[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment, the Most Absurd Rumor?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Defining Enlightenment, Anartaxius wrote : I think this brings up an interesting point. How does one define 'enlightenment'. The most overreaching attempts include the entire universe as a connected unity, and that would imply simply that all that exists is what enlightenment is about. Hows about this as an alternative for the sake of discussion: “GURU DEV, The Unified Field, bliss of the Absolute, transcendental joy, the Self-Sufficient, the embodiment of pure knowledge which is beyond and above the universe like the sky, the aim of Thou art That and other such expressions which unfold eternal truth, the One, the Eternal, the Pure, the Immoveable, the Witness of all intellects, whose status transcends thought, the Transcendent along with the three gunas, the true preceptor, to the UNIFIED FIELD SHRI GURU DEV, I bow down.” Sounds like a good trip but doesn't really explain anything except it terms that are also unexplained like eternal truth and the immovable. And pure knowledge that's the oddest concept of the lot as it implies there is no added waffle but is in itself a bit vague. More work required. The three Gunas I do understand though, that was Harry Secombe, Peter Sellers and Spike Milligan wasn't it? -Buck There is a phrase in Zen 'walk off with the farmer's ox, steal the blind man's food', which is an expression of unboundedness. This is kind of how the TMO behaves. -Xenophaneros Anartaxius 404951 Oblivious or Willful morally unbound? Bringing in and using the TMO as an example may not be illustrative of the nature or nurture of spiritual enlightenment lived in life. Go too far with the TMO example polluted with the story of many people then the conversation goes over to entertaining negativity and would start in to denouncing people in culture. That goes beyond spirituality and enlightenment the way Fleet is clearly talking by example. -Buck anartaxius@... wrote : I think this brings up an interesting point. How does one define 'enlightenment'. The most overreaching attempts include the entire universe as a connected unity, and that would imply simply that all that exists is what enlightenment is about. If you include everything you cannot define enlightenment as A, B, C minus some bad parts you do not like. So if, simplistically the universe is A, B, C, X, Y, and Z, you have to include them all. There is a phrase in Zen 'walk off with the farmer's ox, steal the blind man's food', which is an expression of unboundedness. This is kind of how the TMO behaves. From my perspective, enlightenment does not have any injunctions on behaviour in spite of advertisements to the contrary, all enlightenment does is reveal the connectedness of the universe, and if you want to be a 'good person', first you have to define what a good person is, and then you have to act that way, and that is a local phenomenon, an aspect of the universe far reduced from the whole. You could be enlightened and a criminal. If you listen to Charles Manson (I saw that picture online too), while he seems sort of crazy, he also often expresses unboundedness in his understanding of the world. Religions, which presumably have some connexion with the idea of enlightenment have all these rules for governing behaviour, and the question one could ask is, if religion is so great and will straighten people out, why are these rules necessary? (and one could also ask why are the rules inconsistent between religions regarding behaviour). If you say god created the universe and the way it runs, then the universe is a serial killer. Like father, like son and daughter. Looking at religious figures, gurus, etc., one cannot conclude that these rules and enlightenment techniques substantially affect behaviour that we would call 'bad'. This issue of behaviour is one which we in civilised society do not seem to have much of a clue on how to solve, and all the methods we have invented to fix it have failed. How do you traverse society without leaving mangled bodies, psychologically damaged bodies, emotionally damaged bodies, in your wake? There does not seem to be a direct connexion with seeing the world as unbounded, and acting in it in a bound way unless there is an internal switch that pains you if you cause harm. Some people do not seem to have that switch (sociopaths and psychopaths), or a 'damaged' switch and have reduced empathy. Some people are crushed by having too much empathy. If you eliminate pain and suffering from your own life, will you care about others if life no longer pains you? There seems to be a variable in all this that is not accounted for and which does not seem to be affected much by the things people do in the hope of gaining enlightenment. An example of unboundedness and unity from the Bible. Isaiah, in a literal translation (bolded are words in original
[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment, the Most Absurd Rumor?
Enlightenment is simply defined as life, accompanied by eternal and deep silence, Being, during any state of consciousness. End of story. There are no automatic attributes beyond that, as the universe takes care of the rest. Anyone can gain enlightenment, and with that, their individuality will always express enlightenment. To try for some sort of personal algorithm beyond that, is a fool's errand; better to focus on your own path, than try to come up with any comprehensive list of personal attributes. Silence in activity, always. Period. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Defining Enlightenment, Anartaxius wrote : I think this brings up an interesting point. How does one define 'enlightenment'. The most overreaching attempts include the entire universe as a connected unity, and that would imply simply that all that exists is what enlightenment is about. Hows about this as an alternative for the sake of discussion: “GURU DEV, The Unified Field, bliss of the Absolute, transcendental joy, the Self-Sufficient, the embodiment of pure knowledge which is beyond and above the universe like the sky, the aim of Thou art That and other such expressions which unfold eternal truth, the One, the Eternal, the Pure, the Immoveable, the Witness of all intellects, whose status transcends thought, the Transcendent along with the three gunas, the true preceptor, to the UNIFIED FIELD SHRI GURU DEV, I bow down.” Sounds like a good trip but doesn't really explain anything except it terms that are also unexplained like eternal truth and the immovable. And pure knowledge that's the oddest concept of the lot as it implies there is no added waffle but is in itself a bit vague. More work required. The three Gunas I do understand though, that was Harry Secombe, Peter Sellers and Spike Milligan wasn't it? -Buck There is a phrase in Zen 'walk off with the farmer's ox, steal the blind man's food', which is an expression of unboundedness. This is kind of how the TMO behaves. -Xenophaneros Anartaxius 404951 Oblivious or Willful morally unbound? Bringing in and using the TMO as an example may not be illustrative of the nature or nurture of spiritual enlightenment lived in life. Go too far with the TMO example polluted with the story of many people then the conversation goes over to entertaining negativity and would start in to denouncing people in culture. That goes beyond spirituality and enlightenment the way Fleet is clearly talking by example. -Buck anartaxius@... wrote : I think this brings up an interesting point. How does one define 'enlightenment'. The most overreaching attempts include the entire universe as a connected unity, and that would imply simply that all that exists is what enlightenment is about. If you include everything you cannot define enlightenment as A, B, C minus some bad parts you do not like. So if, simplistically the universe is A, B, C, X, Y, and Z, you have to include them all. There is a phrase in Zen 'walk off with the farmer's ox, steal the blind man's food', which is an expression of unboundedness. This is kind of how the TMO behaves. From my perspective, enlightenment does not have any injunctions on behaviour in spite of advertisements to the contrary, all enlightenment does is reveal the connectedness of the universe, and if you want to be a 'good person', first you have to define what a good person is, and then you have to act that way, and that is a local phenomenon, an aspect of the universe far reduced from the whole. You could be enlightened and a criminal. If you listen to Charles Manson (I saw that picture online too), while he seems sort of crazy, he also often expresses unboundedness in his understanding of the world. Religions, which presumably have some connexion with the idea of enlightenment have all these rules for governing behaviour, and the question one could ask is, if religion is so great and will straighten people out, why are these rules necessary? (and one could also ask why are the rules inconsistent between religions regarding behaviour). If you say god created the universe and the way it runs, then the universe is a serial killer. Like father, like son and daughter. Looking at religious figures, gurus, etc., one cannot conclude that these rules and enlightenment techniques substantially affect behaviour that we would call 'bad'. This issue of behaviour is one which we in civilised society do not seem to have much of a clue on how to solve, and all the methods we have invented to fix it have failed. How do you traverse society without leaving mangled bodies, psychologically damaged bodies, emotionally damaged bodies, in your wake? There does not seem to be a direct connexion with seeing the world as unbounded, and acting in it in a bound way unless there is an internal switch
