I've been 'told' by others that I've been enlightened to the nature of reality with my recent shift in how I perceive existence...however, no truly enlightened person is going to say "yes, I'm enlightened".. Why do you ask?
So a truly enlightened person, if asked if they were in such a state, would lie? That seems counter-intuitive.
No sir, your thinking in terms of duality. Enlightenment is a subtle realization or shift in perception in which one discovers that there's only ONE thing going on (oneness), therefore how could 'he as an individual' be enlightened and be separate from everyone else by dividing himself with such terms that ultimately lead back to isolationism and ignorance?
One thing going on doesn't mean no separation. There's always now, and never the past or the future. I am still not you, and we probably have different levels of understanding of reality. There are divisions within life. How they're classified doesn't seem that important to me, only understanding why. Why do you believe everything is the same, with no measurable differences? Or are the terms I use not the same as the ones you use?
One thing going on ...meaning conscious awareness that we all share, or as you put it 'now'. So we agree . I never said you were me, however we all share the same 'now-ness' only in a individualized manor. I never said there weren't any measurable differences. Measurement is once again diving back into duality which is not what I'm attempting to convey.
I thought you might believe in a unified consciousness. Duality is inherent to existence, and recognition of it must be a part of the path to realization.
Well, according to the Buddha anyone who still thought in terms of separate individuals who could personally become enlightened could not possibly be enlightened.
Well, that's just Buddha's opinion -- how do you know what he speaks, in this regard, is indeed fact? ... it's been said that Buddha pointed to different mental phenomena, like perception, feeling, thinking, and exclaimed that one cannot find "self" in any of these spheres... But, that's because Buddha didn't look hard enough. Well, obviously, the self is the being who can observe all of these DIFFERENT spheres; that is to say, how can a person such as Buddha speak on the experience(s) of different spheres, if he, as an observer, has not in turn experienced the variety of them? George Berkeley sagaciously writes, "How often must I repeat, that I know or am conscious of my own being; and that I my-self am not my ideas (my sensations and my intuitions), but somewhat else, a thinking active principle that perceives, knows, wills, and operates about ideas (about sensations and intuitions). I know that I, one and the same self, perceive both colors and sounds (i.e., different spheres): that a color cannot perceive a sound, nor a sound a color (i.e., one sphere cannot perceive another): that I am therefore one individual principle, distinct from color and sound; and, for the same reason, from all other sensible things and inert ideas (from all perceptual content). To deny the self, that is, I-am self-consciousness, is foolery.
I don't; just sharing something the Buddha said, which is worthy of noting and dealt specifically with the topic of conversation I quoted. As for whether there is a self or not. I think I do tend towards the idea that there is an essence underlying all of the various 'skandhas' or elements of existence. It's an intangible essence, which is automatically 'not' anything which could be asserted, as it is always behind them. Also, anatta, commonly translated 'no-self,' could also mean 'not self.' In that sense it is saying self cannot be found in any particular 'thing' which one could postulate, but it is not making any absolute statement on the existence or non-existence of self. In some Mahayana sutra or another, Buddha said his teachings on not/no-self were like a medicine used to remove erroneous notions of self from peoples minds, so that the true self could be discovered.
Kierkegaard expounds on something similiar... he asserts, it's absurd to state and claim that I do not exist, for, to state and claim, and supposedly discern, such a thing, means that one, a self, must indeed exist; yet, it's not absurd to claim that "I" does not exist. As for whether there is a self or not. I think I do tend towards the idea that there is an essence underlying all of the various 'skandhas' or elements of existence. It's an intangible essence, which is automatically 'not' anything which could be asserted, as it is always behind them. Or rather, as it always must presuppose the acknowledgement of them.
I think when a person becomes spiritually enlightened, he has been expiriencing phases of meditation, self-observation and truly knowing yourself. This process can take years; google a bit about chinese culture and budhism and also a lot of indian culture is leaning in a way of knowing yourself (what you really are), meditation, OBE, connection to the "higher force" etc.. One scientist, i think it was Einstein but Im not sure; said that our world is all about frequencies, vibrations and energy, which surrounds us, but we cant see it, we can feel it.
Sorry for double-post. I know that human being explores everything and denies it after finding out that nothing he smells exactly like it tastes.. When you take for expample an orange and smell it...what do you feel when you eat it? and this was just an example.. You feel like you ate an orange because of the smell and taste combined...lets say you look at different strains of weed... every strain is different.. even if you taste it, maybe it doesnt taste like it smells.. diversity and becoming "one whole"
Spiritual enlightenment will always be argued from variable perspectives. My enlightenment happened a year or two ago... When I realized everything just is. Good n bad are subjective. Positive and negative are not. Neutral state of mind that distinguishes the input and output of said positive n negative energy. Fully aware. Awake. Knowing that I will forever be learning and growing, until my body dies, decays, and repeats the cycle of letting other perceptions grow off pf my own like soil to roots. This is the tree of life. Fermenting each others roots to produce crisp apples that rot. The rot is subjective yet it stays as the fertilization to thought... To consciousness. Perception. Irrigated by waters pure, my hand extends to water the roots of my own and others. Who waters what? Define that yourself. No arguments, only the inherent truth of self matters. A truth of neutrality. It just is. Inherently ignorant to our own ignorance. A paradox. Its all based upon perception but which is it that you view? What acts are you putting on for who n parallel to? blah blah blah. But yeah. Thats what its been to me.
Duality is what we all experience in this human physical existence with our thoughts, perceptions, and feelings, however what we actually 'are' (self-realization) is non-dual consciousness or aware presence to which all these thoughts, feelings, and perceptions are allowed to take place in (the screen to which the movie of life plays out on=conscious awareness or experience). Like you said earlier, we are all on some level of our journey and in different phases of our understanding so whatever level of understanding someone may be on should be honored and not debated which is why I choose not to do so. And like the last poster said, debating reality serves no purpose because we're all talking about the same thing only from different points of view. This is what makes the human existence so beautiful, all these unique conscious expressions of the same thing. That's why I love to read about this stuff from various perspectives, everyone has something to offer the whole as we are all pieces of the whole. We are awareness expressing and experiencing itself through this human existence as conscious 'being'.
If you don't want to talk about it, just say that. Don't skirt around what you're really trying to say with the guise of pleasantries and honor, both of which are constructed in order to avoid dealing with something or another. Is that quote verbatim? I've personally never heard that. Where did you find it?
No, it was paraphrased from memory, but true to the meaning. http://www.diamond-sutra.com/diamond_sutra_text/page9.html "Tell me, Subhuti. Does a Buddha say to himself, 'I have obtained Perfect Enlightenment.'?" "No, lord. There is no such thing as Perfect Enlightenment to obtain. If a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha were to say to himself, 'I am enlightened' he would be admitting there is an individual person, a separate self and personality, and would therefore not be a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha."