How Can You Tell If A Person Is Enlightened? (response To Leo's May 18 Insight)

[Guest username]

@SOUL I'm going to need to elaborate on what you're referring to.

Do you mean, "Is no-self a distraction from presence?"

Edited May 26, 2017 by username

[SOUL]

@username Will my answer change your mind from being distracted from presence?

[Guest username]

@SOUL I'm interested in your insight, so I'm talking to you about it. 

If you don't care to elaborate because you think I'm wasting my time by talking about spirituality instead of being present, then so be it, but I'm certainly not going to know what your position is without talking to you about it. Whether or not you're interested in letting me know or you're just going to keep pressing me to be present is another matter.

Edit: If the tone sounded douchey, I promise, that's not what I'm going for, lol

Edited May 26, 2017 by username

[SOUL]

@username  My insight is that concepts and opinions about them can be a fixation to our mind.distracting us from being aware of presence. Me and you could hold completely opposite positions on every topic and concept imaginable yet both of us can be aware of presence.

Getting the "right" understanding is merely a placebo for the mind in thinking it's "enlightened", though we can be "wrong" about every concept because awareness attuned to the present moment doesn't require accurate ideas.

[Alii]

@SOUL You know this is really interesting..... do you think it's ever possible to stay in the "present" moment for good? Do you really think that's what enlightenment is? Being consciously present in the moment? 

If so (back to the original thread topic), do you still think Leo's friend is really enlightened? Or do you think he's stuck in the 'no-self' dogma bullshit you talked about earlier?

Edited May 26, 2017 by Alii

[Guest username]

@SOUL Okay, I suppose that tells me enough about your position. You the most important part is staying present and worrying about the correct theory is just a distraction from presence.

Do I have you right?

[Prabhaker]

8 minutes ago, John Flores said:

why you are judging others

I am not judging, I am communicating a message to her. It is not a serious matter, it is just a play, not even an attempt from my side.

[abrakamowse]

I think the judge "thing" is more about labeling things.

[SOUL]

@username Yes, that's pretty much my point except that I prefer to say the mind can be distracted by them, not always a distraction, otherwise this type of thinking can turn into another distraction by the mind fixating on positions, opinions and ideas are a distraction, so are. Ideas and concepts can lead us to realizing presence or away from presence, so there can be some value we get from them but the ideas in of themselves don't constitute what is called "enlightenment", it's presence.

 

Edited May 26, 2017 by SOUL

[Guest username]

@SOUL Makes sense. That's not really my approach to spirituality right now (though I definitely don't think concepts are enlightenment, I think they're useful though), but if I'm mistaken, I hope to be wise enough to see that you're right someday. 

In any case, I'll keep meditating and inquiring.

Thanks for the talk.

[Prabhaker]

18 minutes ago, John Flores said:

I was saying that judging is okay

No, we can't judge a person. His inside is not available to you. The inside is private; it is not available to anybody.

[Key Elements]

@Prabhaker John was saying that you can judge yourself since your insides are available to you only.

[Prabhaker]

5 minutes ago, Key Elements said:

John was saying that you can judge yourself since your insides are available to you only.

If you are seeker of truth , judging yourself is pointless, with spiritual growth, you will change. You can judge your personality, which you are going to drop with increasing awareness.

[Prabhaker]

10 minutes ago, John Flores said:

I can't judge his motives, but I can judge my motives FOR judging his motives, thereby helping create a more just system.

If you are a seeker of truth, then don't judge,

else become a judge. 

[Guest username]

@Prabhaker I don't you get what @John Flores saying though.  He's not using judgement in the sense of mistaking judgement for the complete picture. He's saying self-awareness helps you make better decisions and adopt wiser positions, which is why he warned against get hung up on his lingo.

Correct me if I'm wrong, John.

[WaterfallMachine]

Hmm. . .I'm not sure I quite understand how anything goes. Would you mind telling me if my understanding is right or wrong?

So it's a little like when I used to hate myself when I would procrastinate on a task. But I eventually accepted and forgave my own lack of focus at times but even if I accepted it, I would still act to discipline myself still. It was no longer done because of a rigid iron held rule of something to follow but something I really wanted to do myself out of my own freedom. And it was not a should of what to do, but simply a desire I had.? I still wanted it to happen, but if it didn't happen, it was alright. 

It seemed my desires could adapt and change to the moment. Less like a rigid metal, but more the formlessness of water that can change in each container it stays in. I could change my own desire to want to work on the task, but if it was no longer something I could control, I simply let go of it and later have it again when I need to. 

And enlightenment is a little like that, but with pretty much everything in life, right?

???

[Prabhaker]

3 minutes ago, username said:

He's not using judgement in the sense of mistaking judgement

A meditator live moment to moment, act spontaneously according to the situation. Only bad decision possible is live a moment without awareness.

[Leo Gura]

You can judge in one hand, and crap in the other, and see which one has more substance. Now you got a good sense of how much your judgment is worth.

 

[Dodo]

13 minutes ago, Maxx said:

I think I know better what Leo is pointing at. He explained it more than once. He says for example that reality itself is Maya, "an infinite hallucination". And that "the waking state (life) has exactly as much reality as the dreaming state". This is exactly what is negated and refuted in the higher Buddhist teachings. He just hasn't done his research well, which I don't want to judge as such. Nobody is omniscient. What is bad is that he claims the knowledge high-ground, treating other people as "spiritual retards" in general as someone correctly pointed out in the YouTube-comment-section recently , and reacting arrogant and contemptuous when someone points out some of this stuff. You cannot tell anything to people with this kind of attitude. Not only is their cup full. When you tell them to empty their cup, they say "who the fuck are you to tell me to empty my cup" so to speak. I only can just wish those people good luck, but I don't have anything to tell them, since they don't listen anyway. Some people want to take the long way.

In Buddhism it is about emptiness (Śūnyatā) and dependent arising (Pratītyasamutpāda).

Reality is nothing but the dream of cause and effect. As a character in the dream you can be outraged if someone calls your only reality a dream.

Good thing you are not the character 

[Orange]

11 hours ago, aurum said:

Of course because evil acts are relative! That's basically the whole point of what I've been trying to say.

People nailed Jesus to a cross because they thought what he was doing was evil.

And don't you think Hitler was just doing what he thought was "right" as well? Of course, why else would he do it?

This is true. But besides the fact that evil acts are still completely relative, there's nuance here you're missing.

Let's create an imaginary character named Joe.

Joe hates the world and hates people. He thinks they're evil, stupid, corrupt and take advantage of him.

If Joe resists the reality that people are evil, stupid and corrupt, it makes him more hateful because he keeps thinking it shouldn't be this way! Why does the world have to be like this! These people keep hurting me.

Further more, maybe Joe thinks he should be a nicer person. Society has told him "be a loving person", but he just can't because he's angry! So that's frustrates him even more. Now he is resisting his resistance.

 

But what would happen if we introduce Love (acceptance) into this picture?

Well, obviously there are no guarantees and everything is still relative. But here's what I generally have found:

Joe begins to introduce love to the reality that he "shouldn't" be a loving person. He begins to "love hate" as you put it. Maybe at this point he does lash out more and become outwardly hateful. He has always been hateful, but now he is just allowing it.

Damn ISIS! We should bomb them and just get rid of those assholes! Trying to take away OUR freedom #murica.

This is essentially what you're talking about. "If I'm okay with hating people, won't I just hate them more?" Well, maybe.

But what happens if Joe keeps going?

Joe now begins to "love" the reality that people are stupid, evil and corrupt. He says "it's okay that people are this way. They are just doing the best I can, the same as I am. I am not better or worse than them. In fact, they ARE me" and really means it.

What has happened? Suddenly, the evil, stupid and corrupt people aren't evil, stupid and corrupt anymore!

It was always about YOU!

These were your judgments. Your perceptions. Your desire for people and the world to act a certain way.

It had nothing to do with them. They were perfect as they were.

You have "loved evil out of existence" as Leo put it.

So what need does Joe have to go destroy these people anymore? They're perfect!

You can't hate what you accept.

If this all seems confusing, I agree. I would have never understood any of this, which is why it's often better to just go through the process yourself.

Question your morals. Question your assumptions. Question everything until you know Truth.

right, thanks for explaining!