Enlightenment

[Beyondo]

I have two dogs one is a Husky wolf mix, Sal, and the other is a German Sheppard, Leo. My next door neighbor's backyard door has a problem locking shut and so opens and closes with the wind. Leo always charges the fence when he hears the door open and shut, as far as he's concern a door can only open or shut by a person. Sal on the other hand doesn't even bark at the door when it opens and shuts with the wind, but Sal does bark when a person opens or shuts the door. Leo can only accept that a door opens or shuts by a cause called a person where as Sal has accepted that a door need not have a cause for it to open or close.

In a sense Sal has a form of Buddhist perspective of reality, there is no need for a cause for reality to be, where as Leo is truly a reductionist! Everything has a cause in Leo's mind set; he cannot accept that nothing can make something happen!

So what prevents a dog from reaching enlightenment? In fact couldn't the simplicity of a dog's perspective be an advantage to reaching Nirvana? Humanity is too complex with its demands for life. Dogs with their emotional intelligence can establish relationships with humans where all their needs can be fulfilled and therefore simplify their lives. They are satisfied and appreciate the simple things in life. Their demands for life are trivial in comparison to human beings.

So perhaps the real path to enlightenment is not reincarnating as a human but as a dog.....

 

[Onkara]

What about you personally? Will you hope to be reincarnated as a dog or do you plan to use this life, now?

 

[Beyondo]

What about you personally? Will you hope to be reincarnated as a dog or do you plan to use this life, now?

Well I'm a human with very high demands and expectations and find it very difficult to be an acetic. So in this life time I doubt if I'll reach Nirvana. If reincarnating as a dog gets you there faster then why not? Reincarnate as a dog and you could be free within twenty years, tops, a blink of an eye in eternity...

But seriously why couldn't a dog reach Nirvana?

 

[Onkara]

My question is honest because we can only verify enlightenment through understanding it ourselves. A dog might be enlightened but it cannot communicate it and why would it need to communicate its state of mind?

Likewise humans can become enlightened whilst living, but we cannot distinguish them from those who are not enlightened, except through the words and actions. We have to take Buddha's word for it and test his words for ourselves. The proof is in the eating.

This leaves only you and me to confirm it for ourselves. You and I can only confirm enlightenment if we have it ourselves. Which is why I asked about you. Because really the only way is for the individual to achieve it, anything else is just conceptualisation and imagination. Once enlightenment is known one might be able to confirm the state for dogs... perhaps?

By the way generally speaking enlightenment or nivana is whilst living (it isn't heave, unless it is heaven on earth).

 

[YmirGF]

But seriously why couldn't a dog reach Nirvana?

The question presupposes that Nirvana is a real thing and we have precious little evidence to suggest that it is. Besides that, how would one tell if a dog was enlightened or not? The question is therefore meaningless. Can my ashtray reach Nirvana? Who's to say my ashtray is not already in Nirvana? It is, for all intents and purposes, a perfect ashtray.

 

[Beyondo]

The question presupposes that Nirvana is a real thing and we have precious little evidence to suggest that it is. Besides that, how would one tell if a dog was enlightened or not? The question is therefore meaningless.

Could we possibly answer the question: Do mice love their offspring? Well comparative MRi studies of femal mice nurturing their pups and human females cuddling thier infants demonstrate that similar parts of thier brains turn on.

It isn't that the question is meaningless its more of how can you answer the question, but more to the point: Brains operate nuerologically so the real question is: If we can identify a human being who communicates that she/he is enlightened could we identify that neurologically with MRI? And if so then perhaps we can discover dogs that are enlightened just as we discovered mice love their pups...

 

[YmirGF]

It isn't that the question is meaningless its more of how can you answer the question, but more to the point: Brains operate nuerologically so the real question is: If we can identify a human being who communicates that she/he is enlightened could we identify that neurologically with MRI? And if so then perhaps we can discover dogs that are enlightened just as we discovered mice love their pups...

Well, duh! Ya think?

What you may not appreciate is the simple fact that one who claims to be enlightened has, in effect, succeeded in hanging a rather large sign around their neck saying, "I am not enlightened". Enlightenment is a prize no one can claim because there is no "you" to claim the prize. It is in this regard that your conjecture is ...absolutely and completely... meaningless.

 

[Beyondo]

Well, duh! Ya think?

What you may not appreciate is the simple fact that one who claims to be enlightened has, in effect, succeeded in hanging a rather large sign around their neck saying, "I am not enlightened". Enlightenment is a prize no one can claim because there is no "you" to claim the prize. It is in this regard that your conjecture is ...absolutely and completely... meaningless.

Well then you're saying Buddha was not enlightened?

From my conversations with Buddhists there are states of consciousness where they have unique experiences. My proposal is to examine Buddhist that make such claims and see if there are neurological differences for these states of consciousness. It is in this regard that my conjecture has meaning...

 

[YmirGF]

Well then you're saying Buddha was not enlightened?

I have no proof that Buddha was enlightened. Do you? Do Buddhists?

From my conversations with Buddhists there are states of consciousness where they have unique experiences. My proposal is to examine Buddhist that make such claims and see if there are neurological differences for these states of consciousness. It is in this regard that my conjecture has meaning...

Buddhist monks have already submitted to testing. Even if scientific data supports the notion of altered states of consciousness, that evidence would not necessarily support the concept of enlightenment or Nirvana. You have to understand that claiming various states of consciousness is one thing, claiming enlightenment, as in, "I am enlightened - bring on the test machines..." is quite another thing altogether. I doubt anyone would step forward to be tested under those conditions.

 

[Beyondo]

[/font][/color]Buddhist monks have already submitted to testing. Even if scientific data supports the notion of altered states of consciousness, that evidence would not necessarily support the concept of enlightenment or Nirvana.

I don't disagree with that I'm just wondering if animals, such as dogs, can have similar states of consciousness. If so then by those who believe in reincarnation aren't they better off being a dog. A demostic dog's life has few complexities, or temptations. The animal's state of mind appreciates just the simple things in life. In fact why would reincarnation to a lower level animal be a punishment? Animals cannot reap negative karma. They do what they do. Seems to me reincarnation to a human being is a punishment because then suffering is much more agonizing, your prone to more chances of failure because of all the temptations and because you have a sense of fairness, morality, you can reap negative karma!

So the Buddhist and Hindus got it wrong. Your reward in this life, if you do the best a human can do, is reincarnate to a domestic dog adopted by a caring family where the next step up is a piece of cake.

 

[YmirGF]

I don't disagree with that I'm just wondering if animals, such as dogs, can have similar states of consciousness.

Hypothetically, it is certainly possible that they do. Religious lore is littered with wise animal gods, after all. Proving the point of "Doggy Nirvana" would be exceptionally difficult however. I guess we could call "Doggy Nirvana" the soundless woof.

If so then by those who believe in reincarnation aren't they better off being a dog.

Well, I certainly do believe in reincarnation, but my version of reincarnation isn't much like anything you will find in books or even in the various religion's of the human animal.

A demostic dog's life has few complexities, or temptations. The animal's state of mind appreciates just the simple things in life. In fact why would reincarnation to a lower level animal be a punishment?

Beats me. Then again, I don't subscribe to the notion of "higher", "lower" or punishments.

Animals cannot reap negative karma.

Negative Karma is certainly one of the greater obscenities I have come across. Fortunately reality doesn't work that way - in my opinion, that is. If one thinks it does, I would advise them to be vigilant in making the right choices.

They do what they do. Seems to me reincarnation to a human being is a punishment because then suffering is much more agonizing, your prone to more chances of failure because of all the temptations and because you have a sense of fairness, morality, you can reap negative karma!

I can see how such a delusional worldview such as this could cause consternation.

So the Buddhist and Hindus got it wrong.

Who got it right? Is this supposed to come as a shock?

Your reward in this life, if you do the best a human can do, is reincarnate to a domestic dog adopted by a caring family where the next step up is a piece of cake.

Lol. That reminds me of what my dad used to tell his best friend. The fellow and his wife took exceptionally good care of their fabulous Golden Retrievers, so much so, that my dad said on more than one occasion, "If I have to come back, I want to come back as one of your dogs." :angel2:

 

[Onkara]

I don't disagree with that I'm just wondering if animals, such as dogs, can have similar states of consciousness. If so then by those who believe in reincarnation aren't they better off being a dog. A demostic dog's life has few complexities, or temptations. The animal's state of mind appreciates just the simple things in life. In fact why would reincarnation to a lower level animal be a punishment? Animals cannot reap negative karma. They do what they do. Seems to me reincarnation to a human being is a punishment because then suffering is much more agonizing, your prone to more chances of failure because of all the temptations and because you have a sense of fairness, morality, you can reap negative karma!

So the Buddhist and Hindus got it wrong. Your reward in this life, if you do the best a human can do, is reincarnate to a domestic dog adopted by a caring family where the next step up is a piece of cake.

I think you make an interesting point. Theoretically, from the Advaita Vedanta perspective, everything is already liberated or enlightened, it is the failure to recognise that in one's self which leads to bondage and samsara. So dogs and animals can be enlightened, but the fact that the question is asked means you (or whoever asks) is still not enlightened.

The idea is for reincarnation to come to an end. When it comes to an end you are merged in Brahman and never reincarnate. It is life on earth that is painful, dogs still get beaten and mistreated (search for it in google). But I have the impression your dogs live like royalty, lucky things!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I have two dogs one is a Husky wolf mix, Sal, and the other is a German Sheppard, Leo. My next door neighbor's backyard door has a problem locking shut and so opens and closes with the wind. Leo always charges the fence when he hears the door open and shut, as far as he's concern a door can only open or shut by a person. Sal on the other hand doesn't even bark at the door when it opens and shuts with the wind, but Sal does bark when a person opens or shuts the door. Leo can only accept that a door opens or shuts by a cause called a person where as Sal has accepted that a door need not have a cause for it to open or close.

Leo understood that the door opening could be caused by people but he lacked understanding that there could be other causes so he responded to all door openings, whereas Sal not only understood what Leo did, he also understood that the door could be opened due to a non human cause which would not respond to his barking. IOW, Sal both understood the door could be opened by two different causes and was able to discern which was which and therefore only responded to the human cause which held out the possibility of a response...communication. Who knows, it is even possible Sal understood that the non human caused door opening was associated with the wind?)

So what is this talk about Sal accepting that the door could open without a cause?

 

[koan]

Nirvana is a state of mind. Nothing more, nothing less. Unless someone here has "reached" Nirvana, all arguments otherwise are moot.

 

[WayFarer]

So perhaps the real path to enlightenment is not reincarnating as a human but as a dog.....

Frankly I've always admired the serenity of trees and their quite majesty. So I can see your point.
It is a form of arrogance or bigotry to assume that your race, gender, nationality, or even species is "the best". All have purpose. Just be the best your understanding allows you to be and at any level of existence there are opportunities to find again that which was never really lost.

 

[Beyondo]

Leo understood that the door opening could be caused by people but he lacked understanding that there could be other causes so he responded to all door openings, whereas Sal not only understood what Leo did, he also understood that the door could be opened due to a non human cause which would not respond to his barking. IOW, Sal both understood the door could be opened by two different causes and was able to discern which was which and therefore only responded to the human cause which held out the possibility of a response...communication. Who knows, it is even possible Sal understood that the non human caused door opening was associated with the wind?)

So what is this talk about Sal accepting that the door could open without a cause?

Dogs have very good sense of smell, therefore both dogs know that the smell of a human is not there when the door opens or closes with a breeze. So Leo's response to the door with or without a person is because in a certain context, Leo, for sake of brevity, argues: who is to say there can not be a human that has no smell and can't be seen? In other words what is possible? Leo sees me open and close doors and in fact when he wants to go out he always stares at the door knob of the door. So as far as he's concern humans are the only beings with the power to open or close a door. Both dogs have witnessed the wind moving a sun screen on a regular basis. Could Sal have concluded the door movement to be similar to the sun screen? Maybe, but the motion is very erratic with the sun screen and the door motions happen with the subtlest breezes.

 

[Beyondo]

Dogs have very good sense of smell, therefore both dogs know that the smell of a human is not there when the door opens or closes with a breeze. So Leo's response to the door with or without a person is because in a certain context, Leo, for sake of brevity, argues: who is to say there can not be a human that has no smell and can't be seen? In other words what is possible? Leo sees me open and close doors and in fact when he wants to go out he always stares at the door knob of the door. So as far as he's concern humans are the only beings with the power to open or close a door. Both dogs have witnessed the wind moving a sun screen on a regular basis. Could Sal have concluded the door movement to be similar to the sun screen? Maybe, but the motion is very erratic with the sun screen and the door motions happen with the subtlest breezes.

The effect of forces that can influence objects in an environment from an animals perspective really couldn't be differentiate from an intelligence acting on or causing something or random forces of nature. In other words forces such as wind are invisible scentless entities that can make things move, what wind actually is would be incomprehensible for an animal. But an animal could have a notion of an invisible, non-material world because of the experience with such forces. This could be the impetus for humans in the belief of a spirit world. Think about it, something as early as an Australopithecus could have had a notion of an invisible world that influences thier material world. In a sense religion could have been evolving with humanity, becoming more and more sophisticated as tool making became more sophisticated.

 

[Arav]

I believe most of this depends on how you define enlightenment. If its the enlightenment found in Theravada, or in Shaivism, or in Vaishnavism, or any other form of enlightenment then its going to be very different for each. In Saiva Siddhanta dogs cant attain enlightenment because one must work with their Chakras, you must learn self-control, you must do all of those things to prepare yourself for finding what we call Parasiva, or the absolute being beyond form, time, space, and even consciousness. I dont believe a dog can attain such a thing. Much training is required, you must have a satguru, you must meditate deeply, you must exercise the body and do various yogas. Too much for most people to do, let alone animals. I would say instead of worrying about the Sadhana of a Dog, worry about your own. All are destined to attain God, just get yourself there, the rest will happen naturally.

 

[katiafish]

I love this, reflections talking to each other. We are all one, just diff incarnations, so from the point of nirvana (conscious unification) labels such as "dog" or "human" are meaningless.

 

[Arav]

I love this, reflections talking to each other. We are all one, just diff incarnations, so from the point of nirvana (conscious unification) labels such as "dog" or "human" are meaningless.

True, but you must first transcend the mind to understand that. Isnt the transcendance of the mind "nirvana" or "enlightenment"? I would say yes, so even though from the perspective of the Sage the labels are meaningless, from the other perspectives they have meaning and are real. Can a dog really transcend its perspective to the supreme one?

There is much Sadhana to be done, along with tapas. Preperation for the Supreme experiance of non-experiance is the path, I dont believe that many people can do this, let alone a dog. Much spiritual maturity must be aquired and that only happens threw experiance. This world is a playground for souls to mature in until they "grow up" and leave the playground to go be with God. In my view, a dog is not of the spiritual maturity in its life to take on such Sadhanas. Perhaps in a few more lives.