Enlightenment is a lot less complicated than most make it out to be. The Buddha's enlightenment occurred when there was around 20 million people in the whole world (presently the population of Sri Lanka). Compare that with the sensual exploits of the 6.6 billion people here today. So enlightenment isn't realistic. An enlightened attitude however is a boon right through dying.
Comments
beg to differ?
Sorry, but I think enlightenment is just as realistic now as it was twenty-six hundred years ago. Maybe moreso, what with the education, communication, and raw power we have now. (HH the Karmapa, a Tibetan Buddhist big-wig, calls us "You in the West, who live like gods!")
But more to the point, I am of the mind that enlightenment is not a special attainment, but rather the nature of our minds right now. Enlightenment is happening in every moment, again and again. Our practice and goal is just to tune into that completely perfect, completely pure nature of mind as it is.
"Strictly speaking, there are no enlightened people, only enlightened moments."
Suzuki Roshi, as quoted by Jack Kornfield.
enlightenment
One of the abilities of an enlightened person (Arahant) is the cessation of perception and feeling. With that, says the enlightened Dhammadinna in Sutta 44 of B. Bodhi's Majjhima Nikaya, "...first the verbal formation ceases, then the bodily formation (no breath or heart beat), then the mental formation."
Such is my understanding of the difficult of achieving enlightenment.
egad!
I don't know about this cessation of my heart beat business. Do you mean to say that the arhant disappears or something?
I'm of the mahayana school (particularly karma kagyu/ nyingma), and I am all about enlightenment for the purpose of properly and benefitially negotiating this world, not escaping it.
to egad!
In the dhamma-dharma I understand when one masters things like feeling and perception one gains another ability of an arahant which is invisibility. Such abilities are made impossible by the intent of many leading modern thinkers, writers and scientists.
Says one author, all they do is increase the syntax of the mother tongue - perhaps a case for DIYing.
May this writing create no such syntax.
bothering this discussion
Something has been bothering me for a little while about this discussion. I may be reading these comments in a wrong way, but it makes me feel funny. like defensive. The thing is, I have been taught again and again, and believe to be true, that contemplating the powers and abilities of a buddha can be harmful to ones path. If we practice meditation with the hope or (much worse!!) the aspiration to gain remarkable powers to work miracles or such, I think we are not practicing the true path- satdharma. It is only the ego who wants to levitate, create rock-slides, be invisible, or read minds. from the so called enlightened perspective, none of these things have any meaning. From the perspective of the path to cessation, they will only be in the way.
It is true I have heard stories about the remarkable powers of a Buddha, and yet I have always heard that these powers seem like nothing to the Buddha. "Before you achieve enlightenment, it seems like a very important thing. Once you have achieved it, you find it is no big deal." (paraphrasing Suzuki Roshi). They are as common to their experience as breathing or thinking are to ours. (ie very!)
I have also heard from and read a number of Buddhist teachers who seem to need to carry on about their own achievements. It seems ironic how many times a supposedly accomplished practitioner of Buddhadharma can use the word "I" in a statement. "I have attained this", "I have liberated that", "I can do this", "I never do that". Something tells me that if I ever really accomplish anything on this path, I won't experience much need to prove it or to convince others. When I read or hear such things, it is a good indication to me that this is someone to not listen to. Or perhaps to listen to very carefully, and do the opposite.
The path toward egolessness, with the slightest twist, becomes the path to pure ego-hood. That's what the Vidyadhara insisted when he talked spiritual materialism. And again, I have heard it, and I believe it to be true, because it accords with my own experience deeply.
So I think this is why I react to words about how the Buddha can do this or that or the other. I know my practice, and I know when it is working, and when it is not, because I am either increasing or decreasing my singularity, solidity, and independence. Should I ever find myself hovering a foot off my cushion, I pray that I will be in a state where I can take it with a big grain of salt, and ideally simply say "That's interesting", and come back to the breath.