To be righteous

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

I would have to disagree with that one, sorry.
Being enlightened or enlightenment is a whole different thing; and there are threads on what enlightened or enlightenment means.
Now, being enlightened would one naturally live righteously? Yup. :)
.....................

Be careful of not debating

Are there not levels of enlightenment ?
In some, still the possibility of being unrighteous, in others, purely righteousness.

Originally Posted by Molearner

Know thyself….One that is judged righteous by God is one that knows his true self….one that is enlightened knows his true self….
There is no better Scripture demonstrating this truth than the Parable of the Pharisee(hypocrite) and the Publican(tax collector)….Luke 18:9-14..

By going public the Pharisee sought the praise of men…..that praise is the reward of a hypocrite……the Publican realized his true self and prostrated himself before God.

What if causality and cause and effect just misguided conceptions coming from the impure mind ?
With those ideas of rewards according to actions.
When everything is but God’s Will.

Of course, just a point of view.

Originally Posted by Molearner

From other traditions:

Bhagavad Gita3:35….”It is better to die as oneself; to die as someone else is frightening.”……oneself=true self…..someone else=false self(hypocrite)
Hadith…..”He who knows himself knows God”….once again alluding to true self…..

BG 3.35: «*It is far better to perform one's natural prescribed duty-dharma, though tinged with faults, than to perform another's prescribed duty, though perfectly*».

With that, following the Dharma-laws of Muhammad (ﷺ) and his sunna wouldn’t be advised.

Hilyat al-awliya : "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord".
This saying is wrongly attributed to the Prophet (ﷺ) , but a statement of one of the early Muslims.

Originally Posted by sky

matthieuricard website ;

Righteousness has nothing to do with 'Enlightenment' in Buddhism .

«*Enlightenment is a state of perfect knowledge or wisdom, combined with infinite compassion.*» wrote Mr Ricard.
The thing is that is not a state. It’s the recognition of the absence of absence of state.

Originally Posted by sky

Thought precedes actions

What if actions were just thoughts, other types of thoughts, as immaterial eventually ?

Originally Posted by Molearner

The literal mind is enamored with narrow and restrictive definition while the spiritual mind invites the expansive and contemplative……

Is there an expansive mind or is the mind by definition narrowed ?
Is this contemplative mind not just the absence of Mind ?
If Mind means thoughts. No thoughts, no mind.
Or at least, this so called expansive mind in reality just The Presence behind the clouds of mind’s conceptualisations ?

Originally Posted by Rameses

Is there an expansive mind or is the mind by definition narrowed ?
Is this contemplative mind not just the absence of Mind ?
If Mind means thoughts. No thoughts, no mind.

Rameses,

It is always best to answer your own questions…..

Originally Posted by Molearner

Rameses,
It is always best to answer your own questions…..

Does best here mean to be righteous ?.....

Originally Posted by Rameses

Does best here mean to be righteous ?.....

If you want it to be……:)