Does Enlightenment have a plethora of meanings?

[Vmarco]

Does Enlightenment have a plethora of meanings?

 

　

At the suggestion of Spotless, been watching a variety of interviews at batgap.com. So far they all have one thing in common,...I find none to be enlightened,...or even truth realized,...although several have unwittingly verbalize truths,...such as, when time and separation are understood, there is a realization of reality as it is. Nothing incorrect about that,...but then puke flows out of their thought-centric mouths, with stuff like, reality as it is, is realized in the now perceived within time through one's sentience.

 

For me, I see enlightenment pretty much as Buddha, Lao Tzu, Tilopa, Avalokitesvara, etc., saw it,....enlightenment is an awareness of the present. There is no present in time, space, energy, separation, thought, or sentience. The whole of the prajnaparamita and mahamudra is about the necessary liberation of sentience to clearly understand the nature of things. If one's awareness is in time,...like those who talk of Thought's perceived now of sentient feelings,...they are no more enlightened than a Muslim on a prayer rug, or a Christian evangelizing,...that is, by the criteria left by Buddha, Lao Tzu, Tilopa, Avalokitesvara, etc.

 

There is no present in time. This fact is unchangeable. Irrefutable. But Thought is tricky. It says nothing is real but the sensual moment,...yet this "now" that Thought is pointing to is in time,...observed through the senses,...and thus is not the Now,...it is merely the perceived now of enlightened ego's.

 

The reality of the way things are, can only be realized through the present. The present to totally inexcessable to the 6 senses. The 6 senses can only observe the qualities within time.

[Chang]

Speculation on the enlightened state is just that - speculation.

 

The enlightened person knows and can describe the unenlightened state because they have been unenlightened.

 

The unenlightened person however cannot describe the enlightened state because they have yet to experience it.

[GrandmasterP]

"Anyone claiming to be 'enlightened' - isn't."

 

( Dogen)

 

There are some nice folks over on batgap with some inspiring testimonies, but 'enlightened'?

Maybe they are according to some definition of enlightenment that lives in their heads and seeks to communicate via words from their mouths.

Thing is though it cannot be defined in words, ever.

Is-ness just 'is'.

That's all there 'is'.

Try to define it and it dissolves.

 

Edited July 13, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[manitou]

Here comes another 'plethora':

 

I would say it's consciously acting from the point of Oneness, the ability to stay in the present when desired (sometimes we just have to do something else), combined with mastery over one's ego.

 

I would also say that it is one that possesses the Three Treasures.

[Vmarco]

Speculation on the enlightened state is just that - speculation.

 

The enlightened person knows and can describe the unenlightened state because they have been unenlightened.

 

The unenlightened person however cannot describe the enlightened state because they have yet to experience it.

 

Yes,...speculation on anything is speculation. However, the two descriptions used above,...1. the Buddhist/Taoist view of enlightenment from its highly regarded practitioners,...and 2. New Age purveyors, especially those who pivot from the so-called non-duality belief system,...were not intended to about speculation, but rather if either of those views should hold any value for someone truly desirous to understand the nature of enlightenment,...or should one or both have an anvil tied around them, and be thrown into an abyss.

 

For some other points. An enlightened person, if considering Buddha, Lao Tzu, Tilopa, Avalokitesvara, etc. (and the etc. most definitely does not imply Jesus, Mohammed, or any Abrahamic mystic), talked about the realization of the way things are coming from the Heart Mind,...not Head mind. Thus, those who know, surely do not gnow, according to prajnaparamita-like instructions.

 

So,...the so-called enlightenment discussed in Buddhism and Taoism extends from heart gnowledge, not cerebral knowledge.

 

Another important point about the Buddhist/Taoist view, as left by Buddha, Lao Tzu, Tilopa, Avalokitesvara, etc., is that enlightenment is synonymous with the present,...and the present can only be accessed through the heart,...which on a physical level is more likely talking about the thymus, and not the blood pump. In 5th century BCE Greece, by way of investigating the dead, the thymus was said to be the size of a grapefruit. Today, in our cerebral-centric culture, the thymus, which begins atrophying at the time children are beginning their indoctrination into the cerebral world, is about the size of a pea.

 

 

When the Greeks spoke of the Higher Mind, they pointed to the chest and said thymos,...the thymos was the seat of gnowledge. Of course, as shown by Paul of Tarsus and Mohammed, gnowledge (Heart Mind) is a direct threat to the faith-based agendas of knowledge, or Head Mind. Over the portico of theTemple of Delphi it is written "Gnothi Seauton"....Gnow Thyself. But religion has altered this to say Know Thyself,...which is not the same. Knowledge comes from psyche, the Head Mind. Those who know, do not gnow.

 

Gnowing is a feminine understanding; whereas knowing is contractually masculine. Wisdom is a masculine word, meaning an accumulation of knowledge. Bodhi and prajna are feminine words that have no use for knowledge.

 

Another point. The cerebral notion that enlightenment cannot be describe is ridiculous. Sure, Lao Tzu may have began with the Tao that can be spoke is not the real Tao,...and then went on for the rest of his life discussing the Tao. Or Sakyamuni saying that he discovered something profound and luminous beyond all concepts. He tried to communicate that something with words, but few understood.

 

Neither implied that it could not be communicated,...just that it was difficult to do so,...but can be communicated to a heart-centered person. A heart centered person can access the present. Enlightenment can be pointed to sentient, monkey minded folks,...although they will not fully understand until they let go of their monkey mind.

 

I have seen no indication of any non-dual professing entity accessing the Present. The present that they speak of is the relative or perceived present constructed by Thought. Be in this perceived moment they say, and sense your surroundings. Smell the coffee. Be human.

 

Lao Tzu calls such Thought control as Monkey Mind.

 

"the ego is a monkey catapulting through the jungle; totally fascinated by the realm of the senses....if anyone threaten it, it actually fears for its life. Let this monkey go. Let the senses go." Lao Tzu

 

So here's an absolute fact,...the senses,...and I'm speaking of all 6 senses,...CANNOT observe the Present,...it is impossible. And thus, people like Buddha, Lao Tzu, Tilopa, Avalokitesvara, etc., spoke of liberating the senses.

 

Even early science recognize the lie of the senses, when Descartes said, “All that I have tried to understand to the present time has been affected by my senses; now I know these senses are deceivers, and it is prudent to be distrustful after one has been deceived once.” Yet, the non-duality folks continually insist that being in the sensual now is enlightenment. It just does not jive with the Buddhist/Taoist view.

 

Of course,...I could buy into the sensual now version of enlightenment,...opiatized to the fragrances of momentary delusion,...such a life would be as blissful as that of a happy Christian clinging to her well underlined bible, or a mystic Muslims trance from spinning. But what would it be like to step out of the Monkey Mind? To truly behold the Present,...the absolute Present? What is it truly like to be unwoven from the delusions of separation? To have those experiences, according to Buddha, Lao Tzu, Tilopa, Avalokitesvara, etc., all one has to do is liberate (not embrace, as non-dualists do) the senses.

 

And it's even easier than it sounds. Avalokitesvara said, “As soon as one sense-organ returns to the source, All the six are liberated."

[manitou]

Nice post, VMarco!

 

But I do actually think there are some mystic Christians out there that have transcended the 'face' of the Only Through Jesus thing.

 

When you said:

 

"When the Greeks spoke of the Higher Mind, they pointed to the chest and said thymos,...the thymos was the seat of gnowledge. Of course, as shown by Paul of Tarsus and Mohammed, gnowledge (Heart Mind) is a direct threat to the faith-based agendas of knowledge, or Head Mind. Over the portico of theTemple of Delphi it is written "Gnothi Seauton"....Gnow Thyself. But religion has altered this to say Know Thyself,...which is not the same. Knowledge comes from psyche, the Head Mind. Those who know, do not gnow."

 

 

What I think is that when Jesus said 'Know Thyself', he was speaking of 'Gnow Thyself'. The I Am dwells at the bottom of our acquired personality, and it is this that he intended people to discover. Western Religion has got it all screwed up now - it's much easier for them to just wear the Jesus badge and just know they're "Saved" from some fiery pit - a fear-based proposition, to be sure. This wasn't his intent at all.

 

One bag must be emptied, the other must be filled.

Edited July 14, 2014 by manitou

[GrandmasterP]

That Magus of Stavrolos guy was a Christian ( Greek Orthodox and the local powers that be wanted to excommunicate him but Archbishop Makarios wouldn't let the local Bishops do so) and I reckon he was definitely in the zone.

Post 271 here...

http://thetaobums.com/topic/24167-what-are-you-reading-right-now/page-17

Edited July 14, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Vmarco]

Nice post, VMarco!

 

But I do actually think there are some mystic Christians out there that have transcended the 'face' of the Only Through Jesus thing.

 

When you said:

 

"When the Greeks spoke of the Higher Mind, they pointed to the chest and said thymos,...the thymos was the seat of gnowledge. Of course, as shown by Paul of Tarsus and Mohammed, gnowledge (Heart Mind) is a direct threat to the faith-based agendas of knowledge, or Head Mind. Over the portico of theTemple of Delphi it is written "Gnothi Seauton"....Gnow Thyself. But religion has altered this to say Know Thyself,...which is not the same. Knowledge comes from psyche, the Head Mind. Those who know, do not gnow."

 

 

What I think is that when Jesus said 'Know Thyself', he was speaking of 'Gnow Thyself'. The I Am dwells at the bottom of our acquired personality, and it is this that he intended people to discover. Western Religion has got it all screwed up now - it's much easier for them to just wear the Jesus badge and just know they're "Saved" from some fiery pit - a fear-based proposition, to be sure. This wasn't his intent at all.

 

One bag must be emptied, the other must be filled.

 

 

Yes,...we like to believe that the religious hero's we were indoctrinated into were all "gnowing,"...even though the facts show otherwise. If we play pick-n-choose with theo-beliefs,...sure,...Jesus was a remarkable person,...if we look at all the facts,...Jesus' purpose to fulfill his God's law (Matt 5:17)....the laws of his clearly murderous, pro-slavery, vacillant, petty, racist, conditional God. And amazingly, a God who is so insecure, that it demands to be worshiped, obeyed and prayed to.

 

There is much to be said about gnosis however.

 

Gnosticism, the original form of Christianity, arose from a Greco-Egyptian philosophical fusion, as mentioned above. Gnosticism was an important part of the neo-Christian construct. Gnosis was not an outgrowth of neo-Christianity, as revisionists suggest. Today’s Christian persuasions are a product of Gnostic Christianity, not the other way around. We could say that Christianity was built on the DNA of Gnosticism. This neo-Christian fabrication from Gnosis and Krst, from gnowledge and the Anointed One, can also be substantiated through the Book of Enoch, from which over a hundred phrases were introduced into the New Testament. Enoch was written before 170 BCE, and several Aramaic copies were purportedly found among the Dead Sea fragments of the Gnostic gospels from Qumran. These Gnostics, from the time of the Julian clan of emperors, maintained that Christ was not a man in human form, as claimed in the gospels, but an individual goal of an initiate to realize a Christ Consciousness, the Logos. The Logos represents a mystical rebirth without sexual union, an awakening to a reality beyond duality, a palingenesis from the dream of perception. Duality is inherently a sexual reality, in which consciousness is fragmented. Christ Consciousness is an unfragmented consciousness, in which there is neither hope nor fear. The Jesus as defined in the gospels could not have been a Christ.

 

Neither Paul nor his followers could grasp gnosis, that is, to gnow themselves through the heart of essence. Like many today, frozen in their conceptual experiences, Paul needed a more physical, hope-driven, fear-based path. The ignorant respond to hope and fear. Thus, from the expectations infused through the Pauline church, the concept of a personified Christ grew and entered the groupthink of the anti-Gnostic Paulines and those, like the Roman aristocrats, who wished to exploit it.

 

Before 95 CE, when history suggests that Apollonius died and rose from the dead, there is no mention of a personified Christ or the four gospels. There is no known contemporary scriptural record of the life and times of Jesus/Yeshua. For neo-Christians, so fond of quoting Bible babble, what wasn’t said in the first century that which is curiously missing, is as interesting as the fabrications and contradictions of what was said then. For example, in the writings of Clement Romanus, the Pauline bishop of Rome circa 95 CE, there is not even a tinge of gospel references. Yet Luke 1:1–2 specifically implies that many eyewitness followers had already been writing. Adding to the intrigue, Clement, whom Tertullian and Jerome suggest was the direct successor of Peter, was also said to be a Flavian, that is, a relative of the men who were then the emperors of the Rome.

 

Sciolistic Christians vaunt that the historian Josephus, in two remarks that have been taken out of context, verifies that Jesus/Yeshua existed. Today, however, even conservative scholars agree that those quotations from chapters 18 and 20 of the Jewish Antiquities, a history of the Jews, were later Christian interpolations. Such conclusions are consistent with Origen, an ante-Nicene father, who in the third century CE indicated that such a declaration from Josephus of a Jesus Christ did not exist in his copy of the Jewish Antiquities. Furthermore, no one else before the fourth century CE ever mentioned such an important reference from this often-cited source. Another claim by neo-Christians as to Jesus Christ’s historicity comes fromTacitus’ Annals 15.44, the comment of how Emperor Nero persecuted Christians after Rome’s fire of 64 CE was actually about Gnostic Christians, worshipers of Sarapis, not followers of Jesus or Paul. It was these Christians, the original Christians, whom the author of the second-century Gospel of Matthew called false Christians. Neo-Christians appropriated the name Christianity, as they lifted terms from most of the cultures that they absorbed.

 

Note: That in his (circa 110 CE) letter to the Consul Servianus, Hadrian (71–138 CE), who was the governor of Syria under Trajan, called the Sarapian leaders “bishops of Christ.” Up until the beginning of the Second Century, the Egypto-Greek Sarapians, including those in Syria, called themselves Christians and bishops of Christ. There was no reason for Rome to kill the followers of Paul and the Gospels which arose from Mark.

[Vmarco]

But I do actually think there are some mystic Christians out there that have transcended the 'face' of the Only Through Jesus thing.

 

 

I have read an argument that Theresa of Avila broke through the hoax of religion and mysticism. Adyashanti said that "the mystical experience is the highest form of a "me" experience"

 

It is said that when reading a religious book you can tell by the way the author expresses himself/herself if they've broken through, i.e., they realize the hoax but they're still promoting it.

 

Some say that St. Theresa of Avila, who wrote a number of books, broke through to the full realization. It is said that she totally stopped reading religious literature. Her whole adult life was spent constantly reading and writing about the Lord. Suddenly, she completely stopped it.

 

Did she realize her visions, her trances, everything was coming from her inner self. Her priest confessor, who had always heard her confessions, just could not get over why all of a sudden she stopped all religious reading...for that had been her passion in life.

 

Once a person breaks through the hoax of theism to realize there is no higher authority looking out for you, you miss the relationship you thought you had with God. The thought that reality is all there is can seem cold. It takes away the mystery and love that communication with God provided. Reality seems very cold at first.

 

So few finally break through to realize it's all a hoax. Many, many people live their whole life caught up living in a way they shouldn't be living, acting and doing things which go against themselves and their self interests.

 

It is extremely difficult to make the breakthrough. It is said to have taken St. Theresa fourteen years.

 

Keep in mind,…if Theresa of Avila broke through the hoax of beliefs,…she did not do it as a Christian mystic,…she did it by letting go of her Christian mystic “me story.”

Edited July 15, 2014 by Vmarco

[manitou]

It's occurred to me that this new Pope the Catholics have may be an enlightened one. His humility, his incredible love.

But this is certainly not to say that all Catholic Priests are enlightened. Whoa.

 

I agree with you that it can be seen when an enlightened one writes - all it takes is to open the book any place and see if the love is shining between the words. There are many on this forum who have all the 'information', but the love does not shine between their words.

 

It takes enlightened eyes to see enlightenment.

 

Many of here in the West have transcended the Jesus story. Personally, I had to totally walk away from it (being brought up with it) and I embraced the shamanic arts instead. And then I had to re-examine the Christian thing so that I wasn't carrying around a resentment towards it. But lo and behold - if you follow any path to the end you will end up in the Void, the hub at the center of the wheel. Even christianity - once you come to realize that Jesus was a fellow that found the Void. and he found it by Gnowing himself. He was an Essene - the more mystical branch of his religion.

 

What do you consider the Christian mystic "me story"?

[Vmarco]

It's occurred to me that this new Pope the Catholics have may be an enlightened one. His humility, his incredible love.

But this is certainly not to say that all Catholic Priests are enlightened. Whoa.

 

 

What do you consider the Christian mystic "me story"?

 

The "me story" is who one thinks they are, not who one is. The "me" cannot see things as they are,...but only as the "me" seeing them. To paraphrase Buddha,...suffering is a consequence of the desire for things to be other than are. The "me" hears that, and thinks it must accept things as the "me" sees them,...but that is not what Buddha is saying.

 

I see the statement "...and see if the love is shining between the words," as accurate, but problematic for the majority who are predisposed to various ideas about love.

 

Sure,...their is religious love, "love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things", 1 Cor 13:7. Yet honesty shows that this in nothing but the submission, devotion, expectation and suffering to the conditions of their religions brewed beliefs.

 

There is also Passionate or emotional love, biological love, chemical love, etc. Yet all of these are conditional.

 

Unconditional love is different,....expose it,...and a faith-driven man will kill it,...least it kills his "me story." Genuine bodhisattvas are a good example of love. Their commitment is for the end of suffering, through the ONLY means to end suffering,...the liberation of sentient beings. That is to say,...the end of the attachment to human-ness,...the 6 senses.

 

Pope Francis is nowhere close to enlightment. I'd give him at least a hundred more lifetimes,...within which time, there may not be time remaining for his enlightment.

 

Many have a dishonest notion that everyone will eventually wake up,....yet, where do they get this notion? All anyone can honestly agree to, is that there is this life time, and in this life time, there is a possibility to awake,...that is,...escape the delusion of sentience. Some mystics, like GI Gurdjieff, said it is unlikely that 99.6% of humanity will never come close to waking up.

 

As the leader of one of the most deluded, dogmatic, faith-based institutions on Earth, the likelihood of Pope Francis realizing any level of truth is millions of times more remote as winning the lottery.

 

Nevertheless,...I certainly enjoy hearing of his stirring the pot,...out of his commitment to his faith,...not out of anything close to Unconditional Love.

 

No faith anywhere, can enter the Unconditional. What could possibily be more ridiculous than an idea that the conditional (any belief system) could enter the Unconditional, and the Unconditional remaining Unconditional.

[manitou]

Gotcha' on the "me story". It's anything but the Witness State.

[Vmarco]

Gotcha' on the "me story". It's anything but the Witness State.

 

?

[GrandmasterP]

"What do you consider the Christian mystic "me story?"

 

How about Julian of Norwich.....

 

"And in this he showed me something small, no bigger than a hazelnut, lying in the palm of my hand.

 

In this little thing I saw three properties. The first is that God made it, the second is that God loves it, the third is that God preserves it. But what did I see in it? It is that God is the creator and protector and the lover. For until I am substantially united to him, I can never have perfect rest or true happiness, until, that is, I am so attached to him that there can be no created thing between my God and me."

 

She was the first woman to have a book published in English.

Anchoress she was who lived in a hermitage next to a church in Norwich ( church and cell are still there albeit rebuilt after being bombed in WW2 ) Her cell had a window out onto a marketplace so she was quite a sociable hermit.

Edited July 15, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Vmarco]

"What do you consider the Christian mystic "me story?"

 

How about Julian of Norwich.....

 

"And in this he showed me something small, no bigger than a hazelnut, lying in the palm of my hand.

 

In this little thing I saw three properties. The first is that God made it, the second is that God loves it, the third is that God preserves it. But what did I see in it? It is that God is the creator and protector and the lover. For until I am substantially united to him, I can never have perfect rest or true happiness, until, that is, I am so attached to him that there can be no created thing between my God and me."

 

 

 

Sure,...that is a example of a "mystic me story," ...although much too many faith-based conditions to even be close to Heart Mind. First of all, God is a condition, and thus separated from love. Sure, in the late 2nd Century apology 1John it says their God is love. However, when viewing the full length and breadth of the Bible, their Patriarch is clearly a murderous, pro-slavery, vacillant, petty, racist, conditional God. And amazingly, a God who is so insecure, that it demands to be worshiped, obeyed and prayed to. All conditions.

 

How are conditions supposed to enter the Unconditional?

 

God defined (websters unabridged):

1. A being (condition) conceived as the omnipotent (condition), omniscient (condition) originator and ruler (condition) of the universe (condition), the principal object (condition) of faith and worship (conditions) in monotheistic religions (conditions).

2. The force (condition), effect (condition), or a manifestation or aspect (conditions) of this being (condition).

3. A being of supernatural powers (condition) or attributes (conditions), believed in and worshiped (conditions) by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality (conditions).

4. An image of supernatural being; an idol (conditions).

5. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed (condition).

A very handsome man (condition).

A powerful ruler or despot (conditions).

 

For some contrast:

 

Buddha said, "the Tathagata does not come and go." (Unconditional)

Lao Tzu said, "the Tao doesn't come and go." (Unconditional)

 

Julian of Norwich claims to seek truth,...but where is truth in change? We know through all theo-beliefs that God is a changeable God. So what authentic seeker of truth would seek truth through a changing God? Not Buddha or Lao Tzu.

 

"Do not go about worshipping deities and religious institutions as the source of the subtle truth. To do so is to place intermediaries between yourself and source, and to make yourself a beggar who looks outside for a treasure that is hidden inside his own breast ...the world's religions serve only to strengthen attachments to false concepts such as self and other, life and death, heaven and earth, and so on. Those who become entangled in these false ideas are prevented from perceiving the Integral Oneness." Lao Tzu

 

Shakyamuni Buddha may have been the first to define freethought when he said in the Kalama Sutra, “Do not accept anything by mere tradition. . . Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. . . Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your preconceived notions.” Buddha taught irreligion; that is, to not accept "sets of belief."

For many, especially those indoctrinated into theo-beliefs,...mysticism is quite attractive,...perhaps even an excellent stepping stone leading to the surrender of all faith-based beliefs.

 

TTB's General Forum is a good place for mystics to discuss mysticism with others of like mind. I prefer the Pit,...but was forced to settle for Off Topic as a forum to discuss truth.

 

“Truth, like light, blinds. Falsity, on the contrary, is a beautiful twilight that enhances every object.” Albert Camus

[GrandmasterP]

Yep, mysticism's a fine way point along any path.

Even sociable hermit/mystics such as Julian of Norwich have more time than regular householders to work on cultivation.

That's nice work for anyone suited to it.

 

Edited July 16, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Vmarco]

Yep, mysticism's a fine way point along any path.

Even sociable hermit/mystics such as Julian of Norwich have more time than regular householders to work on cultivation.

That's nice work for anyone suited to it.

 

 

Yes,....the distraction of work to live, or live to work, can certainly slow down any progress towards awakening. Most (ordinary folks) opt for stuff like this:

 

Some philosophies say,...it takes 10,000 lifetimes for an ordinary person to awaken,...it takes 1000 lifetimes for an ascetic,...100 lifetimes for a monk (hermit/mystic), 10 lifetimes for a yogi,...but just a single lifetime for one on the Short Path.

 

http://www.paulbrunton.org/notebooks/23/1

 

A question could be,...will there be other lifetimes available for awakening? What if this reality ends within this lifetime, or the next,....will there still be an opportunity for everyone to wake up?

 

Talk about speculation. No, not the speculation of will there be many lifetimes left to awaken,...but how many upon hearing this, would decide to wake up in this lifetime.