What would happen if you tortured an enlightened being for 10 years straight?

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

Most people would probably loose their minds and be traumatized to an unspeakable degree, but what about someone that's enlightened? Their relative body can obviously still be injured, so can you injure their relative mind/traumatize them? I'm not talking about suffering, which is a mental construct, but just about the experience of pain. They would probably not suffer their torture, but they'd still feel the pain of it. So would torturing them still twist their mind in the same way it would for your average Joe? Could it make them violent or psychopathic?

Edited February 26, 2023 by DefinitelyNotARobot

[Jowblob]

An enlightened being doesnt get in these situations first of all, if he gets into it then he already knows it and the purpose of it. Yes , you can kill/harm such being since you're god just like them. If it's a being that wasnt born but just ascended then you can't really do anything  since it's literally a being formed out of constant unity like a non existant dream character.

[Sempiternity]

All of reality is one thing: consciousness. Everything experienced is equal to anything else experienced. How you perceive it, think about it, feel about, react to it, is up to you (God). Pain is no different. If one truly understood what reality is, pain would be a beautiful experience, as you would BE the pain, as you are the all of everything within reality, and you are love, so pain would be love, therefore beautiful. 

[Sempiternity]

Also, one who is "enlightened" would understand that Now is all that is. So there is no being tortured for 10 years, there is only what is Now. 

[SeaMonster]

Pain can cause anyone to go insane or dissociate, enlightenment doesn't make you immune from being human.

Enlightened people aren't Superman.

[Sempiternity]

29 minutes ago, SeaMonster said:

Pain can cause anyone to go insane or dissociate, enlightenment doesn't make you immune from being human.

Enlightened people aren't Superman.

If enlightenment is the understanding of Truth, which is the understanding that you are God and humans are a figment of your imagination, isn't this statement the exact opposite of this?

[Yimpa]

This question assumes that a person is the absolute Truth, which it ain’t!

[Salvijus]

Here's a video of a buddhist monk (Luang Por Jamnian) who went through torture 10+ years and had no sleep all this time.

Starts at 25min mark. Where adam mizner begins to talk about his teacher Luang Por Jamnian

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

16 hours ago, Jowblob said:

An enlightened being doesnt get in these situations first of all

Why is that so?

@Sempiternity But is any of that is antithetical to what I'm asking? Truth is what is. No appearance can make it less of itself. In fact, the not knowing of Truth is an appearance and doesn't make Truth lesser. So Truth is Truth even if you don't recognize it as such and are depressed and traumatized.

I'm interested in knowing how Truth affects the relative appearances if it does at all. Truth doesn't mean that a person that recognizes it won't bleed out and die if you stab them with a knife, at least from within the relative realm. In the same way, recognizing Truth might not mean that you won't be scarred by torture. There does seem to be a difference in how enlightened people live their lives relative to unenlightened people, so it could be that trauma doesn't appear to them, but it's also very easy to get stuck in calling "that" enlightenment.

I think there is a problem where we confuse Truth with something that we can hold on. Some kind of state that is more of it than any other state. Some way of thinking, moving, living, feeling, behaving that is different from our usual way of living. But Truth isn't affected by the appearances within it. It IS the appearances within it, but isn't restricted to any individual appearance.

There is a belief that this right here right now isn't it, because we don't feel like x or we don't behave like person y. "There appears to be trauma, so this can't be it."

I'm not saying that an enlightened person wouldn't have access to different appearances, but that we shouldn't confuse the appearance of enlightenment for Truth.

11 hours ago, SeaMonster said:

Enlightened people aren't Superman.

It appears that way. But is that just an appearance? The Hindus believe in Siddhis, which are like supernatural powers. And relative reality does seem to hold space for the possibility of transcending certain limitations.

10 hours ago, Yimpa said:

This question assumes that a person is the absolute Truth, which it ain’t!

Can you elaborate further?

@Salvijus Thanks for the share!

[Loveeee]

They'll lose their mind wondering why 

[SharingKnowledge]

Anything

[Yimpa]

5 hours ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

Can you elaborate further?

Is an enlightened being a person?

[manifestinggal456]

If you tortured an enlightened being for 10 years straight, the outcome would depend on the individual's level of enlightenment. Generally speaking, an enlightened being is someone who has achieved a higher level of spiritual awareness and understanding, and is no longer bound by the same physical and mental limitations as the average person.

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

54 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

Is an enlightened being a person?

Good question. Is there even an enlightened being or is there simply being?

But that's another question. My question, in it's most essential form, is about why there seem to be changes to the dream character when they are realized as such and why some things don't change. These characters are able to talk about the formless in a very authentic way, but stab them with a knife and they still bleed out and die like everyone else. So you're right, in that the person can't be absolute, because form expires, but there still appears to be a difference in their relation to the absolute, compared to most people. So why is that?

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

@manifestinggal456 That makes sense, from within the relative world at least. But as a side question: How do you differentiate between different levels of enlightenment? I could probably sort my past awakening experiences based on how emotionally significant they were, but all of that is just memories that exist relative to the now.

Edited February 27, 2023 by DefinitelyNotARobot

[SeaMonster]

19 hours ago, Sempiternity said:

If enlightenment is the understanding of Truth, which is the understanding that you are God and humans are a figment of your imagination, isn't this statement the exact opposite of this?

Put down the Leo solipsism kool-aid, please.  

I swear this forum is like a bunch of three year olds who think they can fly if they flap their arms hard enough or something.

"The Truth" is that what you think you are (a separate self with a delimited identity) is an illusion.  It doesn't mean that upon realization of this illusion you suddenly become invulnerable to everything that being human entails (physical limitations, pain, illness, aging, death, unmet basic human needs, etc.)

This is not DC Comics or Manga.  That some people have siddhis is irrelevant; you don't need to be enlightened to have them, and being enlightened is no guarantee of having them.

 

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

1 minute ago, SeaMonster said:

This is not DC Comics or Manga.  That some people have siddhis is irrelevant; you don't need to be enlightened to have them, and being enlightened is no guarantee of having them.

I'm not claiming any of that, I'm just open to the possibilities that reality holds.

[Yimpa]

4 hours ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

So you're right, in that the person can't be absolute, because form expires, but there still appears to be a difference in their relation to the absolute, compared to most people. So why is that?

People. Are. Imagined.