Are - you - enlightened?

Spirituality Religion
#181

Hi Kareng,

One question.....why do Masters tell student Buddhists to seek out the inner Guru, knowing the risks?

I do not know what Buddhist masters tell their disciples as I am not a Buddhist. But ordinarily, the inner guru can mean many things to different people. That is when when you asked the question, I asked what you meant by it. Because to some, it can simply mean your true nature itself. For others, it can mean a specific aspect of ones own consciousness from which wisdom arises. Most of thesafeapproaches in the yogic sciences give you a safe approach to go directly to the source. Rather than focusing on so many different parts of you and trying to bring them into balance - you can just go straight to the source. That is one approach, and that is not my approach. For Jnana Yoga - the way of Union through knowledge, the intellect is emphasized as the approach towards liberation. For Bhakhti yoga, the way of Union through devotion, ones emotion is used as the means towards awakening. For Karma Yoga- it is physical and selfless action. For Raja Yoga - it is concentration upon a single point. But all of these approaches only work on using one part of your being ,developing it, and using it as an instrument to come to your awakening. As far as I am concerned, those are what I call the safe approaches to awakening. Yes, even through these methods you can contact your inner guru, because in one way or another they all awaken your intuitive intelligence. But as far as balancing every part of your being together, so that the head is not in conflict with the heart, or the heart is not in conflict with the head, or the instincts are not struggling with the heart or the head, that is a different matter. You can be awakened - but still the various parts of you are not integrated.

Is there anything else you can add Amir, out of genuine interest, I would like to know your experience in this..

All that I can say is that once you start working upon every dimension of your being, and seeking to bring them into balance, you are basically getting involved in what is more or less occult work - which has much to do with developing siddhis which are of various different kinds and using them as tools towards enlightenment. In the East, it has taken the form of Tantra Yoga. That is why in Tantra Yoga - every chakra is developed and brought into balance - because what it means is basically you are developing and bringing into balance different aspects of your own consciousness. So everything - both the so called good and the so called bad is to be accepted, understood, and integrated - nothing can be rejected or repressed. It is a holistic approach to man. All of the other approaches, though they bring you to your awakening, are not holistic - they only focus upon one part of you. That is why they are so safe, it is because they are not capable of creating imbalances in your personality in the way that the other methods are capable if you are not careful.

These different aspects of your own consciousness are often experienced as beings which seem to have their own personality. It is really not different than what happens in a dream when you encounter a certain person. In one way or another, that person represents a certain part of your own mind. So through these methods, you may experience several beings of different kinds - some pleasant or unpleasant. In the case of Gautama Buddha, one being which he encountered was Mara. Mara, for him, represented all of the collective forces of ignorance which keep one in a deep sleep. This is also why Patanjali, in his Yoga Sutras, has said that Ishvara, the Lord, will appear to the disciple in the form which is suitable to him. Because depending on your own identifications, the form will be different. If you are a Buddhist, you may see Buddha. If you are a Christian, perhaps Christ. If you are a Hindu - perhaps Krishna, or Shiva, or Vishnu. The form will change depending on your identifications. The Hindu will never see Christ or Krishna, he has no space within him to create such a thing. Jesus Christ had an experience of Satan in the desert when fasting for forty days. These are all just different examples of how different parts of your own being can present themselves to the ego, which if one is not absolutely mindful, can create great sources of suffering for the disciple.

#182

Surya,

`You claimed to have reached “enlightenment” then gone on a reading spree to peer review and validate what you know and to learn about their teachings

One one would only look for peer view, validation and comparisons with others teachings and systems if they were insecure about their own knowledge and understanding`

Consider it nothing more than playful entertainment. As far as my researching into other traditions, it is totally light-hearted and non-serious. Just because you become awakened, that does not mean that you loose all interest in the world.

#183

Surya,

This is because none of these people are enlightened, especially that arrogant man Jiddu Krishnamruti(he was almost as arrogant as you are) Aside from him, the others on your list are examples of highly developed spiritual beings, much far up on the ladder than you and I. But they have not got the top of the ladder yet

Alright, then I will give you an example of somebody whom you consider awakened. Vivekananda used to suffer from asthma, diabetes, and a number of other conditions. He was not even forty years old when he died.

#184

Consider it nothing more than playful entertainment. As far as my researching into other traditions, it is totally light-hearted and non-serious. Just because you become awakened, that does not mean that you loose all interest in the world.

Get yourself a ball and play with it :wink: You are not enlightened, that is why you are still reading books. You still like the rest of us have to rely on book knowledge.

You have read as much as I have. I just read better books than you.

When you become enlightened you do not lose interest in the world, but in worldly living. An enlightened person becomes an instrument of the divine to do work in the world and is always dedicated to service. They don’t entertain themselves, for there is no individual self to entertain for them.

Alright, then I will give you an example of somebody whom you consider awakened. Vivekananda…

I don’t consider him enlightened.

#185

@Amir,

Occidental, … … …

…You always have something to say, Amir.

What I know, I know. And it is because I had come to a recognition of my own ignorance, that there was a possibility of knowing. If you knew anything of the matter, you would know that when one ignites his own eye on the forehead, there is not a particle of doubt about it. What I do not know, I do not know. And I have made it clear that knowledge is limited, so it does not matter how much knowledge you gather - it is just a speck of dust in the desert. Ignorant man is born and ignorant man dies, and between birth and death there is a possibility of a transformation which does not bring somebody to more knowledge, but which transcends all knowledge

  1. The “Sokratic Realization” is not a new concept to me, Amir.
  2. …Nor is the “Wisdom of the Oracle of Delphi”.
  3. Sujective pscyhological experiences cannot orient you in reality, Amir.
  4. It’s not that knowledge is limited, but rather your conception of knowledge is.
  5. Knowledge, properly understood, cannot be transcended.

I am learning from you in my own way. It has very little to do with the words or even the subjects that we are speaking about. As far as your words are concerned, I do not consider them to be of much value as you are speaking of things without any direct experience. Unless you come to a recognition of your own ignorance, then in the same breath you have denied yourself the possibility of seeking and finding

  1. How can you be learning from me or anyone else for that matter when your attention is focused upon - your - subjective psychological conceptions of me and everyone else?
  2. I’m not asking you to pay attention to my words but rather the life behind the forms. However, if you never pay attention to my words first-and-foremost then you will never know the life behind the forms, will you?
  3. More condescendsion.

Everyday I am learning from the whole existence, including the people in it. But again, what I am learning has very little to do with words. It seems that you are reducing understanding to scholarly knowledge

  1. Yes - and so is everyone else.
  2. Again: so is everyone else.
  3. On the contrary: it seems that you are reducing knowledge to scholarly research.

Thanks for your time.

#186

occidental,

It's not that knowledge is limited

As knowledge is just memory which is gathered through the senses, yes it is limited. The very idea of knowing implies both a knower and a known, which is itself limitation.

Knowledge, properly understood, cannot be transcended

Leaving transcendence aside. It is impossible to transcend anything in existence, because wherever you go, you will always be here. If the knower and the known, the observer and the observed, melt and merge as one phenomenon - what will you call this ?

How can you be learning from me or anyone else for that matter when your attention is focused upon - your - subjective psychological conceptions of me and everyone else?

As only the three of us, Surya, yourself, and myself have been speaking - everybody else just means you and Surya. What I am speaking of has nothing to do with psychological conceptions, it is simply a fact that you are speaking of something of which you have no experience, and are trying to pretend as though you can test for something of which you do not even know what it is that you are testing. You are a Buddha, just as Surya is a Buddha, but unless one has not discovered ones true nature - one should not speak about it, or even assume that such a thing exists. What I am saying is very simple - dont pretend to have come to the space when you have not come to the space. Nothing superior or more noble in coming to the space, nothing inferior or filthy in not coming to the space - but just be in tune with things as they are in your experience.

#187
  1. The “Sokratic Realization” is not a new concept to me, Amir.
  2. …Nor is the “Wisdom of the Oracle of Delphi”.

Amir seems to believe that he is the only one on this forum that has knowledge on these matters. The irony is a significant number of members on this forum are already very familiar with this knowledge, so they are not going to be impressed by a parrot of the knowledge claiming it’s his original findings.

#188

As knowledge is just memory which is gathered through the senses, yes it is limited. The very idea of knowing implies both a knower and a known, which is itself limitation

  1. Knowledge is not synonymous with memory, Amir; knowledge is not the act of remembering nor the memories recalled in the act of remembering.
  2. Thus - as has already been stated above, your conception of knowledge is limited and not knowledge itself.
  3. Not so fast, Amir, for there are two revealed and one concealed.

Leaving transcendence aside. It is impossible to transcend anything in existence, because wherever you go, you will always be here. If the knower and the known, the observer and the observed, melt and merge as one phenomenon - what will you call this?

  1. You brought it up.
  2. This is relative.
  3. Indeed, what?

As only the three of us, Surya, yourself, and myself have been speaking - everybody else just means you and Surya. What I am speaking of has nothing to do with psychological conceptions, it is simply a fact that you are speaking of something of which you have no experience, and are trying to pretend as though you can test for something of which you do not even know what it is that you are testing. You are a Buddha, just as Surya is a Buddha, but unless one has not discovered ones true nature - one should not speak about it, or even assume that such a thing exists. What I am saying is very simple - dont pretend to have come to the space when you have not come to the space. Nothing superior or more noble in coming to the space, nothing inferior or filthy in not coming to the space - but just be in tune with things as they are in your experience

  1. Be that as it may, if what I have said is true in relation to us then it is likely true in regards to a whole slew of cases beyond us, as well - that is my meaning, Amir.
  2. Incorrect - you cannot speak of our experiences as if you knew them, Amir, and yet you do… which leads one to suspect you’re concerned with what you think we are or your subjective psychological conceptions of us and not what is true.
  3. …That, or you’re afraid of the tests put before you because, deep down, you know you don’t know.
  4. Indeed, everyone is a potential Buddha - this is not new concept to me, Amir.
  5. The first step is always an assumption.
  6. Which space?
  7. Again: which space?

Thanks for your time.

#189

“Incorrect - you cannot speak of our experiences as if you knew them, Amir, and yet you do… which leads one to suspect you’re concerned with what you think we are or your subjective psychological conceptions of us and not what is true.”

Anything which may be stated is subjective, and is useful for reference only.

“Which space?”

It simply means to remain undistracted, and this is not absolute.

#190

I can’t believe people even read such lengthy posts from some schizo who claims to be the Buddha.

#191

Anything which may be stated is subjective, and is useful for reference only

  1. Except facts.

It simply means to remain undistracted, and this is not absolute

  1. That does not answer the question.

Thanks for your time.

#192

“1. Except facts.”

As far as the means towards awakening are concerned, the facts are absolutely irrelevant. What is relevant is not whether something is “true” or “untrue”, but whether it can be useful as a method towards one’s transformation. For this, there are a thousand and one relative skillful means. Even a “lie” can be a useful lie, in that it may create a mental attitude which is far more supportive for one’s transformation than that which is true.

#193

Occidental,

“1. Knowledge is not synonymous with memory, Amir; knowledge is not the act of remembering nor the memories recalled in the act of remembering”

As far as your experience is concerned, your knowledge is just the memories you have accumulated. There is not even a single thought or emotion which is of your own, everything that has come into your mind has been imported from the outside. Because knowledge does not necessarily mean information which comes from books. Any kind of information which is gathered through hearing, smelling, seeing, tasting, and touching - is knowledge. For knowledge to exist - what is needed is the knower, the known, and from the interaction between the two, there is knowledge.

“1. You brought it up.”

Yes, but as you are far too attached to words and are unable to understanding where they are pointing - I have dropped it.

“2. This is relative.”

No, it is not relative. You can expand beyond your present limitations, but it is impossible to transcend anything. In the midst of the inescapable, whether you travel to the East, West, North, or South - the same serpent swallows it’s own tail.

“3. Indeed, what?”

Drop your thinking about it and find out.

#194

Sarva,

Perhaps you are absolutely ignorant of what the word Buddha means. It does not refer to Gautama Buddha, his name was Gautama Siddhartha. It is a word that can be used to refer to anybody who has come to realize their own original nature. There is nobody and nothing in existence which is not a Buddha, because there is nothing which is not of one and the same original face. The only difference between the sage and a so called ordinary person is that one is aware of it, the other has remained unaware of it. One is moving with least resistance with the current, the other is constantly walking in friction against the current. But as far as their inner dimension is concerned, there is absolutely no difference between the two - and it is not through some kind of special and extraordinary condition that a man comes to his enlightenment. Whether awake or asleep, one still has to hear through one’s ears, see through one’s eyes, and walk on one’s feet. Even if you travel miles upon miles to the top of an Everest, whether it is at the top of the Everest, or the bottom of the valley - you are still face to face with one and the same present moment. And it is this integration with the present moment which is the only thing which is capable of bringing you into communion with existence. There is nothing otherworldly about it. Because most are incapable of living in communion with the moment, man’s conditioning is so rigid and stubborn, now we have to practice all kinds of methods and techniques to make you more willing to surrender. That you are surprised that I have stated that I am a Buddha reflects that one is still in darkness as to one’s own nature. From first to last, there is nothing which is not the Buddha, or the Tao, Brahman, Atman, Anatman, or whatever other words you want to use for a lack of better words.

#195

Why on earth would you state that you are a Buddha, among all that is Buddha ?

I would not, nor would I use the term ‘master’ in self-reference.

And, I am as awake, as you are.

#196

Surya,

“Amir seems to believe that he is the only one on this forum that has knowledge on these matters. The irony is a significant number of members on this forum are already very familiar with this knowledge, so they are not going to be impressed by a parrot of the knowledge claiming it’s his original findings”

If there are similarities between my words and those of other traditions, it is not because I am in favor of the other traditions. If you look into those traditions - though their words may be different, their descriptions may be different, though they may be indicating towards the space differently - they are referring to one and the same phenomenon. If I have been saying things which sound similar - it is just because I have also come to the realization of the same experience. Truth is something which is universal - it is not something restricted by time, space, race, religion, tradition, or belief. There is nothing “original” about it. The same thing which I am saying - you can read in any book. The sciences for the expansion of consciousness have been explored in such a way, that there is really nothing more that can be added or subtracted from it. So my findings are not original. But the difference is whether one has come to a transformation or whether one has remained living in a deep unconsciousness, whether one is simply caught up in ideas which have no relevance as far as one’s living experience is concerned, or whether certain things have manifested as one’s direct living experience. In one case - you may have knowledge. But knowledge is not being, and unless you come to a state of being, then all of one’s knowledge is nothing more than just corpses in a vast graveyard.

#197

Being what in particular ?

I assume you mean to say, more extensively conscious.

#198

As far as the means towards awakening are concerned, the facts are absolutely irrelevant. What is relevant is not whether something is “true” or “untrue”, but whether it can be useful as a method towards one’s transformation. For this, there are a thousand and one relative skillful means. Even a “lie” can be a useful lie, in that it may create a mental attitude which is far more supportive for one’s transformation than that which is true

  1. On the contrary: facts, properly understood, are always relevant regardless of the topic.
  2. We’re not discussing the means to enlightenment, Amir.
  3. Certainly.
  4. Certainly.

As far as your experience is concerned, your knowledge is just the memories you have accumulated. There is not even a single thought or emotion which is of your own, everything that has come into your mind has been imported from the outside. Because knowledge does not necessarily mean information which comes from books. Any kind of information which is gathered through hearing, smelling, seeing, tasting, and touching - is knowledge. For knowledge to exist - what is needed is the knower, the known, and from the interaction between the two, there is knowledge

  1. Incorrect - knowledge is never synonymous with memory; knowledge is never the act of remembering nor the memories recalled in the act of remembering. Was that not clear the first time, Amir?
  2. I learned all about that seven years prior to this conversation - thanks for trying, though.
  3. Certainly.
  4. Senses are factual, yes.
  5. Once again: there are two revealed and one concealed.

Yes, but as you are far too attached to words and are unable to understanding where they are pointing - I have dropped it

On the contrary: you dropped it because you made a mistake and now you’re trying to blame me for it.

No, it is not relative. You can expand beyond your present limitations, but it is impossible to transcend anything. In the midst of the inescapable, whether you travel to the East, West, North, or South - the same serpent swallows it’s own tail

  1. Still relative; re-read your own response, even.

Drop your thinking about it and find out

  1. That’s a cop-out, Amir.
  2. Once again: what space?

Perhaps you are absolutely ignorant of what the word Buddha means. It does not refer to Gautama Buddha, his name was Gautama Siddhartha. It is a word that can be used to refer to anybody who has come to realize their own original nature. There is nobody and nothing in existence which is not a Buddha, because there is nothing which is not of one and the same original face. The only difference between the sage and a so called ordinary person is that one is aware of it, the other has remained unaware of it. One is moving with least resistance with the current, the other is constantly walking in friction against the current. But as far as their inner dimension is concerned, there is absolutely no difference between the two - and it is not through some kind of special and extraordinary condition that a man comes to his enlightenment. Whether awake or asleep, one still has to hear through one’s ears, see through one’s eyes, and walk on one’s feet. Even if you travel miles upon miles to the top of an Everest, whether it is at the top of the Everest, or the bottom of the valley - you are still face to face with one and the same present moment. And it is this integration with the present moment which is the only thing which is capable of bringing you into communion with existence. There is nothing otherworldly about it. Because most are incapable of living in communion with the moment, man’s conditioning is so rigid and stubborn, now we have to practice all kinds of methods and techniques to make you more willing to surrender. That you are surprised that I have stated that I am a Buddha reflects that one is still in darkness as to one’s own nature. From first to last, there is nothing which is not the Buddha, or the Tao, Brahman, Atman, Anatman, or whatever other words you want to use for a lack of better words

  1. Perhaps you are absolutely ignorant of what the word Buddha means, yourself? It is a distinct possibility, after all…
  2. How did you come to your particular definition, Amir?
  3. According to whom - yourself?
  4. Be that as it may, I’m - as are others here - quite doubtful that you know anything, whatsoever, about this unity of which you speak; it’s easy to talk about unity, it’s a whole other thing to be it after all.
  5. For the umpteenth time now, Amir: enlightenment is not a single momentous realization.
  6. What you describe is a step along the path, not the goal - in fact, it is nowhere near the goal.
  7. Initiation is as a portal or doorway - is both an entry and an exit; a beginning and an end.
  8. …Thus, the importance of maps, for let us wonder: which room are you in; which did you leave; which are you entering?
  9. As I said above: subjective psychological experiences cannot orient you in reality, Amir.
  10. There is a significant difference between that which is potential and that which is realized, Amir. Surely, you know of that?

If there are similarities between my words and those of other traditions, it is not because I am in favor of the other traditions. If you look into those traditions - though their words may be different, their descriptions may be different, though they may be indicating towards the space differently - they are referring to one and the same phenomenon. If I have been saying things which sound similar - it is just because I have also come to the realization of the same experience. Truth is something which is universal - it is not something restricted by time, space, race, religion, tradition, or belief. There is nothing “original” about it. The same thing which I am saying - you can read in any book. The sciences for the expansion of consciousness have been explored in such a way, that there is really nothing more that can be added or subtracted from it. So my findings are not original. But the difference is whether one has come to a transformation or whether one has remained living in a deep unconsciousness, whether one is simply caught up in ideas which have no relevance as far as one’s living experience is concerned, or whether certain things have manifested as one’s direct living experience. In one case - you may have knowledge. But knowledge is not being, and unless you come to a state of being, then all of one’s knowledge is nothing more than just corpses in a vast graveyard

  1. In general, perhaps, but not specifically - consider: though they may all be talking about light one is talking about red light, the other blue light and still another yellow light.
  2. Incorrect - you think you’ve come to the same experience.
  3. It is unnecessary to state what is obvious, Amir.
  4. I beg to differ - we still have much to learn, obviously. This thread is a testament to that fact, even.
  5. Reality ideas always have relevance, Amir.
  6. Coming to recognize the evolutionary monad’s activities of observation and manipulation within/of the causal triad envelope, the triad atoms contained therein and their aggregate envelopes of incarnation is not the end goal.

Thanks for your time.

#199

Occidental,

“On the contrary: facts, properly understood, are always relevant regardless of the topic.”

There is a difference between facts and Truth. Facts only reveal appearances, Truth has to do with things as they are. And as knowledge is always limited and in a constant state of accumulation, what may be considered a “fact” today may become a “fiction” tomorrow, and what may be a “fiction” today may become a fact tomorrow. Even in the history of modern science, one can see the same pattern repeating itself again and again. At the time of Isaac Newton, it was considered a fact that time and space are absolutes. Einstein discovered that it is not really the case, time and space are as relative as relativity can be. And it may even require a scientist of far more penetrating vision to discover that even within the relativity of time and space, there is a dimension which is absolute. But your facts are constantly changing just as your knowledge continues changing, for the simple reason that as long as one’s knowledge is incomplete - one should never jump to conclusions regarding anything whatsoever. Since one’s knowledge is always incomplete, one should never jump to conclusions about anything whatsoever. There is something important in “facts”, but it is not in bringing things clearer into your understanding, but it is in bringing you closer to the awareness that existence is a mystery. And to be awake is to be awake to the mystery. That is only a possibility once you surrender to your own ignorance. In surrendering to one’s own ignorance, one will find something very counter-intuitive, that in this surrender to one’s ignorance itself there is a certain penetrating clarity.

“knowledge is never synonymous with memory”

This very statement in itself reflects that you know nothing whatsoever about what you are talking about.

“I learned all about that seven years prior to this conversation - thanks for trying, though.”

That is simply intellectual. Yes, everybody knows certain things intellectually which seem very obvious. That existence is in a constant stream of change is not a great secret. But in spite of this - people continue remaining entangled in things as though the whole existence depended upon it. That is because there is a large dimension of difference between one’s ideas and one’s living reality. So your knowledge is just superficial, it has not penetrated deep enough to awaken wisdom.

“On the contrary: you dropped it because you made a mistake and now you’re trying to blame me for it.”

If you are going to be obsessive about words, then if you look you can find a million and one flaws with our words and descriptions. And no matter how brilliant one is, one’s words and descriptions can never capture the reality. Everything in existence can be seen from almost infinite number of angles and perspectives, none of which are capable of truly containing the Truth. Use whatever words you want, but if you understand this finger pointing to the moon - then you will immediately cast them aside.

“Once again: what space?”

Turn inwards and find out. As you are, this childish game that you have been playing is just another source of entertainment for your ego. It is the function of one who is clear eyed to discriminate between one who is hiding behind a mask, and one who is speaking out of one’s true face. In the first case, it is like trying to hide fire in the dark. In the second case, it is like a river current which never repeats itself. I can see straight through words and into the inner man himself, and unless you change your ways, you are as far away from yourself as possible.

“Be that as it may, I’m - as are others here - quite doubtful that you know anything, whatsoever, about this unity of which you speak; it’s easy to talk about unity, it’s a whole other thing to be it after all.”

That is good, you should be doubtful. Not just about me, but about yourself and just about everything. You have accepted far too many things without question. If you want to be doubtful as a means to dig deeper, then you will have to do it properly.

“For the umpteenth time now, Amir: enlightenment is not a single momentous realization.”

Though it is true, because it is not out of your own experience, it is basically a lie. Moreso, you have assumed that there is such a thing as “enlightenment” without doing the necessary inquiry.

“As I said above: subjective psychological experiences cannot orient you in reality, Amir.”

I do not place any importance on experiences themselves, but on whether certain experiences are capable of bringing you to a transformation. What is important is not whether what one is experienced is “true” or not, but whether it is capable of liberating the mind from the root causes of one’s sufferings. Because what you are seeking is not “God” or something otherworldly, you are simply seeking unbounded freedom. Just as the hindrances for one’s freedom are not just accidental, dissolving these hindrances are not accidental either, it is a scientific phenomenon.

“There is a significant difference between that which is potential and that which is realized, Amir. Surely, you know of that?”

Whether one has the potential to realize oneself, or whether one has actually realized oneself - as far as one’s true nature is concerned, there is no difference. It is in fact the same nature which pervades all things - it is impersonal. And when one comes to discover it - nothing is added or subtracted from it, you simply come to realize what you have always been from first to last.

“Thanks for your time.”

Don’t thank me when you have no thankfulness or authentic gratitude. If you would like to be formal -then you should enter into a hospital.

#200

“1. That does not answer the question.”

Of course it does not. Your question is unanswerable from an experiential viewpoint.

And, you are not seeking one anyhow. :roll: