I like Eckhart Tolle, have since his first book came out. I have his books and some of his audio publications. In my opinion he's not enlightened, he's attained self-realization, which aren't the same (a topic that could become a separate thread). From my perspective, self-realization is a step below enlightenment.

score us a definition of each, porfavor.

I think it's semantics. Buddha was awakened. Ramana Maharishi was awakened. Ramakrishna Swami was awakened. To what? To me, a few of the popular eastern -isms contain the same thread of waking to reality. And that reality is that what we perceive as reality is a projection of a false sense of personal ego. We are invested in who we think we've become in this apparent material manifestation. This manifestation is a brief covering of our true and original nature.

"Buddy has opted to change the topic to Enlightenment vs. Self-Realization vs. Awakened. Fair enough."
No, they are all the same.

"I agree it's all semantics - that's the nature of words."

There you go.

"I have no idea whether or not Buddha was awakened, Ramana Maharishi was awakened, Ramakrishna Swami was awakened, or Buddy is awakened."

Of the four, only the first three.

Thanks for sharing your opinions.

well,my personal opinion is that enlightenment is not the same thing as self-realization, I have come to a point of strong self-realization, but i know that I am nowhere near enlightenment, self-realization (for me) is simply intellectually grasping your true nature (as well as being able to distinguish in daily life, all the falsehoods and projections of the ego) and having the emotional peace and clarity of mind to couple this , which precedes physically and energetically achieving your true nature and returning to a completely pure state of mind and spirit. but who really knows? it all depends on ones definition of each. This (as everything else) is horribly subjective.

...the self ego...

...your...

I think it's semantics. Buddha was awakened. Ramana Maharishi was awakened. Ramakrishna Swami was awakened. To what? To me, a few of the popular eastern -isms contain the same thread of waking to reality. And that reality is that what we perceive as reality is a projection of a false sense of personal ego. We are invested in who we think we've become in this apparent material manifestation. This manifestation is a brief covering of our true and original nature.

I posted this in another thread:

Some equate enlightenment with self-realization - some don't. I happen to think (at this time in my development) that self-realization is a step below enlightenment.

What are your views? What are your experiences?

AugustLeo

OkeeDokee. Just checkin'.

Nice edit to make the target of your posit clear. How'd you do it without "This post has been edited by..." showing up at the bottom of the post?

I guess you're asking us for our personal definitions of self-realization and enlightenment?
My views on this continue to evolve but I'll give it a shot, briefly...

Each of us is a body equipped with a sensory appartus and associated with a process of thought.
The sensory apparatus is our only method of interacting with the environment and our process of thought is our only way of being aware of and processing that interaction. That means that all we can ever know or be aware of is limited by thought. Anything beyond our capacity for thought and experience is, well, outside our realm of experience for ever, by definition.

The movement of thought is such that it is never satisfied with "what is". This seems to be a consequence of the biological drive to survive (find more food, better shelter, copulation partner with better genes...) and the process of conditioning (you need to be smarter, stronger, better smelling... so that you can have more food, better partner and so on...).
This disatisfaction with "what is" extends to our understanding of spiritual matters, our sense of self, our understanding of God and the universe and so on...

Now, here comes the important question - "who am I?". What is it that is not satisfied with "what is" - show that to me. Localize it. Pin it down. You cannot -ever. That is because there is no me. There is the body and the sensory apparatus, but where is "me"? Me is the movement of thought centered around a collection of thoughts associated with conditioning, experience, memories, and so forth.

So this movement of thought surrounding the collection of memories and conditioning (ie "me") decides that there is something better. THis is because "what is", the current state of affairs is always made up of good and bad, pleasure and pain - this is a consequence of yin/yang, mutual arising. The thought arises that there is a state in which all of this conflict is resolved and there is neverending bliss. Where does this come from? Gurus, spiritual salesmen, old books and scripture, aversion to pain and suffering, you name it. But what is it really? It's just another movement of thought. Another concept derived from the known universe. Wanting what is beyond "what is". But the "me" can never go beyond itself because it is simply a construction made of thought. It has no reality beyond concept.

So I currently feel that this concept of perpetual enlightenment, or some state of permanent absence of thought or endless bliss is a concept of thought that is perpetually unattainable or in other words, bullshit.
I do believe that people have (and I have had) experiences of the interrelatedness of everything. I also think that one can see through the concept of individual self or separateness from other. That is, it is possible, and not too difficult, to realize that there is no "me". There is the movement of thought and this is centered around a perspective born out of memory and experience. THis awareness can be sustained and liberating. It can dramatically reduce suffering. It has for me. Yet I think there is always that biological drive to experience some sense of individual self for purposes of survival and the conditioning part is extremely difficult to let go completely but perhaps some do it eventually (Ramana, Nisargadatta, Gautama, perhaps, perhaps not).

I could define "the seeing through the illusion of separation" and "understanding the erroneous concept of self" as self-realization, perhaps. And at advanced levels it may completely shed all vestiges of conditioning. That would be the highest level. I could then define the idea of a permanent, blissful, thoughtless, ecstatic, higher energy state as enlightenment. If that's the case, I will state that self-realization happens to alot of us to various degrees, and enlightenment is bullshit mostly sold by charlatans. I don't really like to use those words, however, because it takes so long to define them and because so many people invest so much in the dream of "what could be". Probably an unpopular view but I'd rather be honest.

Just my current view and experience, FWIW...

I do however find it disconcerting that you think that that's all there is to us. In my experience I certainly have this limited, conditioned part of me... but I also have a part of me that's infinite, unlimited, beyond conditioning, just containing everything...

Being human involves this dance between your limited nature and your unlimited nature. Think of it as a quirky sit-com - One of the characters is literally everything, but never any one thing in particular, and the other character is just a small sampling of this everything, but can never be everything... so you get the spiritual experience of containing the entire universe in one go, and then you have an argument with your colleague about not getting an email in time for something...

Therein lies your confusion.

Self and ego are different. Self is eternal. ego is born. And for most, grows unchecked during Life such that the Self is overtaken by ego. Thus the value of the crown center activation...bye bye ego, hello self, a-ha enlightenment

No confusion.

Did you read my post?

That's exactly what I said, except without any chakra reference.

Reality is already here, all that's needed is awakening to it.

I guess you're asking us for our personal definitions of self-realization and enlightenment?
My views on this continue to evolve but I'll give it a shot, briefly... <_< :lol:

Each of us is a body equipped with a sensory appartus and associated with a process of thought.
The sensory apparatus is our only method of interacting with the environment and our process of thought is our only way of being aware of and processing that interaction. That means that all we can ever know or be aware of is limited by thought. Anything beyond our capacity for thought and experience is, well, outside our realm of experience for ever, by definition.

The movement of thought is such that it is never satisfied with "what is". This seems to be a consequence of the biological drive to survive (find more food, better shelter, copulation partner with better genes...) and the process of conditioning (you need to be smarter, stronger, better smelling... so that you can have more food, better partner and so on...).
This disatisfaction with "what is" extends to our understanding of spiritual matters, our sense of self, our understanding of God and the universe and so on...

Now, here comes the important question - "who am I?". What is it that is not satisfied with "what is" - show that to me. Localize it. Pin it down. You cannot -ever. That is because there is no me. There is the body and the sensory apparatus, but where is "me"? Me is the movement of thought centered around a collection of thoughts associated with conditioning, experience, memories, and so forth.

So this movement of thought surrounding the collection of memories and conditioning (ie "me") decides that there is something better. THis is because "what is", the current state of affairs is always made up of good and bad, pleasure and pain - this is a consequence of yin/yang, mutual arising. The thought arises that there is a state in which all of this conflict is resolved and there is neverending bliss. Where does this come from? Gurus, spiritual salesmen, old books and scripture, aversion to pain and suffering, you name it. But what is it really? It's just another movement of thought. Another concept derived from the known universe. Wanting what is beyond "what is". But the "me" can never go beyond itself because it is simply a construction made of thought. It has no reality beyond concept.

So I currently feel that this concept of perpetual enlightenment, or some state of permanent absence of thought or endless bliss is a concept of thought that is perpetually unattainable or in other words, bullshit.
I do believe that people have (and I have had) experiences of the interrelatedness of everything. I also think that one can see through the concept of individual self or separateness from other. That is, it is possible, and not too difficult, to realize that there is no "me". There is the movement of thought and this is centered around a perspective born out of memory and experience. THis awareness can be sustained and liberating. It can dramatically reduce suffering. It has for me. Yet I think there is always that biological drive to experience some sense of individual self for purposes of survival and the conditioning part is extremely difficult to let go completely but perhaps some do it eventually (Ramana, Nisargadatta, Gautama, perhaps, perhaps not).

I could define "the seeing through the illusion of separation" and "understanding the erroneous concept of self" as self-realization, perhaps. And at advanced levels it may completely shed all vestiges of conditioning. That would be the highest level. I could then define the idea of a permanent, blissful, thoughtless, ecstatic, higher energy state as enlightenment. If that's the case, I will state that self-realization happens to alot of us to various degrees, and enlightenment is bullshit mostly sold by charlatans. I don't really like to use those words, however, because it takes so long to define them and because so many people invest so much in the dream of "what could be". Probably an unpopular view but I'd rather be honest.

Just my current view and experience, FWIW...

I trust that you'll recognize that this is a matter of perception.

I trust that you understand I don't have any reason to trust your perceptions

"You would be well served to ask more substantive questions."

Oh? Would I? I don't need to be well served. Perhaps mine went over your head.

"No it wasn't and no chakra reference was made. "


Crown chakra?

"Duh, is there a point there?"

Duh? Do you expect me me to respond like that is an adult question? You are a fake name. Why would you think I give a rat's ass what you you think?

"< do however find it disconcerting that you think that that's all there is to us. In my experience I certainly have this limited, conditioned part of me... but I also have a part of me that's infinite, unlimited, beyond "conditioning, just containing everything...">

I didn't say that. Who did? You'd be well advised to provide an attribution to quotes that you use in your posts."

Actually, I think we're saying nearly exactly the same thing. We are literally everything and at the same time we are this little portal, limited to the finite nature of our senses and thought, through which the universe is aware of itself. We can experience to some degree that wholeness of "what is" while at the same time maintaining the more limited perspective that allows us to carry out our day to day functions and participate in life's joys and sorrows.

I didn't mean to imply that we are limited, quite to the contrary. I think that the limited perspective is the illusion. What I do mean to say is that "what is" is "what is" and it is a trick of the "me", the conditioned movement of thought centered around the memories stored in our brains, that is designed to try and find a better "what could be" that will always be beyond our grasp and keep us on the spiritual treadmill.

I feel that it is precisely that search for "what could be" which prevents enlightenment or self-realization or whatever you want to call it. It is the spiritual quest that prevents enlightenment. THis is why Todd is correct (in another thread - I've forgotten which one) that holding onto the questioning mind, the mind of inquiry, the mind that does not know is just the place that we struggle to reach with other methods, like meditation and so forth. Once "what could be" is dropped and one falls into "what is" in it's miraculous entirety then we can be the whole thing and transcend the limited perspective of one who is searching for something. Being with "what is" very fully is what allows the doer to merge with what is being done. It is not the answer that is of value, it is the question. The question, the lack of knowledge, is pregnant with possibility. The answer is dead because it is finite - there can never be a satisfactory answer.
Again, just my limited perspective - words can never do this stuff justice.