How the Buddha became enlightened with the jhanas

[Jetsun]

How many hundreds of thousands of monks have tried that path and not reached enlightenment. Any method which tries to create a state is a conditioned contrivance and takes you away from where you are at, so as far as I can see it is a way to avoid enlightenment rather than gain it.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

...Any method which tries to create a state is a conditioned contrivance and takes you away from where you are at, so as far as I can see it is a way to avoid enlightenment rather than gain it.

What you're saying is true on a high level, but not practical for a lot of people. There is a big difference between genuine gnosis of the natural state in which nothing needs to be altered, and prematurely stating 'nothing needs to be altered, so I won't cultivate any factors of enlightenment', which is a mind-game leading nowhere.

 

As unenlightened people aren't actually exhibiting enlightened qualities, saying that those qualities are already full in the natural state doesn't help on a practical level - on the relative level, we DO definitely need to change our nature and cultivate qualities like samadhi. We shouldn't lose sight of the relative because of lofty absolute truths.

 

I appreciate what you're trying to say, but for a lot of people telling them to avoid contrived practices is telling them to destroy the boat before they're actually on the other shore.

[MooNiNite]

How many hundreds of thousands of monks have tried that path and not reached enlightenment. Any method which tries to create a state is a conditioned contrivance and takes you away from where you are at, so as far as I can see it is a way to avoid enlightenment rather than gain it.

 

depends how you meditate

 

also, side note, most of the monks i meet are lazy with their practices more religious than spiritual.

Edited August 31, 2014 by MooNiNite

[C T]

How many hundreds of thousands of monks have tried that path and not reached enlightenment. Any method which tries to create a state is a conditioned contrivance and takes you away from where you are at, so as far as I can see it is a way to avoid enlightenment rather than gain it.

Maybe they did not reach the particular kind of enlightenment that you think enlightenment is.

 

According to the teachings, a complete blowing out of attachment, grasping, aversive tendencies is enlightenment. I'd say a lot of monks have experienced this 'blowing out', or are aware in theory, at least, at some early part of their monkhood. However, as with most spiritual practitioners, some sustain it in mindfulness, some don't. Those who sustain it are no different from buddhas, and those who do not are no different form deluded mind. Monks and nuns are also human, with human conditionings.

 

mOst Everyone who has a routine spiritual practice get glimpses of enlightening moments all the time. Those are the 'blowing out' moments, similar to what is taught in Buddhist teachings. If these can be sustained all the time, then one is enlightened all the time. The principle behind this rationale is not difficult to understand, and neither is the practice. Yet, there are so many layers of conditioning that seem to distract us that makes remaining in mindfulness 24/7 all the more enticing. If we have this sort of mental view, then we have already given in to clinging. Its a very subtle balance one needs to keep. Thats where all the trainings and practices come in.

Edited August 31, 2014 by C T

[BaguaKicksAss]

You know, this is a Buddhist sub forum. Buddhists don't purify their organs, nor do they manipulate their chi. Buddhism teaches that nirvana and samsara are the same, both empty. The highest teaching in Buddhism does not direct energy internally or otherwise, for that is a creation of the mind hence subject to impermanence. Buddhism teaches non-grasping, emptiness, boddhicitta and NO MARKS. No labels, nothing to grasp and solidify...

 

Perhaps you could find a Taoist forum to post your dogma on?

 

This brings up my wondering of how Buddhist practitioners get rid of their internal crap? Or does it sort of just fall away naturally with the work and the non-being?

[BaguaKicksAss]

How many hundreds of thousands of monks have tried that path and not reached enlightenment. Any method which tries to create a state is a conditioned contrivance and takes you away from where you are at, so as far as I can see it is a way to avoid enlightenment rather than gain it.

 

What else do you feel is needed? Or are you meaning more that just random no-mind meditation doesn't cut it?

 

Personally I feel that how my brain works most of the time is a pretty conditioned contrivance! Meditation is sort of helping peel away some of that conditioning...

[C T]

This brings up my wondering of how Buddhist practitioners get rid of their internal crap? Or does it sort of just fall away naturally with the work and the non-being?

A Buddhist practitioner who completely embodies 'Non-self' does not see the self in the crap at all.

 

So, for example, instead of thinking, "I have a migraine", some might say, "There is this uncomfortable sensation at present." The approach is one of identification, in the former, and non-identification, in the latter. Watching habitual responses is also a key mechanism in Buddhist work -- Right concentration practiced correctly brings forth much clarity -- one comes to a realization that at any given point, one can perfectly choose how to respond to thoughts, and to external situations. Almost like in the final scenes of The Matrix, where Neo can see bullets flying at him in slow mo. With lots of meditative practice, we too can watch our thoughts like that. (at least in theory sounds really cool).

Edited August 31, 2014 by C T

[Jetsun]

What you're saying is true on a high level, but not practical for a lot of people. There is a big difference between genuine gnosis of the natural state in which nothing needs to be altered, and prematurely stating 'nothing needs to be altered, so I won't cultivate any factors of enlightenment', which is a mind-game leading nowhere.

 

As unenlightened people aren't actually exhibiting enlightened qualities, saying that those qualities are already full in the natural state doesn't help on a practical level - on the relative level, we DO definitely need to change our nature and cultivate qualities like samadhi. We shouldn't lose sight of the relative because of lofty absolute truths.

 

I appreciate what you're trying to say, but for a lot of people telling them to avoid contrived practices is telling them to destroy the boat before they're actually on the other shore.

 

It is only a belief that says that we must cultivate qualities and purify ourselves to attain enlightenment, but do we really know that it is true? The so called direct path is for anyone, it is also a belief that somehow it is only for advanced or special people, a belief which may not be true, it may just be more mind created barriers.

 

I think what I said is very practical, anything you contrive is going to take you away from where you are at and you can only see any sort of truth from being where you are at and standing in your own shoes, rather than trying to be somewhere else or trying to stand in someone elses shoes, pretty much all of life is geared at trying to be somewhere else than where you are so I don't think it helps for spiritual practice to continue this practice.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

This brings up my wondering of how Buddhist practitioners get rid of their internal crap? Or does it sort of just fall away naturally with the work and the non-being?

 

The internal crap can be calmed down by applying antidotes e.g. metta for hatred, it falls away entirely when insight takes away the delusion holding it up e.g. hatred relies on a view of self vs. other that the realisation of anatta takes away.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

 

It is only a belief that says that we must cultivate qualities and purify ourselves to attain enlightenment, but do we really know that it is true? The so called direct path is for anyone, it is also a belief that somehow it is only for advanced or special people, a belief which may not be true, it may just be more mind created barriers.

 

I think what I said is very practical, anything you contrive is going to take you away from where you are at and you can only see any sort of truth from being where you are at and standing in your own shoes, rather than trying to be somewhere else or trying to stand in someone elses shoes, pretty much all of life is geared at trying to be somewhere else than where you are so I don't think it helps for spiritual practice to continue this practice.

Again, I see what you're saying in a way. But based on what you are saying an enlightened person has no qualities different from an unenlightened one. Is every person you walk past on the street actually, practically enlightened, right now?

 

I'm guessing not, and a key question is 'why aren't they enlightened?'. If it's because they are contriving things and they need to stop doing that, how can they stop contriving?

 

Making the contrived decision 'I will not contrive anything anymore' is itself contrivance! Do you see the catch-22 with that? People can't just decide to drop the contrived crap. It has to happen out of gnosis, or it's just more contrivance, gold chain instead of rope.

 

Deciding to take no action and apply no effort is very different from wu wei. Ignoring the relative in favour of the absolute is a big mistake.

 

People can get to that gnosis through shamatha-vipashyana, through koan and zazen, and many other means. But non-meditation will only be real non-meditation rather than a pointless mind-game when it is from gnosis, rather than a contrived decision to not apply effort.

[Jetsun]

What else do you feel is needed? Or are you meaning more that just random no-mind meditation doesn't cut it?

 

Personally I feel that how my brain works most of the time is a pretty conditioned contrivance! Meditation is sort of helping peel away some of that conditioning...

 

All our brains are completely conditioned which is why our regular conditioned mind can't enlighten themselves, our ego's want to survive so I don't think it is possible for an ego to conduct activity which will lead to its own destruction, it is more likely to continually fool us and make us run around in circles for thousands of lifetimes.

 

Yet there is that which is unconditioned and always untouched by whatever drama the ego is creating, which is always already present, but the ego does its best to avoid us from noticing it, so the monks probably are not noticing that. Pretty much all of Zen is concerned with noticing that, the Jhanas and other temporary states are not considered important and can be a distraction in that path.

[C T]

A skilled meditator who has reached the point of 'blow out' or complete non-distraction is likened to a highly skilled surgeon. Life is our operating theatre. What we do in here, every move, is crucial. But most people don't see things this way because most people do not realise the urgency of spiritual cultivation, or loosely speaking, the urgency of meditative practices.

 

As for jhanas and siddhis and so on, some say these are adornments. If not careful, they can easily turn to clutter. Thats why some practitioners work with mandalas. Its practical because one gradually learns that everything has its place, that there can be a systematic design to bring order to one's life, and when there is order, there is beauty and clarity. Yet, at the same time, nothing can be clung to, as demonstrated by the creation of mandalas and at the end, the erasing of same.

 

At the innermost centre of the mandala is a dot, symbolizing that which is pure and uncreated, perfect union, or some would say limitless potential, the ideal state of being. This is the state of being that some get a taste of, due to their diligent spiritual work perhaps, or due to accidental discovery... this is like sudden enlightenment, but only in exceptional cases does it leave a permanent change in a person. I would not even call it sudden enlightenment because its too flimsy a term for me. Flimsy because it creates a dichotomous undertone.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

 

All our brains are completely conditioned which is why our regular conditioned mind can't enlighten themselves, our ego's want to survive so I don't think it is possible for an ego to conduct activity which will lead to its own destruction...

If the ego makes a contrived decision to stop contriving, is that really better? You are trying to get to a state beyond the ego by not acting from the ego. If someone lacks gnosis they can't do that as their only reference point is ego, and they will be holding on to concepts of what the absence of ego is.

 

If someone doesn't have actual gnosis, ALL decisions are contrived and tainted by ego. Both to conduct activity and to avoid activity.

 

So if the choice is between a contrived decision which leads nowhere because it's a catch-22 and a contrived decision which leads to gnosis from which uncontrived non-meditation spontaneously outflows, the latter is better.

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

This brings up my wondering of how Buddhist practitioners get rid of their internal crap? Or does it sort of just fall away naturally with the work and the non-being?

 

On the relative level, most all Buddhist schools practice ngondro as a form of purification and preliminary practice.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngöndro

Edited August 31, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[Tibetan_Ice]

[Jetsun]

Again, I see what you're saying in a way. But based on what you are saying an enlightened person has no qualities different from an unenlightened one. Is every person you walk past on the street actually, practically enlightened, right now?

 

I'm guessing not, and a key question is 'why aren't they enlightened?'. If it's because they are contriving things and they need to stop doing that, how can they stop contriving?

 

Making the contrived decision 'I will not contrive anything anymore' is itself contrivance! Do you see the catch-22 with that? People can't just decide to drop the contrived crap. It has to happen out of gnosis, or it's just more contrivance, gold chain instead of rope.

 

Deciding to take no action and apply no effort is very different from wu wei. Ignoring the relative in favour of the absolute is a big mistake.

 

People can get to that gnosis through shamatha-vipashyana, through koan and zazen, and many other means. But non-meditation will only be real non-meditation rather than a pointless mind-game when it is from gnosis, rather than a contrived decision to not apply effort.

 

Contriving to not apply effort is still a contrivance yes, but if you pursue this avenue with enough honesty in the end you end up at the place of "I don't know", do you know how to quiet the mind? I don't know, do you know how to get beyond thought to the natural state? I don't know, do you know what enlightenment is and how to get there? . Do you even honestly know who you are or what you are doing or why you do it?

 

That place of "I don't know" is ripe with possibility because it is the place where something can enter beyond mind imposed limitations, so it is where Prajna can enter, and it is the place the ego is most scared of so will do all it can to get you away from and fill with knowledge. My tip is rest in that place of not knowing for extend periods of time and see what happens and what emerges.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Jetsun

[MooNiNite]

If your meditation is letting go of your mind and resting in awareness it's not really a taking you anywhere but here. so this contrived state is really a state of "here." Following the mind could be considered more of a contrived state.

 

But if we consider the meditative state a contrived state. It would be a mistake to believe this worthless.

The Kundalini science that has been developed is not a sham. A consistent meditator will become well aware of their energy centers. As we become aware of energy centers of consciousness that become awakened one should be careful when calling this "contrived state" a worthless thing. On the contrary, sustaining the contrived state works to awaken energy centers and perminatize the contrived state. People who meditate consistently will become aware of these centers and how they amplify concentration and a release from the mind

Edited September 1, 2014 by MooNiNite

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[MooNiNite]

lol mantra isn't worthless :/

 

...............................................................................

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

Mantra stuff!

The worst waste of precious time for useless mumbo-jumbo possible!

Sitting down in front of a TV and masturbating to "Wonder Woman" will cause more spiritual growth that this!

 

 

You've just insulted me (5 years mantra practice), most of the non-Norbu Buddhists, countless Hindus and anyone whom prays. What a go! And you did that all on your own too! Edited September 1, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[BaguaKicksAss]

Have you tried mantra yourself for many sessions and found it to not work?

 

I find it can work really really well depending on the mantra. Well actually those particular experiments were likely combined with mudras too. I personally wouldn't want a practice of only mantra though, but not due to effectiveness or not.

[MooNiNite]

What useful effect should reciting Mantras have and why?

(...besides what Tibetan_Ice will answer soon: "Because it is written in book XY / claimed by Guru XY / claimed by Buddha!")

 

Well at a very basic understanding the vibrations at certain specific point of the body can dissolve energy blockages.

 

But i think i can understand where your coming from, there are a lot of religious mantras which probably wont lead to enlightenment, but I have no experience with this type.

Edited September 1, 2014 by MooNiNite