Enlightenment - what is it?

[johndoe2012]

On 22.7.2024 at 3:41 PM, Giles said:

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

 

Funny, sometimes I feel that way, that practice is not necessary because everything is completely as it should be. 

[stirling]

On 7/20/2024 at 4:03 PM, old3bob said:

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) 

 

Honestly, this isn't where I would get my information about what Buddhists think:

 

https://heartfeather.substack.com/p/beyond-the-beyond-pt-1

 

There are "Buddhists" with different levels of understanding that might mention a lot of things. You can find all sorts of crazy stuff on the internet. Discrimination is key.

 

The Buddha doesn't mention a soul in his teachings. He doesn't because, in Buddhism, the existence of separate things that have a reality of their own is a delusion, including any kind of "self" existence or separate soul. This is what the central tenet of Buddhism (no-self) is about. This is the fundamental argument between Buddhism and Hinduism.

 

I can see it both ways... the conceptual overlays may not jibe, but from the perspective of emptiness, labelling all awareness as "Self" isn't a problem, since it where the perspective of being can appear to come from.  It's a silly argument to have, IMHO... these are conceptual frameworks... enlightenment is ultimately neither of these. 

Edited July 23 by stirling
Sometimes too much is too much. All you need is love.

[Giles]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

This is the fundamental argument between Buddhism and Hinduism.

 

 

Perhaps there's actually no real argument? 😊

 

 

[stirling]

16 minutes ago, Giles said:

Perhaps there's actually no real argument? 😊

 

There ABSOLUTELY isn't.

[snowymountains]

On 20/07/2024 at 7:13 PM, stirling said:

 

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.

 

Not flipping back doesn't mean it's final.

 

Just as children who typically go through evolutionary stages that are more more refined ( ex cases of regressions ), there is always more integration to do.

 

There can be no final realisation, in that there's nearly infinite stuff to integrate.

[snowymountains]

On 23/07/2024 at 10:55 AM, 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’. 

 

 

 

Someone else may have a different experience of how spiritual progress impacted their relationships though. there are billions of people on the planet, each with their own unique lived experiences. They also have their own unique and different relationships.

[snowymountains]

On 7/20/2024 at 5:08 PM, Maddie said:

 

When I was younger I had been raised by a pretty religious mom and then later ended up in a Christian cult. Obviously I left the cult and later when I became interested in Buddhism I thought all was well. But after a while I started to be kind of miserable with the type of Buddhism I was doing. It was in the somewhat recent past that I realized that I had unconsciously brought some of my cult/fundamentalist mindset into Buddhism and it was not serving me well at all. I am still interested in Buddhism but my interest now without the cult mindset makes it much more pleasant. 

 

I was reading some von Franz lately and she was touching upon the topic of cults, gurus etc.

Whom she naturally wasn't very fond of. She made an exception though, specifically for those teachers who actively send students away after the cycle of teachings is fairly complete.

The psychological argument is complex, so I won't write it here but it's in line with my lived experience and interestingly, doing otherwise in Buddhism is attachment to the teacher.

Edited July 24 by snowymountains

[old3bob]

20 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Honestly, this isn't where I would get my information about what Buddhists think:

 

https://heartfeather.substack.com/p/beyond-the-beyond-pt-1

 

There are "Buddhists" with different levels of understanding that might mention a lot of things. You can find all sorts of crazy stuff on the internet. Discrimination is key.

 

The Buddha doesn't mention a soul in his teachings. He doesn't because, in Buddhism, the existence of separate things that have a reality of their own is a delusion, including any kind of "self" existence or separate soul. This is what the central tenet of Buddhism (no-self) is about. This is the fundamental argument between Buddhism and Hinduism.

 

I can see it both ways... the conceptual overlays may not jibe, but from the perspective of emptiness, labelling all awareness as "Self" isn't a problem, since it where the perspective of being can appear to come from.  It's a silly argument to have, IMHO... these are conceptual frameworks... enlightenment is ultimately neither of these. 

 

more of the harping on "delusion",  which is its own form of delusion.

[Giles]

51 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

more of the harping on "delusion",  which is its own form of delusion.

 

Do you hate Buddhism/Buddhists?

 

[old3bob]

1 hour ago, Giles said:

 

Do you hate Buddhism/Buddhists?

 

 

samsara properly understood is nirvana (paraphrased)  not delusion for heavens sake which is only in the eye or mind of the beholder.

[Giles]

35 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

samsara properly understood is nirvana (paraphrased)  not delusion for heavens sake which is only in the eye or mind of the beholder.

 

 

Your reply doesn't address my question, which you qoted.

 

So, I'll repeat my question one more time:

 

2 hours ago, Giles said:

Do you hate Buddhism/Buddhists?

 

Hope that's OK with you?

 

[old3bob]

36 minutes ago, Giles said:

 

Your reply doesn't address my question, which you qoted.

 

So, I'll repeat my question one more time:

 

 

Hope that's OK with you?

 

 

my second post answers that being that I quoted a Buddhist teaching genius;  which I don't have to be a Buddhist (of which there are many varied and sometimes conflicting sects) to do so, got it?

[forestofclarity]

On 7/23/2024 at 8:48 AM, Giles said:

 

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?

 

A good start would be removing the two ignorances, including the ignorance that there is an individual. 

 

What some call grace, others call causes and conditions that are not fully apparent. Which of course is still misleading.

[old3bob]

On 7/23/2024 at 9:39 AM, stirling said:

 

Honestly, this isn't where I would get my information about what Buddhists think:

 

https://heartfeather.substack.com/p/beyond-the-beyond-pt-1

 

There are "Buddhists" with different levels of understanding that might mention a lot of things. You can find all sorts of crazy stuff on the internet. Discrimination is key.

 

The Buddha doesn't mention a soul in his teachings. He doesn't because, in Buddhism, the existence of separate things that have a reality of their own is a delusion, including any kind of "self" existence or separate soul. This is what the central tenet of Buddhism (no-self) is about. This is the fundamental argument between Buddhism and Hinduism.

 

I can see it both ways... the conceptual overlays may not jibe, but from the perspective of emptiness, labelling all awareness as "Self" isn't a problem, since it where the perspective of being can appear to come from.  It's a silly argument to have, IMHO... these are conceptual frameworks... enlightenment is ultimately neither of these. 

 

right and some Buddhists deny Buddha nature  thus one can go and punt...and see where the ball lands.

[Giles]

2 hours ago, old3bob said:

got it?

 

Probably...

[Giles]

2 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

A good start would be removing the two ignorances, including the ignorance that there is an individual. 

 

Experientiallly or merely intellectually?

 

2 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

What some call grace, others call causes and conditions that are not fully apparent. Which of course is still misleading.

 

 

Would you mind explaining how you reached the conclusion that Grace = causes and conditions please?

 

[forestofclarity]

5 hours ago, Giles said:

 

Experientiallly or merely intellectually?

 

I would say both and neither. Both because usually intellectual understanding and experiences are necessary in my opinion (nor do I buy the dichotomy), and neither because neither one really delivers. Many people seem to spend their lives chasing one or the other. 

 

5 hours ago, Giles said:

 

Would you mind explaining how you reached the conclusion that Grace = causes and conditions please?

 

It is not a conclusion, just my opinion. And what I mean is, what appears to some as an act of Grace appears to others as causes/conditions. I've been on both sides of the line, personally, but most of it is inference.