Bronsoval

Enlightenment Vs Compassion

31 posts in this topic

Is enlightenment equal to compassion? Or does it simply promote it?  Remember there are masculine and feminine forms of compassion, but they both intend to remove suffering...

Enlightenment seams to be a personal journey at first but then as one gets closer to enlightenment, they tend to relate with everything and everyone on a profound level.  They become one with the universe and are more compassionate and understaning towards everything.

Edited by Bronsoval

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kurt said:

@Bronsoval Its a non dual reality.  What do you think?:) Is it ok to hate yourself?

Disliking one's self has often times led to self improvement and self mastery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at compassion as a possible byproduct of Enlightenment. If you say "I want to be a more compassionate person, so let ME become Enlightened", you're still coming at it from an egoic perspective.

Enlightenment is Truth Realization. Everything else is speculation.


Loving a new world into being.

Energy healing, music making, tree hugging, sacred being.

Website: www.akourakin.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

@kurt Yes? ;)

Exactly! Why not eh?  Love and hate, good and bad are only apparently real, so why would we need to be compassionate or non compassionate when there is nothing to be gained or lost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bronsoval said:

Is enlightenment equal to compassion? Or does it simply promote it?

When one becomes so ecstatic in himself then even compassion seems to be preventing his own joy . That’s why there have been hundreds of enlightened people, but very few masters.

To be enlightened does not mean necessarily that you will become a master. Becoming a master means you have tremendous compassion. You want to help the people who are blind, in darkness, groping their way. 

There are two types of self-realized persons. One attains self-realization and becomes one with the void; the other type attains self-realization but still remains in existence to help others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 30secs said:

@Bronsoval yes, look at Jesus:)

Or any other enlightened master. Pure benevolence.

When you're enlightened, your empathy levels are maxed out. You feel others' pain as your pain. When you're on the path to enlightenment, you really wish the word was capable of freeing themselves from self-inflicted suffering, but you realize it's fruitless. People are far too attached to their self-identity, as you once were. You don't judge them for it, but you love them as yourself.

Also, every living being and everything in nature becomes a part of you. You love everything as you would yourself. It's the most purest form of love..no attachments, just pure bliss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Frogfucius Careful about idealizing enlightened people, you will be disappointed.

Jesus was not pure benevolence. If you look at the descriptions of him, he was also a prick. As many enlightened masters can be.

Don't equate enlightenment with automatic goodness. That goodness requires MUCH additional work. And it's actually easier to become deeply enlightened than to become perfectly good.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Frogfucius said:

You don't judge them for it, but you love them as yourself.

totally agree with this, unconditional love for everything, you love a piece of grass in your garden as much as you love your spouse:) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Meta-Man said:

Check out U.G. Krishnamurti. Whenever you are trying to conceptualize an enlightened ideal, he is there to destroy that. :D

hehe.. that's why I love U.G. 

wonder why some of his videos he shouts when he answer most of the questions , because he dont want to play with it, he want a direct strong answer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term enlightenment is quite the conundrum as many try to place a description on it. 

 

The truly purified/whole/balanced person will have a transparent personality. Names, status, reputation, etc... pales in insignificance to their understanding - they are simply a humble servant allowing the work of the divine to flow through them and from them. They are no longer distorted but instead they become the true essence that they, and all else, are.

The only reaction that would arise from such an entity to every situation would be love, as this is the true essence that creates, builds, destroys, heals, nourishes, and is everything.

Namaste.

Edited by TheLawisOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2016 at 8:21 PM, Bronsoval said:

Is enlightenment equal to compassion? Or does it simply promote it?  Remember there are masculine and feminine forms of compassion, but they both intend to remove suffering...

 

I don't think enlightenment equals compassion. Enlightenment is simply realizing that we are God and God is us. There is no separation. Some people can also misuse that and promote violence. 


The unborn Lord has many incarnations. BPHS 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, TheLawisOne said:

The term enlightenment is quite the conundrum as many try to place a description on it. 

 

The truly purified/whole/balanced person will have a transparent personality. Names, status, reputation, etc... pales in insignificance to their understanding - they are simply a humble servant allowing the work of the divine to flow through them and from them. They are no longer distorted but instead they become the true essence that they, and all else, are.

The only reaction that would arise from such an entity to every situation would be love, as this is the true essence that creates, builds, destroys, heals, nourishes, and is everything.

Namaste.

I agree.  Love and hate are closely linked.  Enlightened people can get upset at people who break universal values continually without regard.  Its a completely different matter for most of us who are just prone to mistakes and generally want to do the right thing.  I dont think any truly enlightened person would harm another, yet they do feel hate for certain ideas.  The hate however is not binding, and therefore they can chose whether or not to act on it.  Christ in the temple marketplace on the passover festival? 

Sometimes compassion can be sickly, egotistical and fake, and anybody who thinks they are helping others through compassion is probably not enlightened and just playing the enlightenment card.  Ideas of healing or enlightening the world springs to mind.  The facts are from our historical observation is that the world is and always be a mixture of dharmic and adharmic intentions and effects.  Most of the enlightened people that have been around have been genuine teachers that have brought a certain amount of balance to the world, but none of them came here to save it, just re-establish dharma through teaching.  Which is why I personally believe its important to get a thorough education on what enlightenment is, as part of the journey is to be able to spot a fake and not get pulled into their self serving bullshit.

"It is only in the land of the blind that the one eyed man is king"

Edited by kurt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2016 at 6:14 AM, Leo Gura said:

And it's actually easier to become deeply enlightened than to become perfectly good.

Well, yes, enlightenment means you know you are the essence of goodness itself, so why would there be any reason to "do" good?

All that is required is not to break the rules, because any enlightened person knows that all harm is only self harm. Plus like I said, there is nothing to be lost or gained in compassion or non compassion.

The notions we have about enlightened masters being saints (I understand) is mainly a projection.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

any enlightened person knows that all harm is only self harm.

Did  you mean also self harm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2016 at 1:14 AM, Leo Gura said:

@Frogfucius Careful about idealizing enlightened people, you will be disappointed.

Jesus was not pure benevolence. If you look at the descriptions of him, he was also a prick. As many enlightened masters can be.

Don't equate enlightenment with automatic goodness. That goodness requires MUCH additional work. And it's actually easier to become deeply enlightened than to become perfectly good.

Could you elaborate on this? In what ways was Jesus a prick? I always want to know more about Jesus seeing that I came from a Christian background. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Tron said:

In what ways was Jesus a prick?

The Jesus is not like Buddha or Lao Tzu. You cannot conceive of Buddha's going into a temple and beating moneylenders. But Jesus did it.

The temple was becoming richer and richer: it was religious imperialism. The whole country was poor and suffering, but so much money would be automatically coming into the temple. Then Jesus entered one day with a whip in his hand. He overturned the moneylenders' boards and began to beat the moneylenders. He created chaos in the temple. You cannot conceive of Buddha doing this. Impossible!

 He got so angry at some things that we cannot even believe it. He cursed a fig tree which was not yielding any fruit because he and his disciples were hungry. He destroyed it!

He threatened in a type of language that Buddha could not even utter. For example, he said that those who would not believe in him and the kingdom of God would be thrown into the fires of hell, the eternal fires of hell, and they would not be able to come back. Only the Christian hell is eternal.

He was fully enlightened. But because he lived amidst a people who were absolutely ignorant about enlightenment, he had to speak in a language which may indicate he was not. He had to use such language because, at that particular time and place, there was no other possibility - only this could be understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now