Thanks

Is enlightenment achievable?

29 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, SeaMonster said:

Keyword in bold.

There isn't a single spiritual teacher out there who thinks that an "awakening" as defined by him/her is "temporary."

That's an experience of some type not an awakening.  

I think that any awakening is temporary, perhaps Ramakrishna sits drooling for a week needing to be fed and washed, but even then it is temporary. in order to function in the world, the doors must be closed. As Aldous Huxley said, the mind is an elimination machine. remove everything that is not necessary for survival.

Or as William Blake said: if the doors of perception were opened, everything would manifest as it is: infinite. and you would drool until you die

Edited by Breakingthewall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Leo was simply trying to demistify enlightenment.

His use of the word "science" in this case may be like that of a methodology, something real and tangible, not just a spiritual fantasy or abstract notion.

In the same way that it could be said "cooking as a science" or some such. What that example refers to is up for grabs (using sophisticated science equipment for innovative cooking?).

It's just a flexible use of the word, for rethoric purposes perhaps. Not be confused with math or physics -- "real", established science.

Another example: soccer as an art. It isn't really an artform in the conventional sense although some see it that way.

Edited by UnbornTao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

I think Leo was simply trying to demistify enlightenment.

His use of the word "science" in this case may be like that of a methodology, of something real and tangible, not just a spiritual fantasy or abstract notion.

In the same way that I could say "cooking as a science", or some such. What that example refers to is up for grabs (maybe using sophisticated science equipment for innovative cooking?).

It's just a more flexible use of the word, for rethoric purposes perhaps. Not be confused with math or physics. Or like saying: soccer as an art. 

In any case, I could be wrong.

Enough rambling for me lol

❤ 


“Everything is honoured, but nothing matters.” — Eckhart Tolle.

"I have lived on the lip of insanity, wanting to know reasons, knocking on a door. It opens. I've been knocking from the inside." -- Rumi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just not a something that a someone can achieve.

It's the revelation that this conditioned ME character attempting to gain enlightenment status, isn't really there in the body.

It's a recognition as opposed to an experience.

& Yep, it's kind of a show stopper!

?

❤ 


“Everything is honoured, but nothing matters.” — Eckhart Tolle.

"I have lived on the lip of insanity, wanting to know reasons, knocking on a door. It opens. I've been knocking from the inside." -- Rumi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/05/2022 at 2:40 PM, Leo Gura said:

The chemical alone is not enough if you are not willing to fully deconstruct your mind.

The chemical is just a lubricant for your mind.

Okay, I've thought about this and it's still not convincing. I'm not gonna cite my critique here, though. Just wanted to let you know.


Foolish until proven other-wise ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/05/2022 at 4:17 PM, SeaMonster said:

But it's not even about empirical evidence yet -- it's about defining our terms.  I don't think Leo uses the term "awakening" to mean the same thing as any other spiritual teacher I have ever read.  This could mean that Leo has made up his own definition of "awakening" and hence he is not "wrong" within the context of his definition, he's just "wrong" with regard to objective reality (i.e. how all other spiritual teachers define "awakening.")

Awakening is a permanent shift in awareness, it is not an intellectual insight per se.  The only answer that one has to give is, what is my experience of "I" right now, if any? One doesn't need a philosophical lecture, just a simple answer.  How am I experiencing "I"?  Can Leo give a clear, unambiguous answer to that question so that his level of consciousness may be gauged or is he going to continue to insist that his definition is paramount, unique and unquestionable?

I agree with you that awakening is a permanent shift rather than an intellectual insight. However, Leo said a couple of times that he doesn't want to stop at the traditional level of most teachers. They stop at no-self, and he wants us to realize The Self, so that's his aim with this work, and I'm not against that, especially that Actualized is supposed to be broader than just awakening/enlightenment, because Self-Actualization includes and transcends tradition. I can verify from my own experience that awakening is not limited to spirituality. I experience awakenings all across the board all the time.


Foolish until proven other-wise ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, AdeptusPsychonautica said:

@Gesundheit2 but the fact remains it isn't science by any definition

Yes, but I imagine it could be. For example, I think it can be super interesting if we take an ashram and make a controlled clinical study under conditions that Leo specifies and then examine the results empirically. Maybe we'll discover something there, or maybe not. But I think it's worth trying at least.


Foolish until proven other-wise ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/05/2022 at 7:18 PM, Fernanda said:

Is awakening/enlightenment a science by any definition?

Yes.

Observation and inspection are of the most fundamental practices of scientific exploration that lead to breakthroughs and scientific discoveries. In the case of awakening/enlightenment, observation and inspection of the self, the mind, thoughts, perception, the ego, etc. are of the main practices, even though geared more internally rather than externally. We might say that philosophy/spirituality is the esoteric form of science while layman science is the exoteric form, and both are two sides of the same coin. Spirituality is more like going back to the basics, while layman science is like building on top of the basics that we already have, until better understanding emerges.

So yes, technically, awakening/enlightenment is a science. At least it should be treated as a science and not as a dogma. Genuine curiosity and ambition run the show rather than obligation.

Modern layman science might look complex on the surface, and culture might have given it a halo of divinity, but don't let the these things trick you. Science is really simple when you understand it, same as when you experience spiritual clarity.

Quote

Can science lead to truth?

In my experience, science is the only way to truth, as long as it's understood and done properly. I don't know any other way.

Edited by Gesundheit2

Foolish until proven other-wise ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2022 at 9:30 AM, Gesundheit2 said:

I agree with you that awakening is a permanent shift rather than an intellectual insight. However, Leo said a couple of times that he doesn't want to stop at the traditional level of most teachers. They stop at no-self, and he wants us to realize The Self, so that's his aim with this work, and I'm not against that, especially that Actualized is supposed to be broader than just awakening/enlightenment, because Self-Actualization includes and transcends tradition. I can verify from my own experience that awakening is not limited to spirituality. I experience awakenings all across the board all the time.

But again, what exactly does he mean by this?

If we're using common nonduality terminology, realizing The Self is what a lot of the best known spiritual teachers already aim for or have taught.

e.g. Ramana Maharshi:

Quote

 

Nearly all mankind is more or less unhappy

because nearly all do not know the true Self.

Real happiness abides in Self-knowledge alone. 

All else is fleeting.  

To know one's Self

is to be blissful always. 

 

But you're saying that's something beyond enlightenment, which means it's something else.

But in order to know if Leo knows what he is talking about, one has to gauge if he is even at the consciousness level of these teachers.

If he is, he should explain what his experience of "I" is like, if there is any.  It would take a few seconds.

If he isn't, then he is just saying things that are confusing or nonsensical using terminology that other teachers have used in his own idiosyncratic context.

(In order to be "beyond enlightenment" -- whatever that means -- one must in the very least be AT enlightenment, no?)

If he is talking about integrating the psyche post-enlightenment, then he should specify (I've already described that as the work to be done after the most subtle ego strand is gone.)

Edited by SeaMonster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now