The real reason for renunciation and asceticism is to escape samsara at death..

[Owledge]

Ok, I mistakenly thought nirvana can only be achieved without 'bodily existence in this realm'.

 

When you awaken, there is tremendous bliss even while you are alive. However, it does not mean you can avoid unpleasant feelings. If you get injured, or get cancer, you still have a lot of unpleasant feelings.

So still having unpleasant feelings, but not suffering under them is awakening? What is this "awakening" then? And maybe you should replace the word "feeling" with "sensations". Unpleasant feelings are suffering, unplesant sensations are pain, no?

 

No, it (enlightenment) is realizing that there is no substantial self, a liver of life, an agent (self, perceiver, controller) behind life, that is awakening/enlightenment.

What can I say? ... Check!

Seriously, I am getting confused because from what I experienced after only two ayahuasca trips, I am not sure whether I am already damn close to enlightenment or far from it. Maybe I got a taste of it. Seems all very trivial after the experience.

(I perceived the fractal, infinite creator of all reality and whenever I tried not to focus on normal reality, but on that creative source, I would freak out because it felt like I ceased to exist and that state would go on for all eternity with no sleep, no rest, no change - just everything happening kinda simultaneously or whenever I formed a thought. And because there was no time existing, I couldn't decide to let go for a while, you know, because the very first moment of focusing on the source would already feel like an eternity. Not because I couldn't perceive progressive events or visual movements anymore, but because there was no outer sensory input that would give me a timeframe. Also, at times (hah!) the external felt like it's all happening inside. I am considering that that was all a mere mind-internal loop (trapped inside my head, so to speak), but it seems so similar to people's statements about highly spiritual states of perception.)

 

 

P.S.: The guy from the linked article is obviously showcasing a lot of internal issues, so not that helpful when talking about spiritual stuff like that. He's full of personal agenda and emotional judgment. He is vigorously rejecting an implication that he can't handle, because it would question the validity of his life's contribution, so to speak. That's kinda ironic, enlightenment-wise.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Owledge

[xabir2005]

Ok, I mistakenly thought nirvana can only be achieved without 'bodily existence in this realm'.

Yes, as I just wrote in the other thread:

 

There are two kinds of nirvana.

 

The first is the nirvana with remainder. This is attained by an arahant, whose awakening and liberation has put an end to the I and my-making, the delusion and conceit of a self, and has put an end to the three poisons of craving, aversion and ignorance. He has put an end to making karma which leads to rebirth in the afterlife. But being still alive, his body and senses are fully functioning and he is capable of being aware of sensations and feelings, even though he has no attachment at all for anything. He can still experience unpleasant physical feelings, but he has no mental suffering and aversion.

 

The second is nirvana without remainder. This is when an arahant enters post-mortem state. An arahant has put an end to the cycling of rebirth in samsara, there is no more karmic causes for him to reborn in the 6 realms. So such a being has put an end to both physical pain and mental suffering - no more aggregates arise for him.

So still having unpleasant feelings, but not suffering under them is awakening?

Yes, an arahant still experiences physical feelings which can be pleasant or unpleasant, but do not experience mental suffering.

 

The Buddha taught:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.nypo.html

 

"But in the case of a well-taught noble disciple, O monks, when he is touched by a painful feeling, he will not worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. It is one kind of feeling he experiences, a bodily one, but not a mental feeling. It is as if a man were pierced by a dart, but was not hit by a second dart following the first one. So this person experiences feelings caused by a single dart only. It is similar with a well-taught noble disciple: when touched by a painful feeling, he will no worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. He experiences one single feeling, a bodily one.

What is this "awakening" then?

There are four levels of awakening, from stream entry to arahant. A stream enterer has gained the dharma eye (dhammacakkhu), the knowledge and vision of dharma, which is empty of self, and dependently originated. Such a person has ended the fetter of self-view, doubt, and attachment to useless rites and rituals.

 

There are however further stages in which the remaining craving, aversion and ignorance are gradually eliminated, until arahant which is liberation.

 

I speak about my experience in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html

And maybe you should replace the word "feeling" with "sensations". Unpleasant feelings are suffering, unplesant sensations are pain, no?

I was following the standard Buddhist terminologies,

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedan%C4%81

 

"Feeling," not "emotion"

 

Regarding the relationship between vedanā and "emotions," American-born Theravada teacher Bhikkhu Bodhi has written:

 

"The Pali word vedanā does not signify emotion (which appears to be a complex phenomenon involving a variety of concomitant mental factors), but the bare affective quality of an experience, which may be either pleasant, painful or neutral."[12]

 

Similarly, Oxford-trained Vajrayana teacher Trungpa Rinpoche has written:

 

"In this case 'feeling' is not quite our ordinary notion of feeling. It is not the feeling we take so seriously as, for instance, when we say, 'He hurt my feelings.' This kind of feeling that we take so seriously belongs to the fourth and fifth skandhas of concept and consciousness."[13]

Seriously, I am getting confused because from what I experienced after only two ayahuasca trips, I am not sure whether I am already damn close to enlightenment or far from it. Maybe I got a taste of it. Seems all very trivial after the experience.

It is not very uncommon for someone who take psychedelics to chance upon some mystical experiences. Usually however, they simply have glimpses of the I AMness (see: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html ). This is not yet Buddhist enlightenment.

 

One of the early things I discussed with my teacher Thusness in 2004 or 2005 is his views on LSD.

 

2007:

 

(1:08 PM) Thusness: hmm...don't think i want to write about LSD in a forum.

(1:09 PM) AEN: o haha how come

(1:09 PM) Thusness: the reason is that it might mislead one into seeking altered state of consciousness by taking psychoactive drugs.

(1:10 PM) Thusness: even if I said we shouldn't, but some might not be able to resist the temptation and opt for a try.

(1:10 PM) Thusness: this is dangerous.

(1:10 PM) AEN: icic..

(1:11 PM) AEN: but actually these kind of psychedelics can lead to a state of witnessing?

(1:11 PM) Thusness: yes.

(1:11 PM) Thusness: it is an altered state of consciousness

(1:11 PM) Thusness: i would say similar to astral plane

(1:12 PM) Thusness: not so much enlightenment.

(1:12 PM) Thusness: but very similar form of experience.

(1:12 PM) Thusness: as in the phase of "I AMness".

(1:12 PM) Thusness: the insight is restricted to that level.

(1:12 PM) Thusness: not the form of buddhist enlightenment

(1:12 PM) Thusness: but very intense.

P.S.: The guy from the linked article is obviously showcasing a lot of internal issues, so not that helpful when talking about spiritual stuff like that. He's full of personal agenda and emotional judgment. He is vigorously rejecting an implication that he can't handle, because it would question the validity of his life's contribution, so to speak. That's kinda ironic, enlightenment-wise.

Actually the author is a highly experienced practitioner and teacher, and I think he makes good points in the article.

 

The idea of original enlightenment doesn't make sense at all. Our true nature is always already so, yet it does not mean we have realized it. A diamond hidden underneath your pillow is as good as useless unless you discover it.

Edited April 15, 2012 by xabir2005

[Owledge]

...He has put an end to making karma which leads to rebirth in the afterlife. But being still alive, his body and senses are fully functioning and he is capable of being aware of sensations and feelings, even though he has no attachment at all for anything. He can still experience unpleasant physical feelings, but he has no mental suffering and aversion.

How can you not create karma while still having a bodily existence? You are more or less interacting with and influencing the world, if you want to or not.

 

Actually the author is a highly experienced practitioner and teacher, and I think he makes good points in the article.

 

The idea of original enlightenment doesn't make sense at all. Our true nature is always already so, yet it does not mean we have realized it. A diamond hidden underneath your pillow is as good as useless unless you discover it.

Yes, maybe he makes some good points, but he doesn't present them as seeds for insight, but as personal truth equalled to objective truth. He overanalyzes something where the message is between the lines, which he should know.

People keep confusing one set of credentials with another one, e.g. ability and character. He might be a "highly experienced practitioner and teacher", but I still wouldn't take bits of wisdom from him, since my character development is at another stage. And I think many wise people will agree that tempered character can go well without ability, but ability can't go well without tempered character.

[konchog uma]

Do many people who read about the Bardo know they're in the Bardo right now?

 

Or is this only told when the students mind is ripe?

 

Well i think its more of a western misunderstanding based on the Bardo Thodol that "the bardo" is the realm beyond death. In the timespace beyond the death of the physical body, the dreamlike space must be called something, but its just that that isn't the totality of the definition of "bardo". So its not like a secret teaching or anything really mysterious, just one of those tibetan concepts that kind of had a skewed import into western thinking. My teacher taught it to allay confusion about the concept, not because we were "ready" for some far-out new way of thinking lol

 

In other words, the realms after death are referenced as bardo, but they aren't the only bardo, so saying "the bardo" is a little misleading. I don't think tibetan has or commonly uses articles of speech like "the" so it was translated into english as "the" bardo but the exclusivity of "the", being that it is the one and only of its kind, is not part of the concept to the native tibetan mind. Perhaps it would have been more correct to say "a bardo", but in tibetan its just "bardo" so theres a language barrier to grasping it as a westerner inherent in using articles to label words versus writing and speaking in a more stripped down way, like tibetan does.

[xabir2005]

How can you not create karma while still having a bodily existence? You are more or less interacting with and influencing the world, if you want to or not.

Arhants also act, but they are self-liberated and thus do not leave karmic traces, just like drawing on water.

 

As Pasdmasambhava said in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/self-liberation-through-seeing-with.html?m=1 :

 

If you understand (intrinsic awareness), all of your merits and sins will be liberated into their own condition.

But if you do not understand it, any virtuous or vicious deeds that you commit

will accumulate as karma leading to transmigration in heavenly rebirth or to rebirth in the evil destinies respectively.

But if you understand this empty primal awareness, which is your own mind,

the consequences of merit and of sin will never come to be realized,

just as a spring cannot originate in the empty sky.

In the state of emptiness itself, the object of merit or of sin is not even created.

Therefore, your own manifest self-awareness comes to see everything nakedly.

[C T]

Well i think its more of a western misunderstanding based on the Bardo Thodol that "the bardo" is the realm beyond death. In the timespace beyond the death of the physical body, the dreamlike space must be called something, but its just that that isn't the totality of the definition of "bardo". So its not like a secret teaching or anything really mysterious, just one of those tibetan concepts that kind of had a skewed import into western thinking. My teacher taught it to allay confusion about the concept, not because we were "ready" for some far-out new way of thinking lol

 

In other words, the realms after death are referenced as bardo, but they aren't the only bardo, so saying "the bardo" is a little misleading. I don't think tibetan has or commonly uses articles of speech like "the" so it was translated into english as "the" bardo but the exclusivity of "the", being that it is the one and only of its kind, is not part of the concept to the native tibetan mind. Perhaps it would have been more correct to say "a bardo", but in tibetan its just "bardo" so theres a language barrier to grasping it as a westerner inherent in using articles to label words versus writing and speaking in a more stripped down way, like tibetan does.

Thumbs up X 2!

[baiqi]

@ Tulku: prove me wrong.

[jacklantegi]

But then you are still desiring not to desire. How do you explain that ?

 

I have been reading up on the tibetan book of life and death.

 

The author states that upon death, a human being will encounter stages of bardo.

 

If your karma is good enough or if you have been doing enough spiritual work, your soul or consciousness would be attracted to the higher realms and even the buddhic or angelic realms if you have been doing enough spiritual work.

 

If your karma is bad or if you are too drawn to desires or hatred, then you will be drawn towards the lower realms where you will be reborn again.

 

The author states that if one does not wish to be reborn again in the lower realms including the human realms, then one should avoid any thoughts or feelings of desires and hatred/aversions after death and one should will his consciousness towards the extremely bright realms of angels and buddhas.

 

This is the main reason for renunciation and asceticism. To avoid being drawn again towards the lower realms after death.

 

How many of you wish to be reborn again in samsara? Again and again?

[jacklantegi]

As much as I am fascinated by Tibetan Buddhism. Their idea of the "6 realms" has always struck me as a more primitive pre-buddhist shamanic construct. It never made any sense to me at all. I take it all with a grain of salt.