Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What is lost from enlightenment?
ive always had a bad feeling that enlightenment is in some ways a bad thing.
think about it, maybe its just me but i thought some of the best parts of life are 'mystery' and 'adventure' and NOT knowing things. Having an incentive to do knew things go new places, having the 'desire' for things. If desire is bad, and happiness isnt supposed to come from outside things then it seems like alot of good things in life are a waste... Like music, sex, fun, friends. If once enlightened you get no happiness from outside you, wouldnt u give your friends no value, and disregard the beauty of music etc?
so what im asking is, why is the path to enlightenment better than the potential that life has to be good. I read a few times that buddha or some buddhist said "life is suffering"... thats bullshit.
think about it, maybe its just me but i thought some of the best parts of life are 'mystery' and 'adventure' and NOT knowing things. Having an incentive to do knew things go new places, having the 'desire' for things. If desire is bad, and happiness isnt supposed to come from outside things then it seems like alot of good things in life are a waste... Like music, sex, fun, friends. If once enlightened you get no happiness from outside you, wouldnt u give your friends no value, and disregard the beauty of music etc?
so what im asking is, why is the path to enlightenment better than the potential that life has to be good. I read a few times that buddha or some buddhist said "life is suffering"... thats bullshit.
0
Comments
Which very nearly killed him, until he decided the Middle Way was wisest.
And so it is.....
He finally vowed to sit in meditation, until such a time as he would reach an understanding on life's secret message, and underwent days of indecision, frailty and uncertainty, always returning to the understanding that the mental machinations and anxieties were mere illusory obstacles, developed and nurtured in our unskillful and inattentive daily state....
And then - he got it.
Life IS Suffering.
(it doesn't stop there, which is why it most certainly is NOT bullshit)....
It's Suffering because we are attached to the wonderful, and desire it to be everlasting, and have an aversion to the awful, and desire that to be non-existent.
Both of which are impossible, because of the impermanent nature of all compounded phenomena....
Our grasping and desire, to all things impermanent, is what leads us into despondency and despair...
There is a way to conquer this suffering, which will lead to the cessation of Suffering.....
This 'way' is in fact, the Eightfold Path.
Taking things out of context, and cherry-picking will always lead to erroneous conclusions.
it's useful to take things at face value and examine everything acutely, to ensure a more comprehensive understanding of what 'Suffering' actually means, and what the Buddha actually did.
Enlightenment doesn't mean having no mystery, and knowing everything.
Enlightenment means seeing things as they actually are and understanding that mystery and wonder are just that - mystery and wonder. And being neither put off nor sucked in by them...
Enlightenment is complete acceptance of the 'is-ness' of everything.
Enlightenment is Peace of Mind that never ceases.
The Buddha wasn't omniscient. He just realized the truth of dukkha.
Desire in and of itself is not bad. There are different kinds of desire. Tanha is often translated as simply "desire" but it means thirst, or craving.
In reality, the happiness we experience now doesn't come from outside things, either. The happiness we feel is fabricated. It's just conditioned by external things and so it's temporary and ultimately dukkha.
This is often misunderstood. Life is suffering for all of us NOW because we are either constantly clinging to wanting something we've deemed "good" to stay the same and never fade, or to come; or wanting something "bad" to go away, or never come. Life does not have to be dukkha, though... that's the whole point of Buddhism: the Buddha taught the path that leads to freedom of dukkha.
Full Teaching:
Life Isn't Just Suffering
Much love
Allan
recognition of that is spiritual awakening.
The six senses left in their natural state
compose the outlook of the natural great perfection.
Enjoying everthing, simply
leave it as it is
and rest your weary mind.
Been there myself. I wondered, why not just enjoy life? I think part of the issue is understanding how and why Enlightenment.
I think you're confusing Enlightenment (bodhi) and Nirvana. Enlightment is just a state of realization that comes with understanding life as it is. The classic metaphor is the mind is like a mirror that's very dusty. It reflects things it encounters, but in a way that's murky and distorted (hence we see things in a distorted way). Meanwhile, a mirror that's bright, polished and clear reflects reality as-is, and a person whose mind is like this is one who doesn't overlay life with their own self-centered, narrow view.
Nirvana is simply being a complete master of one's self. We're not pulled this way and that by life. We're solid as a rock, firm as the earth, cool as ice. :cool: Believe me, I see people running around all the time who are stressed and fretting about life, and certainly not masters of themselves because their minds get pulled this way and that with no rest.
The 'suffering' comes from the fact that there's no rest for the weary. It's always just one thing after another, never quite settling down as you would like it and so on. Imagine having the greatest sex of your life, and before you know it, you've gotta have it again. No matter how good it is, you're still wanting more. No rest. Hence, it's not that desires are 'bad', just unsatisfactory. There's no lasting peace in this world of ours, and death doesn't help since you get reborn anyway. Also, the correct term is 'craving' not 'desire' since desire can be positive and altruistic (desire for peace, desire for someone's welfare, etc)
This has nothing to do with abandoning friends and such, and in fact leads to the opposite. If you give up selfish craving, you may find you have more friends than before because people like being around you, and less put off by stupid things you might have done previous.
See above. Thanks and good luck!
when there is no cause there is no effect
that is enlightenment
The one who prefers a shallow life trembles when it's over.
But the one who now removes dust from the eyes lives ever happily.
With metta.:cool:
Buddha wasn’t a fool. He realized that when things were going really well, we would think life was wonderful. So he pointed out what are called the “3 Warning Signs,” sickness/old age/and death in order to wake us up to the fact that life isn’t Sooo great, at leat not all of the time, and it can turn on you, and kick you silly.
Most lay Buddhists live pretty normal lives, like anyone else, and even enjoy things now and again. But, they also seek wisdom in order to keep themselves from being completely at the mercy of events.
If we just drift along, sooner or later life is going to bite us on the butt. : ^ (
Ask some of those people down in Haiti if life is just a lark.
Of course, Enlightenment gives us "New Eyes" with which to see life from a whole different perspective.
Peace and satisfaction is a skill,
S9
Thank you for that post. It was just excellent. : ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
There is nothing inherently wrong with enjoyment, having friends, music, sex etc.
Nibbana is a "happiness" free from conditions. Surely some day your friends will leave you, you may have trouble hearing music and you are no longer be able to do things you like.
Is your hapiness dependent on fulfilling these needs?
But that may be especially correlated to the hormonal levels present due to my age.
Anyway, the more I dwell within the "clear light of my own awareness" (above passage shamelessly taken from the Bardo Thodol), the more I realize the unsatisfactory nature of conditional reality. I'd rather be here in the present. I'll make a trade: romance, rich foods, and beautiful music for the Deathless. As I recall, one bhikkhu described renunciation thus: "We are exchanging candy for gold."
May you be at ease.
Because Nirvana is whole and complete in itself, it is without need of any ‘thing’ outside of itself, and is therefore fully satisfied, content, and/or happy.
Warm Regards,
S9
A: I don't know about you, Dhamma-brethren, but I've found that, after a state of focused awareness, the dukkha of worldly activities is staggering.
S9: I ran into this myself, after a prolonged period of meditating intensely and often, over a period of about 2 years, during which time I had watched absolutely no TV.
One evening watching a Seinfeld, I couldn’t help but notice that the way the program presented itself caused a jittery discomfort within my (now delicate?) nervous system. I didn’t know if they did this intentionally when programming in order to make us feel like something was going on, lots of fluff, or in order to create stress which is often a precursor to the relief of laughter, or if I had simply opened up, removed my mental defenses,and thereby become consequently more sensitive? Hmmm?
A: Even the mere state of sexual arousal creates feelings of thundering blood flow, sharp alterations in the chest, obsessive tendencies to arise in the mind, and the inability to get focused.
S9: Yes, it is pretty much accepted scienifically that our normal body processes, like digestion, would be felt to be painful if our body didn’t ameliorate this feeling by releasing endorphins to buffer the pain, pretty constantly.
A: Anyway, the more I dwell within the "clear light of my own awareness" (above passage shamelessly taken from the Bardo Thodol); the more I realize the unsatisfactory nature of conditional reality.
S9: Indeed, at some point we can grow weary of the whole pleasure-pain continuum. I believe the need for a more constant satisfaction, one that doesn’t continually waver, is built in t the human psyche, and is why we take such exception with impermanence.
Perhaps it is also why our myths such as heaven and utopia are so very popular.
A: I'd rather be here in the present. I'll make a trade: romance, rich foods, and beautiful music for the Deathless.
S9: Isn’t this because we find Being in the present moment, and prefer it to the constant changes of becoming, which is all the mind can offer us?
A: "We are exchanging candy for gold."
S9: Ah yes. : ^ ) I used to say, “We throw down the gold, and pick up dirt.” Same page.
Respectfully,
S9
The Buddha was a Human being.
He could not have a total and unbounded knowledge of all things, and know the secrets of everything.
But he understood the nature of all things, and knew he didn't need to know.
It wasn't necessary.
It still isn't. Much of knowledge is trivial and unnecessary, anyway....
Even if you knew everything, what would you do with it?
^_^
Of course, it would all depend what we mean by omniscient.
All that we can possibly know of what the Buddha himself knew, is what we ourselves come to know because we have looked where his words were pointing. Anything out side of that is pure guesswork or wishful thinking.
Warm Regards,
S9
How do you mean, friend?
These words stimulate and influence a response, based on my imagining the meaning of those imagined words, like this.
I like simply knowing that's what's happening.
Your opinions are startlingly congruent with mine, friend.
I'm afraid I can't see the relevance of this. It's true, but how does that answer my question? But I'll go away and stop causing trouble. I'll also go on believing that the Buddha's knowledge can justifiably be called omniscience.
We've tried to tell you, we don't. But given that he was a human being, he stated he was nothing more than a human being, and further stated that enlightenment is possible for any human being, and it's impossible for any human being to know all there is to know, about all there is to know, the logical conclusion would bring us to the extremely probable fact that he was not omniscient.
How do YOU know what he knew, and what he didn't? Nobody nowadays can say that. We can only go by what he DID tell us, and what he did teach. And one of the things he did teach us, was that he was a human being and as transitory and impermanent as any compounded phenomenon is.
Of course, it would....What do you mean by it, then?
we've been trying to answer your question, but you seem to just want to agree with you that the Buddha was omniscient, and I don't believe he was, given the information he passed on to us.
Why do you believe his knowledge was omniscient?
What gives you that impression?
Where do you get that idea?
I have advised you of things the Buddha stated which would contradict this.
Where do you think it is evident that he was?
of course, it would all depend on how we define omniscient.....;)
Of course, he didn't know the winner of the 3.30 at Chepstow next Saturday. But the Upanishads tell us that the unknown is not the unknowable, and this is later stressed by Sri Aurobindo, and I tend to believe it.
Perhaps you could clarify what you mean when you say he was not omniscient. If you only meant that he didn't know all the trivial stuff then probably we could agree.
I have a fair idea of what he taught, by the way, so there's no need to keep reminding me.
We seem to have got off on the wrong foot.
If you're entirely satisfied with your life, fine. If not then Buddhist practice might be helpful. The Buddha said "suffering exists", or to put it more informally: "sh*t happens."
P
Omniscience means ‘All’ knowing, not pick and choose knowing. That means he ‘WOULD’ know the winner of a race, and every possible detail.
F: The Upanishads tell us that the unknown is not the unknowable.
S9: Yes, but this is a reference of knowing, which takes place outside of the finite mind.
This is more of a ‘Being’ it, than an actual knowing about it, or a mental configuration of some kind. Buddha Nature knows Buddha Nature by Being Buddha Nature, from within, and not by figuring it out conceptually.
Warm Regards,
S9
When people apply the term in the religious sense, this is what I assume that they're talking about. I've never bought into the notion that full enlightenment or Buddhahood would translate into this kind of knowledge.
But hey, what do I know?...not being omniscient and all.
I think when some people use the word "omniscient" and "all-knowing," they use these words very loosely in this way. Most people immediately think that Gautama the man knew everything. But that would be saying that Gautama, the man, became Godlike in his knowing. I believe this is misleading. It leads us down the road towards worshipping Buddha instead of seeing him as a tathagatta or teacher.
On the other hand, Buddha Nature, which is what the Buddha finally understood to be Reality does know everything that is Real. Buddha Nature is the ONLY thing that is an experience of Reality.
Therefore, when every mistaken view (illusion) falls away, what remains IS Buddha Nature only.
Q: "Alone with the Alone."
So that knowing Buddha Nature and knowing All of Reality are synonymous. Ergo omniscient is Buddha Nature knowing Buddha Nature. Not a big thing or a complex thing as in mind's multiplicity, but rather a complete, whole, and simple experience of Knowing directly with a certainty.
Does that make sense to you? Or are you seeing it another way?
Incidentally, I grew up with Baptists to the right of me, and Mormons to the left, and a father who was Jehovah Witness. In order to keep from killing each other over what was to be done with me religiously, they decided in the name of peace to let me choose.
That got me thinking. After the cat got out of the religious bag, no one could figure out how to get me back in the bag…Oh they tried, mind you. He/He/He They had created a questioning monster. ; ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
If I'm understanding you correctly, that seems to make a lot of sense.
Geez, sometimes I feel like an intellectual lightweight on this forum. Can we talk about thermodynamics for a while?
S: That explains a lot S9
S9: Yikes!!
Is that a good thing?
Are you talking about my ideas of omniscience, or my monstrous self, or both?
Sorry, I warned y'all that I can't stop with the questions. ; ^ )
Kind regards,
S9
I'm just teasing you. I happen to be a counselor and interested in people's background including prior religious training before Buddhism.
I was raised a Catholic, which may explain why the mystical side of Buddhism has a childlike appeal for me.
sky
Thermo-what?
Kidding. ; ^ )
Just don’t start talking about higher math. It makes me dizzy.
Miles of smiles,
S9
S: I'm just teasing you. I happen to be a counselor and interested in people's background including prior religious training before Buddhism.
S9: Oh they all tried to train me, (religiously), but I couldn’t be broken. I’m like one of those horses, that won’t accept a saddle. ; ^ )
S: I was raised a Catholic, which may explain why the mystical side of Buddhism has a childlike appeal for me.
S9: I call myself a mystic. Other people call me worse names that that, but I won’t get into it here, children may be viewing this.
Smiles coming your way,
S9
I am confident that my head would explode far before reaching this point.
Damn.
There's a 3.30 at Chepstow?
Damn.
And I bet it would be abandoned due to a poor course.
Damn.
I see your point. But I myself don't adhere to Hinduism, and cannot comment.
we could agree then. But as far as I am aware, that's what being Omniscient is. Having a comprehensive knowledge of all that is known, knowable and unknown, and unknowable.....
Oh I do hope not.
I'm quite enjoying thrashing this one out.... No wrong-footedness was intended....;)
I think I can safely say, it already feels like mine has, several times over.....:wtf:
F: Pardon me S9, but you have defined omniscience as Buddha Nature. How then could the Buddha not be omniscient?
S9: I am sorry I didn't make myself understood. Let me try again, at your own risk. ; ^ )
There are two kinds of knowing:
(1) When people use the word “omniscience,” they usually mean a kind of knowing in the mind, an accumulation of ‘all’ the facts and events that have ever happened, are happening, and will ever happen. This is the type of knowledge that no man can have, or is capable of, not even Gautama, the man.
(2) Another kind of Knowing is altogether outside of the confines of the limited mind. This is Buddhahood, or complete freedom from the mind. One experiences this consequently as Being beyond time and space within the Immediate Now. (Not the time now, mind you, but the similtaneous, all at once Now. Some call this Eternity)
There are no facts, and there are no events, and there certainly is no need to accumulate in the Eternal Now, because it is simultaneous or all-at-once. The usual and common definition of omniscience wouldn’t even apply Here. And yet…everything about this new dimension is experienced Immediately and Completely as knowing itself, and with absolutely no need of other.
This new dimension of Knowing is empty of all mind objects, and yet full of its own Experience of Knowing to the bursting, and completely satisfying.
I hope I am making myself understood. If not, ask me anything.
Warm Regards,
S9
Will you share a story about That 'Anything' from the fabric of your life?
Jus' Foolin'
You big kid...er you! ; ^ )
Anything you ask, will be answered to the best of my ability. But like they say, (who is this they) be careful what you ask 4...u' all might just get it... EEK
Don't get me started,
Miles of smiles,
S9