Barriers to Enlightenment

We are on a similar wavelength, here, though I would conclude, "... as long as what they quote reflects personal experience of the subject matter." Perhaps that's what you meant.

I tried your experiement before I read your "guarantee". As it happens, I passed your test. Actually, I saw it coming and was puzzled that you'd described a direct experience experiment as a thought experiment. A slip of the tongue, perhaps.

Another slip of the tongue, I expect. Surely you meant to write "condition of enlightenment". In my view, "conditioning of enlightenment" is an oxymoron.

We have heard this said countless times, yet how many casual readers can intuitively grasp what it means? This is one of the problems with quoting teachers and clichéd utterances: what seems obvious to those of us who have studied is opaque to others.

I have another problem with the statement. The words "elimination of ignorance" imply the removal of an absence, which sounds like an oxymoron. I do have a sense of what is meant: our experience of that which is real is crowded out by other factors; the end effect is indeed ignorance of the truth.

I don't know what the original formulation of this principle was in Pali, but when we express it in English it might mislead people.

I invite you to tell us what, specifically, you mean by "ignorance", using examples that even casual readers can grasp.

Thanks.

 

Oddly enough, that's not the case. I did look up Vibhava Tanha, because I always forget the spelling. Then I noted the definition given and modified it because I didn't find that their interpretation suited me.

I taking "killing the Buddha" quite seriously.

Having said that, there may be times when I quote other people to show that I'm on the same wavelength as another poster. That is why, in this case, I mentioned Vibhava Tanha.

Of course, there's always the danger that the other person will then try to "top" me with their expertise on the subject. But hey, that's the Internet for you.

 

Indeed. What can you tell us about what makes ego tick?

Well said! Alas, in my case it took me years to realize, at a deep level, what "you don't need to feel that way" meant. Until I overcame certain barriers, the prescription was just words that sounded nice.

I suppose that one of the first barriers to grasping the prescription is the beliefs that (A) feelings = truth and (B) feelings = inevitable. Would you care to comment on this, or mention some additional barriers?

 

Has that been working out for you? My guess is that you have not achieved the wonderful state that you are telling us about.

If I am wrong about this, I apologize. Please let us know if I have erred.

 

As the person who started this thread, let me say, "Horrors!"

To put it another way, if there is a forum requirement that all answers in the Buddhist forum must conform to Buddhist teaching, then may I ask if there's some way to move this thread to another forum?

I like the Buddha; I really do. Such a nifty guy. But I don't have to agree with everything it's claimed he said.

Unless the forum rules dictate otherwise, of course.

It does sound like a non-starter, doesn't it? On the other hand, perhaps the point was being made that ignorance is a constantly-renewed effect? Heck, many people watch TV every evening to have their ignorance-batteries recharged.

 

Well, I must say, your argument is not without reason and irrefutable.

HTML:

 

Yes.

HTML:

 

Reality seeming to me, ever emergent. If ignorance conditions response, the word condition pluralized as it is in context denotes action. So I really don't understand the objection to stating, if ignorance is acting then it is an act.

There is a reason I am making these distinctions. In the formula ignorance conditions response, we behold cause and effect in linear reciprocity as tho a product of advancing time. I more regard giving and receiving as the same truth as opposed to a reciprocal truth. From this point both the past and the future are artifacts of the present, flowing out in both directions from the center. We create both time and space. The more forward reaching the more ancient.

 

words are not enlightenment, Neo. take a breath. it's free today.

 

I hope that I am not out of line in asking if you would like for that to happen?
If the answer is yes, then would you still be interested in the direction the discussion was going?

 

Our thoughts are bound, for the sake of communication, to the word symbols that best represent our experiential context.

It does not have to be anyway at all but we can and do, claim our direction with our descriptions. Our descriptions, (the intent or claim to have it be so), being the gravity around which coalesces the phenomena of our lives. In other words nothing "happens" to us without our whole hearted consent. To the extent that we resist this concept, to that extent we depreciate the power of our mind.

 

Smugness is also not enlightenment.

For the most part I have kept my mouth shut about enlightenment for the past 4 years. During that time I have noticed some things and made some connections. I selected this forum to talk them out.

It is true that there are more words flying here than I'd like, but that may simply be the nature of online forums. Personally, I prefer voice chat, but there are some things I'd like to hack out in writing.

 

Since the main theme of this thread is "barriers to enlightenment", I'd like to mention one barrier I've encountered time and time again online. (I've been online since the 70's, by the way.)

There's something that I call "Pre-Cure Preaching", and it works like this: a person acquires some knowledge and insight into such-and-such a philosophy or perspective. He or she come to believe that it is the answer to all his or her woes and indeed is just what the world needs.

He or she then proceeds to talk as if he or she was far, far more advanced than he or she actually is, and that the method or philosophy is far, far more effective than his or her experience has proven empirically.

My guess is that 99% of the gurus on the Internet are actually Pre-Cure Preachers. They will tell you that they know, but they actually only hope. Many of them, maybe most, get so adept at Pre-Cure Preaching that they end up fooling themselves. At that point they are pretty darn holy in their own sight, and wholly useless to me.

It is very difficult for me to have productive discussions with people who will not admit that they are as ignorant and unenlightened as I am.

 

Since enlightenment is a quality of mind can we say then that barriers to enlightenment are thoughts. I would think that as you mention your observation about pre-cure preaching you would notice that this thought perpetually figures in your scenario of barriers to enlightenment. The moment
you let go of that characterization, at that moment, it will no longer be a barrier to enlightenment. One thing about mental barriers is they cannot be exceeded by the person whole holds them.

The thing that you have shown "pre-cure" preaching is a barrier to is meaningful conversation for you. The way to have productive discussions with people is when the discussions have common aim, when all parties contribute with equal intent. If the intent be to grow in understanding then we must allow ourselves to appreciate divergent perspectives.

 

You are right, I'm still learning to control my consciousness. I'm just trying to help you because mind is an illusion. The masters say beautiful things, but they are not true in that state because there's no way to describe it. Those words is just to lead you into emptiness, an amazing place you'll just understand if you touch it.

I was always searching for some words, to give me courage, to make me feel beter, to try to understand it with mind, etc. It was very beautiful to be in this search, I wanted someone to lead me because it's easier to follow someone than going alone into the unknown. After sometime searching, I got bored because I was looking at the gold, I was seeing enlightenment impossible. I know it's possible because I touched the place where "I am", without being something, just being present. Enlightenment is one more step, is the Nirvana.

You don't need to do anything with your mind, just let her calm down and when there's no thoughts you feel peace like some drug effect but totally natural and without thoughts.

When you touch the place "I am" you feel it's possible to realize the Enlightenment.

Finally what I want to tell you is that this game of search is just your ego trying to not die, because in present moment he doesn't exist. The idea of not having a master can give you egocentrism, don't worry. Touch the emptiness, feel the compassion with your whole body and ego will not be "You" but a tool.

If you don't have seen the video, see it.

I hope you get bored of searching and go into it without thinking.

:sunny:

 

Thoughts are instantiations of barriers, yes.

Have you not noticed that most people posting in forums about enlightenment are full of crap?

 

The very idea of a barrier. i.e. The concept of limitation.

 

I have noticed that some are sincere and some and some not so. I don't mind
discussing crap because over the course of the discussion it can be illuminated as crap.

If there is such a thing as reality it seems to me that the only thing that prevents it from being accessible are our illusions or superstitions about it, and illusions can be dispelled to rise no more if we can agree on a truth.

 

Thank you for that honest statement. If every participant in this thread — or even half of them — could be up-front about their true state then we might move forward. If, on the other hand, people pose as sages and tell others what they need to do, then we'll have, well, a typical Internet forum thread.

Please do not try to help me. Just be who you are, let me know what's happening inside you, describe what you've seen and experienced, and good stuff like that. The moment you set out to fix me we're at odds.

Of course, if I do something that strikes you as stupid then by all means tell me what you think you saw.

Been there. Did not "understand" it, though, since it can't be analyzed with the same tools that keep it at bay. I expect you're aware of that.

While "it" will be kept at bay by the mind, I must ask if "it" can be understood from a psychological, neurological or memetic standpoint.

Please note that I am aware that understanding it is not the same as experiencing it!

If nothing else I say is clear, please let me be clear about what I am doing, here. I do not subscribe to the ancient notion that enlightenment is a mystical thing that is inherently impossible to describe. That does not reflect my experience. The more I touch upon "it", the more I see why it is kept at bay. I also see that earlier generations could not have described the reasons, so I'm not surprised that they treated it mystically.

Of course, it's easy for you, or anybody here, to say, "Neo, you're thinking too much about this. You'll have to accept that it can't be described or understood." If you have the urge to write something like that then you have not understood what I am saying or doing.

I assume you have a specific personal event in mind, or perhaps several. Could you tell me what you recall about about one such event?

Totally natural. Yes. Indeed, it doesn't even feel natural; it just is. When I experience it, though, I am aware of my thoughts in the background attempting to break through and spoil it by telling me how natural it feels!

I know what that "ego trying not to die" is. I am aware how that can be a barrier. Please, though, toy with the possibility that what I am doing is not that. I realize that this flies in the face of everything you've read or been told. All I ask is that you consider that it's possible that it's not "me" that's doing this search, yet the search is occuring.

Having said that, I also acknowledge that I will frequently be a stupid, egotistical, ignorant idiot. I hope that's clear!

 

Neosimian when I was very young I used embellish my accounts of events in order to project myself in a more positive light among my peers, or so I thought.
The embarrassment of being found out taught me there is a huge difference between being cool and acting cool. I check my work before I release it for public consumption and twenty years ago I would have been unable to hold my own in this conversation, and recognizing that, I wouldn't have tried.

So now where do you want to go with the conversation. You have at least one willing to stand honestly toe to toe with you. Do you want to rehash old complaints?