Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Enlightenment?

TheJourneyTheJourney
edited September 2010 in Buddhism Basics
.......................

Comments

  • GeckoGecko
    edited September 2010
    Is that a whisk in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?
  • mugzymugzy Veteran
    edited September 2010
    On rocks the bamboo shoots grow longer than ten meters.
  • JaliJali
    edited September 2010
    Five tons of flax and a hot dog bun.
  • unsuiunsui
    edited September 2010
    42.
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited September 2010
    i'm confused lol
  • JaliJali
    edited September 2010
    Confusion is the tail chasing the dog. :P
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited September 2010
    Jali wrote: »
    Confusion is the tail chasing the dog. :P

    is asking the right questions important?
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited September 2010
    What is the Right Question?

    is that the right question....?
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    edited September 2010
    Who is asking the questions?
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited September 2010
    It appears to me that buddhists are the ones that are asking the right questions because they're aware of their buddha-nature, but the meanings of these questions can change as your understanding changes.
  • John83John83
    edited September 2010
    i am.
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited September 2010
    Over there..

    the golden arches..

    I'll have fries and a shake.
  • SherabDorjeSherabDorje
    edited September 2010
    Richard H wrote: »
    Over there..

    the golden arches..

    I'll have fries and a shake.

    Bu-uuurp.
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    edited September 2010
    John83 wrote: »
    i am.

    What is this thing that the word "I" refers to?
  • UnlikelybdstUnlikelybdst
    edited September 2010
    seeker242 wrote: »
    What is this thing that the word "I" refers to?

    It's a music player, only instead of music it plays thoughts for "you" to listen to.
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited September 2010
    seeker242 wrote: »
    What is this thing that the word "I" refers to?

    All that exists that I can wrap my head around. To the buddha it is all of existence. "I" in the sense that it is usually used is an illusion. Another illusion is that buddha is anything other than our very nature.
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    edited September 2010
    TheJourney wrote: »
    All that exists that I can wrap my head around. To the buddha it is all of existence. "I" in the sense that it is usually used is an illusion. Another illusion is that buddha is anything other than our very nature.

    But the Buddha said that form, feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness (The Five Aggregates or 5 skandhas) is "not-I" or "not-self". But what else is there in existence that is not form, feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness? That seems like pretty much everything there is?
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited September 2010
    seeker242 wrote: »
    But the Buddha said that form, feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness (The Five Aggregates or 5 skandhas) is "not-I" or "not-self". But what else is there in existence that is not form, feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness? That seems like pretty much everything there is?

    That which is unpercievable to one who is not awake?
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited September 2010
    TheJourney wrote: »
    That which is unpercievable to one who is not awake?
    "That" (the eternal, unconditioned, utterly transcendent, alpha and omega, I-i, ain-soph, BEING, etc. etc. etc).......is not the goal of practice. The purpose of practice It is cessation of Dukkha by letting go. Imagining a transcendent remainder not practice.
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited September 2010
    Richard H wrote: »
    "That" (the eternal, unconditioned, utterly transcendent, alpha and omega, I-i, ain-soph, BEING, etc. etc. etc).......is not the goal of practice. The purpose of practice It is cessation of Dukkha by letting go. Imagining a transcendent remainder not practice.

    So realizing that "that" is all that remains after you put an end to suffering, and can be equated to self?
  • ChrysalidChrysalid Veteran
    edited September 2010
    seeker242 wrote: »
    But the Buddha said that form, feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness (The Five Aggregates or 5 skandhas) is "not-I" or "not-self". But what else is there in existence that is not form, feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness? That seems like pretty much everything there is?
    What he means is, you can't extract a "self" from any of those aspects that form the human being. Each of them is in a constant state of change, each is dependant on something else for it's continual existence, and each will come to an end. You can't point to any of them and say "there I am".
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited September 2010
    TheJourney wrote: »
    So realizing that "that" is all that remains after you put an end to suffering, and can be equated to self?
    Not reducable to "self" or "absence of self", but since we start out with the assumption of "self", we have "anatta" not-self. Things are ownerless and unobstructed in their unfolding. There is no experiencer to be found, only experiencing. The seer and the seen are abstracted from seeing. Seeing has no ground. Even this talk is off base. The only concern is suffering and the cessation of suffering.

    There is this wonderful Sutta that Ajahn Sumedho quotes in the intro to his book on The Four Noble Truths.....


    <TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="60%"><TBODY><TR><TD width="100%"> The Blessed One was once living at Kosambi in a wood of simsapa trees. He picked up a few leaves in his hand, and he asked the bhikkhus, ‘How do you conceive this, bhikkhus, which is more, the few leaves that I have picked up in my hand or those on the trees in the wood?
    ‘The leaves that the Blessed One has picked up in his hand are few, Lord; those in the wood are far more.’
    ‘So too, bhikkhus, the things that I have known by direct knowledge are more; the things that I have told you are only a few. Why have I not told them? Because they bring no benefit, no advancement in the Holy Life, and because they do not lead to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have not told them. And what have I told you? This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. That is what I have told you. Why have I told it? Because it brings benefit, and advancement in the Holy Life, and because it leads to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. So bhikkhus, let your task be this: This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’

    [Samyutta Nikaya, LVI, 31]

    here is a link... http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble.htm


    </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    edited September 2010
    TheJourney wrote: »
    That which is unpercievable to one who is not awake?

    If it were to become precivable upon awakening, then it would still be just a perception would it not?

    Chrysalid wrote: »
    What he means is, you can't extract a "self" from any of those aspects that form the human being. Each of them is in a constant state of change, each is dependant on something else for it's continual existence, and each will come to an end. You can't point to any of them and say "there I am".

    Understood, but that still does not explain what "I" is referring to, yes?
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited September 2010
    Richard H wrote:
    The Blessed One was once living at Kosambi in a wood of simsapa trees. He picked up a few leaves in his hand, and he asked the bhikkhus, ‘How do you conceive this, bhikkhus, which is more, the few leaves that I have picked up in my hand or those on the trees in the wood?
    ‘The leaves that the Blessed One has picked up in his hand are few, Lord; those in the wood are far more.’
    ‘So too, bhikkhus, the things that I have known by direct knowledge are more; the things that I have told you are only a few. Why have I not told them? Because they bring no benefit, no advancement in the Holy Life, and because they do not lead to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have not told them. And what have I told you? This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. That is what I have told you. Why have I told it? Because it brings benefit, and advancement in the Holy Life, and because it leads to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. So bhikkhus, let your task be this: This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’

    That really spoke to me. As do all sayings of the buddha.

    seeker242 wrote: »
    If it were to become precivable upon awakening, then it would still be just a perception would it not?

    It would, it seems to me



    Understood, but that still does not explain what "I" is referring to, yes?

    Perhaps we don't need to know what "I" is referring to. I think that nirvana can be achieved without this knowledge, and buddhahood is gaining understanding of that concept which we are constantly in search of. The best way to that end is through the means of dharma.
  • ChrysalidChrysalid Veteran
    edited September 2010
    seeker242 wrote: »
    Understood, but that still does not explain what "I" is referring to, yes?
    "I" refers to the perceiver. Ultimately it's a language convention, it's simpler to say "I like potatoes" than "this collection of watery meat, memory and interpretated perception likes potatoes".
Sign In or Register to comment.