NAOS
Well-Known Member
So I've heard.
The best way to "enlightenment" may also be to get out there, muck it up, and make your own values. But some people need a system, I guess. They need others' values for themselves.
What does religious moderation consist of?
- Thread starter NAOS
- Start date
So I've heard.
The best way to "enlightenment" may also be to get out there, muck it up, and make your own values. But some people need a system, I guess. They need others' values for themselves.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
excellent riposte in this thread, braugh. I'm amazed you don't have honorary degrees in debate and psychology. lol
Miggs
Well-Known Member
More insults. Nice.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
Miggs
Well-Known Member
Fish, can you help your bro here cope?
Cope? Lemme tell ya something. Coping is not something I struggle with. I'm simply pointing out your unnecessary, incessant dickishness. Was it convenient? Uh, yeah, because it involved me in this case. I don't need to stick up for anyone else. We're all big boys here. But it's funny how you say say I'm being sensitive here. I'm really not. I'm simply pointing out fact. You insult virtually everyone. But you can't handle that and in fact are the one being sensitive about it. Maybe look in the mirror now and then.
To be fair, Buddha never said "do this or else", it was more "this is the way that has worked for me - try it".
Zen's way to Enlightenment as far as I know is quite different to Buddha's original path. Zen is simply Dogen's interpretation of 'the path'.
In Buddhism there is a saying "there are many ways to cross the river".... there isn't 1 'system' that's for sure.
Maybe yall have the same dad.
Siro and NAOS??? Nah. Now perhaps if their names were Ishmael and Isaac.
I was thinking more like Ren and Stumpy. Guess which of the two is Stumpy.
My post may be of the most underrated all-time on JF.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
[MENTION=249]NAOS[/MENTION]
Also just to elaborate on this a bit more,..
To me, the main difference between Theravada and Mahayana (and more specifically Zen), is that Theravada is a lot more detailed & elaborate in the way that it presents the teaching (i.e., from first principle). It laid out in detail all of Buddha's teachings that were recorded after he reached enlightenment (he attained Enlightenment at the age of 35, and taught for 45 more years after that, so there is 45 years of material). There is A LOT of teaching there in the Tripitaka, I had a chance to read some of it while I was on my Thailand trip 2 months ago and I was simply astounded by how detailed and complete the teachings are.
And to me there is 1 main difference, while Theravada laid out all of this extensive teaching, it doesn't simply ask you to read and simply memorise them, it asked to be as critical of the teaching as much as you can, both in theory and in how you apply them in practice. (This is evident in the Q&A between Buddha and Ananda recorded at the time). This to me is vastly different to Zen which as far as I know asks you to 'empty the mind' if you will and cut out all 'logical thinking' in order to rid the 'self' (if I remember correctly). It focusses more on the 'no mind' concept and is dependent a lot more on 'Roshi' to train you. To me this dependant on the Roshi is its flaw. How do you know he has 'reached' it? How do you know he's pointing you in the right path? In Theravada, one could potentially stay at home, read and study the Tripitaka by himself, question it, try it, fail with it, succeed with it, etc. You don't even need to leave home, or even meet fellow buddhists if you don't want to, you are more than capable of practicing and reaching Enlightenment all on your own (as did Buddha when he left his palace and went into the forest, except in this case you have a how-to guide if you wish to use it). You go right back to first principle if you will, because you're reading from Buddha's own words, and together with your critical mind - you practice.
In theory of course one might not need to do any of those things (as you put it 'get out there, muck it up'), simply live life and hopefully you'll come to the same understanding as Buddha did when he reached his Enlightenment at the age of 35. Fall in love, fall out of love, be cheated on or betrayed, work hard to gain all material possession, understand that they don't make it happy, then to lose it all... enjoy something - get addicted to it - be dependent on it - and eventually suffered from it, etc.. and over time one might come to a true understanding of the nature of all things... and THEN be able to detach yourself from all those things... understand that this 'Me' doesn't actually exists as 1 whole but as an aggregate of variable things, hence there is no need to satisfy this 'Me' which is essentially the ultimate cause of suffering.. etc, etc, ..
But I guess my question would be 'why re-invent the wheel twice'? Why swim across the river if there is a boat there already to help you? And, again, whether or not you choose to use it is entirely up to you.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
How do you define enlightenment OL? I'm curious about this subject. I have made it no secret on this board that I deal with fairly severe depression and have been for decades. In studying more about enlightenment I'm very curious how this is viewed by other people. Do you have any insight?
Yes absolutely, Nirvana (or nibbana in sanskrit I believe) is the state at which you are able to to eliminate 'ignorance', 'desires' and 'attachment'. Generally speaking if you have 'ignorance', 'desires' and 'attachment' in your mind (or heart), then your mind will likely waver, is clouded, not clear, is weighted down and is cornered (i.e., the opposite of free). Once 'ignorance', 'desire' and 'attachment' is gone, you have 'wisdom' that enables you to see 'things as they are', not how everyone else see them, but the real nature of them.
So how do we see things as they are? I think a good place to start is with the Five Aggregates - it's a way of breaking down the 'self' to understand that the 'self' that we normally see or call ourselves doesn't actually exist as 1 whole.
Five Aggregates
The self is broken down into:
1. Corporeality
2. Feeling
3. Perception
4. Mental Formation
5. Consciousness
Explained simply, Corporeality is really our physical body. Then when you wake up in the morning and open your eyes, you have Consciousness, then as you start to see things as objects (chairs, tables), that's Perception. Once you see things you like or don't like you have Feeling (good, bad, indifferent), it's sunny today I feel 'good'. Then Mental Formation comes in, 'I feel good so I will go out for a picnic'. What we typically label as 'Me' comes from all these 5 aggregates that constitute the 'self'.
To cut a long story short, to me the most important part in all of this is 'Feeling'. Think about it. We see something, someone we have had an argument with in the past, what happens? Firstly Consciousness and Perception kicks in - I see 'him'. Then Mental Formation kicks in - memories of your past with this guy. BUT THEN you start to Feel really bad about what happened in the past and your body starts shaking. Then Mental Formation kicks in again - what do I do? Do I confront him? Do I go to his car and break his windshield? Do I follow him home? etc, etc, etc...
Everything starts with either Feeling good or bad about a person, a thing, or situation. This is why meditation is important. It makes you aware of when 'Feeling' arises thereby stopping the cycle that I've just mention. You want to at least aim to feel 'indifferent' about something as to stop that cycle. Why? You see the latest TV at the mall - you feel good - you desire it - but you can't afford it - so you have to work harder to get it - etc, etc, etc... So feeling 'good' about something can lead to suffering. The same thing with feeling 'bad' about something. So at the very least understand that this 'feeling' junction is important goes a long way in my opinion.
Then I would suggest to go on to understanding the Three Characteristics of Existence.
Three Characteristics of Existence
1. Impermanence
2. Stress and Conflict (suffering)
3. Non-self
Everything that we can see, or hear, or imagine in our minds have these 3 natures. But because we do not understand or see them as such we ultimately suffer because of it. Going back to the earlier TV example - our 'desire' for that TV is impermanent because it may change if a new model comes along, or if there is a fault with the TV, the 'desire' is also stressful because you want it but you can't afford it, the 'desire' is non-self because well where is it exactly, it only exists in the mind, it's not something you can grasp entirely, it is here today, but might not be here tomorrow, it is unreliable, undependable. Therefore it is not useful to be 'attached' to the 'desire' or 'feelings' or any of the 5 aggregates because they are all essentially 'impermanent', 'stressful', and 'not-self' - attachment to anything that have these 3 characteristics in the end will lead to suffering.
So to summarise, you eliminate 'ignorance' by understand the things I've listed above and you start to break everything down into the 5 Aggregates, you start to see things as they are, or at least that this "Me" is not 1 whole thing but an aggregate of variables. And then when you understand the 3 Characteristics of all these variables we understand that 'desire' and 'attachment' to these variables lead to suffering.
Once you realise this you are at least on the path to nirvana (i.e., the cessation of suffering). Hope this help - there is also a bit more to this but I think this is plenty at this stage for you to make a start. As you are already doing meditation, I would suggest to next time when you meditate focus on what type of 'Feeling' arises when you're sitting or doing things around the house or outside. What do you 'feel' when you see certain things, a bottle of whiskey, a beautiful woman... then what that does to your 'body' then understand that you cannot truly control some things but you can see them as they are 'impermanent', 'stressful' and 'not something you should hold on to'... and just see it arise and let it be.
Any questions I'd be glad to answer them the best I can.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
Are you sure you're willing?