Definitions 2-5 are all "mind states". And the same sort of things occur with increased satva. What distinguishes satvic states from your def of "enlightenemnt"?
You once mentioned "no ownership of thoughts" as a definition of E. While that is a virtue, IMO, and has strong implications for behavior, it is also a bit of a low bar for E. I think a number of people, though a minority, must have this experience. What distinguishes virtuous states and qualities from your def of "enlightenemnt"? While this virtue, IMO, does not define enlightenment, for some definitions of E, it may be a necessary but not sufficient virtue. Or being a mind state, this virtue may have nothing to do with E in (the view) of some viewers eyes. Which raises a broader question,related to this and your attributes 2-5, can mind states be a reflection of state 1, or is there little or no correlation? Lack of it (thus ownership) is apparent. Many debates on FFL appear to reek of it. On the other hand, one can feel no ownership of thoughts and ideas, yet still advocate the merits of a particular view. I think, however, when personal insults start, the jig is up. Ownership city. Similarly, a absence of a localized sense of identity (while still maintaining the illusion of the social self in practical life) -- for some a necessary and sufficient quality of E, for others it may be necessary but not sufficient. For others it may be an uncorrelated non issue. Regardless, some personal characteristics follow from this virtue. Without a localized, substantive identity, there is nothing to be insulted. In my book, a person who expresses, or acts out from, having been insulted, is lacking the virtue of non-localized idnentity. Some claiming E are easily "insulted" which conflicts with some views / defs of E. Others, not so much. Insulting others, often stems from being / feeling insulted. Thus may be a marker of localized identity. Other circumstances may also occur -- some surface insults are intended in a good natured way -- a "busting ones chops", a type of bonding, or at least a sanity check amongst friends. --- In [email protected], "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I define living enlightenment as 1) having the simultaneous experience > of deep, infinite silence, infused into every activity of life, > sensory or thoughtful, while waking, dreaming or sleeping. 2) I further > define enlightenment as having the sense that I create my world, > wholly and totally, including all of those in it (even though they > may have the same experience that includes me) moment by moment. 3) > Also a subjective sense that I am always centered, in the precise > center of my world. 4) And that things always work out for the best, > even though in the middle of something, it sometimes feels pretty > dicey, but then as I wait and watch through a continuation of an > experience, it resolves itself perfectly, until the next adventure, > in which the dynamic repeats itself... 5) Also much reduced fear-- > Since there is nothing I feel I have to do anymore, other than the > next obvious thing, there is no longer much to be fearful of, except > possibly imagination. This includes no fear of death (As distinct > from also having a strong love of life). > > That's all I can think of for the moment.
