How Can You Tell If A Person Is Enlightened? (response To Leo's May 18 Insight)

[electroBeam]

1 hour ago, eputkonen said:

So if you have problems, fears, worries/anxieties, guilt, etc. (i.e. suffer)...then you are not enlightened yet.

You still have fears worries and anxieties, but you don't identify with them.

It's not like the ego disappears. It's still there, worrying and doing its thing, but who cares? We love how it does that. Worrying and being afraid is fun.

[Bastian]

31 minutes ago, Snick said:

The body-mind appear IN consciousness, not the other way around. Consciousness is not arising within the body-mind. Consciousness is aware of the body-mind as well as of all the thoughts, sensations and perceptions that arise in the body-mind.

The body-mind is a machine so to speak. If the "machine" is not enlightened it thinks that the awareness of the thoughts is a property of the body-mind. 

Enlightened persons, know they are not that very person, but EVERYTHING. Including the one with the gun. Living this understanding is hard though, because we are not wired to understand it! 

We are wired to be naive realists in every possible way. Just analyze your visual system. You are never "see" anything really. Definitely you don't see anything outside your brain. And definitely not with your eyes. Your visual system analyze the light unconsciously and then the brain "build" a model that suits its interests. Thats why a stone can look like a wolf in the dark, it's wired to protect you and filter information. It highlight with magnitude that which is important. 

In relative realm of things, nonduality and enlightenment is the most stupid thing. Life is an ongoing happening, if you really enjoy it, you never questioned deeply. It's unnatural to seek the truth in a way. And it's definitely unnatural and a sign of failure to LIVE the truth. Thats how paradoxical it is! 

So what you're saying is that because in one's direct experience the body appears in consciousness and not the other way around, therefore consciousness won't cease existing when the body dies? If this is what you're saying, then I'll repeat what I said in my first post: you can't be sure, it's just a speculation. It could be that consciousness will cease to exist when the body dies even if in your direct experience the body appears in consciousness. And I still don't understand what you mean when you say "consciousness doesn't know anything".

[Dodo]

8 minutes ago, Loreena said:

Imo, body mind is a physical entity, like a machine and consciousness is the software that runs on it. If the hardware is bad, the software cannot last long. If the software is bad, the hardware loses its value. But in case of body mind the connection is deeper and the correlation is stronger so they impact each other equally.

Where did the physical entity pop out of? Notice how this is just a label. Saying that body-mind is a physical entity or machine, does not mean it is not a different aggregate form of consciousness.

I view it as the mind is the software, not consciousness. In other words, software and hardware are both another aggregate form of pure consciousness, in my current world view.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Dodo

[Deep]

@Alii This is a good a discussion. I'll share my opinion with you. Enlightenment is realizing you are God after experiencing yourself as God. It's literally mind blowing! It's called liberation because you are free from the body/mind complex you are identified with. It's hard to tell who is enlightened and who isn't because an enlightened master would seem like a weirdo to many. Some enlightened people can help others to attain enlightenment. Some of them don't. 

In the Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna to kill all of his relatives before the Kurukshetra war because they were a menace to society. For a person who is trapped in the mind that would seem crazy. Krishna also says to follow your dharma without worrying about the body. It means following your purpose or what God is doing through you (since you aren't who you think you are), even if your body dies. 

[Bastian]

23 minutes ago, Snick said:

Consciousness knows of itself, sorry! It's knows it owns existence. The most intimate knowing there is! 

But what ever dies with a person, how can that be an entity? Can there be a conscious agent there? Even on a conventional level? 

I don't decide anything that has to do with body-minds, not my heart rate, not my immune system, not my digestion, not any of thousands of ongoing processes in "my" body-mind. The only thing "I" control are "my" thoughts and movements.

But that is only on a basis of a feeling. If you examine it, you quickly realize you never decide your thoughts. And in regards to your movements, it's literary billions of processes involved in just raising your hand. All the synapses, muscle fibres, all the nerves communicating. Do you consciously do all those billions of things simultaniously to claim you are a body-mind? 

You see! You are out of argument even on a conventional basis. YOU are NOT a body-mind! But this information is exchanged from a body-mind to another. Do YOU see the matrix?

I understand that there isn't a separate entity that controls stuff. What I was saying is that you cannot be sure that consciousness/you won't cease to exist when the body dies. You can't be sure of the contrary either. That's all I'm saying. Not sure if you're going off on a tangent or I'm the one that doesn't see your point

Edited May 24, 2017 by Bastian

[Mondsee]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It cannot work in the "real world", which is why the "real world" is a fake Hollywood stage built on lies. The cost of having a smooth-running "real world" is lying your ass off to everyone, especially yourself. (Again, Trump is a great example of this.) His lying is precisely why he's become so successful. You cannot do what Trump does and be enlightened at the same time. Your head would explode from the cognitive dissonance. It only works because he lies to himself first.

See... Truth is VERY antithetical to self-survival. Notice how your question only cares about self-survival, not Truth.

In this work you have to be willing to say... fuck it... if the Truth kills me, so be it. I will take death and Truth over the "real world". Not many people want to make that commitment, understandably. Hence few people are truly spiritual.

Yes, if the judge was enlightened, he wouldn't be a judge at all. Because judgment is a lie. It wouldn't work in our current system. But then again, you gotta consider the full picture here. If the judge literally experienced all of reality to be perfect, then what would be the problem? Rape wouldn't bother him. See... unconditional happiness is a tricky thing. You think you want it, but do you really? Are you cool enough to be happy with rape? See... spirituality is too radical for most people. They want enlightenment to conform to human norms. But of course that cannot be because enlightenment is Absolute.

Alternatively, an enlightened judge could be honest and say, "This rapist is a lovely person, one of God's creatures. I understand that he only broken an arbitrary law which our community has created. But, he broke the law, for which there are consequences! So I will put him to death. I will chop off his head with my own hand because that's what our community has agreed to as the proper punishment, and I swore that I would uphold the law when I took this job." That's totally viable. And it's honest. Nothing about enlightenment says that you cannot create or enforce laws. But is it right or wrong to kill a rapist? Neither. Those are ego-created labels and delusions.

Human laws are not based on justice or Truth. They are based on arbitrary human needs, which are then wrapped in a veneer of justice, freedom, truth, and goodness, so that their arbitrariness and selfishness can be denied. So you can enforce a law and feel justified about it at the same time. That's the magic of the legal system. It's a bullshit machine. It's built on pure bullshit. Yes, even The Constitution, all of it! Just self-righteous ego-stuff designed to enable society. It does a damn fine job. But it's bullshit.

Reading about enlightenment in this terms seems like a lot of fun! It seems to me that it kind of means that enlightenment = not giving a fuck about absolutely anything, "good" or "bad", just being fine with whatever there is, right?

[Dodo]

Just now, Bastian said:

I understand that there isn't a separate entity that controls stuff. What I was saying is that you cannot be sure that consciousness/you won't cease to exist when the body dies. You can't be sure of the contrary either. That's all I'm saying. Not sure if you're going off on a tangent or I'm the one that doesn't see your point.

To be sure of something is a quality of mind. The one that is sure or unsure is the mind. You're thinking like a lawyer. You are right from the point of view of a human entity. 

You are separating consciousness from form, yet have you any evidence, if you are going to lawyer about, of there even being such a thing as form? Isn't all you have of form just the perception of it, awareness of it?

So the only thing in fact we have first hand evidence of right now is that we are aware, not claiming who we are even, we know we are aware. What we are aware of is just perception in awareness.

Whether awareness can be aware of itself? Sure! If you know you are aware, that is awareness being aware of itself. Why? Because what is so subtle to be aware of awareness, other than awareness? How can something other than awareness be aware? It's ridiculous.

"What I was saying is that you cannot be sure that consciousness/you won't cease to exist when the body dies"

This is not important. One has to inquire into who they are actually. There's no point talking about consciousness like you understand what it is. The mind wants to understand, of course, but how do you stand under that which is formless, but always true (this is contradictory by nature, so the mind will fail every time).

[Mondsee]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

In the same way that a lion will not worry about eating you. He's not gonna have moral qualms about it. He will fucking eat you and be happy about it. The lion is not gonna sit there thinking, "Oh gee... maybe eating him is wrong? I shouldn't have this hunger for human meat. I am so wicked! Why has God cursed me with this craving? Why God, why?!!! I know... I will just hold back. I will resist. I will be a good little lion the way humans want me to be."

He's a lion, not a Catholic!

Ah!  hahahahaha I'm laughing so bad right now! "He's a lion, not a Catholic!" is really the cherry on top of the cake! Add this to your "How To Be Funny" examples!

Edited May 24, 2017 by Mondsee

[abrakamowse]

Just now, Snick said:

I just deluded my self in the very minimum way, but enough delusion so that a discussion can take place. If I dig any deeper, only silence is left! 

And even that is only an idea... the mind makes it an object 

right?

[abrakamowse]

8 minutes ago, Snick said:

Yup!

Spot on! 

 

 

[abrakamowse]

@Snick  what is doubt? I know is a thought, but what generates it?

[Bastian]

1 hour ago, Dodo said:

To be sure of something is a quality of mind. The one that is sure or unsure is the mind. You're thinking like a lawyer. You are right from the point of view of a human entity. 

You are separating consciousness from form, yet have you any evidence, if you are going to lawyer about, of there even being such a thing as form? Isn't all you have of form just the perception of it, awareness of it?

So the only thing in fact we have first hand evidence of right now is that we are aware, not claiming who we are even, we know we are aware. What we are aware of is just perception in awareness.

Whether awareness can be aware of itself? Sure! If you know you are aware, that is awareness being aware of itself. Why? Because what is so subtle to be aware of awareness, other than awareness? How can something other than awareness be aware? It's ridiculous.

"To be sure of something is a quality of mind. The one that is sure or unsure is the mind. You're thinking like a lawyer. You are right from the point of view of a human entity"

What you mean by “mind”? And what you mean by “to be sure of/to know something”?

"You are separating consciousness from form, yet have you any evidence, if you are going to lawyer about, of there even being such a thing as form?"

Not sure what you mean. I’ll say this (not sure if it’s what you’re referring to): there is the colour blue and the colour red and they are not the same “thing”, so there are two “forms”

"Isn't all you have of form just the perception of it, awareness of it?"

Not sure what you mean. What you mean by perception? Who is the “you” you’re refering to? I can’t find a “me” in my experience. There is just a series of “experiences” and that's it

"So the only thing in fact we have first hand evidence of right now is that we are aware, not claiming who we are even, we know we are aware. What we are aware of is just perception in awareness."

I actually don’t know that I am aware. How can you say that you are aware?

Edited May 24, 2017 by Bastian

[Mondsee]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Only when nothing has meaning or value, can everything be equally valued = unconditional love.

[...]

The only way unconditional love is possible is through total equality, otherwise known as, total nihilism. As soon as you say that one thing is more important or valuable than another, you've killed it. You've dropped into conditional love. God makes no distinctions with it's love. Which is why you're a mere human. God's flavor of love is a bit too radical for you. So you got the watered down, self-biased version. Your love is centered around your petty human valuations. But God don't give a shit about any of that. It loves to infinity.

I have a practical question: when enlightened, is it possible to fall in love with someone, as in a romantic couple relationship?

Because in such a case, you do prefer your partner over others, and that doesn't seem to be very compatible with total equality, but also... isn't intimacy a natural desire of the body, beyond the ego part wanting to be loved?

[Dodo]

21 minutes ago, Bastian said:

"To be sure of something is a quality of mind. The one that is sure or unsure is the mind. You're thinking like a lawyer. You are right from the point of view of a human entity"

1. What you mean by “mind”? And what you mean by “to be sure of/to know something”?

"You are separating consciousness from form, yet have you any evidence, if you are going to lawyer about, of there even being such a thing as form?"

2. Not sure what you mean. I’ll say this (not sure if it’s what you’re referring to): there is the colour blue and the colour red and they are not the same “thing”, so there are two “forms”

"Isn't all you have of form just the perception of it, awareness of it?"

3. Not sure what you mean. What you mean by perception? Who is the “you” you’re refering to? I can’t find a “me” in my experience. There is just a series of “experiences” and that's it

"So the only thing in fact we have first hand evidence of right now is that we are aware, not claiming who we are even, we know we are aware. What we are aware of is just perception in awareness."

4. I actually don’t know that I am aware. How can you say that you are aware?

1. Who knows. Mind is the entity that is built on beliefs and thoughts and has built this I, which we refer to as Ego. For example if someone spits on you, that I, the mind, gets hurt. "Why you doing this to ME??"

2. Colour blue and colour red are in fact the same thing, they are both vibrations, interpreted by the mind differently.

Also you can think about looking at light: It contains a rainbow of colours. Imagine those colours arguing with each other, saying they are separate, when in fact they are all one light.

3. Isn't that what we are all looking for. Who am I? The answer is awareness itself. Listen. There is no separate you. But there is You.

4. That's just silly. Are you not aware of your own presence?

[Dodo]

11 minutes ago, Snick said:

That's the ONLY thing you DO KNOW. 

Consciousness is! Do we really know anything more? Yes! The knowing of the fact that "consciousness is" 

We refer to this as "I AM" 

Consciousness + Knowing that consciousness exist = I AM = I AM AWARE. 

Everything else is speculations!  

Thus, your claim that you don't know that you are aware is the only thing you DO know! 

Continue with self inquiry! Dodoster is highly respected here, only use his time with wise questions! Contemplate your own questions a few minutes before posting please! 

Thanks! 

I don't think this is the case at all unless you were being sarcastic ??

I think I am considered as one of the zen devil jokers most of the time ?

[Bastian]

11 minutes ago, Dodo said:

1. Who knows. Mind is the entity that is built on beliefs and thoughts and has built this I, which we refer to as Ego. For example if someone spits on you, that I, the mind, gets hurt. "Why you doing this to ME??"

2. Colour blue and colour red are in fact the same thing, they are both vibrations, interpreted by the mind differently.

Also you can think about looking at light: It contains a rainbow of colours. Imagine those colours arguing with each other, saying they are separate, when in fact they are all one light.

3. Isn't that what we are all looking for. Who am I? The answer is awareness itself. Listen. There is no separate you. But there is You.

4. That's just silly. Are you not aware of your own presence?

2 Not in "my" experience

3 In "my" experience there is just a series of "perceptions" and no me.

4. Nope. There is not an "I" that is aware of anything and there is just a series of "perceptions". Even if some day "I" will find this "presence" you are talking about, it would be just another experience in a series of experiences/perceptions without any entity aware of it. 

I'm sorry I'm concise, I have little time unfortunately.

 

[outlandish]

It's easy to tell when someone is enlightened, you just have to look for their enlightenment trophy. Enlightened people usually keep it in their living room, but the most highly enlightened people have a trophy room for all of their enlightenment trophies. They will be happy to show it to you!

[eputkonen]

3 hours ago, electroBeam said:

You still have fears worries and anxieties, but you don't identify with them.

It's not like the ego disappears. It's still there, worrying and doing its thing, but who cares? We love how it does that. Worrying and being afraid is fun.

No, the ego does not disappear.  But .you don't identify with the ego and you are not fooled by it anymore.  This changes everything.

If you are still worried, you are still being fooled by the illusions of the mind. 

There is a Tibetan Buddhist saying to the effect - if a problem can be solved there is no use worrying about it. If it can't be solved, worrying will do no good.  So, if you truly realized the futility of worry...and that there are not benefits to worry...why would you cause yourself that unnecessary anguish?

From my experience...one doesn't.  If you see through "worry" and the illusions of the mind you are believing (like worrying about it will somehow make it more likely to go the way you want to)...then you cease to worry.  I have had no worries for over 10 years.  Even losing my job and being unemployed during the recession (2008-2010) did not cause me to worry.  Instead, I did what I could and accepted what could not be changed.

If you still identify with and believe the ego...then you worry, fear, etc. 

If you realize there is no other and never was any other...what is there to be afraid of?  Fear requires an "other".

[abrakamowse]

The only thing I know is that I AM. The problem is that after the knowing that I AM thoughts appear and say "I AM the body" "I AM bored" "I AM sad" "I AM happy"

That happens because those thoughts are covering reality.

Edited May 24, 2017 by abrakamowse

[Dodo]

38 minutes ago, Bastian said:

2 Not in "my" experience

3 In "my" experience there is just a series of "perceptions" and no me.

4. Nope. There is not an "I" that is aware of anything and there is just a series of "perceptions". Even if some day "I" will find this "presence" you are talking about, it would be just another experience in a series of experiences/perceptions without any entity aware of it. 

I'm sorry I'm concise, I have little time unfortunately.

 

4. Awareness is not an I identity. It is that in which all entities and appearant forms arise.

You are not going to see it as something in awareness, because it is the space for the experiences you are referring to.

Tbh your observations are completely true, there is no separate you observing experience.

Here are some contemplative questions which may get you to recognise what I'm referring to when I speak of Consciousness/Awareness 

What allows all the stream of experiences /perceptions to be? What is underneath? What is reality based on?

This is the presence that cant be seen, but is always there.

If we even supposed it's not there sometimes,  then there would not be experiencing and we go to the type of question : if a tree falls and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Answer is irrelevant for one.

 

Edited May 24, 2017 by Dodo