Is there a society for enlightened people?

Originally Posted by Gem

On the other hand, Gotama the Buddha taught discernment and skepticism.

I don't think he said to doubt everything, he said to question it.


.

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Buddha himself said that if you meet a guru in the street you should kill him, and you should question everything. I'm a sceptic and I like to understand what I'm buying into because there are so many contradicting beliefs/truths 'out there', and the truth is relative to one's perspective. And yes, it is about Gnosis.

An out of context quote, and not said by Buddha, but it is a Zen Koan intended for students to work through with a Zen teacher. Buddha was actually very specific in what he taught -- hence the Four Noble Truths.

In the Kalama Sutra, Buddha did teach to not believe until 'one knows for themself' so I would say he was all for inquiry and practice, not belief. i.e. he wanted people to move beyond beliefs and to know Truth for themself. Esp. as you say, there are so many concepts/truths/theories/beliefs. The funny thing about meditation is its a bit of a belief/thought equalizer, once you get the hang of it hehe

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Kioma

I don't think he said to doubt everything, he said to question it.


.

Oh well the semantics might be better said one way than another, but the basic message was, don't take anything in blind faith, accept it as you have the insight into it.

Originally Posted by Gem

Oh well the semantics might be better said one way than another, but the basic message was, don't take anything in blind faith, accept it as you have the insight into it.

Sorry to be nitpicky, but cynicism is such a popular thing now, and I really don't think that's what the Buddha had in mind.

Thank you for the clarification. I like it much better.


.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Kioma

Sorry to be nitpicky, but cynicism is such a popular thing now, and I really don't think that's what the Buddha had in mind.

Thank you for the clarification. I like it much better.


.

No, of course Gotama simply saw the value in not believing things because he said them, and taking things to be true based on the authority of religion, guru hood, or some other form of influence. Then each one has to actually inquire to see if what is said represents what is true. So the meditation was called 'insight' to indicate its purpose of revealing the deeper nature of things, and through such realisation, be elucidated, as opposed to 'educated'.

Originally Posted by Gem

No, of course Gotama simply saw the value in not believing things because he said them, and taking things to be true based on the authority of religion, guru hood, or some other form of influence. Then each one has to actually inquire to see if what is said represents what is true. So the meditation was called 'insight' to indicate its purpose of revealing the deeper nature of things, and through such realisation, be elucidated, as opposed to 'educated'.

Agreed.


.

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

An out of context quote, and not said by Buddha, but it is a Zen Koan intended for students to work through with a Zen teacher. Buddha was actually very specific in what he taught -- hence the Four Noble Truths.

In the Kalama Sutra, Buddha did teach to not believe until 'one knows for themself' so I would say he was all for inquiry and practice, not belief. i.e. he wanted people to move beyond beliefs and to know Truth for themself. Esp. as you say, there are so many concepts/truths/theories/beliefs. The funny thing about meditation is its a bit of a belief/thought equalizer, once you get the hang of it hehe

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.

Originally Posted by Gem

On the other hand, Gotama the Buddha taught discernment and skepticism.

Thank you. I tend to pick up 'snippets' here and there, and it's hard to keep track of who said what. On the other hand, others have said something similar.

Perhaps one day Spiritual people will be Spiritual enough to cross that divide they're continually perpetuating, the one they say doesn't exist. When internal and external are the same place, what then I wonder?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Thank you. I tend to pick up 'snippets' here and there, and it's hard to keep track of who said what. On the other hand, others have said something similar.

Perhaps one day Spiritual people will be Spiritual enough to cross that divide they're continually perpetuating, the one they say doesn't exist. When internal and external are the same place, what then I wonder?

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'.

[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