A question for the enlightened.

[Glostik91]

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.

Axioms are the foundations for logical deductions. If the foundation is false the whole framework falls with it. So how do we know axioms are true?

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

How many steps are there?

[mensa-maniac]

"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.

Mensa maniac: The words "I am enlightened to everything" are in quotes, they are your words I'm using. I gave you a comparison in God's terminology that he will give understanding in all things.


"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.

If truths were shown to you that you were enlightened, would you accept it's authenticity as being truths or would you not believe it? or would you believe these truths as not being truths and say they are wrong, therefore denying truths.

Truths are not wrong, truths are indisputable, I cannot dispute a truth.

[Cahoot]

Socrates: "How many steps are there?"

(If I may, as Princely Plato’s proxy): Based on the information supplied by the statement to which the question refers, there is one step of enlightenment if the first and last acknowledgment of God is the same instance, referenced with different labels, namely: “first” and “last.”

However, if the first and last acknowledgment of God are different instances of the same acknowledgment, then the statement implies an intermediary separation of some manner of change, which would mean that there is a minimum of three steps, namely:

1. Acknowledgment of God.
2. Non-acknowledgment of God.
3. Acknowledgment of God.

[Steven Coyle]

Scan up bay:

"It means we are."

[Pincho Paxton]

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?

Well the creator was just 2 bubbles, and they were created by logic that nothing cannot exist.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

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?"

• Re: claims of enlightenment.

Truth orientation, for starters, is the ability to discern for oneself which words and behaviors appear as stemming from truth. This process is necessarily flawed as we can only examine words and behaviors in our own context, not that from someone else. So there always will be uncertainty about the exact motivation or truthfulness of the source. Perhaps just random bull's eyes? For this reason one can only know ones own enlightenment.

• Re: what is truth.

Truth is existence, truth is the way; truth is life.

But only in the sense of the constant, the eternal life. The truth of the infinite, the "voice of nature and time".

All that changes, fluctuates, announces beginnings and disappears into some finality, like stars collapsing, is not true and remains illusive. A human, my life, your taste, pain and pleasure: suffering, delusion: it's truth opposing: it's death while others call if life. But all experience it in some ways, all deal with it nevertheless.

All that approaches forever, breaths longitude, spanning the ages as if just moments, aspires timelessness, aligns with eternal and unchanging reality is truthful, truth loving. It's life while others call it death or some vague abstract alienating idea. But all experience it in some ways, all deal with it nevertheless.

[Cory Duchesne]

Glostik, I just noticed your reply today...

Pincho seems to define enlightenment as knowing everything as opposed to simply knowing the nature of everything. Pincho's definition isn't wise because knowing everything is impossible.

The nature of empirical knowledge is that it always creates a concomitant unknown.

Because our perception is always limited we cannot gain concrete truth through empiricism.

So, how can we begin to know something that is concretely true? (which could logically lead us to enlightenment or a knowledge of all truth)

Best place to start is to acknowledge that which logically cannot be denied: "appearances are happening". It's mundane, but it's the basis of all further understanding.

[mensa-maniac]

Cory is right!

[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?

Well the creator was just 2 bubbles, and they were created by logic that nothing cannot exist.

Mensa maniac: Nothing does exist though, it is something of nothing of something. Imagine invisible communicative consciousnesses all around you, but you don't see them because they are invisible. Would you say the consciousnesses are nothing because you cannot see them, the truth is they are something from something invisible, therefore they are something
from something of nothing from something.

[mensa-maniac]

Nothing does exist as something, it is thought that it is nothing because it is invisible, but nothing does exist as something, therefore nothing becomes something.

Imagine God as being the invisible something which we'll call invisible consciousness, is it fair to say God is nothing because God is invisible?

[Blair]

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?

God is the overbeing. The one that enables. Just as when you walk down the street on a pavement, if you give it a seconds thought, you realize that pavement was put there, for a reason by people, for your benefit, it didn't get there by any random proccess, it was deliberately put there.

The same concept applies to the universe, it's just done on a much larger scale, and in a way which is beyond the comprehension of the average human mind. And God did not endow humans with the ability to understand it, in fact he gave them an ego to prevent it, otherwise the game would be up.

If the ego is subdued sufficiently, the fact that the universe is made from a logically superior mind and resource is extremely obvious.

So to acknowledge God, is to recognize and concede to that which is far superior, in the ultimate sense.

[Steven Coyle]

The love is a contagious amp

[Foreigner]

I was wondering who here claims to be enlightened?

You will find glos, that besides the three owners here all Australians by the way there is only Diebert, Cory and Jehu (though they are far too modest to say), the rest will just make you wonder WHY-oh-WHY they are even here.
So what about you?

me? You guessed it--
too modest!
:)

[Foreigner]

If the ego is subdued sufficiently, the fact that the universe is made from a logically superior mind and resource is extremely obvious.

Subdue it a great deal more and naturally, as can be expected, that which becomes obvious is truer still!

[Is.]

Does the OP mean enlightened in terms of rationality and reason...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

...or enlightened in terms of spiritual liberation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_(spiritual)

[Carl G]

I was wondering who here claims to be enlightened?

You will find glos, that besides the three owners here all Australians by the way there is only Diebert, Cory and Jehu (though they are far too modest to say), the rest will just make you wonder WHY-oh-WHY they are even here. me? You guessed it--
too modest!

Let's see if I get this, there are six members who claim (or infer) that they are enlightened, seven if we count you, and the rest of us probably have no real business being here? Wtf?

[Carl G]

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

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

prince: God is the overbeing. The one that enables. Just as when you walk down the street on a pavement, if you give it a seconds thought, you realize that pavement was put there, for a reason by people, for your benefit, it didn't get there by any random proccess, it was deliberately put there.

The same concept applies to the universe, it's just done on a much larger scale, and in a way which is beyond the comprehension of the average human mind. And God did not endow humans with the ability to understand it, in fact he gave them an ego to prevent it, otherwise the game would be up.

If the ego is subdued sufficiently, the fact that the universe is made from a logically superior mind and resource is extremely obvious.

So to acknowledge God, is to recognize and concede to that which is far superior, in the ultimate sense.

That's a good answer. I don't dispute it. Can logic? The logicians on this forum would appear to purport that it does. What can we know? What we can feel, for one. What we can reason, for two. Does one supersede the other? I think reason and feeling ideally work together, to inform about the big things.

I have basically come to the same conclusion as you. Does this make us theists? Does this lump us with the Old Man on a Cloud believers? How do you picture this "overbeing"? Do you see God as basically a giant man, you know, with arms and legs, like, sitting on a throne somewhere? What does God embody? For me the answer is "everything". Probably the main difference between myself and an atheist, then, is that I see The All as having a Conscious Mind, and Intention.

[Pincho Paxton]

Nothing does exist as something, it is thought that it is nothing because it is invisible, but nothing does exist as something, therefore nothing becomes something.

Imagine God as being the invisible something which we'll call invisible consciousness, is it fair to say God is nothing because God is invisible?

Invisible is not the same as nothing. Light travels through something without lighting it. If light lit what it travels through then the light energy would be gone before it got anywhere. It used to be part of science that light travels through the Aether, and I still say it does. Science decided to throw Aether in the bin because the scientists couldn't find it. My two bubbles created the Aether, it is invisible, and occupies every space in the Universe now. You are sitting in a room full of it. It touches your eyes, yet you can't even tell it's there. But just like a fish in water you are in a sort of liquid. would the fish want to see the water? If a fish could see water it would be partly blinded by it, so the water probably looks completely invisible to the fish. Aether looks completely invisible to us.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I have basically come to the same conclusion as you [that anything didn't get there by any random proccess, it was deliberately put there.
]. Does this make us theists? Does this lump us with the Old Man on a Cloud believers?

Yes. Because he's making the same logical mistake as them: not being able to accept that we A) can not and will never fully know how probable any event really is and B) even when something would known to be against astronomically odds, if it's possible it will happen. It's important to stop trying to rationalize what's essentially faith and feeling based. No one can and will argue with what you feel should be true.

[mensa-maniac]

Nothing does exist as something, it is thought that it is nothing because it is invisible, but nothing does exist as something, therefore nothing becomes something.

Imagine God as being the invisible something which we'll call invisible consciousness, is it fair to say God is nothing because God is invisible?

Invisible is not the same as nothing. Light travels through something without lighting it. If light lit what it travels through then the light energy would be gone before it got anywhere. It used to be part of science that light travels through the Aether, and I still say it does. Science decided to throw Aether in the bin because the scientists couldn't find it. My two bubbles created the Aether, it is invisible, and occupies every space in the Universe now. You are sitting in a room full of it. It touches your eyes, yet you can't even tell it's there. But just like a fish in water you are in a sort of liquid. would the fish want to see the water? If a fish could see water it would be partly blinded by it, so the water probably looks completely invisible to the fish. Aether looks completely invisible to us.

Mensa-maniac: "Invisible is not the same as nothing" I agree wholeheartedly, just because it is invisible doesn't mean it is not there, it just means it is invisible. It does not exist to the human eye because it is invisible, but it still exists invisibly.

Mensa-maniac: I would appreciate knowing more about Aether.

Mensa-maniac: "If light lit what it travels through then the light energy would be gone before it got anywhere"

Exactly!

I will discuss this with my friend Randy, it won't surprise me a bit if he knows about Aether.

[Carl G]

It's important to stop trying to rationalize what's essentially faith and feeling based. No one can and will argue with what you feel should be true.

It's not about feeling what should be true. That isn't what I suggested. It's about feeling what is true. The implicit question there is, can feelings be valid and accurate discerners of truth, especially in conjunction with the mind? Are there levels of understanding possible, which are unreachable by the mind alone? How is that about faith, which, to use a favorite term of yours, is nothing but a red herring to the core issue?

[Cory Duchesne]

Humans seem to have an easier time accepting the impossible than they do accepting the improbable.

[Carl G]

Humans seem to have an easier time accepting the impossible than they do accepting the improbable.

Give us a relevant example?

[Cory Duchesne]

Humans seem to have an easier time accepting the impossible than they do accepting the improbable.

Give us a relevant example?

An example is how theists rebel against evolution because they can't handle the improbable, but then they go and use God to explain design.

The "impossible" aspect of God is ignoring the fact that such a being would be just as if not much more exquisitely designed.

In other words, why are theists puzzled by the design of organisms and such, but are not puzzled by the design of God?

Really, it's impossible for such a person to be logical. But Theists believe they are logical. And this is because they are more apt to believe in the impossible than they are the improbable.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

... can feelings be valid and accurate discerners of truth, especially in conjunction with the mind? Are there levels of understanding possible, which are unreachable by the mind alone?

Anything that is able to validate and discern truth would in my book still called mind or reason. Also: when understanding takes place, mind arises. If you take understanding to a different level, you're just taking the mind to that level.

The question is then what you mean by these different types of "accurate discerning" and "understanding". Wouldn't they add up to hunches, guesses, estimates, predictions and so on? Any examples?