Evo said:
I'm not criticizing, I am merely suggesting that there is another very possible explanation. I've read enough and spoken to enough people about the subject to conclude that this is the most likely explanation, IMHO. Have you never wondered about this?
First, let me apologize for any harshness in my previous answer. It's just that I've heard so much uninformed skepticsm my tolerance for it is low. See, the problem is you really don't know what you are talking about even though you say you've studied enlightenment enough to "conclude that [autosuggestion] is the most likely explanation." I will explain why I believe this by the time I complete this post.
However, I do not claim to be enlightened, which as Hypnagogue pointed out, is considered the
permanent attainment of "oneness." I have however devoted 30 years of my life working toward it, practicing oneness through the inner techniques of union/samadhi daily (I"ve also studied the history of the phenomenon extensively). When I first started practicing many years ago, I only achieved full union a few times a year. For the last ten years I've become quite able at achieving union, and usually can reach it in less than half an hour. The full experience doesn't last very long, but the after effect is well worth the work because one does stay partially merged. I am preparing a thread which models consciousness using what I've learned from union. The quote below is from that thread material and describes what union is:
"Imagine a pickup truck, whose bed is waterproof, filled with water and speeding along on an old, bumpy country road. The water in the truck is in a constant state of movement, vibrating, sloshing about, bouncing up into the air, etc. so that when the driver observes it, all he sees is the moving-ness of the water surface. If that’s the only way he’d ever perceived water (a silly concept of course), then he might be surprised to see how that water exists when he brings his truck to a stop. What he would observe is that all the water formerly in movement, and appearing distinct from its base pool, now reunites with its source. In that condition, all the vibration and jets of water that had been flying up in the air merged to become one thing.
That analogy is similar to union, where the actions of the mind are allowed to return to a 'foundation' out of which they arose in the first place. To achieve the stillness of union, it isn’t that one actually stops, calms or empties anything (that would be the mind trying to still itself, an impossibility); but rather, one learns how to recognize the 'feel' of the foundation, and feels that enough to where it starts to predominate as an influence in consciousness (I mean during practice). When one feels it start to prevail, one can then practice how to 'let go' to it (a skill that normally takes years of practice), and when successful one will be absorbed back into that foundation (usually for anywhere from a few seconds up to a few minutes). With enough time spent in that 'ground state' one eventually acquires a strong sense of what the basis of consciousness is, which is utterly impossible to see while one’s 'pool' is stirred up by mentality, conditioning, strong sense stimulation, emotions . . . "
Evo said:
I'm just looking at this objectively from a purely logical standpoint.
There is no logical, objective standpoint from which you can observe enlightenment, it is 100% subjective. Even if you meet someone who is truly enlightenend, you have to
feel them to detect the enlightenment.
Evo said:
It has been demonstrated that if you want to achieve a certain frame of mind, there are a number of ways to achieve it. It doesn't matter if it is through meditation, clearing the mind of all thought, focusing on something specific, etc... because you already know what you want to achieve, so with enough time devoted to it, you may. But it is a frame of mind you created knowingly or unknowingly.
If you can accept that enlightenment is permanent union, then first problem with your belief is that what one is after in enlightenment is not a "frame of mind." I agree that plenty of people striving for enlightenment have a frame of mind, and that they actually believe the enlightened frame of mind
is enlightenment. In my opinion, there is nothing interfering more today with people communicating about the possibility of enlightenment than such enlightened frame of minds. They go around setting themselves up as experts willing to teach the naive, and spreading much misinformation. Then when intelligent people hear this and recognize them for spiritual egoists they are, they classify all spiritual pursuits as that sort of nonsense. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr
Evo said:
I'm not saying that you are wrong, so it is not fair for you to say that I am wrong. My belief is just as valid as yours.
Well, I don't see how. You are speculating, I am speaking from experience.
Evo said:
More from Wikipedia on autosuggestion:
"The same effect that autosuggestion achieves may be seen also in individuals not consciously trying to program themselves through autosuggestion. The dominant thoughts of a person which occupy their conscious mind, if constantly present over an extended period of time, may be training that person's subconscious mind to believe what that individual cognitively is thinking."
I understand what you mean by autosuggestion, but that is how one achives a "frame of mind." You have to understand that enlightenment is actually the
opposite of a frame of mind. "Mind," if we rely on my analogy above, would be that water which is sloshing around and bouncing up from the pool. Enlightenment is the experience of the still pool. Autosuggestion, as your quote says, is dependent on related and continuous thoughts over time which comes to give mind a mental orientation. But an aspect of union is the absense of thought altogether, so if someone is
really practicing it (i.e., and not just "thinking" they are), then there is no possibility for autosuggestion in true enlightenment. As I've admitted, people who are practicing union with the hope of realizing enlightenment usually do have some kind of "enlightened mind" because they think about it. All I am referring to now however is the genuinely enlightened person and also the genuine path to enlightenment (union), and I say the only thing autosuggestion will do is get in the way.
Evo said:
Of course people claim they can reach this higher consciousness by taking drugs . . . but that's another discussion.
I no longer use psychotropic substances myself, and in good conscience I cannot recommend it because of the dangers and lack of wise supervision (plus it's illegal). Back when I was first getting interested in the potential of introspection, I was inspired by Carlos Castaneda's books to try peyote (if you've not read him I highly recommend "Journey to Ixtlan"). A small group of us kept the focus sort of spiritual, so I almost always treated the occasions of using peyote or mushrooms with reverence. That day when I met someone who was experiencing union without drugs, I immediately recognized it as the same experience the drug gave (except a lot more mellow).
The one huge disappointment in doing the drugs was that even though when high on them you feel like you will never lose that experience, every time you do.
I so wanted to learn how to have the experience and keep it, so that is why I undertook union meditation. Today I can report in all sincerity it is very possible to naturally achieve what the drug gives, and a lot more.
If you are interested in investigating the history of this you might start out with Evelyn Underhill's classic study "Mysticism." I myself specialized (study-wise) in the history of union in western culture. The history is rich, and intereting too. There were the so-called "desert fathers" (hermits who retreated to the desert to meditate after Jesus' death), the practices of certain Greek Orthodox monks described in the Philokalia, a great many Catholic monks and nuns (some of whom, like John of the Cross, endured persecution for practicing union), and so on. Someone who I think is absolutely brilliant is Meister Eckhart.
Anyway, I am trying to suggest that you might be dabbling in a very deep subject, and that you might need to study it more before drawing conclusions about what enlightenment is.
as for the drug induced "enlightenment"...having my own personal experience with certain drugs, the feeling of euphoria was certainly there and helped open me up. the closest feeling i had to "knowing" enlightenment was a day i realized that my spirit was in charge, not my hormones/chemicals/feelings. you know the song from Sting, "We are spirits living in a material world" ? that is when i knew what he meant. does this make sense??