Russell Parr

If it means retracting enlightenment, reducing one back into the realms of normalcy and averageness, that would indeed be horrific. Unfavorably at best.

Hello FindingPeace, It is the other way around. Rules are reliant on logic. The enlightened mind does not follow rules, but is in congruence with reality. If an enlightened sage makes rules, they will be logical. Yes, enlightenment is not a system. The enlightened mind does not work on logic, but with logic. Only with logic can one accurately know 'what is'. Only with logic can one find Truth.

How horrific.

Hardly a scientist has ever attained enlightenment. Their thinking is too materialistic. Preferably an enlightened one

What about the Pantheistic interpretation of God? What is your favored solution to the existential suffering experienced by a great many people in the world?

@Prabhaker I'll agree with you, depending on your context.

The type of enlightenment you seem to be a proponent of has no practical use other than when sitting at home staring at the wall.

To me, God = Tao = the Infinite.

Sure. Let's use the logic of cause and effect. A thing is caused by that which isn't that thing, therefore all things are causally related. This refers not only linear, billiard ball type causation, but circumstantial and environmental causation as well. For example, a tree is not only caused by the sunlight and water it receives, but also the temperature of the air around it, the nutrients present in the soil, the lack of threat to its existence, and so on. This goes for any and everything that does, has, and could possibly exist. From here we can address free will. The principle of causality exposes that free will is essentially an illusion of experience. Since we, as conscious beings, are at the front seat of experience, and due to the biological drive to survive, we necessarily experience free will. But since all things are caused, including all of our thoughts and actions, free will actually isn't free at all. It is the product of infinite causality, just the same as the wind blowing through the trees is a product of causality. This goes for life and death as well. The duality of life and death is nothing more than conceptual; an idea used and applied for practical purposes for the sake of our consciousness. And finally, this goes for existence itself. Existence is a dualistic concept, used by consciousness to demarcate Infinite reality into usable bits, all due to and in accordance with causality. Now we have reached the void of non-duality, or emptiness. This is the final realization that awakens one to full enlightenment. Here it is realized that things have no ultimate existence, and that existence is equivalent to appearance. Hence the ancient Zen quote: Here you have the full process, step by step, to reach enlightenment, using the logic of cause and effect. Of course, while enlightenment may not be all that complicated, it certainly, and obviously, isn't easy to attain. This is because the ego is a very strong force. It "needs" us to believe in free will. It "needs" us to believe in life and death. It "needs" us to believe in existence. The pursuit of enlightenment requires great persistence in order to overcome the habitual thoughts and patterns of the ego, in order to mentally transcend its influence.

Well sure, the enlightened often suffer at the hands of those that they offend, but they transcend the suffering caused by misunderstandings of God. To suffer in response to one's misunderstandings and delusions is to suffer for God. Only those that are intuitive to spiritual wisdom are capable of such suffering. The enlightened do not and cannot transcend normal physical suffering.

@Prabhaker The path to enlightenment is embarked by those that wish to overcome the suffering caused by misunderstandings of reality. Do you not agree?

No. Enlightenment refers to the transcendence of delusion, and animals are not delusional to begin with.

You can't be aware of ultimate reality without understanding it.

Not so. You missed out on the context. I said "if reality is ultimate infinite." Ultimately, the existence of things is just an appearance. The existence of things is not absolute. If you want to argue that I could use better wording to explain myself, then we could go there. All of which has to do with logic, by the way. It is entirely beside the point. Whether or not a mind is required for awareness has no bearing on whether or not logic is an ingredient of enlightenment. You have in no way, shape, or form debunked the fact that logic is part and parcel to enlightenment, which is the perfect understanding the absolute nature of reality, in absence of delusions regarding such. It doesn't matter that logic is a construct of the mind. So is enlightenment!

Agreed.

Can't argue with that I agree that the mind is just a process, as well as an appearance. But it is also a thing in as far that it can be identified and demarcated from the rest of reality. Enlightenment applies to that which is capable of enlightenment, which is the mind of an astute observer. Yes, and thoughts do not exist without that which causes them. Therefore thoughts are just appearances as well. Same goes for awareness.

"Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, then all else will follow" Jesus is saying "First understand ultimate reality, and you will then understand all." Religions abound far and wide, yet have produced very few enlightened sages. I still would like to know your answer.

Hmm.. but things do change.. they are in a constant state of change. What do you mean by natural laws? If natural laws are scientific, then they are always subject to change. Close. If reality is ultimately infinite, then the existence of things is an illusion caused and determined by the relativistic observations of consciousness. In other words, "to exist" means and is synonymous with "to appear." As long as we are speaking of consciousness, we are speaking in terms of dualism. As such, that which is not consciousness is its environment. Ultimately there is only the Tao. All things come from the Tao and return to the Tao. The Tao is infinite, and absolute. It includes and transcends the relativistic realms of consciousness. In enlightenment, that which is transcended is egotistical delusion. I do not accept the idea that the mind is transcended, because enlightenment is the property, and an attainment, of the mind. If you would like me to concede the idea that an amoeba has a mind, that is fine with me. That is besides the point anyway.

Religions are what emerge when wise teachings are attempted to be propagated. They do a pretty poor job, obviously. What's wrong with that answer? If you like, we can go by the definition offered by google instead: "the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought." Do you mind if I turn the question around on you? What is mind?

What is religion to you? You've asked this already, and I answered. I do not follow where you are trying to go with this, care to explain?

1.Well I am no proponent of religion, which religiously misinterprets wise teachings. 2.Thought and experience. Or is "nothing" the answer you're looking for?

"Well, now I have to ask what do you mean by inherently?" Google defines "inherent" to mean "existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute." It is a most commonly held belief that the existence of things is a permanent, real quality of reality without and beyond conscious observation. Things can be said to exist in this way pragmatically, but only in such manner. "Also, what did the initial form of potential as consciousness interact with to create existence?" If you are asking me what precisely causes consciousness, or the act or movement of consciousness, the answer is unreachable due to the fact that consciousness cannot be separated from itself in order to observe its causes. We can only speculate the source of consciousness through reflection, after the fact. "I am aware of what it is but I just would like to hear your answer on it." Do you now

Well then that is my interpretation of it, if Jesus was indeed enlightened, which I suspect that he was. I'm happy to define the mind to be the abstract representation of what emerges from the chemical and electrical processes of the physical brain, as well as the body to a lesser degree.

To produce an effect is to cause that effect. "Seek first the Kingdom of God" is a teaching to inspire one to remain spiritually grounded, as to not get caught up in and bounded by the labyrinths of the subjective experience. It's a wonderful teaching. The mind is just as equally an appearance as thought.

I agree with this, I think, except for where you assert that I define illusion to mean "does not exist." I said that things do not inherently exist. That is to say, the existence of things is but an appearance created by the interaction between consciousness and its environment.