What is Buddhist enlightenment? | Robert Wright & Dale Wright [The Wright Show] (full conversation)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 вер 2024
- 0:24 Dale’s book What Is Buddhist Enlightenment?
9:28 Why is Vipassana getting more press than Zen?
15:35 What is distinctive about Zen?
22:47 Dale’s meditation practice
26:34 Using mindfulness for good-and evil
40:50 A naturalistic conception of karma
50:55 How Buddhism adapts to Western culture
Watch this conversation on MeaningofLife.tv: meaningoflife.t...
Robert Wright (Bloggingheads.tv, The Evolution of God, Nonzero) and Dale Wright (Occidental College, What Is Buddhist Enlightenment?)
Recorded on January 6, 2017
![Engaging Buddhism | Robert Wright & Jay Garfield [The Wright Show]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-GqsYA1pGqo/mqdefault.jpg)
![The path to enlightenment | Robert Wright & Daniel Ingram [The Wright Show] (full conversation)](/img/n.gif)
Delightful, well-informed, easy-flowing chat.
like this guy, different than your others and also one of your better jobs interviewing
Thanks, Bob Wright, good questions
Interesting overview of the various ideas about Enlightenment and how they were created. Noticed that Dale offered the Dali Lama as an example of Enlightenment based on personality qualities. However the Dalai has specifically stated that he is not Enlightened.
Enlightement is just understanding that what there is is known through awareness
Great talk and I'm quite interested in reading this book!
Great! 😄
Enlightenment is the realisation that all is a dream from one mind.
Huang Po says that enlightenment consists of "a mysterious tacit understanding, and a deep abiding compassion".
"But the experiences of meditation, even at their most illuminating, mystical, and profound, are not enlightenment. "Seeing the nature," or enlightenment, is a completely different thing. Meditation cannot get one to see one's true nature. Religious experience is not enlightenment. Seeing one's nature is letting go of the mind, be it unified or not...."
- P 127 Footprints IN The Snow by Sheng Yen
I very much like this description from a personal perspective, it is how I orientate my direction through life and Buddhism.
Huang Po also says:
"To simply right now suddenly comprehend that one’s own mind is fundamentally Buddha, without there being a single dharma one can attain and without there being a single practice one can cultivate-this is insurpassable enlightenment, this is the Buddha of suchness."
There seems to be a paradox around the idea of announcing one's enlightenment. In fact, it may not be possible to announce enlightenment. Enlightenment may be possible, but its announcement may not be. I think this is an interesting question: can one announce one's enlightenment? This sort of thing may carry over to politics as well? Can one announce oneself as a revolutionary, as speaking for a silent majority, or as somehow "outside" of of the existing economy of meaning? Bob touched on the fact that many buddhist viewed implied linguistic paradoxes; however, he did not seem to want to go down that road. He discussed many actually paradoxes, but none related to the nature of language itself. I can see why, but it does seem like we run into them at times. I think questions around Buddhism and language are very interesting. I even see how it could fit with something like deconstruction.
Wonder what happened to the 4 stage map of Awakening given by Buddha, later in Zen or Tibetan Bodhisattva tradition? Don’t be an arahant, don’t be a bodhisattva, don’t be anything at all-if you are anything at all you will suffer.” -Ajahn Chah
Mahayana vs. Theravada metaphysics/praxis In Mahayana Buddhism, everyone is already enlightened, they just don't know it. Satori is awakening to that realization, and usually occurs suddenly. But it's not fully realized in this lifetime, it takes a long time to stabilize that experience and integrate it.
Mahayana is more about a transcendental move or leap (sort of like a "leap of faith" in western philosophy/religion of Kierkegaard), where the self suspends rational judgement and dualism to embrace a "don't know" perspective. There's alot of influence of Taoism and native Chinese spiritual sensibilities in the Tiantai/Tendai tradition that gave rise to this type of religion (Zen).
Zen (Japan) - Mahayana - Chan (Chinese) - per progenitor 6th patriach Hui Neng refers to direct pointing to the mind - - the direct realisation of life - not requiring sitting meditation and scriptures - letting the mind flow freely wherever it may - being not attached to the mind
not to combine different philosophies - each has its own viewpoint and not reconcilable - each suitable for people with different levels of progress - we flow to those compatible with us
It is the mind that thinks it can reach a state of enlightenment. Enlightenment is a concept for those who seek and seeking itself is the very desire that needs to be dropped. Enlightenment is actually not separate from you and you cannot be wanting to be something which you already are. You are not the mind you think you are.
All discussions about enlightenment exist only for the ego until the truth reveals that there is no difference between Enlightenment, Nirvana and Buddha Nature. Then you are one with the source.
Enlightenment will always remain as an idea for the logical and intellectuals which explains why we call sages, mystics.
The only one who awakens is Awakening itself, and it is not you.
ahhh someone who has read the Tao....the more we grasp the less we understand....letting go of ego and go with the flow of life...
I'm really 'feeling' impermanence rather than just knowing it. I now 'know' it. it is actually very disorientating, I've meditated for a few years now and separation from thought has bought massive benefits at incredibly testing times, but I'm not sure about why I feel lost at the moment...
To me enlightenment is 'just' the knowledge that one is not ones thoughts but merely a reflection of such phenomena. Simple
I suppose that Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and David Bentley Hart (traditional Christians) were not philosophically sophisticated? I think that is what Robert Wright implies when he says that there have been philosophically sophisticated liberal Christian thinkers, such as A N Whitehead. He should read Herbert McCabe, Rowan Williams, D B Hart, Vladimir Lossky, Alvin Plantinga, etc ad infinitum, if he thinks that traditional Christian thought is somehow less sophisticated than liberal Christian philosophy or Buddhist philosophy. I should also mention that Mystical Theology is precisely about seeking to comprehend spiritual experience; and for this he should read Evelyn Underhill. Buddhism, I would argue, is actually incoherent regarding one of its central doctrines: _anatta_ (no-self).
Why do people complicate things? Enlightenment for Buddhism is basically: “the end of sufferings”, that’s the experience of eliminating the three poisons (unclear seeing, resistance and cravings).
It got 4 steps: stream entry, once returner, non-returner, arahat.
It’s not until arahat that someone is fully enlightened and without the three poisons.
It’s that simple.
People always forget that the people at the first three stages are still stuck and not totally without errors. So not completely without the three poisons.
開悟 enlightenment (first word opening second word understanding ) the second character combine three parts (heart or mind , five and mouth or opening )
..it is as it is....
I have heard the relationship between zen and japanese imperialism explained several times in the way it was explained here: the moral question simply did not come up for the zen masters. I am no expert in this history, but doesn't it seem problematic to say this about any group of people? And isn't it kind of unconvincing? I mean it seems to say that there was not a moral question whether or not they should kill someone? It is just seems hard to believe and even harder to imagine a group of humanity that could kill unencumbered by any sense of the morality of their actions. (I do not know what the answer is, but this answer seems problematic for a number of reasons. I think we should be skeptical of claims that seem to deny groups of people moral agency or moral sense)
the way to enlightenment is more relevant and useful - enlightenment is towards knowing the real causes and effects of life
Mr Robert Wright's understanding of Christianity appears to be rather superficial given the comments he makes in this and other videos. For instance, he claims that Buddhism is the articulation of an experience, whereas Christianity is the defence of a doctrine. This is actually incorrect. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, for example, was based on spiritual experience; it was based on the _experience_ of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit. Doctrine is the articulation of spiritual experience (the spiritual experience of the church) in words which function as boundaries, but not as definitive "definitions". Most Westerners have a profoundly simplistic notion of the Christian faith which appears impervious to the evidence. If you want to understand the Christian faith you need to read the New Testament with scholarly commentaries and you need to read the great Church Fathers, such as Gregory of Nyssa and Augustine of Hippo. These thinkers were extraordinarily sophisticated and brilliant. Christianity is not identical to the Sunday school version of it for kids!
Enlightenment is actually Living Love, Peace, Joy, Truth, Creativity, Compassion (Passion for All)...Communicating, Communing, Connecting, with everyone and everything, in each and every moment of daily life.
Totally Free from fear, anxiety, personal sorrow, hatred, loneliness, inner conflicts, inner contradictions, jealousy, envy, greed, possessiveness, competitiveness, and attachments.
Totally Free from beliefs, philosophies, ideologies, theories, opinions, perspectives, biases, prejudices, nationality, and identifications.
Totally Free from the I, the me, the self, and the so-called True or Higher Self, which is the invention of the past conditioning of the brain.
All of which limit, color, shape & distort Perception, and therefore, prevent Lucidity.
They who are Totally Enlightened actually treat everyone, without exception, with the same intensity and quality of care and affection that you would give your dearest closest friend, lover, or child, without any sense of division, separation or distance and without an iota of bias or prejudice, in each and every moment of their daily life.
Enlightenment does not take time. Enlightenment is not of time. It is not a process. It is not the product of time or the things of time, eg. method, technique, diet, yoga. There is no path to it. It is effortless and choiceless. It happens faster than the speed of light. Moreover, it is once and for all, now and forever.
Do Jacob's Ladder and find out directly. 90 minutes. Set yourself Totally Free from fear, anxiety, suffering, envy, greed, jealousy, violence, hatred, self-importance, loneliness, attachments, bias, and prejudice in daily life, once and for all, now and forever. "Total Enlightenment NOW!" facebook.com/groups/1551365565178063/
why is the host talking more than the guest?
travis ferrell the guest maybe is wiser.
It is said, the one who knows, doesnt talk. The one who talks doesnt talk.
This is a conversation and dialogue not an interview. I immensely enjoy Wright’s comments and questions, which is why I listen to the podcast. You?
Robert sounds so much like Bill Hader sometimes and even looks like him a bit xd
Human existence in the world becomes suffering because of the mental faculties of lust, hatred and delusion. Buddhist enlightenment is not a kind of realization something metaphysicaly analysis, such as soul and supreme being. It can be considered as end of all suffering by ereradicating mental faculties. Path to end the suffering is consisted of practicing virtue (Sila), awareness (Samadi) and wisdom (Pragnna).
Karma must be thought as the way we built our inner self. Good actions build a better person. Who want to have a Trump personality instead of a wise man a peaceful spirit?
.. not hyperarousal nor hypoarousal ?
Ketones too fuelling heart n brain 24 % more efficiently than glucose ?
And one may think intentionally the darkest most profane thoughts and be ok with that ?
It's obvious that karma is not at all a kind of justice thing based on morality (but Nature is very sly so that it gives you the impression that it is justice based, using the principle of reflection. So that you don't get that your life could be worse than karma gives you the impression it is. But Nature is not perfect and if you see well you can understand what I mean by experience), but based on feelings (that's why it can lead to what we call reality, which is kind of an amoral nightmare, isn't it ?). The happier you are, the better karma you get, whether you're a good or bad person, that's why good people should try all the possible to FEEL good, detached, relaxed, so that things can go in the right direction. If you easily feel guiltiness, that proves you're better than many people who will nevertheless have a much better destiny than you ! If karma was justice, it wouldn't lead to such a world !
That said, being good is not so easy as being gentle and kind with everybody, of course. How could it be ? It's obvious that being very kind with someone that enslaves me and others is not a good thing, so that we have to fight exploitation to be good, saying "no" is an important part of being good, chosing as much as possible people I meet and do things with etc. Being good not being so easy and beneficial (in material or mundane terms), we have to try being as much detached and unconditionned as possible (e.g. by doing nothing) from things and success.
Zen
Was wondering if 2 Wrights can be turned into a joke but nope. Was wondering (once again) if mention of enlightenment would call forth pompous blabber mouths, scrolled down to comments and yes, yes it does.
Buddhism is philosphy not religion - people unable to comprehend it's philosophy may turn it into religion
mix buddidt cosmology with
nada edu
it will solve all
karma relates to millions of lifetime cycles not just this one life
The author wants to "prune" away the "metaphysical", to use his words. Put simply, he wants to keep karma and ditch reincarnation. I don't believe in reincarnation, yet I "believe" in rebirth. I seek skillful action to avoid the "rebirth" of unintended karma. Maybe we can say I'm a Groundhog's Day Buddhist.
I get the sense that you do not view me as Buddhist because we disagree on translations of ancient texts. Rebirth vs reincarnation, right livelihood vs skillful vocation. "Why Buddhism Is True", to borrow a phrase, is that it entails a system of direct experience, of practice--dogma not required.
An aspect of karma not highlighted: Perhaps most pernicious is the way "doing evil" shapes our perception. If I steal (and only "profit", no retribution) I come to believe in a world that fosters theft. This is spiritual harm
45:50 In the Dale's statement about karma affecting good people badly and leading bad people to leading an affluent life is, I must say, the lack of understanding about this concept stretching from infinite past into infinite future lifetimes. The Buddha is not someone who only advocates cause and effect existing within a single lifetime but is someone who observes the three existences of life. Good people who died of cancer might be receiving a good result in their next lifetimes, bad people who seemingly enjoy their life might experience an excruciating agony in their next lifetime. I cannot see what they might experience in their next lifetimes, but the Buddha does, and it is the difference between a Buddha and a common mortal. What goes around comes around at some point within infinite lifetimes.
I wonder how it happened that Buddhism took off with Americans rather than the superior Yoga Sutras and Paramahansa Yogananda books. All life is suffering versus All Life is Love....or/and no God versus Love God with all that we are Like even Jesus Christ said to do.
You said it yourself - "Like even Jesus Christ said to do." Americans who would be attracted to Yogananda are already Christians. Buddhism is attractive to those who are more intellectual - it is rational, rigorous, and has no revelation that must be believed.
Why do you consider Yoga Sutras as superior?
Because my experience with Yoga Sutras, Patanjali was perfectly right & accurate: "From perfectly concentrated Meditation on the correlation of hearing and the ether, comes the power of spiritual hearing".
The Divine Companions as Patanjali said will interact with any human who is pure...They cannot communicate with humans because humans have impurity....Gunas, Sankalpas The Divine Companions would cause a normal very descent person to experience Gunas or Sankalpas simultaneously causing madness. Yoga Sutras are very brief but are perfectly accurate.
Have you ever read Buddhist suttas?
I know since I have experience with the Blue Light....The creator does exist within every human and even all things. Buddha is wrong Life is not pain, Life is Love. The Divine Companions are beings who exist around every human....As a result of their existence we can have a relationship with the Creator/Source of All.
Life is about becoming like the Creator/Source of All as a result, we become like Divine Companions.