What's all this nonsense about sitting still?

[Dan74]

Well, seems like it wasn't so easy with Watts either for all his intellectual brilliance. He died prematurely, an alcoholic and a compulsive womaniser.

If I may ask, what does that have to do with enlightenment? Awakened ones stay always sober, restrain from having sex, and live long... or what?

Awakened ones are free from grasping and the delusion of self and all its needs and fears.

[oushi]

Well, seems like it wasn't so easy with Watts either for all his intellectual brilliance. He died prematurely, an alcoholic and a compulsive womaniser.

If I may ask, what does that have to do with enlightenment? Awakened ones stay always sober, restrain from having sex, and live long... or what?

Awakened ones are free from grasping and the delusion of self and all its needs and fears.

So, the self continues... Buddha is free from being moved by the self being drunk, or having sex.

But since married laymen don’t give up sex, how can they become Buddhas?
I only talk about seeing your nature. I don’t talk about sex simply because you don’t see your nature. Once you see your nature, sex is basically immaterial. It ends along with your delight in it. Even if some habits remain’, they can’t harm you, because your nature is essentially pure.

[Dan74]

If I may ask, what does that have to do with enlightenment? Awakened ones stay always sober, restrain from having sex, and live long... or what?

Awakened ones are free from grasping and the delusion of self and all its needs and fears.

So, the self continues... Buddha is free from being moved by the self being drunk, or having sex.

Did I say that?

But since married laymen don’t give up sex, how can they become Buddhas?
I only talk about seeing your nature. I don’t talk about sex simply because you don’t see your nature. Once you see your nature, sex is basically immaterial. It ends along with your delight in it. Even if some habits remain’, they can’t harm you, because your nature is essentially pure.

Is this addressing what I said? I think you are proceeding in leaps and bounds, my friend, and have lost me.

[oushi]

Did I say that?

No, I did.
I extended your statement further, explaining that self continues to do, whatever it did, and Buddha is detached from the person. You views seems to imply that the self changes and becomes free from "inappropriate" behaviors.

But since married laymen don’t give up sex, how can they become Buddhas?
I only talk about seeing your nature. I don’t talk about sex simply because you don’t see your nature. Once you see your nature, sex is basically immaterial. It ends along with your delight in it. Even if some habits remain’, they can’t harm you, because your nature is essentially pure.

Is this addressing what I said? I think you are proceeding in leaps and bounds, my friend, and have lost me.

That which appears is an effect of karma. Even if some activities take place, like drinking or having sex, it does not say much about the actual awakening. So, even if someone "died prematurely" and was "an alcoholic and a compulsive womaniser", it doesn't mean he was not awakened. Maybe this will shed some light:

But once you see your nature, you’re a Buddha even if you work as a butcher.
But butchers create karma by slaughtering animals. How can they be Buddhas?
I only talk about seeing your nature. I don’t talk about creating karma. Regardless of what we do, our karma has no hold on us.

[Dan74]

Did I say that?

No, I did.
I extended your statement further, explaining that self continues to do, whatever it did, and Buddha is detached from the person. You views seems to imply that the self changes and becomes free from "inappropriate" behaviors.

But since married laymen don’t give up sex, how can they become Buddhas?
I only talk about seeing your nature. I don’t talk about sex simply because you don’t see your nature. Once you see your nature, sex is basically immaterial. It ends along with your delight in it. Even if some habits remain’, they can’t harm you, because your nature is essentially pure.

Is this addressing what I said? I think you are proceeding in leaps and bounds, my friend, and have lost me.

That which appears is an effect of karma. Even if some activities take place, like drinking or having sex, it does not say much about the actual awakening. So, even if someone "died prematurely" and was "an alcoholic and a compulsive womaniser", it doesn't mean he was not awakened. Maybe this will shed some light:

But once you see your nature, you’re a Buddha even if you work as a butcher.
But butchers create karma by slaughtering animals. How can they be Buddhas?
I only talk about seeing your nature. I don’t talk about creating karma. Regardless of what we do, our karma has no hold on us.

You appear to be conflating several things or possibly we are talking past each other.

First, awakening is of course transformative, since delusion is gone. So if I am an addict who escapes from the pain of existence into my addiction, practice and awakening will of course transform that. It is not about a new and better self, it is about liberation from delusion.

Second, awakening is not the same as awakening. Recognizing the freedom from the self is a long way from the skillful functioning of the original mind. Hongzhi is good. He makes it all very clear, for example:

Patch-robed monks make their thinking dry and cool and rest from the remnants of conditioning. Persistently brush up and sharpen this bit of the field. Directly cut through all the overgrown grass. Reach the limit in all directions without defiling even one atom. Spiritual and bright, vast and lustrous, illuminating fully what is before you, directly attain the shining light and clarity that cannot attach to a single defilement. Immediately tug and pull back the ox's nose. Of course his horns are imposing and he stomps around like a beast, yet he never damages people's sprouts or grain. Wandering around, accept how it goes. Accepting how it goes, wander around. Do not be bounded by or settle into any place. Then the plough will break open the ground in the field of the empty kalpa. Proceeding in this manner, each event will be unobscured, each realm will appear complete. One contemplation of the ten thousand years is beginning not to dwell in appearances. Thus it is said that the mind-ground con­ tains every seed and the universal rain makes them all sprout. When awakening blossoms, desires fade, and Bodhi's fruit is perfected self

[oushi]

Recognizing the freedom from the self is a long way from the skillful functioning of the original mind.

Long before, or after?

Beside this, you didn't make a comment on my previous post and quotes it contains. We are walking into some weird ground of "awakening is not the same as awakening".

"Regardless of what we do, our karma has no hold on us."
Either you discard this teaching, or you confirm that appearances don't say much about awakening of the person. How is it then?

[Astus]

Awakening removed from everyday activity is of no value. The first paramita is giving, the second is ethical conduct. Lacking those two means that wisdom is still far away. In other words, harming others is not the functioning of the buddha-nature, nor is showing the wrong example for beings.

[PadmaVonSamba]

I'm sorry if I wasn't very clear with my words it's 6 in the morning here and I haven't slept yet.

If you are enlightened, why would you need sleep?

- - - - - 5 minutes later- - - - -
let me rephrase that.
If you are enlightened,
whether you need sleep or not
would be of no consequence.
.
.
.

[oushi]

Awakening removed from everyday activity is of no value.

What is awakening outside of everyday activity?

[PadmaVonSamba]

Awakening removed from everyday activity is of no value.

What is awakening outside of everyday activity?

"no value"

[oushi]

Awakening removed from everyday activity is of no value.

What is awakening outside of everyday activity?

"no value"

And what is value?

[PadmaVonSamba]

And what is value?

value is what
Awakening not outside from everyday activity
has a lot of.
.
.
.

[Jikan]

I must confess, I am completely baffled by this conversation. I trust I am not the only one*.

What is going on here?

*I'm not the only one, am I?

[Seishin]

Not the only one Jikan

[Astus]

Jikan, you are not alone. The celestial buddhas are also scratching their bald heads.

[oushi]

[shel]

Why do people struggle so with enlightenment? Once you understand it intellectually you can have it. All this wishy-washy business about sitting still and discipline, is it just an alternate route? Is it just a way to crack the ego's defenses? To quote Alan Watts, "If you have a thin shell and your mask is easily dispatched with he simply uses what we might call an easy method. He says, 'ha-ha, listen Shiva, come off, it ha, don’t pretend you’re this guy here. I know who you are.' And the guy sort-of twinkles a bit and says um, 'Well, I guess you’re right'." Why is it never that simple with most people?

Well, seems like it wasn't so easy with Watts either for all his intellectual brilliance. He died prematurely, an alcoholic and a compulsive womaniser.

Not to blow on your card house but the bolded portion is basically the same story as Taizan Maezumi Roshi. So what's the difference?

[conebeckham]

Frankly I think this thread is ridiculous.

The theory that you can "have it" if you understand enlightenment intellectuallly is bollocks.

And this:

I extended your statement further, explaining that self continues to do, whatever it did, and Buddha is detached from the person. You views seems to imply that the self changes and becomes free from "inappropriate" behaviors.

is a misunderstanding of the relation between "persons" and "Buddhas," I think. If one is the "Buddha," there is no self, and thus, no "inappropriate behavior."

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

"Regardless of what we do, our karma has no hold on us."

Which is the view.

So if we are all already enlightened go stick a fork in your hand and let us know how your view is going.

“In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is.”
― Yogi Berra

Sorry but learning to identify the view-addicts is Nagarjuna 101.

Heard of "emptiness sickness"? Heard of "spiritual materialism"?

If we have the view without stabilizing it in practice we are just getting off on samadhi-w*nking.

Are you stabilized in the view 24/7? I mean really? You don't crave anything, ever? You are not attached to anything, ever? You can say with all honestly that you are completely free of all deluded experience, always, forever?

Be honest.

What you don't seem to get is that practice itself can be an ego-pit. You're just pumping up your ego with Mahayana-vitamins.

It's like how American Protestantism has degenerated Christianity into the happy-clappy-going-to-heaven-club? Heard of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "cheap grace"? Same syndrome in all religions.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Intellectual understanding is not enough,
because one still clings to it.
All squared away, logical, rational, safe.
As soon as you are sure of yourself,
self!
Most intellectuals and academics
are just not stupid enough to become enlightened.
.
.
.