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.
Does Enlightenment Imply Omniscience and Infallibility?
But we know this is not true. How many scientists, let alone regular every day people, have thought about and even studied these "unconjecturables" and not gone mad? In fact, I can't such a scientist who has gone mad.
It depends what you mean by mad. it could mean just really angry .
Who cares? I know I'm not infallible, that's what matters.
With metta, Sabre
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
It would be interesting to know if people think it is important for them to know that Buddha was omniscient ? I mean how will it change a persons practice if they came to conclusion one way or another.
Yeah my faith in Buddhism doesn't come from believing in the qualities of the Buddha but from the qualities of his teachings.
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
Irrelevent sutta quotation, out of context, non sequitur
The sutta as about "the range" rather than about qualities
For example, I can walk. This is a quality
But conjecture about range is: "How far can I walk? Ten miles, one hundred miles, ten thousand miles?"
"Monks, for one in whom mindfulness immersed in the body is cultivated, developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, & well-undertaken, ten benefits can be expected. Which ten?
[5] "He wields manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, & mountains as if through space. He dives in & out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting crosslegged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches & strokes even the sun & moon, so mighty & powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds.
[6] "He hears — by means of the divine ear-element, purified & surpassing the human — both kinds of sounds: divine & human, whether near or far.
It would be interesting to know if people think it is important for them to know that Buddha was omniscient ? I mean how will it change a persons practice if they came to conclusion one way or another.
It does not change a person's practise because these powers are the same as all conditioned phenomena, namely, impermanent, unsatisfactory, not-self, empty, without lasting substance.
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them...
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it."
Right, but actually as far as I can tell he's agnostic about this question...
According to teachings about Buddhist Cosmology, the Buddha had a "divine eye" with which he could perceive other worlds, other planes of existence in the universe. That sounds clairvoyant to me. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology
It would be interesting to know if people think it is important for them to know that Buddha was omniscient ? I mean how will it change a persons practice if they came to conclusion one way or another.
Yeah my faith in Buddhism doesn't come from believing in the qualities of the Buddha but from the qualities of his teachings.
Same for me for Buddha. Same for me for Christ. The teachings are what matter.
But we know this is not true. How many scientists, let alone regular every day people, have thought about and even studied these "unconjecturables" and not gone mad? In fact, I can't such a scientist who has gone mad.
It depends what you mean by mad. it could mean just really angry .
According to teachings about Buddhist Cosmology, the Buddha had a "divine eye" with which he could perceive other worlds, other planes of existence in the universe. That sounds clairvoyant to me. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology
Don't you find using the word "divine" a bit problematic?
Don't you find using the word "divine" a bit problematic?
I did notice that, but I think that's Wikipedia's wording. But there were lots of divinities in Hindu tradition during the Buddha's time, so maybe it means simply "god-like", since humans aren't known to have such an unusual skill. But really, I'm wondering about the source for the whole cosmology teachings. Vincenzi says they're in the Pali Canon, and one of the references I gave says they're accepted by Theravada and Mahayana alike, so they're legit, apparently.
Don't you find using the word "divine" a bit problematic?
I did notice that, but I think that's Wikipedia's wording. But there were lots of divinities in Hindu tradition during the Buddha's time, so maybe it means simply "god-like", since humans aren't known to have such an unusual skill. But really, I'm wondering about the source for the whole cosmology teachings. Vincenzi says they're in the Pali Canon, and one of the references I gave says they're accepted by Theravada and Mahayana alike, so they're legit, apparently.
Seems like making Buddhism not that different from other mainstream religions.
Seems like making Buddhism not that different from other mainstream religions.
Buddhism isn't all that different from mainstream religions, depending on which brand of Buddhism you choose. The Buddha is said to have been the result of a virgin birth, to have been born with some 32 marks indicating an especially bright future, developed the recall of past lives, and other paranormal abilities; there's much mythology in Buddhism. It's Westerners, with their cultural bias in favor of the intellect who prefer bare-bones Buddhism, without all the mythology. (With the possible exception of some Mahayana sects.)
Seems like making Buddhism not that different from other mainstream religions.
Buddhism isn't all that different from mainstream religions, depending on which brand of Buddhism you choose. The Buddha is said to have been the result of a virgin birth, to have been born with some 32 marks indicating an especially bright future, developed the recall of past lives, and other paranormal abilities; there's much mythology in Buddhism. It's Westerners, with their cultural bias in favor of the intellect who prefer bare-bones Buddhism, without all the mythology. (With the possible exception of some Mahayana sects.)
Very true. After all, what beats an elephant entering his mother's womb. Yeah, sure.
The Thais believe the story that Queen Māyā and King Suddhodhana did not have children, and then one day the Queen dreamed of a divine Bodhisattva on a white elephant with eight tusks piercing her womb, and she became pregnant. The Buddha-to-be was residing as a Bodhisattva in heaven and decided to take the shape of a white elephant to be reborn on Earth for the last time. Māyā gave birth to Siddharta after a 10 month pregnancy. Then, while at Lumbini Park, she gave birth to Prince Siddhārtha on April 8.
But we know this is not true. How many scientists, let alone regular every day people, have thought about and even studied these "unconjecturables" and not gone mad? In fact, I can't such a scientist who has gone mad.
It depends what you mean by mad. it could mean just really angry .
Metta to all sentient beings :rolleyes:
The term was madness, not mad.
I got my definition below
madness [ˈmædnɪs] n 1. insanity; lunacy 2. extreme anger, excitement, or foolishness 3. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Veterinary Science) a nontechnical word for rabies
a man who had a geniune deep spiritual experience; a connection with the universe into the true nature of life, which he subsequently shared. Anyway I decided to become a Buddhist because, Buddhas core teachings , his insight, made sense and still makes sense to me.
The Buddha's core teachings are brilliant. RE: his "connection with the universe into the true nature of life, which he subsequently shared", according to him, he didn't share the majority of his insights. That intrigues me. We'll never know what he really knew, ya know?
a man who had a geniune deep spiritual experience; a connection with the universe into the true nature of life, which he subsequently shared. Anyway I decided to become a Buddhist because, Buddhas core teachings , his insight, made sense and still makes sense to me.
The Buddha's core teachings are brilliant. RE: his "connection with the universe into the true nature of life, which he subsequently shared", according to him, he didn't share the majority of his insights. That intrigues me. We'll never know what he really knew, ya know?
Eventually we will achieve this insight ourself. Who knows maybe sooner than you think
Nirvana only means/implies being free from suffering.
Good point. But the path to Enlightenment, including meditation practice, can open up intuitive knowledge, knowledge of past lives, and other phenomena, as part of the package, no?
Nirvana only means/implies being free from suffering.
Good point. But the path to Enlightenment, including meditation practice, can open up intuitive knowledge, knowledge of past lives, and other phenomena, as part of the package, no?
So, have you knowledge of your past lives? Or are you taking this on faith?
So, have you knowledge of your past lives? Or are you taking this on faith?
I believe Vincenzi when he says he has past life recall (he's mentioned this several times on other occasions). I believe the suttra that says the Buddha recalled his past lives. Meditation is designed to quiet the left brain and give access to the intuitive abilities of the right brain, so I believe those who say that with practice, siddhis can be a result of meditation practice. We had a member who posted a couple of months ago that he was getting distracted by siddhis. I have had a past-life recall experience, though it wasn't related to meditation. Does reaching Enlightenment mean you automatically get a "prize" of clairvoyance, past-life recall, and paranormal access to knowledge? Well, we can't know for sure until we get there.
So, have you knowledge of your past lives? Or are you taking this on faith?
I believe Vincenzi when he says he has past life recall (he's mentioned this several times on other occasions). I believe the suttra that says the Buddha recalled his past lives. Meditation is designed to quiet the left brain and give access to the intuitive abilities of the right brain, so I believe those who say that with practice, siddhis can be a result of meditation practice. We had a member who posted a couple of months ago that he was getting distracted by siddhis. I have had a past-life recall experience, though it wasn't related to meditation. Does reaching Enlightenment mean you automatically get a "prize" of clairvoyance, past-life recall, and paranormal access to knowledge? Well, we can't know for sure until we get there.
I'm not questioning Vincenzi's honesty. Not at all.
How do we know what he saw was accurate? How do we select whom we believe about matters such as this? Can't anyone who has a point of view say it was "revealed to him during meditation"?
Yeah, I've read these arguments before, vinlyn. Everyone needs to decide for themselves. If you don't believe in past lives or siddhis, that's fine. Actually, I'm with you as regards the "discovery" or "revelation" of sacred texts in the Tibetan tradition, the "terma". It does sound a bit like Mormonism. But one can only know (or feel that they know) for sure after having one of these experiences. There's no way to convince someone, so I don't even try. I put up my posts for those members who are open to this. Those who aren't are welcome to ignore those posts.
I don't want to gossip about Vincenzi. Personally I have wondered if I had a psychic experience but had an accident when I became mentally ill. At the time I had an insight into people that they weren't what I thought. When I described it to Lama Shenpen she said that was an encounter with the dharma. One odd thing is that a lady came to my door and brought me groceries. She lived the street down so I don't understand that. It happened when I had the mental break and I thought it was because she realized somehow and I guess I thought it was an extraordinary way to realize but it could have been ordinary.
It's true, Jeffrey, sometimes there are ordinary explanations for what appears to be extraordinary. But that doesn't mean that there are no extraordinary experiences. Absence of proof isn't proof of absence.
Yeah, I've read these arguments before, vinlyn. Everyone needs to decide for themselves. If you don't believe in past lives or siddhis, that's fine. Actually, I'm with you as regards the "discovery" or "revelation" of sacred texts in the Tibetan tradition, the "terma". It does sound a bit like Mormonism. But one can only know (or feel that they know) for sure after having one of these experiences. There's no way to convince someone, so I don't even try. I put up my posts for those members who are open to this. Those who aren't are welcome to ignore those posts.
Actually, there is little I am not "open" to, but I differentiate between being "open" and agreeing. So for past lives, I can believe that, but I personally have no evidence for it at this time.
So for past lives, I can believe that, but I personally have no evidence for it at this time.
That's cool, vin. I think it's important to keep an open mind. If the mind is too closed, it can miss some interesting things, should some unusual phenomenon just chance to occur.
This is the Dharma Ending age, people are are equating "blind faith" with their own ignorant stubborness and arrogance.
This is another reason that Buddhism is a religion, certain aspects requires faith beyond having scientific evidance to back things up.
Frankly, people misses the point again by focusing on Buddha's "super powers" rather than his compassion, kindness, morality and good advice on how to live a good life.
This is the Dharma Ending age, people are are equating "blind faith" with their own ignorant stubborness and arrogance.
This is another reason that Buddhism is a religion, certain aspects requires faith beyond having scientific evidance to back things up.
Frankly, people misses the point again by focusing on Buddha's "super powers" rather than his compassion, kindness, morality and good advice on how to live a good life.
First, you apparently are not aware that one of the great debates within and about Buddhism is whether it is a religion or a philosophy.
Second, just because people don't agree with your personal beliefs doesn't mean they are "ignorant" and "stubborn" and "arrogant".
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them...
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it."
Right, but actually as far as I can tell he's agnostic about this question...
Actually all it points to is that he says there is no point conjecturing about WHAT the Buddha range of Fully Realised Buddhas are. Ergo that includes what it is NOT too.
This is the Dharma Ending age, people are are equating "blind faith" with their own ignorant stubborness and arrogance.
This is another reason that Buddhism is a religion, certain aspects requires faith beyond having scientific evidance to back things up.
Frankly, people misses the point again by focusing on Buddha's "super powers" rather than his compassion, kindness, morality and good advice on how to live a good life.
First, you apparently are not aware that one of the great debates within and about Buddhism is whether it is a religion or a philosophy.
Second, just because people don't agree with your personal beliefs doesn't mean they are "ignorant" and "stubborn" and "arrogant".
Most people who argue about the religious aspect of Buddhism are skewed because of their attachement to equating "religions" to Abrahamic religions.
Buddhism have been practiced for thousands of years and it's no doubt a religion AND a philosphy. Even Christianity and Islam contains "philosphy on how to live your life".
This "debate" about what Buddhism isn't made between monastic masters, but by Scholars, who arrogantly but stubbornly wants to mould to it their habitual views.
Comments
Metta to all sentient beings :rolleyes:
I know I'm not infallible, that's what matters.
With metta,
Sabre
But awakening has nothing to do with denying what is reported in the suttas
The sutta as about "the range" rather than about qualities
For example, I can walk. This is a quality
But conjecture about range is: "How far can I walk? Ten miles, one hundred miles, ten thousand miles?"
that is why individuals have hang ups when they hear "buddha had no defilements, buddha was 100% happy"
Gautama Buddha said this: :om:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology
madness [ˈmædnɪs]
n
1. insanity; lunacy
2. extreme anger, excitement, or foolishness
3. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Veterinary Science) a nontechnical word for rabies
from here
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/madness
With Metta
How do we know what he saw was accurate?
How do we select whom we believe about matters such as this?
Can't anyone who has a point of view say it was "revealed to him during meditation"?
This is another reason that Buddhism is a religion, certain aspects requires faith beyond having scientific evidance to back things up.
Frankly, people misses the point again by focusing on Buddha's "super powers" rather than his compassion, kindness, morality and good advice on how to live a good life.
Second, just because people don't agree with your personal beliefs doesn't mean they are "ignorant" and "stubborn" and "arrogant".
Best wishes,
Abu
Buddhism have been practiced for thousands of years and it's no doubt a religion AND a philosphy. Even Christianity and Islam contains "philosphy on how to live your life".
This "debate" about what Buddhism isn't made between monastic masters, but by Scholars, who arrogantly but stubbornly wants to mould to it their habitual views.