The Vanity of Enlightenment

reply to post by AfterInfinity

This is an excellent approach that speaks of a realistic assessment of what one judges oneself capable of handling at the present time.

Some people get into more extreme situations in dhama practice that can go far beyond what they can psychologically support and this can lead to harmful results. Part of the job of a guru is to be a "lifeguard" for people splashing around in a very deep pool.

reply to post by ErgoTheConclusion


The idea is not to become fixated.

The map is just the minds attempt to make sense of the terrain, which is far more complex than we are able to perceive.

When you recognize this you then begin to learn your way around.

Intuition also needs to be developed.

reply to post by ipsedixit

One might learn about "one's self" in the process of seeking Buddhist enlightenment, but it would be in the nature of collateral understanding, not the real object of the process.

I agree, but knowing yourself is a necessary part of the journey.

If you can not recognize yourself, then you can not recognize your own biases.

reply to post by poet1b

In order to become unfixated you have to have been fixated at one time. If you've never fixated, you'll never have learned anything of fixation and becoming unfixated.

I agree with you except will not pass judgement on fixation in the same way it is able to be understood that "all are already enlightened"... some are just choosing to not know it right now.

The idea to become unfixated is only when you are ready to become unfixated. Until then there is nothing "wrong" with being fixated... it is simply guaranteed to result in suffering. That's why understanding the underlying nature of suffering is a part of the process, but no understanding would happen had suffering not been experienced.

If someone is fixated and has no inclination to cease being fixated, we are best to leave them in their fixation. Once they have made the gesture then it's no different from someone asking to be helped across a river. If we try to take them across when they don't want to... we're just both going to get wet and suffer.

Everyone here is talking as though they think their own experiences and opinions actually apply to everyone else...isn't all this about personal experience, personal development? Isn't it all purely subjective according to how you process reality in your own little mental world?

Except for the Buddhist guy, Ipsedixit. He sounds like he knows what he's talking about. He isn't drawing boxes on the floor. Speculation, not fact. Know the difference, people. You don't want to confuse the newbies.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

If you say so!

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Everyone here is talking as though they think their own experiences and opinions actually apply to everyone else..

I have been saying the exact opposite!

reply to post by ErgoTheConclusion


Um, my statement is not to become fixated. You have essentially changed the subject.

Let's take it back to the subject at hand.

Life is a journey, there are points of enlightenment, but these only open doors.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Ah, I think the answer for you is to try to keep up, and avoid making judgements.

Consider that the circle of life does not end, and meditate on that for awhile.

reply to post by poet1b

I understand your response, and only have to offer in return your comment to AfterInfinity relating to the circle/cycle. To be fixated is part of the journey of being enlightened. To cease being fixated is part of the journey of being enlightened. Both are equal in "nature" and one follows the other follows the other follows the other, etc.

Apologies if it is detracting from what you wish to communicate.

reply to post by ErgoTheConclusion


That's pretty good, I like it. Didn't realize where you where going.

I would think that getting fixated and unfixated would be the yin yang sine wave part of learning.

The heroes journey begins, ends, and begins again.

reply to post by poet1b


In any closed system...action will have corresponding reaction. In an open system...action will not.

Thing is...our Universe is FINITE and thus a Closed System. The Multiverse is Infinite but comprised of Infinite numbers of Closed Systems.

Thus...actions must have coresponding reactions.

Split Infinity

I just have to interject with my problem with the word "universe" and "multiverse"

The multiverse is not a fact.

The original meaning of universe encompassed "all that exists."

The meaning of universe has evolved, especially with the introduction of the concept of a multiverse.

The multiverse exists in the realm of possibility but is not a proven reality.

The universe is a fact.

The univerese is now viewed as some finite entity, subjugated to the larger multiverse.

That is not a fair association to make, for the universe is a fact and the multiverse is not, and never will be.

It is possible that the universe encompasses "all that exists," but it is also possible that it is part of the multiverse. It is impossible to prove or disprove both sides, so there is no fixed definition of "universe" and never will be.

Therefore all we can conclude is the universe exists; we cannot determine if it is finite or infinite.

reply to post by poet1b

Mutual understanding reached... And thus we are on the same page! /hug
Until we are no longer on the same page again. /bwuahahahah

This has been one of my favorite threads on ATS. Thanks LesMisanthrope.

Originally posted by Wang Tang
The universe is a fact.

I can't verify this. I can only verify that I currently believe it is a fact.

Originally posted by Wang Tang


the multiverse is not, and never will be.

edit on 14-2-2013 by Wang Tang because: above top secret

You sure about that?

digitaljournal.com...

Let's say they run these tests and conclude the multiverse exists. Good! But what have they just done to the definition of "universe?" They have assigned a fixed definition to a word that cannot have a fixed definition.

This is because as much as we can speculate about the nature of the universe, we cannot directly percieve the limits of the universe, therefore we cannot know if the universe is finite or infinite.

If our universe is infinite, how is it possible that it exists within a multiverse? Would you say the multiverse is a bigger version of infinity than the universe? Well then it seems we now have a problem with our definition of the word "infinity."

Originally posted by Wang Tang
Let's say they run these tests and conclude the multiverse exists. Good! But what have they just done to the definition of "universe?" They have assigned a fixed definition to a word that cannot have a fixed definition.

This is because as much as we can speculate about the nature of the universe, we cannot directly percieve the limits of the universe, therefore we cannot know if the universe is finite or infinite.

If our universe is infinite, how is it possible that it exists within a multiverse? Would you say the multiverse is a bigger version of infinity than the universe? Well then it seems we now have a problem with our definition of the word "infinity."

Maybe the multiverse is just an extension to the universe, why are you trying to separate them, the universe would only be a small part of the bigger picture!

reply to post by ErgoTheConclusion


Here's the simplest definition I can give you... the entity that holds our planets, solar systems, and galaxies is the universe.

While it's possible that our perception of planets, solar systems, and galaxies may not be in its true form, we know that they physically exist because we exist within them. Even if our physical bodies are not real, the abstract form of planets, solar systems, and galaxies still exists in our minds, so it still exists in a certain capacity.

The universe is simply the container of all of our physical reality, so I would say it's pretty hard to deny it as a fact.

I would like to hear how you say it isn't a fact, should be interesting. After all, my definition of universe and yours may be different. And my definition of fact and your definition of fact may be different. And our conceptions of truth, physical reality, and existence may also be different.

The universe is a small part of the multiverse in much the same way the planets and star are a small part of our universe, they are not separate, so are they infinite as a whole?