What makes sages different from other deeply enlightened people?

[kieranperez]

This is a question I’ve been puzzled by. 

Like, are people like Buddha just that much more enlightened than everybody and had that much more self mastery and that’s why they left their mark in history and are revered by even other VERY deeply enlightened people? Cause, we can great Zen masters today who are supposedly very deeply enlightened and even do a lot of shadow work and stuff this day in age (Doshin Roshi from Integral Zen comes to mind) but still stuck to a Buddhist practice which of course is a practice given by a sage thousands of years ago.

Just been something that’s been on my mind these last few months

[cetus]

@kieranperez At that level it doesn't have much to do with self mastery or shadow work. There is no longer a self to be mastered. Their Sadhana is well over.

 A truly enlightened sage is the embodyment of emptiness in manifest form. 

Thich Nhat Hanh comes to mind.

 

[deci belle]

hi kieranperez~

Saints, sages, saviors, buddhas, wizards, immortals, current and prior illuminates, enlightening beings all, are no different than any human being who has ever lived. Self-refinement is endless due to our inconceivable nature. Current illuminates are no different than the ancients.

Cetus56 said:

Quote

 A truly enlightened sage is the embodyment of emptiness in manifest form.

I say spontaneously adapting potential to conditions is accepting and carrying out one's enlightening function. How is that different from Cetus56's quote? The venerable poet in the video says that emptiness, in terms of the illusion of a self-nature exclusive of the cosmos, is empty (i.e., a false premise). But he won't go further than that on account of the people he's babysitting.

True emptiness not relative to being, yet comprising it, is already the embodiment of true emptiness, i.e., not empty— so what is the point of a sage?. Even in terms of the absolute constituting the void prior to the dichotomization of the primal elements, potential is its substance, hence the standard of enlightenment holds that true voidness isn't void. But these are just words…

People who see reality, respond to reality. It's natural. People who see illusion, respond to illusion. Actually, Cetus56's quote is sticking to forms already. What proves sagehood is the application of reality in real terms beyond any philosophy.

What's that?

Quote

…spontaneously adapting potential to conditions is accepting and carrying out one's enlightening function.

Acceptance and fulfillment of one's inherent enlightening function is the standard of enlightenment. If you know but cannot act on knowledge, it's the same as not knowing.

Sudden enlightenment does not confer buddhahood on the spot. Gautama was no different. The gradual path of self refinement before and after the sudden realization of one's essential nature is a single continuum. Even getting to hear the words of the Dharma is karmic. Even inanimate objects express the single point of illumination. Delusion is the incipience of enlightening being. Your own mind has never moved.

Try not to identify too pointedly with the illuminates of historical accounts. Very few illuminates actually have the predilection to teach, and of those who do, even fewer still are known to anyone outside of a handful of perceptives.

Enlightenment itself cannot be viewed as a categorically significant criteria— not only because enlightenment constitutes your mind already, but because there is an infinite range of potentials even amongst those who have seen their nature. In the aftermath of sudden illumination, advanced practice must be recognized and developed. The big hurdle after enlightenment is getting over it. Many people who have experienced sudden illumination find the experience debilitating. It is paramount to get to work to refine the foregoing achievement. Otherwise, clinging to the absolute, both (conceptually) before the sudden and afterwards, is no different than clinging to delusional selfhood in the first place.

Buddhahood isn't buddhist; the Tao isn't taoist. No one invented enlightenment even 100,000 years ago. No one can give anything of the sort to anyone else. One must recognize reality oneself and refine away the human mentality oneself. One's own teacher is not beyond one's own heart of hearts.

Reverence for prior illuminates is a wonderful thing, but always seek the wonder of profundity: what is it?

What is it? It's not religion. What it is? It's not ordinary or holy. What is it? It is not thinking or reached by thinking. It's not practice. It's not good or bad, right or wrong, high or low, before of after. On the tip of your nose, beyond the fact that there is no thing; the intimate impersonal knowledge of the absence of nothingness is true realization.

It is actually possible to know absence of voidness. It's REAL.  Just this is boundless nonoriginated whole perfect illumination blazing without a shard of your future skull.

What is it?

 

 

ed note: add two quotes + paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5; add a zero to the biG number; add the penultimate line

 

Edited October 12, 2018 by deci belle

[Shin]

You can't know that.

The Buddah of this era will only be seen as such in a century+.

And btw, there is some very influential sages that aren't tied to any religion/practice nowadays.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Shin

[Misagh]

17 hours ago, kieranperez said:

This is a question I’ve been puzzled by. 

Like, are people like Buddha just that much more enlightened than everybody and had that much more self mastery and that’s why they left their mark in history and are revered by even other VERY deeply enlightened people? Cause, we can great Zen masters today who are supposedly very deeply enlightened and even do a lot of shadow work and stuff this day in age (Doshin Roshi from Integral Zen comes to mind) but still stuck to a Buddhist practice which of course is a practice given by a sage thousands of years ago.

Just been something that’s been on my mind these last few months

What you call a sage, I call an ignorant child. What you call an ignorant child, I call a sage. It's all the Self, no matter what you call it. That is the important thing. The wise ones know this, the ignorant ones don't. It's quite simple, so I say it again, all is the Self. Know this without there being a knower. 

[Arkandeus]

As if buddha did everything on his own, a flower that grows in a garden is not separate from the soil

Buddha enlightened that far because it is what humanity wanted at that time, true answers can only be found when you view things from the perspective of a synchronized collective consciousness, instead of an ego viewpoint

When buddha enlightened everyone on the planet enlightened, or rather everyone enlightened then buddha expressed that enlightenment

Edited October 11, 2018 by Arkandeus

[deci belle]

I can see that Arkandeus studies seriously— but concepts must be transcended in terms of real experience.

The meaning of the last line on his post above is that when anyone (not just an historical illuminate) reverts to reality, the whole world becomes just this (on account of one's activation and actualization of inherent enlightening perception and function). It's not that anyone else besides yourself knows. The ancient books are rafts comprised of symbols and similes. One must go beyond the literal to get the intent imbedded in the words.

Actualizing one's enlightening potential does not rely on buddhahood or even sudden illumination. It is already your mind right now.

It is necessary to dispense with views. Ego-consciousness and nonpsychological awareness are the same potential. There are no two minds.

 

[Emanyalpsid]

On 10-10-2018 at 8:51 PM, kieranperez said:

This is a question I’ve been puzzled by. 

Like, are people like Buddha just that much more enlightened than everybody and had that much more self mastery and that’s why they left their mark in history and are revered by even other VERY deeply enlightened people? Cause, we can great Zen masters today who are supposedly very deeply enlightened and even do a lot of shadow work and stuff this day in age (Doshin Roshi from Integral Zen comes to mind) but still stuck to a Buddhist practice which of course is a practice given by a sage thousands of years ago.

Just been something that’s been on my mind these last few months

Enlightenment in Buddhism just means 'to dissolve' or 'to blow out.' Like in the enlightening of pain, meaning the pain goes away. Pain is just used as an example here.

However, people who didn't gain the insight into the nature of reality yet, which relieves one from the endless cycle of rebirth, look at Buddhism and draw their conclusions based upon their view on what Buddhism is. Therefore, only someone who attained insight into the nature of reality can explain what Buddhism is truly about. 

People in the Western world will compare the word 'enlightenment,' which is used in Buddhism, with the Western interpretation of enlightenment. The Western interpretation of enlightenment however is not the same as used in Buddhism. 

@Misagh gave a pretty clear definition on what enlightenment means in the Western world in his topic; https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/26538-answers-to-some-common-questions-about-enlightenment-pt-1/

"What is enlightenment?

Enlightenment is the realization that you are not an entity within reality, but rather reality itself."

From a Buddhist perspective this is only half of the insight into reality, because what one is left with is 'itself'. This is the believe that reality exists upon itself. This is the self of it. Ahah indeed. The self of it remains, which is part of your ego. Not your personal ego, but your 'higher' ego; the ego of it. This is the universe thinking it exists upon itself.

Insight into the dependent origin of reality relieves one from itself. Itself is the source of a lot of suffering, just as the self. Therefore, one is not truly enlightened if this insight is not gained.

So, enlightenment is not a state of being, but only a feeling, from a Buddhist perspective. One feels enlightened.

If you want to read more about this; http://www.foundationsofhumanlife.com. everything is explained in a manner for the Western mind to understand. If you are already aware of the self as an illusion you can skip to page 7. Page 7 till 12 explains the dependent origin or reality. If you only scroll through the text you will not understand. It requires deep investigation. Read and reflect upon your experiences.

 

Edited October 15, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[who chit]

On 10/10/2018 at 11:47 PM, deci belle said:

In the aftermath of sudden illumination, advanced practice must be recognized and developed. The big hurdle after enlightenment is getting over it. Many people who have experienced sudden illumination find the experience debilitating. It is paramount to get to work to refine the foregoing achievement. Otherwise, clinging to the absolute, both (conceptually) before the sudden and afterwards, is no different than clinging to delusional selfhood in the first place.

Wow, You're probably the first I've seen who get's this. And it is something I have dealt with. Even more, was the trouble of trying to make sense of it for quite awhile,nearly 2  years after the sudden awakening.

The section modified in bold is quite particular to my experience. The shock,from being suddenly "thrust" into the infinite,boundless, absolute stayed, to a lesser degree,for several months. A tough time for sure. Not knowing what else to do, I ramped up the intensity of the practices and buried myself in whatever I could find on "awakening,enlightenment etc.,",to help make sense of,and ease the aftermath. Integrating has slowly but surely come along,but those first several months,close to 9 months after,were a damn struggle..
You soon realize this thing works in it's own way,and in it's own time and you just have to go with the flow.

Thanks for posting,though. It might come in handy for others who may have,or have had, a similar experience.

Edited October 15, 2018 by who chit

[who chit]

On 10/10/2018 at 11:47 PM, deci belle said:

The gradual path of self refinement before and after the sudden realization of one's essential nature is a single continuum. Even getting to hear the words of the Dharma is karmic.

Also true.

[deci belle]

It's so nice to hear from one such as you, who chit~ pleased to meet you~ *curtsy* heehee!!

It took me years to get over it. My studies and practical application were mainly derivative of Complete Reality taoism with a solid background in Don Juan Matus' Toltec Nahual approach to the nature of perception. But it was the Chan buddhist writings of Bankei and Hongzi that ultimately facilitated my passing through "passing through". Prior to that, I had been the proverbial "stupid cat trapped in a cave under the black mountain".

Even Gautama spent years in the aftermath of his complete perfect enlightenment coming to terms with the experience. There is a reason the alchemical schools of taoism call it "the golden pill"— it's a really biG one to swallow. It's like swallowing an ocean in one gulp, non?

You have my sympathies!! hahaha!!

My writings on the practical application of taoism's Celestial Mechanism, buddhism's subtle adaption within Suchness, the transmission of the Secret of the Golden Flower's "turning around the light" and mastery of the 3rd and 4th hexagrams of the I Ching (Difficulty and Darkness) has been my sole focus for ten years. I had remained silent in the aftermath of sudden illumination for a full twenty years prior.

I pity the poor souls on the forums who cannot keep anything to themselves.

Bonjour, mon ami❤︎

[Joseph Maynor]

What makes you different from all other people?  Instead on focusing on the external issue of the difference between "this and that", you should focus on the internal issue of the different between "me and that".  You're looking externally for an answer that can only be found internally.  

Edited October 16, 2018 by Joseph Maynor