Enlightenment 101

Originally posted by KneverKnight
I'm not sure of this. I'm not sure that there is a "state of mind" that one suddenly arrives at, like crossing a finish line, rather than the possibility of movement toward greater understanding continuing throughout a person's life.
I'll look at Plotinus when I have some time.
EDIT: I found this
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/plotinus.htm

This is going to take more than "some" time ...

I don't believe it is a 'state of mind', I'm a firm believer that water
will not rise above it's source on it's own. So I believe our reaching
this state of enlightenment requires a power/force/being to help us
get past our stinking thinking within our minds. 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't believe it is a 'state of mind', I'm a firm believer that water
will not rise above it's source on it's own. So I believe our reaching
this state of enlightenment requires a power/force/being to help us
get past our stinking thinking within our minds. 🙂
Kelly

I probably wasn't clear.
This enlightenment; can one be somewhat enlightened or is it an all-or nothing state?
Once enlightened, do you stop? Or, continue on to even greater enlightenment?

EDIT this thread is Enlightenment 101, so I can ask dumb questions.🙂

Originally posted by KneverKnight
I probably wasn't clear.
This enlightenment; can one be somewhat enlightened or is it an all-or nothing state?
Once enlightened, do you stop? Or, continue on to even greater enlightenment?

EDIT this thread is Enlightenment 101, so I can ask dumb questions.🙂

I don't believe it ever stops. Not a dumb question either. I would say
that what God gives is like a plumb line, so you can see things a little
more clearly with a new perspective, and they can become clearer as
you get closer to God. I guess it is that seeing through a glass darkly
type of thing.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't believe it is a 'state of mind', I'm a firm believer that water
will not rise above it's source on it's own. So I believe our reaching
this state of enlightenment requires a power/force/being to help us
get past our stinking thinking within our minds. 🙂
Kelly

…a power/force/being to help us get past our stinking thinking within our minds.

Well put. Deferring the question of whether that power comes from within or without, etc. (since this is not a thread for theological debate, I think), or what we name it—it is not our ego-self, itself constructed of thoughts, words, images, memories and other “mind-makings” that ultimately point round in a circle toward themselves—or just to more of the same: “our stinking thinking within our minds.”

There is a Zen saying: “Don’t seek the truth; just drop all your opinions.” Then you may find yourself “face to face” with the truth that is reality unmediated by thoughts, prior to all words or images or thoughts. And if you try to describe it—your words may point to it, like “a finger pointing at the moon,” but the words are never It.

EDIT: "...like a finger pointing at the moon...": plumb-line is is another good metaphor...
🙂

LH --

1. Why do you think that ordinary, common-sense ways of viewing reality, God, truth, purpose of life etc. are flawed?

I would not use the term "flawed", but rather, limited. By "common sense ways" I'm assuming you mean conventional ways of viewing life, or even God as taught in traditional religion. What I'm pointing toward is the possibility of a breakthrough experience in understanding Reality, and our relationship with it.

2. Why do you think there is one Answer and not many (maybe one for each human, but not necessarily)?

It's true that I made reference to an "ultimate answer" in my first post in this thread, but this "answer" that I'm suggesting does in fact exist, does not (as I mean it, or see it to be) involve an immediate resolution of all life challenges or an end to our individual responsibilities. Our life remains a "work in progress", even in the face of recognizing that one has "seen the gold".

Now as KellyJay and Vistesd were referring to -- albeit likely with different things in mind -- I don't believe that our limited human personalities/egos are capable of resolving this issue. There does in fact need to be a kind of "quantum leap", if you will, in the inward dimension.

But let's look for one moment and simply ask the question, "what is it that has been with us for our whole life? -- in a fashion that has been essentially consistent?

We can't really say anything external on that level, be it friends, family, or objects, as all these have been changing and coming and going, for the most part. We can't even really suppose that our body fits this criteria of ongoing consistency, because the body is always changing, its very cellular structure replacing itself over time.

We can't say our minds either, at least not in terms of our thinking processes. Thoughts comes and go, something like clouds in the sky. How they arise is inherently mysterious. And the personality that they come to define -- our beliefs, perceptions, memories, and so forth -- is also not truly consistent.

But there is something that has been "with us" from as far back as we can remember. More than "with us", this what I'm referring to is us, at the deepest level. It's simply consciousness, presence, our interior sense of "am-ness".

At a very early age, the "I" was not there because we interacted with the world without boundaries, our consciousness undifferentiated. At a certain point, the "I" or personal ego arises, as a sense of separation from all things (roughly by age 2 or 3, also about when the first memories form). But this "I" is really an artificially created reference point. It is a wave in an ocean. We come to assume its solidity and permanance, but when we look at it closely, it has none. It's a collection of assumptions, memories, beliefs, etc.

When we begin to see deeply into the illusory nature of the "I", a whole field of possibilities begins to open up. Initially, this is a frightening or disturbing prospect for the ego, and this is why there can be such intense resistance to any sort of introspection, let alone spiritual realization. The ego, naturally, does not want to lose its hold, and for good reason, as the ego has a job to do. It looks after the body, and maintains our boundaries in the world, and our capacity to interact intelligently with others.

But the ego also tends to take over, and run the show. It becomes obsessed with itself, and its need to constant enforce its views onto reality and others. It tries to shape the world in its own image, if you will, via projections. Wherever it looks, it sees itself.

Once there is a deep recognition of one's ego patterns, and of what this ego is, there is a natural recognition of a vastness in which the ego is arising at all times. We could call this "vastness" the background context, the empty sky in which clouds (thoughts) are always taking form and dissolving.

Then what happens when we look directly into this "empty sky"? What happens when we look directly at pure awareness itself?

And more to the point, who is doing the looking? What happens when we watch the watcher?

So the inquiry evolves into one of "what is consciousness"? What becomes apparent is that no intellectual answer to this truly satisfies. All that can be done is to experientially enter into the process by paying careful attention to the still, silent presence at the center of awareness. What also becomes apparent is how this "still silent presence" is always there, even if we get caught up in noisy, distracted thinking.

Originally posted by Metamorphosis
LH --

[b]1. Why do you think that ordinary, common-sense ways of viewing reality, God, truth, purpose of life etc. are flawed?

I would not use the term "flawed", but rather, limited. By "common sense ways" I'm assuming you mean conventional ways of viewing life, or even God as taught in traditional religion. What I'm pointing tow ...[text shortened]... ill silent presence" is always there, even if we get caught up in noisy, distracted thinking. [/b]

What also becomes apparent is how this "still silent presence" is always there, even if we get caught up in noisy, distracted thinking.

That’s very helpful. But as I get caught up in the busy-ness of the day or the busy-ness of my own head, I forget. And I get caught up in nets of habitual distractions. I can always “find” it again, but I can’t seem to “keep” it—say, while feeding the goats, certainly not while reading, and only once that I remember during an extended conversation. I know it’s always there, but it seems somehow tragic to me that I can only “know” it during rest or meditation, or like the other night, suddenly, while gazing at "the misty stars."

Any counsel?

That’s very helpful. But as I get caught up in the busy-ness of the day or the busy-ness of my own head, I forget. And I get caught up in nets of habitual distractions. I can always “find” it again, but I can’t seem to “keep” it—say, while feeding the goats, certainly not while reading, and only once that I remember during an extended conversation. I know it’s always there, but it seems somehow tragic to me that I can only “know” it during rest or meditation, or like the other night, suddenly, while gazing at "the misty stars."

Any counsel?


That's really the perennial challenge faced by truth-seekers. How to deepen or maintain this awareness.

There's only one thing I've found to be an effective determining factor in this investigation, and that's a passion for truth. The passion has to go beyond an intellectual fencing over issues or teachings. There simply has to be a prioritizing for this desire to recognize truth. As the commitment to know it deepens, so to do the results -- the "fruits", if you will.

You've probably heard the old expression -- "resources follow commitment, not the other way around." In other words, we commit to something, and then, much like Goethe's famous words about the "boldness" and "magic" involved in commitment, things happen. But usually the ego likes to do it the other way round -- "give me the resources first, and then maybe I'll get serious." That is, the ego is involved in bargaining all the time.

They have an expression in Zen -- "leap before you look". Not exactly the basis of our modern skeptical, cynical times, but it isn't about "blind trust", actually. It's more about not allowing the mind to obscure our intention to recognize deeper and deeper states of spiritual realization.

So I'd say that "love of truth" is essential.

Then, we get into "what is truth?", and the fun begins... 😉

Originally posted by Metamorphosis
[b]That’s very helpful. But as I get caught up in the busy-ness of the day or the busy-ness of my own head, I forget. And I get caught up in nets of habitual distractions. I can always “find” it again, but I can’t seem to “keep” it ...[text shortened]...

Then, we get into "what is truth?", and the fun begins... 😉

They have an expression in Zen -- "leap before you look". Not exactly the basis of our modern skeptical, cynical times, but it isn't about "blind trust", actually. It's more about not allowing the mind to obscure our intention to recognize deeper and deeper states of spiritual realization.

[/b]Aha! Nailed me. (“Let me just take another peek….; maybe that really wasn’t it—after all don’t you have to….?&rdquo😉

Originally posted by Metamorphosis
LH --

[b]1. Why do you think that ordinary, common-sense ways of viewing reality, God, truth, purpose of life etc. are flawed?

I would not use the term "flawed", but rather, limited. By "common sense ways" I'm assuming you mean conventional ways of viewing life, or even God as taught in traditional religion. What I'm pointing tow ...[text shortened]... ill silent presence" is always there, even if we get caught up in noisy, distracted thinking. [/b]

It sounds like you're refering to something I once heard described as the super subconscience. Do you know what I'm talking about?

Some view it in terms of your conscience, subconscience then a more difficult area to reach, our super subconscience. It is said this is within us all and is possible to reach with realizations of our limitations placed by our subconscience. Usually accomplished through meditation. Just wondering if anyone else has heard of this or if this is similar to what you're disscusing.

Originally posted by mokko
It sounds like you're refering to something I once heard described as the super subconscience. Do you know what I'm talking about?

Some view it in terms of your conscience, subconscience then a more difficult area to reach, our super su ...[text shortened]... as heard of this or if this is similar to what you're disscusing.

Hi mokko. Yeah, that's right, only I think maybe you mean "superconscious". ( The conscience is usually meant to refer to the part of the ego that is concerned with moral values, etc. -- Freud called it the "superego" ).

A natural way to look at it is

1 - subconscious

2 - conscious

3 - superconscious

Traditional Western psychology really has no model for the "superconscious" mind, and it not much concerned with it, except in the transpersonal schools. For that, you mostly have to turn to Eastern teachings, such as Advaita, Zen, and Tibetan Buddhism, although there they will not use a term like "superconscious", tending more to refer to it as our "natural state", the state of the mind when it is free of confused thinking.

So the "superconscious" is, in one respect, not "super" at all, but utterly natural, our birthright. The main idea behind it is that it sees through the veil of separation. It sees that space (and time) are constructions of the mind, interpretations of something that is not what we think it to be.

Here's an example most people can relate to -- you're walking along a country path. You come across a flower. Your mind is full of thoughts, noisy thoughts. You look at the flower, but you don't see it. The colors are dull, the fragrance barely there. You walk away and soon forget about it.

Or...you come across the same flower -- and your mind is quiet, one-pointed, focussed on the flower. You are present with it. Suddenly the colors of the flower are brilliant. The fragrance is obvious. The flower is very real, a vivid experience.

In fact, the more present we are with it, the more real it becomes. And if we're totally present with it, with the mind totally a rest, then there can occur a momentary experience of "unity" or oneness with the flower. Subject dissolves into object. In Sanskrit, they call this "samadhi", in Zen, "satori".

The same thing happens when with other people. We can be talking to someone and realize afterwards that we saw their mouth moving but the whole time heard nothing they said. But if truly and fully present with them, there is the possibility of knowing them in the truest sense.

So this state of being deeply present with something is sometimes called "superconsciousness" but from another perspective, the term "natural state" is just as good, because it is our ability to experience reality free of conceptual distortions that take us out of the moment.

I remember reading a book (The Tao of Physics?) it was quite a while ago. The book was concerned with coincidences between some "Eastern" thought and modern physics.
One of the ideas explored was the nature of light: is it a particle or a wave?
Very briefly, Newton thought that light consisted of particles and this view more or less prevailed until some other scientists did experiments that showed light to be a wave.
The came the Double Slit Experiment (Shining light through two closely-spaced slits onto a photographic plate and observing the result)
With both slits open, an interference pattern emerged on the plate, which showed that light was a wave. However, with only one slit open, light was shown to be a particle.
Huh?
The experiment was tried with electrons, same result. Even firing electrons at two open slits one at a time produced wave-like interference patterns, which seemed to mean that the electron was going through both slits at the same time ...
It turned out that if one did an experiment looking for waves, one got waves. Look for particles and get particles.
Is light a particle or a wave? Depends on how you look at it, but what is it when you're not looking?
Since you have to look at it to tell, and looking at it in different ways gives different results, it appears to be the type of thing that is resistant to "ordinary" methods.
It seemed like a Zen riddle.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
I remember reading a book (The Tao of Physics?) it was quite a while ago. The book was concerned with coincidences between some "Eastern" thought and modern physics.
One of the ideas explored was the nature of light: is it a particle or a wave?
Very briefly, Newton thought that light consisted of particles and this view more or less prevailed until ...[text shortened]... o be the type of thing that is resistant to "ordinary" methods.
It seemed like a Zen riddle.

the wave- particle duality of matter was proven when C60 did the same.
and buckyballs have the same diameter as a DNA strand

Originally posted by frogstomp
the wave- particle duality of matter was proven when C60 did the same.
and buckyballs have the same diameter as a DNA strand

C60 is the most common fullerene, right?
I take it that the buckyball/DNA concurrence is not coincidence?

Originally posted by Metamorphosis
Hi mokko. Yeah, that's right, only I think maybe you mean "superconscious". ( The conscience is usually meant to refer to the part of the ego that is concerned with moral values, etc. -- Freud called it the "superego" ).

A natural way to look at it is

1 - subconscious

2 - conscious

3 - superconscious

Traditional Western psyc ...[text shortened]... ur ability to experience reality free of conceptual distortions that take us out of the moment.

Alright, on track now. It's been alot of years since I read that book but superconscience IS what I was talking about. (and superego)

I remember it teaching techniques on how to reach our superconscience through meditation. As I recall it was described something like this...

Picture your brain as the earth. There's the outer crust, the conscience; the middle layer being the subconscience; and then the core of it all, the superconscience.

It went on to explain the superconscience as open and free at birth, but through growth and experience we slowly begin to build up a brick wall around this "core" (as you said around age 2-3 when we develope a sense of self.)

It's through meditation that a person begins to break down this brick wall one brick at a time. Each brick representing a negative force which prevents us from reaching our natural state. The bricks or barriers are in the forms of fears, predudice, anger, hatred, preconcieved notions and such. they are hard for many of us to break down, for some of these exist only in our subconscience where we ourselves are not even aware of their presence.

I don't know if this is related but my father took a course one time in how to astro travel (?) It was a method of using the your mind to physically travel outside yourself. I believe it's main purpose was as a healing technique of others mabey, I was fairly young and trying to remember best I can. I know that after this course whenever I became ill my father would sit with me and get me to imagine a white light sourounding my body. There were different colors for different healings. Is anyone familiar with what I'm talking about?

Originally posted by frogstomp
the wave- particle duality of matter was proven when C60 did the same.
and buckyballs have the same diameter as a DNA strand

FYI: http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/SizeofThings.html