Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Reply to thread

Message

A little bit late to this soirée, but I thought I would chime in with a few observations. Most of these things have been mentioned before, but that is no surprise.

1) There are a good many schools of Buddhism. Fact is, that most of them agree on very little, so it makes as much sense to talk about the Buddhists' impression of something as it does to speak of Christians' impressions. Just like a born-again, speaking-in-tongues evangelical will not find much agreement from a Catholic, or a Jehovah's Witness won't be on the same page as a Coptic or Russian Orthodox... Theraveda, Tibetan, Zen, and Shaolin (to name but a few) are extremely different animals, both in practice and in theory.

2) What many of you guys are talking about as "enlightenment" are actually satoris, or maybe one of the dhyānas (jhanas) as far as I can tell. The Arūpajhānas specifically (sometimes called the 5th - 8th dhyānas) can be so transcendental, that one might confuse them with samadhi. But even this, supposedly final dhyāna is considered lesser than mahasamadhi or nirvana. And even these two lofty states are different, thus begging the question... what is enlightenment really?

Like anything, it depends on who you talk to.

Satori and kensho "seeing into one's true nature" (Ken means "seeing," sho means "nature or essence" in Japanese) are commonly translated as enlightenment, a word that is also used to translate bodhi, prajna and buddhahood. Some will say that kensho is a briefer glimpse of Buddha-nature, satori being a deeper, more lasting (but still temporary) immersion. But most texts acknowledge that satori is considered a "first step" or embarkation toward nirvana.

In the end, the kind of ultimate (never come back down to mere mortal) enlightenment that people are talking about is Buddhahood. It is possible to be very "enlightened" and not be a Buddha. Bodhisattvas, for instance, renounce the highest and most perfect enlightenment out of compassion, and choose to wait until all sentient beings can join them... they are said to "stick around" and spread the light to speed the coming of this day. The Tibetans tend to describe these people as having full Bodhicitta (enlightened minds) and possibly being superior to those who seek Buddhahood without compassion. Avalokiteshvara (for instance) is considered a Bodhisattva, but is not only not less than a Buddha, but in many estiamtions... greater.

As you can see, this is a tangled mess. Buddhism can not easily be removed from its Hindu and Jain roots. It is also inextricably linked to very specific local ideas in the various countries where it is practiced (various forms of shamanism, animism and polytheism... Confucianism, Shinto, Taoism etc.).

Probably the only clear demarcation of enlightenment is the old Theraveda "Four Stages Of Enlightenment" concept, and even this leaves a lot of room for debate.

My greatest experiences of Buddhism were always through the various martial arts I studied. Shotokan Karate as a very young boy... and Kung Fu for most of my life. In these traditions... as well as the Indian Yogic ones I am familiar with as well, miracles (siddhis) go hand in hand with perfection. Well before you get close to "enlightenment" people begin to display these powers and skills. You can meet many people at many stages on their way towards mastery who can do things that we consider to be miraculous. Even in the Taoist schools where I directed much of my effort, superhuman abilities are not only expected to result from your practice... but lack of them indicates that you are not practicing correctly.

It is thus not uncommon to find gurus and grandmasters, sifus and swamis who appear to be telepathic or have other such skills and yet humbly consider themselves unenlightened. I suppose it is possible to reach the ultimate without ever having displayed any such skills, but I doubt it. Even in Christianity, one must be able to heal the sick, prophecize, cast out demons and devils, trod on serpents etc. as signs and wonders that you really have the holy spirit. You can't find any Jewish Prophets either that couldn't pull of some rather hefty miracles.

The last thing I will say here is this:

3) Central to the idea of Buddhism is that this is all an illusion. This is the lila (play) of Maya. Of course, you will find a lot of debate about this between the various schools, but however you dice it up... attachment to illusions as the cause of all suffering was the Buddha's main message. Thus, I tend to favor ideas like the ones put forth above that liken enlightenment to waking up from a dream. Like Lucid Dreaming, it is certainly possible to hang around in a dream and still be transcendent to it. But, it is utterly impossible to evaluate or judge awakening from the vantage point of the dream. The laws of nature and basic ideas you use to envision the truth are all illusions themselves. The rules of the dream no longer apply to someone who has become lucid... and miraculous powers go with that territory as well.

Be well friends
HF

<blockquote data-quote="Hyperspace Fool" data-source="post: 3514881" data-attributes="member: 10791">A little bit late to this soirée, but I thought I would chime in with a few observations.&nbsp; Most of these things have been mentioned before, but that is no surprise.1)&nbsp; There are a good many schools of Buddhism. Fact is, that most of them agree on very little, so it makes as much sense to talk about the Buddhists&#039; impression of something as it does to speak of Christians&#039; impressions.&nbsp; Just like a born-again, speaking-in-tongues evangelical will not find much agreement from a Catholic, or a Jehovah&#039;s Witness won&#039;t be on the same page as a Coptic or Russian Orthodox... Theraveda, Tibetan, Zen, and Shaolin (to name but a few) are extremely different animals, both in practice and in theory.2)&nbsp; What many of you guys are talking about as &quot;enlightenment&quot; are actually satoris, or maybe one of the dhyānas (<a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ ptf/ dhamma/ sacca/ sacca4/ samma-samadhi/ jhana.html" target="_blank">jhanas</a>) as far as I can tell.&nbsp; The Arūpajhānas specifically (sometimes called the 5th - 8th dhyānas) can be so transcendental, that one might confuse them with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi" target="_blank">samadhi</a>.&nbsp; But even this, supposedly final dhyāna is considered lesser than mahasamadhi or nirvana.&nbsp; And even these two lofty states are different, thus begging the question... what is enlightenment really?&nbsp; Like anything, it depends on who you talk to.Satori and kensho &quot;seeing into one&#039;s true nature&quot; (Ken means &quot;seeing,&quot; sho means &quot;nature or essence&quot; in Japanese) are commonly translated as enlightenment, a word that is also used to translate bodhi, prajna and buddhahood.&nbsp; Some will say that kensho is a briefer glimpse of Buddha-nature, satori being a deeper, more lasting (but still temporary) immersion.&nbsp; But most texts acknowledge that satori is considered a &quot;first step&quot; or embarkation toward nirvana.In the end, the kind of ultimate (never come back down to mere mortal) enlightenment that people are talking about is Buddhahood.&nbsp; It is possible to be very &quot;enlightened&quot; and not be a Buddha.&nbsp; Bodhisattvas, for instance, renounce the highest and most perfect enlightenment out of compassion, and choose to wait until all sentient beings can join them... they are said to &quot;stick around&quot; and spread the light to speed the coming of this day.&nbsp; The Tibetans tend to describe these people as having full Bodhicitta (enlightened minds) and possibly being superior to those who seek Buddhahood without compassion.&nbsp; Avalokiteshvara (for instance) is considered a Bodhisattva, but is not only not less than a Buddha, but in many estiamtions... greater.As you can see, this is a tangled mess.&nbsp; Buddhism can not easily be removed from its Hindu and Jain roots.&nbsp; It is also inextricably linked to very specific local ideas in the various countries where it is practiced (various forms of shamanism, animism and polytheism... Confucianism, Shinto, Taoism etc.).Probably the only clear demarcation of enlightenment is the old Theraveda &quot;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_enlightenment" target="_blank">Four Stages Of Enlightenment</a>&quot; concept, and even this leaves a lot of room for debate.My greatest experiences of Buddhism were always through the various martial arts I studied.&nbsp; Shotokan Karate as a very young boy... and Kung Fu for most of my life.&nbsp; In these traditions... as well as the Indian Yogic ones I am familiar with as well, miracles (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhis" target="_blank">siddhis</a>) go hand in hand with perfection.&nbsp; Well before you get close to &quot;enlightenment&quot; people begin to display these powers and skills.&nbsp; You can meet many people at many stages on their way towards mastery who can do things that we consider to be miraculous.&nbsp; Even in the Taoist schools where I directed much of my effort, superhuman abilities are not only expected to result from your practice... but lack of them indicates that you are not practicing correctly.It is thus not uncommon to find gurus and grandmasters, sifus and swamis who appear to be telepathic or have other such skills and yet humbly consider themselves unenlightened.&nbsp; I suppose it is possible to reach the ultimate without ever having displayed any such skills, but I doubt it.&nbsp; Even in Christianity, one must be able to heal the sick, prophecize, cast out demons and devils, trod on serpents etc. as signs and wonders that you really have the holy spirit.&nbsp; You can&#039;t find any Jewish Prophets either that couldn&#039;t pull of some rather hefty miracles.The last thing I will say here is this:3)&nbsp; Central to the idea of Buddhism is that this is all an illusion.&nbsp; This is the lila (play) of Maya.&nbsp; Of course, you will find a lot of debate about this between the various schools, but however you dice it up... attachment to illusions as the cause of all suffering was the Buddha&#039;s main message.&nbsp; Thus, I tend to favor ideas like the ones put forth above that liken enlightenment to waking up from a dream.&nbsp; Like Lucid Dreaming, it is certainly possible to hang around in a dream and still be transcendent to it.&nbsp; But, it is utterly impossible to evaluate or judge awakening from the vantage point of the dream.&nbsp; The laws of nature and basic ideas you use to envision the truth are all illusions themselves.&nbsp; The rules of the dream no longer apply to someone who has become lucid... and miraculous powers go with that territory as well.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />Be well friendsHF</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hyperspace Fool, post: 3514881, member: 10791"] A little bit late to this soirée, but I thought I would chime in with a few observations. Most of these things have been mentioned before, but that is no surprise. [b]1)[/b] [b]There are a [i]good[/i] many schools of Buddhism[/b]. Fact is, that most of them agree on very little, so it makes as much sense to talk about the Buddhists' impression of something as it does to speak of Christians' impressions. Just like a born-again, speaking-in-tongues evangelical will not find much agreement from a Catholic, or a Jehovah's Witness won't be on the same page as a Coptic or Russian Orthodox... Theraveda, Tibetan, Zen, and Shaolin (to name but a few) are extremely different animals, both in practice [i]and[/i] in theory. [b]2)[/b] What many of you guys are talking about as "[i]enlightenment[/i]" are actually [b]satoris[/b], or maybe one of the dhyānas ([url=http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ ptf/ dhamma/ sacca/ sacca4/ samma-samadhi/ jhana.html]jhanas[/url]) as far as I can tell. The [b]Arūpajhānas[/b] specifically (sometimes called the 5th - 8th dhyānas) can be so transcendental, that one might confuse them with [i][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi]samadhi[/url][/i]. But even this, supposedly[i] final[/i] dhyāna is considered lesser than [i]mahasamadhi[/i] or [i]nirvana[/i]. And even these two lofty states are different, thus begging the question... what [i]is[/i] enlightenment really? Like anything, it depends on who you talk to. [i]Satori[/i] and [i]kensho[/i] "seeing into one's true nature" (Ken means "seeing," sho means "nature or essence" in Japanese) are commonly translated as enlightenment, a word that is also used to translate[i] bodhi[/i], [i]prajna[/i] and [i]buddhahood[/i]. Some will say that kensho is a briefer glimpse of Buddha-nature, satori being a deeper, more lasting (but still temporary) immersion. But most texts acknowledge that satori is considered a "first step" or embarkation toward [i]nirvana[/i]. In the end, the kind of ultimate (never come back down to mere mortal) enlightenment that people are talking about is [b]Buddhahood[/b]. It is possible to be very "enlightened" and not be a Buddha. Bodhisattvas, for instance, renounce the highest and most perfect enlightenment out of compassion, and choose to wait until [i]all[/i] sentient beings can join them... they are said to "stick around" and spread the light to speed the coming of this day. The Tibetans tend to describe these people as having full [b]Bodhicitta[/b] (enlightened minds) and possibly being superior to those who seek Buddhahood without compassion. Avalokiteshvara (for instance) is considered a Bodhisattva, but is not only [i]not[/i] less than a Buddha, but in many estiamtions... greater. As you can see, this is a tangled mess. Buddhism can not easily be removed from its Hindu and Jain roots. It is also inextricably linked to very specific local ideas in the various countries where it is practiced (various forms of shamanism, animism and polytheism... Confucianism, Shinto, Taoism etc.). Probably the only clear demarcation of enlightenment is the old Theraveda "[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_enlightenment]Four Stages Of Enlightenment[/url]" concept, and even this leaves a lot of room for debate. My greatest experiences of Buddhism were always through the various martial arts I studied. Shotokan Karate as a very young boy... and Kung Fu for most of my life. In these traditions... as well as the Indian Yogic ones I am familiar with as well,[b] miracles[/b] ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhis]siddhis[/url]) go hand in hand with perfection. Well before you get close to "enlightenment" people begin to display these powers and skills. You can meet many people at many stages on their way towards mastery who can do things that we consider to be miraculous. Even in the Taoist schools where I directed much of my effort, superhuman abilities are not only expected to result from your practice... but lack of them indicates that you are not practicing correctly. It is thus not uncommon to find gurus and grandmasters, sifus and swamis who appear to be telepathic or have other such skills and yet humbly consider themselves unenlightened. I suppose it is possible to reach the ultimate without ever having displayed any such skills, but I doubt it. Even in Christianity, one must be able to heal the sick, prophecize, cast out demons and devils, trod on serpents etc. as [i]signs and wonders[/i] that you really have the holy spirit. You can't find any Jewish Prophets either that couldn't pull of some rather hefty miracles. The last thing I will say here is this: [b]3)[/b] [b]Central to the idea of Buddhism is that this is all an illusion[/b]. This is the lila (play) of Maya. Of course, you will find a lot of debate about this between the various schools, but however you dice it up... attachment to illusions as the cause of all suffering was the Buddha's main message. Thus, I tend to favor ideas like the ones put forth above that liken enlightenment to waking up from a dream. Like Lucid Dreaming, it is certainly possible to hang around in a dream and still be transcendent to it. But, it is utterly impossible to evaluate or judge awakening from the vantage point of the dream. The laws of nature and basic ideas you use to envision the truth are all illusions themselves. The rules of the dream no longer apply to someone who has become lucid... and miraculous powers go with [i]that[/i] territory as well. ;) Be well friends HF [/QUOTE]