|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 19:34:59 GMT -5
Post by freejoy on Aug 31, 2013 19:34:59 GMT -5
For me I would define an Enlightened person as one who can be one with all things at will. That's interesting. Yeah
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 19:39:03 GMT -5
Post by nowhereman on Aug 31, 2013 19:39:03 GMT -5
I will go out on the shaky limb and say their is enlightenment but never a person to become enlightenment. It's more like a Self to Self thing, more like a big boo and oh nuts you scared me why did you do that! As if Self talks to Self Nowhereman I define the person as the body/mind/thoughts that give the individuated consciousness it's expression. Yes this is true from the pov that you are individuated consciousness then you will accept you have a body, a mind and thoughts. But who is the "you" that does this accepting? Nowhereman
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 19:43:17 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Aug 31, 2013 19:43:17 GMT -5
I define the person as the body/mind/thoughts that give the individuated consciousness it's expression. Yes this is true from the pov that you are individuated consciousness then you will accept you have a body, a mind and thoughts. But who is the "you" that does this accepting? Nowhereman
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 19:45:15 GMT -5
Post by silver on Aug 31, 2013 19:45:15 GMT -5
That's a totally absurd statement, that 'Life isn't operating under some constraints...' Life=Nature=God=Creation. It isn't operating under some kind of constraints. That's why I say it doesn't care what we want. Saying some ting doesn't care is claiming that it has the capacity to do so, and well, it just doesn't.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 19:59:04 GMT -5
Post by Beingist on Aug 31, 2013 19:59:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 20:02:09 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Aug 31, 2013 20:02:09 GMT -5
Right. I say there's a fundamental misunderstanding in general as to the nature of life itself. Self identified individuals want to live long and prosper, while Life is only interested in exploding into diversified expression. Mankind wants to function autonomously/personally while Life functions wholistically/impersonally. Mankind fears death while Life embraces death. Life supports expression, and so it will keep you alive and help you change so that you can do that, but it's not your ongoing existence that Life values, and so you may serve Life better by dying than you would by continuing on. To man, who has different priorities, this seems like an example of the cruelty of Life, and it seems unloving. Life and Love are the same. On the entropy issue, I see organization and disorganization as opposite ends of nature's circular movement. As such there are no opposing forces beyond the polarities that give rise to this movement, nor is there a continuous process of entropy. A tree decays, but in it's shadow is another seedling sprouting. The body develops, peaks out, and then begins dying, but at it's peak it gives birth to new life. Not all cycles are the same size, and so we might look at our place in the cycle of birth and death of the planet, or of galaxies, and conclude that there is only entropy, but there is also birth for planets and galaxies, and even the universe. It's just that humanity is only a dot somewhere on that enormous circle. Nature seems to cycle, we have a lifespan for sure. You appear to be limiting how far evolution can go. Also you seem to be saying the world has unavoidable insurmountable problems. I see none. Not for the human race, maybe for our particular form expressions. Our DNA may populate many potentially unlimited worlds. Even if he was (which I didn't see him doing that), evolution is nothing but a conceptual overlay on a perspective and it's one that embeds limitation in the form of selection by survival. There's no game of limitlessness available to you from within a box you've constructed around yourself.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 20:03:33 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Aug 31, 2013 20:03:33 GMT -5
For me I would define an Enlightened person as one who can be one with all things at will. That's interesting. Especially since he already agreed with the idea that an enlightened person is a fallacy.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 20:05:04 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Aug 31, 2013 20:05:04 GMT -5
Life=Nature=God=Creation. It isn't operating under some kind of constraints. That's why I say it doesn't care what we want. Saying some ting doesn't care is claiming that it has the capacity to do so, and well, it just doesn't. No, it's not. However, I talked about nature having an orientation, or vector, or self supporting aspect. I talked about it that way precisely because it doesn't have that personal quality of caring what anybody wants.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 20:09:17 GMT -5
silver likes this
Post by enigma on Aug 31, 2013 20:09:17 GMT -5
That's interesting. Especially since he already agreed with the idea that an enlightened person is a fallacy. He contradicts himself regularly, which tells me he's got as pocket full of concepts that he hasn't even reconciled. (Prolly cuz he doesn't care.)
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 20:17:44 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Aug 31, 2013 20:17:44 GMT -5
Especially since he already agreed with the idea that an enlightened person is a fallacy. He contradicts himself regularly, which tells me he's got as pocket full of concepts that he hasn't even reconciled. (Prolly cuz he doesn't care.) The fact that FJ states what his principles are openly and doesn't run from them as such lends a light comic air to the correspondence. He and MQ have this thing in common where I envision them snickering to the side as they pass out pitchforks and light torches.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 20:22:39 GMT -5
Post by freejoy on Aug 31, 2013 20:22:39 GMT -5
That's interesting. Especially since he already agreed with the idea that an enlightened person is a fallacy. What's up with that? I don't remember ever saying that but I see no problem if I did. I'm sometimes a little sloppy with my terms. Sometimes to arouse interest. The "person" is the one that does the expression. Like "you" "you" are the one I'm receiving communication from and replying to. The "person" is the one that "communicates" the expression. Like I have been saying an Enlightened person would experience two realities. One that has the perception of duality and the other Oneness with all things. One with a personal self and the other with a non-personal Self.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 20:26:50 GMT -5
Post by freejoy on Aug 31, 2013 20:26:50 GMT -5
Does that resolve the discrepancy?
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 20:40:11 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Aug 31, 2013 20:40:11 GMT -5
Especially since he already agreed with the idea that an enlightened person is a fallacy. What's up with that? I don't remember ever saying that but I see no problem if I did. I'm sometimes a little sloppy with my terms. Sometimes to arouse interest. The "person" is the one that does the expression. Like "you" "you" are the one I'm receiving communication from and replying to. The "person" is the one that "communicates" the expression. Like I have been saying an Enlightened person would experience two realities. One that has the perception of duality and the other Oneness with all things. One with a personal self and the other with a non-personal Self. I was referring to this: Also non-sequitur but relevant overall, do you seriously believe that the idea of an enlightened person is anything other than a mirage? For any particular enlightened person yes, but I'm just getting a general demographic, physiographic profile. Is that acceptable? To be honest with you I don't take the concept of "Oneness with all things" all that seriously and it does seem that any definition of enlightenment would touch on that concept to one degree or another. Personality, as an idea, is less complicated and certainly not ineffable, but no less amorphous. The problem that I see is that the mess of "an enlightened person" is tangled with the question of identity, and the question of what we are is one that I find the answer to to be ineffable. If you meet someone who says that "I am an enlightened person" my advice to you is to laugh in their face, but my impression is that you think you're already doing that.
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 20:52:47 GMT -5
Post by nowhereman on Aug 31, 2013 20:52:47 GMT -5
What's up with that? I don't remember ever saying that but I see no problem if I did. I'm sometimes a little sloppy with my terms. Sometimes to arouse interest. The "person" is the one that does the expression. Like "you" "you" are the one I'm receiving communication from and replying to. The "person" is the one that "communicates" the expression. Like I have been saying an Enlightened person would experience two realities. One that has the perception of duality and the other Oneness with all things. One with a personal self and the other with a non-personal Self. I was referring to this: For any particular enlightened person yes, but I'm just getting a general demographic, physiographic profile. Is that acceptable? To be honest with you I don't take the concept of "Oneness with all things" all that seriously... Thats because you you never got on the right bus my man!
|
|
|
Duty
Aug 31, 2013 21:01:36 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Aug 31, 2013 21:01:36 GMT -5
I was referring to this: To be honest with you I don't take the concept of "Oneness with all things" all that seriously... Thats because you you never got on the right bus my man!
|
|