Thread: Enlightenment/Self-realization

I've recently been reading personal accounts of people who claim enlightenment or self-realization.

From what I extract as a common thread between the accounts are these facts:

1. Everything, everywhere are really "ONE". A unity, non-dual conclusion.

2. Life and our perception of it becomes permeated with "unconditional love" for everything.

3. People who are not enlightened or self-realized will not and can not truely understand what it is until they are.

4. Life and everything in it "just is". Simply stated, "no goals, no path, no attainments, just be".


Opinions? Comments? Any personal accounts?

I'd like to meet one of these people and see if they have "unconditional love" for my knee in their groin.

At the risk of attracting kestasjk's knee, I'd say that's about right for a general description of it.

Originally Posted by Awake

I've recently been reading personal accounts of people who claim enlightenment or self-realization.

From what I extract as a common thread between the accounts are these facts:

1. Everything, everywhere are really "ONE". A unity, non-dual conclusion.

2. Life and our perception of it becomes permeated with "unconditional love" for everything.

3. People who are not enlightened or self-realized will not and can not truely understand what it is until they are.

4. Life and everything in it "just is". Simply stated, "no goals, no path, no attainments, just be".


Opinions? Comments? Any personal accounts?

I didn't know enlightenment and self-realisation were the same thing.

Jan Ardena.

8)

1

. Everything, everywhere are really "ONE". A unity, non-dual conclusion.

2. Life and our perception of it becomes permeated with "unconditional love" for everything.

3. People who are not enlightened or self-realized will not and can not truely understand what it is until they are.

4. Life and everything in it "just is". Simply stated, "no goals, no path, no attainments, just be".

* In my humble experience.

1. If you stand back far enough, everything becomes containable as a single unit.

2. When one achieves great serenity, this statement becomes very clear and meaningful and all things we may once have seen as important, become inconsequential. Compassion becomes a prime motivator.

3. I concurr. The knowing, when it occurs, is profound and eternal.

4. Within simply "being" all these other things like goals, etc. have their place and purpose. The balance is attained and the role evrything in life plays, becomes self evident.

Allcare.

Originally Posted by Awake

4. Life and everything in it "just is". Simply stated, "no goals, no path, no attainments, just be".

Oh, sure! Why go to the toilette if you can shit in your pants? Because going to the toilette would be, after all, you know, a goal, an attainment, a path to walk ...

I agree, that's why I go where ever I am.

Jan Ardena wrote "I didn't know enlightenment and self-realisation were the same thing. "

In the accounts that I've been reading they are used interchangeably. Is there a difference? If so, what is it?

[/quote]

Originally Posted by Awake

Jan Ardena wrote "I didn't know enlightenment and self-realisation were the same thing. "

In the accounts that I've been reading they are used interchangeably. Is there a difference? If so, what is it?

I would think that to self-realise oneself is to effectuate one's aspirations within the context of a social structure, while enlightenment would take it a step further -- or beyond the labyrinth of public requisites. However, self-realisation is often arbitrary because people tend to calibrate themselves according to an ideal -- they "become" something, but it can be anything. However, I feel that enlightenment looms near for some after they've been "self-realised" because then they can put away the pettiness once and for all.

8)

Quote ad.hoc
"I would think that to self-realise oneself is to effectuate one's aspirations within the context of a social structure, while enlightenment would take it a step further -- or beyond the labyrinth of public requisites."

*That statement I like... beyond the labyrinth of indoctrination, that so called "social norms" encourage us to find fullfillment within.

"However, self-realisation is often arbitrary because people tend to calibrate themselves according to an ideal -- they "become" something, but it can be anything."

*One can become the self help book you have read?

"However, I feel that enlightenment looms near for some after they've been "self-realised" because then they can put away the pettiness once and for all."

*So, tis almost like the Biblical scales falls from your eyes, and one can see clearly at last. "Enlightenment" And the little things become profoundly overshadowed by the big picture. What then do you think the "big picture" is exactly?

[/quote]

Awake,

Jan Ardena wrote "I didn't know enlightenment and self-realisation were the same thing. "

In the accounts that I've been reading they are used interchangeably. Is there a difference? If so, what is it?

Enlightenment doesn’t really mean anything beyond the subject matter one chooses to become enlightened by or to. It is not necessarily a spiritual process.

Self-realisation is the process of understanding the soul to be different from the body, by adhering to the principles of yoga, and following in the footsteps of spiritual masters (disiplic succession). The ultimate yoga is ‘bhakti-yoga.’ It can only be spiritual process.


ad . hoc,

I would think that to self-realise oneself is to…

A blatant contradiction. You are the self. The point is to realise that that self is not the body.

…one's aspirations within the context of a social structure

Social structure is an extension of the body. The point is to break away from all bodily ties.

Self
Body
Family
Neighbourhood
Town
City
Country
Society.....

However, self-realisation is often arbitrary because people tend to calibrate themselves according to an ideal -- they "become" something, but it can be anything.

By all definition that sounds like ‘enlightenment.

Jan Ardena.

Self-realisation is the process of understanding the soul to be different from the body, by adhering to the principles of yoga, and following in the footsteps of spiritual masters (disiplic succession). The ultimate yoga is ‘bhakti-yoga.’ It can only be spiritual process.

It's my understanding that yoga derives from an ancient word for yoke, as in the device to bridge two oxen, meaning that rather than revealing separation, yoga reveals the essential unity and interconnectedness of internal and external, you and me, body and soul.

[quote="spidergoat"]

......that rather than revealing separation, yoga reveals the essential unity and interconnectedness of internal and external, you and me, body and soul.

I believe 'yoga' refers to the 'union' between the love of the individual consciousness and the Supreme Consciousness.
Your body and my body will cease to be in less than 100 years time.
The soul, according to scripture, is eternal, and therefore the ultimate reality.
Real yoga (as opposed to the western gymnastic display), is described as such.

Jan Ardena.

I think you might be confusing the soul/body separation found in abrahamic religions, and the essential sameness of all manifested things which is found in Indian cosmology. It's not just a union, or reunion of separate entities, but a realization that they are, and have always been, identical.

Originally Posted by spidergoat

I think you might be confusing the soul/body separation found in abrahamic religions, and the essential sameness of all manifested things which is found in Indian cosmology.

There is no confusion on my part regarding this subject matter. Every bona-fide religion is about the soul/body separation, and the soul being connected to God. Yoga means to link/make the connection with God.
Can you please cite anything which contradicts this.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the essential sameness of all manifested things which is found in Indian cosmology".

It's not just a union, or reunion of separate entities, but a realization that they are, and have always been, identical.

What do mean by "separate entities?"
What has always been identical?
I'm sorry but your explanation aren't very clear.

Jan Ardena.

memory's getting short.

I think enlightenment is a naked understanding of who and what we really are. Once this is understood not just intellectually but also experientially, then will we have "enlightenment". It is not really anything one can have or not have, it is an deep understanding that we just are that.

darn. i forgot what i said.

Self-realisation is the process of understanding the soul to be different from the body

I have yet to identify "soul" what is it?.
Where is it?

Do you mean spirit? as if another entity existed within in my mind, an entity thought out eons ago, to manipulate the ingnorant masses, thus that the body dies, but your mind continues in another realm of reality?

I have become "enlightened" My enlightenment was when I became an atheist and refused the soul/body dictonomy. Theres no seperation of the two. My spirit is my experience of this life, not the false notion that it will continue elsewere.

Because if "enlightenment" is knowledge, and knowledge is information, and information, data, then that data must be received somehow.

Unfortunate "enlightenment" has been used for religious dogma. As if "knowledge" were automatic. The only coherent "enlightenment" in human history was the Reinesance, when science and art, took off the clutches of the Church, when people questioned wether the church should have authority over scientific research, art, literature etc. Thus this period is named as the end of the "dark ages".

Therefore that is when humans became "enlightened" when they were actually free to seek out knowledge, without having church authority give their rationalizations as knowledge.

Oh, sure! Why go to the toilette if you can shit in your pants?

Some of us do!. Some wear diappers.
It is odd, that as a mere child we start out with diapers, when very old we end up in diapers. LOL.

Self-realization hardly ever happen, most don't know who they truly are, most are just a by-product of their enviorement. The MTV-Pop Culture, Generation X, all that crap made out by the popular media to extort mindless teens, to buy useless shit.

Self-awarness comes at a very young age, put a five year old kid in the mirror and she/he knows that the image that they see is their own, do the same with a three year old child, you may get the same results however if you do the same with a two year old, she/he wont even have a clue.

Thus a question comes to mind. What is "self-realization?" The answer to this is when an individual truly knows himself/herself, knows of his/her capabilities, what potential she/he may posses, to live a fruitfull life, or be a bumb. I've never became so self conscious as when I truly denied a supreme entity, to know that I and only I have control of my mind, and body, to do with it as I please, to realize that my decisions are my own and not some foreing entity that resides in my mind. Thus I am. That is self realization, and even in the theist term, whatever we may think of their view, if they truly knowthemselves they can be self-realized, even though they think they are not the ultimate entity, as I do.

Godless

Godless,

I have yet to identify "soul" what is it?.
Where is it?

Good questions (for once) Godless, although I doubt that your enquiry is genuine. Let me quote some Bhagavad Gita.

Chapter 2, Verse 13.
As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change.

The soul is the essence of life, and from the vedas we can understand that the soul/atma is situated in the region of the heart.
Think about that verse.

Do you mean spirit?

Spirit describes the enery, i.e. spiritual, material and marginal. The body is also known as 'soul' but it is dead matter unless 'spirit' is present to animate it. So with regards to the soul I do mean spirit as opposed to matter.

as if another entity existed within in my mind,

Do you know what the mind is?
If yes, please reveal, if no, then what makes you think an entity can reside 'in it'.

....an entity thought out eons ago, to manipulate the ingnorant masses, thus that the body dies, but your mind continues in another realm of reality?

This is entirely your opinion. And what could your only reasoning be?

God doesn't exist
The soul is connected to God
Therefore the soul doesn't exist.

I have become "enlightened" My enlightenment was when I became an atheist and refused the soul/body dictonomy.

Good for you.

Theres no seperation of the two. My spirit is my experience of this life, not the false notion that it will continue elsewere.

That's ok, but I am of a different oppinion.

The only coherent "enlightenment" in human history was the Reinesance, when science and art, took off the clutches of the Church, when people questioned wether the church should have authority over scientific research, art, literature etc.

In my opinion, the difference between church dogma and scientific dogma (Darwins theory) is zilch. Same type of people, different time zone.

Self-realization hardly ever happen, most don't know who they truly are, most are just a by-product of their enviorement. The MTV-Pop Culture, Generation X, all that crap made out by the popular media to extort mindless teens, to buy useless shit.

Fuelled by technology.

I've never became so self conscious as when I truly denied a supreme entity, to know that I and only I have control of my mind, and body, to do with it as I please, to realize that my decisions are my own and not some foreing entity that resides in my mind.

Suppose God does exist, what will be your position?
Why do you feel the need to DENY a god, why not just live your life day to day, because that is all you can do. Anybody with half a brain can see that something is amiss with what we generally regard as religion, especially in the last 2000 or so years. It is quite obvious that they do not adhere to their religious leader or scripture. It is also the same with aspects of modern-science, if you were to be truly honest. The point is, now more than ever, we need to be self-realised, because from this position we can discriminate with clarity.

....even though they think they are not the ultimate entity, as I do.

You seem happy in this position, but do you have any empirical evidence that you are the ultimate entity? And that there is no Supreme Enitity?

Jan Ardena.

Enlightenment is freedom from ideas. It's giving up the notion that you can know yourself, because you can't. Knowing anything is symbolic, not direct. Your "self" is only an idea you have. Directly, we can only experience a mystery.

spidergoat,

Enlightenment is freedom from ideas. It's giving up the notion that you can know yourself, ...

Aren't you curious to know the part of you which has come to that conclusion?
Or is that part some kind of cosmic universal understanding.

Why is enlightenment freedom from ideas?

...because you can't.

Why can't you?

Knowing anything is symbolic, not direct.

Symbolic and not direct, of and to what exactly?

Your "self" is only an idea you have. Directly, we can only experience a mystery.

So the "your", to which the self belongs, is.....?

Jan Ardena.

ahhh, ahhhhhh, uhnnnnahhhhh, CHOOOOOO. Sorry, alergic to bull shit.

You are, or you are not. If you cant figure that out,,, FOCLMFAO

Aren't you curious to know the part of you which has come to that conclusion?

It's certainly a curious thing, but it would be like looking directly at your own face- can't be done.

Why is enlightenment freedom from ideas?

Because when you are having ideas, you are not present in the moment. Pure perception without intervening commentary is the state of mind that the word enlightenment describes. You can have both ideas and enlightenment, but the generation of ideas comes from a different place, and often interferes with pure perception.

...because you can't.


Why can't you?

(know yourself)
Knowledge is symbolic, so if you think you know yourself, you don't, you are really just accumulating more symbolic information. The symbols are not what they represent. So, you can let yourself be, but you can't know what is self. That's why it's typically said there is no self.

Symbolic and not direct, of and to what exactly?

Reality, consciousness.

So the "your", to which the self belongs, is.....?

Everything, the Universe, the biosphere, the void, whatever term you prefer...

Suppose God does exist, what will be your position?

That it's a contradiction.

A god represents an entity to some, to others some energy, others spirit of supernatural, to others to use the idea to manipulate the gullible. Which is what religion has done for several milliniums.

The god concept was spawned from ingnorance. It is a by-product of our primitive minds, when consciousness finally evolved, those who still insists in hearing voices (schizophrenics) thought this to be god. Haven't you studied in psychology how schizophrenia and religion co-relate?

Mysticism is a mental desease. God spaws from this mental desease. One that has held humanity's potential for milliniums.
http://www.neo-tech.com/neotech/prot.../p495-502.html

http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/mental.htm

http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/Misc%2...evelations.htm

The present study of 50 Jehovah's Witnesses admitted to the Mental Health Service facilities of Western Australia suggests that members of this section of the community are more likely to be admitted to a psychiatric hospital than the general population. Furthermore, followers of the sect are three times more likely to be diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia and nearly four times more likely from paranoid schizophrenia than the rest of the population at risk.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/jw/jw72.html

Thus Jan you are a nut!

Godless.

Godless,

That it's a contradiction.

How so?

A god represents an entity to some, to others some energy...

I didn't say 'a god', I said God. The perception of God may be relative, but the source of all perceptions (scriptures) state God to as the ultimate Supreme Being, which is why it is spelled 'God' as opposed to 'god'. This Supreme Being is described as having form and being person. So please answer the question.

...to others to use the idea to manipulate the gullible. Which is what religion has done for several milliniums.

You would be hard-pressed to find any institution which is not based on some form of manipulation of the gullible. There is nothing actually wrong in such manipulation if it is done to free beings from bondage. The essence of all bona-fide religious scripture is to liberate mankind from the prison of material existence and become fully cognizant in his natural spiritual environment. What's wrong with that?

The god concept was spawned from ingnorance. It is a by-product of our primitive minds....

I am not of the same opinion. The operative word being 'opinion', unless of course you have any real of this.

...when consciousness finally evolved,...

You don't even know what consciousness is but talk as though you do.
And you call me a nut.

those who still insists in hearing voices (schizophrenics) thought this to be god.

So what does that have to do with God? Was Einstein schizophrenic when he said he wanted to know the MIND of God?

Haven't you studied in psychology how schizophrenia and religion co-relate?

No I haven't. But haven't you noticed that there are distinct differences between schizophrenics and ordinary day to day people who believe in God? Can you distinguish between people who believe and people who don't?

Mysticism is a mental desease. God spaws from this mental desease. One that has held humanity's potential for milliniums.

The present study of 50 Jehovah's Witnesses admitted to the Mental Health Service facilities of Western Australia suggests that members of this section of the community are more likely to be admitted to a psychiatric hospital than the general population. Furthermore, followers of the sect are three times more likely to be diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia and nearly four times more likely from paranoid schizophrenia than the rest of the population at risk.

So you believe this foolishness then?
Or can you give me an experience of your own where this junk is relevant?

Thus Jan you are a nut!

And you are an idiot.

Jan Ardena.

spidergoat,

It's certainly a curious thing, but it would be like looking directly at your own face- can't be done.

Why would it be like looking at anything?

Why is enlightenment freedom from ideas?
Because when you are having ideas, you are not present in the moment.

Then where are YOU?

Pure perception without intervening commentary is the state of mind that the word enlightenment describes.

That doesn't mean you are free from ideas, it means you are in a different state of mind.

You can have both ideas and enlightenment, but the generation of ideas comes from a different place, and often interferes with pure perception.

You make it sound as though ideas are bad, uncontrollable things which we need to be rid of.

(know yourself)
Knowledge is symbolic, so if you think you know yourself, you don't, you are really just accumulating more symbolic information.

Surely that depend on the individual. Knowledge must also be real or it could not be percieved as symbolic.

The symbols are not what they represent.

So when you experience pleasure, pain, heat or cold, you only experience them symbolically because they are not what they reprisent?

So, you can let yourself be, but you can't know what is self.

Well how can you let yourself be without even some knowledge of 'self'?
Why do we make the decisions we do?

That's why it's typically said there is no self.

There is nothing typical in what you said.

Symbolic and not direct, of and to what exactly?

Reality, consciousness.

That makes no sense.

Everything, the Universe, the biosphere, the void, whatever term you prefer...

Too flowery for my liking.

Jan Ardena.

Why would it be like looking at anything?

Others can't comprehend your mind, since there is no true communication, only indirect communication with language. You can't comprehend your mind, because you are using your mind to so it, so it's like thinking about thinking about thinking... and you never reach the center of thought.

Because when you are having ideas, you are not present in the moment.

Then where are YOU?

In a virtual reality of your own thoughts.

That doesn't mean you are free from ideas, it means you are in a different state of mind.

Yes. But ideas can get in the way initially. Certainly enlightenment doesn't prevent one from having thoughts, I'm talking more about the instant of transformation and how to get there. The "lightening" part of enlightenment has a quality that is free from thoughts, that's what you are getting free from.

You make it sound as though ideas are bad, uncontrollable things which we need to be rid of.

I'm talking about a technique, not a moral code, like Christianity. Things can impede your progress without being necessarily bad. We need ideas, but without freedom from our own ideas, there is deslusion.

Surely that depend on the individual. Knowledge must also be real or it could not be percieved as symbolic.

We can assume so, but that's mistaking the menu for the meal.

So when you experience pleasure, pain, heat or cold, you only experience them symbolically because they are not what they reprisent?

Yes.

Well how can you let yourself be without even some knowledge of 'self'?

Give yourself up to the mystery, stop inserting control.

Why do we make the decisions we do?

That can only be understood in context.

There is nothing typical in what you said.

It's typical among Zen Buddhists.

Symbolic and not direct, of and to what exactly?

Reality, consciousness.


That makes no sense.

Without symbolic knowledge, we can experience reality more directly, which is in fact the reality of our own consciousness. The terms "of", and "to what" demand symbolic answers, which don't exist. What is left without symbolic knowledge is the pure state of being, call it what you will.

Too flowery for my liking.

Reality in the pure form is a mystery, without fixed form, vague and dark. People want security, concrete models to attach themselves to, but I'm suggesting that's not the essential nature of things. Things only exist in relation to other things, within a context, there is no permanent, enduring reality with fixed outlines separated into matter and energy, objects and field. Mysticism is the recognition of this, and people don't like it because they can't grasp it with symbolic knowledge the way we are trained since birth.

Or can you give me an experience of your own where this junk is relevant?

I can see it every time I chat with you!.

How so?

An omniscient being does not have free will
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/god_...free_will.html

You don't even know what consciousness is but talk as though you do.

Excuse me I thought I was speaking to some one who had a conscious.

But if you still don't know what the hell it is go here:

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

Hopefully you'll learn that you have one, or perhaps I'm right and your a schizo?

Godless

(from godless)But if you still don't know what the hell it is go here:

(from wikipedia) Consciousness is notoriously difficult to define or locate.

Yea! I saw that one.

THE ORIGINS OF MYSTICISM
Conscious life is the highest integration and expression of the autopoietic cognitive living process. Consciousness is the most complex form of cognition which is distinctly different from any other mode of cognition found in other sentient beings. Consciousness came into existence on this planet about 3000 years ago and human beings achieved consciousness not as a product of nature's evolutionary process but as an autopoietic reorganization of their cognitive systems. Consciousness was a discovery and an engineered invention of human beings. Therefore, no change took place in the physical structure of the brain but only in the structural organization of the mind.

http://www.neo-tech.com/zero/part4.html

Godless

Godless

I can see it every time I chat with you!.

So I suffer with a mental disease because i believe in God?
Fair enough.

An omniscient being does not have free will
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/god_...free_will.html

"There is a lightswitch on the wall; God may either turn it on, or leave it off; but, since God already knows the future, God knows that he will turn it on.

Ask yourself this; Why would God need a light/lightswitch?
If God should turn a switch on, then it would be at the request of his trusted devotee, hence the free-will would belong to him.
The free-will is is not whether or not the devotee turns on or off the light, as that action is neither here nor there with regards to ones true existence, but whether or not the person chooses to turn to God. So free-will means we choose God or we choose to take our chances, on our own, in this material ocean. The catalyst is our desire to be happy.


So in every situation, God only has one choice:

We all act according to what we know and understand, there is no other way to act. God knows and understands everything and acts accordingly.

Excuse me I thought I was speaking to some one who had a conscious.

But if you still don't know what the hell it is go here:

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

I didn't say you don't know the symptoms of consiousness, I said you don't know what consiousness is, but talk as though you do.

Hopefully you'll learn that you have one, or perhaps I'm right and your a schizo?

Real knowledge has to be relivant to our life and existence, and is aparant whether we directly know it or not, whether we believe it or not. In this case I do not need to learn about consciousness as I am conscious, I am the knowlege that I seek. In the same way one does not need to learn of God's existence to know that He exists which is why real faith in God is good.

What does being a schizophrenic have to do with not learning that one has consciousness?

Jan Ardena.

So I suffer with a mental disease because i believe in God?
Fair enough.

It's not your fault Jan, you are a product of your enviorenment. If you had been brought up in a predominantely atheistic society, you'd claim that the existence of a god, is very unlikely. And you either would clasify yourself as an atheist or an agnostic.

But belief in the assertions of ancient rhetoric is dellusional without any credible evidence.

I too filled the shoes of a theist, I went to church on Thursdays and Sundays, I've sang in church choirs, I was brought up a Catholic, and latter became Babtist, and on to Christianity. I still own my bible, I however seeked further and could not accept on mere assumption the writ of bible as only truth. I found many inconsistencies in it's literature, I sought through philosophy, witch led to studies in psychology, and further into anthropology. I concluded that religious beliefs spawned from ingnorance, and evidently from mental desease. The god/God concept is nothing more than a tool to manipulate, and this is shown clearly throughout history. Basically I'm letting you know I didn't become an atheist overnight. And that I don't ask for you to do the same, but be critical and question what you take as irrefutable truth.

The free-will is is not whether or not the devotee turns on or off the light, as that action is neither here nor there with regards to ones true existence, but whether or not the person chooses to turn to God

You are assuming that god/God is an entity, what Vexen clearly states that if God is an entity it has no choice if the action it takes is already "predetermined".

What does being a schizophrenic have to do with not learning that one has consciousness?

Was Terry Shiabo conscious? Or was it a mere illusion on observer's that there was some sort of "self awarness" on her part. You are self aware, a schizophrenic does not have that knowledge to it's full context.

http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Sec...ontentID=23036

Schizophrenia throughout history:
http://www.hubin.org/facts/history/h...hrenia_en.html

http://www.elnegrodeneuro.com/subscr...izophrenia.htm

Now take a look at your bible, see how many "visions, dreams, and hallusination, are taken to be literal forms of knowledge" I concluded that they were schizophrenics, dillusional visions of gods and angels, are still believed today as part of reality. When in fact it's a mental disorder.

Godless

Godless,

So I suffer with a mental disease because i believe in God?
Fair enough.

It's not your fault Jan, you are a product of your enviorenment.

That is sooooo... comforting.

If you had been brought up in a predominantely atheistic society, you'd claim that the existence of a god, is very unlikely.

As far as I am concerned, I was brought up in a predominantly atheistic society, it depends on what is meant by atheistic.
Claiming something to be very unlikely does not mean that that something does not exist.

And you either would clasify yourself as an atheist or an agnostic.

The only classification I need to be concerned with, is that I am a 'human being'.

But belief in the assertions of ancient rhetoric is dellusional without any credible evidence.

Why? Because it is ancient? Not everybody shares your belief that religion was born out of ignorance, in fact for one who is truthfull (at least in part), it is easy to see the relivance of bona-fide religious teaching in todays society. It is delusional to believe that God does not exist, when you don't know whether He exist or not. Wouldn't you say?
And what do you regard as credible evidence?
Modern scientific?
How can there be any hope of understanding God through material experiments and observation? Who ever said God was a material being, capable of being observed with mundane senses.
In no scripture does it give that impression, and God is known (generally), through scripture.
Asking for 'credible (physical) evidence' is nothing more than a tactic to give comfort to the atheist, to make him think he is rational and logical.
But the truth is he knows jack-shit.

I too filled the shoes of a theist,

Toilets scarce where you're from then?

I went to church on Thursdays and Sundays, I've sang in church choirs, I was brought up a Catholic, and latter became Babtist, and on to Christianity.

So what?
You were and are atheist. Just because you told yourself you believed in God, doesn't mean you believed.
When people truly believe in something, their whole way of life is geared toward that belief, that is how you can tell if people are genuine. If they do not live according to their verbalised belief, then what good is that talk of belief? And the word 'hypocrite' comes to mind.
You may have gone to church subconsiously wanting God to satisfy your whimsical demands and when the returns were not forthcoming, you decided that there is no God. That is common among people who shares simularities to your mindset.

I still own my bible, I however seeked further and could not accept on mere assumption the writ of bible as only truth.

Are you assuming that that is how all religious and God-conscious persons come to platform of believing in God?
If so, you are sadly mistaken.

I concluded that religious beliefs spawned from ingnorance, and evidently from mental desease.

I have concluded that your conclusions were based on wishful thinking.

The god/God concept is nothing more than a tool to manipulate, and this is shown clearly throughout history.

It has been used as a tool, i agree, but so has women, children, music, science, food, drink, medicine and a whole lot more.

Basically I'm letting you know I didn't become an atheist overnight.

To become an atheist is easy, one simply believes in 'anything'.

And that I don't ask for you to do the same, but be critical and question what you take as irrefutable truth.

Its me your talking to, Godless, your dogmatic ramblings are irrelivant to our discussion. I have never stated what I take to be irrefutable truth in our discussions.

You are assuming that god/God is an entity, what Vexen clearly states that if God is an entity it has no choice if the action it takes is already "predetermined".

Vexen doesn't even seem to know what 'choice' means, how can he know anything about the complexities of God and spirituality.
What I want to know is, why do take what Vexen says as truth/fact.

Was Terry Shiabo conscious?
Or was it a mere illusion on observer's that there was some sort of "self awarness" on her part.

Are you asking me or telling me?
If her family say she was consious, I have no reason to doubt them. If she wasn't consious, and they said she was consious out of sentiment and self-comfort, all the while knowing she wansn't consious, then they were under illusion.

You are self aware, a schizophrenic does not have that knowledge to it's full context.

Are you aware that not alot is known about schizophrenia, definately not enough to make a statement like that with certainty.

Now take a look at your bible, see how many "visions, dreams, and hallusination, are taken to be literal forms of knowledge"

These are three different categories, and apart from hallucination, there is nothing to suggest that they are the causes or symptomatic of the schizophrenic disease.

I concluded that they were schizophrenics, dillusional visions of gods and angels, are still believed today as part of reality.

Do you know 'reality?'
Or are you talking about your perception of reality?
What if gods and angels do exist?
Can you say for sure they don't?

When in fact it's a mental disorder.

How do you know atheism is not a mental disorder?

Jan Ardena.

How do you know atheism is not a mental disorder?

Cause your so full of shit!

That is sooooo... comforting

Truth hurts!

Toilets scarce where you're from then?

Don't need them, We're not full of shit!

You were and are atheist. Just because you told yourself you believed in God, doesn't mean you believed.

Who the hell are you to tell me what I believed when I was a kid, or what I believe now?. You are no-one Jan but a hallucinating schizo freak!.

When people truly believe in something, their whole way of life is geared toward that belief, that is how you can tell if people are genuine.

Yea! I've heard that one! Rev Jim Jones, Dave Koresh, Rev Moonie, Jim Backer, these people were truly genuine. Aren't they?

I have concluded that your conclusions were based on wishful thinking.

And you base that conclusion on ingnorance, not research as I've done. There's a difference. GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS!

It has been used as a tool, i agree, but so has women, children, music, science, food, drink, medicine and a whole lot more.

Again your head is so buried up your sphingter, that you can't see that women, children were not used as an excuse to terminate the lives of other factions, comit mass murder, and kill under the name of some woman or child.

Are you assuming that that is how all religious and God-conscious persons come to platform of believing in God?

No I was letting you know that I was a schizo, much like you are now, I've been cured by REASON!.

Do you know 'reality?

The question is Do you? I know reality, but do you know reality from wishfull thinking?. Were's the Mana falling from the sky to all the hungry Christians, Catholics, Believers of God?. They are starving what the hell are you doing about it?. BTW I contribute monthly!.

To become an atheist is easy, one simply believes in 'anything'.

ROFLMAO!!!!

Thanks for the joke, it's so amusing speaking with someone with their head stuck up their ass!. Thaks for the chat Jan now buzz off!!

Godless.

Godless,

How do you know atheism is not a mental disorder?

Cause your so full of shit!

So let me get this straight, atheism is not a mental disorder cause I'm full of shit.
Okay.

Toilets scarce where you're from then?

Don't need them, We're not full of shit!

Atheists don't need toilets.
Okay.

You are no-one Jan but a hallucinating schizo freak!.

Okay.

And you base that conclusion on ingnorance, not research as I've

The result of your research appears to be nonesense.

Again your head is so buried up your sphingter, that you can't see that women, children were not used as an excuse to terminate the lives of other factions, comit mass murder, and kill under the name of some woman or child.

That wasn't the point, the point was they are used as manipulative tools. Why do your always shift the goal-posts.
I don't know about you, but i don't personally know any
christians or
muslims who murder in the name of religion. Do you?
Did anyone in your church murder a jew or muslim in the name of religion? I bet not.

I've been cured by REASON!.

But how can this be possible, you're still an idiot.

The question is Do you?

Err no...
The question was do you know reality.

I know reality,

So i take it there is nothing more for you to learn then?

Were's the Mana falling from the sky to all the hungry Christians, Catholics, Believers of God?.

BTW I contribute monthly!.

What? Braincells?
I had you down for by the hour.

[quote]To become an atheist is easy, one simply believes in 'anything'

Thanks for the joke,

Its not a joke.
And you know it.

Jan Ardena.

"That wasn't the point, the point was they are used as manipulative tools. Why do your always shift the goal-posts.
I don't know about you, but i don't personally know any
christians or
muslims who murder in the name of religion. Do you?
Did anyone in your church murder a jew or muslim in the name of religion? I bet not.


No, they murder for money greed and power mostly to gain control of more peple to make more money.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

"That wasn't the point, the point was they are used as manipulative tools. Why do your always shift the goal-posts.
I don't know about you, but i don't personally know any
christians or
muslims who murder in the name of religion. Do you?
Did anyone in your church murder a jew or muslim in the name of religion? I bet not.


No, they murder for money greed and power mostly to gain control of more peple to make more money.

Who murders for money, greed, etc, ect, jews, christians, muslims, or people in general??

Jan Ardena.

There is no reason to fight and bicker over your opinions. If everybody believed and thought the same way wouldn't life be boring. No need for name calling.

Originally Posted by Awake

There is no reason to fight and bicker over your opinions. If everybody believed and thought the same way wouldn't life be boring. No need for name calling.

No one is fighting or bickering, we are simply discussing our differences of opinions. What else is this message board for?

Jan Ardena.

Für die "Wahrheit" sterben. - Wir würden uns für unsere Meinungen nicht verbrennen lassen: wir sind ihrer nicht so sicher. Aber vielleicht dafür, daß wir unsere Meinungen haben dürfen und ändern dürfen.

Please, let us keep this discussion free from calling each other ignorant, or other labels. Let's respect each other's opinions here.

Mr U

Jan,

I agree these boards are a great way to share ideas and I love the simple non-aggressive style you use while posting. I also find it somewhat amusing when people try to debate topics from totally different perspectives. But when people start calling names and saying someone is stupid or full of shit, just because they don't understand or agree with anothers view point is senseless. People don't seem to know when to politely agree to disagree.

Hi people Im new here. I was reading about your defines of Enlightenment. I had a dream experience that I rendered into art that you may see. I call it The Enlightenment. Does this fit into your defination along with its story:?

The Enlightenment
Walking around a dirt parking lot, there were a group of thieves trying to steel my car. The sky became polluted with smoke and as I looked up along the fence there were huge factory like cylinders going into the dark sky. Than I was grouped up with 2 other people and noticed my car was moved from one side of the lot to the next. This is when a dark paper thin silluette came from the sky and embrased my car from behind. At the same time the car was painted like a garden with a tree that had 3 branches that closed off the passenger door. I than awoke with a sensation of Holy Religious Enlightenment. I call her the Goddess of Eden

http://img13.imageshack.us/my.php?im...uardian0ow.jpg

flodnag said "Hi people Im new here. I was reading about your defines of Enlightenment. I had a dream experience that I rendered into art that you may see. I call it The Enlightenment. Does this fit into your defination along with its story:? "

very nice picture, flodnag.
however enlightenment by definition cannot come from the supernatural or religion,
Enlightenment : was an 18th century philosophical movement which emphasized the use of reason to scrutinize previously accepted doctrines and traditions and that brought about many humanitarian reforms. which may never of happened due to religious doctrine.

enlightenment: is the understanding the logical results, and the spread on knowledge to advocated the use of reason in the reappraisal of accepted ideas and social institutions.
so though, a very nice thing your imagination produced, it is just that your imagination.

Fine, I'll just throw it away than :wink:

no dont do that, did dickens stop writing, did dali stop painting, did beethoven stop writing music "NO".
the imagination is something we need, else art would not exist. keep painting and call it what ever you like thats artistic licience.

however enlightenment by definition cannot come from the supernatural or religion,
Enlightenment : was an 18th century philosophical movement which emphasized the use of reason to scrutinize previously accepted doctrines and traditions and that brought about many humanitarian reforms. which may never of happened due to religious doctrine.

Not that enlightenment, dude, enlightenment as in Eastern Philosophy, geez.

spidergoat said "enlightenment as in Eastern Philosophy"

I know that, however eastern philosophy is still based in spirituality,
i'd also said in my last but one post, this " enlightenment: is the understanding the logical results, and the spread of knowledge to advocated the use of reason in the reappraisal of accepted ideas and social institutions.
I therefore must reiterate that, enlightenment by it very definition cannot come from the supernatural or religion.
you can not reason for a subjective basis, it can only be inferred.

enlightenment: is the understanding the logical results, and the spread of knowledge to advocated the use of reason in the reappraisal of accepted ideas and social institutions.

You cannot judge what Buddhism calls enlightenment with the definition of European enlightenment. One is a spiritual transformation, the other is a social movement.

They are two different things that happen to share a certain connotation of the word enlightenment which simply means an awakening.

Enlightenment in Buddhism is beyond logic. You do not use your rational mind to achieve it, in fact, the rational mind often prevents it. It is not based on knowledge or reason.

The Enlightenment in European history was as you said, a movement that employed knowledge and reason to further the goals of humanity.

Sorry if I misunderstood you, geezer, but I'm a fan of Eastern Philosophy, and wouldn't want to see it misrepresented. The title of this thread is about self-realization which is the Eastern connotation. Self-realization cannot be achieved through logic and reason, but through gnosis, which is by nature, mystical, spiritual, and religious.

Originally Posted by Godless

I have become "enlightened" My enlightenment was when I became an atheist and refused the soul/body dictonomy. Theres no seperation of the two. My spirit is my experience of this life, not the false notion that it will continue elsewere.

Thats pretty much the definition of soul and body given by Gautama Buddha. That of 5 Sankharas (consciouness, thought, sensation, memory and sorry I cant remember the last - maybe spidergoat will help me out).

He said that there was no self outside these. He did this to prevent the unhealthy attachment to the 'ego' self that was being adopted by the hindu brahmins of the time.

But Buddha still taught of an 'identity' and continued life. So the conclusion you draw above is not necessarily valid.

Originally Posted by Vashti's Daughter

Originally Posted by Godless

I have become "enlightened" My enlightenment was when I became an atheist and refused the soul/body dictonomy. Theres no seperation of the two. My spirit is my experience of this life, not the false notion that it will continue elsewere.

Thats pretty much the definition of soul and body given by Gautama Buddha. That of 5 Sankharas (consciouness, thought, sensation, memory and sorry I cant remember the last - maybe spidergoat will help me out).

He said that there was no self outside these. He did this to prevent the unhealthy attachment to the 'ego' self that was being adopted by the hindu brahmins of the time.

But Buddha still taught of an 'identity' and continued life. So the conclusion you draw above is not necessarily valid.

Well I can correct myself now.

It is actually 5 Khandas which are; form, sensation, perception, consciousness and discriminantion. (the forth one being known as sankhara) - that will teach me to work from memory!

These are the attributes that make up self, there is no self outside these. These Khandas will disintegrate after death, but will reform in another life - but not to give rise to the same I (as in I am hot or I am happy).

according to Buddha anyway.

I don't think anyones "enlightened" for it seems we all make the same mistakes over and over.

We all have love and hate within us and cannot totally control them both.


We all change as we learn more about ourselves and those around us so we keep searching for "enlightenment" many seem to want but no one can find for it is elusive as the wind.

Speak for yourself. Enlightenment is more common than you might think, and has nothing to do with having control over love and hate.

If you understand what the quantum-gap is then there is no need to prove or understand anything least of all that gods exist because it is SELF-evident that they cannot exist except in the thoughts that they are. Other than these quantum-gaps -- that are the Unified Field, Advaita's Atman, Samadhi, -- only thoughts like god and life can exist. Thus god can no more exist than can the thought called atheism.

And thoughts like life and god and death are just Reality's nothing called fiction, thoughts.

Self-realization is just another thought.
To be Awake is to realize that the mind is always dreaming that it is awake. And thus life is just the mind dreaming that it wakes up every morning.

Reality is not the nothings called thoughts, the mind, which is the thoughts-dream called life. Reality is the EVERYTHING the quantum-gaps -- the Unified Field -- that is the thoughtless-silence, Samadhi, of dreamless-sleep.

I AM and YOU ARE and ALL IS this Reality of dreamless-sleep and everything else is the nothings called thoughts, fiction, the mind.

Originally Posted by genep

If you understand what the quantum-gap is ......

Let's assume that none of us understand what you mean by a quantum gap. Why don't you explain it, in terms that we are likely to understand.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by genep

If you understand what the quantum-gap is ......

Let's assume that none of us understand what you mean by a quantum gap. Why don't you explain it, in terms that we are likely to understand.

I have asked the same question in another thread. He is consistent even if unintelligable. I am beginning to get the impression that this is a secret or mystical knowlege like the knowlege of the Gnostics or the Tao of the Taoists. It probably cannot explained in words. However, I cannot help wondering if genep posts here for a feeling of superiority that he gets out of it rather than from a desire to educate us poor slobs.

I believe you are correct. The most productive thing to do is to ignore his posts. I do not see any evidence they will contribute to an increase in human knowledge, unless it is the knowledge of abberant behaviour.

Genep - please prove me wrong.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by genep

If you understand what the quantum-gap is ......

Let's assume that none of us understand what you mean by a quantum gap. Why don't you explain it, in terms that we are likely to understand.

do a google blog search for UV-gap

Without the quantum gap there would be no Periodic Table, no elements and thus no universe. The quantum-gap "organizes" particles into the elements of the periodic table.
The quantum-gap is the Hindu Atman, Samadhi and the Buddhist, Nirvana.
The quantum-gap is the same gap that occurs between thoughts that makes the mind and its “life,” and dreams, into Reality’s fiction.