seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Lunitik, it has been said that an enlightened person can see everyone as being enlightened in some way or another.
agnosticism
- Thread starter IowaGuy
- Start date
L
Lunitik
Guest
As I just said, all contain the seed, the potentiality, but most simply miss. They think they are already actualized, so they remain forever just a potentiality. I want a society of flowers, seeds scattered around are not much to look at.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
But what about what those "seeds" want?
L
Lunitik
Guest
They are only aware of that existence, the initial breaking of the exterior to permit the sprouting is distressing, but the eventual flowering is the most beautiful experience possible. Change is always scary, but it is a waste to remain as a seed. It is ultimately up to the seed though, all the flower can do is provide the curiosity and show what is possible. Nothing can force the seed to flower, it is entirely reliant on free will - the seed must surrender its own shell to the potential within it.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Ah, grasshoppers, the prefect trap is set for the monkey mind and he will slam it shut on you! Arguing or discussion is not the point, just take it for what it is... the butterfly effect or the bodhi-sattva (the choice is yours).
Pax et amore omnia vincunt.
Pax et amore omnia vincunt.
L
Lunitik
Guest
I actually prefer the butterfly scenario to the bodhisatva...
Bodhisatva automatically makes one think of Buddhism, an identification for 200 million people at least on this earth. It is quite like that of the butterfly though, the caterpillar dies in the cocoon and emerges as something entirely different.
It is very similar, before a human being, after an enlightened being... and yet externally, unless you are sensitive to it, you will not know a difference at all.
Bodhisatva automatically makes one think of Buddhism, an identification for 200 million people at least on this earth. It is quite like that of the butterfly though, the caterpillar dies in the cocoon and emerges as something entirely different.
It is very similar, before a human being, after an enlightened being... and yet externally, unless you are sensitive to it, you will not know a difference at all.
Edward? Paging Edward Palalamar, this thread was designed for you...
Edward?
Edward?
Not quite his thread, but a thread focused so we wouldn't derail another...
Seems he isn't quite so keen on discussing his viewpoint.
According to you, your enlightenment comes from clearing your brain and considering nothing, in meditation. What is it that won't permit you to have considerations, and to challenge them with the golden rule?
L
Lunitik
Guest
What challenge can the Golden Rule offer to the statement "all is fundamentally one"? If all is one, you will only harm yourself if you lash out at another, it is completely stupid to bring negativity into anything - love is the glue, but we are quite good at providing shade from it.
What is there to consider? What will that consideration earn? It would only be my mind disagreeing with my heart, it is utterly stupid. No, I follow intuition because it is more attuned to the whole.
Etu Malku
Mercuræn
- Messages
- 1,439
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 38
One must embrace balance to be a whole.
L
Lunitik
Guest
Wholeness only comes from totality, accepting all that is at this moment.
Being so-so - half and half - in anything ensures perpetual mediocrity, and yet you are not to identify with anything that happens - you are not to feel you love or you hate, love or hate is simply happening now. If you cling to either, you will obsess about both, this is harmful.
You say that you are enlightened, and you say that others are not. So people are not fundamentally one, according to you, in the manner that you claim to believe it. You say that some are stupid, or negative, or loving. So people are not fundamentally one, according to you, in the manner that you claim to believe it. Your more often stated belief is that, "all are fundamentally nothing", and anything else is from an ego.
To consider that you may not be so enlightened, and your behavior along with it. According to you, "It is your ego that won't permit you to consider it."
Ah yes, your intuition is in charge. Sensitized. Hooked on a feeling. Why not make the effort to take your behavior from following your intuition, and run it by the golden rule, or your statement that "all is fundamentally one"? According to you, "It is your ego that won't permit you to consider it." Consider what? To consider that you may not be so enlightened, and your behavior along with it.
L
Lunitik
Guest
Part of enlightenment is the experience of oneness, most are very much caught up in ego and the material world - this is very much you. I have not called anyone stupid or negative, I have only stated something about their statements. That oneness is exactly love, it is the nature of that energy which we all have going through us.
What exactly would be accomplished by denying what has happened? What exactly are you seeing in my behavior that does not fit with your idea of enlightenment?
Intuition is from that oneness, it is God's will if you like.
You think I do not go into the world to share the love which is overflowing in me? The difference is that before I had only a certain amount of love to give, it tended to be focused on particular people. Now, it is inexhaustible, I do not target it, I simply let it flow to whomsoever I may come in contact with. My dialog with you is naught but love, for instance, I sympathize with your current outlook, but I know how limited you are compared to your potential. I have practiced much patience in trying to let you see that you can be much more, it is as if you are content with the scent of the seed when you can be the flower - you don't know you can be that though, you are too much identified with the seed, the potential.
We are not fundamentally one, per your belief. I am someone different, according to you... someone caught up in the material world.
According to you, "It is your ego that won't permit you to consider it." If you wish to see what I see, then you will need to spend the time seeing what I see.
According to you, "It is your ego that won't permit you to consider it." To consider what? To consider that your intuition is not God's will, and not that of an enlightened person.
By your words, no. As you say that you love Jesus, for example, you don't actually know, consciously give, or do anything for Jesus. You speak against relations, and love is not a solo event.
Run that past your belief that "all is fundamentally one". You essentially claim to love yourself. I have no doubts about your capability to love yourself.
L
Lunitik
Guest
Your ego insists you are separate and thus interacts with other, but it does not change the reality.
At the same time, within your own body, hands much interact with brain in collaboration with eyes to pick something up. Does this mean you are actually many things, or is your body one? Can any part of your body function without the rest (without being put in another body) ?
Love is the one, as the Bible says God is love - it is not something which is conditional. The way you mean though, it is not valid to say I love myself, I am not as something separate.
At the same time, within your own body, hands much interact with brain in collaboration with eyes to pick something up. Does this mean you are actually many things, or is your body one? Can any part of your body function without the rest (without being put in another body) ?
Love is the one, as the Bible says God is love - it is not something which is conditional. The way you mean though, it is not valid to say I love myself, I am not as something separate.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
The contents of this thread is precisely why I doubt. That is why I am an agnostic. Well, it might have something to do with a strong scientific sense of skepticism and an equally strong pull to all things Thomsian (like St Thomas of India, not Thomas of this forum or Thomas Aquinus).
Pax et amore omnia vincunt.
Pax et amore omnia vincunt.
L
Lunitik
Guest
Religion can be pursued just as Science is, it is just subjective Science as apposed to objective Science. You simply have to experiment with the devices provided by the various faiths. I think that your approach is sound, but you need to do much more apparently in confirming that which you encounter.
I might also suggest that you look within about your military background, any sort of hangups you may have will hinder the pursuit and our discussion in that area shows that it is probably something which still contains certain ties for you. Eventually you will be dropping all views and concepts - it is the only way - and so it will be a problem if there is something you cannot drop.
What is left once all projections and perceptions are dropped is exactly truth - that truth is what is referenced as God or Self-realization.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Gee, again, thaks for the psychological help. All I was stating was the reasons why I doubt, which afterall what agnosticism is all about. All scientists doubt, google skepticism and science in scholor. And that is not how I (or most of what humanity) define as the truth. Not trying to proove anything here, just stating I do not agree that "truth" as we human beings usually use it has very little to do with yours.
Pax et amore omnia vincunt.
Pax et amore omnia vincunt.