Samadhi, Satori, Nirvana, Enlightenment, Realization…

[Leo Volont]

one cannot use faith to become enlightment
it is about realization, and faith is presumption

one thing that i noticed is when you pretend to act as enlightened person, you  don't act true to yourself, and hence it is BS
the same with all of those who say - if you will act selflessly to others then you will become enlightened, and true sign of enlightment is service to others - BS
how can you work on something (unconscious egoism (because egoism is good, and enlightened can be egoitical, although selfless)) if you are pushing it and restraining yourself ?, you don't work on enlightment, but on restraining yourself to look enlightened
but as we see SOME monks do succed
also EP (shortcut of enlightened people) can manifest what they want, act as they like, and are not bound to any expectations made by blind folks

If doing nothing and simply being one's ordinary impulsive self were a valid Spiritual Technique, then most of us would be Enlightened, no?  But that doesn't appear to have worked.

Those Traditions that have had some success in bringing Enlightenment to their Adherents have done so with Techniques that have stressed some kind of Self-affacement -- the suppression of Ego, the suppression of Desires, the suppression of Thoughts, and the abnegation of Self through Service to others.   The General Idea has been to force one into the Universal through the negation of the Individual.

If placing no bounds on one's personal behavior was a valid Spiritual Technique, then it would be in the most crime-ridden districts and in the prisons where we would expect to find most of our Saints.  But that is clearly not the case.

I can understand the extreme self-love some people have for themselves, after all, I am inordinately fond of myself; however, in the pursuit of Enlightenment, a choice must be made between the small self and the Higher Universal.

[Nostic]

Enlightened men wouldn't obsess over the fact that they're enlightened, if they recognized it at all. It is not a status anyway, but an evolution.

I'm not saying I'm enlightened.  I am saying that it is is OBVIOUS to those who are Enlightened that they are Enlightened, and it is CLEAR to everybody else in their circle, that they are indeed special and set apart.

There may be some Evolution involved in getting there, but all of the Traditions, but yours, apparently, agree that Enlightenment somes suddenly and totally, presenting something of a Quantum Leap from one state to another.  Ofcourse, once Enlightened there may be growth at that Level, but it is on a whole other continuum from what us ordinary mortals experience.  From the first moment of Enlightenment, the Enlightened are a complete Level above everybody else.  

There is no such thing as being a little bit 'Enlightened'.

Leo, you're confusing me a bit here.  Are you saying that every group of people who think that their "leader" or "master" is enlightened are correct in their assumption? I'm assuming you can't really think that that is the case.
For example, Hitler had charisma in spades. I've seen shows on the History Channel, where people who lived in Germany at the time had it in their minds that Hitler was their Father, and therefore everything he said MUST be true, MUST be right, and MUST be for their own good. He was literally like a deity for those people.
I assume, for an enlightened person, of course it's obvious for them that they are enlightened. However, I don't think the very fallible, typical human being is a very good barometer.
I'm certain that there have been many, many small groups of people (groups that history never tells us about) who thought that their leader was The Enlightened One. But it was nothing more than a joke. This is what a cult is. And we've heard about cults so often. I believe our human minds are way too faulty to know, in general, who is truly enlightened and who is not. I think you'd only know for certain if you yourself were enlightened.
One other thing: you're basing your definition of enlightenment on popular historical figures.
Number 1, you must know that history is faulty, because it has been recorded (and manipulated) by faulty minds.
Number 2, just because you're enlightened, it doesn't mean that you'll become popular enough to be recored in the history books. I'm sure there are way more enlightened persons that have existed that aren't in history books than are.
Number 3, I think we, as UNenlightened beings, have a tendency to think that enlightened persons are all the same, or very much the same. So we look at the popular criteria that has been established (by our faulty, human minds) and say, well if you're like this, then you must be enlightened, because that's how enlightened people act. If however, you don't act in accordance with these established criteria, you are not enlightened. I think this is silly... and typically human. I've read many things that would suggest that enlightened persons are, or can be, as different as any group or population of people. Those Zen masters I read about really crack me up with their antics! They're nuts! I've heard stories of zen masters beating the crap out of their disciples, in order to help those disciples reach enlightenment themselves. What the master is trying to do is get the disciples mind to stop by doing something outrageous and totally unexpected. The goal is to get them beyond their ordinary mind, and the masters are known to do some really crazy things in order to try to make that happen. But to a typical human being, can you imagine that they'd consider someone who'd attack another to be an enlightened person? Of course not! In our limited human minds someone who'd physically attack another COULD NEVER be enlightened. But that is because we are UNenlightened, and therefore we do not know the full scope of what enlightenment is.
Number 4, any unenlightened person might only identify someone else as enlightened based on some criteria. But where has this criteria come from? It's comes from someone or somewhere else. Or, in other words, it's comes  from outside of you. It's all based on what you've heard or what you expect, and comes from your limited experiences. Any information that comes from somewhere else is faulty. Because you don't know it. You've just adopted it because either it sounded good or because it was forced on you. This is why I believe that only an enlightened person can know, for certain, when another person is enlightened. He just knows. It's just there. And it's no longer based on criteria or expectation. The knowledge goes beyond those things. But all an unenlightened person has is criteria and expectation, and that's why he's unenlightened lol. Therefore, he's not a very good judge of who's the real deal and who is not. Sure, you may get it right some of the time. But how do you know how often you've gotten it wrong? You don't. Because you couldn't identify all of those enlightened people who passed you walking down the street, you never thought about them. You never even knew that there was something you were missing. So it was impossible for you to tally up all of the times when you missed the mark.  

[jilola]

If doing nothing and simply being one's ordinary impulsive self were a valid Spiritual Technique, then most of us would be Enlightened, no? But that doesn't appear to have worked.

But the idea is not to react on the impulse but first to know who you are only then act

The General Idea has been to force one into the Universal through the negation of the Individual.

The way to go is  not through rejecting the individual but via recognizing how the individual mis part of the whole.

If placing no bounds on one's personal behavior was a valid Spiritual Technique

Clearly it isn't and anyone claiming so is far off the mark. But once you know who exactly you are and act according to that we have the beginnings of a path to enlightenment. Doing something just because it's expected by thhe current society is missig the mark because there you're just accepting dogma. Doing the same because you have come to the same set of values by the effort of finding them out  yourself is radically different. And here the effort is the key.

The fact remains that a person will do as is his nature, be the action for or against it. Most often it is against as facing your self is by far the scariest thing imaginable. Doing so entails taking  responsibility of your actions and the consequences to others. Frell, I have a my work vut out doing that I can only imagine what someone unaware of the task is going through.


2cents & L&L
Jouni

[You]

Leo, I'm going to have to simply disagree with you here. For one, I don't know what all these 'Traditions' (why you capitalize the word is beyond me) are, or why they really matter. To me, focusing in the concept of enlightenment at all is ridiculous. Enlightened, the real word, just means better informed, more understanding about something. The opposite would be the expression 'he's in the dark'. Light = sight. One who is enlightened can see things as they are.

[Kane98969]

one thing, enlightment term is very vague now

I dont like how the word enlightenment has been used recently in the english language.  When I was applying to work at Zellers of all places it had a form where your rate yourself. It asked me how "enlightened" I was from a scale of "not at all" to "definately".

I wrote on the form saying that if the term enlightenment was being used in accordance with the vedic scriptures or buddhic sutras then not many in our western society would be "definately enlightened".

Needless to say I didn't get the job.

[Leo Volont]

Dear Nostic,

Both extreme Good and extreme Evil can be charismatic.  Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin -- they were all Charismatic.  But the World is full of Polarities.  Simply because one can point to a Strong Evil does not mean that ONLY Evil can be Strong.

A good intellectual model of what I am talking about can be found in Ancient Zorastrianism of which Sufism and Parseeism are the modern day heirs.  The World is a Battleground between the forces of Light and Darkness, Good and Evil, Hitler and those who are NOT Hitler (by the way it was a very cheap shot to to attack me by arbitrarily siding me with Hitler -- it shows you to be ethically careless and intellectually lazy... perhaps you should be a lawyer if you are so willing to say simply anything to win an argument.)

[Leo Volont]

one thing, enlightment term is very vague now

I dont like how the word enlightenment has been used recently in the english language.  When I was applying to work at Zellers of all places it had a form where your rate yourself. It asked me how "enlightened" I was from a scale of "not at all" to "definately".

I wrote on the form saying that if the term enlightenment was being used in accordance with the vedic scriptures or buddhic sutras then not many in our western society would be "definately enlightened".

Needless to say I didn't get the job.

That is simply horrible!

What they were in effect doing was testing people for Atheism.  Since the 18th Century, The Age of Enlightenment, the term Enlightenment has come to be considered synomous with being Atheistic.  One is considered "Enlightened" if they have renounced the 'superstitions' of Religion and Spirituality.

These people with their Job Application would not be permitted to overtly discriminate on the basis of Religion, but by finding an indirect way of having people affirm their Atheism, they can hire only Atheists.

And people wonder how the Antichrist could possibly come to rule the World... when it is so obvious that a clear majority would line up in droves to strike into the very heart of Religion.

[Nostic]

Dear Nostic,

Both extreme Good and extreme Evil can be charismatic.  Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin -- they were all Charismatic.  But the World is full of Polarities.  Simply because one can point to a Strong Evil does not mean that ONLY Evil can be Strong.

A good intellectual model of what I am talking about can be found in Ancient Zorastrianism of which Sufism and Parseeism are the modern day heirs.  The World is a Battleground between the forces of Light and Darkness, Good and Evil, Hitler and those who are NOT Hitler (by the way it was a very cheap shot to to attack me by arbitrarily siding me with Hitler -- it shows you to be ethically careless and intellectually lazy... perhaps you should be a lawyer if you are so willing to say simply anything to win an argument.)

LOL, siding you with Hitler. Is that what you got from my post? If from my post, you thought that I was siding you with Hitler, that says a lot more about you than it does me. Funny how you just focused on that part of my post, took it WAY out of context, and ignored everything else I wrote, then call ME "intellectually lazy". You do know what it means when 2 people are having an "argument" (I didn't know that's what we were engaged in sorry), and one person resorts to calling the other names, don't you? It means you don't have 2 legs to stand on. How could I be even remotely relating YOU to Hitler? You should be so lucky. Do you have hordes of people blindly following you, thinking you are their savior, their father, their God? Do you have 2 people?
I'll leave it at that.

[Leo Volont]

Dear Nostic,

You accuse somebody of being Adolf Hitler and then expect them to pay any further attention to you!

What on earth for?  We already know what to expect from you.

Cheap shots.

Off to law school with you.  If you are to have no scruples, then you might as well make good money with it.

[You]

Leo, if he at all equated you with Hitler it wasn't in any way I could see from that one post. Let it go, and read his points, he has some good ones. Besides, you responded to him the first time, why not the second when he's explaining that he wasn't calling you that?

[Nostic]

Dear Nostic,

You accuse somebody of being Adolf Hitler and then expect them to pay any further attention to you!

What on earth for?  We already know what to expect from you.

Cheap shots.

Off to law school with you.  If you are to have no scruples, then you might as well make good money with it.

I LOVE YOU TOO LEO!!!!! LOTS OF HUGS, AND WISHING YOU THE HAPPIEST OF HOLIDAYS!!!!!      

[Leo Volont]

Leo, if he at all equated you with Hitler it wasn't in any way I could see from that one post. Let it go, and read his points, he has some good ones. Besides, you responded to him the first time, why not the second when he's explaining that he wasn't calling you that?

Maybe you don't know, because you are not as old as I am, but for the last 50 years the intellectually lazy had nothing further to do then to group their opponent with Frigging Adolf Hitler.   and such as you wish to persuade me that somebody can INNOCENTLY construct an argument where I am grouped with Adolf Friggin Hitler, and that I should NOT be offended by it.

Maybe you are so young -- born yesterday -- and the friend you defend has also been born yesterday, but the people of my Generation still take accusations of being a NAZI seriously.  It is tantamount to using gratuitous profanity.  The accusation still carries too intense a Charge.  There are still Survivors of that War lingering on, and I can't see how they could appreciate you and your friend stirring up memories of those times simply to score gratuitous and disingenuous points in a debate.

[Nostic]

Leo, if he at all equated you with Hitler it wasn't in any way I could see from that one post. Let it go, and read his points, he has some good ones. Besides, you responded to him the first time, why not the second when he's explaining that he wasn't calling you that?

Thanks bro!

[daem0n]

Leo, you're confusing me a bit here. Are you saying that every group of people who think that their "leader" or "master" is enlightened are correct in their assumption? I'm assuming you can't really think that that is the case.
For example, Hitler had charisma in spades. I've seen shows on the History Channel, where people who lived in Germany at the time had it in their minds that Hitler was their Father, and therefore everything he said MUST be true, MUST be right, and MUST be for their own good. He was literally like a deity for those people.

so hitler is an example of charismatic leader who wasn't enlightened
nothing more, nothing else

you aren't enlightened, you experienced enlightment, if you can maintain the vision it's good, but nevertheless you are slipping back, of course with whole new concepts, that's why we have enlightment and ultimate/final enlightment, what is meant by final enlightment is adjusting the body to mind, becoming "ascended master" through DNA manipulation (and much more, can't bother to write) made by mind ("higher mind" and higher beings), because body cannot process so much information, and brain would just blow all the fuses
ultimate enlightment = ascension
or maybe find topic A kundalini tale on these forums for more clarification

jouni summed up what i meant (thx;)), i'll add few things
it is easier to correct mistakes when you see them, if you go live in the hut where nothing disturbs you, you can't really correct what you maybe even haven't experienced
but people do that and succed in experiencing enlightment
that (and few personal things) leads me to believe that enlightment doesn't  have much to do with correcting/restraining oneself, but rather analysis of interactions that leads to revelation, seeing that we are indeed one
and analysis is the key, rational minds tool asking questions that lead beyond it
of course there are some requirements, trained mind, ability to look beyond mind etc etc, but not all you can think of

enlightment is a shift of perception, nothing more, nothing else, then it leads to change
maintaing the shift is different matter, i remember a story about 2 hermits, meditating and achieving enlightment, one visits the other, they drink some tea and suddenly wild boar charges nearby, one the hermits jumps nervously, and the other smiles and says
- i see it is still with you
then, as he goes away, the jumping hermit takes paint and writes buddha's name on the stone the other hermit was sitting on
as he comes back, he hesistates to sit on the stone
- i see it is still with you, too - he replies :D:D

if you work on correcting oneself, you will achieve it
if you work on enlightment, you can also achieve it, also seeing bigger picture breaks the foundation for many "faults", and you can work on correcting yourself from the bigger picture

the choice is yours (you can choose correction first, but then you will die before you reach enlightment (not neccassarily, but usually))

what i fear (a figure of speach ) is that you will polarize my post, it is not meant to be taken literally, use your soul to read it

Nostic:
i love the one when master always rises the pointing finger, and when one of his students mimics him, he cuts off his finger, and when he runs around bleeding, he calls him, and raises his (the boys !!!) finger, and the boy achieves enlightment
brilliant

[Nostic]

Leo, you're confusing me a bit here. Are you saying that every group of people who think that their "leader" or "master" is enlightened are correct in their assumption? I'm assuming you can't really think that that is the case.
For example, Hitler had charisma in spades. I've seen shows on the History Channel, where people who lived in Germany at the time had it in their minds that Hitler was their Father, and therefore everything he said MUST be true, MUST be right, and MUST be for their own good. He was literally like a deity for those people.

so hitler is an example of charismatic leader who wasn't enlightened
nothing more, nothing else

you aren't enlightened, you experienced enlightment, if you can maintain the vision it's good, but nevertheless you are slipping back, of course with whole new concepts, that's why we have enlightment and ultimate/final enlightment, what is meant by final enlightment is adjusting the body to mind, becoming "ascended master" through DNA manipulation (and much more, can't bother to write) made by mind ("higher mind" and higher beings), because body cannot process so much information, and brain would just blow all the fuses
ultimate enlightment = ascension
or maybe find topic A kundalini tale on these forums for more clarification

jouni summed up what i meant (thx;)), i'll add few things
it is easier to correct mistakes when you see them, if you go live in the hut where nothing disturbs you, you can't really correct what you maybe even haven't experienced
but people do that and succed in experiencing enlightment
that (and few personal things) leads me to believe that enlightment doesn't  have much to do with correcting/restraining oneself, but rather analysis of interactions that leads to revelation, seeing that we are indeed one
and analysis is the key, rational minds tool asking questions that lead beyond it
of course there are some requirements, trained mind, ability to look beyond mind etc etc, but not all you can think of

enlightment is a shift of perception, nothing more, nothing else, then it leads to change
maintaing the shift is different matter, i remember a story about 2 hermits, meditating and achieving enlightment, one visits the other, they drink some tea and suddenly wild boar charges nearby, one the hermits jumps nervously, and the other smiles and says
- i see it is still with you
then, as he goes away, the jumping hermit takes paint and writes buddha's name on the stone the other hermit was sitting on
as he comes back, he hesistates to sit on the stone
- i see it is still with you, too - he replies :D:D

if you work on correcting oneself, you will achieve it
if you work on enlightment, you can also achieve it, also seeing bigger picture breaks the foundation for many "faults", and you can work on correcting yourself from the bigger picture

the choice is yours (you can choose correction first, but then you will die before you reach enlightment (not neccassarily, but usually))

what i fear (a figure of speach ) is that you will polarize my post, it is not meant to be taken literally, use your soul to read it

Nostic:
i love the one when master always rises the pointing finger, and when one of his students mimics him, he cuts off his finger, and when he runs around bleeding, he calls him, and raises his (the boys !!!) finger, and the boy achieves enlightment
brilliant

I agree that the logical or rational mind can certainly lead to enlightenment. Logic is like the bridge. Most people, however, think that being more logical is the goal. But logic always crumbles within itself. If one insists on holding on to it, it just leads you in circles, because it's based on the opposites of duality.
Logic, if you pay close enough attention, always leads you to the illogical... or what we'd normally think of as illogical.
I also agree that restraining oneself is probably a slower path. All parts of yourself are valid, they all mean something, and they all lead back to a source. Investigation of their origins, I would think is a quicker path.

[bacsy413]

if you wanna judge how "enlightened" somebody is, don't bother reading buddhist scriptures or ne other texts for that matter. yogis easily judge their level of self-realization since each state of samadhi they attain has a characteristic manifesting power.when a yogi can turn their heart on and off at will,they can enter the first state of enlightenment called superconscious.the second state is universal consciousness,this state gives the ability to dematerialize the body at will.the 3rd state is cosmic consciousness.yogis who achieve this state can bring universes into manifestation.the fourth is called kavaiyla.when you can do any of those things i just listed then you'll know how "enlightened you are!

[You]

Nostic, I'd like to support you here but I'll stop if you keep up with the sappy chiding talk, it's tinkling me off.

Leo, did he actually call you a Nazi or like Hitler? If so I can't really find it, he just mentions him in a list of people.

[Rastus]

I've been called Jim Jones of the Guyanna suicide tragedy fame.  For what?  Telling people to seek within themselves the power to control their own lives.  You can not make everyone see what is in front of them.  Some people refuse, while others aren't ready yet.  Just as a small child complains about their bedtime, so too do some people complain about their perceptions of reality.

Ultimately all you can do is hold open a sacred space and give them the time they need to change.  The only constant in the multi-verse is change.  Some people will 'get it' and others will need another go-around.  You can offer knowlwdge/energy/wisdom/love, but everyone has free will to accept or decline the offer.  One sign of being more enlighted is to realise that it doesn't matter if they accecpt or decline, you have still affected them with you Love.  A little here, a little there from someone else.  After awhile those little bits add up enough to nudge someone Awake.

-Namaste

[Vvid1012]

A simple and fairly famous quote I believe most people take for granted and that I hold strongly.

"Man, know thyself ... and thou shalt know the gods."

There are of course different variations of this quote.  One of which relates knowing thyself to knowing the laws of nature.

[daem0n]

ok i found something that clears most of it

http://theosophy.org/tlodocs/YogaSutrasPamphlet.htm

[Nostic]

Nostic, I'd like to support you here but I'll stop if you keep up with the sappy chiding talk, it's tinkling me off.

Leo, did he actually call you a Nazi or like Hitler? If so I can't really find it, he just mentions him in a list of people.

Well damn, I surly wouldn't want to lose your suupport... so I'll stop.
I was just trying to draw attention to how irrational he is being. I actually have a hard time believing he is serious. So I'm thinking, is he just playing a game? So I decided to play a game along with him. I was also trying to show that this "argument" we were having is nothing to take too seriously. I find it funny that the person who starts a thread about achieving enlightenment, is so ferociously, and obviously attached to his ego.

[Nostic]

Nostic, I'd like to support you here but I'll stop if you keep up with the sappy chiding talk, it's tinkling me off.

Leo, did he actually call you a Nazi or like Hitler? If so I can't really find it, he just mentions him in a list of people.

Well damn, I surly wouldn't want to lose your suupport... so I'll stop.
I was just trying to draw attention to how irrational he is being. I actually have a hard time believing he is serious. So I'm thinking, is he just playing a game? So I decided to play a game along with him. I was also trying to show that this "argument" we were having is nothing to take too seriously. I find it funny that the person who starts a thread about achieving enlightenment, is so ferociously, and obviously attached to his ego... unless of course, he really is just playing a game.

[You]

Egos kick butt.

[Leo Volont]

ok i found something that clears most of it

http://theosophy.org/tlodocs/YogaSutrasPamphlet.htm

Swami Vivekananda, who is still published by the Ramakrishna Vivekananda Centers, did a series of free-wheeling commentaries on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras.  

It is one thing that always bothered me about Vivekananda, though... how can you cough up the audacity to comment on a treatise on Levitation while your big lard butt is still seriously anchored to the terra firma?  Unless the substance of your Commentary is that Patanjali was a patent liar and fraud, then one should not dare to elucidate the details of how to accomplish every conceivable miraculous feat.  And as a consumer of Spiritual Literatures, you should consider the wisdom of receiving any teachings on Levitation then aren't delivered from some Higher Altitude.  Yet, in the New Age and Spiritual Literatures, there must be a thousand books about Miracles by authors whose only Miracles were that they could find a printer willing to publish them.

[daem0n]

hmm, anyway i could find my experiences in it and it showed me few directions, and i already have some results
i just check, and this article found me in ways useful articles find me, up to this point
of course this doesn't mean that they will have any meaning for someone else, they trigger specific patterns in my mind .. but i take your opinion into account, thx