Mike, It's true you don't have to ask anyone if you are enlightened - if you really are.
However there are plenty of people who think they are enlightened because somebody gave them a yam leaf diploma when they aren't. That being said everyone is already enlightened. It's just that a lot of people don't realize they are enlightened. Enlightenment is simply a matter of realizing you are already enlightened and always have been. But you really have to understand what that really means.... Edgar On May 23, 2013, at 12:22 AM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > Merle, > > You'll know because you won't have to ask anyone if you've awakened. Of > course, a teacher can gauge the depth of awakening and what will help you > deepen it. But just like you don't need someone to tell you if that McDonalds > coffee is hot - with the same certainty you'll know your perception of the > world has changed. > > Just as reality is experienced moment to moment, so is enlightenment. Our > conditioning and beliefs etc. go deep and even though our initial awakening > might have blown much of the dust from our eyes, some of that conditioning > still remains. It's very much a work in progress! The biggest mistake to be > made would be to believe that the first glimpse of our true nature is *it* > and no further practice is necessary (you can see here that some people still > cling to their cherished beliefs of what enlightenment is). Before awakening > 'letting go' is a struggle. After awakening you simply realise there is > nothing to let go of. > > Mike > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > From: Merle Lester <merlewiit...@yahoo.com>; > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com>; > Subject: [Zen] keeping the mind in balance > Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 3:26:06 AM > > > > > mike > i get your drift.. > however how does one know when one is awakened?... > and can one be awakened permanently or does one fall back to "sleep" so to > speak..and loose the drift... > merle > > > Merle, > > There have no doubt been many who have wiped the dust from their eyes since, > and before, the historical Buddha. The important thing is that just like > Sidharta Guatama, you too can awaken in this very lifetime; this very moment. > > Mike > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > From: Merle Lester <merlewiit...@yahoo.com>; > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com>; > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance > Sent: Wed, May 22, 2013 8:21:04 AM > > > > mike..i see..thank you... can you point to me a person in history apart from > buddha who has reached the pinnacle of enlightenment?..merle > > Merle, > > The only thing the Freudian concept of 'ego' shares with the Buddhist concept > of the same is the name. They're quite different concepts. Check this out > from www.luminousbuddha.com: > > "The Latin term ego was first used in a translation of Freud’s work to refer > to his idea of the “I” or the reality principle within the dynamic forces of > the psyche. He suggests the functions of the “I” include reasoning, a sense > of self-capacity and the mediator between the polarized demands of > instinctual drives and societal expectations. While he considered the “I” a > mechanism of the self, he did not use the term ego. Nevertheless the word ego > entered the mainstream in professional conversations of the analytic > understanding of the human being as it began with Freud’s thought. > > As psychology became popularized the word ego entered the common vernacular > to describe attitudes and behaviors considered selfish or inflated. The slang > use of ego is generally a derogatory term for behaviors considered out of the > range of social acceptance. Slang borrows from the inflated side of the > psychodynamic description of the unhealthy manifestations of ego yet lacks a > deeper understanding of its causes. > > In the 1970’s Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, a Tibetan lama, began utilizing the > term ego to describe a neurotic process based on the ignorance of our actual > situation (Trungpa, 1978) resulting in a solidified sense of self that is > separate and self-referential and as such is the cause of suffering. He saw > the projections of the ego as an incorrect understanding of the > interdependent nature of reality and the primary obstruction to clear seeing > and compassion. He borrowed aspects of the term from both psychology and > modern vernacular usage. > > Buddhists around the world have embraced this usage of the term ego and use > it regularly to describe the common illusion of a static separate self that > emphasizes it’s self-importance in relation to the world. This Buddhist > definition can now be understood as a unique understanding of the word ego as > well. The field of transpersonal psychology has borrowed from the Buddhist > usage of the term ego in the psychological and spiritual mapping of human > development. > > The confusion that has arisen from the different usages of the term ego is > significant to those in the field of psychology as well as Buddhist > practitioners who have an incomplete understanding of the word in its several > contexts. The general public would also benefit from a further understanding > of the factors relating to the formation of an aggrandized sense of self to > which the slang usage of ego refers." > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad > > From: Merle Lester <merlewiit...@yahoo.com>; > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com>; > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance > Sent: Wed, May 22, 2013 12:33:42 AM > > > > joe... > > no i do not disagree however you are sweeping his work away with a very large > brush.. > > and labelling him judging him to be unfit.. > > can you point to me where freud deviates from the "self "of buddhadharma > > merle > > > Merle, > > Huh? No, Dr. Freud first used the word "ego"; I think he scrounged it from > the Latin, to fill in for something in his model of the small mind as he > studied neurotic Jewish ladies in his neighborhood who came to him for what > he called "analysis". > > Freud had it right for himself and his theories; but the buck stops THERE. > > It's of no value in Buddhadharma. "Self" has always been the operative word, > there. So far so good. Do you disagree somehow? > > --Joe > > > Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@...> wrote: > > > > joe.. > > > > can you direct me to some relevant web info on this... > > so are you saying that dr. freud got it all wrong? > > are we not all buddhas and demons and mixtures of both? > > so why are you suggesting dr. Freud is a demon and a fraud? > > > > > > > > >
