Progress Towards Enlightenment

[mystex]

Your thoughts?

[Carl G]

I'm thinking "yours?"

How about you get the ball rolling.

[mystex]

OK. I'll try to explain...

Enlightenment:

Is the term we apply to a mind or consciousness that is without delusion or, perhaps more accurately, it's absence of delusions from the thinking process.

This doesn't mean that one does not experience doubt, assumptions, different perspectives, etc... No, those types of thoughts / ideas / insights (etc etc etc) should not be mistaken for delusional thinking, not because this is in itself delusional, but because there is no delusion by definition, though it must be understood for what it is. For example: if I have a hunch, but believe it is more than that, then I'm automatically crossing over into delusional territory. Moreover, if we know what it is, we can distinguish it from that which is objectively true. To be clearer, that which is objectively true, cannot be assumed, because an assumption is not objectively true by definition. Furthermore, the subjective and objective truths are one in the same where there is no delusion. More specifically, the subjective is proven subjective when it differs from the group objectivity or group-thought (?). From the subjective perspective, it's objective, but according to group-thought it's subjective, because of the difference – the same consciousness isn't being experienced, therefore, it's not accepted, but this doesn't not mean it isn't objectively true. So far, all this is nothing less than true with no aid from delusional thinking.

We must understand that everything happens for a reason/s. The steps are there. Eventually, steps may be missed, saving time, with the same end result. To illustrate this point: intuition -> analysis -> conclusion <--- That process is how I sometimes like to understand the thinking process. Some that are without delusion can intuitively know and understand without going through all the labor. Here's another example: intuitively, you may know something is as it is because of a particular reason/cause/s. You can sense it. In order to reach a better understanding of this, we go through the steps, the more objective it is, the more objectively true it'll appear. If satisfaction is reach, there should be a reliable conclusion available and free for manipulation / authenticity-check (etc etc etc). If there's no delusion present, this conclusion will be objectively true. In conclusion, this whole process explains what is already known to be true and it uncovers weaknesses.

Many times, conclusions are mistakenly taken as an objective truth, because there is some sort of an irregularity in the system. This irregularity is there because something isn't understood properly. This irregularity spawns more irregularities, and so on. These irregularities are like the disease of truth, and the first step is to understand, in order to fix and may the truth known.

That's about it. I'd rather not go into detail (at this point). I'll get right to the point after this picture/s:

Imagine an enlightened mind as being a crystal sphere which you can see into. It is a brilliant bright and sparks. As one nears all the light is too intense at first, but as one proceeds nearer and nearer, ones focus adjusts and one can see right into it, right through it, it's as if one is inside the bright light and everything is as clear as it can possibly be. This is enlightenment. Unfortunately, enlightenment is often not reached because something (the irregularities I spoke about) fogs over the glass, dimming the light and/ or distorting it (etc etc etc). The errors (irregularities, delusions, etc etc etc) must be fixed manually. However, the problem or trick is that this is ultimately a figment of your imagination. Smash it! Now, the problem is gone, yet you are not enlightened (if you wanna be realistic). You are half (whatever) way there. First and foremost, this is unenlightened thinking, and second (maybe more importantly), the problem still exists even though a barrier has been overcome – the crystal sphere problem exists if you imagine your mind as the crystal sphere. How do you deal with this? How do you become enlightened if you aren't enlightened? The crystal looks distorted, there are dim areas, etc... Further, it is locked, secured, trying to get in may damage the glass which means that the light will not shine through as it once did. In anyway that you'd like to imagine it the problem, the problem exists...

Fake it til you make it

My disdain for that sentence is enough to make me want to forget about the whole thing. I proceed on, smashing delusion after delusion... The dirt shall come out and perfect white light shall conquer all once again.

Progress towards enlightenment

Ultimately, this type of procedural thinking won't get you any where (or will it?). It's an illusion meant to deceive, yet you are still not enlightened. The unknowns are there along with the knowns. To make an unknown - known. You must understand why it was first an unknown, so that you may clear away the left over debris (spelling?). With that, some irregularity (or possibility) still exists. Or does it? That depends on whether you are enlightened or not? If you aren't then you must hamper away until you reach your goal.

Enlightenment

[mystex]

Do you see any problems?

[mystex]

Hello?

[Carl G]

lol

[David Quinn]

How do you become enlightened if you aren't enlightened?

The short answer is that you take a chance and travel down the path that seems to point towards it.

Because you are unenlightened, you ultimately don't know whether that path is the correct one, so it is a risk. But you have to start somewhere. And if perchance you happen to stumble on the correct path, you will soon be in a position to see things more clearly and you can work out the rest on your own.

If you want my advice, your first step should be to think and reason with a whole-hearted desire to understand what is ultimately true. Understanding is the key to all further progress.

-

[Ryan Rudolph]

A good place to start is to examine the content of your thoughts throughout the day to determine what percentage of involuntary thinking is rooted in the emotions... because basically, to the degree that your thinking is rooted in the emotions, is the degree to which you are still addicted to the illusionary world of forms.

Moreover, An enlightened philosopher is able to understand intellectually that all finite forms in the world are merely interconnected empty appearances that have negative causal consequences on the mind if one invests emotion into them, and so this realization causes a drastic shift in perspective as one realizes the danger of investing emotion into empty forms such as people, places, ideas or things.

The emotionally driven ego center is basically a ghost in the collective nightmare called the unconscious experience.

[Carl G]

A useful spot to begin is to observe the behavior of your emotions during the course of your experiences to ascertain what ratio of egoic feeling stems from the mental process... because in short, to the extent that your emotion is projected from your mental aspect, is the extent to which you are still chained to the imaginary aspect of enlightenment.

Furthermore, a realized sage is able to fathom without thinking that all material entities in the universe are essentially linked substanceless images; it has a degenerative effect on the heart chakra if one burdens seeing with excess thought. Cognizance of this truth results in a dramatic upgrade in being as one understands the peril of investing one's focus into vacuous thoughts, as much as into appearances such as humans, the cosmos, or material goods.

An intellectually overweighted approach is fundamentally a ghoul in the overarching bad dream named the unconnected life.

[mystex]

Oh... Thanks - now I'm enlightened!

*leaves GF and never comes back*

[1otherS]

Haha, the zealot-patrol just pulled a fast one again.

[Dan Rowden]

What does that mean?

[1otherS]

Make a guess and I'll elaborate.

[Dan Rowden]

Let's just skip to the elaboration. I don't have the temperament for games.

[1otherS]

Let's just skip to the elaboration. I don't have the temperament for games.

Philosophy is game-playing so you better develop a temperament for it. Socrates knew this too.

[Dan Rowden]

Another completely empty statement. In what sense is philosophy game playing? Please explain this.

[1otherS]

-You need explanation? Look at literally everyone's posts here. Would you call this more than gaming? I wouldn't.

-Have you ever seen the movie Ice Age? If you haven't, go rent it. Observe the squirrell holding on to his nut, looks familiar? It's basically what every man and woman in life does. If you think you are above this and somehow wiser than the doctor, bricklayer, secretary or childrearer you're only proving your divorce from reality.

[David Quinn]

-You need explanation? Look at literally everyone's posts here. Would you call this more than gaming? I wouldn't.

It depends on what each person brings into it.

-Have you ever seen the movie Ice Age? If you haven't, go rent it. Observe the squirrell holding on to his nut, looks familiar? It's basically what every man and woman in life does. If you think you are above this and somehow wiser than the doctor, bricklayer, secretary or childrearer you're only proving your divorce from reality.

The Buddha shits, the same as everyone.

-

[1otherS]

-The Buddha needs to eat, sleep, wank and walk regardless what he thinks about reality.

It's good to finally agree, David Quinn.

[David Quinn]

The thing we agreed with is meaningless.

A bit like agreeing that a cockroach and a human are the same because they both shit.

-

[1otherS]

Do you think anyone who doesn't repress his natural urges is a cockroach?

If I don't believe in The Ubermensch...am I a maggot?

[Carl G]

Do you think anyone who doesn't repress his natural urges is a cockroach?

I think you should have repressed your urge to post this.

If I don't believe in The Ubermensch...am I a maggot?

You are a showboat.

[1otherS]

I might be a showman but can I get a straight answer to my first question? This is a philosophy-forum after all.

[Carl G]

You mean "Do you think anyone who doesn't repress his natural urges is a cockroach?"

Why? It's nonsensical.

Edit: punctuation.

[1otherS]

Carl G, what is your position on sexuality?