Thoughts on Enlightenment

when i read this, i thought maybe several of you lot might enjoy
it...sorry to bore the rest of you

i had an experience of being around swami's for a time, and i happened
to notice that those that had been there the longest really didn't
enjoy spilling word play and defining too much for the novice. those newer to
the path of meditation--buddhism or yogi's or sadhu's or comtemplating
desert christian mystics in the desert, etc...they were the ones that attempted
to answer the big questions based presumably on some scriptural comfort and
perhaps creative inspiration. an impulsive moment to put words to some of
the new calm they were enjoying. probably being sucked away with every
indulgent word.

i found this and i liked it. for those of you who's boat would not float for
such scribbles, there are probably several points to enjoy--if only not having
verbal diarhea [logarhea], or only teaching from experience but even then
pointing toward the objective rather than over clarifying. the less said the better.
those at the top oversimplify...for a reason. to spark that impetus within the
heart of the practitioner. it helped me think of even being a self protection teacher
in a different way, because ultimately how i will display under pressure will favor
my own sensibilities and experiences, muscle memory and anatomy. concepts and
mindsets then become more important than rigid dogmatic course of action. or as
Richie might say. start with form, then let the form go as you progress.

people talk too much and practice too little--no emotion there, or person in mind. just
that thing my guru used to always say, "one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent
perspiration". another he said, "the menu will not satiate your appetite", he was referring
to scriptures back then, use them, then apply them. application trumps theory. before
i ramble...here's the quote--about buddha & jesus. Osho wrote this.

" Every master has come to this point, to decide whether to say anything or to remain silent. Even Gautam Buddha, when he became enlightened, did not speak a single word for seven days, because he could not find a way to say what he had found. Words don’t exist for that experience. And whatever you say about it immediately becomes wrong. The moment the inner experience enters into outer expression, something goes dead. The living dance is no more there; the throbbing pulse is no more there.

Seven days after his enlightenment, Gautam Buddha was persuaded to speak. He had argued very hard on the point. He said, ”For one thing, what I have found cannot be said. I can at the most indicate, just like a finger pointing to the moon; but it is not saying anything about the moon. The danger is that unconscious people may start clinging to the finger, rather than looking at the moon; that has happened in almost all religions. They are holding their scriptures, their holy scriptures. They are only fingers pointing to the moon – where is the moon?

Everybody is looking into his holy scripture. ”Secondly,” Gautam Buddha said. ”Even if I manage somehow to figure out a way to express the inexpressible, there is almost a ninety-nine percent guarantee that it will be misunderstood. ”And a third point,” he said. ”I am willing even to speak for that one percent of the intelligentsia – people of the heart, people who are open, not closed. But there is no certainty or guarantee that they will not misinterpret me. And once I have said something, I am no more master of it. I am master of it only while I am silent.”

His arguments are valid. And the people who were persuading him felt that what he was saying was right, but somehow he had to be convinced to speak. It is very rare that a man comes to this highest peak of consciousness, and if he remains silent humanity will not be enriched by him. He could shower the whole world with his blessings; he could bring the whole world into a deep silence where understanding blossoms. No opportunity can be lost, and a buddha is a great opportunity for the transformation of the whole world.

So they insisted, ”Your arguments are all right, we agree with you. But one thing we want to say to you is that if, after millions of people, a single person reaches to such heights, such depths ... even if he is misunderstood, misinterpreted, it does not matter. At least one percent, probably, will understand him – and that is a big percentage as far as humanity is concerned. You cannot deny that one percent the great opportunity that has arisen in you. There may be a few people just on the verge of awakening – a little push and they may be on the same height, as awake as you are.

And even if you go on missing the target, what is the harm? People were unconscious, they will remain unconscious. But you have to be compassionate, at least for the one percent that you have accepted.” Out of his compassion, Buddha agreed. And as he had said, it happened. Very few people understood him, but those who understood him became transformed beings; they went through a metamorphosis. A new kind of light started shining through their being; a new aura of energy, like a cool breeze, followed them.

But millions misunderstood, misinterpreted, and you can see the result. After Gautam Buddha’s death, there was not a single buddha in the land where he was born, because the masses, with their ignorance, confusion and condemnation, distorted everything. Thirty-two schools arose after Gautam Buddha’s death, interpreting things in their own ways and fighting amongst themselves. And the old Indian priesthood – the Brahmins – did not miss the chance. The priest is always afraid of the awakened one, because he is the one who can destroy his whole profession.

Jesus was not crucified by ordinary people; he was crucified by the very scholarly rabbis, and the high priests of the temple of the Jews in Jerusalem – they insisted that he should be crucified. Gautam Buddha was opposed by the priests of India; the reason was the same. The priest is exploiting people in the name of God, of which he knows nothing; in the name of the spiritual, of which he has no idea. But whenever a person comes, radiant with the experience, the priest becomes afraid. It is not a question of argument; you cannot argue with a buddha – his very presence is convincing. He has not to utter even a word. If he utters some words, it is just to lead you towards wordlessness. He speaks so that you can become silent. His speaking is only a device."

THERE'S ANOTHER IMPORTANT PIECE IN THIS...ONLY A FEW WILL REALLY GRASP AND APPLY WHAT YOU TEACH--IF THAT DOESN'T TAKE THE EDGE OFF OF IT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT DOES. ENJOY, TEACH, AND KNOW YOU'RE PROBABLY TEACHING TO ONE, BUT INSPIRING MANY

it's sort of true if you think on it--those of you teachers. how many stick with you, really just plod along. no matter how great the classes were over the years that you grew up training with, there's usually a core half dozen who will be there until oblivion, until the wall paper falls off. the rest are stopping and resting, until they catch the same fever you have for the game. it's not their time yet. but you're probably making an installment, a contribution.

The Roman appointed High Priest wasnt exploiting the people in the name of God. Jesus never complaimed of this .The High Priest was a poltical appointee meant to be an instrument in helping secure Roman control over Judea.Furthermore the Rabbinic movement was so miniscule at the time that there could not have been "scholarly rabbis" involved in the matter.if you notice the method of his exceution it was by crucifixtion which was carried out by the Romans and was a punishment for poltiical crimes.His crime? it was clearly marked on the sign they hung as warning above his head " Jesus Of Nazareth King Of the Jews. What does this mean? Claiming to be the Messiah meant claiming to be the physical worldy King o the Jews who had come to drive the Romans out of israel. In the Roman Empire there was only one King of the jews that is Ceasar.In fact many jews were crucified by the romans for rebellion.The Roman appointed authorities did not ascribe any importance to him beyond the fact that he appeared to be yet one more trouble maker from the galile like those they had dealt with before.So it was far more mundane and routine issue than the one presented later as some form of war of light against darkness.it was about power and control and politics and social structure and religious opinions.

Danite,
one of the points of the thread--one of two, was this quote

For one thing, what I have found cannot be said. I can at the most indicate, just like a finger pointing to the moon; but it is not saying anything about the moon. The danger is that unconscious people may start clinging to the finger, rather than looking at the moon

the point being that one loses much in translation when one attempts to overly define that which comes as epiphanies of direct experience. one gets lost instead in the wording/wordplay/sidepoints/etc...
history lesson aside, no disrespect, but that is exactly what you have turned the thread into.

example:
i say, "that mugger in the red jumper needs to be arrested"
you say, "he was wearing a brown sweater"

uhm...okay

now that you've shown us your command of scripture/history/language/and whatever else, why not
read it only taking in the buddhist referrence instead.
had you included your example after commenting on the buddhist one, i might have been able to digest your spirited response.

all i saw was a lesson in trying to make infinite lessons digestably finite--losing much in the process. what i suppose happened instead was that the text plucked at your political and religious affiliations.
for what it's worth, my lack of forsite on such a reaction probably comes from being surrounded by a family that is in fact represented by all of the above:
grand dad on mum's side was jewish, cousins that are hindu, great aunt that was muslim, many christians to the tune of "church of england"

my alcoolic and buddhist dad tried to raise me an athiest
instead what happened is a very undogmatic faith in God and perhaps a vote of undecided as to
who holds the copyrights on him/her.

don't take it personally, i have no political or religious leanings to speak of.

Russ I didnt mean to imply any negative motivation on your part, I was simply to trying to bring info to bear on your comments which I found to be a bit inaccurate on that point thats all.Nor was I trying to impress with "My command " of anything. My comments were meant in the friendly spirit of discussion that we have established here.So once again please dont take my comments as personal or agenda driven.just adding to the discussion thats all.

got it mate. the problem of this format then...much lost without body language

Its all good buddy,

Nice piece, Russ
Teaching is such an interesting path. One of the biggest reason's I admired my FMA teacher so much was his continual passion for finding ways to generate progression in his students. He never stopped creating and evolving - very inspiring.
Not easy though! I can see why back in the day it was just follow what I do, don't ask any questions, and don't stop till I tell you!
Don't they say it takes about 3 years for a student to find a good teacher, and 10 years for a teacher to find a good student ...?

maija wrote:

Don't they say it takes about 3 years for a student to find a good teacher, and 10 years for a teacher to find a good student ...?

ha ha ha...that's funny. i like it. somehow it makes it easier

i just got about 6 new students, hmmm. 3 are 'potentially' awesome as far as being able to produce under pressure and having enough athleticism.

Nice Russ, very good points there

Interesting Danite- I find it just as fascinating even when you look at the more “mundane” elements of the story, the political backdrop so often seems to be ignored when the story is retold, but nothing makes sense without proper context does it?
Always good to remember, whether your into that Religion or not (Im not but Im sympathetic to Religion, Im not a Religion basher), that JC was not really mainstream for a good few centuries and it was regarded as a bit of an underground, hardcore, radical, rebel cult according to some scholars.

Couple of points sprang to mind.
One was that “Osho” or Shree Rajneesh speaks with an Indian accent and Indian syntax “The priest is exploiting people in the name of God, of which he knows nothing; in the name of the spiritual, of which he has no idea. But whenever a person comes, radiant”

In this context “The Priest” will most likely refer to any priest, or “the priesthood” not the “high Priest” he’s just mentioned. If you look at it that way it makes more sense. Osho was a not a fan of priests.

Secondly, even if that is what he meant your argument that “The Roman appointed High Priest wasnt exploiting the people in the name of God. Jesus never complained of this .The High Priest was a poltical appointee meant to be an instrument in helping secure Roman control over Judea”
If he was a political appointee and a “judas” working for the Romans to maintain social control then he was surely “exploiting the people in the name of God” in a general sense wasn’t he?

Now this is interesting “Furthermore the Rabbinic movement was so miniscule at the time that there could not have been "scholarly rabbis" involved in the matter.” When you say Rabbinic movement, what do you mean? Was the notion of having Rabbi’s /Priests new?
Im interested but I got to admit I’m pretty ignorant about the time and place- Wasn’t it a group of Rabbi’s that decided his fate? Aren’t Rabbis by nature scholarly or did they only become scholarly at a later time? I know that I can get ideas about how things work and project them back into other times sometimes incorrectly just because I don’t challenge and check them properly.
Interesting stuff.


http://www.livius.org/jo-jz/judaea/judaea.htm just found this

Hello Richie , I will try to answer your questions to best of my ability and refer to some very excellent works by top scholars in thsi field who have done some really very great work.
Firstly let me address your question about the rabbis.Jesus is refered to as a rabbi.The word rabbi means literally "my master",meant as a master of knowledge, a teacher or a guru type figure. Thus the early leaders and teachers and sages who later became rabbis as we understand that term today ,initally fulfilled the same type of function( and to an extent still do today) that jesus did to his followers,that of teacher , mentor and leader.However when I say the rabbinic movement I am reefering to the early leaders of a school of thought which came to guide and direct judaism over the subsequent centuries.

This rabbinic movement was in its inception just one of the many groups of various types operating in Judea during the Roman period.there was alot of internal debate and rancour between the Jews over a number of subjects with a plethora of opinions.However the rabbinic movement only emerged form the "pack" after the destruction of the Temple and for the following reasons.The Romans noticed that they had opposed the Great Rebellion in 66-72 ad and allowed them to operate without hindrance.After the second rebellion in 132 ad also opposed by most Rabbis the romans appointed them as etnarchs of the Jews responsible for legislating and enforcing the civil court and legal system.This was the means by which their particular understandings of jewish law became after considerable struggle the normative basis for judaism.As well another factor for their success is that they found a way to reshape judaism without the the Temple.

Therefore all this to say (for purposes of the specific question you asked) is that at the time of jesus the Rabbinic movement probably consisted of no more than a dozen teachers with a few hundred followers.You are probably thinking of the role of the Sanhedran which was a from of religious parliment in which representatives of the major sects had representatives,this body ahd a very complex relationship with the KIng and High Priest, it all gets very complicated.Judea was like any other country in crisis, it was a swirling vortex of politics , revolution, radical idea, conservative reaction class warfare, uprising bandits you name it. I hope this helps a bit, this is a very short answer to a very involved and complex issue, a very interesting one.In afct if you look at it, the only two coherent ideological groups left standing after the destruction of the Temple were the rabbinic and early christian movements.The destruction of the Temple allowed them both to grow.its all very interesting indeed.I will respond tomorrow to your other points.In the meantime I would like to suggest the following amazing books. "The Historical Jesus The life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant by John Dominic Crossan as well Excavating jesus also by Crossan and Rabbi Paul Bruce Chiltern.Not only are these books dealing with a very interesting subject, but it is a pleasure to read high quality scholarship and thinking for its own pleasure .If you have any other questions or points please feel free.I will get abck to you on tthe other points.

I reckon Ive learnt more about history in the last 4 years than I ever did in School- thanks for that Danite

Quote :

You are probably thinking of the role of the Sanhedran which was a from of religious parliment in which representatives of the major sects had representatives,this body ahd a very complex relationship with the KIng and High Priest, it all gets very complicated.Judea was like

all Im capable of thinking of is what Ive seen in films, pictures, I think in Portugal where I grew up Im sure Ive seen pictures in churches (pretty graphic stuff over there when it comes to the suffering) of a group of men with pointy hats and beards who were "the Jews what killed Christ"

being fairly ignorant about the subject I cant really think outside of broad, media fuelled stereotypes- would the Sandhedran be considered a king of intelligentsia or intellectual elite? Did Judaism have major sects? does it today? I probably should google this stuff

What I really liked about Osho's view of Christianity, he wrote quite a few big books on it, was his way of appreciating it was to deliberately divide the socio-political factual background from the overtly mystical/spiritual messages- one being a peice of history the other being something more akin to poetry: it points in a direction and is open to interpretation

Particularly like his acceptance that no matter what you say, there will always be some people who take it the wrong way, you just CAN'T stop that, so you have to accept it... or say nothing


and saying nothing'll probably be taken wrong too!


"oooh he says nothing... he is DEEEEP"

Hello Richie, well growing up in portugal one would be exposed to the pre vatican ll views which overturned the ancient charge that "THE JEWS KILLED GOD".Finally after all the blood and hardship the catholic church finally ahd the courage and decency to say "ooooppppssss" it was bit more complicated than that.As well the jews in pointy hats would have been a medieval depiction of jews who often had to wear distinguishing marks or badges or clothing.Hitlers idea to mark people with badges comes straight from the medival age.

As for the sanhedran google it and have alook at the wikepedia article it is quite good.As for sects.Yes Jewish society in those days had many sects,each with rather radically different views over the correct udnerstanding of judaism and of jewish law and how to deal with the romans.You might want to google "The Jewsih Rebellions against Rome'These days since the 19th century there have developed a number of different "streams" within Judaism, The Reform, Conservative and modern orthodox for example, please google this as well.

Its important to keep in mind that the gospels were a "minority report" the view of a tiny group of people whos views just happened to have captured alot of the world and so becoming the "majority report".many fo the disputes recorded on the gospel between jesus and other jewish groups is a glimpse into the very conflicted nature of judean society at the time, and expresses the hostility of the jesus group towards other competing groups.If one really wants to get "beyond the surface" of the gospels one really shoud learn about that period in jewish history in judea as the events recoreded in the gospels are organically linked with that very particular time in history.

I am glad you have deveoped an intrest in history.I believe not only is vital for a solid grounding in understanding present and future events, the human drama laid out in its annals are truly amazing in my opinion.

Just one word about yoru comments concerning Oshos views on christianity , that he separates the socio political background from the spiritual-mystical message.While I think its true that in time people can give the original message a different take and give it its own life beyond the facts behind its creation, in my opinion religion needs to be understood in its human sociological context to make full sense of the the message.Religion was a human response ( in my opinion) to human dilemas and issues.
When one reads the parable of Jesus and the Zealot who asks jesus "is it lawful to pay the tax unto ceasar" and jesus replies "render unto ceasar what is ceasarsa nd unto God what is Gods" do most people realise that this was the Zealot political litmus test? If Jesus had said yes it is lawful then he would have been considered as a traitor by this zealot who might have cut him down right there.On the other hand had he said No it is not lawful. he would have been announcing his adherance to the revolutionary anti roman view. In fact perhaps the Zealots sent this operative to discover just where jesus stood on the issue and if he could be considered in the revolutionaries camp.he had all the trappings of a revolutionary leader.He preached to the poor in galile, he talked about the Kingdom Of God, the galile was a font of revoltuion, was he one of "us"? So what appears to be a clever word game between two people is in fact a heavily charged poltical session with deep consequnces.If you have the chance to get any of those books I mentioned you will be enthralled with the material therin, it answers all your questions by some of the most eminent and brilliant scholars int he field. Enjoy!

fascinating stuff- 10 years ago would of sent my brain into shutdown, but feels a lot more relevant now

I think Ive developed with age a bit more of an interest in politics, realising that you cant escape it, anywhere!

and that psychology is intrinsic to politics, particulalry as it pertains to "stories". Stories are a hugely important element in how we make sense of reality, in fact you could argue they become more important than reality itself.

That zealot story is great example of needing context to make sense of a story. Puts the protagonist firmly back into the role of political revolutionary, where I suppose the church which tells the story most frequently has an agenda to paint him as a more spiritual guide, or by the definition you gave earlier: "a rabbi"

So the pointy hats were posibly a forced identifier? I was vaguely aware from learnin a bit of Portuguese and Spanish history that at different points in time (depending on how hot prejudice was against jews was) could be made to wear identifying marks- but I didnt know pointy hats was one of them-

ah here we go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointy_hat

"judenhut"

I wonder if this is the root of depictions of wizards? the by product of an anti semetic smear campaign to depict them as paractitioners of the dark arts?


Seeing as your interested in the field, what do you think the root of the Abrahamic religions was? all 3 share so much, do you think as some do they have their roots in Egyptian Mythology?

answering my own question

http://www.widdershins.org/vol6iss8/oestara01.07.html

Quote :

There is another, commonly held belief that the pointed hat originated with another persecuted group in Europe, the Jews. While Jews did wear pointed headgear, most scholars now believe these hats were not a likely source for the witch's pointed hat. After all, pointed hats were fairly common throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

This fact leads us to the source I find to be most believable, and most mundane, for the Pointy Hat Look. During the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, commoners in Wales and England often wore pointed hats. As fashions changed, the last to retain the old styles were the rural and peasant folk, who were considered "backward" by higher society and were usually the ones accused of heresy and witchcraft. Much as we today have stereotypes of the sort of student who might commit violence at a high school, so did the medieval people have their ideas of what sort of person might be a witch.

Along these lines, Gary Jensen, a professor of sociology at Vanderbilt University, postulates a connection between the persecution of Quakers in America and the stereotypical appearance of witches in our folklore. Quakers did wear pointed hats, and the negative image of witches wearing conical hats in America became common about the same time anti-Quaker sentiment was at a peak. Quakers were thought by some to consort with demons and practice black magic, things also associated with the early American view of witches. Once again, an easily recognized symbol of an oppressed minority may have become generalized to a group equated with them.

In the final analysis, it's likely that more than one of these issues came into play to ingrain the pointy hat into the mainstream idea of what a witch looks like. After all, the ideas that stick most firmly in the mind are the ones repeated from different sources, and many things in history can't be traced to a single root cause or moment.

nice story russ, i red osho and many overseas gurus books before, i practiced many overseas fighting arts before, i f..cked many overseas girls before, but what i found out was

not to be a racist at all, but i think in all areas the european race is a little bit superior. from the celts to the vikings, our roots were pretty cool also

little bit pitty the romans wiped us out, and forced us into cristianity.

i could find myself in the lifestyle of a viking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWtfgde_Lbc

lol biggest tip i can give you

detachment

Richie,the policy of the Church in europe towrds the Jews was this.They were not to be murdered( this was often ignored) as they were the living "proof" of the existance of jesus,and that christian "charity" demanded they be given the chance to "repent of their errors".However they were to be humiliated and oppressed and isloated for their supposed "crime" Thus there was a whole bevy of laws passed by the church to socially isolate Jews.They were forced to live in dank stinking overcrowded ghettos, they couldnt own land, join guilds etc.Part of this policy was to make sure "innocent chrsitan folk" wouldnt be fooled by the "crafty jews" so they often forced jews to wear distinguishing clothing or badges.As I said Hitler had a very deep well of very well prepared ground in the european psyche for what he did.

About the Abrahimic faiths being rooted in egyptian religion.I believe you are refering to the theory that the "monotheism" of the brief amarna period( 1400bc around, King Ahkenatan) was the root of the religion brought by the israelites out of egypt during the exodus.This theory is not considered viable in any but fringe circles.The abrahamic religions are so similar to each other because christianity and islam have their roots in judaism and hold the sacred stories of israel and israels conception of God to be central to their faith structures.However where did judaism come from? Well this is a long story.Anceint israelite religion was complicated and drew from its environment in the Levant and fashioned it and added some unique features to create israelite religion.However the mass of jews only became monotheistic as we would udnerstand that word today after the destruction of the first temple by the babylonians in 586 bc and their recosntitution in judea and the rebuilding of the temple in the persian period beggining around 520 Bc.As well the features of ahkenatons religion were quite different.Although he worshipped one God and tried to suppress other gods, in israelite religion God spoke to all the people and his laws were for all the people and all were equal before it, it was not the private religion of one man.I suggest you google this one too as my "short answers" dont do the questions you ask justice.Each one of these subjects is a vast ocean.

Studying history, though so badly done in schools, I believe opens the eyes to what is happening today on a deeper level.I am glad to hear you are finding it of greater intrest,you can only benefit and be challenged by it.Enjoy!( Ilove to study history as you can tell by now!!!!!!)