This Is My Definition of Enlightenment

[Cathy92506]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Emotional reaction - as opposed to feeling, which normally has the story attached - can be instinctual ie survival based. Faster than thought. Keeps you safe. You feel the fear of the lion and it generates energy to move. 

In the example - feeling anger because someone cuts you off while driving - the anger is arising because of the story 'they cut me off'. An adult might feel angry. 

If a child were walking, and another child walked in front of them - they don't get angry. There is 'oh an obstacle in front (another kid) '. In a similar way, animals do not get angry when another animal moves in front. But the do experience anger/agitation as a survival mechanism.

The adult in this scenario is reacting to the story. If the adult had no story it would just be 'someone cut in'. Not 'someone cut me off', which inserts their narrative in.

So in some instances the story is generating all the emotion. In others, like the lion, survival is the instant generator and powerful protector that requires no story. In some cases the initial reaction doesnt happen. But more often than not in non-identifiction the emotion happens, without it becoming a feeling (where the story, or perception) comes in. This gives you breathing room to respond and not react. 

Important to note though, not all emotions are created equal 😁

 

That helps clarify it a lot.

So it sounds like the difference isn’t that nothing arises, but that it doesn’t turn into a story or linger in the same way. It sounds like we’re pointing to the same thing, just describing it a bit differently.

[GodisOne]

1 hour ago, Cathy92506 said:

That helps clarify it a lot.

So it sounds like the difference isn’t that nothing arises, but that it doesn’t turn into a story or linger in the same way. It sounds like we’re pointing to the same thing, just describing it a bit differently.

"we’re pointing to the same thing"

Both of you are pointing to the same something that has nothing to do with enlightenment or nonduality. The illusion is so seductive it keeps the mind enchanted with states of non-aging, such as the one you're describing where the brain doesn't grow out of its childhood innocence. In fact there are many experiments now being done to prevent aging in the brain. And what is the most seductive characteristic of heaven, if not the fact that we don't age there, therefore remain in the constant state of childhood bliss. With such possibilities, why would anyone care about finding the end of the illusion? The issue is that it is only when the soul matures enough that it realizes that no state or condition is perfect--there will always be some flaw, something missing.

Then the question of how arises. But there is no how or why to the Timeless. Any action doesn't bring you any closer to or farther away from the Absolute, because all there is is the Absolute.

Edited Friday at 05:21 PM by GodisOne

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Cathy92506 I think you are beginning to touch on equinimity as desire/aversion for particular experience is dissolved. 

[UnbornTao]

@Cathy92506 Weren't you a duplicate account? 

[Ziran]

6 hours ago, Cathy92506 said:

the difference isn’t that nothing arises

Anger is a special case.  It's a consequence of lacking-empowerment which is antithetical to the enlightened.

[Breakingthewall]

On 27/3/2026 at 3:13 PM, Natasha Tori Maru said:

f a child were walking, and another child walked in front of them - they don't get angry. There is 'oh an obstacle in front (another kid) '. In a similar way, animals do not get angry when another animal moves in front. But the do experience anger/agitation as a survival mechanism.

On 27/3/2026 at 5:42 AM, Cathy92506 said:

 

Children throw hysterical tantrums if you take away a toy, and animals have murderous rages if you take away their food or if another male enter in its territory.

That spiritual story about the ego being a silly human illusion and life really being a magic garden is a scam.

Edited 10 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Natasha Tori Maru]

24 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

That spiritual story about the ego being a silly human illusion

Where did I say this?

It's possible to not get angry when someone cuts one off in traffic. It's possible to get angry when one cuts one off on traffic.

Edited 10 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Breakingthewall]

13 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Where did I say this?

It's possible to not get angry when someone cuts one off in traffic. It's possible to get angry when one cuts one off on traffic.

Yes, many people don't get angry when someone cuts one in traffic, but it has no relationship with enlightenment o spirituality. They are practical and realize that it's a nonsense 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

3 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Yes, many people don't get angry when someone cuts one in traffic, but it has no relationship with enlightenment o spirituality. They are practical and realize that it's a nonsense 

You aren't approaching anything here in good faith or to have a conversation.

You just want to insist on your worldview. 

Attachment to our story can and often does produce emotional reaction. Your attempt to debunk has fallen into reductionism. This is my stance. It's not going to change. Don't waste your energy.

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

This is my stance. It's not going to change. Don't waste your energy.

Ok, if you need that stance to maintain your narrative, then don't change it. When you are attached to an identity, it's very unbalancing being without those structures. Im sorry if it seems that I tried to put them in doubt. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

6 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Ok, if you need that stance to maintain your narrative, then don't change it. When you are attached to an identity, it's very unbalancing being without those structures. Im sorry if it seems that I tried to put them in doubt. 

I accept your apology, but I don't accept condescension. 

I am not trying to undermine you or claim you 'need' to maintain a 'stance' or that you might be 'attached' to an identity. I don't need your reassurance that I might feel destabilized by your worldview; I need you to recognise a boundary. But you don't seem capable of respecting that without some need to condescend.

You came in here guns blazing showing disturbance at my words. Not me.

Edited 2 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru