorts of other things. If you know what created the universe you should be able to use those materials to create everything else. The theory of everything is an accepted theory.

[mensa-maniac]

To truly know anything at all, is for others to not know it, therefore, it would be original, not circulated and never heard before.

I admit to knowing nothing more than what others already know.

Logic reveals to me that what I do know is 100% accurate, how do I know this?

Because accuracy is in nature, in all creation, in the stars, sun, galaxies, planets, like perfect precision. Seen is the fibonacci sequence which is in all living creation.

To think is to know that logical thought is indisputable, because it is reasoning ability. Knowledge is not reasoning ability, knowledge is only what is known. True knowledge is a not known, but exists as undiscovered knowledge.