The Theory of Enlightenment

[Fairy]

This explains ALL

https://youtu.be/YU1_FKx_XH0

What’s wrong with samsara?

Do you think a contrived cessation of the human population is actually going to take off?
Or do you think that idea is going to go down like a lead balloon?

[Walker]

I think I once managed about two minutes of a roydop video and called it quits for good. Short attention span, but it only takes so long to get the drift.

[Fairy]

In certain Buddhist philosophies, particularly within Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of "samsara and nirvana are one" means that the cycle of rebirth (samsara) and the state of enlightenment (nirvana) are not fundamentally different, but rather two sides of the same coin, signifying that even within the seemingly cyclical world, the potential for liberation exists; this idea is often attributed to the teachings of Nagarjuna, where the distinction between the two is seen as illusory.


Seems our elusive resident Roy is just another barking dog. It’s common, they are a dime a dozen.

[Walker]

Seems our elusive resident Roy is just another barking dog. It’s common, they are a dime a dozen.

Perhaps. Perhaps what you call barking is just the human tendency for an enthusiastic sharing of what has been realized by sorting out the meaning of understandings that were triggered by experiences that at first appeared incomprehensible.

If Life Were Only Like This
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTSmbMm7MDg

[Fairy]

“Triggered” being the operative word.

[Eodnhoj7]

The claim of enlightenment is a purely subjective experience that cannot be proven objectively while dually being a random act of choice in claiming "this experience amidst all others is enlightenment".

Enlightenment is less of an absolute truth and more of a relative assertion whose identity is dependent upon all others experiences and at most can be seen as a personal sense of equilibrium for the moment between a series of beneficial and tragic experiences.

Enlightenment is not fixed in form or function but rather is an emotionally charged pivotal word, akin to nothing, that changes how experience is experienced.

[Fairy]

The claim of enlightenment is a purely subjective experience that cannot be proven objectively while dually being a random act of choice in claiming "this experience amidst all others is enlightenment".

Enlightenment is less of an absolute truth and more of a relative assertion whose identity is dependent upon all others experiences

When you say 'A relative assertion' do you mean that in the sense of One's awareness of itself, as in a knowing one is in relationship with itself?

[Age]

The claim of enlightenment is a purely subjective experience that cannot be proven objectively while dually being a random act of choice in claiming "this experience amidst all others is enlightenment".

Is this CLAIM of yours, here, a purely subjective experience that CAN, or can NOT, be proven objectively?

Enlightenment is less of an absolute truth and more of a relative assertion whose identity is dependent upon all others experiences and at most can be seen as a personal sense of equilibrium for the moment between a series of beneficial and tragic experiences.

It can ALSO be seen as other things.

Enlightenment is not fixed in form or function but rather is an emotionally charged pivotal word, akin to nothing, that changes how experience is experienced.

Among OTHER things.

[Walker]

“Triggered” being the operative word.

Trigger was implicit to Happy Trails.

*

Enlightenment results in choiceless understanding, because there is no choice concerning truth.

- When a hell-being drinks from the river*, it burns like fire. (He wished it didn’t, and that too burns.)
- For some other beings, drinking from the same river quenches like nectar. (And they are grateful.)

*of life

[Eodnhoj7]

The claim of enlightenment is a purely subjective experience that cannot be proven objectively while dually being a random act of choice in claiming "this experience amidst all others is enlightenment".

Enlightenment is less of an absolute truth and more of a relative assertion whose identity is dependent upon all others experiences

When you say 'A relative assertion' do you mean that in the sense of One's awareness of itself, as in a knowing one is in relationship with itself?

Enlightenment is an assertion of a state of self by the self and as such anyone can claim it. It is purely subjective and there is no law stating who can or cannot claim it.

[Fairy]

The claim of enlightenment is a purely subjective experience that cannot be proven objectively while dually being a random act of choice in claiming "this experience amidst all others is enlightenment".

Enlightenment is less of an absolute truth and more of a relative assertion whose identity is dependent upon all others experiences

When you say 'A relative assertion' do you mean that in the sense of One's awareness of itself, as in a knowing one is in relationship with itself?

Enlightenment is an assertion of a state of self by the self and as such anyone can claim it. It is purely subjective and there is no law stating who can or cannot claim it.

I like the way you have put that. I agree.

Enlightenment implies no self, but a self is required to claim no self, which is self defeating, and paradoxical.

[Walker]

The claim of enlightenment is a purely subjective experience that cannot be proven objectively while dually being a random act of choice in claiming "this experience amidst all others is enlightenment".

Enlightenment is less of an absolute truth and more of a relative assertion whose identity is dependent upon all others experiences

When you say 'A relative assertion' do you mean that in the sense of One's awareness of itself, as in a knowing one is in relationship with itself?

Enlightenment is an assertion of a state of self by the self and as such anyone can claim it. It is purely subjective and there is no law stating who can or cannot claim it.

Enlightenment is a word. Those who fit the definition are those to whom the word can be assigned, by folks who understand the meaning of the word. If you don't know the meaning of the word, begin your quest for meaning with a dictionary.

[Walker]

“Triggered” being the operative word.

Trigger is heard in the rhythm of the bumbadeeta.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGvp5EZjsbc

Paradoxes exist only in the interpretation of reality, not in reality.
(You should know that by now.)

[Eodnhoj7]

When you say 'A relative assertion' do you mean that in the sense of One's awareness of itself, as in a knowing one is in relationship with itself?

Enlightenment is an assertion of a state of self by the self and as such anyone can claim it. It is purely subjective and there is no law stating who can or cannot claim it.

I like the way you have put that. I agree.

Enlightenment implies no self, but a self is required to claim no self, which is self defeating, and paradoxical.

Yep.

[Eodnhoj7]

When you say 'A relative assertion' do you mean that in the sense of One's awareness of itself, as in a knowing one is in relationship with itself?

Enlightenment is an assertion of a state of self by the self and as such anyone can claim it. It is purely subjective and there is no law stating who can or cannot claim it.

Enlightenment is a word. Those who fit the definition are those to whom the word can be assigned, by folks who understand the meaning of the word. If you don't know the meaning of the word, begin your quest for meaning with a dictionary.

And the circumstances that meet this meaning are subjectively argued as the state of enlightenment is a subjective experience. There are plenty of people that argue one man is enlightened while another group will argue the opposite.

If the meaning of the term enlightenment is relegate to a dictionary defintion than by default the term is merely a consensus and as consensus is probabalistic ad words are subject to language games.

Enlightenment is merely a probablistic interpretation.