Infinte man fields cozmik "enlightenment" questions

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)
Post Reply
sdgreco
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2010 8:48 pm

Infinte man fields cozmik "enlightenment" questions

Post by sdgreco » Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:08 pm

It was said that people are enlightened if "lacking delusions in the mind", but even the person with "100% zero delusions of mind" couldn't be sure some tiny delusion isn't hiding somewhere in their head so wouldn't know for sure if perfectly enlightened. Gee-wiz.

The first concern I have is: Do delusions actually occupy the mind and/or brain? Or is that at best a figure of speech? I say that the latter makes more sense and therefore this measure of enlightenment has got to go and cozmik deserves a better answer.
To explain: If the mind is said to actually "contain" delusions then that's either by way of some static modification of the brain matter, or at the very least as some thought over time dependent both on time and thinking. Detract sufficient time for the delusion to exist or be formed and what has your fully enlightened person then got? The same situation as anybody else, namely merely a potentially delusional mind.
Then what happens to the concept of 100% perfect enlightenment-- it becomes meaningless.
(As perhaps it should be!) For even if Jon is perfect at this moment h may not be in the next.
As well as considered "potentially not" in all instants.

As to labeling others "mentally ill" what else but attacks of varied nature can one in dispute or disagreement expect from opponents? We are after all a species prone to working things out far more violently and horrifically with but little provocation.
"All is fair in love and war" has been transformed into: All is fair with lovers and warriors, and there are plenty of them don't you know.
And also when it comes to making a buck. To refrain from ruthless deception is now considered "bad business" and foolhardy. How a few decades can change things!
Have those dusty rag-heads got a fair point after all?

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6050
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Infinte man fields cozmik "enlightenment" questions

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:45 am

Hi sdgreco, some hard and smart ass questions there.

Perhaps it would be more a question of having no delusion about the mind and what it creates for us; all the stuff we're attaching to.

The idea of "hundred percent" or perfection in this regard appears to be an unrealistic concept because of the impossibility of having example, because the pointing out and subsequent analysis will be entirely relative and thus error-prone. This is why it's said one can only really affirm ones own enlightenment and perfection. And really, in some way we' re all doing that already but perhaps not in a very conscious manner which leaves room for doubt or in worst case: indeterminateness - the precursor to blindness,
The first concern I have is: Do delusions actually occupy the mind and/or brain? Or is that at best a figure of speech?
It seems to me like a bit of contrived way of saying things, that anything at all would occupy the mind, as if it's a kind of apartment complex. But it's safe to say delusion arises with the ability to (self-)perceive, like mirror images arise when looking into a pool.
For even if Jon is perfect at this moment h may not be in the next. As well as considered "potentially not" in all instants.
Awareness itself is "pure" and perfect, like H2O, but persons, instants and moments will never be.
As to labeling others "mentally ill" what else but attacks of varied nature can one in dispute or disagreement expect from opponents? We are after all a species prone to working things out far more violently and horrifically with but little provocation.
True enough, unless our species would be described as being prone to mass scales of insanity.

sdgreco
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2010 8:48 pm

Re: Infinte man fields cozmik "enlightenment" questions

Post by sdgreco » Thu Jan 06, 2011 5:44 pm

Mr Diebert sir, what are you going on about here?
Were you intoxicated at the time?
I'll do my best though I'm wondering... Has the bald cry baby "don't-call-me-names" guy in the video sent you.
Cant he speak for himself? ....I mean wtf! What kind of dip-shit forum is this........

more below

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Hi sdgreco, some hard and smart ass questions there.

Perhaps it would be more a question of having no delusion about the mind and what it creates for us; all the stuff we're attaching to.

The idea of "hundred percent" or perfection in this regard appears to be an unrealistic concept because of the impossibility of having example, because the pointing out and subsequent analysis will be entirely relative and thus error-prone. This is why it's said one can only really affirm ones own enlightenment and perfection.
Well that doesn't seem to square with what your forum leader says, why not try arguing the point with him.


It seems to me like a bit of contrived way of saying things, that anything at all would occupy the mind, as if it's a kind of apartment complex. But it's safe to say delusion arises with the ability to (self-)perceive, like mirror images arise when looking into a pool.

IS IT REALLY safe to say? I don't get why a wise person who perceives himself necessarily falls into delusion, please explain (if and when you can see straight, that is;).

For even if Jon is perfect at this moment he may not be in the next. As well as considered "potentially not" in all instants.
Awareness itself is "pure" and perfect, like H2O, but persons, instants and moments will never be.
No person will ever be perfect? why do you say that, how can you be so sure it's an impossible feat? Do many people here agree with you, would some others join in on either side, Is this the prevailing opinion here, and taught here?
It seems theoretically possible so how can you be so negabsolutist about it?

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6050
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Infinte man fields cozmik "enlightenment" questions

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Fri Jan 07, 2011 7:13 am

sdgreco wrote:Cant he speak for himself?
Dunno, he's not around much here so I thought to say something instead of you sitting here crying all alone. Most discussion appears at the youtube videos themselves, although I haven't been there since a long time. It's not my thing.
I don't get why a wise person who perceives himself necessarily falls into delusion, please explain

Did I say "necessarily"? It should be obvious one can look at something and at the same time identify it as being a form of delusion. Please remember your question was if delusions actually occupy a mind or brain.
No person will ever be perfect? why do you say that, how can you be so sure it's an impossible feat?
What you call "person" is always changing, always reacting on circumstance, fate, karma, etc. It's therefore useless to look for the perfect state or moment. The idea of one moment is a delusion already. And you were talking about being "perfect at this moment and may be not in the next".
Is this the prevailing opinion here, and taught here?
Are you looking for a church or some official representative? It's best to think for yourself and figure it out. If you find my answers not helping, perhaps someone else may reply if you start a topic in the main forum.

sdgreco
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2010 8:48 pm

Re: Infinte man fields cozmik "enlightenment" questions

Post by sdgreco » Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:29 am

ok, thanks, I'll keep that in mind....

Then: your idea of enlightenment allows for say, a person or a mind that over some time and during that time whether measurable or not (who cares, irrelevant) NEVER not even for the tiniest moment (and yes, NECESSARILY! in this instance) attains perfection? (or as the vain bald guy who apparently doesn't own a trimmer says, without sufficient explanation for that matter, "free of delusion" whatever that means)??
y or no?
(cumonow, be brave!)

Post Reply