• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

So called "enlightenment"

Migrated topic.
hexagonomicon

hexagonomicon

Rising Star
I think the word Enlightenment is thrown around a little loosely by psychonauts.

Lots of times people really just mean an esctatic state or some kind of "enlightenment experience".

True enlightenment comes when one is comepletely free of suffering, when one is not drawn or repelled by the beautiful or the ugly, but rather can simply watch on and see things as they really are.

It's easy to get caught up in the excitement of an experience and fall into the trap of false-enlightenment (which is often just megalomania).
 
I agree. I think people mean they have had been in an enlightening state. A state that opens their eyes to truths that they were previously unable to see. I do not think people mean that they are enlightened in the buddhist sense.

I do not think I am enlightened, however I have had enlightened experiences on psychedelics that have definitely had long lasting impacts on my worldview and outlook on life.

Although I am some what skeptical on the whole enlightenment thing... if the very notion of "good and pleasure" are illusions (which I do acknowledge) than what is enlightenment really like becoming a robot? We have this cultural misconception that enlightenment = pleasure and this is false but then buddha makes mention of the pleasures of enlightenment in a psychological sense I guess.

However I like seeing false beauty in the world. I am not sure I would give this up, things do matter to me, and I enjoy this. The suffering that comes along with it is just part of the ying yang... it is the TAO.... I like to apply buddhist aspects to my life however I would not live completely by it. Strict buddhists (and buddha himself) were against sex and said it is a false illusion. Drugs are also considered false illusions. Although there exist factions that allow these behaviors. I think with anything we have to take the what works for us. Getting caught up in a single thing is not necessarily the best for everyone we are all so different.
 
I have had many experiences I would call enlightening, but I am by no means "Buddha" because of them. I too apply many Buddhist concepts to my life, it certainly makes my life more simple and less chaotic and confusing. I try to eliminate most of the responsibility, money and materials from my life, its hard to really fuck up if your life is really really simple. Pseudo-Buddhism I like to call it.

True enlightenment would eliminate everything you enjoy, there is no ego to demand satisfaction with daily life.
 
Maybe "enlightenment" is the complete integration of "ecstatic states" (for lack of FAR better terminology) into every facet of your waking consciousness and personality. That would also be the difference between a meditator who has a "satori" experience, vs. a "Buddha."
 
yes~! Integrating enlightening experiences is definitely key!

It's funny how westerners assume that giving up clinging to worldly pleasure means that you become an emotionless zombie who never has fun. People don't realize how much their minds are tossed around on the waves of attraction and aversion. Sometimes it's important to take a step back and see how much we suffer trying to chase short lived thrills, and even short lived esctatic experiences, and how disappointed we are after those experiences are finally over.

Pleasure is best enjoyed with Right View, seeing things as they really are; Impermanent, "Non-Self", and Suffering. That way we can enjoy it as it comes and not miss it as it goes.
 
hexagonomicon said:
I think the word Enlightenment is thrown around a little loosely by psychonauts.

Lots of times people really just mean an esctatic state or some kind of "enlightenment experience".

True enlightenment comes when one is comepletely free of suffering, when one is not drawn or repelled by the beautiful or the ugly, but rather can simply watch on and see things as they really are.

It's easy to get caught up in the excitement of an experience and fall into the trap of false-enlightenment (which is often just megalomania).
Click to expand...

I agree with you here, very well said Hexagonomicon :d


Much Peace
 
hexagonomicon said:
yes~! Integrating enlightening experiences is definitely key!

It's funny how westerners assume that giving up clinging to worldly pleasure means that you become an emotionless zombie who never has fun. People don't realize how much their minds are tossed around on the waves of attraction and aversion. Sometimes it's important to take a step back and see how much we suffer trying to chase short lived thrills, and even short lived esctatic experiences, and how disappointed we are after those experiences are finally over.

Pleasure is best enjoyed with Right View, seeing things as they really are; Impermanent, "Non-Self", and Suffering. That way we can enjoy it as it comes and not miss it as it goes.
Click to expand...

I do not appreciate your stereotyping "westerners". This is not the attitude we should have on this site, we like to keep a very open discussion. Disagreements are fine but not stereotyping.

I am not saying that giving up materialism is what enlightenment is about. However I would not want to give up things which give me pleasure. I see that attribute of not clinging to material things. Enlightenment is about a lot more than not clinging to material things. It is about not clinging to any emotion... or any experience.... complete freedom from what they refer to as the "human" constraints.

I am not sure what your definition of enlightenment is exactly? Your definition of enjoying pleasure as it comes and not worrying about it when it leaves is not a buddhist philosophy. If you read the teachings of the Sidhartha you will see that even basic pleasure is an illusion. Enlightened individuals exclude this from their lives... I am well aware that their are sectors of buddhism such as Zen and Tantra which do involve pleasure however if you look at the orthodox teachings of buddha you will see that the goal of enlightenment is that all human emotions are excluded. Including pleasure... which they see as an illusion which is is absolutely... but a great one which I enjoy...
 
There exist many variations on buddhism. However all see emotions both good and bad as baggage and illusions. Freedom from all illusions is one of the main points of enlightenment although there are others including understandings about reality. However what I said was that I enjoy some of the illusions not necessarily material illusions. Is this wrong? Is there only a single correct way for all individuals? I do take certain aspects of buddhist teachings into my life such as avoid materialism and caring to much for materials. However I would not apply this to my love of my significant other. Even though I would suffer if I lost them...
 
I am down with all this suffering and illusions. Whats the point in sitting around in a monestary your whole life meditating away your desires and illusions? IMO its a waste of life. I had a friend who ran off to Taiwan and later travelled to Thailand to go live in a monestary and we discussed his reasoning quite thoroughly. My argument was and always will be the same. I prefer to do drugs have sex and eat good food then sit around meditating my life away and eating gruel. Meditation has value but it shouldn't be the point of your life. Life is here to enjoy. Suffering makes the enjoyment possible.

Buddhism to me has two aspects. One is religious and can be quickly thrown into the rubbish pile with the rest of the worlds religion. The other is psychological. Buddhism is a psychological tool to achieve what they coined as nirvana. I don't intend to define it because I am pretty sure you all get the concept. Thats all it is nothing more.
 
bufoman said:
There exist many variations on buddhism. However all see emotions both good and bad as baggage and illusions. Freedom from all illusions is one of the main points of enlightenment although there are others including understandings about reality. However what I said was that I enjoy some of the illusions not necessarily material illusions. Is this wrong?...
Click to expand...

The idea (if I may presume) is that creating a DELUSION about one thing being good and one being bad (one love-one hated, one desired-one repulsed, etc.), is itself the very CREATION of samsara and ignorance.

It's not that one must stop liking things (that would be, precisely, PRETEND Buddhism). It's that one is to perceive one's delusion, DROP false discriminations, and live in REALITY--where EVERYTHING IS nothing but the Buddha-nature itself.

Although it's not EXACTLY correct to say this...nevertheless: One might say that one takes on INFINITELY MORE "enjoyment" rather than gives up anything.
 
I agree with what you are saying however that is not orthodox buddhism but a commonly held view. In orthodox buddhism even enjoyment would be called an illusion. And it is just as much as suffering is. I agree and acknowledge that they are in fact illusions however I enjoy these illusions. I agree that the point is to see the buddha nature of all reality but one could interpret this as being a computer... w/o emotions...

The true nature of enlightenment comes from the freedom from all illusions... you can not say that this state is pleasurable or enjoyable because that would be a misunderstanding of the very heart of Buddhism. This state involves no illusions.. it is not good or bad it just is.... Buddhism is not saying to be a robot or not be happy I agree however it is an acknowledgement that this is an illusion however In enlightenment all illusions are removed. Zen is about seeing the amusement or comic-ness in reality. The are many interpretations of buddhism and this may thus be a difficult discussion to get into as we may all have heard-read different views.

I agree with burnt. I can see why certain aspects would benefit some people however i would not live my life in this way. Nor would I criticize anyone who would choose to.
 
I would think the first moment of enlightenment is when awareness sees the ego pretending to be YOU. Once you awaken from living purely in the ego state, you've sensed enlightenment, no? Not many can live 24/7 in an egoless state of pure enlightenment. So, don't we pursue longer and longer moments of this bliss? By contrast, we all know people who actually, truly, completely believe their ego is their self. That would be unenlightened sleep-walking, no?
 
I will spare you my opion since it has already been stated. I do not have a daily routine lets leave it at that. And yeah I hate grule. I am a fact junkie this site is the only fiction i read. I dont do novels.

Theres some zen for you or a reflection of it.

I don't intend to define it because I am pretty sure you all get the concept. Thats all it is nothing more.

from a unlikely source:d
 
In the Pali Canon, the Buddha is quoted as telling his followers not to "seek delight" in the six internal and external sense bases, but rather to see them as they really are.

You have to eat. It's tasty going in, and it's disgusting when it comes out. It's not that an enlightened person doesn't take pleasure in eating, but they acknowledge the impermanent dukkha-nature of the process and act accordingly (ie. moderation in eating, etc).

I remember once when tripping on LSD I was breathing and meditating and I remember thinking to myself, "Not only does breathing FEEL good, but you have to DO it to LIVE!" LOL!
 
hexagonomicon said:
In the Pali Canon, the Buddha is quoted as telling his followers not to "seek delight" in the six internal and external sense bases, but rather to see them as they really are.

You have to eat. It's tasty going in, and it's disgusting when it comes out. It's not that an enlightened person doesn't take pleasure in eating, but they acknowledge the impermanent dukkha-nature of the process and act accordingly (ie. moderation in eating, etc).

I remember once when tripping on LSD I was breathing and meditating and I remember thinking to myself, "Not only does breathing FEEL good, but you have to DO it to LIVE!" LOL!
Click to expand...

Acknowledging impermanence of everything is key due to the level of attachment that you grasp on to determines the way in which you are able to handle death, if you are highly attached your consciousness will have a hard time finding a higher realm of consciousness to be reborn into. Attachment holds us back in our ability to be reborn in an enlightened state of consciousness this is why its so key to realize your attachments and to be able to diminish them.



Much Peace
 
I'm very much a fan of budhism. Nevertheless i don't believe that there is such a thing as a permanent state of enlightenment. I think there is an enlightent way of living, wich is more of a permanent strugle to be psychologically fit to meet the challenges of life. Something you're never fully done with. It is easy to be positive when all you encounter is positiveness. Life, like the pali word 'dukha' refers to, is far from perfect and it's innevitable for every person to come into contact with it's less perfect facets every now and then.
This will never change, not for the most enlightent persons either. To have negative feelings or to be otherwise affected by negativity is also something that just will happen, to you, me, nelson mandela, the dalai lama and every other living human being, as well the most ordinary of men as well as the most enlightened ones.

Whether i would see myself as an enlightened being depends very much on how it would be defined, but i myself define enlightenment as trying to be enlightened, trying to be the best you can be, morally, psychologically, intelectually, emotionally and spiritually. Not necessarilly trying to be happy but to do what's right, also psychologically; to aproach every situation in a right manner. As long as i strugle for this with all i got, with all my imperfections and failures now and then, i consider myself enlightened in at least this perspective.

This has nothing to do with arrogance or something, since all you can do is sincerely try.

Jesus might have been able to walk over water, if you believe those things, and he might have been the morally superiour being. But we can not compeed with dreamt-up superhumans. Just because we, the real people, are not as superiour as those mythological characters, doesn't mean that all our strugles are thát futile and that trying to be an enlightened being is overambitious. Just be realistic.
 
Very well put Polytrip! I'm not a fan of any -ism but Buddhism is probably the least evil of them. Actually, I heard the Dalai Lama say recently that he disapproves of theocracies, great man!

I think the whole idea of some permanent blissful Nirwana end-state is a myth. There is no end, just waking up again and again; the universe keeps growing and learning from interacting with itself...
Everybody has moments of enlightenment and endarkenment in their lives and it's all part of the game. Sometimes I wonder if we're trying to stretch the rules or peeking above the game board by employing this molecule ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom