What is enlightenment - the way to God
 

Buddha became ' Enlightened ' Buddhist don't believe in God....

In Buddhism, there is no concept of a single God. The gods in Buddhism are a huge number. All beings above the level of the world of the Asuras are considered Gods.

Buddhism underwent a total reformation in the 12th century...about the same time that Buddha sorta 'became' an avatar of Lord Vishnu, to bring the religion of Buddhism back within the 'Hindu fold' to appeal to the totally uneducated and illiterate masses of the time.

In the contemporary Buddhist catechism, there is "no God" and "no Self" as it was pretty much the desire of Buddhists to bring the philosophy of Buddhism under the auspices of Advaita Vedanta which was also gaining notoriety around the same time to popularise it...and perhaps as a 'backlash' to all those gung-ho Vaishnavites who sought to place the preceptor of an atheist philosophy under the auspices OF a Hindu deity.

*reading the Akashic Records is fun...but I digress*

Before the reformation of Buddhist thought, those in Nepal and Tibet worshiped tribal deities...they worshiped Tutelary Deities or "Gods" and the most prevalent and significant of these, were the Hindu God(desses) Mahakaal (Bhairava) which is the 'terrible form' of Lord Shiva and also Dakini (Tara, Lolita) as being the 'Red Dakini" or Bhuvaneshwari which resides in the Muladhara Chakra...riding her Elephant or existing alongside Ganesha under the vibration of the bija "LAM".

So, when Buddhism came to Tibet, the populace was told "you can keep your beliefs, but also integrate ours" thus Vajrayana was born...along with Buddhist Tantra.

In the local dialect, the letter "B" is interchangeable with "V" and the suffix of "ava" became synonymous with "achana" and so, Bhairava became the "Adi Buddha" known as Vairochana...it's all quite long and convoluted.

Please compare the images of Kala Bhairava (Hinduism) with Maha Kala Bernagchen (Buddhism)...and for some reason, Google won't let me post images anymore...which sucks. lol

Found this today ...thought this group might like it:

Enlightenment means literally aligning to the Energy of my Source.
And genius is only about focusing.
Law of Attraction takes care of everything else.
Physical humans often want to make enlightenment about finding some process and
moving through the process that has been pre-described.
But true enlightenment is moving to the rhythm of the internal inspiration that is coming
in response to the individual desire.

Enlightenment is about allowing my connection to the Source that is me for the fulfillment of the things
that I have individually defined here in my time/space reality.

That’s as good as it gets!


-Abraham-Hicks

The enlightened one acts on the basis of the Self or pure consciousness and not on the basis of desires in the form of cravings and aversions which brings about the ego or false self, personalised thoughts and emotions blindly identified with, and consequent suffering.

Egocentric actions taken on the basis of raag-dvesh ( cravings-aversions) create vasanas or unconscious impressions in the mind which perpetuate compulsively such thoughts, emotions and actions again and again habitually like the grooves in a record. Addictions are similarly very strong vasanas or impressions in the unconscious. One may resolve to break these addictions but the sheer pressure of the unconscious impressions will force him or her to continue with the addictive activities compulsively.

Vasanas in Hinduism are called sankaras in Buddhism. Awareness, total love and spiritual exercises eliminate thse vasanas which create habitual thinking and actions, and the total elimination of them results in enlightenment.


For the samsari or unenlightened person, thought associated with the past psychological memories of pleasure and pain create desires in the form of cravings and aversions , which in turn stimulates personalised thoughts and emotions one identifies with blindly, leading to psychological drama which may have nothing to do with existential reality. All conflicts arise from the personal psychological self which is false in nature and characterised by conditioned likes and dislikes.


Awareness or total love depersonalises these thoughts and emotions and renders them harmless, stripping them of their emotivity and reactivity.

The enlightened one or Stithaprajna is thus in a state of awareness or pure consciousness, content with the moment, deconditioned and not living in the past or future through emotionally charged thoughts.

Maybe the words of the great KS master Abhinavagupta will help.


I would also agree that the Buddha mentioned many times about various Gods and divine beings.

Namaste

I was watching some random Youtube videos last night, just following the recommendations...and I saw one "Instant Enlightenment" by Papaji.

I don't know if I became "enlightened" but all I know is I couldn't stop laughing for hours. Enjoy.
https://youtu.be/vnsmOXD4iE8

Aum Namah Shivaya

Watch all Puppetji ' Teachings ' Shiv but not while your drinking or eating, I nearly choked laughing.

he is speaking from the story. if its about how you want the story then that has nothing to do with it. it simply has to do with becoming one with the source. the merging of shakti and shiva. that fullfillment quenches the desires. which is in opposition of making the story how one wishes it to be. either that gentleman is miles away from what folks like yogananda and the rest are speaking about. or im completely comfused on what he is saying. which is entirely possible.

I would agree with you.

That person is selling nonsense for a profit. Has no idea.


That is the complete opposite of every spiritual teaching. That is law of attraction **.

Buddhist would disagree that he was an avatar of Vishnu.


I can't remember where I read it but in one sutra the Buddha talks about being Brahma for a long time before he move beyond.

Interesting stuff.

Namaste.

So now, it does get interesting!

The Vaishnavas state that Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu, but the Buddhists say that he was not, so who is correct and who is incorrect, or is it up to what we personally believe is the truth, irrespective of whether it was or not? This can also be said for basically everything in existence. lol

Are things which cannot be proven true, simply because we believe them to be so? even if another says that it is 'not true' and so, it will be 'not true' for them, but true for us? and where does the 'real truth' fit in, in these scenarios?

Aum Namah Shivaya

True,

Do you believe in a God an all powerful being or that we can all be God?

Throwing in a Christian view :)


Remember some of the old Brahma views were there was only one being. When the Buddha came he changed that view.

You can also look at things as levels.

Being Shiva is the realization of universal mind.

Realizing the emptiness of universal mind is a Buddha. The Tao Te Ching say's much the same thing.
The Tao begot one.
One begot two.
Two begot three.
And three begot the ten thousand things.

The Tao being emptiness and the One being Universal Mind or One like Siva.

Also, why would you look to some other tradition to get an understanding on Buddhism and it's beliefs? What you are saying is more that tradition is trying to incorporate and validate it's own beliefs while dismissing the teachings of another.

Of course I believe in God, but many do not. Does this mean that God exists only because I believe? or does not exist because others don't?

I could also say that Brahman exists as a 'universal Truth' as Sat...but that is still only a 'theory' until experientially realised, but the realisation cannot be proven either - not that it could ever be, or needs to be.

Is it really "emptiness" to say that all things arise from within it, when manifestation cannot come from 'nothing'...like the Big Bang? there must be 'something' from which 'other things' issue forth, no?

Aum Namah Shivaya

As for whether God is a 'being' or we are all God...six of one, half a dozen of the other.

It is is difficult for me to reconcile the belief that I am God...because I am too preoccupied with loving and worshipping Siva as an 'external entity' for that to ever occur...but such is the lot of a Bhakti Yogi.

There are many Gods and Buddhas and it can be proven if you are interested :smile: Not with words either.

As far as emptiness, maybe this will help.

It is said that siva is known through His manifested energies - shakti.

Everything in existence is only the vimarsha (reflection) of the spanda of purusha siva.

Of course, I understand all you have said and it can be related without words, but only to one who is open to receiving it...but then again, if one in enmeshed in Maya, what they perceive is 'real' to them....but is that any less real to the perceiver as Brahman is to an enlightened being?

So, can we say "Neti Neti" or "Iti Iti" and both are the same and lead to the same non-dual awareness, even though the awareness is attained through the duality of "non-being" as opposed to "being".

I guess all of this rides on the back of many synchronicities that I have experienced lately, which all my friends and relatives have all discounted as being 'coincidences' but their definition of 'coincidence' is totally different to mine....and that's why I have been playing the 'devil's advocate' on SF lately...because for some reason, I have been out of sorts with seeing and perceiving 'reality' as being somewhat different from all those around me and I am confuzzled. lol

Aum Namah Shivaya

To me Shakti and Shiva are real beings that one can connect to or become one with.

Non being is the realization of emptiness of self which allows for the realization that you are one with everyone and everything. With such a realization you can help others by sharing that oneness. Much like the post I did on direct introduction.

The Master is for his disciple Siva Himself for it is he who

through his initiation, teaching and grace, reveals the secret power of

spiritual discipline. Instructing in the purport of scripture he does more

than simply explain its meaning: he transmits the realisation it can bestow.

The Master is at one with Siva's divine power through which he enlightens

his disciple. It is this power that matters and makes the Master a true

spiritual guide,25 just as it was this same power that led the disciple to him

in his quest for the path that leads to the tranquility that can only be found

'in the abode beyond mind'.26 The Master is the ferry that transports the

disciple over the ocean of thought if, that is, the disciple is ready.

A touching and beautiful account of enlightenment by Gary Weber.

I liked reading Weber back in the day as well :)

One must understand that enlightenment isn't just a state of mind or a big opening like is being described above.

Maybe the words of the great KS master Abhinavagupta will help.

Quote:

"The question is thus appropriate because contentment (enlightenment) is not possible without a conscious realization. Contentment is of two kinds. The first is effected by means of absorption (samavesa) and consists of magical powers. The second is attained by reaching a condition of conscious heart-felt realization, and it is the state of being liberated while still alive."

If you can't share that realization then is all within the mind and not truly "enlightenment."

I don't think Weber stated that enlightenment is a state of mind. He has clearly stated that he felt himself to be the undying consciousness behind the thoughts.

This is the same as Ramana Maharshi stated...


You are awareness. Awareness is another name for you. Since you are awareness there is no need to attain or cultivate it.

All that you have to do is to give up being aware of other things, that is of the not-Self. If one gives up being aware of them then pure awareness alone remains, and that is the Self.





The quote actually corresponds to Weber's experience and validates what he says.

I would disagree that it is in agreement with Webster. Can you point out where he talks about powers?

Also, Ramana talking about awareness, what does that really mean? Is it the Witness of thoughts? That isn't enlightenment. Is it silence with no thoughts? That isn't enlightenment either.

Just a side note, what is not the Self?

To add to the discussion, awareness behind thoughts shows duality. There is a you and thoughts. Are you familiar with the term Clarity?


True clarity is where no mental obstructions cloud ones state of being. You are pure.

An enlightened being thinks all the time. It is the clarity of those thoughts that are different.

Where does Ramana talks about powers, or Nisargadatta !

Is it mandatory that upon enlightenment, one should shout thus, 'By the power of enlightenment , I have the power'.


It means that you have no accurate idea of enlightenment yourself , being unenlightened yourself, though enlightenment is your natural state obscured by the mind in the form of habitual thoughts and emotions.

If one is effortlessly in a state of witnessing or thoughtless awareness, it is enlightenment.


By this Ramana means all those thoughts that correspond to sensory objects and impressions, which is separate from that of the Self.

Dr. Jean Klein states in this regard...


'Every thought is linked to an image, which in turn is bound to the five senses. All thought, even abstract thinking, is always connected to a particular sense perception, with one exception - the ultimate 'I'. The question "Who am I?" refers to the ultimate subject, which, lacking an image, a projection, dissolves into silence. This is the "I" all living beings have in common: pure I-am-ness.' - Jean Klein

Powers are part of the realization that is why the great masters in Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and Christianity all had powers.

No, one doesn't shout but if they are gurus it is how they work with others.

Why do you think transmissions are so common within traditions? Lineages?

If you were to ask me neither one was enlightened.

Wasn't Nisargadatta addicted to smoking?

Ramana meditated all the time. Doing so shows different states of mind which is not enlightenment is it?




The void is silence and is not enlightenment. If we look at Buddhism teachings you have void=form. It is one half of the puzzle. In Hinduism it is the merging of Shakti and Shiva not just Shiva/void.

The Witness is just the first stage of realizing silence in daily life. It is far from enlightenment. It is kind of like saying that because you can do mindfulness in meditation you are enlightened. That isn't true at all.




Wasn't Ramana a teacher of non duality? Again what is separate from the Self?

Dr. Jean Klein states in this regard...



That is an AV school of thought. Silence is the goal but what about Shakti? Also as one progresses so does the silence.

Is the gap between thoughts the pure I-am-ness? No, it is just quiet mind.

Are you enlightened when in a deep meditation with intense silence? No, so what is the difference? Even in daily life, silence is nice but it isn't enlightenment.

Now you may have missed my edited post above but please review the quote on clarity.

From the Triadic Heart of Siva.


This part.


That, in a nutshell, is the difference between Kashmir Shaivism, and Advaita, or the Samkhya system, underlying Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. Those latter two systems still posit a separation or distinction between consciousness and its objects - whereas KS acknowledges the reality of non-duality (wholeness) - and the range between true nature and "outer" objects as consisting of phases of perception and apparent distinction - but not of actual separation, which would, of course, be impossible.

It is a mental conundrum between the 'outer world' and the 'inner world' and if both are equatable, there would be no 'inner' and no 'outer' - viz, atman and paramatman would be indistinct and therefore no differentiation would arise, but alas it still does.

It is akin to Ramanuja's philosophy of vishishtadvaita, or the unity within diversity.

As I mentioned before, I am a Shiva Bhakta, more along the lines of Shaiva Siddhanta than the Kaula or Trika school of Kashmir Shaivism, as I also believe, like you do, that Shiva is a 'being'.....but to 'become one' with that being is impossible, because there would still be Shiva and there would still be that which merges into it...that which 'becomes one' and then all would BE Shiva (which it is anyway) totally independent from who/what "I" am on any level...and hence the duality would arise again.

To say that I am identical with Shiva means that there is still an "I" and there is still a "Shiva" to be "identical with" and the problem with me being Shiva, means that for many years, I have been loving aught but myself, even though I love myself anyway, But I love Shiva...which means that I exist AS that love.

I gave up trying to mentally understand it...and to embrace Tantra fully because I could not reconcile the conundrum that exists in 'becoming' that which I already am, but not realising this...or even IF I did, not wanting to acknowledge it due to my heart stopping me...due to me being able to experience this divine love over a simple mental construct.

Aum Namah Shivaya

When you merge you are that. There is no you and him.

Don’t forget the Shiva Sutras.

.24. mātrāsvapratyayasaṁdhāne naṣṭasya punarutthānam
When a yogī, in coming out from samādhi, also attempts to maintain awareness of God consciousness in the objective world, then, even though his real nature of self is destroyed by the inferior generation of self-consciousness, he again rises in that supreme nature of the self.

3.25. śivatulyo jāyate
He becomes just like Śiva.

3.26. śarīravṛittirvratam
His virtuous behavior is the maintenance of his body.

3.27. kathā japaḥ
Ordinary talk of life is the recitation of mantra.

3.28. dānamātmajñānam
His only purpose for remaining in his body is to impart knowledge to others.

All that is, can be found within you, is you because it is not anywhere else but within.

Put simply, people can feel others, can reach out and connect to other people right? People astral travel to places.

When one moves beyond the local mind there is no going outward to feel others. There is no energy coming from outside of ones self. It is all within you, as you. You are already inside of me, Shiva, Jesus is inside of me. The deeper I know there is no difference between us the deeper the realization of oneness.

With such a realization there is no astral going to some place for that is dualistic. You are already that so where is there to go?

Maybe the words of Abhinavagupta will help.


From pg 100

Wherever Siva is present, the

whole is present. If the body is a structure composed essentially of Siva,

then all that is manifested from Siva, including the entire array of universes,

may be found present in the body.

Namaste, Tom.

I once posted an article on here and that article, although a lengthy read, explains it far better than I ever could. Please let me see if I can find it again and indulge me by reading it. Thank you for your time and patience.

http://anaditeaching.com/new/wp-cont...f-Identity.pdf

Aum Namah Shivaya

It is also very interesting to follow the timelines of the proponents of all spiritual and philosophical thought within India and how they correspond and correlate.

One can plainly see that a lot of plagiarism of ideas was going on, even though all that really differed was the name of the deity (or no deity whatsoever) with which they each associated.

We shall start with Abhinavagupta.

Abhinavagupta (950 – 1016 AD) who founded the Trika school of Kashmir Shaivism.

From there, we shall move on to Ramanujacharya (1017 AD - 1137 AD) who founded the school of Qualified Non duality (Bedha-abheda tattwa) as it applies to Vaishnavism.

From there, we will go to Basavanna (1105 AD to 1167 AD) who founded the Lingayat (Virashiavism) movement also based upon Qualified Non duality as it applies to Shaivism.

Many, MANY Hindu saints, sages and philosophers of all different schools lived during the Indian Chola period (900 AD - 1200 AD), each borrowing ideas and concepts from each other to form their own schools of thought, depending on individual beliefs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basava
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakulisha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramanuja
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhinavagupta
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirumular
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haridasa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allama_Prabhu

All born and died within 100 years of each other. =)

Here is also something very interesting I found:
https://link.springer.com/article/10...613-016-0045-5

If one follows and traces the philosophy and art of the time, it isn't difficult to see the connection and how the schools of Atimarga and Mantramarga were formed.

Well, that was an enjoyable exercise this afternoon. It also illustrates there is a deep, hidden knowledge within me.

Aum Namah Shivaya

Even without realization one can get psychic powers with practice. But these powers have the problem of ballooning the disciple's ego, and hence the reason why most teachers frown upon them.

Sri Ramakrishna did not attribute any spirituality to the manifestation of these powers, and even removed a psychic power of a disciple which he felt was bloating his ego.

Buddha similarly excommunicated a disciple who manifested his psychic powers in violation of Buddha's teachings.

It is only the enlightened one who can employ these powers properly due to lack of ego.


There are many enlightened one's who do not teach as they are quite content with the bliss. Only a few teach due to compassion. The few who teach display powers to instill faith in the disciples or for efficient work.

The enlightened one is content with the bliss of the Self, and does not need display of powers to gain egoistic pleasures. Such are the mark of a charlatan.



Nisargadatta was a cigarette maker by profession and smoked for relaxation. He was a nonvegetarian as well. He was however adept in application and applied his guru's teaching of being in 'I am ' state of awareness, and through steady application attained enlightenment in three years.

Ramana meditated in earlier times to stabilize his experience. He stated thus,"
“Jnana, once revealed, takes time to steady itself….the Self remains veiled by vasanas (latent impressions or tendencies) and reveals itself only in their absence.….To remain stabilized in it, further efforts are necessary.”



You are confusing and mixing tantric teachings with advaitan or nondual teachings and enlightenment.

In your path, tantra and kundalini are valid for attaining Self-realization, but the philosophies are markedly different from nonduality or advaita.




I emphasized 'effortless witnessing or mindfulness'. It is very hard for the unenlightened to be in the witnessing or mindful state effortlessly due to the vasanas or unconscious impressions which create psychological time through desires in the form of cravings and aversions, that force the mind to be in the past or future.




Shakti is part of the tantra or kundalini school, and I am not adept in it. I only stated the Advaitan perspective with respect to enlightenment.

If you desire abilities, states of mind they will be forever out of your reach.

The Buddha displayed a lot of powers. As a matter of fact it is part of the definition of being a Buddha.

If you have quotes on the two instances I would like to see them. I can see where you may not want to teach someone misusing their abilities but to say you removed them from someone... interesting story.





If you are enlightened you are beyond the ego. They are just a part of your being. Nothing about ego in moving your arm is there?


Such an addiction shows obstructions. Saying an enlightened master needs to smoke to relax again shows issues that are far from an enlightened master.


Yes, until life and meditation become one and the same. Yet Ramana never stopped.



Tantric is non-dual. Kundalini is the self.

Here is what Ramana had to say about it.






From experience, effortless witnessing or what is often referred to as The Witness is just the first stage of silence in daily life. It is far from the end stage. Are you familiar with Samantha or Shine? There are stages one goes through with the practice until one reaches a state called natural shine.

Please look up in the Buddhist section Dzogchen the Practice of Contemplation or if you wish I can describe the stages from Witnessing to Rigpa or Sahaja Samadhi if you wish?




It is also a part of Advaitan as well, as I showed you earlier with the quote from Ramana.

Are you a follower of Anada?

He who transcends all previous traditions and writes pdf's saying how every tradition is wrong?

No, I am not a follower...never really heard of him before. I just resonated with much of that article...especially where it says that love always reaches and never arrives...and that God is like a rainbow...all of that stuff....but I don't really wish to debate this anymore anyway...too busy watching re-runs of Ghost Adventures. lol

I'll just leave it saying that Shaiva Siddhanta has nothing whatsoever to do with Kashmir Shaivism and I belong to the former school...you know, those who have Siddhars and Nayanars.

I am also a follower of the one who wrote the PDF below:

http://www.dlshq.org/download/nayanar.pdf

Aum Namah Shivaya

Hinduism has a lot of traditions no doubt.

Here is an interesting thread and more and more evidence is coming forth that KS is where a lot of Buddhist tantra teachings came from.

https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/460...comment-806390

The links within that thread also make for a great historical read. Thank you for providing them.

All I can say in my 'defense' is that IF I am Siva, who is the one who rides the bull, has a garland of snakes and wears the moon in His matted locks? because I certainly know that I do not.

However, I made my position perfectly clear in my previous post. I worship the puranic Siva and even though we comprise the same essence, I am as 'alike' to Him as I am to you...in spiritual essence only, but other than that, we are as different as a difference can ever be.

Aum Namah Shivaya

Ooh, I liked reading this link posted in that thread:
http://www.sutrajournal.com/the-tant...stopher-wallis

I have much time for Christopher Wallis.

Within your tradition and the difference between KS.

Kashmir Shaivism claimed to supersede Shaiva Siddhanta, a dualistic tradition which scholars consider normative tantric Shaivism.[5] The Shaiva Siddhanta goal of becoming an ontologically distinct Shiva (through Shiva's grace) was replaced by recognizing oneself as Shiva who, in Kashmir Shaivism's monism, is the entirety of the universe.

Once you remove your bondages that keep you from the realization.. you would be riding the bull :hug3:

Kinda like we are all already Buddha's.. just all the junk that keeps us from the realization of it....

Excellent, thank you :)

We have a tradition in Shaiva Siddhanta...much like that which is expounded in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (Patanjali was also of the same school) and it is called Ishwara Pranidhana - surrender to a personal manifestation of consciousness.

If I really knew or could accept that I was that, I would have nothing to surrender to, would I? there would also be no Divine Grace.

There is nothing wrong or bad about belonging to a dualistic school of Shaivism, because it is only through the duality that non duality can be attained...in much the same way as how the Christians need Jesus to realise God...or the shaktas/tantrikas need Devi to realise God.

The Saguna aspect of Brahman acts like a 'middleman'.

I also can't help loving Shiva for who/what He is and not who/what I am, so I wouldn't want to ride Nandi anyway. lol

Yes, it is cultural conditioning...but why call it Shiva at all, if it doesn't have Shiva's attributes? why not just cut straight to the chase and call it Brahman? Then Kashmir Shaivism would be no different to Advaita Vedanta...I could never get that...and don't think I want to either.

Thank you for your time and patience with me. :hug3:

Aum Namah Shivaya