• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Spiritual Enlightenment: what is it/what it is.

You'd strike out the single most relevant expression? It is a matter of discovery; nothing else suffices.
As you can readily see from the progression of this and every other thread, words, though true words, convince nobody of anything.
At best, they beckon, at worst, well, you know about that.
Faith, belief, maybe they have some temporary use. But discovery is the only possible proof.
 
My point is that knowledge comes *after* experience when we start to think and analyze. Pure experience is only the start, not the finish.
You miss the moment, which is the only time in which one ever lives. The moment is the experience. It alone is Real.
Yet many prefer the simulation to the Real, where the mind modifies what was the moment, that it may feel more comfortable, more in control of it.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I was trying to find a better word than understanding, maybe awareness is the one.

From my perspective, that understanding is in many ways more of a transformation, it's letting the realisation transform the mind, the individual. I'd speak of it using terms like that. But it is a useful reminder.

Awareness is quite different than understanding. People were aware of the sun long before they understood the sun to be a star.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
You'd strike out the single most relevant expression? It is a matter of discovery; nothing else suffices.
As you can readily see from the progression of this and every other thread, words, though true words, convince nobody of anything.
At best, they beckon, at worst, well, you know about that.
Faith, belief, maybe they have some temporary use. But discovery is the only possible proof.

My point was words can't express it all.

There is no 'direct understanding'. There is only 'direct experience'. Understanding takes place *after* analysis and is never direct.

I'd call that conceptualisation.

Awareness is quite different than understanding. People were aware of the sun long before they understood the sun to be a star.

Yeah, sure, we're talking about different categories of understanding.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
*** THREAD MOVED TO RELIGIOUS DEBATES ***

And on that note, I would like to remind people that the place this thread was moved from - Interfaith Discussion - is for discussion only. Been seeing a few too many cases lately of folks neglecting to remember that and start debating left and right. While we haven't been dishing out Rule 10 violations for this behavior yet, if this stuff keeps up we're going to have to crack down on it on a formal basis.
 
Discussion is my only mode; I avoid debates like the plague. Which is why I put it where I did.
Still, since my thread turned into a debate-fest...
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
Discussion is my only mode; I avoid debates like the plague. Which is why I put it where I did.
Still, since my thread turned into a debate-fest...

Problem: You make claims in your posts, including the OP that are bound to divide people. In order for people to merely discuss it, they must first accept your premises on faith: The faith in you knowing what you are talking about. But not everyone here operates on faith.

Simply put: You are advertising your agenda and case essentially in the OP: Asserting things instead of trying to fuel discussion about things. I believe your first post is conductive to a debate: Because it mistakes your subjective assessment for objective truth, and expects others to accept it as is.

As a Buddhist, it is my opinion that when people specifically need to point out to other people how enlightened they are, they don't really know nearly as much as they think they do. It's just ego speaking.
 
Problem: You make claims in your posts, including the OP that are bound to divide people. In order for people to merely discuss it, they must first accept your premises on faith: The faith in you knowing what you are talking about. But not everyone here operates on faith.

Simply put: You are advertising your agenda and case essentially in the OP: Asserting things instead of trying to fuel discussion about things. I believe your first post is conductive to a debate: Because it mistakes your subjective assessment for objective truth, and expects others to accept it as is.

As a Buddhist, it is my opinion that when people specifically need to point out to other people how enlightened they are, they don't really know nearly as much as they think they do. It's just ego speaking.

There is nothing anybody can do about your inability to know what you don't know.
My OP points to what is not known by people; that is why it exists.
I am well aware of what 'subjective' means. You are not aware of what 'objective' means.
I argue for nothing. I present what I have discovered. Others argue about it.
Anything else I can help you with?
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
There is nothing anybody can do about your inability to know what you don't know.

This is exactly the type of stuff i meant when i say your posts are more conductive to debate than discussion. You assert things about me without knowing me.

My OP points to what is not known by people; that is why it exists.

I don't think it reveals as deep truths as you seem to imply that it does. Basic subjective assessments mistaken for objective truth fare. Usually the first sign of someone not knowing what they are talking about.

I am well aware of what 'subjective' means. You are not aware of what 'objective' means.

Prove this statement.

I argue for nothing. I present what I have discovered. Others argue about it.

It takes two to tango. You are arguing me at the moment.

Anything else I can help you with?

Truthfully: I don't think you can help me in any way.
 
Public forum. You chose to argue my post. I'd appreciate you being more honest with yourself.
I recognize that you have no clue how Reality works, only some idea of how your mind works.
You assume my "claims" are claims, and that they are 'mine'.
This is your error, and you are not alone in making such error.

The Sacred Law is not a crow invention, but crows are tasked to carry it.
Messengers only, crows do their duty. Why would they argue? What is there to argue about?
The sun rises, the sun sets. Where is there room for argument?
One may, against all odds, experience Enlightenment.
How is it that the unenlightened feel themselves qualified to judge its authenticity?

You are wrong, period. You will not accept this, period. This is why you are wrong, period.
When something occurs to modify this state, we may speak again. That'd be good.
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
I recognize that you have no clue how Reality works, only some idea of how your mind works.

What makes you a more reliable teacher than "Random Internet Person Number N ?"

Because that sounds just like another statement about me without you knowing anything about me.

You assume my "claims" are claims, and that they are 'mine'.

1. You made the claims.

2. You didn't attribute the text to anyone else.

Thus it's either you making YOUR claims, or it's you making plagiarized claims.

This is your error, and you are not alone in making such error.

I don't think you thought this out as well as you thought you did.

The Sacred Law is not a crow invention, but crows are tasked to carry it.

Another claim.

Messengers only, crows do their duty. Why would they argue? What is there to argue about?

When you make claims, people tend to challenge the claims.

The sun rises, the sun sets. Where is there room for argument?

You haven't shown how that metaphor is apt. And you haven't shown yourself to be a reliable source for knowledge.

One may, against all odds, experience Enlightenment.
How is it that the unenlightened feel themselves qualified to judge its authenticity?

I'm not. I am however qualified to make the call that you are not necessarily trustworthy. So: I can't know whether or not you know what you are talking about. And the way i see it, you haven't SHOWN that you know what you're talking about.

Why are you qualified to judge its authenticity?

Don't say "because i'm enlightened."

you are wrong, period. You will not accept this, period. This is why you are wrong, period.

I think that's the most circular reasoning i've ever seen.

When something occurs to modify this state, we may speak again. That'd be good.

We are speaking now. And we will continue to speak.
 
Last edited:

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
You are showing how superior you are compared to us unenlightened people by your actions.

In another reality.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
You are showing how superior you are compared to us unenlightened people by your actions.

In another reality.
My experience is that what you are encountering here has a fairly common theme. Unsubstantiated claims are made that are an Appeal to authority (usually being the writer's authority), sloppy circular reasoning and very dodgy backup sources (when and if provided). Anything less than total adulation, agreement and general ego stroking doesn't tend to go over too well and petulant behavior ensues. The certainty displayed is often quite peculiar especially given the cat and mouse nature of such discussions. Invariably the doubting Thomas just doesn't get it and being a particularly revolting form of pond slime isn't likely to understand the brilliant dissertations provided, perpetually asking the wrong questions, perpetually thinking about the non-answers, koan-speak replies etc...

Likewise such personality types generally do not exhibit much in the way of compassion or empathy, which is plain weird, but hey, communication skills aren't particularly necessary when one is asserting that all one needs to do is stop thinking and morph into the cosmic jelly. Lastly, there is often a decided lack of a sense of humor... quite telling, really.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
My experience is that what you are encountering here has a fairly common theme.

Amazing to me how the pattern repeats itself. I'd almost think it was a series of sock puppets, but I know the mods know how to handle sock puppets.

Another aspect to the theme is extreme condescension. I wonder if there is a term for fundamentalist + enlightened.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Amazing to me how the pattern repeats itself. I'd almost think it was a series of sock puppets, but I know the mods know how to handle sock puppets.

Another aspect to the theme is extreme condescension. I wonder if there is a term for fundamentalist + enlightened.
NoFunDenlightened?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I'd call that conceptualisation.

Yeah, sure, we're talking about different categories of understanding.

Hmm..please explain this other sort of understanding in more detail. How does it compare to understanding via my definition? Why is it called understanding?
 
Top