What Is Enlightenment... Really?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Draginvry

If by bullshit you mean duality.

Not just duality, but any kind of bullshit.

I think I've just had my first zen moment

I've had one of those once. As soon as I thought about it, it disappeared.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: the spirit!

enlightenment(whether it's moksha, bodhi, godhead, integral, operating thetan) generally has the idea of "original nature".

as grant morrisson said: " try to remember...."

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Draginvry

[QUOTE=the spirit!;347481]enlightenment(whether it's moksha, bodhi, godhead, integral, operating thetan) generally has the idea of "original nature".[/QUOTE]

Funny how enlightenment is supposed to be the most natural state of existence, yet it is so hard to practice.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: IAO131

[QUOTE=Draginvry;347484]Funny how enlightenment is supposed to be the most natural state of existence, yet it is so hard to practice.[/QUOTE]

Become as little children, or ye shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Tis' the Aeon of the Crowned & Conquering child...

Modern society & life has clouded our minds with absurd amounts of judgments, values, and a priori thinking-venues.

It is kind of funny, though being spontaneous & 'natural' does seem like the exception in modern cities.

IAO131

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Draginvry

[QUOTE=IAO131;347532]
Modern society & life has clouded our minds with absurd amounts of judgments, values, and a priori thinking-venues.

It is kind of funny, though being spontaneous & 'natural' does seem like the exception in modern cities.[/QUOTE]

I am reminded of this constantly, that we are born in a a natural state of mind, and we are taught to lose it by society.

When I go out and do parkour, kids will come up to me and ask "What are you doing?" without making any supposition or judgment about what I am doing. They are merely curious.

However, adults will come up to me and say "Are you sure you should be doing that? It looks dangerous."

The difference is that the adults were conditioned to think of fear or security, whereas the children have not yet learned of these concepts. In fact, an effective method of learning parkour is about removing these concepts, because they were never usefull to begin with.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Uni_Verse

It is easy to live an enlightened life, when you do not try to enlighten the enlightenment.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: AlTan

I'm more inclined to believe that it's the "is" part of the question that dooms all answers as unrealistic. Enlightenment can't really be defined. A better question would be "What is not Enlightenment?"

I believe this as well. On the other hand, you might say that without the "really" the question "what is enlightenment?" answers itself: Enlightenment IS.

I'm inclined toward the Taoist view here: if it can be named, it's not IT.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Draginvry

[QUOTE=AlTan;347736]
I'm inclined toward the Taoist view here: if it can be named, it's not IT.[/QUOTE]

I agree. Definitions are usefull to study how something works. But that's not what something is. Take the sun, for example. I can say the sun is hot. The sun emits light and radiation. The sun is a big burning bubble. But none of these things, the heat, the light, the radiation...none of these things are what the sun is. They only describe the sun.

As long as one tries to define enlightenment, or furthermore pursue enlightenment as if it is a goal or a course, the more one is doomed to never comprehend it.

To me, enlightenment is simple. We have grown up denying what the world is. We deny what is really going on in the environment, we deny our own impulse, we deny truth when it smacks us in the face. Enlightenment is just giving up denial, and seeing the universe for how it truly is. But it isn't about definitions, or science. I could study the universe for fifty years, and it would not bring me enlightenment. Enlightenment is merely state of mind.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Kath_

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enlightenment
1. the act of enlightening.
2. the state of being enlightened: to live in spiritual enlightenment.
3. (usually initial capital letter) Buddhism, Hinduism. prajna.
4. the Enlightenment, a philosophical movement of the 18th century, characterized by belief in the power of human reason and by innovations in political, religious, and educational doctrine.

wiki goes many routes with the word :

Gnosis in Judeo-Christianity and Hellenic Philosophy
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis ) Gnosis (from the Greek word for knowledge, γνώσις) is used in English to specify the spiritual knowledge of a saint or enlightened human being. It is described as the direct experiential knowledge of the supernatural or divine. This is not enlightenment understood in its general sense of insight or learning (which in Greek is διαφωτισις)[1] but enlightenment that validates the existence of the supernatural. ... The Oxford English Dictionary defines gnosis as, "A knowledge of spiritual mysteries."

Moksha and Jnana in Hinduism
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha ) Moksha (Sanskrit: मोक्ष mokṣa, liberation) or Mukti (Sanskrit: मुक्ति, release) refers in Indian religions to liberation from samsara, the cycle of death and rebirth and all of the suffering and limitation of worldly existence. In Hindu philosophy, it is seen as a transcendence of phenomenal being, a state of higher consciousness, in which matter, energy, time, space, causation (karma) and the other features of empirical reality are understood as maya. Liberation is to Indian religions as salvation is to Christianity. Rather than being a reward for good deeds that is achieved after death, however, liberation is experienced in this very life as a dissolution of the sense of self as an egoistic personality by which the underlying, eternal, pure spirit is uncovered. This desireless state concludes the yogic path through which conditioned mentality-materiality or nama-roopa (lit. name-form) has been dissolved uncovering one's eternal identity prior to the mind/spirit's identification with material form. Liberation is achieved by (and accompanied with) the complete stilling of all passions â?? a state of being known as Nirvana. Buddhist thought differs slightly from the Advaita Vedantist reading of liberation.

Moksa in Jainism
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksa_%28Jainism%29 ) Mokṣa (Sanskrit: मोक्ष, liberation) or Mokkha (Prakrit : मोक्ख ) means liberation, salvation or emancipation of soul. It is a blissful state of existence of a soul, completely free from the karmic bondage, free from samsara, the cycle of birth and death. A liberated soul is said to have attained its true and pristine nature of infinite bliss, infinite knowledge and infinite perception. Such a soul is called siddha or paramatman and considered as supreme soul or God. In Jainism, it is the highest and the noblest objective that a soul should strive to achieve. In fact, it is the only objective that a person should have; other objectives are contrary to the true nature of soul. With right faith, knowledge and efforts all souls can attain this state. That is why, Jainism is also known as mokṣamārga or the â??path to liberationâ?Â

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: 1911

It's the lightenment after the en, just as female Jews are called Shebrews.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Non

To make this thread somewhat funny again, here a video regarding Zen and enlightening: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzPk0QVr ... re=related


Regarding the first post: I do agree with your writings about what enlightenment is

Enlightenment is the removal of all false beliefs, and emotional attachments from a persons mind, which amounts to pretty much everything you have accumulated over the course of your life. What remains is a completely empty mind, devoid off all that is false.

Adding to this, enlightenment seems to be a state of consciousness where the duality from the self and the rest of the universe is gone. There is no "I" anymore. You figure out that you are connected, that you are the same, as any living Being in the universe.
And how can you feel hatred to any Being, human, frog or Demon. All emanates from one source (spiritually).

Maybe this expands to the idea, that also Planets have a strong own consciousness and there presents affecting us in our daily life. You might come to the idea to try to listen to the stars and hear them singing, while you are in a state of enlightenment.
Oh wait, you can't do that because you can't reach that state of enlightenment for yourself.

Why not? "All you have to do" is to fully comprehend the emotions, the hatred and the love in your life and dissolve it with your clear mind. Adding some energy work, it might be enough to blast the shell of your false personalty away.
But thats not what you have to figure out. "All you have to figure out" is to see, to feel and to comprehend the Union of yourself with the rest of the universe.


Enrich your life with some Zazen - Moments and let the freedom in your heart: http://www.101zenstories.com/index.php?story=1 http://www.101zenstories.com/


Draginvry: I am afraid that my opinion isn't compatible with any of yours.


So long, Non

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Draginvry

[QUOTE=Non;348161]
Draginvry: I am afraid that my opinion isn't compatible with any of yours.[/QUOTE]

You shouldn't be afraid. Fear is just avoidance and denial in disguise.

Everyone has their opinion. There's nothing wrong with that. Everyone will become enlightened eventually anyway. My guess is, later than sooner.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: JanPeter

[QUOTE=Draginvry;347772]I agree. Definitions are usefull to study how something works. But that's not what something is. Take the sun, for example. I can say the sun is hot. The sun emits light and radiation. The sun is a big burning bubble. But none of these things, the heat, the light, the radiation...none of these things are what the sun is. They only describe the sun.[/QUOTE]

What would you say the sun "is", then?? If those are describing factors, I'm really interested as to what the sun actually is. Because I always thought it really was just a big burning ball!!

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Draginvry

[QUOTE=JanPeter;348190]What would you say the sun "is", then??[/QUOTE]

I would simply say that the sun "is"

Saying anything more, would be too much.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: JanPeter

Man, I just don't think my astrological sign will allow me to think your way either, Draginvry! But you keep truckin'!

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Dea Kmra

He means, definitions give way to comprehension in the respective scope of understanding of the one you're telling the definitions to.

Using his example, all of those things only allow a person to visualize and understand to the limits of their scope what the sun is in general. However, none of those things are the Sun itself because the Sun itself is beyond that limited scope to comprehend.

Try it with a much greater idea. The idea of 'God'.

God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc etc. But those terms are only used to appeal to the human mind.

Do you really think anyone limited to the average scope of humanity would be able to comprehend what it truly means to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent? Who can honestly say they can understand what that means?

...if that wasn't your point, Draginvry, my apologies.

As for the topic, I believe Enlightenment is just widening your scope. There are levels to it, and the end only comes when you die and are reincarnated (or whatever your afterlife consists of). Surely, an ascetic monk who has devoted his entire life to the universe is enlightened, is he not? However, he is not as enlighten as the Buddha, who has gotten to such an understanding as to become one with the universe.

Likewise, an adult is more enlightened than a child. However, they pale in comparison to the monk or the Buddha.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Draginvry

[QUOTE=Dea Kmra;348393]He means, definitions give way to comprehension in the respective scope of understanding of the one you're telling the definitions to.

...if that wasn't your point, Draginvry, my apologies.[/QUOTE]

My point is more that the definitions themselves are only approximations of the thing, but they are never the thing.

Here's an example. I could say that the sun is big. But in saying that the sun is big, I have already limited the sun to a comparison to something else. Because big is only big to that which is small. I can find a larger star and say, that is big. Compared to this bigger star, the sun is actually small.

In not trying to compare the sun to anything at all, one can see the sun for what it truly is. Language is nothing more than a form of logical analysis. But the state of existence is beyond such analysis. That's why when I stare at the sun, I don't think about whether it is big or small. I think only about how the sun feels to me.

I can try to describe that feeling in words. I can say, the sun is bright and hot. But "bright" and "hot" are not what the sun is. The intuition I got about the sun when I thought about it is the closest knowledge I will ever get to what the sun truly is. But that feeling cannot be described in words, because it encompasses more than language.


Or think about it this way. Try describing a pizza to someone who has no sense of taste. That is basically what you are doing when you are trying to use human language to describe enlightenment. You can tell someone what the pizza tastes like, but they will never know what the pizza really is, until they have tasted it for themselves.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: JanPeter

But human to human conversation can easily describe the sun as big or anything else like that. It's not like we're having a conversation between different beings!

You could say the sun is big, you could also say that a bigger sun is bigger than our sun. I wouldn't say the sun is big, that sun is also big. (that would leave out the fact that one is bigger than the other) The sun also could be said to be "bright" and "hot". Although they are human language terms, they still aptly describe the fact that the sun gives off heat, and also radiates light. These are not false descriptions.

I'm not doubting that feeling encompasses more than language can describe, but maybe language needs to evolve. I don't think that we should abandon all descriptions and language because it "doesn't rightly describe" the subject.

Although a person might not have a sense of taste, they could scientifically study the sense of taste and get a firm understanding of "what it tastes like". I.E. what is happening to cause a human to "taste" pizza.

Descriptions obviously aren't the actual thing itself, but when it comes to understanding, descriptions are absolutely (imo) necessary. If no one were to ever try to describe enlightenment, then would there even be such a thing as enlightenment? How would you know? How could you know?

God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc etc. But those terms are only used to appeal to the human mind.

Do you really think anyone limited to the average scope of humanity would be able to comprehend what it truly means to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent? Who can honestly say they can understand what that means?

I think that's a terrible example, because it is rooted in the fact that certain religions are not made to allow their followers to understand the ideology at all. (some forms of christianity, which love to use these descriptions, for example) To be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent is simply impossible. Here's a good link to contemplate this idea: http://www.mslick.com/absolutes.htm

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: simex

Jan,

Certainly words and descriptors serve a purpose. They provide shortcuts when describing things. But, because these terms are shortcuts, they are necessarily flawed.

If I say "My friend, Alex, is a blond republican." I have really only told you two things: That her hair is a light color, and that she identifies herself with the republican party. Instantly you are going to generate a picture in your head. Maybe you'll be completely objective and read nothing in to my words. Maybe you'll put "blond" and "republican" together and assume that she's also "dumb".

You may be well versed in the stances of the political parties and so when you meet Alex in real life, you might assume that she supports the war in Iraq. But maybe Alex doesn't support the war, she just generally aligns her positions with the republicans. Maybe Alex has no idea what the republicans stand for and falsely identifies herself as one.

Language and shortcuts are necessary for communicating, I don't think anyone is debating otherwise, but at the same time language is always an approximation. You could say "Who is Alex?" and I could say "Alex is 5'10", has 8" blond hair, freckles on her nose, thinks that gun control is a good idea, doesn't like the war in Iraq, sleeps on her back, likes provolone cheese, etc..." Or I can just use some shortcuts. Practically speaking, the shortcuts are preferable to attempting to list all the nuances; especially when you consider the fact that my descriptions of the nuances will need to have their nuances articulated also, and so on and so forth ad infinitum.

Problems arise when people become so accustomed to these shortcuts that they forget that the things the shortcuts describe are so intricately nuanced that a few characters strung together will always fall short. People take the words to be the things sometimes. How easy is it for a soldier to kill an "enemy"? A lot easier than it is for him to kill a "Loving father who collects old-timey coke bottles, and wants to retire to Tuscany after his kids move out."

Anytime you say "[x] is [y]" you are lying. Everything simply is what it is, and unless you can accurately articulate every nuance then you will never be able to fully describe anything. You may be able to work up practical, working descriptions, but they will always be flawed.

I think this is the point that dragonivry is trying to make.

Now, enlightenment is precisely the state of NOT making any shortcuts in your head. It involves seeing the universe for exactly what it is, without the abbreviations and approximations that ideas provide. So, at a certain point in ones quest for enlightenment, any description of enlightenment will lead them away from enlightenment because it will be always stirring these ingrained ideas and judgments in their minds, thus clouding the view.

108th post! How auspicious

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: JanPeter

I find that very intriguing, although it doesn't really make complete sense, to me at least. If that is the case, then no one could ever really be "enlightened", for no one can ever see the universe for what "it is". You would have to figure out what exactly the universe is, and without descriptions that is simply impossible!

It makes me think of a mentally retarded person figuring out advanced calculus by sitting around and thinking (or meditating) about numbers, it just doesn't seem to be a possible thing.

And I don't think that saying "[x] is [y]" will always result in the speaker lying, because in one instance x may very well equal y, depending on the circumstances, and in another x may equal only x, it all depends on the situation, but neither are "false", they are merely changed depending on the situation.

I do believe that thinking without prejudice is a very good way to go about things, and it can very much help people in the path to knowledge, but at some point you must be able to set descriptors for the material. To not do so would be flailing about in darkness. (once again, i'm not preaching, i'm just thinking aloud.)

Maybe enlightenment is just a paradox.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: simex

Something doesn't need to be described to exist. Furthermore, I don't need to know what something is and how it works in order to "see" it. See what I'm saying? The desire to "know" the universe by applying our constructs, rules, and descriptors can only lead you away from that understanding ultimately.

There's a difference between experience and understanding. Enlightenment is not an understanding, it is an experience which is ultimately the complete lack of understanding. The idea is that the universe just exists as it is, without conflict, without any of the descriptors that we apply to it. Unfortunately, it is the nature of our brains to name and observe and work out relationships, and we falsely ascribe these things to the universe. The universe just is. In order to see the universe for what it is, we have to forget all these constructs which limit our thinking.

Whenever someone would ask Ramakrishna to describe his experience in samadhi (a lesser form of enlightenment) he would tell the story of a doll, made of salt, that goes to the ocean to test the depth by wading in. Needless to say, the salt-doll has little to say on the depth of the ocean

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Kath_

I find that very intriguing, although it doesn't really make complete sense, to me at least. If that is the case, then no one could ever really be "enlightened", for no one can ever see the universe for what "it is". You would have to figure out what exactly the universe is, and without descriptions that is simply impossible!

impossible? tell me in 3 words or less who you are. do I now understand you? have you described you entirely? ok, 300 words then? in 3000 words? if you wrote a 3000 word essay about yourself, would I be able to read it, and instantly know exactly what you feel/think when you see a spider? how about 30,000 words? how about a biography? can you read a biography, and know what color crayon someone thought was their favorite when they were 3? or what they really think about their spouse if they're still married? or what their weirdest sexual fantasy is? could you predict exactly what they'd do in a particular situation?

Here's the thing. Things(tm) are not words. no amount of words can 'completely' describe even something like a sugar cube (oh look there goes electron 15325798716913613654362 rounding proton 78135623161786786436, it just keeps going and going... ). words are labels, they attempt, with only very modest success, to capture familiar concepts so as to share them between 2 minds. Words, quantifying things, aren't really an intrinsic quality of things themselves, or of knowing things... but only communicating things (very generalistically, and rather poorly) with other sentiences.

So you can never know something which you can't completely quanitfy? and you can never 'completely' quantify anything? so you can never 'know' anything? i disagree. do you know yourself? but can you quantify it? do your favorite food? but can you tell me its chemical composition? could you tell me what your favorite food tastes like if i've never had it? would that explanation really convey the sensation and experience you're trying to share?

do you 'know' your position in this topic? do i know my position in this topic? if either or both of us could 'completely' quantify our thoughts... wouldn't the debate be very quickly and simply resolved with mutual agreement? but its not? but you do know what you think right? and i do know what i think... so we're failing to quantify... but does that really invalidate either of our thoughts? can a person lose an argument and be right?

I think you're a very verbal thinker. or possibly a Pythagorist.
make some art, use some hand-eye coordination, dance, visualize, try thinking about 2 completely separate things simultaneously. break out of the verbal-linear-linguistic habit a bit, and delve into wordless cognition, experience, etc.

Maybe enlightenment is just a paradox.

entirely possible

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Draginvry

[QUOTE=JanPeter;348508]You would have to figure out what exactly the universe is, and without descriptions that is simply impossible!
[/QUOTE]

I think you are looking at knowledge backwards. You don't figure out what something is by trying to describe it. You figure out what something is by observing it.

Think about prehistoric man. He probably didn't have much of a language. Maybe he grunted at his fellow caveman to let them know they were in his cave. But certainly the caveman knew about sunburn, or that predatory animals were dangerous, even though he may not have had specific words for these things.

Then an even smarter caveman comes along and discovers how to create fire. He points to the fire and says "Hot!" and all the other cavemen jump around the fire in excitement. He then points to the sun and says "Hot!" and everyone else points to the sun, too.

The cavemen aren't stupid. They know that there is something different about the fire and the sun. But they also know there is something the same. When our genius caveman identified heat, he didn't identify what the fire or the sun is, he merely identified common attributes shared by both the fire and the sun.

The knowledge of these attributes came long before people had words for them. You don't have to know advanced laws of thermodynamics to know what a sunburn is.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Dea Kmra

I think that's a terrible example, because it is rooted in the fact that certain religions are not made to allow their followers to understand the ideology at all. (some forms of christianity, which love to use these descriptions, for example) To be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent is simply impossible. Here's a good link to contemplate this idea: http://www.mslick.com/absolutes.htm

That was just an example, not a religious inference. Nor does it reflect my own personal belief.

I find that very intriguing, although it doesn't really make complete sense, to me at least. If that is the case, then no one could ever really be "enlightened", for no one can ever see the universe for what "it is". You would have to figure out what exactly the universe is, and without descriptions that is simply impossible!

That's what one of if not the highest level of enlightenment just may be. To be at 'one' with the universe, you would have to understand it, no?

Seeing the universe for what "it is" is what enlightenment supposedly entails. It is an experience, not a description.

Here's another example. Have you ever been in a situation where you were trying to describe something, and were at a loss for words, yet you knew exactly what it was? That's basically how it is.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Kath_

I had a thought after i posted my reply, but its separate enough to just go ahead and spit it out in a separate post.

You would have to figure out what exactly the universe is, and without descriptions that is simply impossible!

my revision: "you would have to figure out exactly what the universe is, and that is simply impossible with descriptions."