Enlightenment - what is it?

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

tough cookies....

 

fine.  ~grumpy-face~

 

[old3bob]

3 hours ago, dwai said:

Enlightenment is the realization that YOU are THAT (existence, consciousness, completeness). You have *never not been that*. 

Moreover, the entire world of diversity is nothing apart from your Self. 

 

and there is also that beyond Sat-chit-ananda (aka as para-shakti) which in some Saivite schools is called Para-siva )   "Parashiva is the highest aspect of Shiva in Shaiva Siddhanta and in Kashmir Shaivism. Below him are the primordial Shiva with the Parashakti and Sadashiva "

 

People also ask

Edited July 17 by old3bob

[dwai]

56 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

and there is also that beyond Sat-chit-ananda (aka as para-shakti) which in some Saivite schools is called Para-siva )   "Parashiva is the highest aspect of Shiva in Shaiva Siddhanta and in Kashmir Shaivism. Below him are the primordial Shiva with the Parashakti and Sadashiva "

 

People also ask

Nice

Who is this "him"? is it separate from the Self?

[old3bob]

2 hours ago, dwai said:

Nice

Who is this "him"? is it separate from the Self?

 

Lord Brahma is a long lived "him" as you well know, while Para-siva is beyond categories and pronouns which are only for conventual like dialogue  which I'm also pretty sure you well know,  as for the jokers who knows. 

 

Anyway kind of along the lines of: "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth. The named is the mother of the ten thousand things"..... Yet the word "Tao" is still used for or in conventual like conversation or dialogue

Edited July 18 by old3bob

[Tommy]

20 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

I believe life is an illusion, but not for the same reason. I believe consciousness is eternal, and that the material is a construct of the mental. But sure, this is just my personal belief.

Isn't believing consciousness is eternal. And material is a construct of the mental? Isn't that a flip flop way of saying that life is an illusion because it is not permanent? Cause the mental construct is of this brief life? 6 of something or half a dozen of something? A rose is a rose by any other name? Just saying, ...

Edited July 18 by Tommy

[Tommy]

On 7/16/2024 at 7:42 AM, NaturaNaturans said:

What term does east asians use for the concept?

The Japanese use terms like Satori and Kensho. Kensho is more a first experience and Satori is the on going process. Bodhi is also used. The Chinese tend to use the word Wu 悟. I do not know if one can take the denotation without the connotations that arises with it. Sort of saying Shaolin monk without thinking of Kung Fu. But, who am I to say such things?

[old3bob]

consider evolution to the non-evolutionary: 

 

"But consider the Tao, which transcends both finite and infinite.  Since the Tao is All and nothing lies outside it, since its multiplicity and unity are identical, when a finite being sheds the illusion of separate existence, he is not lost in the Tao like a dew-drop merging with the sea; by casting off his imaginary limitations, he becomes immeasurable.  No longer bound by the worldly categories, 'part' and 'whole', he discoveres that he is coextensive with the Tao.  Plunge the finite into the infinite and, though only one remains, the finite, far from being diminished, takes on the stature of infinity."  

 

"co-extensive", don't hear that term often
 

[dwai]

13 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

Lord Brahma is a long lived "him" as you well know, while Para-siva is beyond categories and pronouns which are only for conventual like dialogue  which I'm also pretty sure you well know,  as for the jokers who knows. 

 

Anyway kind of along the lines of: "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth. The named is the mother of the ten thousand things"..... Yet the word "Tao" is still used for or in conventual like conversation or dialogue

Mixing non-dual and dual like this is incorrect, IMHO. Kashmir Shaivism's goal is advaita, so we should consider all the text associated with it in that context. Individual deities all fall under the vyavaharika (transactional) reality category, though practitioners can perform practices like bhakti and tantras related to a deity to transcend the apparent duality. But that is applicable if your objective is a nondual realization.

[old3bob]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

Mixing non-dual and dual like this is incorrect, IMHO. Kashmir Shaivism's goal is advaita, so we should consider all the text associated with it in that context. Individual deities all fall under the vyavaharika (transactional) reality category, though practitioners can perform practices like bhakti and tantras related to a deity to transcend the apparent duality. But that is applicable if your objective is a nondual realization.

 

such a dichotomy does not really exist, except or only apparently.   "The Isha Upanishad — One of the most important phrases in this Upanishad is the teaching that we should, “see all beings in our self and our Self in all beings”"  which rejects neither in my interpretation of it.

 

one tree can be seen in the forest but there is also the forest to be seen....

 

Edited July 18 by old3bob

[dwai]

41 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

such a dichotomy does not really exist, except or only apparently.   "The Isha Upanishad — One of the most important phrases in this Upanishad is the teaching that we should, “see all beings in our self and our Self in all beings”"  which rejects neither in my interpretation of it.

 

It should actually be “see all beings in our Self, and our Self in all beings”. There is no “self”, only “Self”.  
 

Or in other words, brahma satyam, jagad mithya, jiva brahmaiva naapara. Only Brahman is real, the world of diversity is an appearance (with all the countless beings) within Brahman, and the individual entity called jiva is none other than Brahman itself.
 

Now, transpose that to shiva, parashiva, sadashiva and so on.  There is no “beyond the beyond”, because here and beyond here are appearances. All that is, is this, right now. 
 

Edited July 18 by dwai

[Giles]

On 15/07/2024 at 10:40 PM, NaturaNaturans said:

So, in my understanding englightentment is something you can not achieve, any more then you can achieve a foot: you allready have it. It is the realisastion of oneness.

 

In general, I think trying to put words to it only mudders the water. Still, I am curious, what does the term entail to you?

 

The bottom line, in my own experience:

 

[stirling]

To have another shake at it:

 

It is easy to get lost in some some idea of how enlightenment is, such as "the dual and non-dual do this and that", or "everything is one thing", "there is the Self and the self, but only one self is real and it is really the Self", etc., but I often think it is more helpful to look at how actual experience presents itself. From my perspective, at its simplest, there is no: time, space, or self. All of these have been seen to be stories we tell ourselves, like the ones above. They are illusory, constructed by our assumptions about what we apprehend, not based on what we really observe is we take apart our experience. I also find the account of enlightened mind from the perspective of modern teacher Daniel Ingram to have great clarity and utility:

 

Quote

 

1) Utter centerlessness: no watcher, no sense of a watcher, no subtle watcher, no possibility of a watcher. This is immediately obvious just as color is to a man with good eyesight as the old saying goes. Thus, anything and everything simply and obviously manifest just where they are. No phenomena observe any others and never did or could.

 

2) Utter agencylessness: meaning no agency, no sense of doing, no sense of doer, no sense that there could be any agent or doer, no way to find anything that seems to be in control at all. Whatever effort or intent or anything like that that arises does so naturally, causally, inevitably, as it always actually did. This is immediately obvious, though not always the forefront of attention.

 

3) No cycles change or stages or states or anything else like that do anything to this direct comprehension of simple truths at all.

 

4) There is no deepening in it to do. The understanding stands on its own and holds up over cycles, moods, years, etc and doesn't change at all. I have nothing to add to my initial assessment of it from years ago.

 

5) There is nothing subtle about it: anything and everything that arises exhibits these same qualities directly, clearly. - Daniel Ingram

 

 

To attempt to untangle that, he is saying here that phenomena in the sense field simply appear and disappear, where they are, not through our senses, or anywhere else other than where they are seen, and at no other time than now. What we are is simply the sense field - everything happening here. Our thoughts, bodily sensations, emotions, don't belong to us, but emerge in the sense field in this moment and dissipate naturally, with no agency (ability to control) on our part. It all happens causally, each event with other events contextually and inter-related because of their locations in time and space (here and now). 

 

To say it/we/they is a god or anything else, or is comprised of parts, or happens over time, or belongs to an "I" is an act of creative imagination, which immediately obscures the truth, as all subject/object language does. Skilled meditators of any persuasion that can rest their minds in stillness can observe this play of phenomena for themselves, which is why even the bible says, "Be still, and know I am God". It isn't hidden, obscured, or the province of some special or secret teaching. It has always been hidden in plain sight, non-denominational, free of rhetoric, rules, complications, time,  or effort. 

 

Probably still not helpful.

[dwai]

48 minutes ago, stirling said:

To have another shake at it:

 

It is easy to get lost in some some idea of how enlightenment is, such as "the dual and non-dual do this and that", or "everything is one thing", "there is the Self and the self, but only one self is real and it is really the Self", etc., but I often think it is more helpful to look at how actual experience presents itself. From my perspective, at its simplest, there is no: time, space, or self. All of these have been seen to be stories we tell ourselves, like the ones above. They are illusory, constructed by our assumptions about what we apprehend, not based on what we really observe is we take apart our experience. I also find the account of enlightened mind from the perspective of modern teacher Daniel Ingram to have great clarity and utility:

 

 

To attempt to untangle that, he is saying here that phenomena in the sense field simply appear and disappear, where they are, not through our senses, or anywhere else other than where they are seen, and at no other time than now. What we are is simply the sense field - everything happening here. Our thoughts, bodily sensations, emotions, don't belong to us, but emerge in the sense field in this moment and dissipate naturally, with no agency (ability to control) on our part. It all happens causally, each event with other events contextually and inter-related because of their locations in time and space (here and now). 

 

To say it/we/they is a god or anything else, or is comprised of parts, or happens over time, or belongs to an "I" is an act of creative imagination, which immediately obscures the truth, as all subject/object language does. Skilled meditators of any persuasion that can rest their minds in stillness can observe this play of phenomena for themselves, which is why even the bible says, "Be still, and know I am God". It isn't hidden, obscured, or the province of some special or secret teaching. It has always been hidden in plain sight, non-denominational, free of rhetoric, rules, complications, time,  or effort. 

 

Probably still not helpful.

Even stating what we "experience" is problematic because, for every experience, there is that which experiences it. Advaita Vedanta, therefore, says that whatever you experience is not "it." There is only the Truth and the realization thereof. Once this realization arises, it becomes clear that it was always there -- hidden in plain sight, obscured by the phenomena. 

[stirling]

8 minutes ago, dwai said:

Even stating what we "experience" is problematic because, for every experience, there is that which experiences it. Advaita Vedanta, therefore, says that whatever you experience is not "it." There is only the Truth and the realization thereof. Once this realization arises, it becomes clear that it was always there -- hidden in plain sight, obscured by the phenomena. 

 

Yes, absolutely... instead there is just experience the experiencing itself. Love that Advaita stuff.

[old3bob]

3 hours ago, dwai said:

It should actually be “see all beings in our Self, and our Self in all beings”. There is no “self”, only “Self”.  
 

Or in other words, brahma satyam, jagad mithya, jiva brahmaiva naapara. Only Brahman is real, the world of diversity is an appearance (with all the countless beings) within Brahman, and the individual entity called jiva is none other than Brahman itself.
 

Now, transpose that to shiva, parashiva, sadashiva and so on.  There is no “beyond the beyond”, because here and beyond here are appearances. All that is, is this, right now. 
 

 

oh looks like a typo....no biggy.  Brahman is also the whole kit and kaboodle besides just the transcendent/unmanifest, thus illusion is only in the eye of the beholder when we get right down to it.

[old3bob]

3 hours ago, dwai said:

It should actually be “see all beings in our Self, and our Self in all beings”. There is no “self”, only “Self”.  
 

Or in other words, brahma satyam, jagad mithya, jiva brahmaiva naapara. Only Brahman is real, the world of diversity is an appearance (with all the countless beings) within Brahman, and the individual entity called jiva is none other than Brahman itself.
 

Now, transpose that to shiva, parashiva, sadashiva and so on.  There is no “beyond the beyond”, because here and beyond here are appearances. All that is, is this, right now. 
 

 

parasiva is source for parashakti, (aka satchitanada) thus in that sense beyond.  If your school does not recognize that so be it for them.

[NaturaNaturans]

On 18.7.2024 at 3:15 AM, Tommy said:

Isn't believing consciousness is eternal. And material is a construct of the mental? Isn't that a flip flop way of saying that life is an illusion because it is not permanent? Cause the mental construct is of this brief life? 6 of something or half a dozen of something? A rose is a rose by any other name? Just saying, ...

I think it is exactly the opposite. Perhaps we have different understandings of the term. I refer to 'life force/awareness/soul' or something similar. My belief in its eternity and fundamentality is based on the idea that we don't understand how something non-conscious can become conscious. By definition, we cannot be 'not aware,' and we know it's possible to 'create' seemingly physical things in our minds, such as hallucinations.

 

[NaturaNaturans]

On 16.7.2024 at 10:55 PM, Maddie said:

Enlightenment or obtaining Nirvana is a technical term in Buddhism. It is when one has seen through all delusion and let go of all unskillful attachments and obtained perfect peace. 

Do you think such a state is even theoretically possible? I belive strongly, that as a human, both delusions, illusions and emotion are unexcapable. In a way, even colour is a «delusion,» it only exists in our minds.

[NaturaNaturans]

On 16.7.2024 at 12:35 AM, Nungali said:

To understand something in a process that also seems to  give some type of internalized 'light'  and changes the previous 'mind-set' .

Gnosis 😁

@Tommy

Quote

(…) correct me if I am wrong or even if I am off by a mm. (…)

I dont think anyone has the right to do that on a topic like this. I am interrested in your own interpertation of the term. 
You go on to talk about the allegory of the cave. I found that interresting. Would you like to expand on it?

[Maddie]

6 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Do you think such a state is even theoretically possible? I belive strongly, that as a human, both delusions, illusions and emotion are unexcapable. In a way, even colour is a «delusion,» it only exists in our minds.

 

That is a good question and I am not sure as I have never personally seen anyone that I think fits this description. 

[stirling]

6 minutes ago, Maddie said:

That is a good question and I am not sure as I have never personally seen anyone that I think fits this description. 

 

I'll bet you have, Maddie. My experience is that there are at least a few in almost any decent sized, open-minded town where there are a variety of spiritual centers.

 

In Buddhism there are two types of nirvana:

 

Quote

There are two types of nirvana: sopadhishesa-nirvana literally "nirvana with a remainder", attained and maintained during life, and parinirvana or anupadhishesa-nirvana, meaning "nirvana without remainder" or final nirvana. In Mahayana these are called "abiding" and "non-abiding nirvana." Nirvana, as the quenching of the burning mind, is the highest aim of the Theravada tradition. In the Mahayana tradition, the highest goal is Buddhahood, in which there is no abiding in nirvana.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism)

 

Nirvana with remainder is absolutely possible in this lifetime. Anyone with realization that is still embodied would fit in this category. In Buddhism, complete realization of no-self and shunyata would be the qualifications.

 

I know a number of other teachers where this is the case based on speaking to them about their understanding, including my own root teacher, and several of my previous teachers. There are a few people on this board that meet this qualification. While rare, it is far from impossible.

[Maddie]

17 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

I'll bet you have, Maddie. My experience is that there are at least a few in almost any decent sized, open-minded town where there are a variety of spiritual centers.

 

In Buddhism there are two types of nirvana:

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism)

 

Nirvana with remainder is absolutely possible in this lifetime. Anyone with realization that is still embodied would fit in this category. In Buddhism, complete realization of no-self and shunyata would be the qualifications.

 

I know a number of other teachers where this is the case based on speaking to them about their understanding, including my own root teacher, and several of my previous teachers. There are a few people on this board that meet this qualification. While rare, it is far from impossible.

 

The only person that I have heard speak that I thought might be potentially enlightened is Eckhart Tolle. 

[Giles]

2 hours ago, Maddie said:

 

The only person that I have heard speak that I thought might be potentially enlightened is Eckhart Tolle.

 

 

That's interesting because (merely IMO/IME) enlightenment is pretty common & reasonably easy to "attain". (It only took me about 18 months after stumbling across a method that actually works).

 

What's incredibly unusual (again merely IMO/IME) is to stumble across someone who's managed to get on with having a normal, healthy life afterwards.

 

In other words, the vast majority cannot even begin to "chop wood & carry water" afterwards.

 

Furthermore, it's just struck me that most of those obsessed with the quest for enlightenment, really struggle(d) to "chop wood and carry water" in the first instance anyway.

 

Edited July 19 by Giles

[Maddie]

39 minutes ago, Giles said:

 

That's interesting because (merely IMO/IME) enlightenment is pretty common & reasonably easy to "attain". (It only took me about 18 months after stumbling across a method that actually works).

 

What's incredibly unusual is (again merely IMO/IME) is to stumble across someone who's managed to get on with having a normal, healthy life afterwards.

 

In order words the vast majority cannot even begin to "chop wood & carry water" afterwards.

 

 

I guess that depends on who's definition of enlightenment you are using. The Buddhist one has a pretty high bar ie. no delusion, no unskillful desire, ect.  

Edited July 19 by Maddie

[Giles]

3 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

I guess that depends on who's definition of enlightenment you are using. The Buddhist one has a pretty high bar ie. no delusion, no unskillful desire, ect.

 

 

Absolutely.., it is indeed  a very high bar if you choose to believe that this Buddhist definition is accurate in the absence of your own direct 1st-hand experience... 🤣