Buddha

Discussion in 'Religion, Beliefs and Spirituality' started by TokingToker, Dec 18, 2007.

  1. Melt-
    cEnlightenment refers to the acuisition of knoweldge or understanding. the spefic concepts your refering too don't have english translation that refer to them. It's still fine to call oneself enlightened after realizing anything, even such a simple realization that peanut butter and hot dogs are not a good combination
     
  2. Hi A. I'm not really sure why you think this? There are hundreds of books on enlightenment and its 'contents' that have been translated from say, Tibetan or Pali into english perfectly well. We can only parially describe some of the content of an experience of enlightenment, but some of the content we can describe in very ordinary terms. It isn't all beyond words, otherwise it would be completely intransmissable.


    The eastern traditions would disagree with you, as it would mean that there was no such thing as buddhahood or enlightenment in the broader sense. Saying that just any understanding is enlightenment is wrong, it refers to the gaining of specific knowledge, as you say. It's other name 'realisation' refers directly to the realisation (understanding) of the nature of reality and self. You wont find a description of enlightenment anywhere as referring to ay mundane acquisition of knowledge. Nobody would dream of saying they were enlightened after say, suddenly understanding how a car engine worked. If that were the case, the word 'enlightenment' would be in common usage as being interchangeable with the word 'understanding' in a general sense for mundane knowledge, and it isn't.

    MelT
     
  3. Who? In what way were they qualified to judge? Have you posted your full experience to them here anywhere so that I could read it to make a better evaluation?

    There are many, many words that are used to describe what's learned. There's an odd idea outside of the traiditions that enlightenment is totally beyond any kind of description, which isn't true. Some is, some isn't.

    Whether you experienced the same thing as me hasn't been established, as I haven't seen your full account yet. But from what you've said so far regarding god and intent, no, it wasn't the same. Enlightenment isn't a vague thing that people go on to interpret after the event in their own way as you've done, it's complete and leaves no room - or need- for any further interpretation, everything is there.

    Put it this way, enlightenment (according to those who coined the term, described it, and were the first to have a system for reaching it over 5,000 years ago) says that there is no god, no soul, no creation or unfolding of same, no intent or divine plan. In your experience, all of these things were present. I'm not doubting for one second that you had some kind of event, but when it's so diametrically opposed to enlightenment we can't say it's related at all. You can't have one enlightenment that affirms god and another that refutes it, they're by nature, different experiences.

    If you want to have one enlightenment of christianity, and another which is shared and acknowledged by buddhism, hinduism, taoism, etc., that's fine, it's your perogative, you just need to define which enlightenment you mean when you're talking about it.

    However, there's a very easy way to resolve this. Anyone who is fully enlightened will be able to complete the questions below in less than a couple of minutes, as the event contains the answers. Also, what we haven't touched on yet is the post-enlightenment period and what happens and what you feel. These things are common to all who have had the full experience. Some here have had smaller glimpses of enlightenment and will be able to answer perhaps two of these.

    None of the below needs more than a word or sentence or two to answer, all are easy, all would be answered by the enlightened in exactly the same way. Even if you've had just a smaller glimpse of it, you would be able to answer at least 2:

    1) Why is it impossible for their to be a soul?
    2) What place has multiplicity?
    3) What event happens to you (depending on the person) spontaneously about twice an hour or more? When you do it intentionally, what triggers it?
    4) As it gives you a complete understanding of meditation and why some things work and some don't, what is the barrier of traditional meditation?
    5) Describe the optimal route to enlightenment in one sentence.
    6) What do you feel? (again, no need for more than a sentence).

    If you're enlightened, the above will be a piece of cake.

    MelT
     
  4. i'll bet, if you could have a conversation with siddartha, you'd whittle away dialectically for a while and you'd realise there are somethings that have had the label "god" put upon them that is entirely in keeping with what his journey was about. entirely.


    tho... that's a pretty safe bet to make... in that at least it's not likely to be proven or disproven any time soon in all probability.



    "god is a superspossition of all superpossition" as one friend put it to me. see.... not all meanings ascribed to that nuisance word "god" are a benevolent dictator, infact, many a scholar will tell you it's quite the opposite from "ye who commandeth".




    for folks who are supposedly enlightened ( * s****** chuckle scoff * ), n who purport to know we all have our own paths... there sure seems alot of preaching of the way its supposed to be going on here. ... can anyone else see this could be quite a devastating contradiction?



    dunno where i got this from,


    "if you claim to be enlightened, you probably arent"



    or a more amusing one,


    "if you think you are enlightened, try spending a week with your family" lol.


    and all this talk of "are enlightened"... it reminds me of jack from fightclub, walking around covered in bruises, commenting condesendingly upon all those who cant handle it, "i am enlightened" says his narated thoughts as he arrogantly barges past people akin to the verve's most famous music video. delusional, arrogant, rude, inconsiderate... definately not "enlightened".

    now i dont mean to set forth THE WAY IT IS, but isnt someone on the path of enlightenment... umm... how should i put this.... humble? a little more graceful? and certainly... A SHIT LOAD MORE AWARE!


    love yas all.
    -Digit.


    PS, just gotta say, as much as i see fault with the word "god" (capitlised or not),
    was one of the best replies i have ever seen by anyone n any forum in the whole 11 years i have been on the net. and i'd give ya re bkadoctaj, but u know, same ol... gotta spread it.
     

  5. MUTHER FUCKER!!!!!! WHATS WITH THIS FASCIST CENSORSHIP NOW!???!??!? I CANT EVEN SAY S******S!??!??!??


    RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH! if you tollerate this then your children will be next.


    what's next, we dont get to watch the dick van dyke show?


    fucking fascist, i'm outta here before i go spitting on a mod n get banned,



    FUCKING FASCISTS!


    RESPECT FREEDOM OF SPEACH!

    IF YOU CANT HANDLE SOMEONE SAYING ******.... FUCKIN DEAL WITH IT!

    IF YOU CANT HANDLE MY CAPS SHOUTING... FUCK OFF. THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS GOING ON THAT ONE MAN SHOUTING!


    THIS IS OUR FREEDOM, OUR SECURITY!

    THOSE WHO SACRAFICE FREEDOM FOR SECURITY.... REMEBER THAT? KNOW WHAT YOU GET?



    IF YOU STOP FOLKS FROM EXPRESSING RACISM YOU'LL SEND THEM UNDERGROUD.

    I personally would like to know where the racists are.


    right. that'll likely get me banned, dont care.

    i'm going walkabout from this place until i cool down. maybe the message will still get through past peoples sensitivies to being shouted at.

    u wanna talk to me, u have my icq (47106254), msn(digit.siljrath@googlemail.com) and aim(digitteknohippie). c u there. i cant stay here one second longer.
     
  6. Actually Digit, I dont think it's censorship, I had the same problem trying to include quotes into my replies, not sure what's gone wrong.

    I have a suspicion (though without the quotes I'm not quite sure) that some of the above may be pointed at me? Do you want to post again so I can respond fully? I'll give it a shot, below.

    DIGIT: "for folks who are supposedly enlightened ( * s****** chuckle scoff * ), n who purport to know we all have our own paths... there sure seems alot of preaching of the way its supposed to be going on here. ... can anyone else see this could be quite a devastating contradiction?" END

    If there weren't such restrictions on what constitutes enlghtenment then anybody could claim it and we'd be bound by the New Age PC silliness of not being able to contradict them. It's like saying there shouldn't be a strict definition of what a car or a sneeze is, just in case it offends someone who wants to create their own definition. It has to have a proper definition otherwise it has no meaning as a word.

    What should we do, tell everyone who has a funny feeling and a sense of god that yes, they really are enlightened because of it? Isn't that dangerous and damaging to anyone, to think that they've done something they haven't?

    I would hope that I'm following in the footsteps of Buddha, who never suffered fools gladly and who himself had very strict ideas of what constitutes realisation. Do you think he was wrong?

    Do you think that someone who's realised would always speak in that daft, cryptic, quasi-religious way all the time and never say boo to anyone? If so you couldn't be further from the mark.

    Also, the old 'those who claim enlightenment probably aren't' doesn't hold water and never has. Buddha, Hui Neng and a thousand others made no bones about claiming it after their enlightenment. I am happy to claim mine and I'm also very happy to be tested on its voracity by any qualified person, Hindu or Buddhist (preferably post Vajrayana level), at any time.

    I know that you have some good realisation, do you want to give the questions a shot?

    MelT
     
  7. What the hell was he even trying to say?
     
  8. It wasn't his fault, the forum has a habit of not including the poster's quotes you're responding to, so makes repliles sound a bit odd. I get his gist.

    MelT
     

  9. Umm... it is completely "intransmissable".
     
  10. Believe nothing on the faith of traditions,
    even though they have been held in honor
    for many generations and in diverse places.
    Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it.
    Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past.
    Do not believe what you yourself have imagined,
    persuading yourself that a God inspires you.
    Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests.
    After examination, believe what you yourself have tested and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto.

    :)
     


  11. It can't be transmitted as a state from person to person, and much of it would be unintelligible if you were to try to put it into words to desribe it to someone who had never had it themselves - but that isn't what I'm talking about. You can't talk about the experience, but you can define some of the things that happen within it. In hinduism for example there are defined levels of samadhi that can be described in terms of their content or lack of it. In buddhism we talk about the understandings gained and the nature of what we become in the experience. During enlightenment you become aware of yourself as ultimate reality, and recognise that you possess 'qualities' as it, which again can be talked about. The nature of reality is discussed endlessly in most forms of Taoism, Sufic, Buddhism, Hinduism. Reality and the content of meditative experience forms, depending on which tradition you follow, almost the entire content of all higher traditions.

    In Chinese Buddhism there are tens of metaphors that are used to convey different aspects of 'thatness' that you've become aware of in an event, or in your daily life. Your level of realisation or subsequent integration are also named and graded. In my tradition, Dzogchen, we talk about the nature of reality very precisely, because we use knowing it as a means to have experiences of realisation. Literally, knowing reality in the right way will bring on various events, so talking about reality (and experiencing it for ourselves first hand) is very important to us.

    *It's also a good way of testing whether you really do understand ultimate reality in the right way, as if you get things wrong you progress very slowly, if at all, and have less direct experiences. There is knowing and knowing though, it has to be in the right way. It's nailed down, and at the same time given ultimate freedom. Knowing is just as dangerous as not knowing if you don't use it properly.

    The idea that enlightenment and ultimate nature are never talked about is wrong and always has been, and sprang from a Taoist saying, 'Those who know, do not speak, those who speak, do not know'. But that's akin to saying that all the great meditation teachers of the last couple of thousand years didnt know anything, because they talked about greater reality. It's been talked about since the first cultures practised meditation in the Indus Valley.

    MelT
     
  12. I suspect this is what generally tends to happen.
     
  13. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

    This thread is chalk full of hypocracies!

    Enlightenment is not owned by a certain thing, person, energy, consciouness! Enlightenment is only fullfilled in the mind of the one trying to attain it! Am I enlightened? Yes. Why? Because I am. How do I know? Because I do. Nothing can be proven...2+2=4, but what does that MEAN to the interpretor?

    MeLt please stop dictating what is enlightment...only serves you in a force opposite of which I think your tryin to progress towards.

    Bahahahahaha! Also "enlightenment" isnt 1 thing, isnt permenant, it IS forever changing...

    And follow the step on earth and you might have it after you die! LOL!!!!!!!!

    Love-

    :wave::D
     
  14. Very true. I agree 100 percent. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have definitions though.

    Gobbledygook.

    Enlightenment can be proven in someone, the questions I offer above for example could be answered immediately by anyone who was. Give them a shot.

    I write for people who want to know what the truth is according to the eastern traditions, not what my own interpretation of it is. I can't help their being constraints to what the state entails, no matter how much you dislike it. What I say about samadhi and levels of attainment can be proven by anyone at any time, and I'm always happy to offer links where they exist, and references. Think of me as the person imparting the bad news rather than someone trying to impose my opinion, I have no interest in forming threads about what I personally think about anything. I can give you as much proof as you like as long as you're prepared to read.

    As I said in an earlier post, I've studied 'glimpses' and christian religious experiences for nearly 30 years. I would seriously be interested in hearing what happened to you, either on the forum or by PM. Post it and I guarantee I will not make a single comment about what you say, make any kind of judgement, or allude to it in later posts in any way. I talk about enlightenment as it is to the traditions, but that doesn't meant that there aren't tens of other kinds of equally interesting experiences that can be had by anyone.

    If you've had an event outside of the accepted definition then great, who knows what can be perceived by us? Where can the human mind go? But for it to be called enlightenment it HAS to fall within particular confines. Sadly not my decision, but 5,000 years worth of analysis and study within eastern thought has led them to say exactly what enlightenment is.


    You're getting confused. As I said above, I don't dictate what enlightenment is, the people who discovered and developed it do. If you have a problem with their definitions then it's something you have to take up with them. But, seriously, to you and anyone else here, if you've had an event, post what's happened to you here. I will now not say another word in this thread, full stop. Who knows what people here have had and what can be learned by sharing? I'd much rather listen to people describe events than sit here having to be the voice of reason.

    MelT
     
  15. ^Understood...I dont agree with their form of 'enlightenment' being anything but that, THERE FORM! I also understand that because I don't agree with one form of enlightenment, doesn't mean it DOESN'T change that fact that under that definition something I may view as enlightenment may not fit under that "scope".

    Anyway...Ill get at your PM.
     
  16. Thanks, just reading it now.:) We'll have to agree to disagree on your opening statement. If you know of anyone else's definition then I'd be happy to read it.

    Just a thought for anyone who wants to send/post their experiences:

    Imagine that full enlightenment is like seeing a VW Beetle. You see its engine, colour, shape and understand it fully, how it works, etc. 'Glimpses' of enlightenment may only contain say, a knowledge of the tyres, or the engine, or the seats and headlights. Whilst these experiences are beyond imagination and life-chainging, they're only a part of the whole experience, and therefore not enlightenment - but obviously they're still a very good thing.

    It HAS to contain an understanding of the nature of reality for it to be realisation (a realisation of the way that reality is, hence the name), otherwise it wouldn't be realisation.

    However, even tiny glimpses are a good sign, and people will usually go on to have a series of them, though still not necessarily ever reach the whole experience. They're useful in that, if you know what to do, you can develop what you've learned and felt in them, and eventually reach bigger, more frequent events. Glimpses are not enlightenment though.



    MelT
     
  17. ^I think your being naive and delusional about the reality of "enlightenment", much in the same way I was when I was younger. Enlightenment is attainable. Enlightenment ISNT being in a state of bliss and compelte happiness or anything. It's simply having and keeping an awareness of your "true":)rolleyes:) role in the universe, as if it even matters for those in the know ;).

    As always continue to expand your consciousness and awareness and understanding...but don't be delusional, not to say you are assuming this. People chase a state of void. One void of attachment to the physical which it STUPID! Were here to experience this, not get here and wanna get off the ride.

    Ok thats my preaching for the day...and this isn't directly at you MelT, just whoever is reading I think should understand some of this.
     
  18. [quote name='Center']^I think your being naive and delusional about the reality of "enlightenment", much in the same way I was when I was younger. Enlightenment is attainable. Enlightenment ISNT being in a state of bliss and compelte happiness or anything. It's simply having and keeping an awareness of your "true":)rolleyes:) role in the universe, as if it even matters for those in the know ;).>>

    I didn't say that enlightenment wasn't attainable, or that it's anything to do with bliss (see my PM). I would definitely disagree on whether or not it brings abiding happiness. 'Happiness' is not the right word really, but certainly continual contentment is. How many enlightened people have you met to make that judgement?

    Your statement, 'Role in the Universe' though is counter enlightenment...

    >> People chase a state of void. >>

    Very true. Mahayana and others place emphasis on an (almost) void mind free of thoughts and reification, which is why that path takes lifetimes as opposed to the alternatives.

    MelT
     
  19. Bah...no it's not! Expand your mind/consciousness! Stop confining enlightenment and the idea of a hightened experience of understanding to those who have come before! We are in a new time...we are in bodies constantly learning and expanding upon the ideals of those "in" the bodies. I would go so far to say your blocking your ability to grow, by sticking to old ideals. I would be way off base, just my conclusions so far dud.

    -------These lifetimes are but an instant in the scope of simply a different perspective. Is that perspective outside of you!? Is it not just as much of "you" as your body at the moment...
    The void can aid greatly at times...but to center your life around the perpetuation of that experience to no end is just not wise, imo. Jesus, Buddah, (enter prophets name here) all were the same as you and me. They also came prior to us. We are free to find our own way jsut as they have. Is that way wrong?
     
  20. Why do you feel the need to resort to such an old ploy as 'if you don't agree with me, you don't understand!!'? Tell the Buddha, the one who helped create these definitions, that he needs to expand his consciousness....

    What you're trying to do here is justify you deciding to call you 'enlightened'. You can't define it for yourself and just claim it. ANYBODY who is enlightened is eager to be tested.

    "The enlightenment we're talking about contains, by nature, a particular 'truth', a precise understanding of the nature of reality that's shared by perhaps thousands of people over the last few thousand years. All of them had, barring different triggers and focus, the same understanding of reality, bar none. Realisation is ONE understanding that may come in the midst of all kinds of other things you become aware of in the experience: some people's focus is a particular form of energy, or a particular sense of place, but in the difference there is a definite, definable sameness, that single truth about reality. It can be described in a handful of different ways, and still contain the same meaning, and I'm used to the language that people use to express it."

    All you have to do is express the key realisation that people come away with after enlightenment. It only needs simple words to do it, no metaphors required.

    If you've had some other kind of enlightenment then who defined it? What was the truth you realised? What made you call it realisation and why do you think yours is different from everyone else's?

    :) Wow. Not. This is just bull, you're trying to sound deep.

    I haven't 'confined' anything, it's pretty much a waste of time trying to make this a personal thing. Buddha, Longchen Rabjam, HuiNeng, Nagarjuna and many other masters have created the definitions we use now. Are you saying you have another one that's different from theirs, and that they are wrong?

    To find one's own way is the Path, to arrive at the wrong destination isn't.

    People are totally, utterly free to choose their own way to realisation, and the Buddha spoke of 84,000 different methods to choose from. The freedom of personal approach is alluded to throughout Buddhism - and even the actual teachings are recognised as somethng to be left behind once you've gone so far. Buddhism is freedom of thought, aided by helpful practises. That does not mean to say that anyone is free to define enlightenment in any way they wish.

    Buddha wasn't a prophet BTW, just a bloke, but...If you have the respect for him that the above implies, then you will also accept his definition of enlghtenment - the same one taught to him, and experienced, by hundreds before him, as being the correct one?

    You can't call yourself a tightrope walker if you've never walked a rope.

    MelT
     

Share This Page