It's certain that enlightenment means different things to different people, and so I'm curious what it means to other people, and also to throw out a few questions to provoke thought.

Is Enlightenment an experience, process, realization, way of living, or what?

Is Enlightenment a multi-faceted word that is context-dependent and relative, or are there absolute truths that are invariably associated with any type of Enlightenment?

What are the 'truths', if any, that would invariably be realized/experienced thru Enlightenment?

Is Enlightenment an all-or-none experience (AHA experience) or is it a gradual accumulation of wisdom?

What is the relation of Enlightenment to mystical experience?

Please note that the above constitutes a partial list and is not meant to exhaust the range of questions that could, and should, be asked.

Personally, I believe the statement, "We are the Universe conscious of Itself", is on a par with Buddha's "All that we are, is the result of what we have thought" from the opening of the Dhammapada, and that both constitute part of a collection of truths that are invariably experienced during what I think many would call Enlightenment.   The task at hand, though, is to clarify this notion of Enlightenment to the best of our abilities thru mere verbal communication.  Is anyone up to this challenge?

i believe that enlightement is comming to terms with the person you are and understanding the needs and requirments of your soul.
I believe to be totaly enlightened you must be at complete peace with yourself, no conflicting emotions or feeling the need to prove yourself to anyone else.
You will be able to live on wat u need and take pleasure in the things you want to take pleasure in. In this state i belive that every part f life would be a pleasure.

Enlightenment is very personal in the sense that it is never about anyone else only you.
The question would be who are you?
The answer inevitably leads to the realization that you are all that.
There may be many ways to approach this, and by surface appearances many languages and methods but in truth they are all the same. You remove the illusions and no matter how it is described the infinite one remains the same. The road to it may look different but if you travel the road the trip is the same trip and "it" the "Goal" or destination never changes, only the many stops that can be misconstrued as the destination. Once one releases the beliefs that bind one to their ideas then the mind expands. I'm not talking about just an experience for experiences are many and they constantly change. You could watch a movie and have an experience of it, watch it again another day and have another experience. So it is not the things around us that are stable and it would be a waste of time to try and stabilize the changing ideas and the world around us. The stability or expansion is into the relationship we have with change and the world and then beyond to the consciousness that has or can have a relationship. Although the Self can have many experiences and appear to evolve, it doesn't, only the awareness of it evolves.    
From a reference point of earthbound awareness in the human experience most limit themselves to their personality, beliefs, and experiences that will exist in the inevitable or the popular belief of being born, living your life and then dying.
What drove man/woman to the question of who am I was the spark of inner knowing that it all comes from somewhere and has to have more to it. Mostly this comes from personal revelations in experiencing serendipitous events that can't be explained but are easily cast aside as something that is not of any relevance if it doesn't fit somewhere. Those that have looked further into finding a way to fit the unfittable have found deeper meanings to their worlds and their lives.
The intellect expands and then it goes even further as the intellect runs out of room to contain all its ideas. Then the Self gets bigger than just the idea of the human body and the birth and death process.

This process has been described in as many different ways as can be imagined but they all have the same inward stroke of expansion from limited to the unlimited, or uncontainable, of the awareness of consciousness recognizing Consciousness.

Is it mystic? to some it would be easier to swallow to leave it all to an outside force like magic, that things happen, even miraculous things.

No one can ever convince another of the reality of the absolute infinite unchanging presence that has a zillion names and yet can't be named. It is a personal experience that grows with faith and acceptance of something greater than what one experiences in any given moment. Most sages speak of a surrender to something greater always, in any experience that exists, and it continues to drive or support every action and experience in all things. Realizing that and uniting with that is always subject to ego and its interpretation based on the idea that "I think therefore I am." "I" can be so limited or so expanded but if it is based in separation or duality then there can be no union.

Enlightenment is a name given to the awareness that starts out in limitation and expands into limitless Self. IT can be called anything you want and has. You can talk about it analyze it and also realize it. Talking about it involves very little effort in actualizing it, doing it involves the discipline to create a different paradigm by moving the awareness into something greater and more stable than experience. If you can find it and track it, it will by its nature expand awareness gradually, or very fast depending on how easily you allow each experience along the way to go and be replaced by the next and then inevitably let it all go for the brass ring that has always been there underlying the experiences, the ideas and the process.
Enlightenment is a process, it is a way of living and a name given to something because maybe it sounded good in respect to the minds created ideas in definition.
Like anything else it has an application to the surrounding environment and the laws that support its continuing structure such as living and dying. How that is colored can be chosen but the basic game board seems to be upheld by popular belief and choice to maintain its design. It only takes one to initiate a change. That'd be you.
Enlightenment can happen instantaneously, in a single lifetime or in many lifetimes, there are no rules. Once one aligns with the upward currents of life and creation and realizes their immortal Self there is no more concern, no more investment into the ideas of good or bad. One sits in the infinite peace that passes all understanding and enjoys the bliss or the freedom from the nervous systems reactions to likes and dislikes, fear, hate and suffering.
I really liked Maharishi Mahesh Yogis answer to a young college student at one of his open forums in the late sixties concerning the importance of enlightenment over the suffering conditions of the world. He specifically asked Maharishi if it wouldn't be better to focus on feediing the worlds hungry and changing the conditions that caused suffering. Maharishis' response was that what created the conditions were learned in the minds of the people that created the conditions and beliefs in competition, good and bad. People isolate themselves from each other in their own values of worth and classes. Man will step over man in the competition to establish security in their lives and if it is all taken away then what do they have. Stability comes from within and if a man is hungry and enlightened he will be a "happy" hungry man. A happy stable person is much more focussed and able to create from an open perspective than a suffering man who carries with him the idea of defeat and negativity. If life appears to be non supportive then man would have no reference point in stability but remain a victim to circumstances ever waiting for some outside force to provide the inspiration to create his or her life.

read 'One Taste' by Ken Wilber.  You wont be disappointed.  From a man who has realised the highest 'satori' (I dunno exactly what the 'state' is called).  Ken has studied the various mystical traditions from both east and west using an 'integral' approach.

According to him, as well as the buddhists, yogi's etc there are various stages of realisation.  It is said that there are varying degrees of 'enlightenment', and that past certain stages, one needs to maintain a practice (meditation) to maintain the 'enlightenment'.  Zen buddhists call the ACT of sitting zazen 'enlightenment'.  I strongly suspect that this is one of those things that need to be experienced to understand.  Just as you cant adequatly use words to describe what LSD is like to a person who has never tripped .

Yes!!!  I love finding good questions to ask- they are better than getting good awnsers!

The word 'enlightenment' is going to mean different things to different people- 'specially when you compare those who have actually experienced the realisation.  Oxford American dictionary:

enlightened: (adj)freed from ignorance or prejudice

WOW! who would have thought..?..  From what Ive read about the subject- thats right on!

enlightenment is when the need for ontological investigation is satisfied.  The vector inverts from the ontological to the teleological, the 'initiate' has been born.  'Aha' is the turning point, and it's all downhill from there

8)

Samahdi, Satori or in the west the peace which passeth all understanding.
Patanjali describes in the Yoga Sutras the different stages of enlightenment.
Each state of consciousness has its own unique aspects in relationship to the experience and the minds activity.
Just as in waking dreaming sleeping there are various levels of mental and physical activity there are different mental and physical characteristics in expansion of consciousness and stabilization of the awareness of the absolute.

Patanjali describes the 1st stage as the awareness of the absolute, the second stage as the stable awareness that does not go away, then exhalted consciousness where the heart expands and celestial vision and intuitive awareness grows and the final stage of Union with God and the absolute.
Discipline to change the reference point from beliefs to the absolute awareness must be constant to change the direction of the minds focus when it has become stuck in one direction and habitual in its thoughts and beliefs in stress and illusions. Once Union has been established the process continues in refinement of the awareness and the learning to manipulate and work with creation as it is established.
The process can be very easy or difficult depending on how attached the self is to Ego and personal desires.

I don't know who God is, so I can't deal with him.
I have read the perverbial ten thousand books, finding many of them puzzling, the ones I understood were an intellectual understanding and did not carry the heat necessary for transformation.  Most of them were a waste of time, because they were talking about them and not me and I could not make the necessary translation.
I studied many religions, movements , joined or looked at communities, drank, took substances. some other things as well.
At one time I compiled a dynamic list of the top 100 books and tried to read them all, I failed or rather lost interest.
I would meet someone of interest and at the end of the conversation ask them who the wisest person they knew was and if appropriate, ask for an arranged introduction and repeat the same with that person.  With many interesting excursions.
In the end I found it was all in my back yard, not out there. I am a Westerner, not an oriental or Easterner or even American Indian.  I had to live with the shape of my psyche.
I tried science, mysticism, religion, desperate to get out of my own skinbag and become someone else.
In the end I found the only thing that worked was to begin with myself and understand, who was I?  I was finally left with only me.  I was not bright enough to follow in someone else's footprints especially when I didn't grok their instructions or lack of them.  I don't understand what the hell Patanjali is talking about, his statements are just too intuitive for me to put any of them to work, but I do understand how to find out what I am about.  I tuned in, in my own fashion to my own genius, who tells me specifically what to do with my problems.
I found and decode the visionary dreams that can be turned on, they are the first tool.  These dreams, are the source of most visionary movements in the world, IMO.  I do not know how many people can do this.  The people that are attracted to it, I guess.
I hope to write about them here and the cultures that base their wisdom on them, if I don't levitate first.
I have talked with Shawn and became a moderator to do this for a short period of time.

Hi Synch

I am glad to hear this, and look forward to reading your musings.  I appreciate when others share hard-earned wisdom.  I'm guessing you are going to moderate your own section? with each essay starting a thread?  (hint hint  ;D )

Hi Dan,
Thanks for the support.  Just for now I'm moderating here in the philosophy section and  the neurophysiology, consciousness, psychology section.
I am not quite sure how to begin.  Some that I am pondering:
Dreams, their interpretation, how they relate to neurophysiology and consciousness and psychology.
The many cultures that are dream based and the similarities of those cultures.  Visionaries in history that movements formed around.  
I thought I might begin with Christianity and its roots first since many are familiar with that movement, giving some idea of how things were put together rather than the strict party line.  I am still wide open as how to start.
Your continuing suggestions are most welcome.
John

my advice for starting: just jump in and start swimming!  At first stuff might look random, but with time you can organize, modify and fill in gaps.  Eventually, Voila! you have a book!  well, maybe not Voila!, this is going to be work after all    

Just have fun with it for now

Dan,
Your right, the next gust of wind will tell me what to do.

Joe:  You have such a good grasp on Patangali, one that I could not achieve.  I did not mean to diminish your observations, only indicate a difficulty that I have.  My pragmatism requires that I have a firm basis of understanding for what my approach should be.  I need to have an instruction set to go along with the kit.
For instance, what is the construct of the ego?  What is its job?  How does it organize as the highest organizing principle in this society?  Does it survive in a new reconfiguration of the psyche?  What is the shape of the new and next highest organising principle?  How does the shape of our psyche relate to our underlying neurophysiology and brain anatomy?  If I don't have reasonable answers for this the extrodinary survival mechanism built into my psyche will not allow me to go anywhere.  So my path took me in a direction to understand these questions first.  A strange path that leads to walking down both sides of the street simultaneously.
In principle uncertain,
John
John

Evolution is an idea yet God experiences God, or consciousness experiences itself. In the many multidimensional realities the basis for any reality is upheld by the natural laws that hold it together.
Pure Consciousness is stillness but consciousness is also active.
If the basic nature of water is to be in its molecular state, its active states may be looked at as steam, liquid or solid in form or its molecular activity, NOTE: this only a crude attempt at an analogy.
Ego is a name given to the self in recognition of its self. self can be any form. The foundation given to consciousness has been called many things, the unnamed the formless, the transcendant by the TM group etc. It is the underlying principle of all of creation and consciousness. Consciousness is active and is aware whereas the foundation of it is still and lies inactive like a log. It remains in infinite potential as consciousness draws from it. Like claymation where something appears from the nothing conmsciousnes creates and forms matter from an infinite field of energy, love, wisdom or whatever idea you wish to give to it.
The Ego has varying degrees of depth.
In the vedic stories Brahma was born of the infinite, or God awakened from stillness into activity and became self aware and so gave himself a name. He then creates Siva and Vishnu or the aspects of creation, destruction and maintenance. In western ideas God creates nature, the forces that direct cause and effect and the cycle of continuation.

The teachings of consciousness are varying, they apply to the different levels of awareness. Like different grades in school you can't always take a preschooler and put him in a quantum physics class without first ecucating him into the basics of the world that supports the idea of it. First you teach him the language how it works, educate him into the basic structure of community and thought, by introducing history and value systems and by the time he has progressed into the understandings of the system and can be useful to society he can then apply himself to deeper understandings of the structure of that reality.
Children are born  innocent and are born from omniscience. They are taught to forget where they come from and to learn where they are going and who they are by a system that supports a collection of ideas and beliefs.
The mind caught in the beliefs and ideas of structure rather than the infinte potential that supports all the multidimensional structures has to unlearn the rules.
The deeper you go into the reasoning and the rules the more the mind establishes certain rules as the foundation for reality, yet they change one rule for another without noticing that the rules keep changing. Still, habit keeps trying to establish one rule to maintain stability. In this process,the less innocense is the nature of the thought process and the more ignoring of the subtler aspects of creation as one keeps trying to anchor the support system into solid realities. Only at very infrequent intervals are paradigms replaced for new ones and this process is forever recycling itself in the same illusion of separation from the True nature of the Self.

One of the things that splits man from God is the logical reasoning that supports the negating of ideas that don't fit.

Where history speaks of stories about a man who can raise the dead, walk on water, turn water into wine and heal the sick, it becomes a fantasy for the disgruntled who are locked into illusions of pain and suffering and creates hope of an outside force to take away all the things that cause suffering and mortality. Sadly they learned the very things from their parents and society that continue to support the ideas that maintain beliefs in fear, self worth and hatred. They wait for a sign or a person to give them freedom and yet human free will has always been a choice to choose to focus on what you will make real.

Patanjali states in his descriptions of the mind and body connections that once the attention is turned from the foundations of ideas and beliefs to the supporting foundation of all realities that the foundations of belief cannot stand on their own against greater realities. The illusions are crushed by the wisdom and infiite love that supports all ideas. Like putting a man in a closet for ten years the only thing he knows is what is in that closet, once taken out of the closet to be exposed to the world then he has to give up the reality that the closet is all there is.

At subtler levels of awareness and higher states of consciousness the DNA is triggered and creates chemical changes in the body which enhance the body and the mind in its functions. One of the chemicals released as one turns inward is called Soma. Soma is and has been called the glue of the universe. It allows the subtler aspects of creation to be percieved more readily like taking the blinders off of the eyes more light is let in. In deeper more expanded states of Brahman the Soma is further refined into Amrita which has also been called the immortality molecule, the legendary fountain of youth.
Scientists have discovered that cells in the body don't necessarily have to die. Their nature to metabolise and function normally is only compromised by stress. The mind body connection has been explored by many scientists and find that the mind has a powerful effect on the well being of the body. If the mind is freed from its ideas that hold it into limitation then it expands into its higher levels of natural abilities. The body produces any number of chemicals much better than any pharmacutical labrotory, and in the right amounts without any side effects.

There are stories, even documents that tell of people living for a thousand years but fear based religions and societal leaders over the ages who wish to maintain control and power have poo pooed the ideas and even condemned them as demonic.

Fear to cross the lines of basic structures in reality as taught and upheld by the majority is what keeps the ego locked in the closet. Belief and fear so deep that the mind will not look around to see if there is more even if it doesn't believe what it sees keeps the mind locked in its endless chatter of the 100,000 thoughts that it thinks a day.

Once the mind gets a taste, just once of that stillness the heart knows. The problem is the conflict in the heart and minds realities splits the awareness and needs to be guided into peace.
Only when the heart becomes stronger than the minds ideas does the mind surrender to seek for something other than what it has seen and heard. At first it may be for more intellectual knowledge but when the heart overcomes the stress of fear and insanity of fear based realities it draws from the universe all the appropriate tools and needs to support the return of consciousness and union with God rather than separation and duality.
The universe exists to support any idea and reality one chooses to focus on. That is its basic nature. What you wish to understand and make real so you shall experience.
The mind cannot contain at the usual 5-10% levels of its normal thinking what the universe is. As one unlearns the rules of structure deeper levels of the mind open.
So far the glory of our world and universe has not lived up to the potential of 100% of our brain capacity, this seems rather obvious. One way to find out what is there is to drop the ideas that what you know isn't all there is, this is humbleness, how far and fast you go depends on how strong your egos grip is. The mind needs to be able to move laterally even multidemensionally rather than just in a linear fashion. This can be breifly touched on with drugs and mind alteration but there is no foundation or structure to understanding when you THROW the mind into the unknown. Structure is needed to break down structure, like easing into a hot tub. The mind lost in its ideas can be thrown into chaos without first establishing a reference point to anchor itself,  before traversing into the many realities. This Patanjali states quite clearly as does the Ghita, the Bible and all teachings of enlightenment. One first needs to turn the attention towards the infinte one, the everpresent unchanging reality so that it will not be lost in the changing ideas or any single idea.
Ego as the servant allows the awareness to be anything. Ego as the master only maintains awareness in the closet.

To be completely ego less would be to remain completely still and inactive yet this is not what the sages have taught regarding enlightenment, it is only one aspect. In meditation we can achieve this perfect stillness but we do not commit ourselves to be an inactive creation or inactive within creation, only our awareness anchored in stillness. As long as the connection to the body exists we can create immortality and pure conscious awareness without dropping the body and residing only in nothingness. Consciousness already does that by its pure nature. The game is to create it in activity not delete activity. Gods nature is to create. Losing site of itself is not in its truest nature but an idea created to experience an aspect of itself. We can be whatever we wish to be but to be consciously aware of our potential grants more freedom to "be" rather than to be what someone has told us or what we have chosen in limitation.

Joe,
Two things I have to say.  They are about me.  When I read your posts I very much distracted by that image you have of a man's head being blown off that it is hard to read your post.
Second, I get the impression you are talking from afar, now I know you are not pontificating, but, what is it?  May be its the God thing I have.  I have never seen him.
A lot of people claim to talk for him, especially preachers.
But, I think they are talking about what they think he is saying because the same people seem to have difficulties of their own that if they had God as an advisor they would never get into trouble in the first place.  And I never saw any one of them levitate, nor get even an extra twenty dollars except from the people they were preaching to.
So, being the average screwed up guy that I am, I like what you are saying, you really know a lot about Patangali, much more than I do, and I don't want my eyes to glaze over, so can you bring it down to my size?
Thanks,
John

Sure what would you like to know or do you have a specific question or did you want me to simplify what I just wrote or try and explain where I am coming from?

You don't like the avatar? Sheesh! I thought it was appropriate since there is so much thinking going on here. Heady topics large vocabularies and deep topics regarding the sciences of reality. I personally thought it was kinda funny.

Where ever you go there you are. The universe is a reflection of the self. Whatever you know it to be the supporting structure of life lives up to your expectations. Simple enough?

People don't realize who they are is by design. The structure of any creation no matter the interpretation is woven into a tapestry and each thread has its particular flavor to it.
Like society being made up of the various types if you step back from the many faces that look so different there is only a crowd. Step back far enough and there is a planet. The microcosm is reflected in the macrocosm.
Recently science has discovered what they call a second brain in the stomach area of the body. A set of neurological fibers like in the brain that transmit feelings. Like Gut feelings....
Anyway the body also has produced within the cells neuropeptides which are like little transmitters which send signals to other cells which also have reciever sites. The body is literally a thinking machine. The world or the planet with all its little cells or people have their own receiver sites and transmitters and are intimately connected together.
You can go in any direction either smaller or larger but within each universe are more universes.
These things are learned through stories published by the authors of books and read by the people that are interested. Knowledge is based on what is gained through the many stories and ideas that are interpreted as reality and absorbed, what becomes knowledge also becomes experience or visa versa. The funny thing is who sets the standards and who becomes the authority for the standards. Life is learned mostly at face value. We are born into a scenario that gives us an option if that's possible to take on our parents as an authority, as a system of guidence as they did with their parents. Certain influencing factors seem to guide society along into structure, into basic beliefs that keep changing as we evolve.
500 years ago science recognised the world as being flat and the sun and stars rotating around the earth. Today we know differently. As we change in our thinking the world seems to change or perhaps it is only a reflection of what we are capable of taking in as reality.
There is a series of books called the life and teachings of the masters of the far east. Printed by devorss press. It chronicles the journies of a team of scientists that travel to the himalayas to spend time with the enlightened masters. There they meet people who are 400, 600 and even 900 years old. These people, these scientists witness the enlightened masters display all of the legendary abilities that were described of Jesus. Instantaneus teleportation, telepathy, instant healing and the ability to levetate and move objects at will by will.
Of course the material is always subject to the acceptance of the minds ability to open its self to the unknown, or to take the known and set it down to handle a greater possibility or greater known.
In one part of the story they make reference to Christ/Jesus being a regular visitor of the enlightened group as are other ascended masters that have risen beyond physical limitations of the body but are able to at will recreate the denser form to further expand those that are seeking more, or those that are focused themselves on rising above their own limitations.
God does not ignore seekers of truth and at this time the earth is ripening and moving towards a prophesied threshold.
God is speaking thru so many right now and I am only a servant or a vessel for the voice. I do not attempt to pontificate but it will be taken that way. That is not my problem, only a problem for those that wish to look at it that way.
I don't see a problem.
What I have said and read I also have experienced. Anyone can, I have been witness to many who have and many more who are moving into the experience.
Just as Science continues to break the foundations of the structure of the world, the infinite breaks the structure of beliefs and stress. Without stress the body functions like a well maintained machine. Under stress it is like running an engine without maintenance, it ages and dies.
The teachings of the enlightened are passed from teacher to student not as idea but as actual truths in experience. Most teachings have been isolated due to the inability to take in the reality of subtler levels of existence and form.
2000 years ago Jesus planted a seed of infinite consciousness and unconditional love in a society that traded and treated its women like sheep, cattle and goats. Male logic based on survival was the standard for life. What was important was  basic survival, food and clothing. Astrology, sciences, art and music were crude and underdeveloped, they were not necessary and didn't feed anyone. Only a few special individuals would or could persue its riches. Similarly today what people are most interested in is instant gratification and security and a way to achieve both. However Love is now more present than ever and the feminine intutive aspects of life are evolving and merging with the masculine logic to create a fresher approach to life, and God is more present in ideas and in life everywhere. Some are still looking for a person, Yet God is not a singular manifestation. It is a singular consciousness that expresses itself in every idea and form and can be experienced. Much more than that once experienced it can be united with and lived with all the inherent capabilities of the unlimited aspects of that.
Ego cannot stand to be annhialated, it will fight to maintain its reality and its individuality. It will convince you that you are mortal and it will convince you that you are limited to your beliefs. Ego is built and maintained by fear and its self worth will challenge anything that seems different and threatens its comfort and beliefs. Introduce an unknown and fear and mistrust will be the first response.
There is a person that regularly frequents these forums who links himself to a website that follows some of the history of Timothy Leary. One of the things I find interesting about the website is his last words before dying, they were "Why Not." Timothy Leary was one who explored the realms of consciousness and reality using drugs, psychedelics mostly I think. He needed the drugs to set aside his own mind and its programming to experience something greater. Interesting don't you think that his final answer to his life long pursuit of the answer to his question of "why life is" to get in response "why not."
The answers to anyones questions don't have to be as vague and complicated as parables, and so the universe is always williing to give more but is humanity willing to recieve? Will it segregate what is being offered to pick what it wants to hear, and to maintain its same system of limitations in beliefs in structure or will it open its hands to set down what it has been holding on to, to be able to accept the gift God wants to put into the open hands?
Humanity is quick to turn away what is available for preference in what is understood and accepted. This is such a sad and unfortunate way to see the world and live in it, to accept predjudice, low self worth, greed and hatred as normal.
Rather than ask me why I am here, why not ask yourself why you are creating this in your life now at this time? Who am I in relationship to you and more importantly who are you? Would you like to see just how far you go into creation and where you stop? Only the ideas can be destroyed about who you are but you are immortal. Once realised there is no reason to be anything less than bold in your approach to life as there is nothing to fear. There is only being. Wherever you go there YOU are, there is no reason or need to fear yourself.

Joe:

Sit down here in the Sun awhile, have a lemonade.  You remind me of a dam just cresting.  So much to say, slow down and lets match speeds.  You make sense but overwhelm.  But, first, I too understand.

John

Joe:

Sit down here in the Sun awhile, have a lemonade.  You remind me of a dam just cresting.  So much to say, slow down and lets match speeds.  You make sense but overwhelm.  But, first, I too understand.

John

Joe,
that's all right. I think it fits perfectly with all the other things I know, only that they have been somehow chaotic so far due to this information only surfacing some years ago into my life. It's really terrible that the first twenty or thirty years of my life I had not the least hint how it actually is. But I hope that's no problem, perhaps the return to it thus feels better than having known it all the time.

A tiny question: I liked your information about the cells of the body changing due to aligning to these things. What I wanted to ask is whether there's food that can support this process. I'm aware of the danger of replacing looking inwards by eating strange things, however, I do know that the first one is essential. So I only would be interested in whether there's some hints you have.

This question is inspired by a strange black man I once met in L.A. He had all the outward appearance of the people you talked about. He invited me to some heavy endeavor, but at this time I didn't have the necessary background to behave with him appropriately. So all is left is what he said to me plus some telepathic experiences. (One of them is a gift of power where you can see the past, in a sense that you are in a place and can look at it in a certain way, and see what happened there earlier. The only problem is that I haven't practiced it so far, but I'm sure it'll work one day.)

So, what he told me is that 'peach and maracuja is very good'. I could prove this in the case of peach and related fruits which give me a very fine feeling in the body, reminding me of immortality stories of ancient China. And maracuja also makes me feel fine, although in this country you get only juice from green fruits, sometimes too sour.

I know that these things trigger certain hormones or other substances that are very healthful, similar to the Soma you described. (I also read that some Chinese believe that cannabis triggers a similar substance related to lasting youth. This might be true, at least in some occasions I felt it, but it unfortunately has too many side effects for being taken regularily.)

So, peach and maracuja, is that all?

I forgot that this is the Spanish word. In English it is maracuya, or perhaps passion fruit.

The vedic principles support certain foods to aid in the bodies adjustment into transformation of consciousness and cellular nutrition. They are broken down into three categories Satvic, Tamasic and Rajasic. If you are interested in learning about these foods and what they are supposed to do then I suggest you look through the websites that have the complete information. Maharishi Mahesh Yogis TM website is full of this kind of stuff.

The TM scientists have published all kinds of useful information on the mind and body connection, but what I know of the minds affect on the body and the scientific data is that the mental condition of the mind can transform any food into positive energy or satvic upward directed energy.'

There was a study done on rabbits back in the 70's to try and isolate the dffects of certain high cholesterol diets and their cumulative affects on hardening of the arteries and heart disease since it is the leading killer of americans. They took several rabbits and separated them into groups. Each got the diets suspect to producing all the normal effects that a high cholesterol diet would produce. All of the groups except one produced the same types of effects and the rabbits showed symptoms of the build up of deposits in the arteries and blood system and production of fat. The project went on for several weeks when all of a sudden the one group that wasn't being affected started to show the syptoms and the effects that the other groups were. They also  found that the regular technician had fallen ill and had not been to work for several days. They immediately contacted her and when asked what she had been doing different her reply was,"I gave them the food that was prescribed in the program and each day I took them out of their cages and stroked them and sang to them, wasn't this right?" They found that although the research was directed towards the diet and its effects, the minds of the rabbits or the feelings that were generated by the love they recieved transformed the side effects felt by the other groups.
They did a similar study on premature babies which they called tactile kinetic sensory stimulation. They stroked the premature babies and talked to them and the recovery rate increased dramatically as they grew and put on weight faster then the ones they left isolated in their incubators. Of course the hopsitals were excited about the ability to save some money and shove them through faster but the effects of the test showed how the mental health affects the nervous system and the bodies ability to function and metabolize. So the moral of the story is if you are going to eat Big Macs sit on your boyfriend or girlfriends lap.
What you believe about the food you eat has an effect on what your body does with it.
They did a study on twins who were completely opposite in their habits and outlook on health. One ate only organic health foods and walked every day while the other ate whatever she wanted and sat behind the TV after dinner. Both were identical in weight and health.
If you believe that you need something, until the belief is replaced by something greater, then stay within the limitations or your ability to handle what you can.
Most know that infinite possibilities exist but until the habitual self defeating programs are broken it does no good to try and force the mind or body to do what it can't yet accept whole heartedly. That change takes one pointed focus and dedication to replace the anchor of fear and limitation with something different. You have to dip the mind (like cloth into dye) into the absolute repeatedly to make it colorfast or permanent in order to diffuse or erase the lessser programs and beliefs.
What works for another may not work for you, be honest with your self and honest with what you know, your body will be supported by the direction or the intent that you wish to create, Eat what you want and what makes you happy. Moderation and self restraint helps if you are easily carried away with anything that life has to offer and you are susceptible to getting lost. Most people only get carried away when they have underlying stress that is not being dealt with.
Stay focused on your goals and enjoy your life without worrying about the possibility of failure. What you put your attention on grows.

Shawn, if you are beyond the Buddha, does this mean that you are enlightened, or above enlightenment.

If your task is to enlighten the world. Than you are enlightesed, right?

Please let me know, and if you are enlightened, could you tell me how I can be to?

PS,

Your site is PIMPALYMPISTIK! My favorite section is the philosophy section.

It there a state beyond enlightenment?

hello River,

For certain, there are states beyond, far beyond, what most people understand as 'enlightenment'.  Indeed, there are states of consciousness of such transcendence and enlightenment, that they've never been experienced by anyone yet, and are just waiting to be experienced.  States of consciousness are all relative.  Even the 'highest' state of consciousness can be surpassed and transcended, because in reality, there is no absolute 'highest' state of consciousness.  It's all relative.    People who believe that they've reached the 'highest' state of consciousness are pleasantly deluding themselves.  I see right through them.

Both Buddha and Jesus were limited by their states of consciousness, as are all people.  It's all about states of consciousness, including 'enlightenment'.   What Jesus and Buddha experienced I infer from their words.  To the extent that my inferences are correct, I do not regard what Jesus and Buddha experienced as so very enlightening relative to what I've experienced.  

We have the means nowadays, the technology, and the knowledge of mind-brain function to go far, far beyond the transcendent states of consciousnes that Jesus and Buddha ever experienced.   And this is just the beginning.  The future holds the means for far greater and transcendent states of consciousness, and of enlightenment, than anyone nowadays can possibly imagine.    From my perspective, based on my transcendent experiences and enlightenment, I know that I am far beyond Jesus and Buddha.  This is not a proclamation of arrogance and condescension.  It simply is what is.   In fact, for the most part, I'm very humble about my experiences, and wish that others could experience what I have, and to go beyond me.  

Let me explain a bit more about my views on 'enlightenment':
I'm a relativist of sorts, and believe that 'enlightenment' is relative.  That is, there is no 'absolute' state of enlightenment, but rather that enlightenment denotes a change in one's state of consciousness, and in particular, with regard to transcendent states of consciousness.  So, for example, say a person experiences, for the first time in their life, a transcendent state, then we would say that the person is 'enlightened'.  But 'enlightenment' is relative, which means that this person can then go on to experience an even more transcendent state than the first, and we would say the person has experienced 'enlightenment' again.  Perhaps it would be more appropriate to speak of 'degrees of enlightenment', with individuals possessing different degrees of enlightenment, but I think this is misleading because 'degrees of enlightenment' suggests some 'absolute' state of enlightenment, which I deny.  It's all relative.  

And it's all about states of consciousness.

So, practically speaking, how can you assess my state of enlightenment?   By my actions and words.  Evaluate them, see if my words make sense, see if my actions are significant.  Ultimately, everyone is their own judge, of others and, more importantly, of themselves.

Let me now address your question regarding how you can experience enlightenment.   First, understand what great people like Jesus, Buddha, and others taught.  Try to get yourself at least to their level.  Learn as much as you can, about philosophical perspectives, math, science, the Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads, and just about everything you think could be important for you in going beyond what's been said and experienced before, and what you've learned about.    Ultimately, self-examination/exploration is the way.  Meditative techniques will only take you so far.  The utility of entheogens can be great, but this depends a lot on the individual person, their background and beliefs, their mindset, their expectations, and whether they're intelligent enough not to do permanent damage to themselves thru abuse and addiction.    Assuming you're intelligent and motivated enough to have found your own way (please note, there are reasons why I do not go into all the details regarding the way I adopted, at least not for the time being), then when you're in transcendent states of consciousness, practice exerting suble control over your state.  Practice this technique and learn it as well as you can.  It's a very subtle type of control.  Use this control to guide your transcendent experiences.   You should not always be passive while in the experience.  You must recognize opportunities for exerting subtle control, to guide and transform your experience. The funny thing is that you'll be ego-less, and so the 'you' I'm referring to isn't the 'you' that you're experiencing right now.  You will experience yourself as impersonal 'It', as 'Presence' that has no real explanation in words.  And you'll experience much, much more, but you must train and prepare your mind first, as I've outlined above.

Know thy Self.     Ponder the question, 'What am I?'.
Self-exploration.  Be honest with yourself.  Look deep enough into yourself, and you'll find me there.

namaste,
Shawn

Now we get into the meat and potatoes of God and proving the existence of God.

 Shawn does give food for thought in the description of enlightenment, By posing the question how would you know the enlightened by their actions or their words.

You Can't.

In fact there is a passage in the Upanishads that reads anyone who would try to describe Brahman will have their heads chopped off.

If you believe you can describe the absolute from the relative you are niether enlightened nor will you survive the relative world. God is very gracious in giving the ego as much room as is needed to think its way into divinity as many times as it wishes in the cycle of birth and rebirth until one steps out of the relative reality.

Since One cannot determine by the words or actions what enlightenment is the only way to find the source of the Self is to follow the heart.

To say You cannot tell by my words what my state of consciousness is, but that you can tell by anothers what theirs is by their words and make a comparison is still only Ego isolating its self from the one whole.

One thing that will help point one into the Self is to focus on the ONE, not the many, and certainly not the ideas that keep one elevated above, or below the other.

There is no control in the subtle, only the awareness of what you are doing from subtler realities. If you could see yourself from the subtle you may notice the Self moving you within the many parts of yourself. The only possible idea that leads to the idea of control is intent. IT is possible by intent to experience. Any other form of control is illusion only.

Any interpretation of Grandeur in being beyond another is EGO. There is no separation.

The subtler realities of the Self beyond the relative are not fragmented.

hello Joe,

an interesting reply, though I have a few comments over what you said that I'll take up in the following.

QUOTE

In fact there is a passage in the Upanishads that reads anyone who would try to describe Brahman will have their heads chopped off.

I am not familiar with that passage in the Upanishads, Joe.  What Upanishad is that?

I think there's some truth to the biblical saying that 'Ye shall know them by their works', which intentionally emphasizes the aspect of Action.   You can't just be pure Perception.  That is not very enlightening at all.   It's Perception and Action.  To have one without the other is foolish.

To claim that there is no criteria for evaluating other people's state of enlightenment can very well be a veil that hides one's ulterior motive; namely, that people who make such claims fear being judged by others, and hence maintain that no criteria exists by which to judge them.  Very convenient, I suppose, but dishonest.  Of course, I'm not accusing you, Joe, of being dishonest or of hiding your fear of being judged by others, but I felt, nonetheless, that I should at least mention the possibility for this ulterior motive in others that make such claims.  In any event, there are criteria for evaluating a person's relative state of enlightenment, and I think most people here would agree with me.  

And so I'd still have to maintain that you can infer one's relative state of enlightenment based on one's words and actions.  You have to have some criteria by which to assess other people's state of consciousness and their relative enlightenment.  Otherwise, why place any more emphasis on the words of Buddha or Jesus versus your average joe?  

The answer is, that we regard Buddha and Jesus more highly than average people because of what many people consider to be their 'enlightened' teachings.  That is, the vast majority of people apply criteria to other people, whether they intend to or not, to assess their relative enlightenment, and the criteria they often employ involves their words (or teachings) and actions.  What other criteria are there?  But you really think there are no criteria for discerning relatively enlightened individuals?  I would have to disagree for all of the reasons mentioned above.

QUOTE

There is no control in the subtle, only the awareness of what you are doing from subtler realities.....Any other form of control is illusion only.

Aren't you over-generalizing here, Joe?  You don't know what I've experienced and what sort of control I have over the subtle.  Your statement above, at most, can merely reflect your own experience.  To speak for the transcendent experiences of others in the absence of such experiences for oneself is, of course, an exercise in futility.

QUOTE

Any interpretation of Grandeur in being beyond another is EGO. There is no separation.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but let's keep in mind that we never explicitly agreed on the meaning of Ego.  I'm not sure what 'Ego' means to you.  Are you sure that you've gone beyond the ego?   It's your ego speaking above, right?   Are you saying that my describing the experience of Grandeur in being beyond another implies I have an ego?   But, of course, before we can answer this, we have to define 'ego'.    I don't think you mean to equate 'ego' with the 'Self', and so I'd have to say that describing the experience of Grandeur in being beyond another does not necessarily imply having an ego.  

Did Buddha and Jesus have egos, according to your definition of ego, when they passed on their teachings to others?

Shawn,

I see, I see.  The contents of your reply to River above in reply #20 show how close we are.

We differ in two areas.  The triggering area, if I may.
And the viewpoint area, the point of perspective.

I agree in general with everything you have said, otherwise.
Jesus and Budda were men of their times, it is time now to become men of our times.  We have so much more to add to the soup.  It is not arrogant to recognize this.  Nor is it cynical or any other label.  It it pure pragmatism and reality.

Next, the ego is a vital existing part of our psyche, to do anything other then to decontaminate it of enforced patterns of behavior is to lose an 'organ' of great significance.  The 'Action' instrument of your dynamic pair.

We both have used entheogens and both have stopped after short period of useage.
This is a 'trigger' that allows the crossing of the restictive barrier that the ego erects in order to do its' job.  You know of existing triggers waiting in the wings, magnetic fields, drugs, probes, etc.  These, the tools of the ego world of reason and logic to explore a place I too am exploring.
I use existing triggers that are available to us through understanding and applying 'map and route' technology that exists within.  This technology has been experienced before our time without the realization of what it was.  In other words, I am using the same tools of yesteryear only with consciousness and awareness of what I am dealing with applied to the phenomena.  (A thourough explanation I am willing to go through).

Allow me to invent as a result of this dialog to approach this area of Action and Perception.
Action has its worker; the ego as discussed above.
Perception has its worker; an entity I am reframing as the neoSelf-the next version of who we are to become if we perceive the instructions it has available to us in visionary encounters.

There is difficulty in doing this as a third intermediary entity is required.  This third entity is one that is grown by doing this work.  It is the witness position- the one that speaks to the ego and redirects its efforts.  It is the container-the Grail.  (remember the search for the Holy Grail, to take over the task of the wounded Fisher King-ego?)  The 'Holy Ghost', that intermediates between Father-neoSelf and Son-ego, that was mangled in the tortured transformation of the Romans reconstructing the ideas for power reasons.
The Son needs to be crucified before transforming into the new Resurrection-the new shape of the psyche.  This new shape is the partnering of the ego and the neoSelf brought together through the agency of the witness.
This is again seen in the Gnostic tales refering to the 'Twin'
I have found parts of this story repeated in around two dozen cultures.  This is brand new 'stuff', meaning cross correlating the basics of these belief systems.  To see them in a horizontal fashion is to grasp and be able to use the instructions contained therein in a conscious fashion.
I am pleased to share it with you and only because you took the effort of building this wonderful site-a demonstration of your action and words.

Well I'll be sure to get back to you on the exact passsage in reference to the Upanishads.

So lets touch on what we can that is present.

S: I think there's some truth to the biblical saying that 'Ye shall know them by their works', which intentionally emphasizes the aspect of Action.
 
J: I'm sure from your perspective this seems perfectly logical to look at the outside and determine what is inside. But here the bible refers to what moves through an individual to move all of creation and with all of creation as God. Not the way a person walks talks and lives. The stories of him walking on water, raising the dead and healing the sick are but a few of the things he was able to do yet anyone can master these techniques without becoming enlightened.
What Jesus possessed within himself was the infinite wisdom and experience of the Self, of God. His ability to stand in the presence of the sick and lift them beyond their beliefs in sickness altered their whole point of reference in an instant to create instant healing. As he stated "these things I do, I do not of myself but of God." Or something to that effect. Here there was no independant thought or action in deciding who needed to be healed, which dead person to reanimate based on anything that was going on outside or his personal preferences. There is a saying, Tell God your plans and God will be amused, for the infinite plan is far greater than any relative based idea.
Have you not witnessed or experienced this phenomenon Shawn?


 S: You can't just be pure Perception.  That is not very enlightening at all.   It's Perception and Action.  To have one without the other is foolish.

J: To separate the two is foolish and also ignorant

S: To claim that there is no criteria for evaluating other people's state of enlightenment can very well be a veil that hides one's ulterior motive; namely, that people who make such claims fear being judged by others, and hence maintain that no criteria exists by which to judge them.  Very convenient, I suppose, but dishonest.  Of course, I'm not accusing you, Joe, of being dishonest or of hiding your fear of being judged by others, but I felt, nonetheless, that I should at least mention the possibility for this ulterior motive in others that make such claims.  In any event, there are criteria for evaluating a person's relative state of enlightenment, and I think most people here would agree with me.  

J: Consciousness recognises Consciousness. Just as a Doctor would recognise immediately a person who has no experience in Surgery that would cut into a patient. So does one who is established in the absolute recognise another by their actions. Here we are not talking about the exterior, but the actions that are motivated and guided purely by the holy spirit and God and are recognised over the blundering attempts of the ego to mimic God. There are actions supported in the upward currents of creation and the downward actions that lead away from consciousness. One is filled with light and the other with darkness. Of course these are relative but that is what we are discussing here right? Relative points of reference?

S: And so I'd still have to maintain that you can infer one's relative state of enlightenment based on one's words and actions.  You have to have some criteria by which to assess other people's state of consciousness and their relative enlightenment.  Otherwise, why place any more emphasis on the words of Buddha or Jesus versus your average joe?

J: Indeed from the relative, what would be the means or point of reference to the relative other than interpretation, and with 6 billion possible intrpretations then any one can raise themselves above Christ and Bhudda by their own ideas and past experiences.  

S: The answer is, that we regard Buddha and Jesus more highly than average people because of what many people consider to be their 'enlightened' teachings.  That is, the vast majority of people apply criteria to other people, whether they intend to or not, to assess their relative enlightenment, and the criteria they often employ involves their words (or teachings) and actions.  What other criteria are there?  But you really think there are no criteria for discerning relatively enlightened individuals?  I would have to disagree for all of the reasons mentioned above.

J: they are the same reasons Hitler used to label the Jews, the Romans the Christians etc. The actions of the accused met a criteria based on intellectual reasoning that made all the sense in the world to the ones that made the determinations based on their own experiences.
Your reasoning based on the majority leads also to the idea that God is democratic. Whatever the majority bases their criteria on must also be the criteria used by God.

Indeed there is a way to know the voice of the Holy Spirit or the Voice of God but evidently your reasoning keeps you from experiencing anything more than what you have experinced and so you maintain this limited point of reference. This will also suffice to leave your attemt to justify your state of control over the subtle to any further discussion.

And as far as the identification of Ego or it's description we are definitely not on the same page.
This is most obvious.

QUOTE

I agree in general with everything you have said, otherwise. Jesus and Budda were men of their times, it is time now to become men of our times.  We have so much more to add to the soup.  It is not arrogant to recognize this....It it pure reality.

Beautifully put.  I agree entirely.  The wisdom of the past is nice, but let's be realistic, it's not the be all and end all of wisdom, but merely the beginning.   The wisdom of the Gita and Upanishads are but a tiny spark in an inferno of wisdom just waiting to be uncovered, realized, and brought to consciousness by people of today and tomorrow.  We should certainly respect the wisdom of the past, but we should not make the error of respecting it too much by taking it to be the final word regarding wisdom.   To do so would be irresponsible, lazy, ignorant, and dishonest.

QUOTE

We both have used entheogens and both have stopped after short period of useage. This is a 'trigger' that allows the crossing of the restictive barrier that the ego erects in order to do its' job.

I haven't thought about this in terms of 'triggers' for a long time, and it gave me something to think about.    I agree with you, btw, about your comments over 'triggers'.

QUOTE

I am using the same tools of yesteryear only with consciousness and awareness of what I am dealing with applied to the phenomena.  (A thourough explanation I am willing to go through).

yes, I think many people here would certainly be interested in hearing what these tools of yesteryear are that you work with.

QUOTE

I am pleased to share it with you

and I am pleased to be the recipient of this gift.  Some interesting ideas, relating the ego to Action and Neo-Self to Perception.  I'll definitely have to mull this over more.
Thank you, John.

QUOTE

S: I think there's some truth to the biblical saying that 'Ye shall know them by their works', which intentionally emphasizes the aspect of Action.   J: I'm sure from your perspective this seems perfectly logical to look at the outside and determine what is inside. But here the bible refers to what moves through an individual to move all of creation and with all of creation as God. Not the way a person walks talks and lives.

My take on it is literal; i.e., you shall know the Chosen by their works (words and actions).    I'm still not sure exactly how you came up with your interpretation.  Maybe if the Bible said, instead, 'Ye shall know God as that which moves thru an individual', then I would accept your interpretation as plausible, but I really don't see how you get your interpretation from 'Ye shall know them by their works'.   Maybe you can explain this.

QUOTE

There is a saying, Tell God your plans and God will be amused, for the infinite plan is far greater than any relative based idea. Have you not witnessed or experienced this phenomenon Shawn?

I have, but I'm not pitting a 'relative based idea' against an 'infinite plan'.  Rather, I'm pitting 'absolute enlightenment' against 'relative enlightenment'.  That is, I reject the concept of 'absolute enlightenment' and the notion of absolute highest states of consciousness.  States of consciousness and enlightenment are relative terms for me.    'Enlightenment' denotes a special sort of 'change' in awareness, but not an 'absolute state of awareness' per se.  

QUOTE

S: You can't just be pure Perception.  That is not very enlightening at all.   It's Perception and Action.  To have one without the other is foolish. J: To separate the two is foolish and also ignorant

Touche!  

Seriously though, by making a distinction between different modes of consciousness, I was not implying they were altogether separate substances.   Thus, I would hardly call this foolish or ignorant, but rather observant and perhaps even astute.

QUOTE

Of course these are relative but that is what we are discussing here right? Relative points of reference?

I was not talking about relative points of reference per se, but rather the relativity of enlightenment and states of consciousness.   The distinction is important, I think.  You can entertain many different points of reference in the same state of enlightenment and the same state of consciousness, and so it's incorrect to interpret what I wrote above in terms of relative points of reference.

QUOTE

what would be the means or point of reference to the relative other than interpretation, and with 6 billion possible intrpretations then any one can raise themselves above Christ and Bhudda by their own ideas and past experiences.

I'm not talking about points of reference, but states of consciousness.   It's true, everybody can interpret things however this wish and delude themselves into thinking they're above Christ and Buddha.  But this would be dishonest.  Everything depends on state of consciousness.  It's all about state of consciousness.    Yes, I suppose 6 billion people can say they're above Christ and Buddha, in which case I would judge at least 99% of them to be liars or just plain deluded.   And further, I would judge them based on their actions and words the extent to which they experienced enlightenment and what states of consciousness they realized.

As I said before, I'm not being arrogant or condescending by saying what I said above, in my reply to River.   It simply is what it is.   If I were to deny the validity of what I said regarding being beyond Buddha and Jesus, I would be speaking dishonestly, both towards others, and more importantly, towards myself, and this is something I choose not to do because it's not my nature.

It is what it is.

QUOTE

Your reasoning based on the majority leads also to the idea that God is democratic. Whatever the majority bases their criteria on must also be the criteria used by God.

Joe, you know full well that this is not what I meant.  Nor do I ever reason based on the majority.   If I point out that the majority would agree with a certain proposition, it does not in any way imply that the reasoning used to support the proposition was derived from majority rule.  

QUOTE

evidently your reasoning keeps you from experiencing anything more than what you have experinced and so you maintain this limited point of reference.

The irony of the statement above is pleasantly amusing.   Seriously, I try to be as open-minded as possible.  I have seen many, many points of reference.  I still see them, but have limited use for a great many of them.    Did you make this statement because I choose not to adopt your frame of reference, because I reject a 'highest' state of consciousness, or what?  Who has the open-mind here, and who has the limited point of reference?

QUOTE

And as far as the identification of Ego or it's description we are definitely not on the same page.

perhaps you could clarify what you mean by Ego, it's identification, and it's description.


I appreciate your thoughtful reply above, Joe, and hope that in future replies, instead of heat, let there be light.


namaste,
Shawn

on Today at 5:48pm, joe wrote:
S: I think there's some truth to the biblical saying that 'Ye shall know them by their works', which intentionally emphasizes the aspect of Action.  
 
J: I'm sure from your perspective this seems perfectly logical to look at the outside and determine what is inside. But here the bible refers to what moves through an individual to move all of creation and with all of creation as God. Not the way a person walks talks and lives.  



S: My take on it is literal; i.e., you shall know the Chosen by their works (words and actions).    I'm still not sure exactly how you came up with your interpretation.  Maybe if the Bible said, instead, 'Ye shall know God as that which moves thru an individual', then I would accept your interpretation as plausible, but I really don't see how you get your interpretation from 'Ye shall know them by their works'.   Maybe you can explain this.

S: Joe, you know full well that this is not what I meant.  Nor do I ever reason based on the majority.   If I point out that the majority would agree with a certain proposition, it does not in any way imply that the reasoning used to support the proposition was derived from majority rule.

J: perhaps you should say what you mean then without using some analogious statement to give meaning to what you really want to say.

If someone was to take what you wrote as literally as you take the bible, what keeps the mind from wandering in its own reality based on its past experiences and projecting limited meanings?

The Bible was hashed through several different democratic processes to take different languages and bring them together and make it cohesive. The Problem in that is it lost some of its original subtle messages in favor of a generic generalization. Just as your message lost some of its intent by your trying to use some outside form that doesn't fit to your own experience but what you thought might make an impression on someone that you don't have a clue about. Being disconnected from reality does this as you separate your reality from anothers. I am not suprised that you think you have risen above Jesus and Bhudda if you take the limited concepts that have been generalized and interpreted from the Bible that are written around the teachings of Christ. Most Religions follow the descriptions of those they have placed trust in that are outside of themselves and their own experiences of God. Any true teacher only points the way to the students own experience and growth beyond limited boundaries that keep the mind stuck in the relative. This was what Christ taught. Religions based on interpretations fail to hold the attention of any sane person.

on Today at 5:48pm, joe wrote:There is a saying, Tell God your plans and God will be amused, for the infinite plan is far greater than any relative based idea.
Have you not witnessed or experienced this phenomenon Shawn?


S: I have, but I'm not pitting a 'relative based idea' against an 'infinite plan'.  Rather, I'm pitting 'absolute enlightenment' against 'relative enlightenment'.  That is, I reject the concept of 'absolute enlightenment' and the notion of absolute highest states of consciousness.  States of consciousness and enlightenment are relative terms for me.    'Enlightenment' denotes a special sort of 'change' in awareness, but not an 'absolute state of awareness' per se.

J: It doesn't matter what you call it you are still caught in the semantics of which description best fits according to what you like. Absolute state of enlightenment, absolute awareness, etc etc. There comes a point when all words become reflections of the notions only, yet have the same connection that the infinite has to the relative. The relative is born of the infinite and they cannot be separated. As a wise friend of mine said focus on the truth of the formless and surrender to the form.  

on Today at 5:48pm, joe wrote:
 S: You can't just be pure Perception.  That is not very enlightening at all.   It's Perception and Action.  To have one without the other is foolish.  

J: To separate the two is foolish and also ignorant
 



Touche!    

S: Seriously though, by making a distinction between different modes of consciousness, I was not implying they were altogether separate substances.   Thus, I would hardly call this foolish or ignorant, but rather observant and perhaps even astute.

J:  This is a choice only, to put attention on an idea. Once the idea evolves and the moment passes the one thing left is not the idea but what created it and where it came from. Depending on which reality you choose to make real you can either flop around like a fish out of water to try and assimilate yourself into an unknown or unfamiliar experience or blend into all from the same point of potential that all creation and experience is born of.


on Today at 5:48pm, joe wrote: Of course these are relative but that is what we are discussing here right? Relative points of reference?  
 



S: I was not talking about relative points of reference per se, but rather the relativity of enlightenment and states of consciousness.   The distinction is important, I think.  You can entertain many different points of reference in the same state of enlightenment and the same state of consciousness, and so it's incorrect to interpret what I wrote above in terms of relative points of reference.

J: you will have to be more specific to what you are trying to say then. From the relative only are there many points of reference, to consciousness or enlightenment.
From enlightenment and Consciousness there is only ONE point of reference, period. This is the pure stillness of the one that you descibed where there is absolutely no form or thought, but that is the basis for all forms and realities and it never leaves the form. It is present in all forms and experiences and when all forms and experiences are gone it is all that is left.


on Today at 5:48pm, joe wrote:what would be the means or point of reference to the relative other than interpretation, and with 6 billion possible intrpretations then any one can raise themselves above Christ and Bhudda by their own ideas and past experiences.  
 



S: I'm not talking about points of reference, but states of consciousness.   It's true, everybody can interpret things however this wish and delude themselves into thinking they're above Christ and Buddha.  But this would be dishonest.  Everything depends on state of consciousness.  It's all about state of consciousness.    Yes, I suppose 6 billion people can say they're above Christ and Buddha, in which case I would judge at least 99% of them to be liars or just plain deluded.   And further, I would judge them based on their actions and words the extent to which they experienced enlightenment and what states of consciousness they realized.

As I said before, I'm not being arrogant or condescending by saying what I said above, in my reply to River.   It simply is what it is.   If I were to deny the validity of what I said regarding being beyond Buddha and Jesus, I would be speaking dishonestly, both towards others, and more importantly, towards myself, and this is something I choose not to do because it's not my nature.

J: Considering what you have said in your interpretations based on literally taking what is placed before you as your source of information I find it amusing that you can pretend to know what state of awareness either were in. Perhaps you have clear memory of being there with them to know where they were at in their level of awareness to set the level of comparison.

S: It is what it is.

J: I'll use your own words. Based on your interpretation or your experience.


on Today at 5:48pm, joe   wrote:
Your reasoning based on the majority leads also to the idea that God is democratic. Whatever the majority bases their criteria on must also be the criteria used by God.




Joe, you know full well that this is not what I meant.  Nor do I ever reason based on the majority.   If I point out that the majority would agree with a certain proposition, it does not in any way imply that the reasoning used to support the proposition was derived from majority rule.

J: I have yet to hear your basis for reasoning other than literal interpretation based on what you have read and expereinced, or any other point of reference other than your preferences in beliefs, none of which seem to have a stabil point that can be related to. You have eluded to something you have said no one has experienced yet, but until you can get in touch with that then you are arguing over in your best interpretations conjecture, based on changing experiences that are different for each person.  


on Today at 5:48pm, joe wrote:evidently your reasoning keeps you from experiencing anything more than what you have experinced and so you maintain this limited point of reference.  



 
S: The irony of the statement above is pleasantly amusing.   Seriously, I try to be as open-minded as possible.  I have seen many, many points of reference.  I still see them, but have limited use for a great many of them.    Did you make this statement because I choose not to adopt your frame of reference, because I reject a 'highest' state of consciousness, or what?  Who has the open-mind here, and who has the limited point of reference?

J: I am glad that you are amused but just how open minded are you that you have no tolerance for anything other than what you have allowed to fit within your definition of truth? You still haven't begun to meet me at my frame of reference. The reason you can't is because you still see separation between my frame of reference and yours.


on Today at 5:48pm, joe wrote:
And as far as the identification of Ego or it's description we are definitely not on the same page.




S: perhaps you could clarify what you mean by Ego, it's identification, and it's description.

J: I already have, It was the same intellectual description as yours, but you take it way too literally for me to hold it to such rigid specifications.


S: I appreciate your thoughtful reply above, Joe, and hope that in future replies, instead of heat, let there be light.

J:  There is only light.

greetings Joe,

and thanks for the reply.  I do have a few comments over what you said, though, that I'll take up in the following:

QUOTE

If someone was to take what you wrote as literally as you take the bible, what keeps the mind from wandering in its own reality based on its past experiences and projecting limited meanings? The Bible was hashed through several different democratic processes to take different languages and bring them together and make it cohesive....The Problem in that is it lost some of its original subtle messages in favor of a generic generalization.

What we're talking about is how to interpret 'Ye shall know them by their works'.  To me, the interpretation is rather obvious, that you shall know the Chosen by their words and actions.  The interpretation you offered, however, 'that you shall know God as operating thru people', I haven't found any support for.  Maybe if you could provide some support for this interpretation, it would be helpful.

In any event, I do not take most of the Bible literally.  The passage above, that 'Ye shall know them by their works', is the exception.  It would be incorrect to infer, and over-generalize, that I take the entire Bible literally.

QUOTE

I am not suprised that you think you have risen above Jesus and Bhudda if you take the limited concepts that have been generalized and interpreted from the Bible that are written around the teachings of Christ. Most Religions follow the descriptions of those they have placed trust in that are outside of themselves and their own experiences of God. Any true teacher only points the way to the students own experience and growth beyond limited boundaries that keep the mind stuck in the relative. This was what Christ taught.

But it's not just generalizations and other people's interpretations that I base my inferences on regarding what sort of enlightenment Jesus and Buddha experienced and what sort of transcendent experiences they had.  It's based on words attributed to them.  Granted, some meaning may get lost in the translation, and of course, teachings can get corrupted and misrepresented, but nonetheless, I base my inferences based on the material available to me.  To do otherwise would be to dishonestly attribute teachings, ideas, and experiences to other people without any basis to do so.    What's your basis for attributing such teachings to Jesus?  Do you believe you have a direct connection to him?  Is your claim of omniscience relevant to clearing up this disagrrement we have over how to interpret Jesus' teachings?

As I've discussed above in my reply to River, Jesus and Buddha were both limited by their states of consciousness.  This is an undeniable fact.  They never reached a 'highest' or 'absolute' state of consciousness because such things don't exist.   I've known for some time that the main difference between us is that you maintain some 'absolute' state of consciousness, which I reject as an empty fiction.  It's dangerous to postulate such things because then the mind becomes complacent at having arrived at the 'absolute' or 'highest' state of consciousness, but I see this as irresponsible, lazy, and delusional.  And further, to subscribe to such notions is to be a pessimist.   I mean, do you honestly think you've attained the 'absolute' state of consciousness??   Don't you have the nagging doubt that you're simply kidding yourself and pulling the veil over your eyes?    I mean, is it really true that you've convinced yourself that you've attained some state of 'absolute' enlightenment?   It's fine for you to believe in such things, I suppose, even though I'll reject them.

Granted, this is merely my judgement, and I'm well aware that you don't believe people can judge other people's state of enlightenment or infer their transcendent states of consciousness.  As discussed above, I dispute this, but as always, I try to maintain an open-mind about things.

QUOTE

J: you will have to be more specific to what you are trying to say then.

Joe, looking over my posts above, I don't see where I could've been any more specific.  Perhaps you could be more specific about what you would like me to be more specific about.

QUOTE

From enlightenment and Consciousness there is only ONE point of reference, period.

I reject this claim.  You are experiencing but ONE state of consciousness, and it certainly isn't a priveleged state, but merely one of an infinite number, with infinitely more transcendent states than the one you've experienced.

QUOTE

I find it amusing that you can pretend to know what state of awareness either were in. Perhaps you have clear memory of being there with them to know where they were at in their level of awareness to set the level of comparison.

It is not pretend, but as I've already discussed above, it is an inference based on their words and actions.  Surely with your "omniscience" you already know this.

QUOTE

J: I have yet to hear your basis for reasoning other than literal interpretation based on what you have read and expereinced, or any other point of reference other than your preferences in beliefs, none of which seem to have a stabil point that can be related to.

Ultimately, my own experience is the basis, and the crucible.

QUOTE

how open minded are you that you have no tolerance for anything other than what you have allowed to fit within your definition of truth? You still haven't begun to meet me at my frame of reference. The reason you can't is because you still see separation between my frame of reference and yours.

I think the main point we differ on is whether there exists an 'absolute' state of enlightenment or a 'highest' or 'priveleged' state of consciousness.  I am an open-minded person, and is one of the reasons why I don't accept such notions, because they're limiting and refuse to acknowledge what lies beyond them.   I do not reject your frame of reference, and think maybe there's been a little confusion between frame of reference and state of consciousness.   In any event, your frame of reference of course is valid.   What I maintain, and where we differ, is that there is no 'highest' state of consciousness or 'absolute' state of enlightenment.   Every state of consciousness, every degree of enlightenment, can be trascended and surpassed.  This is what I believe.  This is what I experience.   This is my basis for my reasoning.  

QUOTE

S: perhaps you could clarify what you mean by Ego, it's identification, and it's description. J: I already have, It was the same intellectual description as yours, but you take it way too literally for me to hold it to such rigid specifications.

can you please explain this a bit more?   We agree that ego = jiva?


namaste,
Shawn

I believe enlightenment to be illusory--the product of increasing genetic complexity affected by natural selection.  Consciousness is a convenient parlor trick for reproduction.

hello Timothy,

an interesting and refreshing change of perspective you offer!   I would argue, though, that there's a negative correlation between one's state or degree of enlightenment and 'reproductive fitness'.    That is, more highly enlightened people are less likely to reproduce as often as unenlightened individuals, and hence, natural selection will work against them.

Do we really need to be conscious to reproduce?  Couldn't we envision mind-less individuals reproducing furiously?  Isn't that what's happening in many of the socio-economically disadvantaged areas of the world today?

Who was it, Dawkins, that said a body is just the gene's way of reproducing itself?   Interesting change of perspective, similar to the idea you proposed, but by defining 'enlightenment' as a change of state in awareness from more illusion to less illusion, we thereby overcome the problem of identifying enlightenment with illusion.   But, you're not satisfied with this answer, and I'm not really either.  I'll have to mull over this one some more.

Thank you for your input, though, and for giving me and others something to think about.

hey shawn

must be tough admitting to these feelings of personal wisdom, but perhaps tougher not admitting to them?   ;D

I personally think it's great that you are a 'chosen one' so long as you do good things.  I can't wait for you brain-boys to put mind in a position to evolve significantly, although I do think that we are quite a ways off yet.

I also am getting a kick out of your and Joe's conversation, as I am sure many are.  

party on
8)

hi Dan,

I'm sure you grasp my predicament to some extent.  I am not saying I'm 'The Chosen One', for such a claim should rightfully be considered ludicrous, at least if 'I' is interpreted in terms of personal ego.   There's a certain truth to the saying that we're all chosen to do certain things.  My reference to the 'chosen one' was just within the context of my interpretation of the biblical statement, 'Ye shall know them by their works'.  I was not trying to imply I was 'The Chosen One', nor do I privately think of my myself in those terms, at least not in the personal sense.   If anything, I think of my body as mere instrument, and my consciousness as of the divine.

I hope people aren't getting too much of a kick out the conversation at the expense of understanding the arguments on both sides.  If anything, I hope our exchange serves to highlight key differences in our modes of consciousness, belief systems, and ways of thinking.

The key point I maintain, of course, is that states of consciousness and enlightenment are all relative, and that there is no 'absolute', 'highest', or 'most privileged' state of consciousness or enlightenment.  Whatever people regard as the 'highest' and most transcendent state of consciousness (call it Nirvana, Satori, whatever you like) can always be surpassed and transcended.   It's all relative.

To remain fixated on one state of consciousness as the 'highest' is to vastly underestimate the power and vastness of conscious states, as well as the power and ability of us humans (and in particular, us brain-boys!) to be able to decipher this puzzle and open the doorways unto higher modes of consciousness and enlightenment than anyone has ever experienced before.

take care,
Shawn

'sup Shawn

QUOTE

I'm sure you grasp my predicament to some extent.

you betcha!   ;D

QUOTE

I am not saying I'm 'The Chosen One', for such a claim would rightfully be ludicrous.   There's a certain truth to the saying that we're all chosen to do certain things.  My reference to the 'chosen one' was just within the context of my interpretation of the biblical statement, 'Ye shall know them by their works'.  I was not trying to imply I was 'The Chosen One', nor do I privately think of my myself in those terms.

not 'the' chosen one, just 'a' chosen one.  I decided on this title on my own, as for me it best captures the essence of the feeling of high potential.  we could call you 'smartypants' if you prefer  

QUOTE

I hope people aren't getting too much of a kick out the conversation at the expense of understanding the arguments on both sides.  If anything, I hope our exchange serves to highlight key differences in our modes of consciousness, belief systems, and ways of thinking.

I am getting a kick out of this because I believe I do understand both sides.  maybe you guys will get a kick out of that?  :

QUOTE

The key point I maintain, of course, is that states of consciousness and enlightenment are all relative, and that there is no 'absolute', 'highest', or 'most priveleged' state of consciousness or enlightenment.  Whatever people regard as the 'highest' and most transcendent state of consciousness (call it Nirvana, Satori, whatever you like) can always be surpassed and transcended.   It's all relative.

my question is then, are states of consciousness comparable as more or less desirable?  If so, then we can imagine a 'well-ordering' of known states which implies a 'least desirable' known state.  It also may imply a 'least desirable' possible state if one assumes any particular state to consist of a finite number of elements (and that the variety of possible elements is also finite).  The 'highest' state is also be like the infinite cardinal number, something that is manifest in idea alone


I personally believe that the 'perfect' state is unattainable, and that rate of approaching the 'perfect' state goes to zero at the future limit.  However, the achievement of better states is not a continuous function , but a discrete function therefore there will come a time when we feel that we can go no further.  this is the end/beginning, when we hit the 'reset' button on structure.  Just like last time(s) perhaps?  ???  

8)

Shawn

Yes, evolution from the perspective of self-replicating genes is a concept introduced by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene.  You suggest that a negative correlation exists between 'enlightenment' and 'reproductive fitness' and from the framework of an individual gene, you are quite correct.  However, 'reproductive fitness' is a composite measurement involving the indivisible relationship between replicator and environment.  Genes exist in environments and their reproductive fitness is relative to that environment.  Because genes exist in the context of other genes, those that evolve altruistic capacities are often more fit than those that don't.  Conciousness enables cooperation and consequently increased adaptivity.  If consciousness is viewed as an adaptive mechanism then would not 'enlightenment' function similarly, a fortiori.

As far as illusion is concerned, I am not sure I follow your reasoning that enlightenment is less illusory.  A dream, no matter how real, is still a dream.  Delusional resolution is not a measurement of objective reality, supposing you subscribe to that notion.  

Have you read Howard Bloom's, Global Brain?  His thesis is something like - societies, via the mechanism of memes, function as global parallel networks, similar to the neural networks of the brain, enabling a collective conciousness (which is quite disctint from the Jungian concept if I'm not mistaken.)

hello Timothy, Dan,

this is great conversation!

Dan,

What you say about being 'a chosen one' best capturing the essence of the feeling of high potential, I agree with entirely.  It's a very positive way of regarding one's mission, one's fate, one's life.    I do regard mine in this manner, as my fulfilling an inevitability of sorts.  I think it's a very meaningful way to regard oneself.

QUOTE

I am getting a kick out of this because I believe I do understand both sides.  maybe you guys will get a kick out of that?  :

I think this is great.  It's always to one's advantage to understand both sides of an argument.   I believe you when you say that you understand both sides, and believe myself that I also understand Joe's viewpoint.  I respect his viewpoint, and am glad he's chosen to share it with all of us.  In the final analysis, I do not agree with him, but it's all good, right?  We don't have to agree about everything.   At the very least, though, we should make an effort to fully understand the other person's viewpoint.

QUOTE

my question is then, are states of consciousness comparable as more or less desirable?  If so, then we can imagine a 'well-ordering' of known states which implies a 'least desirable' known state.  It also may imply a 'least desirable' possible state if one assumes any particular state to consist of a finite number of elements (and that the variety of possible elements is also finite).  The 'highest' state is also be like the infinite cardinal number, something that is manifest in idea alone

This is quite a brilliant little gem.  Just curious, how old are you, Dan?

I think it certainly possible to envision a 'well-ordering' of known states of consciousness, though this would necessarily leave out the 'unknown' or unexperienced ones, ones that are more transcendent.   And also, such a 'well-ordering' would no doubt be peculiar to each individual, depending on what they regard as 'desirable'.

The thing I have against a 'well-ordering' is that it would be trying to 'serialize' or 'linearize' states of consciousness, which of necessity, are multi-dimensional in character.   For example, states of consciousness can be classified in terms of 'activation' (or level of intensity and degree of Being), modality (visual, auditory, tactile, proprioceptive, or some combination, or even altogether novel modalities like the experience of echolocation in bats and dolphins), and no doubt others.  This notion of 'linearizing' states of consciousness, of 'well-ordering' them, will no doubt result in loss of information regarding their multi-dimensional nature.  It's just like in multivariate statistics, where you have N points distributed in some M-dimensional space and you try to project the points onto a single dimension; you're going to lose information in the process of 'linearizing' and projecting to one dimension, which seems to me is what your well-ordering principle is about (though, as you mentioned, the dimension corresponds to desirability of the state of consciousness).

QUOTE

when we hit the 'reset' button on structure.  Just like last time(s) perhaps?  ???  :P

I didn't follow this.  What do you mean by hitting the reset button, and what is last time?


You know, when I think about what mind-brain.com is, and what it 'could' be, I'm disappointed.  There's so much more that mind-brain.com could be.   There's so much more useful information that could, and should, be available on this site.  For example, the discussion in this thread, if the different viewpoints and perspectives were written up nicely in an essay, I think a lot of people would get a lot of use out of that.   The essays I have posted, like the one on expanding consciousness, could and should be rewritten and made much, much better, clearer, and more informative.  

We are in the midst of a revolution.  The wisdom of the Upanishads, Gita, and Buddhism is not the be all and end all of wisdom, but is merely the beginning;  at best, the ancient wisdom is but a few sparks of a vast inferno of wisdom just waiting to be uncovered by expanding our consciousness beyond what these sages ever experienced and beyond their wildest imaginations.

We can do this.  We will do this.  It's inevitable.


Timothy, another interesting post.  Here are my thoughts:  since individuals can consciously suppress their reproductive instincts, and in fact, many 'enlightened' people actually do this, does this not argue against the notion that enlightenment is merely a convenient parlor trick for reproduction?  I understand what you say about conciousness enabling cooperation and consequently increased adaptivity, which would lead to increased reproductive success, and so yes, this fact suggests that 'enlightenment' may be merely a parlor trick or pawn for reproduction.   But if consciousness is experienced as transpersonal, as the Universe conscious of Itself, why would this increase the reproductive fitness of the individual (i.e., if the consciousness of the individual is no longer confined to the individual, or if the consciousness is experienced as dis-embodied)?

I'm not familiar with Howard Bloom's, Global Brain, but will see if I can obtain a pdf version of it through a file-sharing program so I can read more about this thesis of his.  I should point out, though, that social networks are nothing like networks in the brain.  There is much more connectivity between individual neurons than between individual people.   For example, your typical neuron receives inputs from at least 10,000 other neurons and projects to at least as many.    While the internet and other modes of communication may facilitate this sort of global consciousness, societies are not really organized like brains.   I know it's easy to make the analogy, but when you examine them both more closely, you see the analogy doesn't hold.

take care,
Shawn

Shawn

Sometimes an adaptation can result in decreased reproductivity in individuals, but the critical determinant is the average reproductive fitness of the species.  For example, if you view emotions as a reproductive adaptation, you have a vast collection of diverse behaviors.  In some cases, you have individuals jumping in front of cars to save a stranger and in other cases, you have mothers devoting time and resource in childraising.  For any complex adaptive mechanism, there will be a diverse manifestation of behavior patterns, but the existence of emotive behavior that results in a localized decrease in reproductivity does not imply a negative correlation.  I would argue that consciousness on average results in greater adaptivity, and so too enlightenment, although it might become necessary to redefine what we mean by organism if consciousness can become increasingly transpersonal, although I'm not yet convinced that it can.

Yes, Bloom's analogy is of course limited, as all analogies used to simplify complex ideas.  I'm not convinced of Bloom's thesis either, and have not yet read Global Brain.  I was firsted introduced to the idea in another of his books, The Lucifer Principle, which only dealt cursorily with the idea.  Nevertheless, memetics is a fascinating theory and I really need to get around to reading Blackmore's seminal work.

shawn

QUOTE

Just curious, how old are you, Dan?

born 7/6/73  8)

QUOTE

I didn't follow this.  What do you mean by hitting the reset button, and what is last time?

this is pure conjecture, based on 'vision'.  I say that the universe goes through a 'master cycle', where the progression of structure inevitably reaches a point of maximal development, and that this point cannot be utopia.  At some point in a controlled progression, the best way to go should be total universal 'amnesia', where Being is best served by total release of structure.

8)

So how does one become a chosen one?  Providence?  Anomalie?  Self-actualization?

QUOTE

What we're talking about is how to interpret 'Ye shall know them by their works'.  To me, the interpretation is rather obvious, that you shall know the Chosen by their words and actions.  The interpretation you offered, however, 'that you shall know God as operating thru people', I haven't found any support for.  Maybe if you could provide some support for this interpretation, it would be helpful. In any event, I do not take most of the Bible literally.  The passage above, that 'Ye shall know them by their works', is the exception.  It would be incorrect to infer, and over-generalize, that I take the entire Bible literally.

Its a choice as to what you do with interpretation, you base it on experiences of the past and correlate them with the new information and then project the outcome out of this repetative process which becomes habit, or you let a higher awareness Guide you through each new experience that is not out of habit and projection but innocence, or presence that is present in the now,   that is not jaded by any kind of prejudice or expectation.

The Particular quote you make reference to has to be taken into experience or surrendered to in form. Who is in charge of determining the form. Ego and past impressions that can color the information based on subtle judgments and feelings or Self free from judgment and attachment?

All people have the best intentions to carry out each phase in their lives to the best of their abilities. Depending on the levels of self worth, or projected failure or success how would you determine if they were 100% behind the effort or only partially invested in the action and outcome, how would you know or with what would you use to gage the effort? A relative standard or intuition? Would you be able to tell if a handicapped person who might not achieve the same success in completing a certain manual task as say someone who flies through it and achives success in a short time is behind it 100% and would you judge the effort as being less than the non handicapped person based on a disability? Would the form matter?
Similarly what would you base the form of the person behind the effort or works as worth knowing?
Lets say you are great at your intelectual job but you suck at carpentry, depending on what one person values over anothers ideas of value the references mean nothing. someone who values manual dexterity  but not intellectual may value the builder but not the intellectual. Who then sets the standards for what is known by the actions or works?

All actions and experiences that you do have a reference point to you. They all come back to you for final judgment and interpretation. No matter where you go in any reality or experience there you are.

Similarly with any person, you me or the 6 billion people that are on this planet there is a common reference point. It is bigger than the individual self and it is within each person, their thoughts and their actions. This One thing can be known and this one thing shines through the many layers of ego and stress. Depending on how clear a person is, how free from stress or ego would determine the amount of light emanating without relative filtering.
This light is the light of God. IT shines through everything. Just as you said you would call 99% of the population that would say they were above jesus liars, you would have to have a point of reference. If this point is within you and this point is not recognised as being in others than it could only be based on your expereinces which have no other reference point but what you have determined to be relative only to you, and not relative to all things. Were you to separate yourself from all things is where you would fail to fully expereince all parts of yourself.

QUOTE

But it's not just generalizations and other people's interpretations that I base my inferences on regarding what sort of enlightenment Jesus and Buddha experienced and what sort of transcendent experiences they had.  It's based on words attributed to them.  Granted, some meaning may get lost in the translation, and of course, teachings can get corrupted and misrepresented, but nonetheless, I base my inferences based on the material available to me.  To do otherwise would be to dishonestly attribute teachings, ideas, and experiences to other people without any basis to do so.    What's your basis for attributing such teachings to Jesus?  Do you believe you have a direct connection to him?  Is your claim of omniscience relevant to clearing up this disagrrement we have over how to interpret Jesus' teachings?

I am saying to you that you can't base anything that could be beyond the relative in any relative experience or teaching. Jesus only pointed the way towards the one thing that is common to all relative experiences in all levels of consciousness. It is the one thing that remains even when the relative is gone. Like the person who when in body attributes all experiences to the sensory nervous system the one infinite unbounded Self has an anchor to the ifninite stillness that ends all thought feeling and action. This is what Jesus taught. This awareness relative to the mutidimensional states of consciousness never goes away in and beyond the relative states.
Of course talking to the relative mind and nervous system is relative to the interpretive abilites and the different levels of consciousness. Beyond the relative awareness the words become pure energy but the energy has a source and the source is relative and also pure.

QUOTE

As I've discussed above in my reply to River, Jesus and Buddha were both limited by their states of consciousness.  This is an undeniable fact.  They never reached a 'highest' or 'absolute' state of consciousness because such things don't exist.

You have misinterpreted what you have read and heard for they never made any reference to themselves being in a highest state of awareness that can be describe in relative terms. The discussion would have been pointless to describe something that is not relative to someone who has a hard time dealing with just the relative world. They taught that anyone can reach pure stillness in any relative state of consciousness and that pure isness pure state of consciousness is within all experiences and levels if consciousness, multidimensional and beyond. His message was clear and simple for the folk that suffered with attachment to feelings and things, to free ones self from suffering born of attachment, prejudice and judgment one need only turn the mind inward towards the source of all things to experience heaven on earth. This is what the Upanishads point the finger towards, what jesus pointed the minds of the people towards and what every branch of religion ever described or written is based on. The one thing that all is connected to. Immerse the awareness in that one thing and make it the anchor and all realities are freed to experience naturally, as the ego is freed from its singular identity and relationship with just the one body and one reality.


 

QUOTE

I've known for some time that the main difference between us is that you maintain some 'absolute' state of consciousness, which I reject as an empty fiction.  It's dangerous to po