Can enlightment be attained immediately? [Archive]

NikolaiI

08-03-2009, 07:16 PM

Yes, Blaze I agree with everything you've said. There is of course the idea of Instant Enlightenment in Zen Buddhism. Of course Zen is one of the most discipline and practice/oriented spiritual disciplines there is

I'd just like to share the last three paragraphs from Nature of Consciouness, a talk by Alan Watts.

What I think an awakening really involves is a re-examination of our common sense. We've got all sorts of ideas built into us which seem unquestioned, obvious. And our speech reflects them; its commonest phrases. 'Face the facts.' As if they were outside you. As if life were something they simply encountered as a foreigner. 'Face the facts.' Our common sense has been rigged, you see? So that we feel strangers and aliens in this world, and this is terribly plausible, simply because this is what we are used to. That's the only reason. But when you really start questioning this, say 'Is that the way I have to assume life is? I know everybody does, but does that make it true?' It doesn't necessarily. It ain't necessarily so. So then as you question this basic assumption that underlies our culture, you find you get a new kind of common sense. It becomes absolutely obvious to you that you are continuous with the universe.

For example, people used to believe that planets were supported in the sky by being imbedded in crystal spheres, and everybody knew that. Why, you could see the crystal spheres there because you could look right through them. It was obviously made of crystal, and something had to keep them up there. And then when the astronomers suggested that there weren't any crystal spheres, people got terrified, because then they thought the stars would fall down. Nowadays, it doesn't bother anybody. They thought, too, when they found out the Earth was spherical, people who lived in the antiguities would fall off, and that was scary. But then somebody sailed around the world, and we all got used to it, we travel around in jet planes and everything. We have no problem feeling that the Earth is globular. None whatever. We got used to it.

So in the same way Einstein's relativity theories--the curvature of the propogation of light, the idea that time gets older as light moves away from a source, in other words, people looking at the world now on Mars, they would be seeing the state of the world a little earlier than we are now experiencing it. That began to bother people when Einstein started talking about that. But now we're all used to it, and relativity and things like that are a matter of common sense today. Well, in a few years, it will be a matter of commons sense to many people that they're one with the universe. It'll be so simple. And then maybe if that happens, we shall be in a position to handle our technology with more sense. With love instead of with hate for our environment.

http://deoxy.org/w_nature.htm

And of course also this idea was written by Laozi in the Tao Te Ching, by Black Elk, Swami Vivekananda, and many others...

in the article Alan Watts describes it very beautifully, I'll try to paraphrase: Normally what do we consider us - our actions? We consider only our conscious actions and movements to be ours, to be our self. But if we really examine, then we can't exclude processes such as breathing, the heart pumping blood - those automatic processes are as much 'us' as are our conscious movements. When we realize that, then we'll see that our it's also us who is shining the sun. Of course Alan Watts says it better, so I have done an injustice. Still it's worth meditating on. I find it to be true.

LMK

08-03-2009, 10:43 PM

I think Jersea hits on an important point. The definition of enlightenment has not been given (other than my Jersea) and would need to be agreed upon in order to discuss it at any length.

Having said that, I would like to offer that it might be the natural state or inclination of the human to be enlightened, yet there are so many distractions we get caught up in quick fixes to our life's challenges. Or sometimes we just do what feels good and call it a day.

So, if I may suggest that one might easily attain an enlightened state by stopping. The effort and hard work that one does to become enlightened might well be had by letting it just be. Going with the natural flow of the universe, doing what's right, listening to that little voice in your head (Jiminy Cricket...always let your conscience by your guide).

...just a thought...

~L

NikolaiI

01-17-2010, 05:48 AM

Enlightenment can be attained instantly only in the sense that one realizes the truth of one's self beyond time. True enlightenment is entirely unique. It's understood that Enlightenment, which is the teaching of the Highest, is non-different from the Highest - be the Highest in the Buddhist sense, the Hindu sense, the Judeo-Christian sense, or the Islamic sense.

There is no instant enlightenment though there is the sense of existing eternally. Enlightenment may come quicker than a slow route; this is because the Highest is within the self of every living being. The living soul, having come from its source, the Highest, is endowed with qualities identical in nature to the source. By attaining some level of realization, the living soul realizes that it was never affected by anything external. The range of which the soul's nature is not affected extends to time, and the forms in the creation. So the soul's unlimited identifications with the unlimited forms of creation turn out to be all mis-identifications, because the soul always had the qualities of its source.

There are innumerable paths. Enlightenment is realization of one's location - at the source, or in other words, the end. The source is not a static end, however. It is a state of existence and consciousness which contains all other states of concsiousness and existence. Enlightenment contains knowledge that all paths are contained within the source. And there cannot be any lack of freedom within the source, so all paths become like one.

Paulclem

01-17-2010, 05:58 AM

Enlightenment can be attained instantly only in the sense that one realizes the truth of one's self beyond time. True enlightenment is entirely unique. It's understood that Enlightenment, which is the teaching of the Highest, is non-different from the Highest - be the Highest in the Buddhist sense, the Hindu sense, the Judeo-Christian sense, or the Islamic sense.

There is no instant enlightenment though there is the sense of existing eternally. Enlightenment may come quicker than a slow route; this is because the Highest is within the self of every living being. The living soul, having come from its source, the Highest, is endowed with qualities identical in nature to the source. By attaining some level of realization, the living soul realizes that it was never affected by anything external. The range of which the soul's nature is not affected extends to time, and the forms in the creation. So the soul's unlimited identifications with the unlimited forms of creation turn out to be all mis-identifications, because the soul always had the qualities of its source.

You really need to define what you mean by enlightenment. It seems that there is a mixing of religious traditions in the views of enlightenment here. Certainly you cannot lump the Buddhist definition of enlightenment with the theistic religions. It is a specific state, with degrees of enlightenment, depending upon which Buddhist tradition you are referring to.

NikolaiI

01-17-2010, 10:10 PM

You really need to define what you mean by enlightenment. It seems that there is a mixing of religious traditions in the views of enlightenment here. Certainly you cannot lump the Buddhist definition of enlightenment with the theistic religions. It is a specific state, with degrees of enlightenment, depending upon which Buddhist tradition you are referring to.

Meditation is the same for people of all religions and cultures. Anyone may close their eyes and feel expansiveness from meditation. And if, for some reason, they go beyond, they may go into the different states of absorption and then relinquish ideas of self to become aware of a greater Self - instead of a minute self with a limited, restricted and bound self-hood to realize one's nature as having a hitherto unknown vast, expansive range of being.

And one would then float as on a stream, to the source of one's being and all things. The source is Lotus-throned Buddha, whose Lotus flower is the same as the Buddha. The Lotus flower comes from the Buddha. All forms in existence come from the same source, and they are the same, or the same in essence or quality, as their source, their foundation.

It is true I speak of Buddha-nature as being the source, but the facts that all is relative, all is changing, all is connected, and that duality is an illusion; these are not just part of one system but are facts of reality. Whether one calls the source the Dao, or the Great Way (as perhaps in Buddhism) or as the Grandfather Spirit (as perhaps by Black Elk) or the One Whose Beauty and Love is Everywhere, as I heard a Presbyterian minister say in a sermon today, the source is one and the same. What is known as the Dao is the same as what the Presbyterian minister meant by the One Whose Beauty and Love is Everywhere.

Paulclem

01-18-2010, 07:21 PM

Meditation is the same for people of all religions and cultures. Anyone may close their eyes and feel expansiveness from meditation. And if, for some reason, they go beyond, they may go into the different states of absorption and then relinquish ideas of self to become aware of a greater Self - instead of a minute self with a limited, restricted and bound self-hood to realize one's nature as having a hitherto vast, expansive range of being.

And one would then float as on a stream, to the source of one's being and all things. The source is Lotus-throned Buddha, whose Lotus flower is the same as the Buddha. The Lotus flower comes from the Buddha. All forms in existence come from the same source, and they are the same, or the same in essence or quality, as their source, their foundation.

It is true I speak of Buddha-nature as being the source, but the facts that all is relative, all is changing, all is connected, and that duality is an illusion; these are not just part of one system but are facts of reality. Whether one calls the source the Dao, or the Great Way (as perhaps in Buddhism) or as the Grandfather Spirit (as perhaps by Black Elk) or the One Whose Beauty and Love is Everywhere, as I heard a Presbyterian minister say in a sermon today, the source is one and the same. What is known as the Dao is the same as what the Presbyterian minister meant by the One Whose Beauty and Love is Everywhere.

I'm afraid that you are putting your own interpretation upon what Buddhism is. I don't know what you mean by greater self - I've never read that phrase in any Buddhist text, or heard it from a Buddhist teacher. Your phrasing seems to imply some source - presumably a creator God - which is not part of the Buddha's teaching.

Meditation in Buddhism is a very specific set of practices not referred to in your description. It certainly is not closing ones eyes and feeling expansiveness.

I can appreciate an attempt to form links between religions, but I feel this is ultimately misguided. True tolerance is an appreciation that there are very real differences, but which don't affect each's respect and consideration.

NikolaiI

01-18-2010, 09:16 PM

I'm afraid that you are putting your own interpretation upon what Buddhism is. I don't know what you mean by greater self

The greater self is the same as buddha-nature.

Buddha-nature is one's true self, the real self. It is boundless - full of peace, bliss, and knowledge.

Labels are not terribly important however. Buddha-nature or greater self may refer to the same thing.

Scheherazade

01-18-2010, 09:30 PM

I s'pose it can be attained immediately. I was born enlightened.

Evry one sez i'm like *air quotes* speshul, like...

Paulclem

01-19-2010, 05:27 AM

The greater self is the same as buddha-nature.

Buddha-nature is one's true self, the real self. It is boundless - full of peace, bliss, and knowledge.

Labels are not terribly important however. Buddha-nature or greater self may refer to the same thing.

I'm sorry - according to whom? There is no greater self in Buddhist teachings. The teachings are very specific. Greater self seems to imply, as I have said, a creator God, which is not in the teachings.

Buddhist teachings deny the existence of a self- usually referred to as an I.

I s'pose it can be attained immediately. I was born enlightened.

Evry one sez i'm like *air quotes* speshul, like...

I can see that. You must be to manage this forum. Do you create several emanations of yourself to reply to multiple postings? Enlightenment could be useful.

NikolaiI

01-19-2010, 11:20 AM

I'm sorry - according to whom? There is no greater self in Buddhist teachings. The teachings are very specific. Greater self seems to imply, as I have said, a creator God, which is not in the teachings.

Buddhist teachings deny the existence of a self- usually referred to as an I.

May I ask then, what is your understanding of Buddha-nature.

tailor STATELY

01-19-2010, 01:53 PM

IMHO: Yes, as I understand your question (that of the premise of this discussion) and as a Christian, though not necessarily the view of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for a select number of individuals as God sees fit to reveal to.

The general rule for most is attaining enlightenment line upon line, precept upon precept:
This principle is described in 2 Nephi 28:30.

For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have. (Emphasis added) All are endowed with the Light of Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light of Christ) which gives us some enlightenment. It is through living righteously that allows the Holy Ghost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Ghost) to further our enlightenment (though not abide with us); and then through repentance and the baptism of water and fire (http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=345a43097758b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD ) one receives the gift of the Holy Ghost, a gift that allows the Holy Spirit to abide with us as long as we are worthy - which gives us the opportunity for even more enlightenment..................which ultimately may allow us to become even as God is, a fully enlightened being.

Now, these are my understandings of the gospel of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not necessarily the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for I am not fully enlightened.

PeterL

01-19-2010, 02:34 PM

Whether one can become enlightened is very much a matter of definition. If one deines enlightenment as you did, then enlightenment is easy, and most people attain enlightenment. Another definition that I have come across is that enlightment is the result of kundalina reaching and filling the heart chakra. That isn't as easy or common, but I must say that it was pleasant and fulfilling.

Paulclem

01-19-2010, 03:18 PM

May I ask then, what is your understanding of Buddha-nature.

Buddha Nature is the potential within all sentient beings to become a Buddha. It's not, like a soul, an inner part of a being. The potential is there, but it is difficult and may take several lives.

NikolaiI

01-19-2010, 04:23 PM

Buddha Nature is the potential within all sentient beings to become a Buddha. It's not, like a soul, an inner part of a being. The potential is there, but it is difficult and may take several lives.

But it isn't so much becoming a Buddha, as it awakening from maya. You awaken from the dream and realize that your nature is buddha-nature.

Another aspect of Buddhism is the concept of non-duality. This is intricately linked to enlightenment. Buddhism doesn't say so much that we realize we are "one with the universe," but that is what it means. Anyway, it may be that duality is the last vestige of maya.

Anyway - greater self is a perfectly acceptable term. Greater self is the same as Buddha-nature. I may ask you - is a Buddha bound by maya? If it is not, then Buddha-nature is certainly greater than a self bound by maya. Is it not?

Buddha-nature is boundless. This cannot really be understood except by realizing it. But it really is. We can understand this truly only from experience. We can read about it by reading Milarepa's songs, and other great Buddhas; by studying the Heart Sutra, the Avatamsaka sutra, etc. But these are only language and symbols, however beautiful the Sanskrit may be. Reading it isn't always the same as experiencing it on all levels of being.

Paulclem

01-19-2010, 07:24 PM

But it isn't so much becoming a Buddha, as it awakening from maya. You awaken from the dream and realize that your nature is buddha-nature.

Another aspect of Buddhism is the concept of non-duality. This is intricately linked to enlightenment. Buddhism doesn't say so much that we realize we are "one with the universe," but that is what it means. Anyway, it may be that duality is the last vestige of maya.

Anyway - greater self is a perfectly acceptable term. Greater self is the same as Buddha-nature. I may ask you - is a Buddha bound by maya? If it is not, then Buddha-nature is certainly greater than a self bound by maya. Is it not?

Buddha-nature is boundless. This cannot really be understood except by realizing it. But it really is. We can understand this truly only from experience. We can read about it by reading Milarepa's songs, and other great Buddhas; by studying the Heart Sutra, the Avatamsaka sutra, etc. But these are only language and symbols, however beautiful the Sanskrit may be. Reading it isn't always the same as experiencing it on all levels of being.

Awakening - Becoming - both terms used to describe Enlightenment.

One with the universe - again another term I have not seem or had taught about Enlightenment. I really can't accept that "it really is" what a Buddhist teacher means if they don't use those terms.

Greater self is not a perfectly acceptable term to a Buddhist who has not had it taught. It sounds like a Hindu version - atman, which is a very different from the Buddhist conception.

Non - Duality refers to the teaching on Emptiness. It embodies - in the Mahayana tradition - an ability to realise Wisdom and Emptiness.

Maya is the representation of the Lord of death which The Buddha defeated upon becoming Enlightened. Of course a Buddha is not then bound by Maya/ Mara, but it does not logically follow that a Buddha becomes a greater self. As you said, it is a label, but not one I have heard referred to before.

I agree with you about experiencing it by practice - reflection, teaching, study, meditation, and not only through reading. The references to Enlightement here do not resemble the Buddhist conception of Enlightenment, which is why I asked for the term to be defined before attributing those experiences to Buddhists.

I Googled these links:

Buddha-nature vs. Atman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature#Buddha-nature_vs._Atman

The "tathagatagarbha"/Buddha nature does not represent a substantial self (atman); rather, it is a positive language expression of "sunyata" (emptiness) and represents the potentiality to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices; the intention of the teaching of 'tathagatagarbha'/Buddha nature is soteriological rather than theoretical. - from Wikipedia

http://littlebang.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/buddha-nature-in-theravada/

NikolaiI

01-20-2010, 01:29 AM

Awakening - Becoming - both terms used to describe Enlightenment.

One with the universe - again another term I have not seem or had taught about Enlightenment. I really can't accept that "it really is" what a Buddhist teacher means if they don't use those terms.

Greater self is not a perfectly acceptable term to a Buddhist who has not had it taught. It sounds like a Hindu version - atman, which is a very different from the Buddhist conception.

Non - Duality refers to the teaching on Emptiness. It embodies - in the Mahayana tradition - an ability to realise Wisdom and Emptiness.

Maya is the representation of the Lord of death which The Buddha defeated upon becoming Enlightened. Of course a Buddha is not then bound by Maya/ Mara, but it does not logically follow that a Buddha becomes a greater self. As you said, it is a label, but not one I have heard referred to before.

I agree with you about experiencing it by practice - reflection, teaching, study, meditation, and not only through reading. The references to Enlightement here do not resemble the Buddhist conception of Enlightenment, which is why I asked for the term to be defined before attributing those experiences to Buddhists.

I Googled these links:

Buddha-nature vs. Atman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature#Buddha-nature_vs._Atman

The "tathagatagarbha"/Buddha nature does not represent a substantial self (atman); rather, it is a positive language expression of "sunyata" (emptiness) and represents the potentiality to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices; the intention of the teaching of 'tathagatagarbha'/Buddha nature is soteriological rather than theoretical. - from Wikipedia

http://littlebang.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/buddha-nature-in-theravada/

Oh my God, what can I say? I have experienced this, I am not lying to you. The full enlightenment, the supreme feeling of the Heart Sutra. I tell you again and again and with all sincerity I am not lying to you but telling you the truth. But you only want to argue because something I said struck you as un-Buddhist. I have experienced complete awakening, enlightenment, from Maya. Maya is not the demon, Maya is the same as samsara, which you have probably heard of before. It is nothingness.

What the normal perception of existence is, that is bound by maya (illusion), samsara. The Buddha-nature, self-realized, enlightened, that is boundless in all ways. You can understand this by the Heart Sutra, and by the Avatamsaka sutra, and others. There is scriptural evidence for what I am speaking, whether you accept it or not. (If you did not give some indication that you accept some scriptures as having value, then I would only speak to you with the symbols of reason and language.)

I am not telling you you have to believe what I am saying. As the Buddha said, we should only accept what we realize is true in our hearts. But I just want us to have a clear communication, and for that I will state again that I experienced something true. As to attributing certain states of awareness and realization to Buddhists which you think are not accurately ascribed to them - if you think this perhaps because I study other and practice other religions as well, and because I see the identical nature of enlightenment, whether it is by Laoze, Sri Aurobindo, or Milarepa, well my only response, which I am coming to realize will most likely be glazed over by your purposeful mind, is to ask you to study the sacred songs of Milarepa, and the Heart Sutra and the Avatamsaka sutra.

Again, I would not ask you to refer to these things had you not shown interest and reverence for the Buddhist scriptures. If you have any disqualifications you hold to me for which you think my statements are not to be trusted, please say them. It is my opinion that you will most likely post something in that direction, and you probably have not appreciated any of my points. But hopefully I am wrong. :)

Infinite peace to you, my friend! :)

IceM

01-20-2010, 01:35 AM

NikolaiI

01-20-2010, 02:17 AM

Enlightenment is subjective; some people define enlightenment in theologic terms while others define it other such ways. Can Enlightenment be obtained immediately? Surely, for understanding can encompass anything from comprehension of new paradigms related to important topics to self-realization in a religious sense. I, for one, feel "enlightened" every time I understand new perspectives to important topics. So, enlightenment IS instantly attainable.

Then again, it depends on your definition of enlightenment.

This is a great post and we are definitely the better for having you around. Thank you! :)

Actually one thing I have thought of a lot is that all things are subjective, or relative. And this same conclusion has recently begun to be reached by scientists, which are saying now the same kind of things which I experienced -- I experienced that the greatest size of anything is the same as the smallest size... I found that the forms in the universe were a positive sense or energy... but now they are saying from quantum mechanics something similar, that everyhting is a fractal pattern and the smallest size or the largest size it is exactly the same, the same pattern repeating, an infinite fractal - if you look at it more closely and more closely you never see anything less, always the same infinite fractal. They say reality is like a hologram...

Paulclem

01-20-2010, 02:24 PM

Oh my God, what can I say? I have experienced this, I am not lying to you. The full enlightenment, the supreme feeling of the Heart Sutra. I tell you again and again and with all sincerity I am not lying to you but telling you the truth. But you only want to argue because something I said struck you as un-Buddhist. I have experienced complete awakening, enlightenment, from Maya. Maya is not the demon, Maya is the same as samsara, which you have probably heard of before. It is nothingness.

What the normal perception of existence is, that is bound by maya (illusion), samsara. The Buddha-nature, self-realized, enlightened, that is boundless in all ways. You can understand this by the Heart Sutra, and by the Avatamsaka sutra, and others. There is scriptural evidence for what I am speaking, whether you accept it or not. (If you did not give some indication that you accept some scriptures as having value, then I would only speak to you with the symbols of reason and language.)

I am not telling you you have to believe what I am saying. As the Buddha said, we should only accept what we realize is true in our hearts. But I just want us to have a clear communication, and for that I will state again that I experienced something true. As to attributing certain states of awareness and realization to Buddhists which you think are not accurately ascribed to them - if you think this perhaps because I study other and practice other religions as well, and because I see the identical nature of enlightenment, whether it is by Laoze, Sri Aurobindo, or Milarepa, well my only response, which I am coming to realize will most likely be glazed over by your purposeful mind, is to ask you to study the sacred songs of Milarepa, and the Heart Sutra and the Avatamsaka sutra.

Again, I would not ask you to refer to these things had you not shown interest and reverence for the Buddhist scriptures. If you have any disqualifications you hold to me for which you think my statements are not to be trusted, please say them. It is my opinion that you will most likely post something in that direction, and you probably have not appreciated any of my points. But hopefully I am wrong. :)

Infinite peace to you, my friend! :)

Hi NikolaiI,

No offence has been intended by my posts. I merely wanted to clarify the terms of the conversation as the initial translation of terms from asian languages into English is itself a difficult process due to the weight of meaning within them. i just felt that clarity is needed in case anyone interested should get the wrong idea.

I wouldn't presume to judge what you have or have not attained, and I never intended to. :)

NikolaiI

01-21-2010, 07:34 PM

I think more significant than instant enlightenment is the function of enlightenment by which it goes beyond time. One of the thing which one wakes up from, in awakening, is the past, present and future. Time is just one subtle factor of the illusion. Because they are all illusion, it does not matter whether it is past, present, or future, and because they are all nothing, enlightenment is beyond past, present and future.

Enlightenment is a vision of the highest consciousness, and when one is in it, one can't help spread enlightenment because he can't discuss it in less abstract terms. And so perfect masters throughout history have come down into some level of normal consciousness. So it is that Buddha came down to one level, and Mohammed came down to another level. Because when you are seeing that Buddhia is the highest and the lowest, the greatest and the smallest; and you are not just seeing it but feeling it completely - then you can't do too much in terms of helping others.

But as to what enlightenment is - it is is something like that. I am sure it is different for different people. But there is actually nothing to be afraid of. I know that the Highest reality is completely gentle. One cannot approach it with any fear and anxiety. And if one has fear and anxiety, that is the first objective to overcome. That is the point of our existence - to spread peace and light to others. The highest enlightenment, the highest consciousness and vision, that exists; I know it does. It is perhaps Truth-consciousness, to use a term from Sri Aurobindo.

And if you study the wisdom of Milarepa, of Shakyamuni Buddha, and of Sri Aurobindo, or Hafiz even, then you will see that they are not describing a different Divine Reality.

Paulclem

01-21-2010, 07:57 PM

MarkBastable

01-21-2010, 08:38 PM

Can enlightment be attained immediately?

Given the right drugs in the right circumstances, yes. But that'll be temporary.

And temporary will do, I'd say - because any kind of sustained enlightenment is a sort of abnegation, and - as you asked the question - it's not to be encouraged.

Paulclem

01-22-2010, 04:48 PM

NikolaiI

01-23-2010, 09:35 PM

I have found it useful to focus upon one tradition/ religion/ teaching in order to avoid confusion. An ordinary person like myself benefits from the focus and systemised teachings of the religion/ tradition they feel most attracted and compatible with.

Of course a healthy appreciation of other religions/ traditions helps with tolerance and understanding, but to deepen knowledge requires particular study and application.

:)

The problem with this is the origination of the different religions. Not a problem so much but if you look at where they came from, etc., and really think about it, you may change your mind. For instance, Tibetan Buddhism is simply a blend of Shamanism, Animism, and Buddhism. I'm not saying that's wrong, but that's where it comes from and that's what it is. So if you practice Tibetan Buddhism, and you think you are practicing "Buddhism, which is nothing other than Buddhism, and is different from Shamanism, Magic, etc.," then you are misleading yourself.

Just something to look at. Of course it is okay to study only Buddhism. Or only Judaism. And it's a personal choice, there's no right or wrong. But also, you may admit that you shouldn't read everything written by people who profess the religion. So there are some which are best in Buddhism, like Milarepa, etc... there are also the same who are best in other traditions, like Hafiz, etc. One last thing is that you can gain a lot by meeting people and worshipping with other traditions.

Anyway, about that I just wanted to give another perspective... monks, and nuns, who give their whole lives to one specific religion are inspiring in their dedication, but somehow I don't think generally they are the highest spiritual attainers or the wisest people. I think there can be a narrowing of spiritual growth when you become too concerned with the rules and etiquette one specific religion.

Paulclem

01-23-2010, 10:02 PM

The problem with this is the origination of the different religions. Not a problem so much but if you look at where they came from, etc., and really think about it, you may change your mind. For instance, Tibetan Buddhism is simply a blend of Shamanism, Animism, and Buddhism. I'm not saying that's wrong, but that's where it comes from and that's what it is. So if you practice Tibetan Buddhism, and you think you are practicing "Buddhism, which is nothing other than Buddhism, and is different from Shamanism, Magic, etc.," then you are misleading yourself.

Just something to look at. Of course it is okay to study only Buddhism. Or only Judaism. And it's a personal choice, there's no right or wrong. But also, you may admit that you shouldn't read everything written by people who profess the religion. So there are some which are best in Buddhism, like Milarepa, etc... there are also the same who are best in other traditions, like Hafiz, etc. One last thing is that you can gain a lot by meeting people and worshipping with other traditions.

Anyway, about that I just wanted to give another perspective... monks, and nuns, who give their whole lives to one specific religion are inspiring in their dedication, but somehow I don't think generally they are the highest spiritual attainers or the wisest people. I think there can be a narrowing of spiritual growth when you become too concerned with the rules and etiquette one specific religion.

I fundamentally disagree with your views on Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhism is perfectly in tune with the Mahayana/ Therevada tradition and any comparison of texts will show that the basic Buddhism is unchanging, but has been developed with the idea of Bodhicitta and the Bodhisattva.

Yes, you shouldn't believe everything written by people who profess to know the religion.

I'm not in any position to coment upon the spiritual status of Monks and Nuns in any religion. I think a person who commits to a spiritual path is very likely to have a deep understanding of that religion.

As for a narrowing of their view, well this has been levelled at Monks and Nuns before. How can they understand ordinary human life without taking part in it?

Firstly they have their former life, and their interaction with others to contemplate.

Secondly they have their previous lives to contemplate if that is the practice they have been given to do.

Thirdly, it is not necessarily about being involved, but of understanding the drives of humans that resides in themselves. Know thyself has great resonance in the Buddhist tradition, and The Buddha himself retreated from the worldly concern and developed a deep understanding of all of Samsara.

Finally, Buddhst practices take the practitioner along a specific path that has been trodden before by their teacher. A tried and tested method that is nevertheless not a rote exercise, but a unique experience to that person.

I know a lay teacher who has completed a 3 year solitary retreat under the guidance of his Tibetan Monk in the Kagyu Tradition. I would in no way think that he has narrowed his view. He lives in Birmingham and takes lay practitioners for one to one teaching. My friend is one of these lay practitioners. He is not a man who suffers fools, and he, a practitioner for the last 15 years, is very impressed.

MarkBastable

01-23-2010, 10:06 PM

Windup right?:lol:

First bit is. Second bit isn't.

Paulclem

01-23-2010, 10:09 PM

First bit is. Second bit isn't.

I picked up your dislike from another thread. No problem.

NikolaiI

01-24-2010, 12:13 AM

I fundamentally disagree with your views on Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhism is perfectly in tune with the Mahayana/ Therevada tradition and any comparison of texts will show that the basic Buddhism is unchanging, but has been developed with the idea of Bodhicitta and the Bodhisattva.

Yes, you shouldn't believe everything written by people who profess to know the religion.

I'm not in any position to coment upon the spiritual status of Monks and Nuns in any religion. I think a person who commits to a spiritual path is very likely to have a deep understanding of that religion.

As for a narrowing of their view, well this has been levelled at Monks and Nuns before. How can they understand ordinary human life without taking part in it?

Firstly they have their former life, and their interaction with others to contemplate.

Secondly they have their previous lives to contemplate if that is the practice they have been given to do.

Thirdly, it is not necessarily about being involved, but of understanding the drives of humans that resides in themselves. Know thyself has great resonance in the Buddhist tradition, and The Buddha himself retreated from the worldly concern and developed a deep understanding of all of Samsara.

Finally, Buddhst practices take the practitioner along a specific path that has been trodden before by their teacher. A tried and tested method that is nevertheless not a rote exercise, but a unique experience to that person.

I know a lay teacher who has completed a 3 year solitary retreat under the guidance of his Tibetan Monk in the Kagyu Tradition. I would in no way think that he has narrowed his view. He lives in Birmingham and takes lay practitioners for one to one teaching. My friend is one of these lay practitioners. He is not a man who suffers fools, and he, a practitioner for the last 15 years, is very impressed.

Tibetan Buddhism is what I was commenting on only, not others. And I did some more reading since I wrote that. It appears to be fact that it absorbed some significant parts of animism and shamanism.

Paulclem

01-24-2010, 04:53 AM

Tibetan Buddhism is what I was commenting on only, not others. And I did some more reading since I wrote that. It appears to be fact that it absorbed some significant parts of animism and shamanism.

There is no animism in modern Tibetan Buddhist teachings. For example if you look at Atisha's Lam Rim text 11th Century, or the 16th C commenary done by Je Tsongkhapa you will find a series of meditations designed to lead one through the whole path.

There are always cultural elements involved in any religion when it crosses borders, but this may be for the purpose of familiarity - Christmas on a pagan festival day - than anything else. Padmasambhava -who brought Buddhism to Tibet - is reputed to have conquered local deities and transformed them into Dharma Protectors.

Shamanism also existed before Tibetan Buddhism but it is not part of the teachings. HH The Dalai Lama is advised by the spirit of Nechung, a Dharma Protector, and this is a shamanstic aspect. Buddhist cosmology includes beings from other realms as existing in the realm of samsara, and this is consisitent with the teachings in the Wheel of Life.

The Protector Spirit Nechung advised HH The Dalai Lama to leave Tibet in 1959 to escape the Chinese invaders, and has proved a useful source of information. This is a particularly Tibetan phenomenon, but Tibetan Buddhism is as well regarded as any of the schools, and is not accused of incluing shamanism or animism in the teachings.

Bon Po may be what you are referring to. This was a shamanistic religion that inhabited Tibet before Buddhism arrived. There are still Bon Po monasteries in Tibet today,and they are represented on the Government in Exile in India.

If you read anything by HH The Dalai Lama or any notable Tibetan Buddhist authors, you will find Buddhism.

NikolaiI

01-24-2010, 11:47 AM

There is no animism in modern Tibetan Buddhist teachings. For example if you look at Atisha's Lam Rim text 11th Century, or the 16th C commenary done by Je Tsongkhapa you will find a series of meditations designed to lead one through the whole path.

There are always cultural elements involved in any religion when it crosses borders, but this may be for the purpose of familiarity - Christmas on a pagan festival day - than anything else. Padmasambhava -who brought Buddhism to Tibet - is reputed to have conquered local deities and transformed them into Dharma Protectors.

Shamanism also existed before Tibetan Buddhism but it is not part of the teachings. HH The Dalai Lama is advised by the spirit of Nechung, a Dharma Protector, and this is a shamanstic aspect. Buddhist cosmology includes beings from other realms as existing in the realm of samsara, and this is consisitent with the teachings in the Wheel of Life.

The Protector Spirit Nechung advised HH The Dalai Lama to leave Tibet in 1959 to escape the Chinese invaders, and has proved a useful source of information. This is a particularly Tibetan phenomenon, but Tibetan Buddhism is as well regarded as any of the schools, and is not accused of incluing shamanism or animism in the teachings.

Bon Po may be what you are referring to. This was a shamanistic religion that inhabited Tibet before Buddhism arrived. There are still Bon Po monasteries in Tibet today,and they are represented on the Government in Exile in India.

If you read anything by HH The Dalai Lama or any notable Tibetan Buddhist authors, you will find Buddhism.

Wow, thank you for such a thoughtful response. I accept what you say but... by your last several posts and the last sentence of this post,

Paulclem

01-24-2010, 12:23 PM

Wow, thank you for such a thoughtful response. I accept what you say but... by your last several posts and the last sentence of this post,

Hi Nikolai. Thank you. I just wanted to post a response that was clear about Tibetan Buddhism and what it is.

The threads have made me think about my own practice. Thanks for that.

NikolaiI

01-24-2010, 12:25 PM

Hi Nikolai. Thank you. I just wanted to post a response that was clear about Tibetan Buddhism and what it is.

The threads have made me think about my own practice. Thanks for that.

I just finished editing the post. I hope I didn't go on too long.

And you're most welcome.

I hope you will find everything you seek for in this life, and have all happiness, health, and peace. You certainly deserve it. :)

There is no animism in modern Tibetan Buddhist teachings. For example if you look at Atisha's Lam Rim text 11th Century, or the 16th C commenary done by Je Tsongkhapa you will find a series of meditations designed to lead one through the whole path.

There are always cultural elements involved in any religion when it crosses borders, but this may be for the purpose of familiarity - Christmas on a pagan festival day - than anything else. Padmasambhava -who brought Buddhism to Tibet - is reputed to have conquered local deities and transformed them into Dharma Protectors.

Shamanism also existed before Tibetan Buddhism but it is not part of the teachings. HH The Dalai Lama is advised by the spirit of Nechung, a Dharma Protector, and this is a shamanstic aspect. Buddhist cosmology includes beings from other realms as existing in the realm of samsara, and this is consisitent with the teachings in the Wheel of Life.

The Protector Spirit Nechung advised HH The Dalai Lama to leave Tibet in 1959 to escape the Chinese invaders, and has proved a useful source of information. This is a particularly Tibetan phenomenon, but Tibetan Buddhism is as well regarded as any of the schools, and is not accused of incluing shamanism or animism in the teachings.

Bon Po may be what you are referring to. This was a shamanistic religion that inhabited Tibet before Buddhism arrived. There are still Bon Po monasteries in Tibet today,and they are represented on the Government in Exile in India.

If you read anything by HH The Dalai Lama or any notable Tibetan Buddhist authors, you will find Buddhism.

Wow, thank you for such a thoughtful response. I accept what you say.

Perhaps we should get back on topic?

Enlightenment is hard to explain in words, and words don't capture the whole of it. Enlightenment is understanding, or rather realizing, the real nature of all forms. Now, it's not just all sentient beings that have buddha-nature, but actually, all forms in existence have buddha-nature. Form is emptiness, and emptiness is form. But what does that mean? What is form? What is emptiness? Each is buddha-nature.

Regardless of what you think the nature of forms are, there is still the question of buddha-nature. The question of whether only sentient beings have buddha-nature, or what the real nature of all forms in the universe is - comes secondary to understanding what is my own nature, and what is the nature of the phenomenal world. So, enlightenment is also called awakening, and both are valid and descriptive terms. What you are awakening from is maya, or samsara, if you will. Maya means illusion.

This is something that somen people don't take very well. And they argue that if you say that all this world is illusion, you will act callously towards it. But that's not the case of the people who understand that it is illusion. They also care about compassion and wisdom and truth and love. These virtues and ideals are the essence of buddha-nature, these qualities are the tools by which we elevate or consciousness, karma, or life, and the consciousnesses, karma, and lives of others.

So waking up from the illusion is exactly like waking up from a dream. When you wake from a dream you realize it wasn't real, and you have a greater ability of movement, and you are in contact with reality. Similarly when you awaken from the dream of samsara, you realize it wasn't real. Let's say you're dreaming and you encounter monsters, whom you battle. Then if you wake up, you realize - it wasn't real, it doesn't exist. The same is true with waking up from samsara - every danger you perceived, you realize doesn't exist.

The other part of this is is the realization of what you really are. Realizing the dream and everything in the dream was merely nothing and realizing your own buddha-nature are not separate. So the second part is realizing your buddha-nature, which is completely boundless. There is no word that can describe this better than boundless. There's no way to know what it means besides experiencing it. Words are the only way I can communicate to you and I do my best; but the words are not the same as the experience they are translating.

That is what buddha-nature is. It is described best in the Heart Sutra.

Now, there's more. I will just share a passage from the Avatamsaka sutra

"Buddha's Child, all Buddhas, the Bhagavans, have ten things that pervade the infinite and boundless Dharma-Realm. What are these ten? All Buddhas have unbounded bodies, with pure forms, entering into all categories of beings without defilement or attachment. All Buddhas have unbounded, unobstructed eyes that can clearly see all things. All Buddhas have unbounded, unobstructed ears that can understand all sounds and utterances. All Buddhas have unbounded, unobstructed noses that can reach the other shore of freedom of the Buddhas. All Buddhas have universal tongues that utter sublime sounds pervading the Dharma-Realm. All Buddhas have unbounded bodies that appear to sentient beings in accord with their Hearts. All Buddhas have unbounded minds that dwell on the unobstructed impartial body of reality. All Buddhas have unbounded, unobstructed liberation, manifesting inexhaustible great sacrosanct supernatural powers. All Buddhas have unbounded pure worlds, manifesting Buddha-lands according to the pleasures of sentient beings, replete with infinite adornments, yet without giving rise to any obsession or attachment to them. All Buddhas have unbounded practices and vows of Bodhisattvas, having perfect wisdom, freedom of playing , and ability to master all Buddha-Dharmas. Buddha's child, these are the ten phenomena of Buddhahood that pervade the Dharma-Realm without bound, which the Thus Come Ones, Worthy of Offerings, Correctly Awakened Ones have."

There's two passages more in a work titled "Stopping and Seeing." There are more than one work by this title, and I am referring to the one written by the master Chih-I. The two passages I am referring to are rather short. They are: "The Buddha is equal to the realm of reality," and "The Buddha is equal to the cosmos." I believe I am quoting them correctly. Now this is also what I experienced. The nature of everything - great and small - is the same. It is infinite pure lands. Here, there, and everywhere.

You may say, there is no God, there is no source - there is no reality. This may be true! But what exists anyway? What is the nature of that which doesn't exist?

What sense does it make to say there is no source? The argument of some against the statement, There is a source of the universe, is the following: "What is the source of that source?"

But this proves nothing, it is faulty logic. Everything in existence has a source. The tree's source is the earth. Our source is also the earth. The source of life on earth is the Sun. This is true although people don't reflect on it often or think it's important. So what is the source of the sun? Does it not have one?

Well, actually everything does have a source, one source, and that source contains the all forms in existence. They all exist in the source.

But regardless. I know you don't like it when I talk that way. :p :p :p

Going back to another point (with no attachment to any concept or conditioned way of thinking, as a true seeker would be, knowing that such is necessary for any true thought or communication to occur) ------- the essential, most fundamental, most important question, is this: "What is there? What is real?" This is also sometimes "Who am I?" etc.... what Buddhism, what Buddhist ontology explains, is that the phenomenal world is like a dream, it is mere nothingness. But is there anything more substantial? Yes. Buddha, Buddha-nature, Buddha-lands, Pure lands, these are all more substantial. They are more real than the phenomenal world.

Realizing Buddha-nature, one's boundless nature, pure and free of any reactions, and experiencing a bliss which cannot be compared to anything in the material world - that is possible. Realizing non-duailty, one realizes [I]infinite peace. This is the most important thing. Secondly - this is available for everyone, for every sentient being.

As the great mantra from the Heart Sutra goes, Gate Gate Paragatae Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha.

Or in other words, Gone, Gone, Gone Beyond, Gone Completely Beyond, All Awakened! So Be It!

So it is beyond so much, it is beyond everything, it is beyond the ocean of birth and death; and the illusion of samsara is like a thousand or ten thousand layers of illusion. It seems we are a long way from there (from the Other Shore, from Enlightenment). But the paradox is - what is the nature of illusion? It means it is nothing! We are separated by thousands upon thousands of layers of absolutely nothing! There is nothing between us and the supreme reality.

Everything in existence is searching for that supreme reality. It's the only thing out there, man. :) And if you say, "Ah, ah, ah, but Buddhists don't think there's a reality," I would say - well, Buddha said "I consider the doctrine of equality as the absolute ground of reality." .......... so the important thing, the most fundamental thing, is "What is reality?" and then, "What is the nature of reality?" Or in other words, it is a search for truth.

Which really brings us to a state where we are always searching for truth, knowing that everything is transient, or in other words, changing.

Paulclem

01-24-2010, 12:31 PM

So you are familiar with the teaching of Emptiness?

NikolaiI

01-24-2010, 12:41 PM

Yes, I am familiar with it.

Paulclem

01-24-2010, 12:51 PM

NikolaiI

01-25-2010, 12:37 AM

No worries.

I can't comment on Emptiness itself because I am not qualified. It is a very important teaching - one of the key elements of Enlightenment, and needs to be taught precisely according to the receptivity of the student.

Where did you study?

Paul, I didn't study at any monastery except for some visits, but I did have an experience of enlightenment.

Paulclem

01-25-2010, 06:43 PM

Paul, I didn't study at any monastery except for some visits, but I did have an experience of enlightenment.

Hi Nikolai.

As I said, I wouldn't presume to judge your spiritual experience. I was just interested as to where you practiced. Perhaps I should have led by saying that I am a member of a study group associated with the FPMT - The foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition. This is a group based in London - the Jamyang centre, and whose head is Lama Zopa. The previous head was Lama Yeshe, and the leader of the tradition is HH The Dalai Lama. We are lucky to have a Monk, a friend who started with us in the 90's, who was ordained by HH The Dalai Lama in 2005. I don't want to give the impression that I'm hugely experienced though. I find it hard to find the time to meditate with a family, a dog and a busy job. :)

I have been keen to put the orthodox Buddhist view in this thread and the Christian/ Buddhist one, purely for the sake of clarity. I understand your approach, which seems to suit a lot of posters, but I felt a simpler representation of Buddhist attitudes was needed.

It has cetainly made me think about these issues.:thumbs_up

NikolaiI

01-25-2010, 09:16 PM

Hi Nikolai.

As I said, I wouldn't presume to judge your spiritual experience. I was just interested as to where you practiced. Perhaps I should have led by saying that I am a member of a study group associated with the FPMT - The foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition. This is a group based in London - the Jamyang centre, and whose head is Lama Zopa. The previous head was Lama Yeshe, and the leader of the tradition is HH The Dalai Lama. We are lucky to have a Monk, a friend who started with us in the 90's, who was ordained by HH The Dalai Lama in 2005. I don't want to give the impression that I'm hugely experienced though. I find it hard to find the time to meditate with a family, a dog and a busy job. :)

I have been keen to put the orthodox Buddhist view in this thread and the Christian/ Buddhist one, purely for the sake of clarity. I understand your approach, which seems to suit a lot of posters, but I felt a simpler representation of Buddhist attitudes was needed.

It has cetainly made me think about these issues.:thumbs_up

I haven't heard of Lama Zopa but I've read an article by Lama Yeshe, called
"Make your Mind an Ocean," which was very good.

Trust me, my approach does not suit very many posters... or if it does they don't generally say so. At least for a while people have been contributing to dsicussions some, but just before that period was one where I got so much hostility for my views, and I almost quit posting...

Sometimes it's difficult to communicate... and actually for any communication to occur there has to be on both parties a great desire for understanding.

Simple is certainly good. One thing I realized in my revelation was that the truth was utterly, completely simple... actually what I mean is that there is nothing you really need to learn more... if you just find "The Great Way," as Seng Ts'an phrases it, then... that's the highest goal, achieved.

I think really the main thing to Buddhist practice is the practice of awareness. But of course this is only my own perspective, tempered by my own mind, body, heart, and life experiences.

Paulclem

01-26-2010, 09:58 AM

I haven't heard of Lama Zopa but I've read an article by Lama Yeshe, called
"Make your Mind an Ocean," which was very good.

Trust me, my approach does not suit very many posters... or if it does they don't generally say so. At least for a while people have been contributing to dsicussions some, but just before that period was one where I got so much hostility for my views, and I almost quit posting...

Sometimes it's difficult to communicate... and actually for any communication to occur there has to be on both parties a great desire for understanding.

Simple is certainly good. One thing I realized in my revelation was that the truth was utterly, completely simple... actually what I mean is that there is nothing you really need to learn more... if you just find "The Great Way," as Seng Ts'an phrases it, then... that's the highest goal, achieved.

I think really the main thing to Buddhist practice is the practice of awareness. But of course this is only my own perspective, tempered by my own mind, body, heart, and life experiences.

Lama Zopa is lama Yeshe's Heart Disciple and took over the leadership of the FPMT when Lama Yeshe died.

Your postings seem to be well received at the moment -by Blaze and some others i've glanced at. I don't know why there should be hostility - discussion and debate yes.

NikolaiI

01-26-2010, 05:40 PM

Lama Zopa is lama Yeshe's Heart Disciple and took over the leadership of the FPMT when Lama Yeshe died.

Your postings seem to be well received at the moment -by Blaze and some others i've glanced at. I don't know why there should be hostility - discussion and debate yes.

I didn't say it should be, I said it was there. :p But don't worry, it doesn't matter.

Have you heard of Lama Surya Das? I stumbled across a video of him speaking the other day, and I thought it was interesting.

Paulclem

01-26-2010, 06:43 PM

I've read Awakening the Buddha Within, which I thought was very good. Sogyal Rimpoche's book The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying is great.I think he was in the film The Little Buddha too.

LitNetIsGreat

01-26-2010, 07:48 PM

Paulclem

01-26-2010, 08:08 PM

Some interesting posts, though some of it is a little out of the water of my understanding. I have also read Awakening the Buddha Within, which I thought was excellent reading, packed full of stuff and I've just been watching The Little Buddha film too as it happens.

One of my issues at present with Buddhism is that it seems to be split into two areas: very common sense and practical teachings, which would go a long way to helping many people, lay Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike and elements that for me (at the moment at least) require much more in terms of belief, as in the aspects of reincarnation for one. How do you go about weighing these two elements up? I would like to hear your thoughts on that if possible Paul and Nik, and anyone else (sorry if that is a little off topic, but I don't want to start a new thread just for that one question).

Thanks.

I knew a Buddhist Nun once who found it hard to believe in reincarnation. She was quite open about it, but it really made no difference to her devotion to her practice.

She recognised that a lot of the teachings benefited her, and was willing to lay aside the question as something she could address at a time when she was more advanced.

There are a couple of things I've heard such as, if you find an aspect of the teaching useful or acceptable, then the possibility exists that the other teachings may be correct too. Then in time it may become clearer with practice.

There is also a practice whereby a person can remember back beyond their birth, by gradually developing the ability to think over the previous day, week, month etc in clear detail. I'm not sure how useful it is, and I think it takes a long time.

I always wondered about the logic of one life/ loving God with all the suffering about the world. The idea of reincarnation just seemed to make more sense. Since then, I've also understood that the Buddhist view is not a cosy view at all. You hear people saying they wouldn't mind coming back as an animal - a dolphin etc, but the reality is quite horrendous. Most animals' lives - as most are wild - are typified by cold, fear of being eaten and hunger.

Reincarnation also doesn't involve the transmission of a soul. A good analogy Ive heard is of a candle flame lighting another and then being blown out. The original candle flame is not the new one, but it caused it. This is often quite hard to accept with our Western conceptions of personality and soul.

The other thing is that The Buddha said nothing should be taken on faith, and that everything should be questioned. Nothing should be believed just because The Buddha said it. Then that involves exploring the path to see whether it is true.

A questioning attitude is the right kind for exploring the teachings.

I've put some ideas that sprang to mind without much consideration. sorry if it's a bit garbled.

LitNetIsGreat

01-26-2010, 08:18 PM

Thank you, yes, you have confirmed a few thoughts there, well expressed.

NikolaiI

01-30-2010, 01:30 PM

I've read Awakening the Buddha Within, which I thought was very good. Sogyal Rimpoche's book The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying is great.I think he was in the film The Little Buddha too.

I just mentioned it because I thought it was interesting that he used terms like the source, etc.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Video/Preachers-and-Teachers/Buddhism/Lama-Surya-Das/Lama-Surya-Das-Spirituality-In-A-Busy-Life.aspx

Some interesting posts, though some of it is a little out of the water of my understanding. I have also read Awakening the Buddha Within, which I thought was excellent reading, packed full of stuff and I've just been watching The Little Buddha film too as it happens.

One of my issues at present with Buddhism is that it seems to be split into two areas: very common sense and practical teachings, which would go a long way to helping many people, lay Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike and elements that for me (at the moment at least) require much more in terms of belief, as in the aspects of reincarnation for one. How do you go about weighing these two elements up? I would like to hear your thoughts on that if possible Paul and Nik, and anyone else (sorry if that is a little off topic, but I don't want to start a new thread just for that one question).

Thanks.

One thing I heard which seemed insightful was the idea, if we want to know what happened in the past, look at the present (because it is a result of the past), and if we want to know what will happen in the future, we can also see what will happen by what we are doing now. Or something like that. :p But that seems like a good way of looking at it. For me, I would look at this within one lifetime at first, rather than trying to figure out past lifetimes. For example, one goal is to know oneself. That seems imperative. So meditation is part of that for me - to know myself and my life and from there, the others in my life.

Am I doing things which are liberating, or binding? etc. In what ways am I bound or liberated? Meditation in a large part is a journey, in which I am trying to find my way back to what I knew as home. In that journey I am working to achieve enlightenment, and I do different things like trying to see time in a broader sense. It's said that for an enlightened Buddha, one moment is the same as a thousand years. That's more or less in accord with what I knew, and that is one characteristic of what I want to know again.

I wouldn't say that it's necessary at all to believe in reincarnation. As Paul quoted, the Buddha said to only believe what we realized or know in our heart to be true. So if we have a realization by which we come to understand that reincarnation is real, then that's real. But if not, then it's fine to read about it or study about it; but I would say this is only for the sake of studying. It may help to get an understanding of the idea, and an understanding of Buddhism as far as it relates to Buddhism as a whole; but we needn't believe it if we don't think it's true.

For me faith, or shraddha, is more directed toward things like different Buddhas' vows, or faith in their Names, or faith in mantras, or most simply, faith in the Buddha, Sangha, and Dharma. But faith in the mantras, and so forth, and faith in ourselves. That is what I connect Shraddha to. Studying people who show wisdom, meditating, singing, dancing with people who care about the ideals of Compassion, Wisdom, etc., and who are similarly minded - these are good ways to increase our shraddha.

Mila said the best thing to do, of all paths of life, was to live in the Himalayas, alone, and meditate; but without a similar wisdom, training, mind, body, etc., this would probably not be a good idea. And Buddhist teachers don't say to do this, I've never heard, because it isn't exactly necessary. So we can practice in our daily lives, that is certainly okay. But then what I am getting to is this: since we are with other people... there is an analogy - one stick by itself can be broken fairly easily, but if you have a bundle of sticks then it's difficult to break. I guess it's a simple analogy for saying there's strength in numbers. What this means is that Sat-Sangha, associating with community of Buddhists, is beneficial and helpful for our practice.

The other thing, going back to your question... I would just say it's not necessary to know reincarnation or so on... studying is of course helpful but we don't actually need to study necessarily to achieve enlightenment. It can be achieved by an illiterate person. Because there's nothing we need to learn or memorize or know further to achieve it. We don't need to know any amount of facts, or theories, nor do we need to know our past lives, to realize our Buddha-nature. We already know everything we need to know. We just need it integrate it, we just need it all to come together. I would say in a non-religious sense, that enlightenment is merely the integration of harmony, growth, peace, happiness; the perfection of one's organism or being. It's health... but then in a mystical sense, it's realization of non-duality, of Buddha-nature, etc., like that.

Paulclem

01-30-2010, 06:09 PM

The other thing, going back to your question... I would just say it's not necessary to know reincarnation or so on... studying is of course helpful but we don't actually need to study necessarily to achieve enlightenment. It can be achieved by an illiterate person. Because there's nothing we need to learn or memorize or know further to achieve it. We don't need to know any amount of facts, or theories, nor do we need to know our past lives, to realize our Buddha-nature. We already know everything we need to know. We just need it integrate it, we just need it all to come together. I would say in a non-religious sense, that enlightenment is merely the integration of harmony, growth, peace, happiness; the perfection of one's organism or being. It's health... but then in a mystical sense, it's realization of non-duality, of Buddha-nature, etc., like that.

We're back to the definition of Enlightenment again.

In terms of Buddhism, you don't need to study in the academic sense, but do need the teachings and guidance of a teacher. The teacher can guide the practitioner along the path through meditation and oral teachings.

Enlightenment ends the cycle of suffering - rebirth - ageing -sickness and death for the practitioner.

NikolaiI

01-30-2010, 11:58 PM

We're back to the definition of Enlightenment again.

In terms of Buddhism, you don't need to study in the academic sense, but do need the teachings and guidance of a teacher. The teacher can guide the practitioner along the path through meditation and oral teachings.

Enlightenment ends the cycle of suffering - rebirth - ageing -sickness and death for the practitioner.

Yes, definitely. It is wonderful that we are back on the topic of Enlightenment. Enlightenment is certainly all of those things you say. It is realization of deep and perfect wisdom. It is realization of the temporary and illusory nature of the phenomenal world, and the boundlessness and liberating nature of the Buddha-nature. It is realization of Buddh-nature and Buddha-lands.

Meditation is a tool for insight, a process of developing discrimination and determination. By developing determination we deter the effect of distractions and obstacles. The guidance of a teacher is certainly necessary; the guidance of the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha as well. The Buddha is the master who gave us the Dharma, and the Sangha are the practitioners which try to embody the Dharma and the Buddha. Only sometimes it is possible to guided by the Guru within. Othertimes the Guru manifests himself/herself because of the practice and devotion of the Sangha.

Other times the Guru takes the physical representation of the Guru in the living, human form. Other times the Guru is met by the process of Vajra-yoga. Still other times the Buddha is met merely through the grace of the Buddha, and by no other qualification or cause.

Enlightenment is the elimination of every single affliction and every cause of affliction. It is the elimination of every single illusion and every cause for illusion. It is the destruction of all bondage, and of the causes of all bondage. It is the illumination of all darkness, and of all thoughts and actions which lead to darkness. Enlightenment is the full realization in the heart of Wisdom. And Enlightenment is the realization of the Buddha-body, which can deliver countless sentient beings and itself is the conglomeration of all Buddha-lands.

Enlightenment is the happiness of all illuminated souls.

Paulclem

01-31-2010, 06:47 AM

Still other times the Buddha is met merely through the grace of the Buddha, and by no other qualification or cause.

In the teachings I have heard, it has been taught that beings cannot perceive the Buddhas, unless they have undergone purification of their Karma.

Buddhas cannot directly affect beings - otherwise all beings would be Enlightened due to the compassion of the Buddhas.

What they can do is provide access to the Dharma through teachings. So it is said that HH the Dalia Lama is a manifestation of Buddha Chenrezig, (Avolokiteshvara). This is the view of Northern Buddhism.

Having said that, the Darma can be accepted, rejected, misconstrued, mis-used etc. A person has to approach the Dharma themselves in order to take the right actions and develp the correct skills to progress along the path. That's why a qualified teacher is important.

So in Tibetan Buddhism, Guru-Yoga is seen as very important. Your teacher is the representative of The Buddha who is beyond. Whether the teacher is a Buddha themselves cannot be perceived by ordinary beings, and so the guidance is to only follow those instructions that accord with the Dharma. This is to mitigate against blind faith and following teachings which have been corrupted. It also recognises the kind of false charismatic leadership that sometimes occurrs. Generally if a Teacher talks themselves up or declares that they are a Buddha, then the advice is to be wary of them. HH The Dalai Lama refers to himself as A Simple Monk, yet no-one else would describe him as that.

NikolaiI

01-31-2010, 12:05 PM

I would describe him as a monk. There's an idea Emerson said, that every part of nature contains the powers of all of nature. This is why someone can be apparently a human and a Buddha at the same time. One on hand, he has a physical body, etc., but on the other hand he knows his position as the sum of Wisdom, Power, and Compassion, as the turner of the wheel of dharma. Infinite worlds are in his hand. Whether HH the Dalai Lama is an incarnation of the protective Buddha Chenrezig, I do not know.

It's my understanding that every living being, and also forms of matter, all have the same nature. This nature is Buddha-nature, which is the same as Pure Lands. And just like with a fractal, when you look at the smallest parts of the universe, the smallest forms; then they merely reflect the pattern of the whole, and reveal all the intricacies of the larger pattern. So the smallest particle - were there one - is the same essence or nature as the largest form. And each are Buddha-lands. So the whole universe is a Pure Land - and within the smallest particle or molecule is again, unlimited Pure Lands.

This essential nature - Pure Lands - is also related to the Lotus. First comes the Buddha, the Bhavagan, and then comes the Lotus, and then comes the rest of existence - the beings, the songs, the stories, etc.

Paulclem

01-31-2010, 12:53 PM

HH The Dalai Lama is more than a Monk. He has his political position as leader of the Tibetan Government in Exile. He is also a teacher of Highest Yoga Tantra. This is more than a simple monk will be qualified to do.

This essential nature - Pure Lands - is also related to the Lotus. First comes the Buddha, the Bhavagan, and then comes the Lotus, and then comes the rest of existence - the beings, the songs, the stories,

Where does this idea come from? It sounds like a creation story, a bit like the Hindu explanation of the creation of the world.

The Buddhist viewpoint is that samsara is beginningless, as are our lives until we escape from the Wheel of Life. That's why The Buddha advises not worrying about creation etc, but to focus upon the remedy for life - The Path.

NikolaiI

01-31-2010, 01:47 PM

"Buddha's Child, all Buddhas, the Bhagavans, have ten things that pervade the infinite and boundless Dharma-Realm. What are these ten? All Buddhas have unbounded bodies, with pure forms, entering into all categories of beings without defilement or attachment. All Buddhas have unbounded, unobstructed eyes that can clearly see all things. All Buddhas have unbounded, unobstructed eyes that can clearly see all things. All Buddhas have unbounded, unobstructed ears that can understand all sounds and utterances. All Buddhas have unbounded, unobstructed noses that can reach the other shore of freedom of the Buddhas. All Buddhas have universal tongues that utter sublime sounds pervading the Dharma-Realm. All Buddhas have unbounded bodies that appear to sentient beings in accord with their Hearts. All Buddhas have unbounded minds that dwell on the unobstructed impartial body of reality. All Buddhas have unbounded, unobstructed liberation, manifesting inexhaustible great sacrosanct supernatural powers. All Buddhas have unbounded pure worlds, manifesting Buddha-lands according to the pleasures of sentient beings, replete with infinite adornments, yet without giving rise to any obsession or attachment to them. All Buddhas have unbounded practices and vows of Bodhisattvas, having perfect wisdom, freedom of playing [in all worlds], and ability to master all Buddha-Dharmas. Buddha's child, these are the ten phenomena of Buddhahood that pervade the Dharma-Realm without bound, which the Thus Come Ones, Worthy of Offerings, Correctly Awakened Ones have."

-Avatamsaka Sutra, Volume 46: Inconceivable Qualities of Buddhas, the 1st section,
translated into English by Thomas Cleary.

(excerpt from) Inscription on Trust in the Mind, by Seng Ts'an

"The Way is perfect like vast space,

Where nothing is lacking and nothing is in excess.

Indeed, it is due to our choosing to accept or reject

That we do not see the true nature of things.

Live neither in the entanglements of outer things

Nor in inner feelings of emptiness.

Be serene in the oneness of things

And such erroneous views will disappear by themselves.

To deny the reality of things

Is to miss their reality;

To assert the emptiness of things

Is to miss their reality.

The more you talk and think about it,

The further astray you wander from the truth.

Stop talking and thinking

And there is nothing that you will not be able to know"

"With bodies as numerous as atoms of the world . . .
On every atom is found a buddha
Sitting amongst countless buddha sons,
I look with eyes of faith to the victorious ones
Thus filling the entire dharmadhatu [Dharma Realm]."

from the Avatakamsaka Sutra
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sunrise/53-03-4/hi-dara.htm

"In every atom are buddha-fields numberless as atoms,
Each field is filled with buddhas beyond conception,
And each buddha is surrounded by myriad bodhisattvas:
To all these dwellers in sublime ways I turn my attention.
Thus, in all atoms within the directions
Abide within the space of a single hair
An ocean of buddhas within an ocean of buddha-fields
Performing enlightened activities for an ocean of eons.

"I manifest buddha-fields past, present, and future
Upon one single atom of existence,
And then I transform every single atom
Of existence into a buddha-field.

"May I purify an ocean of realms,
May I liberate an ocean of sentient beings,
May I see an ocean of truths,
And may I realize an ocean of wisdom."

Paulclem

01-31-2010, 03:19 PM

Ah sorry. You were referring to the Dharmakaya, not Samsaric existence.

My friend asked his teacher the very question on this thread recently. His answer was that Enlightenment was not possible in one life - I am presuming he is referring to full Enlightenment.

The teachings emphasise that the goal is possible, but he may have been referring to a lay person living in a modern city.

What do you think?

NikolaiI

02-02-2010, 10:46 PM

I think it's certainly possible to attain Enlightenment in one life, and for any ordinary or lay person as well.

Paulclem

02-03-2010, 04:48 AM

I think it's certainly possible to attain Enlightenment in one life, and for any ordinary or lay person as well.

Again it depends upon the definition of Enlightenment. There are descriptions of stages of Enlightenment in Zen study. Is this what you mean?

I think the term ordinary in the teachings refers to a person who is not spiritually advanced, and wouldn't have the spiritual development to attain Enlightenment.

If you mean an ordinary practitioner or Lay person, then this is a moot point. It is claimed that Enlighenment - in the Buddhist sense - is possible, but not without great effort. Right effort is part of the Noble 8-Fold Path, and ths is exemplified The Buddha's story.

There are lots of stages on the path, and without the right effort it certainly is not possible to attain full Enlightenment. There isn't the idea of spontaneous Enlightenment without the correct guidance and practice.

NikolaiI

02-03-2010, 07:53 PM

Again it depends upon the definition of Enlightenment. There are descriptions of stages of Enlightenment in Zen study. Is this what you mean?

I think the term ordinary in the teachings refers to a person who is not spiritually advanced, and wouldn't have the spiritual development to attain Enlightenment.

If you mean an ordinary practitioner or Lay person, then this is a moot point. It is claimed that Enlighenment - in the Buddhist sense - is possible, but not without great effort. Right effort is part of the Noble 8-Fold Path, and ths is exemplified The Buddha's story.

There are lots of stages on the path, and without the right effort it certainly is not possible to attain full Enlightenment. There isn't the idea of spontaneous Enlightenment without the correct guidance and practice.

Well, the idea in Pure Land Buddhism is to give it all our effort, and then when our self-effort is exhausted, then we reach for Amitabha, and by Amitabha's effort or grace, then we cross over. First we use our self-power, and when we have used it all, then we call on Other-power, Buddha Amitabha's power. We ask him to fulfill his vow. :)

But once you reach Enlightenment, you realize that the Other Shore was never anywhere distant from you, that limitless pure lands, or buddha-fields, were not distant or separate from you. You know that your own body is a Buddha-body and contains limitless pure lands.

Michael T

02-03-2010, 08:01 PM

can enlightenment be attained immediately.

YES! Just send £20 in an envelope to...

;)

Paulclem

02-03-2010, 08:15 PM

Well, the idea in Pure Land Buddhism is to give it all our effort, and then when our self-effort is exhausted, then we reach for Amitabha, and by Amitabha's effort or grace, then we cross over. First we use our self-power, and when we have used it all, then we call on Other-power, Buddha Amitabha's power. We ask him to fulfill his vow. :)

But once you reach Enlightenment, you realize that the Other Shore was never anywhere distant from you, that limitless pure lands, or buddha-fields, were not distant or separate from you. You know that your own body is a Buddha-body and contains limitless pure lands.

Buddha Amitabha's vow is to help all sentient beings achieve Enlightenment by being reborn into his Pure Land. This is not the bestowing of Enlightenment, but the nurturing of auspicious conditions that will result in such a fortunate rebirth. Then Enlightenment can be attained by the practitioner being taught in the best conditions.

Pure land Buddhism's view is that Enlightenment is too difficult in this degenerate age, and that is why they recite Buddha Amitabh's mantra to create the conditions for this rebirth.

The other schools of Buddhism do not adhere to this view. A Stream Enterer in Therevada Buddhism will have made the considerable achievement of only being reborn 7 (I think) times before Enlightenment can be attained. :)

YES! Just send £20 in an envelope to...

;)

If only...:lol:

Scheherazade

02-03-2010, 08:19 PM

If only...:lol:Hey, don't knock it! It is an excellent deal...

And if you hurry up, £50 worth of salvation is absolutely free until February 5th!

Paulclem

02-03-2010, 08:21 PM

Hey, don't knock it! It is an excellent deal...

And if you hurry up, £50 worth of salvation is absolutely free until February 5th!

What day is it today?

NikolaiI

02-12-2010, 11:24 PM

Buddha Amitabha's vow is to help all sentient beings achieve Enlightenment by being reborn into his Pure Land. This is not the bestowing of Enlightenment, but the nurturing of auspicious conditions that will result in such a fortunate rebirth. Then Enlightenment can be attained by the practitioner being taught in the best conditions.

Pure land Buddhism's view is that Enlightenment is too difficult in this degenerate age, and that is why they recite Buddha Amitabh's mantra to create the conditions for this rebirth.

The other schools of Buddhism do not adhere to this view. A Stream Enterer in Therevada Buddhism will have made the considerable achievement of only being reborn 7 (I think) times before Enlightenment can be attained. :)

I think, you will find if you keep studying Buddhism and meeting Buddhist practiotioners, is that there are a lot of practitioners, and teachers as well, who have an equal respect for all schools of Buddhism. They respect the Pure Land practitioners as sisters and brothers, and they respect all the other schools as well. Many will tell you they feel that Buddhism idealizes one truth, one thread, which runs through the teachings of all Buddhism, and which is also seen in other religions as well. If they do not, I am sure they would respect my own humbly suggesting it.

Paulclem

02-13-2010, 12:18 PM

I think, you will find if you keep studying Buddhism and meeting Buddhist practiotioners, is that there are a lot of practitioners, and teachers as well, who have an equal respect for all schools of Buddhism. They respect the Pure Land practitioners as sisters and brothers, and they respect all the other schools as well. Many will tell you they feel that Buddhism idealizes one truth, one thread, which runs through the teachings of all Buddhism, and which is also seen in other religions as well. If they do not, I am sure they would respect my own humbly suggesting it.

I think there is a lot of respect for all the schools of Buddhism and other religions too.

Nevertheless there are significant differences in terms of practice.

In terms of this thread, the Pure Land Buddhist's practice is based on their belief that Enlightenement cannot be attained in this life, let alone immediately.
:biggrin5:

NikolaiI

02-13-2010, 03:17 PM

Paulclem

02-13-2010, 03:34 PM

No, there is nothing like that in Pure Land Buddhism. It says that the most people will be reborn in Amitabha's Pure Land, and that this is the best and easiest way to ultimately attain enlightenment. But where do you think it says one cannot attain enlightenment in this life? And for that matter, where does it say someone who is enlightened cannot be born in the world? For instance, this is what the historial Gautama Buddha did.

The traditions don't discount each other like you think they do. Pure Land doesn't render Zen obsoltete, nor do Theravada practices make Vajrayana not worth studying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land_Buddhism - Wikipedia is not the best source, but it states what I'm talking about.

I'm not sure what you mean by most people - Buddhists?

The point of Pure Land is that Enlightenment is difficult to achieve in this life, which seems to belie the thread. It is therefore a faith based form of Buddhism and as such departs from the mainstream Buddhist schools, which teach the path to Enlightenment in human form. Rebirth in a Pure Land is seen as very fortunate, but is not the focus of practice.

As for The Historical Buddha being reborn in this world - this is a Mahayana development. It takes the view that it was through his great kindness that The Buddha was reborn. The Therevada view focuses upon Siddhartha Gautama the man becoming The Buddha.

I didn't say that different traditions render each oter obsolete, in fact the texts are all recogniseably Buddhist, but often the practice focuses upon difffferent aspects - eg Zen on Zazen. Also, as I mentioned previously, I have known a teacher from a Therevadan tradition, (DR Rewata Dhamma), who also studied at Tibetan Monateries in India before sharing a Vihara in Birmingham with Kagyu teachers.

I didn't say that studying Therevada makes studying Vajrayana not worth studying. Vajrayana is the Tantric path.

What I am saying is that Pure land Buddhism has developed from the Buddhist schools to become more faith based.

NikolaiI

02-27-2010, 11:39 PM

The point of Pure Land is that Enlightenment is difficult to achieve in this life, which seems to belie the thread.

Of course it is rare to achieve enlightenment. I don't think that belies the nature of the thread.

So, in Buddhism, the main place where there is reference to instant enlightenment is in Zen Buddhism, which is also called instant Buddhahood.

I think enlightenment can be traced to several distinct points. For example, there is the point which is just after the levels of absorption, when one passes beyond duality. That is not the final goal, but that is a specific point. First there is meditation, then absorption, then passing beyond non-duality. At that specific point, it's realized that all stress, anxiety, sickness, all of that is shed. All of it is based on defense of the ego, and when the ego is realized to be nothing, all the rest is nothing as well. It comes from the optical delusion of consciousness, as Einstein puts it, where we observe ourselves, and where we think we are separate from the universe.

Closely linked to that instant, of passing beyond the states of absorption, which are themselves yet within duality, into the realm beyond duality, is the translation or understanding of the experience within the framework of our language. The instant of passing beyond those states, that is also the instant of initial awakening, that is, from the dream of Maya. Waking up from the dream of Maya, the next step toward enlightenment is realizing Buddha-nature. Of course this isn't necessarily in Buddhist terminology - someone may have an identical experience though they never studied Buddhism. But Buddha-nature is real, whether by that name or another. It's a boundless existence.

After initially realizing one's Buddha-nature, that is, waking up to it... realizing that everything which was conditioned by duality was a dream... upon waking, to see that one's nature is Buddha-nature. After this comes revelation... purifying of karma... it's like a thousand times you experience the same awakening, all in succession, within a matter of a few seconds - time doesn't apply as usual. A thousand times you realize you are free from all suffering, you pass through a thousand lifetimes... a thousand times you realize that all external layers of your existence being nothing, even your inner idea of yourself is still not the true, beautiful, extraordinary you that you really are. And that last concept of yourself breaks like an orange, that is your most subtle karmic layer, but you realize that even it is not who you are. Then you realize... that this is true for everyone... and the fact of it is there is nothing you need, nothing you ever needed. Nothing you need to learn to be who you are. And to experience who you really are... that is, enlightenment, that goes beyond everything..

Enlightenment is to feel what is like to be one with life... to feel that you are one with a tree for example... is to feel a depth of consciousness which is not conceived of by anyone. It's a truth so profound... and yet the illusion is so reinforced... that the truth is so obscured... and yet the truth is so obvious! Once you realize it... you have a boundless existence. The range of being of everyone, and everything, is all life. Every part of this universe, the range of being for that part is all life.

Enlightenment can be seen in many different ways; in a Buddhist way of Buddha-nature, or in a Hindu way of divine consciousness. In the divine consciousness one is aware of everything, aware that the soul goes beyond all forms in the creation. The soul is within another dimension, and the normal world becomes a screen of Maya. The phenomenal world is simply a dream, upon waking you realize a boundless existence.

The other part of the Hindu realization is that everything has its place. Everything has a part of the whole. Even ignorance has a part in the transcendent harmony and connection of all things. It is yin and yang - ignorance and enlightenment are not opposites but part of a whole, just like all seeming opposites.

Paulclem

02-28-2010, 05:24 AM

The question "Can Enlightenment be attained immediately?" - what does this mean? Are you saying that Enlightenment can just happen, or are you referring to the references to Enlightenment happening immediately?

The first few posts on this thread seemed to be in general agreement that yes- it can happen immediately.

So, in Buddhism, the main place where there is reference to instant enlightenment is in Zen Buddhism, which is also called instant Buddhahood.

What you don't mention is the effort taken to get to this point. Intensive periods of Zazen are required to prepare the mind for experiences of Enlightenment - which is not one thing, but a series of stages.

What you describe NikoliaI is the process - which in itself is like turning on a light. The lead up to this process, in Budhist terms, takes the purification of Karma, and the realisation of wisdom and emptiness. Even the Buddha had to work hard on this over a number of years, which seems to suggest that effort is required. In his case, the good merit he had built up over previous lives placed him in the right circumstance to attain full Enlightenment.

Of course it is rare to achieve enlightenment. I don't think that belies the nature of the thread.

The point of The Pure Land practice is that it is now too difficult to attain Enlightenment in this human realm. Rebirth in a Pure Land is required. Most schools of Buddhism do not subscribe to this, including my own. A practitioner has to be able to believe in the goal of Enlightenment - that it is possible as a Human in orde to develop the effort to proceed.

Again may I point out that there are significant differences in Hinduism and Buddhism in terms of the main belief systems and the end goal. One of the reasons for stating the Buddhist point of view is that the teachings are specific and complex. Any mixing of beliefs is unhelpful and potentially confusing for the practitioner. In terms of a Buddist Practitioners goal, this would be disasterous. It happened a lot during the transmission of the teachings from the East to Britain through people like Christmas Humphreys. There was confusion with certain Hindu and Buddhist concepts. Translation was, and still is problematic.

The tradition I belong to is The FPMT which is The Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition. It was specifically set up in the West to mitigate against the kind of mix and match approach entering the teachings.Lama Yeshe, the original Lama who brought the tradition West, wanted this rather unwieldy title for a purpose. When the teachings first entered Tibet, it took root, but many of the teachings were misunderstood. It took the teachings of Atisha to re-establish the true Buddhist path. It would be very easy for the teachings to become confused with other ideas -particularly from Hinduism which uses similar terminology.

NikolaiI

02-28-2010, 11:49 AM

Paulclem

02-28-2010, 12:31 PM

No I did not mention the effort needed to get to that point. Nor did I mention teachings about what we should do when different types of thoughts arise. Those things can be gotten elsewhere and I have no desire to say the same things Buddhists today teach to people who are completely new to Buddhism. They have their place. I'm talking about the experience of enlightenment; the states of absorption which are still within samsara, up to the point of non-duality, and then the immediate moment of passing through the last state of absorption into a realization of non-duality, and from there what is Buddha-nature and then what may be seen after this. However I'm not going farther than Buddha-nature with these posts.

Are you referring to the Buddhist conception of Enlightenment or something else? On the point of can Enlightenment be attained immediately - I think your omission gives a false impression abut the Buddhist perspective which is that Enlightenment requires a great effort.

Those things can be gotten elsewhere and I have no desire to say the same things Buddhists today teach to people who are completely new to Buddhism.

It is clear to me that there are people who know about Buddhism, but i suspect there are a lot more who don't know, or have some important misconceptions about it. Your posts which mingle Buddhist and Hindu ideas do nothing to dispel this.

NikolaiI

02-28-2010, 01:31 PM

Dear Paul, until you experience enlightenment, it remains a concept. I am not speaking of a concept, but an experience. The reason I speak of it is because it had inherent in it a call to be shared. The entire experience which is still based on duality is illusory. The reason for this is that duality itself is an illusion, and so if we begin from the standpoint of duality, nothing we experience is real. But it's not just a concept or words, and saying it or hearing it is not the same as experiencing it.

Paulclem

02-28-2010, 03:07 PM

It is true that I am unenlightened, and I have no experience of it. It is also true that I take issue with some of your descriptions, as they do not accord with what is described in our Buddhist teachings.

I cannot take issue with your experience as I don't know you. Unfortunately the opposite is also true. I can only respond to your posts. I'm sure you are sincere, but I would question the value of posting about the ultimate experience of reality without also references to the graduated path, the effort required, refuge, the need to develop wisdom and compassion in the Northern teachings, or Arhatship in Southern Buddhism. What does it mean without this context to people unfamiliar with the Buddhist path? My concern is that confusion will arise.

blazeofglory

04-17-2010, 12:44 PM

Enlightenment is Gyana and when you know everything you need to know

Paulclem

04-17-2010, 01:07 PM

Enlightenment is Gyana and when you know everything you need to know

I didn't know the term Gyana, and so I looked it up - so it's a type of Yoga directed towards attaining salvation through Divine knowledge.

http://www.ayushveda.com/yoga/yoga-title3/gyana-yoga/path-gyana-yoga.htm

I'm not sure why you don't specify which tradition you are referring to. There are big differences between Buddhism and Hinduism, which could cause a lot of confusion. There is so little knowledge about both, and I remember a time when I was unable - due to my ignorence - to distiguish between the two. Both systems are complex enough without blurring the matter.

I think this was my initial reaction to the thread - that terms weren't defined, and so the discussion was confusing.

NikolaiI

04-17-2010, 05:34 PM

I didn't know the term Gyana, and so I looked it up - so it's a type of Yoga directed towards attaining salvation through Divine knowledge.

http://www.ayushveda.com/yoga/yoga-title3/gyana-yoga/path-gyana-yoga.htm

I'm not sure why you don't specify which tradition you are referring to. There are big differences between Buddhism and Hinduism, which could cause a lot of confusion. There is so little knowledge about both, and I remember a time when I was unable - due to my ignorence - to distiguish between the two. Both systems are complex enough without blurring the matter.

I think this was my initial reaction to the thread - that terms weren't defined, and so the discussion was confusing.

Gyana, or jnana, is a type of yoga in Hinduism, yet it also has a context in Buddhism...

I will quote a text... it's in "Google Books" format so I have to type it...

from A Cascading Waterfall of Nectar
by Thinley Norbu

"The Tibetan worsd sherab (shes rab; Skt. prajna) and yeshe (ye shes; Skt. jnana) appear again and again in this commentary because they are connected with enlightenment. It is important to give an explanation of these words because of the tendency to materialize and separate them, which is incompatible with the meaning of Dharma, which is to make noncontradiction. For sentient beings, body and mind are different, but for Buddhas, body is pureland, pureland is body, speech is body, body is speech, wisdom mind is wisdom Buddha and wisdom Buddha is wisdom mind.

"Sherab or prajna can be translated as "incisiveness," while yeshe or jnana can be translated as "wisdom." Sometimes, however, the Sanskrit word prajna is translated as "wisdom," and the word wisdom can be used for sublime intelligence. Some people think of jnana as always higher than prajna, and believe that jnana is an aspect of Buddha, while prajna is below Buddha-hood. It is definitely not correct to say that prajna is something other than jnana, or that jnana is always the purest. The only way to know the meaning of these words is from the context of the level of attainment to which they are applied.

"There are many different levels of sherab or prajna, and many different levels of yeshe or jnana. For example, even ordinary people have worldly knowledge and worldly wisdom, but when ordinary beings are compared with the Hearers, the prajna and jnana of the Hearers are higher. When the prajna and jnana of the Hearers are compared with those of the Solitary Realizers, the prajna and jnana of the Solitary Realizers are higher. When the prajna and jnana of the Solitary Realizers are compared with those of the Yogachara, the prajna and jnana of the Yogachara are vaster. The prajna and jnana of the Yogachara is surpassed by those of the Madhyamika. The prajna and jnana are Madhyamika are surprassed by the Vajrayana. When the state of complete enlightenment is attained, there is no more thought of either prajna or jnana.

...

"

...and so on.

http://books.google.com/books?id=JExUbaxjr6oC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=jnana+prajna&source=bl&ots=CS-pEHZnDw&sig=L8sJfJeYb9vFSoDzBj-3UGL2tv4&hl=en&ei=NCfKS-OVCpasMvWN8Z8F&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=jnana%20prajna&f=false

Paulclem

04-17-2010, 07:06 PM

There is a relationship between Hinduism and Buddhism, just as there is a relationship between Islam and Christianity, and there are common terms. This does not mean that they mean the same in both traditions. Dharma is a word you find in Hinduism and Buddhism, but the meaning is not the same, though the root is.

A cursory look at Hinduism and Buddhism shows the differences, so how can the conception of Enlightenment in both traditions be the same?

NikolaiI

04-19-2010, 03:27 PM

Paulclem

04-19-2010, 05:39 PM

What, what, what and what?

I quoted an excerpt from a book on Buddhism by a Buddhist master. I repeat again, what are you talking about? The excerpt I quoted from the book by Thinley Norbu Rinpoche explains what jnana is in Buddhism, since by your post it seems you were unaware of its meaning within Buddhism. I can only assume you didn't read any of my post, at least not the first line or anything after it...

Such is the problem when you reply to people's posts but, not having read them, are replying to what you guess they said... it's a hit and miss system, and a waste of time for anyone involved.

Yes, you quoted an excerpt from a book on Buddhism. What relevance does it have to the Hindu Gyana? I said that the two systems share words, but as the systems are different they have a different emphasis and meaning. The two systems - Hinduism and Buddhism are related, as I said, but have significant differences.

Perhaps if you explain the relationship beyond the comparison of words, I might understand you better.

I quote from the website:

Gyana yoga

The style of Yoga that is devoted to attaining the path to salvation and ultimate deliverance through acquiring wisdom and knowledge about the divine consciousness.

Where in the book you referred to is a reference to Divine Consciousness? There is none, because your extract is about stages in the realisation of Emptiness through the Yogacara, Madhyamika and Vajrayana schools.

I think that there is a significant difference in our attitudes to religion in general which you seem to share with Blaze and others. I think our respective positions seem to be that you think all religions are ultimately the same, and in their highest expressions are expressions of God, the Divine etc. under another name. I have no problem with this view. Please correct me if I am assuming too much.

My own view is Buddhist. I don't think all religions are the same, and I don't think Buddhism's highest expression is about God or the Divine Consciousness - which is a Hindu expression - see link to book below.

http://www.vedicbooks.net/vijnana-bhairava-or-divine-consciousness-p-312.html

Why do you think the Hindu and Buddhist religions are distinct? because the teachings are distinct.

http://www.answers.com/topic/jnana

The link is a definition of Buddhist jnana.

NikolaiI

04-20-2010, 02:43 PM

Yes, you quoted an excerpt from a book on Buddhism. What relevance does it have to the Hindu Gyana? I said that the two systems share words, but as the systems are different they have a different emphasis and meaning. The two systems - Hinduism and Buddhism are related, as I said, but have significant differences.

Perhaps if you explain the relationship beyond the comparison of words, I might understand you better.

I quote from the website:

Gyana yoga

The style of Yoga that is devoted to attaining the path to salvation and ultimate deliverance through acquiring wisdom and knowledge about the divine consciousness.

Where in the book you referred to is a reference to Divine Consciousness? There is none, because your extract is about stages in the realisation of Emptiness through the Yogacara, Madhyamika and Vajrayana schools.

I think that there is a significant difference in our attitudes to religion in general which you seem to share with Blaze and others. I think our respective positions seem to be that you think all religions are ultimately the same, and in their highest expressions are expressions of God, the Divine etc. under another name. I have no problem with this view. Please correct me if I am assuming too much.

My own view is Buddhist. I don't think all religions are the same, and I don't think Buddhism's highest expression is about God or the Divine Consciousness - which is a Hindu expression - see link to book below.

http://www.vedicbooks.net/vijnana-bhairava-or-divine-consciousness-p-312.html

Why do you think the Hindu and Buddhist religions are distinct? because the teachings are distinct.

http://www.answers.com/topic/jnana

The link is a definition of Buddhist jnana.

OH my God... PAUL.

You wrote about Gyan - another spelling of jnana - ... ok...? And you indicated you only thought it was a Hindu thing - as in, jnana yoga. ...ok...? And I posted a quote about Jnana in the Buddhist sense, never mentioning Hinduism at all or making any statement about Hinduism or any comparison... much less did I say they were similar, the same, or related in any way!

The point of my post was to give the Buddhist context of the word Jnana - which is clear in plain English from my post; specifically, and not to say that Jnana in Buddhism, which is an absolutely fascinating part of the whole structure in itself, is the same thing as jnana-yoga in Hinduism....

Your reply to my post was utterly unconnected, because you were replying to something I didn't say at all! So what I can only assume is either you didn't read my post at all, or otherwise you will commonly make such unrelated and unconnected posts.. :(

It's just frustrating when I use completely clear English and you go off into an argument which is unrelated to anything I said in my post... but somehow I don't expect a response to things I've said...

Gyana, or jnana, is a type of yoga in Hinduism, yet it also has a context in Buddhism...

Gyana, or jnana, is a type of yoga in Hinduism, yet it also has a context in Buddhism...

...................

...................

Will I always simply need to repeat myself, specifically, to tell you what I did not in fact say in my posts, when you will go off into unrelated arguments? Will it always be like that?

This is like beating my head against a tree... because as I look at your post a second time, I see now that you are asking in the first line... "Why" did I say... or can I explain what I meant when I said X. Except I never said X at all... Jesus.

Paulclem

04-20-2010, 04:03 PM

NikolaiI

04-21-2010, 02:51 PM

The assuption is Nikolai that you are following the posts made by Blaze and then myself. Blaze throws in a line about a type of Hindu yoga and I ask him why he does not explain where the term - as spelt by Blaze - is from and not attributed to Hinduism. You see I like to know where terms are from, and what they relate to. In the past there has been much confusion between the two religions - Buddhism and Hinduism. The thread is after all about Enlightenment - a term bandied about - as Kama is - which has a specific meaning in both traditions.

You then quote from a Buddhist text without comment except to say that it has context in Buddhism too. I then point out again that the terms are not interchangeable between the religions -a point you may not consider important, but as an admittedly humble Buddhist practitioner, I do.

I'm sorry you feel you are repeating yourself, but I'm afraid I will continue to try to clarify as I see fit.

Okay, wow. Great, wonderful.

No they are not interchangeable. Jnana in Buddhism means one thing and Jnana-yoga in Hinduism is another. This was my point, indicated by the, I hope clear, statement....

Jnana-yoga is a type of yoga in Hinduism, yet it also has a context in Buddhism...

After a period of a week or two weeks of no posts, generally I think you can assume I mean to say what I do say. In fact I think you can always assume that.

I would like to add a bit more... First; I was replying to you, yes... and specifically to this part:

Enlightenment is Gyana and when you know everything you need to know

I didn't know the term Gyana, and so I looked it up - so it's a type of Yoga directed towards attaining salvation through Divine knowledge.

And in response to you, I said... oh, need I copy it again? I said it is a form of yoga in Hinduism (with a lot of branches and variations) but it has a context in Buddhism too. As you said you weren't familiar with the term, I thought you weren't, and wanted to share with you it has an almost equal importance in Buddhism (c.f. texts about both jnana and prajna).

I guess my whole frustration with your last couple of posts is that you made a lengthy reply to mine, completely missing anything I said so much as to make me think you didn't even read it... by, seemingly, seeing a final part of it which wasn't there, i.e.,

Jnana-yoga is a type of yoga in Hinduism, yet jnana also has a context in Buddhism... and they are the same.

which I did not say... nor would it make any sense as it is taking the conversation in a pretty much random direction (compared with my intent in that post!)

Forgive my impatience.