GENIUS FORUMS

Scott and I were having a discussion about enlightenment (Would a TEP...), where he was holding that real enlightenment was impossible, while simultaneously saying that what David considers to be enlightenment is easily obtainable.

In a rare stroke of genius, I thought that perhaps what he was talking about (the diffusion into nothingness that would theoretically happen if a person really truly and fully had no ego, both consciously and unconsciously) was Nirvana, not enlightenment, and the impossibility of enlightenment was not the real issue: rather, the issue was the impossibility of going any farther than enlightenment.

sschaula wrote:My only question is this: isn't an enlightened person, a Buddha, supposed to have reached or attained Nirvana? Maybe that was a misinterpretation of Buddhism on my part.

I can answer this question in relation to these definitions, but does anyone know how the Buddhists treat the idea of Nirvana?

Perhaps it'd be best to go back and look at scriptures which are attributed to the Buddha himself. I would but I'm having a very busy week.

"...bodhi and nirvana are hitching posts for donkeys." - Linji

sschaula wrote:Perhaps it'd be best to go back and look at scriptures which are attributed to the Buddha himself.

It's that pesky 'attributed'. Like Jesus, Shakyamuni didn't write anything down. There are just the recollections of others from oral traditions unrecorded for centuries after his death. It's a wonder that anything of any benefit has survived.

Maybe people had better memories in those days. This was probably actually true in pre-literate cultures.
.

Traditionally, nirvana refers to the mode of existence which occurs when samsara, the cycle of gain and loss, is put to an end. A person enters nirvana when he transcends all duality and no longer seeks satisfaction in forms. Nirvana is what perfectly-enlightened people experience as a matter of course.

The idea that Scott has achieved this kind of thing is laughable. He is kidding himself. The mere fact that he is still experiencing dissatisfaction is proof of this, let alone his woolly thinking on these matters.

-

Haven't you seen me say that I haven't, David?

Philosophaster wrote:

"...bodhi and nirvana are hitching posts for donkeys." - Linji

I see you're still latching onto these advanced teachings in order to justify not doing anything.

Watching a person who hasn't even entered the starting gates of the spiritual path commenting on advanced wisdom is like watching a pre-schooler trying to make judgments on Einstein's theories.

-

Scott wrote:

Haven't you seen me say that I haven't, David?

You state that you have "easily" attained my own conception of enlightenment. Yet my conception of enlightenment is the one I describe above.

-

David,

You state that you have "easily" attained my own conception of enlightenment. Yet my conception of enlightenment is the one I describe above.

Alright, lets take a look at what you said:

A person enters nirvana when he transcends all duality and no longer seeks satisfaction in forms. Nirvana is what perfectly-enlightened people experience as a matter of course.

Are you perfectly-enlightened, David?
Why do you assume I seek satisfaction in forms? Does an unperfectly-enlightened person not seek satisfaction in forms?
How can you transcend duality, when self conception is the creator of duality? How is an unperfectly-enlightened person in reference to transcending duality....it must be that they haven't perfectly transcended duality yet, right?

Please address the questions thoughtfully. If you don't, it could reasonably be assumed that you're full of shit.

Scott,

Are you perfectly-enlightened, David?

No. I can enter into nirvana on occasion, but not all the time.

Why do you assume I seek satisfaction in forms?

(a) You still a lack a good understanding of formlessness, (b) your writing still reeks of dissatisfaction and a pervading sense that you are lost, and (b) you are still spellbound by woman.

Does an unperfectly-enlightened person not seek satisfaction in forms?

To the degree that he is not enlightened, he does.

How can you transcend duality, when self conception is the creator of duality?

One transcends duality by ceasing to be fooled by dualistic forms, which can only be done with the aid of a perfect intellectual understanding of Reality.

Transcendence doesn't mean flying off into some sort of non-dualistic realm (for that too is just another dualistic form), or putting an end to duality altogether (for that is impossible). It means being liberated from all forms, even while you continue to experience them.

How is an unperfectly-enlightened person in reference to transcending duality....it must be that they haven't perfectly transcended duality yet, right?

They still find themselves being taken in by the illusion of duality.

-

David Quinn wrote:I see you're still latching onto these advanced teachings in order to justify not doing anything.

Ha! I do lots of things, such as make brief posts on message boards. What would you prefer I do?

Become a fully-enlightened Buddha.

-

David,

Thanks for responding.

Quote:
Are you perfectly-enlightened, David?

No. I can enter into nirvana on occasion, but not all the time.

Okay, you are not perfectly-enlightened...

Quote:
Why do you assume I seek satisfaction in forms?

(a) You still a lack a good understanding of formlessness, (b) your writing still reeks of dissatisfaction and a pervading sense that you are lost, and (b) you are still spellbound by woman.

(a) I disagree. I don't see where you get your evidence from.
(b) As does your own, and anyone else's here.
and (b) I'm as spellbound as you are.

Quote:
Does an unperfectly-enlightened person not seek satisfaction in forms?

To the degree that he is not enlightened, he does.

Here is what you've said so far:

I (Scott) seek satisfaction in forms...
A person who isn't perfectly enlightened still seeks satisfaction in forms....
Therefore, you (David) still seek satisfaction in forms...

Yet somehow you've attained enlightenment and I haven't.

Quote:
How can you transcend duality, when self conception is the creator of duality?

One transcends duality by ceasing to be fooled by dualistic forms, which can only be done with the aid of a perfect intellectual understanding of Reality.

Transcendence doesn't mean flying off into some sort of non-dualistic realm (for that too is just another dualistic form), or putting an end to duality altogether (for that is impossible). It means being liberated from all forms, even while you continue to experience them.

Understood and agreed. Yet, you ignored the part of the question regarding self-conception. A person can't transcend duality if they believe they are a part of the forms which appear to them, and operate from that belief. If they briefly transcend duality, yet come back, can it really be said that they have transcended duality?

If I say "that man has trascended duality" and he's looking at pornography and wacking off, well that kind of doesn't make any sense. There is someone who has "transcended duality", then there is someone who has "transcended duality".

Quote:
How is an unperfectly-enlightened person in reference to transcending duality....it must be that they haven't perfectly transcended duality yet, right?

They still find themselves being taken in by the illusion of duality.

So the answer is yes...and what you're saying essentially is:

"I (David) still am taken in by the illusion of duality".

Scott wrote:

S: Does an unperfectly-enlightened person not seek satisfaction in forms?

DQ: To the degree that he is not enlightened, he does.

S: Here is what you've said so far:

I (Scott) seek satisfaction in forms...
A person who isn't perfectly enlightened still seeks satisfaction in forms....
Therefore, you (David) still seek satisfaction in forms...

Yet somehow you've attained enlightenment and I haven't.

It's a matter of degree and quality of understanding. The category of "a not-yet-perfectly-enlightened person who still falls into the delusion of seeking satisfaction in forms" can apply just as much to a great bodhisattva who is on the brink of perfection as it does to a beginner who has had some insight.

S: How can you transcend duality, when self conception is the creator of duality?

DQ: One transcends duality by ceasing to be fooled by dualistic forms, which can only be done with the aid of a perfect intellectual understanding of Reality.

Transcendence doesn't mean flying off into some sort of non-dualistic realm (for that too is just another dualistic form), or putting an end to duality altogether (for that is impossible). It means being liberated from all forms, even while you continue to experience them.

S: Understood and agreed. Yet, you ignored the part of the question regarding self-conception.

Self-conception is just another form which has to be penetrated.

A person can't transcend duality if they believe they are a part of the forms which appear to them, and operate from that belief. If they briefly transcend duality, yet come back, can it really be said that they have transcended duality?

Yes. The moment a person transcends life and death and understands the whole of Reality in a flash, in that very moment he transcends samsara. Such a person can be said to be enlightened.

What makes a "perfectly-enlightened person" different is that he is able to effortlessly maintain this transcendence indefinitely without interruption.

-

David wrote,

No. I can enter into nirvana on occasion, but not all the time.

(AND)

One transcends duality by ceasing to be fooled by dualistic forms, which can only be done with the aid of a perfect intellectual understanding of Reality.

Is it really possible for one to forget, (unless there is some problem with his brain or memory), once one has intellectually absorbed the understanding of Reality? Does one have to breathlessly keep chanting “all is illusory” so that no other thought enters his mind?

What is this occasional entering in and out of “nirvana”? Unless one really thinks that it is some kind of a permanent state rather than an understanding that leads to a simple change of perspective. Only the change of perspective would remain permanent, (that too as long as one is alive), experiences go on. The new perspective is also an experience, in and of duality, otherwise, one will not know the difference, and one has to necessarily remain aware of the difference of the changed perspective, and remain conscious of the difference otherwise. Otherwise, the changed perspective cannot remain.

Transcendence doesn't mean flying off into some sort of non-dualistic realm (for that too is just another dualistic form), or putting an end to duality altogether (for that is impossible). It means being liberated from all forms, even while you continue to experience them.

If that is so, and you know it, then where does the problem of occasionally forgetting it arise? Is your name David or Dementia?

Scott: So the answer is yes...and what you're saying essentially is:

"I (David) still am taken in by the illusion of duality".

Can any one not even remotely accept the possibility that it is not a literal Illusion? There are many who say it is not, but do they really comprehend what it really means? In my book, that means REALITY.

If putting an end to duality altogether is impossible, logically speaking, then why or how could one literally transcend a known impossibility? Unless it is just a figure of speech – Nirvana! Drop the attachment to that, and I think one will have it. It is not a thing to be “achieved”, just realized, as in a changed perspective. One cannot go in and out of a changed perspective once realized, since that becomes the basis of ones mental being.

Scott, I will get back to your other post in that other thread soon. And I hope that you don't take either of our words as illusion, otherwise, there is no sense in discussing it.

I was typing while you posted, David.

Self-conception is just another form which has to be penetrated.

As far as the Self is concerned (not the conceptualized one, but the one that conceptualizes), there is nothing to penetrate.

It would be like the impossible task of a snake trying to devourer itself completely by eating its way through its own tail.

Sapius,

Is it really possible for one to forget, (unless there is some problem with his brain or memory), once one has intellectually absorbed the understanding of Reality? Does one have to breathlessly keep chanting “all is illusory” so that no other thought enters his mind?

What is this occasional entering in and out of “nirvana”? Unless one really thinks that it is some kind of a permanent state rather than an understanding that leads to a simple change of perspective. Only the change of perspective would remain permanent, (that too as long as one is alive), experiences go on.

Becoming enlightened does involve a change of perspective, and this perspective, once actualized, does remain permanent. The bit about going in and out of nirvana hinges on whether the enlightened person is prepared to intensify his concentration and bring nirvana fully into focus. To the degree that he doesn't do this, he slips back into delusion.

However, he only ever slips back a little distance. The farthest he can slide down is the lowest level of his changed perspective, as it were, which isn't very far. He never really loses his connection with nirvana, even at this lowest level, but neither is he fully immersed in it during that time.

The delusions he suffers at this lowest level aren't intellectual in nature, so it isn't really a case of his forgetting what Reality is. It's more a case that his mind gets side-tracked by subtle, habitual delusions which arise from boredom or fear.

-

In light of everything said here, I still think enlightenment is easily attained and nothing special. Although the point isn't relevant and is highly contested - I have attained that. I'm sure many others on this board have.

It's a disappointing attainment. I still wouldn't call it enlightenment.

David,

It's a matter of degree and quality of understanding. The category of "a not-yet-perfectly-enlightened person who still falls into the delusion of seeking satisfaction in forms" can apply just as much to a great bodhisattva who is on the brink of perfection as it does to a beginner who has had some insight.

Agreed. For that reason it's mind boggling to me why you say I'm not enlightened, in your sense of the word. Look, I don't care what you think about me. I'm not looking for your approval. What I'm looking for here is some reasoning behind why you think you're wiser than anyone else. Why it seems that only people from Australia get to be in your little club.

I know you're not going to answer that question to my standard, because it's not something you're doing consciously. I'm just fishing in your unconscious in an attempt to hook some delusions, and bring them to the surface for you to see.

Self-conception is just another form which has to be penetrated.

Of course it is. And my point is that the penetrator IS the self-conception. Therefore, it's a damn hard thing to penetrate, and it's possibly impossible.

Yes. The moment a person transcends life and death and understands the whole of Reality in a flash, in that very moment he transcends samsara. Such a person can be said to be enlightened.

What makes a "perfectly-enlightened person" different is that he is able to effortlessly maintain this transcendence indefinitely without interruption.

I disagree. What if I was walking with a friend down the streets of your town, and I saw you sitting outside and said to the friend, "That man has transcended duality." We walk to a store...then as we're walking back, we see you watching porn and whacking off. My friend, I hope, would ask, "Why did you say he has transcended duality...look it's obvious he hasn't." I would have to agree with my friend.

So if it's an on and off thing, in my opinion it's nothing special.

sschaula wrote:In light of everything said here, I still think enlightenment is easily attained and nothing special. Although the point isn't relevant and is highly contested - I have attained that. I'm sure many others on this board have.

It's a disappointing attainment. I still wouldn't call it enlightenment.

Fair enough, but what is disappointing about existence, consciousness? If any thing, it is entirely the opposite in my opinion, unless in your realization you have found absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Are you not completely satisfied that you have at least attained the realization that attaining enlightenment is nothing special? That itself should set you free from disappointment.

David… David…

Becoming enlightened does involve a change of perspective, and this perspective, once actualized, does remain permanent. The bit about going in and out of nirvana hinges on whether the enlightened person is prepared to intensify his concentration and bring nirvana fully into focus. To the degree that he doesn't do this, he slips back into delusion.

Could it be possible that concentrating to bring “nirvana” fully into focus could be a degree of delusion? You are exactly who you are and you know it, what else is beyond? (I’m speaking to you according to what I believe I know about you and your realizations)

However, he only ever slips back a little distance. The farthest he can slide down is the lowest level of his changed perspective, as it were, which isn't very far. He never really loses his connection with nirvana, even at this lowest level, but neither is he fully immersed in it during that time.

It is you your Self that is “nirvana”, as it were; you cannot further immerse your Self into your Self. You are simply creating something that is other than the Self, whereas, that is REALLY all that there is, absolutely nothing beyond. Your whole philosophy, understandings, realizations revolves around it, and you are somehow yourself reluctant to actually pin it down. Once and for all.

The delusions he suffers at this lowest level aren't intellectual in nature, so it isn't really a case of his forgetting what Reality is. It's more a case that his mind gets side-tracked by subtle, habitual delusions which arise from boredom or fear.

What delusions? What bloody boredom and fear? Don’t you know that they are simply causal conditions? Or do you have reason to believe otherwise? Unless one consciously flows with causality, he is not really consciously aware of the Self, and I think you are to a great extent, just that you still have doubts. As Dan likes to say from time to time; get over it already! Once and for all!

I cannot ever express it any better, without evoking some sort of contradiction in others mind, where in and of Reality, or in other words the Self, there are none.

This is not for the weak hearted to understand. (Poetically speaking)

Sapius,

Fair enough, but what is disappointing about existence, consciousness? If any thing, it is entirely the opposite in my opinion, unless in your realization you have found absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Haha, Sapius I'm sorry man, but I just can't seem to understand you. What do you mean by "what's disappointing about existence, consciousness?"..."unless in your realization you have found absolutely nothing whatsoever."?

I said David's definition of enlightenment is disappointing, not that existence or consciousness were disappointing. I have found a lot of things in my realization...

Are you not completely satisfied that you have at least attained the realization that attaining enlightenment is nothing special? That itself should set you free from disappointment.

I'm not a disappointed person. I don't need to be set free from it. I'm not satsfied with my realization that attaining enlightenment is nothing special...that realization too is nothing special.

Scott,

In light of everything said here, I still think enlightenment is easily attained and nothing special. Although the point isn't relevant and is highly contested - I have attained that. I'm sure many others on this board have.

It's a disappointing attainment. I still wouldn't call it enlightenment.

I remember being in a writing class, and a girl said off-hand, "I didn't eat for 3 days once and I got into an enlightened state."

I think that's a far more disappointing use of the term. It is better to use the word enlightenment the way it is used here, because it contrasts nicely with the darkness she spends every single day of her life immersed in.

Enlightenment is the result of a few years of deliberate effort -- thinking about logic, causality, and the nature of reality -- not about the word enlightenment, or about attaining some mystical state. Then someone hits you on the head and you're like, "oh shit, du'uh," and you're enlightened.

Anyone can achieve enlightenment. It's not really that hard. It's actually harder to convince someone that they've already achieved it once they get to the point where they can honestly call themselves enlightened. "Oh, THAT? Why would I use such a beautiful word to describe THAT?"

Don't be so attached to the word. It really just means the lights are on in your head: you don't believe anything happens magically without reason. You're not fumbling in the dark, trapped by your own delusions.

It goes without saying, but I'll say it again, that only you know whether or not you're enlightened. Everyone else can only guess.

As for me, looking at the replies, I think I want to separate enlightenment from Nirvana. It's not really critical that I do this... it's just that, when I'm given two words, I would rather use them for different things.

In contrast with David, I would say an enlightened person has achieved Nirvana for an interval, and can achieve it again. A Buddha is someone who lives in Nirvana always.

I'm saying the same thing, except I changed the definitions slightly to conserve space. I trust that it makes just as much sense.

Trevor,

I would just rather call someone who has attained this, a thinker or a philosopher. An intelligent person. "Enlightenment" has too many mystical connotations. Due to various religions, people as a whole define enlightenment as an end to the path. They assume you can perform magical acts...that you have control over nature, and are somehow not a part of it. That you've found God, or your "true self". They think you are free of all suffering, and live in an eternal blissful state. None of these things are true for the Definition Of Enlightenment Used Here (DOEUH). While I agree that the DOEUH is useful and helpful in the midst of the stupidity in the world, I don't think it's good to confuse people about what the DOEUH actually is.

I will use an analogy: you meet someone and they say they are looking to buy a used vehicle. You inform them, "I have a nice truck that I want to get rid of. I will give it to you for 1000". They are very interested, because they need to haul a bunch of crap here and there on a daily basis (they do construction). So you take them to your garage, and they see that it's an SUV. How disappointing for them! What a waste of time! If you had clarified to them what it was exactly, they wouldn't have gotten their hopes up, withdrawn money, and went to your garage.

It's the same way with philosophy. If you dress it up in words like "enlightenment", "buddha", "nirvana", etc...people will be looking for something which just isn't there. Why not just call it what it is, in the English language?

I guess the answer to that is: you can only catch fish if you bait the hook. But how hypocritical is it when the fisher is trying to show the fish the truth, and he lies to them...