Are You Enlightened?

Forum rules
In this category please do not start new topics that aren't directly related to Awakening / Spiritual Enlightenment / Truth-Realization.

Re: Are You Enlightened?

Postby ashley72 » Wed May 11, 2011 5:01 am

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?


There is truth contained in what you say, just as there is another truth contained in what others say. I don't look for an absolute truth in either.
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: Are You Enlightened?

Postby randomguy » Wed May 11, 2011 5:41 am

snowheight wrote:But your presentation, it speaks of an ever attenuating echo until that question just dies away.

That's a nice analogy. I like that.

vera wrote:The only real way to determine if what someone is pointing at is true is to make your own inspection.

That to me is what this business is all about.
Do the yellow-rose petals
tremble and fall
at the rapid's roar?
- Basho
randomguy
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Are You Enlightened?

Postby walken » Wed May 11, 2011 5:42 am

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?

I think this is a good question. Not because because it matters what an enlightened person can or can't do (or should or shouldn't), but because it exposes beliefs that can be investigated.

When is it "okay" to murder, lie, cheat, or steal? What about survival? Survival is human instinct, and in certain survival situations it may be necessary to lie, cheat, steal, or murder. But when does one draw the line, and are there any hard and fast rules for what is or isn't okay aside from opinion?

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.

What you have heard (as you put it), seems to imply that all "enlightened" people have the same idea of sin, which is not possible. It also implies that that an enlightened man is never delusional (it also implies that there is a man, or thinker of thoughts, but I think that horse has already been beat to death).

@vera Nice post

@randomguy That is what it's all about. Nobody knows anything.
walken
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:41 am

Re: Are You Enlightened?

Postby ashley72 » Wed May 11, 2011 6:16 am

walken wrote:Nobody knows anything.


No-body knows No-thing. Take the Mind out of the equation.

Ignore me I'm having fun with word "forms". :lol:
Last edited by ashley72 on Wed May 11, 2011 6:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: Are You Enlightened?

Postby walken » Wed May 11, 2011 6:40 am

Hehe. Check it. Eckhart on not knowing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CgAGPOhQlI

Check out 12:00 where he talks about perspectives if anything else.

Love the guy's laugh in the beginning. He cracks me up.

He also talks about not knowing in "Through the Open Door" which was awesome. My favorite ET product.

ashley72 wrote: Take the Mind out of the equation

Easier said than done. The one who would try to take mind out of the equation is a figment of the mind's imagination. Hehe.
walken
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:41 am

Re: Are You Enlightened?

Postby hanss » Wed May 11, 2011 10:21 am

Wow, what a great thread. I have not much to offer, I'm not enlightened :) Still there is something stand stands out in this thread and resonates with my own experiences. It's all a never ending process. Not a linear-straight-line-development in steps/stages though.
"In today's rush we all think too much, seek too much, want too much and forget about the joy of just Being."
(Eckhart Tolle)
hanss
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 4:14 pm
Location: Gothenburg - Sweden

Re: Are You Enlightened?

Postby Webwanderer » Wed May 11, 2011 2:24 pm

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.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6304
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Are You Enlightened?

Postby Rick » Wed May 11, 2011 4:13 pm

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.

WW


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?
Daily life IS spiritual exercise.
User avatar
Rick
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:30 pm

Re: Are You Enlightened?

Postby snowheight » Wed May 11, 2011 8:11 pm

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.

WW


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?


Rick, Wanderer,

I would like to interject two snippets from a different thread, as I see them as applicable:

snowheight wrote: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... :mrgreen: ...

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. :lol: 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.

Midnight wrote:
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.
snowheight
 
Posts: 1942
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:56 pm

Re: Are You Enlightened?

Postby Webwanderer » Wed May 11, 2011 9:41 pm

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.

WW


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 wouldn't say that in absolute terms, but generally speaking it would be a significant pointer. Krishna told Arjuna just prior to the battle not to worry about the killing as He had already killed them. If one takes it that Krishna was enlightened, it would seem that there is a path to ordinarily negative behaviors that may not be clear to the unenlightened. The fact that murder and mayhem are allowed in life at all seems to indicate that there's more to it than meets the limited human eye.

Again, my take on sin is the living through a misunderstanding of the nature of self, life and relationships. Such misunderstanding could manifest in any number of ways: apathy, judgment, anger, jealousy, envy, the list is endless. I think it also true that one can recognize the falseness of the ego and still be 'off the mark'. To know what we're not does not necessitate knowing what we are - but it's a beginning.

The growth of consciousness, through ego identification, murder, mayhem and all, appears to be part of a greater evolutionary process. May we learn from all our experiences.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6304
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Are You Enlightened?

Postby ashley72 » Wed May 11, 2011 10:04 pm

I'm on the same page as Andy on this one. I see forums in general as group discussions, places people can share personal and direct experiences. The knowledge & reference base is already a plenty!

This recent thread is a good example Personal Post
Folks come here with personal problems they're trying to resolve. Awakening is merely a possible by-product.

I'm also on the same page as Andy on the question "are you enlightened?". Nothing can substitute a healthy dose of common sense in these lofty matters.

Sighclone wrote:Eckhart knows of his life before his shift and his life now. He knows they are different. The difference is that "before" enlightenment there was a complex belief in "Ulrich Tolle, person." After enightenment, that belief was exposed as a fiction. The word "enlightenment" has been around and was the best one he could use...he also uses "shifted." He can judge for himself the extent of his change.

Words and concepts, like "enlightenment", etc. are products of the mind...and used to communicate, individual mind to individual mind. This whole forum presupposes minds. Truth has to leak in around the edges.

Andy
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: Are You Enlightened?

Postby Webwanderer » Wed May 11, 2011 10:07 pm

snowheight wrote: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.

The way I see it is that there is always perspective, even if it's the perspective of no perspective. One can suspend identification with content for a time, but even pure clarity is a perspective. Can one be simply aware? Maybe, but the instant one's attention is attracted, perspective exists - and attention is attracted rather frequently. Engagement with life requires it. And why not? Does life have a point in the human experience without engagement?

Once we recognize the nature of ego identification, we are free to engage with life in more understanding ways. Not so much as to pound it into others that they don't exist, but to point out far better ways, through a clearer perspective, in which they can engage with others and enjoy life. Love flows more freely when one is awake simply because we have a more unified sense of being. That presumes of course, that one doesn't stop at what they are not, but clarifies and deepens into a sense of what they are.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6304
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Are You Enlightened?

Postby ashley72 » Wed May 11, 2011 10:13 pm

Webwanderer wrote:
snowheight wrote: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.

The way I see it is that there is always perspective, even if it's the perspective of no perspective. One can suspend identification with content for a time, but even pure clarity is a perspective. Can one be simply aware? Maybe, but the instant one's attention is attracted, perspective exists - and attention is attracted rather frequently. Engagement with life requires it. And why not? Does life have a point in the human experience without engagement?

Once we recognize the nature of ego identification, we are free to engage with life in more understanding ways. Not so much as to pound it into others that they don't exist, but to point out far better ways, through a clearer perspective, in which they can engage with others and enjoy life. Love flows more freely when one is awake simply because we have a more unified sense of being. That presumes of course, that one doesn't stop at what they are not, but clarifies and deepens into a sense of what they are.

WW


Thanks WW.... For sharing more common sense!!!
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: Are You Enlightened?

Postby arel » Wed May 11, 2011 10:21 pm

Reading a bible is on my to do list. But I think "sin" is meant to mean what makes one suffer. Nothing to do with moral judgements I think. The clarity of abiding as true identity as awareness leads to knowing that the personal sense of self causes suffering. Therefore any action aligned with that sense likely to be dropped, because why bother. The action that is described as loving is aligned with the attributes of awareness as being accepting, open, all embracing, peaceful, well...loving really.
What I say is only my viewpoint.
arel
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:11 pm

Re: Are You Enlightened?

Postby Rick » Wed May 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Webwanderer wrote:I wouldn't say that in absolute terms, but generally speaking it would be a significant pointer. Krishna told Arjuna just prior to the battle not to worry about the killing as He had already killed them. If one takes it that Krishna was enlightened, it would seem that there is a path to ordinarily negative behaviors that may not be clear to the unenlightened. The fact that murder and mayhem are allowed in life at all seems to indicate that there's more to it than meets the limited human eye.

Again, my take on sin is the living through a misunderstanding of the nature of self, life and relationships. Such misunderstanding could manifest in any number of ways: apathy, judgment, anger, jealousy, envy, the list is endless. I think it also true that one can recognize the falseness of the ego and still be 'off the mark'. To know what we're not does not necessitate knowing what we are - but it's a beginning.

The growth of consciousness, through ego identification, murder, mayhem and all, appears to be part of a greater evolutionary process. May we learn from all our experiences.

WW


Well said. I agree that not all apparent sin is sin. An enlightened man may kill. Killing an out of control man who broke into your house and is about to do serious harm to your family is different from killing someone for their money or as initiation into a group or clan. Assault out of pure anger or malice is different that giving someone a swift right hook in the moment because they are truly out of line.

Also, you said
The growth of consciousness, through ego identification, murder, mayhem and all, appears to be part of a greater evolutionary process.


Yes, as Alan Watts said ""You may ask why God sometimes hides in the form of horrible people, or pretends to be people who suffer great disease and pain. Remember, first, that he isn't really doing this to anyone but himself. Remember, too, that in almost all the stories you enjoy there have to be bad people as well as good people, for the thrill of the tale is to find out how the good people will get the better of the bad"
Daily life IS spiritual exercise.
User avatar
Rick
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Awakening / Spiritual Enlightenment / Truth-Realization

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests