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.
Could the buddha ever be wrong?
Or any enlightened being, about anything.
Is being enlightened the same as being omniscient and when you attain enlightenment you gain knowledge of such things as reincarnation... or maybe one gains such knowledge in the process of becoming.
Further, is such knowledge, like pure scientific enquiry, always open to falsification?
Just thought i'd ask as other threads have raised the possibility that some buddhist texts may actually be false, but say that the Buddha's true words are gospel truth.
Is being enlightened the same as being omniscient and when you attain enlightenment you gain knowledge of such things as reincarnation... or maybe one gains such knowledge in the process of becoming.
Further, is such knowledge, like pure scientific enquiry, always open to falsification?
Just thought i'd ask as other threads have raised the possibility that some buddhist texts may actually be false, but say that the Buddha's true words are gospel truth.
0
Comments
This is why the Buddha encouraged you to seek answers to his teachings... The Kalama Sutra is there to instruct you in this. And he did not leave himself exempt.
Even the Dalai Lama has said that if any research (scientific or otherwise) proves the teachings to be wrong, Buddhism would have to change to accommodate the new 'Truth.'
As i understand it -
So far so good....!!
But, after reading Fede's post - and trying to think a little bit before I posted - I would have to say, "Yes, Buddha could be wrong."
It is my understanding that he was an Enlightened being - not a Know-It-All. I feel quite sure that in his day, he didn't know about certain science, civilizations, languages, speech, art - and certainly not some of the things that occurred over the last 2,500 years.
I think that sometimes Enlightened is equated to "god-like". Even though I know that some sects of Buddhism have raised Buddha to a god-like status.
I don't believe he is a god. But, that shouldn't take away from his feat of becoming an Enlightened Being.
-bf
It's good to think about enlightenment this way. So I'm glad the question was asked. Because I do have a tendency to think to myself "when I become enlightened I'll be a better ________." But, will I? And, more importantly, will I ever reach enlightenment setting it up as some goal which will make me a better ______?
(No disrepect intended here...please don't flame me.)
The real question is 'am I doing the right thing'? Because there are times when we hurt others...should we not do what is right for us? A conundrum.
As Fede said, the Kalama Sutra is exactly right for this:
http://www.newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8
I, too, enjoy the aspect of Buddhism that tells you to question and find out for yourself. It is the first religion I have seen that truly embraces that attitude. Every other religion I have witnessed, no matter how open-minded, eventually runs into a point where it tells you "some things must be taken on faith" or "it's one of the mysteries" or "we do it because that's how our ancestors did it". :skeptical Sorry, but I've just got waaayyy too much curiosity for that to hold water!
On a more practical note, it would be wise of you to approach the Buddhist teaching with an open mind, and strive to learn. Nobody should blindly accept the Buddhas teachings, as he himself pointed in the Kalama Sutta (as used in the signature of someone here)
If you find something in the Buddhist teaching which you feel is wrong, you should contemplate it carefully, and if no evidence to the contrary appears, then, maybe, it is wrong.
Remember, this teaching WAS written down by men, albiet great men (and women) but they were human. The Buddha himself did not write this teaching down. Which is quite a pity.
I wish the Buddha had existed in this age. Thanks to technology we'd be able to get his teaching from him direct, archive it digitally, and pass it around on DVDs... Ahh the possibilities. Plus we'd get to ask him all our burning questions.
Sadly, the best we have right now, is his Dhamma which was written down about 2500 years ago.
Sigh.
I look at it this way. The meaningfulness of religious truth does not depend upon the strength of our belief (listen up you fundies!), but rather whether the experiences those beliefs predict actually obtain.
This is the only way one can approach the science of religion, viz., that its claims be verifiable; and if needs be, falsifiable in the sense that the experiences predicted by the belief must be obtainable—not pie in the sky.
I think this is the great strength of Buddhism. For me at least the experiences predicted by the beliefs came to pass. By comparison, Christian experiences predicted do not obtain—and if they do, they have nothing to do with the actual words of Christ or the apostle Paul (who was the only Christian that understood real Christianity between 32 CE and 70 CE when the Gospels were composed which some contend are based on a Buddhist Sanskrit play).
Modern Christians have taken everything mystical out of Christianity (remember, Paul said the Christians were the stewards of the mysteries). What is left is fanaticism and mere belief. Buddhists have left a great deal in which is quite mystical since the Buddha taught the transcendent (lokuttara). In this regard, one can confirm the truth of Buddhism through its ethical practices and its meditational practices.
However, your responses have made me think about how i understand perfection. I see it as a human concept that by definition can have no objective reality, before that could happen you need a consensus on what perfection is - which will never happen. Following this line of reasoning the Buddha is not perfect, which is perfect for me...
The Buddha, before attaining enlightenment, was a mere mortal. After attaining enlightenment, he realized a state of mind which set him apart from others.
He described himself as an "acharya manussa" (Spelling?) - two rather interesting words - "extraordinary man". Its the man bit that makes this description interesting.