What, the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy weren't competitive enough for you in the second half of the world war? Here's a case where excessive hubris got its come-uppance.

Buddhism is not a passive state, in fact no state of mind is passive. All relative states of conscious awareness exist because of the action of universal mind. Spiritual minds tune into the universal mind whereas relative attention on external realities are tuned into beliefs and illusions relative to changing patterns of thought.

If mankind were to give the same support to all of its parts in the same way as some spiritual disciplines do no one would be treated with less respect and dignity. All would have a place and a purpose.

As long as society maintains that there are winners and losers the winners will look down on the losers and those who are seen as losers will feel defensive and even take a hostile position toward the arrogance that supports the separation of human life into groups of measured worth.

It is psychologically damaging to force a person to accept that they are less than anyone else and it is also damaging to believe one is better than another.

If the future of man was to be unified in the equal support of all human life from early development there may be no crimes of hatred and abuse created by the psychological pressures that are created from the illusions of self worth.

The histories of the downfalls in enlightened human societies point to greed and jealousy. As man became more dense in self awareness so were the ignorantly created divisions in human qualities and the need to make up for worth by collecting stuff from the outside to make up for what was missing in the awareness of what is inside of man.

The Japanese practiced Shintism, a bent form of Budhism at the time; They bent it in such manner that they thought themselves to be direct descendants of the sun and the emperor god's (the sun) direct representative on earth.

Well, yeah. That is definitely a clue!


I don't know where you started equating Buddhism with universality... Buddhism doesn't aim to become the only religion. It doesn't say that it is the only way, as Christ is sometimes interpreted to have opined when he said, and I quote - perhaps incorrectly: "I am the way, the truth and the light. No-one comes to the Father but through me." When the Dalai Lama was asked what the best religion was, he didn't say Buddhism. He said: "Your religion."

Regarding dealing or surviving in a future with competition... I guess Buddhists (or at least, good Buddhists) would understand that, in competition, a winner necessitates a loser and a loser necessitates a winner. They are mutually interdependent and have no existence on their own; no inherent substance. Although he/she might compete, a Buddhist would be completely detached from winning or losing, because he/she would understand the the essential insubstantiality of both outcomes. That wouldn't detract from the fun of the action, but competition would just be understood as a strictly superficial event. What really matters, if anything, is the welfare of the beings involved.

You really will have to start reading the writing as given or have your eyesight checked. I said universal equality ... derrr .. everything in the universe having equality, or more specifically all living things having equality. I thought that was quite obvious. What has this to do with "universality" or anything in the context of "the only religion"?Maybe the Dalai Lama was trying to avoid the issue of religion. You know many Buddhists don't consider their search for enlightenment anything to do with god(s).That, in the real world, would be injured or killed. Look out of your window, it's happening. Look at history, it happened. Think of the future (not of you, or Buddhism, but of the species) - it will happen. Reconcile that with your religion (yes your religion, not Buddhism; it's really that obvious) - you can't have it both ways.

It fits right in there with all the other interpretations and meanings of universal and personal reality.

Buddha said: "The moment you`re empty and aware, all is found."

Enlightenment is the realization that one has been unnecessarily chasing one`s own tail.

interesting way of putting it. I think it's more than just that though.

I just read Deepak Chopra's Buddha: A Story of Enlightenment. Believe it or not, it's a real page turner. I think I understand Buddha better now. No comment on what enlightenment is.

Enlightenment is like personality, different for everyone. Thus to achieved enlightenment is to not know what enlightenment is, or to have achieved an ultimate state of selfishness.

how would you know unless you've experienced an enlightened mindset? How is this selfish if it benefits others? Unnecessarily chasing your own tail?

That's just silly....

What a silly and worthless response....

It is true that enlightenment is experienced in such a way that there are no defining principles of action for the divinely inspired to those who are limited in their comprehension. Because the waking state mind cannot move past its need to isolate God and God's personality it does not easily move past the personal ideas of reality influenced by past impressions. As such the ego cannot comprehend enlightenment other than on its own terms.

In on sense Selfishness could be used in that the Self is everywhere and everything.
It is also described as selflessness when all ideas of the personal in separation from the world evaporate in the larger experience of being everywhere at the same time. The experience of being intimately linked to everything tends to leave the person experiencing life more cognizant of the affects of thought and action as it affects others around him/her.

The way this discussion has gone I find the subtopic quite ironic
"a warning to all who are interested in enlightenment"

Agreed. This thread has been split so that the off-topic posts can be found at "The Hey Hey Affair". Further posts in this thread should deal with the problem of enlightenment.

What is enlightenment or what is enlightening? If one has a fixed position about reality, beliefs, how they see and experience the world and seek to find the answers to who what when and how, then the limited mind will seek to bind the actions and experiences of life to a set of designs structured to expectations.

If an adult had not gone through the experience of childhood then there would be some expectations about how a child should behave both emotionally and intellectually.
It would seem some adults are gracious enough to allow the imagination of a child to run to a degree. That degree being where the parent draws the line. If it was up to some adults who differ in opinions they would step in and take over the administration of parenthood where they would be unable to withdraw themselves from the experience of bad or unacceptable behavior.

It would appear the diversity of beliefs create short fuses in conversation when tolerance is wound too tight or when beliefs restrain the intellect to boundaries of personal comfort.

The problem with enlightenment is that if you are not enlightened you can't possibly understand what it means to step back and allow development of spiritual relationship or the relationship between people if you yourself are invested because of your own limitations and attachments to process, experience and emotional transgressions created by immature understanding of reality.

For the ego, reality is everything external, for the enlightened reality is spirit.
The external being a reflection of the individual and the experiences between reflection of personal beliefs and extremely diverse, the imagination can only conjure relative ideas of unity as everyone being, thinking and doing the same thing.

The really interesting thing is that this idea creates more sarcastic responses toward religion in favor of individuality and personal beliefs but the intelligence behind this thinking is far removed from really allowing it to exist in anyone else if it threatens ones personal mindset.
The typical rant against religion is to hell with you and your beliefs. I certainly will not allow myself to be sucked into your way of thinking for I will with all my energy protect my rights to believe as I choose, and I will not respect your choice to do so if it disagrees with me.

Everything that is happening within this topic is a clear reflection of that and the attempts to divide opinions into categories further enhances the divisions in beliefs about the topic.

So now we have:
The problem with enlightenment according to Hey Hey.
The problem with enlightenment according to Code Buttons.
The Problem with enlightenment according to Lucid Dream.
The problem with enlightenment according to Joesus.....

Etc. etc.

Because this forum has digressed into the outpicturing of personal beliefs and the little tolerance some people have for each other this is really no longer an open topic because the forum topics now need to have guidelines as to what fits and what doesn't.

That being the case there must be someone willing to step forward and claim omniscience or at least mastery of a topic.

Having been accused of thinking myself to be an expert by some of the sarcastic remarks I would gather there will be more of this type of response toward any one person claiming to be the expert unless everyone agrees to claim they don't know everything and any comment made is purely subject to ones own limits in beliefs, in which BM will be more of an opinion chat board because intelligence, experience and any idea of authority in topic is threatening to personal beliefs.

If we would like to see ourselves as developing adults similar to children then perhaps we should find a supreme adult to monitor the needs of development.

The problem with enlightenment is that with so many opinions about it there can never be consensus unless one surrenders themselves to the rule. IF there is no rule then any democratic approach is simply an agreeable best guess by the majority. Seeing as there are only 11,955 registered members how long will that democratic process last when making the rule for the entire planet?

I think really that in any society let alone a media such as this, one would have to be able to get over ones self and really look at the bigger picture. If one is incapable of doing that then should the rest wait for that person to make that choice or stand in the Truth to live the example that the childish beliefs will eventually give way to? If one is confident in truth then any statement will hold its own without a defense, and if one is without fear of confrontation in their expressions then it really doesn't matter what anyone says regardless of how different it is from ones own ideas or beliefs.

The Nature of God is extremely resilient and diverse and becoming enlightened is to be free of fear from oppression because one no longer identifies their true self with changing beliefs and emotions.

What you want for yourself, will it allow the same freedom for others? Or do you simply believe others don't deserve the same respect and freedoms?

the main problem with enlightenment is communicating the ineffable, and I am continuously surprised by the way some people have put into words ideas that I haven't been able to. It doesn't help when some people deny the experience/mindset altogether as this is likely due to ignorance on the part of the person in denial. It's like a blind person being in denial of visual experience. Consciousness takes myriad forms, and really, we are not in a position to be imposing constraints on consciousness, since all evidence suggests that consciousness is unlimited in its capabilities. The limits we have are entirely our own and are not reflective of limitations of consciousness.

My rant that started this thread dealt with world-denying interpretations of enlightenment, bearing in mind that these interpretations are thousands of years old and that questions of translation come into play. This reality that we are a part of is infinitely greater than we are cognizant of, and to get all heated up over minor events is ludicrous and misses the point. As Culture pointed out, it's ironic the direction this thread took. Indeed it is. I am not so sure there are problems with enlightenment unless it's interpreted without a sympathetic eye, with an inclination towards iconoclasm, or by placing too much emphasis on third-party accounts.

Joesus, an opinion chat board is certainly not desirable for the reason you mentioned. Authority is not a static or uniform thing. We grant authority to people based on the content of their postings, not on arbitrary designations or name assignments. Some people on the Enlightenment board wield considerable authority, though they may not be seen to be authoritative by everyone. But what precisely would you propose, some sort of surrender to an authority, one which not everyone would agree to be an authority? Being sympathetic towards other viewpoints, though perhaps subtly pointing out inconsistencies or deficiencies, while nonetheless explaining your own, is probably the best way to win people over, since trying to overtly belittle others or blatantly force an ideology onto them will have the opposite effect.

I'm not making a suggestion, only pointing to some flaws in the reasoning for taking a position one way or the other.

"I post this as a warning to all who are interested in enlightenment, and in particular, in Eastern notions of enlightenment.

The problem I have found with Eastern notions of enlightenment, including from the Vedas and Buddhism, is that they are invariably world-denying. In essence, enlightenment consists of the realization that this world is mere illusion and that all is Brahma (or Void). There is no questioning the experience of Eastern notions of enlightenment in which the mind draws into itself, like the turtle draws its limbs and head into its shell. However, the interpretation of this experience is what I have a problem with. Namely, the idea that the world is mere illusion, mere dream, and that all is a creation of the infinite undying Self, disregards the persistent nature of objects in our consciousness, the mathematical nature of everything, and the fact that everything in existence can be measured and is finite (with few exceptions in which we are ignorant, like the true size of the universe).

In short, I seriously question the validity of the interpretations of Eastern notions of enlightenment. I think they are dangerous interpretations that lead to world-denial and to the loss of meaningful participation and interaction in the world. The actual experience of enlightenment is a whole other matter, and is meaningful and worth experiencing. However, the standard interpretations of this experience are, in my opinion, simply incorrect, and by espousing world-denial, are no different from Christianity and other barbaric religions that belittle this world in preference to some imaginary one."


"Lucid_dream' just a quick note on your opening question.......

I get the feeling that this reality ( am sure it is similar to your own), is as believable as the dreams I experience at night.

In which I am running from a monster that is trying to eat me or machine which is trying to control me, in the dream, I so believe that the dream is real that . If this is the case when how much is reality a dream?????
ant

This is a common misunderstanding.
IF you actually understand the roots of Eastern Teachings you will find their commonality in Western Teachings and they do not deny the physical world, only put it in perspective with a much more natural and consistent reality which underlies the individual and inconsistent realities of beliefs and misperceptions.

I agree. There is a formula in Buddhism, Nirvana=Samsara. The Buddhists don't deny the world. For them everything is a manifestation of the transcendental Buddha. The concept of wisdom or karuna(prajna) in Buddhism means "seeing/perceiving things as they really are. without any trace of ignorance".

interesting that Buddhists are still more inclined to be apathetic and slothful than non-Buddhists. Does anyone have the statistics on this? Why would Buddhists be inclined to be apathetic and lazy? Is this a consequence of their creed or reflective of a mental predisposition (i.e., lazy unmotivated people are more likely to become Buddhists, as opposed to Buddhism necessarily causing laziness and lack of motivation)? What direction is the arrow of causality here?

Any problem would be only a misunderstanding of what Buddhism represents. The idea of going inward to find God is often taken to an extreme. Non violence, non grasping, non stealing, self restraint and truthfulness is often associated to monk like qualities of withdrawal from the world.

There is a parable about a monk who sits in a cave for a long time to experience oneness and stillness. After achieving a state of relative stillness he comes out of the cave and trips over a rock losing everything that he has gained in an instant as all kinds of feelings and sensory chaos is experienced.

Many approach enlightenment from the mind. A projection is created in relation to what an enlightened person looks like, acts like and lives like and so people who are not enlightened take their idea and try to live it, acting and living their best guess.
In essence this is where all religions meet failure. The unenlightened, enlightened wannabe, takes every impulse of desire, judgment and idea about enlightenment and suppresses their nature and tries to control the nature of reality even if it is in a state of withdrawal from reality.


A Buddhist walks up to a hot dog vendor and says," Make me one with everything."

lol, where do you come up with this stuff?

That one was courtesy of Robin Williams.