Message Boards Message Boards

Claims to Attainments

An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment

Toggle
An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment T DC 4/21/14 1:32 PM
RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment Psi 4/19/14 1:35 AM
RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment Eric M W 4/19/14 9:02 AM
RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment Chris Marti 4/19/14 11:42 AM
RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment T DC 4/19/14 7:31 PM
RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment J J 4/19/14 10:31 PM
RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment T DC 4/20/14 1:25 PM
RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment J J 4/20/14 2:14 PM
RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment J J 4/20/14 2:58 PM
RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment J J 4/20/14 2:54 PM
RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment T DC 4/20/14 6:22 PM
RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment Jinxed P 4/20/14 8:14 PM
RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment T DC 4/21/14 1:30 PM
RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment B B 4/21/14 8:59 PM
RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment T DC 4/21/14 10:33 PM
RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment Psi 4/22/14 12:15 AM
RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment Jeremy May 8/16/14 12:17 AM
RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment J J 4/21/14 10:51 PM
RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment B B 4/22/14 8:41 AM
RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment J J 4/22/14 9:36 AM
RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment Daniel M. Ingram 4/22/14 11:26 AM
When I say I am fully enlightened, what I mean is I have the highest attainment, or non-dual insight, possible. I’m not saying I’m necessarily more enlightened than anybody else, I simply mean that I am possessing of the highest attainment possible. If there are others who are fully enlightened, their enlightenment cannot surpass my own and likewise I do not surpass them, but equal their attainment exactly.

What do I mean by highest attainment possible? Perhaps my statement could be interpreted as egoism, “I am the most enlightened, there is no own more enlightened than myself”. While it could be construed this way, this would be wrong. The truth is that I have reached a point at which further progression is not possible. It is clear that this is the complete and final stage of enlightenment.

We might imagine the path to enlightenment as a linear path, continuing upwards seemingly indefinitely. Indeed, until one has reached the final stage the path does continue indefinitely, for there is always more to go. When one is on the path one can only witness from one’s current viewpoint. This allows for a panoramic view of the past, but no direct knowledge of what is yet to come. Though we may read books in which people claiming to have high attainment detail future stages of development, ultimately we will not know for certain if these stages exist until we reach them and thus know of them directly.

This said, for those on the path there are several reasons why a final end point might seem remarkable. For one, as I have stated, there is the fact one can never truly verify such a statement for oneself without direct experience. Further, more the direct experience practitioners have would seem to contradict this, as their development keeps on occurring. Why should this not be the case for all people? How can we trust someone who says they have reached the end?

The path of meditation is based on overcoming our unfounded and innate belief in being separate lasting self’s. Thus one could quite theoretically suppose there is a point at which this issue is overcome. This point would be the end of all dualistic belief, the full eradication of any notion of separateness. When speculation occurs on this issue, there is widespread confusion as to how it would work.

The experience of the complete eradication of dualistic belief is the one of complete contact with the phenomenal world. All abstract notions of self are absent. What remains is an awareness experiencing the world. Now you might say here that this seems dualistic, an awareness experiencing a world seems to imply two separate things. However this is where the ability to express non-conceptual experience in conceptual terms breaks down.

Prior to any attainment or partial enlightenment, one believes wholly that their thoughts are objectively real. The world is not known, as it appears, unique to any conceptual interpretation. Instead we know only our own conceptualized version of the world, in which our ideas about things are taken to be reality. We experience our lives’ though concept innately, there is no conscious choice. We are born with a conceptual mind filter that automatically transfers our experience into conceptualization, which we then experience. We are innately, completely fixed on our conceptual interpretation of the world. The process of enlightenment entails gradually coming to see beyond this conceptual fixation, gradually coming to undo the innate and automatic conceptualization of experience so that we experience life directly, without conceptual filters.

As one ascends the path, conceptual fixation falls away gradually as one progressively come to understand the falsity of concept and to establish deeper contact with that which lies beyond. In Buddhism, the terms relative truth and ultimate truth refer to the relative world of concept, and the ultimate world on which the concept is based. Concepts, relative truth, can never touch the genuine reality of the world, ultimate truth. Relative truth only provides a snapshot, or fixed glimpse of a dynamic and ever-changing reality. The nature of reality, or ultimate truth, is such that is cannot be encapsulated in concept. It is forever separated, existing unmarred by its attempted conceptualization.

As previously stated, full enlightenment means coming to the complete end of dualistic beliefs. Our dualistic beliefs are the result of our innate conceptual fixation, of our immersion in a world of relative, conceptual truth. Relative truth is so named because concepts exist in relation to other concepts. Thus, when our experience is based on concept, it is natural that we separate things into different categories, as to do so gives these categories meaning. ‘I’ am not a ‘chair’, I am not a ‘table’, ‘I’ am a distinct entity, inherently existing separate from these external objects. ‘I’ am my body…

Upon full enlightenment, all fixation on thought is removed. As conceptual thought creates the idea of separation, all notions of being separate from the world in any way are absent. Instead one’s own experience, or awareness, is perceived as the root of all phenomena. Nothing is separate from experience itself. No longer is awareness classified as mine, or this observing that. At the ultimate stage, nothing is separate from awareness. One's individual awareness has merged with the phenomenal world, like water poured into water.

In this sense, there can be no further progression. Dualistic belief has been entirely seen through such that none remains. Instead of experiencing a world broken into separate and discrete components, we experience it most basically, how it appears before the imposition of concept. Thus the entirety of experience is unified. No longer subject to dualistic notions, at the ultimate level all of reality exists as a fundamentally united whole. We cannot experience it more basically. We have reached the most basic level. Things are fully unified, un-separated. Imagine a circle, could this become more of a circle? Once it is at the most basic level, improvement is impossible.

To conclude, the very nature of the problem we face is such that a final end resolution is to be expected. What we face is the imposition of dualistic confusion into a system that is innately perfect and whole. While we may believe things to be separated, ultimately this is a false belief, for things inherently exist such that they are indivisible from one another. All of reality shared a common and united nature. We can access this true nature of reality. We can realize that we ourselves are a part of it, that our own experience is the nature of reality itself.

This final perfect realization is merely an overcoming of false belief to recognize the way things truly appear. On the path to enlightenment we do not become greater individuals, building on our weakness. Instead we transcend, or clean off, the dualistic muck that obscures our true nature and so return to a state of perfection. The state of perfection is the true nature of all phenomena, the way all things truly appear. To realize this represents overcoming our false beliefs and returning to a genuine acknowledgement of true reality, that which inherently exists.

Thus: an ultimate reality exists, but is obscured by conceptual thinking. Attainment represents progressive insight into the falsity of concept and recognition of the ultimate nature that lies beyond. Full enlightenment is the end of concept, and thus the complete recognition of our ultimate nature. At this point concept is completely transcended such that none remains in our minds explicitly, in the form of belief about the world. At this point one need not continue the path of meditation, as its basis, the desire to eradicate false conceptual belief, has been entirely overcome.

And thus there are two potential ways to identify an enlightened practitioner. One is that they no longer need to meditate, and can hope for no improvement. Second is that they see no basic differences in the world of phenomena. They themselves are not supremely enlightened individuals while the rest of humanity wallows far below them in conceptual muck. Upon enlightenment, the recognition that all things share the same basic nature, no difference is seen in individuals. All are inherently no different from oneself, and oneself is merely the nature of experience. All experience is not separate from experiencing, in fact it is indivisible. Experience is in full union.

RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment
Answer
4/19/14 1:35 AM as a reply to T DC.
So, sure, lets just have some fun. Concepts..... Well, concepts are just what they are, concepts... thoughts, and thought are real, they exist in 3 dimensional space, for like all thingss, which is what they are (concepts that is )they are real, as things. S o , in a sense there are concepts and there is reality, or rather an awareness of reality stripped bare of concepts, "seeing things as they really are". But, concepts, being real things, (whether one likes it or not), are, by their nature sub-sets of reality and can also be "viewed", as they truly are.

But, perhaps, it seems, when one is not using concepts , or rather, no concepts are arising in the mind, there is no dukkha.

When no concepts arise there is no craving, and also no self, for the self is a concept, the self is a mental formation, it only exist when the concept of the self arises.

All that being said, concepts can indeed be useful, just as any tool has uses and functions, without concepts we would not be reading these posts, among other things.

Conceptual thought creates dualism, okay, but then does not conceptual thought create non-dualism, the "non-separateness" of everything, that too is just a concept. One may have to go beyond both dualism and non-dualism to transcend the net. Now, there is a concept.....

Metta

RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment
Answer
4/19/14 9:02 AM as a reply to T DC.
T DC:

And thus there are two potential ways to identify an enlightened practitioner. One is that they no longer need to meditate, and can hope for no improvement.

Daniel and Kenneth (and plenty of other enlightened beings, I'm sure) both continue to meditate. Granted, they probably don't need to, but they do. There are other things to do on the cushion-- brahma viharas, siddhis, concentration states, NS...

RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment
Answer
4/19/14 11:42 AM as a reply to T DC.
T DC:
When I say I am fully enlightened, what I mean is I have the highest attainment, or non-dual insight, possible. I’m not saying I’m necessarily more enlightened than anybody else, I simply mean that I am possessing of the highest attainment possible. If there are others who are fully enlightened, their enlightenment cannot surpass my own and likewise I do not surpass them, but equal their attainment exactly.


I have more than several times thought to myself, "How could I get any more aware? How could I possibly be any more realized?" And then something else comes along, and I become humbly aware that the human condition has limitless possibilities, and human beings have limitless hangups, habits and conditioning that go ever and ever deeper and are more and more subtle, appearing to be an endless spiral of spiritual discovery and deeper and deeper knowing of the human condition and experience. So, at least to me, the self proclaimed condition that anyone has reached the "highest possible enlightenment" begs the question - is that even possible, and how would one human being ever be able to make that claim with far, far less than even one lifetime of experience?

:-)

RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment
Answer
4/19/14 7:31 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
[
I have more than several times thought to myself, "How could I get any more aware? How could I possibly be any more realized?" And then something else comes along, and I become humbly aware that the human condition has limitless possibilities, and human beings have limitless hangups, habits and conditioning that go ever and ever deeper and are more and more subtle, appearing to be an endless spiral of spiritual discovery and deeper and deeper knowing of the human condition and experience.


This is a good point. I'm not beyond spiritual development. I posted another thread where I differentiate between insight development and soul development. Basically the idea is that duality is an issue we can solve with finality, but what exists beyond that, which could be called the personality, or 'soul' belief structures, is an area of continuing, infinite, development. The thread I linked above has a more detailed explanation of this.

RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment
Answer
4/19/14 10:31 PM as a reply to T DC.
T DC,

Is you're previous model that you wrote up a while ago still considered valid by you?

If not do you have an updated model that includes all the Tantra/Vajrayana stages? If you don't mind me asking what literature on Tibetan Buddhism did you read?

I ask because I've had some powerful experiences while reading the Tibetan Book of the Dead, I also had a great interest in Mahamudra and the Six Yogas of Naropa.

-James

RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment
Answer
4/20/14 1:25 PM as a reply to J J.
Yes that model is still valid. It's a record of the stages I went through so it's final as far as I'm concerned.

Mind at Ease by Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche is a book on Mahamudra that contains a detailed list of stages one passes through. These stages begin at the start of the Vajrayana.

I have said this before, but might as well say it again; if you attempt to practice beyond your level, it will be fruitless. That is the danger of advanced practices. I know you claim stream entry, but in either of the meaningful contexts for stream entry, be it the MCTB model, or more traditional Theravada model where stream entry seemingly equates to 4th path MCTB, there is still attainment to go before reaching the entrance point to the Vajrayana. So while reading advanced teachings won't melt your face off, keep in mind they may well not be suitable for you at your current level of practice.

I'm not trying to bash on you here, but I think recommending advanced books would be irresponsible without that disclaimer. Also I might say I haven't ever found a book with the six yoga's though I have definitely looked.

RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment
Answer
4/20/14 2:14 PM as a reply to T DC.
Ok, nice.

I'll give your model another look over then.

RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment
Answer
4/20/14 2:54 PM as a reply to T DC.
T DC,

I just have some follow up questions I would like to ask about your current state.

Do you suffer in any dualistic sense?

Do you experience unsated desires? Frustration? Lust, uncertainty, anxiety?

What is your daily life like? If you don't mind me asking do you have significant other?

My fear is that I will lose parts of myself in this process, but I'm wondering if one is still fully human after this process.

Much respect,

James

RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment
Answer
4/20/14 2:58 PM as a reply to T DC.
Oh wait, nevermind. Got it, thanks.

RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment
Answer
4/20/14 6:22 PM as a reply to J J.
James Yen:
T DC,

I just have some follow up questions I would like to ask about your current state.

Do you suffer in any dualistic sense?

Do you experience unsated desires? Frustration? Lust, uncertainty, anxiety?

What is your daily life like? If you don't mind me asking do you have significant other?

My fear is that I will lose parts of myself in this process, but I'm wondering if one is still fully human after this process.

Much respect,

James


I think the fear that one will lose something by becoming enlightened, or overcoming the ego, is pretty common. I definitely felt it. The fact is however, duality is not something from which we gain anything whatsoever. We are perfect and whole to begin with, this is reality. Duality is merely a warping of this truth. In enlightenment, we come back to a state of wholeness having the shed illusion that bound us to suffering.

Now I think really what the fear stems from is a misapprehension that shedding the false ego/ sense of separation will mean a loss of our individuality, as if the death of the ego represented the death of ourselves. This is not the case. Beyond the false dualistically imposed neurosis we habitually relate with, there is a genuine self, or 'soul'. This is partially what I was trying to get at in the Univeral Attainment model thread. As well, Reginal Ray expresses this very well in this video, starting at 7:00.

To respond to the rest of your questions, no I don't suffer in a dualistic sense really. There is 'soul' growth, which entails overcoming beliefs, but this is beyond explicit conception, and the understanding that all is not-separate remains at all times.

However, one is very much still human after enlightenment. Unsatiated desires, lust, frustration, uncertainty, anxiety; indeed I experience all these. However, they are grounded in an understanding of ultimate reality, as ultimately nothing is separate from the base of what is. As I explain in the Universal attainment model thread, duality is just one piece of the puzzle, and is ultimately somewhat of a unique undertaking, while the 'issues' of human experience; emotions and the like, reflect a deeper process of soul development. Perhaps read that thread an see if that clarifies this..

As for what my daily life is like, I am currently studying for exams, trying to find a job for the summer, rehabbing my knee which I have injured.. I do have a girlfriend, haha. To be clear, I really want to express that this process makes you fully who you are. It wipes away the shit so that you can be who you are without neurotic falsity. Nothing you would truly like to hold is let go of, everything you cherish is gained.. That which is to be lost is merely an illusion to begin with, it has no reality. From my perspective, it is clear that everyone exists in just the same state I am in, but they merely belief otherwise. False belief is all that is overcome. emoticon

RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment
Answer
4/20/14 8:14 PM as a reply to T DC.
T DC,

You have different definition of full enlightenment than people traditionally have, which why you probably get a lot of backlash on these forums.

In Theravadan Buddhism full enlightenment ends when you have reached nirvana. Nirvana is the extinguishing of desires that cause suffering and hence when you are fully enlightened you have reached nirvana, and when you have reached Nirvana you have ended suffering.

Since you have claimed you still do feel desire, frustration, lust, anxiety etc.. you have not reached full enlightenment. From a theravadan traditional perspective if you have truly experienced non-duality fully than you have reached the first stage of enlightenment, but you have a long way to go to be fully enlightened.

It seems in your other thread you have partitioned nonduality and 'Soul practices' into separate categories. So maybe I am not telling you anything new in regards to 'full enlightenment'

In Tibetan Buddhism the standards are even higher. There is also the full realization of rigpa..etc..or emptiness..Omega Point says that one is not considered to have mastered emptiness until they can turn a person into a dog and vice versa (in your mind) and many other skills.


Anyway, I do have some practice related questions regarding your path as regards to taking one step at a time.

Did you master samadhi first, and then vipassana? How did you know when you had mastered samadhi? Could you reach all eight jhanas? How much samadhi did you need before you began vipassana?

RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment
Answer
4/21/14 1:30 PM as a reply to Jinxed P.
Jinxed P:

Anyway, I do have some practice related questions regarding your path as regards to taking one step at a time.

Did you master samadhi first, and then vipassana? How did you know when you had mastered samadhi? Could you reach all eight jhanas? How much samadhi did you need before you began vipassana?


No, so when I started practicing, I did practice shamatha, simply because that was what I initially learned. After practicing for about a year and a half, I found some videos of Danial talking about the stages of insight, which I greatly resonated with. After this I started practicing vipassana ala MCTB.

Shamatha as I practiced it initially was as Trungpa taught, which is sort of a combination of shamatha and vipassana. One practices placing awareness lightly on the breath and returns it when one finds oneself lost in thought. So really at no time prior to starting vipassana did I explicitly or purposefully practice concentration, such as trying to access the jhanas. I did not have jhanic ability prior to starting vipassana and gaining stream entry. It was only after 2nd path when I really tried to access the jhanas, and at that time, probably because of my path attainment, I did not find it super difficult to work through the jhanas.

So in other words, prior to practicing vipassana I did not have defined concentration skills such as jhana access. I had however spent considerable time practicing meditation, which helped to quiet my mind, as well as build some concentration ability. It was due to this practice that I was able to immediately practice vipassana without much trouble, or great mental distraction.

RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment
Answer
4/21/14 8:59 PM as a reply to T DC.
T DC,

It's astounding to me that you would actually persist in trying to convince people on this. I mean, consider the big picture. On the one hand, you've got a 2500 year old tradition, tens of thousands of contemplatives dedicating their lives to the pursuit of full enlightenment, so serious in their intent that they would force themselves to live only on food they've begged for in the streets. You've got hundreds of thousands of texts with all sorts of new ideas and variations on the core teachings, and yet not a single school has emerged teaching that there is still suffering at full enlightenment. Then on the other hand, you've got a college student doing this in his spare time, who would have us believe he attained full enlightenment within a matter of months, using a radically altered definition of it which supposedly is actually the correct one, and that this entire tradition got the fundamental reason for its existence wrong the entire time.

RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment
Answer
4/21/14 10:33 PM as a reply to B B.
B B:
T DC,

It's astounding to me that you would actually persist in trying to convince people on this. I mean, consider the big picture. On the one hand, you've got a 2500 year old tradition, tens of thousands of contemplatives dedicating their lives to the pursuit of full enlightenment, so serious in their intent that they would force themselves to live only on food they've begged for in the streets. You've got hundreds of thousands of texts with all sorts of new ideas and variations on the core teachings, and yet not a single school has emerged teaching that there is still suffering at full enlightenment. Then on the other hand, you've got a college student doing this in his spare time, who would have us believe he attained full enlightenment within a matter of months, using a radically altered definition of it which supposedly is actually the correct one, and that this entire tradition got the fundamental reason for its existence wrong the entire time.


I persist because of my deep conviction.. In all fairness, I'm not saying the Buddhist Tradition is wrong. Quite to the contrary, I followed Buddhist teachings all the way to full enlightenment, thus if anything I am verifying their accuracy.

Buddhism suffers from teachings which have been adopted that do not accurately reflect reality. I think it should be clear that in all traditions there are teachings one must take with a grain of salt. Such teachings include the miraculous powers of those who have attainment, and as well as what attainment itself means. In the Tibetan tradition for example, those who are attained of the Boddhisatva Bhumis have outlandish powers which are in no way a reflection of reality. In Theravada Buddhism, one distortion to genuine teachings is that affective emotions such as lust, anger, so on, are not felt upon enlightenment.

I'm not saying in anyway that the fundamental basis is wrong, here you have blatantly misunderstood me. The basis of Buddhism is suffering and the eradication of it upon enlightenment. Suffering in this context is unrelated to emotions, it is a problem stemming from our dualistic perception of reality! Enlightenment eradicates dualistic suffering, yes. But emotions, no.

So really I feel that my definition of enlightenment is squarely in line with what the Buddha taught.

RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment
Answer
4/21/14 10:51 PM as a reply to B B.
B B:
T DC,

It's astounding to me that you would actually persist in trying to convince people on this. I mean, consider the big picture. On the one hand, you've got a 2500 year old tradition, tens of thousands of contemplatives dedicating their lives to the pursuit of full enlightenment, so serious in their intent that they would force themselves to live only on food they've begged for in the streets. You've got hundreds of thousands of texts with all sorts of new ideas and variations on the core teachings, and yet not a single school has emerged teaching that there is still suffering at full enlightenment. Then on the other hand, you've got a college student doing this in his spare time, who would have us believe he attained full enlightenment within a matter of months, using a radically altered definition of it which supposedly is actually the correct one, and that this entire tradition got the fundamental reason for its existence wrong the entire time.


?

This is basically exactly what Daniel (the founder of this site), did.

I don't understand what the problem is. Daniel Ingram claims the Arahatship (worthiness) of the historical Buddha but radically altered the definition of Awakening, such that it does not remove greed, hatred or delusion.

Furthermore he also did this while he was in medical school.

Your post is incredibly ironic.

I dare, no, I double dare any other teacher to be that honest when
writing their next bio, not that they are likely to be given enough space
to disclose anything resembling this much honest and practical
information. A few more things: I crossed the Arising and Passing Away
when I was about 15 and did it again about 4 more times by my
recollection over the next 10 years without formal practice, technique or
guidance. I attained to stream entry at the end of the first week of my
fourth retreat on January 13th, 1996 in Bodh Gaya, India, in the Thai
Monastery. I also crossed the Arising and Passing Away of second path
on that retreat. I attained second path in daily life while working at the
National AIDS Hotline with the CDC in July, 1996. I was in the break
room just hanging out. I attained to Third Path towards the end of 1996,
also in daily life, after a retreat a few weeks before where I crossed the
Arising and Passing Away of that cycle. I attained to Nirodha Samapatti
(see the appendix) one month later, but it would take me a more few
years to really nail down hard samatha jhanas and the formless realms
so that I could access them off retreat.

I was an anagami for almost 7 years, going through cycle after cycle
of progressive appreciation of the emptiness of ordinary phenomena,
with my total count of what felt like full new paths being about 27. I
wrote most of this book during that time. I also earned a two-year
Masters of Science in Public Health in Infectious Disease Epidemiology
at UNC Chapel Hill and then went on to complete medical school
there.

Then, on April 17th, 2003, on a 21-day retreat at the Malaysian
Buddhist Meditation Center between medical school and my residency,
I attained to arahatship. It happened while I was doing walking
meditation on that glorious Spring morning. I was sick of the cycles of
insight and profoundly inspired by the steady and gentle invitation of the
teacher, Sayadaw U Pandita, Junior, to simply see through the whole thing as he had done.


The above quote was from the MCTB.

I am the one baffled here. Daniel's concept of nanas and jhanas has no founding in the Dharma of the Buddha. At all. There is no mapping of the mind, whatsoever in this Dharma.

Your entire post is a giant non-sequitur that leaves my metaphorical jaw on the floor.

Edit:

Help me out here BB, why are you willing to accept Daniel's Awakening but not T DC's?

There has to be some sort of reason.

Besides "it feels right".

Edit 2:

I'm beginning to feel that you guys are some form of "elitist club" that only lets people in who practice Vipassana or subscribe to your form of Dharma.

Is this accurate?

RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment
Answer
4/22/14 12:15 AM as a reply to T DC.
Hey T DC,

You seem to be saying that upon full enlightenment that craving i.e. greed and anger are still present.

Would you say that greed and anger, through proper training arises less and less?

And would you say that through proper mindfulness greed and anger can be cut off at the point of the initial sensation level (bare attention) so that greed and anger can not even arise?

And would you say that through wise attention one might be able to identify the causes of greed and hatred and eliminate them through non-nourishment of those causes one by one?

Would you not say that through proper mental development one may develop states of mind that were full of contentment, and if that were possible, that a mind was content, how would greed and anger arise from a contented mind?

If a mind were to understand a painful sensation as a painful sensation, why would anger arise in such a mind?

If a mind were to understand a pleasant sensation as a pleasant sensation, why would greed arise in such a mind?

Faith arises from confidence, confidence arises from experience, otherwise what arises is skeptical doubt, which has as it's cure , investigation.

Beliefs are like mirages, knowing is like a mountain.

All that being said, we were all born humans, what a deal, huh?

Peace and Compassion

A Fellow Human

RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment
Answer
4/22/14 8:41 AM as a reply to J J.
This is basically exactly what Daniel (the founder of this site), did.

I brought this up with him before in this thread (apologies for some poor argumentation on my part towards the end). My post could have used some fleshing-out in that regard, but tbh it was written during a sleepless night at 3am, so I thought I'd better keep it brief.

What's ironic to me is that I would end up defending a traditional teaching, as I really couldn't be less conservative or traditional by nature. But I do have a strong intuitive conviction that we must always be super careful about lowering standards of what constitutes full enlightenment. Nobody finds annihilating the self easy, because it's a deeply unnatural thing to attempt to do. We're the products of millions of years of evolution, after all: self-preservation and ego-centrism are very deeply ingrained in our minds. Conceit and I-making at the subtlest levels are going to throw up all sorts of doubts and try to trick the mind into prematurely believing it's done. It's going to require enormous purity of intent to reach the final goal, even with an accurate model. But once T DC's and Daniel's ideas start catching on you're effectively destroying people's chances. We'd be fools not to err on the side of ultra-caution with minds that are so deluded.

Edit: cleaned up the above paragraph

RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment
Answer
4/22/14 9:36 AM as a reply to B B.
B B:
What's ironic to me is that I would end up defending a traditional teaching, as I really couldn't be less conservative or traditional by nature. But I do have a strong intuitive conviction that we must always be super careful about lowering standards of what constitutes full enlightenment. Nobody finds annihilating the self easy, because it's a deeply unnatural thing to attempt to do. We're the products of millions of years of evolution, after all: self-preservation and ego-centrism are very deeply ingrained in our minds. Conceit and I-making at the subtlest levels are going to throw up all sorts of doubts and try to trick the mind into prematurely believing it's done. It's going to require enormous purity of intent to reach the final goal, even with an accurate model. But once T DC's and Daniel's ideas start catching on you're effectively destroying people's chances. We'd be fools not to err on the side of ultra-caution with minds that are so deluded.

Edit: cleaned up the above paragraph


BB,

I know that Daniel's and T DC's "edits" to the Dharma bother you somewhat. But don't worry about it. Literally just keep going, trudging on, and break through to the other side.

It is so worth it.

Furthermore upon seeing, your doubts regarding various issues will disappear almost instantaneously.

For example, as your vision stands now, do you see the way to the end of the "self"?

Obviously not, because Buddhism does not teach annihilation. It teaches the cessation of suffering. But the point is tricky eh?

Don't worry about it.

Just come here, nothing will be annihilated. Don't worry.

emoticon

RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment
Answer
4/22/14 11:26 AM as a reply to B B.
When I read the first post on this thread, the word my eye kept catching on was belief, belief in duality, belief in conceptual thought.

It is clear, automatic, direct, natural, flawless perception of centerlessness, of phenomena comprehending themselves, of the field being utterly transient, of the Universal Characteristics pointed to by the Buddha that makes the difference.

To the degree that this perception happens, to that degree there is awakening.

When it is the only thing perceptual thing happening, meaning that all sensate phenomena without exception naturally reveal their true nature in the whole sense field, just as color does, just as sounds do, just as textures, so with that aspect, then that is something that might be called a final stage of development of that axis of development, as when 100% of the field naturally knows its natural state, its untangled state, then obviously that is all that can be done on that front.

There are lots of other axes of development, lots of other fronts, but that core perceptual one, being so essential, being fundamental to all the others, is worthy of delineating as the most important one of them all.

RE: An Explanation of My Claim to Full Enlightenment
Answer
8/16/14 12:17 AM as a reply to Psi.
That was lovely, Psi Phi! 

I am wondering now about terms, since I am not buddhist.

The important enlightenment, even the most shallow, is the realization that you are not your soul, body, or mind and that there is no phenomenon that exists without perception and interpretation, and that focus can be directed, even dropped, on all sensory and nonsensory perception of phenomenon.  This frees a person from suffering, forever.  This is the point that is important because it is like medicene.  But it is not the end, but rather the beginning of something much bigger.

Full attainment is much, much more.  It is knowing not just what one isn't, but what one is and why.
Do I have the right understanding?

Announcements Announcements