The word enlightenment has been misused by a lot of people.
Enlightenment, they say, is achieving something which wasn't previously there (in the human consciousness).
While 'my' contention is that human enlightenment is about restoration. If we can restore a human spirit (consciousness) to its original pristine condition - we have bestowed it its enlightenment.
Think of a lake by Alpine hills. Its surface is as still and as reflective as that of a mirror. It is reflecting the sky, the Alpine forests, the roads and people walking on it, a bird maybe, the yonder clouds and suddenly a few drops of rain vibrate its surface and simultaneously annihilate the mirrorlike quality of it...
Every (good) child is enlightened. Their consciousness is as still as the surface of a quiet lake - and therefore they receive reality without any distortion. If we can achieve a state where we are receiving reality as it truly is - completely free of worldly aberrations - we have achieved enlightenment.
Direct connections: You come back home with one of your friends. He hands you over a newly bought DVD of a newly released motion picture. It starts raining. Your friends walks outside to the porch, takes a chair and he is enjoying the rain. Meanwhile, you turn on the TV set but it doesn't show up any picture. You check the cords and ensure that the TV is connected to the sockets. But nothing helps. The TV doesn't function.
You check your parent's diary and find the numbers of a few electronics technicians. You select one number and dial it. But due to an error of the telecom server - your call takes an unusual direction.
Within a minute, it travels through all the major telecommunications terminals of the 50 states - and is then instantly sent into space to process and route the rogue signal via a dedicated satellite. The satellite's network simulator attempts to fix the error - but fails. It sends the signal to a ground station in Germany. Five minutes have passed by now.
While in the ground station in Germany - the error of the signal is fixed - and is immediately sent to space again to another satellite to route it to its destination device through a high-speed terminal based in Argentina. Within 30 seconds, your signal reaches a communications terminal in Honduras through a fiber optic cable - and is then sent to a major terminal based in Florida.
Ten minutes have passed by now. You have almost lost your patience and is about to disconnect the call - just when - you abruptly hear the Titanic-theme song, being played outside in your porch. Your friend, who was enjoying the rain outside, pulls the door and enters the living room with a mobile phone in his right hand!
He troubleshoots the TV set. He explains to you that he had to learn to repair electronic products during his internship at Sony, while he was in Japan.
This is what is called third eye opening. This is enlightenment.
Actually, it's just another synonym for learning, understanding, knowledge, wisdom, etc.
How you managed to go from that story to a conclusion of magical, invisible eyes is astonishing, created by a very overactive imagination.
And btw, you misused the word, "enlightenment", just as you said.
You might have contributed something substantial.
Contributed something substantial? The OP was void of this. The failed use of a term, followed by a silly story leading to a magical conclusion. Yeah, that's really substantial.
You might like to reread your statements. hahahaha
Prodio… Listen. Even as far back as Socrates, they were discussing last lives. In Plato's Meno, Socrates and Meno discussed knowledge as something recollected.. that knowledge of virtue spcifically comes from… past lives... that true knowing and goodness are innate within the soul… isn't that interesting? What you have brought here is way before its time, obviously. Keep plugging away.
The previous lives of Jesus and John are mentioned in the Bible in a matter of fact way. The belief in reincarnation is as old as the hills and illustrates the immortal reality of the soul. We are not God, but made out of God…
quieting the lake is vital. I agree, "If we can achieve a state where we are receiving reality as it truly is - completely free of worldly aberrations - we have achieved enlightenment."
MSTM makes sense to me.
PS you might like:
George Harrison - The Last Performance (John Fugelsang)
Well, see there - I called it pretty darned close a couple of weeks ago. I sensed an Eastern religion thing.
There is no real evidence that there is a third eye, associated with the pineal gland or not, that has any "special" abilities, but if it does, it likely comes from evolution in a manner similar to a lizard's third eye.
That said - experiences to date unexplained by science associated with a fictional third eye - can be prompted by trances, drugs, repeated noises, etc.
Folks since the dawn of time have ascribed supernatural meanings to things beyond their understanding.
But - if it makes them happy - and they aren't harming anyone - I say - whatever floats their boat.
Real enlightenment comes when supernatural beliefs finally fall away.
Would you buy a new boat when the old one is still seaworthy?
This is not new. It is based on knowledge from the higher ages long, long ago. Your question is fair, however.
I know you have been to india and were disappointed. I have not been to india and am still swayed by Eastern philosophy/metaphysics and esoteric teachings. Prodio and I agree, in many ways, on spiritual topics.
What is a "higher age"? Simply a time long ago, when people were even more ignorant than now about the universe and our own bodies?
1. Plato wrote about Atlantis. He described many advanced inventions. Many have speculated that souls from Atlantis reincarnated in America and contributed to the technological advancements of the the last 150 years.
2. A golden age in India ended in 6700 BCE. It had existed for centuries. Higher and lower ages are cyclical according to Eastern Astrology. We are presently at the end of a dark age and we are just now going into a more enlightened age. We have a lot to learn. We are still kind of entrenched in archaic thought.
This explanation is according to a book I am reading about spiritual interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita.
Take It Or Leave It.
I understand that, Kathryn, and I respect your way of posting and getting your point across. I know what it's like to seek answers and then, as time goes on, seek deeper -- further.
Since I never rule anything out I suppose something could come along that would change my mind - I don't foresee it at this point in my life - but I won't say it's impossible.
For the past 150 years or so, humans have been reaching backwards for answers not provided by traditional religions like Christianity. That's understandable. Because it was so long ago - it seems esoteric in comparison - and alluring. The rise in popularity of paganism and wicca peaked in the 70s and then started to decline. The new "old" thing is eastern philosophy. I was younger - and foolish - and I took the peaceful nature of Gandhi at face value. It didn't dawn on me at the time that what I was believing was based on media hype. It wasn't until I dug deeper - found that Gandhi's certain "commitments" resulted in aberrational behavior that I had to admit - he was no different from any other man who claimed to know the "truth."
That said - I fully support the idea that belief that comforts is not to be discounted. Many people turn to spiritual belief to soothe the loss of a loved one, and you know what? Life can throw some pretty big curve balls so I don't begrudge them their bit of comfort.
I can see that you and another poster here appear to have some things in common, but I've not seen you separate out children with only *some* being "good." To me - and this is just my own opinion - that's a red flag. A big one. If you believe in a Creator of any sort, then to believe that some children are not good indicates that your Creator plays favorites and is biased. See - that's one of the factors inherent in the history of all religious wars from time immemorial - the idea that your Creator prefers one set of people over another. You, on the other hand, appear to be much more inclusive and you seem to accept the good in virtually everyone. Children, the world over, are seen as innocent and good. When someone varies from that - no matter what kind of truth they claim they are privy to - it's concerning.
David Koresh claimed to be a truth-bringer, and yet he bedded 12 year olds. In my experience, those who interact and question - as you do - are beneficial to others. But, those who claim or insinuate that they hold some mysterious key to the knowledge of the Universe - typically do not.
That said - I do enjoy reading these threads and commenting when time permits.
Perhaps you didn't realize that the words that are italicized in the 'opening post' of this thread - might been made so due to specific reasons.
You should have asked for clarifications if you were unsure about them.
I understand that you have some personal grievances and some unfortunate experiences regarding spirituality. But is this thread the right place to bring up those issues? As far as I know, there are healthier ways to deal with them.
You can start a thread yourself pointing and questioning the legitimacy of spirituality, of spiritual practices and practitioners. Such a discussion might even enlighten both you and the rest of us.
Or, you might seek 'clarifications' (if you really need that) in real-life settings.
These would be more advisable methods to deal with those issues - than the one that you're currently involved in.
I'm not here to participate with you (or with anyone) in your prescribed format. That might have delighted some people, but, unfortunately, that's not possible.
I had conversations with you quite recently. And they didn't really shed a very good light.
Thanks for the response, Prodio. No insult was intended so no need to defend against the same.
As to you question of starting a new thread---perhaps one day when I have the time to follow up faithfully and not leave the posters hanging. That's not possible at this point.
However, I see your point of trying to address the OP and so I would like to ask you if you know what the "Age of Enlightenment" was and what it denoted? You see, enlightenment doesn't come in a single methodology. Enlightenment means the "freeing of one's thoughts," and from experience I can tell you that when supernatural-ism dropped away - it was enlightening indeed. Perhaps I've given you the wrong impression - my experiences were not "unfortunate." At they time they were confusing, but because clarity often comes with time - they turned out to be the most fortunate of all experiences.
When I once said that where you are - I was - and where I am - you will one day be - I meant that sincerely. You seem to be a seeker, and your journey is not over.
As far as children - they may "face" different circumstances in their lives - but they are all equally "good." In fact, most adults are equally good, it's just the rules and standards set forth by humankind that distinguish what is good or bad.
You are now speaking in a completely different tone - or I am mistaking.
Good to see you here responding time after time though you do not have sufficient time to create a forum thread to clear things up for yourself.
Please do not attack spirituality or any spiritual practitioner if you are uncertain about the whole subject. You do seem to. Otherwise why do you kind of 'hover' over these spirituality threads when you know that the entire thing is false and worthless?
Please quote where I mentioned anything, in the Opening Post of this thread, that is related to, or itself is, supernatural in essence.
I'm not attempting to predict about you. So you might.
As for children. I have already clarified what I had to.
My tone has not changed - I just call it as I see it.
And - I'm not attacking spirituality - I already said it can be very comforting to those in times of grief or need.
About not starting a thread - yes, sometimes I have multiple times throughout the day to post - but other times I am not here for a week or longer. It's just the nature of my life.
I am glad to see that you clarified (to some extent) what you meant about children but I reject that assertion because it is based on a flawed premise.
I did however, address - as you requested - one of your italicized terms' "enlightenment" and expounded on the fact that the term means to "see clearly" and that is going to mean different things to different people. The Age of Enlightenment brought liberation from religious dogma - it opened minds and hearts.
That was accomplished by rising above religion, although I credit you for saying that religion and spirituality are not the same thing.
I'm not coming down on your beliefs, just as I know you aren't coming down on my lack of them. I think it's great that you share your experiences but keep in mind that forums are to exchange ideas. We have great debates here. I may end up on your side at some point, keeping in mind that I'm not "against" you now.
You have started to remove a lot of points now. Or you might be just escaping them.
You have already attacked spirituality and spiritual practitioners numerous times that I had the fortune to converse with you. There are such 'gross' examples even on this thread. You seem to have a tendency to, kind of, disregarded the whole subject as being fake. While you are not sure about what spirituality is actually about.
It would be considered 'civilized' to clear your doubts regarding a subject than just to jump over a discussion and say: "This is all bulls**t!". Such a behavior is unacceptable where someone has put a lot of sincere effort to further their understanding. If you don't have the time for such an endeavor - then I advise you to save it wisely than 'waste' over these (my) honest threads.
I have clarified what I meant by the term 'good children'. And you have offered nothing against my explanation that can be called to have any 'reason' in it. You have offered your personal sentiments concerning your voyage to India, and you consider those personal reflections to be (absolutely) conclusive while evaluating critical human (intellectual) activities. Again, you have complaints but you can't back them up.
As a side note, I feel obliged to mention that though I have not been to India, but I had a few 'Bengali' friends from the community where I lived early on in my life.
I must say that there is very little difference between Indian caste system and American racism - apart from the fact that the Indian racism (caste system) is embedded, sanctioned and protected through their religion - while ours is on open display.
If you consider Indian caste system to be irrational and inhumane - then you must first study the racism that has been prevailing the United States, South Africa, Australia, Argentina, Brazil and every other place where white man stepped himself.
I do not support racism. But I find it inadvisable to conclude - under the influence of a textbook or a university lecture - that a five minute analysis is sufficient to conclude that there is no valid rational basis behind the phenomenon that we conveniently label as racism or caste system.
I again request you, please quote where I mentioned anything, in the Opening Post of this thread, that is related to, or itself is, supernatural in essence.
I never requested you to explain or elaborate any of the italicized terms that can be found in the opening post of this thread. I simply mentioned that perhaps you didn't realize that there were specific reasons to italicize those words. And - ironically - you based almost half of your complaints on the 'strength' of one such misconceived word ("good children").
This forum thread has nothing to do with European Enlightenment. And you might feel free to understand that others might have relevant information as well that such a thing happened somewhere in the world. The enlightenment that I am talking about is of completely different nature. Please don't juxtapose seemingly identical events and conceptions just for the cause of raising your voice. That practice complicates things rather than simplifies them.
I do not have any affiliation with any religion whatsoever. I discarded Christianity at a very early age and I had to pass through many a labyrinths to arrive at my current understanding. So please do not repeat again and again that I am religious or something alike.
If you do not have any 'belief', then, I congratulate you for that rare achievement. But I request you not to forcefully impart the idea that I, the 'unfortunate' original poster of this thread, hold any of those. I know things. I do not believe. Please keep this in mind during any further interaction (if any).
We have already exchanged a lot of ideas here. And we, presumably, had a 'great' discussion.
But - I never expected you (or anyone else) - to come at my 'side' to call me a champion. If I craved that - I would have attempted for such attention from someone in real life.
Hi Prodio, thanks for your response.
I haven't changed or removed any "points." I don't "attack" spirituality - I do believe there is no Creator - or any benign intelligence outside ourselves - that is true. But, stating my views and relating my experiences isn't an attack.
I'm trying to discuss this rationally with you - and I'm just relating my opinions. I'm not attacking you. You, on the other hand - seem to be strongly attacking me!
I'm not going to pretend to accept your "good" children philosophy, I've already explained why I believe it is wrong. I can't pretend that some children have more "worth" (your word) than others. I fully understand your explanation - I just reject it.
My experience and reflections on India are just that - my reflections. I offer them mainly to Kathryn, who seems interested.
But - I think we've found some common ground. I agree that a caste system is very much akin to racism. Like you - I do not support either. The caste system is steeped in religious overtones in India. That's the only reason I brought it up.
When I say "supernatural" I mean "based on spiritual/etheric concepts that exist outside the realm of what we can explain." I'm not talking about hocus-pocus or anything like that.
I won't expound any more on the Age of Enlightenment, except to say it wasn't limited to Europe, the US was founded on many of its principles.
I hear you that you are not religious. Thank you for that clarification. Somewhere, I thought I saw you expounding Buddhism, and I must have misunderstood.
I don't want to get on the wrong side of you. I think many of your threads are interesting. You say you "know" and I will add that I also "know." I'll probably post on some of your threads in the future - but since I know my knowledge rubs you the wrong way - I'll try to limit my posts to replies to other posters. Perhaps that will help. Unless, you post a response directly to me. Fair 'nuff?
If these were all merely misunderstandings, then I can easily forget them. And, I feel, that most of them indeed actually have been misunderstandings between two inquisitive people.
But - I have two things to ask.
1) Please explain how these statements apply to the opening post of this thread:
"Well, see there - I called it pretty darned close a couple of weeks ago. I sensed an Eastern religion thing.
Folks since the dawn of time have ascribed supernatural meanings to things beyond their understanding. But - if it makes them happy - and they aren't harming anyone - I say - whatever floats their boat. Real enlightenment comes when supernatural beliefs finally fall away."
2) I want you to explain the following, and quote the exact phrase where I have asked for money from anyone:
"That's a good point, Wilderness. Most Christians or "spiritual" folks tend to remain faithful to their beliefs, but in a relatively quiet, respectful way. Not in a power-struggle sense.
I guess that's what makes it seem odd that we've had a new poster come in here - insulting - trying to start fights - denigrating and asking for money to spread his personal flavor of spirituality.
It's totally the opposite of what we've come to expect from those who "feel" enlightenment, so it's odd. Little "one liners," ostensibly intended to read as mysterious or cryptic, appear to be just so much foot stomping."
I'm happy to answer your questions, Prodio. I think communication is the key to better understanding one another and I feel as though internet communications are often misinterpreted whereas if two people were speaking in person, they would see facial expressions, body language and intonation that gave them a better sense of the speaker's intent.
To answer your first question - not long after you got here - I mentioned that what you were extolling was based in Eastern philosophy, or religion. When, in this thread (in the OP) you ended with the Third Eye Opening, I felt quite justified in my earlier statement. Whereas I know the TEO has roots to ancient Egypt and to the Hebrew authors of the Torah, today, it is most closely linked with anja chakra in Hindi or the Buddhist's Eye of Shiva. So - when you said that - I felt as though I made a good guess.
Then, because this thread was about enlightment - and you related it to Third Eye Opening, I mentioned that people have done this for ages, but I saw no harm in it - as long as they harm no one else.
To answer your second question - we have to go back to one of your earliest posts - and, I admit - this was one of the posts that made me wonder.
You wrote: "I can't 'show' that over the internet. In real-life setting - yes. These things require direct physical contact.
And that requires a 'little' organizational setup, a little funding, and - most importantly - the willingness and courage to make a positive change in the world.
I'm on the way..."
That made it sound as if you were here looking to recruit people - to ask for their money - and that then you would teach them in a real life setting. I'm sure that when you look back on that - you can see how it reads. Perhaps you did not mean it as it came across.
So - those are the answers to your two questions, although I would also mention that you may have inadvertently alienated some here with threads that ask if "a sane person" can believe that bacteria becomes human and comments that suggest atheists aren't really atheists. It felt as though you came in, guns a'blazin, targeting all of these silly atheists that don't know squat.
I promise you that we are sane. We've been living a good long time and we've formed our own conclusions just as you have formed yours. What you find enlightening - we find restrictive and we find our own truth to be the light in our lives. We are doctors, teachers, musicians, carpenters and inventors.
We love life, we love our earth, our children, our friends and we love the constellations as much as you do. To us, they are perhaps even more precious because of the very short time we get to enjoy them. We are not the unknowing "ruts" you think we are.
There is no such thing as a 'third eye', literally. The term 'third eye' is a metaphor. I used it because I found no other fitting word that can describe a certain condition of the human consciousness that I'm trying to denote. A condition during which a person's awareness expands dramatically.
I can attest the fact that this condition is real. It has happened to myself, and I have witnessed this happening to others who are close to me. We can trigger a simpler version of this awareness expansion by simply choosing a person - who has never been anywhere outside out his native country - and giving him/her tickets and expenses to travel, say, the European Union, for a month.
As I have known - there are higher levels of this phenomenon, and I'm working to find practical methods to induce (whenever we wish) this condition in a human being.
I must clarify here that I have scarcely read any (Hindu, Buddhist etc) literature related to the phenomenon of 'third eye opening'. I tried, once or twice, I must confess. But I couldn't bear them. They were too unscientific and were not of my taste. But, yes, I must say that it seems as though they all are trying to convey something similar. And that spikes much interest.
I take 'spirituality' seriously. I think that this subject needs to be developed. I have progressed up to a certain level, and I think I can start to practice it publicly, though I have more to explore. I can not convey here everything, and you have already stated some of those reasons at the opening of your current reply.
Yes, I do require money to progress at that. But I am not so inconsiderate as to ask for money from a online platform where people all over the world are flocking in hope to earn one cent per adsense click. I had to mention it because I was 'pushed' badly at that specific discussion. I saw it fitting.
If I knew that it might look different from a different standpoint - I might have restrained myself.
I use hubpages because it's a 'wild' platform. I have certain connections who can discuss these things with me on my own level. But, those discussions have their drawbacks. In that setting people tend to become too shy to even assert themselves. While some 'others' tend to establish themselves as almighty intellectuals who have created multiple universes at their whims - and now can't bear someone's 'ignorance' of quantum mechanics.
While here, on hubpages' forums, anyone can call another a moron - and still continue the discussion. There is much freedom and more candid humor. And because we can't see each other - there is very little possibility of real damages or loss of relationships.
I fooled around with some of the self-proclaimed 'experts' when I first joined this site. It's not my natural tendency to play sarcasm on someone else. But I couldn't resist myself from making a little humor out of these hubpages physicists and evolutionary biologists (there are more, you know).
I consider love to be of utmost importance in my life. Family is vital. Friendships are also vital. In the final analysis, if we take up that much analysis, we all find out that we are all going to die someday. I am trying to understand the phrase between these two events. My perspective is different. But I hope we both can bear that much difference as long as we find ourselves here, together.
Good isolating of the Difficulties! Children are born "good" in that they are developing according to nature.
They (intensely) love their parents and are naturally and willingly obedient to them. This has to be understood first and foremost by all parents if we are to change the world for the better.
I would have done injustice to reality had I said that every child is 'same' and equally receptive of spirituality - and - that they all come into this world with same moral virtues. I can obviously say that just to please others. But I would be deluding myself.
Yes - they are all equal - both in terms of the constitution of the land, and from the standpoint of humanity. But they are neither same nor of equal worth.
There are - so to speak - some default 'tendencies' built into the soul of every child. They can not easily rise above those tendencies. They can not reject them. But they are destined to accept them and operate accordingly. Because it's not what they have - but it's who they are. You can find this anywhere in any classroom in any school, or in any neighborhood.
Some might argue that this is not the case. But, they are free to 'test' it under real life situations - if they haven't already.
And I agree with you, Kathryn. Perhaps it's my reluctance to define children, who are in this world at the mercy of our teachings, as "good" or otherwise. All must be "good" or it is our view, and not the child who is flawed.
You are contradicting yourself here. Besides, you have deprived your earlier assertions.
Yes, they were just born. They have no sin. How could they?
And sin aside, because sin denotes something that removes a human from what others claim is their birthright, all people are of equal "worth," children and adults alike.
In India, I found people divided by their social standing. That was not just considered "okay" it was encouraged by many. While the upper classes looked at the lower classes with disdain and indifference, I refused to do so. I befriended, to my host's chagrin, those some there call "untouchable." And what I found was a richness of mind, character, love and desire, far greater than those of the class that was hosting me because they'd lost their natural inclination to see all humans as equal. The desire of those "least of all" was greater and purer than those who take life and their possessions for granted.
It's not about the road you travel - it's about the kind of person you are while on that road.
That's fantastic! One of the best things I've heard in a long time. Thank you!
I'm a firm believer that all of us have much more in common than we think we do. As I've mentioned before, your posts are always refreshing and I always enjoy reading them!
I agree that we have way more in common. It often surprises me that we spend so much more time a arguing about our differences than working together to do the things we all agree need to be done...and then we wonder why important things get ignored. It seems to me that we spend so much time blaming others for what's wrong that we don't have time to do together those things that could make them right.
You are right, Prodio, about the third eye not being an actual eye. In my actual observation it is the point of awareness within the mind where the I of our being is situated. The I of our being is not situated randomly moving throughout the mind and senses as it seems to do... and actually does. The only way to perciieve your soul/ self is to quiet the the action on the usually scattered attention of the I, by focusing it where it originates. This spot is truly at the point between and slightly above the eyebrows. The more you focus on this spot the stronger your awareness and ability to master the mind and body. Daily practice is recommended. How? Meditation! it is not weird. It is not bad. If you focus on God, that is giving God full attention, body, mind and Spirit…( Your own little spirit (The I) focused on, therefore intuiting/perceiving, His Big Spirit) as mentioned by Jesus.
So It really should be refered to as the first eye, rather than third eye.
So to recap,
single eye = "eye" = I = awareness.
I + God = knowing everything Knowing everything = enlightenment
Enlightenment + Bliss or "Heaven"
So, Heaven IS within, as Jesus taught.
Really? And, here I thought all along that spot was the navel?
Perhaps no one - who is civilized - would appreciate that reply of yours.
So, are you saying those very same civilized people don't realize that focusing on a spot just above the eyebrows produces exactly the same results as staring at ones navel?
You, E.H. are apparently closed off to what Prodio is trying to bring forth.
Why? Because you have no sense of life being anything other than the way it is. You are certainly allowed to live your life any way you so choose. We are actually keyboarding to those who are slightly interested or curious about the nature of enlightenment. So, we shall probably be ignoring your comments as they do not contribute anything of any interest what-so-ever to the discussion. I probably won't even see you next time.
Prodio was being very generous there!
He is referring to the common saying: meditating on one's navel. As in wasting time... which it indeed is. LOL
A good way to find the place where Your Self originates is this: Go to an amusement park whch has a ride that goes up, down and up-sidedown and is really scary. After you get in the ride and are safely buckled in, determine to stay in your *single I position* ( - located inbetween and just above the eyebrows within your mind.) Then, while on the ride, do not pay attention to the ride at all. (-only Self within) If you get off the ride and have no awareness of what you (sans body awareness) went through on that ride, you will have sucessfully stayed focused on that spot *within you* for however long the ride was. Once you do that, you know how to meditate.
The longer you meditate the better you get at being in touch with your source of awareness. You end up becoming more aware. If you bring God into your meditation you will become truly "enlightened." This is pretty common knowledge for many around the globe. It is NOTHING new. It is in fact, based on very ancient traditional wisdom. (Which Jesus taught.)
nevertheless, I must add,
In My opinion, This thread of " re-establishing direct connections" is a very worthwhile discussion. It really should be treated respectfully. Prodio's point is While 'my' contention is that human enlightenment is about restoration. If we can restore a human spirit (consciousness) to its original pristine condition - we have bestowed it its enlightenment."
Q. How do we restore it?
A. "quieting the lake to its original pristine condition."
Q. How do we quiet the lake?
Do you agree, Prodio?
First, we might need to establish what we mean when we use the word 'meditation'.
I'm working to find a scientific/rational way to 'quieten the lake'. I think: the traditional methods fall short. No wonder so many people are dissatisfied with spirituality.
We need a different generation of meditation.
Meditating is absorbing God's Spirit and all that He is into your being. In this sense you are indeed reestablishing connection.
Meditation is not easy and it takes motivation and discipline. Maybe you do not wish to discuss meditation. I do. but, I understand If you do not. The question was simple enough. I see you are not on the same page.
So, I will let that aspect go if you so choose.
Nothing of that sort. I do want to discuss about meditation. I was simply editing my earlier post.
You are right: "Meditating is absorbing God's Spirit and all that He is into our being. In this sense we are indeed reestablishing connection". I agree.
Well, the point is, perhaps there is no such method of meditation that everyone can agree upon that it quickly 'enlightens' its users - or brings them near enlightenment. Is there any such uniform method? I ask because I used my own rather labyrinthine method of meditation.
This is what interests me: Can we make it a quicker process.
Are you really in interested? Jesus said. "The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few."
In my experience, what we are really interested in is La La land. In my experience I just want to have fun. No way do I want to do the work required. And it is work. It is exercise. It is determination. It the desire to go to the land of spirit. It is self mastery.
And if you think about it, do you really want to leave the physical plane?
I don't. I wish I could go to the beach today. I love this earth and being on this earth and being in this body. I just wish it were easier to be here!
For instance, I have a '97 Golf VW. If only I had a new car, I would jump in it, drive to Santa Monica, which is about twenty miles away, and walk on the pier, buy an ice cream cone and go for a swim. However, my car has a tooth missing in the gears of the transmission and the mechanic said it could freeze up on the freeway some day. Was he lying? Augh. Alas, I am stuck here. So I keyboard.
Do I ever want to meditate. NO. Why would I? I like being here in my body now. Why do I need enlightenment?
Why do I need God? Tell me???
What is it you want out of enlightenment or out of life, Prodio?
Truthfully, I just want money. LOL
Material possessions I am not interested in… but, I want to EXPERIENCE what I want when I want… HERE on the physical plane!
In All Honesty.
( PS I just called a friend with a car, so we are going to the beach. Yay.
What is enlightenment? what kind of reality will I perceive if my mind is quiet and pristine?
have you ever observed a child, Prodio? They are constantly searching for stimulus. From the time they are born, they peer out with their eyes, listen with their ears, feel with their hands arms legs feet and belly. They move with their bodies, smell with their nose, taste with their tongues. They must comprehend the new world they are in. They must build the foundation of their minds and they only have six years to do it in. Nature is directing the busy busy activity of the child in the building of its psyche. So the mind of a child is actually not like a smooth lake at all. What did you mean? "Their consciousness is as still as the surface of a quiet lake - and therefore they receive reality without any distortion." Is this sentence based on poetry or scientific fact?
I'm editing myself. Enlightenment has two phrases. First one, the most important of the two, is to, kind of, tune in oneself with the vibrancy of life.
The second phrase is to quieten the disturbances inside, if any.
I, perhaps instinctively, mentioned and focused on the second half of the process, in the 'opening post'.
Oh. So tuning in is not what a child does, is it? That ability comes later in his life… I wonder at what age Jesus was able to tune inward.
It' more like removing two cataracts from the both eyes. It's not like tuning in.
- what do you think of this link, which lone77star shared?
In one word, I would say: suppression.
I need a bit more time to get to a detailed answer. This one is tough.
The following is a poem that I wrote when I was at the end of my teenage (I was eighteen years old then). At this point, I feel somewhat obliged to mention it (this poem).
Within a month after writing it, I experienced a major awakening/sudden and dramatic expansion of awareness. It lasted for two/three days and I lost it again.
I awake after a long sleep and come out
In the fields.
The Sun has too, come out
Of his dark-sleeps to begin a new day.
The Sun of reality resembles to me
Completely to the Sun of my dreams
Of the yesterday night:-
The golden Sun shining in the dreamy-darkness.
I do not know if I am really awake,
Or is this morning another dream!
My open eyes search for another opening
To uncover a bitter screen from the front of my eyes,
That which is resisting me to see the loveliness
Of this morning,
And showing me a falsehood.
Let me see the realities-
The realities uncovering after the dreams.
© Eric Susoeff
'What are the cataracts?'
To answer this question, I would like to use the lake analogy, again. The lake is tumultuous with waves and frequent underground earthquakes (the place where the lake is situated, is prone to earthquakes). But the water is clean, free of any pollutants whatsoever, and is pristinely clear.
As a result, light [visible radiation] can freely penetrate this body of water.
Let's assume that someone/something connects the main pipe of a municipal sewer-system to this lake, say, for a brief period of time.
Now, as a result of this unfortunate event, municipal sewerage is directly discharged into the lake's pure water, and contaminates it. Moreover, light can not freely penetrate the lake as it did before.
Because the pipe was connected for a brief perior of time, the damage that it caused to the lake is repairable. Within a month or so, the lake's ecosystem would break down and 'process' the sewerage, and would restore its previous purity. And light would penetrate its water again.
In this analogy:
1) lake = human consciousness
2) light [visible radiation] = reality as a whole (both other people/consciousnesses + the material universe)
3) sewerage = consciousness-pollutants = 'the cataracts'
* "Their consciousness is as still as the surface of a quiet lake - and therefore they receive reality without any distortion." Is this sentence based on poetry or scientific fact? *
Human consciousness can not be dealt with the same scientific methodology that it (human consciousness itself) uses to deal with the material universe.
A hydrogen atom behaves the same way throughout the entire universe. It has no free will of its own. We can, so to speak, scientifically 'pin down' a hydrogen atom and predict its behavior.
We can't do this in regard to consciousness. What we can do is to approximate. What you have mentioned there is an approximation. But a human consciousness can successfully evaluate these approximations. The Genesis, the Bhagavad Gita etc are all such approximations.
"We ought to remember that religion uses language in quite a different way from science. The language of religion is more closely related to the language of poetry than to the language of science. We conclude that if religion does indeed deal with objective truths, it ought to adopt the same criteria of truth as science. But the fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality. And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won't get us very far."
"We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections."
~ Niels Bohr [in response to questions on the nature of language, as reported in Discussions about Language (1933)]
Thank you for your delvings!
What about those who have claimed to have become enlightened.. You know the usual… Krishna, Buddha, Jesus…
Do you think there is any similarity in what they did to attain an enlightened state of awareness?
Transcendence comes to mind...
And what action did they take to unpollute the waters, quiet the lake and perceive reality clearly? How might it relate the the third eye?
(This reminds me of my trip to the beach.
In order to get to the beach I had to find a way to get there. And I really wanted to get there!)
Like before, I need a bit more time to answer these as well.
The 'La La land' exists right here and right now. Let's try to access it. Or if we put it in a different way: we want to go to the beach but we have a damaged car. Let's try to repair it.
difference between 'consciousness' & 'awareness'
Before we may find a solution, first we need to clarify two terms.
consciousness = If we break down a human entity - we find two things: a physical human body + consciousness. We may put it as a mathematical equation, too: a living human being - the (non-living) physical body = consciousness.
awareness = after a certain period after conception, when the fetus reaches a certain stage of physical development, consciousness enters that fetus.
As soon as the consciousness is locked into the physical body, spread and minutely attached to it, connected to the nervous system and the sense organs - it starts receiving information from the material universe - and that information generates objectified consciousness - that is - awareness. We become aware of the material universe.
The quality and amount of a consciousness's awareness depends on the quality and amount of the information that it receives, through the body's sense organs and the nervous system, from the corporeal universe.
physical aberration causing a distorted awareness
If there is any physical aberration in any of the sense organs (example: color blindness), or if there is an aberration anywhere in the nervous system (example: any nerve disease/aberration, like: peripheral neuropathy/diabetic hallucinations etc) - that aberration would send a 'distorted' information to the consciousness - the result would be a distorted objectified consciousness - that is - a distorted awareness.
'consciousness-pollutants' generating a distorted awareness
As illustrated in the lake analogy - if a human consciousness is connected to any source of consciousness-pollutants - then - as a result - that consciousness would get 'blocked' and contaminated. As a muddy water can not receive sunlight properly - in the same way - that specific consciousness would be unable to receive reality as it truly is.
the third eye
As I said earlier, there is no literal 'third eye'. But the term 'third eye' has its own beauty and significance, and application.
We can not increase, so to speak, fundamentally, our capacity to receive reality.
Example: Light can pass through water. It is because of the atomic structure of water that it is transparent and it lets light [visible radiation] pass through itself. We can not alter the atomic structure of water to make it more transparent and, therefore, more receptive of light.
But, we can definitely purify water from physical impurities.
conclusion: We can not alter the fundamental structure of human consciousness to make it more receptive of the material universe. But we can purify it (the human consciousness). We can break down, process and then remove the consciousness-pollutants, if these have contaminated it [please refer to the lake analogy].
As stated earlier, during enlightenment, we feel as if two cataracts have been removed from the both eyes. [please note how close this analogy ('cataract removal') comes to the meaning to the term the third eye'.]
what really happens is this: Sometimes, a person whose consciousness has been polluted, may accidentally (and unknowingly) disconnect the 'municipal sewerage pipe' (refer the lake analogy) from the 'lake' (his/her consciousness).
As a result, after a certain period of time [after the 'lake' (his/her consciousness) 'naturally' purifies itself, they start to receive reality 'as it truly is. They discover a 'new' depth in the material reality (it's not actually something 'new'. they previously received this depth in the life around them, when they were (very) young, when their 'mind'/consciousness wasn't infected) of the world, and the universe.
A 'blockage' in their consciousness annihilates, and like an unrestrained ocean, 'new' information, which was previously censored and filtered out, floods out their consciousness.
And, as stated earlier that the quality and amount of a consciousness's awareness depends on the quality and amount of the information that it receives, through the body's sense organs and the nervous system, from the corporeal universe: this sudden surge of information generates an unrestrained awareness in their consciousness.
They may feel (and they do feel that) as if they have suddenly awoken up from a deep sleep. They may describe the entire experience as being 'a wonderful awakening'.
Because body and consciousness are interconnected, this sudden and dramatic 'change' in the their consciousness might (and it does) produce various bodily symptoms as well.
For example: There maybe tremors in various parts of the body. They may feel a sudden and deep arousal of sexual desire. They may experience a heightened sensitivity in their skin, etc.
purifying the lake
We must purify the 'lake' [please refer to the lake analogy] if want to immediately reach the 'la la land'. We want to go to the beach but we have a damaged car: this (the pollution/'consciousness-pollutants' that exist in the lake) is what we have to repair.
In other words: If we can restore the purity of a human consciousness to its original pristine condition - we have bestowed it enlightenment.
method: Before we can purify the 'lake', first we need to disconnect the 'municipal sewerage pipe' that is constantly dumping 'sewerage' (consciousness-pollutants) and polluting its water [please refer to the lake analogy].
As stated earlier: given 'enough' time, the human consciousness can 'naturally' purify itself.
We can do much to purify our consciousness. We can meditate. We can search to join people and communities that are affiliated to spirituality. We can reflect upon the life that we have lived up to now to make a sense of it. All these practices help to purify.
This section, however, requires separate attention. So, I shall try to explain exact method/s in a separate post.
Purifying the Lake:
To purify consciousness,
Is not easy to do
And its not just a ride to the beach.
Enlightenment was there,
But, It really seemed quite out of reach!
She called her friend, Eric
To ask for advice,
"Please tell me, sir, what should I do?"
"Its simple," he said,
Here's what you will need,
But it might take a year or two!"
"A year or two,
A lifetime, perhaps!"
She pondered with dismal dismay.
And as he began
To explain all this,
She sadly walked away:
"Restore the purity
Of your mind
To its original pristine condition.
Which block the pure light of the sun.
To receive reality
As it truly is,
Meditation is the best way...
And trying our best
to make sense of our lives.
As we've lived them till this day.
A distorted awareness.
Is not what we need
Or a distorted objectified-consciousness.
Pure light will pass
Right on through
A pure mind which has it's transparent-ness.
Impurities are really
Not what we need.
So, remove all consciousness-pollutants...
When Two cataracts
Have been removed...
There you have it: Enlightenment!"
Thanks Prodio! I don't think it is gibberish!
1) This enlightenment thing is all gibberish.
2) If you have 5 million euros in your bank-account, you would become automatically enlightened. Don't seek enlightenment anywhere else - you would be disappointed.
3) There is something called enlightenment. It's a real phenomenon. But it requires study, hard-work, patience etc to reach that state of awareness. And we are getting nowhere, anyway, if we don't endure these to get to the cherries.
What is the enduring part? and what does it entail, do you think?
I put what you explained to poetry to make it clear to myself:
"Restore the purity
Of your mind
To its original pristine condition.
From all consciousness-pollutants
Which block the pure light of the sun.
To receive reality
As it truly is,
Meditation is one fine way...
And trying your best
To make sense of the life
You have lived until today.
A distorted awareness.
Is not what we need,
Or a distorted objectified-consciousness.
Pure light will pass
Right on through
A pure mind which has it's transparent-ness.
Impurities are really
Not what we need.
So, remove all consciousness-pollutants...
When two cataracts
Have been removed...
There you have it: Enlightenment!"
Can you explain how you think meditation contributes toward enlightenment?
Actually, yes you did.
It is interesting how folks love to make up new definitions to words and then attempt to describe differences between them, even when the words are defined completely different and are synonymous.
Consciousness and awareness are pretty much the same thing...
- the normal state of being awake and able to understand what is happening around you.
- a person's mind and thoughts.
You'll notice by the actual definition that a fetus cannot be conscious or aware because it does not understand what is happening around it.
Seems more as if consciousness is a function of how the brain works, hence it is not dependent on the quality of amount of information it receives.
"Consciousness pollutant"? What's that?
So what? We have technologies that can measure and test reality with very accurate results.
But, if we remove water altogether and allow light to pass through free space, we can be more "receptive" of light, whatever that means.
Perhaps, religion is a good example of the "pollutants" you refer, it certainly does 'block censor and filter out' reality in favor of fantasy.
Yes, that would be the feeling one would have after rejecting their indoctrinated religion.
Perhaps it is safe to say that because we (the consciousness/spirit that we actually are) come from the cosmic spirit (God) - we have an innate capacity to reestablish a (direct) connection with it.
It doesn't require us to have a "third eye opening" as a prerequisite, to establish our connection with God.
However, it must be mentioned here, that an open third eye helps in that process (of finding and connecting with God). It makes it quicker and much easier.
It is as difficult to discover the truth of the lives and personalities of Jesus and Buddha, as difficult it is to discover truth about the lives of certain movie stars. Moreover, we know that movie stars actually exist/existed in this world. We have enough photographic (and other) evidences of their existence. And we can personally meet them - if we really need to.
Krishna is a fictitious character. I've (and many others too) have doubts about the existence of Jesus. However, they have a metaphoric value. Even if Jesus is merely a fictitious character - it's a good fictitious character - a metaphor for goodness and righteousness. So is Krishna.
I find the practice of deifying these personalities to be extremely inadvisable.
I like to put it this way: These people (if they all actually existed) were human beings who excelled in the field of spirituality, during a certain period of the history of the universe; and we can match their performance, and even outdo their achievements.
I do not consider that their field of activity (i.e. spirituality) is 'fundamentally' any different, or incomparable, to any other human field of activity, like physics, poetry, technological research and innovation, arts etc. In other words, I do not think that these 'special' people succeeded to hone and master any supernatural magic type of thing which are beyond our capacities. Though religions would be glad to make us believe that.
It's (perhaps 'extremely') inadvisable to buy into those hypes that circles around these 'spiritual' personalities.
The field of spirituality - I think - is still 'underdeveloped'. And we have much to do to perfect it.
The stories of Jesus and Krishna are based on the holy science behind all Religion which is the returning to our original Pure God-Consciousness. When we are ready to go home, all we have to do is knock and the door will be opened: The door of awareness.
PS The poem pretty much encapsulates what you said, right? I would say you have tapped into holy science.
Half of the credit goes to you, Kathryn, for the outcome of this thread. I thank you. And I want to let you know that I like both the poems!
I think that it is a grave misconception of ours when we immediately assume that people like Jesus and Buddha scores the highest marks in the scale of spirituality. I have met, and seen, people, contemporary people, even teenagers: who appeared to be very close to God - more close, perhaps, even than Jesus or Buddha (well, I haven't met either Jesus or Buddha, personally; so what I said is only an approximation)
Jesus and Buddha (and people like them) are exceptional in the sense that they tried to establish spirituality in the public life - and make something out of it. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they have been either the most spiritually sensitive spirits - or that they have been closest to the heart of the cosmic spirit.
This phenomenon is comparable with the phenomenon that the most honest and well-meaning citizens of a country do not necessarily become its senators or presidents.
Because Jesus and Buddha existed quite a long ago - it becomes easier to fantasize about them. But we miss the fact that people, who (possibly) are more interesting and 'worthy' of our immediate attention - than those two 'famous' personalities - are maybe just hanging around us, still being unnoticed.
Some souls of high awareness come with a mission. You can tell what the mission is based on what they DO. Don't you think Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Confucius, Plato, Aristotle, Galileo, Kepler, Edison, Einstein, came with a mission to teach and reveal truth? They did. Others may have very pure hearts and live very pure lives, but they came for immediate family or a smaller group of people. Some come to save millions. Some come to save the world. Without these powerful powerful ones who come to change the world, where would we be? For this reason we can accept them. They fulfilled their mission. They fulfilled a mission.
Without Krishna and Jesus in particular where would we be? Devotion to God through love is where it is at. Without the proof of God, which both of these great avatars revealed, we are crawling, groping in darkness in the sewage of self-generated negativity, cruelty, mistaken motives, and lost efforts. But with these two…. we have devotion and we have hope.
Because God loves us
And there is
Are you sure that it's not the likes of Galileo, Kepler, Edison, Einstein and Hawking that have saved us from groveling in the dark? With knowledge has come technology and with technology has come the life style we enjoy today, including the time to philosophize and time and "stuff" to give a little charity. I'd have to say that that these Gentlemen have done at least as much for the world as Plato, Confucius or any of the other philosophers, real or imagined.
This is a strange story which seems relevant: A girl we all knew in high school died when she was in twelfth grade. She was found sitting up in a chair in her room. How do we know that she did not just ascend from her body in a flash of enlightenment and devotion to omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Spirit? Jesus explained we can ascend in the "twinkling of an eye" when we are heart, mind and soul 100 percent ready and willing to go Home.
What is your idea about this: After the spirit/consciousness leaves the physical body (after death) - can it 'see' anything (the way we see with our physical eyes)?
Hmmm good question. I will answer as a matter of speculation based on my reading and logical deduction:
In the body when you close your eyes, you see nothing, but you are aware of yourself. As you learn to open the spiritual eye within your mind, you start to see more clearly that which is beyond the physical. Furthermore, to the extent that you are able to "see" (have awareness) in the body is the extent you will be able to have awareness out of the body…
I have heard/read that when we die, we maintain the entire (energy) blueprint of the physical body. We have a light heart, lungs, kidneys, eyes, (since we are still identified with them.)
But, what if we have become dependent on the physical eyes alone to see, to be aware, to feel alive????? Can we see on the metaphysical plane with what we use on the physical plane?
I have no idea!
I think - after 'we' get used to the condition of living without a physical body - we may develop a certain type of 'vision'. Otherwise - our existence (without a body) would feel like a prison.
The important question is this: Does this 'vision' capture the spectrum of the material universe?
Vision has to do with seeing, which has to do with our eyes. If our physical body is dead, so are our eyes and the ability to have any "vision" whatsoever.
No it does not. In fact, you forget everything you experienced on earth on a conscious level because everything you experienced was dependent upon memory function via the brain... When the data and memory are gone.. what is left? Just pure awareness.
If one has not developed much spiritual awareness, one pretty much waits for the next go round. Usually, after sleeping and recuperating for 5 centuries give or take, depending on karma. I think cases of people returning and appearing to loved ones to say goodbye are based on their being guided by angelic beings who have these kinds of abilities… to see into physical AND spiritual. The average soul, can't because he did not undergo any kind of practice or training on earth. ( Including Prayer and Meditation.)
SC (Surmising Creatively)
This is a sample (interpretation) of the Gita:
Verse 16: "Yogis not yet free (from the world) revolve back again (to the world) even from the high sphere of Brahma. (union with God in samadhi.) But on entering into Me there is no rebirth, O son of Kunti (Arjuna)
This is the spiritually scientific explanation:
A yogi is one who has achieved a certain degree of higher awareness and who is seeking union with God. He has lost attachment of the physical body. He wishes to dissolve into Spirit...
But here is the tricky part: His soul is attached to two other forces (which contribute to the creation of the body.) These forces are known as the astral body and the causal body.
After loosing the physical body, the yogi must loose the astral body. After loosing the astral body, the yogi must loose the causal body. After loosing the causal body, the pure soul can finally rejoin Omnipresent Spirit. It takes sheer will, based on desire.
TIOLI (Take It or Leave It.)
That's odd, I saw no science in that explanation at all.
- spiritually scientific. And since you do not believe in metaphysics, you do not have to take part in this discussion... which is about possibilities.
Do not torture yourself, Please!!!
Sorry, but that is an oxymoron. There is nothing scientific about that which has never been shown to even exist. Using the term scientific to describe the fantasies of believers is not honest.
As I said take it or leave it.
You obviously prefer to to leave it. And that is because you are at that state of awareness. Each to their own state of awareness. Some of us are looking for possibilities rarely dreamed of. Others are fine with the way it SEEMS to be.
That would probably be the state of awareness we call "reality".
Reality is an illusion. It is a dream we can wake up from. Waking up to a better reality.
One that lasts. Does not end.
by Dave McClure8 years ago
Tolerance, Reason and Humanity were the three pillars of Western Enlightenment, a philosophical movement inspired by such thinkers as Newton and Descartes and further developed by Rousseau, Paine, Voltaire, Hume. They...
by pisean2823116 years ago
I was discussing god with few people...the discussion as usual turned into heated debate...nothing divides humans more than religion/god and soon debate turned into heated argument...one strong believer said it requires...
by Alexander A. Villarasa5 years ago
The eminent and prominent physicist, Stephen Hawkings avers, in an interview with a British magazine, that the human brain is nothing more than a computer, and when that computer malfunctions then stops...
by alan richards7 years ago
Hello. My name is Alan S. Richards. I am the author of 10 hubs and counting and pleased to have the opportunity to share my work. I am currently publishing a web family magazine and finding it to be a great outlit for...
by Richard J ONeill5 years ago
This is a topic I am forever mulling over in my curious mind; I'm just as curious to know what everybody else thinks about this? Where will we be as a race in 500 years time? Will we still be here?Will we have achieved...
by AshtonFirefly15 months ago
I've been researching the relationship between philosophy and science lately, and I came across this opinion during discussion:This person claimed that scientific theories, by nature, are ultimately influenced by and...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.