What does"enlightenment" mean to you?

[Dan Rowden]

That is a lie. Would you like me to produce the multitude of times that David and I have defined it for people on this forum? Meh, what good would that do anyway...

And another thing: 3 people can define enlightenment with different language and still point to the same reality. Do you imagine, for example, that every Xian theologian through the centuries has defined and explained "revelation" in exactly the same way? Given they have not, are you asserting that only one of them can be expressing a legitimate view? (I'm using "revelation" as an example, not as a Xian equivalent to enlightenment.)

Oh, and another, other thing: when you say "clear" you ought really qualify that as "not clear to me".

Okay: 'Not clear to me' but I did assume that your message gets through to others. It would be appreciated if you would---without getting obsessive about it---link to one of the descriptions of enlightenment that you think is representational or precise. True, these descriptions, and the state of mind described, has never struck me as a 'real thing', but oddly enough I have had, and I think many writing here have had, certain experiences where 'enlightenment' has been presented as a possibility. Be that as it may I just got by first supply of Razon-Eze® which is said to enable 'constant, continuous, linear episodes of sheer reasoning' for up to 14 hours! It is a 30 day supply so let's see what can be made of it.

Haven't you seen my Youtube video on this subject? I seem to recall you saying you had. Enlightenment is simply the absence of all delusion regarding the nature of ultimately reality, of self/other. The meat of that is more complex to talk about because it involves uncovering the various ways in which we are in fact delusional. We have, of course, been doing that for 15 years, in case you hadn't noticed.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The meat of that is more complex to talk about because it involves uncovering the various ways in which we are in fact delusional. We have, of course, been doing that for 15 years, in case you hadn't noticed.

In that sense the "meat" is the forum itself in its multiplicity, elaboration, opposition and certainly confusion. But the purpose of the forum is to discuss its nature. In that light, anyone asking "what does E mean to you" or "please define it" must be really retarded. How could there be a simple definition if the reason of the gathering is stated on top of the page: "discussing its nature". What's there to discuss if there would be an accepted, generic description of enlightenment's nature in place for all to use? And why even start it as a topic when each thread implicitly has this topic already?

More evidence some people just want conversation as a goal in itself here. Perhaps to labor a point creating boring social interaction just to have this labor, to feel busy, to extract meaning not from the topic but from the engagement itself, justified and overvalued by the pretentious sounding topic as garment to cover the shame?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Your so obviously egotistical, how can one hold a grudge and not be? The most resentful person on this forum.

Not to mention Dan just posted a definition above, and in videos. Retard :)


Dieberts enlightenment is a shining light to the world! And he's the only person in that world.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Missed that comment at first "Dennis", too bad 'we' just don't have a choice in the matter.