Enlightenment General

>>17136610
Sigh. Another one who misunderstood/was deceived.

Enlightenment is actually opening the chakras to the reactions of karma more readily.

ie, bad deeds are punished quicker and more harshly. Good deeds are rewarded even greater.

Enlightenment means the removal of ignorance. With your new heightened awareness, your soul no longer has ignorance to hide behind, and your reactions to your actions are laid onto your bare soul. It now hangs in the balance, held by YOU.

If you wanted that, then good. If you didn't but have already started, don't say I didn't warn you!

New Age shit is a trap from Satan.

>>17136624
While the second half of your statement, the whole "bare on your soul" bit, was very insightful, and something, mind you, that gave me the very nice feeling of putting words to an idea I've had myself for ages; the first bit involving chakras and karma are both ripped apart by this idea of immersing yourself into an ARG proposed by OP. Unless of course, you're speaking figuratively with abstract terms necessary to drive across an abstract idea.

OP, I love your take. But I still want to believe Tulpas are real life. :(((

>>17136637
chakras and karma isn't a game though
.
Chakras are real, physical points on your body that connect to the soul. Energy centers. Connects the physical and non-physical.

Karma is a reaction from an action reflected back onto you, physically. How you handle it then, once it affects your physical and enters your metaphysical, is up to you.

Your best bet to a fulfilled life is to just express the true purpose of God, don't get offended, and maintain your strength.

>>17136610
Enlightenment is a state of negation. Negation is the most positive action, not positive assertion. This is a very important thing to understand. Most of us so easily accept positive dogma, a positive creed, because we want to be secure, to belong, to be attached, to depend. The positive attitude divides and brings about duality. The conflict then begins between this attitude and others. But the negation of all values, of all morality, of all beliefs, having no frontiers, cannot be in opposition to anything. A positive statement in its very definition separates, and separation is resistance. To this we are accustomed, this is our conditioning. To deny all this is not immoral; on the contrary to deny all division and resistance is the highest morality. To negate everything that man has invented, to negate all his values, ethics and gods, is to be in a state of mind in which there is no duality, therefore no resistance or conflict between opposites. In this state there are no opposites, and this state is not the opposite of something else.

>>17136674
Sounds like death.

>>17136624
>Sigh. Another one who misunderstood/was deceived.
Let us assume this is both true, and something one could ascertain from the content provided.
>Enlightenment is actually
This sort of assertion can only have value when spoken from a pretense of authority. In this case it becomes an issue of your authority vs. mine.
>opening the chakras
Whose?
>the reactions of karma
If such can be open to them, such can be closed to them. All that is available to manipulation from the spiritual world is susceptible to manipulations from spiritual beings.
>Enlightenment means the removal of ignorance
Ah, but that is simply called learning. I can see how you might feel that knowledge matters.
>punished
>more harshly
>no longer has ignorance to hide behind
Odd use of language, though.
>New Age shit is a trap from Satan.
Ah, I see. You've yet to formally meet Buddhism.

>>17136662
To you it isn't. To an empirical scientist it is. To any major non-Eastern religion, it is. Accept the possibility that you have deceived yourself.

>>17136703
>This sort of assertion can only have value when spoken from a pretense of authority. In this case it becomes an issue of your authority vs. mine.

Good point. Poor use of language from me. Should be "Enlightenment, as I've come to learn..".

>Whose?
The subject on the path to Enlightenment

>If such can be open to them, such can be closed to them. All that is available to manipulation from the spiritual world is susceptible to manipulations from spiritual beings.
Once you know something, you know it. There is no unknowing. Once ignorance is gone, so are excuses. If you sought enlightenment in adulthood, you are a rational moralizing agent, one who has decided to open himself to the consequences of his actions.

When people seek enlightenment, it's usually because they want to affect the physical world greater. You quickly realize you should be careful what you ask for. It's a Monkey Paw type of world.

>>17136637
Wanting to believe produces not a single truth.
>>17136662
>Your best bet
Why bet at all?
>>17136674
>conflict between this attitude and others
Needless suffering.
>>17136692
Spoken as a discrete philosophy the way that anon puts it, it is death. Enlightened beings are quick to recognize all singularities, moral or otherwise, as forms of death in an ever-changing world.
>>17136725
>Accept the possibility that you have deceived yourself.
They need not do so at this time.

>>17136725
>To an empirical scientist it is. To any major non-Eastern religion, it is. Accept the possibility that you have deceived yourself.

I'm aware of all these things. My stance does not change depending on their knowledge of the Universal Laws or lack thereof.

>>17136735
>Enlightenment
>E
Again, odd use of language.

>If you sought enlightenment in adulthood, you are a rational moralizing agent, one who has decided to open himself to the consequences of his actions.
This is false.

>It's a Monkey Paw type of world.
My experience differs vastly.
>>17136751
>I'm aware of all these things.
Let's assume that this is true.

>>17136755
How can enlightenment not bring one to greater awareness of consequence? It's removal of ignorance, removal of excuse.

>My experience differs vastly.

What has your experience shown?

Have you guys ever met an enlightened person before?

>>17136792
>go to aunties house
>she is standing below a lamp

yes

>>17136737
>They need not do so at this time.
I have a lot of respect for you, OP. Or your post, anyway. I'm simply pointing out that this person has read what you wrote, and essentially chose to throw a faith based principle at it and reach his own conclusion based on it. Conjecture based on possible falsehood is disgusting. I'm from /pol/, I don't take kindly to kikery of the sort.

>>17136751
And, despite what I said above, I was not intending to shake your faith; nor would I anybody else's. So long as you can put it through trial of investigating the possibility of you lying to yourself; you have found a solid belief, and I applaud you for it. It just can't be universally applied by all because of your tid bit of unnecessary eastern thought; it takes away from the bear bones of your awesome message.

>>17136775
>How can enlightenment not bring one to greater awareness of consequence?
Depends on how they learned about enlightenment.
>It's
Term differences. My stance on enlightenment comes from Buddhism. Directly from Buddhism. If you have another notion, I should think it might be worth hearing about. Where did you acquire it?
>removal of ignorance
An enlightened being need not be omniscient and thus my be ignorant of many things.
>removal of excuse
An enlightened being can excuse themselves as easily as any infinite being can.
>>17136792
No in person, no.

>>17136801
>essentially chose to throw a faith based principle at it
Only the most naive among us need such things to be pointed out.
>I'm from /pol/
Heh... Would you believe I kinda got that vibe from your last post?


Not trying to call you out here though. It's just that I made this thread for /x/'s benefit and, despite the mass of summerfags, we do have some freakishly shape minds lurking every so often. I posted this for them, so it's a pretty low probability that any truly naive fool is gonna happen across this thread.

Not opposing your post, just contextualizing a bit.

The more someone talks about enlightenment, the less he knows it.

>>17136802
Third party commentator here:
>An enlightened being can..
Within the other poster's framework, this actually makes perfect sense. The idea that everyone is accountable for their actions, via karma as he says, makes it so as one removes ignorance (in this case, a blanket term or synonym for "things that can be used as reasons for why my actions have this outcome" or "why I'm prone to make [insert moral descriptive here] decisions") they lack the ability to make excuses without developing a complex of self hatred and deceit; which of course an "enlightened" person would recognize and eliminate.

The word enlightened being thrown around in here as a descriptive of human beings seems a little oxymoronic.

>>17136841
Applying this to each post in turn...
Weighting based on terminology definition equanimity...
Applying each author's rules to their own posts...

Huh.

>>17136843
>a complex of self hatred and deceit
Emotional walls are built from so much more than those primitive emotions. Complexes come in very many shapes, sizes, and motivations. The mind is a very complex thing, to the point where I felt that using the word "unenlightened" was improper. I've decided to call beings either infinite or enlightened, but never both. Stop me if you've heard this one before.

What the fuck is ARG?

>>17136872
You're pretty cool

>>17136878
>newfag detected

Raito?

at one point in my life i was practising the buddha's teaching, and wow the experiences where enlightening however i stopped practising and all felt to shit. thats all i have to say about enlightenment.

>>17136950
Thanks.

>>17136610
Enlightenment isn't what you think, like really not at all. Folks proclaiming themselves enlightened most likely just experiment a slightly improved version of their previous reality.
Enlightenment means liberation from the cycle of rebirth. It means there's a 100% chance of going to heaven after your death. To have this factual knowledge is hugely uncommon. Only divine masters can have it in their lifetime. Most of enlightened beings become it after their death. I personally know a Guru precisely warning about delusional fags thinking they are illumined while they really aren't.

>>17136950
At one point in my life I was a practicing Latter-Day Saint. Then I stopped and all fell to shit.

People are weird, man.

>>17136980
How do you reach that?

Behave morally?

Nice job OP, this is a very succinct and meaningful explanation. All religious paths are essentially ARGs that (when played correctly) bring the realization of the true nature of ARGs. Crowley calls it the great work.

>>17136980
>a slightly [...] version of their previous reality
This is literally how you define ARGs. GG Eastern mysticfag.

>>17136980
>Only divine masters
Are these born or raised BTW?

>>17136942

Thanks for the explanation old fag
Don't you got some frogs to post?

>>17136989
Yeah most ARGs are one-use and don't have any backwards compatibility. Make sure that shit opens with its exit clause before you jump in.

>>17136992
With a spiritual path, a Guru (with a physical or spiritual body), and a connection with God. You have to be in the essence of your Guru (and so God) until your death.

>>17137018
>Crowley calls it the great work.
I appreciate the acknowledgement but, damn. "Crowley" always gets my jimmies in a rustle.
>>17137044
Wrong board. You're looking for >>>/s4s/
>>17137051
Fuck Off Christianity. Holy shit.

>>17137056
What's your gripe with Crowley?

>>17137051
What if you don't have a guru, can one become his own guru and disciple?
Jokes aside everything that happens is a guru.

>>17137069
The K.

>>17137079
>Jokes aside everything that happens is a guru.
A-fucking-men to that, brother.

>>17137079
Everyone has one. If you don't feel Him that means you're too dense.

>>17137101
hahaha. indeed

>>17137101
breathing is my guru? does that count for you/

>>17137101
>too dense
My consciousness is just the right density, thanks.

Hope you know that's one of MY creatures you're talking down to.

File: rage4evar.jpg (9KB, 284x177px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 284x177px

newfag here.
So you mean to fucking tell me an ARG is defined as the spiritual path you have at one point, or continued to dedicate yourself to? Defined as any spiritual path, no matter the destined outcome.

Since nobody fucking posted the definition and google has failed me, I have to post, god fucking fuck fuck damn it!!!

If my definition/guess is right about ARG, then what are the implications of someone who has been forced into contact with a path since birth (indoctrination) And what are the implications of someone consciously choosing a sinistro/negative/bad path? I see a few issues with causality peeking through this ARG arguement....

I hate this girl. I wish she would stop posting.

>>17137395
>the spiritual path
Most times when people talk about a spiritual path I think they mean a lifelong pursuit. Or else the pursuit of a type of consciousness that isn't bound by time. ARGs don't really necessarily have.... A goal. So I wouldn't call it spiritual, no. Otherwise I think you've got the gist of what an ARG is.

Indoctrination isn't fun for anyone. I'd recommend steering clear of it at all costs.

>>17136624
ech.
ech.ech.ech.
as the human patriarch that allows new age belief to flourish, i beg you hold your tongue.
karma is a way of being. i never should have gone through enlightenment, being aware of the karmic reactions to my decision was possible one of the worst and best choices i ever made in my life.
>time loop
>heaven
>spiritual consciousness, you exist until you can do so, otherwise you can come back and make this life better or live new lives, and leave this life behind forever.

>>17137973
>even if you dont want to believe anything anyone else ever told you, believe this until you figure out your own thing.

>>17137973
its like having footnotes of your personal story.

>>17136610
Hey OP, I had a glimpse the other day and I was hoping you could help me understand it better.

I've been meditating with this teacher and whenever I do, I catch an energy vibe from him that takes me into extremely deep meditations.

In these meditations, the mind becomes fairly still and thoughts are just not important at all. As a result, everything feels completely still and silent.

About a week ago after getting out of this meditation with him, later in the day I felt that I had an extremely important insight.

I thought back to what my meditation was like earlier that day where there was little to no thought or attachment to thought. Then it suddenly dawned on me that there is the reality that's totally outside of thought, which just so happens is totally outside of any notion of "myself". This made reality seem totally impersonal, and for once, it seemed like what I've read about enlightenment finally made sense.

But whatever it was, it was just a glimpse. And the attachment to thought and self came right back.

Anyway, that glimpse has been bothering me since and I thought, since you're discussing ARGs, if you could tell me what my glimpse was about. Thanks.

>>17138151
>This made reality seem totally impersonal, and for once, it seemed like what I've read about enlightenment finally made sense.
That was it. If you weren't relying on someone else for your meditation energy, you'd be in a better position to handle the new feelings that come with such perspectives. This is actually pretty common nowadays because a lot of people aren't really in a position to learn the truth about their own enlightenment. A lot of people that practice New Age sorts of philosophies walk around clueless to the effects they have on others. Often times they're more dangerous to be around than Chaos Magick newbies.

Think of it like this: The New Age philosophy tries to suck reality into the practitioners mind, while all Chaos Magick does is tell the universe to accept whatever type of mindset the practitioner holds.

I don't know if this is gonna feel like it was very helpful for you since the problem might seem a bit more personal that I've acknowledged, but I'm explaining it this way because that's how I see the problem: You're being affected by someone else.

As for the feeling itself, it wasn't just a "seem;" reality really IS impersonal. Or it was last time I checked. Either way, I'd say it was an accurate and lucid feel.

>>17138715
Chaos magick is new age

It's not enlightenment it's witchcraft

>>17138718
>Chaos magick is new age
Nnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooo. That's a stretch that I'm really not willing to give in New Age favor. New Age is a plague that'll turn toxic if "The Veil" breaks. Chaos Magick is one of many counter-movements that doesn't follow even remotely the same sort of philosophy. New Age is a continuation of the 60's hippie ideal, but with less logic involved. And hippies were not know for being rational, down to Earth people that understood that value of shovels. Hippies were the anti-suburban reaction to the new idea of farming that didn't involve actually farming. They were suburbanites and cityslickers that were wowed by the fact that unlike money, food actually grew on trees. They were pro-farming and nature in a politically impractical way. Serious ones went on to become actual farmers, but by and large they were consumers of an idea that they really had no practical appreciation for. They were fans of farms.

>>17138779
No in fact all magic is coming from the same source in Babylon Chaos Magic along with 90% of all this stuff is classified as New Age, for the New Age is the restoration of old world paganism

Chaos Magic is new age witchcraft

>>17138786
Where does the moral stupidity that fuels your drive to shitpost ITT come from?

>>17138794
I am not the one trying to say chaos magick isn't new age

File: download.jpg (12KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 225x225px

Enlightenment? why not ask satan for help by chanting this
>Lirach Tasa Vefa Wehlic, lucifer.

>>17138798
Right, but I'd rather know the reason for the effects my intent is about to have on you before I let it go. Just asking where you get your stupidity from. You can call it something else, but I have to call it as I see it: Stupidity. No offense intended, just trying to keep things rational here.

>>17138807
>make a sigil based off of selfish desire
>das enlightenment NOT

>>17138813
No sigils here. All my intents comes in raw form. I just want to wrap each of you snug and tight in the inevitable understanding of exactly who it was that made what's about to happen, happen. It's fine if you can't talk about your motivation for shitposting this hard, I just like to make the effect more fitting. You don't need to share your intent with me, I have plenty to go around.

>>17138828
Chaos Magic whatever

>>17138837
All my intent comes raw.

What you will experience has no philosophy.

>>17138715
So OP, how does a vision like that, as reality being impersonal, actually stick or cause a permanent shift in understanding?

It seems almost paradoxical to try to become aware of the truth. Because that is an act that comes from ignorance of truth.

And what you said about using the energy of someone else to meditate. I think I understand what you mean by it. So how would one arrive on an authentic understanding of reality on their own?

>>17140297
>cause a permanent shift in understanding
All experience causes a permanent shift in understanding. Even locking yourself in isolation or putting yourself in a sensory deprivation tank will give you powerfully distinct experiences that change how you understand the world. You can't help but learn until the day you die, and even then.

>on their own?
Meditate on it. Explore your own feelings rather than someone else's. It's really that simple. Like you said, it started to seem like the stuff you'd heard about enlightenment were making sense in that experience. Just as time spent together helps one learn, time apart helps one learn even more.

I'll give you a hint: It's impossible to be ignorant of the truth.

>>17140927
Thanks. This information helps.