What's the difference before and after enlightenment?

namelessness SG

There is an old saying: "Before enlightenment, one feels as if one were losing one's parents; after enlightenment, one also feels as if one were losing one's parents."

Is there any difference before and after enlightenment?

sinweiy SG

One thing we don't have to worry is that We know one think for SURE as Buddha stated in the Shurangama Sutra that when attain enlightenment, Buddha don't become ignorance again.

Sutra:
The Buddha said, "If a person who is aware points out the
way to the person who is in the midst of confusion, and makes
him aware, then do you suppose, Purna, that once the person is
over his confusion he could lose his sense of direction again in
that village?"
"No, World Honored One."

Sutra:
"Purna, the Thus Come Ones of the ten directions are the
same way. Confusion is groundless and ultimately empty in
nature. There had basically been no confusion: it merely
seemed as if there were confusion and enlightenment. When the
delusion about confusion and enlightenment is ended, enlight-
enment does not give rise to confusion.

Sutra:
"It is also like a person with an eye-ailment who sees flowers
in space. If he gets rid of his eye-ailment, the flowers in space
will disappear. If he were so stupid as to quickly return to the
spot where the flowers disappeared and wait for them to
reappear, would you consider that person to be stupid or
smart?"

Sutra:
"It is like a piece of ore containing gold and a mixture of
other metals. Once the pure gold is extracted, it will not become
an ore again. It is like wood that has been burned to ashes; it
will not become wood again.

thus learning,

/\
Amtf.

ps: The Sixth Patriarch told us:
Basically there is nothing at all.
Where can the dust alight?

sinweiy SG

i've heard a very profound teaching by MCK. He said the first 'empty' thought of the True Mind is Bright/Enlighten, but the following 2nd, third, makes it wrong/defiled.

He hold a piece of paper, and ask what people see. First we don't think, then we start to differentiate and label it as "paper" makes it wrong/defiled.

And to be able to HOLD the first thought, yet not no thought IS the Buddha.

can also use similie of husked rice to represent sentient being and cooked rice to represent buddhas. ie husked rice have nature of cooked rice. cannot be cooking sand to get cook rice.

thus heard,

amtf.

longchen SG

My understanding only...

The first thought IS... just is... without any observer making any distinct between himself and the object.

Later duality set in... resulting in an observer and the being observered... giving rise to the concept of 'things' that are 'outside'. ..

But there is really no outside. What seems outside is what's on the mind.. is the mind. But the mind is a reflection of awareness. Mind is actually awareness... it is awareness making differentiation.

At my stage, i can only understand pure awareness as not knowing itself. But i understanding that at full enlightenment, there is a direct knowing. This, again from understanding is because emptiness is not really empty... but full. Pure awareness has an intelligent(wisdom) aspect that an enlighten mind can know through direct knowing. Why? perhaps because pure awareness is the broadcast of all manifestation, so it hold within itself all the creativity and intelligence... it is the source. An enlightened mind is a refined reflection of pure awareness, thus knows directly... unlike the thinking mind which is levels below.

sinweiy SG

"dualism is original sin "

by MKY

/\

namelessness SG

Because he practiced so hard that there was no time to think about anything but the ultimate question.

Because he realized that parents is only a concept. Parents and him are not dual.

Actually, everyone is enlightened. The difference is just whether we know it or not? whether we have any doubt about it or not? And whether we can keep it enlightened or not?

Eye in the Sky SG

States (similar to 'boy and ox' zen pictograms):

First: How come I am not enlightened? I will try all my might to reach it. Hopefully someone can help me.

Second: I have reached ENLIGHTENMENT. Thanks for helping me! But wait, I 'see' ENLIGHTENMENT everywhere! What's the difference?

THIRD: Who cares! At least now I know why I was not 'enlightened' in the FIRST place (see FIRST)!

FOURTH: The REAL Enlightenment (I should not even be writing this becos I am typing out words and words have severe limitation of expresssing something that can't be expressed by words - yes a conundrum) is to be 'above' the state of FIRST, SECOND, THIRD and FOURTH.

The FOURTH state should not be taken literally, but rather it is a state of {neither '... {neither '{neither 'above' nor 'below'}' nor {neither 'above' nor 'below'}}' ... }

== To return to the ZEROTH state ==

The ZEROTH state is {neither 'FOURTH state' nor 'NOT FOURTH state'}

Think of a spiral of ZEROTH States along the way to convergence == Enlightenment! Don't think like a Helix, you will not reach it!

namelessness SG

Kapleau:
In your past forty years, have you already found the secret of life that you have been looking for?

Lee:
The secret that I have found can be expressed in a few words, i.e. "All sentient beings are originally being Buddha."

Kapleau:
May I ask what is the origin of Buddha?

Lee:
The origin of Buddha, in terms of the terminology of Buddha - that is the enlightenment of life.

Kapleau:
Is life itself being mystical or ordinary?

Lee:
Life is the most ordinary, the most practical, nothing mystical about.

Kapleau:
Can you give some examples to show what is the natural way of life?

Lee:
Why would people live unpleasantly? It is because he had lost the original, natural and liberated mentality. The original is eternal; truth must be original. As long as one could recover up to approximating the original mentality (impossible to be exactly the same), his life would become very pleasant.

Kapleau:
If you were going to die now, what would you do?

Lee:
I want to add one word first: At present, the mentality that enables us to do conversation is not the original mentality; instead, it is similar to the rendered functions of a computer after being filled with data. Once I had left the current life, would return to the original state of life.

Kapleau:
After returning to your origin, what kind of mentality is it like?

Lee:
Ordinary, I would never discuss this question. But since Master Kapleau coming from afar, I could talk about it.

After having washed and brushed clean the polluting stuff that was originally not being existent in the mind; when he is living in this societ, it is still only a conditional nirvana; instead of being absolutely fulfilled.

No matter how good a practitioner Master Kapleau you are, master Kapleau, this life is still not being absolutely fulfilled. Only after we have got rid of the body and returned to the original state of life, would then be absolutely fullfilled.

Here I would like to modify a word of Dicare, " I think, hence I exist." Once people return to the original state of life, he would no longer think, instead, it is, " I aware, hence I exist." That self-awareness has only brightness. If Master Kapleau had ever read the " Heart Sutra," the words of the "Heart Sutra," is the description for those who have returned to their original state of life.

Kapleau:
Can you reveal the true "I"?

Lee:
If you want me to reveal, I can only say that: please you take a look.

Kapleau:
May I ask that could Mr. Lee show the original face before being born by the parents?

Lee:
You sit right in front of me; should feel it very clearly.

Kapleau:
That is true, but are you sure that you have seen the original face before being born by the parents?

Lee:
Surely I do.

Kapleau:
According to the meaning of this word, has Mr. Lee already got enlightened?

Lee:
Exactly. What I want to add is: ordinary people would usually not admit it; why would I dare to admit? Because: enlightenment is everybody's duty. Nothing special. Everybody should get enlightened. If not asking for enlightenment it would then be personally willing to be covered up.

Kapleau:
Yes, we should get enlightened. For the sake of individual, for the sake of the mankind, we are obliged to get enlightened. But we should not say that, " I have already got enlightened."

Lee:
Your word is quite right. Because: I talked about getting enlightened is because you had asked me. If you had not asked me, I would never have said it. Moreover, when I was answering this question, I was very troubled. Because Chinese people are very modest, how could I say that I have got enlightened?

But if I said that I did not get enlightened, then would somewhat be undermining myself, nor being honest to other people. Therefore I would just go straight ahead to say that that I have got enlightened.

Why did I say so? It is because you have so asked. Why did I add that getting enlightened is not a big deal? Because I think getting enlightened has nothing mystical about.

Kapleau:
What kind of spiritual condition do you have when you were getting enlightened?

Lee:
I must say, most people would think that getting enlightened means finding something mystical, having something special, or finding something big theory.

None of these! An enlightened person absolutely has nothing special, nor finding out whatever big theory. Because: The truth is ordinary and general. Therefore, getting enlightened is not something that is a groundbreaking big event.

This can be explained by separating it into two pieces. First, when I got enlightened, I found that me and other people are not two things; it is just like what Buddhism has said, "Non-dualistic of the self and the others, and the equality of sentient beings and Buddha." Second, what I had found is only the eternal phase of life.

Kapleau:
You have said very well, but could you use language to describe the experience of being getting enlightened?

Lee:
I would now ask you one word as my reply. When you are sitting in front of me and talking, and when you are talking with someone else; what is the difference in mental felling?

Kapleau:
I feel that there is no difference at all between you and me; nor is there any difference between me and each of you who sits here.

Lee:
Since you have said so, your words would exactly be my reply.

Kapleau:
There is a proverb saying, "Since the ancient era, originally there is nothing exists," is it right?

Lee:
Surely it is.