Nelson,
Well to try and answer your question I have to admit that while I think
that the debate about what constitutes "true enlightenment" is
interesting and perhaps central to many re. studying Buddhism it's not
central to my practice (and this is perhaps influenced by my
interpretation of Dogen's notion of gradual enlightenment - i.e.
something like sitting IS enlightenment). What attracted me to Buddhism
was the Buddha's straightforward characterization of suffering, as you
aptly put it - life sucks; also his argument that there's a way out was
certainly attractive to a morose teenager who had read too much Camus.
As such I can say that certain teachers and practitioners of my
acquaintance have a certain presence of mind and generosity of spirit
that is unique in my experience and serves as motivation for me re. my
attempts at practicing Buddhism. Whether or not this constitutes
official enlightenment or not is of little concern to me. I would not be
qualified to judge in any case and an opinion either way would have
virtually no effect on anything I did.
>Karl,
>
>
>
>>The debate about the nature
>>of enlightenment has been going on for centuries
>>
>>
>
>And I don't have a dog in that fight. I've never been able to figure out
>what people are talking about. So I've approached it more like a native of
>Missouri--show me. Give me an example of someone who achieved something they
>characterize as enlightenment and demonstrate how it's unique--that's the
>test.
>
>Bill wrote earlier about the experience and sensation of timelessness. It's
>a wonderful ability, but not unique. People spontaneously experience it
>regularly. It can be learned and cultivated in short order with little
>dedication and/or training. Further, it can be permanently attained through
>surgery. So while I think the ability to switch into timelessness is
>valuable, enjoyable and probably healthful in moderation, I'm a little wary
>about adopting it as a lifelong state.
>
>I'm far less interested in the definition of enlightenment than the fact
>that numbers of people have dedicated their lives to this attainment, when
>in fact, there is little common knowledge or understanding of the task or
>it's result.
>
>Since you and I have persisted in this exchange, I'll ask you. Have you or
>anyone you know achieved something you call enlightenment?
>
>The notion of enlightenment as advocated by Buddha achieved two things:
>Release from the cycle of birth and death and the lessening of pain,
>discomfort and unhappiness while alive. The first arises from the Hindu
>problem of how to change caste. By continual practice one could be reborn to
>higher and higher castes and then finally to transcend life on earth
>altogether. The second was a more direct salve for the unpleasant vagaries
>of life.
>
>Both reasons are based on the notion that life on this planet sucks. The
>whole point was (is?) to get off-planet. And the ticket? The mysterious
>enlightenment.
>
>So it isn't surprising that there arose a cult specifically interested in
>attaining enlightenment. Zen is the stripped-down, hot-rod model of
>Buddhist, with the attainment of enlightenment as its single objective.
>Monastic life, individual and dedicated effort were the norm.
>
>Then Zen washed up on American shores and the concepts of enlightenment
>started getting furry--even optional. Zen Lite.
>
>This is Riley's point about blowing Zen--you can't do it any old way you
>want.
>
>Nelson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 06 2004 - 14:09:32 PST