I am already a good person, why must I practise dharma?
-
What quantum shift? Enlightenment for you is just a paradigm shift which cannot end the root of ignorance or any other suffering.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:You weren't listening. The quantum shift in perception, enlightenment, ends the root cause of suffering, ignorance, which in turn ends suffering. -
What you said is utterly contradictory and I have no idea what you are saying.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:What quantum shift? Enlightenment for you is just a paradigm shift which cannot end the root of ignorance or any other suffering.
Enlightenment itself means insight and removing ignorance/darkness.
When there is enlightenment, ignorance is removed, or rather seen to be ignorance and dropped. You cannot be enlightened and ignorant, which is contradictory.
Buddhist Enlightenment when attained ENDS all sufferings as well as the root cause of suffering -- ignorance. -
I like this topic which questions why I must practise dharma if I already consider myself to be a good person.
In fact, I hardly think I'm a good person after many conflicts with others in school and workplaces. I have come to see how dark and selfish I am.
More importantly, the dharma taught by Buddha helps me to examine those thoughts in greater detail and shows countless safe paths walked by all saints, bodhisattvas to be and Buddhas to be.
However, considering the age where we are in now, (loosely translated perhaps as the world of five defilements - wu3 zhuo2 e2 shi4) we have to continuously seek new answers on countless and emerging life issues and improve on old ones for existing problems which affect all living beings. -
No one is good or bad only ignorance people
-
Actually you are and were already practicing, if not you won't have a good life that you are satisfied with.
-
It is not contradictory; when a person cannot comprehend the insight, the ignorance still exists. Hence, suffering DOES NOT END.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:What you said is utterly contradictory and I have no idea what you are saying.
Enlightenment itself means insight and removing ignorance/darkness.
When there is enlightenment, ignorance is removed, or rather seen to be ignorance and dropped. You cannot be enlightened and ignorant, which is contradictory.
Buddhist Enlightenment when attained ENDS all sufferings as well as the root cause of suffering -- ignorance. -
'Cannot comprehend the insight' is a completely utterly contradictory term. I wonder if you can understand simple English terms.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:It is not contradictory; when a person cannot comprehend the insight, the ignorance still exists. Hence, suffering DOES NOT END.
If you have insight, that means you can completely comprehend the phenomena, which is why it is called insight, and which is why it ends ignorance, which in terms ENDS all sufferings. -
Someone can point or guide the person to the insight, but no one can give the person the exact insight, can he? Who's having linguistical problems now, AEN?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:'Cannot comprehend the insight' is a completely utterly contradictory term. I wonder if you can understand simple English terms.
If you have insight, that means you can completely comprehend the phenomena, which is why it is called insight, and which is why it ends ignorance, which in terms ENDS all sufferings. -
No.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Someone can point or guide the person to the insight, but no one can give the person the exact insight, can he? Who's having linguistical problems now, AEN?
Insight is individual -- you cannot claim to possess an insight that you do not understand.
When you HAVE a sudden insight, it means you understand.
And yes, "Someone can point or guide the person to the insight, but no one can give the person the exact insight"
But your statement "when a person cannot comprehend the insight, the ignorance still exists." is false because there is no such thing as 'unable to comprehend the insight'. There is either insight or no insight. -
Are you sure? Let's take for an example: Gautama had an insight of enlightement and tried to explain it to Devadetta, do you think Devadetta could have understood the insight?(names based on the historical characters)Originally posted by An Eternal Now:No.
Insight is individual -- you cannot claim to possess an insight that you do not understand.
When you HAVE a sudden insight, it means you understand.
And yes, "Someone can point or guide the person to the insight, but no one can give the person the exact insight"
But your statement "when a person cannot comprehend the insight, the ignorance still exists." is false because there is no such thing as 'unable to comprehend the insight'. There is either insight or no insight. -
Insight means: 1. an instance of apprehending the true nature of a thing, esp. through intuitive understanding: an insight into 18th-century life.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Are you sure? Let's take for an example: Gautama had an insight of enlightement and tried to explain it to Devadetta, do you think Devadetta could have understood the insight?(names based on the historical characters)
It doesn't make sense to say whether 'devadatta could have understood the insight'.
It should be asked this way: Did devadatta have the insight?
The answer is: no. -
The question should be whether did Gautama had insight. Not Devadatta.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Insight means: 1. an instance of apprehending the true nature of a thing, esp. through intuitive understanding: an insight into 18th-century life.
It doesn't make sense to say whether 'devadatta could have understood the insight'.
It should be asked this way: Did devadatta have the insight?
The answer is: no. -
You are the one who said Devadatta, then now suddenly you change topic.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:The question should be whether did Gautama had insight. Not Devadatta.
Yes, Gautama, and countless other Arhats and Bodhisattvas had attained such insights. -
Who said I want to change the topic? You were the one who wanted to change the topic. Gautama tried to guide/lead Devadatta to whatever insight but Devadatta understands it as pure nonsense.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:You are the one who said Devadatta, then now suddenly you change topic.
Yes, Gautama, and countless other Arhats and Bodhisattvas had attained such insights. -
Huh?? So what are you trying to point out?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Who said I want to change the topic? You were the one who wanted to change the topic. Gautama tried to guide/lead Devadatta to whatever insight but Devadatta understands it as pure nonsense. -
That before Gautama attain his enlightenment, how many arhants before Gautama had been known to attain enlightenment? If none has been known before, then the insight is false and beyond logic. Then how can Devedatta know that it was an insight on Gautama's part?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Huh?? So what are you trying to point out? -
First you have to know there are three bodhis, three type of enlightened beings. There is the Sravaka Bodhi, Pratyeka Bodhi, and Samyak Bodhi.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:That before Gautama attain his enlightenment, how many arhants before Gautama had been known to attain enlightenment? If none has been known before, then the insight is false and beyond logic. Then how can Devedatta know that it was an insight on Gautama's part?
The very word shravaka, a shravaka arhat, means he is a 'hearer'. It means, he attained enlightenment through hearing, following, practising what a Sammasambuddha (full Buddha like Shakyamuni) has taught. He follows the teachings of such a Sammasam Buddha and attained Arhatship.
A solitary Buddha, or a Pratyekabuddha, attains enlightenment in his lifetime without learning from any Buddhas or any enlightened ones. He simply saw some signs, maybe some falling leaves, and attained an intuitive insight into the truth of dependent origination. Then, he attains enlightenment. A pratyekabuddha attains enlightenment during a period where there are no Buddhas. He has learned under previous Buddhas, but did not attain enlightenment in that lifetime, so continued to practise until one lifetime he attains Pratyekabuddhahood without the guide of any other enlightened beings. There are many pratyekabuddhas most of whom we probably did not know (since they are known as solitary), though some people say Lao Tzu could be an example of a pratyekabuddha. I will not debate on whether he is a pratyekabuddha here and is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Shakyamuni Buddha is an example of one who attained Anuttarasamyaksambodhi -- perfect, unexcelled enlightenment. He is a Buddha has not only attains Full Enlightenment, but also perfected the Paramitas, and obtained the ability, wisdom and skillful means to lead and guide lots and lots of sentient beings in masses towards enlightenment.
There can only be 1 Samyaksambodhi at any particular time in history, however, Shakyamuni Buddha was not the first Samyaksam Buddha to exist.. there are previous Samyaksam Buddhas before him, and also more Samyaksam Buddhas to come (the next one will be Maitreya Buddha). However, the previous Buddhas is beyond our written recorded history.
So, a Pratyekabuddha and a Samyaksam Buddha attains enlightenment by himself without the aid of other enlightened teachers, in that particular lifetime. But this does not mean that the pratyekabuddha has not practised in previous lifetimes --- a pratyekabuddha has also practised in previous lifetimes, and also under previous Buddhas. Similar goes to the Samyaksam Buddha like Shakyamuni Buddha. Especially for such Buddhas, they have to practise as a Bodhisattva for many many lifetimes, perfecting the Paramitas, before finally being able to attain complete Buddhahood.
So hopefully, that should answer your question. -
Mod going off-topic here, time to break out a new thread.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:First you have to know there are three bodhis, three type of enlightened beings. There is the Sravaka Bodhi, Pratyeka Bodhi, and Samyak Bodhi.
The very word shravaka, a shravaka arhat, means he is a 'hearer'. It means, he attained enlightenment through hearing, following, practising what a Sammasambuddha (full Buddha like Shakyamuni) has taught. He follows the teachings of such a Sammasam Buddha and attained Arhatship.
A solitary Buddha, or a Pratyekabuddha, attains enlightenment in his lifetime without learning from any Buddhas or any enlightened ones. He simply saw some signs, maybe some falling leaves, and attained an intuitive insight into the truth of dependent origination. Then, he attains enlightenment. A pratyekabuddha attains enlightenment during a period where there are no Buddhas. He has learned under previous Buddhas, but did not attain enlightenment in that lifetime, so continued to practise until one lifetime he attains Pratyekabuddhahood without the guide of any other enlightened beings. There are many pratyekabuddhas most of whom we probably did not know (since they are known as solitary), though some people say Lao Tzu could be an example of a pratyekabuddha. I will not debate on whether he is a pratyekabuddha here and is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Shakyamuni Buddha is an example of one who attained Anuttarasamyaksambodhi -- perfect, unexcelled enlightenment. He is a Buddha has not only attains Full Enlightenment, but also perfected the Paramitas, and obtained the ability, wisdom and skillful means to lead and guide lots and lots of sentient beings in masses towards enlightenment.
There can only be 1 Samyaksambodhi at any particular time in history, however, Shakyamuni Buddha was not the first Samyaksam Buddha to exist.. there are previous Samyaksam Buddhas before him, and also more Samyaksam Buddhas to come (the next one will be Maitreya Buddha). However, the previous Buddhas is beyond our written recorded history.
So, a Pratyekabuddha and a Samyaksam Buddha attains enlightenment by himself without the aid of other enlightened teachers, in that particular lifetime. But this does not mean that the pratyekabuddha has not practised in previous lifetimes --- a pratyekabuddha has also practised in previous lifetimes, and also under previous Buddhas. Similar goes to the Samyaksam Buddha like Shakyamuni Buddha. Especially for such Buddhas, they have to practise as a Bodhisattva for many many lifetimes, perfecting the Paramitas, before finally being able to attain complete Buddhahood.
So hopefully, that should answer your question. -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Mod going off-topic here, time to break out a new thread.
No need to. -
If you don't mind me continuing in the same thread... If Gautama had been practicing in his past life, then the insight would be his and no one else. Then how in hell does Devadatta know Gautama has the correct insight?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
No need to. -
It is the correct insight because it had led countless people to the end of sufferings.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:If you don't mind me continuing in the same thread... If Gautama had been practicing in his past life, then the insight would be his and no one else. Then how in hell does Devadatta know Gautama has the correct insight? -
I have a strange feeling that AEN flunked his O level's English. I asked how Devadatta know that Gautama's insight is correct and next, AEN tells me that it is correct because the insight has lead countless people to ending their sufferings long after Devadatta is dead.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:It is the correct insight because it had led countless people to the end of sufferings. -
What are you talking about?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:I have a strange feeling that AEN flunked his O level's English. I asked how Devadatta know that Gautama's insight is correct and next, AEN tells me that it is correct because the insight has lead countless people to ending their sufferings long after Devadatta is dead.
Thousands of people attained enlightenment during the lifetime of Buddha. -
See? AEN got problem with English and Mathematics.... Countless=Thousands....Originally posted by An Eternal Now:What are you talking about?
Thousands of people attained enlightenment during the lifetime of Buddha. -
I never said countless people attained enlightenment in Buddha's lifetime. Buddha lived only for 80 years in India.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:See? AEN got problem with English and Mathematics.... Countless=Thousands....
I said until now, countless people attained enlightenment.