Discussion in 'Religion, Beliefs and Spirituality' started by AresKenux, Apr 26, 2012.

  1. So I was reading a book about the Buddha, but it kind of contradicted what I've learned.

    So here is my thought...

    How did the Buddha truly reach enlightenment?

    I remember the book saying that the Buddha would figure out the riddle that is life, and to seek to end suffering. But how did he do it? Did he make his darkness conscious? How is that done? Just solely through isolated meditation? It is interesting that all it says is that he meditated through several steps, and became enlightened. But I remember hearing that he went through the veil of death, and was reborn...
  2. It's been said that he meditated under the bodhi tree and sat there until he reached his enlightenment.

    During his deep meditation he faced Mara, Lord of Temptation, he was tempted with gold, women, possessions, everything anyone could possibly want but he remained still unaffected by temptation.

    Until Mara asked him, who will witness your enlightenment?

    Upon that he slowly moved his hand and touched the ground, "The Earth, the earth is my witness."

    and from that point on he was enlightened.
  3. He did nothing.

    And realized. :)
  4. When he lost all pull to everything outside of him. When he gave up attachment to all possible external things, and all possible conceptions of self, then he was enlightened.

    Only when the Buddha stopped all following did he reach enlightenment...
    So if you are following the Buddha...
    You are not following the Buddha
  5. People nowadays (and probably most people back then) have absolutely no idea how Great Gautama really was. When He sat under the bodhi tree, He wasn't just meditating, His consciousness wasn't even in the physical plane at all. While He sat there, His consciousness was soaring way above anything physical, He was constantly exerting Himself on these higher planes of Being in order to climb even higher.

    It was often written that when His disciples asked Him what they should do, Gautama always said "Practice Jhana." When He Himself became quiet in meditation, which was almost all the time, it was often assumed that He was practicing Jhana too. Little did most of His disciples know, their teacher was way above Jhana. While His disciples were on the first plane of Being, the physical, Gautama was not even on the second plane, nor the third, but He was on the fourth and above. This doesn't correspond with the levels of Jhana either, as most Buddhists would think, because even the very highest Jhana is still a consciousness that is only on the physical plane. Therefore the second plane of Being is much above even the highest Jhana.

    Neither is full Samadhi, nor Nirvana, as most Buddhists recognize it, the highest level of achievement. It couldn't be farther from the truth. Nirvana is a reflection of the fourth plane of Being on the physical plane. That's right, it's still on the physical. Even if you constantly dwelt inside of Nirvana on the physical plane (before you are born on the second plane of Being and above) you still wouldn't be experiencing the real thing, only a dim reflection of it. if that is the case you will still get reborn just like everybody else, though of course you will have an advantage in your next life. I've met a Buddhist who has barely touched for a second the lowest levels of Nirvana as reflected in the physical plane; that is, the most extemely lowest kind of Nirvana that one could touch, in its most dimmed form, and he thoroughly believes that he is enlightened and that he is saved from the cycle of rebirth. Needless to say, I kept quiet.

    To put things into perspective, the second plane of Being is comparable to an outer body experience. The third plane of Being is an incredibly refined and higher (in every sense of the word 'higher') form of the second plane of Being. The fourth plane of Being is where the consciousness blends into every living thing. It is not the mental realization of the fact that we are all one, it is the actual plane of Oneness, where you literally feel exactly what another being feels; you think as those around you think, you act as those around you act, except you still retain your own seperate consciousness throughout. Therefore you can understand all things, from the very core.

    You will not be able to break the cycle of rebirth until you grow enough to be able to become conscious on this plane in its entirety. In order to stop incarnating you will have to take the path of Renunciation on this plane of Being and the one just below it. Gautama is the Great Lord of Renunciation. I have heard that this involves experiencing all the intense bliss of the higher planes while choosing to abandon it for the cause of helping the evolution of those that are still being reborn. Of course, you cannot renunciate that which you do not know, therefore it is necessary for one to experience bliss beyond bliss in this life in order for the Path of Renunciation to open up for that person.

    That isn't to say that Gautama wasn't a good person, He spent a long line of lives fully devoting himself in each life towards the higher good. Only when doing the higher good becomes as natural as breathing will one be given oppurtunities to truly develop themselves in higher ways. Gautama's path didn't involve one big act of renunciation and then the attainment of Buddha-hood. He spent a series of lives making many small, seemingly insignificant acts of renunciation. Giving instead of taking. In all the little things. In this way, renunciation became as natural to Him as breathing, so when He was offered the opportunity to make the biggest Renunciation one can take, it would've been impossible to refuse, even if He wanted to.

    When asked to sum up His teachings in a single sentence, Gautama said: "Cease to do evil; Learn to do Good."
  6. #6 Perpetual Burn, Apr 28, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 28, 2012
    ^Buddha? ;)


    No consciousness is in the physical plane. There is no physical plane. Reality is opinion.

    The gradual path is illusory. Of course Buddha doesn't meditate.

    Every moment is Jhana. Practice and non-practice, indistinguishable.

    Nirvana and Samsara are ideas... which can only 'exist' in the physical plane which does not exist.

    Individual birth and rebirth is illusory. The Self does not exist. Thus, nothing you can do in 'this life' can have any affect on your 'next life'(hyper-illusory.) Karma is a childish idea.

    One can never leave the plane of Oneness (rather, not two-ness) thus duality cannot be transcended in favor of Unity (Nirvana.) As mentioned, the gradual path (virtue in 'practicing jhana') and differing planes are mere egoic discrimination lacking Ultimate validity.

    There is no suffering (Samsara,) thus any attempt to escape is the only trap.

    The Vow of Mahayana (to liberate all sentient beings) inherently requires one to 'abandon'(postpone) Nirvana as one is implying that there is another suffering in need of their help.

    'Go and save yourself!'
  7. Nice.

    Suffering is a state of mind where you are out of alignment with your true self. Once aligned there can no longer be any perception of suffering. But what you experience when you're not . . . even if it's all created by your own perception within, still hurts.
  8. Those are some wise words PB.

    If I may, I'd feel it a privilege to discuss with you some of your points.

    What happens when you fall asleep?

    I agree. Does this apply to all beings?

    I disagree concerning the nature of ideas. My personal experience has led me in the direction of knowing for certain that thoughts and ideas are very real and tangible things, much more real than anything we have here, and that they have their existence above and beyond the sensational world as we know it. To me, saying that ideas only exist in the physical world is more ridiculous than saying that a wheel is square in shape.

    Although I do understand that your point was to prove that ideas don't exist; I actually agree with your point to an extent. If we compared an object that you can hold in your hand with an 'intangible' idea, and asked which one is more real, I would immediately tell you that the idea is more real when compared to the object. However, I also recognize that ideas, when compared to the bigger picture, are also inherently unreal.

    The Buddha stated that everything is Mind; all impermanent things have their origin in Mind. He was stating a fundamental truth of the cosmos when He uttered those words.

    I agree that the Self is rooted in the Unmanifest or the non-existent. Yet, this doesn't stop the Self from identifying with the Not-Self. The Self carries the seeds of the Not-Self from life to life; or rather, from physical existence to physical existence. This is what allows for progression, for evolution in character and mind. Both aspects of the character and the mind belong to the Not-Self, yet it is a necessary mistake for the evolving life to indentify itself with the Not-Self in order to raise the Not-Self up and perfect it. This is the Path which even you travel, though you may not recognize it as such.

    Karma is Cause and Effect. Nevertheless, is it not written in the Tao that true wisdom seems childish?

    The Buddha actually recognized that there is an Atma, an indwelling disposition in each person that is relatively permanent and moves from existence to existence. The reason the Budhha was often quoted as speaking against the doctrine of the Atma at the time was because it was popular opinion back then that the Atma is the same thing as the person; people indentified themselves with their ego, their sensational nature, their shadow, and believed that to be the Atma. In this sense the Buddha was simply pointing out that the sensational nature is not the Atma, therefore it gets destroyed just as the physical body does, and that who you think you are is not who you really are.

    In His latter days, the Buddha would sometimes openly expain to all of His disciples a particular person in regards to the lives that this particular person has lived and the effect that this has on the person's current life. He would often explain this in metaphor, comparing the characters in the person's life to animals. Other times He would take a more direct approach. In a similar manner, if you developed those same faculties which the Budhha developed, you would be able to travel back and explore the Buddha's life in detail thereby satisfying any curiosity you might have.

    I agree that it is only discrimination. The true face is featureless, the discriminated boundaries do not truly exist they way one might understand it. Nevertheless, the discrimination helps a reasonable being to comprehend it for purposes of study.

    Hmm.. This is true on many levels.
  9. #9 Perpetual Burn, Apr 29, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 29, 2012
    I'm not sure what you're asking about falling asleep. I guess you get rest and dream. ;)

    Ultimately, there is no difference between Jhana and non-Jhana. If we said there was Ultimate difference, duality would be implied. But just as there must surely be a difference between that butterfly and Chuang-Tzu, there is probably going to be a difference between Jhana and non-Jhana. But we can put no guarantee in the virtue of Jhana(or non-Jhana) nor can we put a limit on the calamity of Jhana (or non-Jhana.)

    I get what you're saying about ideas being real in that they can have a greater affect on a being than many more tangible things... but, IMO, the idea must come from (the illusion of) a physical/tangible/'real' source/identity. There was an initial 'I am... [in Nirvana, or in Samsara, or in between, somewhere/someway.]'

    If you do not exist... how can you be in Samsara or Nirvana?

    I like your point about the 'self' identifying with the not-self... but I disagree with the Ultimate necessity of this process. Claiming Samsara to be necessary implies duality as there must be 'something else' forcing it upon us. As You/Buddha said, all is mind, thus it's our own false identification with things or events that cause suffering.

    I'm not too familiar with what the Buddha said about the Atman... but to me it seems like a metaphor created as something to eventually reject (or not subject oneself to.) Like Karma.

    Confucius say : 'The Tao is that which we can never leave. If we can leave it, it isn't the Tao.' 'Tao' in this case can be synonymous with 'Ultimate Atman.'
  10. You guys are saying a bunch of words.

  11. Profound quote of the day ;)

Share This Page