Are they still Buddhists without Karma and other fantastics?
-
Agree that a person who is very good in behaviour may not have transcendental insight and vice versa. But generally a person who has transcendental insight will be commonly observed and experienced by most to have exemplary behaviour and wisdom.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Yes. Actually it isn't very easy... because we cannot judge a person's enlightenment by his behavior and actions alone. Because a person may be very good in his behavior and action, but may not have transcendental insights. A person with transcendental insights may have behavior far from perfect.
I believe the criteria to see someone's enlightenment is by the criteria of insight. This is the tricky part, because firstly ppl like us do not have that insight firsthand, and therefore we have to judge based on many factors. It is not easy... many things to take into account. Get familiar with their teachings, practises and know more about the teacher.
Generally speaking, go for recognised lineages, and here are some advises and things to look out for: http://www.chagchen.org/aw/choosing.htm
Interesting article too -- http://web.mac.com/danielmingram/iWeb/Daniel%20Ingram%27s%20Dharma%20Blog/The%20Blook/2854F3F2-472F-47BB-9CE1-7D7F32A749C1.html
Thanks for your weblink. Have just finished reading it. One sentence to summarise: Good luck to beginner buddhist of average intelligence and world experience in searching for a good enough teacher to follow, even if one is not searching for a 'root' teacher.
I can only pray for more Bodhisattvas to come down to guide such beginners. -
From the weblink that AEN gave:
http://web.mac.com/danielmingram/iWeb/Daniel%20Ingram%27s%20Dharma%20Blog/The%20Blook/2854F3F2-472F-47BB-9CE1-7D7F32A749C1.html
'..It seems that you can only help those with very clear, strong, and noble motivations who are willing to actually listen and also be intelligent and realistic about their relationship to you as a fellow human being and with whom your personality seems to fit fairly well.
Further, you can only help those who will actually practice, engage and inquire. This turns out to be a very small group most of the time.
You could also say that you can only teach those who didnÂ’t really need you to teach them in the first place, as they were going to do it anyway.
My comments: This is a very sad truth about Buddhism which I find it difficult to accept personally. Meaning it's almost the same as Christians's way of saying, if you don't follow my way, you go to hell. Buddhism says: if you are not intelligent and realistic, not willing to actually practice, engage and inquire, that's it loh, continue to have countless rebirths, continue to suffer in the 3 evil realms, if you make thes slightest mistake in any of your spiritual cultivation and in selecting a good teacher.
To be realistic, you surely need some form of high intelligence or discerning power. Which narrows down a bit to x number of buddhists. Needs to be very diligent in practicising, engaging and inquiring about the Dharma right, narrows down another small number of buddhists.
Out of those who fit the above criteria and actually intend to come out publicly to become a teacher to all beginner buddhists, another cut-off from the above number of diligent and inquiring students.
So imagine how many reasonably good teachers are out there? A lot, sure. Easy to recognise and find, good luck.
Pray to Buddha, pray to yourself that you did accumulate enough merits in all previous lives to be able to meet the criteria of an intelligent, realistic, diligent, engaging, inquiring etc, student.
That's precisely what I'm doing to myself now. (crossing my fingers and hope I can quickly become intelligent, realistic and diligent in this lifetime so I don't have to spend too much effort and time interpreting scriptures on my own cos i hardly can understand most dharma talks that I have attended so far. My chinese and english both sucks...)
Ok, I admit liao: I stupid. Nobody's problem. I hopeless.
Sorry for venting my frustration here. Feeling very helpless... -
Reality is reality. If you think that you are stupid, well, you are. There is no you. Meaning, you "become" whatever it is that you want to become... you can become stupid or you can become intelligent... up to you.
-
Huh, can it be also you think you intelligent but you actually stupid leh and vice versa?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Reality is reality. If you think that you are stupid, well, you are. There is no you. Meaning, you "become" whatever it is that you want to become... you can become stupid or you can become intelligent... up to you.
Some ppl think they have achieved initial enlightment and got some masters to verify, but is there any chance that both may be wrong?
Things surely cannot be so easy to differentiate especially in religion and spiritual attainment. -
If you think that you are intelligent but you are suffering, then you better get a second opinion.Originally posted by Spnw07:Huh, can it be also you think you intelligent but you actually stupid leh and vice versa?
Some ppl think they have achieved initial enlightment and got some masters to verify, but is there any chance that both may be wrong?
Things surely cannot be so easy to differentiate especially in religion and spiritual attainment.
If you think that you are stupid, then you are.
If you think that you are enlightened (verified or not) but you are suffering, forget it.
Another thing is, Enlightened people are never confused. They know themselves (not what you said previously, that they know everything) and they know why they are enlightened.
If you do not know, then you are not. The verification is not for the enlightened person. The verification is for "other" people, for other people to be sure that they are dealing with an enlightened person. -
Originally posted by Spnw07:
It is completely different because in Buddhism, unenlightened beings do not go to hell, and can, in fact, go to heaven.
From the weblink that AEN gave:
http://web.mac.com/danielmingram/iWeb/Daniel%20Ingram%27s%20Dharma%20Blog/The%20Blook/2854F3F2-472F-47BB-9CE1-7D7F32A749C1.html
'..It seems that you can only help those with very clear, strong, and noble motivations who are willing to actually listen and also be intelligent and realistic about their relationship to you as a fellow human being and with whom your personality seems to fit fairly well.
Further, you can only help those who will actually practice, engage and inquire. This turns out to be a very small group most of the time.
You could also say that you can only teach those who didnÂ’t really need you to teach them in the first place, as they were going to do it anyway.
My comments: This is a very sad truth about Buddhism which I find it difficult to accept personally. Meaning it's almost the same as Christians's way of saying, if you don't follow my way, you go to hell. Buddhism says: if you are not intelligent and realistic, not willing to actually practice, engage and inquire, that's it loh, continue to have countless rebirths, continue to suffer in the 3 evil realms, if you make thes slightest mistake in any of your spiritual cultivation and in selecting a good teacher.To be realistic, you surely need some form of high intelligence or discerning power. Which narrows down a bit to x number of buddhists. Needs to be very diligent in practicising, engaging and inquiring about the Dharma right, narrows down another small number of buddhists.
But it is still reasonably easy to find one if you do a search.
Out of those who fit the above criteria and actually intend to come out publicly to become a teacher to all beginner buddhists, another cut-off from the above number of diligent and inquiring students.
So imagine how many reasonably good teachers are out there? A lot, sure. Easy to recognise and find, good luck.Pray to Buddha, pray to yourself that you did accumulate enough merits in all previous lives to be able to meet the criteria of an intelligent, realistic, diligent, engaging, inquiring etc, student.
Funny, but I didn't face such problems attending my dharma talks. At least, the Chinese spoken was quite simple..even a primary school kid should be able to understand. It is not prone to academic discussions but more towards practise in daily lives. Maybe you want to come to my dharma centre someday.
That's precisely what I'm doing to myself now. (crossing my fingers and hope I can quickly become intelligent, realistic and diligent in this lifetime so I don't have to spend too much effort and time interpreting scriptures on my own cos i hardly can understand most dharma talks that I have attended so far. My chinese and english both sucks...)
Ok, I admit liao: I stupid. Nobody's problem. I hopeless.
Sorry for venting my frustration here. Feeling very helpless...[/b] -
Agreed..Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Another thing is, Enlightened people are never confused. They know themselves (not what you said previously, that they know everything) and they know why they are enlightened.
If you do not know, then you are not. The verification is not for the enlightened person. The verification is for "other" people, for other people to be sure that they are dealing with an enlightened person. -
Hmm, englightened people know themselves and why they are enlightened, agree. But they definitely know everything as in you throw any question at them, they will know how to respond in the right way towards each unique individual. In Christianity, God is believed to be all-knowing, and I think from what I understand about the Buddha, he does seem to know everything.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:If you think that you are intelligent but you are suffering, then you better get a second opinion.
If you think that you are stupid, then you are.
If you think that you are enlightened (verified or not) but you are suffering, forget it.
Another thing is, Enlightened people are never confused. They know themselves (not what you said previously, that they know everything) and they know why they are enlightened.
If you do not know, then you are not. The verification is not for the enlightened person. The verification is for "other" people, for other people to be sure that they are dealing with an enlightened person.
But does it necessary mean that all intelligent people do not suffer in any way, according to what you have mentioned in your first point?
Jesus is very intelligent or wise or even powerful, but he chose to die on the Cross for the sins of men. So is that intelligent as he is suffering?
Why forget it for the 3rd point? -
Ok, please pm me your dharma centre. will go recce someday.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Funny, but I didn't face such problems attending my dharma talks. At least, the Chinese spoken was quite simple..even a primary school kid should be able to understand. It is not prone to academic discussions but more towards practise in daily lives. Maybe you want to come to my dharma centre someday.
And when I say understand, I also talk about understanding the concepts in its intended meaning. If it is purely academic, I tend to avoid those talks. So I do go for those that are more life-oriented.
You did not face any problems in attending dharma talks is probably cos you have accumulated great merits in your previous lives and they are ripening now, if one wants to look out it from the law of cause and effect perspective. -
Knowing how to respond is not the same as knowing everything.Originally posted by Spnw07:Hmm, englightened people know themselves and why they are enlightened, agree. But they definitely know everything as in you throw any question at them, they will know how to respond in the right way towards each unique individual.
I will not comment on beliefs.Originally posted by Spnw07:In Christianity, God is believed to be all-knowing, and I think from what I understand about the Buddha, he does seem to know everything.
Where did I say intelligent people "do not suffer"? I was talking about enlightened people.Originally posted by Spnw07:But does it necessary mean that all intelligent people do not suffer in any way, according to what you have mentioned in your first point?
I was talking about enlightened people. If you do not believe in God, the Bible and the creation story, there is no need for anyone, Jesus or otherwise, to die for any body's sins.Originally posted by Spnw07:Jesus is very intelligent or wise or even powerful, but he chose to die on the Cross for the sins of men. So is that intelligent as he is suffering?
Why forget it for the 3rd point? -
1) Can you elaborate on when can someone be considered as knowing everything? You are trying to say even an enlightened person cannot know everything?
2) You say you don't want to comment on beliefs. But you are questioning a lot about the validity of law of cause and effect explained in Buddhism, which is a core belief, asking for proof. Why the double standard?
3) I can gather from your points that enlightened people do not become confused and are fully aware that they are enlightened. But what do you believe in? Are you a christian or a buddhist?
Your definition of enlightened people, can they exist in christianity, buddhism or any other religion which you do not believe in? -
I said that knowing how to respond to others is not the same as knowing everything. To know everything is to know what is on the surface of the moon and the sun. It is the ability to work out the mathematical proofs of e=mc2Originally posted by Spnw07:1) Can you elaborate on when can someone be considered as knowing everything? You are trying to say even an enlightened person cannot know everything?
Enlightenment is an internal phenomenon. There is nothing supernatural about it but I can understand why people would consider it as "spiritual", because it is not "physical".
When I made that statement it was in the context of what you wrote. It is not a general statement that would apply in all context.Originally posted by Spnw07:2) You say you don't want to comment on beliefs. But you are questioning a lot about the validity of law of cause and effect explained in Buddhism, which is a core belief, asking for proof. Why the double standard? -
I said that knowing how to respond to others is not the same as knowing everything. To know everything is to know what is on the surface of the moon and the sun. It is the ability to work out the mathematical proofs of e=mc2
In that case, you are trying to say that Buddha cannot work out mathematical proofs of e=mc2? He cannot know what is on the surface of the moon and sun? There is no proof to say he knows, but neither is there proof that says he doesn't.
Enlightenment is an internal phenomenon. There is nothing supernatural about it but I can understand why people would consider it as "spiritual", because it is not "physical".
I agree that enlightenment is an internal phenomenon, but nobody says supernatural is definitely something to be feared or to be considered as superstitution.
Ants can carry load five time their weight, natural or supernatural?
People who are in coma for many years can suddenly wake up without external stimulus, natural or supernatural?
In the past, without the telescope, without space flights, nobody knew that stars were merely balls of twirling gas. natural or supernatural?
The list goes on...When I made that statement it was in the context of what you wrote. It is not a general statement that would apply in all context.
Why choose to reply in such a way when you have questioned so much about Buddhism? Why not answer in a way that addresses why you ask so much about Buddhism? In that way, people would know where you are coming from.
I would really like to know why you don't want to comment on Christianity but yet comment on my statement which is actually related to buddhism. Are you trying to say that Buddhism deserves your attention and comment, and not Christianity? -
That part in red, that is good enough for you to doubt. As for the rest of what you wrote, what is the point that you are trying to make?Originally posted by Spnw07:In that case, you are trying to say that Buddha cannot work out mathematical proofs of e=mc2? He cannot know what is on the surface of the moon and sun? There is no proof to say he knows,, but neither is there proof that says he doesn't.
I agree that enlightenment is an internal phenomenon, but nobody says supernatural is definitely something to be feared or to be considered as superstitution.
Ants can carry load five time their weight, natural or supernatural?
People who are in coma for many years can suddenly wake up without external stimulus, natural or supernatural?
In the past, without the telescope, without space flights, nobody knew that stars were merely balls of twirling gas. natural or supernatural?
The list goes on...
What is the point that you are trying to make here?Originally posted by Spnw07:Why choose to reply in such a way when you have questioned so much about Buddhism? Why not answer in a way that addresses why you ask so much about Buddhism? In that way, people would know where you are coming from.
I would really like to know why you don't want to comment on Christianity but yet comment on my statement which is actually related to buddhism. Are you trying to say that Buddhism deserves your attention and comment, and not Christianity? -
Thanks for being patient with queries so far. Let's just say you are too highly intelligent for me to explain in a way that you can understand, cos I don't think I can understand your logic concerning 'what is knowing everything' and 'law of cause and effect cannot be proven'.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:What is the point that you are trying to make here?
I admit that I should study more. Thanks. -
You are one confused person... enlightenment will do you good...Originally posted by Spnw07:Thanks for being patient with queries so far. Let's just say you are too highly intelligent for me to explain in a way that you can understand, cos I don't think I can understand your logic concerning 'what is knowing everything' and 'law of cause and effect cannot be proven'.
I admit that I should study more. Thanks. -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Oh my Fark, you have trying to hide the inadequacies of your religion behind a flurry of quotations. While Bohm has predicted about order in chaos but if you read carefully, the converse is true, i.e chaos in order.
-------------------
David Bohm and the Implicate Order
[b]...In the 1960s Bohm began to take a closer look at the notion of order. One day he saw a device on a television program that immediately fired his imagination. It consisted of two concentric glass cylinders, the space between them being filled with glycerin, a highly viscous fluid. If a droplet of ink is placed in the fluid and the outer cylinder is turned, the droplet is drawn out into a thread that eventually becomes so thin that it disappears from view; the ink particles are enfolded into the glycerin. But if the cylinder is then turned in the opposite direction, the thread-form reappears and rebecomes a droplet; the droplet is unfolded again. Bohm realized that when the ink was diffused through the glycerin it was not in a state of 'disorder' but possessed a hidden, or nonmanifest, order.
In Bohm's view, all the separate objects, entities, structures, and events in the visible or explicate world around us are relatively autonomous, stable, and temporary 'subtotalities' derived from a deeper, implicate order of unbroken wholeness. Bohm gives the analogy of a flowing stream:
On this stream, one may see an ever-changing pattern of vortices, ripples, waves, splashes, etc., which evidently have no independent existence as such. Rather, they are abstracted from the flowing movement, arising and vanishing in the total process of the flow. Such transitory subsistence as may be possessed by these abstracted forms implies only a relative independence or autonomy of behaviour, rather than absolutely independent existence as ultimate substances....[2]
We must learn to view everything as part of 'Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement' [3]...
-----------------------
~ The Holographic Universe[/b] -
Nope. Where??Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Oh my Fark, you have trying to hide the inadequacies of your religion behind a flurry of quotations. While Bohm has predicted about order in chaos but if you read carefully, the converse is true, i.e chaos in order. -
random chaos....right~
....try cook a pot of sand and see randomly, you'll get rice eventually.
metaphysics also le..
/\ -
Basic logic mah.... If this happens then the converse must also be true.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Nope. Where?? -
I can get a monkey to type randomly and the aplhabets will form up the entire story of the Tempest.Originally posted by sinweiy:random chaos....right~ ....try cook a pot of sand and see randomly, you'll get rice eventually.
metaphysics also le..
/\
-
And like what I quoted, the text refutes such claims.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Basic logic mah.... If this happens then the converse must also be true. -
Re-quote:
Beliefs that are contrary to the law of kamma
since it's all mind. both random and Past-action determinism is possible.
There are three philosophies which are considered by Buddhism to be wrong view and which must be carefully distinguished from the teaching of kamma:
1. Pubbekatahetuvada: The belief that all happiness and suffering arise from previous kamma (Past-action determinism).
2. Issaranimmanahetuvada: The belief that all happiness and suffering are caused by the directives of a Supreme Being (Theistic determinism).
3. Ahetu-apaccayavada: The belief that all happiness and suffering are random, having no cause (Indeterminism or Accidentalism).
hence all and all, Buddha wish we do not stubbornly attached to any fixed view point.
let it go. view points are also "empty" in nature. even the Dharma is also to be dropped eventually, when we say fa wu ting fa.
/\ -
I do not think it is possible for a human to be the 'ultimate Enlightenment'. That would be equated to the Christian concept of god - All-Knowing.Originally posted by Spnw07:Hmm, englightened people know themselves and why they are enlightened, agree. But they definitely know everything as in you throw any question at them, they will know how to respond in the right way towards each unique individual. In Christianity, God is believed to be all-knowing, and I think from what I understand about the Buddha, he does seem to know everything.
But does it necessary mean that all intelligent people do not suffer in any way, according to what you have mentioned in your first point?
Jesus is very intelligent or wise or even powerful, but he chose to die on the Cross for the sins of men. So is that intelligent as he is suffering?
Why forget it for the 3rd point?
We are 'enlightened' in our own ways as we learn, work, socialise and so forth. The ability to 'see' or have an 'insight' is enlightenment. Of course, not everyone has this ability! But there were already many enlightened people from the beginning of time and even today. So, we have great scientists, philosphers, thinkers, teachers, tinkers, even gamblers and convicts!
But it is very natural of human to elevate another human to 'god-like' status when they are very profound thinkers, leaders or teachers. Even your grand grand cho-cong were also enlightened compared to their days as youths. -
Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:
Shakyamuni Buddha told his followers when he passed away. When they asked him what to should do, among many other things he said that followers of Gautama must let people know four things:
I do not think it is possible for a human to be the 'ultimate Enlightenment'.
- Siddhartha, a normal ordinary human being came to the earth.
- He achieved enlightenment.
- He taught others how he achieved enlightenment.
- He passed into parinirvana.
The first message, that an ordinary human being called Siddhartha came, is very important because it indicates that he was an ordinary man just like us before he achieved enlightenment.
This second message is a very important message, as it indicates that an ordinary human being can achieve enlightenment.
The third message tells us that itÂ’s not as though only the Buddha can achieve enlightenment, and the rest of us have to somehow try our best and remain secondary. ItÂ’s not like that. He taught the path through which everyone can achieve enlightenment equally, just like him.
The fourth message is very important – it’s not as though enlightenment is something like becoming a god, or attaining a state that is unchanging, ultimate and permanent like some kind of god realm, despite what we might think. The Buddha actually passed into the parinirvana. This last message is very important. I think it is taught in the Mahaparinirvana-sutra. This is also why he said that Buddhists, those who wish to follow him in the future, must go to four places: Lumbini, where an ordinary man was born; Bodh Gaya, where this ordinary person achieved enlightenment, and so forth. We should do this to remind us that ordinary beings like us can do it.
ps: enlightenment is the ability to know kong xing(emptiness nature).
/\