Who is enlightened?

[Cameron]

Some of the conversations on other threads have me thinking a little more deeply on things(probably more than necissary). So I got to thinking. Who is enlightened? Not just in the no-self sense but really, who can we objectively consider enlightened?

 

If we are going to have the attitude that the Chinese knew best, that is fine. There are plenty of Chinese Masters, both Taoist and Buddhist, I feel connected with. Of course, each master develops his own approach and has his own success rate. For me, at the top of the list of Chinese masters, has to be Master Lin Chi. Founder of the Lin Chi or Rinzai School of Zen that was very popluar in China and later Japan(many enlightened people in this lineage).

 

Here are the words of Master Lin Chi.

 

"Many students come to see me from all over the place. Many of them are not free from their entanglement with objective things. I treat them right on the spot. If their trouble is due to grasping hands, I strike there. If their trouble is a loose mouth, I strike them there. If their trouble is hidden behind their eyes, it is there I strike. So far I have not found anyone who can set himself free. This is because they have all been caught up in the useless ways of the old masters. As for me, I do not have one only method which I give to everyone, but I relieve whatever the trouble is and set men free."

 

"Friends, I tell you this: there is no Buddha, no spiritual path to follow, no training and no realization. What are you so feverishly running after? Putting a head on top of your own head, you blind idiots? Your head is right where it should be. The trouble lies in your not believing in yourselves enough. Because you don't believe in yourselves you are knocked here and there by all the conditions in which you find yourselves. Being enslaved and turned around by objective situations, you have no freedom whatever, you are not masters of yourselves. Stop turning to the outside and don't be attached to my words either. Just cease clinging to the past and hankering after the future. This will be better than ten years' pilgrimage".

 

To me, this is the great spirit of Zen. Others may feel differently and follow other concepts. But please don't infer that all Buddhas of China teach one must meditate in a cave for 10 years before the possibilty of enlightenment. Because one of the highest Masters of Chinese history would disagree with you.

 

Master Lin Chi

[林愛偉]

Some of the conversations on other threads have me thinking a little more deeply on things(probably more than necissary). So I got to thinking. Who is enlightened? Not just in the no-self sense but really, who can we objectively consider enlightened?

 

If we are going to have the attitude that the Chinese knew best, that is fine. There are plenty of Chinese Masters, both Taoist and Buddhist, I feel connected with. Of course, each master develops his own approach and has his own success rate. For me, at the top of the list of Chinese masters, has to be Master Lin Chi. Founder of the Lin Chi or Rinzai School of Zen that was very popluar in China and later Japan(many enlightened people in this lineage).

 

Here are the words of Master Lin Chi.

 

"Many students come to see me from all over the place. Many of them are not free from their entanglement with objective things. I treat them right on the spot. If their trouble is due to grasping hands, I strike there. If their trouble is a loose mouth, I strike them there. If their trouble is hidden behind their eyes, it is there I strike. So far I have not found anyone who can set himself free. This is because they have all been caught up in the useless ways of the old masters. As for me, I do not have one only method which I give to everyone, but I relieve whatever the trouble is and set men free."

 

"Friends, I tell you this: there is no Buddha, no spiritual path to follow, no training and no realization. What are you so feverishly running after? Putting a head on top of your own head, you blind idiots? Your head is right where it should be. The trouble lies in your not believing in yourselves enough. Because you don't believe in yourselves you are knocked here and there by all the conditions in which you find yourselves. Being enslaved and turned around by objective situations, you have no freedom whatever, you are not masters of yourselves. Stop turning to the outside and don't be attached to my words either. Just cease clinging to the past and hankering after the future. This will be better than ten years' pilgrimage".

 

To me, this is the great spirit of Zen. Others may feel differently and follow other concepts. But please don't infer that all Buddhas of China teach one must meditate in a cave for 10 years before the possibilty of enlightenment. Because one of the highest Masters of Chinese history would disagree with you.

 

Master Lin Chi

 

 

I agree.. even though there is nothign to agree with.

 

His pointing directly to the mind would make mountains quiver.

 

One shouldn't think that chinese are the greatest masters. The light is on them now, but it will fade and pass to another place of historically well cultivated beings, and such.

 

I have heard from many in different forums, and many emails saying how health and martial arts are the ultimate combination., and how a teacher from china would be ultimate in teaching martial arts.

Little do some people realize, a great percent of the pop. here smoke cigarettes and drink heavily. I literally have watched Wushu teachers teach their students while smoking cigarettes and drinking wine.

It is all perception. What one wishes to take as truth...even though it isn't, and there isn't.

 

Peace,

[thaddeus]

 

Here are the words of Master Lin Chi.

 

Nice..the world is constantly teaching us. In the west we have the apple falling on the head of newton, in the east buddha considers a guitar string (or something like that)..we don't often hear about how someone explained something and then someone got it. I was talking with a friend the other day about herbs and chi gung and I remarked that I intellectually understand the value of preservation methods and herbs but if you *look around* it just doesn't seem to be helping most people. Whenever something is systemized and 'taught' it's ruined. So, something special happens, and then we try to continually recreate it, systemize it, teach it..but it's just not there-seems to be beyond the grasp. All the yapping and BSing in the universe can't bring it back or summon it. So we need to watch, listen and find our own way.

T

[Taiji Bum]

What is enlightenment? I dont mean to get all "Zen" on anybody but most religions talk about enlightenment. If you read "The Imitation of Christ" which is almost as popular as the Bible among Catholics you will see "enlightenment" mentioned many times in relation to spiritual illumination.

 

I see enlightenment as being ascended and nothing else in my book counts. I know others say enlightenment is just being satisfied with what you have in your life. Still others say enlightenment is knowing Jesus as your personal saviour and others say there are many different levels of enlightenment.

 

To close up my meaningless post I dont know anyone who is enlightened outside of historical figures who might as well be mythalogical, but I know I want to be if that makes any sense.

Edited December 7, 2006 by DarinHamel

[Cameron]

Whatever it is, I don't think it can be attained, created or destroyed. More about waking up to what is then some super natural state.

 

But you might be attracted to another model which is perfectly fine. My intention here was just to reference a chinese model different than one that had been presented, and authenitic from the 'lineage enlightenment' or 'dharma succession' point of view.

 

I don't particulalry hold that higher than other enlightenments, just presented for the "Bums" consideration.

 

Have a nice day

[DentyDao]

[Lozen]

if you meet Buddha along the path, kill him

[Cameron]

[Lozen]

Killing the Buddha

http://www.ordinarymind.com/koan_killing.html

 

There's an old saying, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."

 

Who's that Buddha? What does it mean to "meet" the Buddha? What does killing the Buddha imply?

 

The historical Buddha, Shakyamuni, on attaining enlightenment, is said to have realized that all beings, just as they are, are Buddhas. If that's so, meeting a Buddha on the road should be a pretty commonplace event! So should being a Buddha on the road! But that's where the word "meeting" comes in. It implies encountering something or someone outside or other than oneself. We all come to practice carrying around images or ideals of who we should be and what we imagine a Teacher or Buddha should look like. And we may chase after individuals that for a while seem like they live up to our image, ignore those who do not, and generally treat ourselves with contempt for not living up to the standards set by our imaginary inner "Buddha." All this may keep us pretty busy, but it has nothing to do with real practice, which is an awareness of who and what we actually are, not the pursuit of some ideal of who we think we should be. So "killing the Buddha" means killing or wiping out this fantasy image, and "the road" is two fold: the road outside where we look outside ourselves for the ones who have all the answers, and the inner mind road, where we set up all the "shoulds" we must obey to turn ourselves into the Buddhas we don't believe we already are, but think we must become.

 

It is said that Shakyamuni's last dying words to his disciples were, "Be a lamp unto yourselves." Be your own light, your own authority, your own Buddha. Kill off every image of the Buddha, see who and what you are in this very moment, see that there is no Buddha other than THIS MOMENT.

 

A psychologist friend recently complained that Buddha's last words themselves were a trap. (Actually he called them something much less polite!) How can anybody TELL you to be your own authority? In the guise of liberation, these words become just one more dogma that the disciples submit to. Anybody who TELLS you to "Kill the Buddha" is giving a command as self-contradictory as "Be spontaneous!" It's a good point, and one that shows that this koan and Buddhism in general can't escape a more complex involvement with issues of authority. Our psychological reality is that we have to learn and practice to achieve our independence, and that learning almost inevitably has to take place within the context of some kind of disciplined practice. Remember we have to "kill the Buddhas" inside as well as outside ourselves. If we take this saying to mean only that we should reject all forms of external authority, we will end up leaving ourselves at the mercy of all sorts of, often unconscious, inner "Buddhas." Isaiah Berlin distinguished two kinds liberty he called positive and negative liberty. Negative liberty is freedom FROM, freedom from outside interference of one kind or another. Killing the outside Buddha may give us a version of this negative liberty. Positive liberty is freedom TO, the liberty of enabling conditions. And these are what are provided by a Teacher, a practice, a discipline. Berlin emphasized that the two kinds of liberty were conceptually at odds with one another, and an increase in one automatically meant a decrease in the other. And yet, we cannot thrive without both. Without a formal practice, we will never engage the deeply ingrained unconscious determinants of our character. But any practice, any teacher inevitably offers the risk and the temptation to hand over responsibility to someone or something outside of ourselves. The middle way is our balancing of these two truths. There is no one correct way to balance them, and every teacher, every discipline will offer a unique mix. No one can tell you how you, as a particular individual, ought to practice. Each of us must decide and take responsibility for the balance works best for us. That is how we truly can be a "lamp unto ourselves."

[DentyDao]

I am just not sure, as others like Sean Omlor pointed out. that '9 years facing the wall' means you literally must face a wall in zazen for YEARS. If I carry on a daily meditation practice, mantain a level of that awareness through my daily life. Do retreats or classes with realized people when the opportunities arise. Is this not just another form of '9 years facing the wall'?

 

Or do you think, you literally have to do this practice in order to acheive self realization?

 

In all fairness, there is a lot to the story that I know personally that has not been written about. I know this because I went to China and met, through David, a direct decendent of the lineage of Da Mo. What most people don't know is that he did a lot more than just sit in front of a wall for nine years; and yes he did this twenty for hours a day without a break. At least that's my understanding; I wasn't actually there of course.

 

The end of the nine years produced what are called Ling Bao. These are sacred texts that spontaniously manifest from the the heavens. In these books were contained the secrets of the tendon changing, and Bone marrow neikung; as well as some other high level stuff. Da Mo, probably not a Buddhist btw, in turn taught these to the Buddhist monks who lived near by. Thus Zen was born.

 

I think your on the right path Cameron. If you do these work shops and carry out a regular meditaion practice in a dedicated way, you can probably acieve some degree of realization in this lifetime. Who knows you could become the next 'it' guru and actually really help some people see things clearly. I would recommend sticking with a more authentic tradition like Chan or Dzogchen and stay away from some of teh comtempory interpritations of Taoist cultivation, etc...

 

There are plenty of stories of enlightened masters who didn't need Bodhidharmas level of cultivation. I think I remeber the 6th anscestor Hui Neng immedietly realized himself when his teacher drew a circle for him during his first dharma talk. Was the 6th anscestor a reincarnated Buddha who needed just the lightest touch to awaken again? Was this just a metaphor for an initial entry level realization which was followed by deeper stages of enlightenment?

 

Who knows. Personally, when I looked for a method, because this thing is my life, I sought out the most effective, tested, practical method I could find. I have spent tens of thousands of dollars to do this over the past decade. I realize this is not the way for everyone, but I personally am not willing to hold out for some kind of possible 'instant' enlightenment that may or may not happen.

 

And isn't it all ultimatly just another concept of what is?

I don't believe so.

[DentyDao]

Killing the Buddha

http://www.ordinarymind.com/koan_killing.html

 

There's an old saying, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."

 

It's a much over used and misunderstood statement and needs to be framed in the correct context.

 

Who's that Buddha? What does it mean to "meet" the Buddha? What does killing the Buddha imply?

 

The external Buddha, or seeking the divine outside yourself, is not the true Buddha. The statement is a simple cautionary not to seek the Buddha in a 'form.' Buddha means vast awakening, it's the true nature of mind. It's the Shen; the mind of God which is dreaming to be you.

 

The historical Buddha, Shakyamuni, on attaining enlightenment, is said to have realized that all beings, just as they are, are Buddhas. If that's so, meeting a Buddha on the road should be a pretty commonplace event! So should being a Buddha on the road! But that's where the word "meeting" comes in. It implies encountering something or someone outside or other than oneself. We all come to practice carrying around images or ideals of who we should be and what we imagine a Teacher or Buddha should look like. And we may chase after individuals that for a while seem like they live up to our image, ignore those who do not, and generally treat ourselves with contempt for not living up to the standards set by our imaginary inner "Buddha." All this may keep us pretty busy, but it has nothing to do with real practice, which is an awareness of who and what we actually are, not the pursuit of some ideal of who we think we should be. So "killing the Buddha" means killing or wiping out this fantasy image, and "the road" is two fold: the road outside where we look outside ourselves for the ones who have all the answers, and the inner mind road, where we set up all the "shoulds" we must obey to turn ourselves into the Buddhas we don't believe we already are, but think we must become.

 

Kind of; it's not that Buddhas are really all that common relatively speaking. Example, if you think your really a Buddha, you might want to really examine that belief and test it out. Are you really free from all suffering? Or do you perhaps have some more work to do before you can say you've achieved Buddhahood?

 

It is said that Shakyamuni's last dying words to his disciples were, "Be a lamp unto yourselves." Be your own light, your own authority, your own Buddha. Kill off every image of the Buddha, see who and what you are in this very moment, see that there is no Buddha other than THIS MOMENT.

 

He be a light unto your self. It means answer the question, "Who am I?" He didn't say this is all there is to being a Buddha.

 

No one can tell you how you, as a particular individual, ought to practice. Each of us must decide and take responsibility for the balance works best for us. That is how we truly can be a "lamp unto ourselves."

 

Sure they can, if they're a Buddha or a realized teacher. I think you make some really good points, but I think a teacher can tell a student how they ought to practice; especially if they are a gifted teacher. That's my take.

Edited December 7, 2006 by seandenty

[Lozen]

They're not my points.

 

I think you need to meditate some more on that koan.

 

[DentyDao]

They're not my points.

 

I think you need to meditate some more on that koan.

 

 

If they're not yours, who's are they? I'm not trying to be contrary, but your undertanding of Buddhism is different than mine and the teachers I've studied with. There aren't lots of Buddhas walking around. If there were that would be great, but I don't think we're there yet.

 

I will go meditate on that koan, right now.

[林愛偉]

Chan was passed by the Mind to Mind Transmission from Sakyamuni Buddha to Maudgalyayana.

At one time when Sakyamuni Buddha was sitting on his seat, about to speak the Dharma, he sat quietly, and

lifted a flower. Then he held it up, and looked into the crowed of disciples and Bodhisatvas. He saw Maudgalyayana smiling with deep wisdom. From that moment, the Mind to Mind Transmission was established so to say. This is where Chan (Zen) took momentum from in terms of Chan school, and Patriarchs. It is from Sakyamuni Buddha as the first patriarch of the Chan school , Mind to Mind Transmission, then to Maudgalyayana, and so on to the first patriarch in China (because of a different country and culture)

It is that Bodhidharma left a the mark of no mark while he was in china, and that those who he taught, were very much taken aback from his abilities that he became most revered.

The monk who cut off his own arm to make the snow red, was actually a monk who was speaking Dharma. He struck Bodhidharma in the mouth prior to the arm cutting. Since Bodhidharma knew that if a Sage's teeth hit the ground, destruction to the area will follow. So in compassion, he swallowed his own teeth to save the people in that area.

He passed on the Mind to Mind Transmission. He began the Patriarch line in China, but was not the first to make the Chan school.

 

 

6th Patriarch Hui Neng became awakened by hearing a verse of the Diamond Sutra outside a place he sold firewood to. The verse was, " One should produce the thought that is no where supported."

Upon hearing this, he instantly became enlightened.

 

 

Peace,

Edited December 7, 2006 by 林愛偉

[Lozen]

If they're not yours, who's are they?

 

I posted the link right on top there.

[林愛偉]

In Chan there is a totally different language, than that of which the common mind speaks and recognizes.

I am sure you all know what I mean.

It is very easy for one who does not have the "Chan mind" so to say, to misunderstand anything, and everything the Buddha, and the Patriarchs, and well cultivated disciples, say and write. That is why there are teachers who are skilled in this through Chan cultivation.

So, anyone can read the Shurangama Sutra, and be all confused, but not everyone will read the Shurangama Sutra and be confused. Some would say, "The Buddha was just selling the ideas he had so he can live without working like everyone else."

That would be true to a mind that has not cultivated enough to have the roots of Buddhism take a deep foundation, or a strong enough foundation... atleast in understanding the manner inwhich Buddha is Buddha...which really isn't Buddha, but just said to be so for the sake of minds.

 

In a mind of all beings being awakened, enlightened, there is no Buddha. In a world where minds are not awakened, the awakened minds are clear and illuminating... those minds are called Buddha. Yet all mind is mind, neither separate or together. THerefore all mind is illumination, but not illuminating when it is all minds illuminated.

 

 

Peace,

[DentyDao]

Of the three Ling Bao that were given, not all were passed down into every lineage. The neikung that exists in the Lei Shan Dao, in some lines at least, is alive and well and was passed down the same way that Da Mo received it according the lineage transmission. What mostly remains in Shaolin today is the external skill developement along with the Buddhist teachings. I would say that, for the most part, this is true of Chan in general, that is that Buddhist philosophy and teaching makes up the majority of what's passed on there. These teachings may never even have been transmitted in the Chan tradition, although I'm certainly not an expert on the subject.

 

Facinating historical info. there 林愛偉.

 

 

 

In a mind of all beings being awakened, enlightened, there is no Buddha. In a world where minds are not awakened, the awakened minds are clear and illuminating... those minds are called Buddha. Yet all mind is mind, neither separate or together. THerefore all mind is illumination, but not illuminating when it is all minds illuminated.

 

Beautiful

[DentyDao]

I posted the link right on top there.

 

Ya, I got that. I agree with most of the stuff you posted from the website that you read. I guess my question is do you really believe you're a Buddha; not in the absolute sense that we are all Buddhas, but in the sense that you have freed your self from the cycle of death and rebirth and nolonger suffer.

 

If you're saying yes, that's totally fine with me, but I guess I'm just not buying into that interpretation. I understand it's a popular one and all that. I'm just not sure it's true and I haven't seen any convincing proof yet.

 

This doesn't mean I don't see the divinity in others or that I don't respect other approachs and life styles.

 

I of course agree with the idea that our true nature is Buddha; and in that sense the Buddha truly doesn't exist. I think it's another thing entirely to totally 'unmask' that true self and be it permenently.

 

Perhaps I was confused about what you were trying to point out.

 

S

[Lozen]

I think that the more we discuss and rehash and debate and write long diatribes about this, the less we are likely to find it.

[DentyDao]

I think that the more we discuss and rehash and debate and write long diatribes about this, the less we are likely to find it.

 

Humor me.

[Lozen]

Humor me.

 

I already have, but just reading this thread has given me a headache.

 

Instead I shall go look at a flower.

[DentyDao]

I already have, but just reading this thread has given me a headache.

 

Instead I shall go look at a flower.

 

 

For you

[Lozen]

 

you're winning me over

[DentyDao]

you're winning me over

 

There's more where that came from...

 

 

And...

 

[Lozen]

Okay, I don't know about the Care Bears. lol