If there's a God:

[swarm]

if the mad men were'nt actually mad than we know things of god..

The one doesn't follow from the other.

 

[takandjive]

Ever hear the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes?" That fits Siggy divinely! Pun intended, and you look FABULOUS, Signal. I would know.

 

[swarm]

Aw, man. Are you saying no seven-eyed lamb is really going to douse me in blood and scoop me up to Heaven?

I suppose it depends on what is in your pipe.

 

[takandjive]

I suppose it depends on what is in your pipe.

Swarmy, that's Mommy's SPECIAL happy pipe. You stay away from that and go read your religious text like a good boy. *Cough.*

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

The road to heaven is paved with bad intentions.

 

[wynn]

And, that can be said to anyone, including the ones that claim to be enlightened.
But.. how can you know this is true, unless you are enlightened yourself ? Are you ?

How would you know?

Any way, I've never seen this "definition" any where nor is it a doctrine in Buddhism.

For one, it's a logical conclusion.
For two, speculating about enlightenment or the range of powers of a Buddha is off limits in the sense that it would bring madness and vexation to anyone who would try to speculate about it.
For three, it is a tradition at least in Theravada Buddhism not to make claims to the public that one is enlightened, and not to speculate about other people's enlightenment.

Rather the enlightened can make themselves know and demonstrate their attainment satisfactorily.

Sure. Except that this also includes that those to whom they demonstrate this enlightenement are willing to do what it takes to become qualified to recognize enlightenment.

In zen the are a number of examples of would be masters who either failed the test or decided they weren't settled yet, just as there are examples of people succeeding. I'm less familiar with the other traditions, but I do know the Tibetans get quite frisky in their challenges.

The average run-of-the-mill person cannot tell between a charlatan and a spiritually advanced being.

 

[Enmos]

For one, it's a logical conclusion.

Walk me through the steps then..

 

[Repo Man]

The average run-of-the-mill person cannot tell between a charlatan and a spiritually advanced being.

Just as we cannot tell the difference between a "real" astrologist and a false one, or a "real" psychic and a false one.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

For one, it's a logical conclusion.
For two, speculating about enlightenment or the range of powers of a Buddha is off limits in the sense that
For three, it is a tradition at least in Theravada Buddhism not to make claims to the public that one is enlightened, and not to speculate about other people's enlightenment.

Sure. Except that this also includes that those to whom they demonstrate this enlightenement are willing to do what it takes to become qualified to recognize enlightenment.

The average run-of-the-mill person cannot tell between a charlatan and a spiritually advanced being.

I am not the average run-of-the-mill person.
I am an enlightened & spiritually advanced being.
You can't tell? Obviously you are not enlightened.

 

[wynn]

Walk me through the steps then..

One of the ways in which enlightenment is understood in Buddhism is that an enlightened person is not subject to suffering anymore, an enlightened person does not experience suffering even though they might be tortured.

People generally are subject to suffering.

A state of no suffering is thus foreign to the run-of-the-mill person; they cannot relate to it even though they might desire it or have some notions about how it might be like.

 

[wynn]

I am not the average run-of-the-mill person.
I am an enlightened & spiritually advanced being.
You can't tell? Obviously you are not enlightened.

Please accept my humble obeisances!

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

One of the ways in which enlightenment is understood in Buddhism is that an enlightened person is not subject to suffering anymore, an enlightened person does not experience suffering even though they might be tortured.

People generally are subject to suffering.

A state of no suffering is thus foreign to the run-of-the-mill person; they cannot relate to it even though they might desire it or have some notions about how it might be like.

The truly enlightened suffer far greater than others.

 

[wynn]

The truly enlightened suffer far greater than others.

:worship: :worship: :worship:

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Please accept my humble obeisances!

The truly enlightened don't need or want such.

 

[takandjive]

The truly enlightened suffer far greater than others.

You know who else suffers a lot? Dumbasses who don't learn.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

The truly enlightened do not worship.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

You know who else suffers a lot? Dumbasses who don't learn.

Even more than those who must deal with them???

 

[Norsefire]

There are a number of reasons a god would create hardship.

Just like a mother does not want her children to be spoiled, and wants them to grow from the hardship, so too might god want us to grow from the hardship he gives us


Or, he could do it for amusement

Or, he might not have any power over it


As for the "If he is able, but not willing, then he is malevolent"

Ok....so what? Although I myself do not believe in god, it is not based on these kinds of reason.

Maybe god is malevolent...or maybe he is willing but not able?

Those aren't the best arguments against god

 

[wynn]

The truly enlightened don't need or want such.

Well, in all your enlightenment, you'll just have to live with people paying obeisances to you, whether you need it or want it.
That's the price of being enlightened ...:shrug:

 

[takandjive]

Even more than those who must deal with them???

I don't know about that. I'm just a woman.