Misguided views about Enlightenment

[3bob]

Stosh, If you are interested that is not it per the Upanishads.

[Stosh]

Stosh, If you are interested that is not it per the Upanishads.

I am if you can give me the short of it, though I admit, I am not trying to explain anyone elses worldview.just my own, and how it makes sense to me.

Nor would I want to burden you if it took a lot of work ,since I am rather stubborn and dont want to send you on a perhAps fruitless task.

But I really would like your synopsis....if you are offering them ,rather than a redirect.

A quick googling does seem to show some potential analogy to Brahman-Atman and conflict with a universe capable of change. So I agree youd be correct that I am not on the same page as the Upanishads generally speaking.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Stosh

[3bob]

Well Stosh thanks for sharing your flexible openness in #27.  There is an old translation from part of the Chandogya Upanishad that I've posted before and will post again below, I feel it points to the crux of the matter of us not being dependent on just an arrangement of atoms (either by ego manipulation or by chance) that come and go....

 

Chandogya Upanishad, 8th PRAPÂTHAKA 1st KHANDA:

 

"1. Harih, Om. There is this city of Brahman (the body), and in it the palace, the small lotus (of
the heart), and in it that small ether. Now what exists within that small ether, that is to be sought for, that is to be understood.

 

2. And if they should say to him: 'Now with regard to that city of Brahman, and the palace in it, i. e. the small lotus of the heart, and the small ether within the heart, what is there within it that deserves to be sought for, or that is to be understood?'

 

3. Then he should say: 'As large as this ether (all space) is, so large is that ether within the heart. Both heaven and earth are contained within it, both fire and air, both sun and moon, both lightning and stars; and whatever there is of him (the Self) here in the world, and whatever is not (i. e. whatever has been or will be), all that is contained within it.'

 

4. And if they should say to him: 'If everything that exists is contained in that city of Brahman, all beings and all desires (whatever can be imagined or desired), then what is left of it, when old age reaches it and scatters it, or when it falls to pieces?'

 

5. Then he should say: 'By the old age of the body, that (the ether, or Brahman within it) does not age; by the death of the body, that (the ether, or Brahman within it) is not killed. That (the Brahman)
is the true Brahma-city (not the body 1). In it all desires are contained. It is the Self, free from sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, which desires nothing but what it ought to desire, and imagines nothing but what it ought to imagine. Now as here on earth people follow as they are commanded, and depend on the object which they are attached to, be it a country or a piece of land,

 

6. 'And as here on earth, whatever has been acquired by exertion, perishes, so perishes whatever is acquired for the next world by sacrifices and other good actions performed on earth. Those who depart from hence without having discovered the Self and those true desires, for them there is no freedom in all the worlds. But those who depart from hence, after having discovered the Self and those true desires, for them there is freedom in all the worlds.

Edited March 20, 2015 by 3bob

[Stosh]

Well Stosh thanks for sharing your flexible openness in #27.  There is an old translation from part of the Chandogya Upanishad that I've posted before and will post again below, I feel it points to the crux of the matter of us not being dependent on just an arrangement of atoms (either by ego manipulation or by chance) that come and go....

 

Chandogya Upanishad, 8th PRAPÂTHAKA 1st KHANDA:

 

"1. Harih, Om. There is this city of Brahman (the body), and in it the palace, the small lotus (of

the heart), and in it that small ether. Now what exists within that small ether, that is to be sought for, that is to be understood.

 

2. And if they should say to him: 'Now with regard to that city of Brahman, and the palace in it, i. e. the small lotus of the heart, and the small ether within the heart, what is there within it that deserves to be sought for, or that is to be understood?'

 

3. Then he should say: 'As large as this ether (all space) is, so large is that ether within the heart. Both heaven and earth are contained within it, both fire and air, both sun and moon, both lightning and stars; and whatever there is of him (the Self) here in the world, and whatever is not (i. e. whatever has been or will be), all that is contained within it.'

 

4. And if they should say to him: 'If everything that exists is contained in that city of Brahman, all beings and all desires (whatever can be imagined or desired), then what is left of it, when old age reaches it and scatters it, or when it falls to pieces?'

 

5. Then he should say: 'By the old age of the body, that (the ether, or Brahman within it) does not age; by the death of the body, that (the ether, or Brahman within it) is not killed. That (the Brahman)

is the true Brahma-city (not the body 1). In it all desires are contained. It is the Self, free from sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, which desires nothing but what it ought to desire, and imagines nothing but what it ought to imagine. Now as here on earth people follow as they are commanded, and depend on the object which they are attached to, be it a country or a piece of land,

 

6. 'And as here on earth, whatever has been acquired by exertion, perishes, so perishes whatever is acquired for the next world by sacrifices and other good actions performed on earth. Those who depart from hence without having discovered the Self and those true desires, for them there is no freedom in all the worlds. But those who depart from hence, after having discovered the Self and those true desires, for them there is freedom in all the worlds.

This seems really rather supportive of my post to me...  Are we disagreeing?

The body decays , Brahma returns to its true realm,

having been requiring of the body to be manifest 'depending on the object to which it is  attached' para 5  but its not extinguished. 

The self we think we are , subject to death , sin , old age, grief, and desires - is of the body ,, and the 'divine' ether is the greater self. 

The good actions etc bringing to us the experience of the Brahma state , makes us essentially one with it, and we then are freed in all the worlds.

The body is transient , required for manifestation  but is or can be  transcended. 

Its lovely. 

 

If I do disagree with any of this tradition, I'm thinking it lies elsewhere.

If you are really just correcting my inclusion of awareness as being gross , about halfway down in post 25... I stand corrected , I was associating the manifest aspect of awareness, not the larger principle of -or Brahman and didn't communicate that.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Stosh

[9th]

[3bob]

Well I'd say it sounds like there are some conceptual if's, and's or but's in play or pending in comparisons of what you said in posts #25 and #29, some of which you have more or less addressed in your reflections on, "halfway down in post 25".

 

Further, and for instance about some possible "if's, and's or but's" from my take:

1. Brahman never really leaves or goes anywhere. (with such only being apparent)

2. Also a body does not manifest without Brahman, thus I'd say a two way street connotation may give a better idea.

3. Good karma brings us to a good karmic state, but not enough to realize Brahman realizing Brahman.

4. Brahman is not exactly another experience (among countless others) of a someone experiencing it,  or even of the fine feeling of two being as one.

 

5. In regards to the excerpt below from your earlier post:  A. Brahman is the truest definition of us.  B. In the awareness of (A.) we are eternal. C. The past and future really only exist now, for only an identification in time and space make such appear as so.  D. Brahman identity is specifically universal, eternal and constant regardless of formations of various atoms.

 

"Since there is no specific constant  material THING that defines one of us, our awareness and Identity is a circumstance of atoms that happen to be in a localized area , we are impermanent .... merely a continuation of past through to future of a pattern -called a body. Our awareness is simply a principle brought into being by the proximity of certain groupings of atoms. Thats IT ! simple fact"  By Stosh

 

Om

Edited March 20, 2015 by 3bob

[Stosh]

Well I'd say it sounds like there are some conceptual if's, and's or but's in play or pending in comparisons of what you said in posts #25 and #29, some of which you have more or less addressed in your reflections on, "halfway down in post 25".

 

Further, and for instance about some possible "if's, and's or but's" from my take:

1. Brahman never really leaves or goes anywhere. (with such only being apparent)

2. Also a body does not manifest without Brahman, thus I'd say a two way street connotation may give a better idea.

3. Good karma brings us to a good karmic state, but not enough to realize Brahman realizing Brahman.

4. Brahman is not exactly another experience (among countless others) of a someone experiencing it,  or even of the fine feeling of two being as one.

 

5. In regards to the excerpt below from your earlier post:  A. Brahman is the truest definition of us.  B. In the awareness of (A.) we are eternal. C. The past and future really only exist now, for only an identification in time and space make such appear as so.  D. Brahman identity is specifically universal, eternal and constant regardless of formations of various atoms.

 

"Since there is no specific constant  material THING that defines one of us, our awareness and Identity is a circumstance of atoms that happen to be in a localized area , we are impermanent .... merely a continuation of past through to future of a pattern -called a body. Our awareness is simply a principle brought into being by the proximity of certain groupings of atoms. Thats IT ! simple fact"  By Stosh

 

Om

Well we ain't as far apart as we might be, nor match as close as two could hope. Maybe some time will change that. 

Thanks for the input so far.

[Bearded Dragon]

Person wants A

Person gets B

Person doesn't mind

 

Don't over-complicate being free from ego. Its function is valid. Just let it be.

 

In terms of the topic of the thread, any concept of enlightenment is clinging to the effects of becoming free and not actually the essence of what you're after. Misguided views are views themselves.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Bearded Dragon

[C T]

 

Person wants A

Person gets B

Person doesn't mind

 

Don't over-complicate being free from ego. Its function is valid. Just let it be.

 

In terms of the topic of the thread, any concept on misguided views on enlightenment is itself misguided. Enlightenment is no different to any other faith-based activity such as the practice of Christianity. It's trash. You could say you're just finding who you are, which is a vastly different concept in relation placing obstacles in front of yourself. Even that is probably too much. If the time comes when you get the 'fireworks' that is talked about, can you ignore it as just another manifestation?

Equating the notion of enlightenment to fireworks validates your opinion entirely. 

Edited March 21, 2015 by C T

[the1gza]

And thus more philosophy on, essentially, nothing. Isn't it quite antithetical to even try to conceptualize enlightenment in the first place, or what it "is" or "isn't"? I haven't actually said that it is not what is implied, but rather that this conceptualization is in itself egotistical? Does Brahman or whatever a person may call it confineable to a logic form, which cannot be entirely said to be "logic" itself (logic is simply a means of organizing data, and we use a "duality"-based logic in the normal human world)? This is what I mean by ego, we can talk about a world without ego or looking, and yet we are using modes of thinking that are framed by the ego. I'm not saying that it is wrong or impossible to do so, but can't we see how rather oxymoronic it is to use ego-based language and knowledge forms to address ideals that are supposed to be free of it?

 

Again, I personally have no problem with ego, and I honestly feel that the created ego form that we use here is so tight on people, that they believe they transcended ego once they get to see beyond this tiny bandwidth. Hell, most people don't even think a person like me can exist simply because I am black, "Jewish"-raised from a black, Hebrew family, vegetarian-raised, academically "gifted", and because I never wore "thuggish" clothing. Most ego frames couldn't even accept someone like that existing on Earth, so if a guy like me can rattle an ego, how locked does the average person have to be into this ego-form if they can't even accept something like that? And how would a person react if they truly released the chains on the form? 

 

But that's not even the point, it's more so that this entire line of conversation, from the perspectives for ego and for those who favor "transcending" ego... it's all been extremely egotistical. There's honestly nothing wrong with that, but all this stuff is being explained from a base that is centered in thinking that comes from ego. "This is what enlightenment is"... the need to define is an ego-based happening, the need to identify. So that's all I'm saying here; it's just pretty goofy to try and speak about transcending ego using ego-based modes of orienting to reality. Ego is based on identification, and if a person is constantly trying to create a defining identity for something, then they are working from an ego-base. Even if the person is "enlightened" (and I honestly can't say that some ancient scholar was enlightened just because they wrote something on it or claimed enlightenment), if that person is moving to create an identifying mark for something, attempting to explain it, then that person is using ego-based modes of operation to do so. Rather that, or that person is spitting words that have a far different connotation to him than to someone who doesn't have that. Either way, what we are spitting is ego-based.

[9th]

Bodhi (Sanskrit: बोधि; and Pali) in Buddhism is the understanding possessed by a Buddha regarding the true nature of things. It is traditionally translated into English with the word enlightenment and literally means awakened. (The verbal root "budh" means to awaken.) Bodhi is knowledge of the causal mechanism by which beings incarnate into material form and experience suffering. Although its most common usage is in the context of Buddhism, bodhi is also present as a concept in other Indian philosophies and traditions.

 

The term bodhi acquired a variety of meanings and connotations during the development of Buddhist thoughts in the various schools.

In early Buddhism, bodhi carried a meaning synonymous to nirvana, using only some different metaphors to describe the insight, which implied the extinction of lobha (greed),dosa (hate) and moha (delusion). In Theravada Buddhism, bodhi and nirvana carry the same meaning, that of being freed from greed, hate and delusion. In Mahayana-thought, bodhi is the realisation of the inseparability of samsara and nirvana,^[15] and the unity of subject and object.^[15] It is similar to prajna, to realizing the Buddha-nature, realizing sunyata and realizing suchness.^[15]

Mahayana discerns three forms of bodhi:^[16]

1. Arahat - Liberation for oneself;^[a]
2. Bodhisattva - Liberation for living beings;
3. Full Buddhahood.

Within the various Mahayana-schools exist various further explanations and interpretations.^[15]

In the Tathagatagarbha and Buddha-nature doctrines bodhi becomes equivalent to the universal, natural and pure state of the mind:

Bodhi

 is the final goal of a Bodhisattva's career [...] 

Bodhi

 is pure universal and immediate knowledge, which extends over all time, all universes, all beings and elements, conditioned and unconditioned. It is absolute and identical with Reality and thus it is 

Tathata

. 

Bodhi

 is immaculate and non-conceptual, and it, being not an outer object, cannot be understood by discursive thought. It has neither beginning, nor middle nor end and it is indivisible. It is non-dual (

advayam

) [...] The only possible way to comprehend it is through 

samadhi

 by the yogin.

[17]

According to these doctrines bodhi is always there within one's mind, but requires the defilements to be removed. This vision is expounded in texts such as the Shurangama Sutraand the Uttaratantra.

In Shingon Buddhism, the state of Bodhi is also seen as naturally inherent in the mind. It is the mind's natural and pure state, where no distinction is being made between a perceiving subject and perceived objects. This is also the understanding of Bodhi found in Yogacara Buddhism and the mind's natural and pure state as in Dzogchen.

To achieve this vision of non-duality, it is necessary to recognise one's own mind:

 

... it means that you are to know the inherent natural state of the mind by eliminating the split into a perceiving subject and perceived objects which normally occurs in the world and is wrongly thought to be real. This also corresponds to the Yogacara definition ... that emptiness (

sunyata

) is the absence of this imaginary split

[18]

  During the development of Mahayana Buddhism the various strands of thought on Bodhi were continuously being elaborated. Attempts were made to harmonize the various terms. The Buddhist commentator Buddhaguhya treats various terms as synonyms:

 

For example, he defines emptiness (

sunyata

) as suchness (

tathata

) and says that suchness is the intrinsic nature (

svabhava

) of the mind which is Enlightenment (

bodhi-citta

). Moreover, he frequently uses the terms suchness (

tathata

) and Suchness-Awareness (

tathata-jnana

) interchangeably. But since Awareness (

jnana

) is non-dual, Suchness-Awareness is not so much the Awareness of Suchness, but the Awareness which 

is

 Suchness. In other words, the term Suchness-Awareness is functionally equivalent to Enlightenment. Finally, it must not be forgotten that this Suchness-Awareness or Perfect Enlightenment 

is

 Mahavairocana [the Primal Buddha, uncreated and forever existent]. In other words, the mind in its intrinsic nature is Mahavairocana, whom one "becomes" (or vice versa) when one is perfectly enlightened.

[18]

[3bob]

.

Edited March 22, 2015 by 3bob