Mother of four experiences the same enlightenment as Buddha

redrider63 said:I am BEGGING you, PARSIFALA and ambereagle642, please just dig a little deeper into the work and pull out some more stuff, specifically those parts where
she tries to experience Selfhood—and I mean the parts that, in your own OPINION, are the most absolutely mind-bending...

because based on what I've been reading here, Truth itself is basically the ultimate MASTER CANDIDATE

since there’s way too much GOAL-ORIENTATION and lecturing going on

when it’s precisely that kind of RAWNESS and deviation

that you just don't find

redrider63 said:When the sage known as Gautama Buddha declared that there is no eternal Selfhood, he was speaking from the vantage point of having already experienced enlightenment. You know, after the Atman has already fallen away.
So, it’s a mistake to think that Selfhood doesn't exist at all;
talking about non-Selfhood or non-Atman just doesn't make sense unless you're negating an experience that actually happens.
SO, EVEN THOUGH BUDDHA WENT A STEP BEYOND THE HINDU REALIZATION OF ATMAN, nobody can actually take that leap without first realizing the Atman. I mean, come on—to experience the loss of Selfhood, the Self has to exist in the first place. That’s just how the gears turn...
Since Atman eventually falls away, it clearly isn't the Absolute or Brahman.
What we cling to as our "true self" is that illusion we’ve been chatting about—the illusion that *is* the Self.
Now, using the word "illusion" doesn't mean Selfhood is a total lie; it just means it's a relative truth rather than an absolute one...

....

consciousness isn't some vessel used to perceive the Self; consciousness can only ever recognize what it is NOT..

--------------------------------------------

just waiting for the Absolute and Brahman to fall away too

waiting for sense itself to fall away

waiting for Truth to fall away

👋

Anthony Rodriguez58 said:Like a group of blind men trying to describe an elephant.
One claims the elephant is long and thin like a snake (the trunk), another insists it is rounded and wide (the leg), while a third argues it is flat (the ear)... yet all of them are describing the very same elephant.

redrider63 said:there are people out there trying to GRASP THE UNGRASPABLE

INTANGIBLE 😉

and then they actually claim to SEE it

👋

Jason Johnson4 said:JUST A "HINT" 😉

This captures the very core of the wisdom offered by the Sage known as Gautama Buddha. I recall reading of an instance where an inquirer approached him regarding the immortality of the soul. The Sage responded by stating: “That soul about whose survival you are anxious does not exist even now; it is unreal.” His intention was to point out that the questioner was operating under the flawed premise of an individual soul—a concept that holds no true reality—meaning the inquiry itself was built upon a fallacy; Buddha did not mean to deny the existence of the real Self. The individual failed to grasp the nuance of the response, walking away convinced the Sage was claiming there is no Self whatsoever. Instead of retreating, he should have pressed deeper: ‘Is there a real Self, and if so, what is its actual nature?’ Because he didn't, the Sage found himself having shaken the man's convictions without actually providing enlightenment. It is a crucial point: when a question is rooted in a false assumption, a simple affirmative or negative answer is impossible; any direct answer would inherently be incorrect.

Taken from:

MAHA YOGA
OR
THE UPANISHADIC LORE
IN THE LIGHT OF THE TEACHINGS OF
MASTER RAMAN

BY “WHO”

👋

Anthony Rodriguez58 said:But why on earth would it be "unfriendly"?

ambereagle642 said:That could just be your own intellectual conviction or opinion. You are judging her by your own standards, whereas I am judging you by mine.
But if, among everything else, non-Christian ADVAITA texts have presented her as an example of someone who has 'finished the work,' then there ought to be some element of truth in that.
No one who hasn't experienced THAT (not even one who truly is) can describe it the way she did.
Whether anyone wants to nitpick her punctuation or claim she missed a comma where it 'should' have been is entirely up to the individual.

So, Jane, let me ask you one more thing;
give me an example—aside from these little pet theories of yours—of someone you believe has truly 'finished the job'!

redrider63 said:rather, provide me with more of her translations 👋

redrider63 said:THAT thing speaks in all sorts of different LANGUAGES, STYLES, AND PERSONALITIES, but if you actually ARE, then
YOU(THAT) notice it in THAT which lies BEYOND THE WORDS, BEYOND THE STYLES, BEYOND THE PERSONALITIES

ALTHOUGH IT WOULD PROBABLY BE BETTER TO JUST SAY "THAT" AND SEE

rather than asking for more translations of her... 👋

ambereagle642 said:That could just be your own intellectual bias and opinion. You’re judging her by your standards, while I’m judging her by mine.
But look, if even non-Christian ADVAITA sources have cited her as an example of someone who has actually 'finished the work,' then there ought to be some truth to it, right?
After all, nobody who hasn't experienced THAT (not even someone who truly *is*) can describe it the way she did.
Now, whether anyone wants to nitpick her grammar or point out where she missed a comma or a period is entirely up to them!

So, Jane, I’m going to ask you one more favor;
besides those examples of yours, can you give me just one instance of someone you believe has truly 'finished the job'!?

redrider63 said:Gautama Buddha responded from the "Self," from the "I AM," so to speak. He didn't make any concessions to individual consciousness, which actually served to drown it; he didn't need to speak in the language of a
DISSOLVED MIND. It wasn't necessary because what He said can't even be understood. WHEN the Self "speaks," there is nothing to grasp, and the mind can't catch it—the "mind" is drowned, it permeates the listener's Self and touches it. There is nothing TO UNDERSTAND, nor is there any explanation for what He said that would be sensible or logical. If that were possible,

THE DROWNING OF THE MIND WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE.

I DON'T SEE WHY BUDDHA WOULD BE dissatisfied?? Just because a person didn't ask the right question doesn't mean much. HE RECEIVED A DIRECT FLASH INTO THE SELF, AND THAT IS WHAT MATTERS MOST

so that the TRUE SELF OR TRUE NATURE
BECOMES AWAKENED.

👋

nor is there any explanation for what he said that would be sensible or logical

ambereagle642 said:I am in total agreement with what you’re saying here.
It’s just that when it comes to John, you can't really offer any kind of praise unless you're talking about him personally or, at the very least, one of his little "protégés" (you know, his hand-picked students).

Even in this context, he’s more than happy to dismiss Master Raman as nothing more than some ignorant amateur or just another random Truth seeker. 🙄

Regarding the translation; what we have here is a condensed snippet of her life story (which makes it tricky to pull much from the full biography right now, since you really need the whole arc from start to finish to get the complete picture). Basically, it describes that moment of "losing the Self"—all those questions, feelings, experiences, and doubts she had to face when she was suddenly, and quite unexpectedly, caught up in it all...
Caught between rigid fundamentalist theology and the raw reality of what she actually experienced, she had to undergo a necessary adjustment to her new situation, leading to some pretty fascinating new insights and interpretations of everything she had previously been taught, heard, or known.

I want to emphasize this again; this book
is something I would recommend to everyone... including you. 😁 🙂

Lame Deer kazˇes :
Soto, I think you're overthinking things and stretching the point in too many places. This whole idea of speaking from the SELF, or from the "I AM," isn't nearly as mystical as you're making it out to be.

What I was actually trying to get at is that Buddha didn't explicitly dwell on the transcendental at all, because doing so would just end up confusing seekers even more. Think of this "BECAUSE" as being very conditional—just like any other "since," "therefore," or "due to."

_ _ _ _

In the second place, if he goes to a living Sage and seeks guidance from him, he is very likely to misunderstand what the Sage might tell him; for this reason IT happens that Sages as a rule do not give out all the teachings they have in them to all questioners alike; they withhold the deeper truths from those whose minds are unopened; for a truth that is misunderstood is more fatal than sheer ignorance.*

* Tradition tells us that Gautama Buddha once gave an answer by which the questioner was unsettled in his faith, as he was too immature to understand the answer aright; on another occasion, when a question was put to him by another immature visitor, he kept quiet; he later explained to a Disciple that he did so, because any answer that he could give was sure to be misinterpreted.

And again:

“Buddha was interested only in instructing his disciples
how to attain lasting Happiness. He refused to answer
questions — which were based on and mixed up with the
questioners’ ignorance — about God and other matters. For
this he was described as a Nihilist, Sunyavadi!”

_ _ _ _

Sorry for the block quotes, but I grabbed them all at once since they are "so well phrased."

1 - You're saying there were no concessions made to a specific CONSCIOUSNESS. If that's the case, then he simply wasn't ENLIGHTENED. I mean, that's like saying a cow belongs to Ramanin—it's a given.

It would be great if placidharbor7 could weigh in on these "concessions to specific consciousness."

2 – How can there be nothing to understand? 😁
What exactly do you mean when you say a DISRUPTED MIND?

🙄

*

DISSOLVING THE MIND doesn't mean that a "person" loses the ability to UNDERSTAND. What we call the "MIND" is essentially the SELF, just "seemingly separate." In other words, after the mind dissolves, the functions of what we previously called the mind still remain, they are just no longer detached from….

*

Nowhere does it say that Buddha was dissatisfied. It only says:

"and Buddha discovered that he had unsettled the man’s faith without enlightening him" 😉>

*

The SELF "speaks" even when a donkey brays, but we don't exactly "SHINE" every time a donkey makes a noise, right?

👋

klimakos kazˇesˇ:
Spin it however you want or however you need to. You know exactly what I meant.

Master John said:Look, Master John has gone on record here plenty of times saying some seriously intense stuff...

One of those takes is that Buddha wasn't actually ENLIGHTENED in any real sense of the word.

Because if he actually was, there’s no way he would have ended up as the leader of the BUDAPEST movement.

And honestly, it’s the exact same story with Christ Nazarene and Muhammad Kamilek.

All three of them just ended up being totally mentally scattered in the end...

Can we please just move this conversation over to the school forum?👋

Disciple of Klimakos said:You hit the nail on the head, placidharbor7—you are absolutely right! 😁

Honestly, I just don't understand how anyone could possibly take you "too seriously."