
Rael wrote:sounds like enlightenment to me....
i bet he laughed a lot...he sang on his death bed....
![]()
Rael wrote:Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained; and the restrainer or reason usurps its place & governs the unwilling.
And being restrain'd it by degrees becomes passive till it is only the shadow of desire.
Without contraries is no progression
Opposition is true friendship

Jikan wrote:It's off topic, but Blake's at his best in some of those Proverbs of Hell:Without contraries is no progressionOpposition is true friendship
It's dialectical thinking with comic timing. Diabolical, yes, but I find it affecting.
Signed,
William Blake Appreciation Society & Devil-Voiced Collective, Washington DC Local
general secretary: Jikan, who used to post as 'thegiantalbion' in reference to The Four Zoas at e-sangha
Rael wrote:so like if you end craving why take up the mahayana?....
Rael wrote:everyone i know in the Mahayana that wants completion stage ...is craving...for completion stage....some sit in a box for 3 years to attain siddhis...
i mean tell me it's not craving....oh you can disguise it ans try to feel unattached...but really now....lets be honest....
Jikan wrote:I don't know if Blake was enlightened or not. That's a speculative matter. I take the David Erdman & E.P. Thompson line that Blake was a "prophet against empire," and for that, Mr Blake will always have my respect and admiration.
This bears on the question of when (or if?...) Shakyamuni Buddha was enlightened, which is a question that one can attempt to answer historically or devotionally. I think most Buddhists accept on faith one of the two basic versions we've seen in this thread: always-already enlightened, or enlightened at a specific time in history in a place in India 2.5K years ago.
I'm trained as a historian. I don't think this is a question history can answer for us in a satisfactory way. I'm also trained as a Buddhist. In that role, I can say without equivocation what I put my faith in (the Lotus Sutra version if you're curious). To my mind, this isn't much different from saying that William Blake's kundalini had crossed the threshold, or that George Fox had received the "latihan" of Subud (Pak Subuh's clam), or that Hegel was some kind of enlightened philosopher-sage (a position Ken Wilber takes).
My point is that we believe what we want to believe, so we might as well be honest about it.
Yeshe wrote:Maybe we still focus too much on the finger.
Since we have no concrete irrefutable evidence of any scripture being the words of Shakyamuni, maybe we should simply focus less on the origin and more on the message and practices, and maybe trust that what seems to have worked for others may also work for us.
Maybe at the extreme, 'my guru teaches this and I trust my guru's teaching' .........is enough?
Trouble is, my guru insists that I shouldn't! LOL

Yeshe wrote:Better a Rael than a forum which is a 'Grand Parade of Lifeless Packages'.
ok i gotta ask/when did Buddha first attain enlightenment
When the chicken crossed the road?ok i gotta ask/when did Buddha first attain enlightenment

gregkavarnos wrote:When the chicken crossed the road?ok i gotta ask/when did Buddha first attain enlightenment
Did I get the right answer? Did I win the stuffed toy???
Pommy git!Rael wrote:gregkavarnos wrote:When the chicken crossed the road?ok i gotta ask/when did Buddha first attain enlightenment
Did I get the right answer? Did I win the stuffed toy???
"I'm not amused"

gregkavarnos wrote:Pommy git!

Users browsing this forum: jeeprs, Konchog1, tobes and 10 guests