direct path to enligthement

[Hendrik]

I got a question for you guys.

How would you personally define enlightenment and could you personally recognize an enlightened person if you met one?

IMHO,

As it said in the song of enligtenment, it says


净五根　得五力　唯证乃知难可测
镜里看形见不难　水中捉月怎拈得


Clean up the five root, then one attain the five power.
when one attain it one will know; otherwise it is very hard to examine what is it.

(analogous to) one can easily see shapes within the mirror
However, how can one scope up the moon within the water?



So, clean up the five root, attain the five power. then one knows. one will see it as as easy as seeing shapes /form within the mirror.

Speculating and trying to define it , is similar to trying to scope up moon within the water.


Enligthenment is an non dual phenomenon not a mental concept or speculation or thought or some state one tries to achive.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi dirtyrat,

It is unlikely anyone could recognize a truly enlightened person just by looking at them. You would need to observe them and know what you are looking for. They would not necessarily behave as one would expect because expectation is a reflection of attachment to forms. So for example, you couldn’t actually say, “That person is NOT enlightened because they don’t act like an enlightened person should!” The error here is in what you have brought to the equation, “your own expectations” which is your attachment to how you THINK an enlightened person SHOULD behave!

These individuals do not feel the need to play by specific rules of conduct because they are beyond fixed rules, yet that does not mean they wouldn’t behave according to fixed rules either. It means they are beyond attachment to fixed rules, therefore you cannot accurately define what their behavior will be, much less SHOULD be! And yes, this is discussed by some acknowledged masters. Many of them are Taoists, by the way.

There are plenty of odd behaving Ch'an people though too.

Enlightenment is the direct experience of THUSSNESS without conceptualization or attachment. It is clearly defined as this within Ch'an treatises and many Mahayana Sutras and yet it is not this either, because it cannot really be described.

What hendrik is mostly trying to get at here though is that knowing the description of it is not the same thing and actually DOING it, so to speak. I say, "so to speak" because the experience cannot be effectively communicated or described. At best one can only say what it is "like"!

For example: you can describe to me the taste of an orange, but that really doesn't tell me anything about it really. The description is NOTHING like the actual taste. At best your description can help me recognize that "THIS IS IT" when I actually taste one for myself. The problem is, your description may not be very accurate, or I may misunderstand what you are saying, so that what I THINK is an orange may actually be a grapefruit or other citrus fruit.

So at best the teachings, which are the same as the description of an orange, are a finger pointing the way, they are not the thing itself.

This is primarily what hendrik is being critical of concerning what I have written. The question is, do I only have an understanding of the description, or do I really know what I am talking about from direct experience. Have I actually TASTED an orange? Someone can sound smart and clever because he is an expert on what others have written about oranges, or he can be an expert on the taste of an orange because he has actually tasted one.

His error is that he has no way to know for sure. He is presuming because what I say is opposed to what he thinks he knows. He apparently does not recognize his own ego involvement in his judgment and has become preoccupied with what he THINKS is my ego involvement. Only I know what I have directly experienced or not, and I won't say!

Another problem is that, on the one hand, you can have someone who is very eloquent and learned concerning his knowledge of what others have written about oranges, and another who is not very articulate, but who has actually tasted an orange. The first one SOUNDS like an expert on the taste of oranges, but he is not, he is only an expert on what others have written about oranges. The second person has direct knowledge of the taste of an orange, but because of his lack of ability cannot communicate the experience very effectively.

This situation is very similar to an elite athlete who cannot coach worth a darn and a coach who was only a so-so player, but coaches winning teams.

The question then becomes, if you cannot distinguish between who has had the direct experience and who hasn’t, who does one listen too?

There is no easy answer to this. Even fools speak wisdom, even if they do not understand what they are saying!

I asked myself this same question many many years ago when I first became interested in these things. I found it best to not throw anything out, but to hold much of it in abeyance until I could investigate it for myself. I learned to my trust my intuition, time and maturity to sort it all out for me. I have found, over time, that some things I thought were very wise 30 years ago are rubbish today, and other things I thought were foolish 30 years ago were actually very true!

[Scott R. Brown]

Your reaction and speculation are accepted even though it doesnt answer the questions but turn into a personal You You me me reaction

And what question have you answered? I forget!

You are the one who has turned it int a You/Me reaction! I am merely responding to you!

Is there a master, a You, a me, within the Non Dual?

There is and there isn't!

As Nagarjuna said, "It is not this, not that, not both, and not neither!"

[Scott R. Brown]

Enligthenment is an non dual phenomenon not a mental concept or speculation or thought or some state one tries to achive.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I said that!

How about, "try not to speculate that I am merely speculating", try that ,will you?

[Scott R. Brown]

Well, can one do it? if yes, then what are those? can one evoke it at will? can one evoke and disolve it at any instant?

I did not answer your question the way you wanted, because your questions are unintelligible!

Neither have you answered my question. Please resolve the discrepancy between what Hui-Neng said specifically, and what one of his followers said tangentially?

I will try to answer your question, even though you haven't answered mine, as soon as you can ask it in an understandable manner.

[Hendrik]

And what question have you answered? I forget!

You are the one who has turned it int a You/Me reaction! I am merely responding to you!



There is and there isn't!

As Nagarjuna said, "It is not this, not that, not both, and not neither!"

A parrot tries to mimic human.

[Hendrik]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I said that!

How about, "try not to speculate that I am merely speculating", try that ,will you?

Here comes the ego.

[Hendrik]

Originally Posted by Hendrik View Post
Well, can one do it? if yes, then what are those? can one evoke it at will? can one evoke and disolve it at any instant?

I did not answer your question the way you wanted, because your questions are unintelligible!

Neither have you answered my question. Please resolve the discrepancy between what Hui-Neng said specifically, and what one of his followers said tangentially?

I will try to answer your question, even though you haven't answered mine, as soon as you can ask it in an understandable manner.

Is ONE means you?

Like a fish you take the bait volunteer-ly and fall into delusion.

[Scott R. Brown]

A parrot tries to mimic human.

Here comes the ego.

Uh huh! I understand now!

You cannot answer any questions, but you can pose questions!

You try to sound enigmatic by posting nonsensical comments and quotes without commentary demonstrating any understanding of what the quotes mean.

You become preoccupied with what you think are speculations, yet do not recognize your own speculation.

You become inordinately concerned with my ego, but cannot face it is a manifestation of your own ego.

And when you are responded to with reason you resort to ridicule, which demonstrates your understanding of what?

[Scott R. Brown]

Is ONE means you?

Wow!! Another enigmatic question that asks nothing!

Like a fish you take the bait volunteer-ly and fall into delusion.

Your preoccupation with speculations concerning me reflects your own delusion!

[uki]

I got a question for you guys. How would you personally define enlightenment and could you personally recognize an enlightened person if you met one?

unlike what scott has said... i believe you could look into ones eyes and directly know right away if they had an understanding of the way... other sure signs would be a most profound understanding of seemingly everything and anything placed before them. they might appear extremely arrogant due to their utterly honest and sincere presence... they are not push overs, nor do they fear things - they are undaunted and determined, aloof, seemingly oblivious, and most likely called a fool by those with anything less than the most basic comprehension of the most simplest of things.

[Hendrik]

His error is that he has no way to know for sure. He is presuming because what I say is opposed to what he thinks he knows.

True know doesnt need to think. thus, there is no presuming problem.

Only I know what I have directly experienced or not, and I won't say!

reside in Duality again.

[Hendrik]

Uh huh! I understand now!

You cannot answer any questions, but you can pose questions!

You try to sound enigmatic by posting nonsensical comments and quotes without commentary demonstrating any understanding of what the quotes mean.

You become preoccupied with what you think are speculations, yet do not recognize your own speculation.

You become inordinately concerned with my ego, but cannot face it is a manifestation of your own ego.

And when you are responded to with reason you resort to ridicule, which demonstrates your understanding of what?

More ego coming.

[uki]

More ego coming.

you are attached to judgement aren't you?

[Scott R. Brown]

unlike what scott has said... i believe you could look into ones eyes and directly know right away if they had an understanding of the way... other sure signs would be a most profound understanding of seemingly everything and anything placed before them. they might appear extremely arrogant due to their utterly honest and sincere presence... they are not push overs, nor do they fear things - they are undaunted and determined, aloof, seemingly oblivious, and most likely called a fool by those with anything less than the most basic comprehension of the most simplest of things.

I suppose this may be possible, but then Charles Manson's followers thought he had that special something in his eyes too.

And he did......

it is called psychosis!

So, as with all things.....buyer beware!