Can someone become enlightened through meditation?

[Andrea Bianca]

Can someone become permanently enlightened through meditation? Like Buddha did? 

[bambi]

3 minutes ago, Andrea Bianca said:

Can someone become permanently enlightened through meditation? Like Buddha did? 

I would say thats how most people are getting enlightened lol, seems like a wierd or loaded question

[Sugarcoat]

Is there any example of someone becoming permanently enlightened from practice except Buddha?

 

[Osaid]

It can definitely aid. And I think it could be possible. But it is tricky to define what causes it in the way that you are trying to do. The way I see it mostly happen is after some sort of inquiry or questioning. Perhaps meditation helps you get closer to that. 

I had a spontaneous desire to just meditate for a few days because I became fascinated with watching my thoughts. I went back to normal self-inquiry afterwards though. Self-inquiry in tandem is what really does it IMO. 

Meditation can create a natural disillusionment. Because if you do it long enough, it's like "woah I haven't had anxiety for like an hour now, what's going on, maybe my thoughts are actually illusory!"

[Sugarcoat]

33 minutes ago, Osaid said:

Self-inquiry in tandem is what really does it IMO. 

On Wikipedia it says:

“Self-enquiry, also spelled self-inquiry(Sanskrit vichara, also called jnana-vichara[1]or ātma-vichār), is the constant attention to the inner awareness of "I" or "I am" recommended by Ramana Maharshi as the most efficient and direct way of discovering the unreality of the "I"-thought.”

when you say self inquiry do you mean this placing of attention on the “I “ sense or do you mean more of a questioning like asking yourself “who am I” “what am I” etc or maybe both? 

[UnbornTao]

Nothing you can do can produce it since the absolute isn't a process nor relative. It's a matter of directly grasping your nature as it is now. Paradoxically, focusing, questioning, paying attention to how you hold yourself—aka contemplation—help focus the mind, until a breakthrough suddenly arises on its own. Meditation can assist in various relative things such as controlling your mind, healing, relaxing, etc.

It's a bit like asking: What can I do within a dream in order to wake up from it? Everywhere you look is part of the dream, and waking up from it is its own sudden "act" with no discernible factors behind it, unless your mind makes them up, but they wouldn't be true either.

So, self-inquiry is recommended. Even though no practice can produce it, without the practice, intention, and work, enlightenment won't fall on your ass.

Edited July 31 by UnbornTao

[Osaid]

7 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

when you say self inquiry do you mean this placing of attention on the “I “ sense or do you mean more of a questioning like asking yourself “who am I” “what am I” etc or maybe both? 

Both are good. Any effort to observe self-referential thoughts I would place in the realm of "self-inquiry." 

Ramana's is a more meditative approach, in the sense that you simply hold a thought or question without any further expectation. He also advises to ask "to whom is this thought occurring?" whenever a thought occurs, in order to return back to the current sense of awareness which he defines as the sense of "I". This question severs the subject-object relation to the thought by making you realize that you are presently watching the thought and that you aren't in the thought. If you ask the question you must say "me", which brings you to the singular watcher in the present moment which he calls the sense of "I".

[Sugarcoat]

42 minutes ago, Osaid said:

Both are good. Any effort to observe self-referential thoughts I would place in the realm of "self-inquiry." 

Ramana's is a more meditative approach, in the sense that you simply hold a thought or question without any further expectation. He also advises to ask "to whom is this thought occurring?" whenever a thought occurs, in order to return back to the current sense of awareness which he defines as the sense of "I". This question severs the subject-object relation to the thought by making you realize that you are presently watching the thought and that you aren't in the thought. If you ask the question you must say "me", which brings you to the singular watcher in the present moment which he calls the sense of "I".

May I ask what a self referential thought is? I’ve heard it before. It means any thought referring to an I or? So could be anything like “I like ice cream”

 

[Osaid]

26 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

May I ask what a self referential thought is? I’ve heard it before. It means any thought referring to an I or? So could be anything like “I like ice cream”

Yes. It's the separate entity which claims perception.

"I saw that" >>> Who saw it? Who is separate from seeing that can see things? 

"I am thinking" >>> Who is thinking? Who is separate from thoughts that is thinking?

When you look at your other senses, it is obvious that there is no separation. We only become confused with our ability to think. This is what must be examined.

For example, you can't see the one who is seeing, since that would be more seeing. There is no separate entity needed to see. But the belief in the separate self is that there is someone separate from thinking who is thinking, and that this separate entity is also experiencing all the other perceptions.

Edited July 30 by Osaid

[Leo Gura]

Sure

[Sugarcoat]

2 minutes ago, Osaid said:

Yes. It's the separate entity which claims perception.

"I saw that" >>> Who saw it? Who is separate from seeing that can see things? 

"I am thinking" >>> Who is thinking? Who is separate from thoughts that is thinking?

When you look at your other senses, it is obvious that there is no separation. We only become confused with our ability to think. This is what must be examined.

For example, you can't see the one who is seeing, since that would be more seeing. There is no separate entity needed to see. But the belief in the separate self is that there is someone separate from thinking who is thinking, and that this separate entity is also experiencing all the other perceptions.

 

Ok I see. Since I am aware of thoughts it seems I am separate from them, in the same way with seeing , anything I’m aware of can’t be me, experientially. I don’t feel like I am my hand because I am aware of my hand it’s an object in my awareness like thoughts. But now that I think about it with thoughts it’s a bit different than the rest as you say, it seems I can imagine myself so in some way I feel I am in the thoughts. So it’s like both, I’m aware ~of~ thoughts so separate from them, but simultaneously it can seem I am in the thought. Or maybe my experience is unique or I’m not able to describe it the best 

[BlueOak]

24 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Ok I see. Since I am aware of thoughts it seems I am separate from them, in the same way with seeing , anything I’m aware of can’t be me, experientially. I don’t feel like I am my hand because I am aware of my hand it’s an object in my awareness like thoughts. But now that I think about it with thoughts it’s a bit different than the rest as you say, it seems I can imagine myself so in some way I feel I am in the thoughts. So it’s like both, I’m aware ~of~ thoughts so separate from them, but simultaneously it can seem I am in the thought. Or maybe my experience is unique or I’m not able to describe it the best 

That was pretty good.

Next:
You are not anywhere, so you cannot be separated or divided.
Every moment/thing/pattern is unique aka infinity.

You are realising here:
I’m aware ~of~ thoughts so separate from them, but simultaneously it can seem I am in the thought.

This is true of all things. You are in them and out of them, watching them and experiencing them. There is no difference. These are just labels you are giving things to make logical sense of it in a reality you view as a sequence of events, or experiences.

All that exists is the experience happening, that's it. There is no you. No timeline. No separation. No distance.

Edited July 30 by BlueOak

[Osaid]

2 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

anything I’m aware of can’t be me, experientially

Yes.

There is no such thing as being aware of something that is aware. It's a recursion.

This is why the "self" is truly a simple belief or assumption. Just like believing in Santa. You never experienced it. You only assumed it through thought. And this belief is what drives all perception of duality. A separate entity must live in a world of separation, or it can't be believed to exist. 

3 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

it’s a bit different than the rest as you say, it seems I can imagine myself so in some way I feel I am in the thoughts. So it’s like both, I’m aware ~of~ thoughts so separate from them, but simultaneously it can seem I am in the thought. Or maybe my experience is unique or I’m not able to describe it the best 

These are standard observations.

I recommend logically going through all the senses. 

See if you can see the seer. 

See if you can hear the hearer. 

See if you can touch the toucher.

See if you can smell the smeller.

See if you can think the thinker. Why does the confusion arise in thought?

It is also very helpful to examine your perception of time. The self exists through assuming the past and future. If thinking is always perceived now, then who experiences what you know about the past and future?

[Sugarcoat]

10 hours ago, BlueOak said:

That was pretty good.

Next:
You are not anywhere, so you cannot be separated or divided.
Every moment/thing/pattern is unique aka infinity.

You are realising here:
I’m aware ~of~ thoughts so separate from them, but simultaneously it can seem I am in the thought.

This is true of all things. You are in them and out of them, watching them and experiencing them. There is no difference. These are just labels you are giving things to make logical sense of it in a reality you view as a sequence of events, or experiences.

All that exists is the experience happening, that's it. There is no you. No timeline. No separation. No distance.

👍🏻

[Sugarcoat]

10 hours ago, Osaid said:

Yes.

There is no such thing as being aware of something that is aware. It's a recursion.

This is why the "self" is truly a simple belief or assumption. Just like believing in Santa. You never experienced it. You only assumed it through thought. And this belief is what drives all perception of duality. A separate entity must live in a world of separation, or it can't be believed to exist. 

These are standard observations.

I recommend logically going through all the senses. 

See if you can see the seer. 

See if you can hear the hearer. 

See if you can touch the toucher.

See if you can smell the smeller.

See if you can think the thinker. Why does the confusion arise in thought?

It is also very helpful to examine your perception of time. The self exists through assuming the past and future. If thinking is always perceived now, then who experiences what you know about the past and future?

Thanks I will try this

[NoSelfSelf]

Yes but concentration is needed,you dont just sit and pray for it to happen if it happens it will be just a show and when it ends you are the same.But the more enlightment experiences you get the more your mind become quiet then you can see better.Its like muddy waters getting clearer.

Edited July 31 by NoSelfSelf

[Sugarcoat]

12 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Nothing you can do can produce it since the absolute isn't a process nor relative. It's a matter of directly grasping your nature as it is now. Paradoxically, focusing, questioning, paying attention to how you hold yourself—aka contemplation—help focus the mind, until a breakthrough suddenly arises on its own. Meditation can assist in various relative things such as controlling your mind, healing, relaxing, etc.

It's a bit like asking: What can I do within a dream in order to wake up from it? Everywhere you look is part of the dream, and waking up from it is its own sudden "act" with no discernible factors behind it, unless your mind makes them up, but they wouldn't be true either.

So, self-inquiry is recommended. Even though no practice can produce it, without the practice, intention, and work, enlightenment won't fall on your ass.

Are you enlightened? How do you know this? I’ve been thinking the same tho, there being no real correlation between practice and enlightenment that it’s spontaneous, I don’t know that tho, just a guess 

[manuel bon]

Yes you can! But don't think of meditation as a practice you do in a specific position (although you should keep these practices present in your everyday life). Make your whole life a meditation. That means live fully in the present moment, in the NOW. Be always aware of your thoughts, your movements, your breath, everything. You are the watcher, realize it. In only a couple of days you can already get great peace of mind, but you need constant focus, whatever you are doing, wherever you are. Feel the moment, the now.

[Breakingthewall]

23 hours ago, Andrea Bianca said:

Can someone become permanently enlightened through meditation? Like Buddha did? 

There is not an agreement about what is enlightenment, how deep can it goes. Everybody who do spiritual practices for a while thinks that are enlightened. 

It's very easy reaching the point that Ralston and those gurus say, remove the identification, then the real being remains. You meditate a while, the mind is empty, and that's it, but it's limited. 

Edited July 31 by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

23 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

On Wikipedia it says:

“Self-enquiry, also spelled self-inquiry(Sanskrit vichara, also called jnana-vichara[1]or ātma-vichār), is the constant attention to the inner awareness of "I" or "I am" recommended by Ramana Maharshi as the most efficient and direct way of discovering the unreality of the "I"-thought.”

when you say self inquiry do you mean this placing of attention on the “I “ sense or do you mean more of a questioning like asking yourself “who am I” “what am I” etc or maybe both? 

Why it's sure that Ramana maharshi was enlightened? Or Ramakrishna, adyashanti, Krishnamurti, etc? Those people were spiritual, they like meditation and yoga, and in their opinion, they were enlightened. What they mean? That they could empty their minds and perceive themselves as pure existence? It's not a big deal at all. Then all of them talked about reincarnation, end of the well, etc , that seems a kind of dogma, and we believe them because they follow a line of though typical in asia, kinda of Buddhism. Maybe they were just scratching the surface,. copying the ideas of others. Many could meditate all day and be happy, what means that? When I was a kid I was very happy playing with a stick for hours, o watching the insects. That doesn't mean nothing . That mean that they can remove the human desire, be calm, equanimity. Good, more happiness, but are they really dissolve the barriers that limits them? 

Edited July 31 by Breakingthewall