The insufficiency of man

I've read so many threads and posts out there about enlightenment , how to obtain enlightenment ect..ect..ect.. ,and basically it all boils down to one thing, and thats self.Every thread I've read all say that enlightenment can only be found within ones self.I disagree, And here's why. So many of our troubles flow from a defective use of the intelligence or will or energy we have,that we are in danger of thinking that all our troubles could be cured by a better use of our own powers- in other words, that man has the secret of sufficiency within himself if he will but use it.Man is so insufficient in knowledge, how could he possibly think that his own sufficiency lies within.

reply to post by Theophorus


More sufficient than a monkey.

Anyway, enlightenment isn't found internally, ast least not at first. another has to plant the seed first. Otherwise how would you know something of the sort even existed?

arnt they always

reply to post by DAZ21


The experience of awakening can occur and later learn names for it, in fact unless it has happened how would one know?

reply to post by Theophorus


Great post by the way ! I personaly dont think man has any power to get out the mess he has created for himself. I do believe we can be enlighted but only to a certain degree. To be fully enlightened would bring man even more power to mess up this amazeing planet. Power brings corruption but absolute power brings absolute corruption. As much as I would love to see this planet be enlightened I dont htink its ever going to happen as man is a failure to himself.

reply to post by Theophorus


You can not obtain enlightenment. The truth is realized or not. The truth is not anywhere else locked away, it is in plain sight but the mind is confused.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by Theophorus

 

You can not obtain enlightenment. The truth is realized or not. The truth is not anywhere else locked away, it is in plain sight but the mind is confused.

That's why there is no such thing as enlightenment. If the self is an illusion and enlightenment only comes from within one's self, it follows that enlightenment is an illusion as would be anything contained within this illusory "self".

reply to post by Theophorus


all error flows from our lack of desire to comprehend the opinions of all others.

to many people are scared to lose themselves in an ocean.

Man sees what he wants to see. Everyone has the power to see the truth, but most voluntarily deny it. If we all just simply accepted the true nature of things, then this world would truly become a better place.
Insufficient? Not a chance.

reply to post by 2Isee3rd


the bottom point is where essentially noone gives to what it consider objectively being true

truth is not an equation but for who enjoy it to see it shortly as a concept

truth is anything u admit

how u admit smthg to possess it or get another thing from ? this is unsane for what u are basically, not u bc u seem to be normal like me, but in general since we mean them as they are all over the place
so i was saying, u r basically the negative nothing, that mean itself in seeing smthg true as a thing add

the positive nothing react differently

he is ok within him being nothing in objective sense, he manages himself and see some advantages about being nothing, he is true in relative sense of course as nothing freedom exist since truth is freedom and existence is

negative nothing is one freedom basically that seem to search to prove its superiority as nothing, which is absurd

so positive nothing exist by admiting else objective fact existence, while negative nothing seem to keep willing to deal with else existence as his, as to say that he is true existence and there is no else

there could b many different reasons to this as to coincide for an absolute fact of nothing freedom

negative nothing is like reacting from the fact that it cant b identified on sameness rule with any else, since it is at the maximum truly nothing at all

but positive nothing has a plus and deal from the plus which is truth sense, nothing dont stay nothing so it has a positive true sense too
while negative nothing translate that sense in evil ways, positive sense for it is to him become more and refuse to deal with else positively, refuse that else could b more or become even if it is to truth that he also belongs to

so here where the concept of love appear in basics, the notion of plus for nothing is love

that is why u all dont know a word about love, as u see it from being nothing at all

just the plus that u recognize existing while ur drive is then to live through which is abherent

but u r not nothing since existence individuality is obvious, so here where another god is the reason while nature too of corruptions that u live through too as a choice while u r and intelligents ones

back to nothing

so plus for nothing, when plus is truth sense absolute superiority always, plus for nothing is like a fancy while being nothing still

positive nothing deal with watever fancy more objectively bc positive nothing is true nothing more, which means that he is active more alone objectively while staying nothing always
negative nothing deal with fancies as the exclusive truth else so all to nothing, when he doesnt admit nothing objective value so fancies become any and all it could handle

love is important in basics bc truth is absolute superiority in all terms even beyond absolutes

so a sense of else must mean true so it must b positive the least absolutely

of course one must act regarding some morality and obligations when evil is existing

but within his free existence one cant b true unless he really cares at some absolute point objectively

so positive nothing is also the free sense that will know how the object care must remain as it is objective always so it could get to its means right by caring about or for

while negative nothing is the free sense that reject the concept of objective from object rejection, so he will invent fanciful abstraction about its positive drive to else
and it is better done if it is possessed

so basically being objective is first, positive nothing is always objective taking itself seriously and puting out constant realizations for what it really exist as nothing free and it is proven from the world free reality how nothing can b objective absolutely

why negative nothing is never objective?

bc he doesnt give, so nothing out in its free space

positive nothing is true, giving is more freedom back from objective u give out to nothing

why negative nothing dont give as positive nothing do?

i think many factors could b the reason

it is too proud of being nothing, so it must got a posture there as free above nothing known full

or mayb also it is before more nothing then free nothing so attached to nothing in some term which goes with its pride to an absolute point nothing is fact superiority
so to it truth known later is a plus and not a truth of it
so not sensing its relativity to right

but also and i guess that as a major reason

there must b a comfortable zone that makes it happy to love itself as nothing seeing all opportunities from getting always plus from truth as positive free value add to stabilize its nothing value more and it is active for above that

but the main point, is that it is not true nothing, which mean never evolve really, even as nothing can evolve in clarity and value of nothing objective superiority while freedom from nothi

reply to post by absolutely


while freedom out of nothing true realisation is existing the most right

it is almost impossible to realize smthg true, bc then that smthg exist objectively by itself so any realisation of smthg is always wrong or false or evil, that is why also it is better to admit smthg from itself free realisation

so how can we imagine truth sense becoming of any and all

here where it appears that negative nothing must b forced someway, by loosing what it knows of its free wills being wrong, it will b more forced to not b driven by

so i guess there must be in future interventions from what already is outside nothing spaces

in another perspective we can also add

that positive nothing is more the freedom present as nothing is only regarding else, the free is nothing to anyother or anything or fact or concept ...but relative to truth would admit only

while negative nothing, is more literaly the nothing object, that is why too it doesnt realize objects while positive nothing do, and is faraway from truth bc nothing in object sense do not exist in truth
so negative nothing in the sense of literal nothing as less then smthg, which is wrong, in truth only freedom is identified of its own one superior value unikness potential to b its positive objective value source alone

reply to post by absolutely


what?

reply to post by Theophorus


amen brother ! you have spoken! by the way i am in a point of "i don`t give a rat as on nothing" , all this lack of knowledge create monsters like religion, extreme science, crime against mind, self-sufficiency, and other "derivates" , I wish to be on mehico smoking '___' or ayahuasca and chill myself near the ocean...peace

Even Buddha had teachers.
just not buddist teachers.

you must first learn what you can from life.
and like many, dont be fooled.

all teachings have a little of the truth.
they just mess up the rest with ego!

good luck.

reply to post by Theophorus

Originally posted by Theophorus
I've read so many threads and posts out there about enlightenment , how to obtain enlightenment ect..ect..ect.. ,and basically it all boils down to one thing, and thats self.Every thread I've read all say that enlightenment can only be found within ones self.I disagree, And here's why. So many of our troubles flow from a defective use of the intelligence or will or energy we have,that we are in danger of thinking that all our troubles could be cured by a better use of our own powers- in other words, that man has the secret of sufficiency within himself if he will but use it.Man is so insufficient in knowledge, how could he possibly think that his own sufficiency lies within.

Depends on your definition of 'self'. If you define self as merely the individual consciousness contained within your skin then yeah you're absolutely right.

But if your talking of your 'true' self, as in the consciousness contained within the skin of this infinite universe, then that's where your arguments fall down.

Look within your self merely means look within your true self, but in order to do this you must gain some sort of realisation that your true self is not the one contained within the confines of your body.

As above, so below, you are just a small part of a greater whole, but all of that whole is contained within you.