Enlightenment - what is it?

[old3bob]

If i remember correctly  the historic Buddha said something like even (the raft of ) Buddhism has to be set down at a certain point.

(although not in the middle of the river so to speak)

[stirling]

1 hour ago, Giles said:

Indeed, although, is it not the case that there are apparently two main categories of awakening experiences:

 

1. Enlightenment in the presence of self and objects: sahaja samadhi and

 

2. Awakenings in the absence of self and objects: nirvikalpa samadhi?

 

Is it not also the case that true enlightenment depends upon experiencing/having experienced both (i.e. the relative ultimate reality as well as the ultimate reality)?

 

Definitely form and emptiness exist as a dance together, though the emptiness is the single salient recognizable characteristic of all form, and exists within all expressions of it. The Heart Sutra, in my opinion, is the best document covering this particular question.

 

1 hour ago, Giles said:

Happy to give it a go with you via private DM if you like?

 

I think I would like that, yes.

[stirling]

1 hour ago, snowymountains said:

My take on the matter is that for one there's no final realisation, it's a process. After all, nobody can know if there are further realisations down the road the moment they self-declare enlightenment.

 

Just a note to say that the realization itself precludes the possibility of there being a deeper realization. It is literally seeing that the way you were perceiving reality was always wrong.

 

From a relative perspective, once the perspective has completely flipped (in Buddhism this would be an "arhat") full realization is stable over a lifetime. It is impossible to even see things the way they were previously. I've never heard of anyone historically or living today  that has had this simpler, more real perspective shift back. This has been demonstrated over thousands of years. This is naturally something I would urge anyone to explore for themselves.

[stirling]

29 minutes ago, old3bob said:

If i remember correctly  the historic Buddha said something like even (the raft of ) Buddhism has to be set down at a certain point.

(although not in the middle of the river so to speak)

 

 

Quote

Imagine, friends, a man in the course of a journey who arrives at a great expanse of water, whose near bank is dangerous and whose far bank offers safety. But there is no ferryboat or bridge to take him across the water. So he thinks: ‘What if I collected grass, twigs, branches and leaves and bound them together as a raft? Supported by the raft and by paddling with my hands and feet, I should then be able to reach the far bank.’ 

“He does this and succeeds in getting across.

“On arriving at the far bank, it might occur to him: ‘This raft has been very helpful indeed. What if I were to hoist it on my head or shoulders, then proceed on my journey?’ Now, what do you think? By carrying it with him, would that man be doing what should be done with a raft?’

“’No, sir,’ replied his audience.

“’So what should he do with the raft? Having arrived at the far bank, he might think: ‘Yes, this raft has been very useful, but now I should just haul it onto dry land or leave it floating in the water, and then continue on my journey.’ In this way the man would be doing what should be done with that raft.

“The dharma too is like a raft. It serves the purpose of crossing over, not the purpose of grasping.
“When you understand that the dharma is like a raft, and that you should let go even of positive things (dhamma), then how much more so should you let go of negative things (adhamma).” [MN 22] - Buddha

 

 

... as well as:

 

Quote

“The awakened mind is turned upside down and does not accord even with the Buddha-wisdom.” - Hui Hai

 

All teachings, religions and philosophies, including teachings  on emptiness and dependent origination are only rafts intended to get one to the far shore. 

[Giles]

25 minutes ago, stirling said:

Definitely form and emptiness exist as a dance together, though the emptiness is the single salient recognizable characteristic of all form, and exists within all expressions of it. The Heart Sutra, in my opinion, is the best document covering this particular question.

 

By "coincidence" (🤣), I stumbled across a translation of the Heart Sutra yesterday.

 

I will read it shortly.

 

28 minutes ago, stirling said:

I think I would like that, yes.

 

Cool. 😊

 

I'll DM you after I get around to reading the Heart Sutra.

 

Hoping that, in the first instance, it might be possible for us to meet and share in person over a coffee/tea (as I find typing a bit tedious 🤣).

 

[ChiDragon]

22 hours ago, Tommy said:

I believe here that duality means the separateness one experiences in this life before enlightenment. There is you there and me here. We can see each other as not us or separate. A duality like light and dark. Ying and yang. Hot air and cold air foods. Yeah, stuff does get around and used in all sorts of ways.

Yes, I think so. It is a general term pertaining to two related elements.

[forestofclarity]

On 7/19/2024 at 5:15 PM, Maddie said:

 

What confuses me is that I hear it used in a Buddhist context often yet I have never read a Sutta where the Buddha mentioned it. 

 

Many Theravadans reject Mahayana-style nonduality. 

 

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html

 

Some don't. There's really no one approach. 

[old3bob]

On 7/19/2024 at 4:15 PM, Maddie said:

 

What confuses me is that I hear it used in a Buddhist context often yet I have never read a Sutta where the Buddha mentioned it. 

 

one can find the 8 liberation's and a "beyond the beyond" mentioned.

 

Btw there are Buddhists mentioning soul that some others deny....  

"....Avalokiteśvara in Tibetan Buddhism is portrayed as a male deity. In China, Avalokiteśvara became the female deity Quan Yin, the manifestation of supreme compassion. She is often depicted riding a dragon in an ocean.  In the first line, Avalokiteśvara is called the Bodhisattva of compassion. A Bodhisattva is a being who has Awakened (Bodhi) and achieved a state that opens them to Nirvana, permanent liberation. They have achieved this because they have dedicated their lives to purifying themselves from all the blemishes and wounds upon their soul...."   (commentary found on the The Heart Sutra) 

 

Edited July 20 by old3bob

[stirling]

24 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

Many Theravadans reject Mahayana-style nonduality. 

 

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html

 

Some don't. There's really no one approach. 

 

It is obvious to me that it is right there in the Bahiya Sutta, however:

 

Quote

"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.

"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering." - Buddha, Bahiya Sutta

 

...not that it matters. I personally would take the word of a living Buddha over a dead one any day.

[old3bob]

10 hours ago, stirling said:

 

It is obvious to me that it is right there in the Bahiya Sutta, however:

 

 

...not that it matters. I personally would take the word of a living Buddha over a dead one any day.

 

define a dead Buddha? (other than a dead physical body)

[old3bob]

I'm not a Buddhist but I can dig the saying below:

 

“There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, made, and conditioned.” 

 

add volumes of commentary at your own risk...

 

[stirling]

4 hours ago, old3bob said:

define a dead Buddha? (other than a dead physical body)

 

In Mahayana Buddhism there are two ways to discuss such things, from the relative or absolute perspectives:

 

Quote

Two truths (Skt. dvasatya; Tib. བདེན་པ་གཉིས་, denpa nyi, Wyl. bden pa gnyis) — everything has an absolute aspect, or absolute truth, and a relative aspect, or relative truth. The absolute or ultimate is the inherent nature of everything, how things really are. The conventional or relative is how things appear. In the teachings, these are known as ‘the two truths’, but they are not to be understood as two separate dimensions, rather as two aspects of a single reality.

 

https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Two_truths

 

I have had completely realized teachers (arhats) who have passed away. They are, in relative terms, dead. 

 

As your quote in the post after suggests, it is possible to see that death is also a delusion in this moment. 

 

Quote

Shariputra, all dharmas are marked by emptiness；they neither arise nor cease, are neither defiled nor pure, neither increase nor decrease. Therefore, given emptiness, there is no form, no sensation, no perception, no formation, no consciousness; no eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind; no sight, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no object of mind; no realm of sight... no realm of mind consciousness. There is neither ignorance nor extinction of ignorance... neither old age and death, nor extinction of old age and death； no suffering, no cause, no cessation, no path； no knowledge and no attainment. - Heart Sutra

 

Death is both a constant as we see phenomena appear and disappear (including buddhas), fluxing in this moment, but also a delusion when it is seen that emptiness is omnipresent, still and eternal.. It is ultimately the deeper unchanging emptiness that defines reality, once seen and gnown (gnosis) as experience. 

[old3bob]

5 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

In Mahayana Buddhism there are two ways to discuss such things, from the relative or absolute perspectives:

 

https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Two_truths

 

I have had completely realized teachers (arhats) who have passed away. They are, in relative terms, dead. 

 

As your quote in the post after suggests, it is possible to see that death is also a delusion in this moment. 

 

Death is both a constant as we see phenomena appear and disappear (including buddhas), fluxing in this moment, but also a delusion when it is seen that emptiness is omnipresent, still and eternal.. It is ultimately the deeper unchanging emptiness that defines reality, once seen and gnown (gnosis) as experience. 

 

im not digging a long nihilistic negation quote....

[stirling]

Which one? The one you posted and said you liked or the one I posted? They are saying the same thing.

 

They aren't nihilistic - the world of people and things doesn't GO anywhere, it simply has a salient quality that dramatically shifts your understanding that you have never noticed. 

 

If anything the world is MORE meaningful, MORE joyful, MORE engaging than ever after you see how it is.

 

 

Edited July 21 by stirling

[Giles]

Might be of value for those interested in the jnana yoga route? 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20240227034155/https://realization.org/p/iamquiet/what-is-enlightenment-and-how-do-you-find-it.html

[dwai]

On 7/21/2024 at 10:26 AM, stirling said:

Which one? The one you posted and said you liked or the one I posted? They are saying the same thing.

 

They aren't nihilistic - the world of people and things doesn't GO anywhere, it simply has a salient quality that dramatically shifts your understanding that you have never noticed. 

 

If anything the world is MORE meaningful, MORE joyful, MORE engaging than ever after you see how it is.

 

 

I’m sitting outside the car dealership waiting to pick my car up from a servicing, and the world moves by, clouds float by overhead, people talking and not talking. Just phenomena - happening.
 

Over the weekend, I visited my master at his home - where he highlighted the power of emptiness -  the importance of moving away from doing to not doing - letting the emptiness do instead of our own volition. To let go of volition is a challenge for most, but the “magic” starts only after that. 

so long as we see ourselves as individuals who experience meaning, joy, etc those will remain fleeting. Once the individual doership goes, what remains is pure meaning, pure joy. 

 

[stirling]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

I’m sitting outside the car dealership waiting to pick my car up from a servicing, and the world moves by, clouds float by overhead, people talking and not talking. Just phenomena - happening.
 

Over the weekend, I visited my master at his home - where he highlighted the power of emptiness -  the importance of moving away from doing to not doing - letting the emptiness do instead of our own volition. To let go of volition is a challenge for most, but the “magic” starts only after that. 

so long as we see ourselves as individuals who experience meaning, joy, etc those will remain fleeting. Once the individual doership goes, what remains is pure meaning, pure joy. 

 

That's a blinder! Bears repeating.

 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

To let go of volition is a challenge for most, but the “magic” starts only after that. 

so long as we see ourselves as individuals who experience meaning, joy, etc those will remain fleeting. Once the individual doership goes, what remains is pure meaning, pure joy. 

 

[Sherman Krebbs]

Deleting this. 

 

  

 

Edited July 23 by Sherman Krebbs
.

[forestofclarity]

 

6 hours ago, dwai said:

I’m sitting outside the car dealership

 Hopefully not regular service? I've never had a good experience with the dealership. 

 

6 hours ago, dwai said:

letting the emptiness do instead of our own volition.

 

Funny synchronicity. 

[forestofclarity]

As for enlightenment being easy, I'm curious: do we think it is more problematic to set the bar too low or too high? It seems to me that setting the bar too low will block development in a way setting the bar too high would not.

 

[dwai]

29 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

As for enlightenment being easy, I'm curious: do we think it is more problematic to set the bar too low or too high? It seems to me that setting the bar too low will block development in a way setting the bar too high would not.

 

Just because “it’s always available” doesn’t mean it is easy. I think it is as hard or as easy as it needs to be. 

[Cobie]

Are you willing to pay the price for ‘enlightenment’ i.e. the destruction of relationships. In my experience IRL, people will first blame and attack; keep tracking and they’ll start to ‘idolise’. 

 

 

Edited July 23 by Cobie

[dwai]

5 hours ago, Cobie said:

Are you willing to pay the price for ‘enlightenment’ i.e. the destruction of relationships. In my experience IRL, people will first blame and attack; keep tracking and they’ll start to ‘idolise’. 

 

 

I'm curious why you feel that way. Would you like to elaborate?

Edited July 23 by dwai

[dwai]

14 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

 Hopefully not regular service? I've never had a good experience with the dealership. 

 

Mine is not so bad, though I took it to have a recall addressed. Wasn't too bad - they have free coffee, lots of indoor and outdoor seating available. 

[Giles]

16 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

As for enlightenment being easy, I'm curious: do we think it is more problematic to set the bar too low or too high? It seems to me that setting the bar too low will block development in a way setting the bar too high would not.

 

 

Would you mind elaborating please?

 

Specifically: who are "we", why do you believe that "we" have any ability to set a bar regarding enlightenment and what "development" do you believe needs to be done in order for an individual to be on the receiving end of Grace?