|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
 Posted - Nov 28 2007 : 7:12:11 PM
|
I only watched a few minutes of each video, but I think I get the idea. What strikes me in this kind of teacher, or non-teacher as the case may be (I'm not sure what he claims to be) is the focus on himself. I have to agree with some of the others that if he truly wanted to be undisturbed in his practice until he has realized something, then why doesn't he find a more remote location? His request that people not come to him rings false; it reminds me of the person doing tai chi in the park who gets irritated when people watch her as they're passing by.
The teachers who impress me the most are those who constantly divert attention from themselves. Adyashanti does this. His message is consistent: "Don't make the mistake of thinking that I am something special - you are THAT, too." Jesus did the same, as does Yogani. But let's give this guy the benefit of the doubt and assume that he doesn't want to be in the public eye. If that's the case, then fame is his cross to bear in this life, and his website attests to it.  |
 |
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Nov 28 2007 : 7:13:24 PM
|
Thomas,
quote:
It is not what it looks like word-wise but what substance lies beneath the words. An example, in point, are the AYP lessons. There is an integrity, inner silence and pure beingness behind and from which each lesson springs forth. How does one know? How does one register or come to that conclusion? Because the lesson, what is behind the words resonate with the depth of one's own Self, the silence in you and go beyond satisfying just the mind or brain level. It can be distinctly felt through the spiritual heart at the core of one's innermost being. It resonates with and is realized by the Heart-Self vs the brain-mind.
Thank you for your answer. That's a highly subjective thing to evaluate someone on. Especially when the words have been translated from another language! I wonder what would happen if you took 20 highly accomplished yogis and placed them in separate rooms, had them read various spiritual paragraphs, and rate them on a scale of 1-10 in terms of silence. Would they come up with similar judgements? Or would they be influenced by various things, like the color of the room they're in, their past experience with various spiritual figures, what they had for breakfast, etc.
It's not that I don't believe what you're saying is true, Thomas. I, too, feel things beneath the words. I just don't think it's fair to judge too harshly in this particular case (or in any case, for that matter: sometimes our feelings decieve us, even if we're very in tune). My reasons: the kid obviously is capable of sitting still for longer periods of time than I'm sure most of us are willing to give...he has given up his life for this sitting that he's doing...he rarely talks so I'm sure that messes with his ability to speak coherently...like I said before, his words have been translated from another language...
Words are words. They don't contain silence. They can be insightful, or insipid. While the supposed writing of the buddha-boy wasn't earth shattering, I didn't find it to be all that bad, either. I could agree with most of what he said.
Anyway, lets assume (as a fun exercise) that the words contain no silence whatsoever. Now, look at the video of the boy, and tell me that his image and actions contains no silence whatsoever. When he looks around somewhat nervously after first opening his eyes...there is a profound sense of silence there, I found. Also, when he speaks...even if it's in a different language...can you not tell that he is accomplished?
What yogibear said is right on the money, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
|
|
nearoanoke
USA
525 Posts |
Posted - Nov 28 2007 : 9:47:35 PM
|
Very good discussion guys.
Scott has a good point I think. The words have been translated into english from some other language. Hardly can we judge the amount of silence (which again is a subjective judgement) from that paragraph.
If he has the ability to sit and meditate for days together without food and water (as per the discovery channel recordings) definitely I would give credit to him.
Coming to the discussion that he is indirectly trying to attract publicity, I would say it is very hard for us to judge from here. He initially appeared long back and he did disappear for few months/years before he came back to public view again. There might have been something that he wanted to convey ppl before he goes back again. His actions may look immature and he may not act in the best possible way to convince everyone that he doesnt want publicity. Afterall he is a kid and I'm not sure if enlightenment changes all the personality traits or the background of a person. Yogani or Adyashanthi, the way they behave and their maturity could be because of their college education or may be it is in their basic nature to underplay things. Not every enlightened person needs to react the same way.
By the way from the videos he looks cute (especially the eyes have something in them), innocent and deep.
-Near |
|
|
|
thomas
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - Nov 28 2007 : 9:57:51 PM
|
Hi Scott,
I was not critiqueing either Buddha boy or what you felt-thought about Buddha boy, simply offering a method-criteria for evaluation. You bring up many good points including the words being written and translated from another language. It brings the language and consciousness of the translater into the mix too. We are all learning, you, me ... everyone. If something rings true for us individually, it is important to learn to recognize what that is, trust and follow our own guidance system vs what another one says or feels. We get feedback and learn that way. It is clear that is what you do. I respect that. I attempt to do the same.
We are all growing. Our inner silence is deepening and our spiritual hearts are also beginning to open, develop and function in more complete ways. As we are in the learning stage, any one of us can still be deceived, or perhaps, better said, not recognize what is really there, limit it or misinterpret it in some way. It is also true, as our inner silence deepens and our spiritual heart becomes stronger and functions more completely, we have a new means for recognizing the true nature of things that is not subject to the same limitations of the mind. If so directed, it (the Heart) can move beyond things like the intermediate translation of words, the translator, etc. and tune-in in a more direct way to whatever is being considered. The Heart has a language all its own that can convey-reveal many things beyond what our minds perceive.
I purposely have not made any specific comments about Buddha boy but please don't interpret that as meaning that I feel or do not feel one way or another. With so many diverse viewpoints in the discussion, I felt it might be of value to introduce some thoughts about how we can determine the nature of truth for ourselves. That was the purpose of my sharing.
I much appreciate the sincerity of your words and comments.
Thomas |
Edited by - thomas on Nov 29 2007 12:55:24 AM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 28 2007 : 10:44:12 PM
|
re recently, the Discovery Channel did record Bomjon's meditation on a 96-hours non-stop video, and for those total of 4 days, Bomjon didn't eat, drink, or move.
A big question here is whether he was examined in a 'lab' setting, in the presence of professional fraud-busters, or in a stage-like setting of his own choice, like under the Banyan tree. Scientists and doctors can be very naive like the rest of us.
Also from Wikipedia:
In December 2005, a nine-member government committee led by Gunjaman Lama watched Bomjon carefully for 48 hours and observed him not to take any food or water during that time. A video recording was also made of this test. However, they were unable to approach closer than 3 meters or take readings of his vital signs. A group of rationalist physicians tried to conduct an independent study but were prevented from doing so by the screen erected at night.[17] The Nepalese government planned a more careful scientific study but this plan was later scrapped.
There's 'the cloak'. Magicians are always erecting barriers to detection that make the magic (illusion) 'work.' This is why stuff is pulled out of hats and cloaks but not out of thin air. The 'cloak' isn't always a physical barrier, it's often some circumstance, time-sequence or other feature that may go entirely unnoticed (though there's nothing even remotely subtle about the cloak in this case, which is an enormous curtain that comes down for hours, as I was pointing out in the first Ram Bomjon thread we had here). Flim-flammers present 'proofs' of their powers, but you'll always find a 'cloak' of some form if you know where to look. The presence of the cloak destroys the proof among the skeptically aware, but not among naive examiners. Since it destroys a proof they are attempting to make, obviously they are putting it there because they can't prove it.
BTW, there are well-established methods whereby professional magicians can appear not to eat or drink for any period of time, or even stay under water without an air supply.
All that said, I don't rule out some special abilities. But is this the Buddha? I see no evidence for it and a lot against it. This isn't the way a Buddha establishes a reputation.
YB said:
If it is true, he is a member a of class of a higher order of yogis. He has got some real horse power.
No contest with that YB. He could have some special power and skills and maybe some of those powers are 'yogic'. But I'm not impressed with what he's up to right now.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Nov 28 2007 11:07:17 PM |
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Nov 29 2007 : 06:55:12 AM
|
Thomas,
I see what you mean.
David,
quote:
But is this the Buddha? I see no evidence for it and a lot against it. This isn't the way a Buddha establishes a reputation.
I agree with you here, David. The last time they called him a Buddha, he said he was more at the level of a rinpoche. When did he take that back, and claim enlightenment? It seems that everyone is putting words in his mouth.
But if it weren't for that, would he be as famous as he is now? Would we even know about him, if he visibly ate food everyday? Or if he wasn't viewed as a buddha, but rather as just a lay monk. I doubt it.
So perhaps it's good that there's a lot of controversy surrounding him. With increased interest in him from around the world, the village gets more money and comes out of poverty...I see this as a good thing!
If he finally reaches his goal, he will already have the audience to spread his teachings to...that's also a good thing.
Not disagreeing with anything you said, David...just some ideas. |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4429 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2007 : 01:49:15 AM
|
Hi Scott,
quote:
I agree with you here, David. The last time they called him a Buddha, he said he was more at the level of a rinpoche. When did he take that back, and claim enlightenment? It seems that everyone is putting words in his mouth.
In India (and Nepal) Enlightenment (Moksha) is considered a stage on the path and is synonymous with "total wisdom". Buddhahood is a higer stage. At the time of the Buddha, many of his disciples were said to be enlightened (Arahants) but they were not Buddhas. Rimpoches are usually considered enlightened but also are not usually considdered to be Buddhas.
Nepal is predominantly Buddhist, or Hindu/ Buddhist, so the attainment of a Buddha is often thought to be the highest stage of spiritual attainment. In India, where the Buddha is often considered to be a Divine incarnation of Vishnu, some sages believe that there are higher stages on the path than the realization of a Buddha. |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4429 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2007 : 01:58:42 AM
|
Hi David,
quote:
I disagree. Extraordinary claims (especially which, when believed, carry extraordinary power and influence among people) demand high-quality proofs. The burden and duty is on the claimer in such cases.
Hang on a minute.... this is a boy, living in the middle of nowhere in Nepal, and he doesn't eat food. Now what should he say in reply to the question "you don't eat food do you?". According to your theory is should only answer "that's true" to that question if he is prepared to go and live in some laboritory and be examined! What if he doesn't want to go and live in a laboritory? What if he's like, really happy under his tree hanging out with 54 Buddhas? How should he answer the question then? Should he lie? Or just stare into space? I don't get it.
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2007 : 10:19:40 AM
|
Christi, no act of his is in isolation. Saying 'I don't eat' wouldn't be in isolation; neither would joining, and starring in, the circus he has joined. He's participating in this priestcrafty mythologization circus going on around him. (Whether willingly or by coercion -- and indeed, when someone is that young, the distinction is somewhat blurred.)
this is a boy, living in the middle of nowhere in Nepal, and he doesn't eat food.
OK, if you really believe the story, the boy is indeed getting some harsh treatment from me. You seem to believe the story. I don't (though he may go for unusual times without food). The Great Ones have appointed me World President. There. Do you now believe that the Great Ones have appointed me World President? Why not? Ultimately, you see no reliable evidence.
If someone claims something extraordinary, they can put up with some cold treatment until they've proven their trustworthines.
There is a common dance of unconsciousness around those who believe the hype around someone's paranormal specialness. On the one hand, the believers aren't conscious of how much store they actually have in the notion that something paranormal or magical is happening, and how little it has to do with spirituality. Sometimes they will deny if the issue is important -- and yet the issue is extremely important precisely because they are making it important in a very unconscious way through all the store they are putting in it. It is unimportant only in the way alcohol is unimportant to a very alcohol-independent person, but highly important in the sense that alcohol is important to an alcoholic. And while it is important (because they are making it important by attachment), they devote very little energy or critical thinking to determine whether there is deception going on. You'll see very little awareness of priesctraft, power-motivations, self-deception, groupthink, fascination, hysteria and so on. And then, here we go again, priestcrafty groups co-opting the spiritual reality and obscuring it.
I don't see the smallest shred of reliable evidence that this boy doesn't eat. What was that curtain about?
I don't want to go on about it too much and obscure the topic and the forum. I do admit that there are good sides to all this. My point-of-view here is of a skeptic who is very aware of, and very negative about, the prevalent priestcraft of the yoga culture. Some might say I am too harsh and even obsessive and exaggerate the dangers. I would say they may be inadequately committed to the truth and insidiously corrupted and insufficiently aware of the dangers. Both may be true.
|
|
|
|
Srinivas_Mallya
Singapore
22 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2007 : 10:43:34 AM
|
I was just following this interesting thread and a question arise about enlightened people.
Is the expression of the thoughts through profound intellectual statement is only sign of man’s spiritual enlightenment?
In that case many saints such as Shirdi Sai Baba , Chisti and Contemporary Amritanandamayi have not done wonders with much Silence ?.
In fact most common people are in Kinder Garden Level in spiritual accomplishment
We cannot expect a Phd professor to explain his research thesis to Kinder Garden Students .
I Appreciate that Boy’s determination to conduct severe penance under the prevailing hostile condition.
|
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4429 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2007 : 10:56:41 AM
|
Hi David,
quote:
I don't see the smallest shred of reliable evidence that this boy doesn't eat. What was that curtain about?
Maybe he likes a little privacy whilst he is sleeping. I know I do.
But you are right, there is no harm in being sceptical, in fact I think it is very healthy. And I am sure most people are very sceptical about this kind of thing. But it is good (karmically) if our scepticism ends there... a healthy scepticism. We don't know the truth of the matter, so we admit we don't know. But that is a long way short of insinuating that someone is a liar, or that they are deliberately creating a situation based on a lie because of some less than pure motive (money, fame etc.). The first is sceptisism, the second is character defamation and slander (in this case libel).
This tendency to want to put others down can become a habbit (vasana) which clouds the lower nature (mind, vital and body). It is basically destructive, not only of the person we are giving the harsh treatment to, but mostly (and more importantly) to ourselves. I am not going to say that I believe the story or not, that's not important. But I am happy to wait (and give the benefit of the doubt in the meantime) until real scientific evidence is available and I have had an opportunity to look at it.
|
Edited by - Christi on Nov 30 2007 11:51:54 AM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2007 : 1:07:53 PM
|
Christi said: his tendency to want to put others down can become a habbit (vasana) which clouds the lower nature (mind, vital and body). It is basically destructive,
Christi, is your insinuation that I have a tendancy to want to put others down not libelous? Are you not putting me down? Are you sure I deserve this? I've already given you the reasons I am doing what I am doing. They are crystal-clear, well-motivated and well-thought-out.
Let me assure you: I haven't a whit of personal ill-will towards the guy in question. I don't like what he's up to, and think that's relevant, and so I speak, which is fine. On the face of it, you don't like what I'm doing, and think that's relevant, and speak, which is fine. Neither is more libelous than the other.
I have no general motivations to put others down. Really, you don't know me at all. But I can say, if you criticise a cultic scene, your motivations and character are almost universally criticized by those who like the scene in some way and can't see what you see. The problem is cognitive: they can't see the impurity; so the impurity that you warn about, they see as yours.
Similar mechanisms come into play if you criticise anything others hold dear -- nations, tribes, religions.
This isn't my impurity; this is an impurity I see to which many are blind. Big difference, but if you can't see it, you can't see it, and we'll have to recognize that we differ. Christi, the public, high-profile yogic world is rife with priestcraft, manipulation and egotism -- and gullibility. Truth about people carries a low premium. Morality of certain kinds is low, low, low. It's always been that way in India as far as I can tell, at least among the well-known 'spiritual' figures, and many people love the scene; and many have self-delusional ambitions to set up their own priestcrafty tent in one way or another, and think it is the inevitable result of yogic progress. So what I am doing is like arriving in the antebellum South and telling cotton-growers (or aspiring cotton-growers) that slavery is NOT OK. What words would the cotton-growers have for someone who did that, especially since their cotton farms will never be the same without slaves?
( BTW, I don't want to single India out for a slamming. The West, and surely other parts of the world, has had many religious pathologies -- pathologies that are no less bad than those of India, but usually of a somewhat different character. )
When your heroes are part villain, and you need to aspire to something better, what are you going to do to someone who points out the villainy? Are you going to be nice? Of course not. It often takes decades for the truth to sink in. It takes decades to be tolerant of any kind of criticism that hurts, even after you slowly begin to see the truth in it.
Being libeled is almost inevitable and never pleasant, but I do take comfort in the fact that the truth is on my side for sure. I've seen too many cases of this sort of thing, and been right always. Like a doctor who gets to recognize smallpox when he has seen enough cases, I could name about twenty cases (can't do it here) where I've been spot on, incontestably spot-on in my assessments while the true-believers thought that the people like me were the villains. They think the cops are the robbers and the robbers are the cops. So be it.
I think I had already said enough a while back, but you are continuing to draw me out. I don't personally think it is a bad thing, (in fact I even personally welcome it) but I think we're probably overstaying our welcome in this kind of debate at AYP. If you can avoid it, please don't draw me out further.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Nov 30 2007 1:38:06 PM |
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2007 : 8:56:48 PM
|
Christi,
quote:
In India (and Nepal) Enlightenment (Moksha) is considered a stage on the path and is synonymous with "total wisdom". Buddhahood is a higer stage. At the time of the Buddha, many of his disciples were said to be enlightened (Arahants) but they were not Buddhas. Rimpoches are usually considered enlightened but also are not usually considdered to be Buddhas.
Interesting point. I have heard of this before. Yet, I think you may be confusing things. Arahants, as far as I understand (which is not very far), are those who have attained the highest samadhi, and for this reason are able to teach regarding the truth. Yet this still isn't enlightenment. Still not moksha.
What more could there be to achieve after liberation? Moksha makes one a Buddha...at least that's how I've always understood it.
Also, rinpoches are not considered enlightened. In fact, rinpoche is more of a way of saying "teacher" than it is a way of noting someone's spiritual level.
But please correct me if I'm wrong...I haven't travelled around Nepal or India, and I only know what I have read online...which may not be as much as you. |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4429 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2007 : 11:24:45 AM
|
Hi Scott
quote:
, rinpoches are not considered enlightened. In fact, rinpoche is more of a way of saying "teacher" than it is a way of noting someone's spiritual level.
But please correct me if I'm wrong...I haven't travelled around Nepal or India, and I only know what I have read online...which may not be as much as you.
Well... here is a definition I picked off a random internet site:
Literally, "precious one." An honorific title given to incarnate lamas and eminent spiritual teachers.
And from wikipedia:
Rinpoche or Rimpoche (Tibetan:#3938;; /rin'pot#643;e/) is a Tibetan Buddhist religious/theological honorific title. "Rinpoche" literally means "precious one"[1] . The title is generally reserved for tulkus (incarnate lamas) and those recognized by the proper authorities within a lineage as "choje lamas" ("superior dharma masters").
That's why I say they are generally considered to be enlightened... not always. And not all teachers are referred to as "Rimpoche"... my teacher wasn't (I studied in a monastery in Nepal). Some rimpoches are small boys (recognized at a very young age as an incarnation of a previous rimpoche).
So it does look like it is a level that one can reach, and that is the way Bomjon is using the word. He also uses the word "Buddha" to mean a state of spiritual perfection, rather than a person.
quote:
What more could there be to achieve after liberation? Moksha makes one a Buddha...at least that's how I've always understood it.
I believe there are a lot of stages to enlightenment which are often referred to in a way that makes them sound like they are a single process which all occur at the same time as a single kind of "ultimate" event. I also believe that these stages do not necessarily have to happen in a particular order. For example we may experience the highest state of samadhi (nirvikalpa), even before the kundalini has risen to and taken its seat in the crown chakra.
Someone may have experienced the highest samadhi and have their consciousness permanently seated in the crown, and be living in a state of ecstatic love as Siva merges with Shakti there, and yet be praying for the divine mother to come and take her seat in the heart centre. Even this is not the final stage...
It sounds like Bomjom is working a lot in the higher planes (out of his body), where he will be able to talk with the Gods and previous incarnations of the Buddhas. This is called soul travel and is described in the main lessons (lesson 199). It is an advanced stage practice and can be dangerous if there is not sufficient faith. A lot of spirits will come to attack him whilst his body is in trance. I imagine this is why Bomjom is asking everyone to stay away at this time.
Christi
|
Edited by - Christi on Dec 01 2007 12:09:41 PM |
|
|
|
Black Rebel Radio
USA
98 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2007 : 12:29:51 PM
|
I would humbly introduce the possibility that there is a fear of being duped, taken in, ripped off and being made a fool.
I would suggest that this fear would be rooted in the lack of surrender to your creator, God, the absolute or the universe.
I may be totally wrong but as the old punk band No Means No would say, "Be Strong, Be Wrong!"
I know I recognize this fear in myself everyday and over the years my own tendency for skepticism has mutated into a gross mistrust for everything (and one based on many many personal experiences).
I know personally how this fear can create vast negative energies that grow and fester all while you go unaware of what you are becoming.
I work my way back to a balance. I have recently discovered faith(mostly due to my twice daily practices)and have begun to feel how the world truly functions. I have intellectually understood faith since I was a small boy but only recently have I understood it from the heart.
I wonder how web posted videos of Jesus and his disciples would have been digested? (Taking for a moment that he was real and he did exist for a moment or forever depending upon your belief)and were he surrounded by villagers who were creating a small economy based around his beliefs, his disciples and his siddhis.
I would suggest that the scientific method and science itself are vastly important and valuable. They are critical for proof and disproof but only in a very small number of dimensions. On another level, I think these tools and methods from the scientific approach are essential but they are only proving what many sages have known intuitively for eons.
In the end, I would salute the original poster for saying, Look At This, isn't this cool or wouldn't it be awesome if this were real. I salute the villagers for reaching for something higher than the mundane and wanting to believe in what can't be seen with the eye or proven with science.
I would also say: So what if it isn't real? So what if it is a huge hoax?
As many of you and Yogani would say, it is only scenery. See it, acknowledge it and let it go. Even if we believed and were subsequently let down. In this situation it is harmless.
In a situation where one could lose property, time and possibly their lives, I could see this level of admonition. But even in that situation, would it not be a learning tool or one of the obstacles placed before you on your spiritual path?
Namaste!
Mac
|
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2007 : 12:43:37 PM
|
Christi,
quote:
Well... here is a definition I picked off a random internet site:
Literally, "precious one." An honorific title given to incarnate lamas and eminent spiritual teachers.
So, if it's an honorific title it's not something with denotes enlightenment. That's how I read that definition.
To relate it to my background, it's kind of like calling someone a priest, minister or reverend. Whereas, any one of those who are called that can be very devious and far from sainthood.
quote:
That's why I say they are generally considered to be enlightened... not always. And not all teachers are referred to as "Rimpoche"... my teacher wasn't (I studied in a monastery in Nepal). Some rimpoches are small boys (recognized at a very young age as an incarnation of a previous rimpoche).
Good to know. What a loose term, though!
quote:
So it does look like it is a level that one can reach, and that is the way Bomjon is using the word. He also uses the word "Buddha" to mean a state of spiritual perfection, rather than a person.
I agree with you, that's how he was using the term.
quote:
I believe there are a lot of stages to enlightenment which are often referred to in a way that makes them sound like they are a single process which all occur at the same time as a single kind of "ultimate" event. I also believe that these stages do not necessarily have to happen in a particular order. For example we may experience the highest state of samadhi (nirvikalpa), even before the kundalini has risen to and taken its seat in the crown chakra.
Someone may have experienced the highest samadhi and have their consciousness permanently seated in the crown, and be living in a state of ecstatic love as Siva merges with Shakti there, and yet be praying for the divine mother to come and take her seat in the heart centre. Even this is not the final stage...
I agree with you about stage, but I am wondering...
How can moksha (liberation) not be a final event (maybe event isn't the right word)? Is there a partial enlightenment, which is not perfect? If there is, how could it be called enlightenment, or liberation, at all? How could there be an imperfect liberation? Imperfect wisdom? |
|
|
|
weaver
832 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2007 : 2:47:51 PM
|
quote:
How can moksha (liberation) not be a final event (maybe event isn't the right word)? Is there a partial enlightenment, which is not perfect? If there is, how could it be called enlightenment, or liberation, at all? How could there be an imperfect liberation? Imperfect wisdom?
Hi Scott,
When we talk about enlightenment I think the word is often used with different meanings. Yogani discusses stages of enlightenment here: http://www.aypsite.org/85.html. Others may use the term as the ultimate stage that can be reached while still in a human body. We can of course not know if further evolution is possible after the earthly existence, unless we can find out from sources beyond the material realm. I found some interesting descriptions about enlightenment here: http://www.lovebliss.eu/Enlightenment.htm |
|
|
|
Wolfgang
Germany
470 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2007 : 3:29:37 PM
|
If enlightenment means that there is nothing more to be learnt,
then I don't want to become enlightened ...
Guess that would be quite boring 
cheers |
|
|
|
LittleTurtle
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2007 : 3:58:52 PM
|
| That was a great post Mac, thanks. |
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2007 : 4:21:27 PM
|
Weaver,
Thanks for the informative links! I agree with all that you've said.
Wolfgang,
Of course no one will ever know everything. There's always something to learn, even for the enlightened. What we're talking about, though, is if there is a final spiritual state that one can reach...or if there's just an infinite progression...an unlimited unfolding.
My opinion is that it doesn't do justice to the word "liberation", to call an inferior state - "moksha". I don't see how someone could be 5/8ths of the way liberated. It must be all or nothing. You wouldn't be considered a free man, if the guards let you step outside of the prison on a leash. You would still be considered a prisoner.
The word "enlightenment" is trampled upon when you define someone who still has further to go, as such. I would be ashamed to say that I'm at the second stage of enlightenment, awaiting my movement up to the third. What would attaining such a state bring? Partial happiness? Some wisdom, but not all? That's just the same as it's always been for me...become blissful but still unsatisfied. Know some stuff, but still yearn for more understanding. How could that be called enlightenment, when I'd still be seeking more? It would demean the very word.
I understand your post was intended in a fun way, but I've been striving my whole life for actual understanding and release from this state of ignorance and frustration. I'm sure you have, too, Wolfgang. So, in my opinion, the words we say regarding it, and the ideas we present, should be spot on...otherwise we will mislead people and keep them from progressing towards their goal. We should give to others what we ourselves desire.
Sorry for being uptight about it. |
|
|
|
Wolfgang
Germany
470 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2007 : 04:57:42 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Wolfgang,
Of course no one will ever know everything. There's always something to learn, even for the enlightened. What we're talking about, though, is if there is a final spiritual state that one can reach...or if there's just an infinite progression...an unlimited unfolding.
Well, if that is the question, then my opinion about it is:
there is no final state, it is unlimited unfolding,
unless one wants to stay at a certain stage - but is it possible
to stay at a fixed state for eternity ?!?
quote:
Sorry for being uptight about it.
Sorry that you are uptight about it - not my intention
|
|
|
|
weaver
832 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2007 : 09:37:06 AM
|
Wolfgang wrote:
Well, if that is the question, then my opinion about it is:
there is no final state, it is unlimited unfolding,
unless one wants to stay at a certain stage - but is it possible
to stay at a fixed state for eternity ?!?
Hi Wolfgang,
I have the same opinion. And I don't think it's possible to stay in a fixed state for eternity since it's the nature of life to evolve and one being would have to separate out from this principle of life in order to do that. |
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2007 : 09:41:10 AM
|
Wolfgang,
quote:
Well, if that is the question, then my opinion about it is:
there is no final state, it is unlimited unfolding,
unless one wants to stay at a certain stage - but is it possible
to stay at a fixed state for eternity ?!?
I certainly don't know. |
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2007 : 09:45:25 AM
|
Weaver,
quote:
I have the same opinion. And I don't think it's possible to stay in a fixed state for eternity since it's the nature of life to evolve and one being would have to separate out from this principle of life in order to do that.
Awareness is separate, in the sense that it's unchanging. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Buddha boy is back with a message to the world
