the case against enlightenment

[shoe]

Okay;

we thought we'd do it the other way around, and question everything again instead of being positive always! So, why not to believe in enlightenment !!!

1) enlightenment is a state of being in which there is no desire. meaning logically then, you have all your desires fufulled. Enlightenment revolves around suffering, for one very good reason: that no sentient being likes suffering; so, if you can make it go away for them, you win also. I think everyone knows this at some level. If you do, things work better and you get what you want faster and everyone is happier, and so - on, just the way it works. fact. basically, enlightenment means that experience is the real teacher, and we can pass it to eachother through symbols. so, great. what does that mean, what do I get? well, you get understanding, and with that you attain happiness.

2) If you get 'there', meaning, the state of being which you'll return and reincarnate in some place so that you can carry on... I'm just telling you this so that you don't have to bother!!

3) Basically 'being enlightened" means you have free'd all other aspects of yourself and made peace with them. You get there by hoovering up all suffering so that everyone is joyful. then, you become blissful, and with that you have more time, more freedom, and so-on. Although, you don't physically go anywhere, you just have an experience, Your consciousness has an experience, and you can only do that once you're prepared, and you are only there once and then it changes into something else... and also there is no 'there' only here, and now.

My point is only this; these 'avatars' these empty gods, shiva, bhudda, they're the other part but turned around. Usually it's a part you've chosen not to have so that you can be the part which is actively understanding something while we being the inner beings, are just understanding it all through you.

So, take charge, take command, use the tools you do have and make things better.So, your not in a position to understand. I mean LITERALLY, NOT being in a physical, mental, emotional or financial 'position' to understand. So, the only way is experience. We must experience or we have nothing. It all comes from - and back down to - the fact that there is only perfect love and harmony, and absolute blissful unity. another word is 'singularity'. to be singular is to be unified, and yet, about to divide, and enjoy all possible experiences events circumstances places interactions and possibilities.

The minimum process is a simple 'awareness' a feeling, a sensation, by consiousness.

This is my message; If you see some guru pawning you off with some big smile, some happy feeling, so *logically*, he must have a higher feeling... but its not *much* higher, nor does it have to be. only by a hair's width, as you may have heard of that expression... so, be happy, and that's all one has to do!!! If you do not believe in what I say, then challenge it. I guess if you can't, then he truely is the guru, or whatever he says he is.

 

[actualfactual]

enlightenment is subjective.

 

[Kartikay]

enlightenment is subjective.

Seconded. Who says Buddhists got it right? Plus, Buddhists shunned Rick Strassman when he suggested that DMT might be a shortcut. Shame on them.

 

[Dr_Sister]

Can you imagine a bunch of buddhist monks sitting and passing around a glass pipe blazed on dmt? lol

Shoe - I thought that being enlightened was like exhausting your karma so that you don't suffer rebirth. There being nothing left to bring you back. I mean why would an enlightened being WANT to come back, unless they were also some kind of saint?

 

[gibran2]

I don’t know much at all about Buddhism, and I’m about to grossly over-generalize, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt.

It seems to me that most religions and religious philosophies are heavy on the good vs. evil and reward and punishment ideas, including Buddhism. In Christianity, if you behave (good), you go to heaven (reward). If you misbehave and don’t repent (evil), you burn in hell for all eternity (punishment).

Buddhism seems less extreme, but it’s still the same idea – if you strive for and reach enlightenment (good), you achieve Buddhahood (reward). If you fail to achieve enlightenment (evil), you’re condemned to reincarnate and suffer over and over (punishment).

 

[Steely]

Enlightenment holds such a grand and general meaning in a world that has almost 8 billion unique definitions for it.

 

[۩]

enlightenment [ɪnˈlaɪtənmənt]
n
education that results in understanding and the spread of knowledge.

enlightenment

Definition, Synonyms, Translations of enlightenment by The Free Dictionary

www.thefreedictionary.com

 

[Ayawasqero]

enlightenment [ɪnˈlaɪtənmənt]
n
education that results in understanding and the spread of knowledge.

enlightenment

Definition, Synonyms, Translations of enlightenment by The Free Dictionary

www.thefreedictionary.com

Honest thanks for a dictionary explanation, but I´ve already knew that... Peace, dude(tte)...

 

[The Traveler]

enlightenment [ɪnˈlaɪtənmənt]
n
education that results in understanding and the spread of knowledge.

enlightenment

Definition, Synonyms, Translations of enlightenment by The Free Dictionary

www.thefreedictionary.com

It seems to me that a lot of people are pretty good at the spreading part but lack in the understanding side of this definition.


Kind regards,

The Traveler

 

[Ayawasqero]

enlightenment [ɪnˈlaɪtənmənt]
n
education that results in understanding and the spread of knowledge.

enlightenment

Definition, Synonyms, Translations of enlightenment by The Free Dictionary

www.thefreedictionary.com

It seems to me that a lot of people are pretty good at the spreading part but lack in the understanding side of this definition.


Kind regards,

The Traveler

Indeed, dearest Traveler...

 

[Apoc]

what do you mean, The Traveler?

 

[The Traveler]

what do you mean, The Traveler?

Many people like to spread something what they call 'enlightenment', while at the same time they do not understand what that 'enlightenment' is.

"You speak many words but don't say much"


Kind regards,

The Traveler

 

[polytrip]

what do you mean, The Traveler?

Many people like to spread something what they call 'enlightenment', while at the same time they do not understand what that 'enlightenment' is.

"You speak many words but don't say much"


Kind regards,

The Traveler

Enlightenment has a different definition in each culture. In western culture it is not quite the same as in budhism.
There are many branches of budhism as well and i guess that although they formally define enlightenment in the same way, considering their huge differences, the actual meaning for them must be different as well. Hinayana/mahayana is the obvious example of such a rupture within budhism, but i think it's more diverse than that: budhism has blended in with religious beliefs and traditions in almost every place where it became known.
If you see budhism as a philosophy and separate it from hindu-beliefs often incorporated in it, i think enlightenment is not such a complex term: it simply means being rid of all neuroses that have been conditioned including that of the self-image refered to as 'ego'.
Enlightenment in this sense simply means that you have cleared your mind from all that would cloud your judgement.

I can not see how anybody could be against that, except for people like gadhaffi who obviously very much like to cling on to their delusions of grandeur. I don't think most of the mahayana budhists would reject DMT if they knew what it was. That they reject most drugs makes sense.

Hinayana budhists are the 'protestants' among the budhists: They are generally more strict, dogmatic and disciplined in both senses of the word. But even the most dogmatic of these budhists are very liberal compared to the fundamentalists of almost every other religion/philosophy.

One thing you have to admire in budhism, is that it 500 years BC, already cultivated a way of thinking that in the west only became accepted in the early 20th century. It shares much of it's visions on human psychology with freuds theories, except for the eudipus, penis-envy, and other trivial and sexually obsessed parts.

 

[Dr_Sister]

Sister thinks enlightenment can be described as "having experienced the truth", not having read about it, not having been told about it, but having had first hand experience of it.

Even buddhism doesn't expect it adherents to take anyones word for it, they expect them to experience it for themselves, same with yoga. See for yourself, then you will know. Which, in Sisters mind, does much for their credibility.

 

[Kartikay]

If you see Buddhism as a philosophy and separate it from hindu-beliefs often incorporated in it, i think enlightenment is not such a complex term

Seconded. I would go on to say that the philosophy should be separated from organized religion entirely.

But I agree with others, too, that everyone has their own definition of it, often based off of what they believe is the "truth."

Personally, I tend to conceptualize it the same way as Sister, and I think my enlightenment occurred through LSD, followed by an assortment of journeys with shrooms and dmt. That doesn't mean i can even begin to explain it... but I definitely had the experience.

 

[Rising Spirit]

Okay;
we thought we'd do it the other way around, and question everything again instead of being positive always! So, why not to believe in enlightenment !!!

Fair enough. Obviously, any description of 'enlightenment' is not a unilateral consensus amongst philosophers, theologians, sages, shamans or mystics... let alone 21St century psychonauts. There is an old Hindu saying, "As many minds, as many Gods." I propose the idea that we all have a slightly variegated conception of enlightenment. It means something slightly different to each of us, as does much of the human experience. We certainly do all have variegated concepts about the basics definitions of love, honor, truth, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, right?

Take 100 people of varied ages, races, nationalities and IQs. When this diverse group is presented with a number of fundamental questions about any significant topic to human beings, as is sometimes the case, it seems as if they are all talking about slightly different subjects altogether. So how would it be any different in the discussion of enlightenment?

My point? I feel that debating about whether there is or is not, such a state of being and just what we as individuals think about this phenomenon is largely conjecture. That being said, any soul who has had even a taste of this nectar, is forever changed in a profound manner.

enlightenment is subjective.

I wholly agree with aloneits, enlightenment is completely subjective.

There is so much discussion about what it actually is or is not, that we miss the big picture, we forget that until we each reach this level of consciousness, it is all a moot point. Besides, we must discover what this state of mind is like for ourselves. This is far easier said than done... and the understatement of the millennium.

thinks enlightenment can be described as "having experienced the truth", not having read about it, not having been told about it, but having had first hand experience of it.

Even buddhism doesn't expect it adherents to take anyones word for it, they expect them to experience it for themselves, same with yoga. See for yourself, then you will know. Which, in Sisters mind, does much for their credibility.

Yes, this is a wise assessment. If our experience of enlightenment has it's core in The Truth, it will be known directly and any spoken impression of it's revelation is hollow compared to the symbiosis, itself. The implication of a profound universal understanding is key in this equation. :idea:

'Drug enlightenments' on the other hand, is far more common, especially to the psychonautical community at large. Even so, we all have our own unique semantics to use and when you really get down to the nitty-gritty, we are all talking and thinking about slightly differentiated parameters, when we speak of enlightenment. That being said, I believe that we are all going through the same journey of expanding our awareness and these the fundamental aspects of enlightenment, would logically be in accordance with a universal understanding, as each of us share the same source, Spirit.

To me, this sublime state of awareness is one in which the witness to the mystical experience, is engulfed in The Light. Basically, one's consciousness merges with the light of Infinite Spirit and has an eclipsing with the Divine. That is my personal definition and yes, it also includes temporary enlightenments (like those experienced with psychedelics).

Is this the same as with Siddhartha Gautama (Lord Buddha)? Hardly the same ballgame and yet, I believe there is a good deal of similarity in the immersion into the light. You see, there is a very, very specific reason that the 1,000,000,000 images of the Buddha (carved in stone, wood or cast in bronze) have both, a prominent third eye and a crown which is composed of myriad spiralling orbs, each a representation of the expansion of the supraconscious state of mind.

This dawning of the light, as it manifests innumerable illuminations of universal mind, is the totality of awareness. The Thousand Petalled Lotus. IMO, this symbolizes the Grid, the web of interconnectedness by which the unified field of Divine Mind manifests it's Omni-awareness.

In a manner of speaking, that is, for words fall short of encapsulating these states verbally. Essentially, talk about enlightenment is paradoxical, for the experience is beyond the scope of words. It's meaning is perceived differently from culture to culture, spanning the ages. Theological discussions are cloaked in layers of conceptual and often dogmatic terminology.

Whatever this level of awareness is... it's essence must be experienced directly, even if to a lesser degrees than with Lord Buddha, Christ or Socrates.
I personally feel it is fruitless to rationalize about it's existence or dismiss the phenomenon as fantasy.

 

[FastFourierT]

"the case against enlightenment"


YUP.



Who else will flip the burgers for me ? Who else will will tell me how to get the spice out of Mimosa ?

 

[nn-DreemMasterTree]

Love is all around us
Others are aware not just me
Volatile like chemistry can the human mind be
Every thing is one in true reality

I BELIEVE, enlightenment is non region specific. Its a bit more like a flower opening than any one humans opinion even my own...
It has less to do with the path you take or the methods you use eg. drugs, meditation, yoga, religion etc, and more to do with consciousness itself.

 

[narmz]

I don't make a distinction between religious people and non-religious people because they're all following something, the values their parents taught them, the values they read in an old book, or the revelations they've had smoking a drug.

But do you guys ever wonder about how religious views influence our impact on our environment? I took a class about worldviews and environmental values, and one of the first things we learned was to distinguish between religious views that depicted plants and animals aside from humans as being here merely for our benefit, and views which saw them as inherently connected and part of a integral system which we are all equal players within. Good examples of religions that have a small environmental impact are religions like taoism, buddhism, traditional native american belief systems, and many indigenous tribes and cultures.

Other religions, many western religions like christianity employ an idea of lordship over plants and animals, with the belief that they exist purely for our own benefit. There are some stewardship ethics based on christianity that are less extreme than this, but you can see how the disconnect arises between environment and individual when there is a belief that some all-knowing god placed them here specifically for our own purposes.

Taoist societies tend to have very low environmental impacts because they go so far as to include in-animate parcels of reality such as rocks and streams, etc, as integral parts of the whole with their own intrinsic value. They make a coordinated effort to work in harmony with nature.

Some societies, for example the Kayapo people, actually increase the biodiversity of the land they work with, which is quite unique among the human population. They employ a system of circular plantations which begin with food crops in the center and radiate out to larger trees on the extremities. As the plantations grow, the larger trees attracts animals the kayapo hunt, and the inner circles develop food and medicine which they use daily. After they have exhausted the plantation they leave it, and it becomes even more fertile and biodiverse, after which they begin a new circular plantation in another area and the cycle begins again.

When I think about enlightenment, I don't think we necessarily need to limit it to our own 'personal happiness' or 'stability'. I think enlightenment should be tied intimately with our environments, and I see our environments as reflections of this concept. If a religious view tends to appear a certain way on the outside as being dogmatic or whatever you'd like, you can say "oh these people are enslaved by some imaginary beliefs" or you could think hmmm, maybe these people are more comfortable knowing that their beliefs cause them to live a life where they are more in accordance with nature and their surroundings, and yeah maybe it's got some heirarchy and yeah maybe there is some things that seem just downright unfair, but maybe they know that. Maybe they just understand the path they were meant to follow, for their own sanity, and they've weighed the benefits and drawbacks and found their place, they're sense of home in their beliefs, regardless of how stilted others might find them.

 

[SKA]

enlightenment is subjective.

Seconded. Who says Buddhists got it right? Plus, Buddhists shunned Rick Strassman when he suggested that DMT might be a shortcut. Shame on them.

We shouldn't assume that Buddhism is not susceptible to the ignorance that lives in the other religions. It is just as susceptible.

I think the people that are closest to the truth with their view on Life are people like Rick Strassman.
Many religious people suffer from supersticious ignorance and prejudice; Buddhists are not immune to this.
Rick Strassman and other Scientists who have embraced both the Scientific and the Spiritual Worldview and managed to merge the 2 in a balanced way.

I find it strange that someone claiming to be spiritually advanced/refined, claims that shortcuts with natural compounds do not exist; Have these people taken DMT so that they actually know what they are saying is not a shortcut to enlightenment?
I remember Terrence McKenna spoke about sharing some vaporised DMT with Tibetan Buddhist monks and some of them saying that the DMT experience = The Bardo, the immaterial stage of being in between physical lives.