> Keynes wrote:

>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 05:01:09 GMT, Robert Epstein verizon.net> wrote:

>

>>>^@%%>---*=# wrote:

>

>>>>"Robert Epstein" verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:paPVj.16477$Au2.1239@trnddc07...

>

>>>>>^@%%>---*=# wrote:

>

>>>>>>"Tang Huyen" gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:kuOdnQreJ4J9SrvVnZ2dnUVZ_r3inZ2d@supernews.com...

>

>>>>>>>Robert Epstein wrote:

>

>>>>>>>>Well, first of all, if you were an enlightened master, I think you'd
>>>>>>>>know it. Second of all, the real test of enlightenment [leaving
>>>>>>>>Mastery
>>>>>>>>side for a moment] is how you do when you don't have what you want,
>>>>>>>>when
>>>>>>>>things don't go your way. If you are fine when all your stuff is
>>>>>>>>taken
>>>>>>>>away and your plans don't work out, because you realize that none
>>>>>>>>of it
>>>>>>>>is "self," then you have a level of unattachment and understanding
>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>might qualify as enlightenment. So that would be my question, not
>>>>>>>>whether you are able to "create your perfect reality" which is a
>>>>>>>>manifestation of spiritualized karma perhaps, but not necessarily a
>>>>>>>>sign
>>>>>>>>of enlightenment.

>

>>>>>>>Buddhism is about suffering and the ending of
>>>>>>>suffering, and that is the test of awakening, namely
>>>>>>>whether one can handle the vagaries of life without
>>>>>>>creating suffering for oneself or not. What happens is
>>>>>>>unavoidable, but suffering is optional. Awakening is
>>>>>>>not about fancy technique, like the ability to solve
>>>>>>>public cases (which is mental masturbation) or the
>>>>>>>ability to sit in sitting only or the ability to attain to
>>>>>>>extraordinary states. All of those belong to the realm
>>>>>>>of the Devil (mara-dhatu, muo-jie, makkyo), whereas
>>>>>>>awakening is to awaken from any state and not to get
>>>>>>>carried away by it but to remain above it all, whatever
>>>>>>>it is or is not.

>

>>>>>>>< >>>>>>>and your plans don't work out, because you realize
>>>>>>>that none of it is "self," then you have a level of
>>>>>>>unattachment and understanding that might qualify as
>>>>>>>enlightenment.>>

>

>>>>>>>As the Buddha says:

>

>>>>>>>"Form is not-self. If form was self, this form would
>>>>>>>not lead to affliction, and it could be had of form:
>>>>>>>Let my form be thus, let my form not be thus. And
>>>>>>>because form is not-self that it therefore leads to
>>>>>>>affliction, and that it cannot be had of form: Let my
>>>>>>>form be thus, let my form not be thus." SN, III, 66
>>>>>>>(22, 59).

>

>>>>>>>"When a monk does not dwell devoted to cultivation
>>>>>>>(bhavana), even though such a *wish* as this might
>>>>>>>arise in him: 'Oh, that my mind might be liberated
>>>>>>>from the cankers by non-clinging!', yet his mind is
>>>>>>>*not* liberated from the cankers by non-clinging.
>>>>>>>For what reason? It should be said: because of lack
>>>>>>>of cultivation (a-bhavitatta)." SN, III, 153 (22, 101).

>

>>>>>>>That part of reality that often resists and fails human
>>>>>>>wishes and desires exists, whether one builds up a
>>>>>>>self or "I" or not. But when one does not build up a
>>>>>>>self or "I", one can accommodate it more easily and
>>>>>>>more flowingly, and therefore has less of a chance of
>>>>>>>creating suffering for oneself. One can open oneself
>>>>>>>up to it, whatever it is or is not, without resistance,
>>>>>>>and awakening is nothing other than such opening up,
>>>>>>>it is content-free and and is not any specific content,
>>>>>>>is not bound to any specific content.

>

>>>>>>>Tang Huyen

>

>>>>>>the statement " i am enlightened " is totally
>>>>>>erroneous anyway since according to
>>>>>>ramana maharshi and nisargadatta
>>>>>>maharaj the point of awakening does
>>>>>>indeed encompass the relinquishment
>>>>>>of the notion of an ' i ' alltogether.

>

>>>>>well they still say "I am That." It depends on how you use the "I"
>>>>>doesn't it?

>

>>>>>Robert

>

>>>>saying 'i am that' is the best
>>>>nullification of 'i' that you
>>>>can have

>

>>>"I am enlightened" should mean the same exact thing.

>

>>>Robert

>

>>>= = = = = = = =

>

>> I prefer "where am I?"

>
> reminds me of bodhidharma's reply to the Chinese king who wanted to know
> who he was, a stranger in the court. The King asked "Who is this that
> stands before me?" And Bodhidharma replied: "I don't know."
>
> Robert
>
> = = = = = = = = = =