OT: Why, o why do they always end up here in the Bay Area?

[Lorenzo]

Buddhism may be more accomodating of feeding one's ego, or trusting one's opinion, than Christianity. It just occurred to me.

Original Buddhism looks as though it would be best for personal psychotherapeutic purposes. In Christianity, he that would be first and best here on earth would be last and worst in heaven.

Which is best? Depends on where you're going, or staying.

[The Weekenders]

Dangit, fatty, I did not start a thread knocking drunken Buddhists!

As for Stony, sounds like we visited some of the same places in India.

But as for fellers from Judeo-Christian claimin Godhood, I can think of two immediately. Koresh thought he was something special, and the followers of Rev. Moon seem to indicate that Hitler/WWII was the Armageddon and the good Rev is the Second Coming... Haven't heard much from them lately but used to be in frequent contact with Moonies thru ex-wife's family.

But I digress....

[Jerry Freeman]

There are other ways to define/describe enlightenment that aren't quite so negative as what Jim's posted here.

Enlightenment is something, not simply the absence of a list of things. I believe such definitions (end of cravings, no-self, etc.) are couched in terms of things unenlightened people can relate to, but they don't really address the actual nature or substance of enlightenment itself.

For an enlightened person, the experience certainly wouldn't be approached in terms of "OK, the cravings are gone now, it's as though there's nobody here and everything's going by itself, etc." Those descriptions all pertain to the unenlightened state, which an enlightened person would have left behind like the slough of a snake (which the snake abandons and forgets). So what is that experience like for someone who lives it as an everyday reality? It's hard for me to imagine there are no descriptions of what enlightenment is (as opposed to what it isn't) in the scriptures Jim mentions, but I haven't been able to get him to reference any.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[BoneQuint]

I believe such definitions (end of cravings, no-self, etc.) are couched in terms of things unenlightened people can relate to, but they don't really address the actual nature or substance of enlightenment itself.

It's interesting to try to describe what it means to be an adult to a very small child.

[Darwin]

There are other ways to define/describe enlightenment that aren't quite so negative as what Jim's posted here.

Enlightenment is something, not simply the absence of a list of things. I believe such definitions (end of cravings, no-self, etc.) are couched in terms of things unenlightened people can relate to, but they don't really address the actual nature or substance of enlightenment itself.

For an enlightened person, the experience certainly wouldn't be approached in terms of "OK, the cravings are gone now, it's as though there's nobody here and everything's going by itself, etc." Those descriptions all pertain to the unenlightened state, which an enlightened person would have left behind like the slough of a snake (which the snake abandons and forgets). So what is that experience like for someone who lives it as an everyday reality? It's hard for me to imagine there are no descriptions of what enlightenment is (as opposed to what it isn't) in the scriptures Jim mentions, but I haven't been able to get him to reference any.

Our nervous system manipulates "things"--but there are no "things" in the world.

Our language demands "things"--but the "things" of our language do not correspond to any "things" in ther world, because there are none.

So all we can do is say: "Emptiness is form; form is emptiness. Emptiness is not different from form; form is not different from emptiness." And that's just a hint. It isn't "true", because it uses language, and "emptiness" and "form" are treated as "things" in langauge.

I think the clearest way of saying this in modern terms is that all edges are fuzzy as far down as we can examine them. Physics and neuroscience support this quite well. The Koch curve and the Menger sponge illustrate it.

Add to that the point that the universe and every(non)thing in it is in a constant state of flux. We store pictures of the world that change more slowly than the subjects of the pictures. Everything gets out of sync--and the pictures are never as detailed as the original subjects, in the first place. We even save little snapshots of ourselves. When there is a clash between the world of experience and our photo album (which we think is the "real" world), we suffer.

As far as I can see, there is nothing important beyond this in Buddhism. It's not about making people nicer or more honest or less flawed. It's about reducing our suffering by learning to set aside the photo album and look directly at the world. The Four Noble Truths explain it. The Eightfold Path is a method, not a goal.

For example, alcoholism has nothing to do with moral character, nor with ones understanding, any more than tuberculosis or a broken leg do. Enlightenment will not cure a broken leg. It will not cure tuberculosis. It will not cure alcoholism. Nor will it change ones taste in music or in sexual partners. It can lead to a relaxation of one's tendency to defend one's (wholly imaginary) self against the (wholly imaginary) rest of the world, and that can have side effects regarding one's behavior, but it won't change a person's behavior to match some abstract ideal.

Of course, I know absolutely nothing about any of this. Besides, I never take part in off-topic discussions. I only discuss the whistle.

[fatveg]

So all we can do is say: "Emptiness is form; form is emptiness. Emptiness is not different from form; form is not different from emptiness."

Amen, bro.

..so we all agree we should be saying

'Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi Swaha!'


'veg

[jim stone]

Add to that the point that the universe and every(non)thing in it is in a constant state of flux. We store pictures of the world that change more slowly than the subjects of the pictures. Everything gets out of sync--and the pictures are never as detailed as the original subjects, in the first place. We even save little snapshots of ourselves. When there is a clash between the world of experience and our photo album (which we think is the "real" world), we suffer.


This is Zen, not the Theravada.
Zen (which is a blend of Buddhism and Taoism)
was popularized in the USA by people like Alan Watts,
and when Americans think of Buddhism they often
think of Zen. It developed over a thousand years after
the Buddha's death, and in another place, China,
not India. Zen tends to find the cause of suffering
in the cognitive dissonance between thought and reality.
Classical Buddhism (the Theravada) finds it in
craving, aversion, and delusion.

The Buddha
wasn't particularly concerned about fuzzy edges
or the intellectual mind or the dissonance between
thought and reality. There is a straightforward
doctrine, with lots of categories. All things are characterized
by transience, suffering, and selflessness, for instance; craving
causes suffering. Craving has three objects: sense pleasure,
existence, and non-existence. Craving can be ended, and so on.
The method is analytical, not mystical or anti-cognitive.
For him we don't exist, not because everything in the
universe is one or things are fuzzy, but because
when you look you find that nothing lasts long
enough to be you. His method is not particularly mystical
or anti-intellectual; unlike zen.


'As far as I can see, there is nothing important beyond this in Buddhism. It's not about making people nicer or more honest or less flawed. It's about reducing our suffering by learning to set aside the photo album and look directly at the world. The Four Noble Truths explain it. The Eightfold Path is a method, not a goal.'

As to what it's all 'about', I leave it to you
to decide. However the Buddha put a powerful emphasis on
cultivating morality. There are five ethical precepts, and a powerful
emphasis on developing specific virtues.
Whole meditation retreats, lasting weeks, are
dedicated to developing kindness. As mentioned,
he said that a prerequisite for enlightenment is
that the practitioner is 'well established in virtue.'
When somebody starts violating precepts
(e.g. not to use alchohol or drugs, to refrain
from sexual irresponsibility) there is no
voice raised saying, 'Well, that doesn't apply,
he's enlightened, after all.' The response is
swift and definite.

The foundation of Buddhist practice is sila,
morality, and this isn't just words; he meant it.

This sort of thing has been de-emphasized in
presenting Buddhism to the West, perhaps because
it isn't sexy, perhaps also because it was de-emphasized
in later Buddhism, which is what was presented
to the West. What happens when morality gets
de-emphasized is pretty frightening. Zen in Japan
fell into disrepute after WWII because it was
so associated with militarism. The awful sexual
scandals of Buddhist groups in the USA
didn't include the Theravada.

Not knocking these other traditions, by the way,
in that they have their interesting perspective
on things. Buddhism, too, the differences
in emphasis and perspective. Personally I think
the Buddha was more likely to have been
enlightened than anybody else in history,
and arguably he was the greatest
Buddhist teacher who ever was; so
I'm interested in understanding buddhism
in his terms, first.
Best

[Jerry Freeman]

Personally I think
the Buddha was more likely to have been
enlightened than anybody else in history,
and arguably he was the greatest
Buddhist teacher who ever was; so
I'm interested in understanding buddhism
in his terms, first.
Best

I was taught that enlightenment is the natural, fully matured state of human consciousness, and that, although it may take a long time to develop, it isn't something to be looked upon as unattainable or beyond the reach of anyone who seriously aspires for it.

I have every confidence that there are many thousands of enlightened people alive at this moment, in all the various traditions of the world. There are many ways to describe enlightenment, expressed through many teachers and many traditions. These are not contradictory, in my opinion, but only reflect different personalities and cultures, and differences in the audiences being addressed.

In your posts, Jim, I believe I sense an underlying pessimism and doubt, and an approach to the project of enlightenment that assigns it to regions so far removed from the reach of mortals in this world today as to make it a practical impossibility.

You seem to have made a decision not to engage me in these discussions. I'm not sure of the reason for this. I'm not interested in being right or in trying to dispute what you or anyone else has to say. I'm only interested in what is useful and in what might bring some benefit here and there. I wish you well.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[Lorenzo]

"Buddhism is sometimes naïvely criticized as a "negative" or "pessimistic" religion and philosophy. After all (so the argument goes) life is not all misery and disappointment: it offers many kinds of joy and happiness. Why then this pessimistic Buddhist obsession with unsatisfactoriness and suffering? The Buddha based his teachings on a frank assessment of our plight as humans: there is unsatisfactoriness and suffering in the world. No one can argue this fact. Were the Buddha's teachings to stop there, we might indeed regard them as pessimistic and life as utterly hopeless. But, like a doctor who prescribes a remedy for an illness, the Buddha offers hope (the third Noble Truth) and a cure (the fourth). The Buddha's teachings thus give cause for an extraordinary degree of optimism in a complex, confusing, and difficult world. One modern teacher summed it up well: Buddhism is the serious pursuit of happiness."

"The good qualities that naturally emerge and deepen as a result of (Original Buddhism) these practices not only smooth the way for the journey to Nirvana; they also have the immediate effect of helping the practitioner become a more generous, loving, compassionate, peaceful, and clear-headed member of society. There is thus no basis to the charge occasionally leveled at Theravada Buddhism that it is somehow a selfish path."

What happens to the practitioner who ends up in the highest state of nirvana (there being several different levels) and he slips or fails, having succumbed to discontent, dissatisfaction, or sensual craving? Would he somehow be able to regain his lost "right views" or "right mindfulness?" This may not happen often if the path is rightly traveled, but surely it must happen.

[jim stone]

In your posts, Jim, I believe I sense an underlying pessimism and doubt, and an approach to the project of enlightenment that assigns it to regions so far removed from the reach of mortals in this world today as to make it a practical impossibility.


That's the Theravada. Lorenzo asked me for a definition of
enlightenment and I gave the one local to the tradition
that I know best, and I said so. This is consistent with there being
other, better definitions. Plainly uprooting craving, aversion
and delusion is no easy task, and according to the tradition
the Buddha initially decided not to teach, but the Hindu
gods came to him and begged him, saying that there
are some 'with only a little dust in their eyes.'
The suttas are full of stories of people who became
enlightened simply by hearing the teaching, so
I suppose the gods were right. But it's also said
that for many people enlightenmnet will happen
over the course of many lifetimes.

That I'm personally more sure of the Buddha's enlightenmnet
than of anybody else's is entirely consistent
with there being thousands of enlightened
people in many traditions. Many Hindus share
my view of the Buddha, in fact, with the difference that
they consider the Buddha a Hindu, not a
Buddhist, the greatest Hindu holyman who
ever lived.

What happens to the practitioner who ends up in the highest state of nirvana (there being several different levels) and he slips or fails, having succumbed to discontent, dissatisfaction, or sensual craving? Would he somehow be able to regain his lost "right views" or "right mindfulness?" This may not happen often if the path is rightly traveled, but surely it must happen.

At the deepest level of enlightenment, as described in
the Theravada, backsliding is impossible, because
the very possibility of craving is uprooted.
A bit more realistically, though, it's likely that
nobody in a spiritually advanced state
is safe. There is a tradition that, decades after
his enlightenment the kingdom in which the
Buddha had been born a prince was attacked
and conquered; the Buddha grieved. His people
asked him: 'How is it possible that you are
grieving? You are supposed to be beyond
all attachment' to which he answered:
'I haven't got over that one yet.'

Yes, one can regain whatever by practicing.
The great secret of Buddhism is that the practice
works, it dissolves craving, aversion, and delusion.
It's very simple; you just follow the rules.
It's meant for monkeys who don't want to
suffer; you don't have to be enlightened or
intelligent or much of anything to do it.
The practice is like the train to Cleveland.
Get on it, sit down, don't get up, and it
will sooner or later take you to cleveland.
You may not care where you are going,
it will take you to Cleveland. You may be
dying to get to Cleveland; it will take
you to Cleveland.

By the way, I believe that for a decade
after his enlightenment, the Buddha
continued to meditate an hour
a day. Best

[Jerry Freeman]

Thanks for your response, Jim.

I do think we're talking about the same things here.

I'm not inclined to try to create heirarchies where one enlightened soul is compared to other enlightened souls, especially at the highest levels.

In the tradition I'm more familiar with, there are Vyasa, Vasistha, Shankara, and many others who might be put on a pedestal.

I think there's the matter of what style of exposition resonates best with a particular aspirant's ways of thinking. The one(s) that resonate most strongly and whose teachings are best matched to an individual's way of approaching the project, is/are likely to be seen by that person as the greatest or the highest, etc.

I've mentioned before, I would like to learn more about Buddha and his teachings. In that regard, I very much appreciate the posts that have been made on this board.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[TonyHiggins]

I've been following this discussion with great interest. Both Jim and Jerry have expressed ideas I've held close to my heart and I look at their 'disagreements' more as different perspectives than disagreement. I've only looked at Eastern spirituality as an outsider, never having 'practiced' or adopted a specific path. Jack Kornflower (hope I got his name right) in A Path With Heart, writes 'Pick a path and stick to it.' Before I read that, I was once asked why I continued to be a Roman Catholic. I replied it was because I was born into it of devoutly RC parents and I figure, had I been born into a devout Hindu family, that's what I'd be. (Im not saying I'm at the devout end of the spectrum...) but it's a known quantity, has merit, and what would I gain by starting from scratch, especially in a discipline originating in a culture I'm unfamiliar with?

I think the Western religions are a bit less specific about the practice of following a path. I speculate that the western notions of 'faith' coupled with the eastern spiritual practices such as meditation compliment each other nicely. I don't see much difference in ideas of morality, and that's encouraging. As I get older, faith becomes a more difficult concept or practice and I become more dependent on 'hope.'

Enough rambling preamble. Jim and Jerry both expressed the idea that a practice should make one a better person for it to have value. (At least, I read that between the lines.) I would argue strongly for this. It's great and comforting to have a belief in who/what we are and where we're going, especially after physical death, but what's the difference what we believe as long as it makes us feel good? I'm preoccupied with ideas of justification. I don't have a clear definition of enlightenment and the comments in this thread make it more vague than ever, but also make me ask what difference it makes whether I do have a clear concept or not. I do sense it as a path or direction rather than an accomplishment. All I'm left with is the evidence in a person: their behavior. Talk is cheap and it can be learned (parroted). People can be manipulated and deluded by talk. And, I agree, 'enlightened' people can be flawed or unhappy.

Assuming 'enlightenment' is an actual attainable state (or direction), I'm wondering about Mother Teresa, for instance. I read last year that her diaries revealed profound doubts about her spiritual beliefs while, all along, her practices belied this. A similar lesson is expressed in Jesus 'Agony in the Garden.' I cling to the idea that my life won't be wasted or deluded if I make myself a benefit to other people. I have the ideal opportunity to work on this as a registered nurse and I remind myself of this as I walk in the door to the clinic every day. As a matter of fact, I pray for guidance and inspiration to do this. Now, the reality is I hate getting up in the morning and I am horribly restless at work most days and can't wait to get home and practice the whistle, etc. I also entertain the idea that if I was rich, I wouldn't work at all. It's stressful. I hate stress. At least once a day, some really needy person calls for help/advice and I bust my butt to get them what I think they need. Afterward, I think that was my golden opportunity to help someone who needed it and it was a blessing for me. What I'm there for, and all that.

So, my little project for myself is to find a peace of mind that allows me to turn off the alarm in the morning without dismay and walk cheerfully into work and feel good all day. What are my odds? If I become enlightened, will that happen? (Don't bother, I already know the answer.) On the other hand, when I ask myself, 'what if there was no God' or we are just assemblies of atoms and electricity, nothing more, what difference would that make to what I'm doing? The answer that sustains me is 'No difference at all.'
Tony

[Walden]

But as for fellers from Judeo-Christian claimin Godhood, I can think of two immediately. Koresh thought he was something special, and the followers of Rev. Moon seem to indicate that Hitler/WWII was the Armageddon and the good Rev is the Second Coming... Haven't heard much from them lately but used to be in frequent contact with Moonies thru ex-wife's family.

But I digress....

Interesting theology on the Unification Church Web site, "This family of disciples was the foundation upon which the holy wedding, the marriage of the Lamb foretold in the Book of Revelation, could take place. On March 16, 1960, Reverend Moon was blessed in holy marriage to Hak Ja Han. This marked the beginning of the restoration of humankind back into God's lineage. By the power of God and sacrificial love, Sun Myung Moon and Hak Ja Han established the position of True Parents. They are the first couple to have the complete blessing of God, and to be able to bring forth children with no original sin."

Not too long ago the Revd. Mr. Moon was holding reconciliation services:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/unif/unif123.html

In some cases some prominent non-Moony clergy were wed by him:

http://www.cesnur.org/2001/moon_may23.htm

[jim stone]

Tony, if prayer doesn't do it for you about nursing, it's unlikely
that any other religious practice will, IMO. My solution
was retirement. There's nothing dishonorable in a
change of venue, anyhow. Very interesting about Mother T.
I saw a lot of her operations in Calcutta, and
never quite understood what I was seeing.
Where is this stuff about her diaries? Thanks, Jim

[TonyHiggins]

Well Jim, I wouldn't say prayer isn't doing what it's designed to do. If God's there, he/she has heard me. What the response is should be something good, if only I can figure out what it is. I believe it keeps me focused on what I'm supposed to be doing. That would be a pretty good response right there. I do look forward to retirement, by the way.

The Mother Teresa revelation was in the news. I think I heard it on public radio. It may have come out as part of the investigation to make her a saint. That's what made me perk my ears up- discussion on what qualifies one as a saint. I was glad they were able to acknowledge a 'saint' may have a problem with faith (and reassuring to me that she didn't let it get in the way of taking care of business).
Tony