Enlightenment

>>19347914
Universal. In Christianity it is symbolized with the halo of saints and religious figures such as Christ.

>>19347914
Buddhist enlightment is the equivalent of the attaining the impersonal Brahman conception in Hinduism, which is not the highest. Attaining the impersonal Brahman frees a soul from samsara, but it is not the highest form of the truth. Above the impersonal Brahman exists the Paramatma manifestation, and above the Paramatma exists the Bhagavan, with the Bhagavan being the highest perfection attainable. The difference is the the Bhagavan is fully personal, where the Paramatma and impersonal Brahman are not. As for gnosticism I would say they have a lower version of enlightenment, as they do not have a personal conception of God that the Bhagavan of Hinduism puts forward.

>>19347914
All paths lead to Rome; although, some are longer than others and branch off. Sometimes a man doesn't realize how he ended up there.

What is in your opinion the best way to reach enlightenment and find god?

>>19348027
This.

Im enlightened, AMA

>>19348087
How?

>>19347952
WTF, do you Hare Krishna freaks ever sleep?
You're attacking /x/ with your propaganda constantly.

>>19348027
In this age, Kali-Yuga one cannot execute any process of self-realization or perfection of life other than kirtana. Kirtana is essential in this age. The process of mystic yoga mediation was possible in Satya-Yuga, but it is not possible to execute it successfully in Kali-Yuga.

The transcendental vibration established by chanting of Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna, Krsna Krsna, Hare Hare, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare is the sublime method for reviving our transcendental consciousness. By this transcendental process we can cleanse away all misgivings within our hearts. The basic principle of all such misgivings is the false consciousness that I am the lord of all I survey.

>>19348102
You've been sleeping in the lap of Maya for far too long. WAKE UP!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yecLzyzYBYI
Lord Gaurānga is calling, "Wake up, sleeping souls! Wake up, sleeping souls! How long will you sleep in the lap of the witch called Māyā?
You have forgotten the way of devotional service and are lost in the world of birth and death.
I have descended just to save you; other than Myself you have no friend in this world.
I have brought the medicine that will wipe out the disease of illusion from which you are suffering. Take this maha-mantra:
Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna, Krsna Krsna, Hare Hare
Hare Rama, Hare Rama Rama Rama, Hare Hare."
Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura says: "I fall at the Lord's feet, having taken this mahā-mantra."

>>19347952
For the last time you fucking Krishnakultfags have been told many a time Buddhism is not Brahman. Fuck off.

>>19348560
What difference do you see?

I'm 'enlightened'. Although, I guess that means there's no me. I am a basically a camera, and this body is occurring within my field of scope.
And it's typing this.


Basically, imagine you, sitting where you are, and also, everything in your field of vision, and then take 'you' away. Subject and object disappear.
And there is just this field of vision and stuff happening in it.


To be honest, I don't know if I'm enlightened, or if I just can now wilfully induce depersonalisation. I'm actually not so sure the concepts are different, actually.


If I didn't read about what enlightenment is, I probably would have just overlooked this state of mind as using my imagination/hypnotising my mind/putting my mind in a trance.


I get why they say suffering would end, because it is either true that I don't exist or it is true that I've hpynotized myself into thinking that I don't exist, so there would be no me to suffer.


Honestly, the logic seems off on this whole thing, and I'm starting to have my doubts about 'enlightenment' altogether.

>>19348613
And when I say I'm a camera, I'm saying that I'm bassically the scene of the camera, itself.

>>19348613
Because enlightenment is just a step, not the end game. Now that you have this reference frame, you're supposed to move on and learn to spiritually differentiate yourself, vs. the usual material separation that naturally develops in this world.

>>19348632
What do you mean?

>>19348655
You learned to willfully induce depersonalization. You didn't learn anything about enlightenment and are really good at replicating mental states given sufficient descriptions of those mental states.

>>19348667
Nah buddy, this is the real deal. I spent years not knowing what the fuck people were talking about when they spoke about enlightenment. I could do mental backflips and rack my mind for days, and I still had no IDEA what the fuck they meant.

Then one day, listening to a nonduality talk, and just bam. The ability to go into this state/shift perspective into this state. The ability to dissolve the subject.

And then, I understood what they were all saying about enlightenment. It made sense.

Tell me, what makes you think I'm not enlightened? Are 'you' enlightened? What tradition do you come from?

>>19348740
>The ability to go into this state/shift perspective into this state.
Right, and that's not how it is for most people. For most people, they have no control over the experience itself, and need time to process it after it happens before they learn to fully control their lucidity. For you, you speak of it as an ability, something you couldn't do before but now you can. That speaks to an underlying ability to control your mental state, to invoke any parameters you can imagine. For most people, even after attaining enlightenment, they still need to work to maintain that awareness. You've grasped the entire concept as a unitary force, isolated in a vacuum, able to invoke or reject it at will. More specifically, what you experienced was controlled ego death, with you controlling the process in an initially(?) unconscious way.

Scratch what I said; you *did* learn something about enlightenment. Problem is, you learned it too deeply, too specifically, and your innate ability to control mental states overrides the teaching. There's supposed to be more to the journey after one attains enlightenment, but for you, I'm willing to wager you already understand everything you're supposed to be able to now lucidly discern from an enlightened state. You're just ignoring the spiritual dimension for the sake of reducing your consciousness to a state where enlightenment is a directly relatable concept.

>>19348740
>>19348782

I hope you both realize there is no you and there is no control in enlightenment.

>>19348809
>there is no control
Monumentally simple awareness of exactly what you're able to control is one symptom of enlightenment. If you're not sure how, exactly, to exert your will at all times and in any given moment, then you were never close to actual enlightenment. Probably some garden variety ego death.

File: IMG_6301.jpg (122KB, 624x416px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 624x416px

>>19348455
English motherfucker, do you speak it?

Look up Phil Langdon

Once you can fully understand the concept of duality, while simultaneously clearing your mind of all thoughts, you will have an experience where you meet "God"

The most accurate version of god is Plotinus's "The One" (Neoplatonism)

File: IMG_0672.jpg (448KB, 1620x1080px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 1620x1080px

I would say only truly measured by yourself. In the light of knowledge is to be enlightened. Knowledge = Light. Only your eyes, your own sense of knowing can tell you that answer. I would be a fool to think I could judge you.

>>19348868
Enlightenment has nothing to do with judging people. Don't be a faggot.

>>19348782
My question is, what steps do 'I' take from here? What are the next typical spiritual steps?

If I continue on, as a human, the whole human experience is thrown into doubt, and it seems a lot less serious and much more silly to me. I don't know how I'm supposed to take it seriously anymore.


Even in saying that, I'm anthropomorphising my (Self) because in reality, there is nobody to take steps, and there is nobody to take anything as either serious or silly. So much cognitive dissonance going on here. That's why I have my doubts about the whole 'enlightenment' concept. If you want to take it seriously, you have to speak in paradoxes.

>>19348882
>the next typical spiritual steps
It's a feat that that phrase was ever able to come into being.

Most people don't doubt enlightenment because there's nothing to doubt; it's meant to be a paradox that produces an experience and then passes. The experience is valuable and it teaches a great deal of things, but it passes before its host can come to "doubt" it. For you, it didn't pass because it was more than an experience; it was a tangible mental state that you are somehow able to maintain, even though you've already had the experience and can move on from it.

For people like you and me, there is no path. We exist outside of what's typical because of our abilities alone. Even among "typical" spirituality, it's an intensely personal thing and nobody can choose your path for you. I'm explaining how enlightenment "normally" is not because you're supposed to follow some path that doesn't come naturally to you, but to tell you that there IS no literature that can tell you how it'll work for you. There's no literature that can comprehensively explain how it works for "normal" people either, hence the need for the teaching of enlightenment.

As it stands, just let go of the idea of enlightenment. It's no longer useful for you.

>>19348027
All roads lead home if you never stop walking.

File: pecan.jpg (36KB, 416x336px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 416x336px

Pecans are interesting nuts.
Some men violently smash them, leaving a mess of shell and fruit to be sorted through.
Other men very carefully attempt to crack them so as to pry them open and retrieve the fruit whole and leave the shell behind.
Both methods require the same amount of time and effort to separate the shell from the fruit. It's just a question of how the separation will be performed.

>>19348613
De-personalization is not enlightenment, though it is the beginning step towards enlightenment. It's never a state you reach, in the same way that there is never a moment the world stops turning.

>>19347914
Enlightenment is being close to Jesus Christ the only Son.

>>19349056
The guy probably is probably rationally concerned about his emotional welfare. Which leads me into the fact he probably doesn't know the extent and interaction of that with the Suttas, verbatim.

>>19349056

Journey is the destination, find the questions, don't fear them.

File: Light-blue-space.jpg (249KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1600x1200px

1 In the beginning was the Word, & the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darknesse, and the darknesse comprehended it not.

6 ¶ There was a man sent from God, whose name was Iohn.

7 The same came for a witnesse, to beare witnesse of the light, that all men through him might beleeue.

8 Hee was not that light, but was sent to beare witnesse of that light.

9 That was the true light, which lighteth euery man that commeth into the world.

10 Hee was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 Hee came vnto his owne, and his owne receiued him not.

12 But as many as receiued him, to them gaue hee power to become the sonnes of God, euen to them that beleeue on his Name:

13 Which were borne, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among vs (& we beheld his glory, the glory as of the onely begotten of the Father) full of grace and trueth.