An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: Doubt is fundamental but even the average nihilist doesn't take it really that far. The certainties of ones own mind should not be discarded but instead fully understood: to arrive beyond certainties and doubts. But it's unlikely anyone could come that far without tremendous trust in the abilities of the mind, the power of logic and the application of absolute truth in the most simple, natural way. But this is like all wisdom, it appears only in contrast with ignorance like certainty works in contrast with doubt. The absolute cannot be successfully doubted simply because it's not knowledge to own or capture. For that reason doubt should be encouraged, because as long it's still possible to raise any, the subject is not absolute yet.

Since doubt and certainties are caused by the mind, why would/should anyone have tremendous trust in the mind's ability to bring one beyond doubt and certainties? This contradiction is a perfect example of mind battling mind or mind tricking mind and why one can make the mistake of connecting logic with absolute truth. Logic is only needed when doubt is present. No doubt, no logic.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: Still this imaginary distinction between acknowledging and knowing while quoting a text in which and through which God died.

Touche, at least we agree on the central message of the story of the bible. The contradiction I made to which you refer is an example my God dying, just as is the contradiction you posted above an example of your God dying. In other words the idea of God = the idea of mind.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

All the problems of knowledge still prevail. All you do here is raising a special kind, a logical, subjective or non-verbal kind.

That's exactly what I think you were doing. You were saying that only the infinite has the property of being infinite. Something P that has the property P and nothing else.

The phrasing was actually: "... assigning the quality "infinite" to anything but the infinite". The question remains if it makes sense to assign infinity to anything at all. Even to itself! The underlying issue here is having "existences" in this context and "properties which belong to or with something "whether as an attribute or as a component of said thing". This just doesn't work with absolutes as one has left the realm of "said things", containers, sets or concepts to add or subtract to.

That is the same as solipsism where only awareness has awareness. You were saying that awareness isn't infinite, but it has the same property as the infinite as an unique property.

I don't think that's close to any definition of solipsism. Anyway, I don't understand that last sentence "but... has the same property as the infinite as an unique property". The infinite by definition has no properties and cannot be something's property. Mathematical infinity, no matter which form of mathematics, refers to something completely different altogether since there it occurs always in a rather strict context of various limits and definitions. It signifies "uncountable" but doesn't transcend the very quantification of counting. For this reason you see it used for example as "upper limit" to arrive at a certain value like with integral functions. The infinite employed as actual boundary!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Since doubt and certainties are caused by the mind, why would/should anyone have tremendous trust in the mind's ability to bring one beyond doubt and certainties? This contradiction is a perfect example of mind battling mind or mind tricking mind and why one can make the mistake of connecting logic with absolute truth. Logic is only needed when doubt is present. No doubt, no logic.

Reason's most basic functioning relies on the ability to doubt and engage in logic. Logic and doubt are therefore present when the mind is present and functioning. The mind will never go beyond mind.

There's no need to "connect logic with absolute truth". However, logic and reasoning can deal with weeding out ignorance by gnawing at its own tail. There's no other way simply because of the way we are existing, dealing inside a construct of our own making, grown into the larger womb of a body of knowledge. This is how we got into the world in the first place!

[Pam Seeback]

Since doubt and certainties are caused by the mind, why would/should anyone have tremendous trust in the mind's ability to bring one beyond doubt and certainties? This contradiction is a perfect example of mind battling mind or mind tricking mind and why one can make the mistake of connecting logic with absolute truth. Logic is only needed when doubt is present. No doubt, no logic.

Reason's most basic functioning relies on the ability to doubt and engage in logic. Logic and doubt are therefore present when the mind is present and functioning. The mind will never go beyond mind.

There's no need however to "connect logic with absolute truth". However, logic and reasoning can deal with weeding out ignorance by gnawing its own tail. There's no other way simply because of the way we are existing, dealing inside a construct of our own making, grown into the larger womb of a body of knowledge. This is how we got into the world in the first place!

You are right, mind will never go beyond mind, logic and doubt cannot go beyond logic and doubt. Ultimately then, for the truth of the subjective absolute to be revealed, one must allow logic (belief in an objective-relative) to run its course (logic gnawing at its own tail).

Logic gnaws at its own tail of the false construct, but it is not logic that swallows it, it is the subjective absolute. The deeper question as I see it is, as long as one is aware of the false construct being swallowed of the absolute, is one subjectively absolute?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The deeper question as I see it is, as long as one is aware of the false construct being swallowed of the absolute, is one subjectively absolute?

Existence of any kind is relative. Even non-existence is relative, obviously, to some defined existence. Therefore it's not the absolute which swallows any "construct" but each and every construct swallows up the absolute and "eradicates" the infinite. Of course that's the definition of error, of ignorance, because it cannot really be happening. Where's the evidence of such crime when all the evidence is adding to the supposed disappearance?

[Pam Seeback]

Where's the evidence indeed? Yes, ultimately, consciousness 'stands' in relation to its objects, the discovery of which is 'the enlightenment'. This relates to what I was saying to Alex about living of one's conscience rather than by the manifestos or doctrines of others. Causality is at work in both instances, but for the one who is living of their subject-object enlightenment, there is a clarity and purity of expression that does not exist in the scenario wherein one must stop to consider societal laws, norms and expectations. Another way of saying this is that the one who lives subjectively-objectively lives in the light of the already existing causal union whereas the one who lives in or by or of the reflections of the subjective-objective lives in the shadow of the already existing causal union.

In a nutshell, consciousness analyzes itself (its objects) by way of logic and emotion, it is ever making the two into one.

[ardy]

Finally! A real answer to the question that has surely been asked here a thousand times. What is enlightenment? And who else but Immanuel Kant could provide such a convincing and indubitable answer. Have a look.

https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/W ... enment.pdf

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity.
Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the
guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of
understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the
guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude!
Have courage to use your own understanding!

Sorry Glostik91 but this is no answer to enlightenment. There are millions of deluded people in the world with the courage to use their own understanding, the problem is that they are wrong and so is Kant (a real piss-ant - to quote Monty Python).

There is no definition of enlightenment in the world that describes the reality of it, as it is indescribable. You only know it when you experience it and not before.

The pursuit of enlightenment should start from a doubt about who the hell you are and what you are doing here (or any other suitable entry point ie anywhere) and moves backwards towards reality.

[jufa]

Doubt is the wedge, if I may add a couple cents to the pot, which keep all men from realizing they are in a battle for the space of themselves. There is nothing anyone has to offer this world but the release of themselves from the belief of being separated from themselves. Doubt is the wedge of this belief.

What knowledge, or wisdom is there one man can tell another souls, that the other soul does not already know and comprehend in each and every individual? Doubt is the wedge of separation when all knowledge men garner, from their experience of living in one moment, then endeavor to place human understanding upon that experience in preceding moments which is full of its own experiences? Yesterdays experiences is of no use today, unless, it rides the vibration of the Spirit of the unconditioned Mind.

Experience has always been the crucifix of doubt. It is the awakening of the human mind to knowledge before thought. Doubt has always filled the human mind with perceptions of the dead past and analyzed feeling of interpretations. Theories, opinions, and concepts which becomes the man, and his world. None of man's ideas are pure, whole, perfect, or complete. They are the moving interpreted output of the universal mind's reciprocal projections of time, space, distance, and matter as human thoughts."

This reintroduce again the original topic:"An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?" Enlightenment is comprehension and grasping freedom is slave to nothing. Enlightenment is touching ones self and comprehending the entire universe of no beginning nor end to ones self moment by moment. Doubt prevents nothing.

[Pam Seeback]

jufa: What knowledge, or wisdom is there one man can tell another souls, that the other soul does not already know and comprehend in each and every individual? Doubt is the wedge of separation when all knowledge men garner, from their experience of living one moment, then endeavor to place human understanding upon that experience in preceding moments which is full of its own experiences? Yesterdays experiences is of no use today, unless, it rides the vibration of the Spirit of the unconditioned Mind.

This is my experience as well. What I discovered is that doubt naturally arises when one tries to adopt the wisdom of another, which if allowed to run its full course, eventually takes one to the doubtless 'spot' of wisdom as the core principle of existence, wisdom as a living thing or presence. Which is not a special knowing or a mystical knowing that so often is believed to be so by wisdom seekers but rather, is the natural way of all beings, thinking and non-thinking alike. It is only man that adds on the extra mental burden of "extraordinary", the rest of conscious existence goes about its business of being what it is, its natural wisdom of "me." In relation to the title of this thread, what is enlightenment?, all that needs to be done in order for man's natural wisdom to shine through (to be the light of himself) is for him to remove the egotistical notion that man and/or his wisdom is extraordinary.

[jufa]

No one has, or can change the earth mentality of Self-righteousness. This has been verified since the recording of words. Man is not here to change the world. Man is here, as he is everywhere in conscious realization, to click on his light and be the lighthouse for those seeking a way home.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com

[ardy]

Doubt is the wedge, if I may add a couple cents to the pot, which keep all men from realizing they are in a battle for the space of themselves. There is nothing anyone has to offer this world but the release of themselves from the belief of being separated from themselves. Doubt is the wedge of this belief.

What knowledge, or wisdom is there one man can tell another souls, that the other soul does not already know and comprehend in each and every individual? Doubt is the wedge of separation when all knowledge men garner, from their experience of living in one moment, then endeavor to place human understanding upon that experience in preceding moments which is full of its own experiences? Yesterdays experiences is of no use today, unless, it rides the vibration of the Spirit of the unconditioned Mind.

Experience has always been the crucifix of doubt. It is the awakening of the human mind to knowledge before thought. Doubt has always filled the human mind with perceptions of the dead past and analyzed feeling of interpretations. Theories, opinions, and concepts which becomes the man, and his world. None of man's ideas are pure, whole, perfect, or complete. They are the moving interpreted output of the universal mind's reciprocal projections of time, space, distance, and matter as human thoughts."

This reintroduce again the original topic:"An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?" Enlightenment is comprehension and grasping freedom is slave to nothing. Enlightenment is touching ones self and comprehending the entire universe of no beginning nor end to ones self moment by moment. Doubt prevents nothing.

"What knowledge, or wisdom is there one man can tell another souls, that the other soul does not already know" Lots if you wish to enquire.
The reality apart from the theory which your quote offers, denies the amazing ignorance in the vast mass of humanity. I enjoy the statements from some people ie your quote (w/o ref?) but that world holds nothing for those suffering in this world. I quote a situation Hakuin found himself in, with a man begging for food as he had no employment. Hakuin's solution was to get the man to sit in meditation for a week without speaking to anyone and then when people asked him questions to charge them.

Are you suggesting that this man was starving whilst fully aware of that knowledge? I think there is too much theory and too little reality in your post. The influence of meditation and study on the individual can be influential, where knowledge and spiritual insights can overwhelm common sense. Been there done that.....

[Pam Seeback]

ardy, the truth of emptiness does not overwhelm common sense (suggested definition: good sense and sound judgment in practical matters), instead, the truth of emptiness could be said to be one and the same thing as common sense. It is my experience that it is only when wisdom of emptiness or spirit consciousness is realized and one ceases to be attached to their thinking world that one truly becomes practical and has sound judgment. What I am hearing in your posts is that you do not equate enlightenment with everyday existence.

[jufa]

We should be sure here what has been stated in my words does not deal with mass opinions and theories, for there is no comparison of individuality of experience (reality here yet to be defined as sameness from all points of view) to "the amazing ignorance in the vast mass of humanity.

Plurality of group acceptance here, as you would use it to define "suffering in this world." is relative only should you return your reply in defining what mass suffering entails for ("some people") but not all people, as compared to singularity of suffering, when all entered, live, and die unexceptionally equal?

Your quoting of Hakuin observation of the beggars situation holds no value here, should his observation is all he had to go on, being Hakuin had never been in the beggars situation to know what he would have done being he was unaware of what circumstance closed or opened opportunities would have been available to him had he lived under such conditions. As far as you interpreting what frame of mind Hakuin was in to pen said quote you reference is answered by your own words when you state: " I think there is too much theory and too little reality in your post."

Only when you can say you have experience what every man, woman, and child living or dead has experience, can you truthfully say "Been there, done that." If you cannot say this, no matter what you think or who you quote, you are no less a vagabond seeking, as all men, definition to the space you are occupying as 'andy.' Should you find any part of your thinking analyzation of any religious and philosophical symbols, doctrine, creeds and theories empty within you, who then is empty of knowledge of originality?


Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com

[ardy]

ardy, the truth of emptiness does not overwhelm common sense (suggested definition: good sense and sound judgment in practical matters), instead, the truth of emptiness could be said to be one and the same thing as common sense. It is my experience that it is only when wisdom of emptiness or spirit consciousness is realized and one ceases to be attached to their thinking world that one truly becomes practical and has sound judgment. What I am hearing in your posts is that you do not equate enlightenment with everyday existence.

HI Moving always: I am suggesting that (prajna)wisdom and everyday experience are NOT the same. I have no idea about enlightenment but then neither has anyone here (opinion with fingers crossed).

If you live your life by this weird bubbling of knowledge then good luck to you if you have to earn a living, as this wisdom may well push you out of your living and into an Ashram. I have met many who compromise on their experience due to a god knows what but they continue to live both ways.

The one enlightened person I have spoken to was already retired when it happened to him.

If only this stuff only overwhelmed common sense but this is a very small speed hump compared to how it magically slices parts of your being away and leaves behind - NOTHING!

[ardy]

We should be sure here what has been stated in my words does not deal with mass opinions and theories, for there is no comparison of individuality of experience (reality here yet to be defined as sameness from all points of view) to "the amazing ignorance in the vast mass of humanity.

Plurality of group acceptance here, as you would use it to define "suffering in this world." is relative only should you return your reply in defining what mass suffering entails for ("some people") but not all people, as compared to singularity of suffering, when all entered, live, and die unexceptionally equal?

Your quoting of Hakuin observation of the beggars situation holds no value here, should his observation is all he had to go on, being Hakuin had never been in the beggars situation to know what he would have done being he was unaware of what circumstance closed or opened opportunities would have been available to him had he lived under such conditions. As far as you interpreting what frame of mind Hakuin was in to pen said quote you reference is answered by your own words when you state: " I think there is too much theory and too little reality in your post."

Only when you can say you have experience what every man, woman, and child living or dead has experience, can you truthfully say "Been there, done that." If you cannot say this, no matter what you think or who you quote, you are no less a vagabond seeking, as all men, definition to the space you are occupying as 'andy.' Should you find any part of your thinking analyzation of any religious and philosophical symbols, doctrine, creeds and theories empty within you, who then is empty of knowledge of originality?


Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com

Jufa: What is this? It seems like a nihilistic view of life to me. To summarise without the Philo gob spat - You cannot take anyone's opinion or actions as relevant until you have experienced similar things to them. Is that it?

So Buddha, Jesus and any other number of men cannot help humanity in any way as they have no direct experience of their life. I have never read such a mixed up view in all my life.

I have limited analytical experience but I can tell when something ain't right when I read it and you seem to be dragging parts ie 'been there, done that' which related to a certain situation I experienced and have expanded this statement to encompass some idea you have.

Let's look at one example: "Plurality of group acceptance here, as you would use it to define "suffering in this world." is relative only should you return your reply in defining what mass suffering entails for ("some people") but not all people, as compared to singularity of suffering, when all entered, live, and die unexceptionally equal?" I think what you are trying to say is that suffering is personal and I agree. To immediately jump to suffering from my statement about ignorance is a big jump. In fact I do not equate ignorance with suffering as some do.

There are some intelligent people on this site but that does not help one bit to answer the question "What is Enlightenment" in fact its a weight against you. Buddha said "For an man to understand the truth he must hear it 100 times, unless he is intelligent, then he must hear it a 1000 times".

[Pam Seeback]

ardy: If only this stuff only overwhelmed common sense but this is a very small speed hump compared to how it magically slices parts of your being away and leaves behind - NOTHING!

I am speaking of wisdom when I speak of enlightenment. The wiki definition of prajna which is also my definition and experience of prajna: Paññā (Pāli) or prajñā (Sanskrit: प्रज्ञा), "wisdom", is insight in the true nature of reality, namely dukkha, non-self and impermanence, and emptiness.

At no time do I want to diminish the effects of the suffering prajna brings, which at its core, is the dissolution (or as you say, slicing away) of one's longstanding belief in the idea of self. I say that the dissolution of one's belief in the idea of self is the core of the suffering prajna brings because once the self begins to be dissolved, one naturally is exposed to the realization of impermanence and emptiness.

At one time I too believed that when the self is dissolved, when emptiness and impermanence is realized that what would remain would be - NOTHING! An unsettling time at best and a most frightening time at worst, I can't remember suffering more than I did during this time my beloved "personality" was slowly and painfully being extricated/dismantled. But what I finally discovered as the suffering of wisdom's coming lifted is that although the self is discovered to be nothing (where can one find a self? Nowhere) what is always something, what is always present, what can always be found is FORM. Whether it is your breath, your heartbeat, your laughter, your tears, the bird singing in the tree outside your window, the sound of the keyboard clicking, etc., the life of form is everywhere, EVERYWHERE! Form is infinite, form is concealed, form is revealed, form is LIFE! This is why I say wisdom is not separated from one's everyday experience. Wisdom of the infinite abundance/endless supply of form - what is more everyday than this?

Self is nothing, form is everything = wisdom. Wisdom hurts, wisdom saves.

[jufa]

So then 'arby' can you say with certainty I have "a nihilistic view" when you cannot relate, comprehensively, to my intended and purposed philo gob spat. When you make the statement: "You cannot take anyone's opinion or actions as relevant until you have experienced similar things to them." Then ask me what am I saying when you state: "Is that it?" make me know I am fishing in a dead sea.

So tell me what has "Buddha, Jesus and any other number of men" done to release mankind from the dual mentality of 'dog eat dog'? I have heard of no Mount of transfiguration either of these people have established, out side of themselves, which will allow you, myself, or any individual to enter and find the glory of the unknown?

What you do no understand 'arby' is I have never deviated from speaking on "An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?" Enlightenment does occur to the mass, it occurs to individuals. Individual do not possess a group mind, for it is the individual which makes up the group. "Buddha, Jesus and any other number of men" are only lighthouses guiding each individual in the sea of life destination. You do not follow the man, you find out the Principled Substance, and Patterned Essence of the law of the Spirit of life which lifted them up from the earth, and then apply them to your conscious activity. So 'arby' being you haven't experienced my temple, I know you will not be able to relate to the following.

"Whatever circumstances, situations or conditions beset man, he is mentally unaware these events occur in his life because of the way he thinks and interprets thought. Life is unconditional. The degrees, highs, lows, pain and pleasure men experience, between the arc of birth and death, have been imposed upon them according to their acceptance of collective and individual beliefs.

All men are responsible to halt the cycle of humanism. Each and every individual man, woman or child are continuously confronted with the choice to choose whom they will serve. Each individual is responsible to know and comprehend their choices are who they are, and how they will think and act. Men are responsible for the safe keeping of their souls, conscious, minds, and Spirit. And they must come to understand they are the only moving Spirit of life's consciousness, yet Spirit is their source of consciousness.

So in their hearts, men must be wise as to how they choose to acknowledge God in their thoughts and words, because the end results of their choices become the manifestation of their daily lives. “In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy path,” is Spirit's directive for men. Whatever men choose, by thoughts interpreted and spoken words, they must understand these activities will not return unto them void. The seeds of human words and interpreted laws sown in the garden of their minds, so shall be the harvest fruits of their lives." - "THE ILLUSION OF GOD."

You have stated:Buddha said "For an man to understand the truth he must hear it 100 times, unless he is intelligent, then he must hear it a 1000 times," how many time have you heard it to be able to correct anyone of what they acknowledge, or believe, or how they think? If Buddha cannot speak for himself and define his intent and purpose from saying those words, it has no place in our conversation. What you think Buddha was say is philo gob spat.


Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Experience has always been the crucifix of doubt. It is the awakening of the human mind to knowledge before thought. Doubt has always filled the human mind with perceptions of the dead past and analyzed feeling of interpretations. Theories, opinions, and concepts which becomes the man, and his world. None of man's ideas are pure, whole, perfect, or complete. They are the moving interpreted output of the universal mind's reciprocal projections of time, space, distance, and matter as human thoughts."

There's a lot of truth in there, I've to say. But it's a powerful illusion to dream of "knowledge before thought" as some meaningful experience. It's just another sanctified "analyzed feeling of interpretation". Which is all we really know about experiences, no matter how mundane or lofty they might be. In the end, you've got nothing, you cannot have anything there but something which will cast the shadow of challenge and doubt on the walls. Which will cause all these intricate strategies to arise, to persist, assisting in the invalidation of it all. Sweet dreams!

[jufa]

There's a lot of truth in there, I've to say. But it's a powerful illusion to dream of "knowledge before thought" as some meaningful experience. It's just another sanctified "analyzed feeling of interpretation". Which is all we really know about experiences, no matter how mundane or lofty they might be. In the end, you've got nothing, you cannot have anything there but something which will cast the shadow of challenge and doubt on the walls. Which will cause all these intricate strategies to arise, to persist, assisting in the invalidation of it all. Sweet dreams!

When one declares experience is "a powerful illusion to dream of "knowledge before thought" as some meaningful experience," one is stating the experience of intercourse, which manifested their entrance and display upon this floor of existence, makes them an illusive dream. But then in the saying above, one fails to consider it was not a specific thought of their conceptualization, but a Spirit of unification preceding, "knowledge before thought," which merged two elements of the universe to become one experience which produced life's experience, also, before "knowledge before thought" of the one who made such a statement, more than an illusion or dream.

But wait. Should it be nothing exist, in the end, of one experience of interpreting, what then is the meaning for the existence of something of cause, in the beginning, which will void itself in the end? Man's interpretation does not enlighten one to know what was before their beginning, nor what will be after their demise. However, it is not an illusion, never can be an illusion, when one is aware of their living between the arc of birth and death. It is the touch of the conscious upon the mind, and the touch of the flesh upon flesh which verifies the Presence of "something which will cast the shadow of challenge and doubt on the walls." It is that "something" which defines "What is Enlightenment," not words from "the shadow of challenge and doubt on the walls."

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: There's a lot of truth in there, I've to say. But it's a powerful illusion to dream of "knowledge before thought" as some meaningful experience. It's just another sanctified "analyzed feeling of interpretation". Which is all we really know about experiences, no matter how mundane or lofty they might be. In the end, you've got nothing, you cannot have anything there but something which will cast the shadow of challenge and doubt on the walls. Which will cause all these intricate strategies to arise, to persist, assisting in the invalidation of it all. Sweet dreams!

What is the nature of form, be it thought or not? One cannot say, but to doubt that form knows how to be form is ludicrous given that one must use the wisdom inherent in the form "doubt" to express doubt. The realization of the wisdom of form is not an experience, lofty or otherwise, it is the experience of wisdom, one that if cultivated, produces rest (absence of doubt) in emptiness.

[ardy]

ardy, the truth of emptiness does not overwhelm common sense (suggested definition: good sense and sound judgment in practical matters), instead, the truth of emptiness could be said to be one and the same thing as common sense. It is my experience that it is only when wisdom of emptiness or spirit consciousness is realized and one ceases to be attached to their thinking world that one truly becomes practical and has sound judgment. What I am hearing in your posts is that you do not equate enlightenment with everyday existence.

Hi Movingalways: Yes that is what I am saying and funnily I just read a monk say the same thing (Sokei An). When you are in that state it is difficult to do what is not compatible with that thinking process. I (almost) believe we are what we think and if your thinking is diametrically opposed to what you do for a living it is very hard to do that work as you cannot keep your mind on it. Common sense would pre-suppose that you would continue to earn a living, support your family, house and feed yourself but it disappeared in my case.

In its place is a different sort of 'common sense' more direct and less in terms of what you think you need and more what reality . . . ..... Ah! it is very difficult to explain and I thought this reply would be a doddle in the park. regards

[ardy]

Hi Juva: to quote you "So tell me what has "Buddha, Jesus and any other number of men" done to release mankind from the dual mentality of 'dog eat dog'? I have heard of no Mount of transfiguration either of these people have established, out side of themselves, which will allow you, myself, or any individual to enter and find the glory of the unknown?"

Agreed with the proviso that they have shown a path to live with 'dog eat dog' (which is a statement that, at a fundamental level, is a foundation stone of life on this planet) . Not sure what you mean by a "Mount of Transfiguration" but if you are saying that no man has ever left a method of altering your internal view of the Self for the betterment (or enlightenment) of yourself and others around you, then that is patently absurd.

Your statement that enlightenment is totally individual is correct BUT what is it that leads some people to turn inward? I would argue that a majority have been pointed in that direction by an enlightened dead man and if they are very lucky, helped in this by an enlightened person in their lifetime.

The basic thing is do you have a desire or perception of something within ourselves that is not in our outward mess of ideas, opinions, thinking, acting, greed, selflessness, charity, love, hatred, anger, peace and what we respect and on it goes. To find all of this overturned and a different view of life is very strange and can come at a cost. The search for enlightenment has been a dangerous pursuit forever and will continue to be so as the threat of the death of the ego can affect your sanity and has been the catalyst for suicide in some.

Enlightenment? some work on it, some stumble on it and some are born with it, it does not matter.

[jufa]

Hi Andy. From two different place we are speaking to one another. And the smack of each approach is when one, or both elevate.

My first approach here is to say men can only leave pointers not "a method of altering your internal view of the Self for the betterment (or enlightenment) of yourself and others around you." Had a method of transition been so obvious, then entering nirvana would not be talked about, it would be easily accomplished. We, you and I know it is not so. Why? What the Buddha and Jesus were here on earth were Their bodies, worlds and universe of truth. But Buddha's and Jesus' body, world, and universe of truth cannot be ours truth, only a guide, or pointer for us to advance beyond Their mind-set. Somewhere it is written we "must overcome as I have overcame." How can one declare what Buddha or Jesus are saying to be true for them when they did not experience These men's trials and tribulations? They cannot. Individual's can only relate to what These men are saying by obedience to unconditionally obeying the Principled Substance, and Patterned Essence of the law of the Spirit of life, and their own trials and tribulations, which are nothing like those of the Buddha's or Jesus', nor any other persons.

Andy, what you have overlooked in my presentation is I have never defined God. My position is, and has always been, should one not go through the mind to get beyond the mind, one can only speak of that which they are aware of in their mind. You have displayed what is in your mind, but what are you aware of beyond your mind?

The key here is not to depend upon the historical presentation of men as how to worship, or future anticipation of that which religious and philosophical men present, but to totally rely upon what comes to us from the invisible which clarify the brighten light of "seek and ye shall find." Repeat, "seek and YE shall find."

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com

[Pam Seeback]

ardy, the truth of emptiness does not overwhelm common sense (suggested definition: good sense and sound judgment in practical matters), instead, the truth of emptiness could be said to be one and the same thing as common sense. It is my experience that it is only when wisdom of emptiness or spirit consciousness is realized and one ceases to be attached to their thinking world that one truly becomes practical and has sound judgment. What I am hearing in your posts is that you do not equate enlightenment with everyday existence.

Hi Movingalways: Yes that is what I am saying and funnily I just read a monk say the same thing (Sokei An). When you are in that state it is difficult to do what is not compatible with that thinking process. I (almost) believe we are what we think and if your thinking is diametrically opposed to what you do for a living it is very hard to do that work as you cannot keep your mind on it. Common sense would pre-suppose that you would continue to earn a living, support your family, house and feed yourself but it disappeared in my case.

In its place is a different sort of 'common sense' more direct and less in terms of what you think you need and more what reality . . . ..... Ah! it is very difficult to explain and I thought this reply would be a doddle in the park. regards

ardy, I too found that it was difficult to work at a job that was diametrically opposed to the call to wisdom from within. What worked for me was a move to a quiet town where I took a position as a cleaner for the local resort. I worked alone so I had ample time to think upon the things I truly wanted to think upon. Of course, this freedom to take low paying menial work came after my children were grown and while my husband was still working. We are now both retired, so lots of time for me to devote to right/eous thinking.

And yes, the common sense of "enlightenment" is direct and related to what reality needs rather than what one's worldly identity believes it needs. It is the difference between consciousness of unconditioned causality and conditioned causality. Obviously while one is still working in jobs that require conditioning to the causality of the corporation, finding one's unconditioned causality would seem a daunting task.