Do enlightened ppl still ask 'Why' ?

[Monkey-man]

Do enlightened ppl still think about why god created the world? (or about why there is world of appearances of nothingness)

 

[DocHoliday]

@Monkey-man Of course they do, that's their thing. When enlightenment occurs, you don't really gain any additional knowledge or insights served to you on a silver plate. The only thing (basic) enlightenment (that is to say the realisation of your true nature) will do for you is, it will show you how the seperate self you thought to be is a complete illusion. Beyond that, there's obviously still a lot more "to do" and to discover because enlightenment is not the end-all-be-all, it's just the beginning. With enlightenment you have kind-of acquired the ultimate tool to sucessfully ask those questions in the most effective way, so that's why it's mostly a completely automatic thing for "enlightened people" to do such inquiry. They want to know simply for the sake of knowing but they don't necessarily "gain" anything from that. 

[snowleopard]

Maybe God asks why the fuck not?!  

[Nahm]

@Monkey-man no. 

[Faceless]

Lolol

[DocHoliday]

That’s also quite true. The only thing they have in common is their realisation but apart from that, “enlightened people” can be/are just like everybody else. (Haha, there’s a double entendre in there...)

[Nahm]

@DocHoliday what realization? 

[DocHoliday]

2 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@DocHoliday what realization? 

@Nahm Don’t you know better yourself? The realisation that there is no separate self. Now please, don’t start with that “who’s the one to know that”-sort of talk, I’m pretty tired of that to be honest. We really have to come to terms with our absolute and relative understanding. Prior to enlightenment we couldn’t make sense of the absolute but post enlightenment we “gained” the first-hand experience of it and therefore we realised that the relative is and was always incorporated within the absolute all along. But that doesn’t mean that now there is no more relativity and that everything is absolute, that’s stupid and just wrong. There are still distinctions between things and there is still relative knowledge to be acquired and therefore there are still distinct realisations to be made. Or wouldn’t you agree that “new knowledge” for example about your car or about your body in a medical sense is personal and individual to your own finite mind? Enlightenment is highly individual in that sense, it’s not a collective experience just as knowledge is individual and relative.

[Azrael]

3 hours ago, Monkey-man said:

Do enlightened ppl still think about why god created the world?

Does someone who knows there is no Santa Claus still ask why Santa is so fat? No.

[cetus]

3 hours ago, Monkey-man said:

Do enlightened ppl still think about why god created the world? (or about why there is world of appearances of nothingness)

 

@Monkey-man Enlightened ppl don't ask why because there is nothing to ask about. Everything is the absolute and the absolute doesn't exist. I know that's a total paradox. But that's the truth of it. There is no one to wonder why. There is no duality. There is no non-duality. There is no enlightenment. There is no God. There is no creation. There is no one being born. There is no world. There are no appearances. There is no nothingness. There is no void. Everything is the absolute and the absolute doesn't exist. Drop the logic that asks why and it all makes perfect sense. Nothing is.

[Monkey-man]

I just thought that enlightenment is also the realisation that there is no intellectual answer for this question but only existential one manifested in form of good feeling, in particular feeling certain or feeling that you know. Seeking starts from lack of good feeling in right brain, question formed in left, and answered in right brain again when 'good feeling' is reached and established.

Meaning of life is to feel good, and thus reason for creation is simply because its good ('god created world for his pleasure’ = existence is there coz it 'feels good'). For realised human being this understanding is manifested in feeling absolutely good or happy and thus seeking has ended. Its ended because of this emotional relief (in a sense). Coz imagine realising absolute oneness and still feel suffering? You will start seeking answers again. Enlightenment assumes feeling good. And you wouldn't pursue truth if in the end it makes you suffer until the end of your life, right?

Irrational feeling is what pushes us to wake up, while intellect is there just to know how to wake up. So if we think about first cause, the answer to why is because its 'good'. The answer to how its created is that you can think of different kind of theories. There are many ways to tie your shoes, but what pushes you to do so? Coz you wanna feel good. Every action is about feeling good. And there's nothing else that push us to do anything. Even suicide is about getting rid of negative feeling, and negative is simply lack of positive. So as anger, fear or sadness are all tools for now to feel good later (you are afraid of something so you can survive and feel good later). Even self-destruction is about doing something that you think can make you feel good, even if you think that you are mistaken in the end. Haha even masochists harm themselves and sadists harm others because it feels good for them.

So I thought since enlightened ppl finally feel good then they no longer think about reason for existence because good is the answer. Its also kind of universal answer: not all living organisms are asking why verbally, but all trying to feel good in one way or another. I think this very simple answer is often overlooked among enlightened people of West who are regardless of their enlightenment try to explain answers for 'why there is creation' in rationalising and come up with some ambiguous thing like 'there is no why, there is no question' or 'god wants to know himself' or 'its a huge laboratory and we are experiments'. For every question there is an answer, but its not always found in thinking. It can be just as easy as 'because its good', but its so often not enough for intellectual west.

 

@cetus56 to say nothing exist is to say that everything exist

Edited January 22, 2018 by Monkey-man

[Nahm]

@DocHoliday You’re describing interests and hows. I took the post as pertaining to the why.    What if the collective experience was an illusion? Like, the universe, in it’s entirety, was illusionary. Why?  

[Nahm]

@Monkey-man There is no intellectual answer. Think of intellectual as a frequency band. It’s the band of thoughts. Think of another frequency band that is a broader spectrum (awareness) and it contains the intellectual band, but is more expansive thus encompassing of it, and then another frequency band more expansive than that one (being) which is even more expansive and encompasses the previous two “bands”, and then another “band” which is at the same time not a band in any sense like the others, and is beyond being, and beyond being a thing or not being a thing, beyond existing or not existing (those are the dualities of the thoughts band) but yet is the source of all beings and all things. 

So, there is no thinking one’s way from the first, to the most expanded, to the absolute. It can be done without thinking.  This can not be intellectualized, because the thinking is coming from without the most expanded band. 

I think that’s a way to try to explain it, but in actuality, it’s also happening in that way, but in reverse, within you. No matter how much we look at and deduce, the path is always within, straight through the thinker. 

Another attempt to point to it - Sight, thinking, awareness, being. In that order.

You can visually see. You can think of what you see. You can not visually see your thinking. It goes in one direction. Thinking is transcendant to seeing.

You can think. You can be aware of what you think. You can not think your awareness. It goes in one direction. Awareness is transcendant to thinking.

You are being. You are being aware. You are not aware of your Being. It goes in one direction. Being, is transcendant to awareness. 

So you’d have to go straight through what you’re seeing, everything you’re thinking, all that you’re aware of, right into your very being. Then, you’d have acquired the perspective of how all is you. 

 

[cetus]

1 hour ago, Monkey-man said:

to say nothing exist is to say that everything exists.@Monkey-man

That's the magic. Why it happens? Again, that's the magic!

You mention the reason to seek enlightenment is to "feel good". If an enlightened person sees the world as a magic trick made from nothing, how could they have anything other than a smile on their face? Good times or bad. No difference. 

[DocHoliday]

33 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@DocHoliday You’re describing interests and hows. I took the post as pertaining to the why.    What if the collective experience was an illusion? Like, the universe, in it’s entirety, was illusionary. Why?  

@Nahm  Sure, sure...the question of "Why?" will never lead us anywhere in particular, that's why we generally refrain from asking it because there will always be another "Why?" remaining. 

[Nahm]

@DocHoliday Asking why is thinking. Going within is the other direction all together.   Why’s could go on forever in the thinking, but not absolutely. Inherent in the illusion, is a limit on one’s thinking (death). If there wasn’t death, your intelligence would be infinite, and therefore, you would not be asking why.  That’s what you’re up against, if you want to know that why. Knowing that why for yourself though - most worthwhile adventure. You’re completely underestimating so far. 

[JustinS]

@Monkey-man Haha this is for you

 

[Nahm]

@JustinS Holy shit!!!!??? That is much clearer than my babbling! Thanks!!!

[JustinS]

@Nahm Hahaha no more questions, just enjoy the f****** ride! :') 

[Nahm]

@cetus56 Pure f’ing magic! ❤️