Glostik91 wrote:RZoo wrote:
That's just my impression based on so-called enlightened figures and general connotation and associations I've found with the term (Buddha, Jesus, Buddhism, etc).
If we accept your definition, then know that we can't distinguish an enlightened from a non-enlightened person (unless they choose to convince us). Hitler could've been just as enlightened as Jesus (or more so). And enlightenment becomes more of a healing process than a religious goal. We would free enlightenment from any particular morality or values.
I'm not sure how you're getting this impression. Jesus wept at the death of his friend. Budai was a Zen practitioner. He is commonly known as the fat and laughing buddha.
Good point. I created this confusion and I'll try to explain it.
There are 2 things to consider:
1) How Jesus acted
2) How Jesus would act if he got his way (if everyone agreed with and followed him)
In the first case, how he acted, yes, he wept for others. But if he got his way, if his goal was realized, there would be no more weeping because there would be nothing left to weep about and no "others" left to weep for - that was his ideal.
To further convolute the matter, we have to decide whether "enlightenment" should be amoral or not (I've created a separate thread to pose this question). If "enlightenment" is amoral, then a truly enlightened person should not, at least on the basis of their enlightenment, have a reason to weep for anyone.
When I say that my impression of enlightenment is passive, detached, etc, I guess that's true of the "ideal" world of Jesus, or of an amoral view of enlightenment, but insofar as that ideal world is not realized and an enlightened person can idealize a moral order, there is room for activity. Hope that helps clarify.