What is enlightenment - the way to God

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by running

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.

But true enlightenment is moving to the rhythm of the internal inspiration that is coming
in response to the individual desire.

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

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

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

Buddhist would disagree that he was an avatar of Vishnu.

Then Mahamati said: If the Tathágatas are un-born, there does not seem to be anything to take hold of – no entity – or is there something that bears another name than entity? And what can that "something" be?

The Blessed One replied: Objects are frequently known by different names according to different aspects that they present, the god Indra is sometimes known as Shakra, and sometimes as Purandara. These different names are sometimes used interchangeably and sometimes they are discriminated, but different objects are not to be imagined because of the different names, nor are they without individuation. The same can be said of myself as I appear in this world of patience before ignorant people and where I am known by uncounted trillions of names. They address me by different names not realizing that they are all names of the one Tathágata. Some recognize me as Tathágata, some as the self-existent one, some as Gautama the Ascetic, some as Buddha. Then there are others who recognize me as Brahma, as Vishnu, as Ishvara; some see me as Sun, as Moon; some as a reincarnation of the ancient sages; some as one of "ten powers"; some as Rama, some as Indra, and some as Varuna. Still there are others who speak of me as The Un-born, as Emptiness, as "Suchness," as Truth, as Reality, as Ultimate Principle; still there are others who see me as Dharmakaya, as Nirvana, as the Eternal; some speak of me as sameness, as non-duality, as un-dying, as formless; some think of me as the doctrine of Buddha-causation, or of Emancipation, or of the Noble Path; and some think of me as Divine Mind and Noble Wisdom. Thus in this world and in other worlds am I known by these uncounted names, but they all see me as the moon is seen in the water. Though they all honor, praise and esteem me, they do not fully understand the meaning and significance of the words they use; not having their own self-realization of Truth they cling to the words of their canonical books, or to what has been told to them, or to what they have imagined, and fail to see that the name they are using is only one of the many names of the Tathágata. In their studies they follow the mere words of the text vainly trying to gain the true meaning, instead of having confidence in the one "text" where self-confirming Truth is revealed, that is, having confidence in the self-realization of noble Wisdom.

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.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

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

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Namaste.

So now, it does get interesting!

The Vaishnavas state that Buddha was an avatar of or 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 :)

As we ascend to that which is more perfect, He who is without form or shape comes no longer without form or without shape. Nor does He cause His light to come to us and be present with us in silence. But how? He comes in a definite form indeed, though it is a divine one. Yet God does not show Himself in a particular pattern or likeness, but in simplicity, and takes the form of an incomprehensible, inaccessible, and formless light. We cannot possibly say or express more than this; still He appears clearly and is consciously known and clearly seen, though He is invisible. He sees and hears invisibly and, just as friend speaks to friend face to face (cf. Ex. 33:11), so He who by nature is God speaks to those whom by grace He has begotten as gods. He loves like a father, and in turn He is fervently loved by His sons.


Quote n° 3433 : Saint Symeon the New Theologian , (949 - 1022), Christianity, Orthodoxy
Source : The Discourses, p. 365, Trans. C.J. de Catanzaro. Ramsey, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1980.

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.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

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.

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

[Shivani Devi]

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.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

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

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

As far as emptiness, maybe this will help.

Primordial emptiness is like a bubbling sea of nothingness, brimming with potential. It can be most easily described in the realization of three components, but each of the component is inseparable. These components are Void, motion (or energy) and potential.


The void is empty with no activity at all. Nothing to perceive and nothing to sense. Like a totally dead sea with no motion. The nature of void can be found going deeper and deeper into meditation. The is a common goal in many traditions. But, it is beyond senses, lights or astral visions. All activity in mind (or universal mind) is dropped such that nothing is left. All perception is gone, such that the mind is still and for all practical purposes, one and everything "ceases".


When the nothingness of void "moves" or changes state, one has "energy". Energy has no true substance as it is only the motion of void, but it gives rise to something to be "perceived". In it's emergence, energy can be guided by "intent". First energy is noticed on a subconscious level, but with greater realization, it can be guided and affected. First in one's body, and later as greater mental obstructions are cleared on a universal level.


When one has fully realized the void and one experiences energy 24/7 in a conscious (controlled) manner, one integrates the two and can notice the "potential". The potential is the pristine clarity (or light) of the void. Or in more modern terms, it is the structure or raw building stuff of mind/universal mind. All that exists or potentially can exist is a transmission of this pristine clarity/light.


When one fully realizes these three components as integrated and inseparable, they have realized ultimate emptiness. One "sees behind" the curtain (of mind) and becomes stabilized in the primordial sea.



Ultimately, void is nothingness, energy is the motion of nothingness, clarity (or light) is the realization of the potential of it all that can be guided by intent.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

There are many Gods and Buddhas and it can be proven if you are interested 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

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

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.

[ajay00]

A touching and beautiful account of enlightenment by Gary Weber.

Somehow, I happened upon the teachings of Ramana Maharshi. I began looking in the other direction, back inside at what it was that was doing all of these practices and causing all of this confusion. One day, realizing that enlightenment was impossible as long as there was an “I” insisting on being present for the exciting conclusion as well as keeping all of its attachments, I surrendered completely. Everything was surrendered, everything; my “self”, possessions, job, corner office, parking space, options, house, attachments, everything. I said deeply and sincerely from the bottom of my being, that I had to know the Truth, even if it cost my life. With that surrender, I could feel something shift.

Shortly afterwards, doing an asana that I had done thousands of times before, the “I” blew out like a candle in the wind, and a page turned. I went into the asana one way and came out transformed. Consciousness shifted completely and irrevocably. Thought stopped as a continuous activity and stillness and presence were there at a level I could never have imagined. I realized that I was not this body, nor these thoughts, but the undying consciousness behind them. I saw that everything was perfect just as it was and that everything was somehow inside me and was in fact, all One. Surprisingly, I also realized that everything was God. - Gary Weber