Ethical conduct indispensable for attaining enlightenment or Buddhahood

Ethical conduct in the form of right speech, right livelihood and right effort are considered to be vital practices leading to enlightenment in Buddhism or Buddhahood.

Noble Eightfold Path - Wikipedia

The Three Trainings

Ethical conduct is also emphasized in the religious philosophies of Hinduism, Jainism and Sufism for attaining enlightenment.

This itself is a refutation of the nihilist and existentialist premise that life is meaningless and all values and virtues are but abstract mental contrivances without any relevance of their own.

 

Has any enlightened individual ever actually said that they're enlightened?

 

Yes, the Buddha had stated that he attained enlightenment .

There were other people in the past and present who had given their testimony with respect to their enlightened state.

I had created threads on three such sages...

Female enlightened master Rajini Menon on attaining enlightenment by adhering to virtuous conduct...

An account of enlightenment by Gary Weber...

Bernadette Roberts on the experience of no-self

 

Roshi Robert Aitken once wrote that without the Precepts, Zen becomes a mere hobby; just another ornament for the ego.

The Precepts - Rochester Zen Center

 

Present?

Who would that be?

 

if you ask ajayo he will tell you dr. dr. (not) frederick lenz, known as rama or something the guy who committed suicide. before he topped himself he went around saying he was the avatar kalki, or calculus, or something.... also there was that kalki guy who kept his swedish cult in dog kennels and drugged them on ketamine and lsd - this goopface The Cult of Kalki Bhagavan - Open The Magazine

 

Yo Chodpa, long time no see, dude.

Forget about Lenz or others. I hope you are keeping yourself free from drugs or intoxicants as per Buddhist teachings, and having a steady job as well, and not having financial issues as you had rambled earlier.

I had wondered about you, and was hoping that your professional and personal life had changed for the better. If not, you have my sympathies.

 

The Ten Precepts as I received them:

I resolve not to kill, but to cherish all life.

I resolve not to take what is not given, but to respect the things of others.

I resolve not to engage in improper sexuality, but to be caring and responsible.

I resolve not to lie but to speak the truth.

I resolve not to cause others to take substances that confuse the mind, nor to do so myself, but to keep the mind clear at all times.

I resolve not to speak of the faults of others, but to be understanding and sympathetic.

I resolve not to praise myself and disparage others, but to overcome my own shortcomings.

I resolve not to withhold spiritual or material aid, but to give them freely where needed.

I resolve not to indulge in anger, but to exercise restraint.

I resolve not to revile the Three Treasures, Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, but to cherish and uphold them.

 

Who would that be?

Dont you remember: CADDYSHACK, where the Bill Murray groundskeeper told Chevy Chase that The Dali Lama had promised him total concsisious on his deathbed. We all can claim that legacy.

 

An interesting excerpt on nihilism as per Buddhism, that I read recently...

Nihilism - Wikipedia

 

Very interesting, did not know ideas of Nihilism from a Buddhist perspective. This is a debate though..
Nihilism is mainly being content with the world alone vs understanding the world logic and flow.

 

"The act of giving produces no beneficial results;
Good and bad actions produce no results;
After death, beings are not reborn into the present world or into another world;
There is no one in the world who, through direct knowledge, can confirm that beings are reborn into this world or into another world"

Points 1 and 2 opposites are logical and irrefutable to most.

3 and 4 have no basis in scientific fact.

It is a big jump from saying from the perspective of physics that energy only changes form and is never lost, to human beings become rhino's.

I believe Jiddu Krishnamuti had direct knowledge, in fact one criticism or at least an observation from a Tibetan monk was that he would not come down from conveying/communicating from (or being) absolute reality to relative reality like the Buddha did for lay people. Yet J. Krishnamurti's position was.. unless you know how to live this life well, what happens after death is meaningless.

Point 4 is highly problematic without faith, and where there is faith their is belief, and belief does not guarantee truth. In fact often it may mean the absence of truth and belief takes its place.

If you know you know, fine that is the logical position.

If there is no direct knowledge, I think it is better to have the position... I do not know.... rather than believe. Why pin your hope's which is what belief fundamentally is to something that may be incorrect ? It seems that it would shut down and close other possibilities.

 

Science is not a holistic philosophy and results in only partial truths. It takes time and research to gather a holistic understanding.

For example, chemical fertilizers and pesticides were considered to be useful and safe by scientists when they were introduced heavily in agriculture. Large spikes in cancer rates and death rates however disproved this illusion and resulted in the movement for organic and natural farming in the west.

Similarly when nuclear weapons were used and tested, there was not much understanding about its harmful effects. I have seen an old photograph of American soldiers without protective clothing and even shirts watching a nuclear explosion with the resultant mushroom cloud at a distance which they unfortunately thought to be safe.

It was similarly when the adverse effects of exposure to nuclear radiation was understood that such practices hopefully came to an end. However by then a lot of damage had been done due to ignorance.

So science cannot result in a holistic understanding of the whole in the beginning itself. It has its own due process for that.

Also, the third and fourth points deal with rebirth/reincarnation which is now considered to be a plausible theory by western psychiatry and psychology due to a large body of research work by psychiatrists like Dr. Brian Weiss, Dr. Michael Newton , Dr. Jim Tucker , Dr. Ian Stevenson and many others.

Many have provided their testimony with respect to their past lives even though they were brought up in an environment whose religious and secular beliefs refuted reincarnation.

I have created a thread in this regard...

An Englishman's account of his past life incarnation as an Ecuadorian girl named Lisbet Guerrera

There was also a recent declassified pentagon report suggesting that reincarnation may really exist as per their military research findings...

Declassified pentagon report suggests that reincarnation really exists

So it is possible that reincarnation and possibility of other dimensions may be proved in the future by scientific research.

But just because there is not enough scientific research to prove it at present does not mean that the doctrine of reincarnation should be dismissed as incorrect.

 

Then it is up to an individual, it can be no other way really to determine whether belief is acceptable in place of sure knowledge.

Anecdotes whilst very interesting and compelling do not give me irefutable knowledge at the core of my being.

You know in some way I hope (is that belief in itself?) reincarnation does not exist. And that is for the even the very best of reincarnations as a human again supposedly anyway according to Buddhists.. as that is quite a scary proposition, being born again, having to re-educate, evolve again, become an adult etc. And I have had a relatively fortunate life so far and not once, forever potentially.

It feels extremely tiring to even think that. And the troubling aspect is that fear of it suggest it may actually be what happens.

Also what reincarnation has going for it, is that we can see the cyclic nature of many aspects of the universe. It almost seems that if we live once and then nothing at all, zero, it was a lot of trouble for the evolution of all to have gone to for nothing at all being the outcome.(if it was trouble and not just a "self so" process that was unstoppable.

Much of what is believed to happen post death according to religion is related to justice of some kind. Endless examples we can give, crooked politicians, murderers, children who die so young, either need what we typically see as positive or negative consequences to see justice done.

Is it merely wishful thinking ? We cannot seem to see beyond the dimension of life unless some extraordinary circumstances appear, i transcendence or near death experience etc.

It is a distinct possibility, and has much more gravitas that heaven/hell type realms for eternity, where would people who neither did bad or good go ? Which is most people, it makes no sense. Even though the Bardo realms are potentially heaven and hell like according to the Tibetans.

I feel I neither do that much good or that much bad. I do some good for others, charitable donation etc. but arguably not enough due to fear I guess of
not having enough money myself at some time.

So few people are interested in all of this so it is nice to have one place to share thoughts. Though even that ironically feels egotistical but what can we do communication, words and language seems to be plagued with dualistic terms, not least as it is the very expression of thoughts. Not bad in themselves but out of control... we must ask who is the controller ? And why is the controller ? And try and get to the very bottom of it.

"It takes time and research to gather a holistic understanding."

I am not sure, that often seems to be "out of time", it may take practice, but the insights and realizations come in a flash instant, immediate. Often when the mind is outside of time... at least psychological time.

Talking, communicating, speaking, expecting, analysis is all a problem. He who says does not know etc

Lao Tzu: 'He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know.' — The Socratic Method

Always a paradox as that did not apply to the Buddha it seems.

And if I do not say, it does not mean I then know. It just means I know I do not know and it is better to be quiet. There is something in this for sure.

Maybe one has to give up the speaking with others about such matters in the end. After all this is between you, whatever you ultimately is or is not and existence itself.