Enlightenment

[Bhairava]

I was reading Para-trisika-Vivarana The Secret of Tantric Mysticism which is a book on Kashmir Shaivism. They basically say the enlightenment of Vedantins and Buddhists are lesser stages of manifestation and not enlightenment at all. I follow all 3 of these paths since I follow the Advaita philosophy so I am thoroughly confused. Here is the quote on page 110:

"The vijnanakalas, however, have only an awareness of 'I' which though of the order of knowledge is devoid of the experience of 'this' i.e. objectivity. Because of their non-awareness of objective reality, they have only an awareness of 'I' and, therefore, they are in the category of aprabuddha i.e. unawakened. The pralayakevalis are non-aware of both 'I' and 'this'. Therefore they are decidedly unawakened."

They explain in the book how those are lower manifestations of existence but I just couldnt except it for some reason and I didnt understand it. Kashmir Shaivism claims its enlightenment is at the level of Isvara (god) which is identity in diversity. Using Vedantic terms it would seem like vijnanakalas where at the stage of manifest Brahman because of not being aware of objectivity which is superior to Isvara which is identity in difference. Pralayakevalis seem like thats the stage of unmanifest Brahman since they are not aware of 'I' or 'this' so wouldnt that be the highest reality?

If you use Kashmir Shaivism terms it seems like vijnanakalas are beyond the level of Isvara at the level of Shiva-Shakti since only 'I' is percieved and no difference. Pralayakevalis since there is no 'I' or 'this' they seem to be in the state of Parama Siva beyond all categories like the unmanifest Brahman.

This is confusing the Hell out of me; would love to hear your perspective.

 

[Valjean]

Philosophies don't 'have enlightenment'.
Enlightenment is a state of expanded awareness. Anyone could potentially achieve it. An Eskimo could achieve it sitting in his igloo.

As for levels, I suppose you could say someone able to perceive ten dimensions was "higher" than someone only perceiving six or eight, but again, this has nothing to do with philosophy.

 

[Vinayaka]

lol ... there are just a few other philosophies out there that have enlightenment as a goal, so I won't vote. Sounds like a childhood, "My Dad is tougher than your Dad," argument. But good luck determining the 'highest one', so you can follow that one.

 

[Bhairava]

lol ... there are just a few other philosophies out there that have enlightenment as a goal, so I won't vote. Sounds like a childhood, "My Dad is tougher than your Dad," argument. But good luck determining the 'highest one', so you can follow that one.

Thats not what the quote said. They claim Vedanta and Buddhism dont bring you to enlightenment but to delusion. I follow all 3 different types of Advaita (non duality) philosophy thats whats so confusing.

 

[Sunstone]

Philosophies don't 'have enlightenment'.
Enlightenment is a state of expanded awareness. Anyone could potentially achieve it. An Eskimo could achieve it sitting in his igloo.

I agree with Sey on this one.

 

[Vinayaka]

Thats not what the quote said. They claim Vedanta and Buddhism dont bring you to enlightenment but to delusion. I follow all 3 different types of Advaita (non duality) philosophy thats whats so confusing.

Then the poll was misleading. It should have said something about 'according to this quote from ____" People of various sects are often claiming superiority. If you thought some other one was superiour to yours, you'd switch. Personally, I think by the very fact you're clai8ming superiour puts you in the realm of some sort of intellectual competition, so I'd be very hesitant to listen to any such claims. I would more likely trust someone who made no such claims at all. Enlightenment is not a competition is it?

 

[Onkara]

Namaste Bhairava
Take a look at Page 56 - 57, starting at the bottom of 56, you may see it is related to the sanskrit word mama. I hope you have the same edition.

It's too late here for more investigation, time permitting I would be happy to do some reading and compare notes. Well done on making it to Page 110, I am yet to open a more challenging book than this one!!

 

[Gjallarhorn]

"Highest enlightenment"? A rather nonsensical concept. There is only one enlightenment.

 

[ratikala]

dear bhairava prabhu ,

They claim Vedanta and Buddhism dont bring you to enlightenment but to delusion.

excuse me but I am sorry to say that whoever says such a thing is indeed the deluded one .

I follow all 3 different types of Advaita (non duality) philosophy thats whats so confusing.

I am not sure that it matters what you follow providing you follow it with sincerity and surrender , if you can do this you will atain enlightenment :bow:

philosophy is only a tool one needs a degree of wisdom to use it , no wisdom , no enlightenment which ever path one follows .

 

[Bhairava]

Namaste Bhairava
Take a look at Page 56 - 57, starting at the bottom of 56, you may see it is related to the sanskrit word mama. I hope you have the same edition.

It's too late here for more investigation, time permitting I would be happy to do some reading and compare notes. Well done on making it to Page 110, I am yet to open a more challenging book than this one!!

Yep.

Yeah this is the toughest book Ive ever read. While writing the original post I found page 57 trying to make sure what Im writing made sense lol cause like I said Id love clarification and others opinions on such an important and profound matter.

 

[Bhairava]

"Highest enlightenment"? A rather nonsensical concept. There is only one enlightenment.

I used the term highest incase you considered each type of enlightenment valid where as what I was quoting didnt even consider the other types of realization valid. When I say highest I mean truest as in truest form of Self or no self.

 

[Valjean]

These methodologies are not "types of enlightenment." These are techniques to achieve expanded consciousness.

There are degrees of enlightenment, however, corresponding with different levels of consciousness. Someone able to perceive ten dimensions may be said to be more 'enloightened' than someone perceiving only five, for example.

 

[Bhairava]

These methodologies are not "types of enlightenment." These are techniques to achieve expanded consciousness.

There are degrees of enlightenment, however, corresponding with different levels of consciousness. Someone able to perceive ten dimensions may be said to be more 'enloightened' than someone perceiving only five, for example.

Good point. That is what the author said too that they where at the area of slightly less tattvas. But that was my point instead of taking his word for it I thought about the other teachings Ive read and even the one hes expounding and it seemed to me that those levels of enlightenment he claims are lower than Isvara tattva seem to actual be at a higher tattva. Vijnanakalas seems to correspond to Shiva-Shakt tattva since there is only pure 'I' consciousness without difference. Pralayakevali since there is not even the 'I' or 'this' wouldnt that be the state of pure transcendence of Parama Siva? What Buddhist call nirvana which means extinction.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

All 3 of these offer polemics against other schools. Buddhism criticizes Śaivism and Vedanta. Vedanta criticizes Buddhism and Śaivism. They all say the same thing: "okay, these philosophies are useful and their practice brings about realization, but not the highest enightenment."

Yet all of them have a doctrine of viewlessness and point out the futility of atomic viewpoints.

Polemics are for the sectarian followers to play with and guide their minds with surety towards a particular path.

 

[Valjean]

Sounds like there might be some fundamentalism creeping in here, Shuddhasattva. You'd expect that from Abrahamic religions, but it's disturbing to see it in the dharmic philosophies.

It seems to me that any claims of superiority are hollow. As far as I know, there have never been any systematic studies of the effectiveness of these systems in expanding consciousness. Claims that they work at all are purely anecdotal.

 

[Onkara]

My opinion is that the issue is not that there are different types of enlightenment, but that enlightenment is considered to be different by these schools. The methods and philosophy to arrive at and understand the state of enlightenment are different. It seems we agree with that part from the above posts.

The problem is that if someone spends time pursuing one teaching and feels they have not reached the description of enlightenment it could be because of the school and not because of the state of enlightenment itself.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

I think the absolute state described by all the nondual philosophies - such as the three listed above, is the same. Words and interpretations differ.


Individual states are more symptomatic of particular views and practices and oriented towards different mindtypes.

 

[Onkara]

I think the absolute state described by all the nondual philosophies - such as the three listed above, is the same. Words and interpretations differ.


Individual states are more symptomatic of particular views and practices and oriented towards different mindtypes.

You hit the nail on its head. It is really down to our svabhava and karma as to which practice and school appeals and aids us most effectively. So it is an individual choice at the end of the day.

 

[Valjean]

If we're all at different places, with different degrees of spiritual development and different dharmas, wouldn't it follow that the optimal yoga would differ for different individuals? Wouldn't it also follow that a highly evolved individual would likely achieve 5th state before an unevolved person following an identical 'system'?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I don't see any reason why Seyorni's and Shuddhasattva's views can't both be right. It's possible that one system can take one from beginner to enlightenment, but some people might need to go through several different systems in order to reach that same goal. In the end, it's all the same enlightenment, regardless of how one got there.