I have sat back and contemplated about this thread and not just jumped into the discussion. I am not a Buddhist in the traditional sense. Hell, I am not anything, in the traditional sense, nor am I any type of: ist, ism or ian. I am just a child. Gray haired and slightly ravaged by the effects of the time-space-continuum... but still a child, nonetheless. So, I thought I'd write a book and a novel about my musings on the subject of Buddhism.
I admire the expressions of those illumined sages and shamans, who have shed great light upon the nature of existence and the paradoxical nature of self. And while I have found, when I look very, very closely... that there is no actual self, whatsoever. There is something... something immeasurably powerful and supra-intelligent, which I have touched and in so doing, remembered an ineffable truth.
Perhaps one in a series of ever changing truths? I don't know. I've shifted my awareness and found my mortal self to be wholly illusory and the
Sacred Field of Unified Being, as being the only eternal reality. But then again, who had the self realization?
Who am I? From my existential windowsill, I believe that when the human mind stops thinking, yet remains conscious of existence, an awareness blooms of a translucency of being. Said translucency leads our attention into a Void of conceptual formatting. What is... exists without our mental definition or even our isolated observation if it's cosmic being.
I'd like to recount something I once read, that suggested something like this, were all of the quoted oral teachings attributed to the historical Gautama Buddha, truly his factual verbiage, he would have had to be talking nonstop, for over 250 years. Mixing the interpretations of human semantics and the complexity of translation of the scriptures, from one language to another... much is left to an individual's subjective speculation.
While this is a greatly exaggerated point to bring up, there is much truth behind the implication. As has bee pointed out already, there are a number of schools/doctrines of Buddhism, which have developed over the centuries and each branch has it's own spin of the words of the
"Enlightened One".
I was personally, most blown away by one statement quoted as being from Lord Buddha, he simply said,
"I am awake". Does this implies that by-in-large, we humanoids are asleep? The sleep of ignorance? For my own spiritual journey, this is the sole inspiration which drives me to embrace each moment anew and consciously separate the appearance from the innate reality, within this existential paradigm.
Self does not exist, yet, the appearance of self and the assumption that we are all selves, plays a revolving mind game within there perception of our own consciousness. I feel that when Lord Buddha became awakened, nevermore to dream of being temporal ego-self, he might have easily remained in silence and enjoyed the bliss of Nirvana.
Likewise, he may have dissolved into the blinding luminosity of the Great Void, merging within the Light of all lights. But it is said, that out of tremendous compassion for the dreams and subsequent suffering of all sentient life forms, he chose to speak the truth to his human fellows. For good or bad, what we have today are interpretations of his wisdom and the direct proclamation of his that we must each awaken, as well. :idea:
So, I have come to believe that this great sage provided a lovely invitation for all of humanity to join him in this great awakening. An awakening so deep and permanent, that there was no need to speculate about an ultimate God or the realms beyond our limited material awareness. He gently returns us to the present.
This is key!
Here and now is all that exists, within the appearance of self and other. One needs no philosophy about this level of reality. Are we not living and breathing within this very moment? And though we are illusions played within our own subjectivity... we are essentially Divine being, despite the mirage of self identification. I would theorize that true enlightenment is only possible when the witness to the phenomena has disappeared, by a permanent immersion into the infinite plane of The Unified Field.
hixidom said:
[The part that bothered me]
At one point, an experienced member was saying that meditation gets easier with practice because you become more focussed and are more easily able to get to "that" realisation. I then asked what the point of further meditation is once you've realised "that" realisation. It just seemed to me that realisation of the point/goal of meditation negates the need for further meditation.
I think that it's fair to say, that there must be as many ideas or opinions about meditation and enlightenment, as there are minds to entertain the concepts. I have found, in my own practice, that meditation is not a goal-oriented exercise. It certainly was for many, many years... but now I believe it is an quiet posture of true inquisitiveness. An emptiness of mental dialog and an attuned center of concentration. It is a never ending opening-up, within a human soul, whereby we embrace the depth of our being.. by becoming centered on the nothingness of the insubstantial. In so doing, and often spontaneously, we interconnect our conscious-awareness to everything else within this Omniverse of Being.
Now, formal sitting meditation is indeed a practice. It is quite necessary if we desire to awaken from the dream of self, because we do appear exist within the time-space-continuum. "Enlightenment" cannot be a fixed state, as it is an ever expanding understanding of THAT which is beyond the boundaries (and inherently within) our dualistic multiverse.
So, even Lord Buddha continued to sit in meditation, as he was gifting by his dignified example, the key of awakening to all of humanity in his time and into the future. Also, it seems like any spiritual epiphany, be it directly chemically induced or induced through meditation (again, chemically induced), has a cyclical pattern. so, we rise to heights of spiritual euphoria and for most of us, we return again to our slumbers. There appears to be a learning-curve to spiritual awakening. The Buddha was quite rare and magnificent, indeed.
We open and close like colorful blossoms on the vine. "enlightenment" is not like flipping an electrical light switch. It is an endless journey, deeper and deeper into the fulcrum of the very heart and living presence, of this present moment,
the here & now.
gibran2 said:
If self is an illusion, then who is it who is enlightened?
Most profound... really! As self has been found to be illusory, by humankind's most aware members, how can a phantom thought-form become enlightened? For is not enlightenment the lack of that membrane which separates one soul from another? Is not awakening a stance of endless inquiry and an open-ended question of, "who am I?" I'm not suggesting that we adorn this point of circular logic with overly grandiose significance, I just feel that when a soul merges within the whole... there is no one to become enlightened nor transformed into a saint or an avatar.
There is only root consciousness dancing throughout myriad dimensions and multiples of mirrored images of self, morphing for eternity. and within the absolute silence of this very consciousness... a Void beyond the grasp of any self. Not nothingness, as that is a human concept. THAT which is simultaneously immaterial and material, unmanifest and seemingly manifest.
AlbertKLloyd said:
Nobody has ever been enlightened, no self can be. Nobody who claims it, has it, and nobody who has it can claim it and still have it. It isn't evolution, it isn't gained, it isn't something that you already have. It is far more simple than all that, more profound than any interpretation of teaching.
Nice. I like the way you put these words together. I wholeheartedly agree! This idea is mirrored in the teachings of Cha'n/Seon/Zen Buddhism. This path is part of the Mahayana Buddhist tradition. Mahayana is an admixture of the teachings of the original, historical Buddha and indigenous shamanic thoughts and beliefs.
The 17th century Japanese Zen mystic, Bankei Yotaku, postulated the notion of "The Unborn". His epiphany was that there is existent, before our individual material incarnation, a force which is unmoving and untouched by the time-space-continuum. This force is our spiritual essence and our true nature. We already are "enlightened" before even stepping into this existential parameters of our own personal incarnation. This idea created the koans, "what is your original face?" and, "who were you before you were born?"
This hardly implies that merely by dying, we are once more merging into the vast sea of eternal being. Nothing is as simple as that. It does reminds us that we have always been inseparable from that unbound consciousnesses, which could be labeled as "God" or the "Sacred".
So, again, I agree.
The journey is the destination. The relative is an aspect of the absolute. Only within the mind of the observer,
the self, does it separate into this and that. For myself, illusory as I am, meditation is the gradual and cyclical remembrance of this truth.
joedirt said:
I'd also agree that there are degrees of enlightenment..and perhaps it makes WAY more sense to talk about it in that regard. For instance I feel as though I'm a good bit more 'enlightened' today than I was 5 years ago. I'm clearly not an enlightened being like a buddha, but I have grown on the path.
If enlightenment was referred to as a continuum like this more so than a single end state (which I do believe exists) then it would be taken seriously more often and it would perhaps also end a lot of the confusion.
Yes and I agree, brother! There are certainly degrees of enlightenment, even as there are degrees of remembrance and degrees of being fully awakened. This is especially significant if we link the idea of light, with the idea of human enlightenment. In total darkness, nothing can be seen. In partial darkness, many things can be seen. In full light, details about the many things, becomes clear and more easily discernible. Increase the light to a blindingly intense degree... and all is light and naught is darkness.
Meaning? When the light is all that one perceives, all becomes evident as a shimmering translucency of sorts. The very light becomes void of all perceivable characteristics. Observer and observed are both washed into a Void of inseparability, yea indivisibility, by the un-limitlessness of said Light.
So yeah, there certainly appear to be measured steps and degrees of understanding. Sri Adi Shakaracharya said that sadhana (spiritual training) is necessary because of the force of Maya. Conceptually, Maya is the collective dream-state we all share on this physical plane of being. It has a lot of power over our perceptual parameters and it cannot be shrugged off intellectually, as merely a mirage. Right? Or can it? IMO, that is what it's all about. Our voyages into Hyperspace and our pilgrimages into the unknown, towards what lays beyond the confines of our relative view. And that beyond state is where we all came from, as well as return to. A circle. 8)
Shakaracharya also compared meditation to the dying of cloth. a profoundly simple analogy. It takes repeated immersions into the dyed water, to fully saturate and in so doing, color the cloth permanently (that being said, what is really "permanent" in the endlessly changing universe of manifesting duality?). Now, that's another line of thought, altogether. How do you enlighten a soul, which has an enlightened nature, to begin with? It's the spontaneous dance of Spirit and we needn't over-think this issue, to see that there are stages and graduated levels of understanding. Everything organic seems to grow in measured degrees, always in natural balance. :idea:
But it makes the most sense, that there would be levels of enlightenment and so, levels of awakening. It's certainly a paradox, since there is no time, outside of the time-space-continuum. So, what has always been, will always be... forevermore.
William James said:
There are no differences but differences of degree between different degrees of difference and no difference.
Oh, you just say that because you've been using psychedelics for so long. My, my... but aren't you a clever lad? :lol:
joedirt said:
This particular sutra is meant more as a koan to get the person to break down the ego. To an enlightened person there is no self...which would make the diamond sutra correct... To be sure this phrase wasn't intended for everyone to take at face value. An unenlightened person claiming there is no self is delusional.
Furthermore enlightenment is possible and many people have achieved it, and many of them have said so...including the buddha and quite a few of his close disciples.
I am also of this line of thought. Well, when I am thinking about such lofty levels of awareness, that is. There exists an irony to the whole enlightenment game. We are created by the
Insubstantial Quintessence. We suffer as humanoids, because ignorance really sucks! IMO, knowledge is bliss. Ego is a state of compression and it just somehow feels wrong or unnatural, when our mind is expanded enough. :shock:
We have peak experiences, in which we see more than we thought even possible and we seek to revisit this epiphany, like a junkie seeks a fix. When we are immersed in the light... we are One and we are acutely aware of being One. One without division nor separation from the whole of
"The Unborn" force existent in all places, yet, existent limitlessly, within the Clear Light of the Void.
SWIMfriend said:
If Buddhists texts say "There is no enlightenment. No one is enlightened," the meaning is that enlightenment is not a "specific state" that one seeks to achieve. Enlightenment, really, is nothing other than the ABSENCE of ignorance. Once one ceases being ignorant and deluded his perception can then be referred to as "enlightened." Enlightenment is not a state to be achieved, ignorance and delusion are states to be abandoned.
Nice. Wise words, which make a distinct differentiation betwixt that which is impermanent and thus, unreal... and that which is perhaps an ever expanding reality, always just beyond the grasp of sentient mind. Very well worded and quite spartan in content. And very, very true! Now why can't I be more like this? Sometimes I feel like I've been talking nonstop for 250 years, myself.
He so mutters to himself, a self which does not even exist, as he gazes into his empty coffee cup.
'Tis a Long Wind Blowing Cosmic Dust.
