This One Should Get People Riled Up...

[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.

[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.

[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. 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.