Originally posted by I No Stupid:Siddhartha Gotama’s followers called him the Awakened One – Buddha. However, Gotama referred to himself as TathÄ�gata. Logically, Gotama was first ‘awakened’, then he attained nirvana (during his life-time) and upon his death he entered parinirvana (final nirvana) whereupon he no longer was reborn (the goal he was seeking all the while).
Since enlightenment is a western word and was not used similarly by the Buddha or during his time, from which word (Buddha’s language) was it translated to enlightenment?
Nirvana is the cessation of suffering (3rd NT), but awakening is NOT the same as nirvana, much less an experience.
Awakening is the word translated as enlightenment, but imo best left simply as awakening.
Awakening is not nirvana, but nirvana can only be brought about through awakening.
Originally posted by whylikethatah:so if you or eckhart tolle or some indian or angmoh spiritual teacher lead me and other people(who are non-buddhists, never took refuge at all) and we attain some level of enlightenment, we can also be stream-enterer? like any of those people whom u talk to in other buddhist forums, they may be enlightened in your opinion, maybe they never take refuge before also, who knows.
The problem is, those indian gurus are not yet stream-enterers, so how can they lead you to stream entry?
Check this out:
Cula-sihanada Sutta (MN 11) -- The Shorter Discourse on the Lion's Roar {M i 63} [Ñanamoli Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans.]. The Buddha declares that only through practicing in accord with the Dhamma can Awakening be realized. His teaching is distinguished from those of other religions and philosophies through its unique rejection of all doctrines of self. [BB]
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:You didn't understand what sinweiy is saying. Sinweiy is saying that a Buddha is needed to point the right way in order for people to attain arhantship. He didn't say nobody attained arhantship - he said people attained arhantship only AFTER the Buddha started teaching.
yes AEN, i meant during before Buddha was around. no arahants yet. but many very good meditators. they didn't did it by themselves.
and, that's also what i'm rejecting, that it's not easy to do it solo without any reference from Buddha's texts. if they read Buddha's texts, then we cannot say they do it by themselve.
/\
Originally posted by Bio-Hawk:Isn't there infinite levels of Enlightment?Not from a strict theoretical stand point of view?
i see it this way. there are two parts of it.
Enlightment or "knowing" is one part, while craving and clinging habits is the other part that also need to be remove not really in one shot, but some what gradually. hence these slowly removal of habits can say got different percentages/"levels".
even Hui Neng after his "enlightenment", he had to stay in some bandits lair to do his practice. we think enlightened already no need to practice what u learnt and commit more karma?
/\
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:The problem is, those indian gurus are not yet stream-enterers, so how can they lead you to stream entry?
then why u always quote some spiritual teacher now and then? be it the many indian or angmoh gurus/teachers found in your blog. aren't what they all teaching, also in accord with the Dhamma? if not, then what are they teaching?
Originally posted by whylikethatah:then why u always quote some spiritual teacher now and then? be it the many indian or angmoh gurus/teachers found in your blog. aren't what they all teaching, also in accord with the Dhamma? if not, then what are they teaching?
There are certain aspects that they teach that are in accord with dharma, certain aspects that are different. Their teachings can be helpful, but they are not ultimate from the perspective of Buddhadharma. Nevertheless, there are many valuable lessons that can be learnt from them nonetheless.
Why don't you pick up a book by Eckhart Tolle, The Power of Now, and see what is it all about? His book is a bestseller and can be found in Any bookstores in Singapore. Many people find it very well-written, inspiring, and deeply transformative in their lives. Even though it is not ultimate, it is still very helpful nonetheless.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:There are certain aspects that they teach that are in accord with dharma, certain aspects that are different. Their teachings can be helpful, but they are not ultimate from the perspective of Buddhadharma. Nevertheless, there are many valuable lessons that can be learnt from them nonetheless.
Why don't you pick up a book by Eckhart Tolle, The Power of Now, and see what is it all about? His book is a bestseller and can be found in Any bookstores in Singapore. Many people find it very well-written, inspiring, and deeply transformative in their lives. Even though it is not ultimate, it is still very helpful nonetheless.
read that book years ago. read many buddhist books too but all contain the same basic message, nothing amazing.
by the way, since u said there are certain aspects which are different, why r u telling me now to go read that book? why r u leading people onto this path taught by all these spiritual teachers whose teachings may not be buddhist-ic in nature?
Originally posted by whylikethatah:read that book years ago. read many buddhist books too but all contain the same basic message, nothing amazing.
But you are still unable to realize the difference between Eckhart Tolle and Buddhism.
Actually this is a very common issue... not many people know the difference, even many Buddhist teachers don't know. They can't tell between Hinduism and Buddhism.
Just put the teachings into practice, plus you must have right view and understanding, then one day you will discern for yourself.
You will go through progressive stages of realization and discern for yourself the differences. Just like in Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:But you are still unable to realize the difference between Eckhart Tolle and Buddhism.
Actually this is a very common issue... not many people know the difference, even many Buddhist teachers don't know. They can't tell between Hinduism and Buddhism.
Just put the teachings into practice, plus you must have right view and understanding, then one day you will discern for yourself.
You will go through progressive stages of realization and discern for yourself the differences. Just like in Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
what do you mean i'm still 'unable to realise the difference'. what..i just said i have read Eckhart Tolle's book and buddhist books, and u say that? why do you assume so much. Lol.
Who is this fellow Thusness/PasserBy. this same moderator in this forum? His so-called "7 stages of enlightenment" are just his accounts of 'experiential realisation'(if i may put it that way), that's all. doesn't mean u ask people to read them and people will naturally understand his experience or what he had gone through. i read it and it doesn't mean anything to me.
by the way, since u said there are certain aspects which are different, why r u telling me now to go read that book? why r u leading people onto this path taught by all these spiritual teachers whose teachings may not be buddhist-ic in nature?
For me, the experiences they present are very important, even though they do not have the right view. The realizations they had, the experiences they had, are very precious.
Just that once you get that realization and experience, you must have right view in order to move forward, to progress.
That is why their books are still valuable because they point to true, valuable, and precious realizations and experiences. Just that they are not ultimate.
What Eckhart Tolle leads to is a direct realization of mind's unconditioned luminous clarity, so called the I AMness. There is a lack of understanding about anatta and emptiness.
Originally posted by whylikethatah:what do you mean i'm still 'unable to realise the difference'. what..i just said i have read Eckhart Tolle's book and buddhist books, and u say that? why do you assume so much. Lol.
You said 'all contain the same basic message, nothing amazing.', thought you're comparing with Eckhart Tolle as well.
To be able to 'see the difference' between the teachings of some teachers and what the Buddha taught requires a practitioner to realise the essense of both teachings.
This is not achieved through conceptualising the meaning of what we read, but through habituating the mind to release the incessant flow of thoughts, so that the mind is able to realise Itself.
Although some of the teachings are not labelled 'Buddhism', essentially they lead to the same realisations that come along with Buddhist meditation, in particular vipassana. What is important, as the moderators here have already mentioned, is establishing the Right View and not hold any experiences as ultimate.
Right View points to different aspect of our experiences depending on the depth which one is able to cut through delusions. The mind is multi-faceted, and with the different obsessions that are habituated it is not meaningful to assume that all delusions are wholly removed when Right View is established. There is, at some point, the realisation that Right View is the view and embodiment of Anatta, and that the Eightfold Path really only just started with this view of Anatta. When a practitioner starts out, taking on this view is mostly conceptual, based on what we read and understand about Anatta, and this is usually tainted with our opinions. With realisation, there is a radical shift in perception which is no longer conceptual, and previously meaningless phrases like 'who is it that is dragging this corpse along?' can be understood meaningfully.
Are there levels of awakening? I would say there are, while there are not; it all depends on which angle one is looking. However what is true is all sentient beings already Are Buddha nature, and perfect in this imperfect world whether we realise it or not.