>>17323672 I'll answer first. I'm coming from a Chan background (studied the lineage form bodhidharma to linji extensively, especially Mazu and Huangbo)
I've had a realization a few days ago. The word enlightenment causes more confusion that necessary. In Chan, we talk about "seeing your nature", which is way less confusing.
You're seeing your nature right now. It is the non-duality within duality. It is that which you see before you - reason about it and you at once fall into error. "Seeing your nature" is literally nothing special, we're doing all the time. Most people are just not aware that it is in fact their own nature they are perceiving.
Also, abiding in the unborn, acting in accordance with your true nature is nothing special at all. It is actually impossible to not act in accordance with it.
This makes the word enlightenment meaningless. Enlightenment implies some kind of change happening, while that's actually not true. "Seeing your nature" is also nothing that can be achieved by means of meditation or any other kind of practice. You're doing it all the time already, you don't need to achieve anything in addition to that. It's not a special experience.
That's why linji, huangbo and mazu shouted at people and hit them with sticks for asking about the meaning of chan or enlightenment. Their question and all answers they could get just add confusion to clarity. The questioners try to put a head on their head, while one is already too much for them to carry.
>>17323706 So, the answers to the OP questions are:
>What do you think it is? It's fucking laughable bullshit. People who talk about enlightenment (like me kek) are causing confusion all the time. Like we need to slay the buddha when we meet him, we need to slay the concept of enlightenment. Whoever uses that word needs to get hit with a stick. "Seeing your nature" is slightly better, since it doesn't really imply much. If you know what it's about it's obvious that it's nothing special.
>How do you think it can be achieved? It can't. It's like asking "How do you think to achieve to be alive?" The question is pure nonsense. The thought of achieving enlightenment by meditation or any other practice is equally nonsense.
>>17323739 >It is the non-duality within duality. >It is that which you see before you - reason about it and you at once fall into error. >"Seeing your nature" is literally nothing special, we're doing all the time.
Why the same question over and over? You are not desperate enough to get enlightened. Search the Archiv! Read a book! To get it, you have to loose everything. Only loosers can get enlightenment and they will be the first ones. You will become enlightend automatically in a few years.
>>17323764 What I'm saying is that enlightenment, meaning "seeing your nature" is the ordinary way of experience.
The guys who talk about non-duality/the absolute, while seeing it as different from duality (aka the world, what you see before you), are creating confusion. The is no difference at all. Non-duality is your nature, and that means what you see before you is it. It's literally that easy.
>how does one becomes enlighted? This is the kind of question caused by confusion I was talking about. Forget about enlightenment actually, ask instead "How does one become someone who sees their nature". Guess what, you're seeing your nature right now. The screen your staring at is the absolute, it's your own nature.
>>17323777 This reads like random sentences, I'll still answer. >Why the same question over and over? for fun >Search the Archiv! nah >Read a book! I've read tons of books about zen. Books written by zen masters, books that contain recorded sermons and dialogues, etc. I could pretty much base all my claims on the sayings of some zen masters, but I don't think anyone cares. >To get it, you have to loose everything. >Only loosers can get enlightenment and they will be the first ones. platitudes, nothing of worth There's no enlightenment to attain >You will become enlightend automatically in a few years. you will be enlightened right now, if you just stop discrimination for a second. Also what is this, some kind of ascension bs?
>>17323905 If you read about enlightenment and you understand it, you will never attain it by yourself. Those who write about how to attain enlightenment, they are only in a different illusion and will drag you into it - your body will response to it and you will distribute this illusion to others. The true ones will destroy all your illusions, that's the only way to true enlightenment. That's why you only have to wait, we are on to the task! Just enjoy life!
>>17323932 >the birth-death cycle, samsara, is no different from nirvana. >Seeing them as different is a misunderstanding. I said liberated. I didn't say to leave the birth - death cycle. Liberated means to see things as they are. And concerning the "chan masters" that you are mentioning, the habit doesn't make the monk.
>>17323856 That defenition of enlightenment is utterly pointless and creates a paradox leaving the word without any meaning. If enlightenment means "seeing your nature" wouldn't it make more sense to interpret that as reflecting on your own nature? Everyone can always literally see what they are doing. And what they are doing is in the name of their own nature. But going against own nature by becoming self aware sounds like it would make more sense. For example, you can do things in life influenced by individual nature. By this I mean, innately pleasurable experiences like acting violently on impulse, drinking too much, having too much sex/masturbating too much. Reflecting on your own nature would be realizing that these methods of self satisfaction are damaging. Id consider that enlightenment.
trying to hold onto enlightenment is like trying to carry air in your hands, you'll get slapped in the face by it every once in a while if you put your head in the right place but it won't last forever it'll just get you high for a bit
>>17324012 Chan masters don't write about attainments though. They all teach that there is nothing to attain. Destroying illusions is precisely what they do. You still seem to be subject to illusions though, if you think people need to be enlightened by you. Enlightenment is the illusion you need to destroy.
>>17325644 What you describe is not enlightenment, it's some kind of purification religion. Enlightenment as in "seeing your nature" is not about become a better person at all. Since good and bad is dualistic thinking. The misunderstanding seems to be about what "own nature" means. It's not your personal character or anything like that. It's non-duality, to say more about it would just be confusing.
There have been chan masters you have pretty much famous for acting violently. As I said, one of the main teaching devices of the Mazu/Huangbo/Linji lineage is hitting people with a stick. Nanquan, another of Mazu's students, cut a cat in halves. When Nanquan's disciple (who was also a chan master) was asked, why animals run away when he walks in the garden, he said it's because he likes to kill.
There was also a master who was known for being drunk all the time, I forgot who that was though.
Also, reflecting your own nature would only lead to errors. Non-duality is beyond the intellect, reflecting on it is useless. "Reason about it and you at once fall into error" is what Huangbo said about that.
>>17324052 okay, liberated just always sounds like some kind of escapism, so I got that wrong
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.