Originally posted by eagles54It depends crucially on how "enlightenment" is understood.
Then there is a causal relationship between meditation practice and enlightenment that just wasn't apparent in the story before.
Thank you.
If it's seen as a "process" that occurs in progressive stages, then yes, there is a causal relationship between practice and enlightenment.
But if enlightenment is seen as not a process, but rather a direct recognition of what is already the case, then from the ultimate perspective there is no causal relationship between enlightenment and effort of any sort.
In my own experience, both of these carry truth. The first is the truth of relative reality -- space, time, bodies, cause and effect. The second is the truth of "absolute" reality, which is not defined by space, time, bodies, or cause and effect, but rather exists prior to the movement of thought. Both space and time are concepts, the experience of which is influenced by our conceptual filters. When not caught up in confused thinking -- that is, when not identified with thought -- our experience of space and time changes. We begin to directly experience "no separation" (no space) and the "eternal now" (no time).
Another analogy -- clearly there is a direct relationship between the world and our mind (in terms of our subjective experience). When we go to sleep each night, what happens to the world (for us)? Effectively, it disappears. We have no experience of it. When we wake up in the morning, lo and behold, there is the world again.
The "shifting" from sleep to waking is akin to the shifting from delusion to enlightenment. Meditation in this analogy can be likened to a gradual movement from deep sleep (including bad dreams) to light sleep and good dreams, to hovering on the edge of awakening, and then finally to simply waking up.
The actual waking up is something like a quantum shift, radical and sudden. Much like how we wake up in the morning and realize that the entire night we just went through was nothing but a series of dreams.
But was our awakening actually caused by anything? We can ascribe a number of natural biological processes to the actual movement from sleep to waking up in the morning, but from another perspective it just happened naturally when we were ready and the time was right. When our body had slept enough, you might say...
Originally posted by eagles54Eagles, I think that emotional reactivity is indeed the "final frontier" when it comes to taming the mind. One useful point to consider, is that most people casually aquainted with Eastern teachings assume that emotions are to be transcended via a disciplined practice of mindfulness. But for the average Westerner this is usually difficult, because our very cultural roots are steeped in individualism. To be an "individual" in the conventional sense, one needs to be in touch with emotions, especially anger and the capacity to express righteous indignation. Hence Eastern models of enlightenment can seem, at times, to be at variance with our very culturally conditioned roots, concerning individual expressiveness and emotional passion. This is especially true for southern Europeans and Americans, who tend to be extroverted in general.
Those of us with beaucoup disturbing emotions are a long way from abandoning meditation practice. Although, a shoe on the top of the head might be as effective as my current method..
😀
So the alternative to transcendence is the immanent approach to self-realization, where emotions are simply allowed to be what they are, and awareness is brought into them, rather then the other way around (pushing emotions away in an attempt to be conscious). So for example, when experiencing anger, to simply bring as much awareness as we can into the anger. This is difficult in the beginning but with practice the anger becomes more "spacious" in quality and less knee-jerk reactive. That is, we can experience anger as what it is, simply an energy arising in the body deriving from thoughts connected to interpretations of events around us.
Originally posted by evolution9You have something against bald fat blokes? Wait till you get older and your hair falls out and your belly starts to grow from drinking one too many... 😲
Of course some bald fat bloke dependent upon food donations knows all the secrets of life. Of course.
For the record, the Buddha was not fat. That was a myth begun by the legend of the Chinese saint Hotei, the "laughing buddha", who came about 1,000 years after the historical founder of Buddhism, Siddartha Gautama.
Hard to be fat when you're eating only one meal a day, as Theravadin Buddhists do...
Originally posted by MetamorphosisHow do you know that he wasn't fat ?
You have something against bald fat blokes? Wait till you get older and your hair falls out and your belly starts to grow from drinking one too many... 😲
For the record, the Buddha was not fat. That was a myth begun by the legend of the Chinese saint Hotei, the "laughing buddha", who came about 1,000 years after the historical founder of Buddhi ...[text shortened]...
Hard to be fat when you're eating only one meal a day, as Theravadin Buddhists do...
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat do you mean? Zen Buddhism is not interested in the reification of the ego, but with the recognition that the ego is ultimately illusury (in the one's ultimate nature is not that of a persisting individual self).
How about the criticism that Buddhism is rather "me" orientated ?
Originally posted by bbarr
What do you mean? Zen Buddhism is not interested in the reification of the ego, but with the recognition that the ego is ultimately illusury (in the one's ultimate nature is not that of a persisting individual self).
Every time someone writes something about Buddhism it always evolves around the ego, the human self, or about the illusion of these notions.
Does Buddhism teach us about how our relationships with others should be, and as a result of that how society should be built ?
What does Buddhism teach us about the dignity of the human person ?
Originally posted by Jay PeateaLOL. True, we don't have a time machine or 2,500 year old photos. But let's just say it's likely a 98% probability that he was not a big fat guy as is the common silly stereotypical image. There is a famous statue of Buddha that depicts him as basically skin and bones, and all of the older statues and renderings of him indicate a man of average weight. Granted, these statues were not created until a couple of centuries after his death, but that is still closer to the mark than the "fat buddha" statues that appeared much later in China, connected to Hotei, who supposedly lived around 600 AD. The Buddha lived around 500 BC in northern India/southern Nepal. The skinny and average sized-man statues appeared around 300 BC in India. The fat guy statues didn't appear until around 600 AD in China.
How do you know that he wasn't fat ?
Buddha was also known to have fasted extensively prior to his big enlightenment, and after that spent a lifetime walking from village to village across northern India. All that walking in a hot climate, combined with the simple diet of one meal per day he and his company partook of, makes it extremely unlikely he was overweight.
Not that it would be relevant if he was, mind you... 😛
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeBbarr said it concisely, and I'd add that the emphasis on seeing directly into the constructed nature of the ego is precisely so that a person can develop (or uncover, if you will) the qualities of wisdom and compassion. The wisdom derives from seeing that the mind is generating illusions all the time (mostly via projection and identification), and the compassion derives from recognizing that all human folly is born out of ignorance of our true nature.
Every time someone writes something about Buddhism it always evolves around the ego, the human self, or about the illusion of these notions.
Does Buddhism teach us about how our relationships with others should be, and as a result of ...[text shortened]... t does Buddhism teach us about the dignity of the human person ?
At first glance it might seem as if such inner focus is "selfish", but the reverse is more true. Selfishness derives from imposing one's views onto others, owing to the assumption that one's own views are more important. If one begins to see that one's "views" are mostly sourcing from one's ego, then it follows that understanding of this ego will result in greater humility and thus less selfishness.
Increased understanding of one's own mind also is a sound basis for social responsibility. This is based on the idea that morality is born out of consciousness and wisdom, not the other way around. Many a do-gooder has decided to first "fix the world" before tending to their own backyard, with disastrous results.
As for Buddhism's teachings about "relationships with others", two of Buddha's 8 points in his Noble Eightfold teaching are "right behavior", as well as "right livelihood". These address the social aspects of his system.
Originally posted by Metamorphosis"seeing directly into the constructed nature of the ego"
Bbarr said it concisely, and I'd add that the emphasis on seeing directly into the constructed nature of the ego is precisely so that a person can develop (or uncover, if you will) the qualities of wisdom and compassion. The wisdom derives from seeing that the mind is generating illusions all the time (mostly via projection and identification), and th ...[text shortened]... ght behavior", as well as "right livelihood". These address the social aspects of his system.
.... and how do you do this, this "seeing directly" ?
... and what constitutes this "right behaviour" and "right livelihood" ?
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoe"Seeing directly" is the basis of meditation. It is the interiorization of consciousness, back in upon itself.
"seeing directly into the constructed nature of the ego"
.... and how do you do this, this "seeing directly" ?
... and what constitutes this "right behaviour" and "right livelihood" ?
Most of the time, our awareness, our consciousness, is trained upon the objects of the world. These "objects" may be tangible -- physical reality -- or they may be conceptual, as in ideas. To meditate in the deepest sense is to focus one's awareness on simply consciousness itself. Not on objects in space and time, or thoughts, but simply on awareness itself.
Here's an analogy -- imagine looking at a big blackboard that is empty. Then take a piece of chalk, and put a white dot on the middle of the blackboard.
What are you going to notice? Most people will reply, "the white dot". Our attention naturally gravitates toward the "foreground", and this is true with everything that passes over the screen of consciousness in our daily lives. We notice objects, that which are always changing, arising and fading away (as everything in the universe does, sooner or later). But we tend to never notice the one thing that is constant in our perceptual field, and that is our consciousness itself, the "background" or "context" of our experience.
This can be difficult to grasp because we're not accustomed to regarding consciousness as the ground of our experience. We tend to view thoughts as the basis of our experience, in accordance with Rene Descrates' famous "I think therefore I am". Descartes was a good expression of the glorifying of the intellect of modern times, but from the point of view of Buddhist philosophy, his view was mistaken. A more accurate expression is "I am, therefore I think". Our "am-ness" precedes the conceptualization process. This can be easily verified by anyone who trains themselves to watch their mind.
To watch the mind in meditation means simply to observe thoughts without getting caught up in them. For example, just watch your mind and see if you can detect a thought arising into your consciousness. It's hard, but with practice it can be done. What becomes apparent when you learn to observe a thought arising into your consciousness is that the process by which this thought is being created is inherently mysterious.
Biochemically speaking, we know very little about thoughts, but from an experiential basis we know very little about their origin either. What becomes clear in time is that a thought can be seen to be arising in the mind but there is no thinker as such, in the background, selecting which thought to have at any given moment. There is truly no "self" there. This is why Buddhism refers to our true nature as "emptiness". Not empty as in meaningless or absence of experience, but empty as in formless awareness.
So as we develop insight via the practice of observing our own minds, we begin to see that the so-called ego or individual self is purely a conceptual construction, based on memory, and identification with reference points, the personality, and the body.
To see deeply into the spaciousness emptiness of the self is known in Zen as "satori", or direct insight. With this comes an immediate and tacit recognition of something much deeper and vaster, what can be called "pure presence". This pure presence is nothing flashy or cosmic, it is very natural and simple. From that place of present-time clarity and awareness one automatically cultivates the attitude that is conducive toward "right behavior", which refers to an engagement in life that is both involved and detached at the same time. It cares about things, but doesn't impose itself onto other people's realities, unless that seems absolutely called for (as in times of crisis, etc.). As for "right livelihood," this refers to how one functions in the world, in accordance with one's highest positive potential, and doing one's responsible best. But the key point here is that these social expressions arise out of the cultivation of a meditation mindset, as opposed to some moral law that one simply pays lip service to.