Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

Patrons of the Sacred Art

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 50

Thread: Is enlightenment a trap?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    202

    Is enlightenment a trap?

    This is a matter which has been bothering me for a long time now and I wish to bother thou with it as well. ^^

    Is enlightenment congruent to death, a trap layed out by the (spiritual and materialistic) elite to protect their own standing and power?

    The more I dive into different spiritual practices the more I disagree with the concept of renunciation which is taught in many of them. (Gnosticism, Buddhism, Hinduism to just name a few of the most common)

    In short the concept of renunciation taught by those practices sets the goal for the scholar to renounce all desires and to serve others and the higher good entirely without personal ego.

    Such practices are opposed to shamanism, alchemy etc because the usage of substances and "not normal" states of consciousness is seen as a fooly.

    But if one thinks those concepts through to the end it means that your highest goal is not just becoming a slave (bound to "the good" but nevertheless bound) but more so becoming an empty shell, an avatar/vehicle for "love" without anything left.

    Not even the personal choice or desire to be good and fair to others is left. No cultivation to higher realms no exploration just nothing. It is not even the same as being dead but the same as not existing at all.

    Those teachings use the "hookline" that one needs to renounce this world and this life and become tranquil without desire and I personally absolutely agree.

    But the goal is not elavation to higher realms or mastery but becoming a eternal servant of god.

    Basically saying that there is nothing more in "life" than helping others to ascend to a point were they themselves can also help others...so fundamentally there is just this big "circle jerk" of helpers and helping. Which means that at the ultimate end without any people left to help there is also no reason to continue to exist and they all become one with god...which leads to my next problem with this teaching.

    To me love is bliss and the goal but not becoming one with god because becoming one with god is the same as death.

    Those practices do not seem to realize or mention that becoming one with love/god does not mean that you are embedded in the highest state of love but that you are nothing.

    We have free will for a reason but the ultimate goal is the complete opposite of free will and therefor spirit.

    If you are one with "the whole" you can not experience or feel love because there is no you but just "the whole". Being part "of the whole" without being able to do/be anything is the same as doing and being nothing, worse than being dead.
    It also means that their is no ascension after this world/dimension/reality. It means all the "higher beings/entities/ascended masters" are idiots or hoaxes.

    In those practices everything about freedom, free will, spirit is considered as fooly and just ego. A sort of "test" which god gave us or we ourselves gave us through karma.

    I can not understand how those practices believe that god (the supposed creator of all) just wants holy slaves. Good, kind, loving yes but still slaves.


    I think free will and freedom is love and something completely different from ego.


    I do not want to serve god eternally, I rather just be dead. I want to help others and devote my life for "the good" because I want to do so and not because I have to.

    To me such a god seems more cruel than any archetype evil like Satan, Lucifer, etc.

    And this seems to be the problem with most spiritual practices except for shamanism and alchemy. Those practices ultimately just see two paths. The path to eternal glorious servitude without even the chance to take a walk and enjoy your surroundings or the other path straight to hell and hurting others for ones own benefit.

    I want to take neither. To me shamanism feels much more like real love and freedom.
    To me I do not believe that using substances means having ego and flaws.
    To me god would never take freedom away more than any devil could, because freedom is love

    To me enlightenment as practiced in most spiritual teachings is a frightening never ending hell no matter how cosy it may feel.

    PS: Strangely the spelling correction is not working for this thread so please excuse any mistakes I will try to edit them as I see them.
    Last edited by JinRaTensei; 06-16-2016 at 07:03 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    7,401
    Blog Entries
    2
    Good subject.

    The thing about renunciation usually goes for those that want to be monks. It does not apply to the rest, not the same level at least.

    Also all those spiritual practices are wrong. LOL.

    Shamanism is the source of them all and the only way forward if spiritual peace is the goal. But everyone is different. This is just how I feel.

    Enlightenment is not a trap. Desire for enlightenment is.

    I will reply more later. Too much for an iPhone post. LOL. Many things to consider about what you wrote.


    Don’t let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    202
    Shamanism is the source of them all and the only way forward if spiritual peace is the goal. But everyone is different. This is just how I feel.
    I feel the same way, although my "feeling" is sadly not grounded in experience like yours...but still I can not explain it but shamanism for me feels like breathing out, freedom whereas the others feel more like holding your breath and avoiding the joy and beauty of this world.

    I will reply more later. Too much for an iPhone post. LOL. Many things to consider about what you wrote.
    I am really looking forward to it


    Enlightenment is not a trap. Desire for enlightenment is.
    If you do not mind I would really appreciate if you would expand a little on this point as well, because I do not really grasp this point or have a different opinion in this moment. Simply spoken what if we look at enlightenment without the desire for it would it not still be the same trap?
    Yes your path may be the "right" one by renouncing desire for it but in the end you still would be the same slave at least considering most spiritual practices/doctrines?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    7,401
    Blog Entries
    2
    If you want a child you have to find a woman willing to make one.

    If you accept love and follow your heart a child will appear.

    That is the best allegory I can think of now about just reaching enlightenment rather than have desire for it.

    But what is enlightenment? Want to open that can of worms? LOL.

    As for Shamanism and not having any experience: if it feels right it is. And what is a shamanic experience? You may already be having it by floating toward its concepts.


    Don’t let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    202
    Damn you dev writing so little but making me ponder about it so much XD.

    I will certainly have to come back to this later!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    4,621
    Blog Entries
    1
    Depends on how you define 'enlightenment' and 'god'.

    If 'enlightenment' means 'moving up' the 'corporate ladder' of this VR Universe game mindfuck, then to me, it is definitely THE trap.

    You can read my home page (linked in my signature) for more on my thoughts on this issue.

    If 'god' is some 'entity' that needs/has to be 'served', then it's a fake/pretend god/demiurge and not even worth shitting on, let alone playing its silly games and perpetuating the predatory food chain.

    For me, leaving aside nearly all known nomenclature (Shamanism, religions, emotions, practices, etc...) - there are only 2 primordial paths left, which are, in my view, impossible to reconcile.
    Friends will be lost, new companions will be found and lives will change dramatically the closer this realization is.

    1. The Path of Attainment: 'Climbing the corporate ladder', 'enlightenment', 'serving god', progressing in the VR/Game, 'awakening' from one dream to another (while remaining asleep), etc...

    2. The Path of Return: Complete 'alchemical' transmutation of 'Body' & 'Soul' into code-less, UN-Created Spirit. Waking up, for real.

    ---------------------------------------------------
    Last edited by Andro; 06-16-2016 at 06:58 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    202
    If 'god' is some 'entity' that needs/has to be 'served', then it's a fake/pretend god/demiurge and not even worth shitting on, let alone playing its silly games and perpetuating the predatory food chain.
    This describes pretty much how I have felt for many years without any kind of validation from "spiritual sources". And yes validation is something which needs to be shed as well but until you reach the point to be truly able to forge your own path one needs different sources and validation/refusal to create own discernment, imo. (Validation as in experiencing "truth" and not as in acceptance from others)
    It feels very good for me to hear those thoughts from another person I respect.

    2. The Path of Return: Complete 'alchemical' transmutation of 'Body' & 'Soul' into code-less, UN-Created Spirit. Waking up, for real.
    Obviously nobody can know what this waking up would look like but just to clarify because I am pretty sure you do not mean what I am understanding from this right now. In your opinion would this code-less, UN-Created Spirit be a whole as in the "circle jerk" I mentioned before or would it mean that "you" would still be some version of "you" and although connected still independent in your deeds and mental processes ?

    Very much like the metaphor used in the matrix trilogy that you would be unplugged from VR and able to experience "real reality" as some kind of independent entity and not like unplugging from VR to become a part of source as in a part of a mass without any "you" left?

    Because the later would just be some kind of death again? And it would mean the highest goal would be to finally and eternally become nothing/stay dead. Which would make VR not sound so bad anymore.
    But I doubt this is what you mean and said and rather is what I am understanding of it now. ^^
    Last edited by JinRaTensei; 06-16-2016 at 07:43 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    4,621
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JinRaTensei View Post
    Very much like the metaphor used in the matrix trilogy that you would be unplugged from VR and able to experience "real reality" as some kind of independent entity and not like unplugging from VR to become a part of source as in a part of a mass without any "you" left?
    Actually, I was surprised that in the Matrix sequels they didn't also reveal that the so-called 'real world' is also a VR layer.

    In the end, the only 'One' who completed the 'Hero's Journey' and took the 'Path of Return' was (IMO) Neo, who exited the silly 'man' vs.'machine' (or 'organic machine' vs. 'inorganic machine') war-games altogether.

    And although those people in 'Zion' were screaming in the streets "Neo saved us", etc - Neo only 'saved' himself, but he allowed the 'games' to continue, only without him and his Mirror Counterpart, Agent Smith. In a sense, they both truly completed their journeys, unlike everyone else in the trilogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by JinRaTensei View Post
    Because the later would just be some kind of death again? And it would mean the highest goal would be to finally and eternally become nothing/stay dead. Which would make VR not sound so bad anymore.
    The only thing that 'dies' is the 'VR Code-Self' which we perceive ourselves to be. Who or what we truly are, is Code-Less & UN-Created and can therefore not 'die' or be 'deleted', no matter what.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,349
    Some of the most interesting ideas on the subject were expressed here by "Markosthegnostic" (who hasn't been around in a long while).

    I don't like at all some of his references (specially K. Wilber)... but such thing doesn't matter at all to me, I simply love his post... and it's perfectly clear for me.
    source: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showt...he-god-concept (post #3 there):

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkostheGnostic View Post
    Well, there are many God concepts, and these are Ideas about God. Ideas are intellectual constructs, but constructed of what? Consciousness. Only if we choose a common model about God, wherein we can agree that the archaic word 'spirit,' is translated as 'consciousness,' can we even discuss God, the Idea of God, and the experience of God. Like a math problem in which one must first reduce numbers to the lowest common denominator, we have to reduce scriptural stories from purportedly historical events to mythic events which are enacted in consciousness, but not in space-time. Then the mythic events need to be reduced (as John Shelby Spong has done) to its cultural symbolism. The New Testament's gospels, according to Spong, follows the Jewish liturgical calendar. The actual rituals (not the mythic insertions) hold at least four levels of interpretation according to Jewish exegetical analysis (Plain, Allegorical, Midrashic, Mystical) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis) . Most people are confused by the levels. When Jesus allegedly says "I am the vine, you are the branches..." the meaning is not 'Plain,' it is at least "Allegorical,' for example. But meanwhile, the famous 'I AM' statement in John 14:6 ",Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me," if taken in its 'Plain' level makes a whole lot less sense, and looks megalomaniacal. But, if it is a statement made from Pure Being, then it is a statement which describes the truth of each and every one of us, which we must individually realize. Otherwise, it merely puts Jesus on a pedestal to be worshiped like a Greek demigod. It becomes a meaningless statement altogether if (1) Jesus existed historically, and was therefore a normal human being like all others (barring any typical myth of parthenogenic birth), or (2) if Jesus never existed historically, but is a literary creation of many wisdom teachers.

    So, I would say that the 'god concept' is not eliminated, but rather that the direction of consciousness to experience God in some capacity is removed from an historical, or even a mythical level, and narrowed to a transpersonal level of the psyche, which can then be experienced directly. A mystical experience of the "high subtle" (K. Wilber) or "low causal," or "high causal" plane, will seriously reduce (Sabikalpa samadhi) or eliminate (Nirvikalpa /Asamprajnata samadhi) the individual, transient identity so that all that remains is the Universal "I AM" in its intuitively self-existent, non-verbal mode. Paul had "high subtle" experiences of being "caught up to the third heaven," but he retained an individual identity with which he "heard" "unutterable" (ineffable) things. Meanwhile, in the NT, Jesus remains the only one who has "high causal" or 'God-consciousness.' For Paul (as Albert Schweitzer pointed out in The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle), there is ONLY Christ-mysticism for Paul, not God-mysticism as one finds in the East.

    The great difficulty in all the 'religions of the Book,' is that individuals confound their ego with the "I AM," the Jungian or Advaitic Self. It is called blasphemy in the NT, and the sin of 'shirk,' or 'association with God,' in Islam. It is a grave error to proclaim the truth of one's ultimate identity in God, and Jews, Christians and Muslims have always condemned their mystics for any such proclamations. This truth must only be expressed by the occult gesture of placing upright index finger to closed lips, in the gesture of Silence. Reducing this Idea to verbal, vibrational, or written expression is forbidden because most individuals will immediately interpret the exhortation, or revelation as pertaining to an individual's ego, and thus be introducing a lie into the most holy of secrets.

    As to "out there," in consciousness, which has no extension in space-time, the notion of location (inner or outer) is meaningless. In fact, this very discussion is meaningless to anyone who still conceives of God as an 'Old-Bearded-Guy-in-the-Sky." Those mythological images (Zeus/Deus/Iesous/YHWH) will simply prevent a person from transcending their immature images, concepts, and beliefs. The anthropomorphizing of God with human attributes may be necessary for those who need a 'personal' God, but those who seek to realize the transpersonal God will reject these (like the Islamic '99 Names') along with mythic images. It then is a matter of 'stripping away,' all attributes, which are idolatrous illusions. The path becomes 'apophatic,' (Via Negativa) instead of 'cataphatic' which posits attributes - even Light or Love. The closest thing to God may well be the moment-to-moment experience of taking a breath (which is why in Greek the word for air and spirit is pneuma). Every 'inspiration' is life, every 'expiration' is death, and God is experienced in the moment between both, first inwardly, then outwardly, then - no difference remains.
    I would add something myself, but I can't add much when Markos said it so incredibly well.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    202
    Actually, I was surprised that in the Matrix sequels they didn't also reveal that the so-called 'real world' is also a VR layer.
    Actually that would have been a epic cliffhanger and solid basis for another sequel...but maybe the metaphor would have been to powerful/dangerous
    for those who wish to keep us at bay.

    The only thing that 'dies' is the 'VR Code-Self' which we perceive ourselves to be. Who or what we truly are, is Code-Less & UN-Created and can therefore not 'die' or be 'deleted', no matter what.
    I think I understand you much clearer now, thank you! Curious thought this "true reality" seems to be a one way street or why would such a being not return to VR to liberate his fellow men. Maybe it is the understanding that one needs to save oneself, maybe it is lack of interest or even ability. But pondering about it I doubt a VR "controller/top elite/whatever they call themselves" could bury,disinform or hide this information if a being from "real reality" would want the information to spread.

    You can read my home page (linked in my signature) for more on my thoughts on this issue.
    Having some strange personal issues today I neither can see any signature nor do a spelling correction but I will gladly look up your HP as soon as my laptop decides to show some mercy XD.

    dev

    If you want a child you have to find a woman willing to make one.

    If you accept love and follow your heart a child will appear.
    In this allegory enlightenment or the child would still be "the problem" or death.
    I think I grasp most of what you mean by your statement but the child itself is the problem no matter how it came to be.
    But than again you explain the critical point.

    But what is enlightenment? Want to open that can of worms? LOL.
    A true and very subjective can of worms. So in your example there is only a problem with the child if one views enlightenment as taught in those spiritual practices.
    If one would take enlightenment as a more simple concept of "total awareness" of some kind and not as becoming part of "the whole" without anything left of you than it makes sense to me.
    Last edited by JinRaTensei; 06-16-2016 at 09:13 PM.

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts