For some time now, we have been moving from a society of faith and revelation to one of boundless self gratification. Other people have become obstacles to be pushed out of the way as we joyfully embark on journeys of self discovery and personal gratification.

Accompanied by our shiny new toys, the freedom of speech and expression, the freedom of political belief and the freedom to find fulfilment in work, we reject all notions of authority, discard civility and safety to reach that apogee of personal liberation that the "I, me and mine" generation has endowed us.

Caught in the grip of this new self, we push new boundaries on reality television, learn from etiquette advisors and self help experts to redefine our shortcomings and excesses with new power words that create an identity- no longer are we subject to the closed restrictions imposed from without - why should we be, when the therapeutic outlook cures us of all ills, real or imagined.

No longer are we aiming for a transcendental good or the well lived life; no, now it is our emotional expressions and self defined needs that drive us. We are pitted against one another as we seek personal fulfillment which appears ever more elusive. It may be worth it if we end up satisfied with our choices, but with the plethora of self prescribed therapeutic options available, total revelation and the single minded pursuit of abstract needs reduces everyone else in our path to mere objects to be manipulated to meet our ends.

But we still need others to be who we are and do what we want. Without others who would we really be? I'd like you to think for a moment if there weren't others around. You'd have no doctors, dentists, friends, or a multitude of of interpersonal relationships that we all need in order to make life more fulfilling and full of gusto. :)

We can still use others, but the goal is personal fulfilment.

For some time now, we have been moving from a society of faith and revelation to one of boundless self gratification. Other people have become obstacles to be pushed out of the way as we joyfully embark on journeys of self discovery and personal gratification.

Accompanied by our shiny new toys, the freedom of speech and expression, the freedom of political belief and the freedom to find fulfilment in work, we reject all notions of authority, discard civility and safety to reach that apogee of personal liberation that the "I, me and mine" generation has endowed us.

Caught in the grip of this new self, we push new boundaries on reality television, learn from etiquette advisors and self help experts to redefine our shortcomings and excesses with new power words that create an identity- no longer are we subject to the closed restrictions imposed from without - why should we be, when the therapeutic outlook cures us of all ills, real or imagined.

No longer are we aiming for a transcendental good or the well lived life; no, now it is our emotional expressions and self defined needs that drive us. We are pitted against one another as we seek personal fulfillment which appears ever more elusive. It may be worth it if we end up satisfied with our choices, but with the plethora of self prescribed therapeutic options available, total revelation and the single minded pursuit of abstract needs reduces everyone else in our path to mere objects to be manipulated to meet our ends.

My immediate thought is that you are harkening back to some kind of mythical golden age that never really existed.

Certainly Great Britain where I'm from was considerably more selfish and brutal back in the days when we were ruled by authoritarian theocratic monarchies.

My question to you is - what is your proposed alternative?

There is/are no alternative(s) to observations.

There is/are no alternative(s) to observations.

I thought you had written the thread because you felt it was worthy of discussion - my mistake for making that assumption

Its a philosophy thread, others are welcome to discuss their thoughts about my observations.

No, there are a few old fashioned folk left.

We can still use others, but the goal is personal fulfilment.

True but without poetry, books, music, jokes, and other entertainment what good would our lives be and how really fulfilled could they ever become?

True but without poetry, books, music, jokes, and other entertainment what good would our lives be and how really fulfilled could they ever become?

Yeah, thats what I call boundless self gratification.

the idea here is that one of true faith will never fully find self gratification, yet will attain liberation and revelation.

True but without poetry, books, music, jokes, and other entertainment what good would our lives be and how really fulfilled could they ever become?


Yeah, thats what I call boundless self gratification.

It is the notion of "self" that has changed over time.

The earlier mentioned forms of self gratification only apply when the self is understood in a particular way; otherwise, they do not.

It is the notion of "self" that has changed over time..

I need to think about this.

What is wrong with self-gratification? You need to reflect on its downside in your observations.

I agree with Cosmictraveler that we still need other people, though I agree to a much lesser degree than in the past. But think how little avenues there were for personal fulfillment in the past, traditional societies are authoritatian to the point of stifling and killing individual spirit, creativity and desires.

Sam: For some time now, we have been moving from a society of faith and revelation to one of boundless self gratification.

What is a society of 'revelation'? Give an example.


Sam:Other people have become obstacles to be pushed out of the way as we joyfully embark on journeys of self discovery and personal gratification.

Have they? If each person stood on their own two feet, if each person took responsibility for their own happiness & self discovery why would there be a need to push anyone away? We would all be on our own journey.


Same:Accompanied by our shiny new toys, the freedom of speech and expression, the freedom of political belief and the freedom to find fulfilment in work, we reject all notions of authority, discard civility and safety to reach that apogee of personal liberation that the "I, me and mine" generation has endowed us.

Outside of your referrence to materailism what is wrong with freedom of speech, expression and the freedoms of political belief? What could possibly be wrong with finding fulfillment in ones work? Are you suggesting a cast system where the 'authority' dictates to the massess? How civility works its way into this argument is beyond me. You give no examples of how freedom of self expression is tied to incivility. The most free can afford to be civilized as its a luxury. Outside of you there is me. So?

Sam: Caught in the grip of this new self,

New self or self-discovered? Meaning the self revealed.

Sam: we push new boundaries on reality television, learn from etiquette advisors and self help experts to redefine our shortcomings and excesses with new power words that create an identity-

Huh? You are mixing many different things here without really saying anything about any one of them and presupposing they are somehow linked. Show in your mind how they are linked.

Sam:no longer are we subject to the closed restrictions imposed from without

What restrictions do you have in mind? Explain why you think they should be imposed from without?

SAm:why should we be, when the therapeutic outlook cures us of all ills, real or imagined.

What or rather which therapeutic outlook?

Sam: No longer are we aiming for a transcendental good or the well lived life;

What proof is there that people are not? What do you consider a 'transcendental good'? A well lived life is subjective.

Sam: no, now it is our emotional expressions and self defined needs that drive us.

Well if they are not ours who's else should we subscribe to?

Sam: We are pitted against one another as we seek personal fulfillment which appears ever more elusive.

Assumption. YOu can only declare personal fulfillment elusive for yourself. Illustrate this pitting one against another?

Sam: It may be worth it if we end up satisfied with our choices, but with the plethora of self prescribed therapeutic options available, total revelation and the single minded pursuit of abstract needs reduces everyone else in our path to mere objects to be manipulated to meet our ends.

But now you are being abstract. You assume no one is satisfied with their choices or with creating choice and then you use undefined terms like 'self prescribed therapeutic options' and 'total revelation'. What are these abstract needs? Isn't the 'transcendental good' you speak of an abstract need? As well as 'total revelation'? Do you think people are so stupid to allow themselves to be reduced and manipulated into objects? If they are who's responsibility is that?

*Well, you said it was a matter of philosophy*

Self-discovery isn't the same as selfishness. What if you discover there is no self?

Lucysnow:

Thanks, thats a great dissection. :)

/prints

Be back with a response

Lucysnow...can you tell me of my outlook on life.

If each person stood on their own two feet, if each person took responsibility for their own happiness & self discovery why would there be a need to push anyone away? We would all be on our own journey.

Define "self".
What are the defining characteristics of "self"?
How do you distinguish one "self" from another?
Looking at a person, how do you know what about them is their "self" - as opposed to their leg or hair?

Dragon: Lucysnow...can you tell me of my outlook on life.

Why would I want to? How should I know?

Spidergoat: Self-discovery isn't the same as selfishness. What if you discover there is no self?

Really? I can imagine Mahatma's wife thinking it very selfish that her husband should abandon his princely duties in order to discover himself and the world. As for your second question I haven't discovered this to be so. I am myslef.

Greenberg: Define "self".

My thoughts, feelings, actions (my creations and all I destroy), past and present, my body and my mind, my identity as it was yesterday, now and will be tomorrow...no matter what changes may take place I am still myself.

What are the defining characteristics of "self"?

I have listed them above

How do you distinguish one "self" from another?

I have listed them above.

Looking at a person, how do you know what about them is their "self" - as opposed to their leg or hair

Its not from 'looking at a person'. I can only 'know' or assume to 'know' another self given a certain measure of intimacy. I don't care to 'know' many people but those whom I take the time to delve into their being as much as they will allow me, I would say the criteria for such 'knowing' is...listed above.

I think the issue of self is central to human experience and the collective events of our species. To dismiss it by calling it selfish would be like ignoring the atom because it's small. This avenue of concentration isn't new, it's thousands of years old. If everyone only cared for personal introspection, there would be no wars or political problems.

I can imagine Mahatma's wife thinking it very selfish that her husband should abandon his princely duties in order to discover himself and the world.

Why would he have to abandon his duties of prince and husband in order to discover himself and the world?

Do you think it is necessary to abandon worldly duties "in order to discover oneself and the world"?

Spidergoat: I think the issue of self is central to human experience and the collective events of our species. To dismiss it by calling it selfish would be like ignoring the atom because it's small. This avenue of concentration isn't new, it's thousands of years old. If everyone only cared for personal introspection, there would be no wars or political problems.

I never said the issue of the self is selfish. You mis-read or misunderstood my posts. Go back and read my post and your response. I used the example to show that anytime a person follows their own calling it will have an impact on another that can be seen as selfish by someone. As far as personal introspection is concerned people engage in this to varying degrees, to expect All the people of the world to take the same path would interfere with the flux of humanity which includes wars and problems of all sorts. There is no single answer for the problem of life and to try and make a formula out of it is to miss the wisdom of sages.

Greenberg:Why would he have to abandon his duties of prince and husband in order to discover himself and the world?

Well he did. Obviously he felt he had to.

Do you think it is necessary to abandon worldly duties "in order to discover oneself and the world"?

No I do not.

Lucysnow:

Thanks, thats a great dissection. :)

/prints

Be back with a response

Still thinking...

btw, it was Gautama who had princely duties and abandoned his wife, the Mahatma kept his around.

http://courses.washington.edu/eastrel/Gandhi/m2fGandhiKasturba.jpg

Yea I know it was a mistake I meant siddhartha aka buddha.

Lucysnow, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you. Still, I have noticed the label of selfish comes up alot in relation to Buddhism, Zen, and meditation. Dropping out of the social scene is understandably socially unacceptable, but it's necessary if you want to counteract cultural conditioning, which I think is the major reason we need a personal liberation in the first place.

Well I didn't mean it in relation to Buddhism specifically. Its just that I thought people generally don't see that way as selfish but taking a higher path (I mean who thinks of the Buddha as being selfish), so I wanted to show that this higher path may seem selfish to someone regardless. Everyone has to find their way in life and if Buddhism, Zen or meditation works for them then that is exactly what they should be doing.

Lucysnow, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you. Still, I have noticed the label of selfish comes up alot in relation to Buddhism, Zen, and meditation. Dropping out of the social scene is understandably socially unacceptable, but it's necessary if you want to counteract cultural conditioning, which I think is the major reason we need a personal liberation in the first place.

I think such behaviour amounts to running away because of an inability to cope with reality. Christians retire to monasteries and convents which amounts to the same thing. They live ordered lives so there are no surprises, no hassle and so on.

Cultural conditioning is not necessarily all bad and it is possible to resit it if one wishes. It boils down to having the courage to stand one's ground, have one's own values and ignote the rest.

I laugh every time I hear that. Like our virtual world of human society is more real than living alone, especially in the midst of nature? Culture is infectious, no amount of will power can prevent the images and ideas from permeating our subconscious. Culture is like a drug, and avoiding culture is like a different drug.

I laugh every time I hear that. Like our virtual world of human society is more real than living alone, especially in the midst of nature? Culture is infectious, no amount of will power can prevent the images and ideas from permeating our subconscious. Culture is like a drug, and avoiding culture is like a different drug.

You are wrong about conditioning; I am living proof but I shall not attempt to justify myself.

Human society is more real than living alone because we are gregarious by nature. This does not mean that we cannot choose with whom we wish to associate.

I don't know what you mean by saying that we inhabit a world of virtual reality. It interests me the you should use the term virtual; had you lived alone in nature you would not have known it. It shows how things have permeated your subconscious, as you say. Please count me out.

The main point you must address is what the hell you are doing using a computer as opposed to communing with nature. Do you lack the courage of your convictions ? Are you, like many others, dreaming of a non-existent Utopia?

There is a lot wrong with the world but there are lots of good things also. That tends to be overlooked.

What's more real, human society, or a termite colony? Living underwater on a reef, or in a batcave? Each habitat is a kind of reality. Each has it's own unique qualities. If you are a termite, you must conform to the expectations of the colony, or they will kill you. Human society has it's own expectations. Culture encompasses a wide variety of possible behaviors. When you are caught up in the midst of this, it is more difficult to concentrate on your own interests. It tells us not to be selfish, to be engaged in having "a life", to find love, success, to learn things and to "grow". If you happen to be interested in something apart from that, it's better to separate yourself. I'm more naturally solitary than most people, which is probably why I was more suited to finding out the mystery I read about in book about Zen. I'm not saying it's impossible to be social and be enlightened, just that it's an impediment, like drugs or alcohol, or being married, or having a mental illness. I have no convictions in this regard. I am making no judgements about what is better.

When an anthropologist studies a culture, they live within it to a degree, but they keep a separation from it. Jesus said something similar, "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.". You have to be determined to realize the mystery even more than you want to have a normal life. It's a matter of priorities. If you want to learn a martial art, going to a class once a week will only get you so far. Become totally immersed in it every day to the exclusion of all else, and you might really learn something.

I think such behaviour amounts to running away because of an inability to cope with reality. Christians retire to monasteries and convents which amounts to the same thing. They live ordered lives so there are no surprises, no hassle and so on.

Cultural conditioning is not necessarily all bad and it is possible to resit it if one wishes. It boils down to having the courage to stand one's ground, have one's own values and ignote the rest.

Yeah, I agree with that. I think such practices appeal to some kind of people, the kind who in India for example retire to forests and mountains and become yogis. Its definitely a rejection of social order.

Though I do not call it a lack of courage. Some people are comfortable in social situations but prefer to be alone. Some people simply prefer to be on their own and to focus all their energy on one chosen field rather than in all directions. Many scientists are like that, for example.

It was only with the invention of agriculture that people were able to concentrate on specialized trades and crafts like metallurgy or philosophy. The pre-requisite is having the leasure time to study and think about these things. That is the positive purpose of isolation, it's not a negative avoidance of "reality" because we can't handle it. In fact, once realization happens, it doesn't matter where you are, you can confront anything reality can throw at you.

What's more real, human society, or a termite colony? Living underwater on a reef, or in a batcave? Each habitat is a kind of reality. Each has it's own unique qualities. If you are a termite, you must conform to the expectations of the colony, or they will kill you. Human society has it's own expectations. Culture encompasses a wide variety of possible behaviors. When you are caught up in the midst of this, it is more difficult to concentrate on your own interests. It tells us not to be selfish, to be engaged in having "a life", to find love, success, to learn things and to "grow". If you happen to be interested in something apart from that, it's better to separate yourself. I'm more naturally solitary than most people, which is probably why I was more suited to finding out the mystery I read about in book about Zen. I'm not saying it's impossible to be social and be enlightened, just that it's an impediment, like drugs or alcohol, or being married, or having a mental illness. I have no convictions in this regard. I am making no judgements about what is better.

When an anthropologist studies a culture, they live within it to a degree, but they keep a separation from it. Jesus said something similar, "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.". You have to be determined to realize the mystery even more than you want to have a normal life. It's a matter of priorities. If you want to learn a martial art, going to a class once a week will only get you so far. Become totally immersed in it every day to the exclusion of all else, and you might really learn something.

I see where you are coming from but I think you are on the wrong track. First, how do you know it's possible to become enlightened ? What would it mean ?

I have mixed with Buddhists of various traditions such as what used to be called Hinyana, now Therevada, Tibetan ( Red Hat), Zen and its Chinese equivalent Ch'an. I have gone on retreats which was a nice way of getting a break but, from my pointof view, adopting such a lifestyle is a flight from reality.

You must surely be aware that none of the aforementioned recommend living in isolation. You commit to them by joining an order. That means you have chosen to spend your life with like-minded individuals. I have no problem with that because we are all faced with the problem of making sense of existence.

I am happy to be a part of the Western Intellectual Tradition; I see no point in importing alien ideas from the East other than for comparative cultural reasons. I feel the same holds true for those who regard the Bible as the word of God or the Koran as the revealed word of God.

In fact, once realization happens, it doesn't matter where you are, you can confront anything reality can throw at you.

I doubt that. Being enlightened in any field does not provide a person with the ability to be a great hostess or a diplomat or absorb any social milieu. In fact, I find people with very high IQs tend to have lower EQs

the single minded pursuit of abstract needs reduces everyone else in our path to mere objects to be manipulated to meet our ends.

The image comes to me of pigs vying with each other at a trough of slops.

I'm not aware of these high-minded abstract needs, other than they require consumption on some level, as in attending yoga evening classes, buying books by contemporary philosophers or devotee tapes, or going on a 'voyage of discovery', and so are actively disseminated by the media.

Contemporary life is fortunately only a media fabrication, more like the Matrix than we care to imagine. Our appetites are encouraged at the expense of thought. You can verify this by a trip to your local Walmart or supermarket, where you'll find a whole aisle dedicated to pet food. Even animals are consumers.

What is worse is that they're eating themselves.

http://www.4freeimagehost.com/uploads/a57fc2050ae8.jpg


Do you think people are so stupid to allow themselves to be reduced and manipulated into objects? If they are who's responsibility is that?

Industrialization is treating humans as units of production. Our military and economic power is built on it. What's more, you love it.

The internal logic of the machine is eventually to destroy and replace nature.

It's an internal thing, not an outward ability in the conventional sense. A sense of calm within the storm. Enlightenment has nothing to do with IQ.

It's an internal thing, not an outward ability in the conventional sense. A sense of calm within the storm. Enlightenment has nothing to do with IQ.

Enlightenment only matters to the one who is enlightened. It matters very little to other people unless they receive benefits from it. Social cohesion works the other way.

Probably.

The image comes to me of pigs vying with each other at a trough of slops.

I'm not aware of these high-minded abstract needs, other than they require consumption on some level, as in attending yoga evening classes, buying books by contemporary philosophers or devotee tapes, or going on a 'voyage of discovery', and so are actively disseminated by the media.

Contemporary life is fortunately only a media fabrication, more like the Matrix than we care to imagine. Our appetites are encouraged at the expense of thought. You can verify this by a trip to your local Walmart or supermarket, where you'll find a whole aisle dedicated to pet food. Even animals are consumers.

What is worse is that they're eating themselves

http://www.4freeimagehost.com/uploads/a57fc2050ae8.jpg



Industrialization is treating humans as units of production. Our military and economic power is built on it. What's more, you love it.

The internal logic of the machine is eventually to destroy and replace nature.


Who is forcing you to shop at Wallmart ?

Yeah, I agree with that. I think such practices appeal to some kind of people, the kind who in India for example retire to forests and mountains and become yogis. Its definitely a rejection of social order.

Note that in traditional Hindu and Buddhist societies, being a monastic is part of the social order.

They have a different conception of "social order" than we in the West do.
In the West, Christian churches and institutions have become to some extent secularized and monasticism has become marginalized, this is why it doesn't seem to be part of the social order anymore. But five hundred, three hundred years ago, it was.

It was only with the invention of agriculture that people were able to concentrate on specialized trades and crafts like metallurgy or philosophy. The pre-requisite is having the leasure time to study and think about these things. That is the positive purpose of isolation, it's not a negative avoidance of "reality" because we can't handle it. In fact, once realization happens, it doesn't matter where you are, you can confront anything reality can throw at you.

Enlightenment is widely talked, written and lectured about, so yo you should have no trouble telling me:

What is enlightenment ? Why are you convinced such a state exists ?
How does one know one has become enlightened ? What has changed ?
How does one recognize an enlightened person?

I have talked about it frequently in the past. Here is a compilation:

The literal truth of Buddhas scriptures are less important than the relatively simple methods he outlined for achieving enlightenment on one's own.

Except I don't consider the lack of enlightenment to be an error of ways. I don't think Buddhism makes this sort of absolute judgement. If you are satisfied with your life as it is, then there is no problem.


“ But those societies which already have strong spiritual practices do not need to seek out Buddhism or other such.”
This is contrary to Buddha's proposition that life is inherently suffering. There are no enlightened societies, only individuals. Buddhism is practiced as a religion in many places, but practice alone doesn't ensure freedom from suffering, only enlightenment can, which happens for some reason to be rare. Being a Buddhist doesn't ensure freedom from suffering or mental illness. Buddhism in essence is a religion of no-religion, it offers no salvation through belief alone. The component of Buddhist tradition that seems to align with previous theistic ones is more a product of cultural cross-over, much like the philosophy of Jesus.

It's one way to conceive of the essential connectivity of all things. Being connected, a product of seamless cause and effect, any action in the present becomes the future. Even the memory of a person lives into the future, and continues to be the cause of other events. Who we are is a relative thing; as someone said, semantic. We are our deeds, our words, our interaction with the environment, a product of the people we encountered. Self is a cultural artifact. A cultural artifact can be reborn, as can iterative processes like DNA replication.

To become a real individual is both enlightenment and a cessation of personal karmic processes that lead to suffering.

There is alot of mythology and nonsense attributed to enlightenment. Buddhism advises us to seek enlightenment for ourselves. It's not like suddenly knowing a series of names that describe previous incarnations is a typical attribute of enlightenment. In that sense, Buddhists are more scientific. We don't know exactly what enlightenment is or how everyone experiences it, most of these experiences cannot be described except in a poetic sense, due to limitations of language. When new information presents itself, such as a person able to describe enlightenment in a new way, it is accepted as a new data point.

Often the reports (sutras) of later monks are more important or relevant than Buddha's.


"Learned Audience, the Wisdom of Enlightenment (Bodhiprajna) is inherent in every one of us. It is because of the delusion under which our mind works that we fail to realize it ourselves, and that we have to seek the advice and the guidance of enlightened ones before we can know our own Essence of Mind. You should know that so far as Buddha-nature is concerned, there is no difference between an enlightened man and an ignorant one. What makes the difference is that one realizes it, while the other is ignorant of it..."

The Platform Sutra of the 6th Patriarch, Hui Neng
Interestingly, the Buddhists say the same thing with regard to enlightenment. Seeking spiritual revelation allows it to happen, those who don't seek don't find anything. It's not a given that seekers will all find the same thing.

I don't know if I would agree there is an "energy center" near our belly buttons, but yes, we do waste alot of effort trying to maintain the illusion of ego. The tension could be accumulated in certain muscles. I know that enlightenment is accompanied by a marked relaxation of the body, so much so that action feels effortless.

From what I can see, that's the essence of the Zen "method", place the student in a mental bind until they realize thought cannot help them.

I have no idea what enlightenment really is, only what it feels like.

I think the feeling of bliss is more like a consequence of freedom from common worries and troubles. It isn't just the feeling itself, because that fades.

Life is alot of things, but words are only a part of it, they are empty symbols. They are frames we hold up to the infinite universe and move around like they mean something of themselves.

As the bliss fades, there is nothing left. There's nothing you can hold on to, and the survival advantage, if any, is doubtful. Enlightenment is not a strategy for the survival of the species or even the soul, as Christianity claims to be. It has no practical value.


Well then, what's enlightenment?
A shift in our patterns of consciousness coupled with a dis-identification with the illusory personna that culture influences us to create. It's a return to a more natural, less linear and analytical way of thinking. It's a release of conscious control over the actions of the mind. Instead of forcing yourself to think about certain things, it's more like stepping back and observing the production of your mind. Your mind itself, after all, cannot be observed with itself.

Elightenment is not the absense of problems in dealing with the world, nor is it the absense of physical pain. It is the absense of mental disfunction and anxiety in your dealings with the world. It's as if our brains can work in one of several states. Through some mental trigger, there is suddenly a shift to another stable state, like the planet's shift from an ice age to a modern climate. I suggest this other stable state is more basic to our nature, and that the modern psyche is the newer one, less stable, less evolved, less able to deal with hardship and more volnerable to breakdown. That is why modern people seem to be so unhappy despite our technological advances.

Humanity existed for millions of years before civilization. I'm not suggesting that enlightenment is a return to so primitive a pattern as our fish ancestors, but something more recent (this is just speculation).

Our modern culture is not the result of evolution, except in the sense that evolution made it possible. If you consider our brains like the hardware, and culture like the software, then our brains evolved to run AfricaMan 1.0, but we are forcing it to run NewYorkCityMan 2.3. NewYorkCityMan 2.3 is better for the cultural environment we created, but it's running on old hardware, so there are bugs.

In the mythology of Buddhism they always talk about the "old masters", about a time when there was no talk about enlightenment because it was how everyone was, it was the natural state of being.

I think there's alot of unnecessary mysticism about enlightenment. Buddhism is a basic course in introspection. Some breakthrough is bound to happen if you are sincere in creating the basic conditions, most of it is biological.

There's nothing you can do. "You" are the problem all along. Enlightenment is so close that in looking for it, we overlook it.

I have talked about it frequently in the past. Here is a compilation:

The literal truth of Buddhas scriptures are less important than the relatively simple methods he outlined for achieving enlightenment on one's own.

Except I don't consider the lack of enlightenment to be an error of ways. I don't think Buddhism makes this sort of absolute judgement. If you are satisfied with your life as it is, then there is no problem.


“ But those societies which already have strong spiritual practices do not need to seek out Buddhism or other such.”
This is contrary to Buddha's proposition that life is inherently suffering. There are no enlightened societies, only individuals. Buddhism is practiced as a religion in many places, but practice alone doesn't ensure freedom from suffering, only enlightenment can, which happens for some reason to be rare. Being a Buddhist doesn't ensure freedom from suffering or mental illness. Buddhism in essence is a religion of no-religion, it offers no salvation through belief alone. The component of Buddhist tradition that seems to align with previous theistic ones is more a product of cultural cross-over, much like the philosophy of Jesus.

It's one way to conceive of the essential connectivity of all things. Being connected, a product of seamless cause and effect, any action in the present becomes the future. Even the memory of a person lives into the future, and continues to be the cause of other events. Who we are is a relative thing; as someone said, semantic. We are our deeds, our words, our interaction with the environment, a product of the people we encountered. Self is a cultural artifact. A cultural artifact can be reborn, as can iterative processes like DNA replication.

To become a real individual is both enlightenment and a cessation of personal karmic processes that lead to suffering.

There is alot of mythology and nonsense attributed to enlightenment. Buddhism advises us to seek enlightenment for ourselves. It's not like suddenly knowing a series of names that describe previous incarnations is a typical attribute of enlightenment. In that sense, Buddhists are more scientific. We don't know exactly what enlightenment is or how everyone experiences it, most of these experiences cannot be described except in a poetic sense, due to limitations of language. When new information presents itself, such as a person able to describe enlightenment in a new way, it is accepted as a new data point.

Often the reports (sutras) of later monks are more important or relevant than Buddha's.


"Learned Audience, the Wisdom of Enlightenment (Bodhiprajna) is inherent in every one of us. It is because of the delusion under which our mind works that we fail to realize it ourselves, and that we have to seek the advice and the guidance of enlightened ones before we can know our own Essence of Mind. You should know that so far as Buddha-nature is concerned, there is no difference between an enlightened man and an ignorant one. What makes the difference is that one realizes it, while the other is ignorant of it..."

The Platform Sutra of the 6th Patriarch, Hui Neng
Interestingly, the Buddhists say the same thing with regard to enlightenment. Seeking spiritual revelation allows it to happen, those who don't seek don't find anything. It's not a given that seekers will all find the same thing.

I don't know if I would agree there is an "energy center" near our belly buttons, but yes, we do waste alot of effort trying to maintain the illusion of ego. The tension could be accumulated in certain muscles. I know that enlightenment is accompanied by a marked relaxation of the body, so much so that action feels effortless.

From what I can see, that's the essence of the Zen "method", place the student in a mental bind until they realize thought cannot help them.

I have no idea what enlightenment really is, only what it feels like.

I think the feeling of bliss is more like a consequence of freedom from common worries and troubles. It isn't just the feeling itself, because that fades.

Life is alot of things, but words are only a part of it, they are empty symbols. They are frames we hold up to the infinite universe and move around like they mean something of themselves.

As the bliss fades, there is nothing left. There's nothing you can hold on to, and the survival advantage, if any, is doubtful. Enlightenment is not a strategy for the survival of the species or even the soul, as Christianity claims to be. It has no practical value.


Well then, what's enlightenment?
A shift in our patterns of consciousness coupled with a dis-identification with the illusory personna that culture influences us to create. It's a return to a more natural, less linear and analytical way of thinking. It's a release of conscious control over the actions of the mind. Instead of forcing yourself to think about certain things, it's more like stepping back and observing the production of your mind. Your mind itself, after all, cannot be observed with itself.

Elightenment is not the absense of problems in dealing with the world, nor is it the absense of physical pain. It is the absense of mental disfunction and anxiety in your dealings with the world. It's as if our brains can work in one of several states. Through some mental trigger, there is suddenly a shift to another stable state, like the planet's shift from an ice age to a modern climate. I suggest this other stable state is more basic to our nature, and that the modern psyche is the newer one, less stable, less evolved, less able to deal with hardship and more volnerable to breakdown. That is why modern people seem to be so unhappy despite our technological advances.

Humanity existed for millions of years before civilization. I'm not suggesting that enlightenment is a return to so primitive a pattern as our fish ancestors, but something more recent (this is just speculation).

Our modern culture is not the result of evolution, except in the sense that evolution made it possible. If you consider our brains like the hardware, and culture like the software, then our brains evolved to run AfricaMan 1.0, but we are forcing it to run NewYorkCityMan 2.3. NewYorkCityMan 2.3 is better for the cultural environment we created, but it's running on old hardware, so there are bugs.

In the mythology of Buddhism they always talk about the "old masters", about a time when there was no talk about enlightenment because it was how everyone was, it was the natural state of being.

I think there's alot of unnecessary mysticism about enlightenment. Buddhism is a basic course in introspection. Some breakthrough is bound to happen if you are sincere in creating the basic conditions, most of it is biological.

There's nothing you can do. "You" are the problem all along. Enlightenment is so close that in looking for it, we overlook it.


None of that makes much sense to anyone who does not see life as a form of suffering. There are ups and downs but most of us manage to get by without resort to religious practices of any kind.

To be honest, I still have no idea what it would like to be enlightened other than in the everyday use of that word. I have yet to see evidence to support Karma and Rebirth. It seems to be a matter of faith, something which I lack.

LIfe has lots of good things to offer such as music, literature, the visual arts and so on not to mention the many activities one can enjoy. When I go trout fishing, just tell me I'm suffering !

I have no interest in convincing you of anything, if you aren't suffering, go fishing. I don't mean that in a spiteful way, it's just not a dogmatic belief. If you have no problem, you don't need a solution! I am sincerely happy for you.

I have no interest in convincing you of anything, if you aren't suffering, go fishing. I don't mean that in a spiteful way, it's just not a dogmatic belief. If you have no problem, you don't need a solution! I am sincerely happy for you.

Thanks

Faith in the Buddhist sense is like doing an experiment, you can try it out for as long as your patience lasts, but you don't have to believe anything. The Dali Lama said he would re-evaluate any Buddhist premise that conflicted with science.

Faith in the Buddhist sense is like doing an experiment, you can try it out for as long as your patience lasts, but you don't have to believe anything. The Dali Lama said he would re-evaluate any Buddhist premise that conflicted with science.

I see nothing wrong with that. Personally, I would consider it a waste of time as I have no urge to go there.

Our modern culture is not the result of evolution, except in the sense that evolution made it possible. If you consider our brains like the hardware, and culture like the software, then our brains evolved to run AfricaMan 1.0, but we are forcing it to run NewYorkCityMan 2.3. NewYorkCityMan 2.3 is better for the cultural environment we created, but it's running on old hardware, so there are bugs.


There are observable differences between the brains of sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans due to evolutionary pressures. The hardware is different and so is the software. You can easily run AfricaMan 1.0 on a European model, but the European model will seek updates and automatically create them if they are not available.

Your analogy only really holds for sub-Saharan African models running NewYorkCityMan 2.3. The African must 'overclock' its processor, creating the illusion of compatibility, but with gaping holes (bugs). The bugs mean this model never manages to fully integrate itself with the modern world, but ends up on the underside of society, for which it cannot be blamed.

Fortunately, we are way ahead of the evolutionary curve. Nature has seen fit to bestow vast amounts of intelligence on some of our people, resulting in a pure science and mathematics whose achievements greatly outstretch our current tool building capacity and natural resources. It's all but inevitable that we will catch up though, since evolution is firmly on our side.

Perhaps that is true for statistical averages, but in fact populations are made up of a bell curve of traits. Most Europeans are as clueless as anyone else about the technical advantages that they enjoy. How many people did it take to discover that science? A tiny minority. The modern model has yet to withstand the test of time. The last will be first and the first last.

My immediate thought is that you are harkening back to some kind of mythical golden age that never really existed.

Certainly Great Britain where I'm from was considerably more selfish and brutal back in the days when we were ruled by authoritarian theocratic monarchies.

My question to you is - what is your proposed alternative?not just Great Britain. All societies. The endless wars. The endless manipulation. The extremely low life expectancy. The feminine, the ignorance, the brutality.

On a side note:

How you ever watched StarTrek? I'm not sure what sort of society the writers have envisioned but I seem to remember Jean-Luc Picard saying something along the lines of "We have no more wars and people are free to develop they skills and knowledge and work for the common good .... anyway, their idea of an ideal future seems to fit with the notion of a "cult of personal liberation"

I see nothing wrong with that. Personally, I would consider it a waste of time as I have no urge to go there.Actually, I'd like to take the time (I know I have said this for years) BUT perhaps sometime - - to reach the zen meditative state. Even not as a personal enlightenment but as a physical experience. We'll see.

I have talked about it frequently in the past. Here is a compilation:

The literal truth of Buddhas scriptures are less important than the relatively simple methods he outlined for achieving enlightenment on one's own.

Hi Spidergoat, I suppose we are of different schools so we have differing opinions concerning Dharma, but if I may offer another perspective I'd like to. Firstly you say the literal truth of Dharma is less important than the simple methods Buddha outlined for attaining Enlightenment on one's own. I must disagree because it is only through a literal understanding of Dharma one can apply it and use it to attain Enlightenment. I'm talking specifically about The Heart Sutra. So your statement is contradictory in itself. Saying the literal interpretation and its application are different is incorrect. Buddha used his words carefully, so his "literal truth of Buddha's scriptures" and his "simple methods for achieving Enlightenment" are synonymous. I'm pointing this out because I didn't want anyone reading this to misunderstand what Dharma is.


Except I don't consider the lack of enlightenment to be an error of ways. I don't think Buddhism makes this sort of absolute judgement. If you are satisfied with your life as it is, then there is no problem.

Contaminated rebirth, i.e. this body and this mind we have that gives rise to the sufferings of; its aging, sickness and death, having to suffer what we do not want, having to part from what we have and like and not having our wishes fullfilled. There is a problem in that everyone experiences this suffering (and from a Buddhist perspective; again and again and again and so on). Enlightenment is concerned with freeing all living being from this, it's not a personal goal because the state of Buddhahood's sole reason is to free living beings from these seven sufferings. Enlightenment is the attainment of the four bodies of a Buddha. The Truth body (the nature and widom body, also called The Dharamkaya, or definitive Buddha) this is Buddha's actual body. The subsequent bodies of a Buddha (Enjoyment and Emination or interpretive Buddha) arise from the Dharmakaya for the benefit of living beings.




“ But those societies which already have strong spiritual practices do not need to seek out Buddhism or other such.”
This is contrary to Buddha's proposition that life is inherently suffering. There are no enlightened societies, only individuals. Buddhism is practiced as a religion in many places, but practice alone doesn't ensure freedom from suffering, only enlightenment can, which happens for some reason to be rare. Being a Buddhist doesn't ensure freedom from suffering or mental illness. Buddhism in essence is a religion of no-religion, it offers no salvation through belief alone. The component of Buddhist tradition that seems to align with previous theistic ones is more a product of cultural cross-over, much like the philosophy of Jesus.

Buddhism is not concerned with just Buddhists, it's concerned with the suffering of all living beings. Enlightenment is rare because in order to attain the four bodies of a Buddha one needs to practice the methods for reaching it. Realising you are suffering, and being sick of wallowing in this quagmire of unhappiness is fundamental to begining the process. A herion addict is quite happy to chase his next fix and feel the bliss of his hit. That's why it's so rare. Because we're all licking honey from a razor's edge. It's sweet now but we'll feel that deep cut soon. And the really sad thing is we wont equate it with our own actions, we'll blame other things, get angry and retaliate and cause ourselves even more furture suffering.



It's one way to conceive of the essential connectivity of all things. Being connected, a product of seamless cause and effect, any action in the present becomes the future. Even the memory of a person lives into the future, and continues to be the cause of other events. Who we are is a relative thing; as someone said, semantic. We are our deeds, our words, our interaction with the environment, a product of the people we encountered. Self is a cultural artifact. A cultural artifact can be reborn, as can iterative processes like DNA replication.

This shows a lack of understanding of the mind. There are three types of mind. Gross, subtle and very subtle. The general description of mind is it the nature of clarity, it functions to apprehend and cognise objects. We are connected in the sense we all suffer and we all want to be free from it and want happiness, but we are not a part of a universal mind. We all have different mental continuums.


To become a real individual is both enlightenment and a cessation of personal karmic processes that lead to suffering.

Can I ask you what you mean by "real individual"? Because I think you may be confused about what Enlightenment is, so if we can clarify this "real individual" term I may be able to understand your definition.


There is alot of mythology and nonsense attributed to enlightenment. Buddhism advises us to seek enlightenment for ourselves. It's not like suddenly knowing a series of names that describe previous incarnations is a typical attribute of enlightenment. In that sense, Buddhists are more scientific. We don't know exactly what enlightenment is or how everyone experiences it, most of these experiences cannot be described except in a poetic sense, due to limitations of language. When new information presents itself, such as a person able to describe enlightenment in a new way, it is accepted as a new data point.

There is a lot of misunderstandings about Enlightenment. Buddha did not advise us to seek Enlightenment for ourselves, he taught methods for personal liberation (Hinayana teachings, (Sanskrit for "lesser vehicle") for those who could not understand the Mahayana, and then Buddha's ultimate intention the Vajrayana. Buddha taught (and I think this is where you might have misunderstood) you should seek Enlightenment in your own mind, you should not seek it anywhere else.


Often the reports (sutras) of later monks are more important or relevant than Buddha's.

This makes no sense at all. The Sutras are Buddha's words. Neither are they less relevant to themselves nor less important. The teachings of Buddha were passed down in oral lineage until Nagarjuna (of the Wisdom lineage) and Asanga (of the Method path) wrote these down and then Atisha combined these instructions in Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment Sutras are not reports they are the Discourse teachings of the three baskets, or Tripitaka: Sutra, Vinaya (Discipline teachings) and Abhidharma (Phenomenology teachings).


I don't know if I would agree there is an "energy center" near our belly buttons, but yes, we do waste alot of effort trying to maintain the illusion of ego. The tension could be accumulated in certain muscles. I know that enlightenment is accompanied by a marked relaxation of the body, so much so that action feels effortless.

Again, I would have to say Enlightenment is not marked by a relaxation of the body since Enlightenment is the cessation of our contaminated aggregates. A relaxed body is just that, a relaxed body. Nothing to do with Enlightenment.


I have no idea what enlightenment really is, only what it feels like.

I have suitably described what Enlightenment is. What you've described feeling is temporary happiness. For which I rejoice, but it isn't enough.


I think the feeling of bliss is more like a consequence of freedom from common worries and troubles. It isn't just the feeling itself, because that fades.

The mind of a Liberation (let alone Buddhahood) is the permanent cessation of common worries and troubles. This never fades. As for Buddhahood, that is the permanent cessation of obstructions to omniscience. If it fades it is merely a temporary reduction of suffering, for that particular moment. If we are still within the cycle of contaminated rebirth we will suffer again.


Life is alot of things, but words are only a part of it, they are empty symbols. They are frames we hold up to the infinite universe and move around like they mean something of themselves.

Buddha taught objects are collections of parts upon which we impute mere labels. I'm unclear about your description of holding up frames to the infinite universe and move around like they mean something of themselves part. Could you clarify this please?



As the bliss fades, there is nothing left. There's nothing you can hold on to, and the survival advantage, if any, is doubtful. Enlightenment is not a strategy for the survival of the species or even the soul, as Christianity claims to be. It has no practical value.

The mind of Enlightenment does not fade, as stated previously. Your statement of there being nothing to hold onto and the survival advantage being doubtful is completely bizarre. It makes no sense to say Enlightenment and survival are contradictory. Enlightenment is very pragmatic. Enlightenment is the result of realising the nature of all things with a mind of compassion for all living beings. If you want a drink (freeing all living beings from suffering) you seek a cup (Buddhahood). You real wish is to drink but firstly you need to find a cup.



Well then, what's enlightenment?
A shift in our patterns of consciousness coupled with a dis-identification with the illusory personna that culture influences us to create. It's a return to a more natural, less linear and analytical way of thinking. It's a release of conscious control over the actions of the mind. Instead of forcing yourself to think about certain things, it's more like stepping back and observing the production of your mind. Your mind itself, after all, cannot be observed with itself.

"A shift in patterns of consciousness" is a bit vague. It's like asking where someone lives and them replying "In a place". And the "dis-identification with the illusory persona that culture influences us to create" Would confuse most people and offer a very unclear explanation. This "dis-identification with the illusory persona" seems to be the liberation of the self-graping mind, but it is definitely not created by cultural influences. The self-grasping mind is an innate mind which has been there since beginningless time.


Elightenment is not the absense of problems in dealing with the world, nor is it the absense of physical pain. It is the absense of mental disfunction and anxiety in your dealings with the world. It's as if our brains can work in one of several states.

Our brain has nothing to do with it. It is the mind. the brain is a physical thing. Mind is formless.


Through some mental trigger, there is suddenly a shift to another stable state, like the planet's shift from an ice age to a modern climate. I suggest this other stable state is more basic to our nature, and that the modern psyche is the newer one, less stable, less evolved, less able to deal with hardship and more volnerable to breakdown. That is why modern people seem to be so unhappy despite our technological advances.

The true nature of our mind is clarity. Our delusions are like clouds that obscure the clarity of the mind. These delusions are what makes us suffer, both now and in the future. It's sometimes refered to as Buddhanature, it doesn't mean we all are already, just refers to our potential. In much the same way a raw diamond might not exhibit particular brilliance or fire but has the potential to once worked on and cut right.


Humanity existed for millions of years before civilization. I'm not suggesting that enlightenment is a return to so primitive a pattern as our fish ancestors, but something more recent (this is just speculation).

Enlightenment is not a return to anything. We have never been Enlightened or we would still, and always, be so.


Our modern culture is not the result of evolution, except in the sense that evolution made it possible. If you consider our brains like the hardware, and culture like the software, then our brains evolved to run AfricaMan 1.0, but we are forcing it to run NewYorkCityMan 2.3. NewYorkCityMan 2.3 is better for the cultural environment we created, but it's running on old hardware, so there are bugs.

Are you talking about Karma? Evolution is basically one species giving way to another, culture has nothing to do with evolution since it takes thousands to millions of years, and cultures change rapidly. And the "Africa man 1.0" explanation again makes no sense at all to me. Incidentally, African man and New York man are the same species so I don't fully understand this analogy. Are you trying to say African H.sapiens and Anglo H.sapiens have different brains?


In the mythology of Buddhism they always talk about the "old masters", about a time when there was no talk about enlightenment because it was how everyone was, it was the natural state of being.

Please direct me to the source of your information so I can invalidate this claim fully and correctly. I have my suspicions where this came from and if we agree on sources I can clear this up immediately.


I think there's alot of unnecessary mysticism about enlightenment. Buddhism is a basic course in introspection.

I disagree. Buddhism is not merely introspection. Perhaps if one was seeking liberation for oneself alone one could say a particular tenet would teach this but Buddha's entire doctrine was ultimately about other living beings.


Some breakthrough is bound to happen if you are sincere in creating the basic conditions, most of it is biological.

I disagree. The continuation of the mind is not biological.


There's nothing you can do. "You" are the problem all along. Enlightenment is so close that in looking for it, we overlook it.

This is something I have heard many times. I think it makes Enlightenment sound as though if we just stop looking for it it will happen naturally. Not so. If that were the case everyone but you, I and others seeking it would be the only ones actually not Enlightened, and there are no paradoxs in Buddhahood.

I have not set out to debunk your beliefs for the sake of being right. Please understand I have tried to do this with the correct motivation. If you read this and disagree, well that's fine, but if any of this post has cleared anything up that is my biggest wish, because it seems you have a good heart.

<3 EmmZ
xXx

Now why could they not put all this in Athiest Spirituality.

/exasperated.

There are observable differences between the brains of sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans due to evolutionary pressures. The hardware is different and so is the software. You can easily run AfricaMan 1.0 on a European model, but the European model will seek updates and automatically create them if they are not available.

Your analogy only really holds for sub-Saharan African models running NewYorkCityMan 2.3. The African must 'overclock' its processor, creating the illusion of compatibility, but with gaping holes (bugs). The bugs mean this model never manages to fully integrate itself with the modern world, but ends up on the underside of society, for which it cannot be blamed.

Fortunately, we are way ahead of the evolutionary curve. Nature has seen fit to bestow vast amounts of intelligence on some of our people, resulting in a pure science and mathematics whose achievements greatly outstretch our current tool building capacity and natural resources. It's all but inevitable that we will catch up though, since evolution is firmly on our side.

What evidence supports your assertion ?

Perhaps that is true for statistical averages, but in fact populations are made up of a bell curve of traits. Most Europeans are as clueless as anyone else about the technical advantages that they enjoy. How many people did it take to discover that science? A tiny minority.

I think of it like a mountain range. You can't have the high peaks without the trunk of the lower mountain, which contain the mass of people.

Most Europeans I know are very clued up on technology. Europe is still a formidable scientific power.


The modern model has yet to withstand the test of time. The last will be first and the first last.

I'm not sure in what context your applying the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Workers_in_the_Vineyard). In the parable the last workers get the same pay as the first, even though they started late in the day.

I would interpret this as Europeans being the last people to come into civilization, but getting the most. The moral of the parable being don't begrudge Gods (natures) generosity. Just accept it.

What evidence supports your assertion ?

Which assertion?

Deepthought: Industrialization is treating humans as units of production. Our military and economic power is built on it. What's more, you love it.

The internal logic of the machine is eventually to destroy and replace nature.

In Western society we live in a post-industrial age, you'll have to blame technology next for the way humans are treated. As for me 'loving it' I live in Cambodia, a third world country. Its beginning to develop but so far even in the city there are chickens crossing the street. Even still if people are so manipulated who's responsiblity is it? Its all good an well my young revolutionary to blame the military-industrial complex or the owners of Walmart, then no one has to take responsibility do they?

Note that in traditional Hindu and Buddhist societies, being a monastic is part of the social order.

Its called banvas (living in the wild and also called exile) or sanyas (renunciation). Its a part of the Indian experience but one is assumed to have cast off all material desires, aspirations as well as all socially defined relationships (family, society, community, responsibility, duty, etc)

Its called banvas (living in the wild and also called exile) or sanyas (renunciation). Its a part of the Indian experience but one is assumed to have cast off all material desires, aspirations as well as all socially defined relationships (family, society, community, responsibility, duty, etc)

My point is that becoming a monastic - or a yogi - is common in those cultures, and from their perspective, it is not a rejection of the social order.
You and some others contended it was.

I think of it like a mountain range. You can't have the high peaks without the trunk of the lower mountain, which contain the mass of people.

Most Europeans I know are very clued up on technology. Europe is still a formidable scientific power.



I'm not sure in what context your applying the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Workers_in_the_Vineyard). In the parable the last workers get the same pay as the first, even though they started late in the day.

I would interpret this as Europeans being the last people to come into civilization, but getting the most. The moral of the parable being don't begrudge Gods (natures) generosity. Just accept it.

Nature's generosity towards Europeans was independent of any genetic traits they embodied. They enjoyed a favorable climate, suitable animals for domestication, as abundant natural resources including coal and iron ore. No one has ever proved that their success compared to other civilizations was due to genetic differences. But that's a subject for another thread.

Now why could they not put all this in Athiest Spirituality. You loaded the question in the OP.

Besides, the discussion is not necessarily atheistic/theistic split - Deep Thought, for example, seems to be theist. And, interestingly enough, community oriented - speaking for the liberation or enlightenment of a group or society, not just selfishly for himself. So the trends are not universal or hopeless - many people hold the traditional virtues of community and family, etc. But replies to Deep Throat that focus on theism miss the point, no?

] not just Great Britain. All societies. The endless wars. The endless manipulation. The extremely low life expectancy. The feminine, the ignorance, the brutality. Not all of them.

The life expectancy question - - most of the gains in expected lifespan that we enjoy over, say, the Northern Cheyenne of the 1700s in North America, have come from keeping children alive with congenital health issues and vulnerability to disease, keeping mothers alive through difficult childbirth, and so forth. These are interpretable as gains in the satisfaction of personal and selfish desires - we want to live ourselves, to have our wives, our children, survive, regardless of the expense to the community or the greater spiritual realities. We have invented technological means of satisfying those wants. In our children as in the children of the aristocracies of old, the infirm, the diabetic, the mentally feeble or pathological, the genetic misfires and behavioral feedback effects, live on - even reproduce. We are rich and powerful, and we make it so.

Hi Spidergoat, I suppose we are of different schools so we have differing opinions concerning Dharma, but if I may offer another perspective I'd like to. Firstly you say the literal truth of Dharma is less important than the simple methods Buddha outlined for attaining Enlightenment on one's own. I must disagree because it is only through a literal understanding of Dharma one can apply it and use it to attain Enlightenment. I'm talking specifically about The Heart Sutra. So your statement is contradictory in itself. Saying the literal interpretation and its application are different is incorrect. Buddha used his words carefully, so his "literal truth of Buddha's scriptures" and his "simple methods for achieving Enlightenment" are synonymous. I'm pointing this out because I didn't want anyone reading this to misunderstand what Dharma is.

I don't have a school, and I'm not a Buddhist. This list of my posts that I found when I did a search for the keyword "enlightenment" were responses to various questions. In this case, I meant the literality of Buddhist cosmology was not as important as the methods outlined for liberation.


Contaminated rebirth, i.e. this body and this mind we have that gives rise to the sufferings of; its aging, sickness and death, having to suffer what we do not want, having to part from what we have and like and not having our wishes fullfilled. There is a problem in that everyone experiences this suffering (and from a Buddhist perspective; again and again and again and so on). Enlightenment is concerned with freeing all living being from this, it's not a personal goal because the state of Buddhahood's sole reason is to free living beings from these seven sufferings. Enlightenment is the attainment of the four bodies of a Buddha. The Truth body (the nature and widom body, also called The Dharamkaya, or definitive Buddha) this is Buddha's actual body. The subsequent bodies of a Buddha (Enjoyment and Emination or interpretive Buddha) arise from the Dharmakaya for the benefit of living beings.

Buddha's concern was to free all living beings. I am not so idealistic. I do not take his definitions literally. In other words, they aren't true. They are speculations like the Greek philosophers. Perhaps constructive in some ways, but peculiar to Buddhism, which I don't follow.


Buddhism is not concerned with just Buddhists, it's concerned with the suffering of all living beings. Enlightenment is rare because in order to attain the four bodies of a Buddha one needs to practice the methods for reaching it. Realising you are suffering, and being sick of wallowing in this quagmire of unhappiness is fundamental to begining the process. A herion addict is quite happy to chase his next fix and feel the bliss of his hit. That's why it's so rare. Because we're all licking honey from a razor's edge. It's sweet now but we'll feel that deep cut soon. And the really sad thing is we wont equate it with our own actions, we'll blame other things, get angry and retaliate and cause ourselves even more furture suffering.


Yes, unhappiness is vital, otherwise, there would be no compulsion to change. All suffering is self imposed, most of it is avoidable.


This shows a lack of understanding of the mind. There are three types of mind. Gross, subtle and very subtle. The general description of mind is it the nature of clarity, it functions to apprehend and cognise objects. We are connected in the sense we all suffer and we all want to be free from it and want happiness, but we are not a part of a universal mind. We all have different mental continuums.

I don't mean there is a universal mind, only that it is a mental construct created by thought, and most thoughts are inherited or learned from culture. In this sense, the mind is what is reincarnated, merely by the transfer of information. When you don't think, there is no mind.



Can I ask you what you mean by "real individual"? Because I think you may be confused about what Enlightenment is, so if we can clarify this "real individual" term I may be able to understand your definition.

I mean a break with culture, to experience everything like the first time, like an infant, with no preconceptions. In my view, enlightenment is a biological phenomenon.

There is a lot of misunderstandings about Enlightenment. Buddha did not advise us to seek Enlightenment for ourselves, he taught methods for personal liberation (Hinayana teachings, (Sanskrit for "lesser vehicle") for those who could not understand the Mahayana, and then Buddha's ultimate intention the Vajrayana. Buddha taught (and I think this is where you might have misunderstood) you should seek Enlightenment in your own mind, you should not seek it anywhere else.


Yes, he taught methods, which may or may not be necessary for any particular individual. Zen teaches that instant realization happens, apart from the implementation of any method. Ultimately, all methods are useless.

This makes no sense at all. The Sutras are Buddha's words. Neither are they less relevant to themselves nor less important. The teachings of Buddha were passed down in oral lineage until Nagarjuna (of the Wisdom lineage) and Asanga (of the Method path) wrote these down and then Atisha combined these instructions in Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment Sutras are not reports they are the Discourse teachings of the three baskets, or Tripitaka: Sutra, Vinaya (Discipline teachings) and Abhidharma (Phenomenology teachings).

Many sutras attributed to the Buddha were added later, just like the Bible. After the fact, people like to codify any important event to make it consistent and teachable. It's the degeneration of a pure phenomenon into symbolic language, which is the same thing that led to orthodoxy, churches, wars over theology (not necessarily in Buddhism)...

Again, I would have to say Enlightenment is not marked by a relaxation of the body since Enlightenment is the cessation of our contaminated aggregates. A relaxed body is just that, a relaxed body. Nothing to do with Enlightenment.

It is a symptom of it. I don't know exactly why this is. There are other symptoms too, a feeling of being a couple inches off the ground. Realizing all your past efforts have been in vain, laughter, feeling a disconnect with the body. Of course, these were not the goal, just a side effect. It kind of feels like death, all you thought you were is gone. This is identical to saying "cessation of contaminated aggregates", but less ponderous.

I have suitably described what Enlightenment is. What you've described feeling is temporary happiness. For which I rejoice, but it isn't enough.

You have regurgitated the definitions of past teachers. I can explain it in the fresh language of our time, because it happened to me. 15 years ago now. Believe me, at one point, I had read every book I could get my hands on about it. They no longer interest me, because they say the same thing in different ways. My favorite writer on the subject is U.G. Krishnamurti, who most orthodox Buddhists consider a crank. What was confusing to me now seems clear. I don't say this to boast of any accomplishment or to gain anything as stupid as a follower. Take it or leave it.

The mind of a Liberation (let alone Buddhahood) is the permanent cessation of common worries and troubles. This never fades. As for Buddhahood, that is the permanent cessation of obstructions to omniscience. If it fades it is merely a temporary reduction of suffering, for that particular moment. If we are still within the cycle of contaminated rebirth we will suffer again.



Buddha taught objects are collections of parts upon which we impute mere labels. I'm unclear about your description of holding up frames to the infinite universe and move around like they mean something of themselves part. Could you clarify this please?


Parts, subatomic particles, same thing. The words we use to talk about apparent things can never completely take the place of those things. They are shortcuts so that our finite brains can process them. So, things like sutras will always be abstractions, summaries, the cliff notes version.

The mind of Enlightenment does not fade, as stated previously. Your statement of there being nothing to hold onto and the survival advantage being doubtful is completely bizarre. It makes no sense to say Enlightenment and survival are contradictory. Enlightenment is very pragmatic. Enlightenment is the result of realising the nature of all things with a mind of compassion for all living beings. If you want a drink (freeing all living beings from suffering) you seek a cup (Buddhahood). You real wish is to drink but firstly you need to find a cup.

Enlightenment is completely useless, especially in society. No one cares about such things, money is much more important, as it should be. The best things in life are useless.

"A shift in patterns of consciousness" is a bit vague. It's like asking where someone lives and them replying "In a place". And the "dis-identification with the illusory persona that culture influences us to create" Would confuse most people and offer a very unclear explanation. This "dis-identification with the illusory persona" seems to be the liberation of the self-graping mind, but it is definitely not created by cultural influences. The self-grasping mind is an innate mind which has been there since beginningless time.


It will always be vague until it happens to you. Descriptions, however good, will not take you there. Intellectual grasping is something completely different. When you give up trying to define it, or understand it intelectually, then there is a chance. My vauge description is the best I can do. I could tell you exactly what happened, I talked about it on another site once.


Our brain has nothing to do with it. It is the mind. the brain is a physical thing. Mind is formless.

Enlightenment is a physical process, our brains are physical. The mind is the information that flows through it, which temporarily reside there as a physical state. When we let go of the mind, our brains can work "as it should". I feel in a more natural way.

The true nature of our mind is clarity. Our delusions are like clouds that obscure the clarity of the mind. These delusions are what makes us suffer, both now and in the future. It's sometimes refered to as Buddhanature, it doesn't mean we all are already, just refers to our potential. In much the same way a raw diamond might not exhibit particular brilliance or fire but has the potential to once worked on and cut right.


I think it's always there in the backround, but cultural requirements stress other tasks, so we adapt away from it.

Enlightenment is not a return to anything. We have never been Enlightened or we would still, and always, be so.

We are, we just don't recognize it. Nothing additional needs to be understood to gained, only rediscovered. Some of this talk isn't literally true or false, just a means to point to something you can't really point to with words.

Are you talking about Karma? Evolution is basically one species giving way to another, culture has nothing to do with evolution since it takes thousands to millions of years, and cultures change rapidly. And the "Africa man 1.0" explanation again makes no sense at all to me. Incidentally, African man and New York man are the same species so I don't fully understand this analogy. Are you trying to say African H.sapiens and Anglo H.sapiens have different brains?

Again, this was a response to another thread, which I lazily and hastily compiled. Basically, culture creates the software, which runs on the hardware of our brain. Modern culture is useful in some ways, but it doesn't run perfectly on our ancient ape brains, which is why the search for and rediscovery of elightenment is possible.

Please direct me to the source of your information so I can invalidate this claim fully and correctly. I have my suspicions where this came from and if we agree on sources I can clear this up immediately.

I forget where I read it. Since there are no direct sources from that time, your invalidation would be irrelevent. There are traditions that predate Buddhism. He wasn't necessarily the first, and his methods aren't the only Way.

I disagree. Buddhism is not merely introspection. Perhaps if one was seeking liberation for oneself alone one could say a particular tenet would teach this but Buddha's entire doctrine was ultimately about other living beings.



I disagree. The continuation of the mind is not biological.

I do not believe, and science does not support, the idea of mind/brain body/spirit dualism.

This is something I have heard many times. I think it makes Enlightenment sound as though if we just stop looking for it it will happen naturally. Not so. If that were the case everyone but you, I and others seeking it would be the only ones actually not Enlightened, and there are no paradoxs in Buddhahood.

I have not set out to debunk your beliefs for the sake of being right. Please understand I have tried to do this with the correct motivation. If you read this and disagree, well that's fine, but if any of this post has cleared anything up that is my biggest wish, because it seems you have a good heart.

<3 EmmZ
xXx

...

I understand, I hope you can understand my motivations are similar. Just want to share the atheist gospel (that was for SAM). At least she should realize that spirituality, for lack of a better term, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the supernatural.