Taking Laird's post which outlines his overall "spiritual" worldview from the "Jed" thread:
I am not enlightened. I've seen a lot though, I have some of the answers, and I also have some speculations. I hope that this post clarifies a few things for other seekers. At the very least, I hope that you find it interesting.
You say you have some of the answers. Presumably this means you have evidence that goes with them. Can you give an example of one of these answers?
One of the most important things to realise is that reality is not benign. It is a spiritual battleground. This is a difficult realisation to have, because there are forces that go to incredible lengths to prevent us from having it. One way to achieve it is through mind-altering drugs like marijuana and LSD, but this is a perilous dual-edged sword and I highly discourage their use.
I'm not sure what you expect people to do with this claim. You do realise that psycho-active drugs induce paranoiac and dualistic thinking that doesn't involve reality or even proper rational engagement, right?
It's essential to realise how high the stakes are. Maya is neither accidental nor random.
How are you defining "Maya"? You're not equivocating here, are you?
We are being deliberately deceived, and the consequences of failure are unimaginable.
If they are unimaginable, then there's no way to know if they're really all that bad. If we are being deliberately deceived, how can "failure" be an issue for
us? Isn't it up to the good fairy godmother to win the battle for us?
We who inhabit forums such as this one, and who read authors such as Jed (I have not read more of him than the article on Buddhism that Dan posted a link to in a prior thread), we who are haunted by the questions "Who am I?" and "What is this all really about?", are the few who have an inkling that we are being fooled, and that full realisation is absolutely imperative. It's therefore important that we share our insights with one another.
Whilst I agree with the general sentiment of this paragraph, it seems to fly in the face of your implications elsewhere that most people are quite philosophically aware and even instinctively know the truth of an issue such as the nature of "existence".
Some of you probably read my assertion that reality is a spiritual battleground and thought to yourselves, "Oh boy, this guy's gone off the deep end." Right?
Not at all. The shallow end makes more sense to me :)
I understand that. Most people have difficulty realising that we are in the middle of a spiritual war.
I imagine that would be because there's no evidence for it. Anyway, I dispute your claim, because in one way or another, the majority of theists are caught up in this very paradigm.
Up until a few years ago I wouldn't have believed it myself. But then I started noticing things. The start of the process of realisation was recognising the depths of the meaning behind our words. We're all familiar with devices such as puns, where a sentence has a double meaning, or satire, where the ostensible meaning of a narrative is actually a symbolic commentary on another issue. It's possible, though, to enter certain states of awareness where one perceives the deeper, more symbolic meanings of every sentence that is uttered.
This sounds like code for: drug induced paranoia. Convince me otherwise.
In this state it's frightening to realise the depths of the multiple meanings of everything that we say, and their interrelatedness. This is one way in which the war is waged. We think that we're saying one thing, but we're completely oblivious to the actual, deeper meanings and spiritual effects of our words. Words are weapons and instruments. They wound or they heal; they free us or they manipulate us deeper into the illusion; they gift us with energy or they steal energy from us.
Only if you're an egotist taken in by the shallowness of mere words.
I believe that enlightenment is real, but I also believe that most people are confused as to what it actually is. They think that it's some sort of paradox involving the realisation that the self doesn't actually exist. If you think about it, it's pretty obvious that this is complete nonsense. Consciousness itself implies, entails, requires and necessitates a self.
It does not. Where is your logical evidence for this? How do you know that this "consciousness" isn't just a projection from a machine and that there's no "you" at all; that the thought of a "you" is merely part of that projection?
Anyone who thinks otherwise is not thinking clearly, much like the Christian who denies the fact that the problem of evil definitively proves that their conception of God is false.
If their concept of God involves omnibenevolence, yes, but not otherwise.
Enlightenment is not the (false) realisation that the self doesn't exist, it is (in part) the realisation of what the self actually is.
And the self actually is, what?
What I'm about to say can be interpreted in (at least) two ways: literally or as a metaphor. I favour a literal interpretation, but if it's easier for you, then please consider it metaphorical.
Since you're offering it as literal truth, why would anyone want to interpret it as metaphorical?
The archetypal image of a person with a devil whispering in one ear and an angel whispering in the other points to a serious truth.
Yes, that people are caught up in false dualities.
To the best of my understanding, the self is for the most part an instrument through which two opposing forces express themselves. The true extent of our will is far less than it seems. Primarily the task of our will is to choose which force we allow to express itself through us.
Um, a task established by whom and by what principle? And on what basis do we decide between them, given that they are equally real?
With this understanding in mind, what then is enlightenment? In a nutshell, to be enlightened is to have fully chosen God: to be completely aligned with the divine, to have "surrendered" to God's will.
What does surrendering to God's will entail/mean? Can I still have anchovies on my pizza?
A clue that this is the correct interpretation of the concept lies in the structure of the word, whose basis is "light": it is often said that God is light, and to be enlightened is to be fully filled with God's light.
If a pub offered me that argument as a shot of Scotch I'd have Liquor Licensing shut them down for watering down their drinks.
Now as I said, I'm not enlightened, so I don't know what this actually feels like. I have a few ideas about what it involves though. Before presenting those, though, I'd like to share an experience that might help to explain what I'm on about.
Early in this century, I was living in a share house in Sydney with some great guys. One of them in particular made a lot of effort to extend the hand of friendship to me, and I was deeply touched by his efforts. One day a room became available in the share house of a close friend from university, with whom I'd planned to share a house several years earlier, and I decided that I'd like to change houses. As I was saying goodbye to the flatmate who had extended the hand of friendship so graciously to me, I observed something very disturbing in myself. I was making to him what on the surface seemed to be the usual parting remarks, and I was intent on saying something positive, but I was at the same time privy through some working of my mind to the deeper meaning of my words, and I was horror-struck to find that I was actually insulting him with a cold rejection. The possibility that my decision to move house was in fact based on a decision to reject this warm soul occurred to me. Now I like to think of myself as a fundamentally caring and good person, but experiences like that convince me that the extent to which I control my own mind is actually very limited, and that there is a force working through me that is fundamentally opposed to my desire to be a loving person.
The force that is working through you is a complete and utter ignorance of human psychology. That's all it is. It's nothing mysterious or spiritually significant. You are just pig-ignorant about human psychology and are attempting to fill that void with the usual mystical claptrap. How about, instead, that you attempt a reasonable psychological analysis of that dynamic. I can offer one if you need it.
Of course a critic might argue: there's no need to posit external forces; it's all internal - we each have a subconscious with unplumbed depths that occasionally influences our behaviour in opposition to our conscious intent. And I can't definitively prove that this interpretation is wrong.
Then why not explore it more, since it's the most obvious explanation?
All that I can tell you is that I have experienced things (which I don't want to share here) that convince me that it is wrong.
I've always been reticent to make this observation when you declare this lack of willingness, but it's going to have to be said eventually: when you say this you look like a guy who has in his possession arguments that could change the world, or people's perceptions of it, believes this all to be of dire and complete importance, but is too cowardly to impart it because, presumably, he fears looking like a insane person. How enlightened is that?
I'm not saying that the subconscious is non-existent, what I am saying is that the subconscious is not the whole story. For those interested in exploring this idea, try playing with the question "What is (are) the source(s) of my thoughts, desires and motivations?"
An understanding of the essential workings of the ego will help with that question,. Beyond that, the question is unanswerable as there is no definitive "source".
To become enlightened, then, is to completely close the door to the malevolent directors, and to completely open the door to divinity.
Why don't you do that?
Those who are enlightened use words skillfully; they are aware of all of the deeper meanings of what they're saying and their words heal, energise and uplift on all levels, because in actuality it is not them speaking, but God.
What God? Where is it? Does it like anchovies?
Their actions, too, are based around helping other people in general, and leading them to enlightenment in particular.
I'll repeat that I am not enlightened, so there are a few things about this state that remain a mystery to me. For example: is it possible to be enlightened and to not even realise it? In other words, are there some people who express God's will completely, but who don't ever even think about God? And: is it possible to "fall from grace"; to reopen the wrong doors?
How can a person be enlightened and not know it? They know which voice they're obeying at all times, don't they?
The big mystery to me though is whether enlightenment involves realising the ultimate answers to the aforementioned questions: "Who am I?" and "What is this all really about?"
Nothing you've said about enlightenment seems to require such knowledge.
I loosely speculate that there are stages to enlightenment, and that perhaps the final stage occurs when one not only fully expresses God's will, but figuratively "returns" to God - in other words, one loses one's personal consciousness and merges with God-consciousness, literally becoming God, whereupon one necessarily knows the answer to these questions, except that one no longer exists as a separate entity: this is, of course, in a very real way, death, because the separate, personal self no longer exists. I suspect that this is why enlightenment is often said to be the death of the self: the consciousness-energy of the self still exists, but the self does not, because it joins the energy of God-consciousness, and no longer has a separate existence.
This does not gel with your previous attack on the "no-self" paradigm of enlightenment.
And what about the reverse? Are there those who do not choose God, but who definitively choose (or are overpowered by) His opposite?
How did God get an opposite? What is the ultimate reality beyond this dualism?
I believe that this is possible, and I suspect that it has occurred to a significant extent.
If the "devil" is winning, then God must suck. He needs to learn jew-jitsu or something. Maybe Victor can help.
These souls are not always easy to detect, because they are masters of the arts of deception and concealment. I suspect that one possible indicator of such a soul is a feeling of being drained around the person, a feeling that you are losing energy, and where the person exhibits an arrogant, smug, or victorious attitude, although I also believe that there can be other reasons for feeling drained around particular people - for example they might be drained themselves and needy for energy from other people, whilst not having fundamentally succumbed, and still struggling to realise themselves.
Or, it can be something as mundane as you're a damned egotist who always feels drained by people who don't bolster your ego. Ask yourself how it is that another person can "drain" you of anything.
So how does one achieve enlightenment? I am not entirely sure, but I suspect that the best path is to meditate in complete stillness with a sincere intention to know God.
Which is?
I suspect that maya is primarily a deliberate attempt to distract us from this path; an attempt to lead us away from God. "Buy these products to make yourself happy; set out on a career to satisfy your need for success; travel for pleasure" - in other words, "Focus on your individual, separate ego and forget about the path to God".
I suspect that there will be those amongst you who are thinking "This just isn't the way that the world works - notions of good, evil, God, the Devil, and spiritual warfare are naive, simplistic and delusional".
I sincerely hope there are such people.
And that's exactly what your enemy wants you to think.
Who and where is this enemy? I need to know so I can kick him in the nuts.
