The Philosophy of Enlightenment in Two Steps!

The Two Easy Steps To Enlightenment

Step One and Step Two

Step one is knowing what or why Enlightenment is not. Step two is knowing the means to Enlightenment. It is not necessary to either know what Enlightenment is (or if it is) or what your Awareness is (or if it is not).

Step One

What and why Enlightenment is not: The unenlightened state is the Mis-identification or Mis-perception of your Awareness, with or as (being identical with) the objects of your Awareness.

Step Two

The means to Enlightenment: The means to Enlightenment is the Non-identification or Non-perception of your Awareness with or as (being identical with) the objects of your Awareness.

What Is Awareness?

What Is Your Awareness? That’s a dumb question but I will ask it and answer it just the same. It is sufficient to say that your Awareness has a freedom that no object of your Awareness possesses and that your Awareness consists of an inherent happiness that remains undiminished. Logic cannot prove or disprove any of the claims that I have made, only experience can do that! (The Illogical or Non-logical Defense!)

What Are The Objects of Your Awareness?

Another dumb question but I will answer it nonetheless. Everything that you take or experience or are aware of or think or believe or perceive or feel or ‘know’ yourself to be in this moment
(i.e., body/sex/race/age/culture/status/wealth/career, mind/thoughts/thinking/ideas/beliefs/knowledge/education, emotions/feelings/relationships/family/friends/
energies and/or ‘soul,’ etc.)

You Get The Idea So…

No More Questions!

Why does my Awareness have an intrinsic happiness? It would seem that awareness is a relation between two things, a subject and an object. Awareness does not seem to “have” anything. Also is your evidense that Awareness has intrinsic happiness only introspective?

You seem to say that one can have awareness but not be aware of any one thing (body, wealth, pizza, etc.). but again I would argue that the concept of awareness entails a subject object relation. You could say that there is a second order realation, being aware of being aware, but this still seems to require a subject object distinction that you don’t seem to want.

Also why should I pursue enlightenment? If all I get is happiness, then why shouldn’t I try and pursue happiness through the list you gave?

Before I begin, I should state that my ingnorance in the subject of philosophy is high. But nonetheless I have entered this forum with confidence.

To begin one must think of their mind as a pond. Thoughts only causes disturbances ( churning ) in the water which makes the sand travel throughout the water. Making the water seem muddy. On top of that are those ideals and doctrines that people cling to, which becomes pollution in the water. So the layperson has this metaphorical rips and tides, ripples through their mind.
In the sky we have a full moon. Who’s reflection on the pond we are going to call enlightment. We can’t see the reflection because the waves in the water distort the image. But even if there wasn’t any disturbances in the water, we couldn’t really see the moon’s reflection because it will take time for the sand and mud to settle, and then more effort to eliminate the pollution from water.
Enlightment to me is just agreeing with the true nature of things. Once it is reached, no more questions will be needed to be asked. I’m not sure if I made any sense, maybe your mind could help me look at what I wrote in a different light.

LoverG wrote:

Please explain to me how your awareness consists of an inherent happiness. I don’t seem to comprehend. Maybe because I relate ignorance with bliss and having knowledge with sorrow. So I am probably cofusing awareness for knowledge of your existence. Can anyone elaborate?