Simon Phipp:
> Don't the Buddhists have examples of people who have achieved
> enlightnment but have chosen to return to help people here?
Julian Lord:
> Buddha, for one ... ;-)
Andrew Barton:
> I think there's a confusion here.
This is a terminological minefield in Glorantha, too, which is why I hesitated to comment on its use in the original: (Yelmic/Nysalorean/ Rashoranic) Illumination in Peloria, (Metsylan) Enlightenment in Kralorela.
'Return' is indeed somewhat misleading here, since most bodhisattva traditions are based on the idea of 'refusal to enter', as Andrew says. But to confuse more this there are forms of Buddhism which attribute manifest qualities to Gautauma Buddha, and those do not, as far as I know, characterise him as having done so, so it gets pretty opaque all right, certainly for me.
> Enlightenment, 'satori', is a state of consciousness which is attained
> briefly while still in the world. It's often described as having a
> momentary awareness of the entire universe. It has a permanent effect on
> one's worldview, and someone who has been through it is described as
> 'enlightened'.
Note that satori is in fact a _Zen_ concept, not a a Theravadan one at all, so it's a little misleading to use it as a description of what happened to (Gautauma) Buddha vis. how Zen is wrong/heretical! A more usual term is bodhi, the connotations of which are more like "awakening", and which is _not_ really distinguished from nirvana.
> Nirvana is non-being, freedom from the world of desire. It's a state you
> go to at the end of a life instead of being reincarnated. Being
> enlightened during ones life is usually thought to be necessary and
> sufficient to attain Nirvana at the end of it.
>
> You can't 'return' from Nirvana. There is no-one to return.
This is to make several assumptions about the state of the self in nirvana, which Buddha not only did not do, but was pretty lyrical about his refusal to do (the poison arrow sutra, etc). I don't recall him ever saying "dunno, never been there" as a reason, mind you. ;-) Certainly it didn't stop anyone else, ever, from such assumptions/speculations/assertions, of course.
> The Buddha achieved enlightenment and spent the rest of his life teaching
> others to do the same, then he achieved Nirvana at his death.
That'd be the Zen (among others) interpretation.
> Different Buddhist sects have different ideas about enlightenment, and
> only some have the idea of a 'Boddhisatva', people who have reached the
> point where they could enter Nirvana but have decided instead to undergo
> further incarnations to help others.
Bodhisattvas may or may not be be reborn: the key point is that they refuse entry into nirvana. They can remain as "otherworldly" beings, in particular.
> This would be a heresy if Buddhism had them.
By this definition, the majority of modern Buddhists are "heretics"...
> Zen Buddhism takes a different approach, and doesn't seem to be concerned
> with Nirvana at all.
Zen Buddhism is _entirely_ concerned with Nirvana. There is a Zen term
Applicability to Glorantha: clearly lots; equally clearly, unclear.
Cheers,
Alex.
--__--__--
End of Glorantha Digest
Powered by hypermail