Enlightenment

[Birch]

"the delusion of being a separate self"

 

I'd rephrase this one and suggest "the delusion of being a self as defined by others"

 

Of course we are separate! Even if we all share "consciousness" in a continuum. Which I agree (and have introspected the death out of) I share with everyone and everything. Hello computer!

 

Doesn't pay the bills however and rather than flood the bookstore with another variant of an old system that could be rehashed 50 ways, I'd rather spend time trying to work out how we can take better care of each other. Because we're not doing very well at that.

 

I am not you and you are not me. No matter. What's very unfortunate is the extent to which we allow others to define us and vice-versa and then go forward and act, believing it all. Non-duality is only useful as another concept IMO if you are able to live knowing which side of it you ought to be on at all times for best results to your health and happiness.

 

Our "beautiful" societies encourage this state of affairs to the extent that it perpetuates systems that allow some to have more health and happiness than others and for the blame for dissatisfaction with the way things are to land squarely on the people who are suffering the most. Up to and not including the right to stand on, sleep and eat from the earth they were born onto. Talk about a double bind: "I'm here, I didn't ask to be here and now I have to pay for it??" The suggestion that one is in this situation as a result of "choice" or action in some past life is just another insult.

 

If Buddha was upset at his treatment at an early age then it would make sense to search for an explanation and a way out. One person's experience cannot (and IMO should not) become the foundation of an entire belief system. Oh, wait...

[fizix]

Enlightenment is being awake in the dream of life, is simply "Being" of the true One "Self" without any regard to the illusory ego; the ego self no longer 'is', as it never even truly 'was'.

[ralis]

Enlightenment is being awake in the dream of life, is simply "Being" of the true One "Self" without any regard to the illusory ego; the ego self no longer 'is', as it never even truly 'was'.

 

Exactly what is the true self? Please define.

 

 

ralis

[blacktrack8]

In my opinion Enlightenment is knowing that no matter where in life you are you're still eating, sleeping, breathing, drinking, and excreting like the rest of us.

 

It's the point at which when someone's pointing a gun into your face you react calmly without fear.

 

It's when emotions do not enter into your life.

 

When thoughts do not enter your head.

 

When your sight is clear and you have no intentions.

 

I'm only 20 but I've been interested in philosophy, taoism, buddhism and zen for a few years now. I woke up one day and said "after so many years of evolution I probably shouldn't need glasses to see" so I looked up stuff such as the Bates method. And it all made sense to me, so I haven't worn my glasses since. I'm no where near enlightenment but everyday as i relax a little more and my mind clears a little more I'd like to think I'll one day be at least more enlightened than I am now. (it's that hoping, thats why I'm not enlightened! but seriously )

 

In all it's simplicity, it is amazing it escapes so many (myself included), but in all its simplicity it could one day save the world.

 

"You're already complete. You just don't know it yet."

 

Enlightenment is the ultimate you which knows not of itself.

 

I think thats the best i can put it as. The you that can do a backflip when it needs to.

 

Its the you that doesn't mind that the message didn't read in correct grammar but instead acts accordingly having received a message.

 

Its the you that realizes you can throw a dart as far as the bull and it doesn't require years of practice to hit.

 

Its the you that actually throws the dart without a thought and nails the bull.

 

Its a belief in anything you do without actually stopping to believe.

 

My one friend on the night of July 4th kept telling me how much fun everything was. We were quite intoxicated and he just kept having to point out what a fun night it was. How the night was fun. How he was definitely having fun. The conscious thought stream telling you an experience is fun is experiencing an experience through the layer of consciousness. Enlightenment is experiencing without experiencing with that layer. There is no conscious reflection upon events.

 

Hmm, thats what I've come up with tonight. I enjoy buddhism much but have not quite followed any paths and choose not to touch on those knowing not. The Tao Te Ching explains to me enlightenment in its purest form.

 

To me it most certainly goes beyond the article stating you could have your ego and its events and you can just view them from a different perspective as not mattering in the grand scheme of things. While I felt he certainly understood that, in essence, nothing matters, money is bs, this and that, etc, etc, and he clearly understands enlightenment, but unless i misunderstood or misread, i'm not entirely sure about the viewpoint of allowing the ego to act with his perspective. I liked his example of asking those who meditate why they meditate though. I'm not sure if I would have responded with his exact specifications but besides 'for relaxation' it does seem odd you would choose to meditate and not realize the eventual realization is that in sitting you're doing exactly what you'd be doing anywhere else.

 

Alright sorry if thats a little oddly written, I kind of write as I do.

[Astral_Anima]

Yeah sorry but i'm going to have to challenge the idea of a "true self". The following is the conclusion I've come to and is my opinion...

 

Personality is nothing but an acquired set of neuro-nets built up over a lifetime and guided by the will. Things that feel "natural" are the things we've been doing the most. Some people may not be willing to give up, say weed, arguing that it's just a "natural" part of them, when in reality they're just too lazy to put in the effort to quit. When you do a new action/behaviour you create a neuro-net in the brain, every time you repeat that action/behaviour that neuro-net is reinforced. The reality of the "natural" feeling is simply what the strongest neuro-net is. Essentially it's the "path of least resistance".

 

To me the personality is transient and can be shaped by the intellect/will. Mindsets, habits, etc, being nothing but enforced neuro-nets, can be broken down by discontinuing the said behaviour/action and starting to build a new one. For example, many people find fasting to be a great transition into a new healthy diet. By discontinuing ALL food they're breaking down the neuro-net of eating and pretty much all of the tastes and textures (mainly of what you've been eating the most, which was probably junk if you're fasting and changing your diet) that food gave. Then afterwards they're building the neuro-nets of eating the foods the intellect/will has decided will benefit them most. Alot of people may choose not to give up meat, despite it's label of being an "intoxicant" saying that it's "a part of them", which again is just an excuse and an account of laziness. When you build a neuro-net stronger then what was previously the strongest, the new strongest one becomes what feels "natural", that is what the feeling is. Likewise if you discontinue an action/habit it becomes easier to not do it or resist doing it again.

 

It's very easy to give up your power and responsibility to others, because then you don't have to face up to your own actions. Saying that there's some kind of "true self" and that everything that isn't your true self is this evil evil ego that you're trying to rid yourself of and that all of your problems are the fault of this ego is just trying to point blame at something else. It's MUCH harder to face up and take responsibility for your life and who you've become. It's tough for people to say "who I am and all of the problems that sprout from my behaviour is entirely my fault and in my power to change"; however at the same time it can be very empowering once one has gotten over any potential guilt of being to blame for their situation. When you realize that you can choose who you want to be and eventually become that person by utilizing a few basic tools, like meta-cognition (or as buddhists say "observing your thoughts") and the application of will, a whole new world opens up. No longer are you the slave of this "ego" or "devil" or whatever, you are in complete control of who you are and are the one that makes the ultimate decision.

 

Any concept that takes away the power of the individual was put in place to allow room for self appointed "authority figures" to control people. For most, it's much easier to give up responsibility to some kind of spiritual entity. "Oh all of the bad in the world is the work of the devil", "this problem is a test from "God", "The universe must will this to be", "It is the will of heaven" "It's fate". All of these ideas allow one to blame some supernatural force for man's problems; it allows one to believe there's nothing they can do which is helplessness. Some people choose to believe they're helpless because they don't want to face the fact that they let everything happen to them, they don't want to take responsibility for their actions. Oh course it's impossible to control others (unless you utilize propaganda, fear tactics, deception, etc), so blaming yourself for the decisions other people make isn't ALWAYS your fault, however what one CAN control is their own actions/responses. In a situation where you say something that you know will anger someone and they get upset and decide to break something of yours, ultimately it was them who made the final decision for their actions, however your influence is what led them to anger.

 

Understanding how you influence your environment is also another important practice in taking responsibility for your actions, because it ultimately allows you to influence the world around you by complete control of yourself(which wont' feel like control after you've done it enough and built up the right neuro-nets). For example you may find that by being completely honest with others, people they may begin to be more honest with you, or if you're angry with other people they may get annoyed or angry at you (maybe become shy and timid).

 

Anyway i'm rambling, but the basic idea is that you have complete control over who you are and what you subject yourself to. Who you are is the result of all of your decisions (and decisions made for you when you were young and impressionable). The things that influence one, like the people they hang around, the TV they watch, etc are not the determining factor in who someone is. It's possible (and rather easy when you know how) to completely disregard all influence that you deem "unwanted" and remain the way you will yourself to be. Who you are is entirely your fault and thats a good thing because that means you have direct control of it.

 

Just my thoughts

-Astral

[fizix]

Now that is quite an impressive, rationale-wielding adept of duality if I've ever seen one.

[Astral_Anima]

Blacktrack- congrats on getting your sight back!! I'm going to be working on the same thing in the coming years, amongst other things

 

Your definition of enlightenment sounds to me like something along the lines of "Your greatest potential". If that were the universal definition I would buy into that without a second thought. I'm a FIRM believer in realizing one's potential and self-betterment and greatly enjoy talking about ways to overcome what we may view as obstacles. For example i'm very curious in breatharianism, or the ability to live without food. I've been researching sungazing, alchemy, love meditation, inner light and sound meditation, ect to try and fins what will work. The idea that "if you can conceive it, it's possible" is one that resonates well with me.

 

When describing a state of "no thought" or "no emotion" I believe that is a way of describing one's situation subjectively. It may FEEl as though there is no thought when in reality it's such a strong focus on one thought that it seems that there's no thought. No thought is death, so... unless thats your goal, lol, i wouldn't strive for that literal meaning. Also a state of no desire or no intention is a state in which one would be robbed of their freewill and would basically be a puppet. Now there are those entities that would be thrilled for you to be that way, and if thats your goal then so be it, but I would really think about what your saying and what you mean

 

Anyway, don't want to dwell. It sounds like you're on the path of self-discovery and starting so young is a great thing. Keep pushing your limits and questioning, and never let anyone take away your power. Best of luck to you in your journey =)

 

-Astral

Edited August 2, 2010 by Astral_Anima

[fizix]

Exactly what is the true self? Please define.

 

 

ralis

How can you define what cannot be put in words? The true self cannot be named; it can only be experienced, but some refer to it as the Tao. Exactly what is something you cannot see, hear, or feel? Please define. The five senses blind the eye; and that is the problem, you want to live with two, instead of One, as you want to see what can be seen...three, four, five... but what if there is only One? As said, the true Tao cannot be seen, the true Self cannot be told.

[xabir2005]

"A spiritually enlightened being does not deny or escape from the physical..."

 

Ok I must be confused, I thought what we know as the physical reality was labeled an "illusion" and "not real", is that not a denial of "Physical reality"? Personally I believe that spirituality IS science and that both seek to understand the universe. To separate them, to me, would be silly.

That would depend on which stage of enlightenment.

 

From the perspective of Buddhism's emptiness realization (Thusness Stage 6), physical reality are not an illusion, but like an illusion. Everything we experience are not an illusion but like an illusion... why?

 

Archaya Mahayogi Shridhar Rinpoche explains,

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/02/madhyamika-buddhism-vis-vis-hindu.html

 

...So in the Buddhist paradigm, it is not only not necessary to have an eternal ground for liberation, but in fact the belief in such a ground itself is part of the dynamics of ignorance. We move here to another to major difference within the two paradigms. In Hinduism liberation occurs when this illusory Samsara is completely relinquished and it vanishes; what remains is the eternal Brahma, which is the same as liberation. Since the thesis is that Samsara is merely an illusion, when it vanishes through knowledge, if there were no eternal Brahma remaining, it would be a disaster. So in the Hindu paradigm (or according to Buddhism all paradigms based on ignorance), an eternal unchanging, independent, really existing substratum (Skt. mahavastu) is a necessity for liberation, else one would fall into nihilism. But since the Buddhist paradigm is totally different, the question posed by Hindu scholars: “How can there be liberation if a Brahma does not remain after the illusory Samsara vanishes in Gyana?” is a non question with no relevance in the Buddhist paradigm and its Enlightenment or Nirvana.

 

First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion. There is a quantum leap in the meaning of these two statements. Secondly, because it is only ‘like an illusion’ i.e. interdependently arisen like all illusions, it does not and cannot vanish, so Nirvana is not when Samsara vanishes like mist and the Brahma arises like the sun out of the mist but rather when seeing that the true nature of Samsara is itself Nirvana. So whereas Brahma and Samsara are two different entities, one real and the other unreal, one existing and the other non-existing, Samsara and Nirvana in Buddhism are one and not two. Nirvana is the nature of Samsara or in Nagarjuna’s words shunyata is the nature of Samsara. It is the realization of the nature of Samsara as empty which cuts at the very root of ignorance and results in knowledge not of another thing beyond Samsara but of the way Samsara itself actually exists (Skt. vastusthiti), knowledge of Tathata (as it-is-ness) the Yathabhuta (as it really is) of Samsara itself. It is this knowledge that liberates from wrong conceptual experience of Samsara to the unconditioned experience of Samsara itself. That is what is meant by the indivisibility of Samsara and Nirvana (Skt. Samsara nirvana abhinnata, Tib: Khor de yer me). The mind being Samsara in the context of DzogChen, Mahamudra and Anuttara Tantra. Samsara would be substituted by dualistic mind. The Hindu paradigm is world denying, affirming the Brahma. The Buddhist paradigm does not deny the world; it only rectifies our wrong vision (Skt. mithya drsti) of the world. It does not give a dream beyond or separate transcendence from Samsara. Because such a dream is part of the dynamics of ignorance, to present such a dream would be only to perpetuate ignorance...

 

What does Buddhist Emptiness means? It clearly does not mean that everything is an illusion.

 

Also, in Buddhism, emptiness is *not* nothingness. It is not some formless void that is the background/substratum of all things (that would be the I AM realization/experience, but it should not be confused with Shunyata).

 

What is emptiness (shunyata)?

 

Shunyata (Emptiness) means whatever appears are empty of independent or inherent existence, be it a sound, a form, or any other phenomena. This is because it is the 'interconnectedness' that give rise to the sound or experience (The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears, etc, i.e. the conditions). Whatever you see, hear, etc, do not exist 'in and of itself' but are 'interdependently originated'.

 

Thus, whatever arises interdependently is vividly clear and luminous, but empty of any *independent* or *inherent* existence. This is not the same as nothing or nihilism - as Heart Sutra states: Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form.

 

Nagarjuna:

 

Whatever is dependently co-arisen,

That is explained to be emptiness.

That, being a dependent designation,

Is itself the middle way. (Treatise, 24.18)

 

Something that is not dependently arisen,

Such a thing does not exist.

Therefore a nonempty thing

Does not exist. (Treatise, 24.19)

__________________

 

A more detailed explanation on Emptiness can be found at http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/02/nondual-emptiness-teachings.html

 

 

Then you may ask, what about the other levels of enlightenment before Stage 6, do they treat 'physical reality' as unreal?

 

Their views/realization/experience are as such: "The world is illusory, Brahman alone is Real" - one realizes the True Self behind everything which is Thusness Stage 1 and 2, then "Brahman IS the World" - Stage 4 - experience is realized to be Non-Dual (not divided between subject and object/perceiver and perceived) and one sees the Real, the Noumenon in all Phenomena.

 

Here's what someone from Stage 4 describes it:

 

After the jungle, there is an intensely odd and very beau-tiful quality to the experience of life. In one sense I can only describe everything, all experience, as having a certain emptiness. This is the sense in which everything used to matter, to be vital and important, and is now seen as unreal, empty, not important, an illusion. Once it is seen that the beyond-brilliance of Sat Chit Ananda is all that is, the dream continues as a kind of shadow. Yet, at the same moment that all of what appears in the dream is experi-enced as empty, it is also seen as more deeply beautiful and perfect than ever imagined, precisely because it is not other than Sat Chit Ananda, than all that is. Everything that does not matter, that is empty illusion, is at the same time itself the beyond-brilliance, the perfect beauty. Somehow there is a balance; these two apparently opposite aspects do not cancel each other out but complement each other. This makes no 'sense,' yet it is how it is.

 

There is one tradition within Advaita which says that maya, the manifestation of the physical universe, is over-laid or superimposed on Sat Chit Ananda. I'm no scholar of these things, and can only attempt to describe what is seen here; and the Understanding here is that there is no question of one thing superimposed on another. Maya, the manifestation, the physical universe, is precisely Sat Chit Ananda, is not other than it, does not exist on its own as something separate to be overlaid on top of something else. This is the whole point! There is no maya! The only reason it appears to have its own reality and is commonly taken to be real in itself is because of a misperceiving, a mistaken perception which sees the appearance and not What Is. This is the meaning of Huang Po's comment that "no distinction should be made between the Absolute and the sentient world." No distinction! There is only One. There is not ever in any sense two. All perception of distinction and separation, all perception of duality, and all perception of what is known as physical reality, is mind-created illu-sion. When a teacher points at the physical world and says, "All this is maya," what is being said is that what you are seeing is illusion; what all this is is All That Is, pure Being Consciousness Bliss Outpouring; it is your perception of it as a physical world that is maya, illusion.

 

 

Stage 5 is 'The World is Actual' without reifying a permanent and independent Brahman. What is seen through is a permanent, independent Self apart from the momentary sensate reality... one sees the Actual AS the Process and not some substratum or container or background.

 

Of this, Richard (AF) writes from his Stage 5 experience:

 

[Richard]: ‘To be living as the senses is to live a clear and clean awareness – apperception – a pure consciousness experience of the world as-it-is. *Because there is no ‘I’ as a thinker (a little person inside one’s head) or a ‘me’ as a feeler (a little person in one’s heart)* ...’. [emphasis added].

 

Again the reason why I provide the full version is because to be living *as* the senses (as a flesh and blood body only) is a vast cry from a remaining, and non-detached observer, having *become* the sensations (as in having identified with and/or having arrogated them).

 

 

Notice that the denial and rejection of the Manifest becomes increasingly less from Stage 4 onwards. Not that Stage 1 to 3 people rejects manifest, just that they cannot see what they realize in the manifest - to them the True Self is an Unmanifest Source or a Source prior to Manifestation, and everything as an illusory projection of that Source.

 

As for the maps, again i'm questioning the validity of anyone who "claims" enlightenment. How do we know the Buddha was what we call "enlightened"?

He was awakened (to be precise he said he was awakened, not 'enlightened' which is a western invention) to the Truth of Anatta (no-self), Emptiness, the nature of reality and consciousness, and thousands of his students while he was alive was able to achieve liberation and enlightenment through his teaching... and even today many are achieving enlightenment through Buddha's teachings, which shows that Buddhism is a very effective system and teaching.

Did he have anything to show for it besides what he thought of the world? I mean he set forth a system in which people can eliminate suffering. So sure, anyone would want to follow that, pretty much everyone suffers to some degree, and especially back then there was alot of vulnerable people who weren't very educated.

Not only did he set forth a system, countless people since Buddha's days have been attaining enlightenment through following his system of practice.

Perhaps this knowledge did indeed give them comfort and hope and maybe even helped them to eliminate needless suffering. However I've done my own meditation on suffering and have found a startling conclusion. Since I suffer seeing/knowing others suffer, the only way to eliminate suffering is to free everyone from suffering.

Bodhisattvas and Buddhas seek not only to end one's own suffering, but the suffering of all others as well.

 

Arhants and Pratyekabuddhas do not.

 

Therefore in Buddhism there are different goals and classes of enlightened beings.

 

The Theravadin school of Buddhism emphasizes attaining Arhantship, while the Mahayana and Vajrayana school of Buddhism emphasizes attaining Buddhahood.

And then again suffering is subjective in nature, how do you define suffering objectively. Minor suffering like bug bites are almost unavoidable, but when it comes to major suffering the causes don't seem to be in the mind, they seem to be in the environment, in the physical world in which we live via slavery and oppression. That is not in the mind, and yes it's possible to suppress your discontent and become complacent, however this is repression and is a form of escapism.

Buddhism is not a form of repression. It leads to realization, which leads to complete letting go of clinging from the world, and the complete end of suffering.

 

Repression means suffering still arise, but then you force them out of existence. This is not the case for a liberated person in Buddhism: suffering, craving, attachments no longer arise to begin with that they could ever be repressed. The cause of suffering is removed from its root, rather than repressing its manifestation.

 

And yes, an Arhant has overcome all mental suffering while he is alive but not physical pain - as long as you have a body you will have some level of physical discomfort. However an Arhant is no longer reborn in Samsara, so he no longer has to undergo physical discomforts as well, after death.

The concept of "non-dualism" is again, a confusing one. It may very well exist in a "spirit realm" but THIS world is dualistic. If one views the world as "non-dualistic" then technically he could kill everyone male and rape every female on earth and never receive any karma because there's no difference between virtue and vice. in fact if there's no dualism then everything is one...but it's not. Maybe if you bring your consciousness to the level of the universe or down to that of the smallest particle then maybe all things are one or the same, however even then you can't deny that there are diff patterns of those same things, or if you're looking from the perspective of the universe there are diff things that you consist of. For example our "consciousness" is that of a human. We are one human. However there are billions of cells that make us up. there are diff organs, tissues, etc that make up this one human. So in reality there IS dualism but it can be said that from the macro or micro level it's less easily perceived. Maybe i'm misunderstanding this idea of "non-dualism", maybe you can help me better understand it.

You are mistaking the non-duality that I am talking about. The non-duality of spiritual enlightenment is the realization into no subject-object division, no perceiver-perceived division, like Thusness Stage 4, or Steven Norquist's article, in the first page of this thread. If you read Stage 4 and Steven Norquist's article carefully, you will understand what non-duality means. Relatively speaking, there is male and female - this is not the area I am concerning myself with (I am not arguing against conventional truths).

 

Here is an article written by a highly enlightened friend 'Simpo/Longchen' about 2 years ago:

 

The misconceptions surrounding Transcendental Non duality

 

This article is related to a common misconception with regards to the Transcendental experience of Nonduality. Within the spiritual circle, the term Non-duality is a very misunderstood or misinterpreted term. It must be understood that the term has more than one meaning and its perceived meaning largely depends on a person's stage of spiritual awareness.

 

More often than not, a lower stage understanding of the term is misconstrued as the Transcendental experience of Nonduality or non-dualism. This confusion is largely compounded by so-called new age spiritual materials.

 

The most common understanding of Non duality is related to the issue of Polarity such as light and dark. In this semantic, non-duality is explained as the non-biasness towards any side of a pole. This is about the concept of there being no absolute good or evil. In another word, it is about being non-judgemental. Many spiritual materials believed that this concept of non-duality is equivalent to enlightenment. This is not entirely correct.

 

Non-duality as a concept for no polarity is not wrong. However, it should not be mistaken for non-duality as the state of enlightenment. The term non-duality that is being used to describe Enlightenment is actually describing a state whereby there is no subject-object division. This is an experience that is difference from the concept of no absolute polarity.

 

No subject-object division is the true nature of existence. The method of realising this insight lies in the dissolving of the 'sense of self'. This often involves the continual and correct letting go of mental grasping.

 

OK, that all I can think of and write about this topic. I will revise and improve this article where the need arises.

 

For your necessary ponderance. Thank you for reading.

 

 

These articles are parts of a series of spiritual realisation articles .

Edited August 2, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Enlightened beings have realization of the mind and consciousness...ok...is that it? certainly thats not all there is in life. To say they have ultimate or complete truth would then be a lie and thus false advertising on the parts of the monks who love to write and sell books to self-help junkies.

They have realized the nature of mind and consciousness.

 

You do not for example, realize how to get rich through spiritual awakening.

 

You don't realize how to play a piano through spiritual awakening.

 

You don't realize .... (etc etc)

 

Spiritual awakening is a very specific type of realization.

 

It is the awakening to the ultimate nature of consciousness and mind with the possibility to end all suffering, afflictions, craving, attachments, etc.

 

It is a worthwhile pursuit.

Ok and now Enlightenment has a new meaning. It's now "freedom from all sufferings, ignorance, the delusion of being a separate self existing in a concrete universe, suffering, attachments/clinging, freedom from craving/anger/etc."

No, enlightenment means you realize the nature of mind, but the 'freedom of suffering' is the result of that enlightenment. Actually lower level enlightenment produce certain level of freedom but not necessarily complete end of suffering - for that, you need very high level of enlightenment, the equivalent of the Arhant level of enlightenment.

Already, this is stating that the physical reality is a "delusion", thus denying phsyical reality. Freedom from craving? haha, if people were free from craving they wouldn't exist, desire is what drives all action. Desire is freewill, without desire we have no freewill. If your goal is to eliminate freewill and become a puppet with no desire to do or not do anything then I think everything is in a new light.

The Dalai Lama replied that much depends on how you define craving.

In Buddhist teachings, desire is not the same as craving. For instance, Buddha had a desire to alleviate the world's suffering, which was not

a bad desire to have.

 

Cravings, however, for drugs, food, wealth, power, recognition or even other people, are a falsification, a misinterpretation of reality. Such cravings lead to less understanding of self and keep the person locked in a cycle of suffering.

 

"It's based on ignorance," the Dalai Lama explained.

 

Here's an excerpt on harmful/dualistic 'desire' (the kind that is resolved through enlightenment) from Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha by Daniel M. Ingram, available for free download at http://www.interactivebuddha.com/mctb.shtml

 

Truth Number Two: “Desire”

 

The Second Noble Truth is that the cause of suffering is desire, also rendered as craving or attachment. We want things to be other than they are because we perceive the world through the odd logic of the process of ego, through the illusion of the split of the perceiver and the perceived. We might say, “Of course we want things to be great and not unpleasant! What do you expect?” The problem isn't actually quite in the desire for things to be good and not be bad in the way that we might think; it is, in fact, just a bit subtler than that.

 

This is a really slippery business, and many people can get all into craving for non-craving and desiring non-attachment. This can be useful if it is done wisely and it is actually all we have to work with. If common sense is ignored, however, desiring non-attachment may produce neurotic, self-righteous, repressed ascetics instead of balanced, kind meditators. A tour of any monastery or spiritual community will likely expose you to clear examples of both sides of this delicate balance. So, don't make too much of a problem out of the fact that it seems that one must desire something in order to seek it. This paradox will resolve itself if we are able to experience reality in this moment clearly.

 

“Craving,” “attachment,” and “desire” are some of the most dangerous words that can be used to describe something that is actually much more fundamental than these seem to indicate. The Buddha did talk about these conventional forms of suffering, but he also talked about the fundamental suffering that comes from some deep longing for a refuge that involves a separate or permanent self. We imagine that such a self will be a refuge, and so we desire such a self, we try to make certain sensations into such a self, we cling to the fundamental notion that such a self can exist as a stable entity and that this will somehow help. The side effects of this manifest in all sorts of addictions to mind states and emotions that are not helpful, but these are side effects and not the root that cause of suffering that the Buddha was pointing to.

 

As stated earlier, a helpful concept here is compassion, a heart aspect of the practice and reality related to kindness. You see, wherever there is desire there is suffering, and wherever there is suffering there is compassion, the desire for the end of suffering. You can actually experience this. So obviously there is some really close relationship between suffering, desire and compassion. This is heavy but good stuff and worth investigating.

 

We might conceive of this as compassion having gotten caught in a loop, the loop of the illusion of duality. This is sort of like a dog’s tail chasing itself. Pain and pleasure, suffering and satisfaction always seem to be “over there.” Thus, when pleasant sensations arise, there is a constant, compassionate, deluded attempt to get over there to the other side of the imagined split. This is fundamental attraction. You would think that we would just stop imagining there is a split, but somehow that is not what happens. We keep perpetuating the sense of a split even as we try to bridge it, and so we suffer. When unpleasant sensations arise, there is an attempt to get away from over there, to widen the imagined split. This will never work, because it doesn’t actually exist, but the way we hold our minds as we try to get away from that side is painful. When boring or unpleasant sensations arise, there is the attempt to tune out all together and forget the whole thing, to try to pretend that the sensations on the other side of the split are not there. This is fundamental ignorance and it perpetuates the process, as it is by ignoring aspects of our sensate reality that the illusion of a split is created in the first place.

 

These strict definitions of fundamental attraction, aversion and ignorance are very important, particularly for when I discuss the various models of the stages of enlightenment. Given the illusion, it seems that somehow these mental reactions will help in a way that will be permanent. Remember that the only thing that will fundamentally help is to understand the Three Characteristics to the degree that makes the difference, and the Three Characteristics are manifesting right here.

 

Remember how it was stated above that suffering motivates everything we do? We could also say that everything we do is motivated by compassion, which is part of the fundamentally empty nature of reality. That doesn’t mean that everything we do is skillful; that is a whole different issue.

 

Compassion is a very good thing, especially when it involves one's self and all beings. It is sort of the flip side of the Second Noble Truth. The whole problem is that “misdirected” compassion, compassion that is filtered through the process of ego and its related habits, can produce enormous suffering and often does. It is easy to think of many examples of people searching for happiness in the strangest of places and by doing the strangest of things. Just pick up any newspaper. The take-home message is to search for happiness where you are actually likely to find it.

 

We might say that compassion is the ultimate aspect of desire, or think of compassion and desire on a continuum. The more wisdom or understanding of interconnectedness there is behind our intentions and actions, the more they reflect compassion and the more the results will turn out well. The more greed, hatred and delusion or lack of understanding of interconnectedness there is behind our intentions and actions, the more they reflect desire and the more suffering there will likely be.

 

This is sometimes referred to as the “Law of Karma,” where karma is a word that has to do with our intentions and actions. Some people can get all caught up in specifics of this that cannot possibly be known, like speculating that if we kill a bug we will come back as a bug and be squished. Don't. Cause and effect, also called interdependence, is just too imponderably complex. Just use this general concept to look honestly at what you want, why, and precisely how you know this. Examine what the consequences of what you do and think might be for yourself and everyone, and then take responsibility for those consequences. It's a tall order and an important practice to engage in, but don't get too obsessive about it. Remember the simplicity of the first training, training in kindness, generosity, honesty and clarity, and gain balance and wisdom from the other two trainings as you go.

 

Sometimes looking into suffering and desire can be overwhelming. Life can sometimes be extremely hard. In these moments, try looking into the heart side of the equation, compassion and kindness. Connect with the part of your heart that just wishes the suffering would end and feel that deeply, especially as it manifests in the body. Just this can be profound practice. There are also lots of other good techniques for cultivating a spaciousness of heart that can bear anything, such as formal loving-kindness practices (see Sharon Salzburg’s excellent Loving-kindness, The Revolutionary Art of Happiness). Finding them and practicing them can make the spiritual path much more bearable and pleasant, and this can make it more likely that we will be able to persevere, gain deep insights, be able to integrate them into our lives, and use them to benefit others.

 

The take-home message is to take the desire to be happy and free of suffering and use its energy to do skillful things that can actually make this happen, rather than getting caught in old unexamined patterns of searching for happiness where you know you will not find it. The Three Trainings are skillful and can inform the whole of our life. By following them we may come to the end of many forms of suffering and be in a much better position to help others do the same.

Also, again on trust of enlightened ones... "enlightened" is a title that gives one authority to a spiritualist. Anyone who has the title of enlightened can control masses of people at a time, it's a very powerful term, but it's also a self-appointed one. Look at Supreme Master Ching Hai ( godsdirectcontact.com ), she is a self proclaimed enlightened master who's teachings have contradicted eachothers several times, yet she has millions of followers. Sounds like like modern Christianity but with an "eastern" twist.

Supreme Master Ching Hai learnt her method and teaching from the Sikkhism tradition. Just that she became new age and tries to relate all religions as if they are one.

 

Supreme Master Ching Hai is at Thusness Stage 1 and 2 enlightenment. It is very clear from her writings that she realized the I AM.

My point is that there's money and power in being called "enlightened".

Maybe, but many of them are sincere. I can see that Master Ching Hai is quite sincere, even though I do not follow her teachings. She is not a con artist. Also, I've read that she doesn't charge money for teachings and initiations. But you have to be a vegetarian and you have to be able to meditate hours (yes, hours, thats how intense their practice regime is) each day to receive initiation.

Thus without an accurate OBJECTIVE way to judge someone, there's the constant risk of abuse of power and MASS deception. Plus if someone understood the nature of reality they should have limitless powers. At least Christ raised the dead and healed the sick and walked on water. If thats not transcendental i don't know what is.

No, enlightenment and spiritual powers are different things. You are having misconceptions what enlightenment entails.

 

As I just wrote in this forum recently,

 

No, Siddhis usually comes as a result of training in Shamatha and is not directly linked to self-realization - I have many enlightened (and some unenlightened) friends, and even my mom, who have siddhis. Shamatha means you are training in deep concentration that you can enter into the 8 samatha jhanas, which are blissful altered states of consciousness. I have experiences of entering jhanas in the past, but I no longer train in this area, and this is not my area of expertise.

 

According to Daniel M. Ingram, he manifests siddhis when he reach the 4th Jhana, as accordance to the standard Buddhist texts. You may be interested to listen to this interview with Daniel who spoke about his experience with the powers:

Buddhist Geeks episode 61: Buddhist Magic: What is Possible with the Powers?

 

Nevertheless, Thusness did make mentions that siddhis can manifest due to a very deep level of clarity/enlightenment, but I have not experienced this so far (see http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/05/different-degrees-of-non-duality.html )

 

As for my mom, Thusness said her chakras (never asked which) are open that's why she has some powers.

Edited August 2, 2010 by xabir2005

[Astral_Anima]

xabir- ...wow. Haha, it'll take me awhile to explore all of that and respond but I want to thank you upfront for your detailed responses and putting in the effort to help me(and perhaps others) understand this concept more clerly (and I think I'm starting to grasp it). It seems there are many misconceptions abroad. Hopefully through discussion and questioning we can cut through these misconceptions and perhaps leave in our wake a more clear view of things. Thank You all again for your continued effort...

 

-Astral

[三江源]

"Because I really am fed up of being an asshole."

 

Why? Really, I'm not sure you are an asshole. Not from what I've read here.

 

I think that if people are assholes they are because they don't feel good. They're in pain and suffer. Plus we've spent all this time telling them that to feel good (or be taken care of) they have to go get/find/do something outside themselves. But that's total BS.

 

I suggest that if you can ease someone's suffering without creating more then that person will stop being an asshole.

 

I think because you can't think your way through it, one technique is to drop thought (or thoughts of self - which is supposed to be one of those roots of the problem - per those Buddhist people, it's one way). Another technique could be to send love through yourself so you finally realise you are the person who feels it, and you can do that any time. It's never been outside or dependent on anyone else. Of course if you've been conditioned enough, this will take some practice which is why I think the Buddhists go faster there by just dropping it.

 

I think that the techniques are just techniques and knowing which one to use when is probably a good idea. I prefer the Taoist ones, also just sitting relaxing in the emptiness of all words and ideas and meanings.

 

Hi Kate, thanks for being unsure that I'm an asshole.

 

Ha!

 

I think there are degrees of assholeishness, but maybe not so clearly delineated as the degrees of enlightenment. Funny thing is that I have a very clear retrospective awareness of my life and a feeling of .. I'm not sure how to say it .. I think it is actually repentance, for all the assholeishness of my life. As I understand it, this is kind of weird of me. I definitely dont dwell on it morbidly or anything, but it comes up during my practice and I experience emotional pain and heart rending repentance for my ignorance. I witness my former ignorances and I am intensely sorry. Not that I have done anything other than the usual kind of obtuse narcissism and ego controllingnesses..very average human stuff, but yes, I am definitely aware acutely of the chasm between me and perfect clarity. Along with this goes a intense gratitude for all the gifts that lfe has given me and a great sense of privelege at having been given the opportunity to love, be loved, learn and live. It is intensely poignant to me to be given so much, and to be so very flawed.

 

Perhaps it is an emotional witnessing of what it means to be human. Kind of like you might get after you have died.

 

I'm not 'religious' by the way, and have not been brought up in any religion or with any concept of repentance in my awareness.

[Marblehead]

Just wondering. Is it possible to be an asshole and still be enlightened?

 

Peace & Love!

[Birch]

"degrees of assholeishness, but maybe not so clearly delineated as the degrees of enlightenment."

 

I think we could probably establish a pretty good scale based on TTB's experiences

 

 

Yes, Mr MH, I reckon it's absolutely possible to be enlightened and remain an a$$hole - given that it's up to everyone else (including yourself) to define you as such or not.

 

"Liberating yourself" seems to ask that you give up any attachment to such things. For lots of people, I suspect I'm an exemplary a$$hole but I don't know if I prefer that to trying to please them so they won't think it.

 

Which is a really an a-hole thing to try to do, go try to change someone else's mind about me when what I really ought to be doing is changing my mind about me. They're likely hardly thinking about me more than 0.00001% of the time. It's all too much work.

[Marblehead]

Yeah Kate. I think that if we are at peace with our Self and contented we no longer need to concern ourself with enlightenment or with the opinions of us by others.

 

Peace & Love!

[Gauss]

[C T]

!

 

Funny thing is that I have a very clear retrospective awareness of my life and a feeling of .. I'm not sure how to say it .. I think it is actually repentance, for all the assholeishness of my life. As I understand it, this is kind of weird of me. I definitely dont dwell on it morbidly or anything, but it comes up during my practice and I experience emotional pain and heart rending repentance for my ignorance. I witness my former ignorances and I am intensely sorry. Not that I have done anything other than the usual kind of obtuse narcissism and ego controllingnesses..very average human stuff, but yes, I am definitely aware acutely of the chasm between me and perfect clarity. Along with this goes a intense gratitude for all the gifts that lfe has given me and a great sense of privelege at having been given the opportunity to love, be loved, learn and live. It is intensely poignant to me to be given so much, and to be so very flawed.

 

Perhaps it is an emotional witnessing of what it means to be human. Kind of like you might get after you have died.

 

I'm not 'religious' by the way, and have not been brought up in any religion or with any concept of repentance in my awareness.

There is perhaps a theory that might explain this 'witnessing' experience whenever you 'practice'.

 

To a large extent i think all who seeks to deeply and sincerely transcend mundanity thru authentic spiritual practices, in varying degrees and at varying stages, witness and experience similar profoundness of being, whereby one's awareness (not by purposeful will) becomes so compassionately fused with the universal compassionate heart of other spiritual beings, humans as well as Beings in various other realms, that whatever emotions arise, be it sorrow or joy, become so so much more intense.

 

Its as if one inadvertently taps into some kind of universal, cosmic pulse...

 

It matters not if one is a sage or simply an average run-of-the-mill dickess. Once we open up to spiritual transformation by a deep, sincere willingness to let go of ignorances and mental afflictions, at some point during the flow of letting go, there will arise a lot of feelings that resemble sorrowful repentance (some know it by calling it something else, but fundamentally it points to the same experience). They are not even our own most of the time, because at that level of connection, the small self literally drops away. 'Me' and 'mine' no longer merits any significant consideration during this phase of unfolding. Its almost like feeling for the 'loss' of other beings who see themselves somehow trapped in their own existential quagmire.

 

Some may find the above phase rather alarming at first, but over time, as the practice takes on more depth, one can then connect with another aspect of existence, that of beings who truly longs for emancipation from ignorance, that indeed, at the heart of all life, there is a great wish for non-suffering, freedom, happiness, joy and liberation from oppressiveness.

 

So on the one hand we can feel for the pain of ignorance, but we can also tap into the joys of liberation, and that can lead to the understanding that whatever others ultimately want is exactly the same as what we want for ourselves. Seeing this way, practicing compassion, over time, becomes quite easy.

 

So i would say what you are feeling is not a bad thing at all. And thanks for sharing this btw.

 

(as a disclaimer, just wanna say this is only my own theory, and does not reflect what Buddhism teaches, although there are practices within certain Mahayanic traditions that can help structure such phases, like the Tonglen practice for example. not sure about other systems and practices whether they have anything that is similar to Tonglen).

[blacktrack8]

To Astral Anima,

 

By no thought I do not mean a lack of brain function. I mean, no conscious thought I guess. And this lack of thought produces the actions which are so spontaneous yet perfect for each situation. I guess it is in a way, letting your entirety be guided by the subconscious as opposed to letting the subconscious control purely your heart and digestion and other such natural processes we do every day without thinking. If your body can already digest food into things which we may use for energy, whats to say of what it can do for you while you're playing soccer or doing anything that when it comes down to it is much simpler than say, breaking down complex carbohydrates into fat compounds and glutamates (just made that up don't quote me!).

 

In a way it makes you much less of a puppet because instead of each action being carefully planned and thought out to do what you deem the best as deemed by your compadres and society, you do you. Instead of trying so hard to hook up with a girl because you heard it was fun you go to a party to have fun and end up with a girl having more fun, you know? Its a lack of expectation and an ability to make the best of everything. Its a lack of expectation with an ability to seize the moment.

[Marblehead]

To Astral Anima,

 

That is a very good post Blacktrack8!

 

Peace & Love!

[三江源]

There is perhaps a theory that might explain this 'witnessing' experience whenever you 'practice'.

 

To a large extent i think all who seeks to deeply and sincerely transcend mundanity thru authentic spiritual practices, in varying degrees and at varying stages, witness and experience similar profoundness of being, whereby one's awareness (not by purposeful will) becomes so compassionately fused with the universal compassionate heart of other spiritual beings, humans as well as Beings in various other realms, that whatever emotions arise, be it sorrow or joy, become so so much more intense.

 

Its as if one inadvertently taps into some kind of universal, cosmic pulse...

 

It matters not if one is a sage or simply an average run-of-the-mill dickess. Once we open up to spiritual transformation by a deep, sincere willingness to let go of ignorances and mental afflictions, at some point during the flow of letting go, there will arise a lot of feelings that resemble sorrowful repentance (some know it by calling it something else, but fundamentally it points to the same experience). They are not even our own most of the time, because at that level of connection, the small self literally drops away. 'Me' and 'mine' no longer merits any significant consideration during this phase of unfolding. Its almost like feeling for the 'loss' of other beings who see themselves somehow trapped in their own existential quagmire.

 

Some may find the above phase rather alarming at first, but over time, as the practice takes on more depth, one can then connect with another aspect of existence, that of beings who truly longs for emancipation from ignorance, that indeed, at the heart of all life, there is a great wish for non-suffering, freedom, happiness, joy and liberation from oppressiveness.

 

So on the one hand we can feel for the pain of ignorance, but we can also tap into the joys of liberation, and that can lead to the understanding that whatever others ultimately want is exactly the same as what we want for ourselves. Seeing this way, practicing compassion, over time, becomes quite easy.

 

So i would say what you are feeling is not a bad thing at all. And thanks for sharing this btw.

 

(as a disclaimer, just wanna say this is only my own theory, and does not reflect what Buddhism teaches, although there are practices within certain Mahayanic traditions that can help structure such phases, like the Tonglen practice for example. not sure about other systems and practices whether they have anything that is similar to Tonglen).

 

Thanks for replying so thoughtfully CowTao. I appreciate it. And yes, the repentance feelings are so strong and the pain sometimes so intense that I do sense that I'm offering some compassionate recognition from the heart of something wider than the little me. Thankyou for articulating that.

.. .. it isnt that I find the experience alarming, I'm not scared of having deep feelings, but I'd like to know what others would call 'sorrowful repentance'.. I just googled the phrase and a lot came up, here's one thing that isnt Christian..it's from Japanese Nichiren Buddhism...but it is the same as the Christian point of view really, which is that repentance is needed to admit you to the presence of God..

 

 

 

We chant to eradicate our karma. Chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo puts us on the right track and in perfect rhythm with the universe. According to what the Daishonin writes in "On Prolonging One's Life Span": "Sincere repentance will eradicate even fixed karma, to say nothing of karma that is unfixed." (WND p 954)

 

So, as you say, it is not a 'bad' thing!

 

Thanks again for the chance to go deeper into it.

[Birch]

I guess I've felt something similar but my take on "repentence" is actually that it's a tool to show compassion for oneself first.

 

The sadness is from the realization that one has been one's own instrument of torture of self and others. It's a sort of a reaction to realizing the paradox that we are asked (ne'er I say "conditioned") to seek non-suffering, freedom, happiness, joy and liberation from oppressiveness outside ourselves when the truth is that it can't be found anywhere else than inside ourselves. This is IMO and IME why "connecting with the Source" is such an important practice.

 

Just my opinion.

[三江源]

I guess I've felt something similar but my take on "repentence" is actually that it's a tool to show compassion for oneself first.

 

The sadness is from the realization that one has been one's own instrument of torture of self and others. It's a sort of a reaction to realizing the paradox that we are asked (ne'er I say "conditioned") to seek non-suffering, freedom, happiness, joy and liberation from oppressiveness outside ourselves when the truth is that it can't be found anywhere else than inside ourselves. This is IMO and IME why "connecting with the Source" is such an important practice.

 

Just my opinion.

 

 

 

Yes, I agree. There is no chance of feeling deep sorrowful repentance without being connected to the source. It is a great gift. Profoundly cleansing and humbling.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

I guess it is in a way, letting your entirety be guided by the subconscious as opposed to letting the subconscious control purely your heart and digestion and other such natural processes we do every day without thinking.

 

 

I hate to tell you this, but your subconscious influences every part of your being already, not just your heart and digestion. Where did you get this idea?

[ralis]

I hate to tell you this, but your subconscious influences every part of your being already, not just your heart and digestion. Where did you get this idea?

 

True believers find these ideas from the same place where one supposedly realizes different levels and jettisons the appropriate unwanted nasty emotions that keep one from being a Buddha. Fundamentalist of all persuasions have problems with emotions.

 

 

ralis