The most funny part of enlightenment is. It's not needed, af
Re: The most funny part of enlightenment is. It's not needed, af
is there greed hatred and delusion in your conciousness? if there is you are not enlightened.
Take care of mindfulness and mindfulness will take care of you.
-
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 3:56 pm
Re: The most funny part of enlightenment is. It's not needed, af
i like your question so muchbefriend wrote:is there greed hatred and delusion in your conciousness? if there is you are not enlightened.
at the moment,
i have a GREED to write some ideas from my memories and get attention to them.
i have a HATRED against someone/something which tries to prevent my GREED to advance and SUFFER.
i am inundated fully in these DELUSIONAL properties called GREED, HATRED, SUFFERING, ENLIGHTENMENT and BUDDHISM.
these stuffs are happening in my consciousness simultaneously.
i do have those you mentioned fully and i'm enlightened.
wait,
if you think i'm not enlightened maybe you're right. i'm serious.
shakamuni was a human being and i am too.
i am a buddha as much as shakamuni was and you all are.
Last edited by dharmapasschakra on Mon May 07, 2012 9:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm
Re: The most funny part of enlightenment is. It's not needed, af
What made you start this thread was suffering. The path is the end of suffering.
-
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 3:56 pm
Re: The most funny part of enlightenment is. It's not needed, af
fooling yourself is ok.Jaidyn wrote:Response to dharmapasschakra:
I am glad you share your thoughts. Even if you are enlightened or not I find many of your thoughts to be interesting (but some of them I am unable to follow).
Fooling yourself or not, I can fool myself or not in reaction to your claim. We really have to look for ourselves I guess.
In a recent thread they quoted Ajahn Chah: "I am always talking about things to develop and thing to give up, but really, THERE IS NOTHING TO DEVELOP AND NOTHING TO GIVE UP." http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12110" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
not fooling yourself is still ok.
when i say "you don't HAVE TO pursue", my intention negates the negativity(MUSTN'T) but language is just a terrible tool to convey something genuine.
you're not thirsty at all now.
here's a cup of water.
you don't have to drink. doesn't hurt.
you can also drink. doesn't hurt either.
it's a bottle of water and you're not thirsty.
that's it.
-
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 3:56 pm
Re: The most funny part of enlightenment is. It's not needed, af
the least common denominator is the fact that we're all buddha.ground wrote:Actually I mean that it is impossible to mean the same "thing" ... but maybe there can be a lowest/least common denominator supported by agreement in terms of definitions.Dan74 wrote:You mean it's good to mean the same thing when using the same word?
-
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm
Re: The most funny part of enlightenment is. It's not needed, af
More like none of us are. Even if you accept buddha-nature, all that is really saying is we all have the innate capacity to attain nirvana. It doesn't mean you already attained it. All the Mahayana lineages accept there is work to do, stages, bhumis, etc. If you want to accept that you are just as enlightened as a fly, that might be correct. The game is to eliminate your samskaras. You need the Noble 8 for that.dharmapasschakra wrote:the least common denominator is the fact that we're all buddha.ground wrote:Actually I mean that it is impossible to mean the same "thing" ... but maybe there can be a lowest/least common denominator supported by agreement in terms of definitions.Dan74 wrote:You mean it's good to mean the same thing when using the same word?
Re: The most funny part of enlightenment is. It's not needed, af
If you find this idea helpful it is okay for me if you cultivate it. I do not really cherish ideas.dharmapasschakra wrote:the least common denominator is the fact that we're all buddha.ground wrote:Actually I mean that it is impossible to mean the same "thing" ... but maybe there can be a lowest/least common denominator supported by agreement in terms of definitions.Dan74 wrote:You mean it's good to mean the same thing when using the same word?
kind regards