Apech

Your thoughts might have evolved???

You Win. I think. Life is a game of two halves. In Estonia.

I know what you mean but I don't quite agree. Its an intermediate stage to have higher and lower consciousnesses. Ultimately they are non-dual. The high mind and the ow mind are one. I mean this in a functional way as well as a pure way. The real master would be the best in the market place.

*** Mod Message *** After careful consideration Bodyoflight has been suspended for 7 days so that he can think about forum rules. This has been done reluctantly after several warnings. He and everybody else has the option to report posts which he finds offensive or otherwise unacceptable and the moderation team will look at every report in detail. As this is not really Taoist Discussion I'm moving it to Off Topic. Thanks. Apech for Mod Team **** Mod Message ****

Nothing easier ... if we met you'd know straight away.

"Put Buddha in the driving seat" ... would make a great car sticker ....

Hi Steve, I was basing my statement on the idea that enlightenment means consciousness knowing its own nature ... or similar words of your choice and that this is a permanent state. But I did say 'I Think' to show its just my view ... of course I'm not enlightened and so I am just talking about ideas about enlightenment ... as you say only one way to find out ...

Probably an enlightened state Shaktimama - but real enlightenment is permanent in that the consciousness is not lost (I think). My previous comment was based on the fact that I know that Buddhists use the term omniscience in a specific and technical way.

Marbles, Hey ... it was a link to a bUddhist website. Vajrayana would say that 'all phenomena are pure beyond elaboration' is that good enough. The Manifest and the Mystery are 'not-two'. A.

I think omniscience here is being used in a specific way to mean being able to see through to the reality behind all things. Specifically being able to see the emptiness of all forms. It is not omniscience in the sense of knowing everything such as who won the superbowl in 1976 or what is the capital of Estonia or whatever.

OK. Have you been there already?

Which part of India do you imagine is free of women and screaming kids? Population graph below, not sure what percentage are women or children but its a lot! ?

I can only say ... and I know its dull and boring ... but you do learn a lot from having kids and the rewards outweigh the time/energy etc. expended IMO. Its not for everyone of course ...

No!!! It says "Voted best spellcaster of the year in 2008, 2009 and runner up in 2010!" What went wrong in 2010? ... I want the top guy not someone who comes second!!!

Ok I'll drop my obsession with not liking the list. Its not so important. (I have to say I admire the way you are calmly dealing with a couple of attacks on here.) I'm not sure how much the field of psychology has dropped the ideal of being well-adjusted. I saw a BBC programme a couple of years ago where they showed that most people suffer from most of the mental neuroses that doctors like to label at one time or another in their lives. Its normal and quite ok to be affected by life, stressed or whatever as long as it doesn't completely take over our personalities. In fact its part of being human and certainly the hallmark of 'ordinary mind'. If we distinguish ordinary mind from eternal mind (that's my term for now - but I mean the true nature of consciousness itself) - then we go on a quest to discover this eternal mind and view it as a separate state. To get there we have to fight a lot of habitual tendencies and also do a lot of practice. Maybe we get close to it and experience the energy and bliss of that state - but its still separate from us - then perhaps we realise it ... but this is still not enlightenment. Then we work again to discover that that there is no essential difference between this eternal mind and our ordinary consciousness - this is when we are getting close to enlightenment I think. The journey will involve a lot of states which are not what the psychologists would call balanced. We go temporarily crazy or desperate or lost for periods. But to achieve the final goal we have to integrate what we experience into our selves - and this is both spiritual and psychological maturity I think.

Just to go back to the original definition and the dreaded list. Does this equal psychological maturity? and is this the same as enlightenment? I have two main problems with the list, one is the phrasing of some of the statements and what they mean seems to me highly subjective. For instance what does 'a few loved ones' mean ... could it be 100 people or just three or four (or in my case one person and two cats???) ... does this make me mature or not. The other is if I take up point 15 ... then I can demonstrate my maturity by not conforming to the rest of the list. This and more particularly his hierarchy of need thing have become like the ten commandments of management speak - a stick to beat us all with. I am sure this is not what he intended. But at practically every management training session I attended they were wheeled out as a kind of gospel truth ... if you disagreed then you were told you were wrong. Sometimes MAD and WRONG (Cat ). My issue with the 'enlightenment' thing is that the term is used in different ways by different people. For instance in the west 'the age of enlightenment' is about scientific progress and nothing to do with spiritual states. I think that people here are refering to some kind of heightened spiritual state gained in deep meditation or other similar practice. Well in my view that is most definitely not enlightenment. Enlightenment to me is typified by the Sage who not only understands the Tao but acts in accordance with it.

I think this is the point. Some kinds of awakening could be termed biological or perhaps evolutionary in terms of consciousness. I'm not sure that I would call them enlightenment - but of course its all a matter of defining terms before we use them. I still hold to something which you might call complete enlightenment which is beyond and yet encompasses both the transformed individual consciousness and the psycho-spiritual-emotional growth of the person. For me this is the Sage that LZ talks about. PS. I think I understand vivid appreciativeness a bit better now ... but I still hate the list (sorry Cat and Shakti ). I am vividly unappreciative of it.

I find lists like this almost incomprehensible. What does 'vivid appreciativeness' actually mean? I think there are better lists ... like the paramitas for instance, generosity, patience and so on. I think my answer to the original question is that those that consider themselves enlightened probably are not. Its possible to have experiences (even continuous ones) that impart energy and feelings of bliss and so on ... without properly integrating the meaning or significance of them into oneself. For instance do a lot of energy work, get a big light in your head and get high. So what? It is also possible to be a very wise mature being without any such experiences. True enlightenment is both beyond and the source for these states of being.

I think this is the true meaning. Its like not showing your hand first - or the samurai thing of the one who strikes first will loose. So you keep your weapons hidden - because if your opponent knows what you've got then you are likely to be beaten. This is not about being cowardly or secretive (which would be one interpretation) but is just good sense. If you are the sage ruler surrounded by enemies then this is the right way to behave. You show only what you want to show and nothing more.

The BBC is saying that his body has already been disposed of at sea? At sea? He was killed in Pakistan no where near the sea. Odd. Anyway I'm not sure it will make much difference to be honest.

So it's all meaningless now is it?

Funnily enough I've been BBQing sardines and this statement is so true - the more you mess the more they break up and become impossible to turn over - they become small pieces that fall into the fire. This is one of the things I most like about Taoism that it is based on some quite simple observations of reality - which are made profound by their interpretation. Taoists are not abstract thinkers but deal with a kind of concrete absolute. The great reflected in the small. Brilliant.

I'm not socially conditioned into thinking anything about the DL. I make up my own mind by watching, studying and so on. But you are entitled to your view and me to mine. What would be interesting would be a proper balanced debate rather than all the propaganda. I think it will always be a problem for a spiritual leader to have political authority also. Politics is not so much about truth as about power (the end justifies the means) and compromise. I would say that the DL has done the best he can with the situation in which he found himself which was a very difficult one. But if you prefer to think that he is some kind of CIA/Nazi stooge then I suppose that is your opinion. Alan Watts? Can you really compare them? Hmmm ... again up to you, it a free TTBs world.

Welcome to TTBs I hope you enjoy your stay here. A.