Kuei-Shan

"A Master of Zen, a man who has freed himself of all attachments." To free oneself from all attachments is the only way to obtain enlightenment. That seems to be the common theme for this book. Kuei-Shan reinforces that notion by writing a Zen Master, the master of all enlightenment. The master appears to be the highest rank of someone in enlightenment. It's as if this is the type of person we want to become if we aim for enlightenment.

Symeon The New Theologian

Symeon The New Theologian says in his writings, "Our mind is pure and simple. When it is emptied of thought, it enters the pure and simple light of God, and finds nothing but the light." Once again, this is another scholar who believes that heaven/ascension to God/enlightenment is achieved by having a pure mind that is free of thoughts.

Symeon compared the pure mind to an ocean. When a person wades (or keeps their head above the water), you can see everything. Therefore, your mind is focusing on the vast ocean, the waves, the rocks, the sand, and the seagulls. Not much room left them to be thinking of nothing and preparing to ascend to God. When a person dives into the ocean, there is only one thought on their mind...I'm in the ocean. Because being underwater for a long period of times (without scuba gear) is not a natural state for humans, usually the thoughts about the rocks and sand have been cleared out of your mind. You are only thinking about the ocean. If the ocean was to represent God, then would this be a type of state of enlightenment?

Hugh of St. Victor

In his passage, Hugh of St. Victor believes that heaven is not some paradise in the sky, but rather, heaven is a calm ascension to God within ourselves. "Thus, to ascend to God is to enter into oneself, and not only enter into oneself, but, in some unsayable manner, in the inmost parts to pass beyond oneself." The heaven within us can not be reached by simply "entering" into ourselves, but we have to pass beyond ourselves. Maybe we have to let go of our identities and material possessions in order to pass beyond ourselves.

"But when a man, through his sense of flesh, goes out to visible things, desiring what is transistor and perishable, he descends from the dignity of his natural to what is unworthy of his desire." In my opinion, Hugh of St. Victor is indicating that the natural state for a human to ascend to God is when they are not desiring visible things such as money or clothes. It's sort of like entering enlightenment in Buddhism. You have to let go of your earthly possessions and desires in order to achieve the calm afterlife within yourself.

Thomas Traherne

Thomas Traherne's passage appears to be more of an idealistic description of heaven than the usual passages I have read (mostly everyone is connected passages). Traherne writes that as humans living in the mortal realm, we will never experience the greatest happiness or beauty until we are standing before God and his heaven kingdom. Also, it can be taken as we do not understand or see things clearly until we are in God's realm. Either way, Traherne describes his heaven as a place of absolute perfection. It is a utopia. Children were "moving jewels" as they played in the streets. Young men were glittering angels, and maidens were pieces of beauty and life. He loses his fears, his doubts, and other mortal thoughts and enters a form of enlightenment.

Johannes Scotus Erigena

Johannes Scotus Erigena article was very difficult to read. I had to reread it multiple times before understanding the basic gist of it. In almost every sentence, he contradicted himself with explanations for each sentence. For example, he wrote, "...the creator of all things created in all things, and the maker of all things made in all things; and eternal he begins to be, and immobile he moves into all things and becomes all things in all things." Johannes may believe that God and creation are the same thing instead of two separate events. "The creator of all things created in all things" may indicate that God created himself within all the things he created (humans, animals, etc...). God could be a more than just a spiritual and religious presence to all lives; Johannes believes that God is within every single one of us.

Novalis

Novalis' writings are short, sweet, and very clearly stated. It is like the "fortunes" you receive out of a quarter machine at a carnival, except they are not really fortunes. They are more like advice given to you by some wise man.

"Philosophy is really homesickness." As human beings, we are very curious creatures who want to know all the answers of life (at least a good majority of us). Basically, philosophy is the study and questioning of everything. We research topics, find answers, and question them; however, we do not know if the answer we have found is the correct one. Humans are homesick for the right answer, and philosophy is like the teddy bear given to us to comfort us.

"Marriage is the highest mystery." First of all, is there really a true meaning of the word marriage? The typical and popular one in American society is the union between a man and a woman (in some states between a union between the same genders). In some cultures, it means the union between 1 man and 3 women. Without a solid definition, marriage is shrouded in mystery. Does marriage have to be a union with spiritual meanings, or is it an economic stabilizer? Is it a prerequisite for a family, or is it the greatest expression of love?

Henry David Thoreau

Thoreau's writings are very straight forward and clear in what he means. In his writing, it says " Shams and delusions are esteemed for the soundest of truths, while reality is fabulous. If men would steadily observe realities only, and not allow themselves to be deluded..." Thoreau seems to be a realistic individual who believes that one should not distract themselves from the bigger picture of life. At least for me, it is a struggle to keep focus on the more important aspects of life. For example, when I should be doing homework or studying, I usually end up watching TV or hanging out with friends. I would probably cause Thoreau a migraine with how much I let my mind become "deluded" with unrealistic things.

"Children who play life, discern its true law and relations more clearly than men, who fail to live worthily, but who think they are wiser by experience, that is, by failure." It is true that children can resolve difficult issues much easier than adults can. If two children are having issues on lending something to each other, they might settle it by trading that item for one of equal value or swear a pinky promise. On the other hand, adults would go into liability, insurance, contracts, etc...all for one item they are lending.

Al-Bistami

"Nothing is better for a man than to be without anything, having no asceticism, no theory, no practice. When he is without everything, he is with everything," wrote Al-Bistami. He wrote that a person needs to be in the presence of unity (neither good nor evil exists) in order to know the true presence of God.

After reading many different religious articles in The Enlightened Mind, I noticed that almost all the writings have the same theme to them. Give up everything and become one with God/Buddha/etc... Al-Bistami's words sound like an echo of the previous readings. Each one encouraging us to do this or that to obtain some form of enlightenment. I respect the individuals who have either obtained this goal or are in the process of obtaining it; however, in our present world and society, such a feat may prove to be impossible. Could you give up your home, car, worldly possessions, and other miscellaneous things to have a shot at some sort of religious epiphany? Personally, I think some people have the strength to go through with, but others (myself included) might not be so inclined.

Al-Mirsi

Al-Mirsi wrote, "Compassion is another name for charity." In his writings, there were many examples of being kind to someone, accepting them, and guiding them. He wrote about saints and how they can see the word/will/etc...of God without previous knowledge on the subject, without information, and without observation. It is the saints' job to help everyone else reach the good grace of God. The only time they can refuse to help someone is if the individual wants to lead the saint down the path of sin.

Throughout history, normal people who take up the religious lifestyle are usually decreed saints if they did good deeds or created a miracle. In Al-Mirsi's writings, it seems as if the saints are inhuman with their blind dedication to God's will. It is never mentioned what would happen if the saint's strayed off the path of God. The saints only have to focus on becoming one with God and having others follow suit. Does that mean we all have the abilities to become saints? I was quite lost on this reading.

Hui-Hai

Hui-Hai believes that dwelling upon the non-dwelling is the mind of the Buddha. He urges followers of Buddha to become men who are unattached to things instead of monks in pursuit of karma. Hui-Hai indicates that life will become not necessarily easy but more enlightening if you throw away your grasp on time, past, future, and thinking. He believes the mind is a powerful tool, but it should not be used by the command of the person. Instead, it should be allowed to enjoy its pure state of dwelling upon the non-dwelling.

Hui-Hai's beliefs would be met with criticism and most likely rejection in twenty-first century United States (and many other countries). In most developed nations, intelligence and a curious mind is encouraged, and if you tell your teacher that you want your mind to enter its pure state of nothingness, the teacher will think you are being lazy. I guess as a woman of the twenty first century I can not really comprehend the notion of having my mind cease to think about things.

Pai Chang

When the title said "Short and Sweet" it really meant that. Pai Chang's words of wisdom and enlightenment are all summed up in one paragraph. In my opinion, I perceived Pai Chang's true meaning behind this passage was to hold onto enlightenment when you have finally obtain it. You do not gain knowledge or some sort of divine power when you become enlightened. Instead your mind breaks free from the chains of delusion and unreality. Pai Chang states that "the ordinary mind is the same as a sage's because the original mind is perfect and complete in itself." It seems that he is saying that our minds are the same as the original mind, but we have yet to realize that for ourselves.

Diamond Sutra

Obtaining absolute enlightenment is to obtain absolutely nothing. All that hard work, hours of meditating, and following rigorous guidelines is all for nothing? That could either be the worst or best reward one could ever receive. Nothing. What would obtaining nothing be like. A clear mind? No more suffering? No grudges or frustration? It sounds like a great deal, but it sounds depressing at the same time.

The Diamond Sutra said that a true follower of Buddha does not dally on the concepts of "self" and "others." Also, the mind should banish all thoughts that might arise in it, and the mind should be independent because trusting something (a thought) is not one hundred percent safe. I can not imagine having to banish all my thoughts out of my mind. There a million thoughts jetting in and out of mind on a regular basis, and I enjoy trying to figure my thoughts out. On the flip side, having a moment with a fully clear mind sounds relaxing and refreshing, but I guess I'm not someone who's going to achieve enlightenment anytime soon.

Wu-Men

When I read Wu-men through the first time, I was thoroughly confused. Mu? Killing Buddha? It was like trying to shove a puzzle piece into its correct spot, but it won't fit. This reading did not make any sense. Where was the logic? Where was the plot or meaning? Instead of giving up and reading another passage, I decided to break this one down bit by bit.

Mu is a barrier. In my opinion, its job is to protect your mind from your thoughts. It also serves as a way to guide you to yourself. Most humans live life with the intention of surpassing someone one day, but what is the point of that? You are yourself and you need to know that. When it said, "When you meet Buddha, you kill Buddha," it means that you took Buddha away from himself and claimed it as your own. This passage still confuses me, but I'm glad I have some (minuscule) understanding of it. For laughs and giggles, it sounds like the main message is identity theft is bad.

Schmelke of Nicholsburg

Schmelke of Nicholsburg wrote that we are all part of each other. Each soul is a part of God's original soul, and even though are neighbor, friend, etc...wronged us, we should still love them because they are us. A disciple of Rabbi Schmelke asked him what should he do if he saw someone acting wicked before God? Schmelke replied that every soul is part of the original soul, and the original soul came from the essence of God. From what I gathered, it sounded as if someone blames another for being wicked, then they are blaming God as well.

I found this passage interesting and unnerving. I am intrigued by the idea that everyone is connected via through one soul. It is an interesting concept. I saw a cat run across the street earlier today, and I wondered to myself if that cat and I are one being. What I found unnerving is that I can not imagine myself being connected to murders, rapists, and terrorists. Also, I can not bring myself to forgive someone for murdering an innocent person. I have multiple opinions on this passage, and I can't seem to determine which opinion is more prominent.

Yehiel Mikhal of Zlotchov

Yehiel Mikhal of Zlotchov wrote that the universe and life itself was created for the sole purpose of bringing delight to God. God would take pleasure in sending souls to Earth and watching them become living things, and the everything created by God would live with the notion that without God they would not be here. Thus, they do not exist. The ones who choose to cling to material possessions or turn away from God believe they exist when in reality, they do not. Does this mean that nothing exists in the world?

In my opinion, this passage sounds like the Earth and all life on it are either one giant toy box of amusement, or God's imagination. To me, it is a bit unnerving to see myself as either a toy or a figment of God's imagination. I live life. I face the challenges, the hardships, and the joys of being alive. I do exist.

Padmasambhava

Padmasambhava 's written work, The Tibetan Book of the Dead and The Book of the Great Liberation, acts as a guide for mentally preparing yourself for death, at least in my opinion. The excerpt is about how to free your mind from the burdens and worries of life and letting the clear light shine in your mind. Padmasambhava writes that the clear light can not be found in the world around you, nor can it be found within a troubled and cluttered mind.

With death upon you, why should you worry about the stress of work, school, etc...when you know your time is limited. That is one of the main questions Padmasambhava asks of the reader. He encourages the reader to adopt the state of enlightened mind. While alive, he says the human mind is "as pure and empty as the sky." You are trying to find the light in all the wrong places. Only when your mind is in its true state can you find the clear light. Your mind loses its identity as a separate being and becomes united with all things. This is the clear light and the enlightened mind.

Tu-Shun

According to Tu-Shun, the net of Indra is the a metaphor used to describe reality. The net of Indra is a vast net with perfectly clear jewel on each crossing point. Each jewel is able to reflect off the other jewels just a mirror would. In some way, each jewel is connected. If you observe a jewel, then you will find the reflections of all the other jewels within that jewel. Tu-Shun claims that the many jewels and their reflections is one jewel. Everything is connected.

While reading this passage, I compared the world I grew up in to Tu-Shun's net of Indra. When he said that the jewels are one, and when you see the other jewels, you are seeing the same jewel. While viewing jewels is something I never seem to do, I began to brainstorm over what would be considered "one" on Earth. The answer is life. We observe many humans, animals, and other living things daily. Although we are different species, have different skin and height, the one thing that connects us all is the fact that we are living beings. It is just like the jewels of Indra. There are many of them in different shapes and sizes, but in the end, they are just jewels. Humans, animals, etc...come in different shapes and sizes as well, but we are just living beings. So, what is so different between the net of Indra and Earth? In my opinion, nothing at all.

Chief Seattle

Chief Seattle's speech felt like a roller coaster of emotions. In the beginning he was praising the "Great White Chief" and his son and was grateful for the offer of land. Towards the middle of the speech, Seattle's tone changed from grateful to anger and disbelief. He said that God protected the white people and hated the Native Americans. Seattle claims that the two races could never be brothers and should be kept apart due to their differences. Then, his tone becomes sad because the white people do not honor their dead properly, and their ancestors' memories would fade away. At the very end, Seattle embraced the fact that the Native American tribes would one day become extinct, but their ghosts and spirits would roam the land and white people will never be alone.

In my opinion, Chief Seattle sounded like an elderly man who just wanted to live his life out in peace and was willing to accept the terms of the white settlers in order to avoid more bloodshed. However, during his speech, it sounded as if Seattle gained some of his young warrior past back when he expressed his anger about God and accepting the white men as his "brothers." At the end of his speech, he sounded a little threatening by saying the ghost of his people will forever walk among the living. Personally, I think his last "threat" is just desserts for the white settlers that drove them away and forever changed their lives.

Sa-go-ye-wat-ha

During an age where there was open hostility between the Native Americans and white settlers, Sa-go-ye-wat-ha treated the Christian minister with respect and tolerance. Sa-go-ye-wat-ha and his people listened to the minister denounce their religion and preach about how there is only way to truly worship God. Despite being treated with disrespect, Sa-go-ye-wat-ha presented the tribe's answer to the minister's words in an astounding speech about the Great Spirit, the Earth, and the white settlers. It seems that his conclusion about God/Great Spirit is that the white people and the Native Americans worship two different religions, and he and his people want to remain in the religion they was raised in.

I found it rude and distasteful on the minister's part for not treating Sa-go-ye-wat-ha's people with the respect they deserved, especially since he was a guest in their land. In my opinion, the minister was too obsessed with trying to convert and "save the sinners" to stop and questioned if his actions were appropriate. How would he have felt if the Native Americans entered his home and began preaching about how to properly worship the Great Spirit?

What I enjoyed the most about this speech is when Sa-go-ye-wat-ha asked the minister if there was only one way to worship God, then why do white men bicker and debate about which way is the right way to worship. Sa-go-ye-wat's words hit the target because the battle between different religious groups have been prevalent in both the past and present, and most likely will continue on through the future.