Two Ways of Looking at Enlightenment, How to Reconcile Them

[Joseph Maynor]

(1) Everything is me.

(2) There is no me.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[hundreth]

Which "Me" are you talking about? It's the difference between "self" and "Self." It's purely a question of semantics.

[Joseph Maynor]

1 minute ago, hundreth said:

Which "Me" are you talking about? It's the difference between "self" and "Self." It's purely a question of semantics.

I changed 'me' to lowercase to not elude to any theory.  I don't want to imply any theory.

[Consilience]

It took me awhile to realize the no self of Buddhism and the infinite self of Advaita were pointing towards the same end. 

Which perspective has helped you most?   

[Joseph Maynor]

1 minute ago, Consilience said:

It took me awhile to realize the no self of Buddhism and the infinite self of Advaita were pointing towards the same end. 

Which perspective has helped you most?   

What's the same end that they're pointing to?  I'm trying to withhold my answer to probe all of yours.  I'll reveal my take on it at some point in the discussion.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Himanshu]

1) The Hindu (Advaita Vedanta) perspective
2) The Buddhist perspective

Consciously living my everyday life, I choose to be everything.  

[Joseph Maynor]

3 minutes ago, Himanshu said:

1) The Hindu (Advaita Vedanta) perspective
2) The Buddhist perspective

Consciously living my everyday life, I choose to be everything.  

But are they pointing to the same thing?  If so, what?

[Consilience]

Just now, Joseph Maynor said:

What's the same end that they're pointing to?  I'm trying to withhold my answer to probe all of yours.  I'll reveal my take on it at some point in the discussion.

Hmm... I believe there pointing towards the true nature of self. And, depending on how you look at this nature, it could be described by either options 1 or 2. (though the caveat being that each of these descriptions is ultimately not that which they describe so it gets weird)
 

So for example, 0 is infinitely small and infinity is infinitely large, and so in this sense, the boundaries between 0 and infinity kind of collapse because the nature of these two are actually equivalent. This math metaphor is how I've always conceptualized the differences between a Buddhist perspective and Advaita Vedanta perspective 

[Joseph Maynor]

Here a couple of good videos on point to watch for this discussion.

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Joseph Maynor]

35 minutes ago, Himanshu said:

1) The Hindu (Advaita Vedanta) perspective
2) The Buddhist perspective

Consciously living my everyday life, I choose to be everything.  

How do you know you're right and not just living in Ego?

[Joseph Maynor]

Not to be rude, but I don't think very many people can answer this question authentically.  And when I mean authentically, I mean in a way that's actually convincing to you.  Anybody can quote me a bit of theory, that's easy.  What's hard is for you to tell me what it means to you in the sense of how you square it in your life.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Sven]

 

[SOUL]

Only two? Are you sure?

[Nahm]

Square it in life by not asking why it isn’t a circle. Or why it is a circle. Embrace paradox. 

[Solace]

Everything is born from Nothing. The manifest is born from the un-manifest. This stream of un-manifest life is most well known as the Holy Spirit, is inside every atom, and sector of the cosmos. For the first 12 weeks of birth we do not receive any nourishment from the outside world, and we do not receive blood from our Mothers to grow. And yet we rapidly grow, from the head we see a chest, and then arms, and then legs by the 12th week. How did we grow? From the Holy Spirit/the stream of life that flows everywhere and in everything. That is why we are made in the image and likeness of God, and not simply dust from the Earth, we are Divine. 

The same too happens with a tomato seed, if you didn't know any better you would laugh at the idea that a tiny little seed could sprout into this huge plant with green leaves and beautiful ripe fruit. Yet the seed does, by getting what it needs from the soil, water and air. Human beings do the same thing, except we get what we need directly from the Holy Spirit, which raises our vibratory frequency of the cells in our body to the level of God. And this you may laugh at because we have no real world examples just like with the tomato seed, that is why we need the faith of a mustard seed, the knowing that we are truly love, to become one with God.

[Colin]

 

[WindInTheLeaf]

5 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

But are they pointing to the same thing?  If so, what?

Of course they point to the same thing, but why do you want to know what you already know you cannot know?

[Consept]

6 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

(1) Everything is me.

(2) There is no me.

If you have a logical view of enlightenment will that help you get enlightened? 

[DrewNows]

8 minutes ago, Consept said:

If you have a logical view of enlightenment will that help you get enlightened? 

Maybe not directly but don't see how it would hurt  

Distortion could lead to ego-made false truths regarding enlightenment . In my experience, perspective is a powerful tool for introspection 

@Joseph MaynorThanks I enjoy the simplicity 

[here-now]

Man, this is going to be hard to put into words... Here goes nothing (or everything... ):

When you realize there is no "me", you see clearly that you are not a "thing" (i.e. that you are "no-thing")...; you see that you are the awareness in which all things (every-thing) appear.  So, there's you/awareness as the subect... and then there are all objects appearing in you.

But then, you realize that all objects (every-thing) is, in fact, not separate from the subject (you/awareness). There is no subject that is separate from objects, because objects aren't really there... They just appear to be there.  In reality, objects are just fleeting, apparent modifications of the eternal subject (you/awareness)... So, you see that every-thing is you/awareness, in essence... (which is basically the same as saying "awareness is awareness"... lol.... When you cut out the redundancy of that, you get: "Awareness, alone, is.")

So, to sum up:  you go from "I am something" to "I am no-thing" to "I am every-thing" to "I, alone, am"

Rupert says it better, though :