I think that's pretty true although it risks makes light of 'the great matter' — Wayfarer
To be enlightened is to be free from suffering but life is suffering (one of the Noble Truths) and so... — Agent Smith
I've always assumed spiritual practices and beliefs generated just as much acrimony and division as anything else constructed by human beings. You have done way more work in this area - what do you think enlightenment looks like?
Spiritual systems all seem to coalesce around an etherial endgame - a blissful realm that humans can achieve with the right attitudes or practices. Enlightenment seems to be one of these stories. The endless quest for perfection and arrival. — Tom Storm
To be enlightened is to be free from suffering but life is suffering (one of the Noble Truths) and so...
— Agent Smith
Do you have an actual canonical reference for backing up this very popular claim? — baker
the center point of Buddhism is suffering and the end of suffering. The Buddha said that he teaches only one thing: suffering and the end of suffering.
— baker
That’s why I don’t think there is much difference between Buddhism and other systems. — Apollodorus
Well, when you have a number of competing systems, I think it is legitimate for people to want to learn more about each of them. After all, anyone can claim that they can show you "the way to Nirvana”, only to take you for a ride.
The general view in the old days was that Western systems (especially those based on Christianity) were superior to anything the East had to offer. These days the attitude has been reversed. It has become customary to belittle all things Western and to idealize and idolize everything Eastern (or non-Western).
The way I see it, this new trend is mostly rooted in ignorance of Western traditions, which is part of the general cultural decline in the West.
If the objects of sensory consciousness (pravṛttivijñāna) are momentary, a higher, more permanent form of consciousness (ālayavijñāna) is needed, and if that is also not permanent, a final, absolutely permanent consciousness is required. Otherwise, enlightenment itself would be impermanent.
This is why three basic levels of consciousness and being are common to Buddhism and Platonism alike - each level of reality being superseded by the next higher one that generates it, until the Ultimate Source of all is reached.
The “obliteration of consciousness” that is supposed to take place in enlightenment may well be only the obliteration of lower forms of consciousness. This would make the real Buddhist position compatible with that of other systems like Platonism and Advaita Vedanta, as McEvilley suggests. — Apollodorus
Have you ever met anyone who would be happy about another's claims of enlightenment?
— baker
Well, for starters, there aren't many who actually make that claim. — Apollodorus
Second, you would want to first see some evidence in support of that claim.
Third, you would need to know (a) what enlightenment is and (b) what enlightenment means in the case of the person making the claim.
So I think that, statistically, the chance of anyone being in a position to congratulate others for being enlightened is pretty small ....
It is true that Zen is replete with sayings like 'to chop wood, to draw water' but there really is a purpose and an aim in Buddhism. To mistake it for saying there is no aim and no purpose is a nihilistic misreading, in my view. That's why those who are engaged in Zen actually live under a highly disciplined routine and very hard work. It sounds to me as if the surrender you're speaking of is just abandoning the idea that there is anything worth understanding, which is far from the truth. — Wayfarer
There is no reason that something that is part of a vast complex system of doctrine and practice might not seem vague, mystical, contrary, or ironic. — T Clark
It seems to me that the two contrary ways of seeing things is part of the plan.
Suppose that statement is false/a half-truth like so many fake Buddha quotes doing the rounds on the www, what, in your opnion, is the correct proposition Buddha made, long, long ago? — Agent Smith
Paradoxes and contrary pairs are sometimes just literary and mnemonic means. They can sound like catchy phrases, witticisms, but sometimes they are just summaries of complex topics. Of course, if one doesn't know those topics, one doesn't know that either. — baker
Paradoxes and contrary pairs are sometimes just literary and mnemonic means. They can sound like catchy phrases, witticisms, but sometimes they are just summaries of complex topics. Of course, if one doesn't know those topics, one doesn't know that either. — baker
Philosophy tends to be too highfalutin for it's own good. — T Clark
I've never taken any real interest in these sorts of 'pithy' statements but good to know that often there is a foundational underpinning. — Tom Storm
Muddy Road
Tanzan and Ekido were once traveling together down a muddy road. A heavy rain was still falling. Coming around a bend, they met a lovely girl in a silk kimono and sash, unable to cross the intersection. “Come on, girl,” said Tanzan at once. Lifting her in his arms, he carried her over the mud.
Ekido did not speak again until that night when they reached a lodging temple. Then he no longer could restrain himself. “We monks don’t go near females.” He told Tanzan, especially not young and lovely ones. It is dangerous. Why did you do that?”
“I left the girl there,” said Tanzan. “Are you still carrying her?”
I would have argued vehemently against that 30 years ago but I'm now starting to see some truth in it. But the Church was in a lot of ways the author of its own misfortune in this regard. When you study the role of religion in European history it was often incredibly bloody and vicious. Sure there were episodes of comparative enlightenment and calm, but the religious wars, inquisitions and crusades were phenomenally bloody. And the inner meaning of the philosophy was hardly self-evident. — Wayfarer
I think you need(ed) to be young in The Summer of Love for him to hit home. — Tom Storm
I think it would be advisable for Westerners to first acquaint themselves with what is best in their own culture, before uncritically embracing other traditions. — Apollodorus
If so, then the whole thing may have more to do with psychology than with spirituality as such. — Apollodorus
But now there is a new synthesis beginning to emerge, which is neither the standard-issue neo-Darwinian materialism or old-school theological. I mean, nobody can plausibly argue against the empirical evidence, whatever philosophy you have has to be able to accomodate that. But if you let go any form of literalism with respect to the interpretation of ancient texts, and read them allegorically, then it's possible to arrive at a holistic understanding based on both scientific discovery and spiritual principle. — Wayfarer
It is easy to construct India as a nation of enlightened sages devoted to prayer, meditation, and the study of scripture. — Apollodorus
The belief that earthly existence is painful; observance of abstinence and strict dietary rules; moral and spiritual purification through control or eradication of negative emotions and impulses, and cultivation of opposite inclinations; the attainment of detachment and impassibility (apatheia); meditation and contemplation, etc., are found in Western (Greek, Christian) and Indian (Hindu, Buddhist) traditions alike.
However, with the possibilities offered by the latest information technologies, I think it would be advisable for Westerners to first acquaint themselves with what is best in their own culture, before uncritically embracing other traditions.
If anything, what these Westerners have to offer is an enhanced feeling of inner happiness and peace (and perhaps a certain degree of self-importance), all of which may be equally achieved with practices that are available closer to home.
In fact, the term “enlightenment” itself is of Western origin and is not used in Indian traditions. So this may be a case of Westerners Westernizing Eastern traditions and believing their own perception of them as a substitute for the Western spirituality whose existence they choose to deny in the first place. If so, then the whole thing may have more to do with psychology than with spirituality as such.
Yes, the idea of suffering and the idea of making an end to suffering can be found in many religions, ideologies, etc., but these systems differ greatly in the relative importance they ascribe to the problem of suffering. To the best of my knowledge, no other system but Buddhism gives such prominence to suffering (although Jainism is close). — baker
Such as by reading Machiavelli? — baker
Western spirituality has no equivalent to (serial) rebirth or reincarnation, thus making a person limited to what they have here and now and to what they can do here and now. — baker
Some are reborn in the womb, those who are wicked in the underworld, the righteous go to heaven, those who are pollutant-free are emancipated (Dhammapada 22.1)
The impure souls wander until the time when they are bound again into a body by their desire for the corporeality that follows them around (81e).
The soul that has performed an impure act, by engaging in unjust killings or perpetrating other similar deeds goes to the lower regions of Hades where it suffers every deprivation until certain lengths of time have elapsed and the soul is by necessity born into the dwellings suitable for it (108c; 114a).
On the other hand, each soul that has passed through its life both purely and decently receives Gods as companions and as guides alike, and then dwells in the region appropriate to it (108c).
The pure soul goes off into what is similar to it, the unseen, the divine, immortal and wise, where after its arrival it can be happy, separated from wandering, unintelligence, fears, and other human evils ... (81a).
To me, India has always first and foremost been a country of cholera and poverty. — baker
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.