wow this guy has reached 'Nirvana'
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
i think enlightened people don't say they are enlightened. period.
Also not exactly true, it is possible for enlightened people to say they are enlightened. What they don't believe is that there is a true self and any mentions of 'self' or 'attainment' are just conventional means of communication.
The Buddha himself announces and discusses about his attainment, and as I told whylikethatah, the first person who heard of Buddha's attainment did not believe it and left, which is sad*. So we should not close down on someone just because they make extraordinary claims. They could very well be enlightened, who knows? But there must be discernment and wisdom to see, to examine what exactly is he/she talking about.
*
http://www.thinkbuddha.org/article/244/miscommunication
Then, having stayed at Uruvela as long as I liked, I set out to wander by stages to Varanasi. Upaka the Ajivaka saw me on the road between Gaya and the (place of) Awakening, and on seeing me said to me, “Clear, my friend, are your faculties. Pure your complexion, and bright. On whose account have you gone forth? Who is your teacher? In whose Dhamma do you delight?”
When this was said, I replied to Upaka the Ajivaka in verses:
All-vanquishing,
all-knowing am I,
with regard to all things unadhering.
All-abandoning,
released in the ending of craving:
having fully known on my own,
to whom should I point as my teacher?
I have no teacher,
and one like me can’t be found.
In the world with its devas,
I have no counterpart.
For I am an arahant in the world;
I, the unexcelled teacher.
I, alone, am rightly self-awakened.
Cooled am I,unbound.
To set rolling the wheel of Dhamma
I go to the city of Kasi.
In a world become blind,
I beat the drum of the Deathless.
[…]
When this was said, Upaka said, “May it be so, my friend,” and — shaking his head, taking a side-road — he left. -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Also not exactly true, it is possible for enlightened people to say they are enlightened. What they don't believe is that there is a true self and any mentions of 'self' or 'attainment' are just conventional means of communication.
The Buddha himself announces and discusses about his attainment, and as I told whylikethatah, the first person who heard of Buddha's attainment did not believe it and left, which is sad*. So we should not close down on someone just because they make extraordinary claims. They could very well be enlightened, who knows? But there must be discernment and wisdom to see, to examine what exactly is he/she talking about.
*
http://www.thinkbuddha.org/article/244/miscommunication
Then, having stayed at Uruvela as long as I liked, I set out to wander by stages to Varanasi. Upaka the Ajivaka saw me on the road between Gaya and the (place of) Awakening, and on seeing me said to me, “Clear, my friend, are your faculties. Pure your complexion, and bright. On whose account have you gone forth? Who is your teacher? In whose Dhamma do you delight?”
When this was said, I replied to Upaka the Ajivaka in verses:
All-vanquishing,
all-knowing am I,
with regard to all things unadhering.
All-abandoning,
released in the ending of craving:
having fully known on my own,
to whom should I point as my teacher?
I have no teacher,
and one like me can’t be found.
In the world with its devas,
I have no counterpart.
For I am an arahant in the world;
I, the unexcelled teacher.
I, alone, am rightly self-awakened.
Cooled am I,unbound.
To set rolling the wheel of Dhamma
I go to the city of Kasi.
In a world become blind,
I beat the drum of the Deathless.
[…]
When this was said, Upaka said, “May it be so, my friend,” and — shaking his head, taking a side-road — he left.
oh thanks... what i meant was.... usually enlightened people don't go around telling people... acting in high profile. I just felt that, they know the bliss inside, like a mute tasting honey... -
Originally posted by 2009novice:
oh thanks... what i meant was.... usually enlightened people don't go around telling people... acting in high profile. I just felt that, they know the bliss inside, like a mute tasting honey...Yes usually so. Especially after the initial excitement when having become enlightened dies down. When they first become enlightened, there may be an urge to share the joy and insight :) It also accompanies a 60-90 day period of intense bliss and tremendous clarity.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
If you are patient enough to read through what I wrote, I'm sure you'll see the link between what he said and what I said. :)
no i don't understand an iota of the 'stages of enlightenment' u've written man, so..it sounds like BS to me but maybe others can understand. so to people like me, don't worry, all is not lost... even without reading AEN's blog or ebook, there're plenty of places to learn dhamma from!
-
Originally posted by whylikethatah:
no i don't understand an iota of the 'stages of enlightenment' u've written man, so..it sounds like BS to me but maybe others can understand. so to people like me, don't worry, all is not lost... even without reading AEN's blog or ebook, there're plenty of places to learn dhamma from!
When you understand the concepts of anatta, emptiness, dependent origination, maybe you can understand the stages better. But understanding conceptually is also not the same as direct experience and realization.
Only when you truly have the experience and realization will it all make total sense though before that you get glimpses. Even to realize Stage 1 is not so easy - it is enough to make you an enlightened jnani (seer) from Hinduism's perspective!
If you have a specific question about something you don't understand, you can ask. (though I doubt you are very interested, or at least at this point you appear very confused or doubtful)
When you realize what the stages are about, you'll see how universal they relate to the experiences of people around the world.
-
Stage 1 - realized Presence, Existence, Beingness, reified as Eternal Witness/Watcher of all things, the Self. this is actually what Buddha calls 'luminosity of mind' and is merely an aspect pertaining to the mind realm in the 18 dhatus scheme, but at this phase of insight, this is not understood.
to get a sense or glimpse of this, pause your thoughts. in that pause, there is undeniably a wordless, conceptualless mental presence, beingness, sense of existence, a presence-awareness that remains even after all conceptualization ceases
Stage 2 - experienced impersonality (sense that everything is an expression of infinite universal life, no real personal self, but still cling to ultimate big self), maybe temporary experience of non-dual where everything is fused into self, but still fixated on Source/Self
Stage 3 - entering into nothingness to dissolve self, everything experienced as self-less spontaneity
Stage 4 - not merely temporary merging of subjective perceiver and perceived object - this time it is a permanent insight that subject and object were never divided, awareness and contents were never divided to begin with. no inside or outside. you no longer feel like an observer seeing the world, rather, the world is a manifestation of a single awareness at 0 distance. when you see the mountain, you are the mountain
Stage 5 - in seeing just the seen, no seer. not merely the inseperability of subject and object, there is *no subject* to begin with that could be inseperable from objects, no "the one awareness" to be one or manifesting as manifestations. "awareness" is merely an empty label denoting the six modes of consciousness. it is realized that self/subject is merely an empty label, in reality just the process of disjoint manifestations/experiences without an experiencer. no subject to be in union with object. this is beginning of Buddhism enlightenment, all previous stages can be found in other religions (though also experienced by people in Buddhism)
Stage 6 - not merely the emptiness of self, it is now also realized that all phenomena/objects are empty of inherent existence, being all the display of dependent origination. view of inherency dissolves, sense of locality dissolves
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
When you understand the concepts of anatta, emptiness, dependent origination, maybe you can understand the stages better. But understanding conceptually is also not the same as direct experience and realization.
Only when you truly have the experience and realization will it all make total sense though before that you get glimpses. Even to realize Stage 1 is not so easy - it is enough to make you an enlightened jnani (seer) from Hinduism's perspective!
If you have a specific question about something you don't understand, you can ask. (though I doubt you are very interested, or at least at this point you appear very confused or doubtful)
When you realize what the stages are about, you'll see how universal they relate to the experiences of people around the world.
oh, my understanding of buddhist concepts are ok...but your "stages of enlightenment" model and all the wordy discussions u all have...come on...really? i'm not questioning your intention, if people who read and can understand then good. but for people who don't understand, the stuff u write doesn't resonate with them or their experience..at least i'm not gonna keep quiet about it and pretend i know man haha. for people who don't know(at least for now), u think all those wordy verbiage will lead them to 'enlightenment' ? its just like i give u a book written in tibetan or tamil, dunno means dunno. and like u said, even if the conceptual understanding is there, what's the point too without the 'seeing' or realisation of that conceptual understanding? so yeah, totally pointless.
-
Originally posted by whylikethatah:
oh, my understanding of buddhist concepts are ok...but your "stages of enlightenment" model and all the wordy discussions u all have...come on...really? i'm not questioning your intention, if people who read and can understand then good. but for people who don't understand, the stuff u write doesn't resonate with them or their experience..at least i'm not gonna keep quiet about it and pretend i know man haha. for people who don't know(at least for now), u think all those wordy verbiage will lead them to 'enlightenment' ? its just like i give u a book written in tibetan or tamil, dunno means dunno. and like u said, even if the conceptual understanding is there, what's the point too without the 'seeing' or realisation of that conceptual understanding? so yeah, totally pointless.
Hey AEN, I do agree with whylikethatah that if people read and are unable to understand, it's as good as not reaching them. The message is important, but the manner and method of delivery is equally important.Not asking you to "dumb down" the Dharma, but at least simplify and summarize such that people won't be put off by walls of text ... haha!
Make it easier to understand!Also, I am ever aware that when the destination hasn't been reached, the "how-to" is probably more important than the "what". Of course it's great to know what a wonderful place the destination is, or I wouldn't even aspire to go there. However, I prefer to be given the tools and the instructions to get there... first.
I guess that's what our meditation teachers are for, but I do sometimes wish the techniques could be discussed here a little more. Various techniques... since everyone is different and we may need different methods.
I wouldn't say the "wordy verbiage" is pointless, just intimidating to access; and I'm concerned many will just give up even before they have come to realise its value.
-
Actually in Buddhism, View is more important than techniques and path (but not to misunderstand that meditation is not important, they must be balanced), as Namdrol puts it. Because we are Buddhist practitioners and not Hindu practitioners. I can testify to this - I am not a very hardworking practitioner, but because I have right view, my progress is much faster. There are a lot of practitioners both Buddhist and non-Buddhist who are also very hardworking practitioners, but they get stuck somewhere for decades or a lifetime due to incorrect view.
It's ok not to understand all the stages of the path (a lot of things you learn will also only make sense down the path), but your view must be right. You must have right view.
If you have right view, you will also likewise understand Stage 5 (anatta) and Stage 6 (dependent origination/emptiness)
-
Found Loppon Namdrol's quotations:
"View is more important than practice. That's why we are Buddhist and not Hindus."
"Meditation without a correct view is an incorrect meditation."
-
This is a good article to understand more about anatta and dependent origination http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/conceptions-of-self-in-western-and.html
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Actually in Buddhism, View is more important than techniques and path, as Namdrol puts it. Because we are Buddhist practitioners and not Hindu practitioners. I can testify to this - I am not a very hardworking practitioner, but because I have right view, my progress is much faster.
It's ok not to understand all the stages of the path, but your view must be right. You must have right view.
Regarding the "View is more important than techniques and path" bit...
OK, noted. Shall remember that.
Then can you at least try to make the stuff you write easier to read and understand? I do usually get round to reading some of the writings that you share, but it's still a tussle with walls of text. It's not that bad for me maybe because I've grown used to tussling with long texts anyway... but feedback for you is that someone said, "sometime his post in forum i can't digest"... and this person actually wants to understand
(it's not Almond Cookies I'm talking about... ha!)OK, feedback session over. Lol.
-
I see... ok thanks
Actually the automobile analogy in the article is a very good way of explaining.
-
It is important to realize what is meant by the “self” rejected by the Buddha as illusory. Not only are human beings declared to lack a soul or self, but so is everything else: rivers, mountains, this paper, and your pencil, all lack a separate self. What this means is that they cannot have any existence except in terms of the interconnected net of causal conditions that made their existence possible. All things (including human beings) are composites, in other words, they are composed of parts, and have no real existence other than as temporary (impermanent) collections of parts. They are essentially patterns, configurations, or Gestalten rather than objectively existing separate entities. They possess no separate essence, self, or soul that could exist by itself, apart from the component parts and conditions.
Consider, for example, an automobile. Does it have an essence or a “soul” when separated from its component parts? Does it have any real existence apart from its parts? One could try the following mental exercise. Removing one of the tires of the car, one could ask oneself, is this the car? Successively taking away the windshield, a door, a piston, a bolt, the radiator cap, and continuing until the last piece of metal, plastic, glass, or rubber has been removed, one would never find the part which, if removed, transforms what remains into a non-car. Such part, if found, would have represented the essence or the “soul” of the car, and yet it was nowhere to be found. Now all we have is a pile of parts—where is the car? At which point did the car disappear? If we reflect carefully we are left with the realization that there never was a car there—all that was there was a conglomerate of parts temporarily connected in a certain way, so as to result in a particular mode of functioning, and “car” was just a convenient label to designate this working arrangement. The word “car” is nothing but a label for the gestalt formed by the constituent parts, and although it is true (as realized by Wertheimer and the other Gestaltists) that the whole is more than the sum of the parts (one cannot drive sitting on any of the separate parts, or on a random heap of them, but driving is possible when one puts them together in a certain way), it is equally true that a gestalt cannot continue to exist when separated from its parts. The gestalt, the “whole,” cannot exist by itself; it does not have a separate self or “soul.”
But what about a person? According to Buddhist psychology, what we call a “person” is the composite of five groups of elements or skandhas. The skandhas are form, feelings, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness. Just as an automobile is a temporary collection of car parts, a person is a temporary arrangement of these five aggregates or skandhas. There is no separate, independent self or soul that would be left if we removed form (which includes the body), feelings, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness. While these aggregates are together, the functioning gestalt we call a person exists; if they are removed, the gestalt ceases to be. For this reason, the self can be said to be “empty” of reality when separated from its component aggregates— a view of the self radically different from Western perspectives. But it is not only the self that is empty, and cannot exist by itself; the skandhas themselves are also empty.
The five skandhas, like everything else, are dependently arisen, and cannot exist by themselves. Take the form of one’s body, for example. What would remain of it, if one removed one’s perception of it, one’s feelings about it, one’s impulses to act on it or with it, and one’s conscious awareness of it? Form is empty of reality when separated from perceptions, feelings, impulses, and consciousness. And what about feelings? They also cannot exist by themselves. Feelings are feelings about something, about one’s body, one’s perceptions, one’s impulses, one’s state of consciousness. The same is true of the remaining skandhas—each one is composed of the other four. They are in a state of interdependent co-origination, they inter-are (Hanh, 1988).
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
oh thanks... what i meant was.... usually enlightened people don't go around telling people... acting in high profile. I just felt that, they know the bliss inside, like a mute tasting honey...
Yeah, someone asked Ven. 慧律whether he is englightened. He replied that if you are enlightened, you will know whether I'm enlightened. I think most of the people will not give a direct answer of Yes even they have enlightened. I wonder is it because they are not supposed to tell. If yes, I wonder what's the reason for not telling. Anything wrong with telling others that they are enlightened? -
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
Yeah, someone asked Ven. 慧律whether he is englightened. He replied that if you are enlightened, you will know whether I'm enlightened. I think most of the people will not give a direct answer of Yes even they have enlightened. I wonder is it because they are not supposed to tell. If yes, I wonder what's the reason for not telling. Anything wrong with telling others that they are enlightened?Because it is unskillful. If you make big claims a lot, people might form a negative impression about you even before studying what you teach. Like what happened to Buddha on his first attempt at declaring his awakened state. If Buddha is perfect in skillful means, why do you think he made such mistakes? It can be treated as a lesson for the other enlightened persons how "not to" approach others.
But if you don't make big claims, and people study what you teach, eventually they will know you have true wisdom.
-
guys, AEN merely copied and paste the stages lol. doesnt mean he is enlightenened lol.
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
guys, AEN merely copied and paste the stages lol. doesnt mean he is enlightenened lol.
off topic? is this a discussion about my enlightenment in the first place?
If you want to discuss my experience, there are other threads.... or you can start reading my e-journal which is about 450 pages of my own experience.
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Because it is unskillful. If you make big claims a lot, people might form a negative impression about you even before studying what you teach. Like what happened to Buddha on his first attempt at declaring his awakened state. If Buddha is perfect in skillful means, why do you think he made such mistakes? It can be treated as a lesson for the other enlightened persons how "not to" approach others.
But if you don't make big claims, and people study what you teach, eventually they will know you have true wisdom.
Thanks AEN. I have another question, does a person who is enlightened needs a master or someone who is enlightened to verify, witness or certify (don't know which word to use ha ha....) to say that the person is truly enlightened. Or is it the person who is enlightened will naturally know. I'm curious.
-
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
Thanks AEN. I have another question, does a person who is enlightened needs a master or someone who is enlightened to verify, witness or certify (don't know which word to use ha ha....) to say that the person is truly enlightened. Or is it the person who is enlightened will naturally know. I'm curious.
He will naturally know, there is no need for authentication.
Nevertheless, it is good to discuss with one's teachers also, firstly why would you want to keep your experience to yourself? There is naturally a tendency to want to discuss it with others, at least those who know. Secondly, just because you are enlightened doesn't mean you have attained Buddhahood. There are different levels of practice and attainment. So the teacher still can point out certain things to you to help you on your path.
-
we put in much effort to understand worldly subjects, we should put in much effort to understand the truth about reality for liberation. cant expect all to be easily understood as it is profound on the intellectual level. of course, this is if you are a serious seeker.
-
Originally posted by realization:
Hey AEN, I do agree with whylikethatah that if people read and are unable to understand, it's as good as not reaching them. The message is important, but the manner and method of delivery is equally important.Not asking you to "dumb down" the Dharma, but at least simplify and summarize such that people won't be put off by walls of text ... haha!
Make it easier to understand!Also, I am ever aware that when the destination hasn't been reached, the "how-to" is probably more important than the "what". Of course it's great to know what a wonderful place the destination is, or I wouldn't even aspire to go there. However, I prefer to be given the tools and the instructions to get there... first.
I guess that's what our meditation teachers are for, but I do sometimes wish the techniques could be discussed here a little more. Various techniques... since everyone is different and we may need different methods.
I wouldn't say the "wordy verbiage" is pointless, just intimidating to access; and I'm concerned many will just give up even before they have come to realise its value.
it's like reading a map giving u directions to reach a remote village in Greenland. you read it, going "aahhh...after we touch down at the airport, we take a cab to reach the hotel(stage 1 finished)..tomorrow wake up(stage 2 begins); take the train to reach the neighbouring town, have a cup of coffee, leave for the jetty, wait for the seas to calm, then take the boat to leave for the island...once reached the island(stage 2 ends), (then stage 3 begins) once on the island, whip out your compass, plot your geographical co-ordinates, then...." ...for all u know, u're reading the map while still in Singapore
if we go for an overseas trip, we more or less have an itinerary right. at least we know when our plane departs.
BUT! not so when it comes to the 'spiritual journey'. there's no telling if your plane has even departed...when u're gonna arrive in Greenland...and all the other questions. psst psst...u know something? i heard the destination gets more elusive if u seek for a 'How-to'
-
Originally posted by realization:
Regarding the "View is more important than techniques and path" bit...
OK, noted. Shall remember that.
Then can you at least try to make the stuff you write easier to read and understand? I do usually get round to reading some of the writings that you share, but it's still a tussle with walls of text. It's not that bad for me maybe because I've grown used to tussling with long texts anyway... but feedback for you is that someone said, "sometime his post in forum i can't digest"... and this person actually wants to understand
(it's not Almond Cookies I'm talking about... ha!)OK, feedback session over. Lol.
yes... true... What i know was, Right View is first of the 8 fold path. Learnt at school. -
Originally posted by whylikethatah:
it's like reading a map giving u directions to reach a remote village in Greenland. you read it, going "aahhh...after we touch down at the airport, we take a cab to reach the hotel(stage 1 finished)..tomorrow wake up(stage 2 begins); take the train to reach the neighbouring town, have a cup of coffee, leave for the jetty, wait for the seas to calm, then take the boat to leave for the island...once reached the island(stage 2 ends), (then stage 3 begins) once on the island, whip out your compass, plot your geographical co-ordinates, then...." ...for all u know, u're reading the map while still in Singapore
if we go for an overseas trip, we more or less have an itinerary right. at least we know when our plane departs.
BUT! not so when it comes to the 'spiritual journey'. there's no telling if your plane has even departed...when u're gonna arrive in Greenland...and all the other questions. psst psst...u know something? i heard the destination gets more elusive if u seek for a 'How-to'
I would say, not that elusive. The instructions are laid out in sutras. The most commonly used "how-tos" are sutras like the Anapanasati, Satipatthana, Maha-satipatthana sutras, etc.
When I requested more discussion on the "how-tos" I wasn't seeking instruction right here on the forum per se. Our meditation teachers should be the ones instructing us. However, some amount of discussion on the techniques in terms of problems faced and how to solve them, which techniques are better under certain conditions (e.g. people were asking how to forgive and metta meditation often gets recommended), how to overcome lack of motivation in practice, and even things like what to do if your leg is hurting while doing your sittings, etc.
These are things that we can help each other with; just like in the Sangha of the olden days, when monks with more experience helped the novices. Matters surrounding practice were actively discussed so that everyone could progress. Things regarding awakening were openly discussed and not kept hush-hush like it has tended to become these days. Today, enlightenment is seen as something mysterious, faraway, and not to be discussed.
The Buddha taught that awakening and liberation from suffering is possible. However, people of today seem to have put the most basic Buddhist aim on a very high pedestal. They have decided for themselves that enlightenment is impossible. Hence, they scoff when others talk about having directly seen Anatta and Emptiness.
-
Originally posted by realization:
I would say, not that elusive. The instructions are laid out in sutras. The most commonly used "how-tos" are sutras like the Anapanasati, Satipatthana, Maha-satipatthana sutras, etc.
When I requested more discussion on the "how-tos" I wasn't seeking instruction right here on the forum per se. Our meditation teachers should be the ones instructing us. However, some amount of discussion on the techniques in terms of problems faced and how to solve them, which techniques are better under certain conditions (e.g. people were asking how to forgive and metta meditation often gets recommended), how to overcome lack of motivation in practice, and even things like what to do if your leg is hurting while doing your sittings, etc.
These are things that we can help each other with; just like in the Sangha of the olden days, when monks with more experience helped the novices. Matters surrounding practice were actively discussed so that everyone could progress. Things regarding awakening were openly discussed and not kept hush-hush like it has tended to become these days. Today, enlightenment is seen as something mysterious, faraway, and not to be discussed.
The Buddha taught that awakening and liberation from suffering is possible. However, people of today seem to have put the most basic Buddhist aim on a very high pedestal. They have decided for themselves that enlightenment is impossible. Hence, they scoff when others talk about having directly seen Anatta and Emptiness.
oh, you meant 'technique-based' instructions. that shouldn't be a big problem isn't it. i was thinking along the lines of coming to the 'realisation' or 'attainment' since u used the word 'destination', as in there's no 'How-to' reach that 'destination'.
the ego makes a compelling case as it figures out what it needs, sets down an agenda, and progresses towards its goal. it knows where it is going, what it still lacks, and how to achieve the wanted result, all in quantifiable terms. but if the mind has never been where it is going, how could it have any possible idea how to get there, or how the journey looks like? So it becomes an obstacle if we think we know where we are going and the strategies we use to get there.
the ego can interfere with the process of spiritual work, but it cannot offer much assistance. as long as the ego remains in-charge of the spiritual journey, it endlessly complicates and prolongs the process. imo, awakening or enlightenment is not something you gain, but simply is when the mind releases its authority. so yeah, no 'stages of enlightenment' for me thanks
