Likes Likes:  0
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 87

Thread: Enlightenment = good ?

  1. #16
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Boston, MA USA
    Posts
    704
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Mitchell
    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.
    No, as I mentioned above, that would be a silly contention. However, in my experience, tempering one's approach with something other is quite helpful (provider fatigue alone is reason enough to seek time away from any activity of this type).
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Mitchell
    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.
    One could argue that this is not the case for every art- yes, one does have the examples of one's instructor and seniors, but there are some systems that lack explicit ethical guidelines, or have ones that may not be acceptable to modern Western minds (it is worth bearing in mind that what seems superstitious to us may well have been work-a-day to many in pre-modern Japan...)

    As for the meditation/religion debate, seems a bit of a straw man, but it has been done to death by folks with a lot more experience than me...

    Be well,
    Jigme
    Jigme Chobang Daniels
    aoikoyamakan at gmail dot com

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    359
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kenkyusha
    No, as I mentioned above, that would be a silly contention.
    Well I don't know about that. See I've been watching a lot of "My name is Earl" and one thing I've learned is that if you do good things, good things will happen to you. It has to do with this thing Carson Daily came up with called "karma". I would recommend watching it, it could clear up a lot of confusion in the world.
    Best regards,
    Bruce Mitchell

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    359
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kenkyusha
    (it is worth bearing in mind that what seems superstitious to us may well have been work-a-day to many in pre-modern Japan...)
    No arguement there. I have to wonder though, if we were talking about ancient Greek warriors, if hackles would be raised if I referred to their beliefs as superstition? By Hera I think not.
    Best regards,
    Bruce Mitchell

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    6,227
    Likes (received)
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Mitchell
    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.
    No, enlighternment isn't a religious idea. While several posts have mentioned Buddhism, Buddhism isn't the only path to enlightenment.

    Even the first post was clearly titled, "Enlightenment = Good?" -- not, "Buddhism = Good."

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Mitchell
    ...Jim Wilson's post refers to attaining Nirvana, again a religious idea.

    ...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.
    First, you're commiting a common error among westerners by trying to equate Heaven and Nirvana. They're not at all the same.

    Heaven is a place, Nirvana is a state of being.

    As Jim Wilson clearly stated, "The realization aspect is nirvana, that is to say, one awakens to nirvana. ...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."

    Wisdon and compassion are not superstitious nonsense, they are personal attributes. One needn't be a religious person to recognize the intrinsic value of wisdom and compassion (although the two are frequently found to be closely correlated).

    There is also no need to "abandon rational thought." For those who need to rely on more than just the experiences of those who have gone before, there have been scientific studies done of Zen masters, Yogis, etc. -- including electroencephelographic analyses of brain waves of those in meditative states -- which have shown that there are actual neurochemical changes that take place in the brains of experienced contemplatives. While these instrumentalities cannot prove the perceptual changes that the contemplatives speak of, they do prove that their minds are working on a different level than that of the control group -- the "average Joes."

    The reason that Buddhism so often enters into conversations about enlightenment, is simply that Buddhism has linguistic contructs that are useful tools in such discussions, because enlightenement is a fundamental part of Buddhism. But it is certainly not exclusive to Buddhism.

    HTH.
    Yours in Budo,
    ---Brian---

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,549
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Indeed.

    Buddhism is a strange sort of religion anyway since it has no deity or creation myths.

    It's quite easy (at least for westerners like me) to see it as a philosophy and ethical code without any theistic/divine/supernatural component at all.
    Cheers,

    Mike
    No-Kan-Do

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    359
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Owens
    Heaven is a place, Nirvana is a state of being..
    You say potato...You're still taking a duelistic view of existence, which in my opinion, is not rational. I find the two equal only in their improbability of existance. I never said that wisdom and compassion are nonsense, btw, there are plenty of compassionate, wise people out there without mucking about with enlightenment. But if we are really exploring the idea of enlightment=good, then I would like to see some examples.
    Best regards,
    Bruce Mitchell

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,549
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Mitchell
    you're still taking a duelistic view of existence
    Not at all, at least not when discussing Enlightenment. It is quite possible for someone to achieve Enlightenment while still living. Gautama Buddha was one of many individuals who have achieved it.

    In fact, in Buddhism I believe it's also possible for someone to attain Nirvana while still living (although it's normally linked to death, and escaping from the cycle of re-incarnation. This *is* dualistic, and the main reason why I, as an atheist, do not call myself a Buddhist - despite a general affinity for the teachings).

    One of the failings of Buddhism is that it is great at describing the stages of the journey, but not so good at describing the destination. But you could probably level that same accusations at most religions. The difference in Buddhism is that the reward does not necessarily come in the "afterlife".

    As to whether Enlightenment=Good: maybe it's enough in the words of Bill and Ted, to be "excellent to one another".
    Cheers,

    Mike
    No-Kan-Do

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    359
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeWilliams
    Not at all, at least not when discussing Enlightenment. It is quite possible for someone to achieve Enlightenment while still living. Gautama Buddha was one of many individuals who have achieved it.

    In fact, in Buddhism I believe it's also possible for someone to attain Nirvana while still living (although it's normally linked to death, and escaping from the cycle of re-incarnation...As to whether Enlightenment=Good: maybe it's enough in the words of Bill and Ted, to be "excellent to one another".
    Hi Mike, like your post, but I have to disagree somewhat. Dualism refers to the idea that there are independent elements, such as mind vs. matter, and this does not necessarily equate to life vs death stuff. Much like Plato's transcendent philoshophers in the "Allegory of the Cave", the idea of enlightenment proposes freedom from the material world (or whatever), so there must be another element, i.e. nirvana.

    I agree with your statement that it is easy to describe the journey but not the destination, but I see that as being a result of being able to build a logically sound arguement but still having a false premise.

    Yeah, I think that we should all follow Bill & Ted's advice . Cheers
    Best regards,
    Bruce Mitchell

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,549
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Hi Bruce,

    Sorry - just to clarify: what I was trying to get across is that while the concept of Nirvana is dualistic, the concept of Enlightenment isn't. At least not the way I understand it.

    It's not freedom from the material world, it's freedom from the Desire that leads to Suffering. So Enlightenment while still alive is not mystical at all. Buddha was just a mortal man like any other.

    Of course in Buddhism it is also the path to Nirvana, and therefore by extension to the cycle of birth/re-birth and therefore the Buddhist afterlife mythology - but that only kicks in after death.

    I'm probably not conveying this very well. I wish I knew more about it!

    I agree with your statement that it is easy to describe the journey but not the destination, but I see that as being a result of being able to build a logically sound arguement but still having a false premise.
    Very good point.
    Cheers,

    Mike
    No-Kan-Do

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    6,227
    Likes (received)
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Mitchell
    ...it is easy to describe the journey but not the destination, but I see that as being a result of being able to build a logically sound arguement but still having a false premise.
    I am taking my sister to Walt Disney World in a few weeks. I have been there many times; she has never been.

    With airline reservations in hand, transportation to the airport arranged, etc., she can describe the journey quite well, should anyone else want to take the same trip. But not having been there yet, she can't describe the destination.

    That does not mean that Walt Disney World does not exist.
    Yours in Budo,
    ---Brian---

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    20
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Really a good discussion. Just a few points:

    Buddhism is a huge subject. Because this is a budo forum, views about Buddhism tend to be restricted to specific Japanese forms of Buddhism (usually Zen, with some Shingon thrown in at times). But Japanese Buddhism is peculiar in some ways and does not represent Buddhism as such.

    Like other religions that have a long history and have evolved in a number of cultural contexts, one can find different interpretations of Buddhism, even in terms of its basics. With regard to dualism; some Buddhist traditions are dualistic (e.g. some Theravada views (Bhikkhu Bodhi, the translator, has written an articulate critique of non-dualism), and Pure Land Buddhism in its traditional forms), and others that are non-dual (e.g. Chittamatra influenced traditions). It depends on how one understands nirvana. If one understands nirvana as sort of a "place", which is completely free from "samsara", the world of suffering, this tends towards a dualistic view. If, on the other hand, one understands nirvana as a way of comprehending existence that is more accurate, more in touch with how the way things are, and ultimately free of habitual tendencies towards self-deception, then nirvana is not somewhere else and this turning at the base of consciousness can happen in this world. One finds articulate sages presenting both perspectives.

    Regarding religion and superstition, I tend to agree with those who critique religion on the grounds that it is a bastion for dogmatically held notions that should be abandoned. Traditional Buddhism is no exception to this. On the other hand, I don't think one should throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is much of value in traditional religions. On this point I think it is important to not let fundamentalists define for us what is of value; that is just falling into their either/or rhetorical stance.

    A final remark on the fact that Buddhism does not have a creator deity and no creation story: Buddhism is not the only religion that does not have these. As westerners we tend to project the defining characteristics of the monotheistic tradition onto other religions and if those elements are not there, we think of it as an absence. But Buddhism, Jainism, and Confucianism, to pick just three examples, have a different focus. They are not primarily concerned with cosmology in the way that western monotheism is. (I like to say that these three religions have "a weak cosmological commitment" whereas monotheism has a very strong cosmological commitment.) Cosmology just is not of primary concern for these traditions; hence the absence of a creator deity and a creation story in general. It's not of central importance for their program.

    Again, thanks for the great exchange.

    Best wishes,

    Dharmajim
    Dharmajim

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    359
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Owens
    I am taking my sister to Walt Disney World in a few weeks. I have been there many times; she has never been.

    With airline reservations in hand, transportation to the airport arranged, etc., she can describe the journey quite well, should anyone else want to take the same trip. But not having been there yet, she can't describe the destination.

    That does not mean that Walt Disney World does not exist.
    Are you saying that the costume, ritual and childish indulgence of Disney World is the same thing as zen/buddhism? (just kidding) I get your point Brian, but the existence of Disney World can be proved (or disproved ) and the experience can be repeated by anyone. Absence of evidence does not equate to proof/disproof.The existence of Nirvana is a matter of faith and unable to be either proved or disproved. That places it outside the realm of rational thought, and any arguement based on the premise that it exist is inherently flawed, no matter how well constructed.

    I don't know about enlightenment. IQ can be tested (subjectively), we have great literature and art (even more subjective) but there is no measure for enlightenment.

    BTW, I hope that you have a great trip to Disney Brian, I enjoy your post, they make me think
    Best regards,
    Bruce Mitchell

  13. #28
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    260
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Paradoxically, a lot of Buddhists, I would say the ones really worth listening to, will avoid saying a whole lot about Nirvana or Enlightenment directly, and sometimes even sound like apostates. Their goal is to discourage idle chatter that they know doesn't get anyone any closer to understanding. Buddhist practice is a lot like the practice of budo really. We all love to chat about stuff here but no-one in their right mind would contend that e-budo is better than being in the dojo doing it. We're not going to understand our art any better by talking about it, only doing it. Where do we get with practice? What is our goal? I would say "I don't know" and I think that is the best answer. That's a little bit different to me saying I know nothing.

    b

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    113
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Hello Gentlemen,

    This is a nice civil discussion! I have some thoughts I would like to share:

    I agree that enlightenment/nirvana is a state or condition of being or perhaps we could also say a state or condition of perception. It cannot be clearly defined because it is an experience NOT a thing. Things can be measured; experiences cannot be measured using the same tools as physical phenomena. Description is just one form of measure we use, but the measurement is NOT the thing, it only describes specific characteristics of the thing.

    We can only communicate what Enlightenment/Nirvana is using metaphor because it is an experience and not a tangible THING! The description of a thing is never the thing itself. A description is only an indication that hopefully allows another to recognize the experience (condition of being) when they experience it for themselves. For example: any attempt to describe the taste of an orange will never give the audience the actual “experience” of the taste of an orange. One must taste one for themselves to KNOW what an orange tastes like. Then, when we actually taste an orange for ourselves, we experience an “Ah Hah!!” moment. A moment of comprehension that brings an understanding of just what the description was indicating. We may comment, “OOOOHHHH!! THAT is what he meant!!” or “NOW I know what he meant!” because we are able to compare the description to the ACTUAL experience.

    Some may consider that Enlightenment/Nirvana is dualistic or implies duality, but this view is a misunderstanding. It is because we use a dualistic system to communicate our thoughts and experiences that Enlightenment/Nirvana “appears” to imply a dualistic state. We use words to describe a condition of being that must be directly experienced to be fully comprehended and appreciated. This gives the illusion that the Enlightened condition of being is dualistic because words are a product of the dualistic system. We use dualism to describe the non-dual state thus giving the non-dual state the appearance of being a part of the dualist system. It is the translation of the Enlightened state of being into words that creates the “appearance" of dualism. In truth the non-dual state contains within in it dualism.

    Enlightenment/Nirvana has been referred to by many commentators as non-dual, rather than ONE. This is somewhat accurate, but still falls a bit off the mark for it is actually both ONE and Many at the same time. Consider the Yin-Yang symbol. It very accurately represents this condition. It is at once both ONE “and” two and may be viewed as either or both at the same time depending upon the perspective one uses when considering it. So from an “Enlightened” perspective an individual does not perceive experiences necessarily as a holistic ONE, but perceives unity and division at once, at the same time. Dualism is merely a subset of ONE and a condition of being that serves a specific purpose. From an Enlightened perspective one does not necessarily perceive existence as a muddied morass of indefinable, indistinguishable “something”, but perceives ONENESS and separateness at the same time. This condition of being is not a “different” or separate state of being from our normal daily awareness, but it may be considered a more complete state of perception. When asked the difference between the Enlightened condition and our common, daily state of perception D.T. Suzuki stated something along the lines of, “The states of being are essentially the same; only the state of Enlightenment feels about 5 inches off the ground.” This is the same as saying, “It is the same, but different!”

    Considering whether Enlightenment = Good

    The conclusion one comes to depends upon one’s values system, that is, how one chooses to measure what is good (personally beneficial) and bad (personally detrimental). This consideration occurs within a dualistic state of being. Good and Bad exist within a dualistic system and are not viewed from the same perspective by the Enlightened mind which possesses a more complete perspective of reality.

    That is not to say that Good and Bad is not considered by the Enlightened mind. This is another misunderstanding that occurs amongst some people. Some people use the philosophical consideration of the relativism of Good and Bad to justify inappropriate actions. There is still Good and Bad for the Enlightened mind, but Good and Bad are perceived from a more complete perspective and according to context. Consider the Bodhisattva, an individual that refuses to enter into the final stage of Enlightenment until all other beings are saved. Here is an individual that considers his action a “GOOD” even though from the perspective of the Enlightened mind there is actually no one to save!!

    We must consider that Good and Bad have meaning and validity within the dualistic realm and are valid considerations when existing within that system, but at the same time from another perspective have no inherent meaning at all! This is the same state of understanding I previously mentioned concerning the Enlightened mind perceiving not an “indefinable morass of something”, but a condition where ONE and many occur simultaneously, at once, at the same time!

    One may only understand completely the relativity of Good and Bad from the Enlightened condition. This is because the Enlightened condition provides a more complete perspective of phenomena. Think of a helicopter flying overhead. The passengers have a bird’s eye view of what lies ahead on the roads and may even perceive many roads (choices) at the same time. The helicopter passenger has a more complete view than that of those riding in cars on the roads and therefore is able to interpret the events that occur on the road according to a more complete context. So while a person on the road may believe a person cutting them off in traffic is a BAD event, the person in the helicopter would see the reason the person was cut off was due to other events occurring further down the road that could not be perceived by the person who was cut off. What was locally (personally) considered a BAD event, could be seen as a GOOD event when viewed according to the greater context!
    Scott R. Brown

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    6,227
    Likes (received)
    118

    Default

    Well said, Mr. Brown; well said.

    I especially liked the comparison of trying to describe achieving Nirvana to trying to describe the taste of an orange.

    Neither description can fully capture the essence of the thing, but that doesn't mean that Nirvana isn't a real condition nor that oranges have no flavor.

    Now, before I go to bed, I'm going to get a nice, cold Satsuma orange from my fridge.
    Yours in Budo,
    ---Brian---

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •