Is there a society for enlightened people?

[blossomingtree]

Well said, Jyotir!

Eternal thanks,

blossomingtree

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

This has been my own Spirituality all along, I was never much interested in the 'book learning' although often I would read a recommendation or pick up on a quote. For me it has been about inquiry and practice and often my beliefs have been the 'best guess' at that time, and never believed until I knew for myself.

Can't help but wonder if Buddha and I were besties in a Past Life, or is that me being irreverent in a reverent kind of way? It's a local culture thing. I'm going to say thank you for this conversation and mean it sincerely in case you thought I might not be serious. It's another shining example of synchronicity and things coming back at me to tell me I'm on the right track, even though initially it's quite convoluted. I looked up the Noble Truths and if they're anything to go by I'm on the right track. Not to self:- work in progress, mind.

Buddha is beyond reverent and irreverent, but somehow I highly doubt you were besties in a Past Life You have to be aware that the Buddha was very specific in teaching the path to Enlightenment, and despite what some may prefer, it is not a quote here or there type teaching - not that there isn't much value in some quotes here and there

But yes there is great congruence in knowing for oneself - to taste Nibbana, enlightenment, Truth revealed - that is the standard (true standard) in Buddhism indeed

Anyway, after having read Jyotir's post, I couldn't say it better or clearer than he. So I defer and submit to his wisdom therein, and would agree completely with everything he presented in his post above.

Cheers!

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

Buddha is beyond reverent and irreverent, but somehow I highly doubt you were besties in a Past Life You have to be aware that the Buddha was very specific in teaching the path to Enlightenment, and despite what some may prefer, it is not a quote here or there type teaching - not that there isn't much value in some quotes here and there

But yes there is great congruence in knowing for oneself - to taste Nibbana, enlightenment, Truth revealed - that is the standard (true standard) in Buddhism indeed

Anyway, after having read Jyotir's post, I couldn't say it better or clearer than he. So I defer and submit to his wisdom therein, and would agree completely with everything he presented in his post above.

Cheers!

Considering what I've read in these forums and other sources about what Spirit is or isn't there's no reason why I, you or anyone else alive today couldn't be besties with Buddha in Spirit. Apparently, ultimately there is no self and we all have access to the collective consciousness, Akashic Records. etc.... so we are all that we hold dear in our Spirituality - or do we forget all of that to call ourselves Spiritual? And in the context of Samahdi who/what is this self that wants to be/is enlightened but the false self?

God made man, man made religion and that includes Spirituality.

Originally Posted by Gem

I learned the Buddhist teachings in the oral tradition while taking extensive meditation retreats, but due to the meditation side of it, I can talk about it from the lived experience moreso than from the stuff I found on google. I think people become attached to that learned side, because it can provide 'an answer', but a spiritual essence is more to do with the outpouring of an infinite purity of love than anything anyone can tell anyone else. So there has never been an answer to it, but there is real lived insight, realisation, 'gnosis' as you put it, and upon such realisation, something like a release, relief, transformation or liberation, and 'the peace that passeth all understanding'.

In my formative years a wise man said to me "Take what resonates with you as your own, leave the rest behind because it is not yours." This is always something I've done, and even as people leave their replies there are the ones that simply don't resonate. For me personally Spirituality has always been experiential rather than theoretical and if the practice and the theory don't work together it's not much use to me.

Lao Tzu said it best; "The Tao that can be told is not the Eternal Tao." It's even beyond the finger that points to the moon, and I'd echo the words you're using too. My mother used to say "Empty barrels make the most noise." It's taken a long time but I'm at peace with myself and everything around me and often that's reflected back, there is a peace beyond understanding or at least my need to understand it. It certainly feels a lot lighter.

It's been said that religion is for those that are afraid of going to hell and Spirituality is for those that have been there. Perhaps where it becomes a little disjointed is when Spirituality is for those that are afraid of going to hell. Definitions creating reality aside.

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Hi shivatar,

There is a society for enlightened people and it’s simply called ’realization’ which is by nature consciously inclusive of all as direct identity and is therefore subjective in the true sense of the word (vs. “my ego’s opinion”).

If one expects an objective test, definition, or ‘proof’ of their own conceptual theory of enlightenment for the clever purpose of rejecting an ever-present, available, and expedient faith in the guise of ‘skepticism’, because that doesn’t conform to the mind’s rational expectations, they are missing the point, and not ‘thinking like/identifying with Spirit’, but rather like an engineer, mechanic or wannabe physicist. So where is ‘spiritual’ in that mental equation? No room for it, obviously. It’s not to be found there, and yet, that’s the mantra we hear from people who value intellectual doubts, definitions and demands, and utilize these as a rational standard to reason, to judge, and to reject spirituality proper as inconvenient hokum, woo-woo, social oppression, or prohibitively insoluable conundrum. Etc.

‘Members’ of the society of enlightened souls consciously recognize each other as enlightened by the content of Light independent of ‘outer’ form-al status indications. And significantly, they are surrendered to the Will of the Highest, because they have realized they ARE the Highest and consciously embody the Highest. As such, if the Highest wishes that such a soul meditate in a cave, live in a slum, or hitchhike across a continent; socialize or not socialize - that soul is a consciously willing instrument of that Will, the dynamic Truth Consciousness, by inalienable membership in that ‘society’, whatever the direction, command, or wish of the Highest That they ARE. Meanwhile, those expecting an outer, objective, formal ‘pronouncement’ of enlightenment will simply become self-serving slaves of their own expectations.

Prior to realization, there are societies for spiritually ASPIRING people, usually called ashrams - whether externalized physically or not, usually under the direction of a Master - recognized or not. The fact of merely having ‘followers’ doesn’t necessarily make one a legitimate guru (although as an outward indication, it’s a temptation to apply that as a sole and superficial qualification), as even unenlightened people can muster enough charisma to play that role for the emotionally needy but undiscerning. Here it is notable that human beings identify with various forms and manifestations throughout a broad spectrum of consciousness from abject ignorance to fully illumined.

The denial of enlightenment is the denial of wisdom, which is the practical manifestation of that very enlightenment or truth consciousness in and on the physical plane. Otherwise there are plenty of self-serving platitudes that if repeated often enough, become a kind of rote conventional ‘wisdom’, although of limited utility in the spiritual context, even if they serve a facile intellectual or social purpose.

Therefore, the notion that enlightenment is "whatever I say it is", etc. is somewhat laughable even if understandable as either a naïve or nihilist sentiment, since everyone is in the process of evolution, which means people have different standards, and therefore different needs relatively speaking - not one objective monolithic form. But that doesn‘t necessarily mean that there is no universal potential, opportunity, or means of progression which simply and in most cases generally requires the gradual rejection and surpassing of ignorance and inconscience while surrendering to and becoming truth/gnosis through unique individual pathways, which if anything, demonstrates that universality of the availability of Light and therefore en-Light-en-ment.

Light is the predominant attribute of Truth, and enlightenment is an ongoing process - dynamic in the physical - not static, since Light is in its true nature: Infinite. Therefore, an expectation for a static ‘objective’ test or definition will always defy any limited definition, which of course begs rejection from the mind’s limited and limiting capacities, which is the point and purpose of the mind - division, limitation, e.g., doubt - whether structured or inchoate. The gross physical mind actually doubts its own existence, essence, and potential - imagine that! Well, you don’t have to, because the mind will by nature do it for you.

As an inalienable potential, we embody that Infinity - in essence - though not consciously as instruments while not enlightened, e.g., when ignorance predominates as a focus of attention and identification with ignorant forms, as ignorant cognition. It is within that ignorant cognition in which the mind asserts: “there is no enlightenment”, “everyone is enlightened”, or “enlightenment is whatever I say it is”, etc… All nonsense by the very standard of enlightenment itself - and why a Master might disagree with those falsehoods, but would probably not argue the point with the objective instruments of them, i.e., mind, and mind-identified beings - an inherently fruitless task, so why bother? That’s the functional miasma - not an eternally fruitful enlightenment, even if some (or many) are lost and confused concerning this momentous issue of comparison.

In the Cosmic physical Universe, there is a threshold in the human evolution whereby a person does realize who they are, when the essential does become the instrumental in fact, in actuality, and thereby becoming or having become Enlightened, and therefore having surpassed or transcended the Cosmic Ignorance, becoming permanently aware of Truth-consciousness as direct identity of Self. This is not arbitrary, not a fantasy, not an impossibility, even if it is elusive to the very limited cognition of mind and the ignorance we descend and involve into, in order to ascend and evolve out of… through the life-process of enlightenment.

Likewise ‘seeking’ enlightenment is not a myth or a falsehood to be avoided - that is itself a falsehood, which btw, is spoken of often by those who in the very next sentence casually toss off the condescending yet oblivious hypocrisy of, “MY GUIDE told me.” Right! They never ask, “what is the qualification of “my guide”? As if enlightenment has nothing to do with it. Like climate change (or genuine masters), it’s an 'inconvenient truth', because the implication is a daunting challenge to complacency (and the arrogance that justifies it).

'Seeking' is nothing but the propitious emergence of Spirit in the physical - the intuitive self-reflexive self-conscious awareness of that emergence of Spirit, and significantly, the deliberate surrender to it. And if responded to consciously, it is an unfathomable opportunity available to human beings, who typically polarized in mental limitations reject the possibility by the very definitions demanded and expected by the mind’s own limitations - a vicious (or deceptively complacent) circle of mind self-identifying with the concrete lower-self. That’s where all the self-doubting, self-abnegating, self-abrogating mocking, facile rejection, and bashing of ‘spiritual’ and ‘spirituality’ comes from (not to mention the silly constant reliance on physics metaphors as reasoned justification) - not the intuitively emerging Higher Self as spiritual aspiration which is rarefied, and indeterminant in the nascent stages….and why faith and devotion as cheerful perseverance is such a fortuitous expedient.

Enlightenment is real.
It is a practical reality.
It is essentially the ONLY reality.
It is the meaning and purpose of life.
By virtue of the blessing of human incarnation, we already belong to that society...
...but membership has to be fully realized, not doubted or cleverly denied.

~ J

Absolutely brilliant.

Do wish you'd drop by more often Jyotir.


.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

In my formative years a wise man said to me "Take what resonates with you as your own, leave the rest behind because it is not yours."

That's how Buddhist Dhamma teaching is delivered. Don't accept anything. If it makes sense and adds up then it's probably valid, but we don't believe anything unless we discover it directly. For example I can say 'everything is changing' and you directly see that it is.

This is always something I've done, and even as people leave their replies there are the ones that simply don't resonate. For me personally Spirituality has always been experiential rather than theoretical and if the practice and the theory don't work together it's not much use to me.

Zakly

Lao Tzu said it best; "The Tao that can be told is not the Eternal Tao." It's even beyond the finger that points to the moon, and I'd echo the words you're using too. My mother used to say "Empty barrels make the most noise." It's taken a long time but I'm at peace with myself and everything around me and often that's reflected back, there is a peace beyond understanding or at least my need to understand it. It certainly feels a lot lighter.

It's been said that religion is for those that are afraid of going to hell and Spirituality is for those that have been there. Perhaps where it becomes a little disjointed is when Spirituality is for those that are afraid of going to hell. Definitions creating reality aside.

Basically, if one identifies as spiritual they will promote spirituality, or if identified as Christian, promote Christianity, but I am a living human being, and I didn't even have to make that up!!! teehee.

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Considering what I've read in these forums and other sources about what Spirit is or isn't there's no reason why I, you or anyone else alive today couldn't be besties with Buddha in Spirit. Apparently, ultimately there is no self and we all have access to the collective consciousness, Akashic Records. etc.... so we are all that we hold dear in our Spirituality - or do we forget all of that to call ourselves Spiritual? And in the context of Samahdi who/what is this self that wants to be/is enlightened but the false self?

God made man, man made religion and that includes Spirituality.

With respect, this sounds like a conflation of read spiritual theories.

Enlightenment is not a myth, nor is it "whatever" we want to say it is, even though that theory might be more comforting for the self. What is true, IMO, is that it contains many a paradox. i.e. enlightenment - who is enlightened? That one is to be answered through one's practice - anything else is, ultimately, dissatisfying (although I note some people on the non-dual forum like to imagine that saying there is nothing to do, means for them, that no work is required except to trick the conceptual mind into thinking "this is it! Just don't think otherwise".).

Take care.

Originally Posted by Gem

That's how Buddhist Dhamma teaching is delivered. Don't accept anything. If it makes sense and adds up then it's probably valid, but we don't believe anything unless we discover it directly. For example I can say 'everything is changing' and you directly see that it is.

I was reading a piece about constructive vs non-constructive beliefs, and I suppose you could include destructive ones as well. Constructive beliefs 'stand the test' and don't crumble at the hint of a challenge while non-constructive ones do. I often wonder how many harbour non-constructive beliefs and the reasons.

Originally Posted by Gem

Zakly

Discernment is something we can all practice and I wonder how different these boards would be if they did?

Originally Posted by Gem

Basically, if one identifies as spiritual they will promote spirituality, or if identified as Christian, promote Christianity, but I am a living human being, and I didn't even have to make that up!!! teehee.

I often wonder how enlightened people really are and if they listen to themselves; if they are a 'Spiritual person' what are they saying? Yeah I know it's good grammar but it still puts the Spiritual first - or more correctly their definitions of Spiritual. Words create worlds.

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

With respect, this sounds like a conflation of read spiritual theories.

Enlightenment is not a myth, nor is it "whatever" we want to say it is, even though that theory might be more comforting for the self. What is true, IMO, is that it contains many a paradox. i.e. enlightenment - who is enlightened? That one is to be answered through one's practice - anything else is, ultimately, dissatisfying (although I note some people on the non-dual forum like to imagine that saying there is nothing to do, means for them, that no work is required except to trick the conceptual mind into thinking "this is it! Just don't think otherwise".

Take care.

The question for me is not whether I am enlightened or not but what I am enlightened to. I know how my brains is wired (like spaghetti lol) and how that affects my Spirituality, and it's the same for everyone so if I am that self aware? That's something I never see conversations on in the forum - How does my thought processes affect my Spirituality? You're right, it is a mish-mash of theories but isn't that what Spirituality is? It even uses science for its own, notably vibrations and does it very badly too. But all those theories have a bearing on the way I think, and if this contradicts that and something else makes a nonsense of it all what kind of Spirituality is that? If it only works when put in a glass case and protected it's not much use to me.

All of those theories are related and affect each other.

I don't worry too much about paradoxes, if those opposites exist then who am I to say otherwise, that they shouldn't? Telling myself I'm enlightened doesn't do much for me but asking myself what I'm enlightened to and the reasons I'm using that word tells me more than plenty. And it's always in the back of my mind; I'm not enlightened as to what I'm not enlightened to and that's the modesty-maker.

[Jyotir]

Hi Greenslade,

For your consideration:

Originally Posted by Greenslade

God made man, man made religion and that includes Spirituality.

First part true.
Second part conditionally qualified by the first part.
Third part false, or also conditionally true, but that's not the whole comprehensive truth of it.

Rather, it is spirituality that is inclusive of religion.

It just appears that spirituality 'comes out of' religion because for many and especially recently, religion has been a common and highly visible vehicle for human evolution, but that is changing...

God created and IS everything (including man).
Spirituality is the general ongoing process of enlightenment e.g., the evolution of/in the dynamic multiplicity REALIZING that all is God.

Life is the general process and the possibility of enlightenment beginning from ignorance and inconscience.
Human life is the potential for the inevitability of that realization, precisely because of the conscious deliberate approach by an intelligent will intrinsic to human life.
Therefore, Spirituality is God realizing Self, eventually in and through the human life.

Religion (which was at one time a radical departure in its own right) is a collective human institution which is a specific subsidiary form of Spirituality. In its various forms, it is a ‘stepping stone’ that has been a useful expedient to that evolutionary process during humanity’s infancy (which btw is largely over).
Accordingly…

Awakened individuals, i.e., now self-consciously aware of the Spiritual potential available within themselves,
are increasingly required to explore newer, more conscious, more deliberate forms of Spirituality in decentralized personal ways - self-initiated and intuitively directed - rather than assent by default to the imposition of external, uniform, conventional structures of ‘traditional’ religion, mostly inherited by region, family, tribe, nationality, etc., which will gradually diminish as a viable expedient as human beings evolve, and the culture 'globalizes'.

But still and all, spirituality is ever the general process of revelation and realization of true self-Identity,
especially when consciously and deliberately undertaken by human beings - which may include religion.
It's not an artifact or subset of religion per se, since spirituality precedes and supersedes religion, but religion can, does and has served as a conduit for an emergent spirituality during a phase of human evolution when that becomes conscious, personal and more self-directed.

In the future religion as we know it will not even exist...but spirituality will certainly persist.

~ J