Dear Hari,
question from russian forum. Author - Vlad.
Dear Hari!
Buddha have achieved blooming under the bodhi tree; masters of Dzen use some situation that demolish commonness and so on. Is Blooming a question of training or the game of God? If God wants He will give, if not then maybe you should not try?
Blooming
Let me try to rephrase your question so those who speak english can make sense of it.
"Buddha achieved enlightenment under the bodhi tree; masters of Zen use specific techniques. Is enlightenment a question of training or is it an act of mercy; perhaps an act of whimsy of God? In other words, if God wishes to grant it, you will get it, otherwise if He will not give it, why try to get it at all?"
This is a standard question: Do we become enlightened through mercy or through our disciplined endeavors? I have discussed this in detail in one of my lectures (I have no idea which one, but if someone knows, please add it as a comment to this text.) There are even groups in South India who have been fighting over this point for centuries.
One could say that enlightenment is a gift, and naturally one would assume that such a gift could only come from those who are already enlightened. God is a good candidate for giving such a gift. But why would God give this gift to some and not to others? By what criteria would God determine one is worthy and another is not? Would there be any criteria other than the whim of God to determine who attains enlightenment and who not?
Obviously, those who we usually celebrate as enlightened are persons who have worked hard to increase their spirituality through [lifetimes of] practice. This immediately gives credence to the idea that enlightenment follows disciplined action. But some might bring up the example of people who received causeless mercy from Lord Caitanya as examples contrary to this 'rule,' if we were to turn our observation that enlightenment follows from appropriate activity into a rule. But then again, we do not have sufficient data on all people who took birth at the time of Lord Caitanya to ascertain if they had or had not accumulated credits in their previous lives which were the cause of their getting the mercy.
Some say that even if you work very hard, ultimately it is God who grants the final step and lights the final 'aha' bulb in your soul. As enlightenment usually accompanies a strong connection to the spiritual source and since that connection is a two way affair, naturally God's desire to connect to the soul is required. This resolves the difficulty of a whimsical God for in this model God reaches out to those who reach out to God. When a person is sufficiently close, God bridges the gap.
Based on this idea, enlightenment is a combination of endeavor and the final desire of God. However, this idea only works for those who accept the idea of God as the 'Supreme Being.' After all, there are many who do not believe in a God the same way a personalist does, specifically those who are within the Buddhistic or other presumably impersonal disciplines. They would emphasize the individual spirit's complete union with the totality of spirit as enlightenment. This removes the idea of mercy and places the onus on the individual's development. They might comfortably speak of mercy in terms of the blessings of the ancients, the forefathers, or other previously enlightened souls who decided to benedict a person for some reason or other.
Therefore one would be safer to state that according to one's way of seeing spirit and one's definition of the self, one's definition of enlightenment and the means to attain it would be uniquely defined. This definition would then be active when answering the question as to whether the enlightened state is attained solely through personal endeavor or is a combination of personal endeavor and the desire of God. In many cases we find the idea that one works hard and gets called to connect with the divine. But those who firmly believe enlightenment rests solely on the desire of God will must come up with some reasonable explanation of the motives of God when God chooses one and not the other.
"Buddha achieved enlightenment under the bodhi tree; masters of Zen use specific techniques. Is enlightenment a question of training or is it an act of mercy; perhaps an act of whimsy of God? In other words, if God wishes to grant it, you will get it, otherwise if He will not give it, why try to get it at all?"
This is a standard question: Do we become enlightened through mercy or through our disciplined endeavors? I have discussed this in detail in one of my lectures (I have no idea which one, but if someone knows, please add it as a comment to this text.) There are even groups in South India who have been fighting over this point for centuries.
One could say that enlightenment is a gift, and naturally one would assume that such a gift could only come from those who are already enlightened. God is a good candidate for giving such a gift. But why would God give this gift to some and not to others? By what criteria would God determine one is worthy and another is not? Would there be any criteria other than the whim of God to determine who attains enlightenment and who not?
Obviously, those who we usually celebrate as enlightened are persons who have worked hard to increase their spirituality through [lifetimes of] practice. This immediately gives credence to the idea that enlightenment follows disciplined action. But some might bring up the example of people who received causeless mercy from Lord Caitanya as examples contrary to this 'rule,' if we were to turn our observation that enlightenment follows from appropriate activity into a rule. But then again, we do not have sufficient data on all people who took birth at the time of Lord Caitanya to ascertain if they had or had not accumulated credits in their previous lives which were the cause of their getting the mercy.
Some say that even if you work very hard, ultimately it is God who grants the final step and lights the final 'aha' bulb in your soul. As enlightenment usually accompanies a strong connection to the spiritual source and since that connection is a two way affair, naturally God's desire to connect to the soul is required. This resolves the difficulty of a whimsical God for in this model God reaches out to those who reach out to God. When a person is sufficiently close, God bridges the gap.
Based on this idea, enlightenment is a combination of endeavor and the final desire of God. However, this idea only works for those who accept the idea of God as the 'Supreme Being.' After all, there are many who do not believe in a God the same way a personalist does, specifically those who are within the Buddhistic or other presumably impersonal disciplines. They would emphasize the individual spirit's complete union with the totality of spirit as enlightenment. This removes the idea of mercy and places the onus on the individual's development. They might comfortably speak of mercy in terms of the blessings of the ancients, the forefathers, or other previously enlightened souls who decided to benedict a person for some reason or other.
Therefore one would be safer to state that according to one's way of seeing spirit and one's definition of the self, one's definition of enlightenment and the means to attain it would be uniquely defined. This definition would then be active when answering the question as to whether the enlightened state is attained solely through personal endeavor or is a combination of personal endeavor and the desire of God. In many cases we find the idea that one works hard and gets called to connect with the divine. But those who firmly believe enlightenment rests solely on the desire of God will must come up with some reasonable explanation of the motives of God when God chooses one and not the other.
-
Siva-Ratri
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 12:32 pm
- Location: Almaty, Kazakhstan
- Contact:
If I am not mistaken, last time you in detail touched this theme in lecture "Spiritual mysticism" (By the way, after that lecture I had a lot of strange, but very much inspired discussions on this themeHari wrote: I have discussed this in detail in one of my lectures (I have no idea which one, but if someone knows, please add it as a comment to this text.)
)