Spiritual Enlightenment: what is it/what it is.

[godnotgod]

After that, the question then becomes why I should believe your claims are justified. I might need some convincing that you arrived at your conclusions in a way that is valid. Why should I believe you as opposed to the millions of others who have differing opinions? How do I determine whether someone is actually an authority or has merely convinced themselves of certain opinions? Or, worse, they they are not a fraud (which I am *not* accusing you of, by the way---but frauds do exist).

I am sure you have experienced dream-sleep at one time or another. When two dreamers awaken, they both realize they have been dreaming, and can communicate the characteristics of the dream-world with one another with a fair degree of agreement about the nature of dreaming. IOW, it is because of the awakened state that both dreamers can see the same reality. Likewise, the Enlightened/Awakened see this ordinary dream-world that most of us only think to be 'reality' in the same way. For them, this is just another level of the dream. The fact that there is agreement as to what they see points to a universal, impersonal consciousness underlying their insight. IOW, their insight is not a matter of personal opinion, but of an impersonal, universal view. This is pretty much confirmed by the fact that mystics throughout history and in different places, have pretty much come to the same conclusions about the nature of the world, and of the true nature of Reality. Differences are only seeming ones, for the most part, once you know how to read between the lines.

Your question is still within the realm of Reason and has to do with factual knowledge, not Enlightenment. Enlightenment is not about what you know, but about what you see.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, a spiritual experience can be whatever it is to the one experiencing it, but there is absolutely no mistaking Spiritual Enlightenment.

I suppose my wording should have been more carefully chosen. I do mean the authentic spiritual experience to be one and the same as spiritual enlightenment. IOW, I am not referring to well understood delusional experiences, such as found in the Zen monasteries called makyo, for example, which are hallucinations brought about by the intense churning up of old imagery held in the sub-conscious during the intensive meditation sessions called seshin.

 

[crowfeather]

Many teachers explicitly warn of the dangers of people doing so - people have some "lower" realisation or experience and take it for the whole thing.

So I hear, from people who have never known it. But really, what does it matter? When every unknown simultaneously resolves into one crystalline certainty, and one is the entire universe and One with the Creator, what does it matter where on some arbitrary scale it registers?
I mean, really, how much more true can Truth get?
Enough already.

 

[godnotgod]

Many teachers explicitly warn of the dangers of people doing so - people have some "lower" realisation or experience and take it for the whole thing.

This is absolutely true, and the spiritual world is well aware of these pitfalls and obstacles. I recall reading Kapleau's 'Three Pillars of Zen', in which he describes a student who, coming to his roshi for a private conference, excitedly tells the roshi about his vision of The Buddha:

'Roshi! He was standing right there, right in front of me!', to which roshi responds:

'Yes, I understand. Now please return to your meditation mat and count your breaths.'

'But roshi! You don't understand! I saw THE BUDDHA right in front of my eyes!'

at which roshi continues: 'Yes, I know. Now return to your mat and focus on your breath, please'.

(These are hallucinations known as makyo, churned up from subconscious imagery via intensive group meditation sessions called seshin in all the Zen monasteries around the world. Zen is a self-correcting practice. The roshis know all about the pitfalls of makyo.)

 

[godnotgod]

So I hear, from people who have never known it. But really, what does it matter? When every unknown simultaneously resolves into one crystalline certainty, and one is the entire universe and One with the Creator, what does it matter where on some arbitrary scale it registers?
I mean, really, how much more true can Truth get?
Enough already.

It mattered so much to The Buddha that he did all he could to convince two warring clans about to go into bloody battle to cease and desist from their delusion.

 

[crowfeather]

Enlightenment is not about what you know, but about what you see.

Not even that. The eyes do not see, have never seen. Enlightenment renders one One; the totality of all there is, everywhere, forever.
No senses involved, no thought extant, no interpretation of anything, only Reality.
Certainly no human on a forum is ever going to undermine something like that. It goes far beyond humorous.

It could be reasoned, however, by those who reason, that the enlightened Soul is completely mad, having moved so far beyond any vestige of everyday awareness.
Before the event, I would have imagined enlightenment would bring one closer to humanity. In fact, it moves one so far from it, almost all contact is lost.

I would never regret, though, having been there.

 

[YmirGF]

You're not answering the question: I never asked you to verify anything; you are only saying you know the water is cold from memory and/or learning, but my question is how is it that you know the water to be cold the moment you come into contact with it in a completley unexpected manner? If you cannot understand the connection between this question and knowing beyond the shadow of a doubt what you are experiencing on a spiritual level, then you had best give up being so cock-sure about everything you've said on this thread thus far.

The very first foot you set forth on this thread is a mis-step, but your ego won't admit that.

As usual, you continue to miss the meanings of things: Enlightenment is not an experience one admits to, and if you really think that those who speak confidently about it are stooping to something as obviously inapplicable as an appeal to authority, then you are further away from being in touch with things than I surmised. We are attempting to point to an experience of which you obviously know nothing, and yet continue to blather on about it from a position of being on the outside looking in.

Hehe. Trust me, your and @crowfeather meanings do not escape me, I simply disagree and reject your apprehensions of experience. To his/her/its credit @crowfeather is at least honest and claims to be enlightened whereas you continually play hide and seek because you know the peril of such claims.

On so-called "spiritual" experiences... I've had enough to no longer place much emphasis on them. I no longer pretend to understand them in their entirety because they are from outside of time, as we know it, and our consciousness can only digest so much data in sequence. It is because of this that I tend to shy away from specifics as everything is always in a constant state of change. I know you reject that and believe in a changeless-ness, which is a notion I reject, so we have a bit of a stalemate there, LOL. This does not mean that I don't have a high degree of confidence in areas I've analyzed/distilled thus far...

I guess the difference in our views is that I'm constantly fiddling with my view as the observer, to achieve a higher resolution image, a more accurate rendering of something that defies words whereas you feel you already see with a perfect sight. You already see things as they are so there is no need to further resolve the image... to increase accuracy... etc...

 

[godnotgod]

Not even that. The eyes do not see, have never seen. Enlightenment renders one One; the totality of all there is, everywhere, forever.
No senses involved, no thought extant, no interpretation of anything, only Reality.
Certainly no human on a forum is ever going to undermine something like that. It goes far beyond humorous.

It could be reasoned, however, by those who reason, that the enlightened Soul is completely mad, having moved so far beyond any vestige of everyday awareness.
Before the event, I would have imagined enlightenment would bring one closer to humanity. In fact, it moves one so far from it, almost all contact is lost.

I would never regret, though, having been there.

Oh, I did not mean 'seeing' to mean ordinary vision, but rather a complete and radical transformation of consciousness, a 'seeing' via consciousness, rather than via the eyes or even via the mind.

Are you familiar with Ten Bulls, or The Ten Oxherding Pictures from Zen Buddhism? These are wonderful depictions of man on his journey into Enlightenment. Originally, there were only 9, the last depicting the reaching of The Source.

Then, someone added a tenth, which depicts The Enlightened One returning to humanity out of compassion for its suffering. You may recall The Buddha at first was very reluctant to teach men anything, but eventually did decide to do so, and the result are his wonderful suttas, the Four Noble Truths, and The Eightfold Path.

"The best known version of the oxherding pictures was drawn by the 12th century Chinese Rinzai Chán (Zen) master Kuòān Shīyuǎn (廓庵師遠, Jp. Kaku-an Shi-en), who also wrote accompanying poems and introductory words attached to the pictures. In Kuòān Shīyuǎn's version there is no whitening process, and his series also doesn't end with mere emptiness, or absolute truth, but shows a return to the world, depicting Putai, the laughing Buddha. According to Chi Kwang Sunim, they may also represent a Zen Buddhist interpretation of the ten Bodhisattva bhumi, the ten stages on the Bodhisattva-path."

Ten Bulls - Wikipedia

 

[godnotgod]

Hehe. Trust me, your and @crowfeather meanings do not escape me, I simply disagree and reject your apprehensions of experience. To his/her/its credit @crowfeather is at least honest and claims to be enlightened whereas you continually play hide and seek because you know the peril of such claims.

On so-called "spiritual" experiences... I've had enough to no longer place much emphasis on them. I no longer pretend to understand them in their entirety because they are from outside of time, as we know it, and our consciousness can only digest so much data in sequence. It is because of this that I tend to shy away from specifics as everything is always in a constant state of change. I know you reject that and believe in a changeless-ness, which is a notion I reject, so we have a bit of a stalemate there, LOL. This does not mean that I don't have a high degree of confidence in areas I've analyzed/distilled thus far...

I guess the difference in our views is that I'm constantly fiddling with my view as the observer, to achieve a higher resolution image, a more accurate rendering of something that defies words whereas you feel you already see with a perfect sight. You already see things as they are so there is no need to further resolve the image... to increase accuracy... etc...

And the reason you continue on doing so ad nauseum is because you are still attached to the notion that an observer really does exist who fine-tunes things, when, in fact, it is a complete egotistical fraud!

Fact is, you've become complacent and smug in your cocksure 'knowledge'. You can't fool us, so stop already.

Go ahead: ask me how I know this, ha ha...

Trust you? Surely you jest!

 

[godnotgod]

It could be reasoned, however, by those who reason, that the enlightened Soul is completely mad, having moved so far beyond any vestige of everyday awareness.

Ha, 'completely mad' from the POV of the deluded masses! I am recalling a song by The Beatles: The Fool On The Hill.

 

[godnotgod]

I guess the difference in our views is that I'm constantly fiddling with my view as the observer, to achieve a higher resolution image, a more accurate rendering of something that defies words whereas you feel you already see with a perfect sight. You already see things as they are so there is no need to further resolve the image... to increase accuracy... etc...

The basic problem with your 'fiddling' is that you are still transfixed by the FOREGROUND of existence, thinking to 'resolve the image' for further accuracy, blah blah blah, while failing to understand that what you are focusing on is an illusion, and that your real focus should be on the BACKGROUND of existence, out of which all imagery emerges.

To see things as they are is to see that all imagery are varied forms which emerge from The One Source. If your attention has been captured by the imagery as being reality, you are being deluded.

Truly, “Only he that rids himself forever of desire can see the Secret Essences”;
He that has never rid himself of desire can see only the Outcomes.
These two things issued from the same mould, but nevertheless are different in name.
This “same mould” we can but call the Mystery,
Or rather the “Darker than any Mystery”,
The Doorway whence issued all Secret Essences.

Tao te Ching, Ch 1

Tao Te Ching, English by Arthur Waley - Terebess Asia Online (TAO)

IOW, your ego still nurtures desires to resolve the image for more accuracy as a means of ego gratification. There is nothing to resolve; nothing to 'get'; nothing to 'figure out', and yet, you persist in your folly.

 

[godnotgod]

To his/her/its credit @crowfeather is at least honest and claims to be enlightened whereas you continually play hide and seek because you know the peril of such claims.
.

What you are not understanding is that there are, in reality, no Enlightened people over here, and unenlightened people over there. The fact is that, realization is to see that everyone is already enlightened. Why it appears that they are not enlightened is the question, which you and many others, haven't a clue about. Or maybe you do, as you and they are already enlightened.

Now I am sure you are thoroughly confused!

 

[Polymath257]

I am sure you have experienced dream-sleep at one time or another. When two dreamers awaken, they both realize they have been dreaming, and can communicate the characteristics of the dream-world with one another with a fair degree of agreement about the nature of dreaming.

On the contrary, the specifics of the dream worlds are usually NOT at all similar! That is what distinguishes dreams from reality: the reproducibility between people.

IOW, it is because of the awakened state that both dreamers can see the same reality.

Because dreams are not reality.

Likewise, the Enlightened/Awakened see this ordinary dream-world that most of us only think to be 'reality' in the same way. For them, this is just another level of the dream.

Understood. And I would claim that the 'enlightened state' is another form of dream.

The fact that there is agreement as to what they see points to a universal, impersonal consciousness underlying their insight. IOW, their insight is not a matter of personal opinion, but of an impersonal, universal view.

Interesting. What strikes me is how *dis-similar* the various mystical viewpoints are. The commonality seems to be more of a way that our minds work under certain sorts of stress than anything else.

This is pretty much confirmed by the fact that mystics throughout history and in different places, have pretty much come to the same conclusions about the nature of the world, and of the true nature of Reality. Differences are only seeming ones, for the most part, once you know how to read between the lines.

And I see that as confirmation bias. Mystics are always vague enough to allow multiple interpretations which allows the seeker to read into it what they want.

Your question is still within the realm of Reason and has to do with factual knowledge, not Enlightenment. Enlightenment is not about what you know, but about what you see.

In other words, it is about experience. But experiences are prior to knowledge, and are the source of knowledge after testing. So, you stop exactly when you should be starting.

 

[Polymath257]

The basic problem with your 'fiddling' is that you are still transfixed by the FOREGROUND of existence, thinking to 'resolve the image' for further accuracy, blah blah blah, while failing to understand that what you are focusing on is an illusion, and that your real focus should be on the BACKGROUND of existence, out of which all imagery emerges.

I am not confused by this. I reject it. I understand the parable of the cave. I just find it to be a false story.

To see things as they are is to see that all imagery are varied forms which emerge from The One Source. If your attention has been captured by the imagery as being reality, you are being deluded.

Truly, “Only he that rids himself forever of desire can see the Secret Essences”;

He that has never rid himself of desire can see only the Outcomes.
These two things issued from the same mould, but nevertheless are different in name.
This “same mould” we can but call the Mystery,
Or rather the “Darker than any Mystery”,
The Doorway whence issued all Secret Essences.

Tao te Ching, Ch 1

Tao Te Ching, English by Arthur Waley - Terebess Asia Online (TAO)

IOW, your ego still nurtures desires to resolve the image for more accuracy as a means of ego gratification. There is nothing to resolve; nothing to 'get'; nothing to 'figure out', and yet, you persist in your folly.

In other words, you go back to the state of ignorance prior to actual thought.

Words miss the point because they are symbols and the reality isn't a symbol. A finger pointing at the moon isn't the moon. Etc.

My point is that knowledge comes *after* experience when we start to think and analyze. Pure experience is only the start, not the finish.

 

[Kirran]

My point is that knowledge comes *after* experience when we start to think and analyze. Pure experience is only the start, not the finish.

That's a type of knowledge, it's not direct understanding though.

 

[YmirGF]

I am not confused by this. I reject it. I understand the parable of the cave. I just find it to be a false story.



In other words, you go back to the state of ignorance prior to actual thought.

Words miss the point because they are symbols and the reality isn't a symbol. A finger pointing at the moon isn't the moon. Etc.

My point is that knowledge comes *after* experience when we start to think and analyze. Pure experience is only the start, not the finish.

Very nice. There is also that naughty penchant for saying one sees things "as they are", where from my own extensive inner adventures the one thing I have grown to rely on is that things are never quite what they seem at first.

 

[YmirGF]

That's a type of knowledge, it's not direct understanding though.

So-called direct understanding (intuitive grasp, if you will) also takes time to assimilate whether the time lag be a nanosecond or a hundred years... ...there can be a rather large gulf between awareness and understanding what one is aware of. They are not the same thing.

 

[Kirran]

So-called direct understanding (intuitive grasp, if you will) also takes time to assimilate whether the time lag be a nanosecond or a hundred years... ...there can be a rather large gulf between awareness and understanding what one is aware of. They are not the same thing.

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.

 

[crowfeather]

It is an interesting challenge to attempt the squeezing of existing terms into conveying things for which there can be no words.
Words are mind-things; symbols for mind-things.
Enlightenment is not a mind-thing, and has nothing to do with words.
Until one discovers the hidden doorway - the needle's eye - out from one's mind, one is justifiably unable to either imagine nor describe what is to be found on the other side.

 

[Kirran]

It is an interesting challenge to attempt the squeezing of existing terms into conveying things for which there can be no words.
Words are mind-things; symbols for mind-things.
Enlightenment is not a mind-thing, and has nothing to do with words.
Until one discovers the hidden doorway - the needle's eye - out from one's mind, one is justifiably unable to either imagine nor describe what is to be found on the other side.

I'd strike out that bit, too.