Can humans reach enlightenment?

In that case: If you're serious about this, then you have a lot of studying to do, as these things cannot be appropriately covered in a post.

Access to Insight is a good place to start, if you don't already know it. The link here goes to the General Index; check out under "Brahmavihara". You might also take A Self-guided Tour of the Buddha's Teachings.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would say the opposite. We get caught up in arguments and worldly affairs that are contrary to an atmosphere of purity and contemplation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree.
Although talking and discussing and debating so much can be a way to make up for a poor self-confidence, especially when one doesn't have a teacher or a RL community of like-minded people to rely on.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I reached enlightenment once. It was a nice way to spend a weekend, but I was glad to come back.

 

i think enlightenment is a process of learning. To me enlightenment is seeing behind the veil of illusion.

 

So who or what becomes enlightened ? How would such a state be recognized ?

 

Can you please tell me hoe to do it. I need a break/

 

it's an indication that the corporeal body is not the final last word about us and that the soul or atma is the real foundation of the self

as for how it would be recognized, wisdom seeker gave an indication already
:shrug:

 

I am not obliged to accept any indications. When you refer to the corporeal body what exactly do you mean. I am only aware of one body. If I get your drift, you are suggesting that there is more to us than a physical body. If that is so can you describe the attributes of a non-corporeal body.

Don't shrug so much. It'snot good for your corporeal body because you may develop a twitch. It also suggest that anyone who disagrees with your views is beyond help, which is no more than impertinence on your part.

 

I thought Laika was a bitch sent into orbit bt the then Soviet Union. So how does a monkey fit into all of this ?

 

It is most certainly NOT an indication that "the corporeal body is not the final last word blah blah blah".

At most is an idea, based on unproven premises and assumptions.

Prove enlightenment exists (which would require satisfactory definition and observable, testable criteria, repeatability etc) and then we can move to what it might be an indication of.

But I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you can't do that adequately.
And then we'll go through your whole spiel of lack of foundation blah blah blah.
And so I guess it leaves us in the same position as you claiming, us asking for evidence, and you not providing. :shrug:

 

I enjoyed your post because, unlike much of the stuff I read on here, it is supported by evidence and references as oposed to pure speculation masquerading as fact.

Many physicists , uncomfortable with current explanations of QM, are attempting to find an underlying determinism. Please see New Scientist, 3 November 2007 pages 36 - 39. I think Penrose may have shifted his position slightly.

In any event, the article " Quantum Untanglement " is worth reading for anyone who wishes to get up to speed with some of the latest thinking in QM

 

Be patient. I have asked for a definition of what a non-corporeal. I'm sure I shall get a convincing explanation or, at least one that convinces those who choose to believe it.

I sometimes wonder whether those who talk so glibly about enligtenment know anyhing about THE ENLIGHTENMENT. Perhaps the history of ideas is not their forte.

 

it certainly is the presentation of that as an idea

.
apart from theory, what else could one hope to talk about in the association of those bereft of practice?

as already indicated in numerous previous threads (aka the high school drop out vs physics), the task of proving something to someone bereft of qualification is an arduous task

can you indicate a single aspect of something knowable that exists outside of practice?
It seems you have a problem not so much with theism but knowledge in general

the actual situation is that the prerequisite of evidence is qualification - there are very good reasons why forensic detectives are called in instead of janitors, even though they may have a salary 3 times higher - if you think evidence is self evident, you are no better than a cave man

 

really?
which body is that?
the moment you say "this body" it has already changed under the influence of time

it is unchanging
for instance even though your body has undergone drastic changes in the past 20 years, you have still retained the same sense of "I" (although this is most likely a sense of "I" in relation to the changing body - thus you would not be 'enlightened")

I guess its just a way of reciprocating with intellectual apathy, which I admittedly picked up from you more so on another thread than this one
:shrug:

 

You ask , " which body is that ?" and seem to answer your own question by telling me my body is changing. Are you suggesting that a body which changes is not a body ?

If you know of a body which does not change, would you please explain what it is as I have no such knowledge. Notce I am asking you to EXPLAIN. Making a statement that X exists is not an explanation. You must provide some evidence to support your claim.

 

No

I am saying that technically your corporeal body is not singular, so it becomes difficult to understand what you are referring to when you say you're only aware of one body

I don't understand your position
first you say you are aware of only one body and now you say you say that you are not aware

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

explaining becomes easier when one can understand a persons existing understanding of a topic