|
Post by roberto on Dec 28, 2010 2:07:34 GMT -5
What is the difference between self realisation and enlightenment? My teacher has explained it in two stages: Self realisation: absence of ego, self God realisation: Union with the Divine (Enlightenment) Can anyone add to this?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2010 2:45:13 GMT -5
I've always used the terms interchangeably, and I've always heard them used that way until now. The Self IS the Divine. There isn't any union going on since, as you say, there is no ego/self to unite with anything. There isn't actually 'a Self' either.
|
|
|
Post by further on Dec 28, 2010 2:46:34 GMT -5
Ha, after watching spirituality market for a few years, I found the more laughable question to ask first is: who is enlightened? - not what is enlightenment. So many claimants out there, but you dunno who actually are.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2010 3:00:54 GMT -5
Well, nobody is, and it's pretty hard to detect an absence. If there's somebody making a claim, it's already pretty suspect.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 28, 2010 12:11:48 GMT -5
Yep, Carol and I were talking about this last night. She asked, "Do you see any difference between someone, like Ramana, who walked around Arunachula in silence a great deal and someone (by which she meant me) who trades stocks and lives a conventional life?" I said, "Yes." She said, "Okay, what's the difference?" I laughed and said, "Ramana walked around Arunachula in silence all day and I trade stocks and live a conventional life." She laughed and then said, "Well, Ramana said that a Bodhisattva's most important job is to save people." I replied, "I don't think Ramana said that, but if he did, don't get attached to those words. It's just another idea to get rid of. Enlightenment is about seeing the actual, knowing the difference between the imaginary and the actual, and being clear about what has to be done moment to moment. Besides, there is no one who needs to be saved or can be saved because there is no one here. Ramana knew that he had to stay on Arunachula. I know that I have to be sitting here talking to you. Tomorrow I may trade stocks, or drive to another city on a construction job, or do a thousand other things, but what will actually happen tomorow remains unknown and unknowable until then. I have no idea right now what I will need to be doing one minute from now, but one minute from now I'll know. Tomorrow I will also know. Things are much simpler than can be imagined. What IS happening is what MUST be happening; all else is imagination."
Carol then said, "Until someone discovers the truth is it fair to say that it is frustrating?" I said, "It is only frustrating for people who aren't satisfied with whatever is happening. If someone who has never heard about non-duality is satisfied with life, then there is no problem. They do whatever they have to do, and they live in a dreamlike state centered on satisfying self-centered desires. The only problems they encounter are problems involving satisfying their imaginary needs and desires. A different kind of problem arises when someone becomes dissatisfied with having a dualistic perspective and wants to attain a non-dualistic perspective. This kind of person has a HUGE problem because the person who is trying to get rid of selfhood and a dualistic perspective doesn't exist."
Carol said, "So, what do you tell someone like that?" I said, "I tell them that when they are totally involved in some activity, there is no reflection and selfhood is absent. I tell them to shift attention from thoughts to what they can see or hear. When they attend the actual, selfhood is absent in the same way as when they are 100% involved in some activity. Selfhood only appears when the mind reflects and a person imagines separateness. In fact, there is no separateness of any kind. There is no one who can become enlightened, or become unified with God, or do anything. That is the illusion. There is only oneness here and its not even oneness; it is beyond even the idea of oneness. That which is sitting here now is talking to Itself. There are not two people here; there is only This."
Carol said, "Well, I need to find a non-duality website where you're not present." I thought to myself, "That's going to be very hard to do." Ha ha. She said, "I mean, I live with you and hear this stuff all the time. I need to find someone who can say it in such a way that it resonates with me better." I agreed with her.
Life is very funny sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Dec 28, 2010 13:40:03 GMT -5
Thanks for sharing ZD. I enjoyed it.
Yes I guess it is difficult when you live with someone so long to have things resonate as non duality. One thing I know for sure you can never talk a person into knowing what you mean by no person exist, only this moment is real and nothing else etc etc. Everyone has to have the experience to make this real for them. The unfortunate thing is most seekers think if they just read the right book that somehow magically this will give them the experience needed hence you see so many books in this marketplace. The truth is it's only by grace of a certain kind that bestows this experience onto a person. It simply happens or does not happen.
Michael
|
|
|
Post by frankshank on Dec 28, 2010 15:03:22 GMT -5
There may be causal factors. It's impossible to know.
|
|
|
Post by vacant on Dec 28, 2010 15:32:22 GMT -5
ZD, entertaining post! Thanx. Along the lines of Michael's reply but other words: I kinda think Carol is right, she might need to hear another voice than the one she has become so accustomed and “immune” to. Maybe that’s one good reason to keep internet identity hidden… and it makes me wonder if there’s good mileage in staying poker faced and playing expected roles just with kind intention rather than dragging loved ones on that wretched seekers trap, hi-hi, all being well this way or another.
Also the saying goes that none is ever prophet in his land.
Although the subject that is really the leitmotiv of this forum is truly (sadly?) the only topic of communication I am really interested in, I come to only approach it with the wife on her terms when she wants to go there in trust —amply confirmed— that thorough communication happens in many mysterious ways, and between the lines of whatever happens to be discussed (or not). It just cannot be helped!
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Dec 28, 2010 17:29:15 GMT -5
If one is worried/afraid of not being enlightened or one believes to be enlightened, sooner or later one will have to fight with one's enlightenment.
|
|
|
Post by peanut on Dec 28, 2010 19:18:49 GMT -5
Thanks ZD...great post! It is so interesting how some people never hear about non-duality and just live their lives while others turn to forums like this..... a mystery....
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2010 22:45:49 GMT -5
"Carol said, "Well, I need to find a non-duality website where you're not present." I thought to myself, "That's going to be very hard to do." Ha ha. She said, "I mean, I live with you and hear this stuff all the time. I need to find someone who can say it in such a way that it resonates with me better." I agreed with her.
Life is very funny sometimes."
Well, send her my way and we'll chat about subjects and objects. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by wynn on Dec 29, 2010 9:04:26 GMT -5
"What IS happening is what MUST be happening; all else is imagination."
To me MUST seems to imply an absence of free will. The book is written as we go along, no?
But I do realize that This is all there is, that each moment is exactly as it should be. But like a seed, which holds the blueprint, however its ultimate future is unknown, subject to the unfolding conditions that surround it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 29, 2010 10:54:06 GMT -5
Free will implies separation.
|
|
|
Post by wynn on Dec 29, 2010 11:18:14 GMT -5
Free will implies separation. So there is not infinite possibilities?
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Dec 29, 2010 11:27:33 GMT -5
Yes I hear what you are saying. I will only add that you wrote this "however its ultimate future is unknown, subject to the unfolding conditions that surround it. " Now why cannot these conditions be fulfilled without free will. I do not see why free will needs to enter the picture to have things unknown? Michael "What IS happening is what MUST be happening; all else is imagination." To me MUST seems to imply an absence of free will. The book is written as we go along, no? But I do realize that This is all there is, that each moment is exactly as it should be. But like a seed, which holds the blueprint, however its ultimate future is unknown, subject to the unfolding conditions that surround it.
|
|