Conference hydra::dejavu

    
    	   My neighbor (a devoutly relifious woman) claims to have
    	touched an 'enlightened one'.  She said the power flowing
    	from that black woman's hands was awesome.  
    
    	   Does being 'enlightened' really have this 'electric'
    	effect, or is my neighbor misreading the signals?  
    
    	- Greg

    
    	Enlightened, to me, simply means that you well_undertsand that
    which I do not. It's roots lie in things like "knowledge" and
    "experience". If one was to say that their *perception* was
    enlightened, I'd come to believe that their perception had changed
    via a realization, again, rooted in knowledge and experience.
    
    	Joe Jas

>    If you see Buddah on the road dial 911

Eastern Enlightenment.  (Why would you need to dial 911?  If he's really a 
Buddha, they'll never catch him anyway, unless he wants to be caught).

What about Western?  I think this is where I need a little input.  When I think 
of "enlightened", the first pictures that come to mind are Eastern; guys (!) 
with turbans or shaved heads, in robes, sitting in the Lotus position, smiling 
wisely and uttering profoundities.  (Is "enlightenment", philosophy?)

I like what Larry said in the 144,000 note about "enlightened" meaning "To 
lighten up" (pardon my paraphrase; Larry, I prefer the way you said it, but 
can't remember it now).  That reminds me of don Juan and don Genaro always 
laughing at Carlitos, even when things were serious.

I think part of enlightenment is not thinking about being enlightened.  In
other words, if someone thinks they are enlightened, they are not.  Or how
about this, an enlightened person is one who realizes that she/he is not
enlightened.  I think a good sense of humor is part of it also.  I also like
what Larry said about "lighten up" about the universe.

		Dave

       In some ways this is only tangential to the topic but I think
    it might contribute to the discussion. To wit:
       Aristotle recognized two types of knowledge. One he called
    "Techne", the other "Sophos". Techne, as the word implies, refers
    to the kind of knowledge we might pursue in formal education; the
    sciences, TECHNology, etc. Sophos is the form of knowledge that
    focuses more on what we could call "wisdom" and translates into
    a pursuit of the intuitive as in art, poetry, etc. We allegedly,
    as individuals, pursue some degree of both, but are ultimately
    committed to one or the other. I have a tendency to believe that
    those among us who are truly "enlightened" are those who embrace
    a total commitment to Sophos. These, of course, are those whom we
    might label "SOPHisticated" in one area or another. The Buddhist
    monk, for example, is totally immersed in attaining wisdom or
    "sophistication" in pursuit of the state of "nirvana". So to my
    mind, insofar as we strive for this kind of knowledge we are to
    that degree "enlightened".

To tangent-ize even a little more...If anyone can find a copy of THE SNOW QUEEN 
by JOAN VINGE, I lent mine out years ago and never got it back; it's 
out-of-print and none of my friendly bookstores can acquire a copy; please 
contact me if you're willing to send it along and I'll compensate whatever you 
ask.  In that book, two groups of people, the Summers (more in terms with 
art/psychic_) and the Winters (technological) are about to deal with the 
"change in seasons", so to speak, back from the technological season to the 
psy season.  The new Summer ruler turns out to have been cloned from the old 
Winter ruler (I just gave away the outcome), and her goal is to combine the 
technological with the psy so that there can be coexistence and harmony between 
the two.  I've been thinking about that a lot lately; thinking that it would be 
quite wonderful if something similar were to happen here, that we could, 
instead of having what I see as "fighting sides", merge them into a Higher 
Good.  I guess that that would be what I would consider an "enlightened 
society"; to allow for coexistence of all the parts rather than resistance, 
power-hunger, war, or the need to negotiate who is right.

    
    Bradshaw also says the same thing at the end of his most recent
    book on Shame - that humor is definitely one of the signs...of recovery
    and of en-lighten-ment.
    
    Cindy

    To continue with Meredith's tangent (in reply .7) that an 'enlightened
    society' would allow for coexistence of all people.  Humankind will not
    advance expect by joining together in cooperative action.  To make
    concerted group action work (ie. community), we need to not set
    affiliation and strength in opposition one against the other.  We
    can easily integrate the two, search for more and better ways to
    use connections to enhance strength -- and strength to enhance
    connections.  I'm using the words affiliation and strength to
    suggest the Yin and Yang, male/female, or Summers/Winters duality
    of human existence that we have been discussing.
    
    Ro
    

    
          If the woodcutter became enlightened, what would he do?
    He could do anything, but he'd probably continue cutting wood.
    The point here is that one doesn't need to wear a turban or
    saphron robes or sit in a certain position or live on a mountaintop
    or give up anything in order to be enlightened.  We live in a
    physical reality.  Jesus (to the extent that he existed as fabled)
    I would consider to have been enlightened.  He was still a carpenter
    the whole time, though, wasn't he?  Enlightenment comes from within
    not from without.  
          I would consider someone enlightened who is able to live love.
    Someone who has self-awareness (and that means aware not only of
    impact on self but selfs impact on others) and having, if not all,
    at least most of the other "self" traits (esteem, confidence, love, etc.)
    Most likely this person would also be a self-realized individual
    or is well on the road, whether vocalized or not, towards self-
    realization.  Having humor is having few attachments...definitely
    it helps in realizing the game.  Wisdom is probably not always
    apparent.  To say one is enlightened is not necessarily a sign
    one isn't, either, I don't believe.  Although I would tend to agree
    that enlightenment is never fully achieved in physical form...that
    it is instead a "goal" that is constantly pursued.  So that it
    then becomes easier to say "I believe I am more enlightened than
    I once was" rather than comparing self to others.
         To that same degree, we can be aware that many among us are
    clearly not enlightened (unenlightened) while others among us are
    "dimly lit" (to borrow Lazaris' term).  My bet is that most of the
    participants in DEJAVU are at least dimly lit...and many are well
    along their own paths towards being enlightened.
    
    Frederick
    

    The question of "what do you see" is interesting.  Who has seen
    an "Enlightened Being" lately?  Not me!  But if I did, what I would
    "see" would depend on which eyes I saw with.
    
    If this were a multiple choice question, the choices might look
    something like this:
    
    	a)  Has a large bank account and wears tailored suits.
    	b)  Is bald and wears a red robe (other colors also).
    	c)  Has an aura around him as well as a Halo over his head.
    	d)  Definitely has a female form (attractive too).
    	e)  Wouldn't be able to see him due to high vibratory rate.
    	f)  Look in the mirror (except first thing in the morning).
	g)  Kind, gentle and compassionate (smiles a lot).
       	h)  None of the above.
	i)  All of the above.
    
    Seriously, I do understand that the question is of attributes.
    Maybe an "Enlightened Being" lives totally in the "NOW" and has
    no ego.  Maybe he/she will reflect for us our true inner being
    and beauty yet unrecognized.  Maybe he/she will know all that is
    knowable.
    
    Wouldn't we think that this person was "whacko".  Their reference
    points (for their realities) would probably be different than ours
    as well as transitory.  The bottom line is I don't know!  But if
    I do run across an "Enlightened Being" I'll let you know.
    
    
    Having so much fun with all of you!
    
    Yoshii
   
   

From the doorway burst the student of Zen yelling: "Satori,
I see" holding his outstretched arm pointing one finger in the air.
The Zen Master passing by loosed his sword and chopped off the student's arm.

Roughly remembered from "Zen Flesh, Zen Bones"

L.


                                  
    BTW:
    All that separates the unenlightened from the enlightened is the
    experience of enlightenment.  Or more accurately the experience
    of the experience of enlightenment.

    Re:0
    
       I am an "Enlighten" one. I am saved by the grace of God, and
    I have experienced his compationate love, peace, and joy unspeakable!
      There are people that I know says that, there's a certain glow
    or
    radiance about me; this one guy I know said that I bring in a certain
    atmosphere; while some just see the peace. There's others that,
    just can't explain it.
    
    
    
    LORENZO
    

Regarding having no Ego as being a sign of enlightenment, I have come to form 
the opinion that an Ego is a part of being human, much the same way as is 
breathing.  I have concluded that it's the *type* of Ego that matters.  I've 
seen all sorts of Ego moods within myself; some that I like OK; others that are 
terribly embarrassing!

Good food for thought in these replies; appreciated!  Frederick, I didn't know 
I agreed until you gave me something with which to agree.

Since we're into Zen stories about enlightnement...

The Zen student came running up to his master and exclaimed,
"Master I've been meditating for twenty years and I can finally
levitate across the river!", to which his master replied, 
"For a lot less effort and ten cents you could have taken the boat...".

Enlightenment is not only about 'being there', its knowing *why* you are
there...

Terry

    Hi again Meredith (.14),
    
    No ego versus enlightenment.  A lot of what I've been reading
    lately points in that direction.  However, I've been doing some
    reading (work-related) that also talks about the ego especially
    in reference to women.  I'll include an excerpt which I think
    has relevance.  The book is entitled Toward a New Psychology of
    Women by Jean Baker Miller.  This is not intended as a stand
    on women's lib, so no flames please:
    
    >>Ego Development
    
    Returning briefly to the psychoanalytic theorgy of ego development, 
    we note that women have been said to have more 'permeable ego
    structures' or 'less rigid ego boundaries' than men.  Freud,
    himself, said that women have a less-developed super-ego -- a seeming
    disparagement.  In theory, the ego and the super-ego develop in
    relation to reality (that is, reality as it is defined by one's
    culture) and the demands it places upon the individual.  Reality makes
    these demands because each person is presumably to be groomed to be a
    living representative of his culture and its standards.
    
    Prevailing psychoanalytic theories about women's weaker ego or
    super-ego may well reflect the fact that women have no ego or super-ego
    at all as these terms are used now.  Women do not come into this
    picture in the way men do.  They do not have the right or the
    requirement to be full-fledged representatives of the culture.  Nor
    have they been granted the right to act and to judge their own actions. 
    Both of these rights seem essential to the development of ego and
    super-ego as they are defined.  This does not mean that women do not
    have organizing prinicples or relate to 'a reality' in a particular
    way.  But women's reality is rooted in the encouragement to 'form'
    themselves into the person who will be of benefit to others.  They thus
    see their own actions only as these actions are mediated through
    others.  This experience begins at birth and continues through life. 
    Out of it, women develop a psychic structuring for which the term ego,
    as ordinarily used, may not apply.
    
    We are suggesting then that the organizing principle in women's lives
    has not been a direct relation to reality -- as reality is culturally
    defined.  Nor is it in the mediation between one's own 'drives' and
    that reality (which is the source of the devleopment of the ego). 
    Instead, women have been involved in a more complex mediation -- the
    attempt to transform their drives into the service of another's drives;
    and the mediation is not directly with reality but with and through
    _the other person's purposes_ in that reality.  This selfhood was
    supposed to hinge ultimately on the other person's perceptions and
    evaluations, rather than one's own.  >>
    
    Just some more 'food for thought' as it ties in with Meredith's note
    and also TCYR and YCYOR.
    
    Ro
    
     >>
    
    

    
re: .13 (Lorenzo)
    
>                      -< BEING THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD >-

>      I am an "Enlighten" one. 

    
    What does enlightenment mean to you?
    
    Jeff

    RE:17
    
     The heading title of this note ask the question: "What do you see
    when you see an "Enlighten" person? Then he he tells why he asked
    the question, with, mentioning a "Black woman" of virtue
    (Spirituality). An "Enlighten" person is one who has been freed
    from ignorance (Who have recieved "truth" or "knowledge"). *I* use
    it, to speak of the the truth that was revealed to me, by my Lord
    and savior Jesus Christ.
    
    LORENZO
    

    
    CORRECTION!!
    
      When I spoke of the virtuous woman, I was speaking from reply
    981.1.
    
    Lorenzo
    

I'd thought of Ego in terms of "generic" rather than male/female, but since 
there seem to me to be two + sides to everything, that makes perfect sense.  I 
feel ideas forming in response to this thought (Oh no, watch your eyes; the 
Onion Effect again!).

Maybe parts of each of us are enlightened; some may have Enlightened Egos, 
while others, Enlightened Intelligence, etc.  For me, that brings about two 
different ideas on Enlightenment.  I see an Enlightened Ego as being a strong 
Ego that is accepting of surroundings (including surrounding Egos).  I see 
Enlightened Intelligence as being in tune with having a gifted brain; genius.  
Is it a gift from God, or is it the God Within? - Is there a difference?

    
    
    This reminds me of a question I recently asked a "spiritual medium":
    
    "...when you say, in the Name of the Lord, how do you know that
    what you do or say IS in the Name of the Lord....?"
                      
    and his answer was:
    
    "..because if you asked that what you do be in the Name of the Lord,
    and you are asking for the best, then what you do must be for the
    good.."
    
    Which leaves me with: HUH?  How and who knows the difference?
    
    The same with Enlightenment.  This is Ego Consciousness and it is personal. 
    Otherwise, the chosen ones that are En_light_ened..should be _light_ or
    _lit_....glowing????  Badge numbers stamped on their foreheads...
    indicating "DEJAVU'ers" -  cute thought...sorry i'm getting carried
    away........
    
    Cheryl
    

    
    To me enlightenment can be a sporadic and growing process.  I believe
    that to some extent I am enlightened, but to say "I am enlightened"
    as an end-all-arguments type statement would be folly.  I could
    not imagine never having something more to learn (in the spiritual
    sense as opposed to technical knowledge).  I imagine spirituality
    as analogous to a pearl.  We each are polishing our pearls and adding
    new layers at times.  A new layer would be signified by a rebirth
    of some kind.  I have experienced a rebirth of my own and have
    definately progressed much faster (spiritualy) since this rebirth,
    but I feel that there is something more, that I have only been given
    (or have created) the ability to assimilate more knowledge (more
    layers on the pearl).  This enlightenment, no matter how beautiful
    the pearl becomes, cannot be proven to another person, cannot be
    expressed, only hinted at.  It is only subjective.  Hence the age
    old idea of not judging others and loving your neighbor, etc.  This
    is like giving them the benefit of the doubt.  What I don't understand
    is why some folks claim to be enlightened and then reject certain
    ideas and refuse to converse about things that are outside their
    religion, spirituality, or reality.  If they have the beginnings
    of a pearl (they have reached the first level of enlightenment,
    whatever that is) then the outside ideas should be easily assimilated
    and couldn't possibly harm them.  Even if that merely means accepting
    the alternative system merely for communication purposes.  This
    is hard to explain and I'm out of time so I could try to elaborate
    later if anyone is curious - or even if they aren't.
    
    Guy
    
     

    When I think of an 'enlightened' person, I think of one who is
    perfectly, deeply accepting of him or herself.  Their deep happiness
    and personal knowledge allow them to accept others into their
    lives on any terms because they know they have no reason to fear
    others. An enlightened person encourages others to trust 
    themselves and to grow because he or she is not fearful and has grown,
    too.
    
    I see someone who is "in tune" with the events around them and who 
    flows with those events.  The person is not ruffled by events but 
    instead sees what is and then responds as the need arises.  Serenity 
    is a big part of what I see, but also a person who interacts with the 
    world.  Someone who is serene but who acts directly and to the point.
    
    I think enlightened souls live with personal acceptance and happiness 
    along with a strong sense of where they belong in the universe.  They
    have courage in their hearts and full knowledge and awareness of the 
    consequences of their actions.  And that's okay with them.
    
    Jill

Guy and Jill; Reading that just now has me feeling very good.  Thank you for 
sharing.

    If I were to define "Enlightenment" as being one with the Universe
    or one with the Light (sorry those of you who've seen the light
    once or twice don't qualify under this definition), the egolessness
    certainly seems to apply.
    
    With other definitions of "Enlightenment" it seems that the ego
    is a requirement.
    
    It's amazing how we define things to fit our perception of reality.

>    If I were to define "Enlightenment" as being one with the Universe
>    or one with the Light...the egolessness certainly seems to apply.

To me, "without Ego" means "without (individual) awareness".  I cannot, in my 
mind where it is right now, make sense out of being an individual and having no 
Ego simultaneously.  I have reached what I would word as a merging with Light 
and loss of total awareness of my Self, but yet even knowing this state, I do 
not believe I know egolessness to the point where there is absolutely _no_ 
awareness of Self, and I believe that I would call such a state "death" (I do 
not feel that this is the only "definition" of death).  Because my experience 
is subjective, I would say that I think there cannot exist egolessness and 
body-with-life, simultaneously.  I am tending toward thinking that it is the 
deep and intimate knowing of one's self that opens one toward enlightenment, 
rather than the loss of awareness of one's self.

>    (sorry those of you who've seen the light
>    once or twice don't qualify under this definition), 

This statement, I feel, is not one that fits with egolessness.  I see a 
statement of separation rather than the Universal Light of Oneness.  I don't 
see how this works with the rest of your statement.  
    
>    It's amazing how we define things to fit our perception of reality.

It's wonderful for me when my perception of reality changes, and, therefore, 
some of my definitions change.  I call it "growth".

    
    	Wow, this note grew fast!...
    
    	But anyway, I guess an "enlightened" person to me would be
    	one not burdened down with the world. He or She would have
    	let go of the stupid things of the earth, and would have
    	picked up on the more meaningful reasons for life....like
    	marshmallow roasts with honey, and fireside chats. A person
    	who could be connected to the here and now and yet be
    	somewhere else, all at the same time. 
    
    	I think there are quite a few people who ARE enlightened
    	but refuse to acknowledge it due to the possible realization
    	that it might be a drag on the ego. ;-)
    
    	Craig

    
    re: .26 by GENRAL::DANIEL
    
    Glad to help in making you feel good.  Now I feel good.
    
    Guy
    

    
       Somebody: a couple of people, please get a dictionary and define
    the word "Enlighten".  Being that everyone has their own, personal
    definition.
    
    LORENZO
    

Lorenzo, I figure I could use the dictionary any time; a discussion on personal 
ideas, I find much more...

"Enlightening!"  ;-) 

I've found here, things with which to agree, and this has helped me to have 
ideas on which to build.

American Heritage Sez;

Enlighten; To furnish with spiritual understanding.  To give information to; to 
inform.  (Now why, in a dictionary, is a prepositional phrase incorrectly
grammatically placed?)

Enlightenment; An act or means of enlightening.  The state of being 
enlightened.  A philosophical movement of the 18th century, concerned with the 
critical examination of previously accepted doctrines and institutions from the 
point of view of rationalism.

(My belief that the information of the discussion is superior to the 
information in the dictionary, stands).

.25 

Enlightenment could be described as you have done.  But the crux of the 
problem lies in the desire for enlightenment.  To desire enlightenment (or 
anything else) is to assure one's ego that it continues to be a separate and 
individual soul or being, thus, the act of desiring enlightenment is in itself 
an act that separates one from being "one with the universe."  Just as 
"Nirvana" cannot be obtained by actively seeking it neither can enlightenment 
as they ultimately are one and the same.  because the act of seeking is the 
result of desire which is the product of the ego attempting to maintain it's 
separateness.  


.26

"Yes, to me, 'without Ego' means 'without 'individual awareness.'"  This does 
seem to be a paradox.  Try to think of it this way:  The Ego does not dissolve, 
it only becomes transparent.  The Ego and unconscious (different from 
sub-conscious) mind believes that the physical body sets the boundary of our 
"self."  following this logic, if the physical body is destroyed then the ego 
must disappear because it thinks it is part and parcel to this physical body.
thus, being convinced that it is inseparable from the physical body it must 
do everything in its power to maintain this separateness, in order that it 
might not perish.  The closer the ego gets to Nirvana, Enlightenment, cosmic 
bliss, the God-force, etc. The more fearful the ego gets of final annilation, 
the more camouflage it puts up to make you think you really are getting closer 
to your sought after goal.  Someone spoke of getting in touch with the higher 
self like removing layers on onion skins until one reaches the core. That may 
be a very good simile, but, the ego, fearing annilation, is busy building new 
ones several layers underneath the one you now in the process of removing.
Meanwhile we are patting ourselves on the back congratulation ourselves about 
how much closer we are getting to reaching our final goal of Nirvana, 
Enlightenment, Etc. and our ego is feeling safer and safer because it has 
delayed annilation a little longer and the self is oblivious to this.

Ya really cannot get there from here, Folks!


.27

	Maybe this can be understood from my attempted explanation above:

But I'm not sure I can say it without being cryptic; It is not a matter of 
refusing or acknowledging one's state of enlightenment because to do so would
only be a trap(not a drag on the ego) set up by the ego to prevent its 
perceived destruction.  To acknowledge or refuse the obtaining of a goal is a 
very very subtle means for the Ego to keep its self intact. to obtain a goal, 
even one such as reaching cosmic consciousness, the higher self, etc. is still 
a desire that must be eliminated.
	A person who may or may not have attained nirvana (and the 
enlightenment that comes with it) did not obtain it by seeking it.  He 
acquired it by giving it up. (Seems like I read something like this in a series 
of texts written about two thousand years ago.)  

"I think there are quite a few people who ARE enlightened but refuse to 
acknowledge it due to the possible realization that it might be a drag on the 
ego. ;-)"  I take it that you said this with tongue in cheek?   I hope you 
realize that a person who thinks they might be enlightened is only patting 
themselves on the back and confirming the existence of the ego by either 
refusing or acknowledging their perceived attainment .  and subtly building 
another layer of onion skin way below the one he is presently in the process 
of removing.



A person who is busy "not pursuing" nirvana, enlightenment, knowing God, is 
busy tightening up his actions, by maintaining impeccable behavior, and 
utilizing intent.  He realizes that states of enlightenment and such are only 
"byproducts" of his impeccable behavior and "undivided intent" and not goals 
unto themselves. 




Ernie

    Ernie (.31),
    
    I agree that the ego in an attempt to survive will keep a constant
    vigil and continue to 'trick' us to prevent its own destruction 
    (seeming to cause the 'slip-slide' affect).  I have a question,
    would you describe the desire to return to God the same as wanting
    to be 'enlightened'?
    
    Ro
    

Ernie; what about ego death; the old Ego being reborn in to the new Ego?  I 
agree and have lived through having the current Ego try and hang on in the face 
of change, and have lived through Ego death more than once.  (I hate it and I 
love it at the same time :-).)  Is birth into a new Ego a part of 
Enlightenment?  Do I have to give up my sense of Being in order to be 
Enlightened?

>    would you describe the desire to return to God the same as wanting
>    to be 'enlightened'?

I second the question.

This Ego talk is feeling to me as tricky as YCYOR feels.  It seems to me that 
as soon as it's mentioned that Egolessness is necessary, it's the Ego doing the 
talking.

Another thought; don Juan wanted to maintain his awareness rather than being 
the Eagle's food.  I see being aware as being Ego.  I see being aware as having 
knowledge of existence of the Self.

Oh, where did I read this story...

Did you hear the one about the two monks journeying by foot
who came upon a woman standing uncertainly at
the edge of a stream swollen from the rain that had been
falling for hours.  The older man offered to carry the
woman across the stream on his back, which she gratefully
accepted.  The younger man was astounded and shocked because,
you see, one of the requirements of their order was that they
have no contact with women.  The three crossed the stream,
and after much thanks the two men parted company with the
woman.  An hour later, the younger man could contain himself
no longer and burst out, "How could you have allowed yourself 
to carry that woman across the stream?"  The older man turned to
his companion in mild surprise and answered, "I put that 
woman down an hour ago.  Why are you still carrying her?"


Don'tcha just love it?  I agree that becoming enlightened
means lightening up, and letting go of junk.  

Karen


Karen

    On ego and egolessness...
    
    Who defines what is good or bad in reference to ego/lessness? How do
    they determine what is good or bad in reference to ego/lessness? 
    
    My view is that some worldviews tend to want to abandon life in favor
    of oblivion. To me this seems counterproductive to the processes of
    Nature. 
    
    Of course there are at least two sides to every theory. 
    
    Why is ego bad?

.34

	Excellent.  The Ego Thinks it is desirable to know its boundaries. its 
own limitations.  for if it has boundaries and limitations then it can be 
assured to exist as a separate entity.  If the ego could be convinced that 
awareness is more important; that it is aware of its physical boundaries and 
limitations, but is much more than these limitations, then it can feel safe in 
expanding its awareness to take on a larger perspective of the universe.
Awareness is an expanding ego-a desiring ego is a contracting ego building up 
shells, building up walls to protect itself from it's perceived ultimate 
destruction.  Awareness should be the true makeup of the ego.
	Therefore, the ego does not die, only its boundaries change, either 
expanding in awareness, or shrinking in self desire. The statement "to be 
without ego" is almost a nonsensical statement:  It is part of us at least to 
the soul level as far as I can tell.  

.33  

"Do I have to give up my sense of Being in order to be enlightened?"  No you 
only have to give up your sense of being isolated and separate from all the 
other souls in this universe.  To believe that you must get a new ego every 
time you take a step in increasing your awareness, is only a subtle ego trap,
and understanding this is enlightenment.




.31 Ro

	"...would you describe the desire to return to God the same a wanting 
to be 'enlightened'?


First, let's change the word 'Desire to return' to 'awareness of returning'.

	The awareness of returning to God

Perhaps someone who is more familar with the text of the new testament can 
help me.  But I remember the context of a message of Jesus that stated the we 
must surrender ourself to the will of God.  The 'Will' being that we reach 
awareness of Him, our macro or higher self, etc.  To 'surrender' means to give 
up all self desire, including the selfish desire to know the God-Force and 
just allow it to happen.  So yes, as you stated it the two are the same.  If 
the "words desire to return" is replaced by the words "awareness of returning"
that phrase takes on a different and wonderful meaning. it makes it into a 
process that is happening in spite of ourselves.


.36
    
    	So you might be able to see that there is no "egolessness". There
    are only egos that 'desire' to prevent it's own perceived self
    destruction and egos aware enough to know that there are no boundaries
    except those boundaries which are perceived by the ego to exist. 
    
    
    

Ernie

    

    Ernie (.37),
    
    Thanks.  I think I have a good grasp of what you are saying.
    Your replies in this note and the information you provided
    in the note on Macro Philosophy are very much similar to
    A Course in Miracles.  Have you looked at that?
    
    Ro
    

    
    All of us here are probably describing the same things.  Terms like
    ego mean different things to different people depending on books
    they have or have not read.  The experience of your own ego seems
    to me to be as subjective as the experience of your own dreams.
    Therefore it is impossible to communicate what enlightenment means
    (and be sure it is understood as the originator intended), and even
    more impossible (if *that* is possible) to communicate actual enlight-
    enment.  Of course, by saying this, my first statement could be
    wrong.  By making enlightenment seem so difficult, the author of
    these theories of difficult enlightenment places themselves in a
    position of being above or separate from society.  Even as I state
    that I place myself one degree higher in removing myself from 
    society.  But I think the important thing is balance.  At the same
    time as you see yourself as separate (or as one *special* piece
    of the whole) you see also the unity, and brotherhood of mankind.
    It's the balances and dualities of life and death that are enlighten-
    ment.
    
    Guy
    

    To me the enlightened one is one who can intergrate all opposites
    into a happy, healthy whole.

re; .40  And all this time they've been trying to call it schitzophrenia ;-).

re;  that last one from Ernie...You put in words, the synthesis of thoughts
     that have been developing in me throughout this conversation, added
     some more very useful stuff that "clicked" right in there...Thanks!

re;  Mikie on earlier one; I don't think Ego is in the good/bad realm.  The
     man who taught me my second type of meditation suggested that I might
     want to check in to replacing "good/bad" with "useful to my development
     at this time/not useful to my development at this time" because of the
     potential rejection of something that might have been useful at another
     time (the "bad" label tends to stick).

>Terms like
>ego mean different things to different people depending on books
>they have or have not read.  The experience of your own ego seems
>to me to be as subjective as the experience of your own dreams.

I find that this is true of just about everything, but figure that what I hear 
has a message for me, even if it's not the message that the sayer intended.

    Enlightenment strikes me as more of a process rather than a result,
    but it seems to have the quality of being both a process and a result.
    It involves a sense of one-ness or unity with the universe that
    encompases and entertains all paradox, including the seperateness
    of the individual ego, and the connectedness with all other egos.
    It is a high state of on-going awareness, with simultaneous
    recognition of the limits of awareness. 
    
    -roger
    

                                
I believe that we are all "enlightened".
                                       
I believe that my personal level of enlightenment *is* at different times, 
at different points on a continuum.  
                
I see the continuum as infinite and I see most of us as realitively closely 
grouped together in it.                                
                
My perception of my "enlightened" self is based on my *awareness* of my 
condition in my moments of enlightened existence. 
                
(I also believe that I can be "enlightened" [from another's perspective], 
eventhough I am unaware of it, if I am using my energy correctly.)  

Some people are more aware of the flow of energy, and more practiced in 
creating their realities (i.e. using their energies) in such a way as to 
be more in tune with themselves and with others and with the universe.

This "tuning" process may be expressed in many different ways for a given 
person and for different people - spiritually, intellectually, physically, 
emotionally, etc., but it still *is* in its purest form the same essence - 
oneness -or at least a personal awareness that we are *more* one - with 
the universal flow of energy at that given moment.

The important concept is that we all are enlightened (more "one" with the
universe) in some ways and at some times.  We need to give ourselves 
credit for being enlightened (and not worry about how far we have to go 
to get "there") and help ourselves become more aware of and appreciative 
of our enlightened moments.



The concept of "ego" and the battle within the self is not one that I have 
studied per se, but I have experienced fear when I consciously place myself 
in positions where I will be tested and have to really stretch to a state
of being (energy utilization) that would approach my perceived personal
limits (at the time).  I think I get closest to a highly (for me) enlightened 
state when I am using my energy this way.  

This opening process, this stretching, has proved itself to be so positive 
that I do not consciously regress for any long periods of time.  (I veg out 
sometimes and escape - but I usually bring myself back with a physical use 
of my energy - I exercise daily, or I organize the heck out of some "chaotic" 
area of my life - usually my work and to do lists.)                          
 
I feel that a person is at the more "enlightened" end of their continuum when 
he or she is: 

	Aware of the concept or the "state" of enlightenment

	Accepts the positive aspects of the state of enlighted being,  
	i.e. does not perceive it as threatening, and

	Releases the self to more comfortably and easily fit in or flow 
	with universal energy  

It does not happen all the time for me, nor do I believe it happens 100% of
the time for many of us.  When it does happen, I usually feel "OK" about 
myself and balanced in my energy use.  This gives me the strength to 
perceive it as a gain for *all* of me and not a threat. 


John

I think we're born 'enlightened'.  The challenge is to move through
life without turning out all the lights and find out how to turn a
few back on.  Spend some time talking to young children.  Their worlds
have no boundries.  To them everything is possible and infinite.
Their lives are filled with wonderful creativity.

Somewhere along the way we seem to lose that and most of us here are
trying to get it back, aleast some of it.

Terry

.44 - As a child entering this world do we possess an ego?  Is the devel-
      opment of the the ego an act of survival?  Must we perceive every-
      thing around us in a manner that is acceptable to our particular
      society so that we may get fed, sheltered, clothed and loved?  Then
      is the ego really what we are or what we've become through molding,
      sculpting and armoring?

What if we had no ego (self concept)?  There would be no reference "point"
would there?  Wouldn't we then perceive reality from the viewpoint of that
which are viewing, whether that be a rock, a tree, an animal, or another
person?  What are our limitations at this point?  Do we become expansive
and become all life?  At this point could we say, "I am." with no qualifi-
ers?  Is it unimaginable and therefore invalid?

There are probably many of you who have shifted your perception at one
time or other.  Depending on where and how far you shifted, this may have
caused you to lose your personal reference points.  This can be a frighten-
ing experience yet a wonderfully beautiful experience.  The problem is 
that we cannot describe this experience when we shift back to our normal
place of perception.  Our normal place of perception relates all that we
see to our own personal experiences.  The ego is the product of all of our
personal experiences, is it not?  ("I AM" an intelligent, kind, warm and
giving human being.)

So I guess what I'm really trying to say is that we (I'm included) define
Enlightenment as "I am this way" or "I am that way" or "I will be _______
when I'm Enlightened".  Whatever we put in the _______ it spells "good"
or "great".  I look immediately at it's opposite and feel the "bad".  We
have made a judgement based on our individual concepts of life and self.
What changes for most of us are the values and not judgement itself.  As
long as the ego exists we will continue to make judgements of other things
and people.  Is this the way to Enlightenment?

Personally, I percieve "Total Enlightenment" to be a state which results
from seeing ourselves through the eyes of our brothers and sisters who are
from all directions, then seeing ourselves through the eyes of all other
living things in the universe.  It is the realization or "knowing" that we
are truly ALL things to ALL people and ALL other life forms that allows us
to "see" ourselves as we truly are.  An "Enlightened Being"!

I'm sure we unanimously agree that this is the "TRUTH"! ;-)

    
    
    Walk in Beauty,
    
    Yoshii
    

>Personally, I percieve "Total Enlightenment" to be a state which results
>from seeing ourselves through the eyes of our brothers and sisters who are
>from all directions, then seeing ourselves through the eyes of all other
>living things in the universe.  

I'm confused.  That sounds like looking through other Egos/awarenesses; 
something which I consider to be not possible (here averting from long-winded 
explanation as to "why").  Yes, possible to share energies/feel energies, but 
not possible to know that I am seeing myself as others see me with 100% 
accuracy.  I still have these filters of my experience/life/etc!

    Daniel,
    
    Does the "End of note" mean that you want to close this topic? 
    
    Just a quick one first.  Sorry I didn't define "seeing" and "eyes".
    
    
    Yoshii

    
    	   An "enlightened" person knows the complete futility of
    	life, and chooses to participate anyway.  They know that
    	"why" is the most pointless question anyone can ask, and 
    	they know the answers anyway.  They understand that they
    	are alone in the universe, and yet are part of the 
    	universal whole just the same.
    
    	   Enlightened people see through the darkness around them.
    
    	- Greg

    
    
    To study the WAY is to study the self.
    To study the self is to forget the self.
    To forget the self is to be enlightened by all things.
    To be enlightened by all things is to remove the barrier
    between self and others.
    
    
    by Dogen Zenji from a text called HOW CAN I HELP by Ram Dass and
    Paul Gorman

                           
    In "People Of The Lie", Scott Peck writes that saints are people
    who is truly themselves.  He goes on to say that psychotherapists
    are in the business of saint making - helping people free themselves
    with the baggage they carry around so that their inner light can shine 
    through.
    
    Hm...sounds like enlightenment to me!  *(;^)
    
    Cindy

    What do you see when you see and "Enlightened One" ?....well I
    see a picture of myself as a newborn baby, hours old, but then
    I figure...how the hell did I go wrong? 
    
    -Arthur
                                       

    I should think that the *<ENLIGHTENED ONE>* would see me first.
   
    
     
    And if I am alert then I would see him/her.
    
    And if I'm worthy or worth the while, we'll speak.
    
    	...and then measure the dialog for pertinence to my life.
    
    And act upon it!
    
    
    <-------------------------------------------------------------<Tony<<<<<<  
    "I am a brass vessel, and if polished, then *Eternity* will see himself!"