Buddhist endings?

[shunyadragon]

I think the concept of Boddisattva is a koan about the nature of enlightenment. As long as one is still dividing the world into enlightened vs. unenlightened, there are still two, not one.

-Neil

In the process of enlightenment the would need not be divided between the enlightened and unenlightened. Like the rising sun of a new day the entire planet is illumined, only those that hide in the shadows refuse to be enlightened. Those that appear enlightened amy not be and those that appear unenlightened may be. Nonetheless enlightened or not we are all illumined.

[Aupmanyav]

Of course, there is no difference, unenlightened or enlightened, good or bad, human or animal, living or non-living, all is Brahman.

[DanHopkins]

I paraphrase Buddha in the Lotus sutra; "Sariputra, let it be known that uncountable years ago I wished to make all beings a Buddha like myselft and what I long ago wished for has come to be so, as I have converted all beings", The reason that this is a secret is because we are told that the wicked, for who Jesus & the Lotus sutra Buddha preach a "lesser dharma", need to grasp onto an idea of individuality, or as the Lotus sutra puts it a "phantom city" made to inspire the traveler. I believe the Christian version comes from the gospel of Phillip were we read that those in hell would stay there longer if they knew they would be saved. Although there is really no such thing as an esoteric Buddha, the early Buddha says something like, "a monk having heard such and such does not run about repeating what he heard" and it is well known that the Buddha will not answer many questions posed by those not initiated into his order

[shunyadragon]

I suppose we'd need to see how he phrased the whole section you're speaking of - I haven't read his book, I have to admit. It could be that he likes the idea that people wouldn't do wrong out of a respect for the whole, but points out that we're all part of the whole to appeal to the potentially selfish nature of some of his readers?

Disagreeing with the Dalai Lama - I have the greatest respect for the man, he certainly seems like one of the good guys, but not all Buddhists follow Tibetan traditions.

I have the greatest respect for the Dalai Lama, but I have no problem disagreeing with him on many, many things. the Dalai Lama claims to be just a simple monk, and I accept that from him. I do not consider him to represent Buddhism.

[Moksha]

I paraphrase Buddha in the Lotus sutra; "Sariputra, let it be known that uncountable years ago I wished to make all beings a Buddha like myselft and what I long ago wished for has come to be so, as I have converted all beings", The reason that this is a secret is because we are told that the wicked, for who Jesus & the Lotus sutra Buddha preach a "lesser dharma", need to grasp onto an idea of individuality, or as the Lotus sutra puts it a "phantom city" made to inspire the traveler. I believe the Christian version comes from the gospel of Phillip were we read that those in hell would stay there longer if they knew they would be saved. Although there is really no such thing as an esoteric Buddha, the early Buddha says something like, "a monk having heard such and such does not run about repeating what he heard" and it is well known that the Buddha will not answer many questions posed by those not initiated into his order

What then is the greater Dharma?
It has been my understanding that the Buddha was always open and willing to share his knowing.
(I don't think he even had an "order")

[shunyadragon]

What then is the greater Dharma?
It has been my understanding that the Buddha was always open and willing to share his knowing.
(I don't think he even had an "order")

I like to view the Buddha as willing to share His 'unknowing.'