Do (all) enlightened masters agree on any one single thing?

[s1va]

For the sake of this post, let's assume starting from (before) Lao Tzu, Buddha, Adi Shankara, other prophets..... to ... Ramana Maharishi......  to ............. today (those that say they are enlightened) and have a huge following, that give lecture, have written books or scriptures (were written later based on their teachings), are all enlightened.

 

Now that we made that assumption, do all these enlightened masters agree on any one single thing?  If so, what is it?

 

Some say world is illusion and just like bubbles, some other say yeah it's illusion but there is one truth behind it, some say no it's no illusion, it is very real, there are many things, only this moment is true......  

Pray to one God, many Gods, don't pray to God, Just be, accept, surrender, observe, live in the present, knock and it will be opened, be still and know who you are....

- we reincarnate, all is per karma, some don't agree or the karma or reincarnation topic is not even worth talking about.....

- do practices, yoga, alchemy,  do self enquiry -- don't do any of these, they are all useless. 

Many say there is no suffering after enlightenment.  There is no unanimous agreement on this also.

 

If the enlightenment is the same state that all of them attained, then how come they all don't agree on any single thing?  If I ask this question,  then I am told, "This state can not be described by words neither can it be taught to anyone."  

 

Then why did all of these people give lecture about enlightenment, or life.  If none of them can describe or communicate it, what is the point of all these lectures, teachings and books?

Edited March 24, 2017 by kāvēri

[thelerner]

All those masters had something, why not call it enlightenment.  A spirituality beyond what we have.  Probably far beyond.  Kinda like they've climbed a mountain and they're reporting back their view.  Often the path they've taken is steeped in there culture and lineage.  Different sides of the mountain have different terrains and views. 

 

I think at the very top, you just smile, no dogma, just breath, sun, and oneness.

Til its time to get to work, then you come down and seem a wise fool.

[dwai]

Don't know about prophets, but sages like Lao Tzu, The Buddha, Adi Shankaracharya, Ramana Maharshi all spoke of the same thing, in different words. That, knowing which one can be considered to be enlightened, is indescribable and ineffable. So the words they used to articulate it could be in terms of "Neti Neti" (Not this, not that) or in terms of Silence or in terms that can be considered world-negating - "All this is unreal, only That is real" or in terms that are world affirming - "All this is real, but just a projection of That absolute reality".

 

The Buddhist approach is "Neti Neti" -- "That is neither this, nor that...neither existent, nor non-existent". There is no absolute "being". 

The Daoist approach is, That is the "mother", and from it rises all creation, but the Dao is not a being, as it is beyond being and non-being. 

The Advaita Vedantic approach is,  That is the "source and ground" and all of creation is just appearances of modifications of that, arising and falling away in that". That is the ultimate reality and everything is just an appearance. 

 

All three are just perspectives which are equally valid and just different ways to get to the same essential understanding.

[MIchael80]

The Thing to understand about awake or enlightened states is that they are not fixed but can be fixed by the Person (or in traditions where one aspect of the enlightened state is "the Goal") and then Evolution stops.

These states evolve further and further if one does not come under the Impression that "one is done" (which feels like one is done, there is no further at certain stages.....but when one does not cling to that Notion it goes on).

There is huge Evolution in consciousness and later even beyond consciousness.

It also has to do with how much Clearing one allows how everything is perceived (World as ilusion or world as divine Play or world as self).

 

Awakening does not mature the personality. It has a certain maturing effect but the real maturation Comes from fully Feelings ones dark side/suppressed stuff (there is a LOT!! of it). So you have indivduals who do experience an enligtened state and tell the audience about how there is no Problem and then run to an psychologist because they have Problems with their wife or daughter.

A lot of These awake individuals are pretty closed minded in that the see only value in how it has happened for them and other experiences are often discarded.

 

One of the best texts about Evolution beyond the first awakeing is the following: davidya.ca/2014/01/25/stages-of-development-in-consciousness

 

hope this is useful

best

Michael

Edited March 24, 2017 by MIchael80

[s1va]

This post is not about one particular set of masters.  The key word is "All" agree on any one particular thing.  It can't be abstract.  We can't pick from the list certain people, such as, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Shankara, Ramana Maharishi.  Yes,  I agree these teacher's had something in common, though a very valid argument can be made, each one of their teaching is entirely different.  Right here in the forums, some (or many) may not agree that Lao Tzu, Buddha, Shankara and Ramana Maharishi's teaching had much in common.  

(Buddha and Shankara -- I don't even want to get into that...)

 

Let's take Jiddu Krishnamurti, he is recognized as enlightened by even those, who don't agree with anything he stated.  Can we say his commentaries tally with that of others in anyway?  In a way, it looked like, he ridiculed many of the other teachings (His intent clearly was not to ridicule, he just made it amply clear that he doesn't agree with any of those views)

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can't believe, I forgot to add myself to that list.  

FYI: I am Enlightened! (I just don't know it yet....)

Edited March 24, 2017 by kāvēri

[Jeff]

I think this a very challenging topic as they all don't say the same thing. Additionally, with the different things they say, their definitions of enlightenment are all very different. If you want to define the word enlightenment, you need to pick a tradition and it's framework.

[Miffymog]

My current place is that because the mind is always moving there are no absolutes or certainties. I don't know, but I reckon even for enlightened people, their minds are always in motion and changing too. This means that maybe its slightly unnatural to agree on any one thing.

 

--------

 

The thing is, as soon as you try to discuss it / enlightenment, you step outside of what 'it' is. However, there are 'skillful' and 'less skillful' mental attitudes you can have. I reckon that different masters could possibly come to some agreement as to what these are. But then again, maybe not ... 

[thelerner]

When a few of top guys say the same thing, though, I listen pretty closely.  Especially when you see the same recommendation and similar practices across different cultures. 

 

 

 

addon> I've always assumed Jiddu Krishnamurti is what happens when a cantankerous old man gets awakened. 

They become-- 'a grumpy cantankerous guy who's enlightened' .

[rene]

It might be that all agree that: Words alone can not convey; words can get in the way - when given more weight than is warranted.

 

All the doctrines, words, paths, even ideas - are still just various fingers pointing at the same moon.

 

We can all point, and say "Look! Look!" - but that's where the ability to convey ends. You either see it, or you dont.

 

Of course, it's fun sometimes to try to convey, in this manner or that, and who knows what may or may not trigger the 'moon to come out' for somebody! All the while knowing, nothing will blow the clouds away for someone else with, or without, words.

 

warmest regards

[s1va]

So you have indivduals who do experience an enligtened state and tell the audience about how there is no Problem and then run to an psychologist because they have Problems with their wife or daughter.

 

 

Can't help but laugh, but so ironic. ( "run to psychologist because they have Problems with their wife or daughter"   )

Edited March 24, 2017 by kāvēri

[s1va]

I think this a very challenging topic as they all don't say the same thing. Additionally, with the different things they say, their definitions of enlightenment are all very different. If you want to define the word enlightenment, you need to pick a tradition and it's framework.

That is quite honest and sounds reasonable.

 

Unfortunately, most of the enlightened masters may not agree with it.

Edited March 24, 2017 by kāvēri

[Protector]

Who cares what they think or what words they use, the only thing that matters is what evidence they have.

If you ask me, there really is one thing that they would all agree on.

They would agree on being enlightened, but just because they think that, it doesn't mean that they are right. hehe

[s1va]

It might be that all agree that: Words alone can not convey; words can get in the way - when given more weight than is warranted.

 

 

What you stated and the way you stated it is beautiful.  Thanks.

 

The question from the post, still remains.  Why use words when they cannot convey.   

 

Why bother to even mention, they are enlightened?  Why talk about suffering and coming out of it, freedom, acceptance, liberation, etc.?  Those words or the subsequent one's are clearly not going to help.  

 

Why not just talk about what is for lunch and dinner, and leave the enlightenment topic alone.  It can't be described.

[dwai]

What you stated and the way you stated it is beautiful.  Thanks.

 

The question from the post, still remains.  Why use words when they cannot convey.   

 

Why bother to even mention, they are enlightened?  Why talk about suffering and coming out of it, freedom, acceptance, liberation, etc.?  Those words or the subsequent one's are clearly not going to help.  

 

Why not just talk about what is for lunch and dinner, and leave the enlightenment topic alone.  It can't be described.

 

Most of these sages don't say they are enlightened. They don't hold positions. They are free from labels and categories. They just say what the need arises for - they don't speak with their minds and intellects, they are beyond those.

 

If we approach their words from the realm of mind, they seem contradictory. We have to approach from beyond-mind or no-mind, to understand.

I'd recommend listening to the Ashtavakra Samhita talk I posted in the Hindu sub-forum...that'll help clear some things up (or make them more muddy for many...but that is par for the course).

[wstein]

First, there are not complete works that cover all topics for every 'enlightened master'. As such the best one can say without also being an enlightened master is if there are any things that are covered by many of the works we do have that are not contradicted by the works of another master. Even so , we don't know how accurately what is recorded reflects what those masters actually taught.

 

I suggest a few truths that might qualify:

-Self awareness leads to a better quality of life

-Your state of being affects how you act and respond to the world

-You are not your body

-Human beings are a single species

-Words can not convey the 'deeper mysteries'

-One is not limited to their physical capabilites

-All life is connected

[Protector]

Most of these sages don't say they are enlightened. They don't hold positions. They are free from labels and categories. They just say what the need arises for - they don't speak with their minds and intellects, they are beyond those.

 

If we approach their words from the realm of mind, they seem contradictory. We have to approach from beyond-mind or no-mind, to understand.

I'd recommend listening to the Ashtavakra Samhita talk I posted in the Hindu sub-forum...that'll help clear some things up (or make them more muddy for many...but that is par for the course).

 

Maybe these who assume them to be enlightened are the wrong ones 

[rene]

What you stated and the way you stated it is beautiful. Thanks.

 

The question from the post, still remains. Why use words when they cannot convey.

 

Why bother to even mention, they are enlightened? Why talk about suffering and coming out of it, freedom, acceptance, liberation, etc.? Those words or the subsequent one's are clearly not going to help.

 

Why not just talk about what is for lunch and dinner, and leave the enlightenment topic alone. It can't be described.

Folks have their own reasons, yes? It may be that some want to help others & hope that something will work...or it might be only for profit; who knows?

 

For me, there is no compulsion to blow away the clouds, one way or the other.

 

It is fun, though, with they who already have the moon, to share words that convey so much more... so very much more. (-:

 

warm regards

[flowing hands]

I have grave doubts whether any of them are truly enlightened!

[dwai]

Maybe these who assume them to be enlightened are the wrong ones 

 

What is "enlightenment" in the first place?

I'd rather be truly free

[3bob]

 Many do not agree.  Which is one reason why Buddhist Lama's and Hindu Sat Guru's seldom if ever get together for a tofu cook-out - they are 180 degrees off in certain key teachings and or doctrine although they tend to be polite about it, or never really say anything about it while sticking to their own system, group, or sect.  (and traditions)

Edited March 24, 2017 by 3bob

[rene]

I have grave doubts whether any of them are truly enlightened!

No reason for doubts (grave or otherwise), imo, since it's pretty easy to tell - by what comes through the words.

[Starjumper]

Why talk about suffering and coming out of it, freedom, acceptance, liberation, etc.?  Those words or the subsequent one's are clearly not going to help.  

 

 

They can help if they are used to motivate people to meditate,

[Protector]

What is "enlightenment" in the first place?

I'd rather be truly free

 

hohohoo, I hear that truth will set you free

But, what is enlightenment, indeed? Maybe it was a made up concept all along and not something that can be achieved.

Something that people from stories can achieve but normal people can't.

What if you met someone whom you thought to be an enlightened master but you made a mistake. Without knowing the truth you went ahead with their practice. You wanted an enlightened master and you made one yourself in their image. You wanted to do this yourself and it was your choice to go along with them.

But is there really freedom in a delusion like that? How much time would you waste on them until you realize something? What if the right person was someone else but you couldn't tell the difference? How should masters be judged? What is the test to to find one? 

There are so many thing protecting phonies that are taken for granted. The are so powerful, but they're too humble to show their power. They are unique, but they don't stand out. They have knowledge they want to share, but they seclude themselves. I'm basically describing mo pai, but everyone is tired of talking about that lol

But better than defense, they have the best offence.

Imagine this, you're walking on the streets in India and you see a half-naked old man sitting by the side of the road. You see him there every day and you conclude that he has nowhere else to go. Maybe he is homeless and really has nothing. But if he has nothing, then why does he look happy every time you see him? Maybe he has something that makes him happy. If he really has nothing, than that something isn't material. He can be happy with nothing but you can be happy while having something. Being in India also fits the enlightened stereotype.

And just like that you must know his secret.

This is the fun part, you ask him and he teaches you. If he is a fraud, he might take something from you and leave. You are confident that you can catch him if that happens. But what if you never catch him and you take his place as the half-naked old man on the side of the road? What if you sit there and never in your life know that you've been scammed? What if someone approaches you like you once did and that person takes your place? What if that cycle continues until someone catches one of the old men and exposes the fraud?

The fraud is real, but the person performing it doesn't know it. Thus we have 3 types of master: True enlightened one, Fraud one, and The Victim.

The victim is way scarier than the fraud, he has the technique with no results but it creates dedication in the person doing it to keep doing it. There are so many practices flying all over the forum but can you be sure most of them are real? What if you already taught someone something that is not real? I have a few suspicions here and there but I don't want to move without knowing the truth.

What is fake and what is the truth?

Truth is the most important thing, but the masters can only reveal it in prose and weird double talk. What they say has two meaning and maybe more. It's not their job to reveal it, but for us to find it. All they can do is point the finger in the right direction, then it's our job to begin the journey and earn the truth ourselves. What if we are pointed in the wrong direction but find the right answer? It's right because we worked so hard to find it and it feels so good to finally have it. It's all worth it even if we were pointed into the abyss. We're falling to our death but it's still true. Other people don't understand it because they haven't been through what we've been. If only we haven't took the journey we would have known that this is death. If it wasn't us, then it would be them falling. But we're no different from them, everyone thinks they're special and would never be caught by the old man.

But he's still there.

BEWAAAAAAAAAAARE!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

just sayin 

[dwai]

hohohoo, I hear that truth will set you free

But, what is enlightenment, indeed? Maybe it was a made up concept all along and not something that can be achieved.

Something that people from stories can achieve but normal people can't.

What if you met someone whom you thought to be an enlightened master but you made a mistake. Without knowing the truth you went ahead with their practice. You wanted an enlightened master and you made one yourself in their image. You wanted to do this yourself and it was your choice to go along with them.

But is there really freedom in a delusion like that? How much time would you waste on them until you realize something? What if the right person was someone else but you couldn't tell the difference? How should masters be judged? What is the test to to find one? 

There are so many thing protecting phonies that are taken for granted. The are so powerful, but they're too humble to show their power. They are unique, but they don't stand out. They have knowledge they want to share, but they seclude themselves. I'm basically describing mo pai, but everyone is tired of talking about that lol

But better than defense, they have the best offence.

Imagine this, you're walking on the streets in India and you see a half-naked old man sitting by the side of the road. You see him there every day and you conclude that he has nowhere else to go. Maybe he is homeless and really has nothing. But if he has nothing, then why does he look happy every time you see him? Maybe he has something that makes him happy. If he really has nothing, than that something isn't material. He can be happy with nothing but you can be happy while having something. Being in India also fits the enlightened stereotype.

And just like that you must know his secret.

This is the fun part, you ask him and he teaches you. If he is a fraud, he might take something from you and leave. You are confident that you can catch him if that happens. But what if you never catch him and you take his place as the half-naked old man on the side of the road? What if you sit there and never in your life know that you've been scammed? What if someone approaches you like you once did and that person takes your place? What if that cycle continues until someone catches one of the old men and exposes the fraud?

The fraud is real, but the person performing it doesn't know it. Thus we have 3 types of master: True enlightened one, Fraud one, and The Victim.

The victim is way scarier than the fraud, he has the technique with no results but it creates dedication in the person doing it to keep doing it. There are so many practices flying all over the forum but can you be sure most of them are real? What if you already taught someone something that is not real? I have a few suspicions here and there but I don't want to move without knowing the truth.

What is fake and what is the truth?

Truth is the most important thing, but the masters can only reveal it in prose and weird double talk. What they say has two meaning and maybe more. It's not their job to reveal it, but for us to find it. All they can do is point the finger in the right direction, then it's our job to begin the journey and earn the truth ourselves. What if we are pointed in the wrong direction but find the right answer? It's right because we worked so hard to find it and it feels so good to finally have it. It's all worth it even if we were pointed into the abyss. We're falling to our death but it's still true. Other people don't understand it because they haven't been through what we've been. If only we haven't took the journey we would have known that this is death. If it wasn't us, then it would be them falling. But we're no different from them, everyone thinks they're special and would never be caught by the old man.

But he's still there.

BEWAAAAAAAAAAARE!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

just sayin 

 

There are indeed a few who can light the spark in you. But really being free is a personal choice. You can choose to stick to your mind/body oriented habits or choose to disassociate from them. Really it is that simple...stop taking your mind-chatter and body-sensations to be who you are. As you are not. Then we are getting somewhere.

 

Sometimes "masters" talk and it seems like double talk. But it is not. Other times it is. Sometimes it simultaneously seems like truth and bullshit. It depends on who is listening.

 

We each decide based on our intelligence and cultural background what works for us, what makes sense to us, etc etc.

This easy path is not that easy...until it becomes easy.

[MooNiNite]

The definition of enlightenment isn't even clear, let alone what a group of people in this "category" would agree on.