This One Should Get People Riled Up...

[MightyB]

Someone asked if Enlightenment just happened and if it could happen to anybody.

I say yes. I would also say that anybody training or studying for enlightenment is wasting their time and money.

Enlightenment, if it exists, doesn't come gradually. It's supposably all at once in what the Japanese call "Satori". The Chinese would call it "Mon Gei" (or "No Mind") in Cantonese. It really is thought without reflection or consequence. It's having the mind in the here and now.

People tend to really get peaved off when I say this, so here's some food for thought...

Bhodhidharma, Damo, Ta Mo, whatever the heck you want to call him, stated that (paraphrase) "if you see Buddha, it's not Buddha. If you feel Buddha, it's not Buddha..." This is to suggest that trying to achieve enlightenment through training is a waste of time because you would then be actually trying to grasp it which is exactly contradictory to what enlightenment is supposed to be- A mind that doesn't hold on to anything so that it is free to exist and understand everything.

So, can enlightenment happen to anyone? Yes, but it's going to happen in the course of that person's being without them really trying to do anything. It could happen anytime. It's just a matter of waking up and seeing things for how they are, and you can't buy that.

So what do all you Chi-Hippies think?



The B

[ewallace]

Totally disagree. You must walk in circles upon the tallest mountains in china and chant mantras to reach enlightenment. Geez I thought everyone knew that.

[SevenStar]

I thought you had to jump off of an 11 story building. If you live, you prove yourself worthy and become enlightened

[fa_jing]

I thought enlightenment was when you lost 50 pounds or something.

[Chang Style Novice]

I'm not really sure what Enlightenment is supposed to be exactly, but from what little I've read, some people reach it accidentally and without effort, and others work hard at it and achieve it that way.

Hardly seems fair, though. I tend toward the "Bobby Lama" theory - most folks who are enlightened probably don't know it, and it's a lot less special than some let on.

[Cody]

No difficulty here. The business of enlightenment isn't going to get rich from me.

No-mind, in my view, is another type of consciousness, of experiencing being. It can involve acting without acting. I think of it as the essence of our humanity, or a unity between reason and the primal as a functional entity. The self. It involves a surrender of sorts. The awareness might not be on a conscious level, but the shift in consciousness is. People go about this in different ways. If one doesn't follow the correct way for one's self and with the necessary openness, it won't happen no matter how much effort is expended.
Enlightenment? I don't even think on it as such. Into which construct am I enlightened? to "see" what I have been told to expect? No. This is not something I aspire to.

Cody

[apoweyn]

i do disagree.

enlightenment, as described by philosophers throughout various cultures, is sudden in the sense that when it finally happens, everything changes. everything feels new and somehow more vibrant. that sort of transition, if you believe, is bound to feel sudden regardless of what went into making it happen.

however, i can't think of any instances of 'enlightenment' in which certain conditions weren't set ahead of time. take siddhartha gautama, for example. the man we generally refer to as buddha. (yeah, i know that he's not the only buddha in the mahayana tradition, but you know what i'm saying.) according to legend, he leaves his palace and sits under a tree to attain enlightenment.

here's the thing though: it's not like leaving the palace and sitting under a tree was gautama's 'routine.' he didn't just sit under his favorite tree doing whatever princes do under trees when BANG he understood all. prince gautama felt a sense of unrest, left the palace, got a dose of realism in town, and decided not to return to the familiarity and comfort of the palace. he disciplined himself to sit under a tree, eliminate attachments to wealth, status, consequence, and so on. and in time, he was enlightened.

that's not nearly the same thing as just happening.


I would also say that anybody training or studying for enlightenment is wasting their time and money.

including every monk from every culture? hindu brahman, buddhist monks, jewish and christian mystics, etc.?

then... who is enlightened? even the relatively unconventional daoists had a process. an exercise. they removed themselves from the things that, in their view, prevented understanding.

besides, if training is a waste of time, why are their teachers? why did laozi write down his teachings? or zhuangzi? or bodhidharma?


Bhodhidharma, Damo, Ta Mo, whatever the heck you want to call him, stated that (paraphrase) "if you see Buddha, it's not Buddha. If you feel Buddha, it's not Buddha..." This is to suggest that trying to achieve enlightenment through training is a waste of time because you would then be actually trying to grasp it which is exactly contradictory to what enlightenment is supposed to be- A mind that doesn't hold on to anything so that it is free to exist and understand everything.

hmm... no, i don't think that is what it suggests. what it does suggest is avoidance of getting too wrapped up in the particulars and losing sight of the real thing. if you're so concerned about seeing the buddha, you're wrapped up in the objective. in that sense, i agree with you. you're no longer open to the truth. but that doesn't mean that there aren't practices and exercises that help to retool your view of things. people are in a certain state right now. and the buddhists, daoists, hindus, christians, etc. may not agree wholeheartedly on the specifics of that state. but they all seem to agree that things can be done to rectify that state. whether the plan is to renounce worldly affairs, renounce society and its complications, renounce sin, etc. there are actions to be taken.

the stage has to be set. and setting that stage is the internalization and performance of training. the guy that goes to work in an office all day, comes home and watches hours of television while eating cheeseburgers is probably not setting that stage. unless you know any enlightened, cheeseburger-eating, television-watching corporate executives.

in a sense, i agree with you. but i think you've oversimplified it a little.


stuart 'never been called a qi hippie' b.

[Ryu]

*clap clap clap*

Ap, that was a beautiful post. My thoughts almost exactly.

Ryu

[KC Elbows]

When I was a kid, I was enlightened. I went to eat what I thought was gonna be some tasty chocolate, and it was baking chocolate. I realized that foil wrappers don't always mean tasty sweet treats, which saved me from eating a builion[sp] cube.

Years later, I was enlightened again. It was like a flash! One day, I liked Metallica, and the next, I thought they were sort of doing the same thing over and over, and that thing annoyed me.

I finally became fully enlightened at a chinese restaurant. I ate all of the cashew chicken so that others would not have to suffer all of that bad karma.

I would imagine that someone who worked harder at enlightenment would become more enlightened than I, and someone who worked harder but smarter would become more enlightened than the person who just worked harder. Isn't that how everything else works?

[DelicateSound]

"Enlightened" to me is a stage where you feel completely at peace with the world. No worries.

And as I'm down to 3 Newcastle Brown's and half a plate of Oatcakes, I'm way out of the running.

[guohuen]

That's one of the best descriptions of the process I've ever read KC.

[apoweyn]

cheers ryu. :)

[yenhoi]

I dont know.

I think ap is very on target, but I would assume people who are _really_ "enlightened" wouldent really talk about it, or go about writing things up for other people to follow, trying to show others the way, or open others 3rd eye, etc.

Maybe im just wary of huge organizations with lots of rules and lots of 'older' people.

[MightyB]

Dam n good post Apoweyn. Dam n Good.

Although KC may have you beat.

[apoweyn]

thanks mightyb. :)

but, yeah, KC has me beat. i can live with that. :)



stuart b.

[KC Elbows]

I don't know that I had ya beat. The part of your post about enlightenment not truly being sudden, but subject to prearranged conditions, was more advanced in topic than what I wrote, and more on topic. Basically, I just went the zen route in my response. And I'm still not sure how the cashew chicken bit contributes.:D

[KC Elbows]

BTW, yenhoi's scared of old people!:p :D

So much for enlightenment. Pass the bacon sammich.

[Ryu]

Few days ago I realized I like lemon chicken much better then sweet and sour chicken.

Ryu

[KC Elbows]

"Few days ago I realized I like lemon chicken much better then sweet and sour chicken."

Is that a koan?

I will meditate upon it.

[Badger]

Enlightenment is a good poop in the morning....not just any poop but the colon blow kind that really cleans you out....

[Ryu]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
"Few days ago I realized I like lemon chicken much better then sweet and sour chicken."

Is that a koan?

I will meditate upon it.


Use it wisely, my son.

Ryu

[MightyB]

That's what this guy did:

Master Bristol during private meditation have elevated himself 2 inches off the ground for more than 1 minute. The practice involves a complex method of lightening the body weight and ultilizes other physical forces which can clearly be explained through science to allow the person to momentarily "float" on air. In his course, Master Bristol demonstrates several effective and lethal attack manuevers using levitation.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
I don't know that I had ya beat. The part of your post about enlightenment not truly being sudden, but subject to prearranged conditions, was more advanced in topic than what I wrote, and more on topic. Basically, I just went the zen route in my response. And I'm still not sure how the cashew chicken bit contributes.:D


you managed to bring up boullion cubes in a relevant and meaningful way. that wins the prize, hands down.

:)

[MightyB]

Maybe that Bristol guy had a woody, but I still think it was gas.

Master Bristol during private meditation have elevated himself 2 inches off the ground for more than 1 minute. The practice involves a complex method of lightening the body weight and ultilizes other physical forces which can clearly be explained through science to allow the person to momentarily "float" on air. In his course, Master Bristol demonstrates several effective and lethal attack manuevers using levitation.

[Cody]

the sound of one wing flapping?

depends where the bird is when the other gives out.

Cody

p.s.: I vote for cashew chicken

[Merryprankster]

I dunno. For once, I think I actually disagree with Ap, sort of.

I'm more of the Bobby Lama school myself. I think that it's awfully different for different people, and many people have to work for it and some don't. One of my buddies (incidentally named Bobby) is enlightened, that's for sure. I've never seen a guy who fights less with the world and still manages to get it right every single time!

We've got a million laughing buddhas walking around and we don't even know it.

On the other hand, who do we admire more, the ones that just seem to get it or the ones that worked hard? :)

[Dreadnaught]

Enlightenment is inconcievable.

"sudden" enlightenment is just one aspect. one interpretation. There are countless other interpretations. Too many to even conceive of. Yet enlightenment itself never changes. Only our perception. You can not take one small interpretation of enlightenment and tell us all that is what it is.

Plus, you are taking the teaching of Bodhidharma out of context. Bodhidharma was teaching to people with entirely different causes and conditions than us.

There is far more to Buddhism than Zen. If you are interested in Buddhism, then I suggest you look into other schools interpretations with an open mind, and see if you find something that connects with you.

To paraphrase Tripitaka Master Hsua, if one gets rid of the desire for enlightenment does that make one enlightened? Try it, you can be a phony Buddha.

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by apoweyn
\

however, i can't think of any instances of 'enlightenment' in which certain conditions weren't set ahead of time. take siddhartha gautama, for example. the man we generally refer to as buddha. (yeah, i know that he's not the only buddha in the mahayana tradition, but you know what i'm saying.) according to legend, he leaves his palace and sits under a tree to attain enlightenment.
\

Yes. In fact Buddha Sakyamuni was enlightened long before being born prince Siddhartha. He practiced for many many eons before reaching that stage. He lived as Prince Siddhartha to set an example, and during that life he tried many many routes before finding the correct one. Anyone who is interested should read about it at www.buddhanet.net

[Dreadnaught]

Didn't we already cover sudden vs. gradual several times over in the thread "death of enlightenment in the west" :D :D :D

Why is everybody so caught up on the teachings of a guy who taught in china over a 1000 years ago? There have been many amazing teachers who have taught the Dharma in the west in recent times, and are still doing it right now.

[Xebsball]

Enlightenment, if it exists, doesn't come gradually. It's supposably all at once in what the Japanese call "Satori". The Chinese would call it "Mon Gei" (or "No Mind") in Cantonese. It really is thought without reflection or consequence. It's having the mind in the here and now.

Ok, maybe i was rude when i just said your were wrong (in capital letters, bold and in red :D)
When you talk about buddhist enlightenment, remember the Chan/Zen view of the things is not the only one. Other branches of buddhism, such as the Tibetan ones disagree with the "instantaneous enlightment" and do yes pratice the "gradual enlightenment".
If prana was around he could give you a lot more details, other than that i tell you to do some research on what the other lineages (not Zen, not Chan) think of this matter.

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by Xebsball


Ok, maybe i was rude when i just said your were wrong (in capital letters, bold and in red :D)
When you talk about buddhist enlightenment, remember the Chan/Zen view of the things is not the only one. Other branches of buddhism, such as the Tibetan ones disagree with the "instantaneous enlightment" and do yes pratice the "gradual enlightenment".
If prana was around he could give you a lot more details, other than that i tell you to do some research on what the other lineages (not Zen, not Chan) think of this matter.

There is even the branch of zen "soto zen" which practices gradual enlightenment.

[Nexus]

"Enlightenment is inconcievable."

So is sex to someone who has never had it, yet once you are there, it makes perfect sense.

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by Nexus
"Enlightenment is inconcievable."

So is sex to someone who has never had it, yet once you are there, it makes perfect sense.

Yes. If you are fully enlightened, not only can you conceive of it, but you can lead other beings towards it. In fact, you can teach every type of sentient being by simply making one perfect sound.

[{i^(]

I kind of like the "pure land" sect's idea: everyone is already enlightened. Enlightment consists of everybody being neurotic as h ell and suffering for it, but every once in awhile, someone happens to be nice, so the power of enlightment rests with the other, and yourself to be that other.

So, enlightment, like h ell, is other people....depressing, isn't it?

Oh, sex. That's what I said.

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by {i^(
I kind of like the "pure land" sect's idea: everyone is already enlightened. Enlightment consists of everybody being neurotic as h ell and suffering for it, but every once in awhile, someone happens to be nice, so the power of enlightment rests with the other, and yourself to be that other.

So, enlightment, like h ell, is other people....depressing, isn't it?

Oh, sex. That's what I said.

I think you misunderstand the pure land school entirely. there are countless pure land texts available free of charge if you interested. lots of them you can even find online. try www.buddhanet.net

No school of Buddhism teaches that things rely on others. Everything is created in your mind only. Pure land is also a gradual path, using rebirth in the Pure Land as a stepping stone towards enlightenment.

I could try to explain it further with my limited understanding, but with so many texts available by masters who are infinately more cultivated than me, I'm afraid I'd only confuse the matter.

[{i^(]

"there are countless pure land texts available free of charge if you interested. "

Thanks, but no thank you. I'm doing all I can to forget about enlightenment...no interest in it, really.

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by {i^(
"there are countless pure land texts available free of charge if you interested. "

Thanks, but no thank you. I'm doing all I can to forget about enlightenment...no interest in it, really.

<shrug> i'm not trying to push anything on you, you simply stated that you liked the pure land school. i was just saying that if you wanted to understand it there are plenty of books that explain it. I didn't mean to offend you or be pushy.

[{i^(]

Very kind. No offense taken.

Besides, it's not like I was clear or anything. I'm simply on a differing path and I like it that way. FWIW, I think Mighty B has the right idea, if that's what you're into.

But, hey, don't listen to me. C ya!

[Nexus]

Originally posted by Dreadnaught


I think you misunderstand the pure land school entirely. there are countless pure land texts available free of charge if you interested. lots of them you can even find online. try www.buddhanet.net

No school of Buddhism teaches that things rely on others. Everything is created in your mind only. Pure land is also a gradual path, using rebirth in the Pure Land as a stepping stone towards enlightenment.

I could try to explain it further with my limited understanding, but with so many texts available by masters who are infinately more cultivated than me, I'm afraid I'd only confuse the matter.

Please explain what you mean by being more cultivated than you... What if you became "enlightened" today... Would there still be masters more cultivated than you?

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by {i^(
Very kind. No offense taken.

Besides, it's not like I was clear or anything. I'm simply on a differing path and I like it that way. FWIW, I think Mighty B has the right idea, if that's what you're into.

But, hey, don't listen to me. C ya!

hahah, i think this thread DID get my riled up. anyways, I just love talking about this stuff, and even arguing about it.

[Nexus]

Originally posted by {i^(
Very kind. No offense taken.

Besides, it's not like I was clear or anything. I'm simply on a differing path and I like it that way. FWIW, I think Mighty B has the right idea, if that's what you're into.

But, hey, don't listen to me. C ya!

If you don't want others to listen, don't say anything.

[David Jamieson]

the "epiphany" is a form of small truth realized.
enlightenment is a sustenance of truths realized.
study of the factors that allow for sustained epiphany in any given situation is not necessarily a waste of time.

If we hold this view ( study=waste of time ) then sustenance of enlightenment will not be true.

it is the nature within each of us to "realize" things in moments of epiphany or complete understanding of the factors involved in a brief point in time. To sustain this requires study, to understand completely is knowledge. This knowledge can then lead to enlightenment.

The no-mind is a state of mind but not necessarily "enlightenment".

The sudden school of enlightenment or "soto" prescribes that through meditation on the true nature of oneself, one achieves epiphanies about the world around them and how they relate to it.
With continuous study and meditation, these epiphanies occur more often. Eventually, much is understood, ergo enlightenment.

peace

[Nexus]

Dear Kung Lek,


The no-mind is a state of mind but not necessarily "enlightenment".


This is a good point to bring up. No matter how developed or refined one's meditative skills, it does not necessarily equal enlightenment.

[Nexus]

Eventually, much is understood, ergo enlightenment.

We can also say that eventually 'nothing' is understood, ergo enlightenment.

[Braden]

MightyB

"Enlightenment, if it exists, doesn't come gradually. It's supposably all at once in what the Japanese call..."

Yes, there are traditions that say it comes all at once. There are also those that say otherwise.

"The Chinese would call it...No Mind"

No mind is not the same as enlightenment.

"It really is thought without reflection or consequence."

I do not believe this is an adequate description of either no mind, nor enlightenment.

"'if you see Buddha, it's not Buddha. If you feel Buddha, it's not Buddha...' This is to suggest that trying to achieve enlightenment through training is a waste of time..."

Are you sure?

"A mind that doesn't hold on to anything so that it is free to exist and understand everything."

This is not the same as the definition you gave above.

[Nexus]

Braden,

We might say that action without reflection occurs when there is nothing to reflect upon.

[Zantesuken]

not just bohdidarma said it but it's even written in the tao te ching. i lent it out but the verse was something tothe effect of
"those who depend on learning do not come to know it,
those who come to know it do not depend on learning"

[Braden]

Zantesuken

Have you concluded from this that we should not learn if we wish to know 'it'?

[{i^(]

Have you considered that the idea that you've come upon is the beginning of your particular form of enlightenment, and seeking confirmation is only invoking local manifestations of samsara (or whatever; and is either individualized anyhow?) to take you away from that? Just a thought.

It's funny, really. The idea I espoused earlier contained everything- right livelihood, right thinking, right action, etc. but it's not scriptural, so it's wrong. And, boy I loooove being wrong.

Still, you've got to know a certain amount about it all before you can say one way or another.

[Internal Boxer]

The more people talk and write about 'enlightenment' the further away you will get.:D

[MightyB]

Mighty B
Have you considered that the idea that you've come upon is the beginning of your particular form of enlightenment, and seeking confirmation is only invoking local manifestations of samsara (or whatever; and is either individualized anyhow?) to take you away from that? Just a thought.

Heck no. I care too much about winning. Besides, people that know me tend to think of me as a real a@shole.

Kind've off topic, but, to those that are interested... there is a book titled something like "Why God won't Die" (or something like that) which is a record of brain wave patterns of people in deep meditation. It's written by a couple of MDs that have been studying the subject for over 20 years and it looks like it would be real interesting to read. I only got to read enough to get interested before my coffee got cold at Barnes and Noble.

[apoweyn]

dreadnaught,


Originally posted by Dreadnaught
Enlightenment is inconcievable.

Plus, you are taking the teaching of Bodhidharma out of context. Bodhidharma was teaching to people with entirely different causes and conditions than us.

er, i'm not sure that's so. "all life is suffering. suffering is caused by attachments... " that sounds pretty universal. what were the causes and conditions of that populace that are so different from any other?


stuart b.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
I dunno. For once, I think I actually disagree with Ap, sort of.


b*stard. :)


I'm more of the Bobby Lama school myself. I think that it's awfully different for different people, and many people have to work for it and some don't. One of my buddies (incidentally named Bobby) is enlightened, that's for sure. I've never seen a guy who fights less with the world and still manages to get it right every single time!

is he the thai boxer i met at your place recently?

well, perhaps there are people for whom the stage is naturally set. people who, by their nature, are less distracted by the outside world, more attuned to their own thoughts and feelings, or whatever enlightenment requires. (like i'd know.)

my point was not necessarily that work was necessary, but that it wasn't a waste of time. in other words, it is possible to train oneself for what we might term enlightenment. there are concrete steps that could be taken to 'quiet the noise', etc.


We've got a million laughing buddhas walking around and we don't even know it.

there's one standing in my office right now. very hard to concentrate with that sort of thing going on.


On the other hand, who do we admire more, the ones that just seem to get it or the ones that worked hard? :)

good question. how do we feel about that dichotomy in other areas of life? do people pick their favorite boxer, football star, chess player, etc. based on how hard they worked? or simply how good they are?


stuart b.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by Dreadnaught


Yes. In fact Buddha Sakyamuni was enlightened long before being born prince Siddhartha. He practiced for many many eons before reaching that stage. He lived as Prince Siddhartha to set an example, and during that life he tried many many routes before finding the correct one. Anyone who is interested should read about it at www.buddhanet.net


well, dreadnaught, i'm afraid we're now getting into questions of faith. personally, i don't believe this interpretation. i don't bemoan you for doing so, but i don't.

i do believe in a certain frame of mind that might be termed 'enlightenment', but that sakyamuni was buddha long before even being born as gautama is a metaphysical assertion, and by definition very difficult to prove (or disprove, of course).


stuart b.

[fa_jing]

So, which is a more accurate paradigm to classify our existence: Free Will or Destiny? Both, neither? And why does relativity theory call for causality and locality, while quantum mechanics seems to demonstrate non-locality and non-causality? Why is there anything at all? Eh? your answers are due on my desk tomorrow before 10:00, or you're all going to get canned.

:D

[fa_jing]

Oh, back to the topic. I think Confucious was elightened, for at least as long as it took for him to write the following:

"Life is a series of moments. To live each moment to the fullest, that truly is to live life."

Of course he went on to say some ****ed up **** about women.

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by Nexus


Please explain what you mean by being more cultivated than you... What if you became "enlightened" today... Would there still be masters more cultivated than you?

Well, I think what I mean is that sure I may have an intellectual understanding of some concepts. Like I've read lots of books and stuff, but that doesn't give me an understanding. Even if you read or heard the most brilliant teacher in the world, you can't just accept their words as truth. I think that meditation is purposeful in that it gives you the ability to understand things for yourself, and that's what I mean about cultivation. It's difficult because it's just perception. I can perceive my own level in myself, and also perceive other people's to a little bit. when I meet someone face to face who has a high understanding, I can sense it.

and if I became enlightened today, I think that a major point of enlightenment is equanimity, so I wouldn't just be equal to any master, but any living being anywhere. Frogs, mosquitos, cats, humans, whatever. No difference.

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by apoweyn
dreadnaught,



er, i'm not sure that's so. "all life is suffering. suffering is caused by attachments... " that sounds pretty universal. what were the causes and conditions of that populace that are so different from any other?


stuart b.

People in China over a 1000 years ago (i'm ignorant as to exactly when Bodhidharma supposedly taught) lived entirely different lives than we do right now in the west. For example, they didn't talk to people halfway around the world on electronic devices. Suffering is universal, but there are an infinate variety of causes, and these causes affect how we make discriminations. Hence some methods work better than others at different times and places.

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by apoweyn



well, dreadnaught, i'm afraid we're now getting into questions of faith. personally, i don't believe this interpretation. i don't bemoan you for doing so, but i don't.

i do believe in a certain frame of mind that might be termed 'enlightenment', but that sakyamuni was buddha long before even being born as gautama is a metaphysical assertion, and by definition very difficult to prove (or disprove, of course).


stuart b.

Buddhism does involve faith, and you certainly don't have to believe it, however, if you are interested in Buddhism, then you should know that that is generally accepted by Buddhists. even if you subscribe to Buddhism, you still don't need to believe that of course, like you said, it's difficult to believe. I don't totally believe it myself. However, it is taught that way. Try it out, if you like, come to your own conclusions.

I myself subscribe to Buddhism, because I like it. So I talk from that point of view, but I definately don't believe in any purely right doctrine. I think I could talk Buddhanature, someone else can talk Tao and another can talk Kingdom of Heaven and we can still understand eachother.

[GeneChing]

Lets get back to the original question posed here: Someone asked if Enlightenment just happened and if it could happen to anybody.

It's actually very interesting from a martial standpoint, since we symbolically have a connection to Bodhidharma and Shaolin, and Bodhidharma had a very interesting point of view on this. You've all read Bodhidharma, right? I would think that would be as basic as horse stance to any CMA investigating Zen. :p The reason that Buddhist practice non-violence is that all sentient beings have Buddha potential - it's the root of Buddhist compassion, vegetarianism, everything really. Now Bodhidharma had a very interesting spin kick on this - he beleived in Icchantikas. These are being so wrapped up in sensuality that they could not achieve enlightenment. It's a tiny loophole, but it undoes everything. Later Zennists discounted this idea.

So can anyone be enlightened? Good question. It depends which master you study.

[fa_jing]

It would be nice if religion, science, and philosophy all eventually came together. They are at least working towards a common objective which is Reality. We can't prove reality exists but our observations imply that it exists. Each of these three takes a different path towards the truth. As they get ****her along their paths we expect they will become closer and closer. That said, Reality may be duality or tri-ality or multi-ality, so there may always be differences. We have finite knowledge and finite minds so what's to say that the infinite would reveal itself to us.

An example: Science currently indicates that the Universe began in a single point. It also says that the laws of physics are pervasive throughout the Universe. Then you have religions that say everything is one, a unity. Some level of convergence of idea is seen here.

[Dreadnaught]

Hahah, I'll study the master who says anyone can be enlightened, I don't want to believe that some beings are hopeless, I might be one of them.

I think another point that started all this was whether it is worthwhile to want to be enlightened.

[KC Elbows]

"So can anyone be enlightened? Good question. It depends which master you study."

The intellectual answer depends on which master, but the actual answer? I suppose it is a matter of viewpoint. Perhaps now is the time for a style vs. style debate?:D

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
"So can anyone be enlightened? Good question. It depends which master you study."

The intellectual answer depends on which master, but the actual answer? I suppose it is a matter of viewpoint. Perhaps now is the time for a style vs. style debate?:D


My Simon-style, taught exclusively at Temple Kung Fu, is far superior to any other style. I personnally assualted 4 BJJers last night, right after attaining enlightenment completely randomly without any desire for it.

[ewallace]

It would be nice if religion, science, and philosophy all eventually came together.
Sure would. Kind of like when Taco Bell, KFC and Pizza Hut started opening restaurants with all three in them.

Speaking of Pizza, true enlightenment comes when you first drink milk while eating pizza. That sucked.

[The Willow Sword]

this is what i think about it all
.................................................. .....................
.................................................. ....
.................................................. ..................
..............................................
................................................
.................................................. ........................
.................................................. ........................
.................................................. .........................
.................................................. .........
.................................................. .....................................
.................................................. ........................
.................................................. ...........
..................................................
........................................
..............................
..........................
......................
...............
..........
......
....
...
..
*

and thats about it.
Many respects,,TWS

[fa_jing]

True enlightenment is when you mix beer and milk. I was enlightened by age 12, not to ever mix beer and milk again.
Thirsty anyone?

[fa_jing]

Let's see, Fa_jing, KC, and Ewallace have already posted on this thread. TWS has posted on this thread. The thread must be dead or hijacked. It's all very simple, actually. Now for my next trick...

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by Dreadnaught


People in China over a 1000 years ago (i'm ignorant as to exactly when Bodhidharma supposedly taught) lived entirely different lives than we do right now in the west. For example, they didn't talk to people halfway around the world on electronic devices. Suffering is universal, but there are an infinate variety of causes, and these causes affect how we make discriminations. Hence some methods work better than others at different times and places.


this sounds more hindu than buddhist to me. gautama's objective, as i understand it, was to identify the root of all suffering. independent of context. so while we today may be attached to different things, the answer is still the same.

besides, are we really attached to different things? material wealth? status? etc. what's the specific difference?


stuart b.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by Dreadnaught


Buddhism does involve faith, and you certainly don't have to believe it, however, if you are interested in Buddhism, then you should know that that is generally accepted by Buddhists. even if you subscribe to Buddhism, you still don't need to believe that of course, like you said, it's difficult to believe. I don't totally believe it myself. However, it is taught that way. Try it out, if you like, come to your own conclusions.

I myself subscribe to Buddhism, because I like it. So I talk from that point of view, but I definately don't believe in any purely right doctrine. I think I could talk Buddhanature, someone else can talk Tao and another can talk Kingdom of Heaven and we can still understand eachother.

well, i guess i have tried it out, in a sense. and i don't subscribe to the notion that gautama was buddha before he was born gautama. to my mind, it undermines the point. the point, as far as i'm concerned, is that individuals have it within themselves to end their suffering. that point loses a lot of its strength when it comes from someone who was 'born' to the role. if gautama was enlightened before he resolved to end his ignorance, then how does that relate to those of us that weren't born into the role? and if we aren't born into it, what cause do we have to believe ourselves capable?

i don't know. that just doesn't sound very compelling to me.


stuart b.

[ShaolinTiger00]

This thread causes suffering.

Hi guys. Long time no see. ;)

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by apoweyn



this sounds more hindu than buddhist to me. gautama's objective, as i understand it, was to identify the root of all suffering. independent of context. so while we today may be attached to different things, the answer is still the same.

besides, are we really attached to different things? material wealth? status? etc. what's the specific difference?


stuart b.

Gautama was Guatama, he was a little different from Bodhidharma. Yes, Guatama identified the root of all suffering, then he travelled around for 40 years teaching people according to their different needs. If you read his teachings, you will find an enourmous difference between what he said to Subhuti, and what he said to householders. That's the precise reason for all the different schools of Buddhism. He started them all. He adapted it to every person's needs.

Bodhidharma was teaching to people who were attached to the rituals of Buddhism. They chanted, bowed and gave offerings, but misunderstood the goal of these things. They thought the Buddha was a god who would come help them. So he reminded them that THEY are the Buddha, that Buddha is not outside.

From my experience, it seems we are quite far from being attached the the Buddha statutes and the chanting and bowing. Telling someone who has never cultivated or tried to improve themselve that they are already enlightened and don't need to do anything does not help them.

Also, I can assume that Bodhidharma's students were uneducated farmers, whereas we are quite educated and very very attached to that.

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by apoweyn


well, i guess i have tried it out, in a sense. and i don't subscribe to the notion that gautama was buddha before he was born gautama. to my mind, it undermines the point. the point, as far as i'm concerned, is that individuals have it within themselves to end their suffering. that point loses a lot of its strength when it comes from someone who was 'born' to the role. if gautama was enlightened before he resolved to end his ignorance, then how does that relate to those of us that weren't born into the role? and if we aren't born into it, what cause do we have to believe ourselves capable?

i don't know. that just doesn't sound very compelling to me.


stuart b.

Right, obviously you have formed an opinion, I was sort of saying that to everyone who might be reading it. =)

I don't the story negates the fact that he earned enlightenment, he did earn it all on his own. Then he came back, and set an example. He still did it through his own hard work. In fact, this part of the story adds on eons of hardwork rather than 35 years (or however old he was when he gained enlightenment, not totally sure).

Anyways, it's DEFINATELY hard to believe in past lives. Like I said, I'm not 100% convinced, but if we're going to talk Buddhism, we can't leave it out.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by Dreadnaught


Gautama was Guatama, he was a little different from Bodhidharma. Yes, Guatama identified the root of all suffering, then he travelled around for 40 years teaching people according to their different needs. If you read his teachings, you will find an enourmous difference between what he said to Subhuti, and what he said to householders. That's the precise reason for all the different schools of Buddhism. He started them all. He adapted it to every person's needs.

i know that gautama and bodhidharma were different. but you seem to know more about buddhism than i do. so... what precisely was different about gautama's advice to subhuti and to these householders?


Bodhidharma was teaching to people who were attached to the rituals of Buddhism. They chanted, bowed and gave offerings, but misunderstood the goal of these things. They thought the Buddha was a god who would come help them. So he reminded them that THEY are the Buddha, that Buddha is not outside.

right. i'm familiar with the story of bodhidharma's visit to the emperor of china (is that right?) and his subsequently correcting the emperor's misunderstandings. your citation of it seems to support my point. but i'm a little unclear on how the whole reincarnated and already enlightened bit figures in. could you clarify?


Also, I can assume that Bodhidharma's students were uneducated farmers, whereas we are quite educated and very very attached to that.

well, right. but they were attached to one thing. we're attached to another. but the root of the problem remains constant, yeah?


stuart b.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by ShaolinTiger00
This thread causes suffering.

Hi guys. Long time no see. ;)

hey mate! that's very funny. :)

i owe you an email, my friend. i'll be in touch.


stuart

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by Dreadnaught
I don't the story negates the fact that he earned enlightenment, he did earn it all on his own. Then he came back, and set an example. He still did it through his own hard work. In fact, this part of the story adds on eons of hardwork rather than 35 years (or however old he was when he gained enlightenment, not totally sure).

so... buddha can't promise an end to suffering in this lifetime? but in some lifetime?


Anyways, it's DEFINATELY hard to believe in past lives. Like I said, I'm not 100% convinced, but if we're going to talk Buddhism, we can't leave it out.

well said. very well said.


stuart b.

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by apoweyn


i know that gautama and bodhidharma were different. but you seem to know more about buddhism than i do. so... what precisely was different about gautama's advice to subhuti and to these householders?


Well, the story is that Subhuti was the first one of the Buddha's followers who understood the doctrine of "emptiness". There are teachings (one I think is the Prajna Paramita Sutra) which feature him and the Buddha talking, and the Buddha is talking about very lofty things. such as "One should not believe in the existence of self, other selves, or a universal self" stuff that, to be honest, is quite beyond me. But he said that stuff to Subhuti because that was what he was into.

The way the Buddha taught is he would just walk around, and when people asked him for advice, he'd give it. So when a householder would ask him for advice, he's say things like "treat your servents well, be honest, don't be concerned about your money" etc. because that's what they were into. Everyone has the same ability to reach enligthenment, but Subhuti was thinking about entirely different things than the householders were, so the Buddha gave them different advice.

I just picked Subhuti and Householders as two examples, because they seemed to be on opposite sides of the spectrum. He taught a lot of things to different people.



right. i'm familiar with the story of bodhidharma's visit to the emperor of china (is that right?) and his subsequently correcting the emperor's misunderstandings. your citation of it seems to support my point. but i'm a little unclear on how the whole reincarnated and already enlightened bit figures in. could you clarify?


Well, Bodhidharma was teaching to people who spent a long time practicing good deeds, following the precepts, and meditating. So they had all the good roots for enlightenment, they were very close. But they were to attached to the Buddha as an external object and that was holding them back. So he broke that attachment and BANG, they were enlightened. So where past lives comes in, it is important to note that you have to plant to good roots to attain enlightenment.

Some people read Bodhidharma's teachings and they don't take that into account. We have to honestly evaluate ourselves and see where our understanding lies and how we can improve it.



well, right. but they were attached to one thing. we're attached to another. but the root of the problem remains constant, yeah?


stuart b.

Yeah, I think the root problem remains constant. It's just that people need to find a method that suits them to get to that root.I'm not saying that Bodhidharma's teachings are totally irrelevant to everyone living today. They might really connect with some people. I just think there are other teachings that are more relevant to the majority of people around nowadays. If people are interested in it, they should check into a couple of different schools of thought before deciding to follow one. I mention this stuff because some people on here seem interested in it. I hope I'm not annoying anyone. I definately don't consider my opinion "right". well, "right" for myself, not for you.

As well, I'll answer the next reply you made with this post. The Buddha did teach ways of reaching enlightenment in this life, but if you are able to do that it's because you planted some good roots in the past. Plus you can end suffering little by little until that ultimate goal of "enligthenment". Like I said, I think it's all about evaluating where you are and learning accordingly.

And I might have a little more knowledge about Buddhism than you, but that doesn't mean I'm correct, so take it for face value.

[Internal Boxer]

:o Good cure for insomnia :)

[apoweyn]

dreadnaught,

nicely put.

[The Willow Sword]

Philosopher

http://www.arjbarker.com/arjimation/ep4.html

[Braden]

fa-jing

"Free Will or Destiny? Both, neither? And why does relativity theory call for causality and locality, while quantum mechanics seems to demonstrate non-locality and non-causality?"

Deterministic and nondeterministic are two words for the same thing, although they seem like opposites. If you come to me and ask me how and when you're going to die, I can't tell you. If a million of you ask me how and when you're going to die, I will be able to tell you. If you flip a coin once, the result of the next flip has no relation to the current result; yet if you flip a coin a thousand times, there is a consistent and rational pattern. The two aren't exclusionary; they arise naturally from one another.

"It would be nice if religion, science, and philosophy all eventually came together. They are at least working towards a common objective which is Reality."

I think this is a common misconception. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy working towards an understanding of the true reality. Science is a branch of science espousing a certain method for coming upon an understanding of an arbitrary reality, which exists only within the bounds of science. Religion contains cultural 'artifacts' of both methods, but religion, formally speaking, has yet another goal.

"We can't prove reality exists but our observations imply that it exists."

We can prove reality exists. We just can't prove, formally speaking, much more about it.

"Reality may be duality or tri-ality or multi-ality, so there may always be differences."

Reality must fundamentally be a unity. In a true duality, the two dimensions would have no way of interacting. This is the big problem all dualistic thinkers have been confronted with. It may be useful to concieve of it as a plurality, for the sake of coming to an arbitrary understanding of it, akin to science's methodology.

"It also says that the laws of physics are pervasive throughout the Universe."

Does it? Mainstream science is finally coming around to the idea that the rate of expansion of the universe is not static across space and time (and indeed, even the sign of it may not be static). This has direct implications upon the laws of thermodynamics, upon which the other laws of physics rest. For example, if the sign of the rate of expansion of the universe were to change, the net entropy of a system undergoing any reaction would decrease or stay the same.

[{i^(]

"We can't prove reality exists but our observations imply that it exists."
& "Reality may be duality or tri-ality or multi-ality, so there may always be differences."

I think the closest thing that can describe it is to compare it to our perceptions of light. We don't see light, but see things lit by light.

Similarly, we can't see reality (or existence) or express it in any way, but we can see things that exist through reality....echoes, in a sense.

The original question, it seemed to me, was whether 'learning' (in the Buddhist sense) is needed for the attainment of enlightment. No. The Buddha attained it outside buddhism. If we can then regard it as a particular state of mind, then it follows that it can be attained outside it, possibly in many ways. The question then becomes 'what is the most efficient means?' with the rejoinder, 'is it needed?' and maybe 'do different ways of attaining it produce differing kinds?'

[Nexus]

The question then becomes 'what is the most efficient means?' with the rejoinder, 'is it needed?' and maybe 'do different ways of attaining it produce differing kinds?'

Actually the question is "if you knew the most efficient means, would you follow through."

You see, the majority of people do not even realize that health and wholeness are possible. The majority that do know that it is possible are not willing to do what it takes to attain it.


The simplicity of it is that one must be centerred on unconditional love. The complexity of it is some seem to think it is difficult to love unconditionally.

[scotty1]

Hi, I have a question. (Disclaimer - I know very little of Buddhism)

"The Buddha attained it outside buddhism."

So you have the Buddha, who becomes enlightened, outside of Buddhism (because he hasn't 'started' it yet), but through (presumably) other studies.

So then he becomes the founder of Buddhism (the faith) so he can help others achieve the same goal more quickly.

Does that sound right?

And if so, did he take the studies that led to him become enlightened and make them a part of Buddhism?

Was the process that linear?

[MightyB]

That was the original question, and my point...

Pretty much sumarizes this whole thread...

[fa_jing]

This article explains it much better than I can: http://fergusmurray.members.beeb.net/Causality.html

Reality can be proven? What is it, then? I doubt you can answer this. You can "prove" it's existance by dis-proving the negative, unfortunately by employing such logic you are already assuming realty exists, thus all "proofs" and "definitions" will be circular.

So what's the most up-to-date conclusion about whether the Universe will continue expanding forever, approach a size and never pass it, or begin to contract at some point? Seems like I've heard different things over the past few years. Especially considering the unknown quantity of "dark matter."

And, thanks for biting on my attempt to "rile people up." This is not a threadjack. I repeat, remain calm, this is not a threadjack. :D

[GeneChing]

Buddhism is not linear.
It's circular.

The rest is a chicken and egg problem. You might as well ask about Christ being outside of Christianity. The Zen answer - the chicken is the egg.

[Nexus]

Gene,

Buddhism is not circular, it's here and now, nowhere to go, not even in a circle.

[apoweyn]

nexus,

how does that statement account for the idea of reincarnation then?

[Nexus]

Did you learn about reincarnation in this life or a past one?

[Dreadnaught]

I'm sure you've all heard the story about the blind men trying to describe an elephant? One man grabs the tail and says" ahhh! the "elephant" is long and thin, like a snake!". another grabs the leg and says "No, an "elephant" is big, and sturdy, like a tree trunk." and so on...

ANother story that came to my mind while reading this thread is two monks are watching a flag blowing in the wind. One is arguing that it is the flag that's moving, and the other is arguing that it is the wind that's moving. Until the master comes along, hears this argument and says "You're both wrong, it's your minds that are moving"

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by Nexus
Did you learn about reincarnation in this life or a past one?

i don't know, mate. but if i lived one life, and now i'm back for round 2, that sounds pretty circular. no?


stuart b.

[Nexus]

You are welcome to form your understandings based on 'what ifs.'

[Chang Style Novice]

For those of you with "King of the Hill" in syndication in your area, tonight they will air the episode where Bobby is thought to be the reincarnation of the Sanglok Lama.

Pay special attention to the scene where Hank drags Bobby off to a Methodist Minister for some spiritual counseling.

[Ryu]

"ANother story that came to my mind while reading this thread is two monks are watching a flag blowing in the wind. One is arguing that it is the flag that's moving, and the other is arguing that it is the wind that's moving. Until the master comes along, hears this argument and says "You're both wrong, it's your minds that are moving"


That's all fine and good, but in reality the flag will still be physically "moving" whether or not the monks are there. I understand the premise for this, and agree with it to a degree, but to imply the "reality" exists only as humans see it can get ridiculous at times. Human beings (or our bi-pedal ancestors) have been here for 3 million years at best, in the context of the world itself, we are the shortest species to have lived as of yet. The world had a certain "reality" to it before humans, and will have that certain "reality" after humans. It really matters little if we're here or not in that context.

This reminds me of the time I was talking to a girl about this very same thing. She picked up a flower and said, "some will think this is a flower, but someone else may think of it as throwing knife. The reality of the flower depends on what the person's mind makes it into."

I then took the flower and threw it at her. It disenegrated into little pollen-covered peddles, and floated down her chest.

I then said.

"Obviously it's just a flower."


Ryu

[Xebsball]

obviously you might have hurt her feelings

:D

[Ryu]

Philosophy majors can be jerks. :D


Ryu

[David Jamieson]

The are the two main vehicles to consider as well. Lesser and Greater.

In Therevada Buddhism, enlightenment is thought to only be achievable by monks and holy, pious people.

In Mahayana Buddhism (Chan/Zen), it is taught that anyone can achieve enlightenment so long as they follow the 8 fold path and observe the four truths as taught at deer park by Guatama (the lesson on suffering, desire and release of these)

Boddhidarma was a mahayana buddhist and practiced the dhyana as a means to attain enlightenment. The Dhyana became known as "Chan" which in turn is now evident as "zen".

The methods are available to all and they do require study before the flow and free mind can establish itself in the seeker.

All the concepts of the greater and lesser vehicles are predated and found in Hinduism, from which Buddhism was born, much in the same way as christianity was born of judaism.

These are not "new ideas" by any stretch of the imagination.

I personally believe that Therevada and it's holding to the "holy monks only" idea is a bit elitist and outmoded. I prefer Ta Mo's modality of thinking and have had moments where these concepts as spread by the Chan / Zen school of thought have pervaded my own life.

So, in my experience, life is available to all, and the realization of the gift of life is enough enlightenment to get you through it. :)

And remember every day is a gift and that's why it's called the present.

peace

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by Ryu
"ANother story that came to my mind while reading this thread is two monks are watching a flag blowing in the wind. One is arguing that it is the flag that's moving, and the other is arguing that it is the wind that's moving. Until the master comes along, hears this argument and says "You're both wrong, it's your minds that are moving"


That's all fine and good, but in reality the flag will still be physically "moving" whether or not the monks are there. I understand the premise for this, and agree with it to a degree, but to imply the "reality" exists only as humans see it can get ridiculous at times. Human beings (or our bi-pedal ancestors) have been here for 3 million years at best, in the context of the world itself, we are the shortest species to have lived as of yet. The world had a certain "reality" to it before humans, and will have that certain "reality" after humans. It really matters little if we're here or not in that context.

This reminds me of the time I was talking to a girl about this very same thing. She picked up a flower and said, "some will think this is a flower, but someone else may think of it as throwing knife. The reality of the flower depends on what the person's mind makes it into."

I then took the flower and threw it at her. It disenegrated into little pollen-covered peddles, and floated down her chest.

I then said.

"Obviously it's just a flower."


Ryu

I agree. I think the story has more to do with our ability or inability to see reality. It's also reality that that flower is made up of microscopic particles moving around at high speeds, but we see it as compeltely still.

[Braden]

fa-jing

"This article explains it much better than I can..."

Ah. A different issue than what I thought you meant. I'm glad the article brings up Bohm, which is what I would have done had it not. Curiously, I've found support for Bohm from Lacan, who notes that science 'sutures the causes', thereby desubjectifying reality. I believe part of what he is noting is the curious equality of our meanings for 'causality' and 'identity.' The answer is in there somewhere.

"Reality can be proven? What is it, then?"

I can't prove what it is. Like I said, not much more other than 'reality exists' can be proven, formally speaking, about reality. This is the traditional 'skeptic's problem' from philosophy.

"So what's the most up-to-date conclusion about whether the Universe will continue expanding forever...Seems like I've heard different things over the past few years. Especially considering the unknown quantity of 'dark matter.'"

I don't think there's a general concensus on the matter. Continual uniform expansion was the unchallenged status quo for the longest time, but it no longer is. IMHO, the dark matter issue is largely a red herring.

[Braden]

GeneChing

"You might as well ask about Christ being outside of Christianity."

I think if people had done this, there would be alot less confusion about the nature of Christianity.

[Ryu]

Originally posted by Dreadnaught


I agree. I think the story has more to do with our ability or inability to see reality. It's also reality that that flower is made up of microscopic particles moving around at high speeds, but we see it as compeltely still.

That I definitely agree with.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by Nexus
You are welcome to form your understandings based on 'what ifs.'

nexus,

is this directed at me? i'm not sure i understand. i'm forming my understanding based on what i've been told about buddhism. reincarnation sounds circular to me. if i'm misunderstanding this, then how about bagging the condescension and explaining it to me. and if you're unsure yourself, how about saying so. contradiction within a spiritual tradition is hardly a new idea, yeah?

i've heard snippets about their being no past and no future. only the present. but that doesn't exactly gel with the notion of karma. actions have repercussions. if there's no concern for the future, though, who cares? all life is sacred because of reincarnation. that bug might once have been a person. or may be a person in the future. but if there's no past and no future to concern yourself with, then it's just a bug. bombs away.

see what i'm getting at?


stuart b.

[Dreadnaught]

Apoweyn,

I think that your getting into the teaching of "dependent origination" in Buddhism. This teaching I think sort of ties together the ideas of karma and reincarnation, and teaches you how to practically use them. I don't have a good answer for you, however, if you have time, you might find this article interesting, it is from a book called "The Fundamentals of Buddhism" and this is the chapter on Dependent Origination.

http://www.buddhanet.net/funbud12.htm

I think it explains these principals pretty well, and it's not too long =)

[apoweyn]

thanks dreadnaught. i'll check it out.


stuart b.

[Chang Style Novice]

Rev. Stroupe: "Do you love Jesus, Bobby?"
Bobby: "With all my heart!"
Hank: "Buddhist liar!"
---------------------
Peggy: "I always knew my little boy was destined for greatness. To be perfectly honest, I didn't see Lama coming."
---------------------
Peggy, reading bumper sticker: "My child is an Honor Student at Tom Landry Middle School" changes lanes and pulls up alongside car with bumper sticker "OH YEAH!? WELL MY CHILD IS GOD TO BILLIONS OF ASIANS!"
---------------------
Bobby: "Why do friends fight?"
Bill: "His finger is stuck in my beer!"
Dale: "He dared me!"<
Bobby: "You fight with each other, yet you want the same thing."
Bill and Dale: "SO?!"
Bobby: "Mr. Gribble, I want you to completely relax, and imagine your finger sliding effortlessly out of the beer can."
Dale: "That is the dumbest thing I have ever..." realizes his finger has come free, flips up clip ons
Bill: sips beer

[GeneChing]

nexus - The circle is one of Buddhism's most dominate symbols, but it is just a symbol. My comment was more a koanic reply to the early comment about linearity.

braden - Christianity without Christ - interesting concept, eh? Ever study Gnosticism?

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Rev. Stroupe: "Do you love Jesus, Bobby?"
Bobby: "With all my heart!"
Hank: "Buddhist liar!"
---------------------
Peggy: "I always knew my little boy was destined for greatness. To be perfectly honest, I didn't see Lama coming."
---------------------
Peggy, reading bumper sticker: "My child is an Honor Student at Tom Landry Middle School" changes lanes and pulls up alongside car with bumper sticker "OH YEAH!? WELL MY CHILD IS GOD TO BILLIONS OF ASIANS!"
---------------------
Bobby: "Why do friends fight?"
Bill: "His finger is stuck in my beer!"
Dale: "He dared me!"<
Bobby: "You fight with each other, yet you want the same thing."
Bill and Dale: "SO?!"
Bobby: "Mr. Gribble, I want you to completely relax, and imagine your finger sliding effortlessly out of the beer can."
Dale: "That is the dumbest thing I have ever..." realizes his finger has come free, flips up clip ons
Bill: sips beer

heheheh. I wish I could've seen that episode.

[Nexus]

Dear apoweyn,

Forming ones understanding of reality based upon preconceived notions it to live within the illusion of the preconceived notions. There is a reality that exists beyond our preconceived notions of 'reality' and to experience reality as it truly is, we must set aside our concepts. The concept of reality is a concept, yet reality itself is not a concept. This paradox cannot be 'solved' as Braden said, because people wan't evidence and analytical information to support their insecurity.

I will use a "what if scenario" here as an example:
If it is true that there is no past or future, and that the 'Now' is all that exists, then past lives and future lives would be illusions. Because however, the intellect cannot analytically confirm whether this is accurate or not, the 'ego' (our sense of 'I, Me) which bases its understanding on what it 'knows intellectually' is left unknowing or unsure. In that, it decides that it can either take this information on 'faith or belief' or deny it as it does not have acceptable 'proof' at this time.

Because of the above example, we can see that there is no way of proving or disproving past lives to someone whose understanding is based upon what can and cannot be confirmed by the intellect. This is because the intellect is not the source of wisdom or compassion. This statement is a generalization although a fair one to say as I am sure that you know of a few very intelligent people who lack the wisdom or compassionate nature.

The topic of karma is a hot-topic in buddhism, and it is another piece of the puzzle that the intellect tries and fails to solve. Thus, it forms conclusions which are impartial that provide a way of navigating "karma" the best way. This is how rules, regulations and customary practices come into effect. The Ten Commandments in Judaism. The Buddhist Precepts.

Karma is something you have learned about. It is a 'concept', not an absolute, and it allows for a person to understand that what they do and what others do has an effect on the 'whole.'

Yet we also have buddhism saying that upon enlightenment, a person breaks their karmic bonds. The paradox with Karma is that karma is what holds someone back from enlightenment and also what allows a person to attain it.


Originally posted by apoweyn


nexus,

is this directed at me? i'm not sure i understand. i'm forming my understanding based on what i've been told about buddhism. reincarnation sounds circular to me. if i'm misunderstanding this, then how about bagging the condescension and explaining it to me. and if you're unsure yourself, how about saying so. contradiction within a spiritual tradition is hardly a new idea, yeah?

i've heard snippets about their being no past and no future. only the present. but that doesn't exactly gel with the notion of karma. actions have repercussions. if there's no concern for the future, though, who cares? all life is sacred because of reincarnation. that bug might once have been a person. or may be a person in the future. but if there's no past and no future to concern yourself with, then it's just a bug. bombs away.

see what i'm getting at?


stuart b.

[fa_jing]

The relation to the Thou is immediate.

Between I and Thou there is no terminology, no preconception and no imagination, and memory itself changes, since it plunges from singularity into the whole.

Between I and Thou there is no purpose, no greed and no anticipation; and longing itself changes, since it plunges from dream into appearance.

All means are impediment. Only where all means fall to pieces, encounter happens.
(I and Thou) - Martin Buber

[apoweyn]

thank you nexus. that was infinitely more helpful.

there is a reality. and there is our perception of reality. i understand that. there is a concern that we get too wrapped up in the concept and loose sight of the truth that the concept is supposed to illuminate. yeah?

but i believe that the 'no yesterday and no tomorrow' thing is just such a concept. i believe that we've gotten too wrapped up in that idea when a lot of buddhism (and, indeed, common sense) speaks to the contrary.

think about the four noble truths.

1) all life is suffering. okay.
2) suffering is caused by attachment. now we're getting into causality. and causality necessitates that there is not just the here and now. there is what came before and its repercussions on the now. and then there's now and its repercussions on the future. if you give up attachments, then you'll end the suffering. such statements aren't possible if the idea of no past and no future are taken literally.
3) you can end the suffering by giving up attachments. see above.
4) you can do this by following the eightfold path (right this, right that... )

again, the eightfold path gets into causality and a guide for appropriate action.

personally, i don't think i believe in reincarnation. i think it's a logical, albeit greatly exaggerated, extension of the idea that actions have repercussions. and, not counting on the inherent altruism of humanity, the system holds that those repercussions will be revisited on you not only in this life, but in the next. it's a very similar moral framework to that found in christianity's notion of heaven and hell.

i think these belief systems get more and more complicated as they try to perform more and more governance. if we could just say, "do the right thing for the sake of it; it'll be cool, trust me" we'd be all set. but it takes more than that the larger the scale gets. and in time, as you said, people have a tighter grip on the concept than on the reality that gave rise to it.


stuart b.

[apoweyn]

nexus,

i'm getting snarky. please forgive me.

i'm fairly familiar with buddhism and slightly moreso with its predecessor hinduism. so i see where you're coming from. but i'm not buying it completely. so i'm inclined to ask questions.

hopefully you can take them in the manner in which they're intended rather than the manner in which they're sometimes delivered.


stuart b.

[Dreadnaught]

Dreadnaught says "blah blah blah blah!"

[Nexus]

Dear Apoweyn,

What other questions do you have?

If you bought what I have said completely, you would be an idiot. It is important to see the truth for oneself, not to take anothers truth as your own. That is the heart of what I have been saying all along.

[Dreadnaught]

Apoweyn,

Like I said before, I like Buddhism, and have been studying it a little bit. These are some of my ideas on karma and rebirth based on my interpretations of Buddhist teaching I have been exposed to.

It's funny, it seems almost everybody is willing to accept the doctrine of karma. It's even become a regular word for people who otherwise have no clue about Buddhism or Hinduism (albeit used sometimes wrongly). You hear people mention all the time about "creating bad karma" etc. I think karma is easy to accept because its an existentialist idea. A lot of us like to believe we author our own destinies, we WANT to take responsibility for our actions.

But when rebirth comes into it, we find it very hard to believe and for good reason. Most of us can't see outside the bounds of our memory (which itself is a pretty biased filter) and our projection of the future. Let alone seeing outside out own birth and death. However, we do see that definate beginning (our birth) and a definate end (our death) and we accept it. I think that this has caused us to apply the idea that we have a definate beginning and end to everything else we observe. (ie. ideas of the "big bang" and creation etc.) The funny thing however is, sometimes when we realize we are mortal, and we get rid of the definate end. We believe in an eternal life after death. Theres no proof of this, the only proof of it is that someone said it before, and I'm saying it now. But some of us choose to accept that proof. I think rebirth follows the logic that if there's life after death, then theres life before birth. Once again, there is no proof of this. This is just a concept that we rationalized. It answers the question why we should be good. I think that deep down we want to be good anyways, but still we need a reason.

So a lot of people, even Buddhists have accepted karma, but dismissed rebirth. However, I feel that in Buddhism, the two are inseperable. I think that if you dismiss one but explore the other, you will be definately limiting yourself. Of course, anyone who does like karma but not rebirth is welcome to check into it. Just don't dismiss it entirely. In fact, we shouldn't dismiss anything we hear entirely, or accept anything we ever hear entirely. Not until we've checked into it ourselves.

The reason why I think they are inseperable is because without an understanding of rebirth, the understanding of karma is incomplete. If you accept karma, then you must accept that causes always create effect. Karma does not mean that some actions will create an effect but others won't. Belief in karma takes randomness out of the equation.

The problem with applying this belief to only the framework of our birth and death is that we won't see the effects of many things we've caused. If the effect doesn't happen in this life then where does it go? It can't simply disappear.

An example of this is someone who commits murder and gets away with it. If you acceept karma, then obviously you must accept that commiting the murder of a fellow human being creates very heavy karma. However, there are cases of people who commit murder, are not punished, and live out the rest of their lives in relative comfort. Where does the karma go? You can say "well maybe they felt real bad, and that was the manifestation of their karma" but I don't think so. Surely committing murder would cause heavier karma than stealing a chocolate bar when you're little. Certainly it creates a very definate, real, effect.

And vice versa for people who do a lot of good but receive no reward in this life. So we apply the law of karma to the causes and the effects that we can see. We can't see beyond this birth and death so we apply our understanding of karma to what happens in between. Even then, a lot of times we still can't see the effects we cause.

The belief is that through practicing Buddhism, you will see more clearly the cause and effect you create. Eventually you will see the cause and effect you create beyond your own birth and death.

Maybe that doesn't tell you anything you don't already know. hahahah. Anyways, I think sometimes having these "concepts" helps you guide your own life when you might otherwise be lost.

[Nexus]

Dear Dreadnaught,

When you smash your thumb with a hammer, is that a result of karma?

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by Nexus
Dear Dreadnaught,

When you smash your thumb with a hammer, is that a result of karma?

I would say yes, because that is the result of carelessness because your mind wasn't on the task at hand, but rather, caught up in the maze of distracting thoughts. The Buddha would not hit his thumb with a hammer.

[Nexus]

I would say yes, because that is the result of carelessness because your mind wasn't on the task at hand, but rather, caught up in the maze of distracting thoughts. The Buddha would not hit his thumb with a hammer.

If the Buddha hit thumb with a hammer, would he become unenlightened?

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by Nexus


If the Buddha hit thumb with a hammer, would he become unenlightened?

The Buddha cannot become unenlightened. If a Buddha could become unenlightened, what point would there be to becoming a Buddha?

[Nexus]

What is the point of becoming a Buddha?

[Braden]

GeneChing

"braden - Christianity without Christ - interesting concept, eh? Ever study Gnosticism?"

Quite a bit.

I think if Christians were more investigative with 'affiliations' they are told to make in their religion ('asking about Christ outside of Christianity'), they would be more able to understand what, exactly, the message was that Christ brought to the Jews (it would help if more of them read the New Testament too). This would allow them to tease apart the specific cultural tradition we have been handed as Christianity (more accurately described as judeo-christianity) and what Christianity itself actually is (findamentally not a cultural practice). With this understanding, the nature of gnosticism can be grasped. I would argue that, 'politics of the victor' aside, neoplatonist-christianity and gnostic-christianity are more properly the religious traditions of my culture, descended, as it is, from the Greeks and not the Jews.

I don't know if that makes any sense, but I didn't want to belabor the point further.

[Nexus]

Braden,

What message did Christ bring to the Jews? Do you bring the same message?

[Chang Style Novice]

My message for the Jews is:

"Eat! What, my matzoh ball soup isn't good enough for you anymore? What girl is going to want a skinny little thing like you? Get nice and fat and prosperous, and then the shishkas will come running, am I right? Have a knish, too."

PS: I am allowed to make this joke on account of my own Red Sea Pedestrian heritage.

[{i^(]

I would much rather, !much rather!, that Xians NOT take their religion seriously. That's happened before.

And that everyone stay far, far away from religion as a whole....

Spirituality, Ok, that's one thing. Rituality, though...nope.

Other than that, have any of you read any of Rene Guenon's works on reincarnation? Basically said, 'can't be'. Not here, anyway...what's so whoop-de-doo about HERE (and being human)? Nada. For all we know, there are living SOUNDS- much cooler to be that, I'd think. Anyhow, ole Rene (if I have him right) thought that we'd keep going through all possible lives and realities, thoughout time, never coming back to the same experience, in the infinitude of possible realities. No ghosts, no life after death, in the usual sense...

(oh, I'm also 'allowed' the joke. pleaztameetcha, stop with the staring already)

[Braden]

rofl. I want some of whatever Chang SN had today.

{i^(

When I say religion, I mean properly spirituality. Religion is only, properly, related to one's relationship with the divine - probably what you mean by spirituality. What becomes confused with religion proper is cultural artifacts, but those become confused with 'everything proper', so it's no surprise. As for ritual - as we are, we're a kind of machine specialized for certain kinds of tasks. If we want to 'do' other kinds of tasks, we need to trick ourselves a little - ritual. Ritual -> mysticism -> spirituality -> religion. Of course, those nasty cultural artifacts come up and stuff like people thinking ritual -> ritual starts to happen

IMHO, of course.

As for Xtian's taking their religion too seriously and trouble starting; that is exactly a concern I was addressing.

[Nexus]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
My message for the Jews is:

"Eat! What, my matzoh ball soup isn't good enough for you anymore? What girl is going to want a skinny little thing like you? Get nice and fat and prosperous, and then the shishkas will come running, am I right? Have a knish, too."

PS: I am allowed to make this joke on account of my own Red Sea Pedestrian heritage.

The tears in my eyes could turn the red sea clear, keep the laughter abroad :)

[mantis108]

I just have one question. Where the heck is Prana?

Mantis108

[dre]

Prana = Qi , Chi etc

OR

A very expensive lin eof clothes.

[{i^(]

Braden-
I get your point and all, I just can't agree that religion is an important thing to have, nor that people should be involved with it. The cultural artifacts you speak of include racism, political platforms, and elitism- all part of the meme-complex (www.churchofvirus.com/lexicon.html) of religion- that keeps it fluid and a going concern for the priests. It's little more than a disease. Xians and others, when they do take their religions seriously, always start trouble. And when they're ignorant, trouble still comes. I'm not trying to be offensive- I just can't bring myself to agree.

As for Guenon- I should add that I don't believe in it, I just wanted to throw it into the mix. I'm alot closer to atheist/nihilist/iconoclast (in the original sense), but I find a lot of spirituality and truth even in that. I admit it's not for everyone. At base, though, the goal of Nirvana is a form of nihilism, admitted or not.

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by Nexus
What is the point of becoming a Buddha?

You wouldn't be hitting your thumb with a hammer all the time.

[Chang Style Novice]

Ha!

Will buddhahood keep me from forgetting the phone bill, too?

[KC Elbows]

Hey, this buddhahood thing sounds great! Where can I buy one?

[Dreadnaught]

Not only can I promise you that, but if you become a Buddha, I promise you will make COLD HARD CASH. that's right, i said COLD HARD CASH. Did you know that as a Buddha you are entitled to ONE BILLION DOLLARS?! You heard me correctly. Sign up today!




As for Guenon- I should add that I don't believe in it, I just wanted to throw it into the mix. I'm alot closer to atheist/nihilist/iconoclast (in the original sense), but I find a lot of spirituality and truth even in that. I admit it's not for everyone. At base, though, the goal of Nirvana is a form of nihilism, admitted or not.

{i^(,

I'm interested in hearing more about your philosophy ... do you mean a mix of atheist/nihilist/iconoclast? i don't know much about what those mean to someone practically speaking.

[Dreadnaught]

Nexus,

I think you make a good point though. Do I need my philosophy to be so complicated? ideally, no.

[{i^(]

Iconoclast= 'icon smashers', roughly. I'm a mocker- and that's a public service to all the religious amongst me: kind of like a white blood cell that keeps others from getting too riled up (nice reference to this thread...). Nihilism simply is the profound belief in nothingness, entropy, The Void, futility, etc. It gives me comfort and happiness, staring into The Void like that.

So, to play the role: My philosophy: No philosophy! My religion: No religion!

[KC Elbows]

I think I'll start a dogmatic religion after your posts on this thread. They'll call themselves the "Punctuationists", and they'll have so many rituals, it'll make your head spin, at which point I'll tell them your the devil.

I'm in a Friday posting mood.

[GeneChing]

Have you checked out Old Souls by Tom Shroder. Reads like a Stephen King book, but I really liked his cultural take on reincarnation - that only cultures that believed in reincarnation wouldn't even be open to the possiblity when observing phenomena in their children, plus his concept of there being a narrow window of sensitivity was intriguing, especially if you have a kid (you other parents know what I'm talking about)

And Braden - love the gnostic gospels. Arguably Christianity probably would not have survived had those books not been omitted from the bible.

[Dreadnaught]

{i^(,

Hmmmm. Yeah. I think atheism is just as strong a belief in God. It takes quite a bit of conviction to say that there is no god. So nihilism for you is a comfort? because what I'm thinking is if you believe in nihilism, then why bother smashing icons? or doing anything at all for that matter?

Braden,

What are the gnostic gospels? I remember in the thread "death of enlightenment in the west" you posted I think it was the gospel of st. thomas? anyways, I really liked that, is that a part of it? I've never seen anything like that before in Christianity, although I am pretty ignorant about Christian theology to be honest. Is that part of the gnostic gospels? what's the story behind them?

[Braden]

{i^(

"I'm not trying to be offensive- I just can't bring myself to agree."

Actually, I'm not seeing where we're disagreeing. Don't worry about being offensive though. ;p

"I just can't agree that religion is an important thing to have"

Aha. But I never said 'everyone should go out and be a serious Xian', I said 'everyone seriously interested in being a serious Xian should inform themselves so as to accurately represent that which they claim/seek.'

"The cultural artifacts you speak of include racism, political platforms, and elitism- all part of the meme-complex of religion"

True. But no more true than for politics, philosophy, music, urban planning, and a good number other things. This doesn't make it a non-point, but it does make it something you can't cite as reason against religion, unless you mean also to imply reason against politics, philosophy, music, urban planning, etc. Certainly, some nihilists would be quite happy with this, and it would be quite logically consistent for them to say such a thing. On the other hand, one could argue it's a little hypocricial for such a person to be reaping the benefits of all these things while decrying them. Well... hypocritical or absurd. Or, nihilistic. But if that's the case, it's the kind of stance, like the skeptic's problem from philosophy, to which logic cannot be applied. So if we reject all that messy stuff, what good solutions do we have. Perhaps to educate ourselves properly with respect to these concerns - which is the exact point I made in my original post.

"Xians and others, when they do take their religions seriously, always start trouble."

No, when Xians and other take the above-mentioned cultural artifacts seriously, they always start trouble. Although you didn't say anything specific, it's a reasonable assumption to say the trouble you're referring to is blatantly against the precepts of the Xian faith. Quite in line with the precepts of the cultural artifacts though. Note that politics, etc also cause trouble. Not that this changes anything, just to keep in mind the idea of consistency central to my point.

Consider: if you honestly believed the above was a serious problem, do you think the ideal solution would be to never bring up religion and hope it goes away, decry religion and tell everyone practicing it how silly they are, or try to teach people how the very things they allready firmly believe are themselves the answer to the problem?

[Nexus]

Originally posted by Dreadnaught
Nexus,

I think you make a good point though. Do I need my philosophy to be so complicated? ideally, no.

Are you finding you enjoy complexity more than simplicity?

[KC Elbows]

The gnostics seem to have quite a few fans around here, myself included.

[Braden]

Dreadnaught

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/g/gnostic.htm
http://www.kheper.net/topics/Gnosticism/index.html
http://www.gnosis.org/

The first two sites are good introductions, the last is quite detailed and includes an online archive of a variety of texts useful in gnostic studies, including what most people mean by 'the gnostic scriptures.'

There are a few 'kinds' of gnosticism, characterized by a certain worldview and approach to understand their culture's myths. In this case, we mean Christian gnostics, although there's overlap everywhere - gnostics generally were generally very syncretic. In early Christianity, there were thinkers who we now call gnostics, but who then were simply thought of as people doing extraordinary work in the church. Valentinus, for example, was almost bishop of rome (what we call pope now) and is also one of the most famous gnostics. However, the popularity of gnostic thought faded quickly, and there are some who will tell you it is heretical. The gospel of thomas is indeed one of the so-called gnostic gospels. It would better be called apocyrpha - a religious text excluded from the formal books of a church. It's too bad that it's been excluded, as it's been identified as the earliest of the gospels (ie. the one written most contemporarily with the actual life of jesus). Many people mean by 'the gnostic gospels' all or parts of the Nag Hammadi codex, which is a small library of scrolls found in a jar in Africa which is suggested to be the library of a coptic (an early branch of christianity in africa which embraced gnostic thought long after it was out of vogue most elsewhere). It contained a variety of apocryphal christian texts (which I suppose could rightfully be called the gnostic gospels), as well as some other stuff, including neoplatonist texts.

Speaking of which, you might also want to check out some info on neoplatonism, as I mentioned it in the same context, and it's a related movement.

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/neoplato.htm
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/emanatio.htm
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/plotinus.htm
http://www.kheper.net/topics/Neoplatonism/index.htm
http://www.newplatonism.homestead.com/

GeneChing

I'm glad someone else likes them! Some of them are pretty thick going... Even though The Gnosis Archive has so much stuff online now, I've got a complete Nag Hammadi and a separate gospel of Thomas with commentary, in hardcopy. Very good stuff. I never figured out much from the garden of Eden, then I read the gnostic myth of Sophia and demiurgos and got alot from it, then understood as a rephrasing of the garden of Eden, which now is extraordinarily meaningfull for me. Doing a Lacanian reading of gnostic myth is just mind-boggling. I keep trying to sell the Qigong forum people on this stuff, as coming to understand of the taoist literature through these movements, and vice-versa, continues to be very rewarding. No one's biting though. :(

[{i^(]

Braden: no, the solution is to burn down the churches and/or tax the churches. Then hang the lawyers with the entrails of the priests. Oh, wonderful dreams...

KC Elbows: please! you'll get rich, I'll be famous, how can we lose?

Dreadnaught: you get bored. the world swings between ennui and pain. Buddha would agree with me, and my outlook parallels Zen, in it's own peculiar way. Really. If you consider the whole hindu vs. buddha thing, anyhow. He smashed a different set of icons.

I'm a little more familiar with the greek myths than Gnostic lit. but still very well read on it all- you can't be so disagreeable without that! Interesting that you're considering a re-reading of Lacan to Gnostic scripture- I was thinking about that not too long ago- are you pursuing the idea of the 'real' and 'jouissance' in regards to it? or another track? I was wondering if Lacan had re-done Freud's works concerning religion and whether these had been 'poubelished'.

A little too boozed up right now to write too much- FRIDAY!!!!!! yeyeyeyeyeyeyey o the lights! theyvecomefermeagain...