How did Gautama Buddha reach Enlightenment (Nirvana)?

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


Lmao at you avatar.

We do not know what enlightenment is. Enlightenment cannot be known, only experienced. Simply experiencing is all that is required. The truth is experiential, not conceptual.

Seeking requires that you know what you are looking for. You do not know what the truth is, therefore seeking it will not find it. It is only when you stop seeking, stop judging, and stop defining your experience that you will get to experience the truth.




posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


Are all agnostics the same? Are you the same as all agnostics?

Then how does this label describe what any of you are?

When you say, "I am agnostic" I don't see your face. So how is that what you are? You are not your beliefs, nor are you what you believe to be. You think you know what you are, but you don't. All definitions of the self are opinions. You might say, "I am cool". It means nothing when others can say you are lame.

The truth is seen when you realize you don't know what anything is. Things just are. I can't describe the truth to you because it is indescribable. I can't tell you what you are because you are indescribable. I am indescribable. We are both what we say we are and at the same time, not what we say we are. We are a mystery. The truth is and forever will be a mystery.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Cool, thanks for the metaphysical existentialist jargon that means nothing.
I said I don't know the answer. So you just affirmed what I said.

Repeating what I said with a mystical connotation about what "is and isn't" is irrelevant and you've done nothing to sway my worldview one way or the other.

I described exactly how I'm "agnostic" to you, as well as what it actually means to be "agnostic" as opposed to atheist or other similar worldviews. If you can't comprehend that, it's not my problem, but it doesn't mean it can't be defined.

And no, you are not indescribable.

It seems you're referring to is your soul, not your physical self. If that's the case, I would like to remind you that I'll only seriously discuss things that are actually empirically proven and tangible, I'm not interested in colloquial theories based on a delusional perception of reality.
edit on 7-12-2012 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


Your interpretations are not absolute. Describe to your hearts content, but you will never succeed in properly defining anything. You will only succeed in sharing your beliefs, but even then, you may be interpreted in countless ways. So, just so you know, I was talking about my flesh and blood body. It is the only one I have ever seen. I have no idea what I am. Do you still believe you know what you are?



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


Your interpretations are not absolute. Describe to your hearts content, but you will never succeed in properly defining anything. You will only succeed in sharing your beliefs, but even then, you may be interpreted in countless ways. So, just so you know, I was talking about my flesh and blood body. It is the only one I have ever seen. I have no idea what I am. Do you still believe you know what you are?


I know I can infer a lot about myself that isn't "I DON'T KNOW" simply by looking in a mirror. Yes, it's true that all that I see and know is a manifestation of the interpretations of my mind, but just because you don't actually -see- reality doesn't mean you can't infer things about reality.

Again, I understand the existentialist argument. But empirical evidence trumps philosophy. That's why philosophy is out of date.

Things I can properly define: Bark is abrasive, it has a lot of friction, it grows on trees, it is organic, it is biological, it reflects beams of light in a way that I perceive it to be brown, it is flammable, etc.

These are all things that I have properly defined about an object, that are empirically verifiable, which I did not require any sort of "sight into the external" to be able to perceive.

If you're going to tell me things aren't what they appear to be, then you're the one that's going to run into an issue. Because all I need to say is this: PROVE IT.

You can't. I can.
edit on 8-12-2012 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
After many years of study and discussions from several llamas, nuns and monks, it is possible to achieve enlightenment. But the one question still echos, as it takes many years of work and dedication, what does one do after achieving enlightenment?


That is a flawed question in my opinion.
Achieving enlightenment is to realise that there is no "self" so the question of "what does one do" is invalid as there is no "one" to do anything
It is a stripping away of all of the things that you think of as being "self" including thought
edit on 8/12/12 by davespanners because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by TauNorthwolf
 

Gautama did not reach enlightenment, he became enligtened. Enlightenment is not a process culminating in a final step. It is an event that takes no time.

Attaining Siddhis is completely another matter. There are many suggested paths for them, but to date no one successfully laid out a set of steps following which an unenlightened person could become enlightened.

If people like J. Krishnamurti and U. G. Krihsnamurti who lived recently and are credited with enlightenment by some of those who have known them are anything to go by, enlightenment is likely to avoid those who seek it. U. G. even states that it is not a state anyone would wish for, if they knew what being enlightened meant



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 


One man's enlightened is another man's knowing nothing about science and accepting a magical worldview. I know I wouldn't want to be "enlightened" by his definition - as it doesn't actually pertain to reality, just a perception of reality. And perception, like opinion, only matters when you aren't discussing fact.

I think a lot of westerners give men like these more creedence than they deserve because they come off as "exotic, mysterious, and wise." IMO, they deserve about as much respect as religious figureheads like the pope.

Zero.
edit on 8-12-2012 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   
The enlightenment is this moment that is full of light. Most can't see this moment because they are seeking. They are seeking something else that is somewhere else. Humans seek to complete themselves because they feel lack, they feel there is something missing so look for that which will complete them. They seek in time. they seek in mind.
This moment of presence (enlightenment) is what the Buddha realized. This moment is what will complete you. The discoverery of 'this' (that is here) is what you are looking for but humans seek 'outside' of presence when there is nothing 'outside' of presence.

Humans have a mind that speaks. It speaks of other and it is believed. The belief in what the mind speaks is all that distracts you from the truth.
The only thing worth seeking is the end of seeking, When the seeker is no more - here is enlightenment.
edit on 8-12-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by HairlessApe
 

If you have the time and interest, you can go through Quantum Physics and Consciousness. It is intended for Western Audience and dealt with in a rigorous manner.

Far from being unscientific, the concept of a universal cosciousness as the cause of all reality or being all of reality itself, is an interpretation that is much more consistent with the currently available body of empirical evidence than any other.

However, how such a realisation (called "enlightenment") would affect a body-mind, is something I have no idea about.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by HairlessApe
reply to post by Observor
 


One man's enlightened is another man's knowing nothing about science and accepting a magical worldview. I know I wouldn't want to be "enlightened" by his definition - as it doesn't actually pertain to reality, just a perception of reality. And perception, like opinion, only matters when you aren't discussing fact.
editby]edit on 8-12-2012 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)


The thing is you think you know something and scientists think they know something but really no one knows anything. You and scientists have words that you rely on to build a picture of reality. The picture (image) that you build with words looks nothing like the real. The real cannot be described so is divided into separate things by the mind with words. The whole is split into separate things by the words. Those words then build an 'idea' of reality. Humans have 'ideas' about reality, they have opinions that they believe are facts but they are made out of words.

The truth appears without words. Reality comes wordless and then humans add words that distrort their perception.
The truth is hidden in plain sight.
edit on 8-12-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Enlightened or not, people stay the same. Like the phrase that has been put on here before, 'before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenement, chop wood and carry water.'

I want to make you take notice of what is found about enlightenment in the bible.

Luke 11: The Lamp of the Body

33 “No one, when he has lit a lamp, puts it in a secret place or under a basket, but on a lampstand, that those who come in may see the light. 34 The lamp of the body is the eye. Therefore, when your eye is good, your whole body also is full of light. But when your eye is bad, your body also is full of darkness. 35 Therefore take heed that the light which is in you is not darkness. 36 If then your whole body is full of light, having no part dark, the whole body will be full of light, as when the bright shining of a lamp gives you light.”


Or at least what I thought it wass.

Enlightened or not, have a nice day, sir.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 03:00 AM
link   
edit on 8-12-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: Details



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   
according to the book "siddhartha", the middle path was obtained after following the extremes of asceticism and indulgence.

Personally, I've tried both, neither made me happy, and I've found a sort of middle path.
By no means am I a Buddhist though.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 03:23 AM
link   
He didn't reach it. There was nothing to reach for. It was always there. Reaching implies grasping as if to seize it, while Nirvana is the state of letting go.

When you let go, quiet the mind, and see things as they are, you've got it.



"There was a famous master called Suibi, and he was asked 'What is the secret teaching of Buddhism?' And he was asked this in the lecture hall where other monks were studying. And he said 'Wait till there's no one around and I'll tell you.' So later in the day the monk accosted him and said, 'There's nobody around now: what is the secret teaching of Buddhism?' So he went into the garden with this monk and he pointed at the bamboos. And the monk said 'I don't understand.' and he said, 'What a tall one that is. What a short one that is.' And this awakend the monk."
edit on 8/12/12 by AdamsMurmur because: clarity



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


When what one is looking for is found, the suffering of seeking has not stopped because a new object will be sought in its place. Therefore, as you say, don't seek. Just watch. Watch as much as you can. As the other person said, "the more you see, the fuller of light you are."

But know that what you are seeing is not absolute.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
He didn't reach it. There was nothing to reach for. It was always there. Reaching implies grasping as if to seize it, while Nirvana is the state of letting go.

When you let go, quiet the mind, and see things as they are, you've got it.


It is the seeking which stops one finding.
The mind cannot be made quiet. But the quiet the mind appears in can be realized.
When it is seen that all appears within this quiet, only then will the quiet be known to be the emptiness, that you are.
edit on 8-12-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


When what one is looking for is found, the suffering of seeking has not stopped because a new object will be sought in its place.


No, it won't. When IT is found you will be fulfilled.
There are no objects to be sought.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by smithjustinb
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


When what one is looking for is found, the suffering of seeking has not stopped because a new object will be sought in its place.


No, it won't. When IT is found you will be fulfilled.
There are no objects to be sought.


In the seekers mind there is.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by smithjustinb
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


When what one is looking for is found, the suffering of seeking has not stopped because a new object will be sought in its place.


No, it won't. When IT is found you will be fulfilled.
There are no objects to be sought.


In the seekers mind there is.


That is why the seeker must be sought. Find the seeker and he will disolve. The mind is the seeker that seeks outside of presence.

'Objects (things)' only ever appear in mind.





new topics

top topics


active topics

 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join