This certainly seems to be the most likely scenario. However, even this is an intellectual analysis.

Although some sages claim that this can be realized as well. But then there's always the question of whether or not they are just falling into the trap of creating this illusion.

I don't claim to know the final answer. But I do confess that this scenario seems to be the most rational to me.

I think in terms of personal enlightenment, the bottom line is that it doesn't matter. Whatever is, is. Que Sara Sara.

The only thing we can know for sure is that we do indeed fabricate most of our reality, especially with respect to how we see things and interact with them.

As far as genuinely knowing our true nature, I'm not sure if that's possible. I mean, even if I accept the vantage point that I am this unvierse experiencing itself, that doesn't really mean much of anything to me since I have no clue what the universe is.

In fact, this has always been a great question I think. Can even God truly understand it's own true nature? It just seems to me that this would be impossible. Although, I confess that I'm thinking in terms of physics, which implies an explanation of cause and effect.

In spiritual terms there simply may be nothing to explain, I simply am that I am. No further elaboration required. God is pure awareness. Period. There's nothing to explain.

I guess I can accept that.

Especially seeing that I have no other choice.

This is so true. It doesn't matter. What is is.

I like what D. Chopra said:

I am THAT, you are THAT, THIS is THAT and THAT's all there is.

(Or something on that order.)

By "pretending to be something other than definitions" I meant only "written in a way that suggests there is meaning here beyond just definitions." And there may be, but its not clear to me.




Creative,

Great answer! I don't agree with it, but your view is well presented and cohesive!

Sweet! That the variations in perception of this word is being brought to light. I hope we don't argue about the "true" meaning of the word... but then, how could we not, when so many people attach so much importance to the word?

In my experience, this is a thoroughly abused word, whose use often creates more confusion then understanding (though sometimes the parties involved don't even realize it). Also, it is often tied to pivotal beliefs in a persons worldview. Talking about the true nature of 'Enlightenment' and its existence can be akin to trying to argue about whether Jesus really died and rose from the grave.

Abra,

My apologies for picking on details, but one of my pet peeves is ascribing properties to atheists which aren't truly universal to atheists. One need only lack a belief in a deity - a supernatural immortal being - to be atheist.

Thus, one can be Taoist and atheist at the same time. One can be pantheist and atheist at the same time (maybe not for all pantheist, but the naturalist pantheists). One can be Buddhist and atheist at the same time. (Some people think that Buddhism is inherently atheist, but there are places where 'Buddhist' treat the Buddha as a deity.)

I know atheism has the 'image' of extreme scepticism and disbelief and a purely materialistic worldview, but that image is not fairly derived.

The Car engine does not produce consciousness it produces torque which creates movement.

The analogy was only meant to convey the fact that when you look inside an engine you do not find the "movement" that moves the car.

The same holds true for the brain. The cognitive center of the brain outputs the idea, and then stores it in the appropriate memory, either short or long term memory.

We already have most of the components of the brain built as computers now. We do require new faster transistors to try to build anything like a brain.

I'm totally on board with you on this one MT.

The term "enlightenment" can be confusing and even abused by religious fantatics. I agree that there can be a lot of ambiguity in that word as well. Recently I've been listening to presentations by Deepak Chopra, Christopher Penzcak, various shamanic teachers, a couple of courses on Buddhism, and most recently this book on the "Power of Now" by Eckhart Tolle. They are all presenting very similar concepts (i.e. the concept of pure awareness) I think if I had to define the term "enlightenment" I'd probably define it as pure awareness unadulterated by any labeling or judging.

In contrast, CreativeSoul is speaking precisely to the topic of labeling and judging when speaking of language and that kind of analytical thought. If enlightenment has any meaning at all, it must be the antithesis of analysis.



I agree that many atheists use the word to mean that. Personally I disagree with that semantics. When I use the word atheists, I'm referring to people who don't believe in spirit, or the supernatural. It doesn't need to be in the form of a deity.

If you believe in any kind of spirit world, or supernatural power, then as far as I'm concerned you're abusing the label "Atheist" if you claim to be an atheist when in fact you believe in mysticism.

I think a lot of people use the word "Atheist" to simply mean they don't believe in a "Zeus-like" God. Which of course would include the God of Abraham or any other such personified Godhead.

But as far as I'm concerned, if you believe in anything spiritual, then you're not an atheist. At the very least you're a spiritualist or a supernaturalist.

One can be a naturlist, humanatarian, pantheist, buddhist, native indian spiritual enthusiast, and atheist also

or some can be on

Mondays - buddhist
Tuesdays - atheist
Wednesdays - native indian inspired
Thursdays - humanatarian
Fridays - naturlist
Saturdays - day off (nothing)
Sundays - pantheist

I proclaim every day to be a Saturday.

Where's QuantumThoughtBubble. Tell her that my planet has only one day per week. Saturday.

sowwy for lafing!

thought stream is the first form of human life...

all thoughts pour into the brain as rain...

to deny anything with self reasoning, or surmizing, as not true, or not self, is to as limit life, as to deny portions of the rain as not self self or real, which is to limit 'infinity energy' that can be had in the human form...

anything denied as true, or real, or not as true self, restricts first life energy, and power to understand infinity, which CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO ANY MIND THAT STILL SEE'S SOME THINGS AS TRUE, AND SOME THING AS NOT...

perhaps the reason it was once said, no self pride gets back into, infinity energy, AND ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE???

and two angels were set in front of the door of eden, to guard the door, fear and the desire to get or be loved, for self alone...

for there is but one unconditional or higer intelligence, self love as the number one, or love and sight of other's as more important than self...

all things that self ever did, does, or will do, exist in the now, as infinity time, cannot be as the NOW, less time pass away, in the brain, or mind, and for this phenomenon to exist within the human form in it's original form, all that self was, is now, or will be, is and MUST be accepted at all times, as true...

no self pride gets in the door, when all that are outside, create more human man made hell each day, until 2012, when all things have reached their height of unsanity...

from dening anything the mind hear as what itself is...

all things are an angel and a demon, and each things that strive most to prove itself a demon, become an angel, and all things that seek to prove itself as a angel, or it's own self goodness, become a demon...

as what self deny, within itself, itself is blind to, and so rages the beast...

the only thing standing in the way of total awareness, or ALL KNOWING, is dening any possibility within the human brain as real, or true, self using it's current life's experience to surmize, or REASON, or try to understand, what is, was, or can be, as to be it's true self, and the impossible as real, denied, and as not existing, only limit the utlimate human completed or fullfilled form, having INSTANT speech alone control over ALL, ALL, ALL, physical matter and space...

transformers rise from the optimist logic, the prime logic that HAS NOT BEGINNING OR ENDING, WITH EACH WORD IT READ OR HEAR, AND KNOWS THOUGHTS CAN HAVE AND BE ANYTHING, 360% POSSIBILITY FROM ANY WORD...

as do not forget, TO BE MINDFULL, logos IS, and be but energy, and can travel into and be ANYTHING.

once all things are not denied, and embraced as real, and all things self hears as original thought are heard as NOW real and true, self is connected back to BIG A, or higher self, and all things are answerewd with simply a YES, and A retrun to all things to their original life position are become as NOW, and just as thoughts heard in the womb, once created first life of self itself, so do all thoughts recieved, and no longer argued with, return self to all self power and knowing of control, and now no longer as a child god do humans roam, but as adult gods, which is ALL power over all earthly realms, and ALL things matter and space, as now one with higher self, I AND THE FATHER OR FAOUNDER ARE AS ONE, and the big a that always said what was FIRST real, and was true self, but little A was once scared, is no more, and ther fear of what once was the far reaching and life changing implications of such was true, is no more...

peace to peace

James,

It seems that you have attempted to equate thought to something, but your words usage indicates that that something is now enlightenment.

I think this was unintentional, yet it has been done.

I would guess that in your view there are different levels of awareness, and that thought, if it awareness, is a different level than pure awareness.

Be that as it may, I have chosen to not deliberately pick apart your responses, because it is not the intent of this thread.

Massage wrote this regarding enlightenment...



Interesting term involved here. 'Then'...

If that was meant, then I completely agree, depending upon the mindsets involved! If not, then it is one remarkably beautiful freudian slip.

To not mince words....

One's recognition of their own newfound clarity of understanding necessarily depends upon that person holding an inadequate understanding of something beforehand. The existence of that prior inadequate belief, and it's ramifications are what is realized during the enlightenment. If one does not realize that it has happened, then they do not have the ability to understand that they are enlightened. For one to even be able to know that s/he has been enlightened, they must first be in an un-enlightened state of mind. The idea of enlightenment to one who is born already enlightened - if that is even possible - is utterly meaningless, for there is nothing to compare. Enlightenment is the actualization of a profound change in one's own personal understanding resulting from the realization of inadequacy contained within their own belief structure that has far reaching implications and completely changes their world-view.

It is not an absolute rigid thing regarding the exact details of what it replaces, only what it represents...

A profound clarity of understanding.

A state of enlightenment depends entirely upon language for it's very existence to even be able to be realized, let alone the possibility for actualization. To dismiss the role that language has in an enlightenment, is akin to removing the chocolate from a Hershey's bar and still attempting to call it a Hershey's bar.

I tend to agree with Dan Dennet in that the first person perspective of trying to comprehend the nature of the mind is flawed. The mind prewashes ideas before they get to the surface, its the dirt you need to know the mind.

I think we will only be able to truly know the mind from an objective third person perspective.

That's precisely analytical thinking.

There is no relative understanding required.

You're thinking solely in terms of recognizing something.

Enlightenment is not the recognition of anything. It's the state of pure awareness.

In fact, like Messagetrader suggested, perhaps the very word 'enlightenment' is misleading (another folly of language).

Forget about the term 'enlightement' or any process this might mean to you, or any realization that you feel might be required. Those are all totally incorrect concepts.

When I speak of 'enlightenement' I'm speaking about the final state of mind (a state of pure awareness), I'm not speaking about any particular process or realization that some individual might experience or associated with his or her own transformation of vangage point.

Enlightenment (the final state of pure awareness) is not dependent upon anything aprior to achieving it. On the contrary, it's not even achieved it's actaully the primordial state of being. So it's more of a return to what has always been.

In any case, my original intent was not to discuss enlightenment, but rather the fact that a state of pure awareness qualifies as 'thought', it's just not analytical thought, and therefore it is not dependent on language in any way.

That's my only point, and I'm just offering it up as a personal perspective. If you feel that enlightenment requires language as a prerequisite, then all I can offer is that I have a totally different idea of what enlightenment is than you do.

That's about all I know to say.

I acknowledge that analytical thought and language are indeed extremely similar if not even synonomous.

The only thing that I'm stating is that analytical thought is not required for pure awareness, and many philosophers consider pure awareness to be a form of thought, its certainly a form of consciouness anyway.

Like Tolle said, and I agree wholeheartedly:

"Feeling will get you closer to the truth of who you are than thinking" - Eckhart Tolle.

He also said, "Consciousness is required for thought, but thought is not required for consciouness".

Again I agree wholeheartedly. However, to be more specific we should replace the word "thought" here with the words "analytical thinking".

Because many philosopher use the word 'thought' to simply mean consciouness, or pure awareness.

I tried to point this out a few posts back by using Descartes famous quote:

"I think therefore I am."

Does it really make sense to say,...

"I think analytically, therefore I am."?

I personally don't believe it does. I think what he actually meant to say was, "I'm aware, therefore I am."

But pure awareness does not require analytical thinking, nor does it require language.

And that's the only point that I was attempting to offer.

Most people call them "greys"

Jeremy wrote...



From this it necessarily follows that one cannot come to know the inner workings of their own mind as long as they are focusing on it through their own current perceptions. I would tend to agree, if that is what is meant. A change in perspective requires the ability to contemplate contradicting information. That ability of which necessarily depends upon some form of what I call 'transitional truth'. There must exist something within the new information that does not directly contradict a previously held foundational belief, or the new information will be immediately discarded, without further consideration.




I wrote...



James responded...



Now I finally think that I understand what it is that you mean by 'analytical thinking'. Are you suggesting that one does not need to know that they are or have been enlightened?



Not exactly, I am speaking solely in terms of understanding something - enlightenment - in this instance. Enlightenment is only recognized, and therefore has any personal meaning attached, after is has been understood in some way to have happened... necessarily through a representational understanding. The content of that understanding - what enlightment represents - to one who has reached a state of(in your case) or has been enlightened(in mine) is always facilitated by language.



I never said nor implied that the recognition itself equated to the content of the enlightenment. I wrote that an enlightenment goes unknown without recognition of it... necessarily so, and it has no meaning whatsoever to s/he who does not realize that it has happened. It cannot exist in the mind unless it does so in the house of being - language(representational understanding).



I would venture to say that massage equated a discussion of the term enlightenment to the likes of discussing Jesus' resurrection because of the inherent similarities contained within both sets of circumstances regarding the tendency of that type of conversation to inadvertently lose focus of the wisdom contained therein by concentrating on less productive aspects of the subject matter.



Quite a bold statement, considering the fact that I question whether or not you understand the meaning of what I wrote.



So, in a sense, what your claiming is that there is only one destination which includes all cases of enlightenment, and this final state(destination) is one of pure awareness?



Discussing enlightenment has not harmed the conversation in any way that I see, regardless of the differences in perspective and/or understanding. Using the concept of enlightenment as an example of a kind of thought that does not require language requires awareness and enlightenment to be equal, I think that I have given substantial grounds which show that equation to be inadequate.

An insect, by your description, has a pure awareness...

Is a bee considered to be enlightened?



The term pure is underdeveloped in meaning. If by pure you mean completely unaffected by language, then I hold that it is impossible for that to be the case after language is had. Language affects all forms of human perception as soon as the content of that perception is thought about. In other words, by thinking about an experience itself, one places it into a category through some form of representational understanding, thereby containing it and simultaneously losing some of it.



This is an utterly senseless statement, to me at least...

Feeling itself does nothing to further one's understanding of who they are unless one recognizes what it is that they feel and why it is that they feel that way, and that requires thinking about it.



Sounds like he writes a lot without actually saying anything.


Regarding Cartesian thought...



I think he meant what he wrote.



Awareness which exists unaffected by language only does so in life forms without language capable of awareness.

That works also

Absolutely. Enlightenment, isn't a state of knowning its a state of being.

This is why the concept of language is totally irrelevant to this state of mind.



Absolutely, but don't try to compare this with the state of pure awareness that a human would experienced. And this is because of the following:



I never once suggested that humans who have become enlightened have been unaffected by language (or analytical thought). Moreover, once a person becomes enlightened they neither forget about language, nor forgot about analytical thought.

I'm not speaking in terms of analytical thought versus pure awareness. I'm not suggesting that one is better than the other, or more advance, or any other kind of judgment.

I'm simply pointing out the difference, and the fact that all thought is not analytical.

That's all I have ever attempted to do from the beginning of this thread. I originally asked, "Are you refering to analytical thought, or thought in general (i.e. conscious awareness in general)."

That was my question. From that point on all I've been doing is attempting to convey to you my thoughts concerning why pure awareness is not the same as analytical thought, it is not dependent upon language, yet it constitutes consciousness.

You're position seems to be that language is at the root of all conscious thought.

I guess, I just disagree with you on that point then.

That's all. The whole idea behind trandsendental meditation is to transcend analytical thought and enter a state of pure awareness.

And you're prefectly correct, if you think to yourself, "Ah ha! I'm in the state of pure awareness now!", you will then instantly be removed from that state!

You can't think analytical thoughts when you are experiencing pure awareness. They are not mutually compatible. So on that point I agree.

To become enlightened doesn't mean to enter into a state of pure awareness and never come out of it. Although bees and other animals probably live their entire existence in such a state. Humans have learned the art of language and analytical thinking. We can never give that up, and no one would expect anyone to do so.

That's totally beside the point.

The point is that it's not the only form of consciousness, it's only one aspect of consciousness.

And that's my point.

Language is not the basis for all thought, if thought is considered to be concious awareness.

That's all I'm saying.

Language is the basis of analytical thought only.

That was the distinction I tried to make several pages back, and if I've failed to convey that idea by now I suppose it's time to give up.