Was Jesus Not Enlightened ?

[JemyM]

Examining what the gospels say from beginning to end, Jesus, or whoever wrote the tale, was not a bright guy and his advice was quite bad. He come out as an uncivilized brute next to other philosophers. Jesus was counter-enlightenment. He established himself as truth and declared education as something to avoid. He also threatened them with another position. He lead by fear rather than encourage with good examples. His popularity grew not because of what he said, but due to a superpower that eridicated all opposition with lethal force for over a thousand years. Without that power, the gospels would have been long forgotten. They carry value only to those who read very little.

[mikec23]

Cosmic Consciousness (God) never sleeps

How do you know that?

But Universal Consciousness is (reach for this one!) always conscious.

Is always conscious of what?

This individual, mikiel, is sharing verbal indications/pointers toward this Gift of Real-I-zation with that individual calling himself mikec23 (for reasons known only to himself.) Same Consciousness (God) as One Identity in all. See?

Again, if we are all one, the same consciousness, one identity, the omnipresent God; why would God need to share its gift of Real-I-zation with itself?

How does God become ignorant of itself?

Genius has *nothing* to do with enlightenment.

I see. Could you please define what you mean by Genius?

none of which drive me since my awakening.

Awakening?
But I thought you said that God never sleeps?

[Jason]

Was Jesus Not Enlightened?

Yes errr I mean no. Damn it!

[mikiel]

Cosmic Consciousness (God) never sleeps

How do you know that?
Gnostically. Here are a couple of relevant links from my website:
http://www.consciousunity.org/page1.html
http://www.consciousunity.org/page3.html

But Universal Consciousness is (reach for this one!) always conscious.

Is always conscious of what?

Consciousness can transcend content... awareness itself transcending *what* It is aware of. I 've recently belabored this point with many here and gave lots of links about "consciousness without an object." Guess you missed these conversations, but I'm not going to search them out for you or repeat their content for your benefit.

This individual, mikiel, is sharing verbal indications/pointers toward this Gift of Real-I-zation with that individual calling himself mikec23 (for reasons known only to himself.) Same Consciousness (God) as One Identity in all. See?

Again, if we are all one, the same consciousness, one identity, the omnipresent God; why would God need to share its gift of Real-I-zation with itself?

See links above.

How does God become ignorant of itself?
By taking the form of a "sleeping" (not spiritually awake) person.

Genius has *nothing* to do with enlightenment.

Enlightenment has nothing to do with what one knows but rather everything to do with knowing Who we are, our true Universal Identity.

I see. Could you please define what you mean by Genius?

Free-thinking as contrasted with information regurgitation. See my laterst entry in the "free-thinking" thread. Also genius requires the equipment for excellence in information gathering/storage as a data-base for original thinking.

none of which drive me since my awakening.

Awakening?
But I thought you said that God never sleeps?

Again, see links above.

[Remo]

There is no historical proof that Jesus ever lived, the earliest mention of Jesus was close to 100 years after he died...
1st very interesting it shows jesus comapared to hero myths in a point by point form in which jesus scores on 20 of the 22 points.
http://everything2.com/e2node/The%2520Hero%2520Pattern
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/ ... istory.htm
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/Christi ... jesus.html
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html

I think jesus was john the baptist mythified after the fact, a huge chunk of christian dogma is also lifted straight from the worshipers of mithra.

But whether he existed or not the teachings attributed to jesus are enlightened, especially if one considers the time in which they were written.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

But whether he existed or not the teachings attributed to jesus are enlightened, especially if one considers the time in which they were written.

How would when they were written affect their value in regards to enlightenment?

[Remo]

the term being enlightened, presupposes that one is more enlightened than their contemporaries, you could say if were all equally enlightened, than no one is really enlightened at all, as enlightenment goes beyond what is considered general knowledge. Given that 2000 years ago education was none existent for most of the population, an enlightened individual was much rarer then it is today.

Enlightenment broadly means wisdom or understanding enabling clarity of perception. However, the English word covers two concepts which can be quite distinct: religious or spiritual enlightenment (German: Erleuchtung) and secular or intellectual enlightenment (German: Aufklärung). This can cause confusion, since those who claim intellectual enlightenment often reject spiritual concepts altogether.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I see. You've abandoned the type of enlightenment described in the opening post, and switched it to a term that means "highly educated".

Soham's "Absolute Awareness" is not a matter of superiority over those who share time and place, although that is an accidental consequence of enlightenment, but rather it depends on the timeless wisdom of an undeluded mind. It seems a far more important matter to determine if Jesus was enlightened in that sense.

[Remo]

There's another word that's a synonym for the phrase "Absolute awareness" its Omniscience, I think I'll stick to a definition of "Enlightened" that applies in a human context.

And please don't say Jesus was god.... you can but it would just be a belief and on the scales of knowledge helium has more weight.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Omniscience is all-knowing, which is not the same as Absolute Awareness. Although not identical with it, Absolute Awareness is closer in meaning to "awareness of the Absolute" than "omniscience".

You can see, even from the first few replies, that Absolute Awareness was understood as a synonym for the enlightenment of Sidhartha Gautama or the profound understanding of Lao Tzu. Diebert argued that the esoteric meaning of Jesus' words on Jehovah could be "a way to conceptualize Totality or Tao". This is an interpretation of the word enlightenment in an entirely different sense than you are using it.

Highly educated people do not automatically spend time conceptualizing the Totality, and one's time and place are accidental in regards to one's ability to form insights into the Totality. If Jesus was enlightened in the sense of this thread, he is not God-like, and it does not matter when or where he was born; nor does it matter how well educated he is. Soham's question is not about whether he had magical powers or if he was intelligent; but rather, if he was wise.

[Remo]

Awareness of the Absolute is not Absolute Awareness both are very different concepts.

I cannot mind read a person's intended definition when misusing words in the English language, while what you say makes sense once Awareness of the Absolute as defined is applied to the definition (one facet at any rate) of enlightenment. It does not follow through in defending the original term Absolute Awareness as meaning Awareness of the Absolute,it is faulty logic at best.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Yes, Soham could have phrased his question more clearly. If he had, I wouldn't have had to make these clarifications for him.

When you stick around a forum for a while, you build up enough context to make such minor corrections.

[Remo]

I'm really not trying to nit pick, but his question was "Was Jesus Not Enlightened ?" the AA was a faulty statement after the fact.

Also while I understand what your saying, faulty use of language and concepts often results in mind boggling arguments between 2 or more parties who are essentially trying to describe the same thought.

Look at it this way.

I think therefore I am < your thoughts are very clear to yourself, expressing your thoughts however needs a more rigorous critical standard or confusion results. I cannot truly know what anyone thinks I can only read the lines, reading between the lines is assuming you know what another is thinking, ever heard the saying " assumption is the mother of all fuckups"? Its a rule to live by. Better to be clear right from the start.

And while I don't rigorously hold to this rule in informal situations, in a forum who's bases for existence is the discussion of the complex, its better to stick to proper definitions right from the start.

[mikiel]

Assuming honesty of testimony (again, sina qua non), anyone who knows and says with absolute certainly, "I and God are One" is enlightened. The rest is window dressing.

[Ramayana]

Assuming honesty of testimony (again, sina qua non), anyone who knows and says with absolute certainly, "I and God are One" is enlightened. The rest is window dressing.

So is it reasonable to say, either Jesus was NOT the/a Messiah or by collective reasoning mikiel is claiming he is the next/a/the Messiah? Doesn't this infer the same logic David applied?

The basic statement left by this quote is enlightenment=Messiah?? Unless mik claims Jesus was NOT the Messiah. If one were to subscribe to biblical text I would claim witness to this manipulative egomaniac as a false prophet surely....

[Ramayana]

And anyone claiming in honesty they can fly is truly a bird? Or just delusional? You're truly a sick in individual mik...

[Alex Jacob]

Back toward the beginning Grumpy Carl wrote:

"Jesus may not even have historically existed. And it doesn't matter. If there are wise words indicating a path, then Jesus can be lauded as a trailblazer. The real issue is your enlightenment."

I rather think that it matters very much. Even with the critical approach to analysis of the Bible---and really as a result of it---most determine there was indeed a specific person behind many of the pithy statements of this 'Jesus'.

To use the term 'enlightenment' has really got to be seen now, after all this time, as a sort of loser's joke. The term is completely meaningless, and that the term is used in discourse here completely muddles everything.

So, in this way of seeing things, with this invisible, meaningless 'enlightenment' which is always mouthed by individuals who have not the slightest idea of what it means and do not even minimally approach even mere intellectual 'enlightenment, it would follow that there needs to have been no actual person of Jesus since the knowledge or perspective that supports this 'enlightenment' is a sort of acid that dissolves any substantial understanding of reality, of life, of being itself. What is left after you're done...is just nothing. You don't even exist! The way that the notion of 'enlightenment' is used around here is like a bad, even nightmarish drug, and I---(((Alex Jacob, Cardsharp))) have deigned to come down through the material layers to bring you-all the True Teaching.

Why must you resist so? Why why why?!? Why do you make this so hard on each of us?

'Wise words indicating a path' that no one seems to have even the most basic idea of what that is! The irony is incredible, as a matter of fact I don't believe it. You fuckers are pulling my fucking leg!

Path? Trailblazing? To what and where???

Shadows, trolls, ghouls gather together in a mental world to construct a coffin.

Over it they lamentably chant the Mantras of Death!

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Alex, the two strongest arguments against enlightenment that I've heard run as follows:

"Monism is the belief that anything less than everything is nothing."
and
"It's not that hard to believe nothing false; all you have to do is refuse to believe anything at all."

I'm not often obligated to produce counter-arguments, but these ones required it. Unfortunately, I'm not (((allowed))) to tell you what they are.

[Alex Jacob]

Oh, itzcool man. (((We Prophets, you know, we storm around and smash things to bits on the ground, and somehow it makes the world a brighter place, who knows how?))) It makes me happy, though, to know you and I are among that shrinking group who don't put vibrating pleasure-devices up our butts, and thanks for that!

[Carl G]

Grumpy Alex, you really are a caricature. You're like a dog that catches a newspaper floating in the wind and ferociously tears it up feeling he is a mighty hunter.

What is it you object to in my commentary, the idea of wise words? Path? Trailblazer? Enlightenment? Or simply that you don't believe I or others here truly are involved in the process described by the above?

Maybe it's that the term Enlightenment is not used in your Jewish/Christian tradition. Well, I don't care for it either, I used it because we are an discussion forum which prefers it. Perhaps we can just say the real issue (regarding the existence or non-existence of Jesus) is one's own spiritual development. Better?

What does it matter to you whether Jesus actually existed?

[Alex Jacob]

It is so simple that perhaps only a child could understand it. If 'enlightenment' can be taken as a real term, there can only be an enlightened individual, someone who embodies 'enlightened' qualities. There is no abstract 'enlightenment' floating around out there. If one talks about 'enlightenment' it is probable that one is talking about certain qualities that one holds in esteem, or certain sensations one experiences, or perhaps a sort of mystical state of awareness. Whatever it is, it is something that has to have been defined, and I think that those who use the term, when they employ it in a sentence, refer to something they have read, to a certain school of Zen or Buddhism, or God only knows, but since there is no definition offered, and in fact this 'enlightenment' as a term in reality is not supposed to have, indeed cannot have, a real definition, it is in fact an anti-term. If you were to try to come up with a definition, a sentence or a short paragraph, you would realize lickity-split that it is intensely problematic and that you have to resort to some strange metaphysic of abstraction to support it.

I submit to you, to the forum, and (((TO THE WORLD!))), that the term is intended to murkify things, not to clarify, and that the use of the term leads to a sort of muddled impotency, as anyone with 1/3rd of a brain can see when it comes to the expositions on this list. This word, I suggest to you in the strongest terms, is one of the worst abuses of language that has crept into this list from the very bowels of Hell and is here doing harm to good men. The term will not ever strengthen a person, it is not a term that a person can rally around, and it leads to a sort of subtle disintegration of person, such that I fear some of you may at some point simply disappear from the face of the Earth! Poof! Gone! The teacup falls to the floor!

Now, I place before your mind's eye the FACT of a real person, any god-dammed real person you want, and I say that person is real, he exists. We are people and we exist. What gives us potency, or what flows from us as potency, is our thoughts and our deeds. You don't semi-exist, you have existence.

You seem to think that 'Jesus', a specific person, maybe existed or maybe didn't exist, and I say that it seems suspiciously convenient to your/the philosophy (of this place) that you conceive of potencies that have no factual existence, and yet somehow do things in this realm. Trace the ideas back and you come upon something indefinite, something undefined, and maybe this is the 'void' (another laughable term!) y'all refer to, not because you have any idea of a void (that is an impossibility) but because, at some point, so much of the ideation that supports these Perversions of Ideas has to reduce back...to nothing!

It's creepy, and I guess that Haloween is a good time to bring it up...along with the specters and ghouls and crawling, slithering things that have crept into your minds!

I suggest to you that a man Jesus Christ (and all men of course) be understood as a being of flesh and blood, after all that is even part of the theological conception that underpins Christian ideas: God becoming flesh. I am not defending the Christian view or anything of that sort, not necessarily, I am only asserting, as a corrective to the spidery, cob-webbiness of these 'enlightenment' distortions and clanking chains, that to understand Jesus, you have to have a real person with an almost incredible sort of 'personal power'. It is the only way, I submit to you (((AND TO THE WORLD!))) that the potency of these ideas can be understood. Along came a man, in a certain time and context, and he uttered---not merely spoke or 'said' or mumbled---but certain ideas were uttered that have moved in the world with what seems to be an incomparable strength, and have, for want of a better phrase, remodelled the world, had a profound impact, and still have a profound impact.

It is not a 'nothing' that can have such effect, it is a something, a person, who has these effect, and this has direct bearing---I REPEAT TO YOU CARL!---direct bearing on how we understand ourselves. That's right! You and me! The more acutely real we become, to ourselves, the more that our life takes on meaning, and the more we take this life seriously, the more that we may have an effect on the world.

How can a person, just one person, have such an effect on the whole world, that goes on rippling and crashing all up along the shores of history, including right up till now?

No. Carl. Don't rehearse these tired pseudo-doctrines to me, I am a far more accomplished card-sharp than you know, don't try to tell me that, somehow, these ideas and sentiments just appear on the scene, that they slide in from 'nothingness', NO! NO NO NO! and again NO!

In all things that have bearing on this world, look to the presence of REAL PEOPLE, and regard yourself as a REAL PERSON.

Jesus, I submit to you in closing, is far better understood if you think of a real person who lived and walked and did things.

Of couse I, like all intelligent, modern people, don't really think that he factually existed, I mean that is unnecessary, but everything else I said stands.

;-)

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Alex, is there any justice apart from just people? Can a person talk of principles of justice, what it means to be just, without explicitly mentioning anyone in particular?

(I don't think many children are capable of dealing with problems of universals.)

[Alex Jacob]

"Alex, is there any justice apart from just people? Can a person talk of principles of justice, what it means to be just, without explicitly mentioning anyone in particular?"

I used up my allotment of 1000 word posts, also the 500 word post allotments. Well, the 350, 100, and the 50 word allotments also got used.

I thought I had a 10-worder around here still, but it appears that I don't.

So, in a word, 'yes'.

Get back to me later, I have a couple of 500 word allotments coming in that I can cobble together to answer you better...

[brokenhead]

Alex, is there any justice apart from just people? Can a person talk of principles of justice, what it means to be just, without explicitly mentioning anyone in particular?

(I don't think many children are capable of dealing with problems of universals.)

Trev, let me jump in with my two cents:

I believe that in practice, justice is an act by the many; mercy, on the other hand, must always be an act of the individual.

[Carl G]

It is so simple that... [and 939 more words]

Whew. Whatever, Alex. You truly are a dog ripping up newspaper.