Rick wrote: Webwanderer wrote:
Rick wrote:I have heard it said that an enlightened man does not commit sin...that it is impossible for such to lie, cheat, steal, murder, etc. Anyone have any thoughts about this?
Look at it from a context of what sin actually is. Sin is not lying, cheating, murder etc. Those are the by-products of sin. In its original form, sin was to be 'off the mark'. If one is 'enlightened' one is on the mark, that is aligned with divine consciousness - awake. If one is out of alignment, that is living in an ego or separate perspective, that one is living in sin - or off the mark. When one is perceiving through such a separate identification, all types of judgments of right and wrong can be made, and justifications can easily follow for all types of harmful, non-loving behavior.
Ah, then the "sin state" or "state of being off the mark" can be identified by its by-products...the outward manifestation of the inner condition, lying, cheating, murder, unloving, greed, sloth etc. This observation does not necessarily make it a judgement. Calling a spade a spade is simply impartially/objectively seeing the way it is. So, one way to tell if a soul is enlightened or not would be to know if he sins and is therefore "off the mark" or not. Yes?
I would like to interject two snippets from a different thread
, as I see them as applicable:
You see, (and here I intrude upon the more metaphysical implications of WW’s recent persistent post
) there can be nothing to have perspective on if there is no perspective. In our case, that perspective includes the illusion of separation, a distinct identity (our “little me”) from all that Is.
Christians would refer to this, our time on earth, as our separation from God. I didn’t realize it at the time, but later it dawned on me that this is what the story of the serpent really is all about: our identification with form that is the consequence of our very existence, our very lives … or of course, vice-versa: our physical lives which are the consequence of our identification with form. Sure we can realize conceptually that we are not REALLY separate from all that is but we still have to find food and pay the rent. We can, if we practice self-inquiry and meditation and a watchful eye on the thinker, gain an indescribable insight into this unified underlying reality. But while we are alive this perspective persists. There are examples of and other claims made as to an ability to stay completely in the moment upon Awakening, but ET himself could not have produced PON and ANE and changed all of those lives without a face and a name being pasted on the covers.
So the fruit of “knowledge” as written in ancient Hebrew scripture I now understand as actually to be the ignorance of identification with form. Our “separation from God”. I’ve since engaged in a liberal bout of Christian forgiveness for mine and all of our Original Sin. It’s o.k. to be here. It’s o.k to be alive. For all we know, it might even be excruciatingly essential in the grand scheme of things.
enigma wrote:There ya go. Knowledge is ignorance, and leads to suffering. Naming, identifying, and ultimately judging. The 'fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil'. This is the banishment from 'paradise' and it didn't happen once a long time ago, but rather happens in every human form beginning around age 2. Transcending those concepts is what spirituality is all about. The root of the tree is the concept of 'me'.
of course, the rest of that thread did seem to presage the free-will debate, soooo...
walken wrote:Enlightenment may be the end of the search, but it's the beginning of something else. Ego making claim to enlightenment is only perpetuating the story of me. So I can see why some would object to making claims to enlightenment. Karl Renz will swear up and down that he is not enlightened.
The whole idea of this thread reeks of ego. Ego thinks other people "should" act a certain way, and it feels other people owe them something (such as being owed an explanation or declaration of enlightenment). Neither of these beliefs are true.
Perhaps your olfactory senses were triggered by, if nothing else, the literary bow that I took in the first post, and that before the heart part of the answer was even finished.
Any mind-energy applied to this is of course a walk in the shoes of false-identification. Good for you for coming out and saying this so bluntly.
walken wrote:You brought up sin. Everyone has their own idea of what sin might be, which of course would be a result of conditioning. You can take a look at what other cultures perceive as right and wrong and they will be vastly different from culture. There is no way of knowing that you are right in your ideas of what might actually be right or wrong.
Yes, I find the ultimate ironic statement of this to be the view that the Torah, or "Old Testament", can only really be understood through the lens of cultural relativism. To simplify history a great deal, we might say that mankind has gone through a series of ethical evolutionary steps where it first became taboo to kill someone in your family, then became taboo to kill someone inside of your blood tribe, then became taboo to kill someone inside of your idealized nation, and only of relatively late has there been a recognition of our common humanity which has been literally confirmed if one accepts the current main-stream thought in the sciences of archeology and genetics.
But comparing cultures there are common threads in the value systems. While there are no true absolutes out here in the samsaric illusion that is what is most commonly referred to as "reality" we can define relative poles which can be marked as "true" and "false". Some of these are so stark as to perhaps be worthy of consideration as effective absolutes. Shocking examples can of course be constructed in support of either side of that proposition.
rodriguez_88 wrote:Andy, if you come to the realization that nothing, absolutely nothing is separate from you, and that everything you see is you, who or what is there which can be referred to as "enlightened"? Wouldn't you consider answering the question absurd? Would you not consider the question itself absurd?
This. There is no 'you' or 'me' who can be enlightened or not anyway.
Guys, as Wanderer did warn us at one point, you have come full circle to the rose
vera wrote:There appears to be a belief that no one can be believed without a story of experience to back up their claims, and an ignoring of the fact that belief is not what is being asked for and this is the whole point.
In fact I would say that the truly suspect are those who ask to be believed. It’s so easy to tell a story, to say ‘I have seen and therefore I know’. It is much more sincere to say ‘do not look at me and what I have experienced, look for yourself because that is all that counts.’
To me this doesn’t mean that stories shouldn’t be told or don’t have a value, just that there is a very clear reason why someone may not want to share that. To me, it couldn’t be less suspect.
In the context of all this stuff, it’s harder and more challenging to deal with someone who won’t tell you their story because you can’t rely on a piece of knowledge. You can’t use an answer to a question about enlightenment or a story of an experience to create a belief about them or what they are saying. The only thing you can do is look to what they are pointing at and see if you see it too.
You might say ‘Why should I bother looking? They could be a charlatan.’
Nobody’s stories or answers remove this possibility. The only real way to determine if what someone is pointing at is true is to make your own inspection. How could it ever be otherwise?
vera I love this post, it conveys your meaning quite brightly. Since all experience is, in the end, subjective, all stories will ultimately fail in the telling and can only at best create a secondary experience similar to the primary. They are still fun to tell and read sometimes though, and the abstract pointers can always be winnowed away from the attending flourishes. The question of whether the teller is a charlatan is a great example of the paradoxical power of surrender -- the most is to be had if the message is taken for what it is outside of any context of the messenger, and in this complete trust and complete skepticism merge into the same crystal.
Stop talking. Hear every sound as background. Look straight ahead and focus. Take one deep breath. This is you. This is Now.