Never will you be wise or enlightened

[average]

enlightenment doesn't change anything, specially how you feel.

that monk answered correctly

The monk was deluding himself, clearly unable to face the reality that misery is always a product of ignorance. His attainment was a false one.

-

You still think humans attain enlightened?

Curious.

[Sapius]

Ataxas;

The point here is the question of whether or not "consciousness" can be reduced. I maintain that it can, and should, when considering philosophically the question of "free-will", and I gave an avenue of inquiry by which reduction could be explored.

Sorry for the delayed response. Actually I did not notice it earlier, because I generally tend to skip things that are not particularly addressed.

By what way can “consciousness” itself be reduced unless one reduces the meaning or “idea” of it? Or say the context or causal conditions.

I think the very act of you suggesting a different avenue of inquiry proves that "you" as an individual are being influenced by your own reasoning rather than blindly believing or following what is being suggested to you by someone else. One always has the choice to ignore or disagree, or conclude - No! Not only Yes!

Considering causality like a continuous unbroken chain of domino effect is a mistake in my opinion. If so, then logically speaking, individual reasoning or individual opposing values are actually pointless. Rendering logic or logical differentiation pointless. And existence is not all that pointless by the mere fact that it includes individuals that are capable of making their own points. Imagining all points put together, say as in Totality, does not invalidate the value of any single point made itself, or even that particular point made. Would it?

[Sapius]

In the context of the story of the newly awakened monk:
"And how do you feel?"

"As miserable as ever," said the monk."

"I, who?" is always the ultimate question. The questioner lives in the delusion of "I", still thinking he *is* somebody, the ol' "separate self." So he automatically projects this onto the monk, as all "seekers" do with everyone else.
'No change in feelings' is a good answer, whether he had been blissful or miserable before enlightenment.
There is still all manner of bliss, joy, happiness, suffering, misery... and whatever 'inconveniences.' The differences is there is no longer a *sufferer*... a "self" to whom all of the above is happening. It's all "just happening." The Universal Witness in all just compassionately watches the movie.
mikiel

All said and done, it seems finally there is still an individual self that is utterly convinced of a realization and maintains it; be it that there is no “sufferer”, or that ignorance is “suffering” and that “I” am no longer ignorant. Essentially it remains the same old Self but just that the perspective of the Self changes, which is essentially a different state of mind. It’s all a matter of psychological self-convincing as I see it, irrelevant of what convinces an individual Self, which yearns for self-satisfaction however, and finds it in his own self-convincing; essentially avoiding or dismantling “sufferings” according to ones own definition of it. A vicious circle.

That there is no “sufferer”, or that “I” don’t exist inherently, is quite a positive self-convincing thought or realization that surely helps one face psychological traumas that otherwise would take a heavier toll, but enlightened or not, one cannot escape the effects of a beheading. Isn’t that an Absolute Truth too? But one could always escspe "sufferings".

On the other hand, psychological traumas can be equally well handled by a self that does not consider sufferings as “sufferings”, but a fact and an integral part of existence, and thereby over comes them by facing them head-on. In an equally “enlightened” way if I may say so, but of course, The “Enlightened” need not necessarily agree with it.

End of the day, it is the psychological self-convincing that could take either direction, and I keep hearing that an individual self-convincing will plays no part in taking a particular direction. I find that absurd, otherwise, the fact that individuals take their own values seriously… is a cosmic joke.

Yes, mikiel, the ultimate question - I, who? I, me; a particular self; otherwise literally nothing. It is not as illusory as one might consider it to be. Self, I or me, is one and the same thing.

[ataxas]

I think the very act of you suggesting a different avenue of inquiry proves that "you" as an individual are being influenced by your own reasoning rather than blindly believing or following what is being suggested to you by someone else. One always has the choice to ignore or disagree, or conclude - No! Not only Yes!

It is my opinion that you are making a mistake when you conclude that the denial of free-will leads to domination of the mind by others. It seems to me that consciousness is an inevitable result of a phenomenally large number of factors, a great number of which may be random (consider: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the level at which neurons operate in the brain, and The Butterfly Effect). It would be at least extremely difficult to detail every one of these factors; I maintain that it would be impossible. Human brains, although they can be nearly duplicated genetically (when a foetus divides in utero), cannot yet be duplicated stucturally or operationally, as memory formation is essential to the individual. Thus, we subscribe to the perfectly reasonable and terribly useful assumption that we have a "conscious will", which is effectively exactly what we do have, at the level of everyday operation. It is only when the puzzle of "being" and "individuality" is carefully examined, that we must find flaws in the premise.

[Sapius]

Thus, we subscribe to the perfectly reasonable and terribly useful assumption that we have a "conscious will", which is effectively exactly what we do have, at the level of everyday operation.

Ok, so say, is there a reason that such an assumption could be considered false or invalid?

It is only when the puzzle of "being" and "individuality" is carefully examined, that we must find flaws in the premise.

Could you please point out the flaws as you see them, and what exactly makes it a puzzle to begin with?

BTW, why can't there be individual pockets of butterfly effects interacting as opposing factors, resulting in absolutely unique but however unpredictable results, as seen from our perspectives or limitations of knowledge, which may seem to be random but may not necessarily be the case? May be there are innumerable butterfly effects battling in a single brain that give rise to sense of “being”, “individuality”.

Just thinking out loud for you to hear… :D

[David Quinn]

enlightenment doesn't change anything, specially how you feel.

that monk answered correctly

The monk was deluding himself, clearly unable to face the reality that misery is always a product of ignorance. His attainment was a false one.

You still think humans attain enlightened?

Curious.

They can abandon all of their delusions, which is what I call enlightenment.

-

[average]

They can abandon all of their delusions, which is what I call enlightenment.

-

Best to abandon that delusion then.

[xerox]

...

[average]

they thought people and monks get enlightened...

the monk should have just hit them with a stick

[Dan Rowden]

Hitting someone with a stick achieves what?

[average]

Hitting someone with a stick achieves what?

edit:

when timed properly, it could stop them from pursuing stupid questions

[bert]

all our denials, even of ourselves , come from non-acceptance: the unrealization of otherness in self; of the Absolute in the non-absolute.

[David Quinn]

They can abandon all of their delusions, which is what I call enlightenment.

Best to abandon that delusion then.

That would be a case of putting your hands over your eyes and ears and pretending that delusions don't exist.

In any case, your comment doesn't support your overall point in this thread because even if the only thing we have to do is to abandon the delusion that delusion exists, it still affirms the duality between enlightenment and delusion.

-

[average]

They can abandon all of their delusions, which is what I call enlightenment.

Best to abandon that delusion then.

That would be a case of putting your hands over your eyes and ears and pretending that delusions don't exist


In any case, your comment doesn't support your overall point in this thread because even if the only thing we have to do is to abandon the delusion that delusion exists, it still affirms the duality between enlightenment and delusion.

-

edit:

the hardest problem you face, is that there isn't one.

there isn't even one thing you can abandon...and that is my point.



delusions are of the mind, as diseases are of the body, in relation to Enlightenment they are utterly irrelevant.

[Nick]

Average, what do you call it when someone abandon's all delusion?

[average]

Average, what do you call it when someone abandon's all delusion?

they have a healthy mind

much like someone who has cured all their bodily diseases and have healthy bodies...

[Nick]

Well, then don't you agree that what you call a healthy mind is what David refers to as enlightenment?

[average]

Well, then don't you agree that what you call a healthy mind is what David refers to as enlightenment?

Well, I guess thats all that enlightenment is to David.

But such a state is transient, superficial...an empty appearance, just like having a healthy body.

[Nick]

But such a state is transient, superficial...an empty appearance, just like having a healthy body.

Only in the "eyes" of God, or a person who has no values; but you agree it's impossible for a person to have no values right?

[David Quinn]

DQ: In any case, your comment doesn't support your overall point in this thread because even if the only thing we have to do is to abandon the delusion that delusion exists, it still affirms the duality between enlightenment and delusion.

Average: the hardest problem you face, is that there isn't one.

there isn't even one thing you can abandon...and that is my point.

Even here you are affirming the duality. You regard me as being deluded because, unlike yourself, I haven't yet worked through this "hardest problem".

To the degree that you think other people are deluded, to that very same degree you are making a distinction between enlightenment and delusion.

Nick: Average, what do you call it when someone abandon's all delusion?

Average: they have a healthy mind

much like someone who has cured all their bodily diseases and have healthy bodies...

delusions are of the mind, as diseases are of the body, in relation to Enlightenment they are utterly irrelevant.

If enlightenment means the elimination of all delusion, then eliminating delusions is entirely relevent to enlightenment.

Like a lot of people, you are confusing enlightenment (consciousness of true nature) with true nature itself. It is true that eliminating delusion is irrelevant to our true nature, as our true nature always shines and can never be destroyed by anything. But in regards to becoming conscious of our true nature, it is an entirely different story. Here, eliminating the delusions which obscure our vision is critical.

Well, then don't you agree that what you call a healthy mind is what David refers to as enlightenment?

Well, I guess thats all that enlightenment is to David.

But such a state is transient, superficial...an empty appearance, just like having a healthy body.

Enlightenment is indeed transient, but still infinitely important to me.

-

[average]

Edit:

Even here you are affirming the duality. You regard me as being deluded because, unlike yourself, I haven't yet worked through this "hardest problem".

To the degree that you think other people are deluded, to that very same degree you are making a distinction between enlightenment and delusion.

This doesn't delude you or anyone else in relation to actual Enlightenment, it doesn't come or go, and nothing obstructs it or clarifies it.

But this doesn't stop people from creating their own problems and delusions about themselves, and Enlightenment....they create problems where there really are none.

If enlightenment means the elimination of all delusion, then eliminating delusions is entirely relevent to enlightenment.



Like a lot of people, you are confusing enlightenment (consciousness of true nature) with true nature itself. It is true that eliminating delusion is irrelevant to our true nature, as our true nature always shines and can never be destroyed by anything. But in regards to becoming conscious of our true nature, it is an entirely different story. Here, eliminating the delusions which obscure our vision is critical.

Enlightenment is indeed transient, but still infinitely important to me.

You are confusing Enlightenment, which is our true nature, with a transient mental state that has nothing to do with it or ourselves.

You can't grasp it mentally, or physically, because you aren't any of those.

[DFBatosee]

i have read this entire thing. i understand about 95% of all of it. one thing i dont understand is why you guys think that enlightenment is possible. From what i understand being enlightened means you make no mistakes and know everything about everything. What other people consider a mistake you must consider a learning experience and learn from. But if you are enlightened then you make no mistakes which would mean you cant learn which means you cant be knowledged? if you are nothing more than learned up until a certain point you will fade into non existence.

which to me means as the original statement of the forum says:
"Never will you be wise or enlightened"
and if that is so then....?

currently i have lost my self in a concurrent thought process and dont know which way to go.

please please correct me if i am mistaken on something but from what i have read that is what is seems to be to me.

[average]

i have read this entire thing. i understand about 95% of all of it. one thing i dont understand is why you guys think that enlightenment is possible. From what i understand being enlightened means you make no mistakes and know everything about everything. What other people consider a mistake you must consider a learning experience and learn from. But if you are enlightened then you make no mistakes which would mean you cant learn which means you cant be knowledged? if you are nothing more than learned up until a certain point you will fade into non existence.

which to me means as the original statement of the forum says:
"Never will you be wise or enlightened"
and if that is so then....?

currently i have lost my self in a concurrent thought process and dont know which way to go.

please please correct me if i am mistaken on something but from what i have read that is what is seems to be to me.

Enlightenment isn't something you have, it has nothing to do with the mind, the body, what you know or what you don't know.

It has everything to do with who you truly are.

[Steven Coyle]

Delusion has its source within the absolute, as the totality continuously makes all things into a unity.

Things once thought false also may prove true, as no thing inside reality is too small for its inclusion within the spiritual reality of the aspirant.

[David Quinn]

i have read this entire thing. i understand about 95% of all of it. one thing i dont understand is why you guys think that enlightenment is possible. From what i understand being enlightened means you make no mistakes and know everything about everything.

Enlightenment doesn't mean understanding every little detail about the world in a scientific sense. It means understanding the essential nature of all things. It is a philosophic/spiritual understanding.

The perfectly-enlightened person is perfect in that he never falls into delusion about this essential nature. He has perfect clarity of mind, having eliminated the mental distortions created by false views, attachments and emotions.

-