A question for the enlightened.
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:02 am
I was wondering who here claims to be enlightened?
Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
http://theabsolute.net/phpBB/
Why do you care and why do you think it matters? Those are serious questions, btw.Glostik91 wrote:I was wondering who here claims to be enlightened?
Steven Coyle wrote:Can't because of a bunch of clothes...
Why is that inherent? Because God is infinite while man is finite? What does that mean for Jesus Christ, was he not God? imitatio Christi is a Latin phrase meaning; Imitate Christ. It is generally held to be the goal of any Christian. A similar doctrine is that of imitatio Dei (imitate God). Or imago Dei (being made in the image of God).prince wrote:'enlightened' is a false view put forward by the Buddhist idea. It proposes that you can achieve such an enlightened state, by being like Buddha. It's inherently wrong.
You can't become God, or close to him, only become subservient to him.
God created mankind in his own image, this gives to humanity a likeness of God, therefore, we can be close to him. Being subservient would be the natural inclination. Also, God said the wisest among us will serve.Animus wrote:'enlightened' is a false view put forward by the Buddhist idea. It proposes that you can achieve such an enlightened state, by being like Buddha. It's inherently wrong.
I agree, enlightenment is not something you reach but something you develop, it is something you already possess, not something which is attainable, you either have it or you don't.
Enlightenment is the ability to reason, logic in other words.
You can't become God, or close to him, only become subservient to him.
So let try to understand your your logic here - just because you know some things that some people don't, and you are not enlightened, then it must follow logically that no one else is enlightened either?I don't claim to be enlightened, but I do claim that nobody is enlightened, because I'm pretty sure I know a few things that nobody else knows.
In the human sense, yes.Glostik91 wrote:I was wondering who here claims to be enlightened?
I care because I want to know the truth.Dan Rowden wrote:Why do you care and why do you think it matters? Those are serious questions, btw.Glostik91 wrote:I was wondering who here claims to be enlightened?
To be enlightened just means you know the truth. It doesn't mean you are all powerful as I think you are implying.prince wrote:'enlightened' is a false view put forward by the Buddhist idea. It proposes that you can achieve such an enlightened state, by being like Buddha. It's inherently wrong.
You can't become God, or close to him, only become subservient to him.
What do you think it means to be enlightened?Pincho Paxton wrote:I don't claim to be enlightened, but I do claim that nobody is enlightened, because I'm pretty sure I know a few things that nobody else knows.
To know everything about the Universe, like my 'Theory Of Everything'... which still has some gaps in it.Glostik91 wrote:What do you think it means to be enlightened?Pincho Paxton wrote:I don't claim to be enlightened, but I do claim that nobody is enlightened, because I'm pretty sure I know a few things that nobody else knows.
Speak meanings that I can understand. If you truly want to express truth then express it in a way the average person would understand.Cahoot wrote:One knows what one must know, don Pincho. (Or, in biblical usage, one knows who one must know.) One knows one known, then the next. One known, one known, one known. One cannot know more than one knows now. Thus, what one knows now is all that is known, until the next moment of now and all that is known, since “is” exists only now. Different knowns are varieties of the same reality, or variations in perspective. At the moment when you taste tutti-frutti, I may taste pistachio, 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.
Because our perception is always limited we cannot gain concrete truth through empiricism.Cory Duchesne wrote: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.
I do not wish to assume in this post. Please explain.Tomas wrote: In the human sense, yes.
In the common sense, no.
In the eternal sense, I would certainly hope so :-)
Is this even possible?Pincho Paxton wrote:
To know everything about the Universe, like my 'Theory Of Everything'... which still has some gaps in it.
We're all just eyes in the same head. Everything is everything. Everything is nothing, too.Pincho Paxton wrote:I don't claim to be enlightened, but I do claim that nobody is enlightened, because I'm pretty sure I know a few things that nobody else knows.
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.Glostik91 wrote:Is this even possible?Pincho Paxton wrote:
To know everything about the Universe, like my 'Theory Of Everything'... which still has some gaps in it.