06-30-2019, 05:18 AM
(06-30-2019, 04:52 AM)taramarie Wrote:(06-30-2019, 04:44 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:(06-30-2019, 04:21 AM)taramarie Wrote: I would say it depends on what type of enlightenment. One focused on pragmatic down to earth internal self awareness is pretty good in my books. So called enlightenment cults however are a different sort of creature to be cautious of. Otherwise I am with you on it. Tyson did what?! Good grief if so I have lost all little respect I had for him.
If it isn't clear, in the recent posts I meant Enlightenment as in Voltaire, Locke, etc. and not the Buddhist one.
Buddhism has its merits as well since it teaches self-discipline, compassion and non-violence but I'm worried by the passivity it teaches. In predominantly Buddhist societies best members of society withdraw into meditation, instead of bettering the world.
And isn't the world shaped first by the mind then the action that follows the mind?
If action follows then yes.
Actually my comments on Buddhism were based on a patchy understanding. I now recall a conversation with a Buddhist teacher from 2 years ago. The Buddha taught two types of meditation. One is aimed at pursuit of nirvana, or liberation from suffering by means of dissolving in non-existence. The need for action is transcended, which results in the passivity I criticised.
The other type is for those who want to become a "bodhisattva" which in fact is very similar to a Christian saint. The Buddhist saint refrains from nirvana as long as there are suffering beings in the Cosmos. In popular Far Eastern imagination famous saints are considered benevolent gods. This type of Buddhist enlightenment is laudable, and everybody should aim at it.
There are also Tibetan forms of Buddhism which incorporate a lot of black magic and Satanism, but I won't waste my time on discussing that. It's enough to say these practices don't come from the Buddha.