Questions That Need Answers

33 years.

If, after 25 years, you are still looking for the "how", you have missed the essence of it. It's all about how.

 

As for enlightenment, there are some fine thoughts and explanations above. Well worth rereading and contemplating.

I like how the OP starts with the possibility of omniscience/omnipotence and ends with the hope of peace. I would suggest starting with the intent of personal peace. Let the rest take care of itself.

I don't think I'm a Buddhist.

 

My ThOuGhT oN ThIs WaS mOrE oN tHe LiNeS oF: If AfTeR tWeNtY-fIvE yEaRs AlL yOu CaN wAlK aWaY wItH iS "That's long enough to have killed the Buddha many times over" tHeN I qUeStIoN iF iT wAs BuDdHiSm YoU pRaCtIcEd. If It WaSn'T pErHaPs NeOsImIaNiSm InStEaD?

WhIcH iS oKaY (I gUeSs). MaNy FoLkS pRaCtIcE [tHeIr-NaMe]-IsM aLrEaDy, AnYwAyS.

If OnE pRoFeSsEs To PrAcTiCe BuDdHiSm, AnD tEaChEs/InStRuCtS aNy DiFfErEnT tEaChInG tHaN tHaT wHiCh WaS (To UsE yOuR wOrDiNg NeO) rEgUrGiTaTeD By ThE bUdDhA, iT bEcOmEs NoThInG mOrE tHaN [tHeIr-NaMe]-IsM. To ThEsE iNdIvIdUaLs ThE bUdDhA wOuLd PrOnOuNcE aS bEiNg PeRnIcIoUs.

I tHiNk I'lL cLoSe WiTh A qUoTe I hEaRd On SeVeRaL oCcAsIoN: iF iT wOrKs, DoN't FiX iT.

HTML:

 

... ...

HTML:

 

And if it works poorly?

While I respect the Buddha, I cannot help but see the failure of Buddhism. To say this is no more insulting than saying that Isaac Newton did not discover Relativity.

I have encountered countless people online who can quote the Buddha line, verse and chapter (so to speak). They will swear high and low that they "got it". Yet I note that they never seem to stray from what has been taught to them. How genuine is their experience?

The original post asked what enlightenment is. Well, let us also consider what counterfeit enlightenment is. Has the world not seen countless gurus who claimed to know? Do we not encounter would-be sages all over the internet?

This is why I will continue to "kill the Buddha", as the saying goes. Occasionally, though, I do run across someone who has something novel to say — something that appears to come from somewhere other than training. Perhaps I'll encounter such a person on this forum.

 

If it work's, don't fix it ...

Poorly means it don't work ...

But then, even if it does work (non-poorly), it could very well be the user.

HTML:

 

Neosimian, you seem a searcher, on a searchers' path. I submit that you have used the old teachings to get to where you are now. Others may need to start there also, and who knows, your path may return you to the "old" teachings yet. Killing Buddhas is already with you.

Your points on enlightenment not being fully explained seem valid to me. Some say it can not be talked about. I believe that is why people answer the question with questions in an attempt to help others explore for themselves. We will probably all come to close agreement that we finally find any answers within ourselves. Good luck to you, to us all.

and at least Buddhism allows any new information about the human condition to be incorporated. If you find it to be true (that is a high bar), examine it, maybe allow others to examine it, and remain open, empty, take 25 years, or more. (Can I give advice if I can't always follow it myself?)

I went back and reread Meagain's post and realized that I rehashed much of what he said. Sorry about that.

 

You talk a lot about failure. You even have a standard for judging failure: that the student learns his lessons well.

What do you know of success?

You imply that you approve of novelty. Surely novelty itself cannot be considered success. If it were, then truth would have to change with every generation.

Halfreed is right: you are a searcher. One who does not know his destination will always be a searcher.

 

What I have discovered for myself is that there are many different ways of looking at what might be called The Human Problem.

There is much in Buddhism that remains to inform me. The same goes for Hinduism and certain flavors of Christianity. I don't know enough about Islam to comment on that. Judaism has a few things for me, I've found. Taoism rocks, up to a point.

So yes, I will return to the "old" teachings. Based on previous experience, though, I do not expect to stay there.

And how well has that worked out? Your words are placid and friendly, and that's nice. But a smile does not automatically produce a solution. Louis Pasteur did not discover the nature of infection — and thereby open the door to saving countless lives — by helping others explore. He rolled up his sleeves (so to speak) and dug out the answers for himself, resolutely ignoring all that was "known" about disease.

And in a different realm of exploration, that's also what the Buddha did. More about this in a moment.

I can agree with you that the answer must be found within ourselves. By way of analogy, one cannot treat a hangover by giving somebody else plenty of fluids!

On the other hand, we can certainly help one another to find out which solutions are consistent and effective.

Ideally, yes. In practice, though, I see a lot of self-identified Buddhists on the net telling other people precisely what Buddhism requires of them. Perhaps they've forgotten what a rebel Gautama Siddartha was, in terms of what passed for wisdom at that time.

Buddhism is really nifty, in my opinion. People, on the other hand, can be far less nifty. Here on the net I have become accustomed to being told what Buddhism means by people who have convinced themselves that they know. It's very rare, though, that I encounter someone who actually seems to have opened up the doors and windows of their mind.

There are a lot of good, peaceful, nice people out there. Alas, a huge proportion of them are merely anaesthetized by their illusions. And nearly every one of them is ready to tell me what I need to do or believe. Is it any wonder we need to kill the Buddha(s)?

 

If the lessons do not correspond to the truth, then a student who "learns his lessons well" has failed. Moreover, if the student bogs down with the received wisdom, true or not, then he has not only failed but died.

Earlier in this thread it was said that enlightenment was the end of suffering. While that is only a partial answer, it's still a pretty good one. And on that basis I can declare a measure of "success".

But that alone is insufficient. I can entertain numerous delusions that will remove the worst of my suffering. I daresay a suicide bomber is exceedingly cheerful as he pushes the button to blow himself and others to smithereens. But I don't subscribe to his "truth".

We can discuss my "successes" in more detail, of course, but there's always the danger than we would end up comparing spiritual dicks, so to speak. I'd prefer to avoid "my enlightenment is better than yours" and find some other way to work together.

Agreed. Novelty is not, of itself, proof of anything.

A fellow by the name of Alfred Wegener once proposed a novel and ridiculous idea known as "continental drift". It took a few generations before science accepted the absurd notion. A few generations later everybody (except a few eccentrics) accepted it.

The "truth" never changes. But our understanding does. Not every generation, necessarily. But eventually.

And one who believes he knows his destination can often convince himself that he's arrived there.

 

Thank you, I have no argument.

No denying that I am anesthetized by my illusions. Keeping that foremost and finding small moments when I see it clearly is my intent.

One more thought. Beginning teaching is not the same as devotee knowing. In Christianity (another time and place). You can start with the Lord's Prayer, but the new convert will probably not be able to comprehend what it means. Even long time Christians are prone to pray, "do not let it rain on my picnic". Love your neighbor as yourself, or Lord, let your will be done (surrender of will) usually come from living with doctrine till it becomes true(?) in a deep different way than it started. Most people are not going to put in that time or dedication outside of the Monastery. I is accessible to all, but easy? I only pray it were so.

Who knows? I see you slipped in another post before I got this out and touched on this some.

 

I agree. Let's not go there.

Do you imagine that the cheerful bomber is not suffering? Cheerfulness or the lack of it has nothing to do with suffering. It is because he is suffering that he cheerfully sets off his bomb.

He finds the cause of his enemy to be unsatisfactory. Unsatisfactoriness is the definition, or rather a better translation, of suffering. In setting off his bomb, cheerfully or not, he has not remedied the situation. He has not ended the suffering, either his own or anyone else's.

 

Ah, well, this touches on counterfeit enlightenment, does it not? For somebody to go so far as to blow himself up for Allah or whoever, he must believe that he has tapped into some great Truth.

It's not just those people, of course. When I was young I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness. I would have cheerfully died rather than accept a blood transfusion. I was sure I had tapped into some great Truth!

Oddly enough, it did not feel "unsatisfactory" to me at that time. It was indeed un-satisfactory, but I didn't know it. I was suffering because I did not think I was good enough to please God.

Fortunately, I eventually woke up to the inconsistencies of my beliefs.

Well, that's true if you believe in reincarnation on a personal level. I don't, so I entertain the possibility that he did indeed end his personal suffering. Of course, in so doing he created an explosion of bad karma, so in that sense he didn't die.

 

That is the illusory nature of samsara: suffering is so obvious that we don't notice it.

A Jehovah's Witness may feel good about his beliefs, but he goes knocking on people's doors because other people are unbelievers. In other words, all is not as it should be. That's what suffering is.

The happy bomber blows himself up because all is not as it should be. That is suffering.

The ubiquity of all not being "as it should be" (whatever that means to the individual) is what makes ignoring suffering so easy. Realizing that it is everywhere and that it encompasses all other problems is the First Noble Truth.