Has Anyone Since Buddha Reached Nirvana, Really?

i might of, but i could not keep that level of higher mind stationary

The questions pose the paradox. There is no one to reach anything because realization is seeing that enlightenment is a myth. And this realization is a recognition by no one that what I am cannot be an object.
I am existence for all comes and goes, yet I remain. Put another way, existence cannot be conceptualized because it is prior to thought. If existence cannot be conceptualized then it is not an object. And if not object, then not subject to time.

Interesting guesses about the REALITY.

Wonder if they are anywhere near REALITY?

As FBM suggests to us "Someone apparently wrote a bunch of new stories long after the Buddha's parinibbana, expounding their new and revolutionary ideas and ideals, but pretending that they were the Buddha's."

I feel this is the case and I even suspect that much of the suttas (supposed teachings by the Buddha himself) in the Hinayana or Pali texts are also of this derivative nature. But it doesn't matter an iota to me. The Buddha is not a religious figure to be worshipped, a supreme authority of religious validities--indeed, he is supposed to have advised his bikkus not to accept his words without testing them against experience. What matters is the proven value of BuddhISM as revealed in experience. There is no other authority than results. As I see it Buddhism in particular or mysticism in general are not liturgical doctrines ABOUT God; they are ways to connect with Him directly. And the "mythologies" underlying meditation practice are just as valid for that end as is the scientific method for understanding the psychophysical universe.

I have to be condition-less to experience a condition. And I must be PRIOR to the arises condition. An apple cannot taste itself.
Consider all that appears to occur an accident. There must be a witness to testify to the accident. Like standing on a corner waiting on a car wreck but there can be no one there, only witnessing.
What am I? What am I? Inquire until it is seen no one is inquiring. When man sees that man is an idea, peace on Earth. For if no thought, identify the enemy.

I agree that it's not a matter of worshipping, and that the only thing that really matters is the result of the training. On the other hand, I do think it's important to know, for example, whether an idea was actually expressed by Plato - with his original agenda - or a later Neo-platonist with a different one.

Consider this website: http://www.fakebuddhaquotes.com/ Strictly speaking, all of the Mahayana literature belongs on that site. This is not to say that the Pali literature (Hinayana is a derogatory term that fell out of use a long time ago) is a precise historical record. It isn't and it wasn't written to be. But it's the best we have, and the distinctions between the early Pali suttas and later Mahayana sutras in emphasis, tone, goal, methods and beliefs are not trivial. The Mahayana is in quite a few ways a different path. Again, I'm not knocking anybody for following whatever path they choose, but I don't see any advantage in doing so blindly.

For example, from the Pali Majjhima Nikaya, the Mulapariyaya Sutta:

"The Blessed One said, "Monks, I will teach you the..."

Compared to a quote from Nagarjuna, founder of the Madhyamaka school of Mahāyāna Buddhism:

"No Dharma was taught by the Buddha, at any time, in any place, to any person."

I'm not saying choose one and abandon the other; I'm just saying that if you don't know who said what, then you're likely to spread misinformation, and I don't see much advantage to that, either.

Correct. Regarding the small vessel as well. But I assume you got my point(s).

I think I do.

As I said...your previous comments were interesting guesses.

But this last comment seems more rambling.

Let me add that I do not consider authorship crucial to our discussions. Wisdom is no less appreciated by an anonymous guru than is that of one who is famous. It's the lesson that counts, not the teacher.

That's fine. But a lot of scholars of Buddhism that I've read do take the issue of authorship as significant, and having read both the Pali and Mahayana texts in a comparative light, I have to agree with those scholars. There's a demonstrably different "wisdom" being taught in each.

I agree that the "wisdom" manifested by "teachers" like Joseph Goldstein and Krishnamurti vary markedly. The former is more accessible to the intellect and dependent on insights and formulas while the latter's radical nondualism makes it less effable and dependent on paradox and intuition.
(I'm afraid my presentation here exaggerates their differences)

I used to read Krishnamurti, but what he said didn't stick with me very well. Goldstein rings a bell, but I can't recall anything in particular he's said. I'm impressed by the work of Richard Gombrich, though.

italicized. Is there a choice in behavior? Or is Frank an idea?

This is beyond rambling...and is closer to incomprehensible.




There certainly appears to be.

But appearances can be deceiving, so I cannot say "yes" definitively.

Are you saying that appearances can never be deceiving?




I'm not sure what "Frank" is. I think it is me...but as the non-dualists here will explain (if they are willing) that may not be correct in its entirety. The Frank I think exists...may be something quite different from what "I" conceive.

On these things, I am not giving to guessing (other than to live my life as though the naivete' of naive realism prevails). You are willing to guess...and then (as you did here) you tend to present your guesses as though they are fact. That is all I am contesting, S.

All nice and dandy Frank...but tell me isn't guessing the solely sport worth practising in the world ? I mean what else can one do but guess ?

If you know something you are not it when you are something you don't need to know it. Thinking about something is pointing beyond us.
While I don't know what is over here in what I am being I can point you over there and talk about in a pretty interesting way. No matter how perfect accurate and conforming my description is, the nature of my knowing something requires I am not it. Yes guesses indeed...

I have NEVER said there is anything wrong with guessing, Fil. I do it all the time...and enjoy doing so. And I have often written that there is nothing wrong with guessing.

My dispute is with people who make guesses...and then call them something else...often to give them gravitas they do not deserve.

People guess there is a GOD...call it a "belief"...and then argue that "beliefs" deserve respect.



Sorry, I just do not get what you are trying to say here.





Sounds like something with which I agree...but I am not sure.

I am trying to tell you something very simple Frank, the act of guessing onto itself is real. When you claim we are guessing you already said something SUBSTANTIAL about the nature of reality.

Some of you my want to take a look at this:
https://books.google.pt/books?id=j512dTjj0aUC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=Fernando+Pessoa+One+day+at+noon,+at+the+end+of+spring&source=bl&ots=JxwaGZnojT&sig=LEu3Vb97021yW7rE7Z7R3Nnm5UY&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ei=XBnAVMuCB4r8UrWTg4AI&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Fernando%20Pessoa%20One%20day%20at%20noon%2C%20at%20the%20end%20of%20spring&f=false