How would you counter this hypothesis to the ‘Enlightenment’ idea?

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

I don't have Hulu either, but I will look out for that movie.

 

Thanks.

 

Oh DO watch it .

 

I caught it by chance one night on late TV  ..... I was    W    T    F    !       laugh   .....  WOT ?   laugh   WOT !!!!!    

 

Im not gonna spoil it  ..... its rather fantastic on many levels .... the ending  ... well    ... just watch it .

[Daniel]

9 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Oh DO watch it .

 

I caught it by chance one night on late TV  ..... I was    W    T    F    !       laugh   .....  WOT ?   laugh   WOT !!!!!    

 

Im not gonna spoil it  ..... its rather fantastic on many levels .... the ending  ... well    ... just watch it .

 

I think I need to rewatch it now.

[liminal_luke]

52 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

 

I assert that you are far more than than what is on the surface.  That you have an essence, which is eternal, timeless, absolutely unique.  You bring something to reality which absolutely cannot be brought by anyone or anything else.  And it's not just you, it's everyone and everything that exists.  Because of this, I greatly value the opportunity to interact with you, and them, and everything.  To be in your presence, to listen to your words, to share your ideas when you choose to share them.  To visit the realm-of-luke whn I am invited.  But not just you.  Everything is like this for me.

 

When I am able to hold this idea and maintain it, it's an ongoing blissful state, and it's close, oh.  it's so close, it's like th air i breath every second of every day.  I don't need to do anything, its just happening.  When Ajay asked about my experience, I went to the store and reached out with my peripheral vision, and just basked in the blissful tempo of life and all it has to offer.  That way I could write about it.

 

Someone comes along and says, "nah... you're nothing, they're nothing, your family is meaningless, you're meaningless.  you have no soul, they have no souls.  I'm enlightened and my bliss experience requires the denying you your identity."  That's a bit of a buzz kill.

 

Generally, I would avoid discussing it with people whom I know, for certain, are adherents to this sort of mindset.  But here we are on a public forum, and a kindred spirit pops-in to say, "Hey, have you noticed that this so-called-enlightenment is kind of a shell-game.  it's not what it appears to be on the surface?"  So, I'm here supporting that person, because, if they are like me, then these ideas of sunyata as the only-way are kind of distracting.  And knowing they have friends who relate and understand out there can cut down on the noise.

 

 

You wrote....

 

I assert that you are far more than than what is on the surface.  That you have an essence, which is eternal, timeless, absolutely unique.  You bring something to reality which absolutely cannot be brought by anyone or anything else.  And it's not just you, it's everyone and everything that exists.  Because of this, I greatly value the opportunity to interact with you, and them, and everything.  To be in your presence, to listen to your words, to share your ideas when you choose to share them.  To visit the realm-of-luke whn I am invited.  But not just you.  Everything is like this for me.

 

This is beautiful and well put and true.  I'm in complete agreement.  But then you go on to say... 

 

Someone comes along and says, "nah... you're nothing, they're nothing, your family is meaningless, you're meaningless.  you have no soul, they have no souls.  I'm enlightened and my bliss experience requires the denying you your identity."  That's a bit of a buzz kill. 

 

I'm pretty certain this is not the Buddhist view.  I know that it can sound like the Buddhist view and one could get this impression sometimes talking with Buddhists but it's actually not their view at all. I'm wondering if there's anything I could say or the Buddhists on the forum could say that might change your mind?  (Perhaps @stirling could shed some light?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nungali]

6 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

The tenets of any given spiritual path can be debated endlessly, obviously.  At a certain point however (ten pages in, perhaps) I start asking myself what's the point.  For some the debate may be intellectually stimulating and fun -- fair enough.  But personally I'm more interested in how people's lives change when they take up this or that spiritual practice.  Do people become happier, kinder, better able to navigate the everyday challenges of life?  If so, my interest is piqued.  For me, the ultimate validity of dependent origination or whatever is secondary.  YMMV

 

 

Hooray !   Someone wants to  'see the money ' .

 

I agree  totally .   Thats why I  kept up with my system for so long , and now,  rather amazed that it actually produced the results that it claimed .  Change, shift move... thats what I want and want to see .  Not some system that is virtually more than a fashion and insidiously fools some into thinking they have changed , when to the outside observer  .....  

 

I had a friend  who was an ' orange person ' - 'Sanyassin ' a la Bhagwan  for years .  I had to tell her that her main issues had not been resolved  or even shifted  in over 5 year of practice .... still jealous , still suffered self guilt , still fell into 'sexual power trips '   still playing  the 'little girl manipulates daddy' program .  

 

It seemed to be a spiritual 'click' where members patted each other on the back and seemed to ignore lack of progress .

[Daniel]

1 minute ago, liminal_luke said:

 

You wrote....

 

I assert that you are far more than than what is on the surface.  That you have an essence, which is eternal, timeless, absolutely unique.  You bring something to reality which absolutely cannot be brought by anyone or anything else.  And it's not just you, it's everyone and everything that exists.  Because of this, I greatly value the opportunity to interact with you, and them, and everything.  To be in your presence, to listen to your words, to share your ideas when you choose to share them.  To visit the realm-of-luke whn I am invited.  But not just you.  Everything is like this for me.

 

This is beautiful and well put and true.  I'm in complete agreement.  But then you go on to say... 

 

Someone comes along and says, "nah... you're nothing, they're nothing, your family is meaningless, you're meaningless.  you have no soul, they have no souls.  I'm enlightened and my bliss experience requires the denying you your identity."  That's a bit of a buzz kill. 

 

I'm pretty certain this is not the Buddhist view.  I know that it can sound like the Buddhist view and one could get this impression sometimes talking with Buddhists but it's actually not their view at all. I'm wondering if there's anything I could say or the Buddhists on the forum could say that might change your mind?  (Perhaps @stirling could shed some light?)

 

I understand that, and yet, those ideas somehow creep into the conversations, specifically that there is only one way, their way.  Ew.

[Nungali]

3 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

So you are saying that we are labeling things based on convention, and thus attributing a 'reality' to them that they don't intrinsically have.

 

Yep !   have you seen what the Hebrew letters are supposed to represent ?   So .... no wonder !

 

 

 

 

However, I think what actually happened was that we -- as a species -- found distinct objects and beings in our environment and started giving them names for easy reference.

 

I was listening to one of the teachers in an Aboriginal language  she said  : " Oh no, I am not an expert, I am still learning  , I go to  my grandfather still for lessons ; he picked me up the other day  .... I was  saying  ...... "   (  that language's name for a certain bird .... I cant remember the word  or the bird  .....   but  )  " and he said , no, thats not the correct pronunciation .... it doesnt even sound like that bird's call . "    Then they  went through a list of  animal words whose names related to the sound they make .   ( a bit like  ' no, it isnt 'kookaburra'  it should be  ' kookookakar '   ( with the oo part pronounced like a kookaburra does  it )

 

My dogs understand very well what a bone is and what its specific attributes are without knowing what it's called.

 

?   Eh ?  ... Their ears dont prick up , tail wag and lips licked when you say  ;  " Bone ? "    .  I am sure the possum that  sleeps above my bed knows what " Banana ? "  means .

 

That said, I certainly don't deny that our convention based concepts tend to structure and limit our perception -- they do so to a large extent --, but to infer from this that the objects of our perception have no intrinsic reality seems to be quite a stretch.

 

Not until they are named  

.... ( as in the Jewish/Christian scripture )  ... and to an extent in some  old indigenous cultures  

 

And I would still like to know who first expressly came up with this idea, and when. If anyone here knows, I would appreciate a hint.

 

 

Whoever wrote  "   and the Lord said ; let there be light  ? 

 

( Oh look ....   the quote breaker is working again ! )

 

 

3 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

The melted metal of our hammer indeed has the potential to become a lot of different things, as long as it's in the formless state.

 

But a potential hammer won't help you sticking actual nails into the wall -- trust me, you'll need an actual hammer for the job.

 

' Philosophy is fine ... until its time to hang a picture '

( Sun-poo  Sutra 23 )

 

The Platonist philosophy I referred to is well aware of the difference between potential and actuality, and looks at them as a polarity. Whereas the Buddhist view you represent seems to only acknowledge 'the sea of potential' as reality and claim that the hammer, the nails, and the wall don't actually exist.

 

Nor does a punch in the nose  ..... until you get one .   

 

 

That's a non-sequitur. To any thougthful individual, it will be rather obvious that little in the manifest world is permanent -- perhaps not even the manifest world itself.

 

[Mark Foote]

6 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

The tenets of any given spiritual path can be debated endlessly, obviously.  At a certain point however (ten pages in, perhaps) I start asking myself what's the point.  For some the debate may be intellectually stimulating and fun -- fair enough.  But personally I'm more interested in how people's lives change when they take up this or that spiritual practice.  Do people become happier, kinder, better able to navigate the everyday challenges of life?  If so, my interest is piqued.  For me, the ultimate validity of dependent origination or whatever is secondary.  YMMV
 

 

email to some friends, today:

 

I’m always about to turn a corner, I’ve felt that way since the 80’s.  I finally knuckled down to studying some anatomy/kinesthesiology in the second half of the eighties, when the corner didn’t come.  I may be mastering some of that kinesthesiology now, in the early 2020’s, mostly because I see the role of letting the movement of breath place attention in the body (and because I can describe it to myself in that way).  There’s relaxing, calming the stretch, detaching from thought, and letting the movement of breath place attention, so that the activity of the body in respiration becomes automatic through that placement.  In a rhythm, an occasional rhythm for me right now.

Maybe I can turn a corner yet, but it’s grace that grants grace. 

I have sat a couple of lotuses, just for twenty-five minutes, in the last couple of weeks.  Not unpleasant, this time around.

 

 

Not bliss.  Not overcoming the hindrances, or living a more upright life.  Just sitting.

[Daniel]

31 minutes ago, Nungali said:

the quote breaker is working again

 

On my editor it's a little glitchy, what's been working for me is placing the cursor directly under a line of text, then rapid "enter-enter" two enters.  Maybe it will work for you?

[liminal_luke]

45 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

I understand that, and yet, those ideas somehow creep into the conversations, specifically that there is only one way, their way.  Ew.

 

Oh, I'm turned off by my-way-is-the-only-way types too!  Have you met Buddhists, here or in real life, who have given you that vibe?  If so, give 'em another few years sitting silently on a hard matt watching their breath or whatever.  They'll come around.

[Nungali]

12 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

On my editor it's a little glitchy, what's been working for me is placing the cursor directly under a line of text, then rapid "enter-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

enter" two enters.  Maybe it will work for you?

 

Thats how I USED to be able to do it .  and how I did it above ... sometimes it works , sometimes it dont  ( and then the above happens ^ )

[whocoulditbe?]

21 minutes ago, Daniel said:

On my editor it's a little glitchy, what's been working for me is placing the cursor directly under a line of text, then rapid "enter-

enter" two enters. Maybe it will work for you?

Oh? I do it by cutting and pasting and using the 99 button.

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, whocoulditbe? said:

Oh? I do it by cutting and pasting and using the 99 button.

 

You're messing with me?  the 99 button?  

 

Edited August 25, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Oh, I'm turned off by my-way-is-the-only-way types too!  Have you met Buddhists, here or in real life, who have given you that vibe?  If so, give 'em another few years sitting silently on a hard matt watching their breath or whatever.  They'll come around.

 

Yes, it happened, and I did not react ideally.  But, it doesn't really matter, because... I did not react ideally, so, how can I judge?

[whocoulditbe?]

39 minutes ago, Daniel said:

You're messing with me?  the 99 button?  

[liminal_luke]

55 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Yes, it happened, and I did not react ideally.  But, it doesn't really matter, because... I did not react ideally, so, how can I judge?

 

I'm not sure if your encounters with my-way-is-the-only-way Buddhists happened here on the forum or in real life; no doubt there's a few stinkers everywhere you go.  But I think there's something about the context of this forum that brings out less than desirable qualities in people.  Unless you're exceptionally intuitive -- and you might be! -- what you'll pick up from posts here is mostly headtalk.  The process of writing back and forth seems to favor intellect and intellectual argument, perhaps especially when it comes to Buddhism which is rife with difficult to understand concepts.  Who would of thought that a philosophy that encourages resting the mind in non-conceptual reality would be so heavy with concepts?  Things have quieted down lately but you should of seen the Buddhist section a few years back.  Totally incomprehensible to me.  The only thing I understood was that these people disagreed with each other.  People do show their hearts on the forum but most of the time what comes through the loudest is opinion.  I think this is unfortunate.

 

I'm weirdly OK with seeming to contradict myself.  I absolutely think you are a unique person with an irreplacable, unrepeatable identity whose life has great meaning -- like everybody else.  (Whoever saves a life, saves the whole world.)  And yet I also think there's something to the Buddhist idea that we don't have a separate self.  How can both things possibly be true at the same time?  I haven't worked that out but am OK with the cognitive dissonance of holding both views simultaneously.  Maybe someday it will all make sense to me in a way that I can explain to others.  Then again, maybe not...

 

...........................................................................................................................

 

This seeming contradiction of self / no self reminds me of one of my favorite Leonard Cohen lines...

 

We are so small between the stars

So large against the sky

And lost among the subway crowds

I try to catch your eye.

 

-- Leonard Cohen

 

 

Edited August 25, 2023 by liminal_luke

[old3bob]

50 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

I'm not sure if your encounters with my-way-is-the-only-way Buddhists happened here on the forum or in real life; no doubt there's a few stinkers everywhere you go.  But I think there's something about the context of this forum that brings out less than desirable qualities in people.  Unless you're exceptionally intuitive -- and you might be! -- what you'll pick up from posts here is mostly headtalk.  The process of writing back and forth seems to favor intellect and intellectual argument, perhaps especially when it comes to Buddhism which is rife with difficult to understand concepts.  Who would of thought that a philosophy that encourages resting the mind in non-conceptual reality would be so heavy with concepts?  Things have quieted down lately but you should of seen the Buddhist section a few years back.  Totally incomprehensible to me.  The only thing I understood was that these people disagreed with each other.  People do show their hearts on the forum but most of the time what comes through the loudest is opinion.  I think this is unfortunate.

 

I'm weirdly OK with seeming to contradict myself.  I absolutely think you are a unique person with an irreplacable, unrepeatable identity whose life has great meaning -- like everybody else.  (Whoever saves a life, saves the whole world.)  And yet I also think there's something to the Buddhist idea that we don't have a separate self.  How can both things possibly be true at the same time?  I haven't worked that out but am OK with the cognitive dissonance of holding both views simultaneously.  Maybe someday it will all make sense to me in a way that I can explain to others.  Then again, maybe not...

 

...........................................................................................................................

 

This seeming contradiction of self / no self reminds me of one of my favorite Leonard Cohen lines...

 

We are so small between the stars

So large against the sky

And lost among the subway crowds

I try to catch your eye.

 

-- Leonard Cohen

 

 

 

On a side note ,The historic Buddha was not a Buddhist before he founded Buddhism...

Edited August 25, 2023 by old3bob

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, old3bob said:

 

On a side note ,The historic Buddha was not a Buddhist before he founded Buddhism...

 

It seems like there's been an evolution.  What exists now is a desire to become or identify as a buddha which ironically seems to be something which buddha would discourage.

 

[Ajay0]

On 8/19/2023 at 6:34 PM, old3bob said:

The  Self (by Grace) chooses the Self, for not even intelligence or hard effort (which are preparations) has the power of that choice.

 

 But grace is won through purushartha (self-effort). You win grace in proportion to purushartha performed. A man who has understood by his intelligence the superficiality, illusion and danger (of entrapment) of all sensory pleasures through direct observation or hard experience, will obviously endeavor earnestly to gain joy and bliss of a more lasting sort.

 It is such earnest effort that attracts grace.

Also, in this inauspicious time of the Kali Yuga where stark imbalances in nature , religious and national conflicts and threat of a nuclear holocaust arising, it is all the more important that all people should endeavor to learn about nondual perception and put it into practice, rather than waiting for grace to hand it over to them. 

 

Nondual perception or meditative mind can heal dramatically much of the fissures and deep wounds in nature and humanity. This is highly practical as it enhances economic and survival potential for the human species , and mark great strides in spiritual and material prosperity for all beings.  

 

Anyone in their right mind would consciously choose overall prosperity over destruction at any chosen time. 

Right view, understanding and knowledge can enable them to make correct judgments that can bring this about.

 

 I have read accounts of people having brief moments of nondual perception by serendipity (and not choice), considering it a very beautiful experience , and seeking explanations for the same, hoping to repeat it. They did not know that it is their natural state, and was ignorant of its mechanism.

 

 If one knows the mechanics behind it, one would obviously replicate it at will or keep it a steady state if needed or possible. (Grace perhaps may also mean that the person has gained the fitness for higher sources of happiness other than sensory pleasures due to contemplation, correct reasoning and views.)

 

'If there is no meditation, then you are like a blind man in a world of great beauty, light and colour.' ~ Jiddu Krishnamurti

Edited August 25, 2023 by Ajay0

[old3bob]

2 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

 

 But grace is won through purushartha (self-effort). You win grace in proportion to purushartha performed. A man who has understood by his intelligence the superficiality, illusion and danger (of entrapment) of all sensory pleasures through direct observation or hard experience, will obviously endeavor earnestly to gain joy and bliss of a more lasting sort.

 It is such earnest effort that attracts grace.

Also, in this inauspicious time of the Kali Yuga where stark imbalances in nature , religious and national conflicts and threat of a nuclear holocaust arising, it is all the more important that all people should endeavor to learn about nondual perception and put it into practice, rather than waiting for grace to hand it over to them. 

 

Nondual perception or meditative mind can heal dramatically much of the fissures and deep wounds in nature and humanity. This is highly practical as it enhances economic and survival potential for the human species , and mark great strides in spiritual and material prosperity for all beings.  

 

Anyone in their right mind would consciously choose overall prosperity over destruction at any chosen time. 

Right view, understanding and knowledge can enable them to make correct judgments that can bring this about.

 

 I have read accounts of people having brief moments of nondual perception by serendipity (and not choice), considering it a very beautiful experience , and seeking explanations for the same, hoping to repeat it. They did not know that it is their natural state, and was ignorant of its mechanism.

 

 If one knows the mechanics behind it, one would obviously replicate it at will or keep it a steady state if needed or possible. (Grace perhaps may also mean that the person has gained the fitness for higher sources of happiness other than sensory pleasures due to contemplation, correct reasoning and views.)

 

'If there is no meditation, then you are like a blind man in a world of great beauty, light and colour.' ~ Jiddu Krishnamurti

 

Again, my take is that no human effort can win Grace by subtle ulterior motive, or design, or by force for itself, Grace makes that choice.  But sure one could be an advanced yogi with fine accomplishments in some forms of meditation along with practice in various yoga's and thus reach heavenly realms or attain certain siddhi's ; so yes all of those can be gained just as certain Rishis  did in ancient or modern times yet still end up loosing it all which was gained in this world and the next...(which btw. is pointed out in the Upanishads),  so there is a a gap which only the power of revealing Grace of Self Realization can bridge.   Interesting to me that the anti-guru, guru of Mr. J.K. is quoted, who per his personal recount made it part way but then going by his further manifesto can be quoted as taking an arrogant and hostile position against the ways of true Gurus, and thus imo lost it.

Edited August 25, 2023 by old3bob

[old3bob]

6 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

It seems like there's been an evolution.  What exists now is a desire to become or identify as a buddha which ironically seems to be something which buddha would discourage.

 

 

I might be able to make some fair judgement on that if I was an advanced and qualified Buddhist practitioner but I'm not.

(but i get your drift)

[iinatti]

.

Edited September 27, 2023 by iinatti

[Cobie]

.

 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Cobie

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, iinatti said:

Its not clear to me, however, why many people find the idea of non-dual to be repugnant, and visa versa, why non-dual people think the notion of a soul is repugnant. 

 

Before I answer, to be clear, this is speaking in general and about ideas, not individuals.  And understanding it requires considering the extreme stereotypical example, which naturally will be rare.

 

The reason why is one ideology claims all others are **delusional**.  Then, right-or-wrong this invites pointing out the delusions of the ideology itself.

 

The ideology justifies making these claims about all others, because delusion is considered the root cause of suffering and malignant behaviors in each and every human.

 

The ideology employs several methods to shield itself and avoid any outside criticism regardless of its merit, and sets up a system of teachers of the ideology who are tasked with spreading the ideology for the purpose of identifying the delusions of all others.  These teachers cannot tolerate considering their own delusions.  The ideology has convinced them they are absolutely immune to any delusional thinking as a consequence of being included in the "awakened/baptized-teacher-category".

 

When it is phrased in these general terms, this model is well known in western civilization as 'evangelical'.  Most people who have been exposed to evangelicals understand why it is considered by many to be repugnant.  It's the absolute certainty of the derogatory assertions made about all others.  It's the inability to have rational discourse.  It's the hypocrisy of the position which denies its own delusion while making accusations of all others of these same delusions.

 

Most critics of evangelicals do not deny the benefits that are reported by its adherents.  Nor is the concept of the delusion being rejected.  The ideology is popular for reasons.

 

So it's not that "non-dual" is actually repugnant.  It's the evangelical approach which is starting essentially endless ideological conflict against all others but will never admit it, because that would be attachment and doctrine to which it claims immunity.

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, Cobie said:

(Google) non-duality:

 

 

 

 

Not two?  Obviously three.

[Mark Foote]

22 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Thats how I USED to be able to do it .  and how I did it above ... sometimes it works , sometimes it dont  ( and then the above happens ^ )
 

 

I think I have better luck getting it to break if I use shift-enter, than just enter (where's the Dao Bums mini-editor instruction manual!).