A speaker of the way

[Thief]

So who is the teacher and who is the student?

Haven't you caught on yet?

So far I am offering myself as a 'springboard'...for your 'noise'...

Don't you see? I already understand.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Thief,

Don't you see? I already understand.

Yes, only difference being that when one understands his *I* is no more!
Best Wishes.

Love & rgds

 

[YmirGF]

Friend Thief,



Yes, only difference being that when one understands his *I* is no more!
Best Wishes.

Love & rgds

And the only way one could write that statement is if they had experienced that state, but that would be a contradiction because there would be no "I" to remember the state. That leads me to conclude the writer doesn't actually know what is being said and is merely parroting the words of others.

 

[Thief]

And the only way one could write that statement is if they had experienced that state, but that would be a contradiction because there would be no "I" to remember the state. That leads me to conclude the writer doesn't actually know what is being said and is merely parroting the words of others.

So if you teach a parrot to say...I am....
Does he understand?
Or is he just making 'noise'?

 

[YmirGF]

So if you teach a parrot to say...I am....
Does he understand?
Or is he just making 'noise'?

I wouldn't claim to know what a parrot would understand, but a parrot will often say whatever it is rewarded for saying.

 

[Thief]

I wouldn't claim to know what a parrot would understand, but a parrot will often say whatever it is rewarded for saying.

Doesn't say much for the topic or humanity.

 

[YmirGF]

Doesn't say much for the topic or humanity.

I think you make an interesting point, Thief. What disturbs me about threads like this is that these ideas are promulgated onto people as if they were reality. What I am meaning is enlightenment is a game that we are all supposed to be able to "win" and yet if you declare you have "won" you are immediately disqualified. The main thing about reality we can say with assurance is that it is in constant change and so it tends to defy credulity, let alone reality, to claim that there exists a state beyond which there is no further change (nirvana). Aside from this, my own slant is that the "merging" is a bit of an illusion, in my opinion, and the only thing I experience is that consciousness simply expands. I do not see that ending, any time soon.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think you make an interesting point, Thief. What disturbs me about threads like this is that these ideas are promulgated onto people as if they were reality. What I am meaning is enlightenment is a game that we are all supposed to be able to "win" and yet if you declare you have "won" you are immediately disqualified. The main thing about reality we can say with assurance is that it is in constant change and so it tends to defy credulity, let alone reality, to claim that there exists a state beyond which there is no further change (nirvana). Aside from this, my own slant is that the "merging" is a bit of an illusion, in my opinion, and the only thing I experience is that consciousness simply expands. I do not see that ending, any time soon.

Yes YmirGF, it seems a paradox except to those who understand/intuit the subtle nuance involved in discussing THAT which in reality is transcendent and beyond human mind comprehension.

It is said that nobody can be enlightened, for it cannot be correctly said "I am enlightened" for in enlightenment the illusion of I cannot exist, and if it did there would not be enlightenment. This does not mean enlightenment is not possible, just that no self or identify can be enlightened.

Likewise enlightenment is not a miracle and does not result in attainment of anything. It neither extends the life nor heals the body. It also cannot be had by those who seek it, for it entails letting go of the burden of identity or self.

As long as there is a 'you' doing or not-doing, thinking or not-thinking, 'meditating' or 'not-meditating' you are no closer to home than the day you were born. "The Tenth Man" by Wei Wu Wei...

 

[Raymond Sigrist]

I think you make an interesting point, Thief. What disturbs me about threads like this is that these ideas are promulgated onto people as if they were reality. What I am meaning is enlightenment is a game that we are all supposed to be able to "win" and yet if you declare you have "won" you are immediately disqualified. The main thing about reality we can say with assurance is that it is in constant change and so it tends to defy credulity, let alone reality, to claim that there exists a state beyond which there is no further change (nirvana). Aside from this, my own slant is that the "merging" is a bit of an illusion, in my opinion, and the only thing I experience is that consciousness simply expands. I do not see that ending, any time soon.

Hi Ymir

You point out the problem with claiming that there is only absolute reality. I think you might enjoy the following:

"the oldest Upanishad texts (800-400 BCE), respectively, that there are "two truths" (dvayasatya) or two possible levels of discourse:
1) the conventional, relative level of ordinary experience (samvriti-satya or vyâvahârika-satya), and
2) the ultimate, absolute level of discourse about nondual spiritual Truth (pâramârthika-satya).
The conventional truth-level acknowledges a world of personal beings ("you," "me," "him," "her," "they," "we"), things and processes, right and wrong (appropriate and inappropriate), justice and injustice, clarity and delusion, freedom and clinging, authentic spiritual realization and inauthentic (not yet complete) realization.
The absolute truth-level knows that only infinite, eternal, formless, spaceless, timeless, birthless, deathless Awareness is really "Real," in the sense of being unchanging, abiding, permanent, and truly solid (partless, seamless), whole, and Holy."
from:
Neo-Advaita or Pseudo-Advaita and Real Advaita-Nonduality
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

We also find this double-view in Zhuangzi, who said the "one" and the "not one" are both authentic ways of perceiving actuality.

ciao,
Raymond

 

[zenzero]

Friend YmirGF,

I think you make an interesting point,

The whole of existence exists ONLY because of a THOUGHT.
Your above statement is verification of the understanding.

STILL MIND leads to consciousness and that consciousness is ever expanding is understood and accepted even by the scientific community; nothing new here.

Love & rgds

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Friend YmirGF,

STILL MIND leads to consciousness and that consciousness is ever expanding is understood and accepted even by the scientific community; nothing new here.

Love & rgds

However so long as YmirGF's 'I' is conscious of the the 'expansion', it is not enlightenment.

The enlightened state is not identified with anything or anyone specific in time or space, its omniscience is omnipresent. Enlightenment is only a word conceived by the unenlightened to differentiate between that which can be understood by the human mind and that which is transcendent and beyond human understanding. Though unfortunately some unenlightened individuals have 'lowered the bar' and consider enlightenment as a state of consciousness that can be possessed by their mortal mind, and then make the claim, which of course is delusional.

Enlightenment is possible and all aspirants are working towards it, but so long as anyone still identifies with their mortal creature and speak in terms of, 'I' had this or that experience, then they are far from the enlightenment.

The fact is if they spent the rest of your life searching for understanding what and who it is they refer to as 'I', they may realize at some point that it doesn't exist apart from the creature. Enlightenment is when consciousness is truly liberated from a mere temporary time - space creation such as mortal.

Enlightenment is the realization of what is already realized,..omnipresent omniscience.

 

[zenzero]

Friend ben,

Agree with that in toto.

Here just attempted to state that what our friend Ymir states are all understood at various levels and ways.

Love & rgds

 

[Metempsychosis]

We also find this double-view in Zhuangzi, who said the "one" and the "not one" are both authentic ways of perceiving actuality.

And also in Yogacara Buddhism(which came later IMHO)

The Three Natures

The Yogācārins defined three basic modes by which we perceive our world. These are referred to in Yogācāra as the three natures of perception. They are:

Parikalpita, literally "fully conceptualized", or Imaginary Nature, wherein things are incorrectly apprehended based on conceptual construction, through attachment and erroneous discrimination.--->Pratibasika of advaita(dream state)

Paratantra, literally "other dependent", or Dependent Nature, by which the correct understanding of the dependently originated nature of things is understood.-->Vyavaharika(empirical/waking)

Parinispanna, literally "fully accomplished", or Absolute Nature, through which one apprehends things as they are in themselves, uninfluenced by any conceptualization at all.--->Paramarthika (superconscious state)

Non-duality does not deny duality at the phenomenal level.This is stressed by both advaita and buddhism

 

[zenzero]

Friend Anti-religion,

Well explained!
Thanks.

Love & rgds

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Friend zenzero, of course understand you understand, just posted for clarity.

 

[Metempsychosis]

Friend Anti-religion,

Well explained!
Thanks.

Love & rgds

Even Jains have adopted different levels of reality in their non-dualsitic philosophy :like that advaita and Buddhism.

That real being who is of the nature of the Knower. His nature as the Knower is unique and self-identical. Thus declare the thinkers who adopt the
pure (absolute) point of view.

From the vyavahara point of view, conduct, belief and knowledge are attributed (as different characteristics) of the Knower, the Self. But from the real point of view there is no (differentiation of) knowledge, conduct and belief, in Pure Self.

Just as a Foreigner cannot be made to understand anything except through the medium of his foreign language, so the knowledge of the Absolute cannot be communicated to the ordinary people except through the Vyavahara point of view.

Whoever realizes the absolute and pure nature of this Self through of the knowledge of the scripture,him, the Rishis, the light of the world, call an all-knowing Master of Scripture.

The Jinas call him a (Vyavahara) Srutakevali who has full knowledge of the scripture: as all scriptural knowledge ultimately leads to the knowledge of the Self, therefore the (knower of the Self) is called Surtakevali.

The practical stand point does not reveal the reals; the pure point of view is said (to relate to) the real; verily, the soul that takes refuge in the real is one of right vision.

---Samayasar

 

[Thief]

Not so fast!!!!
You guys are deceiving yourselves.

One thought leads to another...to another ...to another.....

As long as this goes on...'you'....exist.
'You' may claim 'you' understand...but as long as 'you' pat each other on the back....no 'you' don't.

'You' would have me abandon 'myself' to obtain enlightenment....
but to let go of the 'id', one must relinquish all thought and feeling.

Having done that...'you'...or 'I'....no longer exist.

Having done that....no discussion of existence can be performed.
'You' don't even get to say...'ohmmmmmmmmmmm'!

Perhaps something else could be considered...
How about a collect thought?
How about the collective character...known as the Borg....in Star Trek fame?

They have no 'self' identity. Is this what you seek?

 

[Metempsychosis]

You guys are deceiving yourselves.

I think both of us are the same thing..
Can you be more clear..

 

[Thief]

We are not all the same.
Each one has been given a linear existence to become a unique individual.

This thread would undo that process.

Instead of letting go what we are....
We should celebrate our persons!

I have been an artist, a toolmaker, a carpenter, a martial artist.....etc.

I believe in life after death.
I won't stop thinking or feeling when I die.

I will transcend to a greater existence.

If you surrender 'who you are' in the hour of your last breath... it will be as though you were never born.

 

[Metempsychosis]

'You' would have me abandon 'myself' to obtain enlightenment....
but to let go of the 'id', one must relinquish all thought and feeling.
Having done that...'you'...or 'I'....no longer exist.
Having done that....no discussion of existence can be performed.
'You' don't even get to say...'ohmmmmmmmmmmm'!

Yes this what is termed as the absolute truth IMHO..And yes all discussions on the religious forums are only from practical viewpoint and not from absolute viewpoint(we cannot have any discussion then).

They have no 'self' identity. Is this what you seek?We are not all the same.
Each one has been given a linear existence to become a unique individual.
Instead of letting go what we are....
We should celebrate our persons!
I have been an artist, a toolmaker, a carpenter, a martial artist.....etc.
I believe in life after death.
I won't stop thinking or feeling when I die.
I will transcend to a greater existence.

What you have posted is almost the same as the Vedantic criticism of Buddhism.
Buddhism is not nihilism,IMHO buddhist talk about annihilation of egositic self and not the Higher Self (which the Vedantins and jains talk about).By Higher Self(capital 'S') we mean though we remain as individuals at a empirical/worldly level,we are one with greater existence at the absolute level.