Enlightenment in 3 quick and easy steps

[Lakon]

The story goes that when the Buddha became enlightened, he got up from under the bodhi tree, and said to the first person he met on the road: "I am the rightfully self-awakened one!"
The man looked at the Buddha in disbelief and went his way.

After this, the Buddha was disappointed and wanted to keep all his enlightened knowledge to himself, thinking that nobody aprpeciates him anyway. But then, so the story goes, a deva appeared and asked him to teach the Dharma for the welfare of all living beings. Which he then did.

I visit this one again because something occurs to me, and in fairness, I have to state it.

Jesus Christ too, said something similar .. inter alia, "I am the way, the truth and the light"

And the parallels continue .. he was disbelieved, derided, and got guidance from God ..

So, if we are to deny the Buddha his right to assert his own enlightenment, then in fairness we must also do the same with other religious figures - JC being one of many, I'm sure.

Am I doing this ? NO !

But it makes me think more about my earlier statements, that all self proclaimed enlightenment is vanity and self aggrandisement.

How do I reconcile this with Christ, Buddha, et al ? Gonna have to think about this ..

 

[wynn]

...and that is your choice of attachment. "Could you be more vague?"

There is nothing wrong with attachment - as long as one is attached to the right things.

Buddhism claims the origination of psychology.

???
Where? What?

If this is so, ^ appears to be a circular statement that points back at itself. Everyone who speaks or has spoken for the Buddha has filtered his words. If one studies many differing perspectives of anything - "Buddhism" included - one can discern a basic set of statements/directives/guidelines/etc that are common to most, if not all. Each of us must choose what set of life guides to engage according to our unique situation.

I don't know what demon or ghost you're fighting, but I'm not it.

:shrug:

 

[wynn]

So, if we are to deny the Buddha his right to assert his own enlightenment, then in fairness we must also do the same with other religious figures - JC being one of many, I'm sure.

Nobody is denying people the right to publicly assert they have such and such attainment. By all means, go ahead, claim enlightenment, whoever feels like doing so!

But if we were to take seriously everyone who publicly asserts to have such and such attainment, we would become bewildered, given that all kinds of people claim all kinds of attainments as the highest.

It's for our own sanity that we be scrupulous about whose declarations of attainment we take on board.

But it makes me think more about my earlier statements, that all self proclaimed enlightenment is vanity and self aggrandisement.

The idea is that people who truly are advanced have no need to make a point of claiming it - because it would be apparent that they have such advancement. They could move mountains, they would emit light, they could read minds etc. etc. There'd be no need for big words and no actions.

How do I reconcile this with Christ, Buddha, et al ? Gonna have to think about this ..

As the story goes, the Buddha took the deva's hint and put his enlightened knowledge to good purpose.

 

[wynn]

Go figure. It's what I've been saying (or trying to), for some time.

All paths do not lead to the top. Some just end, some lead down, some lead into an abyss.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

But it makes me think more about my earlier statements, that all self proclaimed enlightenment is vanity and self aggrandisement.

It could just be mental illness.

How do I reconcile this with Christ, Buddha, et al ? Gonna have to think about this ..

Many of these people are imaginary although Mohammed was certainly real and the Buddha almost certainly as well. In any case, even if they were real it's not easy to figure out how much of what is attributed to them is accretion.

Haile Selassie lived in the Electronic Age so presumably we can actually watch him and listen to him speak in his own voice. But 1,000 years from now, will Rasta have morphed into something crazy and they'll be attributing all kinds of weird stuff to Ras Tafari Makonnen?

 

[Lakon]

It could just be mental illness.

I wouldn't attribute this to the subject people we are generally discussing here, though sure - some mentally ill people might fit.

Many of these people are imaginary although Mohammed was certainly real and the Buddha almost certainly as well. In any case, even if they were real it's not easy to figure out how much of what is attributed to them is accretion.

Agree entirely. My earlier commnents support this - "what profit, what came first ' chicken or egg", etc

Haile Selassie lived in the Electronic Age so presumably we can actually watch him and listen to him speak in his own voice. But 1,000 years from now, will Rasta have morphed into something crazy and they'll be attributing all kinds of weird stuff to Ras Tafari Makonnen?

Don't know who HS is, but agree fully with the principle of your statement.

Edit formatting

 

[Lakon]

All paths do not lead to the top. Some just end, some lead down, some lead into an abyss.

I agree entirely. There is a phrase I'm fond of ..

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Though I think it's a little strong and would insert "sometimes" between "is" and "paved"

But I think you misread the sequence of discussion I was having with Stroniphi on this, or maybe I made it poorly. At any rate, I was supporting his proposition that ..

one can discern a basic set of statements/directives/guidelines/etc that are common to most, if not all

This is quite different from your above.

 

[Lakon]

Oops ! I completely missed this one earlier ..

Nobody is denying people the right to publicly assert they have such and such attainment. By all means, go ahead, claim enlightenment, whoever feels like doing so!

That sure happens.

But if we were to take seriously everyone who publicly asserts to have such and such attainment, we would become bewildered, given that all kinds of people claim all kinds of attainments as the highest.

It's for our own sanity that we be scrupulous about whose declarations of attainment we take on board.

Yes, and I suppose folk of different religious / philosophical persuasions, have one way or another applied some method, perhaps scrupulous, perhaps fanatical, so that their demiurge is the one - to them.

I mean - what else can I say ? I am honestly NOT at the point where I can aver that Christ or the Buddha was vain and filled with self aggrandisement. If I wanted to say that, I would, though the wrath of many would descend upon me, I'm sure. But that's not what I want to say.

The idea is that people who truly are advanced have no need to make a point of claiming it - because it would be apparent that they have such advancement. They could move mountains, they would emit light, they could read minds etc. etc. There'd be no need for big words and no actions.

Yes - and they could make a lot of money Why spoil a good thing, I always say.

As the story goes, the Buddha took the deva's hint and put his enlightened knowledge to good purpose.

OK.

 

[wynn]

But if we were to take seriously everyone who publicly asserts to have such and such attainment, we would become bewildered, given that all kinds of people claim all kinds of attainments as the highest.

It's for our own sanity that we be scrupulous about whose declarations of attainment we take on board.

Yes, and I suppose folk of different religious / philosophical persuasions, have one way or another applied some method, perhaps scrupulous, perhaps fanatical, so that their demiurge is the one - to them.

No, I'm talking about a basic need to apply discernment to the claims other people make. Neither of the two extremes - blindly submitting to those people, or ignoring them altogether - are viable.

I mean - what else can I say ? I am honestly NOT at the point where I can aver that Christ or the Buddha was vain and filled with self aggrandisement. If I wanted to say that, I would, though the wrath of many would descend upon me, I'm sure. But that's not what I want to say.

To the best of my knowledge, neither the Buddha nor Jesus made a point of claiming to be enlightened or special, nor were they all-words-and-no-action types.
Sure, they have indeed claimed special attainment, but they didn't do so on every occasion they got, and both also had actions to show for their attainment. At least in the case of the Buddha, and with some contextualization, also in Jesus' case, neither of them was operating out of an exclusive sense of entitlement - the sort of "I'm enlightened, and therefore, you owe me stuff. I'm enlightened, so you have to respect me, but I don't have to respect you."

On the other hand, the people who casually and often mention that they are enlightened, tend to have a sense of special entitlement and a chip on their shoulder, a sense that they are owed things (usually, respect and money), and they don't have fancy superpower actions to show for.

So, in roundabout, it's possible enough to distinguish between the two kinds of people who propose to have high attainments.

 

[wynn]

But I think you misread the sequence of discussion I was having with Stroniphi on this, or maybe I made it poorly. At any rate, I was supporting his proposition that ..

one can discern a basic set of statements/directives/guidelines/etc that are common to most, if not all

Even if we are to apply this just to people who claim to be talking on behalf of the Buddha, it takes quite a bit of fancy to "see" that they are all basically talking about the same things.

I don't subscribe to a kind of spiritual/religious universalism that holds that all religions, spiritual paths, philosophies etc. essentially teach the same things.
I also don't think that all schools of Buddhism teach the same things.

 

[Lakon]

No, I'm talking about a basic need to apply discernment to the claims other people make. Neither of the two extremes - blindly submitting to those people, or ignoring them altogether - are viable.

OK - that's clearer now.

To the best of my knowledge, neither the Buddha nor Jesus made a point of claiming to be enlightened or special, nor were they all-words-and-no-action types.
Sure, they have indeed claimed special attainment, but they didn't do so on every occasion they got, and both also had actions to show for their attainment. At least in the case of the Buddha, and with some contextualization, also in Jesus' case, neither of them was operating out of an exclusive sense of entitlement - the sort of "I'm enlightened, and therefore, you owe me stuff. I'm enlightened, so you have to respect me, but I don't have to respect you."

I am ever so glad you said this. I'm not deliberatley trying to agree with you, but heck, I agree with you entirely.

On the other hand, the people who casually and often mention that they are enlightened, tend to have a sense of special entitlement and a chip on their shoulder, a sense that they are owed things (usually, respect and money), and they don't have fancy superpower actions to show for.
So, in roundabout, it's possible enough to distinguish between the two kinds of people who propose to have high attainments.

Yes - and then we have the more benign and lesser forms of claims to enlightenment, such as those canvassed by others earlier here. Although my initail view much earlier was that that would be idiotic, I do now see that minor things can in fact result in moments of enlightenment. I've had many myself. Still, I don't make a habit of shouting it from the rooftops.

 

[Lakon]

Even if we are to apply this just to people who claim to be talking on behalf of the Buddha, it takes quite a bit of fancy to "see" that they are all basically talking about the same things.

I don't subscribe to a kind of spiritual/religious universalism that holds that all religions, spiritual paths, philosophies etc. essentially teach the same things.
I also don't think that all schools of Buddhism teach the same things.

I know little about Buddhism, let alone different schools of it. Therefore, can't comment.

I do subscribe to a view that the higher, better parts of the worlds main religions .. well, I never said they teach exactly the same thing, but I do say that there are similarities. How can there not be ? It's a small world.

 

[rr6]

With Three Beauty, Truth and uhhh

Some say the world is filled with people with good intentions. I say thank God for that, as if the world were filled with people with bad intentions, can you imagine how much more worse off our current state of affairs would be? Its not pretty.

1) think good thoughts-- includes good intentions ---,

2) hold our tonque in judgement of others unless there presentation is open to feedback,

3) strive to change ourselves as example of how we would like others to behave.

4) do not question why only three

r6