I'm guessing that he was on a spiritual trip that he learned a lot from. Are there any theories or facts as to how he came about with the knowledge?

IIRC the story goes like this
1) hes a prince
2) he sees four things on his travels, a preggo woman, and old guy, a sick guy and a dead guy
3) he questions these things
4) he leaves home, lives like a hobo
5) he nearly starves, so he decides to live in moderation rather than be an ascetic
6) he meditates (or something) and all of a sudden has a divine knowledge of 2)!

though i dont think its written anywhere how he did it, other than "perfect mental calmness"

On a full-moon day in May, he sat under the Bodhi tree in deep meditation and said. "I will not leave this spot until I find an end to suffering." During the night, he was visited by Mara, the evil one, who tried to tempt him away from his virtuous path. First he sent his beautiful daughters to lure Gautama into pleasure. Next he sent bolts of lightning, wind and heavy rain. Last he sent his demonic armies with weapons and flaming rocks. One by one, Gautama met the armies and defeated them with his virtue.

As the struggle ended, he realized the cause of suffering and how to remove it. He had gained the most supreme wisdom and understood things as they truly are. He became the Buddha, 'The Awakened One'. From then on, he was called Shakyamuni Buddha.

On a full-moon day in May, he sat under the Bodhi tree in deep meditation and said. "I will not leave this spot until I find an end to suffering." During the night, he was visited by Mara, the evil one, who tried to tempt him away from his virtuous path. First he sent his beautiful daughters to lure Gautama into pleasure. Next he sent bolts of lightning, wind and heavy rain. Last he sent his demonic armies with weapons and flaming rocks. One by one, Gautama met the armies and defeated them with his virtue.

As the struggle ended, he realized the cause of suffering and how to remove it. He had gained the most supreme wisdom and understood things as they truly are. He became the Buddha, 'The Awakened One'. From then on, he was called Shakyamuni Buddha.

although I'm fairly sure those stories are allegorical for the stages of intense concentration one has to go through to completely obliterate desire.

Can somebody tell me what enlightenment is? Like what feelings you have and what happens?

In all likelihood it's probable the stories are "allegorical" however there's lots of theories. Here's an interesting one"
Forgetting About Enlightenment

Enlightenment as a Neural process.

A forensic look at the Buddha's transformation
Todd Murphy, 2002
http://www.shaktitechnology.com/enlightenment.htm

Can somebody tell me what enlightenment is? Like what feelings you have and what happens?

Probably not. Words are the language of the mind, and when is enlightened, one is (in a sense) out of one's mind.

It would be akin to trying to describe what an orgasm looks like, or what a rainbow tastes like.

Can somebody tell me what enlightenment is? Like what feelings you have and what happens?

It's exactly what it says it is, ENLIGHTENMENT

light, light, everywhere...

In enlightenment would someone have sort of a careless attitude?

Sat under a fig tree and starved himself.

Pretty fucking lame, huh?

In enlightenment would someone have sort of a careless attitude?

Yes.

No matter what happens, it is as it should be, kind of horseshit.

Think self-help seminar meets Jesus and you have Buddhism.

Yes.

No matter what happens, it is as it should be, kind of horseshit.

Think self-help seminar meets Jesus and you have Buddhism.

I'm going to take a page out of your book and try playing your game, thusly:

You have made a strong statement. Prove it, or cite some evidence to back up your contention.

I'm going to take a page out of your book and try playing your game, thusly:

You have made a strong statement. Prove it, or cite some evidence to back up your contention.

^Yeah really, what does BP have against Buddhism? The whole religion is based around peace and detachment from suffering. Buddha never intended for his ideas to be made into a religion, but they were so profound that people couldn't help themselves, I suppose. He was a man who was so devoted to the wellbeing of mankind that he devoted his whole life to the search of the cause of suffering. It seems like a decent religion founded with good intentions. So, why bash Buddhism? What do you see in it that's so bad? (Of course now I’m talking to BP not Arms.)

Yes.

No matter what happens, it is as it should be, kind of horseshit.

Think self-help seminar meets Jesus and you have Buddhism.

Buddhism is the only metaphysical/religious experience worth looking into...

For instance, its proven that meditation does (when performed properly) a state that for all intensive purposes, transcends the body and what you would describe as "reality"....If not all that, it does effectively relieve stress and creates a sensation of inner peace

http://www.tm.org/research/508_studies.html

Probably not. Words are the language of the mind, and when is enlightened, one is (in a sense) out of one's mind.

It would be akin to trying to describe what an orgasm looks like, or what a rainbow tastes like.

You're ignorant.


The rainbow; taste it.

http://bereanwatchman.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/skittles.jpg

You're ignorant.

never experience synesthesia?

Probably not. Words are the language of the mind, and when is enlightened, one is (in a sense) out of one's mind.

It would be akin to trying to describe what an orgasm looks like, or what a rainbow tastes like.

Rainbows taste like rainwater, slightly acidic, but not unpleasant.

I could also describe what an orgasm looks like if you want. (but it's a bit more in-depth)

I'm going to take a page out of your book and try playing your game, thusly:

You have made a strong statement. Prove it, or cite some evidence to back up your contention.

I am flattered but it is not my book. No, it is a page from a book of the most intelligent and learned men for the past thousand years or so. It is science. I would hope that you would take this page and play this game of requiring empirical evidence more often.

Rest assured I will remind you when you should do so.

I cite you and what you have said about enlightenment as evidence to suggest enlightenment is care-free...

---Once you reach the higher stages you realize we are all one, and good and evil are the same.---

In a world where feeding the hungry, and raping an infant are morally the same.....how can it not be a everything is as it should be mentality? When you realize that since we are all one, you raped the infant as well, and there is nothing wrong with it........how is this not care-free?

Enlightenment being care-free is almost self evident.

The movie "Little Buddha" does a great job of explaining.

Heres a summarized look.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDIG-C7pnmc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D7XZDx3XQc

Remember, its allegorical. Mara is the ego. The rest are subsets of that the ego.

To reach enlightenment you must overcome yourself. Forgive yourself, love yourself, love the world, quiet your mind, see and analyze your flaws and weaknesses, see yourself, and surpass it. When you reside in the totality of existence and the fact that the ego, the senses, is nothing then you have reach enlightenment. Transcending the reality we see ourselves, and transcending ourselves we see the ultimate reality.

Broke Prophet...damn man. I would like to know what religious person in your life hurt you so terribly. I just don't know how one could be so arrogant when the natural state of human beings is pure ignorance. Residing in the fact that you know nothing of true reality and just observing and questioning... accepting this first is the biggest step towards wisdom.

a rainbow tastes like a fnurg but saltier

No I'm pretty sure we have to meditate in a hurricane like in the story. everyone to Louisiana!

---Once you reach the higher stages you realize we are all one, and good and evil are the same.---

In a world where feeding the hungry, and raping an infant are morally the same.....how can it not be a everything is as it should be mentality? When you realize that since we are all one, you raped the infant as well, and there is nothing wrong with it........how is this not care-free?

Enlightenment being care-free is almost self evident.

Care free and free of detachment are very different. And when enlightened, it does not mean all things are the same, there is no great oneness. In fact, being enlightened means being able to see the differences and truth of the reality around you. Also, individual souls are not one, but even if you wanted to say they were all one at one point, there is nothing that says each facet of the whole represents or reflects the entirety.

Also, when you are enlightened, you're removing yourself from the eternal Samsara. By virtue of removing yourself from the cycle, you are detached from the world, but that does not mean you do not care for it, or wish good things for mankind. In fact, that's what Bodhisattvas are.

Buddha developed the paths into something mankind could understand and use for it's own benefit, or ignore it as it is human nature to be ignorant. He saw what caused suffering, and accepted the truths which defined reality.

In all likelihood it's probable the stories are "allegorical" however there's lots of theories. Here's an interesting one"
http://www.shaktitechnology.com/enlightenment.htm

Very interesting article

By mediation.

Apparently under a tree. Probably on a sunny day, ~25C, with a light wind

I am flattered but it is not my book. No, it is a page from a book of the most intelligent and learned men for the past thousand years or so. It is science. I would hope that you would take this page and play this game of requiring empirical evidence more often.

I'm about to go take a nice healthy dump, broke prophet. I just wanted to let you know that while I'm taking it, I won't need any scientists to tell me whether or not the experience of me taking a dump is real, because I know it is :D

I'll take experiential over empirical any time.

^ We know...

"to defy the authority of empirical evidence is to disqualify oneself as someone worthy of critical engagement in a dialogue"

-- Dalai Lama

^ We know...

"to defy the authority of empirical evidence is to disqualify oneself as someone worthy of critical engagement in a dialogue"

-- Dalai Lama

Dalai Lam-owned!

*chuckles quietly*

Ok... That's me done.

^ We know...

"to defy the authority of empirical evidence is to disqualify oneself as someone worthy of critical engagement in a dialogue"

-- Dalai Lama

Such an easily misused quote.

To defy the acknowledgement of the possibility of the unknown, currently inaccessible or intagible is to disqualify oneself as a human being.

Certainly, empirical data (the use of the recognized senses) and experential data (the totality of experience) do not always conform to one another. I would be hard put to say that scientists now can tell me all there is to the senses, experience, or- as corollary, being.

Evidently, regardless of your implication, something the Dalai Lama agrees with.

I don't "defy the acknowledgment of the possibility of the unknown". I readily admit that the possibility exists. I just give empirical evidence importance over unsubstantiated bullshit. The Dalai Llama agrees.

I don't "defy the acknowledgment of the possibility of the unknown". I readily admit that the possibility exists. I just give empirical evidence importance over unsubstantiated bullshit. The Dalai Llama agrees.

The point is that things someone can experience and things that are tested using measurement and the five senses don't always conform. The Dalai Lama knows Nirvana, stages of enlightenment, morality and so on are not to be found dissected in a textbook or science journal.

You implied that the Dalai Lama would state that empirical data is more important than experential data. I disagree. I'm sure if you said "this is this because of this" rather than "this is this because it is" he would find that more rational and acceptable. But as far as importance? No. The Dalai Lama is a religious leader. I don't think its bold to assume he puts more importance in his reasoned beliefs than everything that "science" can say.

You implied that the Dalai Lama would state that empirical data is more important than experential data. I disagree.


You mean you assumed I implied that. I just quoted what he said. That's it.

The Dalai Lama is a religious leader. I don't think its bold to assume he puts more importance in his reasoned beliefs than everything that "science" can say.I'm not presuming anything. I'm taking what he said and quoting it. The only thing we know for sure is that he would disqualify anyone from discourse if they defy the authority of empirical evidence. That's a pretty strong endorsement of empirical evidence. Anything else here is your speculation.

Apparently you're desperate to spin this to something more manageable to your beliefs so you're putting words in my mouth and/or that of the Dalai Llama's.

Probably not. Words are the language of the mind, and when is enlightened, one is (in a sense) out of one's mind.

It would be akin to trying to describe what a rainbow tastes like.

Skittles?

You mean you assumed I implied that. I just quoted what he said. That's it.

I'm not presuming anything. I'm taking what he said and quoting it. The only thing we know for sure is that he would disqualify anyone from discourse if they defy the authority of empirical evidence. That's a pretty strong endorsement of empirical evidence. Anything else here is your speculation.

Apparently you're desperate to spin this to something more manageable to your beliefs so you're putting words in my mouth and/or that of the Dalai Llama's.

Oy...you silly silly fellow.

You quoted him because you were trying to make it seem, contrary to what Hexadecimal said, that the dalai lama would value empirical data over experiential data. A la "dalai la-owned". Lol so, I assumed wrong? I thought you were perfectly clear rather than necessarily vague. Youre also clearly not saying what you implied or where I assumed wrongly. It is not speculation to say that (must I quote myself?) "I don't think its bold to assume he puts more importance in his reasoned beliefs than everything that "science" can say". Its the Dalai Lama. I don't know how to make it more clear.

Desperately spin? Please note my tone, my reasoning, the subject matter of the conversation and then please, seriously tone down your ego.

Oy...you silly silly fellow.

You quoted him because you were trying to make it seem, contrary to what Hexadecimal said, that the dalai lama would value empirical data over experiential data. A la "dalai la-owned". Lol so, I assumed wrong? I thought you were perfectly clear rather than necessarily vague. Youre also clearly not saying what you implied or where I assumed wrongly. It is not speculation to say that (must I quote myself?) "I don't think its bold to assume he puts more importance in his reasoned beliefs than everything that "science" can say". Its the Dalai Lama. I don't know how to make it more clear.

Desperately spin? Please note my tone, my reasoning, the subject matter of the conversation and then please, seriously tone down your ego.

You are in the wrong here.

And perhaps, seeing as bible quoting is always fun, 'Give what is caesars unto caesar, and waht is Gods unto god.' (or however it goes)

The approach is best used when it is suited to the circumstances, if you deny the authority of empirical data in empirical matters then you are not worthy to discuss anything with, and if there is a realm where experience takes precedent then you are a fool not to use that.

You have, as far as I can see, made something out of nothing.

Dalai lam-owned is an amusing phrase, nothing more.

You quoted him because you were trying to make it seem, contrary to what Hexadecimal said, that the dalai lama would value empirical data over experiential data. A la "dalai la-owned".

1. Could you please stop claiming to know what I was trying to do. Clearly, between the two of us, you're not nearly as qualified to dictate what I was trying to accomplish than... I am!

2. I didn't say "dalai la-owned". That was somebody else.

3. I quoted him to show how much importance the Dalai Llama gives to empirical evidence. To show that the Dalai Llama sees someone defying the authority of empirical evidence as a negative.

Hexadecimal was stating that he would take experience over empirical evidence any time. You could take experience over empirical data in some circumstances - at certain "times" (like JesuitAristle says it could be on a case by case basis) - but to say that you would take experience over empirical data any time, does in fact rob empirical data from the authority the Dalai Llama as given it.

In other words, the Dalai Llama's statement don't necessarilly mean that empirical evidence is always prefered (though it could mean this), but at least that it is prefered some of the time so as to give empirical evidence authority.

Hexadecimal's statement, on the other hand, implies that experience is always best as he would take it over empirical data any time.

I thought you were perfectly clear rather than necessarily vague. Youre also clearly not saying what you implied or where I assumed wrongly

I'm sorry, I thought that was more than obvious. My mistake. Here's where you assumed wrongly:

"You implied that the Dalai Lama would state that empirical data is more important than experential data. I disagree."

Just like I stated, I implied no such thing. That is a blanket statement that would have me saying that the Dalai Llama thinks empirical data is better in all circumstances. That is not what I was implying.

. It is not speculation to say that (must I quote myself?) "I don't think its bold to assume he puts more importance in his reasoned beliefs than everything that "science" can say". Its the Dalai Lama. I don't know how to make it more clear.

It is certainly speculation. Do you know this for a fact? Have you seen him state such? No? Then it's speculation. That you yourself are convinced of it being true doesn't mean it's not speculation on your part.

Saying "I'm super duper convinced of it" doesn't make it a certainty...


Desperately spin? Please note my tone, my reasoning, the subject matter of the conversation and then please, seriously tone down your ego.

How is my ego not in tone when it's you who just called me a silly fellow (I haven't insulted you once in this conversation) and it's you who's putting words in my mouth?

I stated the truth: You are putting words in my mouth by claiming to know what I supposedly implied when I implied no such thing. To me that's you spinning the circumstances because you do not like the Dalai Llama quote at face value. I can't see any other reason for you to start claiming to know what I was implying by quoting a simple statement. If it's not then I apologize but the fact remains: you did put words in my mouth.

Aslo, please don't pretend to know how my ego is; that seems quite contradictory.

He sat.

He sat.

Bravo--good answer.

That said, it would be no wonder it took him so long--zazen is amazingly difficult.

I have been thinking that the tree he meditated under may have been an esoteric reference the tree of life discussed in the book of genesis and the kabbalah, or rather they are both references to the same thing/idea.

I have been thinking that the tree he meditated under may have been an esoteric reference the tree of life discussed in the book of genesis and the kabbalah, or rather they are both references to the same thing/idea.

Thats an interesting thought. Damn.

---Once you reach the higher stages you realize we are all one, and good and evil are the same.---

In a world where feeding the hungry, and raping an infant are morally the same.....how can it not be a everything is as it should be mentality? When you realize that since we are all one, you raped the infant as well, and there is nothing wrong with it........how is this not care-free?

Enlightenment being care-free is almost self evident.

You completely miss the point. In some cases apathy could lead to enlightenment, and in others, enlightenment could lead to apathy, but they are not the same at all.

What you're describing is moral relativism, not true enlightenment. If the Buddha couldn't describe it, what makes you think we can?