Enlightenment In Three Aeons (Three Billion Years)?

[rockyysdt]

I haven't given up my attraction to Buddhism, but reading Jawnie's post has knocked some wind out of my sails.

Quote: The sutras talk about ten levels of Bodhisattvas, the tenth being a fully Enlightened One. Reaching the first level is extremely difficult and time consuming to reach (we are talking lifetimes here. I don't believe the Therevada form of Buddhism allows for enlightenment in one life time; I think Theravada allows for enlightenment after "Three Immeasurable Aeons.

Three billion years at an average lifetime of 50, would involve at least 600 million individual "I's", each one conditioned, impermanent and without any consciousness of those that went before.

If you really look at the odds, my "I" is a drop in the ocean in terms of what must occur before enlightenment can take place.

Does this put into perspective, my input into the path?

Much effort and sacrifice for no observable reward for my "I" which will expire in a lifetime.

Practicing with 5 precepts is good, but in reality including many more will be needed to travel to any appreciable level.

I can see much to be sacrificed from my short impermanent life in order to add my minute contribution.

Many have said that re birth and enlightenment are a bonus, but to them Buddhist practice leads to reducing ones suffering and improving ones life in this lifetime.

Are we surrounded by examples which go against this?

My observation of the lives of many suggests that Karma, if true, for many might not bear fruit until future re births.

I'm not condoning it, but there are countless examples of those who have lived ignoble lives and managed to survive unscathed.

Pol Pot, an extreme case, murdered 21% of the Cambodian population, and yet he died at a ripe old age, under a short period of house arrest, without punishment.

There are many living selfishly/slaves to their senses, and are seen to be punished or to suffer in their lifetime.

Conversely many go through life without apparent punishment, perhaps dieing with karmic debts for future lives.

It seems a lottery, but isn't saying that one will suffer or live poorly in this lifetime demonstrably incorrect for many?

It's been said to look for characteristics in your teacher as your guide when selecting a guru.

I regularly listen to Dhamma teachers, some with more than 25 – 40 years of regular practice.

Why do they continue to be colored with their lifelong beliefs, mannerisms, stuttering, use of profanity, and general flawed conditioning?

I see posts of Buddhists, with words lacking in mindfulness or fore thought.

Shouldn't decades of practice naturally bring about poise, depth of calm, and wisdom?

Although the Buddha taught Theravada practice as the way to enlightenment, is using it the slowest way (many lifetimes)?

Is Vajrayana Buddhism worthwhile investigating?

In terms of odds (600 million individual re births), are our inputs insignificant and therefore not worth what our "I" must forgo?

Due to karma & re birth, Buddhism is formulated to work over many lifetimes, but when you're speaking about this life, isn't existence with less suffering achievable without it?

One needn't be a Buddhist, to live a mindful, healthy, charitable life without suffering.

If you practice Buddhism for the benefits of this lifetime only, aren't you unnecessarily restricting yourself?

Edited March 9, 2011 by rockyysdt

[christiaan]

So probably all is related to the definition of enlightenment.

Wha Ii think however is that the enlighted person who are in our midst at the moment could inform us about this .

When there is no information then there are no 'enlightened' persons and we can only speculate about this?

What did 2500 years of Buddhism bring as knowledge related to this question?

[Brucenkhamen]

The English word "eon" or "aeon" simply means a very long interval of time

No, you are restricting yourself if you don't practise at all.

Are you relatively less unenlightened than when you first started? Then it's working.

[rockyysdt]

The English word "eon" or "aeon" simply means a very long interval of time

In the description the adjective "Immeasurable" is given.

This is suggestive of possibly even longer as 3,000,000,000 is measurable.

No, you are restricting yourself if you don't practise at all.

Are you relatively less unenlightened than when you first started? Then it's working.

Isn't your definition (enlightened) not the one in question?

Can't one shed light upon ones life without Buddhism?

Edited March 9, 2011 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

So probably all is related to the definition of enlightenment.

Wha Ii think however is that the enlighted person who are in our midst at the moment could inform us about this .

When there is no information then there are no 'enlightened' persons and we can only speculate about this?

What did 2500 years of Buddhism bring as knowledge related to this question?

It's standard practice for enlightened ones not to reveal their state to non Monks.

[christiaan]

So probably all is related to the definition of enlightenment.

Wha Ii think however is that the enlighted person who are in our midst at the moment could inform us about this .

When there is no information then there are no 'enlightened' persons and we can only speculate about this?

What did 2500 years of Buddhism bring as knowledge related to this question?

It's standard practice for enlightened ones not to reveal their state to non Monks.

So, do not reveal the state, but reveal the information.

Today one can do by 'anonymous' publications.

But fortunately, there are enlightened teachers outside Buddhism that can and do give a lot of information.

Suffering and Buddhism and the theorem of enlightening are interdependent conditions in Thailand.

[fabianfred]

Doubt is definately a hinderance here...

The quote by Jawnie looks like he is quoting Mahayana stuff. Theravada does allow for Arahant in one life time, but extremely difficult. Stream-entry in this lifetime is a far more reachable goal and one we should strive for.

Theravada sees the goal as Nirvana, not as enlightenment. Buddhas are enlightened and we do not have to become Buddhas to reach Nibanna. Boddhisattas are just Buddhas in training and do so for unimaginably long periods of time.

[Jawnie]

Doubt is definately a hinderance here...

The quote by Jawnie looks like he is quoting Mahayana stuff. Theravada does allow for Arahant in one life time, but extremely difficult. Stream-entry in this lifetime is a far more reachable goal and one we should strive for.

Theravada sees the goal as Nirvana, not as enlightenment. Buddhas are enlightened and we do not have to become Buddhas to reach Nibanna. Boddhisattas are just Buddhas in training and do so for unimaginably long periods of time.

Fabianfred is correct, the Hinayana path can lead an individual to completely extinguishing their karma, faults, suffering, etc.,, to personal liberation, thus escaping the wheel of rebirth or reincarnation. This is not not full enlightenment, though. The Mahayana ideal allows one to achieve enlightenment and part of that path is to postpone or give up personal liberation in order to remain within the six realms to assist other beings in alleviating their own suffering. It is sort of a "requirement" for achieving full enlightenment. It is this process that is said to take "three uncalculable aeons"; the Tibetans posit one aeon at roughly 13 billion years. And, yes, Tibetan text say the number of bodies we each have possessed would form a mountain larger than Mt. Meru.

There is a story of the Indian master Asanga, who spent 12 years in a cave. After the first 3 years he had no results from his practice so he decided to leave. On his way out, he met a man with a huge, thick iron rod, about six feet long, and he was rubbing it with a piece of silk. When asked what he was doing, the man said he was making a needle. This inspired Asanga to go back to his cave. After three more years of meditation and no progress, he left again. This time he met a man who had a feather and jar of water. He was pouring water the side of a mountain and wiping it with the feather. When asked what he was doing, he said the shade from the mountain was blocking the sun from his field so he was getting rid of the mountain. This inspired Asanga to return to his cave. Finally, after 12 years in the cave, Asanga achieved realization and it became clear to him that those incidents were to remind him that the path is long and difficult, requiring a lot of patient endurance.

Edited March 9, 2011 by Jawnie

[Brucenkhamen]

So probably all is related to the definition of enlightenment.

Wha Ii think however is that the enlighted person who are in our midst at the moment could inform us about this .

When there is no information then there are no 'enlightened' persons and we can only speculate about this?

What did 2500 years of Buddhism bring as knowledge related to this question?

I hate to break the news but it's very unlikely that there are enlightened people on Thaivisa.

If your question was genuine then you would go and visit well known teachers who may or may not be enlightened to see if you can find the answer you seek.

Have you done that?

If not then why should Thaivisa be interested in an ingenuine wquestion?

Edited March 9, 2011 by Brucenkhamen

[Brucenkhamen]

Theravada sees the goal as Nirvana, not as enlightenment. Buddhas are enlightened and we do not have to become Buddhas to reach Nibanna.

That's an unusual take, it's pretty normal as far as I've noticed for the english word enlightenment to be consider synonymous with nibbana/nirvana. Obviously being a Buddha is a step beyond that but is still enlightenment/nibbana/nirvana

[Brucenkhamen]

Fabianfred is correct, the Hinayana path can lead an individual to completely extinguishing their karma, faults, suffering, etc.,, to personal liberation, thus escaping the wheel of rebirth or reincarnation.

Fred said nothing about the Hinayana path, he talked about the Theravada path.

Please show a bit of respect and refrain from derogatory terms.

[fabianfred]

Fabianfred is correct, the Hinayana path can lead an individual to completely extinguishing their karma, faults, suffering, etc.,, to personal liberation, thus escaping the wheel of rebirth or reincarnation.

Fred said nothing about the Hinayana path, he talked about the Theravada path.

Please show a bit of respect and refrain from derogatory terms.

Unfortunately Mahayana followers often like to use the derogatory name of Hinayana to Theravada followers... it is their way of making themselves feel good about their own beliefs.

In fact Theravada follows the earlier teachings and so Mahayana is the breakaway school, which twisted and changed them to encourage those people who like to worship many deities and Buddhas and so caused the meaning of Boddhisatta to be altered to their present understanding.

Unless one has progressed to Arahant, done the task, reached Nibbana, how can one say what the abilities or state of one is?

Their demeaning comments, seeking to lower the importance of Arahant merely prop their own false beliefs.

Instead of arguing which school is better....practice....practice...practice.... and you will know for yourself and not need to listen to others.

[christiaan]

So probably all is related to the definition of enlightenment.

Wha Ii think however is that the enlighted person who are in our midst at the moment could inform us about this .

When there is no information then there are no 'enlightened' persons and we can only speculate about this?

What did 2500 years of Buddhism bring as knowledge related to this question?

I hate to break the news but it's very unlikely that there are enlightened people on Thaivisa.

If your question was genuine then you would go and visit well known teachers who may or may not be enlightened to see if you can find the answer you seek.

Have you done that?

If not then why should Thaivisa be interested in an ingenuine wquestion?

Thaivisa is a website, websites are not interested in anything at all, only people are.

So I was not writing about enlightenment restricted to contributors of Thaivisa but about enlightenment as it might be or not be possible within Thai Buddhism.

Ofcourse I am aware of well known teachers, most of them outside Buddhism, (but teaching about Buddhism also), I study, contemplate, meditate and practice about 30 years now as I have written before, and fortunately it turned out that my questions are very genuine as the answers I found showed.

Those teachers and teachings however are not restricted to the specific interdependent conditions and concepts as one can meet in Thailand.

But I am interested to learn about the questions and answers as they are or are not present within the Thai system of interdependent conditions and concepts.

It seems there is no direct, actual and relatively new information available from enlightened individuals in Thailand related to the original post of this topic.

[Brucenkhamen]

Thaivisa is a website, websites are not interested in anything at all, only people are.

Pedantic hair splitting.

Ofcourse I am aware of well known teachers, most of them outside Buddhism, (but teaching about Buddhism also), I study, contemplate, meditate and practice about 30 years now as I have written before, and fortunately it turned out that my questions are very genuine as the answers I found showed.

It's not relevant what well known teachers you are aware of, it's not relevant if you asked non Buddhist teachers about Buddhist enlightenment. The question is have you asked any well known Buddhist teachers your question? If you have then who? If not then repeating it over and over on Thaivisa (a web site frequented by people no less) seems ingenuine when you aren't interested in lifting a finger to find someone who actually may be qualified to answer.

But I am interested to learn about the questions and answers as they are or are not present within the Thai system of interdependent conditions and concepts.

What is this Thai system of interdependent conditions and concepts? Sounds like pompous nonsense to me.

It seems there is no direct, actual and relatively new information available from enlightened individuals in Thailand related to the original post of this topic.

Who have you asked? What degree of statistical sampling should one expect is necessary from a country of 60 million people before one can be confident in the accuracy of a nil return? Why do you restrict yourself to Thailand anyway? Buddhism exists outside of it's borders.

[Jawnie]

Fabianfred is correct, the Hinayana path can lead an individual to completely extinguishing their karma, faults, suffering, etc.,, to personal liberation, thus escaping the wheel of rebirth or reincarnation.

Fred said nothing about the Hinayana path, he talked about the Theravada path.

Please show a bit of respect and refrain from derogatory terms.

Unfortunately Mahayana followers often like to use the derogatory name of Hinayana to Theravada followers... it is their way of making themselves feel good about their own beliefs.

In fact Theravada follows the earlier teachings and so Mahayana is the breakaway school, which twisted and changed them to encourage those people who like to worship many deities and Buddhas and so caused the meaning of Boddhisatta to be altered to their present understanding.

Unless one has progressed to Arahant, done the task, reached Nibbana, how can one say what the abilities or state of one is?

Their demeaning comments, seeking to lower the importance of Arahant merely prop their own false beliefs.

Instead of arguing which school is better....practice....practice...practice.... and you will know for yourself and not need to listen to others.

Well, I seemed to have stepped on some Theravadan toes. Theravada (Hinayana), Mahayana, and Vajrayana simply denote various levels of Buddhist philosophy and practice. This is the very first I've ever heard of Hinayana being a derogatory term; it wasn't intended as such. But, Mahayana - a "breakaway school"? Are you saying Mahayana is not a legitimate form of Buddhism? Why would you say all those derogatory things about Mahayana practice and practitioners? Seems to be a somewhat defensive reaction. Is it okay to flame those who practice other forms of Buddhism than Theravada just because most of us are located in a predominately Theravada country, or because that is the form you follow? Seems rather sectarian.....I mean, where's the love?

If you do reject Mahayana, then naturally you are going to reject the distinction drawn between the Arhat and the Bodhisattva. If that is the case, how can you allow for the Bodhisattva ideal, since you've rejected Mahayana? Moreover, if you reject Mahayana, you reject it's central theme of compassion and service to all sentient beings in favor of the personal liberation of Theravada.

Edited March 10, 2011 by Jawnie

[Brucenkhamen]

Well, I seemed to have stepped on some Theravadan toes. Theravada (Hinayana), Mahayana, and Vajrayana simply denote various levels of Buddhist philosophy and practice. This is the very first I've ever heard of Hinayana being a derogatory term; it wasn't intended as such.

I don't endorse Fred's comments as they are far to extreme for my taste. I'm inclined to believe you didn't intend it to be dreogatory, but then you've used it again in brackets attached to Theravada.

This article explains the meaning of the word http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinayana and this goes into the history a bit http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha140.htm

[fabianfred]

Unless one has reached Arahant how can anyone...even Mahayana practisioners, know what the abilities are or not? To write them off as inferior is to the Boddhisattva ideal is also stupid.

The Buddha did not teach nor expect all beings to aim for Boddhisattva nor Buddhahood since both are extremely difficult to attain to.

[rockyysdt]

Hi Fred.

A Dhamma podcast I played recently was titled "Exploring the Judging Mind".

The speaker taught that self observation reveals that humans make judgments of those around us, based on beliefs and conditioning.

By practicing Mindfulness regularly we begin to have insights into our judging mind?

Mindfulness eventually allows us to recognize our judgment, giving us opportunity to replace it with loving kindness, patience and understanding.

If I misjudge another due to my prejudice or judging mind, mindfulness eventually allows me to see this and allows me to better understand how I think and how I react to given conditions.

Alternatively if I observe another who is trapped in delusion or misjudgment, my mindfulness will eventually allow me to extend compassion for that traveler who might have dust in his eyes.

Without knowing what was in his heart , I was surprised to read your reaction to Jawnies words.

It was as if you automatically reacted to key words based on conditioning without thought of their impact.

Please correct me if I'm wrong or if your intentions weren't correctly conveyed by your words.

When you practice mindfulness do you observe yourself and any conditioned responses you might harbor?

Are you mindful of the impact of your chosen words when responding to others.

Has your practice yielded growth on your path of awareness?

I ask you respectfully.

My practice is limited but I'm trying to gauge whether many hours of practice will make any difference to my conditioning over the years.

Edited March 10, 2011 by rockyysdt

[christiaan]

Brucenkhamen

christiaan

Thaivisa is a website, websites are not interested in anything at all, only people are.

Pedantic hair splitting.

trying to be to the point and trying to avoid abstract remarks

christiaan

Ofcourse I am aware of well known teachers, most of them outside Buddhism, (but teaching about Buddhism also), I study, contemplate, meditate and practice about 30 years now as I have written before, and fortunately it turned out that my questions are very genuine as the answers I found showed.

It's not relevant what well known teachers you are aware of, it's not relevant if you asked non Buddhist teachers about Buddhist enlightenment. The question is have you asked any well known Buddhist teachers your question? If you have then who? If not then repeating it over and over on Thaivisa (a web site frequented by people no less) seems ingenuine when you aren't interested in lifting a finger to find someone who actually may be qualified to answer.

By wich authority can you make out what is or what is not relevant?

christiaan

But I am interested to learn about the questions and answers as they are or are not present within the Thai system of interdependent conditions and concepts.

What is this Thai system of interdependent conditions and concepts? Sounds like pompous nonsense to me.

Just observe, just observe and you will gain knowledge about the Thai way of life based on their specific interdependent conditions and concepts

christiaan

It seems there is no direct, actual and relatively new information available from enlightened individuals in Thailand related to the original post of this topic.

Who have you asked? What degree of statistical sampling should one expect is necessary from a country of 60 million people before one can be confident in the accuracy of a nil return? Why do you restrict yourself to Thailand anyway? Buddhism exists outside of it's borders.

Christiaan:

Your answer is telling Buddhism is the only true philosophy/religion/science in the world?

Your answer is telling only Buddhist teachers are relevant with regard to aspects related to - knowledge about - enlightenment?

And you just pass the fact that there are probably thousands of books about and out of Buddhist teachings?

And you pass the fact tat we have the internet now to communicate about all aspects of life and that it is an immense source of information?.

Well I just think you might avoid the question since you might not have found someone who is qualified to answer.

And when you did find, and when you did ask the questions and when you did receive an answer why do you not share that answer with the people overhere?

Or cann't you tell us since you your self are enlightened and cannot inform us about that or out of that?

To repeat the question:

What is the answer tot the questions in the topicopening as we could aspect as results/fruits out of enlightenment from (recent) Buddhist enlightened persons.

So the question does not ask for over and over repeated dogma's, but in fact asks for new knowledge out of recent enlightenment.

And I do not restrict this question to Thailand, anyone can answer.

[Brucenkhamen]

By wich authority can you make out what is or what is not relevant?

By your authority of course. You asked "What did 2500 years of Buddhism bring as knowledge related to the definition of enlightenment?" You asked about Buddhism on a Buddhist forum so obviously Buddhist sources are relevant.

Just observe, just observe and you will gain knowledge about the Thai way of life based on their specific interdependent conditions and concepts

So you mean the thai way of life then? If so why not say that? why bury your meaning in unnecessary waffle?

If you expect to find answers about enlightenment by studying the thai way of life good luck, I don't like your chances.

Your answer is telling Buddhism is the only true philosophy/religion/science in the world?

Your answer is telling only Buddhist teachers are relevant with regard to aspects related to - knowledge about - enlightenment?

And you just pass the fact that there are probably thousands of books about and out of Buddhist teachings?

And you pass the fact tat we have the internet now to communicate about all aspects of life and that it is an immense source of information?.

My answer does nothing of the sort and you are merely attempting to sidestep the issue and avoid answering my question.

So as I thought your question does not arise out of genuine interest when all you can present in evidence of having genuinely sought an answer to "What did 2500 years of Buddhism bring as knowledge related to the definition of enlightenment?" is;

"I am aware of well known teachers, most of them outside Buddhism", "there are probably thousands of books", "we have the internet now".

If you want to get some understanding of the nature of enlightenment then I don't think it happens by sitting on your butt being aware that there are teachers and books out there and talking about things one doesn't understand on the internet. As I said before if your line of enquiry was genuine I wouldn't have thought it an inconvenience to seek out people advanced enough in the path that they might be qualified to answer.

Well I just think you might avoid the question since you might not have found someone who is qualified to answer.

And when you did find, and when you did ask the questions and when you did receive an answer why do you not share that answer with the people overhere?

Or cann't you tell us since you your self are enlightened and cannot inform us about that or out of that?

There's no need for me to avoid answering the question when I don't know the answer, nor have I ever thought it necessary to ask it of anyone. To me it's enough to be in the presence of people who have spend a lifetime of practise and notice their nature, their demeanour, their presence that they have that is different from ordinary folk. To me it's enough to notice the change and evolution in my own state of mind as a result of practise. If you're not even interested in doing either or both of those then I'd suggest you find another question that you can be genuine about.

What is the answer tot the questions in the topicopening as we could aspect as results/fruits out of enlightenment from (recent) Buddhist enlightened persons.

So the question does not ask for over and over repeated dogma's, but in fact asks for new knowledge out of recent enlightenment.

And I do not restrict this question to Thailand, anyone can answer.

That's very generous of you allowing anyone to answer considering there are so many (recent) Buddhist enlightened persons on Thaivisa who would love to do so, do you really think that? if not what's the point?

[phetaroi]

The title of this thread is: "Enlightenment In Three Aeons (Three Billion Years)?"

Man has been around since about 2.3 to 2.4 million years ago (and even then we'd be talking homo sapien neanderthalenthis. Unless you want to think the first incarnation of Buddha was a more primitive human form (Australopithecus???).

And then, on a number of occasions in this forum, we have been told that Buddhism is the most scientific religion.

Do I need to point out the disconnect here?

Or are we saying Buddha is not a human...something supernatural?

[Brucenkhamen]

Do I need to point out the disconnect here?

Or are we saying Buddha is not a human...something supernatural?

I think you are assuming that Earth is the only planet with life on it, that may or may not be true.

Putting that aside I think it was pretty common for ancient peoples to use arbitrary numbers to express uncountable or unknown periods of time. So we get 3 Aeons here, and we get 6 days in the Bible, I don't think we need to take either literally.

[christiaan]

By wich authority can you make out what is or what is not relevant?

By your authority of course. You asked "What did 2500 years of Buddhism bring as knowledge related to the definition of enlightenment?" You asked about Buddhism on a Buddhist forum so obviously Buddhist sources are relevant.

Just observe, just observe and you will gain knowledge about the Thai way of life based on their specific interdependent conditions and concepts

So you mean the thai way of life then? If so why not say that? why bury your meaning in unnecessary waffle?

If you expect to find answers about enlightenment by studying the thai way of life good luck, I don't like your chances.

Your answer is telling Buddhism is the only true philosophy/religion/science in the world?

Your answer is telling only Buddhist teachers are relevant with regard to aspects related to - knowledge about - enlightenment?

And you just pass the fact that there are probably thousands of books about and out of Buddhist teachings?

And you pass the fact tat we have the internet now to communicate about all aspects of life and that it is an immense source of information?.

My answer does nothing of the sort and you are merely attempting to sidestep the issue and avoid answering my question.

So as I thought your question does not arise out of genuine interest when all you can present in evidence of having genuinely sought an answer to "What did 2500 years of Buddhism bring as knowledge related to the definition of enlightenment?" is;

"I am aware of well known teachers, most of them outside Buddhism", "there are probably thousands of books", "we have the internet now".

If you want to get some understanding of the nature of enlightenment then I don't think it happens by sitting on your butt being aware that there are teachers and books out there and talking about things one doesn't understand on the internet. As I said before if your line of enquiry was genuine I wouldn't have thought it an inconvenience to seek out people advanced enough in the path that they might be qualified to answer.

Well I just think you might avoid the question since you might not have found someone who is qualified to answer.

And when you did find, and when you did ask the questions and when you did receive an answer why do you not share that answer with the people overhere?

Or cann't you tell us since you your self are enlightened and cannot inform us about that or out of that?

There's no need for me to avoid answering the question when I don't know the answer, nor have I ever thought it necessary to ask it of anyone. To me it's enough to be in the presence of people who have spend a lifetime of practise and notice their nature, their demeanour, their presence that they have that is different from ordinary folk. To me it's enough to notice the change and evolution in my own state of mind as a result of practise. If you're not even interested in doing either or both of those then I'd suggest you find another question that you can be genuine about.

What is the answer tot the questions in the topicopening as we could aspect as results/fruits out of enlightenment from (recent) Buddhist enlightened persons.

So the question does not ask for over and over repeated dogma's, but in fact asks for new knowledge out of recent enlightenment.

And I do not restrict this question to Thailand, anyone can answer.

That's very generous of you allowing anyone to answer considering there are so many (recent) Buddhist enlightened persons on Thaivisa who would love to do so, do you really think that? if not what's the point?

Well, what can I add more to your answer since it is informing so well by it self.

[christiaan]

When it suits us by subjective motivation we take things literally to proove something or to attack something.

When it is suitable we, by subjective motivation, do not take things litterally to proove something or to attack something.

Maybe the Original Poster can tell something more in relation to his opening questions.

[Brucenkhamen]

Well, what can I add more to your answer since it is informing so well by it self.

Good call.

When it suits us by subjective motivation we take things literally to proove something or to attack something.

When it is suitable we, by subjective motivation, do not take things literally to proove something or to attack something.

Speak for yourself.

Whether it's appropriate to take things literally or not depends on context or perspective.

Somebody might say the sky is blue, somebody else might say the sky has no colour as all we see is reflected light, somebody else might say the sky doesn't exist as a distinct and seperate entity but is a combination of elements coming together according to causes and conditions. Of course they are all correct depending on the context or perspective at the time.

[sabaijai]

Projecting into the future is a hallmark of Mahayana Buddhism and Trantrayana Buddhism in general. Theravada Buddhism is more about focusing on the here and now, on observable reality.

Frankly I'm with you, rocky. I find the 'three aeons' business discouraging, even disturbing. But I think one can learn more from looking into the source of that disturbing feeling than from intellectually analysing the metaphysics of rebirth. Whether three seconds or three aeons, sati cannot arise and nirodha (cessation) and nibbana cannot follow without noting the source of the disturbance.

“One who is honest to himself and practice this four Pattana Meditations without a delay, he should be willing to achieve Arahat or Anagami level, in seven days to seven years in time which would ultimately direct to Nirvana.”

--Maha Satipattana Sutta

[rockyysdt]

"One who is honest to himself and practice this four Pattana Meditations without a delay, he should be willing to achieve Arahat or Anagami level, in seven days to seven years in time which would ultimately direct to Nirvana."

--Maha Satipattana Sutta

I find this quite profound.

My mindfulness is often aware of my projection of self image.

We project our self image to show others how we want them to see us.

To varying degree we either hide aspects of ourselves or project dishonestly.

How can we be honest to ourselves if we aren't genuine or honest to others?

To be honest to oneself is simple and but also difficult.

I guess practice is the key.

Edited March 11, 2011 by rockyysdt

[Brucenkhamen]

How can we be honest to ourselves if we aren't genuine or honest to others?

The opposite is also true, how can we be honest with others if we aren't honest with ourselves.

The two build on each other.

Mindfulness practise is as much about being honest with ourselves as it is about present moment awareness.

[christiaan]

Well, what can I add more to your answer since it is informing so well by it self.

Good call.

When it suits us by subjective motivation we take things literally to proove something or to attack something.

When it is suitable we, by subjective motivation, do not take things literally to proove something or to attack something.

Speak for yourself.

Whether it's appropriate to take things literally or not depends on context or perspective.

Somebody might say the sky is blue, somebody else might say the sky has no colour as all we see is reflected light, somebody else might say the sky doesn't exist as a distinct and seperate entity but is a combination of elements coming together according to causes and conditions. Of course they are all correct depending on the context or perspective at the time.

There might even be a somebody who might say the sky doesn't exist as a distinct and seperate entityy but is a combinatrion of elements coming together according to causes and conditions, where in two of those conditions are reflecting light and seeing eyes, by wich our mind experience the outcome as the colour blue.

What is the relation of your story to taking things literally or not literally?

Talking about 'sky' - we all can experience in actuality ourself- , is something else as talking about texts telling about aeons and texts giving different explanations about time and aeons.

[christiaan]

"One who is honest to himself and practice this four Pattana Meditations without a delay, he should be willing to achieve Arahat or Anagami level, in seven days to seven years in time which would ultimately direct to Nirvana."

--Maha Satipattana Sutta

I find this quite profound.

My mindfulness is often aware of my projection of self image.

We project our self image to show others how we want them to see us.

To varying degree we either hide aspects of ourselves or project dishonestly.

How can we be honest to ourselves if we aren't genuine or honest to others?

To be honest to oneself is simple and but also difficult.

I guess practice is the key.

Do I understand there are some 'conflicting' teachings about time related to enlightment within Buddhism?