“ What - pray tell - is so enlightening about enlightenment?” – GW Dripping sarcasm aside, the mind that understands itself is the enlightened mind.
On Aug 30, 4:52 pm, [email protected] wrote: > What - pray tell - is so enlightening about enlightenment? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > Sent: Mon, Aug 30, 2010 6:23 pm > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Direct Knowledge > > Without meaning to delve too deeply into the meaning of words here, > > some agreement about what we are discussing must yet again be reached > > similar to while talking about ego. > > GW already acknowledges a continuum. This term is used in many ways in > > different contexts. Here, I will assume that some sense of a whole, of > > a unity is included. And, when seen from this view, even though there > > absolutely do exist relative views from individuals (read: individual > > consciousnesses) since it is all a “continuum”, the direct > > apprehension and experience of this totality by any of the many > > components is possible. > > And, yes, there is a ‘positive feeling’ as countless people who have > > achieved this state have reported…more use terms similar to Joy though > > when this state is achieved. Further, besides this happiness from the > > vantage of a “positive feeling state” (which clearly differs from a > > baby resting on a breast), the enlightened state is that which finds > > many qualities that differ from the relative state. And, while mind > > rests in its own radiance, both the subjective ruminations as well as > > the total silence of the absolute state are at once known. > > But, as it has always been known, such states, not being conceptual in > > nature, are not describable using relative terms. Plato merely called > > it “the Fifth” > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Letter_(Plato)#Long_digression_o... > > On Aug 30, 2:18 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > How is one to know for certain that their direct experience of > > "consciousness" > > is the same for each perceiver. > > > We know there is a continuum of consciousness. This strongly suggests that > > any > > state of consciousness must necessary be relative > > > to a given observer. The idea of transcending concepts to a sustained > > unified > > uninterpreted state of at-one-ment may temporarily feel good to the > experience - > > like I imagine a recently fed baby feels resting his/her head on its mother's > > breast - . But aside from a positive feeling state what else would constitute > > direct knowledge of a state that presumably transcends all concepts? > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Mon, Aug 30, 2010 4:21 pm > > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Direct Knowledge > > > What do you think? > > > On Aug 30, 6:23 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This is why Molly end her snippets with the direct demand: "What do > > > > YOU think?" > > > > Try to answer her next time. ;-) > > > > On 30 Aug., 05:30, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > from Chogyam Trungpa: DIRECT KNOWLEDGE > > > > > "In the study of Buddhist philosophy, from the start one tries to > > > > > transcend concepts, and one tries, perhaps in a very critical way, to > > > > > find out what /is. /One has to develop a critical mind that will > > > > > stimulate intelligence. If one cultivates intelligent, intuitive > > > > > insight, then gradually real intuitive feeling develops, and any > > > > > imaginary or hallucinatory element is clarified and eventually dies > > > > > out. Finally, the vague feeling of discovery becomes very clear, so > > > > > that almost no doubt remains. Even at this stage, it is possible that > > > > > one may be unable to explain one's discovery verbally or write it down > > > > > exactly on paper. In fact, if one tried to do so, it would be limiting > > > > > one's scope and would be rather dangerous. Nevertheless, one finally > > > > > attains direct knowledge, rather than achieving something which is > > > > > separate from oneself. This can only be achieved through the practice > > > > > of meditation, which is not a question of going into some inward > > > > > depth, but of widening and expanding outward." - Condensed from > > > > > "Meditation," in /Meditation in Action/, pages 78 to 79. Shambhala > > > > > Library Edition.
