What is Enlightenment?

[C T]

I have read the wiki article and it said that the authorship is disputed like the tao te ching. it may not be authentic it might have been written by mice but that does not meen its words dont hold some truth. taoism may say attachment to this world but so does tantra in my understanding. use what you have to reach a goal emlightenement immortality etc. I agree what do we really know in this world? one day we knew for certain the world was flat and the next oh now we know it is round and even further still we now know it is more oblong in shape. as far as the buddhist taoist who shaped who in china the two are so tangled it is hard to say imo.

 

Thanks

Well, i am afraid to say your understanding needs to be investigated further.. tantra does not promote attachment to this world. Neither does it promote non-attachment, btw.

[Everything]

Maybe this is enlightenment?

 

No, ... nevermind.

This is a reflection of enlightenment. Computer, electronics, light, etc. They're all tools we use in order to allow ourselves more of our inner light to arise. We're still very primitive in our ability to deal with energy. We do not even know what electricity really is and how it prefers to move naturally. All technology is based on "band-aid approach" when you actually realize what lies in store when the mysteries of common patterns of reality are unveiled... Like the mysteries of the Yin-Yang symbol. Yet, even in our primitive state of being, we are emitting light from the surface of the earth all the way out into space everyday. Night becomes day. Especially in city life the illumination is extreme, but not yet naturall and efficient. It is all forced energy, trough metal wires, artificial structures, etc.

 

 

"I, Thoth, the Atlantean,

..bla bla..

Give that they, too, might have wisdom

to shine through the world from the veil of the night.

 

...

 

Keep thou not silent when evil is spoken for Truth

like the sunlight shines above all.

 

...

 

Mysteries there are in the Cosmos

that unveiled fill the world with their light.

Let he who would be free from the bonds of darkness

first divine the material from the immaterial,

the fire from the earth;

for know ye that as earth descends to earth,

so also fire ascends unto

fire and becomes one with fire.

He who knows the fire that is within

himself shall ascend unto the eternal fire

and dwell in it eternally.

 

Fire, the inner fire,

is the most potent of all force,

for it overcometh all things and

penetrates to all things of the Earth.

Man supports himself only on that which resists.

So Earth must resist man else he existeth not.

 

All eyes do not see with the same vision,

for to one an object appears of

one form and color

and to a different eye of another.

So also the infinite fire,

changing from color to color,

is never the same from day to day.

 

Thus, speak I, THOTH, of my wisdom,

for a man is a fire burning bright

through the night;

never is quenched in the veil of the darkness,

never is quenched by the veil of the night.

 

Into men's hearts, I looked by my wisdom,

found them not free from the bondage of strife.

Free from the toils, thy fire, O my brother,

lest it be buried in the shadow of night!

 

...

 

He who knows the commencement of all things,

free is his star from the realm of night.

 

...

 

Found I that man is but living in darkness,

light of the great fire is hidden within.

 

..."

 

Thus, the enlightened are perceived as ignorant, by those who speak evil for Truth. Like politicians who speak of war and conflict, or economists who speak of poverty and suffering, or doctors who speak of illnes and disease, etc. The enlightened do not speak of evil Truth's like you perceive on news channels. For the truth of the sunrise alone, each morning, is a better truth then all evil truth's in all of history. Not even BBC or FOX news can triumph the minor goodness of a single sunrise with all their bad news, like the sunlight shines above all.

 

The concept of enlightenment might be viewed from our current western point of view as mysteries unveiled that wake us up to our inner light and thus find our surroundings enlightened. Literally, you will perceive more colour and more light more vividly experience reality trough your senses if you have ever practiced at becoming enlightened. Roaming the space as children of light, with the source of all stars in the palm of our hands. You might say that science brings us there, but science is so fragmented into all these diffrent parts that by the time we reach enlightenment and awakening, the unification of all these diffrent fields of science will make the word "science" irrelevant. When all is spiritual and non-physical is no longer perceived as imaginary, definitions and our view of them will change dramaticly.

 

You might say that enlightenment translates into you shining like the sun, and bring your light even to the dark corners of existance. Where your light shines so bright that even the sick feel well-being in your presence. Your heart can be bright and happy, your truth bright and happy, light and not heavy. You are not only the main point of attraction in the midst of darkness, but your presence actually illuminates those around you. Spilling your light and bright truth onto them, your simplistic being decieves their mind and reaches their heart. A good example of enlightened being was Jesus. Allthough, others believe that is was actually Bob Marley.

Edited March 11, 2012 by Everything

[effilang]

There is a very nice meditation i like to do.

 

Once you are in a meditative state. Imagine that all your senses have ceased to work.

You cannot feel, smell, hear, see or taste. Then try to experience that, by observing it through whatever consciousness lies beyond the senses. Try to experience senselessness through the faculty beyond the senses.

 

It's one of those things that makes your brain overheat and want to explode.

It can bring your mind to very interesting states of realization.

[Aaron]

I have read the wiki article and it said that the authorship is disputed like the tao te ching. it may not be authentic it might have been written by mice but that does not meen its words dont hold some truth. taoism may say attachment to this world but so does tantra in my understanding. use what you have to reach a goal emlightenement immortality etc. I agree what do we really know in this world? one day we knew for certain the world was flat and the next oh now we know it is round and even further still we now know it is more oblong in shape. as far as the buddhist taoist who shaped who in china the two are so tangled it is hard to say imo.

 

Thanks

 

If you examine the language and style of the Hua Hu Ching, it is very different from the Tao Teh Ching. And yes, if you want to find a hybrid form of Taoism that fits Buddhism as well, then it's a great way to go, but I don't think many educated scholars would consider it to be written by Lao Tzu. That's my point, that these passages really aren't quotations from Lao Tzu, but rather Buddhist propaganda.

 

I would suggest that you read up more on Tantra as well, it's not about attachment, but rather awareness. You seek to find the spirituality in all of your actions, rather than in just a brief period of practice.

 

Aaron

[thelerner]

I find discussing the Hu Hua Ching is a bit like using the Book of Mormon to argue Christian theology.. this is what Jesus said to the American Indians in the third bible etc., Its not that its necessarily wrong, or lacks wisdom, its just not widely accepted as being as authentic. Because so many people (me included) doubt its authorship is the same as the TTC, it has to stand on its own and not be used as 'true quotes' from Lao Tzu. People, maybe wise ones, probably put his name on it to authenticate there views.

 

 

Back on track. Enlightened is a loaded concept and too often discussions of it wind up in 'how many angels on a pin' territory. I think the main divide is whether we should think of 'The Enlightened' in terms of supermen/demi-god status- with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. Or whether they're still just people, special maybe, but just..Awakened.

 

I think Vmarco and many others believe the demigod theory. I don't. I enjoy listening to the zen inspired talks of Michael McAllister @ infinitesmile.com. He's had teachers and met with others who are considered enlightened, at least by there respective sects. Enlightened through decades of dedication, decades of sitting, mental, physical and spiritual, hard consistent work. They made it, and have penetrating intelligence, insight and flow. No super powers, the slings and arrows of life hit them, and they take it gracefully.

 

They're definitely human, they cut wood, carry water. Its a zen thing, but zen is credited (correctly I believe) with more systematic 'enlightenments' then most systems.

 

Maybe I set a low bar for enlightenment, I don't think showing off Siddhis are proof to it, maybe the experience of Satori is. I think its possible in this lifetime, but takes effort, surrender, grace. If it was easy everyone would have it , but its beyond intellectualisms; it has to cut bone deep.

 

 

Those who'll reach it probably concentrate less on the concept of enlightenment and more on the concept of purity.

Edited March 11, 2012 by thelerner

[JustARandomPanda]

Back on track. Enlightened is a loaded concept and too often discussions of it wind up in 'how many angels on a pin' territory.

 

Ah! I just can't resist tossing this into the thread and sending it deep into Off-Topic Territory

 

 

Did medieval scholars argue over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?

 

 

 

And here's Dorothy Sayer on the subject The Lost Tools of Learning (the whole essay is about the deterioration of education among the masses - aka: all of US *cough* *cough* )

 

 

 

 

Now the first thing we notice is that two at any rate of these “subjects” are not what we should call “subjects” at all: they are only methods of dealing with subjects. Grammar, indeed, is a “subject” in the sense that it does mean definitely learning a language—at that period it meant learning Latin. But language itself is simply the medium in which thought is expressed. The whole of the Trivium was, in fact, intended to teach the pupil the proper use of the tools of learning, before he began to apply them to “subjects” at all. First, he learned a language; not just how to order a meal in a foreign language, but the structure of a language, and hence of language itself—what it was, how it was put together, and how it worked. Secondly, he learned how to use language; how to define his terms and make accurate statements; how to construct an argument and how to detect fallacies in argument. Dialectic, that is to say, embraced Logic and Disputation. Thirdly, he learned to express himself in language—how to say what he had to say elegantly and persuasively.

 

At the end of his course, he was required to compose a thesis upon some theme set by his masters or chosen by himself, and afterwards to defend his thesis against the criticism of the faculty. By this time, he would have learned—or woe betide him—not merely to write an essay on paper, but to speak audibly and intelligibly from a platform, and to use his wits quickly when heckled. There would also be questions, cogent and shrewd, from those who had already run the gauntlet of debate.

 

“Subjects” of some kind there must be, of course. One cannot learn the theory of grammar without learning an actual language, or learn to argue and orate without speaking about something in particular. The debating subjects of the Middle Ages were drawn largely from theology, or from the ethics and history of antiquity. Often, indeed, they became stereotyped, especially towards the end of the period, and the far-fetched and wire-drawn absurdities of Scholastic argument fretted Milton and provide food for merriment even to this day. Whether they were in themselves any more hackneyed and trivial then the usual subjects set nowadays for “essay writing” I should not like to say: we may ourselves grow a little weary of “A Day in My Holidays” and all the rest of it. But most of the merriment is misplaced, because the aim and object of the debating thesis has by now been lost sight of.

 

A glib speaker in the Brains Trust once entertained his audience (and reduced the late Charles Williams to helpless rage) by asserting that in the Middle Ages it was a matter of faith to know how many archangels could dance on the point of a needle. I need not say, I hope, that it never was a "matter of faith"; it was simply a debating exercise, whose set subject was the nature of angelic substance: were angels material, and if so, did they occupy space? The answer usually adjudged correct is, I believe, that angels are pure intelligences; not material, but limited, so that they may have location in space but not extension. An analogy might be drawn from human thought, which is similarly non-material and similarly limited.

 

 

 

Thus, if your thought is concentrated upon one thing—say, the point of a needle—it is located there in the sense that it is not elsewhere; but although it is "there," it occupies no space there, and there is nothing to prevent an infinite number of different people's thoughts being concentrated upon the same needle-point at the same time. The proper subject of the argument is thus seen to be the distinction between location and extension in space; the matter on which the argument is exercised happens to be the nature of angels (although, as we have seen, it might equally well have been something else; the practical lesson to be drawn from the argument is not to use words like "there" in a loose and unscientific way, without specifying whether you mean "located there" or "occupying space there."

[JustARandomPanda]

Of course the above does not teach about Gnowledge as VMarco might put it.

[Marblehead]

This is a reflection of enlightenment. ...

 

WoW! What a post. I wish we could have been talking face to face for that so that I could have interrupted you numerous times to discuss individual aspects of what you said. It would be too complicated to do that here.

 

Strange that just yesterday I was discussing energy, Chi, and Yin and Yang.

 

I don't normally use the word 'fire' in a philosophical discussion but rather stay with the word 'energy'.

 

Reading your post, at one point I thought that you were going to hit me with some undivided light. Hehehe.

 

But yeah, finding and realizing our 'true self' is pretty enlightening.

[Jetsun]

I wonder if being enlightened is just as simple as living from your heart, it is the mind which creates dualism and imagination of the mind creates the false sense of identity, while the heart unifies all, so the tyrant needs to be overthrown and the rightful king needs to take its place.

[Marblehead]

There is a very nice meditation i like to do.

 

Once you are in a meditative state. Imagine that all your senses have ceased to work.

You cannot feel, smell, hear, see or taste. Then try to experience that, by observing it through whatever consciousness lies beyond the senses. Try to experience senselessness through the faculty beyond the senses.

 

It's one of those things that makes your brain overheat and want to explode.

It can bring your mind to very interesting states of realization.

Yeah, I call that mindless meditation. I really don't like to refer to myself as being senseless. Just one of my things. Hehehe

[Marblehead]

I wonder if being enlightened is just as simple as living from your heart, it is the mind which creates dualism ...

Well, sure. But that's too easy. We need to talk about it and disagree with each other and get everyone confused. That's reality in today's world.

[Protector]

you guys care about the weirdest stuff

[jacklantegi]

My favorite is Alan Watts' description of enlightenment: "Everything feels like normal every-day reality except you're floating about 2 inches off the ground"

[Everything]

WoW! What a post. I wish we could have been talking face to face for that so that I could have interrupted you numerous times to discuss individual aspects of what you said. It would be too complicated to do that here.

 

Strange that just yesterday I was discussing energy, Chi, and Yin and Yang.

 

I don't normally use the word 'fire' in a philosophical discussion but rather stay with the word 'energy'.

 

Reading your post, at one point I thought that you were going to hit me with some undivided light. Hehehe.

 

But yeah, finding and realizing our 'true self' is pretty enlightening.

i ching is also interesting pattern. 64 being one complete cycle of infinity cannot be a coincidence. The things they knew about the patterns of reality are incredible. Numbers seems to be like living systems. If you multiply every current number, you find a pattern recurring from 1 to 64, renewing again from 1 to 64. Here it goes:

1, 2, 4, 8, (16)1+6=7, (32)3+2=5, (64)6+4=1+0=1, and the cycle starts new again at the number 64. (128)1+2+8=1+1=2, (256)2+5+6=1+3=4, etc.

1, 2, 4, 8, 7, 5, ...1, 2, 4, 8, 7, 5, ...1, etc

The reason you add the numbers up is because ancients used divine number systems, counting from 1 up to 9. After 9, there is 1+0=1.

 

If you draw a circle with 9 north, 1 to 8 over the rest of the circle clockwise, you can more easily draw the connects between the numbers in a visual way. If we add the patterns of ying yang to that, you get a free masonic symbol, which is interesting.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Square_compasses.svg

It also seems that the right side of the circle is a mirror reflection of the left side. Where 9 has no mirror, it is constant. 1 mirrors 8, 2 mirrors 7, 3 mirros 6, 5 mirrors 4.

 

What about the ying yang and numbers 9, 3, 6?

 

3, 6, 12=3, 24=6, 48=12=3, 6, 3, 6, 3, etc.

 

yin= 3, yang=6, yin=3, yang=6... and as we already know, 3 mirrors 6.

 

The S curve in the middle is number 9. It is invisible, non-physical, mystery.

If you add 9 to itself, it remains a constant. No change in pattern. 9+9=18=9, 18+9=27=9, 27+9=36=9, etc. That is why it has no mirror.

IF you add the rest of the numbers up, you will find the patterns in the number to be a reverse or mirror of the patterns of its mirror number. As I mentioned above.

EDIT: I'll give an example just incase you desire, of 3 and 6 mirror.

3, 3+3=6, 6+3=9, 9+3=(12)1+2=3, 12+3=(15)1+5=6, etc.

now with 6:

6, 3, 9, 6, 3.

reversed or mirrored, same with the remaining number, besides 9 having no mirror.

 

The yin and yang has got nothing to do with the polarity. It has got everything to do with symetry. When 3 is negative, 6 becomes positive, when 6 is negative, 3 becomes positive. They are always reversed or mirrored. The colours of yin yang are proove of this. Why would they put in a white dot in the midst of black and a black dot in the midst of white? Thick side black up, thick side white down, or the other way around. To indicate that they are the same, but in reverse. Else they would just draw a half black circle and a half white circle and then write underneath "life is filled with duality, oh my god, we're fked!" in chinese.

The free masonic symbol also draws a circle right where the number 9 lies. The whole 6, 9, 3 structure in the free masonic symbol (pair of compasses) looks like a flying bird. It is seperate from the 1, 2, 4, 8, 7, 5 structure which is the ruler underneath the compass. The compass is on top of the ruler, indicating that it is higher then the ruler. That is why I think that yin yang symbol is somehow of higher dimension. Not to mention that asian people are so alien to me... Very spiritual. Sometimes above the 9, you have a triangle with an eye in the middle emitting rays of light.

 

I strongly believe that a pattern, like in the yin yang sybol, are not about modelling reality. They are conveying the actually reality itself, not an approximation of it. That is why it is so long lasting. The ultimate complexity being derived from the most simplistic of patterns, its very exciting.

Edited March 11, 2012 by Everything

[Marblehead]

Too many numbers! I would never be able to balance my checkbook with those numbers.

 

I'm not into numerology but maybe someone got something out of that.

 

One and zero do just about everything I need to do with numbers.

[Everything]

Too many numbers! I would never be able to balance my checkbook with those numbers.

 

I'm not into numerology but maybe someone got something out of that.

 

One and zero do just about everything I need to do with numbers.

The binary code does not exist. The smallest amount of parts of anything is 3.

 

But the basic message was that the yin yang symbol has got nothing to do with the dual nature of reality.

 

I editted the post to explain what I did with the i ching infinity 1-64 recurring cycles pattern at the beginning. It was vague. I am not assuming any personal meaning to these number patterns. Their significance are beyond common defnitions, just like the yin yang symbol. Otherwise they would just write a text of 5 milion pages explaining what it means instead of one symbol conveyig an important pattern.

 

Its just much more universal to speak about the yin yang symbol in numbers instead of words.

Edited March 11, 2012 by Everything

[Marblehead]

The binary code does not exist.

 

I hope you never tell a computer progranner that.

 

The smallest amount of parts of anything is 3.

 

No, No, No. It has been and always will be 1.

 

B

But the basic message was that the yin yang symbol has got nothing to do with the dual nature of reality.

What? The reality of nature is non-dualistic. It is man's mind that creates all dualities. Yes, the yin/yang symbol was created by dualistically thinking man. The symbol did not in nature prior to man.

[Everything]

I hope you never tell a computer progranner that.

 

 

 

No, No, No. It has been and always will be 1.

 

B

What? The reality of nature is non-dualistic. It is man's mind that creates all dualities. Yes, the yin/yang symbol was created by dualistically thinking man. The symbol did not in nature prior to man.

Dude, we live in 3th density reality. I doubt that subatomic patterns would even be revealed as 2 part patterns, let alone 1... I can't even imagine a 1 density reality. How would that look like? I feel stupid even trying to attempt to try to think about it. Its waaay beyond my capability to imagine such a thing.

 

Thinking in 2 parts has served its purpose well. Yet, all great innovations must have a minimum of 3 parts relating to eachother like a triangle. Each corner relates to two other corners. Each corner consists of one part. One part also consists of a minimum of 3 parts, etc. Every truth we can hold consists of a minimum of three parts.

 

Key relates to door. 2 parts. It has little significance. Not the way human thinks. It is the way a robot thinks. The human says, key relates to door, door relates to freedom in a way that it blocks freedom. Freedom also relates to key in a way that it promotes freedom. Door and key relate to eachother now trough the eye of spirit. Freedom is the spirit or miao that relates yin (key)or yang (door). We have faith in freedom, but it is invisible. That it is invisible does not mean we suddenly live in a 2nd density reality and we are robots or systems. No one believes that he is only his symetric body. The spirit is what gives meaning to this symetric body of ours.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Everything

[Protector]

Actually we live in 7th, or maybe it's just me just noticing it's 7th while you're stuck down there in the 3rd

[Everything]

Actually we live in 7th, or maybe it's just me just noticing it's 7th while you're stuck down there in the 3rd

Not really, I live in 100 density! Haha

 

Ofcourse I prefer 3th density btw. Else I would not be here. I think 4th density beings do not even experience any dispreference. They relate to us just like we relate to robots. They are amazing to us and we love to improve robots. The relating always happens on the verge of moving up one density. If we're done relating to 2 density concepts, we move up to 4th density and start relating to 3th density in timeless ways.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Everything

[Marblehead]

I have no idea what you guys are talking about. I live in Florida. I have no idea where these other places are.

 

I guess I'm just not enlightened yet.

 

Watched a movie night before last about karma and reincarnation. It sucked.

 

"One" is as non-dualistic as one can get, I think, while still acknowledging that manifest reality exists.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

We simply Live.. beyond that accurate description, there are subjective personal preferences, and.. sacred/divine number schemes are among the least probable actualities.. when you can observe/experience with a still and silent mind, you are closest to what is actual..

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

Greetings..

 

...

 

Be well..

Yep. You too.

[Everything]

Greetings..

 

We simply Live.. beyond that accurate description, there are subjective personal preferences, and.. sacred/divine number schemes are among the least probable actualities.. when you can observe/experience with a still and silent mind, you are closest to what is actual..

 

Be well..

We live and die. I think you mean we simply exist?

 

Our lifes may be beautiulfully complex, non-simplistic passionatly exciting life. Haha

Edited March 13, 2012 by Everything

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Yep. You too.

Nice!! Thanks, yes.. More to my point, though.. that there are concepts/beliefs that will inevitably lead to contentious discussions, and those topics repeatedly resurface, and.. often, it is the same cast of TTB characters, repackaging the same discussions from the previous cycle of 'enlightenment-type' concepts..

 

I favor Chuang Tzu's approach of telling stories that illustrate the practical application of particular concepts.. i have had the good fortune to have befriended a 'Zen Taoist' who is articulate and possesses great clarity.. frequently, my friend will describe a situation in story narrative and conclude with a 'koan-like' question or statement that points directly at the 'essence' of the practical application, without trying make his understanding become mine, too.. I find this so much more holistic than the bickering normally associated with these sorts of topics..

 

I'm wondering, if there is anyone willing to share a story that illustrates their understanding of enlightenment, without describing enlightenment or using the usual linguistic weapons.. just a story that suggests to the story-teller an example of an enlightened happening..

 

Be well..