A question for the enlightened.

[Tomas]

In the human sense, yes.

In the common sense, no.

In the eternal sense, I would certainly hope so :-)

I do not wish to assume in this post. Please explain.

I am all.

[Dan Rowden]

I was wondering who here claims to be enlightened?

Why do you care and why do you think it matters? Those are serious questions, btw.

I care because I want to know the truth.

It matters because the truth matters.

Those are fair statements. I guess my point was why/how does the claim of another person to be enlightened matter to those goals/points? Anyone can say they're enlightened.

[Glostik91]

It is supposed to be possible if you get all of the materials right in your head. If you have some matches you can light a fire, and all sorts of other things. If you know what created the universe you should be able to use those materials to create everything else. The theory of everything is an accepted theory.

If you know what created everything then what created this creator?

[Glostik91]

To truly know anything at all, is for others to not know it, therefore, it would be original, not circulated and never heard before.

I admit to knowing nothing more than what others already know.

So you have never had an original thought in your life?

Logic reveals to me that what I do know is 100% accurate, how do I know this?

Because accuracy is in nature, in all creation, in the stars, sun, galaxies, planets, like perfect precision. Seen is the fibonacci sequence which is in all living creation.

To think is to know that logical thought is indisputable, because it is reasoning ability. Knowledge is not reasoning ability, knowledge is only what is known. True knowledge is a not known, but exists as undiscovered knowledge.

What about the subatomic realm. Chaos and randomness abound in this arena. Doesn't seem to accurate to me.

Knowledge is believing in something true. Truth is found out by logic. There is no other way to find truth. You gain knowledge once you believe in the truth you discover using logic. Undiscovered knowledge is a logical impossibility because knowledge must be believed in. If truth is believed in then it is discovered. It is possible to have undiscovered truth because truth does not need to be believed in.

What do you mean when you say, "To think = to know that logical thought is indisputable"?

[Glostik91]

I am all.

This sounds very egotistic.

[Glostik91]

It matters because the truth matters.

Those are fair statements. I guess my point was why/how does the claim of another person to be enlightened matter to those goals/points? Anyone can say they're enlightened.

They can, but only the enlightened can prove it.

example: One can say, "I am enlightened to the Islamic Koran." Is he enlightened? In one sense yes. In another no. Why no? Because when I ask, "Do you know if the Koran is true?" they respond, "I take it by faith." This means they don't know if its true or not. They believe it is true. Therefore they are enlightened in a limited sense (the limit is the Koran). To be enlightened to Truth means your knowledge is unlimited. In other words one who is enlightened can say, "I am enlightened to everything."

The reason I ask is because I want someone to say they are enlightened so I can ask them, "What is Truth?"

[Animus]

Chaos does not preclude causal determinacy. Chaos is simply a minor change in the initial conditions of a system leading to perceptually larger changes in the results of that same system. So, if you have a gun, say a long-barrel gun and you clean out the barrel as much as you can. You mount this gun to a solid wooden block anchored to the ground, such that the gun cannot move. Then you fire 6 or 7 shots at a target and examine where the bullets hit. The bullets will likely strike at different places on the target, but this is not caused by randomness. It is caused by tiny particles in the barrel adding spin to the bullet, or it may be caused by variations in wind, or many other factors. Chaos Theory is commonly summed up as; A butterfly flapping its wings over Tokyo can cause a hurricane over Texas. This is not "randomness".

Similarly, at sub-atomic levels, it is not clear that particles behave randomly. Particles are subject to our measuring techniques, which means that depending on how we measure them we alter either their trajectory or their velocity, and so.. we can never be certain (determine) where the particle is and how fast it is moving. We are left with a probability of its future and not a complete causal model, but this is because of our influence during the measuring process. So physicists use a "sum over histories" to determine the most probable path a particle will take, and this often results in nearly 100% prediction ability. If the behaviour of sub-atomic particles was purely random there could be no means of ever predicting any action by the particle, it would be purely random.

[Glostik91]

Chaos does not preclude causal determinacy. Chaos is simply a minor change in the initial conditions of a system leading to perceptually larger changes in the results of that same system. So, if you have a gun, say a long-barrel gun and you clean out the barrel as much as you can. You mount this gun to a solid wooden block anchored to the ground, such that the gun cannot move. Then you fire 6 or 7 shots at a target and examine where the bullets hit. The bullets will likely strike at different places on the target, but this is not caused by randomness. It is caused by tiny particles in the barrel adding spin to the bullet, or it may be caused by variations in wind, or many other factors. Chaos Theory is commonly summed up as; A butterfly flapping its wings over Tokyo can cause a hurricane over Texas. This is not "randomness".

Similarly, at sub-atomic levels, it is not clear that particles behave randomly. Particles are subject to our measuring techniques, which means that depending on how we measure them we alter either their trajectory or their velocity, and so.. we can never be certain (determine) where the particle is and how fast it is moving. We are left with a probability of its future and not a complete causal model, but this is because of our influence during the measuring process. So physicists use a "sum over histories" to determine the most probable path a particle will take, and this often results in nearly 100% prediction ability. If the behaviour of sub-atomic particles was purely random there could be no means of ever predicting any action by the particle, it would be purely random.

I always thought the lottery was random. Sure, several things cause what numbers are drawn but can't a random event be caused?

[Animus]

I always thought the lottery was random. Sure, several things cause what numbers are drawn but can't a random event be caused?

The numbers which are drawn are not random, only unpredictable.

[Animus]

Allow me to expand on the lottery example. I assume the usage refers to lotto determined by balls blown into a chamber by air current, which bounce around inside the chamber colliding with each other and the boundary of the chamber which alters their trajectory until one comes out a tube in the top. You can watch the behaviour of these balls inside the chamber and see the influence of the other balls. At any time you can watch a section and see that all of the balls are behaving in deterministic fashion. What you can't do is take account of all the balls at the same time, calculate all of their trajectories and determine their future. There are many limitations of the human eyes and brain which make it difficult to do this. Sure enough there will be the occasional savant who can do it unwittingly. Its not as if the brain and eyes are not theoretically capable of it, its just not typical. Lotteries are usually systematically designed to be unpredictable. Great care is taken to make sure that no one devises a way to predict the results. Random Number Generators (RNGs) are usually complicated and chaotic (in the aforementioned way). A common practice is to take a naturally occurring and highly chaotic system like weather patterns and use their data as a seed for the RNG. Weather patterns are already so chaotic and unpredictable that forecasts are often wrong. They act as a perfect seed for the RNGs which run further algorithms to make it even more unpredictable. All along the way there is determinism and its used quite craftily to make the appearance of genuine randomness, in large part because human brains are so good at making predictions.

[mensa-maniac]

It is supposed to be possible if you get all of the materials right in your head. If you have some matches you can light a fire, and all sorts of other things. If you know what created the universe you should be able to use those materials to create everything else. The theory of everything is an accepted theory.

If you know what created everything then what created this creator?

They can, but only the enlightened can prove it.

example: One can say, "I am enlightened to the Islamic Koran." Is he enlightened? In one sense yes. In another no. Why no? Because when I ask, "Do you know if the Koran is true?" they respond, "I take it by faith." This means they don't know if its true or not. They believe it is true. Therefore they are enlightened in a limited sense (the limit is the Koran). To be enlightened to Truth means your knowledge is unlimited. In other words one who is enlightened can say, "I am enlightened to everything."

The reason I ask is because I want someone to say they are enlightened so I can ask them, "What is Truth?"

"I am enlightened to everything" = God's words that he would give understanding in all things. It does not mean that the enlightened one knows everything.

"What is Truth?"

I will give you two examples of what Truth is at the end of this thread as I'm having great difficulty trying to type here.

[Animus]

Truth has many names

They all dance around it

[mensa-maniac]

"What is Truth?"

I will give you 2 examples of what Truth is, mine and the Word of God.

The Word of God is the Bible, the Bible claims the Word of God as Truth, it is your faith or choice to believe in the Word of God as Truth.

Truth is reality, reality is YOU, because you exist you are truth! Truth to unanswered questions, which according to scripture understanding of all things will be given.

[Blair]

There are those that presume that they are "enlightened" by using the axiom of logic, yet like to ignore that they themselves can only comprehend logic because it is an axiom of creation itself.

Acknowledgement of God is the first and last step of enlightenment, anything else is delusion.

[Carl G]

Acknowledgement of God is the first and last step of enlightenment, anything else is delusion.

How do you define God? What is This which we must acknowledge?

[Cahoot]

Howdy Glostik91

Glostik 91 wrote:

Speak meanings that I can understand. If you truly want to express truth then express it in a way the average person would understand.

I got lost when you said "One known, one known, one known." and "but we're both directly knowing ice-cream, unless ego seizes control to assert the knowing of an illusion at that moment, such as memories of naked space monkeys."

"One known, one known, one known."

The mind is so quick that it intertwines direct perception and inference. All you know for sure is what you know at this moment, and what you know for sure at this moment is very simple, so simple that the active mind balks at the simplicity and seeks more. So, the mind infers. For example, at this moment you are reading this. Your mind, maintaining a running continuity of reality via memory and inference, supplies the illusion that you know what is going on beyond the walls that surround your computer. You remember what you have done recently leading up to this moment, how this correlates with clock time, and how the components of the world you remember have appeared in the past at similar moments of clock time. So, you think you know the general sense of what you will find when you get up and step beyond the walls that surround the computer, but this is just a forecast of high probability based on habitual sensory interpretations. And one day, everything is going to change. These inferences and assumptions are not going to correlate to interpretations of sensory data. So, for now, when mind processes slow way down, when discursive thought is stilled beyond what is customary to physical movement through the world, the elements of actual knowing begin to reveal. There is the inference, which is actually logical extrapolation of memories and logical conclusions which assign varying degrees of probability to an imagined future. Then, there is pure awareness, which is the canvas upon which phenomena appear. Then, there is the mind interpretation of sensory phenomena, which, in terms of identification, categorizing, cataloguing, occurs in linear sequence. We take it all in at once, but all at once is a chaotic mass. The mind gives order to the mass of data, one phenomena at a time, and precedence is assigned to particular phenomena according to varying criteria, such as survival, food, sex, pleasure, pain avoidance, and so on. Thus, there is one known, then what follows is one known, and what follows that is one known. One at a time. The mind is customarily quick, though, and with the inferences of logic and memory co-mingled in with these sensory interpretations, and with inferential concerns directed towards the pragmatic utilization of what is being sensed and inferred, it’s a lot simpler to simply say one knows something. Insert into this process illusions and delusions, which are mental machinations that disrupt the correlation of inference to reality. In the ice cream metaphor, consider ice cream to be all that is, or, reality. Reality can be ascertained from varying perspectives, or flavors (to be consistent with the metaphor), yet each valid perspective of reality correlates with phenomena. When the mind begins to conjure perceived phenomena based on a perspective of inference, rather than inference based on a perspective of phenomena, e.g. space monkeys based on memories that only have existed as an imagined compendium of perceived phenomena, and calls this reality, then this is an indication that the ego is wielding unreasonable, or extra - ordinary, control.

*

To simplify, I would say that all that is, is God. And, you are.

[Kunga]

and God is a concept...the truth canno't be said....because all this talking is conceptual...the truth is beyond concepts...it canno't be said...expressed correctly...it can only be experienced and that experience is beyond expression.....bliss has been used to express this experience....but the more you talk about it the farther away it gets.....i am sick of talking about it and reading about it....and i haven't experienced it ...that i'm aware of....

[mensa-maniac]

Prince

If truths were shown to you that you were enlightened, would you presume you were enlightened, would you believe you were enlightened, or would you agree with the truths shown to you? Or would you believe they weren't truths at all?

"I think therefore I am" Rene Descartes

[Cahoot]

Kunga wrote:

"and God is a concept...the truth canno't be said....because all this talking is conceptual...the truth is beyond concepts...it canno't be said...expressed correctly...it can only be experienced and that experience is beyond expression.....bliss has been used to express this experience....but the more you talk about it the farther away it gets.....i am sick of talking about it and reading about it....and i haven't experienced it ...that i'm aware of...."

Yes of course, labels are conceptual representations which aid communications regarding the ineffable. God as identity, or bliss, can be labeled pure awareness, can be labeled the unmanifest, can be labeled the canvas upon which phenomena appear, and is Beingness upon which, or within which, experience manifests, rather than any particular experience. God suffuses all experience.

*

I am, therefore I think.
- Cahoot

:)

[1456200423]

The reason I ask is because I want someone to say they are enlightened so I can ask them, "What is Truth?"

That's a stupid question, but a easy one. ;-)
Click ->www.thefreedictionary.com

[Kunga]

i'm sick of thinking...i get bored with all this intellectual stuff....i used to BELIVE there was a GOD..now i conceptualize that ALL IS GOD ....but i don't know what i'm talking about....it makes me sick when i think about
all the horrible things that happen in this world...children being raped....where the fuck is god then ? it blows me away so far... that i can't comprehend anything anymore....and i don't want to.

[mensa-maniac]

To truly know anything at all, is for others to not know it, therefore, it would be original, not circulated and never heard before.

I admit to knowing nothing more than what others already know.

So you have never had an original thought in your life?

Glostik91 I find you to be most challenging Thankyou. You've made a great point by pointing out an obvious error on my part and I appreciate your pointing out my deliberate lie in saying
this sentence-- I admit to knowing nothing more than what others already know. I knew I was misleading people by saying that statement, and I Thankyou for making me face up to my deliberate lie. Why I would deliberately undermine myself, is an answer within. The way this sentence should have read is, I admit to knowing more today than yesterday, and less today than in the future.

Your astute witty response to that foolish statement of mine was absolutely priceless and speaks absolute truth, you replied with "So you have never had an original thought in your life?"

In response to that, yes, I am an avid receiver of original thought.

Logic reveals to me that what I do know is 100% accurate, how do I know this?

Because accuracy is in nature, in all creation, in the stars, sun, galaxies, planets, like perfect precision. Seen is the fibonacci sequence which is in all living creation.

To think is to know that logical thought is indisputable, because it is reasoning ability. Knowledge is not reasoning ability, knowledge is only what is known. True knowledge is a not known, but exists as undiscovered knowledge.

What about the subatomic realm. Chaos and randomness abound in this arena. Doesn't seem to accurate to me.

Knowledge is believing in something true. Truth is found out by logic. There is no other way to find truth. You gain knowledge once you believe in the truth you discover using logic. Undiscovered knowledge is a logical impossibility because knowledge must be believed in. If truth is believed in then it is discovered. It is possible to have undiscovered truth because truth does not need to be believed in.

Mensa maniac: I've corrected it to this, Undiscovered knowledge is a logical impossibility
because it is not knowledge yet, your right it is truths, it is undiscovered truths. I stand to be corrected Thankyou.

What do you mean when you say, "To think = to know that logical thought is indisputable"?

Mensa Maniac: "I think therefore I am" Rene Descartes To think is to believe in what you say, unless you are delusional--To think is to know your thoughts are truth, truth is logical thought and therefore is indisputable, any thing less than truth is inferior.

[Glostik91]

The numbers which are drawn are not random, only unpredictable.

What is the difference between random and unpredictable?

[Glostik91]

"I am enlightened to everything" = God's words that he would give understanding in all things. It does not mean that the enlightened one knows everything.

"What is Truth?"

I will give you two examples of what Truth is at the end of this thread as I'm having great difficulty trying to type here.

Are you claiming to be enlightened? I can't tell from your wording.

[Glostik91]

"What is Truth?"

I will give you 2 examples of what Truth is, mine and the Word of God.

The Word of God is the Bible, the Bible claims the Word of God as Truth, it is your faith or choice to believe in the Word of God as Truth.

Truth is reality, reality is YOU, because you exist you are truth! Truth to unanswered questions, which according to scripture understanding of all things will be given.

How do I know that I exist?