Who here is enlightened?

[Penumbra]

(Emphasis mine.)

Is there any particular reason for that? For example, a perceived lack of free will?

I realize that the question is pretty off topic in this thread, though, so I'd be willing to start a new thread to discuss it in case you don't want to answer it here to avoid derailing this one.

-Free will not being recognized as a coherent concept.

-Remnants of the New Age religion I was raised in that still shape my inter-personal dealings despite not being recognized as factually accurate concepts.

-Meditation. Specifically in this case, loving-kindness meditation where one focuses on the happiness of themselves, friends, indifferents, and enemies.

-Philosophy. Specifically stoicism and virtue ethics.

I don't know how much detail you want. I can elaborate on any specific questions about any of this if you want more detail in any area.

 

[Debater Slayer]

-Free will not being recognized as a coherent concept.

-Remnants of the New Age religion I was raised in that still shape my inter-personal dealings despite not being recognized as factually accurate concepts.

-Meditation. Specifically in this case, loving-kindness meditation where one focuses on the happiness of themselves, friends, indifferents, and enemies.

-Philosophy. Specifically stoicism and virtue ethics.

I don't know how much detail you want. I can elaborate on any specific questions about any of this if you want more detail in any area.

I agree with the first reason and can see how the second one would be a factor as well, but I'm not sure I fully understand how the latter two affect which feelings one tends to have.

I might actually start another thread specifically to discuss this subject (i.e., how relevant and/or important certain feelings are, etc.).

 

[Penumbra]

I agree with the first reason and can see how the second one would be a factor as well, but I don't think I fully understand how the latter two affect which feelings one tends to have.

I might actually start another one specifically to discuss this subject (i.e., how relevant and/or important certain feelings are, etc.).

Ok if I see that thread appear then I'll look to see if there's anything I can answer or add to it.

Here I'll just give an abridged answer.

-The free will statement was accepted.

-For new age stuff, I was raised with this cosmology. Because of that, I still view everything as Maya, a game with actors. Even from a different perspective of science and observation, the result of viewing it as Maya and a game appears valid but for different reasons.

-Meditation focusing on loving all beings, ranging from yourself to indifferents to enemies loosens feelings like guilt or anger. Out of the four reasons given, that's likely the least important for me, since I started that practice after already finding those feelings irrelevant and non-occurring. I did the practice specifically to address apathy rather than guilt or anger or other things.

-Stoicism is highly relevant to the question. It's about mastering one's emotions in the face of what cannot be controlled. In that sense it's a lot like Buddhism, but with emphasis on different things and a different cosmology.

 

[maxfreakout]

What did you do to achieve the experience and what are the characteristics of the experience?

it happened after I undertook sustained exploration of the psychedelic state of consciousness, coupled with intellectual study of perennial philosophy. This culminated in a traumatic experience of ego death, in which my whole sense of separate egoic identity dissolved into cosmic unity, followed by a miraculous rebirth back into my egoic identity. After I recovered from the trauma, I was enlightened. The ego death experience was characterized by sheer terror and suffering of 'dying' as a separate individual, and also the sheer beauty of discovering my timeless unity with God.

I recommend the following essay which provides a very lucid description of the buildup of terror in a bad trip 'ego death' experience: www.egodeath.com/mysticclimax.htm

 

[Walkntune]

it happened after I undertook sustained exploration of the psychedelic state of consciousness, coupled with intellectual study of perennial philosophy. This culminated in a traumatic experience of ego death, in which my whole sense of separate egoic identity dissolved into cosmic unity, followed by a miraculous rebirth back into my egoic identity. After I recovered from the trauma, I was enlightened. The ego death experience was characterized by sheer terror and suffering of 'dying' as a separate individual, and also the sheer beauty of discovering my timeless unity with God.

I recommend the following essay which provides a very lucid description of the buildup of terror in a bad trip 'ego death' experience: www.egodeath.com/mysticclimax.htm

How long did this take to go through what you call ego death experience?

 

[apophenia]

Throw out a term. Imply something unique, special, and hard to obtain, add confusing academic nuances and give it a good curve to measure, and bingo! Here's looking at you kid... ;0)

LOL. Nicely put.

 

[apophenia]

I think that howevermuch you know, there's always more to know.

Same goes for howeverlittle.

This brings up a significant point. Someone earlier mentioned how it was a couple of protestants who first used the English word 'enlightenment' in relation to the eastern teachings. The use of the word for many westerners implies some kind of knowledge which could be expressed as a philosophical or theological proposition.

This is precisely what the lamas I studied with said it isn't.

So there are two (at least) different things being discussed here. One is purely experiential, and has nothing to do with either more or less 'knowledge'. Another is the most refined notion that people can arrive at to 'sum up' what they call wisdom.

Just for the record, the Tibetan view is that the 'goal' of practice ( sometimes called enlightenment ) is 'temel ge shepa' - meaning 'the ordinary mind of nowness'.

The teachings which are considered by lamas to be the essential, most profound teachings use the language of 'the natural mind' , the 'unfabricated mind'.

The 'extraordinary states' which some assume are enlightenment are simply considered to be just that - extraordinary states. The notion that enlightenment is a permanent ongoing 'extraordinary state' characterised by siddhis ( supernatural powers ) and so forth is really an indulgence in fantasy and ego.

One lama put it - " in the end, it is neither good or bad".

But that is the goal as expressed by Tibetan lamas - there are countless interpretations of the word 'enlightenment'.

Recognition of the natural unfabricated mind is mysterious because it is 'too close to be seen, too easy to understand, too familiar to recognise" as another teaching puts it.

But it is certainly not knowledge to be acquired.

Nor, according to the Tibetans at least, is it the dramatic 'ego death', or the end of ordinary manifestation, to be replaced by something 'cosmic' or whatever. The terminology used by the lamas is 'recognition of the co-emergence of samsara and nirvana'. Not understanding, but recognition.

 

[F0uad]

In some terms, yes, in other terms, no. In some ways we are still a backward little race that is fixated on navel gazing.

Hmm well we don't know what the future has in store for us, i think its hard to call our self an enlighten species or not if we cant compare our self with others species don't you think?

In short, religion will not necessarily lead to any kind of mystical "enlightenment". If the truth be told, dogmatic pursuit of ANY religion may indeed hold people back from the experience of inner evolution.

I still have a hard time understanding what it has to do with religion? What if you turned that argument around...

 

[YmirGF]

When you say oneness, what characteristics of oneness were there? What specifically was linked?

Ahhh, now that really IS a great question. My answer will surely separate me from the pack - with no doubt. Originally I perceived this Oneness as being that of a, forgive the term, "universal soul or entity - shared by all" ... however, I've come a rather long way since then. Now I don't see it quite that way and this is an extension of my expanded view of personality. I mean, I am ONE with the totality of my self, period, full stop. I call that "totality" the entity or inner self or personality energy essence - take your pick.

Based on similar conundrums that you assert, I began to see that this "universal" wasn't quite what it appeared at first. It is merely, imho, a novices viewpoint (to view the entity as belonging to ALL.) It is an individual entity existing in a realm of countless others, like itself. So, I am ONE with my "source self" as you are with your own "source self"; however that "source self" is not a communal self shared by all.

It is via the "source self", the "inner self", that one begins to glimpse ones myriad of existences, all happening in their own "present". It is this very myriad of innumerable existences that gives the illusion of being "universal". It IS, in the sense that this "local" source self, is a universe UNTO ITSELF. I hope you get the difference.

You exist, and I exist. In your worldview, are we one, or are we two? If we are one, in what way are we one?

Actually, as you might recall, you have helped me to enunciate this in the past. No, you are not a part of me. I am not a part of you. Personality lines I envision are so large that it is somewhat dizzying. My use of the expression, "civilization of the psyche" is alluding to this expanded view of personality.

Well, I already don't view conventional god concepts in a reasonable light, already view good and bad as moralistically relative, already view feelings like anger and guilt as irrelevant and don't really experience them, and I've actually been criticized many a time for always having a grin (literal or metaphorical). I've been told in the same day by different people that I a) take things too seriously and b) never take anything seriously. :sarcastic

I know, i get that a lot too. I can be very serious, but then something usually tweaks my humor centres and my brain is off and running. I guess all I am saying is that Creaturehood is intended to be rooted in reality NOT divorced from it. You don't have to give up anything (except maybe the concept of limitations) to embrace Creaturehood. You are already a part of the process and a charming part, at that. In the words of Laurie Anderson... "Paradise is like where you are, right now, only much... Much... Better..."

In some ways, Creaturehood is a spiritual extension of humanism.

The parts I find foreign are the "oneness" and the "bliss" that some people talk about. I can speculate on the reasons for the difference but when it comes to learning about people, it's better just to talk with them.

I agree. I wish I could tell you all the things inside my head... but that would spoil a lot of your personal adventure. I hope I have elucidated my sense of Oneness more fully. It is NOT what most other human animals are saying... the thing is, I recognize I could be quite wrong and mistaken... though I don't believe that for a second... the doubt helps me to explore the ramifications.

As to the bliss. Now that is a hard one to wrap your head around. Most people simply cannot imagine what it is like. Oddly, I don't find much humor in modern "comedy", certainly not in recent years. That is just so contrived nowadays. Bliss is a perennial thing that is always bubbling up, just under the surface. I guess I just like to smile and make other people smile. It helps them to feel good and that can also give them a different perspective.
[youtube]9pJOHnE08hY[/youtube]
Laurie Anderson - Language Is A Virus

Just replace the word "paradise" with "creaturehood". :drool:

Especially people that tend to remain calm and participate in the discussion, such as yourself.

Well, one does have to try...

 

[YmirGF]

Hmm well we don't know what the future has in store for us, i think its hard to call our self an enlighten species or not if we cant compare our self with others species don't you think?

We are a clever animal... but then so are dolphins...

I still have a hard time understanding what it has to do with religion? What if you turned that argument around...

I'm not sure how you could, but if you want to, go for it...

 

[LuisDantas]

Not to imply that I understood what you mean, Ymir. But would the nutshell version of it be that Creaturehood involves developing a healthy appreciation of the vast possibilities of existence as an autonomous being and finding purpose in that?

Also, doesn't it mean that it is diametrically opposed to any doctrines that involve "receiving" salvation, enlightment, bliss or whatever from someone else?

 

[ratikala]

dear penumbra ji

Do you currently identify as enlightened?

we all have levels of realisation , your question implies the full and ireversable state of realisation .

Surely the status of the messenger is important. If a poor person and a rich person describe how to become rich, I'll give more weight to the rich person's advice.

yes the status of the mesanger is important but that should be judged by the quality of the message .

if you are assuming riches to be material wealth , ....and you are thinking that a poor man has little experience in the gaining of such wealth , where as the rich man has full experience , and on this assumption you would follow the rich mans word , then you may be folowing the word of a theif and a brigand !

we are talking here about true wealth , fully enlightened knowledge , in which case we are looking for external signs of enlightenment ? .......in this case , examine the actions and and demeanor of the mesenger , but more importantly examine the message it self .

That's not to say the poor person wouldn't have knowledge either. It's just that the poor person would be talking about theory and the rich person would be talking about what she already did and the results were.

yes , and who is to say it was gained by fair means ! apperances may be deceptive !
but to be fair yours is simply an analogy and all analogies fall down at some point .

however the poor man may give you a diccourse on the true meaning of wealth , he may be poor because he has allways shared his riches .

 

[YmirGF]

Not to imply that I understood what you mean, Ymir. But would the nutshell version of it be that Creaturehood involves developing a healthy appreciation of the vast possibilities of existence as an autonomous being and finding purpose in that?

In a manner of speaking, I suppose. I'm still refining aspects of this and probably always will be. The thing is, your purpose is whatever you see fit. There is no rule on how you must be.

Also, doesn't it mean that it is diametrically opposed to any doctrines that involve "receiving" salvation, enlightment, bliss or whatever from someone else?

Arrrgghhhhhh.... no wonder I am having trouble reading... it is 2:50 AM ... I'll try to make more sense tomorrow...:faint:

 

[chinu]

So if you consider yourself enlightened, I invite you to post here. Perhaps you could start by explaining what enlightenment is to you, how you achieved it, how you know you achieved it, and what it is like.

Sounds like.. court is "inviting" insted of "calling" somebody for the hearing.

One can even enjoy such state of affair without explaning it, or without explaning how i achieved it, or what it is like...

 

[Foxfire]

(Serious question.)

Use whatever word is applicable in your worldview, be it enlightenment, moksha, nibbana, one with the universe, etc. I'll use 'enlightenment' for the rest of this post but mentally substitute in your own word as you read it.

Does anyone on this forum claim to be enlightened? If so, please post here so we can talk. I'd like to see who here claims to have reached enlightenment.

The reason I ask is, many people talk about what enlightenment is, how to get there, what it's like, that it is a true concept, etc.

So if you consider yourself enlightened, I invite you to post here. Perhaps you could start by explaining what enlightenment is to you, how you achieved it, how you know you achieved it, and what it is like.

Hi Penumbra,

Have you heard the famous quote, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!"?

Basically it means if you think you have a correct notion of what it means to be enlightened, then you need to throw out (kill) that image and keep meditating/praying/contemplating, etc.

"Tao that cannot be named is not the eternal Tao". (So you think you see the real Tao, kill it and move on.)

 

[Desert Snake]

So true. Methinks quite a bit of vain searching goes on.

 

[LuisDantas]

Of course, like in much of Buddhist teachings, at least half of the point of the tale of the need to kill the Buddha is in encouranging people to realize that there is such a thing as trying to hard. There is also trying too hard to avoid trying too hard.

Which is my way of saying that while discouraging self-delusion is certainly necessary, it does not necessarily follow that people can never achieve what they aim for.

 

[atanu]

Just for the record, the Tibetan view is that the 'goal' of practice ( sometimes called enlightenment ) is 'temel ge shepa' - meaning 'the ordinary mind of nowness'.
----
The 'extraordinary states' which some assume are enlightenment are simply considered to be just that - extraordinary states. --

In Vedanta, the similar two states are Kevala Nirvikalpa, which is like a Tsunami Orgasm -- however it comes and goes. The stable state is Sahaja Nirvikalpa -- that has no coming and going. However, the kevala variety is not looked down upon, since, it is the first experience. Further, Siddhi etc. is incidental and actually damaging often, since such powers may promote clinging.

 

[maxfreakout]

How long did this take to go through what you call ego death experience?

from the ordinary perspective, the death trip lasted about 5 hours (the duration of the psilocybin effect), but from the transcendent perspective it was eternity, i spent 5 hours experiencing eternity/the end of time. But that experience was only the start of the whole process of transcendent mental regeneration, I was a psychotic traumatised wreck for a few months, then i gradually started to recover and learn to live again (re-stabilise) with the new transcendent ('enlightened') mental model. So the entire death/rebirth took a few months.

 

[Willamena]

Have you experienced things for which words like moksha, nibbana, one with the universe, or enlightenment, have any reference or meaning?

Of course: everyday experience.

Edit: All these terms refer in their own way to reality, the same ordinary reality that's around us everyday and that we experience. What the words defer to is a perspective on reality, which equates to a way of looking at and living it, that (in the West we might say) 'knows it' in a particular way. The moment of understanding in that particular way is also referred to as enlightenment, and having that moment isn't the end (or goal) of such moments.