All Prophets are Buddhas or How We Decide Who is Enlightened!

[ralis]

That's why there are also symbols like yantras, there are also yogic techniques and visualizations that help a person internally transcend conceptual boundaries. When these boundaries have been transcended to one degree or another, one may read the words of a Buddha as limited though they may appear due to being merely "primitive linguistic" symbols. The inner experience of them, which they are pointing to will not be limited by the appearance of the symbol.

 

I don't see you using those symbols here. Moreover, your narrative is an attempt to create absolutes where none exist.

 

The limitations of any language creates difficulties in interpersonal communication. English is fraught with problems that are based on Aristotelian logic. Aristotelian logic is based on absolute definitions that create in the mind an exact representation of subject and object. That is an illusion. Yes/no, right/wrong, black/white are some examples of how phenomena are termed in this system.

 

Most every speaker of English, with a few exceptions, use the above framework in everyday communication. The challenge is to be aware of this ingrained framework and make changes where appropriate.

 

Here is a great place to start.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Sanity-Introduction-Non-Aristotelian-Semantics/dp/0937298018/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1309882739&sr=8-1

 

Robert Anton Wilson's books are very useful for understanding this problem. His writing is both entertaining and fun! Wilson wrote an entire book without using "is", not certain of the title.

 

http://www.rawilson.com/home.html

 

The problems with the cultural symbols, yantras etc. are that those symbols are not necessarily universal, but culturally biased. Some verbal explanation most always accompany the symbol in question.

Edited July 5, 2011 by ralis

[ralis]

Just go deeper than the first couple of Jhanas in meditation is all.

 

 

 

That could be nothing more than just realizing words and believing an indoctrination. Words do not define reality!

[Vajrahridaya]

That could be nothing more than just realizing words and believing an indoctrination. Words do not define reality!

 

By this statement, clearly you've not gone beyond the first couple Jhanas. I would recommend a regular and intense meditation practice that is consistent and increases in time spent over many years.

 

But, whatever, you'll probably defend your conceptual illusion some more. Just speaking on years of experience with you ralis.

 

I do appreciate your previous post though, and I do agree! English is quite dense. I prefer sanskrit.

[lifeforce]

How many posts have been argued over during the last two years as to the superior nature of Buddhism? Thousands! This incessant Buddhist preaching is absurd.

 

I'm fed up with it. There's plenty of Buddhist forums out there.

[Aaron]

Just go deeper than the first couple of Jhanas in meditation is all.

 

 

 

That wasn't enough for me and it wasn't enough for the Buddha either. Live more intensely, study yourself more intensely!! Meditate with more focus, or more letting go, contentment in the first couple of jhanas can be a trap! Well... if you wish to know the truth of things that is.

 

At one time it wasn't enough Vaj, but after twenty years of meditation and many realizations, it became enough. I'm sure, in time, when you reach a state of awareness, it will be too. May your mind and heart be opened.

 

Aaron

Edited July 5, 2011 by Twinner

[ralis]

By this statement, clearly you've not gone beyond the first couple Jhanas. I would recommend a regular and intense meditation practice that is consistent and increases in time spent over many years.

 

But, whatever, you'll probably defend your conceptual illusion some more. Just speaking on years of experience with you ralis.

 

I do appreciate your previous post though, and I do agree! English is quite dense. I prefer sanskrit.

 

English is not the problem but how it is utilized. What does Sanskrit have to do with the proper use of English? Are you able to fluently communicate using Sanskrit? If so, what value does your knowledge of Sanskrit give to this forum?

[Vajrahridaya]

At one time it wasn't enough Vaj, but after twenty years of meditation and many realizations, it became enough. I'm sure, in time, when you reach a state of awareness, it will be too. May your mind and heart be opened.

 

Aaron

 

I spent lifetimes, of which I remember. Who are you? Your statements do not reflect profound realization, instead, they reflect pride of age, sadly.

[Vajrahridaya]

English is not the problem but how it is utilized. What does Sanskrit have to do with the proper use of English? Are you able to fluently communicate using Sanskrit? If so, what value does your knowledge of Sanskrit give to this forum?

 

Say's the stone to the lake.

[Vajrahridaya]

May your mind and heart be opened.

 

Aaron

 

May your Sahasarara and Anahata be open.

[Aaron]

[Vajrahridaya]

What is Buddha saying here?

 

Aaron

 

I guess whatever protects you from humbling down instead of thinking you know something that you clearly don't.

 

p.s. I can quote endless texts in use to support my view, that's just life. You think you know something, I think you do not, as you think I do not. Just check yourself is all. I obviously can't check a person who finds himself uncheckable.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Aaron]

I guess whatever protects you from humbling down instead of thinking you know something that you clearly don't.

 

p.s. I can quote endless texts in use to support my view, that's just life. You think you know something, I think you do not, as you think I do not. Just check yourself is all. I obviously can't check a person who finds himself uncheckable.

 

 

You still don't get it Vaj. How are you behaving? What does Buddha himself say about your behavior? I am checkable, if I'm wrong I will more often than not come around to admit it. If someone proposes something to me, even if I don't agree with it and might argue at first, if it's reasonable I examine it. My opinion on many things, including dependent origination have changed drastically because of conversations I have had with other people. My point is simply this, do what you believe is right. Treat others, including their beliefs with respect, and they will more often than not respect you, but when you say, "You are wrong and I am right" then what you will more often than not experience is opposition and derision.

 

After years of arguing on this site, you seem to miss this very simple point. I still love you man and I'm not saying you don't know what you know or what you know is wrong, but rather that you shouldn't be so harsh when it comes to others beliefs. I'm sure Buddha believed that he was right and that everyone else was wrong, but he clearly understood that going about with that sort of attitude wasn't going to win him any brownie points, so he urged his followers to behave as they knew they should, and that the clearest way to understand this was by looking at how other people behaved and make their judgement based on that.

 

Between here and enlightenment, there is a long trip, while we are traveling, isn't it in our best interest to behave in a way that makes us a joy to be around?

 

Aaron

Edited July 6, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

Hi Aaron

 

Please excuse my tone, and lack of grace, its mostly a semantics thing.

 

I'm fairly certain I'm not confused, as you say, but I'm not particularly interested in hubris either, and I realize I'm straying into that.

 

When I used to "think all the time", I made very little progress. I read countless books, and used my mind to "figure things out". Those "figurings" never seemed quite right however.

 

Then I stopped thinking. Not all the time, obviously, but quite a bit; maybe 50% of the time (impossible to put a number on it). I have found that during the absence of thought, you can not venture out of the present moment, the this-ness. Then, some things become apparent; obvious. And everything that needs doing, still gets done, just without the mental commentary.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but to me, this is the only Way.

 

 

Take Care

Dan

 

Hello Dan,

 

I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree with you, you just came across as abrasive. I'm an advocate of emptiness myself, so kudos there and I hope life is treating you well.

 

aaron

[Vajrahridaya]

Hello Dan,

 

I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree with you, you just came across as abrasive. I'm an advocate of emptiness myself, so kudos there and I hope life is treating you well.

 

aaron

 

Emptiness according to the Buddha has nothing to do with being without thought. Seeing through thought as it occurs, is what emptiness means in Buddhas expressions.

 

Of course, stilling the mind is part of the practice, but it's merely part of the practice. It's not the end all be all of the meaning. Zen practitioners seem to cling to this idea of emptiness as being synonymous with a void, like an empty jar? This is what I have come to see at least.

[Vajrahridaya]

Between here and enlightenment, there is a long trip, while we are traveling, isn't it in our best interest to behave in a way that makes us a joy to be around?

 

Aaron

 

This joy is a conditional thing, it's succumbing to comfort zones, and if my expressions push buttons and the limits of conditional comfort zones? Then so be it, it's for the better.

 

You play your role and I'll play mine. Buddhist boards do not have a hard time with me at all and I say the exact same things, sometimes verbatim. It's interesting to see the different subjective reactions.

[Aaron]

Emptiness according to the Buddha has nothing to do with being without thought. Seeing through thought as it occurs, is what emptiness means in Buddhas expressions.

 

Of course, stilling the mind is part of the practice, but it's merely part of the practice. It's not the end all be all of the meaning. Zen practitioners seem to cling to this idea of emptiness as being synonymous with a void, like an empty jar? This is what I have come to see at least.

 

Actually most Zen Buddhists will say that emptiness is without form. It's not nothingness, but rather the absence of everything. In that sense it isn't even seeing through thought, but rather ceasing thought, to reach a state of stillness where there is nothing at all, not even silence. You are right though, the traditional view of emptiness and the Zen view are different. Also Zen isn't as concerned with doctrine and scripture either, but rather practice, which is perhaps why they tend to be more pragmatic when it comes to instruction. To each his own.

 

Aaron

Edited July 6, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

This joy is a conditional thing, it's succumbing to comfort zones, and if my expressions push buttons and the limits of conditional comfort zones? Then so be it, it's for the better.

 

You play your role and I'll play mine. Buddhist boards do not have a hard time with me at all and I say the exact same things, sometimes verbatim. It's interesting to see the different subjective reactions.

 

Hehehe... that's because they're all Buddhist!

 

Aaron

[Vajrahridaya]

Actually most Zen will say that emptiness is without form. It's not nothingness, but rather the absence of everything. In that sense it isn't even seeing through thought, but rather ceasing thought, to reach a state of stillness where there is nothing at all, not even silence. You are right though, the traditional view of emptiness and the Zen view are different. Also Zen isn't as concerned with doctrine and scripture either, but rather practice, which is perhaps why they tend to be more pragmatic when it comes to instruction. To each his own.

 

Aaron

 

Actually Zen is lacking in practice according to Indian Buddhism. Zen is too caught up in Jhana absorption, merely leading to higher rebirth and not Buddhahood, in most instances, not in all, and not enough study of the "right view" (first of the 8 fold path, the most important seed) as well as not enough integral practices of the yogic tradition.

 

Idealizing stillness does not lead to Buddhahood, but merely formless but blissful absorption at the end of a cosmic aeon. It does lead to virtue and the expansive mind states, but it doesn't lead to the cutting through which the Buddha intentioned the "right view" of emptiness and dependent origination for. In my opinion, Zen studies too little and absorbs the mind too much in formless states.

 

Zen is too stripped in my opinion and lacks the deepening and integrating practices that took birth in India.

[Vajrahridaya]

Hehehe... that's because they're all Buddhist!

 

Aaron

 

Yup!

[Aaron]

Zen is too stripped in my opinion and lacks the deepening and integrating practices that took birth in India.

 

Yep... that's exactly why I like it so much.

 

Aaron

[ralis]

Hehehe... that's because they're all Buddhist!

 

Aaron

 

Absolutely! It is remarkably easy to have unanimous consent between like minded groupies.

[deci belle]

[Vajrahridaya]

[Aaron]

Why do Twinner and Goldisheavy both have concurrent threads on this same subject?

 

Hmm... I didn't think they were the same subject... talk about perception.

 

Aaron

 

edit- My understanding is that Gold's topic is about level of enlightenment, mine is about who is enlightened. Closely related, but subtly different.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Twinner

[C T]

Just read this on some guy's blog.. it seems appropriate to share it here:

 

From Jed McKenna - "The you that you think of as you (and that thinks of you as you, and so on) is not you, its just the character that the underlying truth of you is dreaming into brief existence. Enlightenment isn't in the character, it's in the underlying truth! Now, there's nothing wrong with being a dream character, of course, unless it's your goal to wake up, in which case the dream character must be ruthlessly annihilated. If your desire is to experience transcendental bliss or supreme love or altered states of consciousness or awakened kundalini, or to qualify for heaven, or to liberate all sentient beings, or simply to become the best dang person you can be, then rejoice! you're in the right place: the dream state, this dualistic universe. However, if your interest is to cut the crap and figure out what is true, then you're in the wrong place and you've got a very messy fight ahead and there's no point in pretending otherwise."