Re: Enlightened! Really?
Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:37 pm
Yes, such is the way of ego, before which all must bow: husbands, wives, and vows sworn before the witnesses of God and man.
Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/
More important is to realize first what it means for there be "objective things". Buddhism says first and foremost that suffering exists and that life is suffering. From this it should be clear: to exist means to suffer. It's about going from one brutality to another with some grace, some relief and intoxication in between but necerally limited relief without rights to any of it. Most people solve the tragedy by being as ignorant as possible. If this view is taken, where could enlightenment -- as the end of suffering at the very least -- exist?Kunyab wrote:It seems as if enlightenment is not a objective thing but a matter of opinion.
Kunyab wrote:The answers I have gotten so far have only increased my confusion on the matter. It seems as if enlightenment is not a objective thing but a matter of opinion.
Ha Ardy! One can also say that cultists can recognize each other. Does this mean what they believe in is true.ardy wrote:The one characteristic that is objective is that they can all recognise one another.
Not sure cultist can recognise each other BUT it doesn't matter. There is something here in this enlightenment and I am fascinated to find out what it is, others are also of a similar mind to mine. Strange that there is something very different that only a few hundred (Guess it could be <100) people in the world have experienced.Kunyab wrote:Ha Ardy! One can also say that cultists can recognize each other. Does this mean what they believe in is true.ardy wrote:The one characteristic that is objective is that they can all recognise one another.
An often ignored part of the package is the physicality, the movement of energy that accompanies the opening to newness. Insights and the logic that orders insights are rather secondary, a looking into the past and a clarifying interpretation of the most immediate past.ardy wrote:Not sure cultist can recognise each other BUT it doesn't matter. There is something here in this enlightenment and I am fascinated to find out what it is, others are also of a similar mind to mine. Strange that there is something very different that only a few hundred (Guess it could be <100) people in the world have experienced.Kunyab wrote:Ha Ardy! One can also say that cultists can recognize each other. Does this mean what they believe in is true.ardy wrote:The one characteristic that is objective is that they can all recognise one another.
If your husband is one of them well, I have heard this claim before, it don't mean diddly squat unless there is someone who can confirm it.
Yes Cahoot: I have had some strange experiences myself but nothing like this physical one you experienced. It is all very strange, it makes me wonder what could be done with the mind if we understood this function, such as you experienced, better. Had you gone to an optometrist for a check up that day, now that would have been very interesting.Cahoot wrote:An often ignored part of the package is the physicality, the movement of energy that accompanies the opening to newness. Insights and the logic that orders insights are rather secondary, a looking into the past and a clarifying interpretation of the most immediate past.ardy wrote:Not sure cultist can recognise each other BUT it doesn't matter. There is something here in this enlightenment and I am fascinated to find out what it is, others are also of a similar mind to mine. Strange that there is something very different that only a few hundred (Guess it could be <100) people in the world have experienced.Kunyab wrote:Ha Ardy! One can also say that cultists can recognize each other. Does this mean what they believe in is true.ardy wrote:The one characteristic that is objective is that they can all recognise one another.
If your husband is one of them well, I have heard this claim before, it don't mean diddly squat unless there is someone who can confirm it.
For example, long ago I was driving home from a retreat led by a Lama. Clear day, blue sky, puffy clouds like big cotton balls floating above. I cannot see distance without glasses, so while driving on the open highway, not many other cars around, I took them off for a change of pace. That’s when I noticed something extraordinary. Within the field of my vision there were many little areas, like clear bubbles but without a discernible edge, and when I focused attention on these bubbles my vision was perfect, while the surrounding areas remained blurred. When I gazed through one of the bubbles I could read road signs and the license plates of passing cars very clearly, almost like looking through low powered bincoculars. This lasted throughout the day and was gone the next day. Throughout the following week I had hyper-detailed dreams in which the Lama continued his teachings, dreams that I still remember.
Insight: definitely a message transmitted via an individual, the Lama. Transmitters are often unaware of the specific reception of the transmission. The interpretation of a message belongs to the one who has the experience. Third-hand judgments of an experience vary. For those habituated to ego-driven negativity, such as alcoholics often are, dulled or prejudicial comprehension that shapes judgments closes awareness to subtle aspects of reality, masking all but the grossest (definition 3 a)aspects of the known.
I’m sure you’ve taken notice …ardy wrote:Cahoot - you normally write sensible grounded stuff with excellent insights but this one is not one of them. " Family was set into motion. We have always known those we meet, and always will. You have always known each other, and always will. Since he realizes this truly now, leaving is not a possibility." This may give her some comfort but there is no basis in truth in any of this. Life plays out beyond our understanding and always will, regardless of whether we are ignorant or enlightened. Kunyab is in charge of her own life, her husband is in charge of his.Cahoot wrote: Kunyab, your concern is that your “husband” may leave. Because your husband has awakened, he has realized that there is no place to go. Because he is free, he is like an untethered balloon that is only set into motion by the winds of karma. He is living out all that was set into motion. Family was set into motion. We have always known those we meet, and always will. You have always known each other, and always will. Since he realizes this truly now, leaving is not a possibility. He could probably explain this better to you.
I know this feeling and it is always following some eye contact. Is it as you say, or is it just an open confident person who will engage you in eye contact, or do they just look like someone you know vaguely? I honestly don't know, but you could be right.Cahoot wrote: I’m sure you’ve taken notice …
... that when you’re in a crowd there are people you recognize, whom you have no memory of ever meeting.
Since contradictions don’t actually exist, if recognition contradicts memory, somewhere there’s a flawed premise in reasoning … unless recognition and memory are uncontradictedly accurate and you do recognize them, but you have no memory of them.
An explanation that fits all the known facts and disallows for coincidence is that you have always known this person.
The question is, since people are compendiums, what is it that is recognized?
Very well put Cahoot: This invasion can be a person or a thing and it can take over. The most obvious is a song on the radio that you find yourself humming every spare moment of the day regardless of whether you like it or hate it.Cahoot wrote:Picking up on an aspect of the recently locked thread, from a more philosophical standpoint, rationality is the most effective tool for navigating materialism. The practical aspects of materialism are the dualistic relationships between you and anything or anyone else. Rationality is also effective for protecting the mind from random invasion. Once someone is in your mind (i.e. via your attachment) they know it and it’s a rare person who does not take advantage, so with effective barriers of rationality that do not filter out the qualities of compassion, kindness, patience, etc., but rather serve to amplify these qualities for real benefit by harmonious relationship with the material, attention need not be distracted by the careless. And the careless appreciate it, since in private moments of honesty they don’t particularly care for the responsibility of being in someone’s mind.
It's a step in the right direction, but it misses the mark ultimately. While consciousness is the foundation for experiencing of reality, it isn't itself the foundation. A couple of reasons for this is the fact that consciousness has to come from somewhere (the brain, sensory input), and that it needs something to act upon (external reality).Kunyab wrote:I have spend many months now discussing Vedanta with him and now find that for him enlightenment is not some great mystical state, but just an alternative way of understanding the world.
Here is the difference:
The common view assumes that space and time are the fundamental reality of the world, consciousness is an artifact of the brain and millions of years of evolution.
Vedantic view is that consciousness is the fundamental reality, time and space and human body are just experiences running on top of it.
This is what he says it's all there to enlightenment, to continually apply this understanding till it becomes obvious.
Hi Kunjab - Interesting but it seems that this is the elephant riding the mahout. Russel quite rightly points out that the foundation is unknown and unknowable, it is as Russel says infinite - a concept humans nod their heads at but can never fully understand.Kunyab wrote:I have spend many months now discussing Vedanta with him and now find that for him enlightenment is not some great mystical state, but just an alternative way of understanding the world.
Here is the difference:
The common view assumes that space and time are the fundamental reality of the world, consciousness is an artifact of the brain and millions of years of evolution.
Vedantic view is that consciousness is the fundamental reality, time and space and human body are just experiences running on top of it.
This is what he says it's all there to enlightenment, to continually apply this understanding till it becomes obvious.
Any breath could be your last. This means that with each inhalation, you have gotten there. Paradoxically, for it calls attention to something as minute as the moment of a breath, this is the Big View, minus imagining, conceptual adroitness, or prescribed behavior.ardy wrote:Hi Kunjab - Interesting but it seems that this is the elephant riding the mahout. Russel quite rightly points out that the foundation is unknown and unknowable, it is as Russel says infinite - a concept humans nod their heads at but can never fully understand.Kunyab wrote:I have spend many months now discussing Vedanta with him and now find that for him enlightenment is not some great mystical state, but just an alternative way of understanding the world.
Here is the difference:
The common view assumes that space and time are the fundamental reality of the world, consciousness is an artifact of the brain and millions of years of evolution.
Vedantic view is that consciousness is the fundamental reality, time and space and human body are just experiences running on top of it.
This is what he says it's all there to enlightenment, to continually apply this understanding till it becomes obvious.
The reality is that it does not matter what your husband follows, his destination is the same as everyone else. The only question is will he get there.
Hi Ardy, RussellRussel quite rightly points out that the foundation is unknown and unknowable, it is as Russel says infinite - a concept humans nod their heads at but can never fully understand
Consciousness exists independently of the brain or any bodily senses. It doesn't act upon anything, since everything is it.Russell wrote:It's a step in the right direction, but it misses the mark ultimately. While consciousness is the foundation for experiencing of reality, it isn't itself the foundation. A couple of reasons for this is the fact that consciousness has to come from somewhere (the brain, sensory input), and that it needs something to act upon (external reality).Kunyab wrote:The common view assumes that space and time are the fundamental reality of the world, consciousness is an artifact of the brain and millions of years of evolution.
Vedantic view is that consciousness is the fundamental reality, time and space and human body are just experiences running on top of it.
This is what he says it's all there to enlightenment, to continually apply this understanding till it becomes obvious.
Reality has no foundation because it is infinite.
It cannot be said to be independent in some objective sense. It cannot even be said to "exist" in the way brains and bodies are spoken of.divine focus wrote:Consciousness exists independently of the brain or any bodily senses. It doesn't act upon anything, since everything is it.
The brain also provides dreams, a rich imagination, inventions and many more experiences and perspectives. That is its "thing". Once that is understood fully, experiences like "out-of-body" or claimed memories of past lives are just more of the usual. It doesn't need any "brain outside of a brain" to explain. And I'm not even touching the question if these experiences and regressions are more than powerful dreams or clever inventions. Because first one needs to accept the power of the mind, the brain, the senses and the power of any conclusion being derived from those. That is the starting point: seeing that one is riding a wild elephant, one so little understood. You're hanging by its tail and yet proclaim this and that about what it can or cannot do, which truth it can generate and which not. Best thing would be a tad of modesty here on our own role, our own conceptions of brain as perhaps another invention of brain. That's a paradox ....If it were dependent on the brain or senses, how would there be out-of-body experiences or the experience relived in past-life regressions when people see what it was like after death?
Its because brain and bodies are objects while consciousness is always the subject. The subject is ever present while objects come and go. The fundamental error is to assume that space is real and then asking questions like what happens when a forest falls in the tree and no one is there to hear it. It assumes that there is space where there is consciousness and space where there is no consciousness. While its the other way round. i.e. all space is in consciousness.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It cannot be said to be independent in some objective sense. It cannot even be said to "exist" in the way brains and bodies are spoken of.
Enlightenment is a state of being, not an objective thing or an opinion.Kunyab wrote:The answers I have gotten so far have only increased my confusion on the matter. It seems as if enlightenment is not a objective thing but a matter of opinion.
"States" and "beings" are just more things you're bringing to the table, objective or subjective, it doesn't matter. You seem here like someone who kicks "things" out the front door and invites them all back through the back door. Next thing will be that you're refusing to describe enlightenment after just describing it using your own private set of meanings. For example, what is a "state of being"? States and beings both refer to things usually.BardoXV wrote:Enlightenment is a state of being, not an objective thing or an opinion.