Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Is it possible for the enlightened to become unenlightened ?
Shoshin
No one in particularNowhere Special Veteran
Kia Ora,
Just curious...
Metta Shoshin . 
..
0
Comments
The dogma says no. It might help to answer if I knew what enlightenment was
It's possible for "the enlightened" to become dead, so I guess in that sense yes.
I've read that an upon attaining the 8th Bhumi of the bodhisattva path there is no falling back. I don't know why that is.
Kia Ora,
Isn't enlightenment meant to go beyond physical form ?
Metta Shoshin .
..
@Shoshin You tell me.
I'm assuming by physical you actually mean both mental and physical... because aren't they just two sides of the same coin, like matter and energy (the candle and its flame)? What is it that's "enlightened"?
I just get a weird feeling sometimes that people are inserting something that's non-physical and non-mental to the picture, when these are the only things (body and mind, form and formlessness) that Buddhism talks about existing.
I'm not sure if that's where you're coming from, which is why I ask.
My understanding of enlightenment is that it's the cessation of suffering (and ignorance/craving). Some people seem to have imagined it as a ticket to a permanent bliss-state that continues after death. This seems a lot like "heaven", and though it's something we may desire that doesn't make it so. Entirely understandable why people might think of it that way. I believe enlightenment solves the problem by eliminating the desire/need for immortality... not by fulfilling it.
Indeed.
I can only speak from experience. Minor awakenings, moksha/Rigpa/insight can last for short periods of a few seconds, minutes or hours. In a sense these are the first times of focus, mind quiet and awareness. For me they had aspects of one pointedness, lack of self sense and increased being in the moment with increased awareness.
With longer periods one is able to understand and consolidate the experience. This process is explained in terms of the ox herding pictures/Bhumi levels/book of the dead (understood as levels of inner experience) and so on. This is where the importance of a practice, template and teacher is helpful. Otherwise we end up being crazed, starting religions or otherwise not knowing how or what to do . . . It is at this stage the path begins in earnest in terms of pitfalls and potential . . . The things we have studied, the teachings, all begin to fall into understanding . . .
In Sufism, where this process began for me, the word used is 'remembrance'. The question would be 'can we forget'? The answer is we can in the initial stages be drawn back into samsara or worldly being. We close again. In the more complete stage, the opening is complete, but varies according to ones engagement. We might say wisdom and compassion are self regulatory. At this stage we recognise whether our teacher is one of the 'blind charasmatics'/man charmers if you will or genuine. That is because we are genuine and have integrity. There is no leaving, arriving or returning . . . We have the face of the unborn . . .
Now what?
We begin to know. How to build and steer the raft to the far shore, how to live in Purelands . . How to visit the interior landscapes . . . What fun . . .
http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/web-archive/2012/11/8/you-are-already-enlightened.html
Kia Ora @lobster,
Thanks for the link, I like the following ________:
We Are Already Enlightened
"The Chan tradition does not usually refer to steps or stages. Its central teaching is that we are intrinsically awake; our mind is originally without abiding, fixations, and vexations, and its nature is without divisions and stages. This is the basis of the Chan view of sudden enlightenment. If our mind’s nature were not already free, that would imply we could become enlightened only after we practiced, which is not so. If it’s possible to gain enlightenment, then it’s possible to lose it as well.
Consider a room, which is naturally spacious. However we organize the furniture in the room will not affect its intrinsic spaciousness. We can put up walls to divide the room, but they are temporary. And whether we leave the room clean or cluttered and messy, it won’t affect its natural spaciousness. Mind is also intrinsically spacious. Although we can get caught up in our desires and aversions, our true nature is not affected by those vexations. We are inherently free.
In the Chan tradition, therefore, practice is not about producing enlightenment. You might wonder, “Then what am I doing here, practicing?” Because practice does help clean up the “furniture” in the “room.” By not attaching to your thoughts, you remove the furniture, so to speak. And once your mind is clean, instead of fixating on the chairs, tables, and so on, you see its spaciousness. Then you can let the furniture be or rearrange it any way you want—not for yourself, but for the benefit of others in the room."
Metta Shoshin .
..
if you see 'something', can you unseen 'it'?
same goes with enlightenment
if one 'see' Dhamma (enlightened) once, one can not 'unseen' Dhamma again
No, they don't. Their "consciousness" lives on, and goes through rebirth in a new sentient being. In the Mahayana tradition, that is. Once enlightenment is achieved, it isn't lost.
Exactly. I was going to say the same, myself.
.
@Dakini Birth in a new sentient being would be either suffering or an automatically enlightened sentient being. Where are these? Nirvana is supposed to be the end of the cycle of Samsara. I do not doubt that Mahayana may teach that, but I think it's quite bound up in the human desire for immortality and not in fact.
Well, that's a whole other discussion. This is a Buddhist board, so I'm just responding from the perspective of the tradition I'm familiar with.
Enlightened beings have a choice whether to seek rebirth or not. And Nirvana can be here and now, in our sentient bodies, during this lifetime. It doesn't necessarily mean going to some heaven somewhere, and abiding there. If an Enlightened being were to be reborn in a new sentient body, yes, that being would be enlightened, it wouldn't mean suffering. Or what would appear to us to be suffering as outside observers wouldn't be experienced as suffering by the Enlightened being.
Where are they? All around. Harry Belafonte is one of my favorite examples. He's devoted himself to ending suffering for marginalized peoples for a good deal of his life. But there are those who haven't achieved any fame, and are quietly toiling to alleviate suffering in myriad forms; this would be health workers, psychologists, human rights workers, etc.
Dharmakaya radiates to Buddhas in the sentient world. These beings can only be seen as NIrmanakaya even by those open to the dharma. To see them as Sambhogakaya one must be a Bodhisattva. The fourth kaya is the union of all of these. See wikipedia.
Dhammapada 154: ...for my mortal mind is gone to the joy of the immortal nirvana.
My understanding is that if nirvana is immortal than no, you can't go back. Though I'd probably be better off trying to get there than trying to understand this.
An Enlightened person can become un-enlightened in exactly the same way as an egg can be put back into an intact shell.
Maybe it's just that when we think we have it all wrapped up, we can no longer see it unfolding... Kind of how if we think we have reached the end of the path, we no longer walk it.
I don't think we will be able to bring our self to go back to sleep if we ever wake up completely... From what I can make out, reality cannot be compared to any dream.
Listen to the backwards portion of this clip.
Did it sound like anything or just nonsense sounds?
Now listen to it again and listen for the secret message,
"It's fun to smoke marijuana"
Is it possible to listen to that backwards again without hearing the message?
The Buddhist understanding is that once our ignorance has been lifted there is no basis for misunderstanding to arise again.
My thought on this kind of guess work is this.
If mind is unborn and undying, and no beginning can be established, then we can assume that we are part of an unending stream of incarnations. Does that mean that I am the pinnacle of attainment in an unbroken chain of beings that has no beginning? I sure hope that is not the case. It doesn't bode well for the next million or so incarnations.
If being is eternal in both directions, I'm thinking that ignorance and awakening occur in cycles perhaps many Kalpas long.
The belief of the Yaqui sorcerer Don Juan, while unclear, seemed to be an assumption that when this world system, which I take to mean the universe as we know it, ends, all attainment ends with it.
Wild speculation for sure, but it makes some kind of sense to me.
Only if first enlightenment was a fake one.
Kia Ora,
Or a dummy run....
Metta Shoshin .
..
@federica said:
That is a useful metaphor. Nothing changes.
An egg does not become an egg because we decorate it with words saying, 'egg'. An egg is already complete.
Once out of the shell, we can have chickens, omelettes and all manner of expression. The problem is people want to know about whether they are scrambled, fried or a chick. In reality they have not realised they are just an egg . . .
And now back to the clutch. :wave: .
Off the bat I don't see how that could happen.
It would be like a de-volution, as opposed to evolution. Can homo sapiens turn into homo habilis? It seems like the enlightened are transformed not just someone with a requisite additional bobble or 'ability'.
Yeah, just logically, it seems like it's one of those things that can't go backwards.
>
>
Once out of the shell, we can have chickens, omelettes and all manner of expression. The problem is people want to know about whether they are scrambled, fried or a chick. In reality they have not realised they are just an egg . . .
You seem to misunderstand the metaphor.
Party pooper.
@SpinyNorman It doesn't bum me out at all; it's liberating.
I'm sorry if I've harshed anyone's mellow!
Yes possible....I'm the example
:eek2:
Kia Ora,
Perhaps not, but I've met some real neanderthals .
..
Metta Shoshin .
..
No.
Enlightened being are those who have achieved realization of emptiness. Understanding emptiness help us let go of ego. If you don't have ego, you can't produce karma. If you don't produce karma, you can't fall back into samsara. Unless there are many level of enlightenment, I don't understand how is it possible to achieve enlightenment without the realization of emptiness first.
Above is just my understanding. I don't belong to any form of Buddhism. I just read few books of Vajrayana Buddhism. If anyone know better, please correct me.
Yes but there are stages I imagine. A little let go a little benefit. A lot let go a lot of benefit.
Re: the neanderthals . . . exactly what popped into my head when I wrote that line.
It made me think of those Russian kachina dolls, where Neanderthalensis and Habilis are littler dolls within a bigger Sapiens doll. Within us is our lesser mean, and it can express parts or bits of itself but not really, because it has been transformed by its successor.
This too makes me think of 'stream enterers' and 'once returners' et all, the so called stages of enlightenment. Supposedly stream enterers are incapable of some of the more grossly unskillful human behaviors, and once returners incapable of even more unskillful behaviors.
Like if you were in a grocery store, in a long line behind a lady with 56 coupons, a 'natural' person still steeped in their own subjectivity might complain or even confront and make a scene. Could you do that? Try it sometime. Try and be extremely selfish and nasty when a good opportunity comes up
. Yeah, you'd probably throw up! Go stomp on some baby birds that fell out of the nest. I didn't think you could.
So this is what I'm thinking when I conclude a 'truly enlightened' person couldn't go backward.
PS just writing that about the birds has made me sick but it's such a great example, I don't mean it to disturb anyone
.
I cant imagine stamping on baby birds..but objecting firmly and politely when someone holds up a queue by arguing endlessly about her discount tokens...yes I have done that and would do it again.
If that qualifies me as a 'natural person' whatever that means, ' steeped in my own subjectivity ' then so be it.
We are not required to become automatons.
Not stomping on baby birds is just basic humane behaviour, which normally starts in humans after the tantrum toddler stage . . .
Q: How do we know there is a Buddha at the check out?
A: They always have the right change.
Sorry could not resist.