Originally posted by wuliheron
Buddha promoted a path that broke with the traditional cast system of India. His path is often called the "middle path" because it advocates something between the ascetic and hedonistic and welcomes people from all walks of life. That isn't to say he promoted the belief it was impossible to become enlightened any other way, just that most people require disciplined efforts towards achieving enlightenment. For example, supposidly the Buddha once walked out on stage to address an audience and said nothing, he just held up a lotus flower for the audience to see and one of his followers became enlightened.
I suspect we are going to have to agree to disagree about what the Buddha taught, which is of course perfectly okay.
The reason the Buddha coined the term "the middle way," was due to the disposition of most of his original followers. Their emphasis on self-mortification and reflection on Truth was a standard begun during a period in first millennium B.C. India when old tribal units were breaking up, and many individuals were no longer satisfied with the rituals and speculations of the ancient Vedic religion.
Leaving family and social responsibilities behind, along with caste distinctions, thousands of men took to the forests and roads to live a hermit’s life and explore the inner self (the sramana and yati traditions, for example). As a result of intense dedication to the search, within two centuries numerous philosophies, turning-inward methods, austerities, teachers and sects became available for seekers to assay (the insights from some of them became the basis for early Upanishad writings).
This grand experiment was a convergence of inner savants that parallels (IMHO) the brilliant concurrence of physicists in the first half of twentieth century exploring quantum and universal laws. Similar too was the ascetics’ decidedly unsentimental investigative approach, with its emphasis on the development and application of inner technologies.
It was the momentum of this ascetic and philosophical movement, plus the apparent dedication of its participants, that attracted Gautama Siddhartha after leaving home as a young man; and it was also the community where as a Buddha he first taught and from which he gathered disciples. Understanding the Buddha’s environment and his disciples’ yogic bent is crucial to one's study of the phenomenon of enlightenment; that’s because of the difficulty many people have had in distinguishing the Buddha’s experience of enlightenment from his methods for teaching others how to achieve the experience.
Buddhism today, as a popular religion, is often explained in terms of the Middle Way, the Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path, as though these precepts are the core principles of the Buddha’s teaching. But the Buddha’s instruction on the Middle Way was a communication aimed specifically at his audience of ascetics, some of whom might be found staring all day at the sun, covered in cow manure, hanging tortuously from ropes, fasting to the brink of starvation, or in other predicaments that required so much effort no energy was left for what really is the core principle of enlightenment—turning inward.
The Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path are likewise part of the Buddha’s turning-inward discipline. The message of the Four Noble Truths is that suffering is caused by seeking lasting satisfaction “outside” one’s being, and that suffering can be eliminated if one stops desiring outside fulfillment. The Eightfold Path is “right” ways of behaving to help one stay aimed toward, and practice, turning inward. This is why it is safe to say that the core principle of the Buddha’s teaching is first to practice inward-turning meditation daily (with the objective of attaining samadhi), combined with striving every moment to stay in touch with the inner experience one has acquired through the day’s inward-turning meditation.
Originally posted by wuliheron
The enlightened still think, as the Buddha himself demonstrated. To assert otherwise is absurd and just proves my point that it is difficult to talk intelligibly about enlightenment.
You misterpreted what I said. I did NOT say one who has attained enlightenment
never thinks! What I said was, that it is possible to attain complete stillness of the mind, and one can thoroughly enjoy that experience without having a single thought about "nothing" or anything else. Of course if you want to think you can. But if you believe it is easy to attain a still mind, sit down, close your eyes, and see just how much peace your mind gives you. Most people can't shut it up for even a few seconds. I know for a fact it can be stilled, and that the experience is wonderful.
Originally posted by wuliheron
The fat Buddha, by the way, is one of eight standard representations of Buddha. His size represents prosperity, among primitive people being fat is a sign of wealth and often sex appeal. So much myth surrounds people who lived two thousand years ago that you have to take everything with a pound of salt.
Yes, I agree with this. The same is true of the legend of him being a wealthy prince. Most scholars suspect Gautama was the son of a chief of one of the villages that were (and still are) spread all over India. That technically made him a "prince" but probably not one who benefitted from great privilege.
Originally posted by wuliheron
In contrast there is the "Mafia personality" of who-I-am-and-what-I-do-at-work is not who-I-am-what-I-do-at-home. This simply does not apply to such belief systems as Buddhism. Instead, the emphasis is on integration. Integrating our mind, body, soul, work, play, and all of who we are and do is the goal . . . Monks were philosophers, political advisors, teachers, and so much more just as they often are today. Again, the pursuit of enlightenment is as much for cultivating compassion and understanding as anything else. It is an integrative lifestyle, psychology, etc. that either suits who you are at the time or it doesn't.
Well, I've already acknowledged the difference between the religion of "Buddhism" and what the Buddha himself taught. What you say above is pure religion, nicely watered down for the masses, and not what the Buddha taught.
You have to go back in time, mentally, and look strictly at the words of the Buddha, and what he set up. The primary setting was the sangha; that is, it was monastatic life, withdrawn from participation in worldly matters, in order to practice samadhi meditation. Twice a day monks would meditate, and then try to stay within the experience the best they could the rest of the time.
It is true there were also lots of householder followers, and they did have to stay involved in worldly stuff, but while the Buddha was alive at least, he kept the focus on samadhi. But today? Forget it. Without the Buddha's enlightenment to guide, Buddhism. in my opinion, has become just another remnant of something orignially very powerful but which few people understand. Today it seems a vicarious thing, like the way Trekkies gather together wearing Star Trek costumes and such in order to recreate a sense of, and to feel they are part of, the original event.
But individuals who've dedicated their lives to enlightenment (and it hasn't just been Buddhist monks) have been very serious in their devotion. To equate the relatively lightweight efforts of the religious to that has always seemed inappropriate to me.
Originally posted by wuliheron
Fortunately it is possible to do just about anything while meditating and one need not become a monk. One friend of mine, for example, meditates while typing, showering, or whatever. Driving in contentious Los Angeles traffic, he says, presents the biggest challange for him.
I just couldn't let this go . . . I disagree so much with this popular concept. It is really a great example of "translating down" that people do so they can claim they are practicing.
The term “meditation” has many meanings, but only that meditation which works at merging, or samadhi, is the Buddha’s method. The inward-turning methods of samadhi that the Buddha taught were very specific in their focus; there was nothing vague about them (although the methods themselves were kept secret from non-initiates, as they still are).
That is why some so-called meditation practices do not make much sense as inward-turning techniques, such as staring at a candle, contemplating a mandala or focusing on anything else outside oneself (right?). Similarly, relative to the direct path of samadhi, one must regard chanting, purely repetitive mantras, trance, self-hypnosis, and really all other indirect or mental practices as “outward.” That is not to say the practices don’t have value, it’s just that they are different from the practice of samadhi.
So how can you drive a car and turn inward at the same time? I mean, your attention is (hopefully) focused "out there," as it should be when driving a car. I've practiced for 30 years, and I can tell you it cannot be done. To successfully attain union one has to be very still, disassociate from the senses and mentality, turn one's attention 180 degrees around, and gradually let go to a bright and powerful "something" one learns to locate within.
I will agree that after one attains union/samadhi, there is a subtle effort one can make to stay in it. One might refer to that as "preserving" one's meditation. But if one hasn't attained samadhi to begin with, then how can one preserve it while, say, driving a car?
BTW, this sort of "preserving" practice is exactly what I believe the Four Noble Truths were, and especially the Eightfold Path (except, obviously, for the eighth step).
).
