Informer Posted July 9, 2011 No he's not man, your drawing inferences here. He's saying everyone already has the buddha nature, but only 1 in a million people realize it without an instructor. You wouldn't even have to know of buddha or even call it enlightenment, but the same would be true. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted July 9, 2011 (edited) No he's not man, your drawing inferences here. He's saying everyone already has the buddha nature, but only 1 in a million people realize it without an instructor. You wouldn't even have to know of buddha or even call it enlightenment, but the same would be true. Sure, but the Buddha also said what those who have realized what he has realized teach, or say of what he has realized. They wouldn't teach independent origination for instance. They would teach the Buddhadharma in another language. Sure, maybe Aliens on a distant planet have attained Buddhahood and teach in an entirely different level of communication than we do, lets say maybe they don't speak but only use hand gestures, lol! That's not my point. My point was just to illustrate that it's difficult to realize ones true nature without the guidance of a person who has realized that nature shared by all. We are so blinded by our own mental conditioning of whatever level or degree, of whatever type, that we generally can't see where we are blind, because of that fact, we don't know what we don't know. So, having an objective perspective from someone who has gone deeper into the nature of things, is paramount. Edited July 9, 2011 by Vajrahridaya Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted July 9, 2011 Sure, but the Buddha also said what those who have realized what he has realized teach, or say of what he has realized. They wouldn't teach independent origination for instance. They would teach the Buddhadharma in another language. Sure, maybe Aliens on a distant planet have attained Buddhahood and teach in an entirely different level of communication than we do, lets say maybe they don't speak but only use hand gestures, lol! That's not my point. My point was just to illustrate that it's difficult to realize ones true nature without the guidance of a person who has realized that nature shared by all. We are so blinded by our own mental conditioning of whatever level or degree, of whatever type, that we generally can't see where we are blind, because of that fact, we don't know what we don't know. So, having an objective perspective from someone who has gone deeper into the nature of things, is paramount. This says that they would teach others of the path that they fallowed . . . How could they teach anything else other than that which they know works? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted July 9, 2011 This says that they would teach others of the path that they fallowed . . . How could they teach anything else other than that which they know works? Yes, but the Buddha defined Buddhahood very specifically, so did Nagarjuna, so did Padmasambhava. Just because a person say's they are enlightened, doesn't mean they are a Buddha, or teach the same level of enlightenment. You of course are free to believe what you want. But, I for one don't think that Jesus was a Buddha, nor do I feel that Muhammad was a Buddha. Though I value the Bhagavad Gita, I don't feel it teaches to the same depth of realization as the Buddha did or other Buddhas. But, none the less there are all sorts of inspiring people out there. I for one am inspired by all sorts of great beings from different traditions. But, the Buddha warned of all sorts of pit falls along the way, formless level attainments, reifying absorptions or samadhis, having visions of a "great being" that comes and calls himself God and say's to do this and that for the one true God that he is. Such things as this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted July 9, 2011 Yes, but the Buddha defined Buddhahood very specifically, so did Nagarjuna, so did Padmasambhava. Just because a person say's they are enlightened, doesn't mean they are a Buddha, or teach the same level of enlightenment. You of course are free to believe what you want. But, I for one don't think that Jesus was a Buddha, nor do I feel that Muhammad was a Buddha. Though I value the Bhagavad Gita, I don't feel it teaches to the same depth of realization as the Buddha did or other Buddhas. But, none the less there are all sorts of inspiring people out there. I for one am inspired by all sorts of great beings from different traditions. But, the Buddha warned of all sorts of pit falls along the way, formless level attainments, reifying absorptions or samadhis, having visions of a "great being" that comes and calls himself God and say's to do this and that for the one true God that he is. Such things as this. On the contrary, I tend to think the opposite, that someone claims to be enlightened, is not enlightened. I am not believing anything, only correcting the beautiful quote that you slaughtered Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted July 9, 2011 On the contrary, I tend to think the opposite, that someone claims to be enlightened, is not enlightened. I am not believing anything, only correcting the beautiful quote that you slaughtered On your account then, the Buddha wasn't enlightened as he did declare that he was enlightened. He said, "I am awake." Which is what enlightenment (a western word) is for Buddhahood. Jesus said, "I and my father are one." Or whatever the equivalent was in Aramaic? Anyway... I don't feel that I slaughtered the quote, I just expressed my interpretation of one single statement out of it. That's it, just one statement did I take out of the entire quote and interpret. The rest I left as is because in all, it is quite a wonderful quote. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted July 9, 2011 Buddha was one in a million that found it without any prior knowledge or instruction, and that same essence is in each of us. The description of what they found is only an interpretation of something that is unbound by words. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted July 9, 2011 On your account then, the Buddha wasn't enlightened as he did declare that he was enlightened. He said, "I am awake." Which is what enlightenment (a western word) is for Buddhahood. Jesus said, "I and my father are one." Or whatever the equivalent was in Aramaic? Anyway... I don't feel that I slaughtered the quote, I just expressed my interpretation of one single statement out of it. That's it, just one statement did I take out of the entire quote and interpret. The rest I left as is because in all, it is quite a wonderful quote. Please link me where he says that. Awake is not = enlightened in my book. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted July 9, 2011 Buddha was one in a million that found it without any prior knowledge or instruction, and that same essence is in each of us. The description of what they found is only an interpretation of something that is unbound by words. Actually, the Buddha had two teachers that took him to the highest meditation absorptions possible and instructed him in Shramana traditions of Hindu meditation. He indeed had already attained a very rarified state of realization prier to leaving his last teacher before wondering on his own. Also, certain texts say that he had realized Buddhahood prier to his incarnation on Earth as a Samyakasambuddha, a wheel turning Buddha with the specific purpose of influencing others of "An ancient path" as he called it. He said he was just here rediscovering an old path that had become lost. Of course, if you don't want to see that or believe that, this is fine. Based upon my own meditation experiences, I do believe it's possible. Anyway... follow your path. I don't reify a transcendent ultimate beyond words, that's not what the Buddha taught. I used to think that, as there are meditation experiences beyond words that are very powerful and inspirational. Buddhahood is much subtler though than just being the realization of a reified ultimate beyond concept though. Buddha didn't teach Monism (one-ism). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted July 9, 2011 Actually, the Buddha had two teachers that took him to the highest meditation absorptions possible and instructed him in Shramana traditions of Hindu meditation. He indeed had already attained a very rarified state of realization prier to leaving his last teacher before wondering on his own. Also, certain texts say that he had realized Buddhahood prier to his incarnation on Earth as a Samyakasambuddha, a wheel turning Buddha with the specific purpose of influencing others of "An ancient path" as he called it. He said he was just here rediscovering an old path that had become lost. Of course, if you don't want to see that or believe that, this is fine. Based upon my own meditation experiences, I do believe it's possible. Anyway... follow your path. I don't reify a transcendent ultimate beyond words, that's not what the Buddha taught. I used to think that, as there are meditation experiences beyond words that are very powerful and inspirational. Buddhahood is much subtler though than just being the realization of a reified ultimate beyond concept though. Buddha didn't teach Monism (one-ism). Have you pondered or meditated on what this ancient path might be and why the name of the original path was ommitted and instead given a new name? His name? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted July 9, 2011 Either you are really misinterpreting things or buddha isn't what I thought he was. Can you show me where he says all this stuff you have claimed? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted July 9, 2011 "have transcended the world, and I live untouched by the world. Remember me as one who is enlightened" He is not claiming enlightenment for himself here. He is describing what it is, outside of this physical carcass, which isn't an individual as to have such a claim. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted July 9, 2011 "have transcended the world, and I live untouched by the world. Remember me as one who is enlightened" He is not claiming enlightenment for himself here. He is describing what it is, outside of this physical carcass, which isn't an individual as to have such a claim. Would you elaborate more on this please? Thanks Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted July 9, 2011 Have you pondered or meditated on what this ancient path might be and why the name of the original path was ommitted and instead given a new name? His name? You should study some of the Pali texts if you wish to know what the Buddha taught, this is basic, "What the Buddha taught" 101. He also said that this path is not from his teachers in this life, or a path followed by any of his contemporaries. It's in the link I provided you with above. It's said that There were previous Buddhas, but there teaching had died out on the Earth at the time of the Buddha, so he came to turn the wheel again. Just like supposedly in the future, when Buddhism has died out, another teacher will come. So, the Buddha is considered a Samyakasambuddha (awakened on his own with the specific purpose of teaching the dharma) and all other Buddhas after him are Sravakabuddhas (awakened through hearing of his dhamma) He also taught that some Buddhas were here before him, but did not have the means to teach the dhamma are called Pratyekabuddhas. Xabir could find quotes much better than I can. You can look most of this stuff on google though from some good sources. If you care to find out. Just your reaction from what I said by saying, "The Buddha must not be what I thought he was." Shows that you already have some strong concepts about enlightenment. I'm not saying that we all don't have these, but, just be a little more flexible is all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted July 9, 2011 "have transcended the world, and I live untouched by the world. Remember me as one who is enlightened" He is not claiming enlightenment for himself here. He is describing what it is, outside of this physical carcass, which isn't an individual as to have such a claim. Whatever. If it helps a person to say, "I am enlightened" a person will do so and actually be enlightened. This is a famous old dogmatic saying that an enlightened person will never say they are enlightened and I used to believe it. Who's the first person to realize they are enlightened, as in free from themselves? You will know when you are free from yourself, will you not? He did say elsewhere, "I am awake" which is how he came to be called "the Buddha". As the word for a person who is awake in pali is Buddha (awakened one). I can't find the exact scripture at this time though it is out there somewhere. I've read it many times. Someone was asking if he was a messiah, or a healer and he said, no, I am awake. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted July 9, 2011 You should study some of the Pali texts if you wish to know what the Buddha taught, this is basic, "What the Buddha taught" 101. He also said that this path is not from his teachers in this life, or a path followed by any of his contemporaries. It's in the link I provided you with above. It's said that There were previous Buddhas, but there teaching had died out on the Earth at the time of the Buddha, so he came to turn the wheel again. Just like supposedly in the future, when Buddhism has died out, another teacher will come. So, the Buddha is considered a Samyakasambuddha (awakened on his own with the specific purpose of teaching the dharma) and all other Buddhas after him are Sravakabuddhas (awakened through hearing of his dhamma) He also taught that some Buddhas were here before him, but did not have the means to teach the dhamma are called Pratyekabuddhas. Xabir could find quotes much better than I can. You can look most of this stuff on google though from some good sources. If you care to find out. Just your reaction from what I said by saying, "The Buddha must not be what I thought he was." Shows that you already have some strong concepts about enlightenment. I'm not saying that we all don't have these, but, just be a little more flexible is all. I must admit, I do have a sort of personification of what he would be like, and some things just doesn't sound like him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted July 9, 2011 Whatever. If it helps a person to say, "I am enlightened" a person will do so and actually be enlightened. This is a famous old dogmatic saying that an enlightened person will never say they are enlightened and I used to believe it. Who's the first person to realize they are enlightened, as in free from themselves? You will know when you are free from yourself, will you not? He did say elsewhere, "I am awake" which is how he came to be called "the Buddha". As the word for a person who is awake in pali is Buddha (awakened one). I can't find the exact scripture at this time though it is out there somewhere. I've read it many times. Someone was asking if he was a messiah, or a healer and he said, no, I am awake. Ah, you miss the whole point, even you yourself presented the proof of this fallacy. Enlightenment isn't individualistic in nature, as for someone to claim. This would be a basic attachement that would be easily discarded if such were the case. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted July 9, 2011 Ah, you miss the whole point, even you yourself presented the proof of this fallacy. Enlightenment isn't individualistic in nature, as for someone to claim. This would be a basic attachement that would be easily discarded if such were the case. Sure it is, YOU become enlightened to the true nature of things. If it's not impersonal, inter-personal and personal all at the same time, then it's not very enlightening. I used to believe just like you stated above. But no, I am not enlightened yet. Like I said, the Buddha did say, "I am awake." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted July 9, 2011 Sure it is, YOU become enlightened to the true nature of things. If it's not impersonal, inter-personal and personal all at the same time, then it's not very enlightening. I used to believe just like you stated above. But no, I am not enlightened yet. Like I said, the Buddha did say, "I am awake." Awake is individual awareness of that path that is not necessarily a self that is enlightened. The "self" would obviously depend on what you consider the self for this to be true or false. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted July 9, 2011 (edited) Awake is individual awareness of that path that is not necessarily a self that is enlightened. The "self" would obviously depend on what you consider the self for this to be true or false. If you are free from the self, one can talk of oneself without the confinement of a solidified identity and at the same time, if it's not yourself getting enlightened, then who is there to know if you are free or not? If you don't know that you are free when you are free, what's the point? I think it's just plucking hairs, honestly. But, it's fine. I understand your point as well. No big deal, when I realize final Buddhahood, I'll come let you know if I can say I am enlightened or not, or if I have to use beat around the bush references in order to hint at the fact of my realization of freedom. Do the same for me, will ya? Edited July 9, 2011 by Vajrahridaya Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Small Fur Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) In reply to various issues raised in the original post. About "Levels of enlightenment": Rather than seeing the development of 'enlightenment' linearly in terms of levels, consider it as qualities of state coming into greater wholeness or fruition. One way to imagine this is as a fruit or ball with holes in it being filled in at various dimensions and areas. Wisdom is this fruit and it develops in many ways. As for the state of 'enlightenment' it is more than just the fruit itself. The idea of Secrets: What is a "secret"? Do you mean, what a person tries to hide? Or do you mean the mystery that you do not yet fully realize… (no, this is not meant to simply be a rhetorically clever question) On being able to determine another's state of enlightenment: Your idea of 'determining one's enlightenment' seems to be based on intellectual discernment. But the allusion of enlightenment has boundaries beyond the realm of the mind, and therefore, is not entirely discernible to through intellectual cognition. Perhaps you can consider employing other senses as a way to intuit greater dimensions in the state of being. You will also be able to more easily 'know' when you stop striving to concern yourself with what is enlightenment and whether or not anyone you meet has it or not. :-) About Judgement, Pretension and Delusion: Decisions based in clear (vs. delusion) discernment need not be done with attachment (pretension) and can be achieved outside of (relative) levels of subjectivity. How can one 'see' without subjectivity? Stop believing that in the limited conceptions of yourself as the only way in which you can know the world. There is more to what comprises you than this mere body/mind and even spirit. And therefore, there are greater aspects of self that you can employ in sensing what is truth. Best wishes on your path to deeper ways of knowing Edited July 10, 2011 by Small Fur 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xabir2005 Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) Can you give an example of the field of meanings? bump for goldisheavy Edited July 10, 2011 by xabir2005 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldisheavy Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) Can you give an example of the field of meanings? I can't give you an example of its absence. Or how about an example that demonstrates part of the field instead of the whole thing? The contents of the visual field is one such partial example. Edited July 10, 2011 by goldisheavy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
