One of the aims or objectives of Buddhism is to obtain enlightenment.
But is it safe to assume that enlightenment is always good? For example it could be possible to argue that Hitler was enlightened ?
One of the aims or objectives of Buddhism is to obtain enlightenment.
But is it safe to assume that enlightenment is always good? For example it could be possible to argue that Hitler was enlightened ?
Eh? How?
I have only a basic understanding of Buddhism, but by any standards, Ol' One-Bollock was about as far from the Noble Eightfold Path as it is possible to get.
Attaining enlightenment is about extinguishing desire and the ego. I'm not sure it's about setting yourself up as a tyrant and committing mass-murder.
Maybe I have misread something?
Cheers,
Mike
No-Kan-Do
OK; obviously there could be room for misunderstanding.Originally Posted by MikeWilliams
If the concept of enlightenment is relative, i.e. some-one that knows some-thing that you don't, then this knowledge could be used either for good or for evil.
The context here is within a martial arts setting, where the sensei or instructor knows more than the student. In ShorinjiKempo we practice Kongo Zen, a form of Zen buddhism. How do we know that our instructor or teacher is using his or her knowledge for good purposes ?
I don't think the concept of enlightenment is relative, at least in Buddhist thinking.
As to whether whether your teacher is teaching you good or evil, or hiding his motives - surely one of the purposes of meditation is to look inside yourself and deduce whether your thoughts and actions are correct. Knowing this would help you deduce whether you are being taught the right things.
As to whether you teacher has reached enlightenment (in a Buddhist sense): I think it's safe to assume, whoever he/she is, that they haven't.
But I'm no Buddhist scholar - hopefully somebody will correct me if I'm wrong.
Cheers,
Mike
No-Kan-Do
I have a vague recollection of a story I hard on here about someone who after achieving enlightenment used it to... err... ambush people and hit them with sticks... until some samurai beheaded him... as I said, it's a VERY vague memory.
Michael Kelly
Ironically neither a Niten Ichi practitioner or in fact a ninja.
Some of what I understand about enlightment is that it's really about dropping subjective and achieve the objective (not that i'm sure it's possible at all at the moment, but that's a debate for a different time), it isn't so much about knowing something that another person doesn't and more in as knowing these things that we all know only from a different point of view...
Hitler might have been enlightened, it depends on how you really define the word. Which probably leads to a host of other problems because human laungage is not really adept to phrase very very abstract concepts like Enlightment without a very very high degree of confusion. (On a personal note, I don't think Hitler was very enlightened. But then that might be because he did order the killing of my family and their friends... )
From an objective point of view, there really shouldn't be good/bad since these are subjective point to each person's views. I think... ah!!! philosophy what a headache!! gonna go get a coffee and go to practice now.
-Amir Barak
"You get what you pay for, But I had no intention of living this way" - Adam Duritz
I think this comes down to the difference between "enlightenment" and "Enlightenment."Originally Posted by Indar
The first is -- as you say -- knowing something that others don't.
But "Enlightenment" -- true enlightenment -- what I think of when I think of The Buddha reaching enlightenment, or Zen masters reaching it however temporarily -- is something else again; not mere knowledge, but wisdom; the ability to see the forest and the trees; the ability to understand -- really, truly, and deeply understand -- the non-duality of existence that most of us only pay lip service to.
To my way of thinking, a truly enlightened man could not be evil, because evil is self-serving and therefore not in harmony with non-duality.
An evil but powerful man cannot truly be enlightened, but only has (limited) knowledge that empowers him.
That is my way of seeing it, anyway.
Yours in Budo,
---Brian---
Good Friends:
I agree with Mike. "Enlightenment" in a Buddhist context is not relative. From a Buddhist perspective there is no possible way one would conclude that Hitler was enlightened. None.
There is a lot of confusion regarding this term, "enlightenment", because it means so many different things in the english language. But in a Buddhist context one could say it has two components: cessation and realization. The cessation component ("nirodha" in sanskrit) is the Third Noble Truth of the famous Four Noble Truths. Cessation refers to the cessation of greed, anger, ignorance, hatred, delusion and the other hindrances, or "klesas". One accomplishes cessation through various practices taught by the Buddha.
The realization aspect is nirvana, that is to say, one awakens to nirvana. (In some interpretations of the Buddhadharma nirodha and nirvana are synonyms and in others a distinction is made between the two.) The realization of nirvana is, according to the Buddhist Discourses, awakening to the deathless, the unborn, and the unconditioned.
This awakening has two aspects: wisdom and compassion.
Again, from a Buddhist perspective enlightenment is not vague or subjective. In addition, it is not culturally bound, because it is unconditioned.
I hope this clarifies some of the misunderstandings expressed.
Best wishes,
Dharmajim
Dharmajim
People have been working towards enlightenment for centuries now. I don't see that it has made the world a better place. I think your better off spending an hour at a soup kitchen then on a cushion.
Best regards,
Bruce Mitchell
That could be because we don't live in a world where no one has been working towards enlightenment for millenia; such a place might be much, much worse than what we have.Originally Posted by Bruce Mitchell
But I agree that working in a soup kitchen, or volunteering at a hospital (which I do), or any number of other charitable works is a vital part of the path. One needn't spend all of one's time on a cushion.
Yours in Budo,
---Brian---
Good reply Brian
Best regards,
Bruce Mitchell
As Brian intimated, the two can/should be linked. One can spend an hour at a soup kitchen and end-up causing more problems than solving (it does happen). Without some type of clarity of purpose ability to be present, aware and to feel empathy for others (and these can be derived from lots of methods, not just seated meditation), the road to hell and all that.Originally Posted by Bruce Mitchell
While it can appear to be a solipsistic practice, sometimes spending time sitting/training bu, etc. make one more able to be effective while working in concrete ways to serve others. Just my take.
Be well,
Jigme
Jigme Chobang Daniels
aoikoyamakan at gmail dot com
One doesn't need religion to have clarity of purpose. I still contend that two hours of actively working to make the world a better place is better than one hour of work and one hour of meditation. Likewise, the budoka would be better off spending that time in the dojo. Budo can provide a person with an ethical template for living one's life without resorting to superstitious nonsense.
Best regards,
Bruce Mitchell
Who's talking about religion? What "superstitious nonsense"?Originally Posted by Bruce Mitchell
We were talking about enlightenment, not religion.
And to my way of thinking, Budo is one path to enlightenment.
Yours in Budo,
---Brian---
The original post refers to Buddhism, last I checked it was a religion. Enlightenment isn't a religious idea? The very term implies a duelistic viewpoint consistant with religion. Jim Wilson's post refers to attaining Nirvana, again a religious idea. I don't mean to single out Buddhism here, I would be equally critical if the topic was achieving sainthood. By it's very defintition faith (or belief) involves abandoning rational thought (i.e. the belief in heaven/nirvana), and hence my reference to superstitious nonsense.Originally Posted by Brian Owens
Best regards,
Bruce Mitchell