Who here is enlightened?

[crossfire]

Actually sweet one, this is my last time on this little rock. I may choose to come again, but am not under any constraints to do so.

In your 30+ years of study, I'm sure you've heard the joke about the reason why Bodhisattvas keep coming back--they are addicted to the material realm.

**ducks back behind a corner, peeking around to look for signs of flying tomatoes or Flying Spaghetti Monsters**

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What's new in this, even a five year child think this.

Then it would be intensely profound to you.

 

[YmirGF]

In your 30+ years of study, I'm sure you've heard the joke about the reason why Bodhisattvas keep coming back--they are addicted to the material realm.

**ducks back behind a corner, peeking around to look for signs of flying tomatoes or Flying Spaghetti Monsters**

I guess we keep hoping for miracles, even though we know differently, LOL. Who knew?

 

[crossfire]

I guess we keep hoping for miracles, even though we know differently, LOL. Who knew?

LOL! Where else would you rather be?

 

[ratikala]

dear ymir ,

in two years of posting here you are only the second person to be intollerent enough to point out that I cant spell and that I have no idea of grammar ,

most people appear to be a little more interested in what a person has to say than the way they say it .

I am utterly stunned by this news. Your sentence structure and spelling is so horrid that I assumed you did not speak English as a native tongue. And yet, you still expect me to take you seriously? Seriously?

I beg your pardon I am dyslexic , but that dosent mean that I have no inteligence .
however I very much doubt that you would take me seriosly unless of course I agreed with you then I bet it would be a different story .

You are kidding, right? Um, maybe looking at the "material" world as being complimentary to the so-called "spiritual" world(s), rather than the antithesis, might be a refreshing start. And no, for the record, I do not go for words like "perfect" either. They are, in the bigger picture of reality, a tad hollow and meaningless.

no I doubt that I was kidding , if I said the antithesis , I meant in 'contrast' not complement !

I am also not the least bit neurotypical , so I tend to take things very seriously and I beg your pardon but I dont realy get your warped sence of humor , yet I have tried to navigate around it , I just accept that all beings are different .

I'm well aware of the answers you expect, but I am curious, can you tell me why I have serious reservations about the words and terms I have "issues" with? That discussion, in and of itself, might be most enlightening.

so far you yourself have pointed out that you have a problem with certain words and concepts the notion of completeness , perfection ,absoluteness , purity ......yet your title reads bodhisattva , which in the buddhist sence translates as wisdom being , enlightened being , but from the sanskrit root bodhi implies 'enlightened inteligence' and sattva translates as 'pureity' , 'the realisation or state of reality ' it is the ultimate reality that I have spoken of but that you earlier rejected .

do you also reject the nececity to practice the paramitas ?

if it is through the practice of such perfections that one atains bodhichita how can you reject absolute purity ?

for somone to choose the title bodhisattva but to reject ultimate reality seemes some what strange to me ?
and to reject absoluteness or purity seems contrary to bodhichitta , but again that is simply dependant upon my realisation .

So pointing out a weakness in the concept you cherish is somehow intolerance? Well, that much is certainly noteworthy. I'll try to remember that. Again, do you have the slightest inkling of an idea why I dislike these terms?

you point out only the weakness perceived from your side , I see no weakness .

furthermore you are the one who appologised for your lack of tolerance blaming it upon your age .

Do you think I am just going out of my way to be contrary?

I try not to assume , but it is somewhat hard to read your posts without sencing some thing which might appear to be some one having a bit if a laugh , in other words it is hard to tell if you are being serious , or enjoying your self having a jolly good " LOL"

Actually, I'm not digging my heals in, as it were, the simple fact is that your arguments or lack thereof are hardly persuasive. It's like your are supporting and promoting an idea that you don't fully understand.

on the contrary, I just refrain from telling people how long I have been practicing :namaste

Do you know why that is though, ratikala? If not, I'll tell you again. My current ideas grew out of the very ideas you are talking about. My current ideas are an expansion of that model of the universe. I did happily live with these ideas for 30+ years, so please, don't even try to tell me that I don't understand them. You are welcome to ignore those 30+ years - if you wish.

with all due respects there is a little more to the ideas I am talking about than a model of the universe ,

you keep making reference to your age and duration of practice as if that counts for everything , there is also the concideration of quality over quantity , and the simple fact that some people will take to practice as a duck to water , it is simply their gift where as another struggles .

Actually sweet one, this is my last time on this little rock. I may choose to come again, but am not under any constraints to do so.

your humility is impressive ,
and your prastice of the paramitas is complete ?

 

[Sir Doom]

You do not understand me (and many, many others, I suspect) at all,

Yes, I do.

and that you justify attempting to understand opposing arguments in the least charitable light possible is the reason why.

No, I am not 'attempting to understand opposing arguments' at all when I paint this story in the least charitable light. I am interpreting evidence. You called my interpretation the 'least charitable light' which I agreed with. Your interpretation has been dealt with by presenting this opposing viewpoint, not by painting you or your argument in the least charitable light. That's your bag, not mine.

You don't care about understanding, you only care about discrediting.

I actually do care about understanding. I also care about discrediting. Understanding goes a long way towards discrediting. Am I supposed to be ashamed now? Hold your breath for that...

Thus, you skip the level of understanding the opposing argument in favor of forcibly misunderstanding it in whichever way you see fit.

You can't forcibly misunderstand something. What you mean to say is that I'm interpreting the evidence as I see fit. The god given right of every human being. You can attempt to show my interpretation as a misinterpretation if you like. And you have been trying. Lets keep that up as its the essence of debate. You know, instead of all the personal commentary about me. Of course, that would suggest that you had a leg to stand on, but instead what you have is your interpretation vs. mine. Which means we are at a stalemate. Without invoking beliefs that I do not hold, your interpretation is no more accurate than my own. It just happens to fall in line with your personal worldview. What a stunning turn of events! Guess how similar this makes us?

You never actually have to defeat anyone else's argument when you debate in his way.

Your argument is essentially that I should take your word that Jesus should be taken at his word. I have nothing to defeat. I don't believe you at your word. Try harder.

In this way the hypocrite debater, or rhetorician, is able to give the illusion of making a weak argument appear strong to the common man. However, the uncommon man will see that the rhetorician's sleight-of-hand proves nothing and their entire debate method is a straw man fallacy.

You should look up straw man fallacy because you aren't using it properly here. Which bogus alternative argument am I attempting to place upon you? None at all. If instead of interpreting the story in a negative light, I said something like, "Well Hitler liked Jesus, too! So why do you like Hitler?" That would be a straw man fallacy. By the way you should really stop talking about me personally and focus on the topic.

I think it goes beyond the realm of attempt.

Another personal attack. So sad.

Not right. He is saying their veneration is false. He is saying they would've killed those prophets just as their ancestors did and taught them to do were they alive in the time of the prophets. He is saying they are the same kind, and faced with another prophet, they would (and did) murder again.

Oh man! You do actually want to debate the issue! Great! What was the point of all that other crap you posted? Are you really that upset with me? Keep it in your pants, slick.

Anyway, as I said, this is Jesus talking to his cronies behind the backs of the people he is talking about who have just left. Backbiting is a bit unethical in my book. Especially since he is going so far as to damn them to hell. The only evidence I have for the misconduct of the pharisees is Jesus' word. I can understand why you might take him at his word. You think he's divine. It makes sense that you'd believe everything he says. But I don't think that. So, I see a different story. Inasmuch as I am painting the story in a less than favorable light, you are painting it in more than favorable light. Neither option is incorrect or wrong. Only opinion. Taken or left at our individual leisure.

Barring a massive change in your debating style, I will no longer be debating you.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Okay. Hold your breath, again.

 

[apophenia]

As usual, there is some overlap in subject matter of threads. Atanu asked me in a PM to reply to his post #162 in this thread. Following a dialogue between us in the thread "That art Me", I post the following as a clarification of my actual position in relation to the subject of 'enlightenment', and hopefully a useful pointer for anyone interested in what 'enlightenment' refers to in 'eastern teachings' such as advaita hinduism and Tibetan buddhism.



The opening quote from me is the post atanu replied to in this thread ...

Originally Posted by apophenia
----
Just for the record, the Tibetan view is that the 'goal' of practice ( sometimes called enlightenment ) is 'temel ge shepa' - meaning 'the ordinary mind of nowness'.

The teachings which are considered by lamas to be the essential, most profound teachings use the language of 'the natural mind' , the 'unfabricated mind'.

The 'extraordinary states' which some assume are enlightenment are simply considered to be just that - extraordinary states. -----

I wish to obtain some clarification since 'unfabricated mind' or 'extraordinary states' are both just words to me that I do not fully understand. By 'temel ge shepa', do we understand freedom from cycle of samsara?

Frankly speaking, I see many of Buddhistic orientation claiming to be enlightened. But Gita teaches that one in many millions attain the freedom from death.

In my view, it is true that the sahaja-natural state (unfabricated state should be the nearest translation) is the goal. Yet, to attain that, the awareness as distinct from the manifested forms and names must be experienced and recognised as the reality. And that is extraordinary. The recognition that the names and forms are also awareness comes then (this state is known as sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi). But sahaja does not happen before the unsullied awareness is experienced in kevala nirvikalpa samadhi. Gita teaches that what is night for a common man is day for the sage and vice-versa.

So, I really do not see easy enlightenment. That is not to doubt your state. Not at all. But only to suggest that most of us are seekers -- although I know that that term is wrong. Most of us are not beyond forgetfulness.

The following is from the thread "That art Me" -

Originally Posted by atanu
'then there is nothing 'seen' but the seer' is true, subject to the condition that what is being called the seer is itself not the seen.

Emphasis
'then there is nothing 'seen' but the seer' is true, subject to the condition that what is being called the seer is itself not the seen.
=============
IOW, when it is said, the seer, the seen, and the seeing are non-dual, it is meant that the non-dual is the Seer, the Seen, and the Seeing.
When can the Seer, the Seen, and the Seeing be non-dual? When there is no boundary or when the boundary is also That. But the latter becomes the natural state only after a long abidance in the sameness of Brahman - the non-dual.

I will try with an example. I often fall asleep during meditation. But sometimes when I am awake I lose the body consciousness and experience only the light. If i then enquire "Who sees the light?", the experience becomes non-dual. I am the light.

It has been taught that the pull of samsara will not allow this pure existence as long as there was karma to be fulfilled. Furthermore, abidance in this pure existence only prepares the ground wherein the non-dual can freely play with forms and names, knowing well the boundaries to be made of knowledge material..

I do not know whether this is as clear as mud or not? )(

Originally Posted by apophenia
From my perspective, what you are saying supports the view of Dakpo Tashi Namgyal in his classic mahamudra text known in its English translation as "Monnbeams of Mahamudra".

He asserts that continuous ongoing self realisation is rarer than hen's teeth, if it occurs at all. I think you would refer to continuous uninterrupted realisation as sahaj samadhi. Namgyal teaches that for most meditators, even those who are considered the most enlightened (including lamas etc), there are moments of lucid realisation during a lifetime, and these moments incrementally transform the mind of the meditator.

So most of the commentaries on meditation we read, and certainly what forms in the mind of meditators as a conceptual framework, is an approximation, based on the residual and accumulative effects of moments of clarity. This framework is necessarily dualist, since the meditator is not permanently abiding in a non-dual state.

This is the case for folk like you and I.

Here is a helpful quote I found on Wikipedia, for anyone who is not familiar with the term 'sahaj samadhi' -


"Sahaja (Sanskrit; IAST: sahaja; Devanagari: सहज, meaning "spontaneous, natural, simple, or easy"[1]) is a term of some importance in Indian spirituality, particularly in circles influenced by the Tantric Movement. Ananda Coomaraswamy describes its significance as "the last achievement of all thought", and "a recognition of the identity of spirit and matter, subject and object", continuing "There is then no sacred or profane, spiritual or sensual, but everything that lives is pure and void."[2]"

From - Sahaja - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I hope that makes the 'eastern' view a little more understandable to anyone interested, particularly to christians who are often quite confused (or actively misled) about the view of hindus and buddhists - although this subject is also controversial in those circles too.

 

[Prophet]

How else can I show that your idea is incorrect? Do you mean I should reference some other material or other authority to demonstrate that you misunderstand enlightenment? But that doesn't make sense. As the Enlightened One, I commune with ultimate reality. All I need to do is inform you of the truth, don't I?

If you commune with ultimate reality, it stands to reason that this communion would give you major advantages in understanding of reality. But since you don't actually have this understanding of reality to reason from, you take a position of circular feigned strength.

Your original claim is that you are "more enlightened" than me. I replied that I disagreed that there are levels of enlightenment. You condescendingly replied that mine is a common misconception among those who are not enlightened like you, thinking that was a reasonable thing to say when it was not. It is simple logic at this point to see that you believe you are enlightened and you will reason in as many circles as necessary to hide your irrationality from yourself.

Hey, it's what an actual prophet of God does. He has no need to use rationality and evidence. He only needs to announce God's Truth.

This is ONLY what you think prophets of God do. Jesus, for one, does not fit this mold as he constantly used reason to illustrate concepts and confound his opponents. But, maybe you have information about other prophets who make proclamations and skip all rationality and evidence in favor of claiming enlightenment. Feel free to start presenting such information now.

Did you see how I was able to support what I said without making an unsupported claim? Do you see how I make points besides "I must be right and you must be wrong"?

I wouldn't call it circular reasoning. Does God do circular reasoning when He pronounces the Truth to mankind? No, He simply states what is true. You were confused about the nature of enlightenment, so I corrected you.

Of course you wouldn't call it circular reasoning. You're the one performing it.

Know what? You win. You're the real enlightened being.

Is there anyone else?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If you commune with ultimate reality, it stands to reason that this communion would give you major advantages in understanding of reality. But since you don't actually have this understanding of reality to reason from, you take a position of circular feigned strength.

 

[tumbleweed41]

MOD POST

ALL posters are reminded of Rules 1, 3 and 11.

1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

3. Trolling and Bullying
We recognize three areas of unacceptable trolling:
1)Posts that are deliberately inflammatory in order to provoke a vehement response from other users. This includes both verbal statements and images. Images that are likely to cause offense based on religious objections (e.g. depictions of Muhammad or Baha'u'llah) or the sensitive nature of what is depicted (e.g. graphic photos of violence) should be put in appropriately-labeled spoiler tags so that the viewer has freedom to view the image or not. Such images are still subject to normal forum rules and may be moderated depending on their contents.
2)Posts that target a person or group by following them around the forums to attack them. This is Bullying. Deliberately altering the words of another member by intentionally changing the meaning when you use the quote feature is considered a form of bullying. The ONLY acceptable alteration of a quotation from another member is to remove portions that are not relevant or to alter formatting for emphasis.
3)Posts that are adjudged to fit the following profile: "While questioning and challenging other beliefs is appropriate in the debates forums, blatant misrepresentation or harassment of other beliefs will not be tolerated."

11. Subverting/Undermining the forum Mission
The purpose of the forum is to provide a civil, informative, respectful and welcoming environment where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare and debate. Posts while debating and discussing different beliefs must be done in the spirit of productivity. If a person's main goal is to undermine a set of beliefs by creating unproductive posts/threads/responses to others, etc, then they will be edited or removed and subject to moderation.
​

 

[Prophet]

I was specifically thinking of you when I posted:

I've been accused several times here of saying that I am correct over others here by virtue of my belief in my being enlightened. I would like to draw attention of those who were my accusers in this regard so they they can see what it really looks like when a being defends his position in debate in such a fashion. Do you see how he just calls me wrong, clearly citing his enlightenment as the reason? Is this not egregious circular reasoning?

I'm sorry to see that you either missed it or did not understand. Anyways, in this light, your attempted insult is dust off my shoulder.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm not enlightened enough to know if I'm enlightened.

 

[apophenia]

I'm not enlightened enough to know if I'm enlightened.

That could save you from a lot of unnecessary aggression, based on the current trend in this thread

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I was specifically thinking of you when I posted:

've been accused several times here of saying that I am correct over others here by virtue of my belief in my being enlightened. I would like to draw attention of those who were my accusers in this regard so they they can see what it really looks like when a being defends his position in debate in such a fashion. Do you see how he just calls me wrong, clearly citing his enlightenment as the reason? Is this not egregious circular reasoning?

I'm sorry to see that you either missed it or did not understand. Anyways, in this light, your attempted insult is dust off my shoulder.

Yes understood, but you indulge in it too, that's the meaning of the pot calling the kettle black!

 

[Ouroboros]

That could save you from a lot of unnecessary aggression, based on the current trend in this thread

Hehe. I could tell something was going on here with the warning on top of the page.

I was hoping someone could tell me here why the fat Buddha can be considered en-lightened? Shouldn't it be en-heavied? Hmm...

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Know what? You win. You're the real enlightened being.

OK. Thanks.

 

[Prophet]

Yes understood, but you indulge in it too, that's the meaning of the pot calling the kettle black!

And NOW is the part where you should present a clear example of my claiming enlightenment when I was challenged for my reasoning to actually complete your point, because as it stands right now, it's nothing more than slander.

 

[NIX]

OK. Thanks.

Have a cookie.

 

[Sunstone]

I myself loves a good down in the dirt fight between enlightened beings.

 

[methylatedghosts]

I myself loves a good down in the dirt fight between enlightened beings.

May the biggest light source win!