Discussion in 'Eastern Philosophy' started by Fork, Jun 14, 2013.
If enlightenment is biological, then it is what you are.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Harassing you ? LOL .. what a dull moment THAT was.
If you come onto a public internet forum and say things others don't agree with, of course they're going to contradict you. As I did. As others did. That's what discussions forums are for.
You've made reference to some past exchange between you and I about some Russian family which I have no memory of. I've asked you for a link yet in your four or five references to it, you haven't provided this.
This is either trolling or craven on your part.
Don't bother about it now - it is likely that there was some exchange, but again, you so are full of dull moments, so that's why it does not sit prominent in my mind .. LOL .. as if I'd remember anything between you and I in the past if it resembled any of your above tripe .. LOL ..
If you can't deal with contradiction and argument and consider it harassment that's your problem. On a (as good as) public internet forum, I will continue to comment as and when I please.
You show yourself quite the hypocrite too. Instead of saying the above, you could just put me on ignore .. which is what you said in the first place.
Isn't that just semantics ? The statement could have just as well been ..
"If you think enlightenemnet has happened to you, it probably hasn't."
In any case, whatever happens to you IS what you are.
Yes, very true. As I tried to show with my allusion to Arabs (honour killings) Radical Christians (kill 'em and let God sort them out) etc.
Yes, but that presumes I have a keen interest to learn Buddhism. I do not.
I am NOT specifically discussing Buddhism here, because I know little about it, and would not intend to learn more about it in precedence to a few dozen other things that might interest me more, but that I would probably never have the time for.
I DO NOT disrespect Buddhists any more that I disrespect Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists .. which is to say, not at all. In fact, the few Buddhists I do know (including a Christian family that converted to Buddhism) I found to be quite wonderful people.
If it is your want to discuss Buddhism, please .. you have the floor.
Maz, I have a feeling you nailed it more than you or we know.
No. It's old-school decency:
"If you think you're enlightened, your probably aren't."
"If you think you're humble, your probably aren't."
"If you think you're always completely honest, your probably aren't."
There are some personal qualities, virtues, for which it is believed, in the "old-school", that if one thinks one has them or has mastered them, then one probably hasn't.
Notably, humility and spiritual advancement are such qualities.
I'm bringing up traditional Buddhism because to the best of my knowledge, traditional Buddhism is the only religion that has worked out very clear criteria for how to attain enlightenment and what its characteristics are.
Although enlightenment is often mentioned in other religons as well, I have found so far only vague descriptions in those other religions.
See here some examples from a Buddhist source:
arahant: A "worthy one" or "pure one"; a person whose mind is free of defilement (see kilesa), who has abandoned all ten of the fetters that bind the mind to the cycle of rebirth (see saṃyojana), whose heart is free of mental effluents (see āsava), and who is thus not destined for further rebirth. A title for the Buddha and the highest level of his noble disciples.
Arahant (fully-awakened being). See also Buddha; Nibbana.
Stock passage describing attainment of arahantship: AN 6.55
Stock passage describing the qualities of an ~: AN 6.55
Who can find fault in an ~?: Ud 7.6
Why an ~ continues meditating: SN 16.5
Does an ~ feel pain?: SN 1.38, SN 4.13
Does an ~ grieve?: SN 21.2
An ~'s actions bear no kammic fruit, good or evil: AN 3.33, Dhp 39, Dhp 267, Dhp 412
What is the difference between an ~ and a Buddha?: SN 22.58
What is the difference between an ~ and a "learner" (sekha)?: SN 48.53
How to recognize if you're an ~: SN 35.152
"Arahants" (Dhammapada VII)
"Brahmans" (Dhammapada XXVI)
Fate of ~ after death: MN 72, SN 22.85, SN 22.86
Nine unskillful acts an ~ is incapable of doing: AN 9.7
"Arahants, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas" (Bodhi)
"The Conventional Mind, the Mind Released," in Straight From the Heart (Boowa)
See the active links here http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html
Being a Buddhist doesn't automatically mean one is enlightened. Although some self-identified Buddhists certainly think it does ...
ALL of my books are "holy" in one way or another. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As Ann Landers said, " Even the very worst of us can serve as a bad example to others." The same can be said of books. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's either wrong or a misconception. There is nothing one can do to attain enlightenment. There might be certain impediments that would be beneficial to remove, that's the best it can do.
Like repeating the sayings of old wives.
If enlightenment happened to you, you would know it. It's unmistakable. But it's never what the unenlightened imagine it to be.
That's exactly what Christian fundies say about "salvation".
Enlightenment comes from the frontal cortex and pineal gland, it is the fusion of intelligence and psychic activity of the third eye with one additional component: agape love. That is the pinnacle of human evolution.
You can meditate if you wish.
So, do you believe that atheists will never reach the full potential of enlightenment?
Do you feel that enlightenment is only aligned with believing and following God?
Sure, the Buddha died and made you his successor!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Actually, that's what they say. Everyone who experiences the same thing is a Buddha. It's a title.
But I don't say it's dependent on anything. They surround it with the trappings of faith and religion. Maybe that's all irrelevant. Maybe I'm full of shit.
Buddhist monks have achieved enlightenment, but don't believe in God. Some of them don't believe in an afterlife either. If they believe they have found Nirvana, then good for them; but in my opinion, they look like they are starving spiritually, as do the atheists. But that's just my opinion.
There's no such things as "a Buddha." Just like there is no such thing as "a Barack Obama."
Unless you're talking about caricatures.
There is a buddha, though, many of them, and only one that is the Buddha.
I think you're wrong. You may want to read up about that, not that it matters.
Separate names with a comma.