Sunmaster

33 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

I looked up Mother Meera. She is a self-proclaimed 'mystic'. 

Sometimes self-proclaimed mystics are charlatans. 

Not sure where you got that from, but I highly doubt she would self-proclaim that, surely not to make financial gains.

1 minute ago, NotReallyHere said:

More correctly.  Ok, I'm rational.

Sure, whatever makes you happy.

17 minutes ago, NotReallyHere said:

More nonsense.  You can't compare the flowery nonsense you wrote concerning "intelligent design" and "understanding it" with quantum physics.  The fact that you think you can speaks volumes.  You don't understand the simple concept of faith and that it isn't based on anything that can be proven.

OK, you win. ????

43 minutes ago, NotReallyHere said:

Your comment indirectly says I'm stupid, but I don't feel the least bit insulted by it.  It's as if someone said 2+2=5. and I replied "that doesn't make sense".  To which the original poster said my "lack of comprehension is my own doing".  I can accept that.  No problem.

Not at all. The same way I don't feel I'm stupid if I don't understand quantum entanglement. Some do understand it and I don't have a problem with that either. 

27 minutes ago, NotReallyHere said:

Privileged Westerner outlook.  Try telling a Syrian that the world is a "perfect environment for the tasks and lessons we set out to receive".  What does that even mean?  "...tasks and lessons we set out to receive."?  I suspect there is a high correlation between a trust in pretty, nonsensical phrases and the belief in a supreme being.  If not, belief wouldn't be sustainable.

 

Belief is about faith.  Any attempts to rationalize it are futile.  Using terms like "intelligent design" to describe faith is silly.  Yet believers do, to bolster their own faith and to try to make themselves look less foolish.

 

Fail...

The lack of comprehension is entirely your own doing. I can't do anything about that, I'm afraid. 

If I attempted to read a paper about quantum entanglement and don't understand anything, I wouldn't blame the guy who wrote it. 

Does that make sense?

12 minutes ago, NotReallyHere said:

In my opinion, it does disprove intelligent design.

 

What's your definition of "intelligent design".

 

You'll probably just google it.  Surely someone has tweaked the definition of intelligent design to allow for all the faults in human design.

No need to google it. I will define it the way I understand it.

For me, intelligent design doesn't mean that the world we live in ought to be perfect, although in a way it is perfect. With all of its imperfections,  it is the perfect environment for the tasks and lessons we set out to receive. 

This is true for me. Others may not see it that way and that's fine too.

11 minutes ago, NotReallyHere said:

That isn't an explanation of "intelligent design".  It's just an explanation of what occurs.

 

It wasn't meant to be an explanation of intelligent design. You asked a question  about male nipples, as if that would disprove intelligent design. I simply answered that. 

6 minutes ago, NotReallyHere said:

Intelligent design?  Why do men have nipples?

 

This thread was started in 2019.  Maybe this has already be mentioned by some of you hardcore followers.  Sorry for the duplication.  I only read the first few posts.  I don't expect to find any enlightenment by reading all 537 pages.

No need to read the whole thread. A simple Google search will provide the answer.

Men have nipples because nipples develop in the womb before embryos become distinctly male or female. So by the time a Y chromosome kicks in to distinguish a fetus as male, the nipples have already secured their place.

29 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

For example, meditating, which can take up a lot of time, is essentially 'doing nothing'. If you've organized your affairs so you have the time to sit down doing nothing, for long periods, then that's fine.

 

Meditation can take up as little as 20minutes a day. We spend a lot more time doing irrelevant and sometimes harmful things.

But you're right, my personal circumstances allow me to spend time meditating and educating myself instead of worrying where my next meal comes from. For that I'm very grateful. 

20 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

It's not accurate to describe all mental processes as rational. If there are no mental thought processes going on, then there's neither rationality nor irrationality.

What happens when you don't think?

2 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Rational people would meditate, or fast, or eat a healthy diet, or exercise regularly, for a good reason. Most situations have both positive and negative attributes. For example, meditating, which can take up a lot of time, is essentially 'doing nothing'. If you've organized your affairs so you have the time to sit down doing nothing, for long periods, then that's fine.

 

The more rational you are, the more likely you are to discover and consider both the positive and negative attributes and compare their significance. The less rational you are, the more likely you will be attached to specific qualities which you like, or which give you pleasure, and ignore the other related issues which could have disastrous consequences in the future.

 

Buying a house with a great view, without considering the negative attributes, such as losing the house in the next flood, is irrational, unless you are very wealthy, and/or can afford the huge insurance premiums, and/or have a private helicopter which can safely remove you from any sudden flooding. But even then, where does the helicopter land? A wealthy person might not have a care in the world about losing the house, but if he's a rational person he should consider the safety of himself and his family.

 

"I speak of irrationality as a non-rational state that is beyond the mind (not achieved by thinking)."

 

It's not accurate to describe all mental processes as rational. If there are no mental thought processes going on, then there's neither rationality nor irrationality.

In your example, if the prospective homebuyers would KNOW of the flood danger and still buy the house, THEN that would be lacking common sense or be irrational. If they don't know about it, their choices would still be dictated by rational thought.

I think you're afraid of what could lurk in the depths of the subconscious, which you seem to equate with the label "irrational". You think that "rational" brings order and understanding in the outer world. What you don't see yet however, is that the subconscious, the irrational (=that which goes beyond the rational) is subject to rules of a higher order. Not chaos and ignorance, but a reality that is more true and pure, because not distorted by the rational mind.

This is the reality that becomes apparent when using the inner senses, not the outer senses, not the rational mind.

21 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 Sorry! I can't agree. A lack of rationality is a fundamental cause of most of the problems and suffering so many people experience in this world. I'll quote just one example, although I could quote hundreds. ????

 

A couple are searching for a home to buy and come across a suitable house on a river bank with an amazing view. Wow! The price is good. The view is good, and the house is fairly close to our current work-place. Let's buy it.

 

However, in many areas, rivers tend to flood every few years. Since we now have an internet service which provides records of lots of historical events in the past, in numerous regions, a rational person would think, 'Before I make a decision, I'll check the historical record of flooding in this area where the house is located.' 

 

I'm sure the Buddha would also have advised that (if he were alive today), but unfortunately the desire for a nice view trumps rationality. The couple buy the home, and 3 years later it's totally destroyed by a massive flood that records show, has occurred, on average, every 20 years since records began, and that there have been even worse floods in the same area 50, 80 and a 100 years ago.

No reason to be sorry Vincent.

We are just talking about different things then.

What you classify as irrationality in your story is just another form of rationality. Meaning, they still use their mind to come to a decision of buying the house. Their reasons, whatever they may be, are still based on conscious thought and evaluation of their options. In this case it would be "the great view".

 I speak of irrationality as a non-rational state that is beyond the mind (not achieved by thinking). 

I doubt that the couple in your story would go to the house, start meditating, go into a non-rational state, and then buy the house because of that. ????

9 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

The Buddha seems to have been a very rational person to me. It's why I've been interested in Buddhism. If one separates the mystical mumbo jumbo from his basic teachings, he's encouraging a rational approach to achieving a distress-free life. Have you read the Kalama Sutta?

 

However, I suspect the Buddha understood that for most people, the desires for pleasures, sex, tasty food, fame, vanity, wealth and power to enhance one's ego, and strong attachment to these things, and so on, were too embedded in the population, and that his enlightened teachings, appealing to the rational mind, would only penetrate a few people, which is the reason why he initially considered continuing his life, after enlightenment, in a state of meditative calm in the forest, to avoid the hassles of teaching to irrational people.

Great post. 

The thing that made me think though, is in the very last sentence. 

"Avoid the hussles of teaching irrational people."

From this I deduct that for you, rational is good and irrational is bad. Correct?

What does it mean "being irrational"? A state of non-rationality. But here is the problem...both a baby and a great yogi experience a state of non-rationality. The states are not the same however, because the first comes before rationality and the latter comes after rationality. It transcends it and includes it into something bigger.

In this context, being irrational becomes a good thing, and rationality ceases to be the only option.

2 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Of course, no-one can do the impossible. That's the definition of 'impossible'. However, you surely must understand from the history of the human race, that many, many things that were considered impossible in the past are now possible, and many, many concepts that could not be grasped by the rational mind in the past, can now be grasped. That's progress.

 

I don't even think any primitive tribal person would ever think that pointing at the moon with his finger is the same as being on the moon. ????

I understand what you mean. 

You believe that the rational mind has the potential of making sense of the unknowable sometimes in the future. 

I don't think so. All the teachings of the great sages, visionaries and holy people point towards the fact that this is not possible. 

The rational mind is what prevents true knowing from happening in the first place. True knowing happens in the absence of the rational mind.

The rational mind can only attempt at integrating the knowledge received. It's like receiving a 10 ton birthday cake, but you can still eat it only spoon by spoon.

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

When enlightened can enlightened communicate with each other without speaking, reading body language and also from distant places from each other? Supid questions, but have you ever received any proof of such communication your self?

 

I believe that when 2 enlightened people meet, there is an instant recognition that is beyond words. 

Along the same line but on a smaller scale, you can experience this yourself when meeting others. Often we get an instant "good feeling" about someone and we trust that person straight away. Other times we get "bad vibes" and instinctively avoid contact.

After that, it's a matter of how much you trust your insight.

Enlightened people are masters of insight.

And yes, I experienced something big in the past and still get validation of that experience in everyday life. 

8 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Everything that everyone experiences is an experience within themselves, whatever the motivation, goal or circumstances. Even when a group of people are participating, cooperating, or competing, as in a football match, the individual experience of each footballer will be their own experience, and will be different, to some degree, to the experiences of the other footballers in the same game.

 

Since everyone experiences something within themselves, the important teaching of the Buddha is 'how to think for yourself', as outlined in the Kalama Sutta. Most people too easily just accept the advice of an established authority, whether the authority is a religion, a doctor's advice, a guru's advice, investment advice, or a claimed consensus of scientists promoting fear about increasing CO2 levels.

"2. You say "...when one considers that a major point in the Buddha's teachings is that the existence of a Creator God is an 'unknowable', and therefore it's a waste of time speculating on its existence and characteristics."
I think there is confusion on this point. The stress of that sentence should be on the word SPECULATING, because that's indeed a trap. Speculating is thinking, and thinking comes from the mind. So, it's a waste of time thinking about the unknowable, but that doesn't imply that one shouldn't use other ways to connect with the unknowable that don't include thinking. I'm talking about meditation. When you manage to keep your thoughts on a leash, you free and open yourself to different vibes, so to speak. And that's one of the most basic Buddhist teachings: that words are nothing compared to personal experience. Yes, the Godhead is unknowable for us, but that shouldn't stop us from trying."

 

Wow! 'Words are nothing compared to personal experience.' What are you trying to say?? ????

 

All animals have personal experiences in order to survive. To flee from danger requires an experience of danger. However, humans are unique in the sense that we not only have a capacity for experience, but also a capacity for words that describe those experiences. Without that capacity for words we would still be like Monkeys and Apes. Even the most primitive tribes that still exist in remote places, have words, although relatively few words and no writing.

 

As tribes or civilizations develop, more words are created in order to avoid confusing different entities as the same thing. For example, a primitive tribe might have just one word for all trees. Whilst they can probably see a difference between different species of trees, they haven't got around to creating new words to define those different species of trees.

 

Meditation obviously can have benefits, resulting in a peaceful and calm mind, and a release from all the hustle and bustle of normal, human activity. However, using the strict meditation guidlines employed in certain retreats and advocated by certain gurus, can have harmful effects for certain people with pre-existing psychological problems. I believe some retreats require visitors to sign a documant stating that they have had no previous psychological problems, before they are accepted to begin meditation practice.

 

Since a goal of Buddhist meditation is a cessation of all thoughts, whilst still being aware, it does make sense that no words could accurately describe such an experience. Words are thoughts. No thoughts mean no words.
 

What am I trying to say? Pretty much what you just said.

That words are thoughts and are a very poor attempt at describing something that is not possible to put into words in the first place. Something that is not graspable by the rational mind.

Pointing at the moon with your finger is not the same as being on the moon. Right?

13 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

By your mention of a Nobel Laureate, and a high school student, in the same sentence, I have no doubt that you are referring to Bob Dylan. 

 

Bobby was OK while singing about his big brass bed. 

 

Such lyrics! 

 

Bob's lyricisms were High School, or Middle School. 

 

Lay, Lady, Lay... 

 

Sounds more like a young teen's wet dream, and not a Swedish Nobel. 

 

No poet worth his/her salt would even speak to Bob. 

 

Everybody knows he is a joke. 

 

His simple rhymes grate on the mind, and stick to the shoe like bubblegum. 

 

 

No, I wasn't referring to him. I don't like his music and never bothered reading his lyrics.

2 hours ago, save the frogs said:

like who?

that term is vague and almost meaningless.

is the dalai lama enlightened?

he may know a lot, but some of his advice seems silly ... for instance, he has advocated celibacy because relationships can lead to suffering. doesn't seem feasible for everyone to be avoiding relationships. 

so maybe 'enlightened' doesn't exist. 

This is a tricky subject. It would be like trying to assess the math proficiency of a Nobel laureate from the point of view of a high school math student.

Nevertheless, I think it is possible to place people on some kind of hierarchical scale of spiritual development and we can do that by looking at what they say and how they implement that in their lives.

The following people are, from my limited point of view, enlightened and if not fully and permanently enlightened, then at least very close to it.

Ananamaji Ma (+ 20th century)

Ramana Maharshi (+ 20th century)

Paramhansa Yogananda (+ 20th century)

Sri Aurobindo (+ 20th century)

Tony parsons (living)

Eckhart Tolle (living)

Mother Meera (living)

Dalai Lama (living)

And these are just some of the better known personalities. There ought to be many more that prefer not to be in the spotlight.

Enlightened or liberation is attainable by each and every one of us. It would make no sense to limit it to only a few people in a remote past. 

55 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I think it's rational to presume that nobody has any real and precise evidence of what the Buddha experienced in his meditation. In order to get such evidence, you would not only need to have some miraculous ability to get inside someone's mind and experience exactly what they are experiencing, but also to get inside the mind of a person who died around 2,500 years ago.

 

Are you aware that there are no written records dating to the time of the Buddha's life? Everything we know about the Buddha has been passed down by memory over several generations. After about 400 years, those memories were first recorded in the Pali script, in Sri Lanka, during the first century BCE.

 

The story about the Creator God, Brahma, persuading the Buddha to teach what he'd learned during his ascetic wanderings and meditation, seems very puzzling when one considers that a major point in the Buddha's teachings is that the existence of a Creator God is an 'unknowable', and therefore it's a waste of time speculating on its existence and characteristics.

 

That the story is propaganda, to assist the Buddha to teach and integrate into a Vedic environment where most people believed in a Creator God, is the best explanation I can think of. Perhaps you have a better explanation. ????
 

I'd like to address a couple of your points.

1. While you may not know or even imagine the exact state of mind of the Buddha at the time of his enlightenment, it is important to note that this is irrelevant at best, and counterproductive at its worst. The important message was and will always be: experience it for yourself.
One thing is for sure though. Buddha is not alone in having experienced enlightenment. There are many living today that would qualify as enlightened. 

2. You say "...when one considers that a major point in the Buddha's teachings is that the existence of a Creator God is an 'unknowable', and therefore it's a waste of time speculating on its existence and characteristics."
I think there is confusion on this point. The stress of that sentence should be on the word SPECULATING, because that's indeed a trap. Speculating is thinking, and thinking comes from the mind. So, it's a waste of time thinking about the unknowable, but that doesn't imply that one shouldn't use other ways to connect with the unknowable that don't include thinking. I'm talking about meditation. When you manage to keep your thoughts on a leash, you free and open yourself to different vibes, so to speak. And that's one of the most basic Buddhist teachings: that words are nothing compared to personal experience. Yes, the Godhead is unknowable for us, but that shouldn't stop us from trying.

One more thing. I think Buddha would have had no problems talking about a Godhead, because that is also part of Brahman. So, if the people of his time preferred believing in a Godhead instead of an impersonal ultimate reality, then this is OK too because it's a step in the same direction anyway. 

26 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Once again, we need to precise with our definitions. There's a distinction between Brahma and Brahman. Brahma is the Hindu (or Vedic) creator of the universe, that is, a Creator God.

 

'Brahman' is a metaphysical concept that connotes the highest universal principle, and/or the 'ultimate reality' in the universe, and/or the 'binding unity behind all diversity'.

 

Buddhism initially evolved in this Vedic environment, and the teachings of the Buddha were opposed to some of the Vedic beliefs, in particular, the concept of a Creator god and a permanent soul, which obviously would create problems.

 

In order to surmount such problems, a story was created about the Buddha's thoughts soon after he achieved enlightenment,

 

He wondered if there would be any point in teaching his insights, because most people would be incapable of understanding such profound insights because they were so attached to material possessions, emotional pleasures, vanity, ego, greed, and power. He thought, perhaps he should spend the rest of his life in peaceful calm in the forest.

 

However, according to the story, the Buddha changed his opinion when the Creator God, Brahma, descended into his consciousness, and implored him to teach his great wisdom, because at least a few people would understand his message, which Brahma accepted as true.

 

Can you see the propaganda in this story? If the Buddha were to attempt to teach his enlightened views to a population who believed in a Creator God and a permanent soul, he probably wouldn't achieve much success.
However, if that Creator God, Brahma, were to bow to the Buddha and encourage him to teach, then his success would be greater. And it was greater, because a new religion was created.
 

Thank you for the clarification. 

According to this I used the term Brahman correctly then.

But again, I don't think it's an either-or situation. You can have some sort of individual cosmic consciousness (sometimes called God), and at the same time an impersonal force. 

21 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Interesting, I am confused by a lot of Buddhist beliefs. 

I know there is Phra Prom in Thailand, 'Thai Buddhism' is a mix of Hinduism, Buddhism, Animism and Fetishism.

In my limited knowledge, the concept of a creator is more abundant in Mahayana

I don't think they are mutually exclusive, they just focus on different aspects of AllThereIs. The same goes for any other religion. 

The notion of the One God or Creator coexists with that of Nothingness or impersonal ultimate reality.

They are all correct and valuable.

18 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Do any Buddhists believe in Brahman?

I can't speak for what others believe, but if they are Buddhists, I would think yes, in some way or another.

The reality though, is that the more esoteric teachings (of any religion) are often misunderstood or ignored by those that don't practice. 

So I guess it depends on the individual if and how much they believe in them.

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

i haven't read buddhism in many many years, but i remember getting some useful practical information from it.

what you're quoting seems like abstract useless nonsense.

 

managing our material lives is important. 

it's not nothingness or emptiness or illusory. 

 

Yes, Buddhism is at its core extremely practical. That's why I'm attracted to it.
Buddhism also stresses the fact that the world we live in is Maya, an illusion so convincing that we rarely doubt its reality.
So, while there is Maya (material manifestation of energy patterns coming from the source), there is also Brahman, true reality. Not as opposites though. Maya is a result of Brahman's creative force. 

For many, Maya is the only reality there is. And from that fact, countless problems arise that make our lives miserable. 

35 minutes ago, RamenRaven said:

They teach that there is no true ego, since the self is an illusion.

Ego is a construct, yes. The self is not an illusion. The self is the source of the personality and ego. 

Apart from that, I agree with your post. From my experience, Thais in general don't have a very deep understanding of Buddhism (a bit like most Catholics know very little about their own religion), but many do practice meditation. And that I regard as more beneficial than any theoretical knowledge. 

11 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Apologies, I could certainly be more humble! 

 

I agree with much of what you say, don't understand some. 

 

I like what Eckhart Tolle says about time, have you read any of his works?

I'm familiar with his teachings, yes.