Blessed are the poor in spirit

[m4tt_666]

the physical outset of enlightenment and ignorance is itself, identical. what remains in the perception of the individual is nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain for the short duration it is released. given enough time, anybody's view on anything will no doubt alter, be it death or the sheer pressure of time itself as the direct influence.

[Kelly Jones]

Enlightenment isn't a fixed state, like an idea, mood, mindboggle, or neurochemical condition. It is conscious freedom of delusion.

[m4tt_666]

while that may be fact, is the human condition still not a reflection of all that enlightenment neglects?

[Kelly Jones]

By human condition, would you be meaning what exactly? Depression at one's mortality, needing the illusion of feeling important, getting angry with the world, falling in love, getting caught up in the rat race for social status or material comfort, and all that sort of thing?


.

[m4tt_666]

human condition is relevant to how one has adapted their morals within their given surroundings. how we individually experience any emotion. if enlightenment is nothing and we are, undoubtedly something, then we are forever blindfolded to any reality than that of what we are directly perceiving at any given moment.

to think there is anything above what we experience at any given moment, is delusion at its finest.

[Kelly Jones]

we are, undoubtedly something

Enlightenment is about the true nature of that something. How it really exists. What it actually is. It isn't nothingness, so you are wrong when you say enlightenment is nothing.

Nothingness is logically impossible, since there is something.

It seems reasonable to me to make truth the basis of morality.


.

[m4tt_666]

it is only within the scope of humanity to base every thought and action off our conceived morality. justification differs between individuals.

and nothingness is completely in existence. if nothing was truly out of existence that would also simultaneously be an admittance that something didn't exist.

i honestly believe, without any bias toward any other belief, that in the same way we recycle plastic, our very consciousness is recycled and molded into numerous physical forms, location and time being totally irrelevant within this process.

we are all predestined to elude enlightenment, for the enlightened are the deceased.

[Kelly Jones]

it is only within the scope of humanity to base every thought and action off our conceived morality.

Yes, fine. But my statement was about basing morality on truth. Not truth (or thoughts and actions) off morality. What's your response to that?

justification differs between individuals.

And you? Do you value truth, knowing that it's your own decision?

and nothingness is completely in existence. if nothing was truly out of existence that would also simultaneously be an admittance that something didn't exist.

Yes, one can justifiably say nothingness as a concept exists relative to somethingness. But absolute nothingness is existentially impossible. Obviously there is something happening right now. That's why I said absolute nothingness is impossible, and hence, enlightenment is not nothing whatsoever.

i honestly believe, without any bias toward any other belief, that in the same way we recycle plastic, our very consciousness is recycled and molded into numerous physical forms, location and time being totally irrelevant within this process.

Well, if you mean something like a student's understanding being a recycling and reprocessing of the teacher's material, then yes, I would say there's evidence for that notion of recycling of consciousness. The latest example from you (your thought, physically typed, electronically posted to the Genius Forum, read by me, thought about by me), just for instance.

we are all predestined to elude enlightenment, for the enlightened are the deceased.

You've got a penchant for poetic symbolisms. Unfortunately, I've no idea what you mean by "deceased". Do you mean, a homo sapiens that recently permanently ceased functioning, and there is no longer blood circulating, neurons firing, and no consciousness (as seems likely)? Or something else?


.

[jufa]

Posted on May 7th, 2006 by jufa
Who can tell another whether they are enlightened or not? Even the the Christian Bible, or Vedas, Uopanishads, Puranas, Sutras, Bhagavad Gita, and Koran, to whom it appears many have placed their well being, and anticipated rapture has not given any indication that the literal following of such teaching has enlightened anyone, but the few, who has understood what enlightenedment truly is.

What is enlightenment? This knowledge belongs only to the individuals who has transcended themselves. This means they have returned to that "Light that lightest every man that cometh into the world." Even in this individual transcension, it cannot be relayed to another because each individual must receive it by revelation, which comes not by intellectual comprehension.

This means it is one things to have the good, best, and earnest intention to do that which will cause and individual "to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with their God." But listen, and listen intensively, one can desire to do just the above, but if the above is not done - according to the Principle of God, consumingly in the bosom of "The law of the Spirit of life," and by the continuous governing hand of "Christ in them the hope of glory," no amount of reading, duplicating and following the laws, and by-law of any religion, or preacher, guru, or master will bring enlightenment unto the mind dressed in the form of flesh, by fleshly words. Reception just comes, and even the receiver knows not from where, or why they are the beneficials of it.

Enlightenment to this individual writing these words is being able to live one's life totally upon the Word of Grace. Grace means there is nothing to overcome. "IT IS FINISHED."

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Alex Jacob]

taken into context, that is a frightening idea.

Nice observation. A discriminating, insightful observation.

[Alex Jacob]

Jufa has written: "Sacred to this writer has nothing to do with what a church, organization, community, country, or nation project. If such projection and ideas were the truth of what is sacred and holy, then the tumults which has constituted wars and financial upheaval in the world today could not exist. What is sacred is what brings peace and harmony to an individuals life, and that harmony is absorbed by all who come into contact with such a being, and practice that harmony with the knowledge that such practice has changed the world around them for the better."

A problem with what you have written is that in order to arrive at what is your conception of 'the sacred', you had to pass through everything that came before, of which your are a product. Then, you arrive at your preferred definiton and begin (at least theoretically) to 'dismantle' what you consider lesser versions of an appreciation for, and understanding of, 'the sacred'.

You use a reductive logic which seems to conclude that because there are wars and conflicts and tumults, that this is because of inferior appreciation of 'the sacred'. Do away with that inferior understanding and---voilà!---peace in human communities.

This is nicely expressed: "What is sacred is what brings peace and harmony to an individuals life, and that harmony is absorbed by all who come into contact with such a being, and practice that harmony with the knowledge that such practice has changed the world around them for the better", but it is also (potentially) an elite idea. Meaning, there in the upper echelons of society some specialized thinker comes up with an idea about what needs to be done away with, and it usually has to do with ideas and practices of men of an 'inferior order'. In this case it might be disbanding of a church or a temple or getting rid of the Bhagavad-Gita, the Bible, or what-have-you. Unfortunately, these top-down impositions seem often not to work as the theorists hope.

GK Chesterton in an essay called 'God and Goods' wrote: "And the history of the purely negative notion, of an abstract attack on religion, has been in this respect a rather curious history. Taken as a whole, indeed it is at once melancholic and comic. Those who in modern times have tried to destroy popular religion, or a traditional faith, have always felt the necessity of offering something solid as a substitute. The queer part of it is that they have offered about a dozen different things; some of them entirely contradictory things; that the promises perpetually varied, and only the negative threat remained the same."

"What is sacred is what brings peace and harmony to an individuals life."

I think one would really have to say that this peace and harmony is a part of what is 'sacred'. In actual fact, one effect of 'higher religion' (or higher humanitarianism) has led to tremendous struggle on the earthly field. Maybe at the end of long periods of struggle there is such a 'peace' and 'harmony' but something in the above formulation strikes me as artificial, unreal.

If 'peace and harmony' are exclusively the goal or object (of society and of Life) then perhaps we really should consider chemical engineering and the modification of consciousness so that everyone all the time feels harmonious and peaceful.

The world is the world, it has its ways and means, and conflict is always a part of it.

[Bob Michael]

Bob, the way I see it, if someone has actually been to the summit, meaning, their understanding of Reality is perfect, then their expression of it will show it. If they make mistakes expressing their understanding, then they haven't been to the summit.

And everything rests on that understanding. Nothing of any worth can proceed without ironing out the mistakes. That's why I focus on analysis, and primarily on coarse mistakes.

While my application is not perfect, my understanding is. I rarely engage with people on the level of subtle mistakes, because at that stage people are able to handle their own development.

By having been to the summit (mountain top), I mean having been perfectly immersed in God-consciousness or a radically new or different manner of brain and sensory network functioning. Which I have experienced many, many times over the years. Including in childhood. Though the memories of them got lost in the hustle and bustle of life for many years. And now, and in restrospect too, I consider these times perfect even though I still had defects of character and was also lacking in total understanding of myself and Reality. Though today I consider my understanding of Reality to be perfect, though I'm not perfectly free of defects of character.

So what I'm trying to get across here is that I was and can be perfect even when I'm not perfect. Which could perhaps be called being in a state of 'grace' or in a 'grace period'. However to become more and more continuously and perfectly perfect in my oneness with the Infinite, or, as I like to sometimes say, the Holy Spirit, which is demanded of me by life less I suffer, I must be constantly self-critically aware of my every word, thought, and deed in order to see if they are harmonious with life, or grounded in Love, or whether they're grounded in the old conditioned and inauthentic self-nature. Which is not to be grounded in Love, rendering my actions essentially destructive rather than spiritually or evolutionarily productive.

I see myself today as a marionette. Really we all are. Though few of us realize it. However, if we cannot or will not let the Puppet Master have all of our strings the show of life won't go off all that well for us or for the bigger scheme of things either.

I think Hermann Hesse once remarked that no one has ever achieved spiritual perfection, since the lacking of it in the people all around us largely prohibits it. I agree.

[m4tt_666]

Kelly Jones: Yes, fine. But my statement was about basing morality on truth. Not truth (or thoughts and actions) off morality. What's your response to that?

m4tt_666: this seems to me wishful thinking, while some do let logical thought govern their actions, once again being animal and a victim of time, it would take an exhausting amount of concentration to successfully execute that task at all times. most people still let rampant emotion poison their thoughts and therefore, detrimental actions in society are still observed.



Kelly Jones: And you? Do you value truth, knowing that it's your own decision?

m4tt_666: i value logic for what it is, as i see it as a counterpart to emotion. truth itself is versatile. truth as one sees it could be equally false to another, truth is relative to the person experiencing it.



Kelly Jones: Yes, one can justifiably say nothingness as a concept exists relative to somethingness. But absolute nothingness is existentially impossible. Obviously there is something happening right now. That's why I said absolute nothingness is impossible, and hence, enlightenment is not nothing whatsoever.

m4tt_666: absolute nothingness, i agree within this universe is logically impossible. as a believer of multiple universes i do wonder if they all mirror each other, or if the laws of nature as we see them are slightly adjusted to fit the scale of every isolated universe. i don't believe, however there to be a completely alien sense of nature to exist anywhere within, or outside our given universe. but do take into consideration that while we physically exist, we cannot truly know if absolute nothingness exists or not and i do not stand on either side of this theory.



Kelly Jones: Well, if you mean something like a student's understanding being a recycling and reprocessing of the teacher's material, then yes, I would say there's evidence for that notion of recycling of consciousness. The latest example from you (your thought, physically typed, electronically posted to the Genius Forum, read by me, thought about by me), just for instance.

m4tt_666: yes, i just chose to apply the theory of recycling to life and death as a continuous process, rather than paper, plastic or communicative thought.



Kelly Jones: You've got a penchant for poetic symbolisms. Unfortunately, I've no idea what you mean by "deceased". Do you mean, a homo sapiens that recently permanently ceased functioning, and there is no longer blood circulating, neurons firing, and no consciousness (as seems likely)? Or something else?

m4tt_666: haha i know, i try not to, but i try to preserve the universal meaning of words that i use. given that, yes i do mean deceased in its most literal sense, conscious expiration.

[jufa]

Hi Alex, one cannot dismantle thoughts flowing from within their soul upwards. This is a pure form of denial. To dismantle one can reasemble by memory. The journey of man is not forward, it is going backward in the act of eliminating, not dismantling the thoughts of ancient which the human intellect believes in, builds upon, and exist as in their deterministic Adamic/Eve consciousness.

The best part of what is presented here is you are dealing with my statements, and you cannot [peace] lay down your interpretation of my life as a reality. Your interpretation thus must yield to original meaning. The following is what I am saying.

There may be something beyond forms and time and all that, but it doesn't help to know that it's there if we know absolutely nothing about it and have to consider only the speculations of the philosophers and religious thinkers. It's nice to think about, but it offers nothing of substance on which one can actually, really rely.

The above statement came about because I had to consider what has been presented in the above inclusive of my writing, and I came to a very difficult conclusion which made me ask myself: if there is Something beyond forms and time, then It must be of principles and patterns which has not changed from the cause and effect, nor the effect and cause because the principle of the cause is also the principle which govern the pattern of the effect - Alpha/Omega -. All within the structure of man's awareness of that Something, whether it is believed real or not is of the flesh even though flesh is not an original element of creation, and thus the mind within flesh is neither an element which can logically reason That Something's intent and purpose concerning anything the mind is aware of. Therefore the conclusion reached: -the flesh mentality must be adhered, as all rudiments of creation to the principles and patterns of the statutes and ordinances of the Law of the Lord for man to break through the mind and allows one to enter in the Something's place of rest, which Jesus The Christ resurrection did, not Jesus the Son of man.

One can never go beyond the mind if one does not go through the mind to get beyond - jufa

One can say all the hail Mary's, confess Jesus as their lord and saviour, adapt themselves to any and all Eastern or Western religions. One can follow the advise of a person who is seeking that Something never found by the human intellect, because the human intellect is a slave to interpreting that which it cannot define nor understand why that Somethng -"in the beginning created the heaven and the earth." One can go through rituals, speak of symbols, myth and there interpreted meaning of what the Bible says, but in all that, if one does not change their way of thinking, there can never be a change for their betterment, nor the betterment of mankind itself.

It is a proven truth, that to change and individuals life, there must be a change of consciousness. Jufa a change, huh?! From what to what?

Men living today is by ancestral beliefs which have become the myth by which their lives are governed. The myth then becomes the law of ones life becausse man establish the law of his living by demonstration and display of his thoughts in action mentally and spiritually.

To transcend the myth and metaphor of undated ancestral beliefs is the realization Something unknown is what has made one aware of things they are aware of mentally and spiritually, which in the reality of comprehension, being all is equal in and of that Something, being the myth and metaphor simultaneously produce in the world of mental and spiritual man's the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde personalities. As long as man live the myth of the metaphor of himself as the reality of himself, no new myth can come to light because the circle which contains the metaphor of the living myth is never broken in order for transcension through the mind to get beyond the mind .

To illustrate my words, when any man step into the invisibility of themselves, they step into the Pure Spirit Awareness and is caught up in the cloud which consumes the being of man because that man has died to deterministic humanism, and has resurrected the Christ. When one steps into the Pure Spirit Awareness and one [1] themself with It, all that is not of the creation of that Spirit is eliminated from human thought interepretations which has bound them to the conformity of the they say syndrome.

For me, and I can only speak upon me, It was a change from being a victim of my thoughts. It has always been a necessity for me to conquer my thoughts and opinions of that which I had no awareness of, to become positional to enter into the task of conquering the last enemy, which is not death but my human interpreted mind, imagination, thought interpretation and conscious thoughts passed down from the days of ancient which man has stood upon to reach the highs and lows of repetitive outer objective vistions and inner subjective feelings.

What are you saying jufa? All men have partial integrity in regards to that or those of their own kind. All human thoughts deemed old or new began when man became an object of his own subjectivity. The man who would dare step beyond his partial integrity and stretch beyond the conformity of the world of humanism to find his true identity will begin to stop his dual mind from staging a civil war within himself. A wars against his own omnipresent Spirit. A war of constant tension, stress of communicative words, understanding, and dead end human knowledge which lacks permanent principles and patterns of reality of that issued forth out of the invisible.

Change is inevitable, Each and every moment change. Each and every hour change. Each and every day change. Each and every Season change and all are regenerated. Man's thoughts do not change though for they are only dismantled to be reassembled in the thought of remembrance, and so, that which is for man in his living does not change in Spirit. History itself bears witness to this.

Change from what to what. You change, if you dare to be bold as Edison, Franklin, Gates, and Rosy Parks who changed institutions of thoughts and ways of life in America, You change you, and all your prejudices of enslavement. One has to make a stand to conformity, and become a rebel.

No one can ever say what God meant, or what God's intent and purpose for anything is come what may. One can only tell their individual story, and in the telling of it, they cannot tell anyone how they have arrived in the spot they are standing upon line by line, line by line, precept by precept, precept by precept, here a little, their a little. because no man living has knowledge to take thought on God's thoughts of intent and purpose. If this is not true, tell me then, if one is born of God, what need is there for repentence or faith when one is already what God is?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Pam Seeback]

MA asks: "Like a dog with a bone, I ask, why are we not relating 'this complex territory that is hard to sort through' to the original quote of Diebert's of Eckhart's teachings, which is about poverty of spirit of the emanation of the creature, and of breaking through this emanation, in this case, the creature thought pattern of "church", of "men", and of "women?"

Alex says: I don't think it is relatable. Eckhart's position is one of a very refined sort of spirituality, with a very particular 'goal'.

There is no word that I know of, that is not relatable to another thought by way of analysis.

Indeed, Eckhart's position has a very particular goal, which he plainly states is that of breaking through the emanation of the world of the creature, which, of my comprehension, encompasses the entire activity of dualism analysis, which includes both the natural and intellectual world.

How could one ever talk about what Eckhart is saying, in its essence? You would just go silent and sit in silence. What would one ever say about it?

If this were true, then Eckhart would have spoken these few statements I quoted and left it at that. Eckhart is no different than was Jesus or the Buddha; the very activity of having broken through the emanation begins the analysis of this activity of having broken through. Which means, the emanation is not yet consumed or returned or reconciled completely, and until this happens, one's intent or energy is dedicated wholly to this goal. In other world, the silence of the unknown God that is discovered does not render us silent, rather, we take responsibility for being reconciled into the silence. The bearing of one's own cross of ascension of which Jesus spoke. A transformation which includes the wisdom that silence is not the intellectual interpretation of silence = nothing, but rather, of spirit discernment of Silence = Something.

Can one begin to apply such a 'poverty of spirit' and detachment from the world to the world?

One usually begins their journey of detachment to the world by eliminating, within themselves, such things as addictions to drugs, alcohol, sex, knowledge, etc., gradually peeling away the layers of the feeling-intellect until one finds themselves face to face with the core desire or longing within themselves that is described in the bible as being "the law of sin and death." The emanation of the creature of which Eckhart spoke. As for how this individual who begins to walk the path of renunciation of his creature thoughts affects the world of creature thoughts: It is this presence of detachment from the creature in himself that he exudes wherever he is moved to be: some will run from this presence of "mortality being swallowed up of Life", others will be drawn to this presence.

What do you want people to do with the attitudes and perspectives you offer, MovingAlways? (And isn't there a contradiction inherant in your user name?!?) You should be 'ForeverStill'...

;-)

What I have become aware of, is that if the world of dualism, of But, of doubt, of inquiry is to be overcome permanently in the consciousness of man, that he must gather these things unto himself, "precept by precept, line by line, here a little, there a little."

As for my username: Being still is a directive of the Spirit of Life, but there is no such thing as "being stilled", as in the end of relating of "I" to "Am." Which means that even when we are being obedient to the directive of contemplation of "be still and know I am God", Spirit is always relating to Spirit 'in the background', relating to Itself to bring the needed revelation from the 'background' to the 'foreground' of the questioner/doubter.

But I do see that such historical musings are deviations from the more monastic stress of this thread...sorry!

I do relate, by way of past activity of interpreting, to your intellectual interpretation "monastic" but I no longer read language such as Eckhart's from this intellectual point of view, but rather, of spirit discernment of the journey of breaking through the emanation of the world.

If you are willing, I would love to hear your analysis of "being in the world, but not of the world."

[Kelly Jones]

By having been to the summit (mountain top), I mean having been perfectly immersed in God-consciousness or a radically new or different manner of brain and sensory network functioning. Which I have experienced many, many times over the years. Including in childhood. Though the memories of them got lost in the hustle and bustle of life for many years. And now, and in restrospect too, I consider these times perfect even though I still had defects of character and was also lacking in total understanding of myself and Reality. Though today I consider my understanding of Reality to be perfect, though I'm not perfectly free of defects of character.

Well, this is where we differ. If one's understanding of God is imperfect, one cannot be perfectly immersed in God-consciousness, by definition. The latter is literally experiencing God without delusion. The intellectual understanding has to be perfect first, and naturally the experience arises afterwards because it is based on the understanding.

However to become more and more continuously and perfectly perfect in my oneness with the Infinite,

Actually, one's already and inescapably the Infinite. There is no gaining of Infinite-mindedness. It is more like dropping the mental draperies, and being one's original naked self.

I think Hermann Hesse once remarked that no one has ever achieved spiritual perfection, since the lacking of it in the people all around us largely prohibits it. I agree.

Other people cannot prohibit enlightenment. They cannot stop one thinking.

Spiritual paralysis vis-a-vis "the others" is created by fear of being outcast by society for one's views. That is, one is afraid of being labelled insane, dropped into a looney bin, or being permanently disposed of. One is afraid of venturing the Infinite openly, because of holding onto a need for a socially acceptable reputation, because that reputation ensures the safety in a crowd.

But if one wishes to live truly wisely, one needs to prioritise, valuing truth regardless of how one is treated, or whether anyone else has any inkling of God. Even if one is the only one, one can still go far.

I see the purification process of abandoning delusions as entering an abattoir, where bit by bit, chunk by chunk, attachments are cut away by the sharp sword of reason. Self-enhancing virtues and ulterior motives like the desire for a noble reputation, pride in one's knowledge or intellect or various talents, a love of dignity and moral well-being, satisfaction at fulfilling ideal actions and plans, contentment at being understood or respected by others, happiness at finding spiritual communion with Nature, and so forth, are systematically and undauntingly cut away, piece by piece, until there is just one virtue left.


.

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly Jones: Yes, fine. But my statement was about basing morality on truth. Not truth (or thoughts and actions) off morality. What's your response to that?

m4tt_666: this seems to me wishful thinking, while some do let logical thought govern their actions, once again being animal and a victim of time, it would take an exhausting amount of concentration to successfully execute that task at all times. most people still let rampant emotion poison their thoughts and therefore, detrimental actions in society are still observed.

Fair enough. What about in principle?

Kelly Jones: And you? Do you value truth, knowing that it's your own decision?

m4tt_666: i value logic for what it is, as i see it as a counterpart to emotion. truth itself is versatile. truth as one sees it could be equally false to another, truth is relative to the person experiencing it.

You say "truth is relative to the person experiencing it". Is this a truth you apply to all persons? The problem is pretty obvious either way. If you apply this truth to all persons, then you contradict the meaning of the truth. But if you only apply it to yourself, meaning "My definition of truth is only true for me, and has nothing to do with purely logical thinking", then automatically you're again in contradiction with the second statement - because it relies on logic to determine that a subjective experience free of logical absolutes is free of logical absolutes.

Kelly Jones: Yes, one can justifiably say nothingness as a concept exists relative to somethingness. But absolute nothingness is existentially impossible. Obviously there is something happening right now. That's why I said absolute nothingness is impossible, and hence, enlightenment is not nothing whatsoever.

m4tt_666: absolute nothingness, i agree within this universe is logically impossible. as a believer of multiple universes i do wonder if they all mirror each other, or if the laws of nature as we see them are slightly adjusted to fit the scale of every isolated universe.

Absolute nothingness is still logically impossible in any universe, because of the existence of same.

but do take into consideration that while we physically exist, we cannot truly know if absolute nothingness exists or not and i do not stand on either side of this theory.

If something exists (such as oneself) - which is indisputable as you said earlier - then absolutely everywhere in all universes, that fact of that existence is unchangeable. Nothing can wipe it out. Even if it is a dream, it exists as such. As soon as one thing exists, then absolute nothingness is utterly impossible.

Kelly Jones: You've got a penchant for poetic symbolisms. Unfortunately, I've no idea what you mean by "deceased". Do you mean, a homo sapiens that recently permanently ceased functioning, and there is no longer blood circulating, neurons firing, and no consciousness (as seems likely)? Or something else?

m4tt_666: haha i know, i try not to, but i try to preserve the universal meaning of words that i use. given that, yes i do mean deceased in its most literal sense, conscious expiration.

Why do you believe enlightenment has nothing to do with consciousness? What's your reasoning?


.

[jufa]

Enlightenment is comprehension and grasping of those things which are conceived and; learning how to apply it accross the board concering one's life. Should it be considered freedom from, then it is a freedom from being a slave to self-righteous living.

Enlightenment is a moment by moment awareness. Its reward is the ability to see into one's self, and solve the problems of one's living. The benefit is that should one adhere to what they are told, from the answers they have received from themself, it effect their immediate enviornment, situations, circumstances, and conditions as everything else one does in living, but it effect one enviornment for the betterment of their living. Not selfishly, but
selflessly.

The truth of the matter is that enlightenment can never be understood, even by the individual who it drapes itself upon in the moment, for it is an infinite occurrence, and man is finite in term of this worlds standards.

So when one attempts to deliver a message of so called enlightenment, peoples ears will pluck up for a minute, but then they will return to their way of living because "people don't care what you know, they want to know if you care." And most so called delivers of the message of enlightenment have a one set mind of converting others to their way of seeing things, and don't let me forget, getting the money.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[m4tt_666]

simply put, i don't believe it possible to attain enlightenment while in a state of physical consciousness where we are forced to contend with reality at any given moment. enlightenment in its simplest definition is striving to better ones self. every form of existence must obey a set of morals one uses to navigate ones physical world. even a god would have to obey this rule. matter itself, however is exempt from having to partake in the growth of a conscience due to its natural unconscious state.

[Blair]

matter itself, however is exempt from having to partake in the growth of a conscience due to its natural unconscious state.

Aha. ahaha. ahahahahaha. Ahahahahahahaha!

[Kelly Jones]

simply put, i don't believe it possible to attain enlightenment while in a state of physical consciousness where we are forced to contend with reality at any given moment. enlightenment in its simplest definition is striving to better ones self. every form of existence must obey a set of morals one uses to navigate ones physical world. even a god would have to obey this rule. matter itself, however is exempt from having to partake in the growth of a conscience due to its natural unconscious state.

The path of enlightenment does indeed begin with the desire to strive to better oneself, and gain that all-important understanding of the nature of Ultimate Reality. It does entail the growth of conscience, as you imply. But on understanding that nature, and realising it in every fibre of one's being, there is an insight about all the strictures you mention, that liberates one from them. One doesn't have to die to experience that liberation.

Those strictures, like having to follow moral rules, or using psychological medicines to lift one's game, or relying on intellectual tools like causation and nonduality, can be laid aside on recognising the nature of Ultimate Reality and applying that understanding. They are like vehicles to get one to nirvana, or liberation.



.

[Alex Jacob]

MA, your sig reminds me of this song by Julie Snow (too bad it has not been posted on Youtube).

[jufa]

simply put, i don't believe it possible to attain enlightenment while in a state of physical consciousness where we are forced to contend with reality at any given moment. enlightenment in its simplest definition is striving to better ones self. every form of existence must obey a set of morals one uses to navigate ones physical world. even a god would have to obey this rule. matter itself, however is exempt from having to partake in the growth of a conscience due to its natural unconscious state.

What appears to be the the missing element here is that enlightenment has not been defined individually or collectively. thus when it is stated:

Enlightenment is comprehension and grasping of those things which are conceived and; learning how to apply it accross the board concering one's life.

. Comprehension bears witness that moral, soul, Spirit, and conscience integrity must be applicable through-out the entire spectrum of man's awareness, therefore in every aspect of his being physically, mentally, and spiritually. To leave out any phase of awareness of advancement is the hindrance of subtility which is referred to from the Old Testiment in this manner:

"And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presenceof the Lord God among the trees of the garden."

All advancement of growth, from the plants, insects, and mammals begin physically, this is the principle of and pattern for ascending upward from birth, the death, which all men participate within irrelevant of what they think, analyze, or follow because of the 'they say' syndrome

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Pam Seeback]

simply put, i don't believe it possible to attain enlightenment while in a state of physical consciousness where we are forced to contend with reality at any given moment. enlightenment in its simplest definition is striving to better ones self. every form of existence must obey a set of morals one uses to navigate ones physical world. even a god would have to obey this rule. matter itself, however is exempt from having to partake in the growth of a conscience due to its natural unconscious state.

What is not being addressed here is that it is the appearance of the matter or creature emanation, sourced in his own ignorance of belief in dualism, which causes man to interpret himself as 'having to better one's self.' Which means that as long as man continues to believe he 'has to better himself', he will remain living in the dual world made of his own ignorance. This is the trap of good = enlightenment exposed, and there is but one way out of this trap, and that is, to begin to walk the path of righteous awareness, which is to sacrifice [commit suicide to] one's concept of 'what matters to me', or one's concept of 'self.' As Eckhart says, to break through the creature emanation. Which means that to continue to project one's matter world of "good, better, best/bad, worst, worst" has nothing to do with proper discernment of conscience of A = A, but everything to do with the darkness of A = whatever I say A is.

There are many who have become aware that matter is unconscious and that man lives a lie when he interprets it as being conscious. Who then throw up their hands, and say, well, what can I do, I'm stuck in this delusion. There are a handful, however, who do not accept that they are stuck and that it is their responsibility to 'get unstuck' and then, to speak of this way, to show this way, of 'getting unstuck.' Men such as Eckhart, who recognized that most are of the first mindset of "I'm stuck in my creature emanation", causing him to say:

"If anyone cannot understand this sermon [as quoted by Diebert], he need not worry. For so long as man is not equal to this truth, he cannot understand my words, for this is a naked truth which has come direct from the heart of God."

[Pam Seeback]

Kelly: Actually, one's already and inescapably the Infinite. There is no gaining of Infinite-mindedness. It is more like dropping the mental draperies, and being one's original naked self.

From what I can discern from this statement, you and I are in complete agreement as to what must be done to realize one's original naked self [I would use the metaphor "I am"].

What I do not understand is how you do not see that to divide the [nondual] Infinite, of which you already are, into male and female dualities, and then, to expand upon this division as being one of "better" and "worse" is not a mental drapery that needs to be dropped? How do you reconcile the attachment to a duality to be a realization of a nondual "I?"