It's all a sham. Everything we believe about recieving enlightenment, is just as meaningless as believing we know things. If one does reach enlightenment, it is as fleeting as that of a thought. That does not mean I can't learn to deal with my life and the way I present myself. Such is adulthood in a "so called" civilized society. I am primitive and I react primitively, but I would never actually hurt anyone. I deplore violence and I love everyone, no matter what. I mean, I have to be here with others, so I respect them as much as I respect myself and I'm sorry if my words hurt anyone.
Enlightenment?? who?? what??
Most if not all the talk comes from you....
Have you realized that?
Again just doing as I do. I figure if I'm going to do anything it's talk. Philosophy is about talking. Tell me. What's a forum for, listening?
Consider your musings, they are shaded with unbelief, thus causing you not to be able to see things clearly....
Its obvious in your position concerning enlightenment.
Enlightenment is but a candle behind the eyes, for we are all enlightened by the actions of the world. If we see a happening, the first thing we do is apply it to ourselve's, but to be truly enlightened we must act upon what we learn or what we saw teaches us nothing.
Maybe what you think elightenenment is is not exactly that it is but merely shades of it...
So all you apply to it is merely your shaded perception of it...
Thus the true perception of enlightenment is still undiscovered by you.
Enlightenment simply means to see ALL...
either you see it or you don't
The word enlightenment, simply means awareness or to be awake. We are all awake, but at the same time, asleep. We see the world as we want to see, not as it is.
The world is full of those who have their own ideas..
and there are those within this world who are without this world for they have seen All..
These are truly awake /enlightened/born again... what ever term has been used over the ages
IMO, awakening does come in stages. We will all be at different levels. The awakening of the 'believer' has the same value as the awakening of the celebrity, president, sales clerk, garbage picker, whomever. No one (theoretically) goes from behind the veil to the top of the mountain in one breath. Although, now that I've put that into words, perhaps it is possible, considering some of the other forums on this topic. If moments are fluid, yes, perhaps it's possible.
Moments are the in between, but they are realy only now. We are caught between the two aspects of thought in spirituality. What has happened in the past is the person I am and the future has a reward if I believe this. These are just basically the ideals of the ego. To live purely in the now, I can accept that it's all here now. That to me is true oneness. This universe is not a machine made of many small parts, it's more of a system made up of smaller functions, an organism. I live within the body of timespace and therefor am part of it. As are we all.
Agree with the last sentence. But I believe moments are fluid and this is the basis for believing the last sentence. As such, we can move between them as easily as if they are all happening right now. Of course this would involve understanding the time/space continuum and having the ability to control molecular frequency.
Philosophy must change and be fluid, just as the tides. If there is a flaw it must be refined, philosophy is about refining the idea and making it work, The eightfold path is an example of said refinement. I cannot recieve my philosophy, I must build upon it myself.
Enlightenment is all about questioning, not about asserting/affirming anything. When this period came about in European History, it was all about questioning..., nothing else ---Newton, Locke and Voltaire---no one can ever truly know the answer when there are stars and systems thousands of trillions of miles away---as it stands 300 years after, we still haven't even been able to get to Mars (not referring to probes...)
I don't want to remain trapped in my own mind forever, instead I'd like to be part of everything, which I believe we are anyway. It's the problem of "I", that we cannot move beyond ourselve's as is and all we seem to do is think with "I".
Well, according to David Hume, there is no 'self'. Hume said that 'self' and 'I' were a hoax made up by society... Actually, some communities (e.g., some African cultures) believe that you are one with your family/culture, so the concept of the 'self' is questionable...
I still struggle with the idea that there is no "self", it's not an easy concept to grasp. But I also see the point in trying to live in the moment, because it really is all we have. I've been "talking" with mischeviousme about Buddhism, but I never read Hume, John. I'll have to add it to my gigantic reading list. MM isn't saying he is confused about his beliefs, but awakening comes and goes, it's not with us all the time. Well, not with me anyway. And I thought forums were for getting our thoughts out too.
It's realy only about attachments and how they affect the ego. We become attached to certain emotions and feelings. Because we are attached to these things, we have a hard time accepting them for what they are, unavoidable aspects of life.
can you give some information to back your claim that 'some' communities, African? question the idea of self in deference to some compound idea of family and culture.
They are tribal African societies in which living and dying are both aspects of life. To them we die in the moment and are reborn the next, so to them it is important to raise the child in this way. They have not many modern things, for to them life is more important and family trumps the entire existence of the self. They understand procreation for what it truly is, survival of the race.
"e.g.," means "example given" ---Africa being the example, but there are communites world over, South America, and, even some in Asia which believe in the concept of groups, not self... Furthermore, older civilizations didn't believe in the concept of the self either..."veni, vidi, vici" doesn't have the "I" in it...which is probably the reason Latin is dead..., anyways, I'm not going to start a discussion on philology...
Take care ;-)
Hume's point was that with consciousness comes the desire to name aspects of that consciousness, but such names should be seen for what they are - conveniences to facilitate discussion of the experience of consciousness. They do not correspond to 'real' separable entities. Thus the early references to a 'soul' (which has never yet been isolated) are analogous to the so called ego, self, id etc., so beloved of the Freudians. Mere labels with no separable substance.
But Hume was noted for his scepticism. He was a radical empiricist. His meta-ethics were informed by his need to prove everything. Deductive logic doesn't work when applied to the metaphysical, soul, feelings, knowing, instinct, and related areas including what we call enlightenment or awakening.
All I know is that Hume was so brilliant, that he's the only philosopher (with the exception a few others...) that gets a different and new rendition everytime someone tries to explain his epistemology...nonetheless, I "think "couturepopcafe" is closer to the mark...
It's not a sham. You're so close! Why give up now? You're asking the right questions. Did you think it would be easy? It's the hardest thing you'll ever do.
I got distracted, now I have to start all over, though I am persistant in my doings. Thank you for setting me on my path, yet again.
It's all part of the process, but you know that.
My husband loves science, and I forget what he was trying to prove, but he was looking up something about a God particle. Nobody can prove we have a soul, although there are many convincing stories,not only from history, but from our own families and experiences for many of us.
Life is a lesson of the spirit for the spirit. If one misses the spiritual values for a practical life philosophy this will cause a crisis in their lives and concerns. Stay persistent in your quest mischev.
So the enlightened have short term memory loss? If you lose it, you never had it. Your statement that it is a sham seems out of character for you. If it is a sham, then I better check myself into a psyche ward. Actually, thats a sham. Freud thought that he was enlightened, so did Jung. Personally, I know they were full of it.
They say: "Those who say don't know, and those that know don't say". I say that is a nice cop-out.
There is enlightenment as an experience called Satori,
and as a continuous consciousness which may mean continuous Satori or a unification with one's soul.
Satori is the highest sensory experience and may include a consciousness of the oneness or connectedness of everything. In either case Satori does not bring about a whole lot of other understanding.
Satori means falling away. I let my "self" fall away, with every breath and then I become the now. It will always be a beginners journey, for we begin in every moment. The big bang is the beginning of the moment and it spreads into every moment. Bang! Another moment. That is now.
and if we could never believe we are right, then we would be full of self-doubt, which is a state of non-enlightenment. My belief includes God, Jesus, Atom bombs, evolution, and several other truths...how many? Not sure anymore...I just know that for the time being, there is nothing more I care to know. No more questions. It's kind of like when in the old sci-fi flicks, once the body snatchers get you, you are of one mind. Resistance is futile...we have always been assimilated.
DD - "if we could never believe we are right, then we would be full of self-doubt, which is a state of non-enlightenment." This is an interesting statement. Here's a quote from Emerson's "Self Reliance" which falls into this line of thinking.
"To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, that is genius. A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within...yet he dismisses without notice his thought, because it is his. (Then) in every work of genius we recognize our own rejected thoughts, they come back to us with a certain alienated majesty...Abide by spontaneous impressions...else tomorrow a stranger will say with masterly good sense precisely what we have thought and felt all the time, and we shall be forced to take with shame our own opinion from another.
I read and liked when I was a kid "The Puppet Masters,a 1951 science fiction novel by Robert A. Heinlein". Little goopy things that are attached between the shoulder blades and control the spinal chord.
Well what is Enlightenment really, the true realisation of oneself and all that is, we can philosophise, and it is our creative right. When we can truly accept our own darkness and light and understand that in the end we all have participated in the experience for the experience.
Accept that we have lived and been tested by our higher selves or soul in the dualistic game that is our life here. In the end or at some point when you have realised that all of this drama has unfolded because deep down inside us we have all facilitated it for our own learning.
Again our egos would not agree but truly when we can sit there and be honest to ourselves that all this connected by its cycles of dark and light, ups and downs, trial and errors has run its course and we have really accepted that we have learned all we can learn here, then the realisation of being enlightened will simply be an enlightening realisation, that you have completed your journey and have reached your intended goal.
No need to ask and no need to look, you just know! There is no regret, remorse, nor fear because you have fully dealt with all your inner lessons and well once you have had enough but in a loving way what more can you do, “I am enlightened because I can see through the veil of elusion and have found my own inner peace, nothing else matters, kind of like being in love, no one can tell you that you are in love, you just know it, balls to bones! (Great quote by the way from the Matrix).
Knowledge is enlightenment and truthful knowledge is no fallacy or illusion.
There are three types of knowledge, namely knowledge by certainty of reason, knowledge of certainty of sight, and knowledge by certainty of experience.
by Amberlim22 months ago
What is it like reaching a state of spiritual enlightenment/awakening?How did you achieve that state of consciousness and what does it feel like?
by Prodio3 years ago
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...
by Alexander A. Villarasa3 years ago
The naturalist's perspective that life could come from non-life, and intelligent life from non-intelligent life is so simplistic as to defy logic and reason. The nature of life and intelliegnce is so complex for them to...
by Deepali12 months ago
Should we believe on future predictions made by astrologers? How true they can be?Astrologers make predictions through one's date of birth or by looking at ones palm or for head. Is it a science based on facts or just...
by Emile R6 years ago
I've been watching the teams debate here in this forum and, although I consider myself agnostic; I tend to sympathize with the atheist argument, on most levels. But, I also see no harm in religion if it is kept in...
by Martin5 years ago
What do you think is the reason we are on this planetDo you ever sit and wonder why we are here. Plus do you wonder what is it we are suppose to do on this planet. Because if you think about we are only down here for a...
Copyright © 2018 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.