Is Enlightenment a choice?

[raykilleen]

Originally Posted by Irisha

I can use different terminology. Free Will is an illusion which will disappear with the realization of Oneness at the end of my life. The ideas that constitute my Ego represent a system of false beliefs. Those beliefs are created by God that I am.

Well lets hope one does not suffer too much along the way

[Prinie]

Wow, the development of this thread.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Irisha

Si soy el Dios , soy la ilusion. Como no? No soy el Dios en la vida real.
I can be God only as an illusion. God is everything, me included. But I can be God only as a potential which will never be realized in actuality. It means being God for me is to be an illusion, though my status changes if I realize that it's possible.

You are that "everything" now. You are not a 'me'.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

In fact the person is indeed BOTH objective and subjective.

Okay, well, with this, at least I can identify the source of my previous misunderstanding.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Okay, well, with this, at least I can identify the source of my previous misunderstanding.

Indeed ou've presented with a most gracious demeanor.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Irisha

I can use different terminology. Free Will is an illusion which will disappear with the realization of Oneness at the end of my life. The ideas that constitute my Ego represent a system of false beliefs. Those beliefs are created by God that I am.

Unless you are using an alternative definition to most for "free will", it is most certainly NOT an illusion.

Who comes up with this kind of nonsense anyway?

[Irisha]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

You are that "everything" now. You are not a 'me'.

Yes, when I realize that.

[lifetimelearner]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Ego isn't a thing, it's a collection of self referential ideas. It's a belief system in the same way that the idea that God created egos because he wanted to, is a belief. They are both false beliefs that you hold. Don't blame God because you believe stuff.

the ego is not a belief system in itself

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by lifetimelearner

the ego is not a belief system in itself

What is it?

[lifetimelearner]

It is the mechanism by which we procreate our belief system

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by lifetimelearner

It is the mechanism by which we procreate our belief system

So ego is a mechanism? You mean with gears and pulleys and stuff?

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by lifetimelearner

It is the mechanism by which we procreate our belief system

Ego is the demand of our emotions to be obliged, empowered.

[Beingist]

Ego just means "I" in Latin.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Unless you are using an alternative definition to most for "free will", it is most certainly NOT an illusion.

Who comes up with this kind of nonsense anyway?

God?

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Jane Doe said the individual is in complete control, so I said nobody is in control. My 'choice of words' was determined by Jane's choice of words. The question of free will or control is ultimately misconceived and doesn't apply.

The notion that God is in control and we are God, hence we are in control, is an erroneous conclusion.

The notion that we are not in control is an erroneous conclusion.

And while I don't base what I believe in solely on channeled information, I find it very interesting that virtually every channeled entity I've ever heard of proclaims we have free will and that we are God. Why such a remarkable breadth of consistency on this very topic? You must have to conclude that they are all just lying or that the person they are channeling through is just skewing the information.

Never once have I heard of someone channeling messages proclaiming that we have no free will.

Hmmmm. How curious.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

You believe we are God and you imagine God has freedom of choice. Believing and imagining is not the same as realizing.

You believe we have no freedom of choice and you imagine you are realized. Believing and imagining are not the same as realizing.

(If at first you don't succeed, discredit your opponent in such a way that their perceptions are seen to be less valid than your own -- that way, you don't have to seriously consider them -- good tactic).

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

The notion that we are not in control is an erroneous conclusion.

There's clearly the appearance of choices happening. Where are 'you' in this process? Who is it that has control? Is even the process of choosing appearing to you who is not appearing, choosing or doing anything?

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

There's clearly the appearance of choices happening. Where are 'you' in this process? Who is it that has control?

Consciousness is the container for all identities. It is the ultimate identity, the ultimate self. It has absolute control, and it is our true expanded nature.

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Is even the process of choosing appearing to you who is not appearing, choosing or doing anything?

Yes, the process is appearing else we wouldn't be talking about it. I'm not sure what you mean by "not appearing, choosing or doing" because consciousness is doing all those things.

Your awareness *IS* it's awareness. There is no separation there. There is no fake entity, and then some real entity.

There is just the real entity expressing as human, temporarily.

[lifetimelearner]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

So ego is a mechanism? You mean with gears and pulleys and stuff?

wrong definition


although with some people's brains .........hmmmmmmmmmmm...........

[RonSouther]

Originally Posted by Irisha

Si soy el Dios , soy la ilusion. Como no? No soy el Dios en la vida real.
I can be God only as an illusion. God is everything, me included. But I can be God only as a potential which will never be realized in actuality. It means being God for me is to be an illusion, though my status changes if I realize that it's possible.

I can relate to "God is everything, me included". I feel that in my life that "God" is creativity, that I have a lifelong push to be creative and in that I feel as though I'm part of God (Creativity). That His creativity is in part through me.

The hollow bamboo.

[Moriarty]

Originally Posted by inconditus

First we have to assume that we know what enlightenment is. For this question lets use a vague definition that enlightenment is understanding Oneness fully in every aspect of that person (mind, soul, spirit). It is a very high vibration but it is not being a full embodiment of God-akashic records come to mind for this, knowing EVERYTHING past, present and future.

Ok. Now the real question. Is enlightenment a choice or is it something that just happens? When you search for enlightenment are you actually getting any closer to it? Or farther away? Is letting go more ..... "productive" for lack of a better term?

Right now I feel like enlightenment is just something that happens to us when the time is right. It's not YOUR choice in the sense that pre awakening you are in the (:growl, I hate words "lower" part of yourself and you/ego would not make such a decision out of free will and understanding.

I am curious. What do you think? I've used a lot of trigger words so if possible try not to get hung up on them too much. This 26 letter strainer we call language cannot adequately describe anything metaphysical.

For me, enlightenment is an ideal ive invented in my own mind. Ive moulded it to suit my own needs and desires. Realising this long ago, i have already let go of the term 'enligtenment' and replaced it with 'life doing'.

When we go to the store to purchase a 'package' deal, we might haggle over it till we get what we deem worthy of that package to suit our needs. Now we've got it. We snagged the deal. Everything in the package we configured into our equation. Yep, its nice. We take it home and croon over it. Tell all our friends what a bargain we got. Play with it all for a bit. Then down the track somewhere, without even noticing, suddenly we tire of all that. We want something new and exciting. A new package deal!

Enlightenment is no different to that. Its what the individual makes of it. When we get it, its not desirable anymore and we think "big deal! so now i'm enlightened..what now?" You start looking for something more. There's gotta be more. Enlightenment is simply an adjective.

Stop looking outside of yourself for something you've deemed of value. Stop chasing the rainbow's end. Better to drop the idea of such a worthless pursuit and instead, enjoy to the utmost what you have in each moment...that's ENLIGHTENMENT!

[Moriarty]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

There's clearly the appearance of choices happening. Where are 'you' in this process? Who is it that has control? Is even the process of choosing appearing to you who is not appearing, choosing or doing anything?

To me that is a whole lot of intellectual, bull thought process. I notice you use this same scenario in most of your posts. I would like to challenge you on defining the process of the your train of thought towards reaching a conclusive outcome to it.

At one time, I used this same approach myself, until I realised its absurdness. Its the new-agey jargon that presents idealism that leads nowhere other then to confuse and confound those who have yet to see through it.

So I could string it out to ask you..."who is it who is thinking who is it that has control"....no resolution...and so the points are mute.

Time is better spent in pondering what one considers 'control' is to them.

[raykilleen]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

To me that is a whole lot of intellectual, bull thought process. I notice you use this same scenario in most of your posts. I would like to challenge you on defining the process of the your train of thought towards reaching a conclusive outcome to it.

At one time, I used this same approach myself, until I realised its absurdness. Its the new-agey jargon that presents idealism that leads nowhere other then to confuse and confound those who have yet to see through it.

So I could string it out to ask you..."who is it who is thinking who is it that has control"....no resolution...and so the points are mute.

Time is better spent in pondering what one considers 'control' is to them.

Perhaps it’s more a matter of predominant disposition, different strokes for different folks, the yogis noticed this and it’s laid out nicely here as an example of what I speak: Four Paths of Yoga - Jnana, Bhakti, Karma, Raja

"The four paths of Yoga: There are four traditional schools of Yoga, and these are: Jnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga, and Raja Yoga. While a Yogi or Yogini may focus exclusively on one of these approaches to Yoga, that is quite uncommon. For the vast majority of practitioners of Yoga, a blending of the four traditional types of Yoga is most appropriate. One follows his or her own predisposition in balancing these different forms of Yoga.

Jnana Yoga: Jnana Yoga is the path of knowledge, wisdom, introspection and contemplation. It involves deep exploration of the nature our being by systematically exploring and setting aside false identities.

Bhakti Yoga: Bhakti Yoga is the path of devotion, emotion, love, compassion, and service to God and others. All actions are done in the context of remembering the Divine.

Karma Yoga: Karma Yoga is the path of action, service to others, mindfulness, and remembering the levels of our being while fulfilling our actions or karma in the world.

Raja Yoga: Raja Yoga is a comprehensive method that emphasizes meditation, while encompassing the whole of Yoga. It directly deals with the encountering and transcending thoughts of the mind.


We can't abandon the others: While it is definitely true that we each have predispositions towards one or another of the four paths of Yoga, we cannot really avoid or abandon the others.

Jnana Yoga: While Jnana Yoga deals with knowledge, wisdom, introspection and contemplation, everybody has a mind and at some point will need to examine it, wherein quiet reflection naturally comes.

Bhakti Yoga: All people will experience emotions such as love, compassion, and devotion at points along the journey, regardless of which of the four paths of Yoga is predominant.

Karma Yoga: Nobody can live in a body and the world without doing actions. Even a renunciate living in a Himalayan cave has to do some form of actions, and thus, some degree of Karma Yoga is essential.

Raja Yoga: Everybody will become still and quite from sadhana or spiritual practices, will naturally encounter and deal with attractions and aversion, and will meditate, thus touching on Raja Yoga."

[Prinie]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

To me that is a whole lot of intellectual, bull thought process. I notice you use this same scenario in most of your posts. I would like to challenge you on defining the process of the your train of thought towards reaching a conclusive outcome to it.

At one time, I used this same approach myself, until I realised its absurdness. Its the new-agey jargon that presents idealism that leads nowhere other then to confuse and confound those who have yet to see through it.

So I could string it out to ask you..."who is it who is thinking who is it that has control"....no resolution...and so the points are mute.

Time is better spent in pondering what one considers 'control' is to them.

I partially agree with you Moriarty. But from what I gather from all of "this", this is the path of contemplation. There's nothing wrong with it. It is it's own form of enlightenment. Just know what works for you. I prefer action.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

Consciousness is the container for all identities. It is the ultimate identity, the ultimate self. It has absolute control, and it is our true expanded nature.

You're projecting your idea of personal free will onto the impersonal. The individual is experiencing a personal thinking process apart from other individuals, but what we conceptualize as Consciousness is not a thinking entity, it is a concept that refers to the source of thinking entities. 'Consciousness', as a whole, does not think, hencely it does not choose.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by lifetimelearner

wrong definition


although with some people's brains .........hmmmmmmmmmmm...........

What we mean by ego is the identification with an apparently separate mind/body organism, and this identification consists of memories. These memories consist of personal experiences, qualities, attributes, assets, liabilities, talents, etc. These are all thoughts. Hencely, ego is a matrix of thoughts that refer to a 'me'. It's not an actual entity and it's not a mechanism.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

For me, enlightenment is an ideal ive invented in my own mind. Ive moulded it to suit my own needs and desires. Realising this long ago, i have already let go of the term 'enligtenment' and replaced it with 'life doing'.

When we go to the store to purchase a 'package' deal, we might haggle over it till we get what we deem worthy of that package to suit our needs. Now we've got it. We snagged the deal. Everything in the package we configured into our equation. Yep, its nice. We take it home and croon over it. Tell all our friends what a bargain we got. Play with it all for a bit. Then down the track somewhere, without even noticing, suddenly we tire of all that. We want something new and exciting. A new package deal!

Enlightenment is no different to that. Its what the individual makes of it. When we get it, its not desirable anymore and we think "big deal! so now i'm enlightened..what now?" You start looking for something more. There's gotta be more. Enlightenment is simply an adjective.

Stop looking outside of yourself for something you've deemed of value. Stop chasing the rainbow's end. Better to drop the idea of such a worthless pursuit and instead, enjoy to the utmost what you have in each moment...that's ENLIGHTENMENT!

You're right, enlightenment is an ideal you've invented in your own mind. It doesn't, however, have anything at all to do with what enlightenment actually is, so best to stick with the "life doing" label.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

Consciousness is the container for all identities. It is the ultimate identity, the ultimate self. It has absolute control, and it is our true expanded nature.

If there is an ultimate self, is there a regular self or non-ultimate self/ non-expanded self? If I'm hearing you right, you're saying you are consciousness and you're calling all the shots? Is the appearance of control for you extend beyond Anagogy?

Originally Posted by Anagogy

Yes, the process is appearing else we wouldn't be talking about it. I'm not sure what you mean by "not appearing, choosing or doing" because consciousness is doing all those things.

Your awareness *IS* it's awareness. There is no separation there. There is no fake entity, and then some real entity.

There is just the real entity expressing as human, temporarily.

I'm not talking about playing word games or concluding that everything is consciousness therefor if I'm consciousness I'm in total control. Anagogy is no more in control than the wave moving through the ocean. Life is unfolding in one singular movement in which one appearance can't decide to go left when life is going right. Consciousness is not thinking, or making choices. This process is appearing to consciousness much in the same way your dreams are unfolding and appearing to you who is not a character in the dream nor are choices being made to cause the dream to unfold. It simply does so spontaneously. Identification with a character in the dream may happen and illusory control appear but this is seen to be false upon waking.

Much in the same way, the person in the 'waking' state may see themselves in control with an identity not limited to the vehicle of the person only to awaken to the truth that even this control was completely illusory.

I'm not actually suggesting separation is true. I'm saying to believe you have free will/control you must have already erroneously concluded you are separate even if it's not by virtue of saying you're a separate person. The question of free will only becomes interesting and a conundrum once lines in the sand start becoming drawn. To decide that you are focused consciousness or some parcel of consciousness/God that is independently choosing requires a breaking down of that which is already whole and believing this separation to be true. In this process there can be only illusion.

If you stopped pretending you were in control in this very moment would you be unable to move from your chair or would things continue on as they have?

[lifetimelearner]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

What we mean by ego is the identification with an apparently separate mind/body organism, and this identification consists of memories. These memories consist of personal experiences, qualities, attributes, assets, liabilities, talents, etc. These are all thoughts. Hencely, ego is a matrix of thoughts that refer to a 'me'. It's not an actual entity and it's not a mechanism.

you are using one definition -mine is different

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

To me that is a whole lot of intellectual, bull thought process. I notice you use this same scenario in most of your posts. I would like to challenge you on defining the process of the your train of thought towards reaching a conclusive outcome to it.

At one time, I used this same approach myself, until I realised its absurdness. Its the new-agey jargon that presents idealism that leads nowhere other then to confuse and confound those who have yet to see through it.

So I could string it out to ask you..."who is it who is thinking who is it that has control"....no resolution...and so the points are mute.

Time is better spent in pondering what one considers 'control' is to them.

They are questions that reveal subtle assumptions most people have made all of their life. To say 'you' have control over 'your' life, it might be helpful to know who this 'you' is would it not? Is the assumption of you being a separate volitional person actually true and is there even a you at all? This can be seen and when it does, what happens to the problem of control and free will? Does it still matter? The difficulty is that 'you' just jumps around and hides behind different labels for most people while still remaining separate in some shape or form. Surely if one has no desire to see what is true, they will simply go around in circles in the mind and come out even more confused than before.

The approach itself is only absurd if one has no willingness to look at what the words are pointing to. Some people can hear the question and see through their assumptions immediately while others interpret it as an encouragement to use circular logic. I'm not actually suggesting your intellect is the door to freedom.

Go right ahead and ponder what control is to you. Explore the boundaries of this control. I'm not actually suggesting against that. Make your mind go quiet permanently, wake up and be permanently still mentally and physically right in this moment for even the next 30 seconds let alone 30 minutes. Only have the emotions or impulses you want to have all the time. Only have encounters with others that are fantastic and to your liking until the day you die. Make a decision to do something contrary to the way your energy was already moving and follow through with it all the time. Learn how to know your next thought before it actually appears to you. Worry about nothing and get everything you desire. Remain focused all the time on what you want and never become distracted or pulled in other directions. Only have memories you like recalled and never ones you don't all the time. And most of all, do it all without suffering tremendously.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

To say 'you' have control over 'your' life, it might be helpful to know who this 'you' is would it not? Is the assumption of you being a separate volitional person actually true and is there even a you at all? This can be seen and when it does, what happens to the problem of control and free will? Does it still matter?

This is the very reason why I don't participate all that much in 'Free Will' discussions.