Spirituality
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /x/ - Paranormal
You are currently reading a thread in /x/ - Paranormal
I couldn't think of a better subject title. Even saying "Spirituality" feels like lying. But I suppose for convenience let's just lump it all under spirituality.
Anyway, I have studied many of the teachings from many traditions: Buddhism, Zen, Taosim, Hinduism, and native american, and others that don't go by name.
Here's where I want advice:
I acknowledge that all phenomena are transient appearances, including the self-phenomena and/or ego. Now what?
Furthermore. I accept that enlightenment is not a state of mind nor experience - nor non-experience - and it cannot be attained through seeking it; that, in fact, we are already enlightened but simply think we're not; and that the word enlightenment and the teachings surrounding it are not enlightenment itself, nor are they conducive of it, but rather serve as arbitrary pointers.
But then what is the difference between an Enlightened One, and everyday common people that are already enlightened? I expect that the answer I get will be "No fundamental difference" but that's silly and avoiding the question. What is it that separated, say, the Buddha, from his disciples that were on their way to becoming their own Buddhas? If there is no difference on any levels, then what even is "attaining enlightenment?" and how is it useful to say that everyone is already enlightened. Why even talk about enlightenment at all?
I suspect that the teaching "Everyone is already enlightened" is saying something different about enlightenment than "The buddha attained enlightenment."
I hope what It's clear what I'm confused about.
> Now what?
Meditation.
> But then what is the difference between an Enlightened One, and everyday common people that are already enlightened?
They have the potential to be enlightened (buddha nature) once they let go of their notion of self.
>>16928392
Then in what way is everyone already enlightened if they have the potential to become enlightened?
>>16928457
ugh
>>16928317
The difference between an enlightened man an an unenlightened man, as far as you want to use these terms is,
The unenlightened does what he wants, and he wants to know what he does.
The enlightened man does what he wants, and he knows that he does.
>>16928517
Then what about the teaching that all beings are already enlightened?
>>16928523
They are, don't you see?
Everybody does what he wants.
The enlightened man knows in the back of his mind.
The unenlightened knows too, but plays very convincingly that he does not know.
That he ought to be different. Feel different, think differemt, move different.
Notice how so many who think of themselfes as unenlightened know exactly how an enlightened person should behave? Funny contradiction, isn't it?
>>16928532
I understand that. But you're precisely demonstrating the confusion surrounding the word "enlightened." You say everyone already is enlightened, but then you go on to say that there are those that are unenlightened.
>>16928517
Well said! I know what I'm talking about. >>16928523
I think its bullcrap. I mean. Enlightenment is the end of becoming.Many many many many beings are still becoming from day to day. Not all beings are enlightened. All beings WILL be but that thing is a step from the truth and into falsehood AT least and wholly false at medium.
>>16928613
Not sure what your last sentence meant.
Maybe it's only understandable from the perspective of an enlightened person, or something. Idk. Talking about it makes it more confusing.
If you disagree, and others assert it as the absolute truth to be discovered for one's self, then what ground does it have? Why not just convince yourself of Nihilism or Islam or something?
>>16928640
When I said "maybe it's..." I was referring to the teaching that everyone is already enlightened.
>>16928317
>now what?
Whatever you want?
>what is the difference between an Enlightened One and common people
free will and choices maybe?
We all have the potential, but some of us choose to act on it? I dunno dude.
>>16928570
That is the whole paradox about the situation my friend.
But i see where you are coming from so let me tell you a little different.
Ordinarily we seperate every phenomena into two polar opposites.
Hot - Cold
Dark - Bright
Love - Hate
A very viable way of thinking. It is a system of discernement.
But lets suppose there is no thing like cold, but an absence of wamrth?
Not two opposite things but really one phenomenon with a gradation, a spectrum? Call it Temperature.
And in that way I say enlightened - unenlightened.
I speak of the same thing with the first system, when the real thing can be fully understood by understanding the second system.
You are either more enlightened or less enlightened.
More or less aware of yourself, of your own doing.
Is this explanation better?
>>16928717
Okay I get this. Non-duality.
So every person is somewhere on the spectrum of enlightenment, but can be more enlightened? Why is enlightenment described as sudden then?
>>16928717
So to be as precise as possible, and to use the words of the greatest master I have studied under:
"I believe I need to pay attention when, in fact, I need to see and know my inattention."
A fine evening by the way.
Or day, depending on where you are.
>>16928640
People in this age have CAUL over their eyes disallowing them to perceive truth. If two people say something is true with equal fervor many know not which is true and cannot discern it. Maybe there still exist a class of people capable of following the path of truth.
>If you disagree, and others assert it as the absolute truth to be discovered for one's self, then what ground does it have?
That's a bad question. I would have had joy in you if you had asked "How do I know who is telling the truth?" because I could lead you to discern it and maybe you would have been enlightened in the knowledge I'd have given you.
>>16928730
>why is enlightenment described as sudden then?
Because absolute enlightenment is the deathless state of nirvana and is a whole event. It's the difference between a measure of bliss and immeasurable bliss. No matter how big something is it is finite then it nothing before the infinite. Thus, enlightenment is thing infinite-fold more than non-enlightenment no matter how close it is to full enlightenment.
>>16928730
Question is answered here >>16928736
There is a certain threshhold.
Awareness needs to jump from "outside to inside".
From "big to small".
This jump, often also reffered to as the "crossing of the abyss", for you boss occultists out there, receiving the (w)holy ghost, samadhi, lesser stone, or whatever.
Consciousness transformed by its own action.
If you have some understanding of musical scales, octaves/inner octaves you can picture yourself a spectrum within a spectrum.
The ego is contained within the self.
The ego has borders. The self is borderless.
Ego death is transcending the border into the borderless.
This, if you can picture it, could look like a sudden rapid expansion of space, time, force, energy.
All of this is always present, but there are two states of this presence.
Restricted and free.
Again. Think of it relatively. Spectrums. Fractals.
As above so below.
As in big so in small.
