# Enlightenment



## Ninae

Okay, I've been working on it for real for six months now. I haven't really wanted to say much about it, as I wanted to see how it would go first.

It has been a gradual process, but lately I've been getting some real, big results. As you know, I'm not a very moderate person, so I thought if I was going to try I would carpet-bomb it or make use of everything I could.

I'll explain more later, for now I'll just say I've found these practices the most helpful:



1.	Yoga
2.	Meditation
3.	Breath work
4.	Reading and reflection
5.	Self-inquiry 
6.	Purification/Shadow-work
7.	Prayer
8.	Chanting
9.	Music
10.	Sun/Nature
11.	Service
12.	High-consciousness people
13.	Raw/Vegetarian diet


(13 terrible things you can do)


----------



## Cosmic Trigger

What's the subject for discussion?  Good for you btw!


----------



## Ninae

It was meant as advice, not to start a discussion.


----------



## cire113

You are already enlightened. Good luck on your journey humans 




BEFORE ENLIGHTENMENT CHOP WOOD CARRY WATER

AFTER ENLIGHTENMENT CHOP WOOD CARRY WATER



hahahahhahahahhahahhaha

and i thought u were enlightened?


----------



## Ninae

LOL. I know what you mean. But that's not the angle I was coming from.


----------



## Cosmic Trigger

Ninae said:


> It was meant as advice, not to start a discussion.



Advice on what, enlightenment?  You're not enlightened though. Aren't you jumping the gun a few billion lifetimes? What if over time your advice causes cavities?  Be very careful about giving advice to others on things  you're not sure of. You might end up with a lot of enemies with rotten teeth. Not a pretty sight.


----------



## belligerent drunk

I would like if you could elaborate on how this connects to spirituality (which I assume is your goal). As Cosmic Trigger said, giving lifestyle advice, especially potentially harmful advice, without properly explaining the reasoning behind it, is not a very good tone of voice.


----------



## Ninae

I didn't say I had completed the process. I meant it has begun. It could still take a lifetime (and probably will).

I just wanted to share what has worked best for me, for anyone interested. So the classics. I don't really care what anyone thinks I've experienced.

How can it not connect to spirituality? These are the traditional practices to bring about spiritual enlightenment. Or maybe that's not obvious to everyone, as people are so alienated from what real spiritual awakening is, but it's classical guru stuff (and the real deal gurus).


----------



## Nixiam

Eh, advice is advice.


----------



## cire113

Ninae said:


> I didn't say I had completed the process. I meant it has begun. It could still take a lifetime (and probably will).
> 
> I just wanted to share what has worked best for me, for anyone interested. So the classics. I don't really care what anyone thinks I've experienced.
> 
> How can it not connect to spirituality? These are the traditional practices to bring about spiritual enlightenment. Or maybe that's not obvious to everyone, as people are so alienated from what real spiritual awakening is, but it's classical guru stuff (and the real deal gurus).



what exactly are you trying to complete or achieve? lol ..........

what is real spiritual awakening to you?


----------



## Jabberwocky

Nice list! The self-inquiry has been the sticking point for me


----------



## Ninae

Let's get things into perspective. I said I wasn't talking aboit ULTTIMATE enligjtenment. I haven't turned into Adyashanti or become egoless/perfect over night.

That wasn't what I was trying to say. I'm coming from the perspective that we we're all, or at least most, born in some state of enlightenment. Before our true self is obscured in layers of ego, and we have the option to rewind and return to that state again. So when you've really started that process you're in the low end on the scale of enlightenment (no matter how many lifetimes it takes for you to complete it).

Anyone can do it. If I can do it, why can't anyone? I've been preparing myself for a long time, but only been working on it seriously for a year or so. Six months ago I started really clearing with everything that was available to me and started making progress right away. But it's first lately I've been noticing a real change.

It just feels like I've purified. I can feel my arising Presence and an inflowing light in my heart. I feel a love, joy, and peace inside I can't really explain. That's all I can really say.

I don't expect anyone to believe me, or even care, why would that even matter. I just wanted to share what seems to work for me for anyone interested. Or why don't you try for yourself, instead of just talking about it?


----------



## Nixiam

I appreciate the list, Ninae. I'm going to resume my meditative habits soon. Not that I think I'll transform into Buddha.


----------



## Ninae

This is also a good thread about it:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...ment-A-direct-succinct-account-of-what-occurs...

 Just know that it's possible.


----------



## Cosmic Trigger

I think that there is an assumption that Enlightenment actually exists. Anyone know personally an enlightened individual? If so what makes you sure?


----------



## Nixiam

I think Denzel Washington is pretty enlightned.


----------



## Cosmic Trigger

That's nice.


----------



## Ninae

I'm sure millions of people have become enlightened in the West since the 60s. For sure. 

Maybe not the mythological kind of Jesus/Buddha enlightenment, but the accessible kind. They learn to access higher consciousness  levels and can develop skills like healing and extra sensory perception, etc. There can be a dramatic transformation of the nervous system and energy system.

Maybe a better word would be "on the path", but that's what I meant. To reach some perceptible level of enlightenment that is noticeable to you. It's sad that most people think it's just a legend or something unattainable, especially considering all the teachings we now have.


[video]https://youtu.be/FbXgG3DLNGY[/video]


----------



## Cosmic Trigger

You're sure?  You seem to have a very low criteria for surety.

Enlightenment then means whatever one wants it to. Therefore I'm enlightened. End thread.


----------



## Ninae

Well, have you read any of the modern teachers on enlightenement? David Hawkins and Eckart Tolle were two great enlightened teachers who made it accessible to the general public. Or how much do you know about the modern enlightment seeking community?


----------



## Nixiam

Grampa Trigger...

More like GURU Trigger! 

I dunno. Enlightenment is kind of an anecdote in and of itself. Can't prove or disprove, but there are some compelling things that suggest some have incredibly advanced sensory perception. Sometimes said to be attained through enlightenment.

Though I wouldn't call it evidence. Nor do I buy into or believe/disbelieve in heaven. But I think there is truth in mental enlightenment, the meditative practices of the buddhist monks, etc. Countless studies on meditation... hell, even useless prayer.


----------



## Cosmic Trigger

We all  get to have our beliefs. I can't prove some of mine either.


----------



## Ninae

I'd get myself a Guru..... IF 

IF S/He already knew S/He is
Whom S/He is
As we are
And could carry me Extra extra far.....

I'd get myself a Guru.

BUT, I doubt when they suddenly pout 
When they angrily cast "them" out 
When they ask about collecting:
Plates and shops and T shirts
If selling books
And ugly mugs 
Badly done CDs of songs

I'd get myself a Guru
If I met one Probably
One owning own income
Independent outflow
Not needing me 
Paradoxically


----------



## Cosmic Trigger

I've always felt that if you  have to pay for a Guru then the  odds aren't good. All spiritual instruction should be free imo. That's why I never charge.


----------



## Xorkoth

I think "enlightenment" is a loaded and relative term.  I think people can experience insight and objective viewpoints to varying levels of success, at various times.  My idea of enlightenment is being able to be objective and balanced with your own analysis of yourself as much as possible, as well as towards others, and coming to a place where you are comfortable with what you believe, are consistent and are able to live a good life with it and be a good thing for other people.  I think everyone's journey is different but a lot of people on every different path do not display these characteristics, and some do on every different path.  It takes an infinity of experiences to make up the universe, and everyone's place is different.  Sometimes discussion of enlightenment become a form of ego masturbation.  Not saying you're doing that by the way Ninae, but it happens a lot.  It's easy to start feeling superior when you know the One True Path(tm), but no path is right for everyone.

That said, I think mindfulness and self-analysis are extremely important to anyone, as is being around uplifting and like-minded people.


----------



## One Thousand Words

As a rich white, male omnivore I have reached entitlement a long time ago


----------



## belligerent drunk

^ check your white male privilege please.


----------



## One Thousand Words

The only check I need is the one for this grass fed steak


----------



## Cosmic Trigger

Ninae said:


> Well, have you read any of the modern teachers on enlightenement? David Hawkins and Eckart Tolle were two great enlightened teachers who made it accessible to the general public. Or how much do you know about the modern enlightment seeking community?



Yeah I have. I could write that shit and I'm not enlightened. Or am I? Look this is all rehashed shit. These guys are in the business of enlightenment. They are no more enlightened than  you although they may be more intelligent.


----------



## Ninae

It was supposed to be the opposite of ego-masturbation, LOL. Or just sharing what has worked for me without getting into any long discussions to justify or prove myself. But I guess it's possible to view everything negatively.


----------



## Cosmic Trigger

Everything Negatively?  Come on get real please.  I'm saying  you don't know.  How many dupes have worshiped this or that Guru /Master only to find at some  point that they are stealing all the money or having sex with the women ect.  Do  you think they weren't sure in the same way you are sure?  Think  on these things.

If you don't want a critique of your ideas and methods maybe best not to post them.  I'm not saying that to be mean. I'm saying that to save you some grief.


----------



## Ninae

Ok, so I don't know. Because you say so. Fine by me, and let's leave it at that.

But I haven't been worshipping any gurus or master. That's all in your head, so why even bring it up? I've been studying the most traditional and acclaimed teachers for a while now (who you don't even seem familiar with, but still feel the need to have an opinion about). That is what would I call unfounded negativity. 

Anyway, I think I'll just post quotes that have helped me from now, so it won't be so "ego-centric".


----------



## Ninae

_"Joy, always joy." 

 "All sorrow finished," "The deep, deep ocean of joy within," "Being filled with joy," "Singing joy unending."

"I am satisfied — I see, dance, laugh, sing." "Wandering, amazed at my own lightness and glee." "O the joy of my spirit — it is uncaged—  it darts like lightning."

"The ocean filled with joy — the atmosphere all joy! Joy, joy, in freedom, worship, love!" 

"Joy in the ecstasy of life: Enough to merely be! Enough to breathe! Joy, Joy! All over joy!"_

- Walt Whitman


----------



## Xorkoth

Ninae:  I just wanted to say that I wasn't trying to attack you at all, this thread just brought up the thoughts I posted.  I like that you're so passionate about what you believe and that you are coming from a loving place.


----------



## Cosmic Trigger

Ninae said:


> Ok, so I don't know. Because you say so. Fine by me, and let's leave it at that.
> 
> But I haven't been worshipping any gurus or master. That's all in your head, so why even bring it up? I've been studying the most traditional and acclaimed teachers for a while now (who you don't even seem familiar with, but still feel the need to have an opinion about). That is what would I call unfounded negativity.
> 
> Anyway, I think I'll just post quotes that have helped me from now, so it won't be so "ego-centric".



I've looking into many of the writings of traditional teachings over more  years then  you likely have been alive. They say basically the same things and I'm not saying everything they say is false.


----------



## Ninae

_"Uncontional love is a practical, reasonable, and reachable goal in a human lifetime. From that level spiritual commitment and dedication evolves into states of esquisite joy - even ecstacy - and eventually reach the level of peace at 600, which is the beginning level of the mystic."
_
- David Hawkins


----------



## Ninae

_“I had a magical day during one Sunday when I walked out in nature. 

On the outside this day only consisted of taking a walk out in the beautiful sunny weather and cleaning my apartment, but on the inside everything suddenly changed. When I walked out in nature in the sunny weather, a silent explosion suddenly happened within me and my whole perception of reality changed. 

In a single moment, everything had changed, although nothing on the outside had really changed. Everything on the outside was exactly as before, but my way of seeing had changed. The difference was that before I did not see and now I could see. My eyes were open. Suddenly I was one with everything, one with the stones, one with the trees and one with the people that I meet on my walk. My heart danced with joy together with a feeling of: ”I am God”. 

Not that I am the creator of everything, but that I am part of the Whole, part of the divine. It felt like coming home, that Existence is my home. I also saw that even if the people that I meet did not understand that they are a part of the Whole, they still are a part of the Whole. I felt the waves of Existence in my own heart and being and I felt like a small wave in a great ocean. It gave a taste of the eternal, a taste of the limitless and boundless source of creativity. In just a few moments, I learnt more than during 20 years in university. 

Wisdom is basically the understanding that we all are part of the Whole. We are all small rivers moving towards the ocean. I laughed at the fact that enlightenment is really our innate birthright, and that small children already live in this mystical unity with the Whole.”_ 

- Swami Dhyan Giten


----------



## modern buddha

One Thousand Words said:


> As a rich white, male omnivore I have reached entitlement a long time ago





One Thousand Words said:


> The only check I need is the one for this grass fed steak



yum. 



Ninae said:


> _"Uncontional love is a practical, reasonable, and reachable goal in a human lifetime. From that level spiritual commitment and dedication evolves into states of esquisite joy - even ecstacy - and eventually reach the level of peace at 600, which is the beginning level of the mystic."
> _
> - David Hawkins



Interesting. I've never heard of a level you reach in your training, other than 9000 of course  . Spiritual levels are compared in so many different ways. What's odd, though, is the simple fact that once those comparisons have left, all you have is ... well, your actions that you do each day. All anything becomes is actions once thoughts are taken away. We can compare and think we've accomplished something more than others or less than them. My question is how can anyone be sure that there is enlightenment? If all we become once our thoughts fall away is actions, can we think about enlightenment anymore?


----------



## Nixiam

Awww shit I smell a reference.^^


----------



## Ninae

When you really study all the accounts that have been left about it, it slowly starts to become more real for you. Not that many have really read the bible or the Eastern texts. It's more like they've heard of it.

Even Jesus travelled the world to study and learn before he started to have a good idea about it.


----------



## swilow

You would think that enlightenment would probably bring about some physical changes to the brain. Has there been any studies verifying that enlightenment is an actual 'thing' and not simply another idea? 

I don't believe in sudden, transformative enlightenment as someone like Eckhart Tolle claimed to experience. The brain, as an organ, is not as flexible as that. Aspects of behaviour and personality take years to form and create deep, complex structures in the brain. I believe we can certainly re-learn things (neural plasticity) and reach different states of awareness, but I feel like the physical nature of the brain at least partially precludes sudden, rapid change that isn't either drug induced or trauma-induced.


----------



## Ninae

David Hawkins wrote some good things about this. Specifically that the body increases its production of endorphins more and more, along with decreasing the production of stress hormones. His books are brilliant, by the way, if only for the psychology.

But they say it mainly involves developing new neural pathways in the brain. There has been a lot of studies on what meditation can do for brain development and chemistry. So it would be closer to something like that.

Have you heard about the gamma waves measured in Buddhist monks? I agree it has to come gradually.


----------



## swilow

Ninae said:


> David Hawkins wrote some good things about this. Specifically that the body increases its production of endorphins more and more, along with decreasing the production of stress hormones. His books are brilliant, by the way, if only for the psychology.



Okay, I'll have to look him up, I have not heard of him before. I assume he has documented these physical changes?


> But they say it mainly involves developing new neural pathways in the brain. There has been a lot of studies on what meditation can do for brain development and chemistry. So it would be closer to something like that.



I can definitely attest to meditation being immensely helpful to me, so I agree there.



> Have you heard about the gamma waves measured in Buddhist monks? I agree it has to come gradually.



Heard a bit but AFAIK, science hasn't even really determined what gamma waves truly are so I'm unsure if this represents a benefit or evidence of enlightenment. 

I think buddhist recognised that this state must emerge gradually and that is why they postulate reincarnation.


----------



## Ninae

Hawkins was more of an academic type, I think psychiatrist. He also claimed some kind of enlightenment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7k1dxdv10g

I don't know about Eckhart Tolle and how enlightened he was. Maybe he made it up to sell books. But he obviously studied Zen Buddhism and made that accessible to a lot more people.


----------



## RDP89

Ninae said:


> When you really study all the accounts that have been left about it, it slowly starts to become more real for you. Not that many have really read the bible or the Eastern texts. It's more like they've heard of it.
> 
> Even Jesus travelled the world to study and learn before he started to have a good idea about it.


 That is, if he ever existed, which alot of peope highly doubt.


----------



## Ninae

Most scientists recognise Jesus as a historical figure.


----------



## swilow

^I'm not so sure about that Ninae. That's a broad statement really. I don't think its a statement you will be easily able to back up; there's millions upon millions of scientists and there opinions on Jesus is really the same value as your's or my own. 

I think there is immense doubt about the historicity of Jesus. There simply has to be. For such a momentous figure, he sure didn't feature in many contemporary recountings of history. And, his philosphy or that attributed to him is hardly enlightened or especially novel- idea's of compassion and atonement and vengeful punishment existed well before Jesus. Jesus is overrated. 



Ninae said:


> Hawkins was more of an academic type, I think psychiatrist. He also claimed some kind of enlightenment.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7k1dxdv10g
> 
> I don't know about Eckhart Tolle and how enlightened he was. Maybe he made it up to sell books. But he obviously studied Zen Buddhism and made that accessible to a lot more people.



I don't know that much about Tolle but did read 'The New Earth' some time ago and found it relatively interesting. I felt his tale of enlightenment was very tantalising; that, in a very brief space of time, one can reach a kind of nirvana without real intent. I've always hoped for that to happen to me. 

I've always hoped that there is a sequence of thoughts, like a sort of zen koan, which is able to completely rewire one's outlook, kinda instant enlightenment. But, my better judgment tells me such a thing probably doesn't exist and instant, deep, lasting enlightenment is not a real thing; like everything of value, it requires effort and work. 

What do we mean by enlightenment anyway? I can use the term in context and yet feel like it is subjective enough to have very ambiguous meaning. Are the people who have no spiritual practise or sense of it and yet go through life happy-go-lucky born enlightened? I cannot fathom how to avoid being crushed by the weight of existence and feel like life is more a burden than a gift (atm at least). And yet, there are people that seem to be lucky enough to not be plagued by worries and existential doubts- but then again, appearances are deceiving.


----------



## Foreigner

I don't know for sure what enlightenment is, but here is what I suspect. 

Our physical bodies are formed out of our non-corporeal spirits. We are essentially spirits wearing a physical, material skin. We come into each life with a learning plan. Not every single thing that happens in our life was pre-written, but the general theme of our experiences is based upon a desired structure built into our corporeal consciousness through the intervention of the spirit. We have free will to follow this plan, which would put us into alignment with our spirit, and thus with God; or, we can do things that run counter to our spirit, which we must atone for later -- not because of punishment, but because we deviated from our own learning plan and we need to go back and figure out what that was about. 

The process of living many different lifetimes, if we experience good progress, brings us closer and closer to God. It is a process of learning, and in the case of rising and falling, it is also about purification. Most of us rise and fall repeatedly. You can't be born into a society or consciousness that is too above your pay grade. You may be born into a lower consciousness, either as self-punishment (to learn from your mistakes) or to help a segment of humanity to elevate.

I think it is far more common for spirits that have already reached a high level to be re-born into lower level surroundings in order to elevate humanity, than it is to witness a new enlightenment taking place. Forget whether or not Jesus was real, just try to picture the level he would be at. We perceive linearly that someone has "achieved" enlightenment through some life pattern, when actually it's because their spirit is already at a high level that their corporeal circumstances seem like they figured it out. Spirit comes first, then the material existence. That's why everyone wants enlightenment but no one can describe how to get there through material means. You actually have to do the work over many lifetimes and with each new incarnation the corporeal personality will appear more and more enlightened to the material world. 

It must be possible to get to a spiritual progression point where coming back to Earth is totally superfluous, and moving on to other realities equivalent to your level makes more sense. The only reason to come back to Earth would be to help Earth elevate, it's the only reason I can think of. It also means that there comes a certain level where petty things like jealousy, greed, anger, etc... all become purified, and a spirit becomes just goodness. Those spirits would then want to help humanity -- because if those petty emotions which drag spirits down to lower levels can be purified, then the whole Earth elevates. Such is the function of enlightened people. That is what Jesus was about. Here on Earth, such advanced beings would be called enlightened, but on other planes there are still various degrees. There's always someone higher and lower than you, even in the spirit realm, until of course spirits become so high level that they rejoin with God. Jesus and others like him are just beings with an advanced level of attainment who incarnate to serve as examples for humanity. 

So my conclusion is that enlightenment isn't some riddle whose answer, once solved, makes you ascend. You ascend through earned work, over a very, very long time. But what is cosmic time to a spirit? It's nothing. Also, everything I described here is crude. It probably makes a lot more sense in the spirit world. The best thing you can do is live a life according to your Virtue, or your true self. It's sin to suppress or operate in contradiction to how God made you. You were made the way you were to do a specific kind of work and learning. You can't change that hard coded path, but you can use your free will to work against it, and it will cause you to suffer. And if you die having lived out of alignment, you'll just have to come back and do it again, albeit with a plan that has likely been modified by you, your spiritual kin, and possibly God, so that the workshop is more achievable. God is forgiving like that. All that "awakening" is, ultimately, is _doing you_ without the extraneous confusion and ego bullshit. With that alignment, you can fulfill your plan, and you progress to the next level... whatever that is for you. When your spirit detaches from this body and returns to its realm to process the lessons of this life, it will do so to accolades or to constructive criticism, based on how much you honoured your own path. But either way, you have all of eternity to figure this out.


----------



## Ninae

Yes, that's a good way of putting it, and I think a right perspective on Jesus. When I said that most people haven't really studied the bible, I meant just that. 

Having parts of it forced upon you as an adolescent isn't the same as reading the whole thing with an interested and open mind in adulthood. When I read The Aquarian Gospel last year (don't know if it has more of Jesus words, but seems like it) I was literally awestruck by the sense of divinity that game through in his words. It's utterly unmistakable if you have any sensitivity to it. 

He comes across as not only enlightened (I also believe there are degrees of enlightenment) but being so at one with God's will that's all he desired to do on Earth and was capable of total sacrifice. I.e. he became zealous and very hard for most people to relate to. Although I see him as higher than Buddha, who was more laid back or detached.

Most might not perceive it that way as that kind of attitude is the ego or lower self's worst nightmare. Before you're ready for it it will be irritating and feel unnatural in all ways. The only way it makes any sense is from the perspective that he was speaking as an enlightened person. In reality, it's something that only really makes sense between an enlightened person and another.

But Jesus wasn't just about extreme moral rules or judgements (although I think he tried to teach us about love and karma). I think that's the part of it the Church choose to emphasise, as it was used as a vehicle to rule. He also taught about many deep esoteric things, like manifesting things directly out of the ether, and the battle between the higher and lower self. But it's like you need to already be initiated to appreciate it.


----------



## swilow

As much as I found your writing beautiful and inspiring Foreigner, I can't really get behind it. There really does not feel like there is a plan to this, that we are on a path to learn something for some reason.I think it almost inspires helplessness. I do not think we are helpless, I think we have enormous, untapped capacities.  I feel like it is anthropocentric because it seems to suggest that the universe has come about as a place for us to learn and develop. Rather, I think we have learned and developed capabilites to enable us to live within the unvierse, for a very brief time.

Ultimately, I don't really see evidence of the spritual realm as postulated here. What is it that makes you think these things? The more I look at reality, the more I start to see that it is something very different to the way my brain seeks to structure it. It is weirder than fiction.


----------



## Nixiam

The more you look, the less you see.

That is, unless that there is nothing to see at all, but I've met some devout spiritualists who gave me countless anecdotes and told me to try (this and that) for myself.


----------



## Ninae

The thing is, you need to look to see evidence. God doesn't force himself upon you. But many seem to want it the other way round.


----------



## swilow

Nixiam said:


> The more you look, the less you see.
> 
> That is, unless that there is nothing to see at all, but I've met some devout spiritualists who gave me countless anecdotes and told me to try (this and that) for myself.



I try really hard to keep an open mind about these things, I try to modify my initial reactions which tend to be sceptical. 



Ninae said:


> The thing is, you need to look to see evidence. God doesn't force himself upon you. But many seem to want it the other way round.



IME, it is in looking for God that I noticed an absence. Innately, I believed in god and was raised in a catholic family. I've never encountered evidence that this situation, reality and the human condition, is part of something greater or has greater meaning except what we impart on it ourselves. I would like to discover something supernatural and unearthly and have looked for years in various ways, through meditation, through aspects of buddhism, through psychedelics, through occult/thelema stuff- I've only ever really gazed upon an empty throneroom. The more I think about this and read so many different and individual stories of spiritual experience, the more I think that spirtuality is not objective or external and takes place within the indivdual. 

Hence, I would say that enlightenment is probably different for everybody. I don't think it requires a theistic or spiritual belief to manifest.


----------



## Ninae

Maybe not a theistic belief. Depends on how you define it. But the essence of enlightenment is to bring your spirit through in human form and is basically about removing the obstacles to that.

Although you wouldn't necessary need to know this to accomplish it. You could just be performing your practice and it could unfold as a consequence of that.

I don't know if you've read the Law of One, but it has a pretty interesting perspective on the Service-to-Self and Service-to-Others paths and explains that people come here to develop both negatively and positively.


----------



## Foreigner

swilow said:


> As much as I found your writing beautiful and inspiring Foreigner, I can't really get behind it. There really does not feel like there is a plan to this, that we are on a path to learn something for some reason.I think it almost inspires helplessness. I do not think we are helpless, I think we have enormous, untapped capacities.  I feel like it is anthropocentric because it seems to suggest that the universe has come about as a place for us to learn and develop. Rather, I think we have learned and developed capabilites to enable us to live within the unvierse, for a very brief time.
> 
> Ultimately, I don't really see evidence of the spritual realm as postulated here. What is it that makes you think these things? The more I look at reality, the more I start to see that it is something very different to the way my brain seeks to structure it. It is weirder than fiction.



Hard to justify what I just wrote with more words. It's through experiences and realizations. If you bring it all down to Earth and just look at single lifetimes, Daoism does a great job of explaining what Virtue is, or True Nature. The more I debunk false egos and realize true nature, the more I feel at one with my spirit, which becomes reflected in my surroundings. I can only describe it as God. I can't accuse you of not doing "the work" to figure it out because your path may be different, but I've noticed a common thread among people who have done their share of inner work and have some degree of attainment. They all remark on the same experiences. 

I've been around enough children to know that they come in with talents and capacities that neither parent knows or has taught them. And some children grow up to be completely unlikely their parents, or unlike the virtues/morals their parents tried to teach them. You can't just explain all that with DNA analysis. 

Going by pure logic, it makes no sense that our lives have no purpose, that we toil through lesson after lesson only to die and go into oblivion. I don't need the comfort of meaning due to fear of death. My body is disposable and I don't really care. I believe it because it's true, not because I have an agenda. This body and personality dies forever, sure, but something lives on. It's just so obvious to me. I'm incredibly skeptical that evolution is self-guiding, on a merely material level. There is clearly a spiritual component guiding it. 

I'm not trying to convince you, nor do I care to... everything I said above would be flimsy testimony to an empiricist. But it's what I know to be true, not just on an intellectual level, but with the core of my being. We are more than meets the eye. And anyway... if I'm wrong then it won't matter, and if I'm right you'll remember one day anyway once you die.


----------



## swilow

TL;DR version- skepticism, objectivity, DNA, science, matter, Universe.



Foreigner said:


> Hard to justify what I just wrote with more words. It's through experiences and realizations. If you bring it all down to Earth and just look at single lifetimes, Daoism does a great job of explaining what Virtue is, or True Nature. The more I debunk false egos and realize true nature, the more I feel at one with my spirit, which becomes reflected in my surroundings. I can only describe it as God. I can't accuse you of not doing "the work" to figure it out because your path may be different, but I've noticed a common thread among people who have done their share of inner work and have some degree of attainment. They all remark on the same experiences.



I dunno, I've done a bit of what I consider inner work and its what has lead me to this outlook. I've tried to make eye contact with god- I've been desperate to, at times- I've seen little that is anything like what people describe. Perhaps I am on a lower level, or perhaps these other people are imagining things. God knows (ha) the human imagination is utterly astounding in what it can conjecture. 



> I've been around enough children to know that they come in with talents and capacities that neither parent knows or has taught them. And some children grow up to be completely unlikely their parents, or unlike the virtues/morals their parents tried to teach them. You can't just explain all that with DNA analysis.



Yet. We've barely scratched the surface of what DNA is, or what scientific exploration can present us. Spiritual seekers have existed for at least 10,000 years and yet nothing has really been presented that everyone agrees upon, that could be called a singular, objective truth. In terms of explaining the universe and reality, I don't think spirituality has been able to do this... Scientific enquiry has bought about many more truths than the thousands of years of spritual exploration have. But I don't neccesarily want to derail this thread with the science vs spirit debate. The two can coexist, its just that one is actually useful. 

The differences between parent and child has a few explanations, namely that a child is the emergence of a single entity based upon the combined chromosomes of two other individuals and completely unique in that sense. Factor in environment, changing social structures, and there really is no need to introduce reincarnation or past lives or god. None of these things is that useful an explanation IMO as each idea raises billions of questions. I like questions, but I don't neccesarily like recursive dilemma's that always end up being based upon faith. 



> Going by pure logic, it makes no sense that our lives have no purpose, that we toil through lesson after lesson only to die and go into oblivion.



Using logic takes me somewhere totally different. Logically, one would think that our lifes purpose would be rather clear- it would be illogical to send us into a lesson and yet not tell us what the lesson was or what the end-point was, or even that we were in a lesson. What use is the idea of a purpose or agenda in our lives if we have no way of being certain what it is? If we had a clear purpose, would it not be self-evident? Why is it so obscure? When you say 'lesson', in what sense? Do you think that situations are engineered for you to learn from, specifically? How would situations be presented to you that do not transgress the physical laws that are objectively true in the universe? Or do these lessons manifest by utilising the same laws that govern all phenomena?



> There is clearly a spiritual component guiding it.



But its not clear, at all. If something is guiding evolution- what an asshole! :D

Anyway, if you say it is clear- in what sense? There does not seem to be an obvious goal of evolution, besides the propogation of the species. Or if you have read the soul-crushing book by Richard Dawkins 'The Selfish Gene', evolution is solely about the replication of random pieces of protein-based code. I don't like the idea at all, but my likes and dislikes are clearly meaningless to the universe.

I'm going to repost this quote from Schopenhauer and see what you think:



			
				Arthur said:
			
		

> “Human life must be some kind of mistake. The truth of this will be sufficiently obvious if we only remember that man is a compound of needs and necessities hard to satisfy; and that even when they are satisfied, all he obtains is a state of painlessness, where nothing remains to him but abandonment to boredom. This is direct proof that existence has no
> real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of the emptiness of life? If life—the craving for which is the very essence of our being—were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all: mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing.”



That's one fo the truest things I've read. Rather than being swamped by the bleakness of it, I see it as liberating. Reality is neutral and valueless land upon which we can do what we will- or not. Ultimately, our suffering means nothing to the universe, I wonder if it should therefore mean nothing to ourselves.



> And anyway... if I'm wrong then it won't matter, and if I'm right you'll remember one day anyway once you die.



I look forward to that day 

I hope you don't mind all my questions- they are honest questions- and I ask them because you have clearly spent along time, if not your entire life, pondering these things. I'm always open to being convinced. I have had experiences that I cannot explain too-yet. 

Also, if you don't want to answer, that is fine...

***

If I was to posit a deity or a guide and you were to ask me where it is, I would say that we are living within it. I think there IS something deeper ocurring within our universe that has given rise to the structure we see; the _potentiality_ that the universe's formation has bought about. I wouldn't worship such a thing, I believe it to be utterly indifferent and impersonal, but I do feel in awe of the structure we live within. I also believe that our universe exists within a deeper structure- perhaps it continues infinitely, who knows. A delight to consider though.


----------



## swilow

I feel like I must come across as tiresome and repetitive to the more spiritually inclined. I would love to believe these things, I simply can't. When I present the evidence to myself, I can draw no other real conclusion...


----------



## belligerent drunk

^ of course a child is not the same as its parents. That's how evolution works - offspring differ from its parents. If they were exact copies, then everyone would have just died off a very long time ago.


----------



## Xorkoth

My current belief is that all life, in all times and places, is a unique instance of the universe experiencing itself subjectively under a given set of dimensional constraints, and that every one of them is the same "soul" or awareness, which is the universe itself.  In that way, I don't believe we have a sequential series of lives that is unique to "me".  Every individual is a unique point in time and space that is as connected to another specific life as it is to any other.  Xorkoth will not live on as something else after I die, except that I/we exist as everything always.  I did not have a past life, except that all life that existed before I was born was a "past" life.

That's just where I'm at based on my own experiences and intuition, so of course I could be wrong.  I will agree that there are some cases of young children displaying puzzling awarenesses or skills.  Of course I believe we all have within us the ability to access all of the information there is to access so it doesn't have to mean any mysteriously-gained information is from a direct chain of unique past lives.


----------



## sigmond

^^ sounds like a combination of Bill Hicks (who probably got the idea from someone else) and "cosmic consciousness" The only 'out there' theory i think is possible, which isn't much different to what you believe, is you could be experiencing a 2D or flat plane of existence in 3D. As if you had a TV embedded in yo head.


----------



## Xorkoth

Yeah it seems like at least a close variation of what many people have arrived at.  For me it was the direct result of a life-changing experience I had on mushrooms (my first trip), though it's been 15 years since then and my perspective has shifted and evolved.


----------



## Ninae

The map of consciousness is interesting.







I would recommend "Transcending the Levels of Consciousness" by David Hawkins to anyone. It explains about the different consciousness levels, and is also great psychotherapy.


----------



## Foreigner

swilow said:


> I dunno, I've done a bit of what I consider inner work and its what has lead me to this outlook. I've tried to make eye contact with god- I've been desperate to, at times- I've seen little that is anything like what people describe. Perhaps I am on a lower level, or perhaps these other people are imagining things. God knows (ha) the human imagination is utterly astounding in what it can conjecture.



Hard to say. We were all ultimately created by God, but the degree to which we are aware of God and work directly with God depends on the lessons and trials we have setup for ourselves, combined with how we choose to exercise our free will. I can't comment on your level, that's beyond my knowing. For me, the inner work involves purifying and healing wounds and false egos, so that I am only living from my inner virtue. That's not enlightenment, but living as one's true self is what God intended for you, and makes life less about suffering -- perhaps.



swilow said:


> Yet. We've barely scratched the surface of what DNA is, or what scientific exploration can present us. Spiritual seekers have existed for at least 10,000 years and yet nothing has really been presented that everyone agrees upon, that could be called a singular, objective truth. In terms of explaining the universe and reality, I don't think spirituality has been able to do this... Scientific enquiry has bought about many more truths than the thousands of years of spritual exploration have. But I don't neccesarily want to derail this thread with the science vs spirit debate. The two can coexist, its just that one is actually useful.



You're talking about knowledge and proofs, whereas I'm talking about process.  The vast diversity of DNA types among humans facilitates the many different kinds of bodies that spirits can choose / be assigned to. The whole point of entering a physical envelope is to learn about something, based on one's current level. It's necessary for you to forget, in order to learn. It's like saying that everyone has been in grade 6 for 10,000 years, so why have they not yet told us what's at the university post-doctorate level? It's where humanity is at, as a whole, and also where individuals tend to be at. We can at least agree that the overwhelming majority of humans are not enlightened. But what you're asking for is agreement instead of understanding that there are various levels and various workshops. Humanity will never agree, at its current level. 



swilow said:


> The differences between parent and child has a few explanations, namely that a child is the emergence of a single entity based upon the combined chromosomes of two other individuals and completely unique in that sense. Factor in environment, changing social structures, and there really is no need to introduce reincarnation or past lives or god. None of these things is that useful an explanation IMO as each idea raises billions of questions. I like questions, but I don't neccesarily like recursive dilemma's that always end up being based upon faith.



Your premise is equally based on faith. There's no chromosomal evidence to explain what I mentioned, you're just assuming there is and claiming that science hasn't found it yet. You're inserting doubt based on various plausible ideas, but doubt is not proof. I do agree though, DNA could hypothetically explain part of it, if it ever comes to that. 



swilow said:


> Using logic takes me somewhere totally different. Logically, one would think that our lifes purpose would be rather clear- it would be illogical to send us into a lesson and yet not tell us what the lesson was or what the end-point was, or even that we were in a lesson.



It would be the purest form of learning. How could you focus on a lesson if you remember your past hundreds of lives?

It may not be totally intentional though. Matter is limited, spirit is not. 

I don't have all the answers. I'm sure in the spirit world, things make a lot more sense, in a way that's beyond the ability of an organic brain to understand.



swilow said:


> What use is the idea of a purpose or agenda in our lives if we have no way of being certain what it is? If we had a clear purpose, would it not be self-evident? Why is it so obscure? When you say 'lesson', in what sense?



I've already answered this question. 

It's obscure for you, it may not be as obscure for others. Ultimately, it has a level of obscurity for everyone, regardless, because that's what the material envelope does. The levels of knowing may depend on one's trials and expiations, and the work they are here to accomplish.



swilow said:


> Do you think that situations are engineered for you to learn from, specifically?



No. Every little thing is not pre-determined. There can be accidents, misfortunes, and premature abortions. You are given a task and free will to carry it out or not. You rise up or you descend, but neither state has to be permanent. If the lesson is too hard, you design a different one, with God's help and approval. You are given helpers and clues in your corporeal life to help you stay on track.

The degree of challenge depends on the degree of danger you are also willing to accept. If you're born among murderers then your challenge is to overcome those lower tendencies, and if you do you may advance to higher purity. You could of course be murdered, or become a murderer yourself. Such is free will. Or maybe you're a higher level being who was born among murderers to help them elevate. Hard to say. 

There is no pre-destination. You enter this life like you would travel to a foreign land. It has danger but progressive potentials. The risk is always that you will succumb to things that throw you off your path or tempt you to engage in activities you'll have to atone for later. The gain is that you overcome the dangers and evolve on a soul level.



swilow said:


> How would situations be presented to you that do not transgress the physical laws that are objectively true in the universe? Or do these lessons manifest by utilising the same laws that govern all phenomena?



They're not presented to you, you choose them. You are attracted to people and things based on sympathy, like attracts like. The spiritual influences guiding your choices and limitations are honed by the spirit. You ARE the spirit moving around Earth, as a physical body. All your faculties, wisdom, and potential are an outpouring of the spirit made physical, through its choices in life... until you grow to the point that you resume where you left off in the previous life. 



swilow said:


> But its not clear, at all. If something is guiding evolution- what an asshole! :D



We are all evolving towards perfection, on a spiritual level. That involves lessons, trials and expiations which, on the superficial, look unfair, but in the spirit world have a different quality. This life is so temporary and material appearances have no meaning beyond the grave. 



swilow said:


> Anyway, if you say it is clear- in what sense? There does not seem to be an obvious goal of evolution, besides the propogation of the species. Or if you have read the soul-crushing book by Richard Dawkins 'The Selfish Gene', evolution is solely about the replication of random pieces of protein-based code. I don't like the idea at all, but my likes and dislikes are clearly meaningless to the universe.



Dawkins doesn't resonate with the truth for me. If I was a 100% materialist it would make perfect sense, but I'm not.

If this planet were obliterated, spirits would just choose another planet to be born on. But because the goal is perfection, and God is benevolent, Earth has the potential to become a paradise through our spiritual trials and expiations. Each person that evolves on the spirit level can in turn help humanity.

If you look at humanity now vs. just 1000 years ago, I'd say we've made progress.



swilow said:


> I'm going to repost this quote from Schopenhauer and see what you think



Those kinds of mistakes just don't happen, and their appearance is based on lower level understandings. People are always trying to explain their suffering through complex ideologies, when the simplest answer is always right in front of their faces: they chose them and they have the free will to choose to rise above them, through whatever it takes. If they don't, then oh well... more lifetimes to come. If they succumb to their trials because they're too hard, then the next life will be planned differently. 



swilow said:


> That's one fo the truest things I've read. Rather than being swamped by the bleakness of it, I see it as liberating. Reality is neutral and valueless land upon which we can do what we will- or not. Ultimately, our suffering means nothing to the universe, I wonder if it should therefore mean nothing to ourselves.



Depends on the person, I suppose. To me, suffering has educational value. I don't choose suffering, but when it happens I question its origins, especially if I suspect that chosen suffering is taken place. 

Neutral principles have mental usefulness, if you're dealing with mind and need to neutralize discursive thoughts. That's why I love Daoism and Buddhism, they cut right through the bullshit. In doing so, you may realize your inner virtue, and then get on with your real path in life. However, neutral discourses can also be avoidance and escapism from dealing with deeper problems and trials. If you're too busy pretending the universe is all one thing and we're all one, and everything is neutral, then you may be denying your own human level experience -- because not everything is neutral. You have preferences and things which make you feel good, or open your heart, or pursue paths. If that binary didn't exist then material or spiritual evolution would be impossible. 

In talking about neutrality, you are being purely intellectual, and not much else. Your physical body will tell you what is true and what is not, regardless of what your monkey mind theorizes about it. Do your path and feel good, resist your path or take the wrong path and you'll suffer. Pretty elementary. 



swilow said:


> I look forward to that day



Me too!



swilow said:


> I hope you don't mind all my questions- they are honest questions- and I ask them because you have clearly spent along time, if not your entire life, pondering these things. I'm always open to being convinced. I have had experiences that I cannot explain too-yet.



I love your questions, and they're good questions. I don't think it's about convincing people, it's just about where people are at. No point in fighting over it. I don't have all the answers. The more I learn the more I realize I'm just an infant. 

Whether or not I can explain this succinctly to you has little bearing on either of our life paths, unless of course the exercise points us to some inner truth about ourselves... then that may be purposeful. 



swilow said:


> If I was to posit a deity or a guide and you were to ask me where it is, I would say that we are living within it. I think there IS something deeper ocurring within our universe that has given rise to the structure we see; the _potentiality_ that the universe's formation has bought about. I wouldn't worship such a thing, I believe it to be utterly indifferent and impersonal, but I do feel in awe of the structure we live within. I also believe that our universe exists within a deeper structure- perhaps it continues infinitely, who knows. A delight to consider though.



It's not hard to experience aspects of monism. We can do it through drugs, meditation, and other practices. This is how we know that God must be a thing. Then we go about the task of defining what God is, our relationship to it, etc. The nature of God is beyond our comprehension because we are imperfect. Our paths of learning are about purification, understanding, and perfecting ourselves. We were created by God and therefore God dwells within us, as us, but we are not God. 

What I do know is that God is always benevolent, and through that lens it becomes somewhat clearer why things are the way they are. And I say that as someone who has been through extreme suffering, torture to the point of almost dying. I still believe God is good, and we are in the workshop of perfecting ourselves to the point that we no longer have to be reborn as humans, that we can progress to "post-doctorate level" through other existences, and truly merge with the One. 

Our current configuration as material humans makes it very difficult to see through the duality, and that is by design.


----------



## Ninae

Kind of impressed by how this thread has remained pretty civilised, and not descended into an argument over who's more enlightened than who.


----------



## Ninae

_"When you have learned to make use of your mind to work on your own matter, to refine and purify it, you will no longer be so much at the mercy of circumstances or harmful forces and entities from the invisible world. 

High on the scale of beings are creatures who have purified their own matter and intensified their life to such a degree they have become elusive: they can be neither captured nor limited. 

And beyond all these creatures is God, the Creator, who is absolutely elusive, so much so that we cannot even conceive of him."
_

- Omraam Mikhaël Aïvanhov


----------



## Nixiam

I've been trying hard not to pop back in here, but I'm glad I have. It's come along well enough.

P.S. I'm more enlightened than you miss Ninae. 

My god I love the conversation between Swilow and Foreigner. So friendly, yet seriously productive as an argument.

Can you guys adopt me?

Foreigner sir, do you think you could describe to me briefly any encounter with an entity you believe you have had? Be it on or off of drugs, interpretive or outright realistic, whichever you believe to have stronger meaning.

I would like to know a way to be enlightened, not that I would take that path necessarily.

I think Willow would agree that it is a hard thing to continue chasing a dragon that gives no high, so to speak. 

Opium sounds good right now actually. Too bad I have none.


----------



## Ninae

The thing is, if you have access to Opium you're never going to get started on the process, as it's instant enlightenment without any effort. If I could still take Kratom, I doubt I would be doing this, I'd just keep taking Kratom. But I wanted to get closer to that state in myself.


----------



## Foreigner

Nixiam said:


> Foreigner sir, do you think you could describe to me briefly any encounter with an entity you believe you have had? Be it on or off of drugs, interpretive or outright realistic, whichever you believe to have stronger meaning.



Why do you want to know this? 



Nixiam said:


> I would like to know a way to be enlightened, not that I would take that path necessarily.



Keep living your life. Be true to who you really are. 



Nixiam said:


> I think Willow would agree that it is a hard thing to continue chasing a dragon that gives no high, so to speak.



The truth only provides a sort of high or rush when it's cracking you open, upon the first realization. That's what awakening feels like, or epiphany. After that, it's just a feeling of inner peace. Inner peace isn't a high, it's a natural bliss.


----------



## Ninae

I notice some also look pretty high. LOL. 


*Sri Nithyananda
*


----------



## Ninae

Yea, you're a bit young for such heavy use, I reckon.


----------



## Nixiam

My god that was the worst nap of my life. I've got a headache. All is well, thank you for checking 14bd. My fingers work well enough now, but before- the black text of the keyboard seemed to jump in front of me, mixed with body load and dizziness.

Couldn't type a damned thing nor could I read well.

Whoops.

And Foreigner, what I meant is I just thought it'd be interesting to hear about any subtle things in your life, to let you "come to know" what path is right, which one you're on so to speak.

That now seems kinda a tall order, so you don't actually have to say. It's just neat.

I try to approach life with a, "What do I lose?", inquiry.


----------



## MocCozmiK

Xorkoth - I need to send you a PM. Don't know how. I have researched and looked up. Still can't figure it out. 
Sorry... And i know this is totally not about this thread. I just clicked on latest post by u or something.


----------



## MocCozmiK

Never mind I got the pm thing figured out. 
So all good


----------



## Nixiam

I've an irrational fear of dying. I hope I sleep well tonght, I'm so tired of waking up feeling hungover and less than graceful.


----------



## Foreigner

Nixiam said:


> And Foreigner, what I meant is I just thought it'd be interesting to hear about any subtle things in your life, to let you "come to know" what path is right, which one you're on so to speak.



I used to seek in that way. Turns out, nothing outside of yourself can confirm who you are. 

Your true virtue, or true nature, is always present. There are just ego layers and attachments obscuring it. 

I've learned the best way to understand true nature is to go back to childhood, through the inner child -- who is also always present.


----------



## Ninae

_"Enlightenment can be a glimpse of an egoless state, and after the initial enlightenment, there is a long journey of releasing layers and layers of remaining ego." 
_
~Adyashanti


----------



## Nixiam

Good quote^

Pairs nicely with what foreigner said.


----------



## Xorkoth

One can have an experience that is a moment of enlightenment, and in that moment things can truly be quite clear.  But ordinary consciousness creeps back in, and the true test of living an "enlightened" life is to be able to maintain those mental patterns on a day-to-day basis, especially in the face of adversity.  Having a powerful experience may be what puts you on the path (it was for me), but it is the very first step.


----------



## Ninae

I think the real way to release ego layers is through purification and shadow-work. It's painful at first and most don't even want to get started, but it's worth it in the end as you get to have access to more of your true Self.

But meditation, yoga, and breathing exercises also help a lot to clear those energies as you are releasing. Being in the sun can also be real helpful as it helps to burn away those dark energies, and nature in general.

If you would just practice these things, you would start to see real results. Consistent practice seems to be key.


----------



## polymath

Here's a poetical writing by D.T. Suzuki about different levels of enlightenment: https://wahiduddin.net/views/pdf/Oxherding_I.pdf

The search for truth is symbolically compared to "looking for a lost ox".


----------



## Foreigner

Ninae said:


> _"Enlightenment can be a glimpse of an egoless state, and after the initial enlightenment, there is a long journey of releasing layers and layers of remaining ego."
> _
> ~Adyashanti



I have a problem with this statement, and the problem can be illustrated through Daoism. What Adyashanti is describing here is awakening to one's own inner virtue. That is, your core state, your true self, as it existed before all over the various ego layers were added to it -- the core that was there when we were born, and that guided our childhood interests. Some might ask, why grow up only to figure out how to return to infancy? The answer is that we're not trying to return to infancy, but to a state of innocence and purity -- and we do that through realizing and living as our true virtue, which is what our infancy and childhood can point us toward. If we lived in a balanced, spiritually advanced society, infants would have their inner virtue nurtured from day one. 

But because we live in a degenerate world, we have to go about the task of rediscovering our ever-present true essence, through processes of awakening. It may be an instant awakening that happens all at once and never goes away (more rare), or it may be a series of awakenings followed by a series of forgettings, until it finally sticks. 

But that is not enlightenment. That is practicing _you_, in your truest form. 

Enlightenment is then taking that true form and purifying it to perfection. In order to do this, the true form must remain free of extraneous egos, so that your practice is pure. Enlightenment happens to the spirit, not to the personality or the body. It is a culmination of many lifetimes of work. 

So the first step for any practitioner is to awaken to their inner virtue. Then they can go about the task of enlightenment. If you don't know who you really are to start with then it's just a bunch of near missing, delusion, and suffering... which may or may not be necessary for your ultimate end game. Depends on the kind of trials you created for yourself.

Don't quote me on that though. I'm not enlightened, just awakened.


----------



## Ninae

Yes, Adyashanti is pretty great. 

I just read "The End of Your World", although it's quite advanced, and more for those who are already on the path or ready to get on the path. But I'm sure he's for real, he always has this blissed-out look about him.

https://youtu.be/QTUzO-wzmvk

I love the mildness about him. I think he has some of what is called Shaktipat or the higher energy transmission of the guru. It can be a good influence on you.


----------



## swilow

Took me awhile to reply, been busy and immured in gloom...  



Foreigner said:


> Your premise is equally based on faith. There's no chromosomal evidence to explain what I mentioned, you're just assuming there is and claiming that science hasn't found it yet.



Not only is there not chromsonal evidence for past lives or memories or traits inherited from one's past self at birth, there is no actual evidence whatsever. I may be cynical, but I don't really take the words of children at face value. Have you seen children playing complex games with multiple characters yet the child is playing alone? Children have powerful imaginations and they do not not really understand the difference between internal and external worlds. It is easy to see something in children that is not there. The fact is that the mixing of chromosones throughout earths history is what has given rise to the incredible complexity of life as we see it; there is no reason to think that this process could not give rise to the complexity of a human being. Simply saying that it is not currently quantifiable does not mean the best explanation is magickal. 

There is a difference between 'faith' in science and faith in spirituality. One major reason, science _has_ provided objective facts about the universe, spirutuality still has not after thousands of years. Science may not get to understand the complexity of DNA and the like; but it is true to say that spirituality never will- it cannot. I can have a certain faith in a process- and the only reason is because there is evidence to have faith in that process- there are objective facts that science has obtained, it is not without reason to believe it will provide us with more objective facts. This is very different to a belief for which there is and never has been any supporting evidence. There is similarities between both strains of faith, its just that one of them has actual reasoning and results behind it. It is not far-fetched to have trust that the process will be able to elucidate more physical facts. 



> You are given helpers and clues in your corporeal life to help you stay on track.



Really? I await this eagerly, I would love some assistance during what is increasingly a brutal and difficult life of suffering and unease. 


> The degree of challenge depends on the degree of danger you are also willing to accept. If you're born among murderers then your challenge is to overcome those lower tendencies, and if you do you may advance to higher purity. You could of course be murdered, or become a murderer yourself. Such is free will. Or maybe you're a higher level being who was born among murderers to help them elevate. Hard to say.



I cannot see much good in a system that would condemn one to a life of hardship, such as being born amongst murderers, to teach one a particular and obscure lesson, the actual teaching of which is unclear and arbitrary. That seems ridiculously unfair. It seems like a way to get humans to accept the drudgery and degradations of life. Most people in history have lived short, mean lives in which no development is really possible due to circumstances. To imply that this is intended seems like a technique to make suffering meaningful and to create social control- to create helpless sheep that need an alpha-male, top-dog, dictator. Humans ultimately believe in cause and effect, and intent- we regularly try and impose our will on reality so we may be inclined to see reality as a deeper imposition of will. We want our suffering to be meaningful and intentional; this does not mean that it is. For me, the simplest explanation is that this is purely random, there is no design and this explains why people endure suffering, from birth, through no fault of their own. There is no direction, this is random, this is pure chance... Life is not on your side, or designed for you to learn from. Learning is immaterial, it means nothing to nature. Life is something that has happened and now we get to marvel at it.




> There is no pre-destination. You enter this life like you would travel to a foreign land. It has danger but progressive potentials. The risk is always that you will succumb to things that throw you off your path or tempt you to engage in activities you'll have to atone for later. The gain is that you overcome the dangers and evolve on a soul level.



I'm not too sure what "soul level" is.



> We are all evolving towards perfection, on a spiritual level. That involves lessons, trials and expiations which, on the superficial, look unfair, but in the spirit world have a different quality. This life is so temporary and material appearances have no meaning beyond the grave.



And yet, it is the life we have. Despite what you might say, I don't know a single person who claims to remember past lives. I've never seen a hint that we are reincarnated and that our aim is to evolve towards enlightenment. I've really only ever heard people fit some loose facts to a theory for which no actual testing is possible. We might be reincarnated, life might be set up for us to learn through, we may be invested with some overarching goal of enlightenment and freedom; sadly, there isn't a grain of evidence to support any of this. In my opinion, if you want people to learn from things, you must teach them things that they will retain and have use for. We can probably agree that past lives are not retained; and given how important ones's environment and upbringing is in creating the human adult they will be, it doesn't even seem that these memories or past experience would be of much use anyway. A system in which you always forget your past and yet are compelled to learn from it is illogical.


> If this planet were obliterated, spirits would just choose another planet to be born on. But because the goal is perfection, and God is benevolent, Earth has the potential to become a paradise through our spiritual trials and expiations. Each person that evolves on the spirit level can in turn help humanity.



In my opinion, it is too late for humans. We are beyond help. Earth will not become a paradise whilst we dominate it.



> If you look at humanity now vs. just 1000 years ago, I'd say we've made progress.



We've made a certain social progress, and of course, our genes are still randomly mutating. We've made technological progress and our societies are becoming less focused on superstition. Those things can at least be quantified. 



> People are always trying to explain their suffering through complex ideologies, when the simplest answer is always right in front of their faces: they chose them and they have the free will to choose to rise above them, through whatever it takes.



With all due respect, how is that the simplest answer? The simplest answer is to say that suffering arises _without agency_ as an inherent part of being a living organism rather than saying that, through some arcane means, an individual chooses their suffering. How do they choose it? From what vantage point does a spirit decide to inhabit a particular flawed body? Why do we need to be taught through suffering?

The fact that suffering is inherent is one of the only pieces of wisdom that you need. It is unavoidable, and yet there are techniques available to enable one to detach themselves from the meaninglessness and persistence of their suffering.



> What I do know is that God is always benevolent, and through that lens it becomes somewhat clearer why things are the way they are. And I say that as someone who has been through extreme suffering, torture to the point of almost dying. I still believe God is good, and we are in the workshop of perfecting ourselves to the point that we no longer have to be reborn as humans, that we can progress to "post-doctorate level" through other existences, and truly merge with the One.



How do you know god is benevolent? 

I have a spirtual side in me but I propose that the ultimate origin of all spirtuality is the human brain. Think about what the brain is capable of, what it is doing every moment of every second of every minute, etc. ad infinitum. The brain is creating a coherent (!!) reality using raw input of physical forces. For me, it seems that divinity, as a force, lives entirely within me and is absent from the external world. For that reason, I don't believe it can ever be quantified. It probably does not need to be and its unquantifiable nature does not lessen its profundity.


----------



## Nixiam

Good lookin Mr. Willow! How've you been? Coming off the MXE dissassociatives or did something bad happen?


----------



## Foreigner

swilow said:


> Took me awhile to reply, been busy and immured in gloom...
> 
> Not only is there not chromsonal evidence for past lives or memories or traits inherited from one's past self at birth, there is no actual evidence whatsever.



No worries... life is a thing that takes precedence over forums, haha 

That's not exactly true: 1, 2; but it's emerging evidence and nothing concrete. 



swilow said:


> I may be cynical, but I don't really take the words of children at face value. Have you seen children playing complex games with multiple characters yet the child is playing alone? Children have powerful imaginations and they do not not really understand the difference between internal and external worlds. It is easy to see something in children that is not there. The fact is that the mixing of chromosones throughout earths history is what has given rise to the incredible complexity of life as we see it; there is no reason to think that this process could not give rise to the complexity of a human being. Simply saying that it is not currently quantifiable does not mean the best explanation is magickal.



Nowhere did I claim that we should believe all children, or that magic is happening. Those are strawmen, and also again doubt is not proof of absence, especially not when it comes to how many claims (some of them verifiable) have been made about reincarnation. But again, your ability to see and choice to see are tied to your path and I have no interest in telling you that you're wrong or right. 



swilow said:


> There is a difference between 'faith' in science and faith in spirituality. One major reason, science _has_ provided objective facts about the universe, spirutuality still has not after thousands of years. Science may not get to understand the complexity of DNA and the like; but it is true to say that spirituality never will- it cannot. I can have a certain faith in a process- and the only reason is because there is evidence to have faith in that process- there are objective facts that science has obtained, it is not without reason to believe it will provide us with more objective facts. This is very different to a belief for which there is and never has been any supporting evidence. There is similarities between both strains of faith, its just that one of them has actual reasoning and results behind it. It is not far-fetched to have trust that the process will be able to elucidate more physical facts.



I think you misunderstood what I said. You're taking _some_ conclusions that science has discovered, such as studies into DNA, and extrapolating on them without further evidence in order to discredit something you perceive as "faith based", all while not realizing that action in of itself is "faith based". I'm not claiming that the scientific field as a whole is faith based, just you. 

Note that I mentioned nothing about faith. That's a word you're using. You're using it because when you look at my views, which are not based on learning methodologies that you would use, you conclude that I can't possibly know for sure and therefore am going by faith. That's presumptuous. My understanding of the universe may be evolving and there is a great degree of mystery involved, but the answers I've provided already are true to me, and not "beliefs". That should hopefully tell you a lot about yourself, more than it tells you about me. 

Because spirituality has not provided the answers that _you_ are looking for, according to your cosmology and epistemology, you're claiming it is not capable of producing any answers at all. And that's because your learning pathway is not based in the same pathway I've taken -- which is to be expected. The word "spirituality" is loaded anyway... I'm referring to other awarenesses and other ways of knowing which may be non-scientific and non-linear, but just as valid. To me, it's more interesting to look at _why_ people choose science, or religion, or becoming plumbers, or politicians, or whatever... rather than critique people for believing in the wrong thing. A lot of these inclinations are in-born. I just visited my nephew who is 2 years old and he is obsessed with tools and fixing things. He's already talking about being a mechanic, when nobody in the family is -- why is that? 

Again, you're stuck in proofs, whereas I'm talking about process. 

If my inner virtue is to be a spiritual philosophical person with my own inductive reasonings and ways of knowing, then science might not be as relevant to me as it would be to someone whose virtue is pure heuristics. Different strokes for different folks.



swilow said:


> I cannot see much good in a system that would condemn one to a life of hardship, such as being born amongst murderers, to teach one a particular and obscure lesson, the actual teaching of which is unclear and arbitrary. That seems ridiculously unfair. It seems like a way to get humans to accept the drudgery and degradations of life. Most people in history have lived short, mean lives in which no development is really possible due to circumstances.



I'll go with what you said, which is that the brain is everything. Science has shown the brain to be highly neuroplastic across many situations. A lot of things aren't as hard wired as we once though, which means you can choose whatever reality you want. So why are you choosing a life based on what you just described? Yeah maybe life experience has been hard for you, I get that... but that doesn't negate your free will. Just pointing that out to you, in case it's at all helpful. 



swilow said:


> To imply that this is intended seems like a technique to make suffering meaningful and to create social control- to create helpless sheep that need an alpha-male, top-dog, dictator.



Nobody on this planet is in control. It's an illusion through the intervention of mind, for the sake of a learning experience. Everything is temporary. None of us leave here alive and we take nothing with us. 



swilow said:


> Humans ultimately believe in cause and effect, and intent- we regularly try and impose our will on reality so we may be inclined to see reality as a deeper imposition of will. We want our suffering to be meaningful and intentional; this does not mean that it is. For me, the simplest explanation is that this is purely random, there is no design and this explains why people endure suffering, from birth, through no fault of their own. There is no direction, this is random, this is pure chance... Life is not on your side, or designed for you to learn from. Learning is immaterial, it means nothing to nature. Life is something that has happened and now we get to marvel at it.



That's cool... if it resonates with you then go for it. 

Can you accept or at least understand that other people draw different conclusions from their suffering? 



swilow said:


> I'm not too sure what "soul level" is.



The non-material aspect of your being which does not die when this physical body dies. 



swilow said:


> And yet, it is the life we have. Despite what you might say, I don't know a single person who claims to remember past lives. I've never seen a hint that we are reincarnated and that our aim is to evolve towards enlightenment. I've really only ever heard people fit some loose facts to a theory for which no actual testing is possible. We might be reincarnated, life might be set up for us to learn through, we may be invested with some overarching goal of enlightenment and freedom; sadly, there isn't a grain of evidence to support any of this. In my opinion, if you want people to learn from things, you must teach them things that they will retain and have use for. We can probably agree that past lives are not retained; and given how important ones's environment and upbringing is in creating the human adult they will be, it doesn't even seem that these memories or past experience would be of much use anyway. A system in which you always forget your past and yet are compelled to learn from it is illogical.



You only forget your past temporarily, when you enter the material envelop. Between lives you remember everything. 

Explaining the further ins and outs of it would not really be productive because you've already explained your choice of beliefs, your standard of evidence, and what you think has meaning in your life, personally. There's also the fact that I too am in the material workshop right now and I don't remember the mechanisms and other intimate details that will be abundantly clear once I die. 

We are trying to relate across imperfect vehicles, through different learning experiences and trials. I'm sorry that I cannot fulfill your standard of evidence, or prove why I what I know to be true, is true. 



swilow said:


> In my opinion, it is too late for humans. We are beyond help. Earth will not become a paradise whilst we dominate it.



The future is anyone's guess. 



swilow said:


> With all due respect, how is that the simplest answer? The simplest answer is to say that suffering arises _without agency_ as an inherent part of being a living organism rather than saying that, through some arcane means, an individual chooses their suffering. How do they choose it? From what vantage point does a spirit decide to inhabit a particular flawed body? Why do we need to be taught through suffering?



There are plenty of material human systems which can satisfy the answer to that question for you. Even modern psychology can do it. Most of our foundational learning from early years is what guides our choices. Most of our suffering is chosen, through subconscious processes. But the deeper answer is that we have chosen a configuration that lays out a certain learning potential, peppered with risks and gains. 

Suffering and compassion are two sides of the same coin. Can't have one without the other. As we go about the task of our perfecting ourselves on a soul level, we suffer in order to provide the necessary contrast for choosing our proper path in life. As already mentioned, living one's true virtue mitigates suffering greatly, whereas living against one's truth causes it. I am not talking about pain here. Pain is stimulus. Suffering is a consciousness thing. Pain is unavoidable, but suffering is optional. Suffering is always a choice, and if you hold that assumption to be true in your life, you can begin to debunk why you suffer and therefore come out cleaner, more purified, and more on track with what you're here to do. But as said before, you have eternity to figure this out. If your chosen trial is too hard, another one will be attempted, one that is perhaps better designed. 

Your body and its faculties are an outpouring of the spirit and its level of advancement. Of course, accidents happen, and we suffer real injuries. There are also illnesses which some might call "karmic", which are past misdeeds or unresolved trials that must be re-experienced. I know from my own clinical practice that a lot of people develop serious illness before they take proper care of themselves, before they are dragged into a lesson. 

At the highest, ultimate level - the level of God and the Divine - the tasks of our life, our trials and tribulations, are meaningless. It's all just God doing itself, so from that perpsective, suffering arises and dissolves of its own accord. However, as we are experiencing false separation from God, it's impossible to abdicate your human level experience. You must experience it or you live a life of denial and suffering. God resides in you, as you, but you are not God. You are you. And if you can't "do you" then you must go about the task (the trials) of figuring out what your true virtue is, so that you may do the workshop that you designed under God's purview. And maybe for some, that involves living an entire lifetime of abdicating the human level experience. Most will suffer terribly though if they do that. 

You will attract appropriate lessons and resources based on mutual sympathy. Like attracts like.



swilow said:


> The fact that suffering is inherent is one of the only pieces of wisdom that you need. It is unavoidable, and yet there are techniques available to enable one to detach themselves from the meaninglessness and persistence of their suffering.



That's true, but even those techniques - say, from Daoism and Buddhism - are based on purification. You can't simply dismiss suffering, you must understand its root. There are mundane roots and there are universal roots. We can look at the universal nature of suffering all we want but unless we understand the roots of our own personal suffering we will never be free of it. And those personal sufferings are by design, whether you believe in spirit or not, you choose them. You chose them even before you knew you had a choice about choosing them, but it doesn't change the fact that you chose them. A child can't really be blamed for doing an activity which injures them for life, but can we not conclude that they DID chose that activity regardless? A child who fell off the tree and broke a limb in pursuit of experience was unaware of the dangers, perhaps, but still made the choice. Life is like that for the rest of us. Ignorance of a choice does not negate that a choice is happening. More than God's law, it's a simple law of cause and effect. 

Suffering is not something that "arises and dissolves of its own accord". You've confused that with the nature of reality and the world of "things". _Suffering _is your _response _to said reality. And the design of your suffering is based on your level of advancement/attainment. All suffering comes from attachment, and attachment comes from the trial you have chosen, by choosing to be attached to some things and not others. Reality is reality, it does what it does, it arises and dissolves in an complex interdependent, empty way. Your response to it is shaped by you and only you, whether or not you're aware of it. And the ways in which you are aware and aren't aware are based on prior experiences, prior learnings, and outpourings of wisdom from your spirit. 



swilow said:


> How do you know god is benevolent?



Because our true, inherent nature is benevolent. Our true nature is inner peace, compassion, and connectedness. That emptiness that intertwines with everything is the one aspect of us which is never changing. When you debunk all the ego level bullshit that is tormenting you, that's what you arrive at -- what has always been there from day one. And what you're really here to do in this life connects with that. 

God is good. 



swilow said:


> I have a spirtual side in me but I propose that the ultimate origin of all spirtuality is the human brain. Think about what the brain is capable of, what it is doing every moment of every second of every minute, etc. ad infinitum. The brain is creating a coherent (!!) reality using raw input of physical forces. For me, it seems that divinity, as a force, lives entirely within me and is absent from the external world. For that reason, I don't believe it can ever be quantified. It probably does not need to be and its unquantifiable nature does not lessen its profundity.



The brain is indeed marvelous, but there are many case studies and even entanglement theories which demonstrate that consciousness can be separate from the body. Again, your level of advancement and the specific trials you're undergoing will determine which kinds of learning you receive. And please be aware, I'm not saying that because you're into material reductionism that you're less advanced. That's not how it works. The world of spirit values learning and that supersedes material, temporal, mundane appearances. What you see and can't see is based on what you're here to learn. Assuming that people are "advanced" based on things like wealth, status, power, and even externalized spiritual achievements is erroneous. What you take away from this experience upon death has way more value than the minutiae of the experience. 

That's why I'm suggesting that your summary overview of suffering may be somewhat deceptive. You look at a person on the surface and judge their life, but you have no idea what's going on inside of them, what their inner work is, what they've realized, perhaps without even being able to verbalize it or quantify it for you. You're caught in a hierarchical comparison whose basis is material logic only, and if you only see things at face value then you may be denying the greater virtue happening in each person. With some people what you see is what you get, and with others is completely not like that. Some of the people who I would consider advanced appear completely mundane externally, and live simple lives.


----------



## Ninae

I feel enlightened...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R462Ro5fqU


----------



## Ninae

rmikhail said:


> You post an excerpt from mary poppins in a thread about enlightenment and then you wonder why people are cynical about anything related to spirituality...



I guess you're not on the same page, LOL. 

It was meant as a joke/example of how someone can act in the enlightened state. Remember, the enlightened state isn't that different to the joy of life children experience in their first years.

Anyway, those who can mange to hold high vibrational states are role models.


----------



## Ninae

Why are you being so difficult about it? I thought it was self-explanatory for someone in the know, maybe it wasn't, but is it really such a big deal.

But I think you're a bit confused if you think someone admiring a simple entertainment personality or not reflects either which way on their level of enlightenment. It wasn't about admiring anyone. It was an observation of a state of consciousness.

The enlightened person wouldn't judge, but be able to appreciate anyone for what they are, the way I understand it. It's more of a striving towards unity where small differences don't really mean anything.


----------



## Xorkoth

rmikhail said:


> Is it really a joke though? If you admire julie andrews and elvis presley in 2016, it kind of nullifies the stuff you say afterwards.



This seems like a very judgmental and strange thing to say.  So what if someone admires Julie Andrews and Elvis Presley in 2016?  Is there a time limit to admiring someone?  Is admiring someone you don't admire an indication of lack of enlightenment?  Are you the arbiter of what is worthy of admiration for all humans?


----------



## Xorkoth

Posting a link to someone doesn't equate to idolizing them.

I agree the star-worship thing is weird and disturbing but I don't see that happening here.


----------



## Ninae

I don't admire Julie Andrews. I like the scene. It's a classical happy scene and I also love the mountains of Europe.

That's all. But I don't really see why I would need to defend it even if I was an admirer of Julie Andrews.  Or isn't there enough judgement and division between us without making a deal out of something like that? I don't see why it would even bother anyone or give you a reason to feel any better.

By the way, I also get it's a character in a film and not someone to admire. There's a difference between being inspired by and idolizing someone.


----------



## Xorkoth

Okay this is getting pretty off-topic and pointless... shall we drop it?  If someone has a problem with someone else, a thread about enlightenment (or any public thread) is not the place to confront that.


----------



## cire113

dam lots of specific info in this thread no human could possibly know for sure lets be real people.....

the most enlightened ppl i know accept and live in the mystery..... 

if you know everything and truth then u really know nothing at all.....

watch out for spiritual bypassing.........(another ego game?)


a lot u you guys would understand the whole spiritual thing clearer if you just took a high dose dmt death dose... highly recommended 


sadly words are pointless i admire ur imagination though foreigner.....(and i do agree with the core of ur principles, its just all the specifics i do not know)


----------



## Cosmic Trigger

*a lot u you guys would understand the whole spiritual thing clearer if you just took a high dose dmt death dose... highly recommended 
*

LOL LOL LOL.  Did it many times along with salvia and at least a 100 LSD trips and also peyote (nothing better) and  schrooms and and and.  If anything  I learned that "spirituality" is human mental folly and  just another ol ego game. LOL.

BTW your statement reeks of the ego trip more than the spiritual trip, wouldn't you say?


----------



## Foreigner

Done every primary psychedelic, many times. They were meaningful experiences that really cracked me open, and I am thankful for it because they lead me to many important truths. Will probably do more some point in the future. On the other hand, there is a lot of mundane world learning that I have needed to do, in a sober, grounded, embodied state, that psychedelics can never help me accomplish.

Different phases of learning require different things. There is no universal holy grail.


----------



## Cosmic Trigger

Definitely can be mind opening whatever that means.  For instance I realized on my first LSD trip that it wasn't just my crazy mind telling me that adults are lying and hiding something pretty important.  But whatever.  The real problem in deciding what psychedelics can tell is is that we just are not the creators of this universe or our minds. So your mind could be interpreting shit all wrong and  how the fuck would you know?  We just don't know anything for sure and I think that's the place to start from. Then believe whatever floats yer boat and get out of the way so the other fellow can do the same. I mean as long as he's not trying to fuck you over with his/her uncertain beliefs.  And on and on forever but  you won't be sticking around that long. You're just a spit in the ocean and not more important. Relax and float down stream. Good advice but hard to follow.


----------



## cire113

Cosmic Trigger said:


> *a lot u you guys would understand the whole spiritual thing clearer if you just took a high dose dmt death dose... highly recommended
> *
> 
> LOL LOL LOL.  Did it many times along with salvia and at least a 100 LSD trips and also peyote (nothing better) and  schrooms and and and.  If anything  I learned that "spirituality" is human mental folly and  just another ol ego game. LOL.
> 
> BTW your statement reeks of the ego trip more than the spiritual trip, wouldn't you say?



i could see how someone could interpret it that way but it does nothing for my ego sadly.... 

Im curious comic trigger did you ever have that one psychedelic trip that completely killed you as a human and you became your true self?(i mean who you really are)...

Im not sure why some people have this experience and yet others who have had thousands of psychedelic trips never have it; 

It is truly a special experience to have while still able to return to human form....

again ; I'm not sure why some have it and others don't;

I used to think i was crazy until i spoke to many many others who had the same experience through mediation, entheogens, chanting, etc.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The experience can basically be described as "becoming the ONE(consciousness) that serves as the non-dual substratum of the universe"

aka Becoming the eternal universe(omniscient,omnipresent,omnipotent) ;;; and basically experiencing the eternal Omni-self of just pure awareness....

this state is totally outside the mind/body or anything even remotely resembling human existence; 

Well its almost impossible to describe; no point discussing it if you've been there... THEN no discussion needed. 

 I know Foreigners had that experience(I think) care to chime in on it? lol


its humbling as fuck; I seriously in human form don't know shit about the real game being played here......


----------



## Foreigner

There are activities where the spirit can detach and move more freely - or more accurately, the bond between spirit and the material envelop is less strong, but it is never truly broken (except upon death) - like during sleep and other OBEs, and yes some drugs can induce it too. The problem is that those experiences are seldom remembered coherently, either due to complexity or to limitations of the human body. Materialism is limited like that. The oneness you describe is due to the global effects of psychedelics on the brain. They hit both hemispheres with high degree of diversity and novelty, spanning many receptor classes. This may facilitate ego softening which makes it easier for spiritual experiences to be remembered. Speaking personally, there is a qualitative difference in the sober spiritual experiences I've had, and the drug induced ones, to the point that psychedelics seem a lot more "mind" to me. Like... it's an illusion overlaid on the brain-ego as opposed to a true extra-physical experience -- and this overlay has instructional uses as you interact with it. But that's me... others may have different conclusions. 

You have to be careful though. "Returning" to human form is a red flag that perceptual illusion is happening. For all intents and purposes, you're already one thing. We split up the body into components (like "mental", "emotional", "physical") for the sake of conversation, but there's no separation. You ARE a spirit, embodied. Whatever you're seeing on psychedelics is still happening in the present moment, and isn't divorced from your human level experience. You just think it is. 

This is why psychedelics can be hazardous... people chase God and the "Divine" with them, and feel cut off when they return to the mundane. They're good for showing you what might be possible but they also show you what work you have left to do as "you" (this human person).


----------



## Cosmic Trigger

cire113 said:


> i could see how someone could interpret it that way but it does nothing for my ego sadly....
> 
> Im curious comic trigger did you ever have that one psychedelic trip that completely killed you as a human and you became your true self?(i mean who you really are)...
> 
> Im not sure why some people have this experience and yet others who have had thousands of psychedelic trips never have it;
> 
> It is truly a special experience to have while still able to return to human form....
> 
> again ; I'm not sure why some have it and others don't;
> 
> I used to think i was crazy until i spoke to many many others who had the same experience through mediation, entheogens, chanting, etc.....
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The experience can basically be described as "becoming the ONE(consciousness) that serves as the non-dual substratum of the universe"
> 
> aka Becoming the eternal universe(omniscient,omnipresent,omnipotent) ;;; and basically experiencing the eternal Omni-self of just pure awareness....
> 
> this state is totally outside the mind/body or anything even remotely resembling human existence;
> 
> Well its almost impossible to describe; no point discussing it if you've been there... THEN no discussion needed.
> 
> I know Foreigners had that experience(I think) care to chime in on it? lol
> 
> 
> its humbling as fuck; I seriously in human form don't know shit about the real game being played here......



I have no way  of knowing what  I "truly" am no matter what I  think about the subject.  I didn't create my  brain/mind and they forgot to include a user's manual.

From experience I find those who "know" to be highly suspect.


----------



## Ninae

"I would say it’s our unconditioned state. It’s a state of innocence and purity. Maybe we’re born with it, but as we grow older, we have more experiences, and it’s obscured. 

By the time we become seriously interested or aspire to enlightenment, there’s this veil of avidya [ignorance, the root of suffering] — and a lot of work to do to peel away the layers."


----------



## Ninae

“Enlightenment is a paradoxical phenomenon. You need to be committed to become enlightened and to do whatever is necessary to make it happen. But at the same time you can not force enlightenment to happen by sheer will. It is like the situation with happiness: you can not force happiness to happen, but you can create the right circumstances for happiness to happen."

- Swami Dhyan Giten


----------



## Ninae

"There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination.  Most of them acquire it fragment by fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cellularly, like a laborious mosaic."

Anais Nin


----------



## Ninae

The ten obstacles which prevent people from attaining the supreme liberation, according to Buddha:

1. The belief in the "ego"
2. Doubt
3. The belief in the efficiency of rites and ceremonies
4. Sensual desires
5. Anger
6. The wish to live in a world less coarse than our own
7. The wish to live in a world more subtle than our own
8. Pride
9. Agitation
10. Ignorance


----------



## Nixiam

Profound.


----------



## belligerent drunk

Ninae said:


> The ten obstacles which prevent people from attaining the supreme liberation, according to Buddha:
> 
> 1. The belief in the "ego"
> _*2. Doubt*_
> 3. The belief in the efficiency of rites and ceremonies
> 4. Sensual desires
> 5. Anger
> 6. The wish to live in a world less coarse than our own
> 7. The wish to live in a world more subtle than our own
> 8. Pride
> 9. Agitation
> 10. Ignorance



I can't comment much on any other points, and many of which I agree with, but *doubt*? I would equate doubt with critical thinking, and I can't see how critical thinking can be seen as an obstacle or any kind of negative thing. Of course, as long as it's reasonable. Doubting everything is not right either, but blind belief is misleading too. Healthy level of critical thinking is the basis for becoming an independent and not brainwashed adult, or one of the requirements anyway. Every person has to think for themselves, or so I think at least. No concept/idea/belief should be immune to doubt or critical thinking, whatever you want to call it.


----------



## Ninae

I think by doubt he means not believing it's possible or you can do it, which might be the main obstacle after all, not that you shouldn't doubt teachers and doctrines, etc.

Another of his quotes was: “There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.” 

I also think it can relate to a knowing or realisation that lies above cognition (the super conscious mind). The rational mind is below the level of the spirit, not the final end. Not that we should be sub-rational, but you can get above it, although that's something many don't believe.


----------



## Foreigner

belligerent drunk said:


> I can't comment much on any other points, and many of which I agree with, but *doubt*? I would equate doubt with critical thinking, and I can't see how critical thinking can be seen as an obstacle or any kind of negative thing. Of course, as long as it's reasonable. Doubting everything is not right either, but blind belief is misleading too. Healthy level of critical thinking is the basis for becoming an independent and not brainwashed adult, or one of the requirements anyway. Every person has to think for themselves, or so I think at least. No concept/idea/belief should be immune to doubt or critical thinking, whatever you want to call it.



That's not how the Buddha defines doubt, and that's a bad translation anyway. Healthy inquiry is part of Buddhism (I'm not a Buddhist btw). Many people doubt as an ego defense, rather than a genuine inquiry. The ego wants to assert itself at all costs, by sabotaging clear vision of the subtle-mind through various methods. One of those methods is doubting. Because Buddhism furnishes the user with all of the tools and exercises necessary to directly observe and perceive almost all of its precepts, people who doubt without experiencing are usually just foils and are suffering from an attachment and self-created illusion. There's a difference between discerning and doubting. Discernment is earnest in truth seeking, where as doubt is merely denial. You employ different faculties when you discern, rather than reject.


----------



## Nixiam

Doubt in ones self possibly?


----------



## swilow

Foreigner said:


> Discernment is earnest in truth seeking, where as doubt is merely denial.



Doubt isn't denial, its uncertainty. Its being unsure. Denial itself is very different as certainty is implicit in denial.


----------



## Ninae

I think doubt can also be a form of rejection or denial. Like, someone can hold the position there is nothing to yoga or meditation, when there is a lot to indicate there is. The things Buddha talk about aren't necessarily different, even if they are less researched or well-founded, at this point.


----------



## Ninae

*The Power of Now - Echart Tolle
*
http://www.baytallaah.com/bookspdf/51.pdf

This became huge after it was a big hit in Opera's book club. But have to say it's very good, if only for the Zen mindfulness and psychology. More for self-help, I think.


----------



## swilow

Ninae said:


> I think doubt can also be a form of rejection or denial. Like, someone can hold the position there is nothing to yoga or meditation, when there is a lot to indicate there is.



No, again, that sounds like certainty and doubt is not certain. 

_"a feeling of uncertainty or lack of conviction."_

For me, doubt is a constant thing and it almost should be for all of us creatures of subjectivity. 

Semantics.


----------



## Foreigner

swilow said:


> Doubt isn't denial, its uncertainty. Its being unsure. Denial itself is very different as certainty is implicit in denial.



It you're attached to your doubts rather than suspending them in order to be offered methods of direct experiencing, then that's denial. 

Being unsure means you don't know either way. Again, this could turn to attachment, or you could take your uncertainty with you into a practice. 

If being unsure, or doubting, becomes avoidance, then it's attachment.


----------



## swilow

Good post, thanks for clarifying.. For me, doubt is default but I am always trying to learn and gain certainty. I agree, doubt shouldn't be the end of the story. But, imo, overly rapid acceptance/belief has its own dangers.


----------



## Ninae

There is also that you have to shift through a lot of dross to get to the gold. 

There's no way you're not going to be led down some blind allies, especially when it has been made so confusing for us, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't start or give up. 

You do learn over time if you're persistent, you start seeing recurring themes and patterns, and verify things more for yourself.


----------



## Foreigner

swilow said:


> But, imo, overly rapid acceptance/belief has its own dangers.



Agreed. Anything that asks you to totally release critical thinking should be approached carefully.

As Ninae said... sometimes you have to deal with non-sense to get at the gold. I've experienced that. For some reason, I've never rejected or accepted religion, I dive in and discern what is useful and then bail out. I can always go to the brink of almost becoming a believer and then something in me retracts. I don't know what that is.

To know a system you really have to become the system, or come close to it. It's almost like a magician creating their own illusion, but being able to step out of it when the time is right, without succumbing to their own magic. And if you step out at the right moment you take a lot of wisdom with you, like having earned another way of viewing the One, another piece that completes the picture just that bit more. But this is kind of like spiritual bungee jumping and I know it's not for everyone. Some people like to dip their toes in and leave it at that. Most don't attempt the transition at all.

At least with drugs the experience has a guaranteed ending, which is maybe why some people go that route. There is a measure of control. It's different if you delve into a deep practice of a system and then go through an initiatory process where you temporarily forget what is real and what isn't. It's all on you to find your anchor again, and pull yourself along with the gold back out.


----------



## amzam

Most all glittery things that are drawing us towards them are traps.

Is Enlightenment something that once you catch it you have it and a billion consolation prizes for life?

We all have moments of Enlightenment. Enlightenment is not static and can not be bottled to share with others or reserved for future use. As soon as you categorize it or make it a thing it turns into mist and heads away.

The only thing you can hold onto as far as enlightenment is that you can choose to be open to its return, by which I mean its return in a novel way with new implications. And it can not be compelled. No forceful act of will ever brings on enlightenment. You can not choose or study up to be enlightened. Sometimes though, a passive openess brings its return.


----------



## Ninae

There is an initiation process into higher levels of consciousness and spiritual awareness that has been classically reserved for the few, but right now is more accessible to the many.


----------



## Ninae

"The whole of Buddhism is simply this: There is a mental state so happy, so glorious, that all the rest of life is worthless compared to it, a pearl of great price to buy which a wise man willingly sells all that he has; this state can be achieved."


----------



## FLA

It's easier for me to understand the meaning of the word doubt used in this context as cynicism. It's like the voice of the negative inner dialogue that tells me "you will never learn to do this properly, why bother?" when I'm trying to meditate.

IMHO, the problem with LSD is you can't be done before you are ready. I've known many people that ended up suffering from paranoid delusions of grandeur due to acid.


----------



## Ninae

Yes, you can get a God-complex from taking psychedelics regularly and working seriously on spiritual development. In fact, just one of those can do it.


----------



## Ninae

"When that sense of ego, of separation, melts away, a feeling of total connectedness, of no sense of a “me” separate from all of creation descends, that is bliss consciousness."

- Paramhansa Yogananda


----------



## Foreigner

Ninae said:


> Yes, you can get a God-complex from taking psychedelics regularly and working seriously on spiritual development. In fact, just one of those can do it.



It's a sign of an ego trap though. The god complex must eventually give way to a kind of free fall where nothing is being grasped, otherwise ego will take responsibility for everything that's happening by inserting the perception that the individual is "above" the system. The truth is that everything is independently arising and dissolving without any input from self. In other words we are part of god but we aren't god in its totality -- i.e. the world does not resolve around any individual person. IMO the biggest danger of psychedelics is that kind of solipsism. 

In other words psychedelics (and certain spiritual practices) can make you feel like you've transcended something, even though there is nothing to transcend. There's no higher or lower, there's nowhere to go. You can't get anymore into it than you already are in this present moment. You're already there and always are there.


----------



## Ninae

"The fruits of the soul ripen only under the rays of that sun, of love. When the first ray of Love shines out for you, you will experience within your soul such indescribable bliss, such light, such a mighty impulse in your mind, and such a striving of your will, that all obstacles of the world will begin to melt before you. A few moments of existence within the divine Love are infinitely more precious than a thousand years of ordinary human life spent in great pleasures and enjoyments. In loving, we seek God. We have to love God in order to receive and experience Him."


- Peter Deunov


----------



## Ninae

An excerpt from Adyashanti's book "The End of Your World: Uncensored Straight Talk on the Nature of Enlightenment."

https://manyvoices.soundstrue.com/life-awakening-adyashanti/

_"And it is indeed startling: It’s not what we think it’s going to be like at all. I’ve never had a single student come back and say, “You know, Adya, I peered through the veil of separation, and it’s pretty much what I thought it would be. It measures up pretty closely to what I’ve  been told.” Usually they come back and say, “This is nothing like what I imagined.”"
_


----------



## Vagina Lover

Foreigner said:


> In other words psychedelics (and certain spiritual practices) can make you feel like you've transcended something, even though there is nothing to transcend. There's no higher or lower, there's nowhere to go. You can't get anymore into it than you already are in this present moment. You're already there and always are there.


I couldn't agree more. The same goes for dissociatives, in my opinion.


----------



## Ninae

I dissociated into an orb once. That might be you on the Monadic level.


----------



## Vagina Lover

Please tell me more about this orb experience 

And what's a monadic level?


----------



## Foreigner

Adyashanti... his writings makes sense to someone who's already there. If you haven't realized it yet, all he'll do is add more and more layers of confusion.

He talks about how awakening is beyond the imagination, which is true, but he then proceeds to paint a heady, verbal picture of what awakening is. What's the point?

Better to give people exercises and instruction that _could_ point them to it, rather than try to describe what it is. Which is what a lot of pre-existing systems do. Also, people just randomly awaken without those systems. 

The other thing is that it's dangerous to assume that awakening looks the same for everyone. It might not. 

Things are what they are. People do what they do and experience what they experience. Applying definitions already constrains the process. If we all knew exactly what enlightenment was with useful linguistics, there would be an instruction manual. No one knows, not even Adyashanti.

I relate to a lot of what he says and at the same time the semantics create too many divisions. The truth is SIMPLE not complicated.


----------



## Nixiam

I find you very enlightening, Foreigner.


----------



## Ninae

I agree, Adyashanti is more for those who are already quite advanced on the path, or already serious about it. He looks down on the way most spiritual teachers teach and can come across quite precious or pretentious.

He says things like awakening has nothing to do with attaining bliss, peace, and love and those are just a by-product of awakening. Maybe so, but that would be the main motivation or a big deal for most. He also likes to talk a lot about how painful the path can be, and isn't really good for attracting new-comers.

At the same time, he has been trained in Zen from a very early age  and started teaching on the request of his guru, and he does know the real stuff. Also, I think he comes across better in interviews or speeches as he has a very beautiful, soft being and personifies enlightenment, which doesn't really come through in his writings.


----------



## Ninae




----------



## Ninae

"Your view from the sub-consciousness level is extremely limited, and hence is narrow. At the consciousness level, your perception of the world improves to a limited extent but once you attain to the state of super-consciousness, you get a 360 degree view where all the parts come together – you feel the interconnectedness, the music, and ideas flow freely and creativity is at its peak."


----------



## swilow

Is super-consciousness enlightenment? Sounds like sloganeering.


----------



## Ninae

No, but it's connected. It's also part of transpersonal psychology. 

The idea of a super-consciousness is very interesting if you study it, actually, it's what we all should be. I've been opening up to my intuition more lately and received some good insights so far.


----------



## swilow

^Any recommended reading? My mind is currently feeling quite fertile; I haven't taken drugs this week (except weed). And except today when I will take some codeine. Hmm.


----------



## Ninae

Subconscious: relatively dim awareness; repository of remembered experiences and consequent mental impressions

Conscious: rational awareness; guides daily decisions and can be influenced by others; input from the bodily senses

Superconscious Awareness: intuition and heightened mental clarity; problem and solution are seen as one entity



http://www.empower-u.net/joomla15/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=2


----------



## Ninae

A cat is superconscious, right? It sees only solutions. LOL


----------



## swilow

Thanks, I'll have a read when my eyes begin opening again. 

Animals in general have a interesting sense of awareness. I sometimes think they have a both highly refined and somehow impersonal sense of self. My cat is entirely aware of herself and her needs and makes those needs known, but she doesn't seem to have any perception of my own selfhood. I am an extension of her environment which exists solely for her.  She's a real little sweety.

Her she is relaxing and the world waits around her:






[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## Nixiam

Beautiful kitty Willow. I'm a cat person but doggies are good too.


----------



## Ninae

I have a He and he mostly regards me as his personal servant. Sometimes he descends to giving me some attention. But he likes going out to show off and greet people, he seems to genuinely love people.

I notice cats have two sides and you can see them switch between ego and their higher/divine self if you watch them. When they're in the ego their like little devils and think it's just fun to scratch you but they can also have this innocent, baby-like expression on their face and dwell more in the higher self then.


----------



## Ninae

The Six Levels of Consciousness

1. Life happens to you.
2. Life happens by you.
3. Life happens in you.
4. Life happens for you.
5. Life happens through you.
6. Life is you.


----------



## Ninae




----------



## Jabberwocky

Foreigner said:


> In other words psychedelics (and certain spiritual practices) can make you feel like you've transcended something, even though there is nothing to transcend. There's no higher or lower, there's nowhere to go. You can't get anymore into it than you already are in this present moment. You're already there and always are there.



Enter the spiritual by-pass. Well said


----------



## Ninae

These are also known to be sayings that the left-hand path likes to make use of.

"You're already enlightened" "There's no such thing as enlightenment" "You don't need to do anything to become enlightened" and confusing/paradoxical things like that. This is a form of irony certain spiritual leaders like to embrace, but it gets a bit old after a while, and it's not entirely accurate. 

In one way it's right, as in the understanding of the Advaita tradition and your true, unchangeable self which is always there. But, seen in another way, we're not all equally enlightened and there are things to be done.


----------



## cire113

; nothing is entirely accurate or inaccurate it just IS   ....

how do you know there are things to be done? how do you know karma is real?  Why do you feel the need you have to DO something?

How could you possibly know anything at all?


Seriously I've been on the spiritual path(whatever that even means) awhile and if anything it makes me realize seriously

 I DONT KNOW SHIT, then realized NOBODY else does either.


any method or thing to do that will supposedly help you achieve enlightenment IMO is just another TRAP.


i don't think many really fully realize or embody(to be) what the  "I am already enlightened" means....


Ninae, haven't you heard the phrase before enlightenment chop wood carry water after enlightenment chop wood carry water?


Enlightenment(a silly word / concept) is truly LAUGHABLE at best.


Have fun though continually seeking it and let me know if you ever find what your looking for


----------



## Ninae

Yea, that's one of those cliches. I get it. I think many misunderstand that quote, though.

I'm just not that keen on those type of teachers that come across as stereotypes of what an enlightened person should be like. So everything they say has to be confounding and raises even more questions. The real masters have answers and a kind of freshness and unpredictability to them, in my opinion.

Even Jesus could speak in riddles, but he gave clear answers, and there's a real uniqueness to his sayings,


----------



## Nixiam

Unique indeed^

I have to say, the only time I think I ever felt like I met an enlightened person was when I was 6 years old.

I was at a fair. I heard the most cystal clear voice from behind me. It was a man I had not known, but he seemed incredibly familiar. My mother was a bit taken back. He was bald headed, old. He was in a wheelchair, I seem to recall someone pushing for him.

What stood out most was the indent of a boot in the side of his head, like someone had stomped on him.

He looked at me and tossed my hair, gave me a 50cent (United States Half Dollar) coin to me and my sister, and smiled the most warm smile I have seen yet.

We said thank you and I have been puzzled ever since. 

Even now I have images of him flash in my dreams. I wonder if my sister remembers...?

Not an impressive story. Just an old man doing something nice.


----------



## Ninae

I think the reason people find it so hard to accept Christ is that he talked completely from the perspective of the higher self. This the ego can't not only not relate to, it perceives it as a threat to its very essence. 

Which it is, in the sense there is no more ego when the higher self has been realised, but your perspective will be completely switched then. It's a difficult one for the human being to get its head around. 

I think the main obstacle is that people don't know they're being asked to give up the ego to replace it with something better. They feel like  they're being asked to give it up for no reason, and that feels completely unnatural.


----------



## Xorkoth

I don't think the ego is a bad thing... it just is.  If you're inhabiting a body, ie, currently living as a life form, you're going to have an ego, it's what makes us what we are, rather than the universe in its raw awareness form.  I think it's a mistake that people make to think they need to (or even can) eliminate the ego.  Of course, it's good to be able to realize that you are an egoic being, and by doing so, suppress it at times in order to live a better life and be better for others.  When I began exploring my consciousness I was always trying to remove the ego, but now I embrace it, while maintaining an objective oversight over it as much as possible.  I am my ego, inhabited by the universal observer consciousness.  Without my ego, I am not Xorkoth, I am no one and everyone.  We can suppress the ego to a dramatic degree for short periods of time, and gain insight and perspective, but we cannot remove it and replace it with something else, that's not how life works.  To live a life as a material, differentiated being, the ego is inseparable, necessary, and beautiful.


----------



## Ninae

Yes, but I don't think that's quite how it works...I don't think that's what Adyashanti is talking about.

And in spiritual sciences like Theosophy you also learn that aspirants go through different initiations on their journey, where real things happen, like their lower bodies (i.e. the ego) being burned up at a certain point so they can live as pure spirit.

You might say that's not what interests you or what you want from life, but that's not the same as it being how things are, or objective reality. It's funny how everyone seem to think these things are a matter of opinion and we just get to decide for ourselves what is true, but I guess with our ignorance we have that convenience.


----------



## RDP89

Ninae said:


> And in spiritual sciences like Theosophy you also learn that aspirants go through different initiations on their journey, where real things happen, like their lower bodies (i.e. the ego) being burned up at a certain point so they can live as pure spirit.


 So, is there any empirical evidence behind any of the things this supposed "science" "teaches"?


----------



## Xorkoth

But in order to be able to say "I", it's coming from an ego place.  The ego is simply the subjective sense of self, the thing that produces the illusion of separateness.  Ego is about more than just your "lower body", it is the very thing that makes you human.  You can connect to the higher self but still be an egoic being.  In fact it's the only option.  I think the idea that ego is "bad" is a mistake that a lot of people make.  It's probably because of the multiple ways the word is used.  When someone is being thoughtless or selfish we often say they're being egotistical, but that doesn't mean that the ego is only responsible for these negative behaviors.


----------



## Ninae

I think there is a form of evidence, but it has always been a secret or hidden science, and we don't have any tradition for portraying it that way.


----------



## Ninae

21) My mother taught that grief, and selfish love, and hopes and fears are but reflexes from the lower self.
22) That what we sense are but small waves upon the rolling billows of a life.
23) These all will pass away; they are unreal.
24) Tears flow from hearts of flesh; the spirit never weeps; and I am longing for the day when I will walk in light, where tears are wiped away.
25) My mother taught that all emotions are the sprays that rise from human loves, and hopes, and fears, that perfect bliss cannot be ours till we have conquered these.

- The Aquarian Gospel


----------



## Foreigner

Xorkoth said:


> But in order to be able to say "I", it's coming from an ego place.  The ego is simply the subjective sense of self, the thing that produces the illusion of separateness.  Ego is about more than just your "lower body", it is the very thing that makes you human.  You can connect to the higher self but still be an egoic being.  In fact it's the only option.  I think the idea that ego is "bad" is a mistake that a lot of people make.  It's probably because of the multiple ways the word is used.  When someone is being thoughtless or selfish we often say they're being egotistical, but that doesn't mean that the ego is only responsible for these negative behaviors.



Eventually ego collaborates with the higher self and universal consciousness, rather than working against it. It comes after a great deal of inner work and personal surrender. 

It's important not to totally abdicate oneself to the Absolute because it destroys the individuated human experience. Ego is needed. I disagree with the advaitas for this reason. Their teachings ring hollow, and are lonely IMO... because they are constantly trying to suppress personal consciousness. Their followers become like melodic drones.

The inner essence is an individuated aspect of the Divine, it can't be totally sublimated. Only death really accomplishes that. A lot of people try to do this with drugs like LSD - I used to do that - but it only makes it harder to carry out the personal will.

Ego is part of the bodymind and we need it to survived. It is part of the consequence of a denser material existence. If you work too hard at dissolving in then your connection to the material world is left severely weakened in a detrimental way.


----------



## Ninae

Yes, well said. 

The ego can learn to see the advantage of at least opening itself up to the higher self if its educated on it. Especially if it gets a glimpse of what it really feels like. That's why mind-expanding drugs can start off the process for many.

The heightened feelings of bliss, peace, and love only come about through unlocking planes of consciousness that already exist within you as a possibility. They don't come from the actual drug, although that's how people perceive it.


----------



## Ninae

"There is nothing new to gain. On the other hand, a man must lose his ignorance. That is all."

"Correcting oneself is correcting the whole world. The Sun is simply bright. It does not correct anyone. Because it shines, the whole world is full of light. Transforming yourself is a means of giving light to the whole world."

"All unhappiness is due to the ego. With it comes all your trouble. If you would deny the ego and scorch it by ignoring it you would be free."

"Forgetfulness of your real nature is true death; remembrance of it is rebirth."

"Your own self-realization is the greatest service you can render the world."



- Ramana Maharshi


----------



## Ninae

*Sri Ramana Maharshi: *The Sastras say that one must serve a Guru for twelve years in order to attain Self-realization. What does the Guru do? Does he hand it over to the disciple? Is not the Self always realized? What does the common belief mean then? 

Man is always the Self and yet he does not know it. Instead he confounds it with the non-Self, the body, etc. Such confusion is due to ignorance. If ignorance is wiped out the confusion will cease to exist and the true knowledge will be unfolded. By remaining in contact with realised sages the man gradually loses the ignorance until its removal is complete. The eternal Self is thus revealed.


----------



## Cosmic Trigger

Sounds like job security to me.


----------



## Ninae

"You should understand that you are divinities. Yes, divinities, and you live on a higher plane free of limitations, shadows and darkness, sorrow and suffering, in the midst of abundance and joy. Do you know what prevents you from manifesting the splendour of those higher regions here below?

Your personality - in other words, your lower nature. Your personality is too unadaptable, too self-centred to capture the subtle messages from those regions… like a radio that cannot pick up all the stations. The waves and vibrations released by Cosmic Intelligence in the higher spheres are swift as lightning, and the matter of the personality is too dense, too hard of hearing to vibrate in tune with them, and so it cannot seize divine messages. They flash by without making an impression and we continue to live in ignorance, far from knowing or experiencing the wonderful joy of our higher Being.

There are ways of changing this situation. If you choose to lead a pure life and become once again a child of God, then your heart will open and become generous, your mind will clear and your will become indomitable. The personality will become the willing instrument with which to express the divine life of the individuality more and more fully and correctly… until the day comes when both the personality and the individuality become fused with each other, the personality ceases to exist and becomes one with the individuality.

What I am telling you is very important. Even if you manage to control your personality, even if you force it to carry out your idealistic plans and projects and make it do as it is told, it will not be the same as if you had removed the old clichés and put new clichés into its head. It may bow to your will, but that doesn’t mean it has adopted your imprints. On the contrary, it still has its own, and is waiting for the moment to do what it wants.

In beseeching God to take possession of you, you are robbing the personality of its old memory and habits and from then on it will no longer be the personality that guides your life but the individuality! The form is still the physical body, with a stomach, lungs, brain, etc… but with new contents."

- Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov


----------



## Foreigner

"No one can teach oneself as well as oneself.
No one can teach us what we do not already know.
No guru or teacher has the answer for another.
The teacher teaches him or herself.
The therapist aids healing by being evoked to his or her own self-healing.
The only skill worth teaching is teaching people to teach themselves.

Be content that there is no truth that anyone else can give you. And were it possible to be given to you, you would not be able to receive it anyway."

-Strephon Williams on self-reflection and building consciousness


----------



## Jabberwocky

I love how when you spell out guru phonetically it spells G.U.R.U (gee, you are you). 

I keep reading how the guru/student relationship in the traditional sense is no longer the paradigm for personal mastery. Ones inner teacher is where we look these days, though nothing wrong with getting help and inspiration along the way from others.


----------



## Cosmic Trigger

I  prefer to get my help from  people who want nothing much from me.  The ones not  part of a system or organization.  Schopenhauer would be a great example of such a person.


----------



## Nixiam

^Schopenhauer is a great example!


----------



## Ninae

“Have you also learned that secret from the river; that there is no such thing as time?" That the river is everywhere at the same time, at the source and at the mouth, at the waterfall, at the ferry, at the current, in the ocean and in the mountains, everywhere, and that the present only exists for it, not the shadow of the past nor the shadow of the future.” 

― Hermann Hesse, Siddhartha


http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/siddhartha.pdf


----------



## swilow

^You keep dumping this quotes in this topic with no context behind them or any attempt at discussing them. I basically just skim over them waiting for you to weigh in on this yourself.


----------



## Ninae

It's meant for those who might find them inspiring. 

I have weighed in myself, and am willing to discuss with anyone seriously interested. I just can't be bothered to reply to all these "You think you know what enlightenment is?" or "Have you heard about chop wood, carry water?" comments.

But if anyone are actually interested in any of the practices you can do they can just ask.


----------



## sigmond

i don't know if this the thread with the Einstein - Deunov quote but it seems highly suspect like many of the quotes you find attributed to Einstein on the internet. i took an online course about General Relativity and the professor mentioned that most of the quotes you find online attributed to Einstein are things he never said. There is a shiteload of misattributed quotes online but i would surmise that Einstein is the most misattributed. he might have actually believed in Spinoza's God though.


----------



## Ninae

They were both scientists, and Einstein was very spiritual and talked a lot about God, so it's not really that hard to imagine they could have found inspiration in each other. Mostly for those who imagine some kind of war between science and spirituality which they have to take sides in, and turn every spiritual discussion  into.


----------



## swilow

Ninae said:


> It's meant for those who might find them inspiring.
> 
> I have weighed in myself, and am willing to discuss with anyone seriously interested. I just can't be bothered to reply to all these "You think you know what enlightenment is?" or "Have you heard about chop wood, carry water?" comments.
> 
> But if anyone are actually interested in any of the practices you can do they can just ask.



Fair enough, but it would be good if you explained why these quotes were relevant, even a few lines. Oh well. I'll live without your exposition for now.


----------



## Ninae

Yes, I guess I can explain some things. One thing I've wanted to say. I see enlightenment as a process woth many phases and not just a state or final goal.

Stage 1. Purification phase. Releasing negative energies and getting access to more of your light or inner soul/presence. Many healings and transformations tend to occur here. New talents and higher intelligence and creativity can also be unlocked. 

Stage 2. When someone has been taken over by their higher self, initiated into spirit, or achieved a degree of self-realisation. Here someone can disappear into the own world of bliss, peace, love. This would be more like the idea of enlightenment for most.

Stage 3. When the spirit, or divine self, is realised. Basically like a mini-version of God or the true Self. Here someone will be possessed by divine will and live to do God's will on earth or bring goodness into the world. The highest degree of enlightenment, although this has many stages too.

The problem with most is they don't think enlightenment is possible, apart from for a few mythological figures, and before someone has reached full enlightenment they have no business talking about it. I just meant starting the process which has value in itself. Even if you don't become self-realised, at least you've improved yourself, and your funtioning.


----------



## Ninae

“There is no coming to consciousness without pain. People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own Soul. One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.”

- Carl Jung


----------



## HypGnosis

^That's a great quote.

Carl Jung kept me sane when I was experiencing things that mainstream psychology had concluded were simply delusions. Jung took into account the psychic nature of man, and built his psychology on its acceptance.


----------



## Ninae

Yes, it's a tremendous quote, but very hardcore and too much to take on for most. 

Shadow work seems like the real key, and more effective than things like meditating on light, as it unlocks the light within you. Most have been conditioned to believe it has to be sought outside, which is a big obstacle.


----------



## HypGnosis

I think so. Shadow work essentially makes a huge contribution to completion of The Great Work of hermeticism. Jung is brilliant in that he has an encyclopedic knowledge of alchemic practice, and combines this with the modern science of psychology. There are not many more lucid authors on the functioning of mind in my opinion.
In England, Jungian psychology is private practice, not afforded by the NHS. The prevailing reductionist zeitgeist essentially veiws the brain as a nuts and bolts structure, and fails to take into account a substance such as soul or spirit, when addressing problems wth individuals. Maybe they want us to stay sick. Either the way, the times are changing and hopefully soon a more holistic approach to our beings will surface.


----------



## Ninae

There was a spiritual message on this subject today, which explains the basics quite well.


_"You have a physical body as well as an energy body and from the time you are birthed into this dimension and reality, it is your physical form that requires the most attention. 

As a child, when you begin to grow and experience the various emotional energies of discomfort, disappointment, anger, fear and any other misqualified emotions, you are not taught how to express, clear or shift these emotions. Many times these emotions are shut down so quickly that they are not even witnessed by others.

Most of these painful emotions and experiences are suppressed or stored within the energy body. Your parents did not understand how to clear these negative emotional energies. Therefore, you were not taught the importance of clearing these misqualified emotions, and therefore the cycle has continued. This is an aspect of human nature that is not addressed or resolved.

We are not judging this behavior; it is a pattern that has engaged all humans for ages. When a negative or misqualified emotion or experience is felt and not expressed in a healthy way at that time, it then becomes stored in the physical form within the cells, tissues and organs of the body, your bio-computer.  It is also energetically stored within the energy body.

These dense vibrations and frequencies of negative misqualified emotions of fear, anger, hatred, guilt, abandonment, not being loved or seen etc. become what has energetically been called the shadow self, the part or aspect of oneself that is repressed or denied.

You have been taught that it is not appropriate to express your anger or any other misqualified emotions. What you and others have done has been to control, inhibit, contain or bottle-up this anger or fear or other negative emotions and experiences.

Emotions that are repressed, denied or ignored can be triggered or activated easily by a similar emotional vibration or frequency. So when someone expresses anger, it often activates any repressed anger in the other. If fear is invoked by someone, any fear that is repressed will be activated in the individual and their personal shadow or the collective shadow.

Consider the possibility that emotional frequencies can be contagious. Anger will more often invoke anger, fear will invite and stimulate more fear all because individuals have not been informed how to clear or transform these negative emotions or energies. You have not been taught that you are an alchemist. This awareness is a part of the unfolding evolution.

This is a truth that you are here to anchor. You truly are here on this planet, at this time, to uplift these misqualified negative emotions and vibrations that have held humanity in the limited belief of being powerless.

These dark and misqualified impulses are usually hidden and suppressed within the subconscious of each individual. As a multidimensional divine being of light, you are meant to transform them. You feel an emotion and if it is misqualified or is a low, dense negative emotion, you are to shift that by expressing the emotion in a healthy manner, owning these feelings rather than suppressing or constraining them.

You can use sound to clear or express these dense frequencies, or use many of the other energy tools that are available, instead of storing these vibrations in the energy field and the physical body. _"


----------



## HypGnosis

I think we just sync'ed up Ninae; Jung would smile


----------



## Foreigner

Why has this devolved into a quote thread?


----------



## HypGnosis

Your last post in this thread was a quote 

Me and Ninae caught a wave mate.


----------



## Ninae

I don't think this thread would have gone very far with just me and a few people arguing. People aren't very likely to even believe there is such a thing. They haven't really studied anything, maybe they should consider it.


----------



## rmikhail

More quotes please! I need more inspirational quotes in my life ASAP.


----------



## Ninae

"Our task is to bring the spirit down to earth. This is why you must use your meditations and prayers to beg for this light and visualize it, visualize this spirit, this divine force, descending into you and impregnating every cell of your being. One day, when you have worked at this over the years, you will sense that heaven is within you, that light is within you, that love is within you. When this day comes you will find that it is much easier to help other people and awaken them to this reality. But if, through a false understanding of spirituality, you remain barren—a blank page—you will be no good to anyone. The spirit must be allowed to descend!"

- Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov


----------



## Jabberwocky

there's no easy way to say this Ninae but have you considered chopping wood. Not like every day, but on weekends and stuff


----------



## cire113

Seeking guru for enlightenment ..... 

Please Help .

Must have it NOW.

Lmao

You humans and your games ?


I felt a huge change when I stopped trying to understand and intellectualize and was just "Living it" , "Being it"

No words needed


With enlightenment it seems most ppl miss the forest for the trees

Oh well might as well keep playing with ourselves ....


Also you cannot even obtain stage 1 of enlightenment unless you've mastermedibated (masterbate + meditate) for a minimum of 50 years FYI


----------



## Ninae

Yes, thanks for those enlightening words.


----------



## Bonch

For me, the ever increasing syncronisitiys in my life shows me I am on the right path. When one becomes "enlightened" life is just one big syncronisitiy I think. Why care about any outcome of any action when you fully trust that what EVER happens for eternity and forever with be love love love and bliss bliss bliss


----------



## Ninae

True, happiness becomes self-derived, but people have no faith in that this can happen.


----------



## Vagina Lover

What is the actual physical process behind enlightenment?

I assume that since the people in this thread are talking about it like it's a given, then there would be something in reality which shows it occurring like scans or resonance imaging. 

Is there any objective basis for it, or is it all subjective speculation/a delusion?


----------



## swilow

I am sceptical too vag lover.


----------



## Ninae

David Hawkins writes some about the physical changes. He says the body starts to produce more endorphins and less stress hormones. Big changes in the nervous system, new pathways in the brain, etc. 

But of course this isn't part of official culture, if you only believe what is "approved" that way.


----------



## socko

cire113 said:


> Seeking guru for enlightenment .....
> 
> Also you cannot even obtain stage 1 of enlightenment unless you've mastermedibated (masterbate + meditate) for a minimum of 50 years FYI


So if you sit idly for 50 years and you have done nothign with your life because you chose to spend your time meditating, that leads to enlightenment?  This has a Zen like quality to it.Maybe that is what it takes for some people to realize that we're all going to die and whatever great things and wealth you have chased all your life is worthless to you after you die. No matter how much or how little you have in life, it is all pointless.





Ninae said:


> David Hawkins writes some about the physical changes. He says the body starts to produce more endorphins and less stress hormones. Big changes in the nervous system, new pathways in the brain, etc.
> 
> But of course this isn't part of official culture, if you only believe what is "approved" that way.


Ninae, these physical change (endorphins, new brain pathways) also occur when somebody feels happy and long term contentment. Experiencing love or prosperity also create positive physical changes. It makes sense that something as nice as enlightenment, whatever that is, could do this too.


----------



## Ninae

I don't know, there might be a bit more to it.

David Hawkins is worth looking into. He received a knighthood for his research on consciousness, so he even got some acknowledgement from the establishment.

But most people won't be interested in that - they just want to argue from the limited knowledge they have, even if it's next to nothing.


----------



## swilow

Ninae said:


> But most people won't be interested in that - they just want to argue from the limited knowledge they have, even if it's next to nothing.



Can I just say that you write these sort of snide remarks way too often. Its always a generalised criticism against anyone who disagrees with you, you make it seem like sceptics such as me are wilfully ignorant. I hear you out without denigrating you, why can't you extend the same courtesy? Its lame and you do it constantly.


----------



## cire113

swilow said:


> Can I just say that you write these sort of snide remarks way too often. Its always a generalised criticism against anyone who disagrees with you, you make it seem like sceptics such as me are wilfully ignorant. I hear you out without denigrating you, why can't you extend the same courtesy? Its lame and you do it constantly.



Lmao, in a thread entitled enlightenment there sure is a lot of EGO....



Lots of people searching for X just end up doing spiritual bypassing *cough cough*8)



One day, (but not now) you  TOO can achieve enlightenment!

 Here buy my book the Secret to Enlightenment......


----------



## swilow

I think that any topic that humans post in will feature a lot of ego. Its not a bad thing IMO.

Anyway.


----------



## Foreigner

Enlightenment is just a word... people should forget about it and just exchange their experiences.

A great deal of my wisdom about this subject was obtained _via negativa_ until I collided with some extremely intense experiences in my life. I've noticed this to be the case with a lot of seekers.... they describe enlightenment by telling you what it isn't, due to the elimination and surrender processes they have already undergone. 

It's sort of like... you peel back the layers over and over until you reach... emptiness. Not nothingness, but emptiness. 

So although I do not consider myself to be enlightened, I can say that it is not a process of grasping, it's a process of letting go. Nor is it situation dependent.


----------



## Ninae

swilow said:


> Can I just say that you write these sort of snide remarks way too often. Its always a generalised criticism against anyone who disagrees with you, you make it seem like sceptics such as me are wilfully ignorant. I hear you out without denigrating you, why can't you extend the same courtesy? Its lame and you do it constantly.



It wasn't meant to be denigrating. I meant it literally, in that much of the time someone tries to engage with me in a discussion of something they've done no studies on, and just try to make fun of me in any way they can. What's even the point, if they're not even interested in learning anything, and just want to argue.

Why even make statements like "I don't think that work is scientifically valid" if you haven't even looked at it? That's not very helpful to anyone.

By the way, I do think people are willfully ignorant, or they wouldn't act that way. I say things like that on purpose to make them realise.


----------



## Karen J

I've been impressed by several people who seem to be enlightened to some degree, but they're almost never the ones who call themselves enlightened.


----------



## Ninae

No, I think it would be hard to, as there are almost infinite levels of enlightenment. That kind of person will just trust it shows in their "vibe" and general demenour (for those who can see).


----------



## swilow

Ninae said:


> It wasn't meant to be denigrating. I meant it literally, in that much of the time someone tries to engage with me in a discussion of something they've done no studies on, and just try to make fun of me in any way they can. What's even the point, if they're not even interested in learning anything, and just want to argue.



I do not do that to you and I do not see people "making fun" of you. People may disagree with you but it is respectful. If you do not like how people talk to you, report the post. I personally will step in if I notice this. But do not try and tell me people respond to you in anything like the mocking and arrogant manner you respond to others. Look at the your last few posts in this thread. Every one contains a generalisation about why people cannot see YOUR truth and how they are doing this intentionally. You are creating a fictional and naïve opposition because they are the easiet sort to deny.

People would not reply to you if they were not interested. I am interested. I do not agree with you, I have examined the evidence, I have done inner work, I have come to different conclusions to you. That doesn't mean I am right, nor you. That does not mean I am narrow minded or closed off or a lowly materialist, any more than your beliefs make any sort of person out of you. It seems that you are unwilling to accept that people with different views to yours are not less than you. 



> By the way, I do think people are willfully ignorant, or they wouldn't act that way. I say things like that on purpose to make them realise.



But Ninae, the facts are not there- from my perspective. I am all for evidence and you have none, so rather than me being wilfully ignorant, perhaps you are being excessively forgiving of the extraordinairy claims you encounter. I am uncomfortable in making any assumption about you but I want you to see what its like from my perspective when someone makes a personal claim about a person but using onlya few select opinions from them.

Your beliefs do not make you better than others, the views which are counter to you do not diminish your views either. This is not a battle field but a discussion, and you are the only one who is actively and consistently attacking your opposition. I am tired of reading it.


----------



## Ninae

There are a few who post regularly just to ridicule, maybe you haven't noticed. 

Anyway, this thread was really meant for other seekers, to exchange advice on what works for self-development/spiritual development. Not to start a discussion on whether there is or isn't such a thing, which I've already said, so it just gets on my nerves when it's all someone wants to do.                                                  

But I don't know exactly how you expect me to provide evidence, other than refer to the classic masters and good teachers                                                                                                                                     who've come to teach us. And, then, because I can't provide any evidence that means we can conclude there is no such thing? I think there is evidence, but maybe not the kind you want, that comes with a stamp of approval from the majority, or official authorities.

I don't know how you feel you can say such a thing there is no spiritual development to pursue, when millions of people have said otherwise, and a consistent system that seems to get results has been practiced for over 7000 years in India. Have you ever considered there might be a reason for that? 

And how would you know, if you haven't even practiced? Because it's something that takes both extensive studies and long term practice to really begin to understand.


----------



## MrRoot

I read this thread sometimes and I must say that there have been direct attacks to Ninae's person in many forms.

I don't agree with this subject but I am just a master of my own and should not try to force others thinking in my way and therefore I don't comment against something which I think cannot be proven existing or unexisting.

I just wish this thread could be what Ninae intended because that is what I wish for other thread in BL. If she wants this thread to be for informing about those beliefs without people trying to ridicule her then why can't we let it be for the like minded. Ones disagreeing could just start their own thread about discussing whether these things are real or not in their opinion.

Peace to all.


----------



## Ninae

Well, yes, the thread was made for the like-minded, but I guess there aren't many like-minded on this board. So I guess there wouldn't be many except for me and Foreigner, and even he spends most of his posts defending his views against non-believers. 

It just seems like a huge waste of energy, that doesn't really serve anyone, and could be spent in more constructive ways. Another thread for arguing for and against isn't a bad idea, but this is just how spiritual threads turn out as a rule on Bluelight.

Just seems kind of pointless having a section dedicated to spirituality if it's always going to be opposed by 90% of members. If someone are so against it, why not just stay in the skeptics/philosphy threads instead of ruining any sincere attempt to share spiritual ideas, which is how it mostly turns out.


----------



## swilow

I am sorry if you have been ridiculed and I do not doubt it has happened. There will be always be dicks out there unfrtunately. But, disagreeing with someone is not ridicule and asking someone to back up their statements is not an attack. I just do not think you help yourself by adding a really dismissive post-script to many of your posts which basically says if you don't agree with me there is something wrong with you.


----------



## tokezu

Ninae said:


> I don't know how you feel you can say such a thing there is no spiritual development to pursue, when millions of people have said otherwise, and *a consistent system that seems to get results has been practiced for over 7000 years in India*. Have you ever considered there might be a reason for that?



Sorry to be so nitpicky, but can you expand on that? TBH it seems like an overexaggeration to me.


----------



## Foreigner

swilow said:


> I am sorry if you have been ridiculed and I do not doubt it has happened. There will be always be dicks out there unfrtunately. But, disagreeing with someone is not ridicule and asking someone to back up their statements is not an attack. I just do not think you help yourself by adding a really dismissive post-script to many of your posts which basically says if you don't agree with me there is something wrong with you.



I think what Ninae is trying to say is that there is no way to contain or preserve spiritual discussions from skepticism. For example, if a group of Christians want to talk about their faith in a deep or complex way, with Biblical references, it's hard to do that if they're always being attacked by pseudoskeptics or material reductionists. The same is true of academic philosophers who want to talk about specific branches without new age frou frou types weighing in on how stingy they are. Or scientific types who want to talk about a discovery or theory without people talking about how science is crap. 

I'm a member of other forums that are spiritually focused and there is a huge wealth of wisdom and information exchanged without the need to ever justify the origins of discovery or the veracity of experiences. 



			
				Ninae said:
			
		

> So I guess there wouldn't be many except for me and Foreigner, and even he spends most of his posts defending his views against non-believers.



I don't feel defensive when I write those things, most of the time. It's partly because coming here is usually an intellectual exercise, and as I have a major intellectual part to my personality I enjoy it. I enjoy the challenge of verbalizing spiritual phenomena and trying to convey it across different world views, but I don't always succeed and that's okay. On the other hand, I've only shared 1% of myself here because it would be counter-productive to open myself up to an inappropriate environment. My spirituality is mostly private.


----------



## swilow

Foreigner said:
			
		

> I think what Ninae is trying to say is that there is no way to contain or preserve spiritual discussions from skepticism. For example, if a group of Christians want to talk about their faith in a deep or complex way, with Biblical references, it's hard to do that if they're always being attacked by pseudoskeptics or material reductionists.



What's a "psedoskeptic"? 

But, anyway, my point was something entirely different. I was merely pointing out the Ninae does a similar form of attacking in nearly every post she has made. I don't like being a dick, but I just looked back on the previous page and this is what she has said in most posts. I do not see why it is acceptable for one side of a discussion to act a certain way but the other cannot. Both 'sides' should stop being stupid about this. 

Foreigner, me and you have had disagreements that have been totally and wonderfully pleasant.  It can happen, all parties need to strive. 



			
				Ninae said:
			
		

> Mostly for those who imagine some kind of war between science and spirituality which they have to take sides in, and turn every spiritual discussion into.





> The problem with most is they don't think enlightenment is possible, apart from for a few mythological figures, and before someone has reached full enlightenment they have no business talking about it.





> Most have been conditioned to believe it has to be sought outside, which is a big obstacle.





> But of course this isn't part of official culture, if you only believe what is "approved" that way.



All of that shit is just digs at people with differing opinions. It was a waste of my time posting it, but I think its useful to demonstrate the nonsense I'm talking about.  Not a really big deal but I...felt....like saying it.


----------



## Ninae

No, it wasn't meant as a dig against anyone personally, that's how you choose to read it. It was directed at our culture at large, which seems designed to keep us in spiritual darkness. Especially the popular media with all these "experts" who can prove there is no God or such a thing as consciousness.  

I don't think what they're telling us is true, and I have no respect for them. I think  they're harming us in many ways. But I'm mostly interested in the truth and don't feel any real need to defend my "side" or justify myself. That's all you seem interested in, but I'd rather discuss real spiritual topics with someone who's open to them.

That's my view on it and I'm free to see it that way. Maybe most's concern is how believing in a spiritual reality could make them look stupid in a world where most people have no such beliefs and they could turn out not to be true. My concern is more how disregarding possibilities that might be very real, like eternal life, divine law, and an on-going spiritual evolution could end up being a disaster for a human soul.


----------



## cire113

I don't know shit; but its possible not everyone is suppose to experience awakening ; and perhaps part of the ignorance and delusion has a purpose...?

I think the problem your having Ninae is how it so eloquently states in the Tao Te Ching,  " The Tao that can be told is not the eternal tao "

as much as I do know what you mean and your intentions are discussing the ineffable is laughable at best(IMO);  

Thats exactly why after having had a few direct mystical experiences myself i don't even bother;

and as Alan Watts as well as many other mystics throughout the history of earth have said time and time again

 " Brahaman is un-known to those who know it; and known to those who know it not"



I wish though everyone could have that special type of direct complete death experience with the divine and still return back to human form......



good luck on your journey humans.


----------



## swilow

I am a bit tired of being told I am somehow flawed because I don't hold the same opinions as others, that I am afraid of being seen as stupid, or that I am merely a reductionist, or a polemic arguer. I don't know, I guess the vibe that you guys want to create here is not one I am interested in really.


----------



## Ninae

You come across as an occultist who opposes any other expression of spirituality under the guise of materialism. So there's not really any point in debating, as it's never going any other way. I just think it's a bit unnecessary, not every other expresson of spirituality needs to be opposed by you.

And I don't mean that in any offensive way. It's just what it looks like to me, and to be honest I'm tired of wasting my energy that way.


----------



## Cosmic Trigger

Almost all debate in my experience is about bolstering our ideas of the world and protecting our world view. I include myself here.   I've learned a few things from debate but in reality not much considering the time I've put into it. Not true for reading however. Mostly debate is a social thingy and few are any good at it. I include myself again.


----------



## Yourbaker

I like to take the lazy approach of finding two highly skilled debaters and learn as they do the heavy lifting. 

Here I've found more than 2. I appreciate the level of honesty and the risk of openness everyone is willing to make while debating some deeply held beliefs. So thanks for putting yourselves out there.


----------



## Foreigner

cire113 said:


> I don't know shit; but its possible not everyone is suppose to experience awakening ; and perhaps part of the ignorance and delusion has a purpose...?
> 
> I think the problem your having Ninae is how it so eloquently states in the Tao Te Ching,  " The Tao that can be told is not the eternal tao "
> 
> as much as I do know what you mean and your intentions are discussing the ineffable is laughable at best(IMO);
> 
> Thats exactly why after having had a few direct mystical experiences myself i don't even bother;
> 
> and as Alan Watts as well as many other mystics throughout the history of earth have said time and time again
> 
> " Brahaman is un-known to those who know it; and known to those who know it not"
> 
> 
> 
> I wish though everyone could have that special type of direct complete death experience with the divine and still return back to human form......
> 
> 
> 
> good luck on your journey humans.



Those quotes are mostly to emphasize the nature of the Dao. We can look at other prophets throughout history, like Jesus, who outwardly said that they were basically enlightened and came here to help humanity. While it's true that the vast, vast majority of people who say they're enlightened usually aren't, saying it doesn't make it a sign of inflated ego per se. 

It's perfectly valid to assert truthfully what you do and do not know on spiritual matters. Shrinking back and self-doubting are attached behaviours just as pride and vanity are.



Cosmic Trigger said:


> Almost all debate in my experience is about bolstering our ideas of the world and protecting our world view. I include myself here.   I've learned a few things from debate but in reality not much considering the time I've put into it. Not true for reading however. Mostly debate is a social thingy and few are any good at it. I include myself again.



I usually come here to share my knowledge, to look for gems that I hadn't considered, and to have my viewpoints challenged. I'm a member on a lot of debate forums and I credit them with refining my beliefs and thought process over the years. 



			
				Ninae said:
			
		

> You come across as an occultist who opposes any other expression of spirituality under the guise of materialism. So there's not really any point in debating, as it's never going any other way. I just think it's a bit unnecessary, not every other expresson of spirituality needs to be opposed by you.
> 
> And I don't mean that in any offensive way. It's just what it looks like to me, and to be honest I'm tired of wasting my energy that way.



I didn't get the impression that swillow was into the occult? Can you clarify what you mean by that?

If you're coming here to convince people of things it's only going to frustrate you.


----------



## Cosmic Trigger

Well then consider yourself unusual.  If you observe most debates it's several people butting heads without listening much.  I said MOST. There is on occasion a very open mind encountered.  I've been open minded at times but often I'm not that's the truth after about 12 years of debate an over 90,000 + posts.  I fell into a lot of money so I retired and had a lot of time on my hands.  But when I really learn is when I read.  My ego gets out of the way and I never feel threatened by having my core beliefs challenged. And maybe even you if you are honest do not always debate with a completely open mind.  We are human after all.


----------



## Ninae

Foreigner said:


> I didn't get the impression that swillow was into the occult? Can you clarify what you mean by that?
> 
> If you're coming here to convince people of things it's only going to frustrate you.




What do you mean? He talks like someone who only has time for the occult, to which skepticism doesn't seem to apply. I just hope he's not one of those misguided satanists who use science/materialism as a weapon against those who sincerely seek God or enlightenment.

I'm not looking to convince anyone, just being able to share my ideas with those who are interested, without it turning into the same argument ALL the time.


----------



## HypGnosis

Ninae said:


> He talks like someone who only has time for the occult, to which skepticism doesn't seem to apply.



Where did you get the idea scepticism doesn't apply to occult practice? Any legit practioner will understand the two go hand in hand.



Ninae said:


> I just hope he's not one of those misguided satanists who use science/materialism as a weapon against those who sincerely seek God or enlightenment.



Why do you conflate occultism with satanism?


----------



## Ninae

HypGnosis said:


> Where did you get the idea scepticism doesn't apply to occult practice? Any legit practioner will understand the two go hand in hand.



I just meant he doesn't apply it in the same way or deny the existence of a non-physical reality without solid proof as with the things from a spiritual/religious tradition.


----------



## swilow

Ninae said:


> You come across as an occultist who opposes any other expression of spirituality under the guise of materialism. So there's not really any point in debating, as it's never going any other way. I just think it's a bit unnecessary, not every other expresson of spirituality needs to be opposed by you.
> 
> And I don't mean that in any offensive way. It's just what it looks like to me, and to be honest I'm tired of wasting my energy that way.



I don't know what you mean by occultist. 

Its a stretch to say you've ever tried to debate me, or even engage me in anyway whatsoever really. If anything, you just critcise me as close minded and materialist. Your beliefs don't put you above anyone, no matter what you seem to think. 

People here treat you much more fairly than you treat others. 

edit:


			
				Ninae said:
			
		

> What do you mean? He talks like someone who only has time for the occult, to which skepticism doesn't seem to apply. I just hope he's not one of those misguided satanists who use science/materialism as a weapon against those who sincerely seek God or enlightenment.



What makes you think I am a satanist? Please don't project me onto your fantasy world of gods and demons.


----------



## Nixiam

Yourbaker said:


> I like to take the lazy approach of finding two highly skilled debaters and learn as they do the heavy lifting.
> 
> Here I've found more than 2. I appreciate the level of honesty and the risk of openness everyone is willing to make while debating some deeply held beliefs. So thanks for putting yourselves out there.



Lol.

I think all of us do, at times.


----------



## belligerent drunk

Ninae said:


> But I don't know exactly how you expect me to provide evidence, other  than refer to the classic masters and good teachers                                                                                                                                       who've come to teach us. And,  then, because I can't provide any evidence that means we can conclude  there is no such thing? I think there is evidence, but maybe not the  kind you want, that comes with a stamp of approval from the majority, or  official authorities.
> 
> I don't know how you feel you can say such a thing there is no spiritual  development to pursue, when millions of people have said otherwise, and  a consistent system that seems to get results has been practiced for  over 7000 years in India. Have you ever considered there might be a  reason for that?



The kind of evidence people wish to see is the same kind of evidence people want to see when you make any claim. You have to be able to present physical evidence that shows that what you're saying holds water. Some people don't want to take your word for it, or the words of the so-called teachers and masters. As one great person once said, "what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".

"Hold on", you want to say, "but what I'm talking about is non-physical, so how can I present physical evidence for it"? Here lies the problem - anecdotal evidence of non-physical phenomena is all it is, a word of mouth. Some may find it convincing, and may resonate with it (for whatever personal, emotional etc reasons), as you seem to do; and in those cases they feel that there is enough "evidence" to warrant such beliefs. 

I have to admit that earlier in my life I had a lot of weird stuff happen, the so-called "synchronicities". But then I asked myself, which is more likely: 1) it's a product of my very-oh-so human mind, which is prone to all forms of biases, like confirmation and observation bias, which are very real phenomena; OR 2) I, one out of 7 billion or whatever currently living humans, have a "life plan" made just for me? Somehow it seems more likely that I'm just a biased human than a special snowflake in this life.

Now, with all this said, I have to agree with Foreigner and others who have said that these sorts of debates between believers and non-believers in threads which are not meant for that debate, but are designed for like-minded people to discuss their topic of interest without "outsiders" stepping in and arguing the same thing over and over... Yes, they are redundant, counterproductive, and are not in the spirit of this subforum. 

So it would be great if no matter how absurd one finds the belief of a certain group of people who are peacefully conversing among themselves, one doesn't try to verify the validity of their beliefs _ad nauseam_, and derail the thread in the process.

E: PS Ninae and anyone else. If you feel that you're being unjustly ridiculed or your thread is being derailed, then report the posts to let moderators know what the problem is.


----------



## Foreigner

belligerent drunk said:


> "Hold on", you want to say, "but what I'm talking about is non-physical, so how can I present physical evidence for it"? Here lies the problem - anecdotal evidence of non-physical phenomena is all it is, a word of mouth. Some may find it convincing, and may resonate with it (for whatever personal, emotional etc reasons), as you seem to do; and in those cases they feel that there is enough "evidence" to warrant such beliefs.
> 
> I have to admit that earlier in my life I had a lot of weird stuff happen, the so-called "synchronicities". But then I asked myself, which is more likely: 1) it's a product of my very-oh-so human mind, which is prone to all forms of biases, like confirmation and observation bias, which are very real phenomena; OR 2) I, one out of 7 billion or whatever currently living humans, have a "life plan" made just for me? Somehow it seems more likely that I'm just a biased human than a special snowflake in this life.
> 
> Now, with all this said, I have to agree with Foreigner and others who have said that these sorts of debates between believers and non-believers in threads which are not meant for that debate, but are designed for like-minded people to discuss their topic of interest without "outsiders" stepping in and arguing the same thing over and over... Yes, they are redundant, counterproductive, and are not in the spirit of this subforum.
> 
> So it would be great if no matter how absurd one finds the belief of a certain group of people who are peacefully conversing among themselves, one doesn't try to verify the validity of their beliefs _ad nauseam_, and derail the thread in the process.



In a way, what you've just written is worse than people who ignorantly enter a spiritual thread to berate it. The reason being that you clearly demonstrate that you grasp why the behaviour causes conflict, yet in the same breath you are still calling our knowledge and experience absurd. You just can't help yourself, can you?

Thank you for sharing why you decided to dismiss synchronicities in your life, and why you feel that, for you, it is a sign of some kind of delusional thinking. 

You also misunderstood the point you attributed to me. I did not say that only people of like mind should discuss certain topics. I said that if people want to delve into a certain topic without intrusions, they should be able to request containment. For example, I'm not Christian whatsoever, but that doesn't mean I don't partake in Christian discussions. It's not about believers vs. non-believers. It's about people inserting their standards of evidence into a discussion knowing full well that they will never be met, and using that as a means to derail and dismiss the entire topic -- much in the same way you accuse Ninae of doing. 

You've already identified a central issue in philosophy in general. There will never be concrete evidence for spiritual or philosophical assertions. That's why science, philosophy, and religion are different branches. It's like asking someone to use the Bible to tell us why hydrogen reacts with oxygen to produce water. Apples and oranges. The sooner you understand that, the sooner you will be less at odds with the philosophical/spiritual branches.


----------



## belligerent drunk

Foreigner said:


> In a way, what you've just written is worse than people who ignorantly enter a spiritual thread to berate it. The reason being that you clearly demonstrate that you grasp why the behaviour causes conflict, yet in the same breath you are still calling our knowledge and experience absurd. You just can't help yourself, can you?
> 
> Thank you for sharing why you decided to dismiss synchronicities in your life, and why you feel that, for you, it is a sign of some kind of delusional thinking.



Interesting way to interpret what I said. I didn't call your knowledge absurd, I just showed what kind of "evidence" people (those who often question such beliefs, me included) wish to see, and what the problem with anecdotal evidence is regarding this subject. 



			
				Foreigner said:
			
		

> I said that if people want to delve into a certain topic without intrusions, they should be able to request containment.





			
				bd said:
			
		

> but are* designed* for like-minded people to discuss their topic of  interest without "outsiders" stepping in and arguing the same thing over  and over



Unless I'm missing something, I think we're talking about the same thing. I worded it differently, but under "like-minded" I meant people who are interested in the topic/problem presented in the thread, rather than questioning the entire beliefs or whatever.

What/when did I accuse Ninae of derailing threads?



> You've already identified a central issue in philosophy in general.  There will never be concrete evidence for spiritual or philosophical  assertions. That's why science, philosophy, and religion are different  branches. It's like asking someone to use the Bible to tell us why  hydrogen reacts with oxygen to produce water. Apples and oranges. The  sooner you understand that, the sooner you will be less at odds with the  philosophical/spiritual branches.



I know that very well, but that doesn't mean I should be OK with it. As far as spirituality goes, then there's nothing to say; but (and again this is just my view) philosophy could use a more evidence-based approach.

I feel like we've done enough damage to this thread now, no?


----------



## Ninae

swilow said:


> I don't know what you mean by occultist.
> 
> Its a stretch to say you've ever tried to debate me, or even engage me in anyway whatsoever really. If anything, you just critcise me as close minded and materialist.



LOL. I was spot-on and you know it. And we've engaged in countless debates through the years.

I just think it's intellectually dishonest. If you oppose something because it goes against your belief system, just be upfront about that. Don't pretend it's because you're too skeptical to consider any spiritual belief system.


----------



## Ninae

belligerent drunk said:


> The kind of evidence people wish to see is the same kind of evidence people want to see when you make any claim. You have to be able to present physical evidence that shows that what you're saying holds water. Some people don't want to take your word for it, or the words of the so-called teachers and masters. As one great person once said, "what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".




There is over-whelming evidence of the existence of a spiritual world in all the spiritual traditions and personal accounts left behind through the ages, and I don't really understand how it makes sense to anyone to disregard all of that. This is even a form  of material evidence.

In my experience, very few who make arguments like that have actually looked at those things in much depth. I don't think you can do and not come away a believer.


----------



## Ninae

"Deeply, Govinda bowed; tears he knew nothing of, ran down his old face; like a fire burnt the feeling of the most intimate love, the humblest veneration in his heart. Deeply, he bowed, touching the ground, before him who was sitting motionlessly, whose smile reminded him of everything he had ever loved in his life, what had ever been valuable and holy to him in his life."

- Siddharta, Hermann Hesse


----------



## swilow

Ninae said:


> LOL. I was spot-on and you know it. And we've engaged in countless debates through the years.
> 
> I just think it's intellectually dishonest. If you oppose something because it goes against your belief system, just be upfront about that. Don't pretend it's because you're too skeptical to consider any spiritual belief system.



No, I have been interested in the occult but I think its as nonsensical as anything. I am sceptical off all spiritual claims. 

Please don't try to fit me into your paranoid worldview and then call me dishonest. Thats pretty pathetic.


----------



## Nixiam

I truly think swilow is skeptical.

It isn't so polar, y'know? 

I don't partake in spiritual practices because it isn't convincing to me.

I do plan on dabbling a bit in the future.


Has anyone else noticed how often I use the word, "I"?


----------



## swilow

Well I'm certainly not a Satanist trying to occlude spiritual awareness. That's one of the weirder claims levelled against me.


----------



## Ninae

belligerent drunk said:


> Now, with all this said, I have to agree with Foreigner and others who have said that these sorts of debates between believers and non-believers in threads which are not meant for that debate, but are designed for like-minded people to discuss their topic of interest without "outsiders" stepping in and arguing the same thing over and over... Yes, they are redundant, counterproductive, and are not in the spirit of this subforum.
> 
> So it would be great if no matter how absurd one finds the belief of a certain group of people who are peacefully conversing among themselves, one doesn't try to verify the validity of their beliefs _ad nauseam_, and derail the thread in the process.
> 
> E: PS Ninae and anyone else. If you feel that you're being unjustly ridiculed or your thread is being derailed, then report the posts to let moderators know what the problem is.



Well, that's all I was asking for. By the way, I don't resort to name-calling like "pathetic" or aggressive attacks when someone disagrees with me. I always try to be civil, even if some might take my arguments personally.


----------



## swilow

Ninae, your most recent comment about me is an insult. Your saying I'm lying to further an agenda. That claim IS pathetic. And rude. Whatever, im over posting in this section.


----------



## Yourbaker

Swilow I think your input in this section accounts for 50% of the reason I've read or posted here. You've used reasonable arguments and been polite when others where not.

This forum improves from your involvement. Personally I look for that reason, logic and sober second look when I post here. Despite not being a 'seeker', something has happened or I've gone insane, I really cant discount the possibility entirely, I'm here looking for that kind of counterpoint.


----------



## Nixiam

Suck up.

Just kidding pal. Well, I don't know if I'll feel okay with myself if I continue to hijack Ninae's thread, so I'll be on my way.


P.S., Enlightenment is good!


----------



## Ziiirp

There is another term for enlightenment : Delusions of grandeur.

The word satori does not mean anything more than insight and it is only related to oneself. Constant practice can (not necessarily) provide a state of constant insights. There is no enlightenment switch, that will free you from any deluded thought patterns for eternity.

Enlightenment is a word invented by western egomaniacs.


----------



## Ninae

How evolved are you?

http://www.socialappbuilder.com/gfba2/a/6534942/3/


----------



## Ninae

Ziiirp said:


> Enlightenment is a word invented by western egomaniacs.




Actually, the meaning of the word enlightenment is a process in Tibetan Buddhism. And that was more the perspective I'm approaching it from. Not as a final state to brag about.

The process is what interests me. All the things you can do to raise and expand your consciousness. This is fascinating to me, but I guess most are more interested in saying things like "There is no enlightenment" or "You think you can know what enlightenment is?" etc.


----------



## Foreigner

Ziiirp said:


> There is another term for enlightenment : Delusions of grandeur.
> 
> The word satori does not mean anything more than insight and it is only related to oneself. Constant practice can (not necessarily) provide a state of constant insights. There is no enlightenment switch, that will free you from any deluded thought patterns for eternity.
> 
> Enlightenment is a word invented by western egomaniacs.



Since no one can really say what enlightenment is for sure, what you're saying is entirely possible.


----------



## Jabberwocky

> Since no one can really say what enlightenment is for sure, what you're saying is entirely possible.



I suppose that's one way of addressing something we don't really understand, but there are people that study this thing in earnest without resorting to platitudes and without dismissing or diminishing the phenomena that many are claiming. His work demystifies a lot of the claims being made about enlightenment-like states of consciousness and I favor this approach to the subject.

Dr. Jeffery Martin has produced some of the most detailed studies on the subject to date across thousands of subjects who claim to have reached a state some describe as enlightenment. His analysis is rigorous and uses modern psychological and physiological test, including EEG's. He has been able to make some generalizations about these states of consciousness from his data. He uses the less charged word persistent non-symbolic states to describe enlightenment, which is probably a good idea since enlightenment has a lot of baggage.

The following paper summarizes some of his findings:
http://nonsymbolic.org/PNSE-Summary-2013.pdf

His website for the work contains a lot more stuff
http://nonsymbolic.org

His EEG findings should be really exciting when they are reported in honest. From what I've heard the brains of these people seems to display very different activity patterns but his findings are still preliminary.


----------



## Ninae

Scientheologists work on enlightenment in a way too, or they sure do a lot of clearing and shadow-work.

I wouldn't go near the church, but I read Dianetics by Ron Hubbard this spring, and it was very impressive. It's psychotherapy, basically, but also seems very conducive to spiritual development. If I could find someone who practiced auditing independently where I live, I think I would try it.


----------



## Ninae

I have no parents: I make the heavens and earth my parents.
I have no home: I make awareness my home.
I have no life or death: I make the tides of breathing my life and death.
I have no divine power: I make truth my divine power.
I have no means: I make knowledge my means.
I have no magic secrets: I make character my magic secret.
I have no body: I make immortality my body.
I have no eyes: I make the flash of illumination my eyes.
I have no ears: I make sensitivity my ears.
I have no limbs: I make timelessness my limbs.
I have no strategy: I make 'unshadowed by thought' my strategy.
I have no designs: I make 'seizing opportunity' my design.
I have no miracles: I make right action my miracles.
I have no principles: I make adaptability to all circumstances my principles.
I have no tactics: I make emptiness and fullness my tactics.
I have no talents: I make ready wit my talent.
I have no friends: I make my true self my friend.
I have no enemy: I make unawareness my enemy.
I have no armour: I make benevolence and righteousness my armour.
I have no castle: I make silent mind my castle.
I have no sword: I make absence of ego my sword.

- Ralph Blum


----------



## Yourbaker

levelsBeyond said:


> Dr. Jeffery Martin has produced some of the most detailed studies on the subject to date across thousands of subjects who claim to have reached a state some describe as enlightenment. His analysis is rigorous and uses modern psychological and physiological test, including EEG's. He has been able to make some generalizations about these states of consciousness from his data. He uses the less charged word persistent non-symbolic states to describe enlightenment, which is probably a good idea since enlightenment has a lot of baggage.
> 
> The following paper summarizes some of his findings:
> http://nonsymbolic.org/PNSE-Summary-2013.pdf
> 
> His website for the work contains a lot more stuff
> http://nonsymbolic.org
> 
> His EEG findings should be really exciting when they are reported in honest. From what I've heard the brains of these people seems to display very different activity patterns but his findings are still preliminary.




I've taken a few hours to go through the various texts and a few videos from the Web site. From the perspective of someone who feels 'enlightened' is what he talking about a match for enlightenment? I'm asking in case my wording sounds odd but is he really studying Enlightenment and do his subjects actually agree with his conclususions? 

I will certainly give him props for managing to get different religions represented in the same study. Imagine if religions learned from each other rather than claim a full understanding of everything, if he is credible or at least recognized by the various factions maybe working from a position of co-operation might be what is supposed to happen with religion.


----------



## Ninae

David Hawkins is maybe the best for this. Brilliant, if you're really interested in this kind of thing. Highly recommend his book.

https://www.amazon.com/Transcending...8-1-fkmr0&keywords=hawkins+stairway+to+heaven


----------



## Yourbaker

Yeah there is huge gap between these two. Hawkins is putting enlightenment up past being able to OBE at will. Jeffery Martin is applying the term PNSE and swapping the term enlightenment. 

Do they represent different viewpoints? PNSE seems like a very early state to me compared to Hawkins enlightenment description.


----------



## Jabberwocky

> From the perspective of someone who feels 'enlightened' is what he is talking about a match for enlightenment?



Glad you took the time to check it out. It's really interesting work and I like his approach. I'd love to know if "enlightened" people dig his work too. I want to see this from their point of view too. It's really interesting to hear what arises when these different viewpoints on enlightenment interact, compare notes and submit themselves to examination. He's a good moderator. It would be really cool to watch him interact with these people. That's kinda what he did here. Since the goal is truth, well, something good will come of it in my mind. That's why I think it is really valuable. 

On a personal note, I met the guy and we chatted for a bit. He struck me as a debunker in some ways because a lot of the ideas I had floating around in my head he systematically shut down and cast doubt on. No offense taken, sting was felt but he helped me consider it differently. I respect his viewpoint because he casts such a wide net.


----------



## cire113

Very interesting points and discussion......

I do think when you do "finally" reach it (LMAO) and become enlightened all you can do is laugh your ass off at the cosmic joke being played here ......

Once you truely awaken sadly you cannot undue it .... Like opening Pandora's box; 

But why would you ? 

I really do find it intriguing and interesting how the intellectual mind tries to wrap it's way in trying to understand that which cannot be understood ....

To me elightement was more like coming to the already present realization NOW through awareness that not only are you the ONE(the energy or conciousness that serves as the non -dual substratum of the universe) but so is everyone and everything that exists or will ever exist  in all levels of reality and dimensions everywhere ...

We are basically just fucking with ourselves .....

But seriously the more on the path I've become and the more awareness I get I realize truly in my normal human state of every day conciousness 

I TRULY don't know SHIT.....

Perhaps the joke is the secret to enlightenment is there is none.......

I do know from direct experience there is some serious next level alien(not even remotely human) intelligence running this 3rd dimensional illusion.....

Almost as if this alien intelligence enjoys incarnating itself as a human to have this experiment of duality because it can and why not ?

-end rant


----------



## Nixiam

Can you become UNenlightened?


----------



## Ninae

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/enlightenment

I actually read all 851 quotes. Despite of what people seem to think I actually do real research and don't just download the latest New Age channeling into my mind.


----------



## Nixiam

Quotes aren't research!


----------



## Ninae

No, not that kind of research, but looking up quotes by the best writers is one of the best ways to find gems about a topic.


----------



## Nixiam

Yes, I understand. Was just picking at you.

Quotes are awesome. Afterall, they're just bits of words spewed from another person's tongue that can summarize anything as long as the said person is versed in the thing (s)he speaks about it.


----------



## Ninae

http://nperov.com/consciousness/how-to-increase-awareness-and-your-consciousness-level/


----------



## Ninae

These LSD quotes are pretty good. They explain well what it's like to have an expanded consciousness and transcendent experiences, and just the nature of reality in general.


http://www.lsdexperience.com/part-2/consciousness/


----------



## Ninae

I thought I would post an abridged version of the Hawkins scale of different consciousness levels, which he goes into in more detail in his books and I found very enlightening to read. I've almost been through the whole range, I think. Well, the highest levels only on drugs.


*Shame*
According to Hawkins, this is one step above death. At this level, the primary emotion one feels is humiliation. It’s not surprising that this level, being so close to death, is where most thoughts of suicide are found. Those who suffer from sexual abuse are often found here, and without therapy they tend to remain here.

*Guilt*
Not too far from shame is the level of guilt. When one is stuck in this level, feelings of worthlessness and an inability to forgive oneself are common.

*Apathy*
The level of hopelessness and despair; this is the common consciousness found among those who are homeless or living in poverty. At this level, one has abdicated themselves to their current situation and feels numb to life around them.

*Grief*
Many of us have felt this at times of tragedy in our lives. However, having this as your primary level of consciousness, you live a life of constant regret and remorse. This is the level where you feel all your opportunities have passed you by. You ultimately feel you are a failure.

*Fear*
People living under dictatorship rule or those involved in an abusive relationship find themselves at this level. There is a sense of paranoia here, where you think everyone is out to get you. Suspicion and defensiveness are common.

*Desire*
Desire is a major motivator for much of our society. Although desire can be an impetus for change, the downside is that it leads to enslavement to ones appetites. This is the level of addiction to such things as sex, money, prestige, or power.

*Anger*
As one moves out of Apathy to Grief and then out of Fear, they begin to want. Desire which is not fulfilled leads to frustration which brings us to Anger. This anger can cause us to move out of this level or keep us here.

*Pride*
According to Hawkins, since the majority of people are below this point, this is the level that most people aspire to. It makes up a good deal of Hollywood. In comparison to Shame and Guilt, one begins to feel positive here. However, it’s a false positive. It’s dependent upon external conditions such as wealth, position or power. It is also the source of racism, nationalism, and religious fanaticism.

*Courage*
This is the level of empowerment. It is the first level where you are not taking life energy from those around you. Courage is where you see that you don’t need to be tossed to and fro by your external conditions. This empowerment leads you to the realization that you are a steward unto yourself, and that you alone are in charge of your own growth and success. This is what makes you inherently human: the realization that there is a gap between stimulus and response and that you have the potential to choose how to respond.

*Neutrality
*Neutrality is the level of flexibility. To be neutral, you are, for the most part, unattached to outcomes. At this level, you are satisfied with your current life situation and tend not to have a lot of motivation towards self improvement or excellence in your career. You realize the possibilities but don’t make the sacrifices required to reach a higher level.

*Willingness*
Those people around you that are perpetual optimists - this is their level of consciousness. Seeing life as one big possibility is the cornerstone of those operating here. No longer are you satisfied with complacency - you strive to do your best at whatever task you’ve undertaken. You begin to develop self-discipline and willpower and learn the importance of sticking to a task till the end.

*Acceptance*
If Courage is the realization that you are the source of your life’s experiences, then it is here where you become the creator of them. Combined with the skills learned in the Willingness phase, you begin to awaken your potential through action. Here’s where you begin to set and achieve goals and to actively push yourself beyond your previous limitations. Up to this point you’ve been generally reactive to what life throws at you. Here’s where you turn that around, take control, and become proactive.

*Reason*
The level of science, medicine, and a desire for knowledge. Your thirst for knowledge becomes insatiable. You don’t waste time in activities that do not provide educational value. You begin to categorize all of life and its experiences into proofs, postulates, and theories. The failure of this level is you cannot seem to separate the subjective from the objective, and because of that, you tend to miss the point. You fail to see the forest because you’re tunnel-visioned on the trees. Paradoxically, Reason can become a stumbling block for further progressions of consciousness.

*Love*
Only if, in the level of Reason you start to see yourself as a potential for the greater good of mankind, will you have enough power to enter here. Here is where you start applying what was learned in your reasoning and you let the heart take over rather than the mind - you live by intuition. This is the level of charity - a selfless love that has no desire except for the welfare of those around them. Gandhi and Mother Theresa are examples of people who were living at this level. Only 0.4 percent of the world will ever reach it.

*Joy*
This is the level of saints and advanced spiritual people. As love becomes more unconditional, there follows a constant accompaniment of true happiness. No personal tragedy or world event could ever shake someone living at this level of consciousness. They seem to inspire and lift all those who come in contact with them. Your life is now in complete harmony with the will of Divinity and the fruits of that harmony are expressed in your joy.

*Peace*
Peace is achieved after a life of complete surrender to the Creator. It is where you have transcended all and have entered that place that Hawkins calls illumination. Here, a stillness and silence of mind is achieved, allowing for constant revelation. Only 1 in 10 million (that’s .00001 percent) people will arrive at this level.

*Enlightenment*
This is the highest level of human consciousness where one has become like God. Many see this as Christ, Buddha, or Krishna. These are those who have influenced all of mankind.


----------



## Ninae

*Mapping Your Vibrational Frequency
*
We can see that at the bottom is guilt and shame 
measuring at 30 and 20. As you rise up, you 
reach anger at 150. The reason why anger is much 
higher is because anger is a moving energy that pushes you above apathy.

There are two great spiritual growth barriers that Dr.
Hawkins has pointed out time and time again. The
first one is at 200 and the other is at 500. 200 is the
level of courage and moves humanity from
destructive and harmful behavior to a lifestyle that
serves and benefits. Right now, the average level of
energy on Earth is around 207.

The next barrier is around 500, which is the level of
love. When you vibrate at this level life becomes
drastically different. Love, joy, and abundance are
suddenly within your grasp. Pain, stress, and struggle
seem to melt away and you become a magnet for
what you truly desire.

But if you are vibrating below 500 (and sadly most
people are), then this should become your new
target. This is the level you have to achieve if you
want to create the life you desire.

But here’s where things get even better. Dr.
Hawkins has discovered that your energy doesn’t
just affect you and your life, it affects those around
you too. One person operating at a level of 500
(love) can lift 750,000 other people above 200.

Keeping this in mind, when you surround yourself
with high vibrating people, you will feel better
about yourself, more optimistic, less stress, and
happier.


----------



## Jabberwocky

It gets kinda interesting when Hawkins starts using that scale to measure the vibration of things like books, music, other spiritual teachers, different drugs, etc. magic mushrooms test at 565 for example. Not sure what you do with a statement like that. I got mixed feelings about that approach. Should be pointed out it is a logarithmic scale. Someone should try reproducing some of his numbers. That's how I feel about those things. 

Gotta say though, I enjoyed his book on surrender and some of his videos. He makes a lot of sense most of the time when he talks about spiritual topics.


----------



## swilow

What do those numbers mean? Are we talking hertz? What part of a human is vibrating? Is there some kind of source for these numbers?

It seems pseudoscientific...


----------



## Yourbaker

^ I think that may be the issue with trying to relate to most things spiritual. We have no scale, we have emotionally loaded words, each various group uses a different context to describe nearly identical phenomena. 

While I have only the Christian doctrine to filter my world view through I can see and agree with most of Hawkins ideas. It is simple enough to read the scale of enlightenment and see where we really are or have been. The numbers may need some explaining for me but again I can understand the simple fact one person consistently being "Gandhi like" will have a staggering effect on those around them with a ripple that last long after them.

I think putting a scale to it actually is only to try and show the perceived arc of difficulty in achieving each state of consciousness. 

Vibrations I would guess at as a 'feeling of vibrating or lack of it' like drunk me vibrates at about 2 regular me higher and stoned me much higher. But to put a number on it needs a means of detection other than my consciousness and I can't see how that is done. So I'd guess it is arbitrary in both regards to it being an actual vibration and the frequency applied. 

Even not being able to understand the scale i do understand the meaning but it would help all us stuck at the "Reason" level if you could pop us a link that explains the idea of Vibrations and the scale.


----------



## swilow

^That's true. It makes sense as a sort proportionate weighting of various emotional values, but I just wonder what is meant by:



> *measuring *at 30 and 20.



Emphasis mine. I'm genuinely curious as to what is being measured, using what and by whom. 



> One person operating at a level of 500
> (love) can lift 750,000 other people above 200.



This suggests that there is some logic or mathematics behind this and I'm interested to know what.


----------



## Ninae

I'm no expert on that, I just know he developed it based on some kind of Kinesology. His books "Transcending the Levels of Consciousness" and  "Power vs. Force" gets into it in more depth. His work isn't available for free, but they're only like $10 at ebooks.com

Hawkins was very respected as a doctor in psychiatry and modern researcher of consciousness and even given a knighthood for his work. Not everything that tries to explain spiritual things in a scientific way has to be dismissed as pseudo-science. After all, everything that exists has to have a science behind it, and that also applies to spiritual things. 

I even think there's a well-developed science behind it at this point and it just haven't been academically acknowledged or released to the public. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


----------



## Ninae

This table is very clarifying, and you have to acknowledge it's generally how it works.

I seem to swing between Acceptance and Love at best, but get dragged down by the lower feelings some. As a child or growing up I was very joy/love or more of that quality. Not so much Reason, so I've spent my life working on that, but that's on a lower level and you have to sacrifice happiness. 

As I understand it, you're not only limited to one level but have different energy fields in motion, and your level would be the average of those. So you might have one of willingness but also one of anger and guilt which pulls you down, etc. I think it would be hard for anyone not to have any active negative fields living in this world.


----------



## Jabberwocky

I once worked with a practitioner who used the bovis scale. You can measure the energy of things relative to one another. You take a pendulum and you measure the energy of the person before and after the session. The number you get is calibrated in ångström which I don't understand. After a good session you'd be vibrating and you'd get higher numbers. It didn't always match up with how I felt so I was sceptical, but might be an art to these things. Sessions were free so it was fun.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovis_scale

Maybe I'll make a thread about it one of these days about spiritual measurement techniques and whatnot. I've encountered some interesting ones here and there. Paul Levy has this four-valued logic that's kinda intriguing. Ninae introduced me to his work through one of her links and I really dig that guy. Might make for an interesting version of kinesiology.


----------



## swilow

Ninae said:


> . Not everything that tries to explain spiritual things in a scientific way has to be dismissed as pseudo-science.



No one has said what these numbers mean or what is meant by vibration. Applying a scale like that seems arbitrary. I don't understand how it means anything to you if you cant even say what is being measured. Using scientific language for unscientific matters is pseudoscience. Or, at least, not science.


----------



## Jabberwocky

Hawkins scale has no units. It is a relative scale, with Buddha The Absolute, Brahman, Christ consciousness, Krishna at 1000 and no consciousness (dead) at 0. There are numbers higher than 1000. It's measured with kinesiology. Muscle testing. He's wrote a book Power vs Force which goes in depth about his specific procedure. I didn't read it.

The bovis scale is probably meant to be more like wavelength. Calibrating it in ångström is how they did it. That's probably based on their model or something. Couldn't tell you.

You're not gonna find a precise definition that satisfies the criterion for scientific rigor. Pseudo-scientific is probably an accurate description. That word has a pejorative connotation which often means not worthy of consideration. In Hawkins case, I think he is one of the better spiritual authors. The number scale is a bit distracting to me and contentious, but that's my bias. Doesn't mean it is the wrong way to do it.


----------



## swilow

^Thanks for fleshing that out a bit for me.

I guess I am a tiresome sceptic but it is important to me that the quantification of ideas is not merely invention. I don't think every idea needs to be quantified- philosophy is largely unquantifiable, for example- but I feel like utilising numbers/wavelengths/trappings of science for something unscientific renders the whole concept deceptive. I consider myself spiritual but I distance myself from attempts to quantify spirituality in scientific terms. Spirituality is, by its very nature, unscientific. That doesn't mean it is better or worse, it just means they are different things. I find myself really resistant to ideas that try and 'force' spiritual truth by claiming some kind of objectivity to it. Anyone can apply a number to an emotion or state of being and than use formulae to derive other numbers from it. It comes across as scientific and objective, but at its base is a sort of untested and arbitrary assertion. 



			
				Levels said:
			
		

> The bovis scale is probably meant to be more like wavelength.



The wavelength of radio waves? 

I have read about radionics before. I don't know much about it, but it seems to be generally regarded as without any scientific merit whatsoever. I know this doesn't mean an idea itself is worthless, but these practitioners are claiming scientific backing. For me, that is a deception rendering the whole field questionable. If you need to "trick" people into thinking your idea is valid by inventing data, the idea is probably not valid.

If there are unseen energies that effect humans and other organisms, they must be detectable. If they are not detectable, they are probably not able to effect us.


----------



## Ninae

You can see that it corresponds with reality by introspection and working on yourself in the ways he suggests. It's more about psychology and spiritual development than science. This is not meant to be a scientific thread, so I don't know why people keep demanding scientific proof for everything, it's not in the nature of the topic.

My point of posting it wasn't to make a scientific case but to present something that could be very helpful to many people. In his book "Transcending the Levels of Consciousness" he has a chapter for each level which teaches you a lot about each emotional state and I think is worth reading just for the psychology. 

I simply feel it could be useful for anyone looking for emotional healing or spiritual development and don't really see the problem with that. While if someone wants to reject it upfront because they don't think it seems scientifically valid then it's their right to do so, but I think that's missing the point.


----------



## Jabberwocky

swilow said:


> The wavelength of radio waves?



Looked it up and it was based on red light which has a wavelength of about 6500 angstrom (650 nanometers). Radio waves are much longer. This is somewhat arbitrarily defined as the cutoff for something being healthy according to this scale. The scale doesn't actually measure something that is red however. 



> A number of 6,500 is considered "sufficient" (to keep the energetic balance), lower figures negatively affect human life and body functioning, higher numbers (as detected in fresh, ripe fruit and freshly pressed juices, seeds and sprouts, which score 8,000-10,000 on the Bovis scale) have positive effects aiding physiological functions.



nevermind that frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength so a reading of 10,000 angstrom has a _lower_ frequency. Anyways, this scale would allow someone who claims "this water has a high level of life force" to be quantify it with a statement like "this water measures 10000 on the bovis scale." If it was reproducible that would be impressive, but haven't seen evidence on that


----------



## Ninae

"God is divided in play, in make-believe, but remains undivided in reality, so that when the play comes to an end, the individualized consciousness awakens to find itself divine."

- Nicholas Jouvanis


----------



## swilow

Levels said:
			
		

> nevermind that frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength so a reading of 10,000 angstrom has a lower frequency. Anyways, this scale would allow someone who claims "this water has a high level of life force" to be quantify it with a statement like "this water measures 10000 on the bovis scale." If it was reproducible that would be impressive, but haven't seen evidence on that


I'm not sure I understand this. At least, my brain is just going WAH WAH WAH. 

WAH.

I assumed radionics had a connection with radio waves, visible light is arbtitry in many ways.



Ninae said:


> You can see that it corresponds with reality by introspection and working on yourself in the ways he suggests. It's more about psychology and spiritual development than science. This is not meant to be a scientific thread, so I don't know why people keep demanding scientific proof for everything, it's not in the nature of the topic.



No, I understand. The topic is not scientific. As I said, that doesn't diminish the topic at all, its just a statement of fact. I certainly didn't demand any proof, you actually offered it up and I felt it was questionable. 

Something *does not* to be scientific to be worthwhile of discussion. However, if scientific ideas are being introduced into a topic, these idea's should be discussed on their scientific merit. That's all I was doing. To be honest, the new age movement turns me off because it sometimes tries to create a scientific basis for its ideas. But, often if you examine the science behind it, its really scant and flimsy and rarely rigorous enough. In this context, the introduction of scientific data tries to deceptively validate certain claims. If an idea can only be considered valid by fudging data, the idea is either invalid or still unproven. 


> My point of posting it wasn't to make a scientific case but to present something that could be very helpful to many people. In his book "Transcending the Levels of Consciousness" he has a chapter for each level which teaches you a lot about each emotional state and I think is worth reading just for the psychology.



I get that, and I wasn't trying to bring you or your idea down. I wasn't trying to reduce it with any malice. I just hoped that these numbers would be explained. How were they obtained, etc. As you know, I am interested in science and felt like this scale of consciousness could be something I could understand. But, it seems like they are simply numbers being arbitrarily applied to ineffable states of consciousness. 



> I simply feel it could be useful for anyone looking for emotional healing or spiritual development and don't really see the problem with that. While if someone wants to reject it upfront because they don't think it seems scientifically valid then it's their right to do so, but I think that's missing the point.



I'm not going to reject the idea of enlightenment and its possibility. I just reject the data generated about it as unscientific. In truth, it does a disservice to the idea of spirituality because the invention of data usually comes when there's nothing else of substance that could be honestly introduced. 

Only talking about that numerical scale, not the broader topic.


----------



## Ninae

I'm just not caught up in that part of it. For me it almost might as well be metaphorical, but I think it tries to explain something real.

But it's not really something that's possible to make up an opinion on just based on a few quotes. You would at least have to read one of his books with an open mind and really think about it and try to apply it to your life. I think it would be hard for anyone genuinely seeking self-improvement not to find any value in it, and that's what really matters. 

It just seems hard to persuade people to do something constructive for themselves, as they'd often rather be right or not have to give up the position they hold to, but you can't force anyone to heal.

Hawkins wasn't really New Age. More like an academic with a focus on transpersonal psychiatry and consciousness-raising. But he actually did some real research and it's some of the most scientific stuff out there, especially as it was built on his own experience with therapy, which is the most interesting part. 

I don't agree he was being deceptive, although you might not agree with his methods. He was someone trying to help people, not someone trying to do a big sell or con anyone.


----------



## belligerent drunk

swilow said:


> No, I understand. The topic is not scientific. As I said, that doesn't  diminish the topic at all, its just a statement of fact. I certainly  didn't demand any proof, you actually offered it up and I felt it was  questionable.
> 
> Something *does not* to be scientific to be worthwhile of  discussion. However, if scientific ideas are being introduced into a  topic, these idea's should be discussed on their scientific merit.  That's all I was doing. To be honest, the new age movement turns me off  because it sometimes tries to create a scientific basis for its ideas.  But, often if you examine the science behind it, its really scant and  flimsy and rarely rigorous enough. In this context, the introduction of  scientific data tries to deceptively validate certain claims. If an idea  can only be considered valid by fudging data, the idea is either  invalid or still unproven.



I believe the tendency for new-age _whatever_ movements to try to be scientific is because to the layman, science is something that speaks of certainty. If you say "it's been scientifically proven that X is this and that", then a large portion of people will see that as a strong confirmation/proof without questioning it. Few people will want to check the validity of the claim or the methodology used to arrive at it, especially if they *want* it to be true. That's how I see it anyway.


----------



## Jabberwocky

swilow said:


> I'm not sure I understand this. At least, my brain is just going WAH WAH WAH.
> 
> WAH.
> 
> I assumed radionics had a connection with radio waves, visible light is arbtitry in many ways.



radionics has nothing to do with the bovis scale as far as I know. You might be right about radionics and radio waves. Bovis scale is calibrated to a reading on 6500 angstroms as healthy which is the wavelength of red light. Different traditions have different interpretations of the bovis scale. Some include two polarities of energy: positive and negative.

For example, the energy of the swastika can be measured on the bovis scale. Readings above 6500 are energizing to their respective polarity.



> A good example of a symbol is the energy level of the swastika or the satya, as it is known in India. Drawn, printed, or used in sticker form, it has a formidable positive energy level of 1,000,000 Bovis. The swastika used by Hitler (at 45 degrees to the cardinal axis) has a terribly low energy level of 1,000 Bovis.



Read more here:
https://www.sivananda.org/publications/yogalife/fall2003/pdfs/page49-mysterious-energies.pdf

Sorry Ninae for derailing your thread. In conclusion it may be possible to translate measurements on the Hawkins scale to measurements on the bovis scale.


----------



## Ninae

Okay, I guess we should have some from Infinite Waters.


----------



## Ninae

The Purpose of Life:

"The purpose of life is to be free from suffering and to attain infinite bliss consciousness – and that is God.

The grandest purpose of life (contrary to the implications of novelists) is not to know human love or to produce children or to win men's fickle acclaim; man's sole worthwhile aim is to find his Self."

-- Read more at: http://www.yogananda.com.au/gurus/yoganandaquotes06.html#whyhere


----------



## Nixiam

I stopped watching infinite waters when I saw him commenting on his own videos talking about insightful it was and helped him and was thanking himself and shit like that.

Not to mention I don't buy into what he says. I prefer others.


----------



## Ninae

You're becoming quite discerning.  I agree he teaches a very lightweight version of things. It's not exactly what you need if you're really serious.

What are your favourites so far, Nix? I think Maharishi is probably the best for teaching pure enlightenment. But Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov left a vast amount of information behind him. He was a real sage and also taught in a very entertaining way. Hawkins is great for the psychotherapy stuff, though.


----------



## Ninae

I'm very interested in this "Initiatic Science", but there are so few who have really spoken about it.


----------



## Ninae

*Hermann Hesse - Siddharta
*
Hermann Hesse was my favourite writer when I was a teenager and is an interesting personality, and a very brilliant man. He wrote his most famous novel, Siddharta, as an auto-biography of his own enlightenment process. I read it when I was 18, but didn't really understand much of it, although it's a very beautiful book and I thought I'd give it another go.

If I remember corrctly, it's about the son of an Indian Brahman who's very ambitious and doesn't want to become like the other Brahmans, he wants to be the real deal. He leaves his ascetic life behind to go live in the world, where he gets involved in all kinds of things and experiences great suffering, before he lifts himself out of it and at last attains his goal. 

I think the message is supposed to be that it takes wordly experience. Anyway, it's well worth a read, if only as a piece of literature.


_"For a long time, Siddhartha had been partaking in the
discussions of the wise men, practising debate with Govinda, practising
with Govinda the art of reflection, the service of meditation. He already
knew how to speak the Om silently, the word of words, to speak it silently
into himself while inhaling, to speak it silently out of himself while exhaling,
with all the concentration of his soul, the forehead surrounded by
the glow of the clear-thinking spirit. He already knew to feel Atman in the
depths of his being, indestructible, one with the universe.

Joy leapt in his father’s heart for his son who was quick to learn, thirsty
for knowledge; he saw him growing up to become a great wise man and
priest, a prince among the Brahmans. Bliss leapt in his mother’s breast when 
she saw him, when she saw him walking, when she saw him sit down and get 
up, Siddhartha, strong, handsome, he who was walking on slender legs, greeting 
her with perfect respect. Love touched the hearts of the Brahmans’ young 
daughters when Siddhartha walked through the lanes of the town with the 
luminous forehead, with the eye of a king, with his slim hips.

But more than all the others he was loved by Govinda, his friend, the son of
a Brahman. He loved Siddhartha’s eye and sweet voice, he loved his walk
and the perfect decency of his movements, he loved everything Siddhartha
did and said and what he loved most was his spirit, his transcendent, fiery
thoughts, his ardent will, his high calling. Govinda knew: he would not
become a common Brahman, not a lazy official in charge of offerings;
not a greedy merchant with magic spells; not a vain, vacuous speaker; not
a mean, deceitful priest; and also not a decent, stupid sheep in the herd
of the many. No, and he, Govinda, as well did not want to become one
of those, not one of those tens of thousands of Brahmans. He wanted to
follow Siddhartha, the beloved, the splendid. And in days to come, when
Siddhartha would become a god, when he would join the glorious, then
Govinda wanted to follow him as his friend, his companion, his servant,
his spear-carrier, his shadow."_


http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/siddhartha.pdf


----------



## Brendan12

Enlightenment can change your life...its like going from owning a Bronze penny..to being dripped in Gold...all things are God blessed..and the moment a beautiful Miracle...even the moment can change your life..and you have to have enlightenment to be a Great Saint..you have Gold as one thing..and electromagnetic static and friction as another..even silver dripping(Satori Enlightenment) can change your life..and when I say Change..I really mean a huge wad of cash..everything you do become more romantic..and escalated to the point that the veritable eschaton is being over whelmed..with Prophet and true courage..which is the type of energy you need to sustain enlightenment...Which comes back in swings and phases...kind of like Bi-Polar disorder...except each time is a representation of break and smashing down idols..or bases so to speak..so that the effects of the next enlightenment happen Greater and Better..to increase faith you need to go on challenges in the wild..and to increase enlightenment you have to talk to more people!


----------



## HypGnosis

Zylok (an interdimensional being existing in a higher dimension alongside an advanced AI (UNICOM)) explains the hyper conscious singularity's 'need to forget' 

Somewhat out there but nevertheless enjoyable, and pretty on point IMO






This channel has some cool content on a number of topics.


----------



## Ninae

That's interesting. I guess "hyper conscious singularity" is another word for God.


----------



## HypGnosis

I wouldnt necessarily argue against that, but I find the term god somewhat loaded. In my eyes, _everything_ is god.

Do you think most of those that identify with the term god, would assign it a 'need to forget'?

I'm not really bothered either way. It's Zylok's general point that should be considered.


----------



## Ninae

Well, that would be a more New Age idea of God.


----------



## HypGnosis

That wasn't what I asked...

Anyhoo,  the idea of 'the need to forget' can be found in Taoist philosophies, so the idea long predates the New Age movement, and even Christianity.

FWIW, I don't think Zylok would consider a Hyper Conscious Singularity, God. In another video he describes how they evolve - when a species collective consciousness reaches a certain threshold it simultaneously bursts forth, and collapses in on itself creating a hyper conscious being in it's own right ( or something along those lines).
You could probably assign such a being some of qualities oft atrributed to God

I'm more likely to define God as the ground of pure being. The fundamental level from which a Hyper Conscious Singularity would arise.


----------



## Ninae

I think there are many levels of God, it just gets a bit complicated, so we call it God for short.


----------



## HypGnosis

Would you say humanity is one such level of God i.e not seperate from God (unlike the Christian belief system)?


----------



## belligerent drunk

It's hard for me to speak about what could be god because I don't like the idea, but I guess considering my view of the world, I would describe god in terms of level of awareness wherein a person is aware (or more importantly, tries to be in an objective way) of what reality is about. It's when nature views nature for what it really is, not what it wants it to be. But I guess that makes no sense to anyone...


----------



## Ninae

That's called having a more expanded consciousness, BD. That's also a part of raising consciousness or enlightenment. 

A life form can be more or less aware, and awareness grows throughout life. Some are hyper-conscious, some are barely conscious. Drug addiction generally keeps consciousness low (except for stimulants, which raise it).

You do better in life the more conscious you are.


----------



## Xorkoth

I agree that becoming more conscious is a huge help in life, although to do that requires nurturing a process of stepping back from your gut reactions so you're aware of your own processes, and can choose what to accept and what to let pass by you as unhelpful.  As you make this a habit it becomes second-nature and it is much easier to understand yourself and the world.  It's very possible to enhance your own level of consciousness, you've just got to work at it.  

Underneath it all, we're animals, and we have autonomous emotional, mental and physical reactions to things.  For example, someone says something to you and it gives you a flash of some sort of negative emotion.  This is something that you can't necessarily help feeling, but you can step back and realize it for what it is, and consider from an objective place whether that response is helpful or called for.  If you do that, you can act in a way that is appropriate, despite what your initial gut reaction told you to act like (maybe the person who said that didn't mean anything by it and it just triggered some inherent neurosis, and reacting in anger is only going to hurt the situation).  Furthermore, you can then decide to not feel anger towards that person moving forward.  A lot of people are stuck in a mode where they are basically slaves to their impulses.


----------



## Ninae

Yes, emotion/instinct should be subordinate to reason/spirit (ideally). It's just that usually it's not.


----------



## belligerent drunk

Ninae said:


> You do better in life the more conscious you are.



I disagree. The more conscious you are, the more you see how bullshit this system we live in is, and the harder it is to ignore that. Which also makes it hard to be a part of it. For me at least.


----------



## swilow

belligerent drunk said:


> I disagree. The more conscious you are, the more you see how bullshit this system we live in is, and the harder it is to ignore that. Which also makes it hard to be a part of it. For me at least.



I agree. Its a similar thing with the idea of love signifying some kind of deeper connection with things even though love often makes loss harder and you will lose everything you have one day. These things are not always blessings.


----------



## belligerent drunk

swilow said:


> These things are not always blessings.



Yes, it's both a blessing and a curse at the same time. It's great to see the world for what it is, but it's also hard to deal with the realization of how fucked up some things are, and especially how most people fail to see the same things (which would almost be enough to fix them!).

I recently discussed the same subject with a friend of mine, and the consensus was that, in some way, being a blind sheep makes life easier. If your biggest worry is where you want to go on holiday or what kind of new pants to buy, and the bigger questions are just answered by "the system", then it makes life easy. Designing and taking your own path is more adventurous and fun, but it's also tougher - easier to let someone else decide it for you and just ride along with them.

Life's (as in biological life) goals are practically the opposite of reality. Life's "mentality" is that there's purpose in life - to achieve better quality of life and so on, which basically leads to better procreation. But the reality is that life is ultimately pointless and only temporary. When one realizes that, it creates a big conflict. Society and biological pressors tell us to do stuff, but then again really it's all futile. I haven't got over that yet.


----------



## Ninae

That's a negative way of looking at it. Yes, it does give more awareness of pain and makes it harder to be in denial, suppress, or dissociate. But this is also makes you healthier that you're able to properly process and integrate things.

Consciousness is the key to success in life. It enables you to be aware of yourself and appear to others and of how social interactions work and how you can influence other people. It let's you to be more in control of your world and get the things you want from your life. If you think about it you can see how that works. The most unconscious people are practically retarted and just helpless in this world.


----------



## Ninae




----------



## belligerent drunk

Ninae said:


> The most unconscious people are practically retarted and just helpless in this world.



I think we're talking about different things when we say "consciousness". A lot of people do well in life, are intelligent and competent, but not aware of the whole picture, or rather unwilling to open their eyes. Many of my colleagues and acquaintances are like that. They're definitely not stupid - many of them are good scientists, and are able to relatively well judge things and so on, but they still have stale and close-minded ideas about life. It's not that they don't have the potential to be aware, they just don't want to be.

So I do believe that if you want to be "successful" (by society's standards) in life, then you have better chances if you don't think too deeply about universal questions and just do what you're told. I personally don't see it as a valid way to live life, but it's just my observation that it helps one be more "normal".


----------



## Xorkoth

Some of the most successful people in the physical realm are those, in my experience, who are at a slightly lower level of awareness.  They are intelligent enough to understand how to become wealthy and successful in the physical world, but their thoughts might rarely or never touch on anything deeper.  To them our system seems like a perfectly reasonable thing that can be understood, with no reason to ponder on deeper things.  I think that as levels of awareness raise, it becomes harder to function smoothly in our system because you start to see it as the arbitrary thing it is.  There are different kinds of intelligence.  It takes all kinds too, there's no point in looking down on people about it.  In fact doing so is an ego reaction.


----------



## Ninae

There's a difference between having awareness of this world and the spiritual world. The more wordly awareness you have the more successful you can be. Spiritual awareness doesn't necessarily factor in, but can give you an edge in the form of intuition and higher creativity.


----------



## Ninae

belligerent drunk said:


> I think we're talking about different things when we say "consciousness". A lot of people do well in life, are intelligent and competent, but not aware of the whole picture, or rather unwilling to open their eyes. Many of my colleagues and acquaintances are like that. They're definitely not stupid - many of them are good scientists, and are able to relatively well judge things and so on, but they still have stale and close-minded ideas about life. It's not that they don't have the potential to be aware, they just don't want to be.
> 
> So I do believe that if you want to be "successful" (by society's standards) in life, then you have better chances if you don't think too deeply about universal questions and just do what you're told. I personally don't see it as a valid way to live life, but it's just my observation that it helps one be more "normal".



They don't necessarily have to think about the deeper things, or be able to see the full picture, just have consciousness of what they're good at. There are many ways of defining consciousness. But you can't say low consciousness is a good thing in any real way. 

You might say being more unaware and deluded can make it easier for someone to be happy, and in a way that is true, but that is a kind of a different subject and there are also many disadvantages to it like not being able to take control of your world. There's no real benefit in only being partially conscious or lacking spiritual awareness.

Just think about animals. The main difference between them is level of consciousness and the highest consciousnes animals, like cats dogs, and horses, have a whole other level of control and experience of life.


----------



## Yourbaker

belligerent drunk said:


> ... The more conscious you are, the more you see how bullshit this system we live in is, and the harder it is to ignore that. Which also makes it hard to be a part of it. For me at least.



^This is true. I find myself pondering how to begin, the task of stepping aside from the system seems nearly impossible. I feel free, having realized how trapped I really am. Once drugs were the escape now they just make me ponder more.


----------



## Ninae

One thing Yogis teach is that to reach a transcendent spiritual consciousness you need to work through all the darkness in your unconscience first. This is a hard task but seems like it would be worth it.


----------



## Ninae

I'm going through Kundalini awakening. I mentioned it this time last year, but it has really begun for me now. I do Kriyas (compulsive yoga postures) all the time. I glide up in a bridge, really fluidly, almost like a snake. It feels wonderful and I can feel the ego-energies leaving my body.  

I've been doing quite a few things. Mostly yoga, meditation, and breathing exercises. I guess celibacy also helos. But it can almost feel like a full body orgams with all this energy going through your body. It's just not centered on the genitals but involves all of you.


----------



## swilow

Celibacy  

But yes. I do find orgasm leaches something from me. I usually feel like a lifeless meat-puppet afterwards.  



			
				B_D said:
			
		

> Yes, it's both a blessing and a curse at the same time. It's great to see the world for what it is, but it's also hard to deal with the realization of how fucked up some things are, and especially how most people fail to see the same things (which would almost be enough to fix them!).



Your last statement is very true. A huge part of the problem we have is that people don't see a problem. 

I think consciousness can certainly lead one to an increase in pain and discontent but I also think consciousness is the only theatre through which you can view/experience true relief/peace/surcease. And I think we can experienced such things through effort. This is why I value Buddhism because it doesn't clutter and stultify my mind with dogma (well, it does to an extent but less so than other belief systems). It is practical. The problems of existence are not solvable through cognition but it does seem they become tolerable through acceptance.


----------



## Ninae

It seems like it can take about a month for your energy to build up again. But, yes, I have a lot of energy built up now. I can literally feel it flowing out from my body. I think it also makes you more charismatic.

http://www.spiritualityhealth.com/blog/snatam-kaur/gift-head-covering-kundalini-yoga


----------



## swilow

You should start a cult.


----------



## Ninae

LOL. I reckon I could start a cult, too.

But I can feel I have more authority, or more power at my disposal. When I had the police at my door to hand me my conviction notice they just kind of submitted like they had done something wrong because I was so tired of their crap. I'm feeling quite powerful, Willow.


----------



## swilow

Hell, sign me up, I need some leadership :D Tell me what to do.


----------



## Ninae

I think you could use some heart, crown center, and third eye development. You seem very centered in the mind/sense of power.


----------



## Ninae




----------



## tantric

are y'all aware of maslow's hieracry of needs?


----------



## swilow

Ninae said:


> I think you could use some heart, crown center, and third eye development. You seem very centered in the mind/sense of power.



Hmm. I don't know about that. Just because I question things does not mean I am an ego maniac. I've been where you are and moved on. I didn't find what I sought. We are all different and our paths are our own. I hope you've found yours...


----------



## Ninae

I didn't mean you were an ego-maniac. But when your higher energy centres open up you start to feel for yourself the truth about spiritual things and don't need to waste your energy arguing over them.

If you've gone from being a seeker to spending most of your time arguing for the atheist viewpoint, I don't know if that's an improvement. I guess I don't really understand your choice, that you'd rather spend your time like that. I've been through some amazing transformations and experiences in my spiritual work, but I guess it's not the same for everyone.


----------



## belligerent drunk

Wanting evidence for one's beliefs as opposed to believing what comforts you is one of the _highest states_ a human can achieve.


----------



## Ninae

Yes, but what constitues evidence for you? What you can perceive with your own expanded senses or what academia or popular culture has given their approval to? Mystics just look for a different kind of evidence.

I used to be an atheist but I didn't experience it as a higher state. To me, being a materialist is just being shut off to any other dimension of life, when you don't have to be.


----------



## Ninae

http://kundalinicare.com/what-is-kundalini-shakti/


----------



## swilow

(Belated) Happy Diwali  

My new colleague at work, a lovely gentle fellow from India who started with me about a month ago, bought in some rather interesting spicy sweet foods today and was in a really happy and relaxed mood for the first time since he began working here. He wished me (with a smile) Happy Diwali as soon as I came in. I certainly don't begrudge the parts of religion that actually bring happiness to people. 



			
				Ninae said:
			
		

> If you've gone from being a seeker to spending most of your time arguing for the atheist viewpoint, I don't know if that's an improvement. I guess I don't really understand your choice, that you'd rather spend your time like that. I've been through some amazing transformations and experiences in my spiritual work, but I guess it's not the same for everyone.



How am I not a "seeker" though? And I think you have revealed a very common assumption and bias found amongst the more theistic folks, and that is assuming that for some reason people with an "atheistic viewpoint" are closed off and no longer seeking answers to reality. I know that you probably didn't intend it to be taken that literally, but it is something I find common in the dismissals I get when I state my opinion and I don't think I'm alone. 

I don't know if its an improvement either, but I've certainly been able to appreciate the world in much deeper ways since I began questioning my assumptions. Some of the comforts I derived from them have gone too, but I also now realise that cold comfort is pretty much worthless. You could say that this has been something of a journey to a type of minor enlightenment, if you wanted. 



Ninae said:


> Yes, but what constitues evidence for you? What you can perceive with your own expanded senses or what academia or popular culture has given their approval to? Mystics just look for a different kind of evidence.



Its certainly not the latter. I don't even know what popular culture has approved but I don't really think its rational thinking. It is not unusual to be condemned pretty openly for being sceptical.

Evidence is not as important as the truth that evidence is imparting, and one of the many types of 'truth' that I personally value is something which is immutable and factual for all parties who examine it. It is something which doesn't change according to preferences or biases or desires, and is reproducible for all people. As with my brief excerpt from my working day, I also value the truths that individuals take part in which give their lives meaning. I just happen to not derive meaning from the same things, though my life is no less full of truth AND meaning. 

It is perhaps more painful than I would like though, at times. 

Not so bad of late though.


----------



## belligerent drunk

Nice post swilow. 



			
				swilly said:
			
		

> [Evidence] is something which doesn't change according to preferences or biases or desires, and is reproducible for all people.



That's actually a pretty interesting way to put it, and seems like it may be the same for me.


----------



## Ninae

Well, I'm busy shedding layers of ego. 

I now understand what Adyashanti meant when he said you need to work through layers and layers of ego. I can physically feel the ego energies exit my body when I do spontaneous yoga asanas. It feels both good and painful at the same time.

Willow, I think you should be more like Adyashanti.


----------



## swilow

And I already have the same hairstyle.


----------



## Ninae

LOL. Didn't think you'd mind Adyashanti, actually. He's a pretty cool Zen master. He's sooo mellow.


----------



## swilow

He seems very earnest.


----------



## Ninae

Yea, he's one of the credible ones out there. No bullshit. But most importantly he's really happy.


----------



## swilow

I'll have a watch later on, thanks 

Gonna go to meditation later, apparently a 'guest' monk is going to be speaking, according to my brother this guy is great. I forget his name but he's relatively well known... I should get high and heckle him :D


----------



## Ninae

_"Enlightened beings are rare in the universe. They are the joker in the deck. They are outside the circle."
_

http://www.ramaquotes.com/html/enlightened_teachers.html


----------



## Ninae

This seems like a fun game:

https://store.highexistence.com/products/30-challenges

Enlightenment in game format.


----------



## Ninae

[video]https://youtu.be/O6P42XI8GRo[/video]


----------



## swilow

Is there an opposite to enlightenment?


----------



## sigmond

Buddhist enlightenment or Western enlightenment? (i haven't been reading the thread) opposite of western enlightenment is ignorance and irrationality correct? 

opposite of Buddhist enlightenment would be something like struggle, dissatisfaction, judgement - anything causing negative emotions. 

I think the idea is to do good without trying and expecting nothing in return. You're supposed to be thankful for suffering while not creating any of it yourself.


----------



## swilow

Western enlightenment would be a cool discussion, but this seems more about spiritual enlightenment, something as yet undefined over 14 pages.


----------



## sigmond

from what i've read enlightenment is a state of existence outside of time. 

isn't something that can be explained, it's something that happens to you. 

of course, i'm unsure if it actually exists - yet to traverse the cosmic consciousness..


----------



## Ninae

Krishnamurti.  He looks sanctified. He was a spiritual master-mind, for sure.


----------



## Ninae

And I guess the opposite of Enlightenment would be Endarkenment. Or becoming lower and lower consciousness and more and more filled with negative energy. You could also say being more and more run by the ego and your physcial, emotional, and mental impulses, as opposed to being run by the higher self.


----------



## Ninae

"When I speak about the new man, I have in mind the people of the Sun who live with Joy. The are exuberant, generous, and overcome their difficulties easily. They are heros, men with open hearts. They use everything wisely. They enjoy everything. In both suffering and pleasure, the new man is filled with an inner joy. He knows that both the bad and the good conditions are given in order for him to grow."

(Peter Deunov)


----------



## Allen121081

makes sense being that everything in existance are made up of polar oppisates.

ninae


----------



## Ninae

Yes, plus I think when you connect with your higher self you can withstand suffering.


----------



## noone1

Ninae said:


> [video]https://youtu.be/O6P42XI8GRo[/video]



Ramana Maharshi is said by many who met him to be the real deal. His teachings are typical advaita vedanta, self inquiry line of upanishad teachings. To those in the west he could be seen as a "useless parasite" as he spent all his time in a monastery reading comics while he chilled and occasionally expounded his teachings. In the east such people where revered until the ideas of the west crept in. 

Who is the I? Why do people live, why do people die? Enlightenment itself is only a word that becomes irrelevant as one travels the path. 

I have studied this topic extensively too bad knowledge is counterproductive in this topic. You must practice it, live it not know about it.


----------



## Ninae

Yes, absolutely. I don't know, I think knowledege helps to practice, make you see the point in practicing.


----------



## BlueGenes

First post!

I've always thought of enlightenment as being transcendence. The goal of certain practices to transcend normal human boundaries, whether that be pain, suffering, mind, or physical boundaries. I also like to think that we're all very intelligent in certain ways; being close to enlightenment in different areas. Insofar as spiritual enlightenment- using the spirit to transcend the human and become either more human, or trans-human.


----------



## Ninae

Well said. Welcome!


----------



## Brendan12

Ninae said:


> And I guess the opposite of Enlightenment would be Endarkenment. Or becoming lower and lower consciousness and more and more filled with negative energy. You could also say being more and more run by the ego and your physcial, emotional, and mental impulses, as opposed to being run by the higher self.



Hmmm, I thought about this long and hard and thought that it might be true to have a so called endarkenment...

With the idea of light being a forbearer to enlightenment...we are always therefore striving for only those things in the category of light..

Which of course is pure and awesome..

But I think there could be a so called enlightenment..except about the bottom and base emotions that exist..

or a sort of duality compared to light...via darkness..

So the endarkenment can commence in truce...and truth to connect to the enlightenment more formidably..

Like discovering your dark side of the force...is honest and peaceful and feels good to be in the shade some of the time..

Doesn't mean you have to hurt people because your exploring your dark side...but I think the idea of exploring the dark side should show more form in psychotherapy and psychology indeed..


----------



## swilow

Light and dark are aspects of the same thing. They are non dualistic in actuality. You cannot have one without the other. Darkness is the absence of light, light the absence of darkness. Only light can be overshadowed. Only darkness can be lit. 

I don't believe in enlightenment but I believe darkness and light are worth exploring. Disregard the dogma, set yourself free


----------



## samadhitrance21

Enlightenment among other things is the realization that the physical reality is the manifestation of a conscious mind. At the very bottom of physical elements there's consciousness, everything is conscious at some level. There's an infinite network of consciousness beyond space and time and this reality is just consciousness experiencing itself, it's just a ride. We are all connected, the nature, the people. Another attribute of enlightenment is overcoming EGO, which is a generator of fear and hatred. EGO is what creates self inflicted suffering and a life long chasing after some illusory sense of impermanent joy. Once you start being more aware of your mind, you can catch yourself being manipulated by your EGO to avoid fear, and you put on a special mask to do it, so you're never really yourself.


----------



## turkalurk

swilow said:


> Light and dark are aspects of the same thing. They are non dualistic in actuality. You cannot have one without the other. Darkness is the absence of light, light the absence of darkness. Only light can be overshadowed. Only darkness can be lit.
> 
> I don't believe in enlightenment but I believe darkness and light are worth exploring. Disregard the dogma, set yourself free



Do some research buddy.  Enlightenment is a real human experience that has been verified through scientific investigation.  It simply takes the ability to inhibit right parietal functioning.  This same process is involved regardless of religion.  Even an atheist can connect to a higher perspective and be awed by the magnificence of Existence whether he chooses to see Nature as a higher power or humanity.  It does matter what labels you choose.  You're still in the same boat as everyone.  You may choose not to label Nature as your god, but it still has absolute control over who you are and what your life will be.  Whenever you feel you have conquered Nature you have only done its bidding.  For it must be in your nature to rise above what you think your nature is, before you can change what comes naturally to you.

Sorry, I have studied this religion thing so much, I can't help but to see atheism as a losing side with nothing to offer.  No closer to the truth.  Nothing to gain.  No Hope. No Faith. Beliefs are inherently ego-centric.  It kills me that they claim logic is their guide.  Yet, they go around trying to prove the non-existence of a Supreme Being.  As if it could be done.  Like it is so hard for them to admit that anything could be possible.  There are a million ways to conceive of a higher being.  If you can't do that, you must lack imagination.  If you find it unnecessary, then the logical choice is agnosticism.  It takes a certain kind of personality to claim this thing so many people believe in does not exist at all in any form.

  I'm glad we have these kinds of people.  They serve their function.  But, I am sure glad not to be one of them because of the traits many of them seem to share.  Pessimistic, Cycnical, Egoic, Narrow-minded, etc.


----------



## Xorkoth

Swilow didn't really mention religion or spirituality at all, or his spiritual/religious stance, or the atheism vs non-atheism debate... he was stating a belief in not believing in enlightenment, which is valid.  My problem with the word is twofold - first, it's rather loaded and ego-centric in itself, IMO.  When are you enlightened?  At what point in the process of reaching for it do you cross over?  Are there degrees of enlightenment?  I think it's possible to be extremely mindful and live your life with a great amount of awareness and a reduction in the power of the ego to influence behaviors and decisions.  That's what I try to do.  I don't believe that by meditating or whatever, or on psychedelics, I will reach some special, new place that is fundamentally different from other modes of perception, it is just a process of shedding more and more extraneous noise and filters.  At the core, we are always the observer and we always have every choice available to us.  This race towards enlightenment begins to seem like a contest for many.  Certainly the new agey stuff I hear people passionately espousing sometimes bothers me.  For some, it is certainly all a big ego game to seek enlightenment.


----------



## Username369

I for one would like to see the "scientific evidence" of enlightenment.. And for the reccord, I am 100% agnostic but have had many very enlightening experience and still do on a regular basis. It's a state of mind, plain ans simple. Nothing to do with religion


----------



## turkalurk

Xorkoth said:


> Swilow didn't really mention religion or spirituality at all, or his spiritual/religious stance, or the atheism vs non-atheism debate... he was stating a belief in not believing in enlightenment, which is valid.  My problem with the word is twofold - first, it's rather loaded and ego-centric in itself, IMO.  When are you enlightened?  At what point in the process of reaching for it do you cross over?  Are there degrees of enlightenment?  I think it's possible to be extremely mindful and live your life with a great amount of awareness and a reduction in the power of the ego to influence behaviors and decisions.  That's what I try to do.  I don't believe that by meditating or whatever, or on psychedelics, I will reach some special, new place that is fundamentally different from other modes of perception, it is just a process of shedding more and more extraneous noise and filters.  At the core, we are always the observer and we always have every choice available to us.  This race towards enlightenment begins to seem like a contest for many.  Certainly the new agey stuff I hear people passionately espousing sometimes bothers me.  For some, it is certainly all a big ego game to seek enlightenment.



It's just a label to describe a perception.  Humans love to attach all sorts of associations to our labels and bend and strech their meaning to imply whatever makes them cozy.  However, the underlying message was meant to describe "religious emotions" and we have found a universal component in these experiences to be "selflessness."  Keep in mind this is just another label and very well may not exist in absolute or permanent terms, but rather when reflection is focused on the bigger picture or oneself, the feeling of separation between your "self" and the rest of Existence is perceived to diminish and a person can become overwhelmed with a sense of awe that one can't help but to feel a sense of reverence.  This sensation is filtered through a person's worldly perspective and can be perceived as "enlightenment", visit from an angel, moksha, divine inspiration, oneness with spirit, union with nature, epiphanies about our human nature, fascination with science, whatever speaks to your soul or lack there of.  

I experience enlightenment all the time, but am enlightened enough to realize its doubtful I will ever become fully enlightenment until my death.  For I can never fully let go of my body and mind while it still has good functioning.  I prefer to use the word unselfish rather than selfless, because even when I am sacrificing my wants for the common good, I know deep down I do it for me to.  To avoid feelings if guilt and remorse and to increase self value and receive the gift of spiritual emotion on a regular basis.

I do believe the kind of enlightened people exist.   You can feel it emanating out from their smiling body language and gracious posturing.  Maybe I was just mystified by their vow of silence....  

A common problem I see with new age spiritualism is the mistake that a piece of the system can ever equate the whole.  The whole of anything is beyond our comprehension because we only see in pieces.  Any conceptualization we form to symbolize the whole is still just a symbol an image of the whole that only contains portions within it.  Without this consideration, we might cling to something unreal and give ourselves a false impression of who we are.  Sense objective reality is unattainable, thats all we ever do anyway.  It sure makes them feel good to think of that they are all god consciousness, it makes them behave in "godly" compassionate ways.  It breeds unity, acceptance, tolerance, openmindedness etc...  My differences with that kind of spiritualism is mostly semantic.  So, I'm only hopeful that style of religion catches on.


Btw, I was inspired by swillows post, but was speaking in general terms.   He himself has never came of as a dogmatic type atheist, more of the agnostic kind.  As far as I can tell.


----------



## turkalurk

So you don't believe in something you have experienced first hand?  Fascinating.


http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2008/1217-johnstone-brain-spirituality.php


----------



## Username369

turkalurk said:


> So you don't believe in something you have experienced first hand?  Fascinating.
> 
> 
> http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2008/1217-johnstone-brain-spirituality.php



I didn't say I didn't believe in enlightenment, I simply asked for scientific evidence since you mentioned. I was under the impression that you meant it was scientifically linked to religion in some way, which it isn't and even this article states. I fully acknowledge and am aware that brain functions alter significantly during such an experience and was hoping to be able to look at an actual study, but unfortunately your link doesn't provide it. 
But I want to add that one does not need religion or even a belief in a higher power to be enlightened. Someone who is restrained by religion is actually far *less* likely to reach actual enlightenment. Which is where I fully disagree with you. As I stated before, it's a state of mind, nothing else.


----------



## samadhitrance21

What scientific evidence? At the base of each mind theres a source of awareness, consciousness, then theres the mind, a creation of the brain as a result from identifying itself in a physical world, where everything is separate, your brain develops a sense of self, and the self is selfish, it wants to satisfy itself, obviously. That's your ego, your ego either wants security or happiness, or is perhaps afraid of judgement of others, or perhaps criticizes others by comparing itself and reassuring itself of its significance to gain even more self worth. Whatever you do in this life, at least for most people, is to look for permanent satisfaction of your ego, yourself by impermanent means and you don't know that you're doing it. Unless you genuinely start to question the nature of reality and yourself, then you will never awaken from being driven by your ego. You wont find the answer in philosophy or science or religion, these are just frozen concepts of an idea that cant be grasped by the mind. You need to contemplate deeply and realize that your feelings and your emotions and your thoughts are based on external factors and don't exist in their own right, they are simply a side effect of interpreting a physical reality. You must realize that all you really are is consciousness, simply existing, infinite, beyond space and time, everlasting, knowing itself by direct experience as its the source of every single element of our world. Consciousness is God as we call it, and we are part of it and its part of everything. What this existence means is simply consciousness experiencing itself. We are on a ride, its just a ride.


----------



## turkalurk

Username369 said:


> I didn't say I didn't believe in enlightenment, I simply asked for scientific evidence since you mentioned. I was under the impression that you meant it was scientifically linked to religion in some way, which it isn't and even this article states. I fully acknowledge and am aware that brain functions alter significantly during such an experience and was hoping to be able to look at an actual study, but unfortunately your link doesn't provide it.
> But I want to add that one does not need religion or even a belief in a higher power to be enlightened. Someone who is restrained by religion is actually far *less* likely to reach actual enlightenment. Which is where I fully disagree with you. As I stated before, it's a state of mind, nothing else.


Apparently you can't read and or too lazy to read things fully through or attempt to understand what you read.  You haven't disagreed with a word I said.  Where did I say religion had anything to do with anything.  There is plenty of scientific evidence.  They have made a god helmet.  I don't owe you my time.  There are 3 valid studies from reliable sources.  If u r interested google it yourself.


----------



## turkalurk

samadhitrance21 said:


> What scientific evidence? At the base of each mind theres a source of awareness, consciousness, then theres the mind, a creation of the brain as a result from identifying itself in a physical world, where everything is separate, your brain develops a sense of self, and the self is selfish, it wants to satisfy itself, obviously. That's your ego, your ego either wants security or happiness, or is perhaps afraid of judgement of others, or perhaps criticizes others by comparing itself and reassuring itself of its significance to gain even more self worth. Whatever you do in this life, at least for most people, is to look for permanent satisfaction of your ego, yourself by impermanent means and you don't know that you're doing it. Unless you genuinely start to question the nature of reality and yourself, then you will never awaken from being driven by your ego. You wont find the answer in philosophy or science or religion, these are just frozen concepts of an idea that cant be grasped by the mind. You need to contemplate deeply and realize that your feelings and your emotions and your thoughts are based on external factors and don't exist in their own right, they are simply a side effect of interpreting a physical reality. You must realize that all you really are is consciousness, simply existing, infinite, beyond space and time, everlasting, knowing itself by direct experience as its the source of every single element of our world. Consciousness is God as we call it, and we are part of it and its part of everything. What this existence means is simply consciousness experiencing itself. We are on a ride, its just a ride.



Or maybe consciousness is simply an emergent property of our brain functioning.  My feelings and emotions may be based on external and internal factors but they still exist in whatever right you perceive them to have. Not sure what you meant by saying they don't exist in their own right.  They're our emotions and feelings so we have every right to feel them.  

I question the nature of reality and myself enough to realize there is no escaping one's ego.  You need to represent your frame of reference somehow.  If you aren't driven by ego what are you doing expressing it here?


----------



## Username369

turkalurk said:


> Apparently you can't read and or too lazy to read things fully through or attempt to understand what you read.  You haven't disagreed with a word I said.  Where did I say religion had anything to do with anything.  There is plenty of scientific evidence.  They have made a god helmet.  I don't owe you my time.  There are 3 valid studies from reliable sources.  If u r interested google it yourself.


All I'm gonna say is you could definitely use a major dose of enlightenment yourself...


----------



## -=SS=-

Thought this interview may be of interest to some of you. This man had an enlightenment experience in 1947, he discusses it briefly in the video too, but also throws out some other bits of wisdom. I have yet to come across another western individual who can put it so plainly and also (in my opinion) is not full of shit. I genuinely believe this man was the real deal. Describes it briefly at the beginning, and then a more detailed account at 9:49, though he does leave bits out properly owing to the fact it was a radio interview and would go over the ladies head a bit.

He clearly describes reaching an absolute condition and the subsequent traumatic return to reality afterwards. In his books he states he wept for almost a week after the experience and considered suicide as it was a tremendous shock to _know_ that this whole reality is an illusion.


----------



## turkalurk

Username369 said:


> All I'm gonna say is you could definitely use a major dose of enlightenment yourself...


You sure showed me buddy.


----------



## turkalurk

Metaphorically, reality is an illusion because our perception of it is subjective. If anything can be said to be real it ought to be reality. The illusion is when you believe you have access to objective reality in the form of knowledge. You live within your own subjective reality which is based on the underlying reality that we can merely perceive characteristics of. To me, this doesn't imply the reality we perceive is an illusion because it is based on something real. Its just more of a world we create to symbolize what we have learned through our interacting with the characteristics of a Reality we only have a limited view of. We will never be able to see the whole picture. If you feel you have found bliss in some secret wisdom in which you equate yourself with god consciousness, that is just another comforting "illusion" so you might as well enjoy it while you can. If god is all encompassing, then of course we are a part of god. But then nothing is distinguishable from god. If all we can perceive are illusions then why cry about the one we've created? Because he had to let go of the one he had before? I don't get it.  We humans are so silly.


----------



## swilow

turkalurk said:


> Do some research buddy.  Enlightenment is a real human experience that has been verified through scientific investigation.  It simply takes the ability to inhibit right parietal functioning.



Well, that sure sounds simple. Its amusing that one can attain enlightenment through prayer and meditation or an acquired brain injury. I'm not sure that what you refer to as enlightenment is what most religions do though.



> I'm glad we have these kinds of people.  They serve their function.  But, I am sure glad not to be one of them because of the traits many of them seem to share.  Pessimistic, Cycnical, Egoic, Narrow-minded, etc.



I'm not too sure why you've felt it neccesary to go on this rant against atheists. I mean, you always used to litter your posts with assumptions and insults, but this one came from left field. It just dilutes what you say, and always has. You were anatagonistic back when you used to post here and got banned, and nothing has changed. You're really not worth my time.


----------



## Noodle

Sometimes I think true enlightenment is about moving on past this human experience in full.  To me enlightenment means to become one with the source; Becoming one means to not even exist.


----------



## turkalurk

swilow said:


> Well, that sure sounds simple. Its amusing that one can attain enlightenment through prayer and meditation or an acquired brain injury. I'm not sure that what you refer to as enlightenment is what most religions do though.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not too sure why you've felt it neccesary to go on this rant against atheists. I mean, you always used to litter your posts with assumptions and insults, but this one came from left field. It just dilutes what you say, and always has. You were anatagonistic back when you used to post here and got banned, and nothing has changed. You're really not worth my time.



 If I'm not worth your time why did you give it to me? Thanks for a good laugh.  Hope you have found some happiness in this life.  

If you are truly confused, I was comparing your illogical lack of belief in someone's experience of "enlightenment" to another thing people argue stupidly about its existence even though it can never be proven to not exist.  

I was never banned as far as I know.  I've been busy with life.


----------



## vortech

I somehow missed this thread since its inception, but scanning through it wish I had been able to both learn from and contribute  to it. The initial post speaks deeply to my intuited steps on the path to enlightenment (many of which were mentioned in my book). Give me some time to catch up with every post, and I will try to condense my reply.


----------



## swilow

turkalurk said:


> If I'm not worth your time why did you give it to me? Thanks for a good laugh.  Hope you have found some happiness in this life.
> 
> If you are truly confused, I was comparing your illogical lack of belief in someone's experience of "enlightenment" to another thing people argue stupidly about its existence even though it can never be proven to not exist.
> 
> I was never banned as far as I know.  I've been busy with life.



You are an incredible blowhard Turk.


----------



## turkalurk

swilow said:


> You are an incredible blowhard Turk.



Its amazing how you can cling onto any sense of moral high ground.  Where did I insult any person?  I made some personal observations about a particular view point and some stereotypes about the common personality that I personally associate with a majority of the people I come across with a particular extreme viewpoint.  I don't think giving people who express cynical viewpoints the characteristic of being cynical can be taken as an insult to any particular person.   I even noted that you don't even belong to the group I spoke of.  Yet, I am the insulting blowhard.  Count how many insults I directed specifically at you.  Now read back through your posts and count how many you directed specifically at me.  

I take this to mean you have not found the happiness I had hoped for you.  I will keep hoping for you, because despite your ease to frustration, you seem like an alright dude that could use some peace of mind.  Cheers


----------

