GENIUS FORUMS

unwise wrote:In enlightenment, you see yourself as the universal male and female. Far far spread out from what the ego can perceive. As Purusha and Prakriti.

If someone said to me to describe my personality, I would have to point to every person in every race in every culture in every time - then I would say that each of these is expressing a part of me. They are all me. I am litterally all the men and women and children and old people you have ever seen.

And then I could also say that I am none of that at all. Not even a being. Not even a being in time and space.

I literally feel that I am everyone and no one.

This is only a state of mind you might experience when thinking about the Tao, more like a trap actually. I had a simliar feeling once, but the difference was that I was not content with it and knew this wasn't the end. I ended up fighting my way through it and made further spiritual development. You seem to be content with it, which will not help you in your own development. As contradicting as the statement "I am everyone and no one" is, it should be plain to see that this garbage has nothing to do with enlightenment.

Another thing, you keep trying to divide the universe into male and female. You can cut it up anyway you want but the universe is the UNIVERSE. It does what it does, only we can decide whether we would like to call something masculine or feminine. It can be useful at times, but in no way can we refer to the totality as being divided into these two opposing forces.

"but the universe is the UNIVERSE"

The universe is not. The universe is a thought/concept ABOUT the universe.

Anything which 'is', is a non-existent entity, a codependently arising matrix of one-many principle making a one out of many fusing thereby into one whole the masculine and feminine.

Now in some systems, the feminine is described as the space principle, that which accomodates, whereas masculine is the form, the bits and pieces, the particulars. In this system, thoughts are masculine and the underlying insight or wisdom they uncover is the feminine, which is the mother of all mind-awareness, that which is always there all along, which mothers all basically, and is therefore 'the feminine'. But it doesn't matter which part of a polarity gets which label.

Again, point is: the notion of a one-thing universe on top of everything else is just that: a notion. It is not even an entity since it lacks the being principle. Just as there is no such thing as a 'tree', whose roots and leaves cannot be separated, whose colours, odours, location, conditions (earth, sky) functions (procreation, bearing fruit etc) , cycles (seasonal, age), component areas (leaves vs roots) and organs (pumping fluids, secretion, bark, feeding from earth)etc., all different, all interdependent, all making up what we label 'a tree'. And yet there is no such one thing as such, just as there is no solid person as such behind the construct we label as 'me'.

In the same way, there is no such universe. So the masculine feminine business goes a little deeper, I think, since without it, there would not even be a so-called 'one universe' to label as such. There would not even be the ability to label!!

tharpa wrote:"but the universe is the UNIVERSE"

The universe is not. The universe is a thought/concept ABOUT the universe.

Anything which 'is', is a non-existent entity, a codependently arising matrix of one-many principle making a one out of many fusing thereby into one whole the masculine and feminine.

Now in some systems, the feminine is described as the space principle, that which accomodates, whereas masculine is the form, the bits and pieces, the particulars. In this system, thoughts are masculine and the underlying insight or wisdom they uncover is the feminine, which is the mother of all mind-awareness, that which is always there all along, which mothers all basically, and is therefore 'the feminine'. But it doesn't matter which part of a polarity gets which label.

Again, point is: the notion of a one-thing universe on top of everything else is just that: a notion. It is not even an entity since it lacks the being principle. Just as there is no such thing as a 'tree', whose roots and leaves cannot be separated, whose colours, odours, location, conditions (earth, sky) functions (procreation, bearing fruit etc) , cycles (seasonal, age), component areas (leaves vs roots) and organs (pumping fluids, secretion, bark, feeding from earth)etc., all different, all interdependent, all making up what we label 'a tree'. And yet there is no such one thing as such, just as there is no solid person as such behind the construct we label as 'me'.

In the same way, there is no such universe. So the masculine feminine business goes a little deeper, I think, since without it, there would not even be a so-called 'one universe' to label as such. There would not even be the ability to label!!

I don't know how you interprete the word universe, but... Universe means everything. The knowable and unkowable, the conscious and unconscious, thought/un-thought, most importantly it is infinite. It literally ecompases everything. The universe can only be broken down to serve a certain purpose, through consciousness. But if you are talking about the universe as a whole, the only words I use to subsititute it with are: God, Tao, Infinite, or The Totality. Good/evil, heaven/hell, or masculine/feminine, it is all a form of abstraction. The Truth still remains that these are all conceptual ideas, they are all one in the same, they are THE UNIVERSE.

OK. How about this:

Totality cannot be qualified by a 'the', as in 'The Universe'.

Even though all particulars are more limited than any absolutes, any absolute neither contains nor does not contain any particular.

Absolutes cannot be numbered.

Absolutes neither exist nor do not exist.

Absolutes neither exist nor do not exist

Yes, this is what I say about myself. It cannot be understood by seekers. They necessarily think it is contradiction.

unwise wrote:

Absolutes neither exist nor do not exist

Yes, this is what I say about myself. It cannot be understood by seekers. They necessarily think it is contradiction.

Unwise, for fun:

An enlightened Genius, the Buddha, achieved full Enlightenment through following through on his motivation (bodhisattva vow) not to attain enlightenment until all sentient beings are liberated.

That being the case, how did he attain enlightenment and/or how can one define enlightenment given that he achieved it and kept that vow?

Thinking that there are other beings who need to be enlightened is itself a sign of ignorance.

Good one!

Seeing all beings within the continuum of Totality-Awareness in which are contained both confusion and enlightenment.

And yet a Buddha teaches and cannot help but do so nor can others help but engage one way or another, either by accepting, rejecting or ignoring.

tharpa wrote:OK. How about this:

Totality cannot be qualified by a 'the', as in 'The Universe'.

Even though all particulars are more limited than any absolutes, any absolute neither contains nor does not contain any particular.

Absolutes cannot be numbered.

Absolutes neither exist nor do not exist.

We can sit here and waste all our time talking about how we can/should describe God in certain words. In the end it's about the meaning behind these words.

yes, quite right.

There's a lot of nonsense going on in this topic, which I, an unenlightened modern day American could-be-called-Bodhisattva, see the need to dispel. I will do so in stating simple facts....

1) The ultimate reality absolutely exists!
2) Unwise is unenlightened, and a fool!
3) Thinking that there are unenlightened beings is truth, since we are all here being unenlightened!
4) Saying what a Buddha does or doesn't do, without being enlightened yourself is dumb!

Lets take a think at this statement:

Thinking that there are other beings who need to be enlightened is itself a sign of ignorance.

Yet, as Tharpa pointed out, the Buddha teaches. How can this be, since the Buddha has no ignorance? How can the Buddha teach a path to enlightenment, yet not be aware of any unenlightened beings? Of course, this isn't one of those spiritual paradoxes that everyone loves so much...this is just delusion.

Since the Buddha teaches a path to enlightenment, it's obvious that he is aware of unenlightened beings. Otherwise, why teach a path to enlightenment?

Such stupidity.

Tharpa,

An enlightened Genius, the Buddha, achieved full Enlightenment through following through on his motivation (bodhisattva vow) not to attain enlightenment until all sentient beings are liberated.

This would be a case of the blind leading the blind. If he wasn't enlightened himself, how could he possibly lead anyone else to enlightenment? Yes, a bodhisattva knows the path, yet they don't truly know it since they haven't taken the last step. He would have had to enlighten everyone in existence except himself...somehow!

That being the case, how did he attain enlightenment and/or how can one define enlightenment given that he achieved it and kept that vow?

How did he attain enlightenment? By whatever means he led the others into it. How can one define enlightenment? The complete absence of delusion...the only way it should ever be defined.

And about the whole universe discussion...there is reality and there is a concept of reality which is contained within the reality. Of course, the reality alone exists. Simple!

well, Scott, he took the vow BEFORE becoming enlightened, then realised the vow by attaining 'it'.

It is still worth considering: how can someone who takes the vow not to attain enlightenment until all beings are liberated attain enlightenment?

Perhaps the Buddha, no longer dwelling in samsara, sees samsaric beings in a manner that is a little different from how samsaric beings, who are not yet enlightened, perceive themselves?

In any case, as others have pointed out, this is perhaps a silly sidetrack, certainly not about 'the Symbolism of Sex'. Actually, I think Symbolism alone would be a good topic, sex being one of the best human examples of said same. Anyway.

Terminology note:

A Buddha - in the buddist tradition at least - is a somewhat precise term. All Buddhas are 'enlightened' but this is the last level of enlightenment. According to the Mahayana (and later) schools, there are 10 bhumis (levels/states) of enlightenment, the first of which is associated with the Paramita of Generosity. Gampopa's Jewel Ornament of Liberation goes through this in some detail, including what powers and insights occur at each level, as well as some details of karma and the many realms and which beings are born into which and why.

The point being that there are many levels of enlightenment. It's not a one-stop line.

Tharpa,

well, Scott, he took the vow BEFORE becoming enlightened, then realised the vow by attaining 'it'.

It is still worth considering: how can someone who takes the vow not to attain enlightenment until all beings are liberated attain enlightenment?

Either he breaks his vow, or he liberates all beings before himself then liberates himself.

Terminology note:

A Buddha - in the buddist tradition at least - is a somewhat precise term. All Buddhas are 'enlightened' but this is the last level of enlightenment. According to the Mahayana (and later) schools, there are 10 bhumis (levels/states) of enlightenment, the first of which is associated with the Paramita of Generosity. Gampopa's Jewel Ornament of Liberation goes through this in some detail, including what powers and insights occur at each level, as well as some details of karma and the many realms and which beings are born into which and why.

The point being that there are many levels of enlightenment. It's not a one-stop line.

I'm not a fan of most traditions, and I think there is one Buddhahood and one enlightenment. A Buddha is only one who has attained enlightenment, and enlightenment is only the absence of all delusion.

The point being that there are many levels of enlightenment.

Yeah and that indicates it is crap.

Scott: you are of course free to think there is only one Buddhahood. I was just pointing out that in the buddhist tradition, which justifiably has some 'ownership' of the terminology, it is a specific term. I am not aware of any particular buddhist word that is the equivalent of enlightenment, actually, though perhaps there is one. And in the buddhist tradition - and again you can of course disagree - there are indeed many different levels of insight, many of which are referred to as 'enlightenment' in our language.

For example, some regard the attainment of nirvana as enlightenment; or a sudden glimpse, as in satori; or seeing sunyata; then there is the bhumi system which exists in all buddhist systems except the theravadin. A Buddha is one who has attained the one beyond the 10th bhumi (or it is the 10th) and ONLY a Buddha achieves this particular level. It is said by some that there have only been a few who have attained beyond the second bhumi since the Buddha, one of whom was Nagarjuna.

This is why I actually prefer Quinn's use of Philosopher, even though initially to the buddhist ear it sounds like 'scientist' or academic. It is a form of dogma, as is any terminology, but a very compact, simple and direct one which works well the way he uses it. At least for me. Here I suppose it is okay to use Buddha as a substitute example for Philosopher, but it might be of interest to some to know that for those versed in traditional buddhist terminology, it is imprecise.

Small technical point, no big deal.

"Either he breaks his vow, or he liberates all beings before himself then liberates himself. "

At the risk of having 'hijacked' the thread with this interchange, I continue. People can bring things back to Sex and Symbolism at any time of course.

Well, you might be right. But if he had broken his vow, he would not have become the Tathagata, the Awakened One, the Buddha etc.

So clearly he didn't break his vow but he did attain full enlightenment.

There is an answer to this, by the way, since the question is based on actual events. But it is not an easy answer to determine. And perhaps only a full Buddha can do so!

Since I'm new here, if what I have been posting is considered inappropriate, please let me know. But in terms of this different levels business, I thought I'd relay a little anecdote - again from buddhist sources - that also echoes something Quinn mentioned in his book or one of the many interviews I have been skimming through this past week, namely that there is a difference between catching a glimpse and then remaining in a state of enlightenment that rests in the nature of Ultimate Reality.

There are said to have been five great Dzogchen masters in the last century, or the last part of it. One of them was a short, charming man by the name of Tulku Ugyen (whose two volume series called 'As it Is' I highly recommend; those who like Quinn's writings will enjoy much in these two works; not all, but most. Very little religious stuff and lots of 'mind-writing').

In a recently published official biography (called Blazing Splendour), he tells many stories. I cannot remember this specifically, but often as he was emerging as a good teacher in Tibet before the exodus, he compared notes with various masters. In a couple of conversations the same sort of thing came up, which is very simple but which illustrates the gradual principle. Basically, he is sitting around chit-chatting with highly respected teachers and at some point they swap information about how they are doing. In all cases, it's basically the same story:

'Well, I've managed to remain in the awakened state throughout every minute of waking consciousness, but the moment going to sleep is tricky, and then learning to remain in 'luminosity-awareness' throughout both the sleep and also the dream state has taken a little longer'. Then in some conversations they mention how they have managed to rest 24 hours a day without gap. Once you can do 24 hours, that's basically the same as always.

So the journey is a bit like that, at least for these ones, and perhaps they are low-level practitioners and your approach is far superior, who can say. But it does seem reasonable, that first you have breakthroughs, the fog of delusion clearing for a second or two as you catch a glimpse of the sun shining beyond, then such glimpses occur more frequently, then they begin to last longer. This can only happen by doing, being, so that one's entire life and being is awakened.

The obstacle to such duration developing, also as Quinn mentions, is bad habits, habitual ways of clinging to dualistic modes of being. In order to break these habits, buddhists have developed many techniques, some of which appear very religious, others very technical. But they all boil down to overcoming the twin veils of illusion: 'primitive beliefs about reality' (which Quinn deals with by using logic to deconstruct false views of solidity) and 'evil deeds and obscurations', (habitual modes of behaviour that reinforce clinging to selfhood).

Anyway, I thought this might be of interest to some.

tharpa: The point being that there are many levels of enlightenment.

Jamesh: Yeah and that indicates it is crap.

Not at all. What it indicates is that no-one has yet found to what end we may become enlightened. Why fall in with the trend here to view infinity as anything but inherency?

Seeing all beings within the continuum of Totality-Awareness in which are contained both confusion and enlightenment.

And yet a Buddha teaches and cannot help but do so nor can others help but engage one way or another, either by accepting, rejecting or ignoring

If you were dreaming and suddenly realized that you WERE dreaming, you would have a couple choices: Either you could go somewhere in your dream and disengage and await awakening from the dream state, OR you could engage the dream characters and scenes appearing before you. You would marvel that - although everything and every person was a projection of yourself - yet they all seem independent with their own words and actions. This would amuse you greatly.

You might even teach them. People to me are both real and unreal.

Or you can dream a message to someone which they receive and remember upon awakening.

...and if in my dream I see one person who loves me and is full of sincerity, I will dream that person into enlightenment.

THree activites men were born to do as a savages were
1. Talk (ok conversation or chatting or discussing)
2. Sex (eating food and keeping healthy life all come down to point of sex at the moment of reproduction)
3. War (So finally the world is at peace, you think? Turn to the NBA channel or computer games your kids play, it's all warriors fighting against eachother chaing after money and fame which is triggered by chemical activies such as adrenaline in your body)

MrRemarkable wrote:3. War (So finally the world is at peace, you think?

Not been following the news lately, I take it?

tharpa

"Either he breaks his vow, or he liberates all beings before himself then liberates himself. "

At the risk of having 'hijacked' the thread with this interchange, I continue. People can bring things back to Sex and Symbolism at any time of course.

Well, you might be right. But if he had broken his vow, he would not have become the Tathagata, the Awakened One, the Buddha etc.

So clearly he didn't break his vow but he did attain full enlightenment.

There is an answer to this, by the way, since the question is based on actual events. But it is not an easy answer to determine. And perhaps only a full Buddha can do so!

let me try

in becoming buddha his view of other beings becomes a reflection of his own state so they are enlightened in his view and his view is true even though those whom he sees as already enlightened may not necessarily see themselves as so yet