Buddha with brain damage and alzheimers

hades · Post by **hades** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:48 pm

Can't remember any of his previous teachings, and can't speak properly.

Is he still Enlightened?

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:08 pm

By your definition, yes. By the one used here, no.

hades · Post by **hades** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:22 pm

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:By your definition, yes. By the one used here, no.

Right! Your definition simply refers to a moderately wise man, someone who has an intellectual understanding of various imaginary principles which he ends up falling in love with and calling Truths. Its cute, no doubt.

poopy cock

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:33 pm

If he was perfectly enlightened - meaning that if he has completely eliminated delusions from his mind and was beyond all possibility of slipping back - then he would still be enlightened. Only his teaching capacity would be impaired.

True enlightenment doesn't require any mental activity to maintain itself. This is because a Buddha is enlightened by virtue of the fact that he has grown into his enlightenment. It isn't a contrived attainment that requires mental propping up. It is his natural state.

-

Diebert van Rhijn · Post by **Diebert van Rhijn** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:38 am

There's not much doubt to my mind Nietzsche entered a state of final enlightenment around the same time his mind collapsed and he lost most of his capacities to function independently or to communicate.

In this rare case the very thing that kept him from his final realization also kept for many years his failing mind functioning, through a rigid almost neurotic regime of discipline and self-limitation. But even he couldn't stop the natural development and the dropping of the over-ripe fruit.

But that sacrifice has given us a documented development into an authentic Buddha right on the doorsteps of our current age. What a man! How much way he helped prepare!

3. Turin, January 3, 1889 (the 'insanity' years): Letter from Nietzsche to Meta von Salis-Marschlins

"The world has been cleared up; God is on earth. Donâ€™t you see how all the heavens are rejoicing? I have just seized possession of my kingdom, Iâ€™ve thrown the Pope in prison, and Iâ€™m having Wilhelm, Bismarck, and StÃ¶cker shot.

The Crucified."

[Die Welt ist verklÃ¤rt, denn Gott ist auf der Ere. Sehen Sie nicht, wie alle Himmel sich freuen? Ich habe eben Besitz ergriffen von meinem Reich, werfe den Papst ins GefÃ¤ngnis und lasse Wilhelm, Bismarck und StÃ¶cker erschieÃŸen.]

Tomas · Post by **Tomas** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 2:34 pm

.

something i came across some time ago... Aussie newspaper :-)

Here is a sentence from the article:
'Chinese authorities detained the Dalai Lama's choice as the Panchen Lama in 1995 when the boy was six years old, and he has not been seen in public since.'

My question is... when is the age of adulthood in China/Tibet cultures, notwithstanding the religious arena of thought?
Is he being re-educated to toe the official gov't party line of thought control?
Is he even alive?

Link to article:

Living Buddhas must now apply to the Chinese government for reincarnation
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 61,00.html

.

clyde · Post by **clyde** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 3:13 pm

David Quinn wrote:If he was perfectly enlightened - meaning that if he has completely eliminated delusions from his mind and was beyond all possibility of slipping back - then he would still be enlightened. Only his teaching capacity would be impaired.

True enlightenment doesn't require any mental activity to maintain itself. This is because a Buddha is enlightened by virtue of the fact that he has grown into his enlightenment. It isn't a contrived attainment that requires mental propping up. It is his natural state.

-

A rock is free of delusions.

clyde

Diebert van Rhijn · Post by **Diebert van Rhijn** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:01 pm

clyde wrote: A rock is free of delusions.

It cannot be said to be free from anything that it cannot possess by its very definition.

clyde · Post by **clyde** » Sun Aug 26, 2007 3:13 am

A rock is without delusions.

Diebert van Rhijn · Post by **Diebert van Rhijn** » Sun Aug 26, 2007 3:57 am

clyde wrote:A rock is without delusions.

A rock is without rainclouds. It doesn't matter when talking about the sky.

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Sun Aug 26, 2007 4:08 am

When rather than focus upon the steps required to further ourselves towards greater understanding, we mental masturbate ourselves with useless suppositions of the most theoretical kind, we reinforce our delusional mindsets.

Diebert van Rhijn · Post by **Diebert van Rhijn** » Sun Aug 26, 2007 5:35 am

Carl, how would you tell another person that some supposition is useless or is of the most theoretical kind? And how would that lead to anything better? And if you decide not to tell, how would that lead to anything?

clyde · Post by **clyde** » Sun Aug 26, 2007 6:36 am

Diebert;

Given David's definition of enlightenment,

True enlightenment doesn't require any mental activity to maintain itself.

How does a rock not qualify; i.e. what would an entity require to be enlightened?

clyde

San Bao · Post by **San Bao** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:43 am

clyde wrote:Diebert;

Given David's definition of enlightenment,
True enlightenment doesn't require any mental activity to maintain itself.
How does a rock not qualify; i.e. what would an entity require to be enlightened?

Would you say a rock is "blind" or would it be more accurate to say it has simply no capacity for sight in the first place?

If "blindness" means "the absence of sight that would otherwise be present" I don't think it makes sense to predicate "blindness" of a thing that doesn't have at least the potential for "sight".

Likewise, if "enlightenment" means "the absence of delusion that would otherwise be present", it makes little sense to predicate it of a thing which doesn't have the potential for "delusion".

clyde · Post by **clyde** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:00 am

San Bao;

My question regarding the rock was explicitly premised on David's definition of enlightenment. Your (revised) definition, "the absence of delusion that would otherwise be present" requires that mental activity be present. In fact, your definition requires such mental activity that delusion may arise, which may limit enlightenment to the human species, at least on this planet. Perhaps that is the definition of a human being - "one who is capable of delusion".

clyde

San Bao · Post by **San Bao** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:08 am

clyde wrote:San Bao;

My question regarding the rock was explicitly premised on David's definition of enlightenment. Your (revised) definition, "the absence of delusion that would otherwise be present" requires that mental activity be present. In fact, your definition requires such mental activity that delusion may arise, which may limit enlightenment to the human species, at least on this planet. Perhaps that is the definition of a human being - "one who is capable of delusion".

clyde

"One who is capable of delusion" is certainly one way of describing human beings. :)

If enlightenment is "freedom from delusions", than I think implicitly enlightenment requires a human mind (or a mind sufficiently similiar to a human mind).

I also think there needs to be a distinction drawn between "enlightenment" and "buddha-nature" (tathagatagarbha) or "the Absolute". All things, supposedly, "possess buddha-nature" or are aspects of the Absolute. But I don't think this means all things are enlightened. Enlightenment is realizing this, or expressed negatively, is being free of delusions.

Like you, I don't know of any "thing" except human beings who are capable of delusion, so I think we can safely say that enlightenment is a uniquely human endeavor.

RalphPL · Post by **RalphPL** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:13 am

A healthy brain makes the mind work properly, therefore making enlightenment possible (logic and reason are enabled). For example: a mathematician with Alzheimer's, may not have the capacity to understand problems, anymore, due to the brain damage. Enlightenment is the product of connections, between neurons, and neurotransmitters all functioning properly (or better)...Take this away and the man's a vegetable. Tell me, is a dead enlightened person still enlightenment? (even if they cannot respond to simple stimuli?)...Unless, you believe in a soul?

Or...Maybe the Buddha is just fooling everyone who isn't enlightened...?

clyde · Post by **clyde** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:29 am

San Bao wrote:Enlightenment is realizing this, or expressed negatively, is being free of delusions.

San Bao;

I don't disagree with your post or your (positive) definition of enlightenment. But your definition requires mental activity which is what David denied.

clyde

GENIUS FORUMS

Buddha with brain damage and alzheimers

Buddha with brain damage and alzheimers

Buddhas told to apply for reincarnation

Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Buddha with brain damage and alzheimers

Re: Buddha with brain damage and alzheimers

Re: Buddha with brain damage and alzheimers

Re: Buddha with brain damage and alzheimers

Re: Buddha with brain damage and alzheimers

Re: Buddha with brain damage and alzheimers

Re: Buddha with brain damage and alzheimers

Re: Buddha with brain damage and alzheimers

Re: Buddha with brain damage and alzheimers

Re: Buddha with brain damage and alzheimers