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.
There is just 'one' thing I still cant understand about Buddhist path to Enlightenment..
Forgive me but you sound like you have learnt this intellectually and now apply it as fact.
Just a few points
a. We do not construct an idea of a self because of the body and mind. It is the vision of ignorance and delusion that is not penetrated which is why the idea of a separate, permanent, enduring self arises and is lived via. For the Awakened, there is no such thing as the body and mind being the reason for delusion/ignorance anymore.
b. You say that in seeing just the seen. This is as per the Buddha's instructions to Bahiya and is easily repeated. However, withe eyes closed, is there istill sight? If you say no, prepare to be whacked.
c. There is no who? So who speaks?
Anyway it is enough. Thankyou again for your detailed explanation, I appreciate your effort.
Namaste, Abu"
I feel that right view is important. And even having an intellectual view can be helpful in turning the mind towards an experiential finding. When conditions are right words are used and when there are other conditions other methods are taught. It is all dependent on what individuals need. Some need to have a firm intellectual basis and some don't, again dependents upon conditions. Whatever we type and speak about on a forum is intellectual strictly on the basis that another individual interprets the words. This is even the case even if it is a direct poetic expression.
Ignorance is always believing in what we deem as knowledge. It imho isn't not knowing. So we have knowledge of the body and mind because of our ignorance (dualistic vision). I agree with you, but the language I used was based on my own practice. What we usually consider self or I is the body or mind or a collection of the two. Thus it is extremely practical to deconstruct the experience of body and mind.
All actions of body, speech and mind arise due to causes and conditions. They require no subject, who, etc. They arise where they are and then gone.
So even these words are not owned by anyone though we can conventionally say that Taiyaki wrote them.
If mike tyson told everyone that ''his'' training routine is the ''way'' to become the best boxer EVER (like buddha said his way was the way to liberation)
Is that what liberation is? Being the best 'anything' ever? Is it about bad, better, best? For now and forever more? How do 'grade / hierarchy' and 'time' relate to liberation?
Then id want to see it and i would also ask if these boxers 'are' the best ever..
That is prudent - however, what if Tyson said, "Follow my training routine and you will be the best boxer you can be"...?
Its about people practising a specific 'way' which promises liberation and yet, Who in our modern world is a living prove of Awakened human following the buddhas teachings???
There are countless Awakened teachers and masters since Lord Buddha. What do you want -- a signed, and sealed letter? Even if you were to get that what good would it do you. ?
Best wishes, Abu
Im asking questions and searching, like Prince Siddhatha did before me. Dogen also was not happy with the sutras and practice for many many years. Like Prince siddhartha, im not just having blind faith and following one mans way.. I want to see who it has effected for the better. Who has become awakened in my life following buddhas path? I would love to meet such a man, just like Buddha always wanted to meet such a man who could teach him the way.. He had no luck. and began is own search... that was 2500 years ago. There is a thing called chinese whispers and who knows whats the truth about buddhism and buddha etc etc.. it was a long time ago.
I would be very suprised if someone didnt ask these kind of questions on their path. Its right to ask questions. Ive been lucky to sit and study with many Masters and they all say its the right thing to do. ASK ASK and ASK until i find my answers. Just like dogen.
(Many master have been GREAT, but do not claim enlightenment) And for everyone who thinks, 'an enlightened man wouldnt admit he is' i think we would at least 'know' by his presence..
Alot of masters and teachers these days are only MASTERS of BUDDHISM, or Their tradition. not necessarily masters of their LIVES.. Theres a difference between knowing everything about Buddhism, and knowing everything about the ''self''..
No offense intended @zenmyste, but perhaps do you think you don't "feel" the Enlightenment/high attainment by a Buddhist teacher/"master" because you are too cynical? In other words, not having enough of a "don't know mind?"
There is an aspect of Buddhism that I think many Westerners are not fond of; I'm talking about the faith-based aspect. Faith in the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha) - people don't take these vows for nothing. As a Buddhist teacher/"master" (I don't like that word) is part of the sangha, one should put some degree of faith into their guidance/teaching. If one does not trust one of the more attained/practiced members of the sangha, then what?
I'm not saying blindly follow anything a teacher says. But I am saying that there is a need to just forget about if they're Enlightened or not and listen to any wisdom that may help you on your own path.
Hell, you should probably listen for wisdom from anyone.
Also, I think you expect too much from these teachers. Brad Warner talks a lot about Buddhists who just want someone to come around and say "I AM ENLIGHTENED! LISTEN TO EVERYTHING I SAY AND FOLLOW ME," and are dissatisfied if a teacher is more or less a normal dude who wears a robe and shaves his head.
To an extent, knowing and practicing Buddhism in a monastic setting for many years is knowing about the self (or lack thereof).
Finally, I don't think the point of having a Buddhist teacher is to get them to tell you all the nitty gritty secrets about Buddhism/life/self/no-self/etc. They're just guides. Their experience is going to be different from your experience.
@Floating_Abu: My view: There are two views of the same thing : conventional truth and ultimate truth.
conventional truth is the truth of Samsara. ultimate truth is the truth of seeing the things as 'just they are' - all conditioned phenomena are anicca, dukkha and anatta.
the moment the concept of 'I' is created in the mind, that same moment the external world Samsara comes into being. but whatever is out there in Samsara is conditioned and so is anicca, dukkha and anatta.
the root cause is ignorance or avidya.
when ignorance will be removed, the concept of 'I' will be removed, the concept of Samsara will be removed, conventional truth will be removed and then we shall be able to see the things as 'just they are'.
For example, when you kiss a baby or drink your coffee, there is just that. Only later might the Buddhist conditioned mind say things such as 'We are just nominal projections onto processes' or 'That was anicca, dukkha and anatta'
In other words, no matter how right or true the Buddhist teachings (such as the 3 marks) are, they are really only ever approximate in terms of Buddhist experiential learning or - reality. i.e until they are engendered as genuine insights, it is all a bit phony
Tentatively and intellectually we can say things like 'There are two views of the same thing' but if you have ever kissed a baby wholeheartedly or a loved one, where were you then, where were you at that moment you kissed him/her. Were there two truths or not, was it annica, dukkha and anatta or was it not?
These are the truths that you, I and everyone here must truly penetrate if we are to learn the Buddha's wisdom, I believe.
These handhold of theory and speculation must be relinquished and preferably soon.
You also say: "when ignorance will be removed, the concept of 'I' will be removed, the concept of Samsara will be removed, conventional truth will be removed and then we shall be able to see the things as 'just they are'"
Like Ajahn Sumedho once said, the I is not an impediment or a problem per se, nor does the "concept" of Samsara need to be removed. If the truth is known, a concept is just another tool. IOW, we do not need to lose our personalities (though this may be tempered considerably) or our very convenient manifestations or our capable intellect -- because these are the objects of our renewal, our identity and our modus operandi. i.e. the problem is not the concept per se, the problem is the mistaking of that concept for reality - the very lens of (y)our reality
Like genkaku sometimes says, is a rock really a rock? Really? Before naming what is it then.
And likewise, the challenge in Zen is sometimes who/what are you. Sometimes this is manifest in our koan work: 'What was your name before your grandparents were born'
People on this forum like to mix up talk on ultimate and relative a lot but until the Ultimate is genuinely realised, and preferably affirmed, I do not see much value in it.
My view: till our minds are conditioned, which leads to our continuation of Samsara, till then - this understanding of anicca, dukkha, anatta can arise only after we start to think about the phenomena which occurred.
Let us take your example of drinking a coffee - till you drank that coffee, your conditioned mind will say - there is 'you' experiencing the taste of coffee and enjoying the coffee - but then if you think about it from ultimate truth perspective - then you will see anicca, dukkha, anatta in you drinking the coffee - first 'you' does not exist, as the body and mind are not you, so there is no 'you' anywhere - then come to coffee - how was coffee formed - because someone prepared the coffee - like 'you' do not exist, the person who prepared coffee does not exist. The coffee beans are themselves conditioned as they were the output of a seed growing into a plant producing coffee beans. Seed growing into a plant is conditioned as for growing of a seed, the condition is seed, earth, moisture and light should be there and so on it goes.
That is why i think direct experience is what matters, as it shall generate insight, which shall lead to gradual removal of conditioning of the conditioned mind.
But i think to have the theoretical understanding (till the direct experience is realized) shall be at least somewhat helpful - as it may lead us to realize that all conditioned things are anicca, dukkha and anatta, though theoretically - which may lead to arising of dispassion towards sense-objects - which then leads us to go inwards to directly experience the things as 'just they are'.
we're all enlightened. the path towards realising it makes it all interesting. enlightenment aint that much of a big deal.
@iamthezenmaster : Well, my view says the above statements are not complete, let me try to complete them as per my view
we're all enlightened - after Nirvana is realized. the path towards realising it makes it all interesting - but needs too much heedfulness, ardency and alertness to travel through it to reach its goal of realization of Nirvana. :banghead: enlightenment aint that much of a big deal - after you have realized Nirvana. :aol:
The path of buddhism is compassion. Just as the HHDL says 'my religion is kindness'.. That is the method. The wisdom is unified with that and is central to ALL tibetan sects. I believe Om Ma Ne Pad Me Hum is codified this. The jewel of the mind is found within our compassionate action in samsara. Bodhisattva path.
The only "buddhists" who could ever claim that they are personally enlightened would be those who have devoted themselves to the sravaka path and have uprooted the coarse and fine hinderances, thus achieving liberation from the nutriment of ignorance and breaking the chain of dependent origination of suffering.
These type of practitioners, in this day and age, without the pressence of a living Buddha or the existence of a sangha comprised of enlightened arhats, are few few few and far between. I would go even so far as to say ... none exist is this world. It has been over 2 millenia since the life of the Buddha, and in that time the teachings, without a doubt, have been altered, forgotten, and lost.
Not only that, but the sravaka path is extremely difficult without the aid of an enlightened instructor because the teachings are all specific to the person to whom they are given. This is why there are sometimes contradictions in the pali instructions because what works to assist one individual bikkhu may actually hinder a different individual. Without the wisdom and guidance of a living buddha or enlightened arhat, the instruction needed for overcoming the hinderances may never be acquired.
Not to say that there is anything wrong with the sravaka path AT ALL. It is a beautiful pursuit and one that, even today, is worthy of repect and admiration.
However, I tend to feel that in our modern world, the teachings of the mahayana and the boddhisattva path are much more applicable, understandable, relatable, and effective for many more people than the theravada. They focus less upon the monumental task of personal liberation and teach instead to find salvation and "enlightenment" in simple joys and in the perfection of the paramitas. At this time, the world could use more generosity, morality, patience, effort, focus, and wisdom. It could use more love.
The only "buddhists" who could ever claim that they are personally enlightened would be those who have devoted themselves to the sravaka path and have uprooted the coarse and fine hinderances, thus achieving liberation from the nutriment of ignorance and breaking the chain of dependent origination of suffering.
These type of practitioners, in this day and age, without the pressence of a living Buddha or the existence of a sangha comprised of enlightened arhats, are few few few and far between. I would go even so far as to say ... none exist is this world. It has been over 2 millenia since the life of the Buddha, and in that time the teachings, without a doubt, have been altered, forgotten, and lost.
Not only that, but the sravaka path is extremely difficult without the aid of an enlightened instructor because the teachings are all specific to the person to whom they are given. This is why there are sometimes contradictions in the pali instructions because what works to assist one individual bikkhu may actually hinder a different individual. Without the wisdom and guidance of a living buddha or enlightened arhat, the instruction needed for overcoming the hinderances may never be acquired.
Not to say that there is anything wrong with the sravaka path AT ALL. It is a beautiful pursuit and one that, even today, is worthy of repect and admiration.
However, I tend to feel that in our modern world, the teachings of the mahayana and the boddhisattva path are much more applicable, understandable, relatable, and effective for many more people than the theravada. They focus less upon the monumental task of personal liberation and teach instead to find salvation and "enlightenment" in simple joys and in the perfection of the paramitas. At this time, the world could use more generosity, morality, patience, effort, focus, and wisdom. It could use more love.
logical post but:
how long did it took the Buddha himself to realize enlightenment?
6 years.
6 years of doing concentration meditation, all kind of techniques that didn't help much, some that did.
6 years without much guidance.
so during those years, he developed great concentration skills, being able to navigate the jhanas. at least that is good.
Then figured out how to get the stuff done. A bit of luck in here.
What im trying to say is this, it took him only 6 years. And he said this is something everyone can do. with a bit of effort.
Many people got this done after he shared how he did it. From zero, to all the way. he was surrounded by them.
For many, it didn't take 20-50 years. It was getting done in a reasonable amount of time.
Ajahn Chah was saying, after 4-6 years of practicing (with him), you should have experienced enough enlightenment to be able to finish your journey by yourself and teach others. if you did your homework.
There are plenty of people who get the stuff done in reasonable amount of time. perhaps you do not believe so because you believe it is some kind of amazing thing that make people glow with an some kind of angelical white radiation and you haven't seen anyone like this yet.
if a tradition give this impression, i believe this isn't something to be followed.
I believe if you think it cannot be done, you may be stuck in a pre-conceived idea, that magical thing that happen to some people and that is out of our control. imo, this is not Buddhism and could be a potentially great hindrance to people owing this idea.
now that is not to say that there aren't some skills that require a lifetime of practice, like tummo, or perfecting the first teaching of morality...
The buddha was a boddhisattva before achieving enlightenment and had spent countless lives perfecting the paramitas. It took him six years and he was able to do it by himself because he is Samyaksambuddha. Not every buddha is samyaksambuddha. Such an achievment is extremely difficult and it is why he is called The Exalted One, the teacher of men and gods, the self-perfected one, the Buddha, Tathagata.
The buddha was a boddhisattva before achieving enlightenment and had spent countless lives perfecting the paramitas. It took him six years and he was able to do it by himself because he is Samyaksambuddha. Not every buddha is samyaksambuddha. Such an achievement is extremely difficult and it is why he is called The Exalted One, the teacher of men and gods, the self-perfected one, the Buddha, Tathagata.
sure.
but my point was that he was soon surrounded by enlighten people.
The people around him, the people he met coming to him for advices and guidance etc...
all of those people might not have been "THE" one, but they got the work done. in reasonable amount of time.
That's what I was saying in my original post. The sravaka, disciple, path requries the teachings of a living a buddha and the support of a living sangha comprised of enlightened arhats.
When the Buddha was living, he was able to instruct others exactly as they needed to be instructed in order to aid them in achieving liberation as quickly as possible. Because he is no longer walking the earth, people are not blessed with direct instruction from the exalted buddha.
It is my belief that because there is no living buddha at this time, and because the teachings have most likely been altered or lost during the passage of time, that that is why there are so few enlightened arhats in our age (if any). Not to say that people couldn't still achieve enlightenment by way of the sravaka path, but it seems to me to be a very difficult path in our modern world without the evidence and aid of a living samyaksambuddha.
That's what I was saying in my original post. The sravaka, disciple, path requries the teachings of a living a buddha and the support of a living sangha comprised of enlightened arhats.
When the Buddha was living, he was able to instruct others exactly as they needed to be instructed in order to aid them in achieving liberation as quickly as possible. Because he is no longer walking the earth, people are not blessed with direct instruction from the exalted buddha.
It is my belief that because there is no living buddha at this time, and because the teachings have most likely been altered or lost during the passage of time, that that is why there are so few enlightened arhats in our age (if any). Not to say that people couldn't still achieve enlightenment by way of the sravaka path, but it seems to me to be a very difficult path in our modern world without the evidence and aid of a living samyaksambuddha.
yes, i guess we just disagree.
i believe there are many of them.
perhaps even 10's of thousands of stream enterers, non-returners, many many arhats etc...
I don't believe it is that difficult.
I base this on the improvements i witness in the Vipassana community. for example, some messed up people, barely able to get out of their house, eaten alive by demons, extreme anxiety, very unpleasant people with lots of problems etc... meeting them a few years later being vibrant people, full of life, no more slaves of anything. many of them i believe to be stream enterers, regardless of weather they know it or not.
From there to arhatship doesn't seem to be unreasonnable task.
things seem to be in line with the time of the Buddha, as far as people description of life improvements goes.
There is full enlightenment, but there is also shades of grey, significant milestones.
ie: you do not get to wear the funny hats in Tibetan Buddhism without being somewhat enlighten (having realized a specific milestone).
you do not get to be listed in the Insight Meditation Society and teach vipassana without being somewhat enlighten (having realized a specific milestone).
You do not get to be a teacher in many traditions without being somewhat enlighten (having realized a specific milestone).
I don't believe that is entirely true
There are many half baked teachers or worse, fakes (knowing or not).
But there are also have been, and are, a lineage of Awakened personages, and those who are genuinely on the Path and with genuine clarity of heart, and it is to those we turn.
If the OP just wanted assurance other than Gautama Buddha could do it, he has plenty of genuine encouragement - past, present, and future.
If he wants a criteria to satisfy him, according to his judgements, he's got another think coming and I am personally not interested in convincing him otherwise.
If [the OP] wants a criteria to satisfy him, according to his judgements, he's got another think coming and I am personally not interested in convincing him otherwise.
Best wishes,
Abu
I get the feeling the OP is seeking confirmation that their 'understanding' is true/accurate and does not really want that view challenged. The phrase "selective hearing" springs to mind.
My view: till our minds are conditioned, which leads to our continuation of Samsara, till then - this understanding of anicca, dukkha, anatta can arise only after we start to think about the phenomena which occurred.
Let us take your example of drinking a coffee - till you drank that coffee, your conditioned mind will say - there is 'you' experiencing the taste of coffee and enjoying the coffee - but then if you think about it from ultimate truth perspective - then you will see anicca, dukkha, anatta in you drinking the coffee - first 'you' does not exist, as the body and mind are not you, so there is no 'you' anywhere - then come to coffee - how was coffee formed - because someone prepared the coffee - like 'you' do not exist, the person who prepared coffee does not exist. The coffee beans are themselves conditioned as they were the output of a seed growing into a plant producing coffee beans. Seed growing into a plant is conditioned as for growing of a seed, the condition is seed, earth, moisture and light should be there and so on it goes.
That is why i think direct experience is what matters, as it shall generate insight, which shall lead to gradual removal of conditioning of the conditioned mind.
But i think to have the theoretical understanding (till the direct experience is realized) shall be at least somewhat helpful - as it may lead us to realize that all conditioned things are anicca, dukkha and anatta, though theoretically - which may lead to arising of dispassion towards sense-objects - which then leads us to go inwards to directly experience the things as 'just they are'.</p>
Dear friend
Buddhist conditioning is also another type which "ultimately" also needs to be seen through of.
There are many half baked teachers or worse, fakes (knowing or not).
But there are also have been, and are, a lineage of Awakened personages, and those who are genuinely on the Path and with genuine clarity of heart, and it is to those we turn.
If the OP just wanted assurance other than Gautama Buddha could do it, he has plenty of genuine encouragement - past, present, and future.
so you agree there are many good example, but that there are also the fakes.
just clarifying.
Personally, since we both know what you are insinuating I believe many of your own judgements would be mellowed down if you used the advice you give to many here about the teaching and actually tried some of the teachings or traditions that you are not familiar with on a practice level before judging them.
I get the feeling the OP is seeking confirmation that their 'understanding' is true/accurate and does not really want that view challenged. The phrase "selective hearing" springs to mind.
Maybe but in many ways I think it is quite human no?
Fear - "I don't want to be duped!" "I dun wanna waste my time on all this bollocks if it's for nothin'" Reluctance/Reward quotient - "I don't have to follow something that seems rigid when it just seems like plain ol' common sense right?!" "I don't have to invest anything in this right?"
i.e. In other words, I can understand and relate but I think that where the line is drawn is where: Do you wanna join the party or not? If you don't want to, the door is over there and that is absolutely fine - be kind, be happy and be at peace. If you want to, well here are the practice guides to get you started and after 5-6 years of practice, perhaps you will know your questions for what they are. Maybe.
But certainly, I would not encourage this continuous line of questioning. If you don't practice, then nothing will come out of any question -- or answer. And that's the truth that I believe.
@Floating_Abu Oh of course. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't guilty of "selective hearing" from time to time, of wanting confirmation that my views are valid and correct. I've got to constantly remember to "check myself". It's tough challenging our own beliefs, and I think challenging our own cozy, snug beliefs/views is central to practice. Keep, "don't know" mind; keep beginner's mind.
I reserve judgement but will say that my sense of what you expressed did not feel right. That does not mean it is not and I wish you well, and may all our paths be so blessed.
we're all enlightened. the path towards realising it makes it all interesting. enlightenment aint that much of a big deal.
@iamthezenmaster : Well, my view says the above statements are not complete, let me try to complete them as per my view
we're all enlightened - after Nirvana is realized. the path towards realising it makes it all interesting - but needs too much heedfulness, ardency and alertness to travel through it to reach its goal of realization of Nirvana. :banghead: enlightenment aint that much of a big deal - after you have realized Nirvana. :aol:
lol... cheers... still your saying what i'm saying... :P
The 8fp is endless and without destination(except the path itself). Buddha nature was already in you, walking the path is being buddha nature( the journey was complete before you began, you just had to realize.)
Just my 2 cents, that's how I've been thinking about it lately. If that makes sense?
There have been Tibetan teachers who attained the rainbow body after death, according to reports, Dudjom Rinpoche who passed away some years ago was said by many to be Enlightened, a Theravada monk who recently passed away was said to have reached arhat-hood. I don't know what the OP wants, Certificates of Enlightenment? It doesn't work that way. Few have achieved Enlightenment because it's difficult to do, and not very many try sincerely and with dedication. Is this so difficult to grasp?
I never said I believed it, I said "according to reports". I'm answering the OP. Don't start with the "do you really believe this" stuff again. This is for the benefit of the OP.
^^ That was not meant as in "you", Dakini, but more like the "royal we". People in general. And my question goes right along with the OPs.
There's an ongoing discussion topic in many threads about how scientific Buddhism is compared to other religions. And then we have "rainbow bodies", certain people supposedly being enlightened (with no evidence whatsoever), Therevada monks who have supposedly reached "arat-hood", monks in Thailand whose bodies have not decayed in dozens of years though they were not embalmed (I've personally seen this at least a dozen times), and literally hundreds of temples in Thailand alone that have bones of Buddha's body buried in chedis (again, I've personally visited these temples). And in the latter case, well, Buddha didn't have that many bones, since other bones supposedly are buried in chedis in other countries. And so many other things at various temples that have been certified by the Supreme Sangha of Thailand.
Meanwhile, if the Pope declares a priest or monk or nun to have brought about miracles, we don't believe it. If someone sees a Catholic statue in a church bleed, we laugh at it. If someone sees the likeness of Jesus in a mud puddle, we think they're a bit deranged.
There are the 4 Noble Truths. The Eightfold Path. The Precepts. And so many wise words in the Dhamma.
And then there's all this other "stuff" surrounding real Buddhism that so many people just swallow...and then say how much more scientific Buddhism is than other religions. I thought one principle of Buddhism was that Buddhists make every attempt to see things as they really are. And yet, there's all that stuff. I find it very discouraging that we lend credence to this other "stuff" just because someone says it.
Well, here's a good topic. There does tend to be a belief that Buddhism is more scientific than other religions, but that only holds true for the basic theory, more or less. As soon as you look at Buddhism as it's practiced around Asia, suddenly it's not very scientific at all. Tibetan Buddhism has a lot of folk beliefs mixed in, as do other forms of Buddhism, so, on the whole, not too scientific. Westerners cherry-pick the parts of Buddhism they want to adhere to, so they can kind of squeeze it into a more or less scientific model. But as soon as anyone brings up the Buddha's teachings on the 32 realms of existence, the hells, and so forth, well there goes "scientific" out the window.
You could start a thread on, "How Scientific Is Buddhism, Really?"
well, this discussion seems to have taken an interesting turn here. well to add something more to the above discussion, when we think about Gods/Goddesses in Hinduism, we think God does not exist. As per Hinduism, the three main Gods of the whole universe are Brahma, Vishnu and Shiv. So if we believe there are no Gods, so that whatever is told in Hinduism seems to be a just made-up story without any basis (i myself being a Hindu) - then my question is - how come a Sutta says that initially Buddha did not want to teach Dhamma, but later when Brahma asked Buddha to teach Dhamma, then Buddha agreed to teach Dhamma - so what is the validity of this Sutta. If this Sutta is valid, then Brahma should exist - so whatever is said in Hinduism cannot be a just made-up story without any basis.
moreover in other Suttas, it is said Buddha told about how people are treated in heaven and hell - so does heaven and hell exist? do Devas or Gods exist in heaven?
it is easy to say that other religions are not scientific and Buddhism is scientific - but is whatever is said in all the Suttas of Tipitaka totally agreeable , or , is it that in Buddhism, we take some selective Suttas and believe in them to be true, and leave few Suttas by not believing in them?
moreover, what is scientific can only be seen/understood through this physical body - but what if there exists something which is beyond this physical realm , like realm of consciousness, which may exist outside the boundary of physical realm and cannot be reached through activities in external world, but can be reached only by going in the inner world. so does claiming a religion to be scientific really leads us to the truth?
Well, here's a good topic. There does tend to be a belief that Buddhism is more scientific than other religions, but that only holds true for the basic theory, more or less. As soon as you look at Buddhism as it's practiced around Asia, suddenly it's not very scientific at all. Tibetan Buddhism has a lot of folk beliefs mixed in, as do other forms of Buddhism, so, on the whole, not too scientific. Westerners cherry-pick the parts of Buddhism they want to adhere to, so they can kind of squeeze it into a more or less scientific model. But as soon as anyone brings up the Buddha's teachings on the 32 realms of existence, the hells, and so forth, well there goes "scientific" out the window.
You could start a thread on, "How Scientific Is Buddhism, Really?"
Dakini, I appreciate your response here. It seems realistic.
You see, I have no problem with any religion, including Buddhism, being based on "faith", as long as individuals can recognize the difference between "faith" and "realism".
I think that's why, despite all my time spent in Thailand where it is truly practiced as a religion, that -- as I read more and more in this forum -- that I am looking at it more and more as a philosophy.
well, this discussion seems to have taken an interesting turn here. well to add something more to the above discussion, when we think about Gods/Goddesses in Hinduism, we think God does not exist. As per Hinduism, the three main Gods of the whole universe are Brahma, Vishnu and Shiv. So if we believe there are no Gods, so that whatever is told in Hinduism seems to be a just made-up story without any basis (i myself being a Hindu) - then my question is - how come a Sutta says that initially Buddha did not want to teach Dhamma, but later when Brahma asked Buddha to teach Dhamma, then Buddha agreed to teach Dhamma - so what is the validity of this Sutta. If this Sutta is valid, then Brahma should exist - so whatever is said in Hinduism cannot be a just made-up story without any basis.
moreover in other Suttas, it is said Buddha told about how people are treated in heaven and hell - so does heaven and hell exist? do Devas or Gods exist in heaven?
it is easy to say that other religions are not scientific and Buddhism is scientific - but is whatever is said in all the Suttas of Tipitaka totally agreeable , or , is it that in Buddhism, we take some selective Suttas and believe in them to be true, and leave few Suttas by not believing in them?
moreover, what is scientific can only be seen/understood through this physical body - but what if there exists something which is beyond this physical realm , like realm of consciousness, which may exist outside the boundary of physical realm and cannot be reached through activities in external world, but can be reached only by going in the inner world. so does claiming a religion to be scientific really leads us to the truth?
Interesting. I'll be anxious to see how people respond to your post!
Westerners cherry-pick the parts of Buddhism they want to adhere to, so they can kind of squeeze it into a more or less scientific model.
Cherry-pick? Is that what the Buddha did when he eliminated a bunch of beliefs that were prevalent at the time?
Your argument above suggests that one is the true Buddhism and the other isn't - because it's apparently not the whole story - like saying protestants are not a valid faith, because they lack saints.... I can only hope that in years to come secular Buddhism will be accepted as is, and not just seen as a minor spin off created by/for those who cannot stomach the hoopla and mystery gods (like myself).
I also don't see what adhering to the 4/8 and precepts has to do with science as part of Buddhism. All that talk is so intellectual, and as off putting as the blind belief in gods and such.
Re the valid points that @Vinlyn made.... A video I posted in another thread by Werner Herzog describes in great detail the lengths some Tibetan Buddhist go to to accommodate their superstitions. It left me quite baffled, to say the least.... and it is definitely not the Buddhism I can identify with -- (very) far from it!
Your argument above suggests that one is the true Buddhism and the other isn't - because it's apparently not the whole story - like saying protestants are not a valid faith, because they lack saints....
I can only hope that in years to come secular Buddhism will be accepted as is, and not just seen as a minor spin off created by/for those who cannot stomach the hoopla and mystery gods (like myself).
I also don't see what adhering to the 4/8 and precepts has to do with science as part of Buddhism. All that talk is so intellectual, and as off putting as the blind belief in gods and such.
...
In the first paragraph above...could you just expand on that a bit. I don't quite understand what you're saying.
By "secular Buddhism", are you referring to Buddhism as a philosophy, rather than a religion?
moreover, what is scientific can only be seen/understood through this physical body - but what if there exists something which is beyond this physical realm , like realm of consciousness, which may exist outside the boundary of physical realm and cannot be reached through activities in external world, but can be reached only by going in the inner world. so does claiming a religion to be scientific really leads us to the truth?
All that be known or perceived goes through our sense of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch and thoughts. Science is attempting to extend our abilities through tools such as microscopes, telescopes etc. There is nothing beyond our senses, as you alluded to. Science cannot give the answer as it is similar to "travelling" to reach the complete understanding of the cosmos. I suspect neutrinos, God particles, scientific theory etc will never end.
"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos." Rohitassa Sutta
moreover, what is scientific can only be seen/understood through this physical body - but what if there exists something which is beyond this physical realm , like realm of consciousness, which may exist outside the boundary of physical realm and cannot be reached through activities in external world, but can be reached only by going in the inner world. so does claiming a religion to be scientific really leads us to the truth?
All that be known or perceived goes through our sense of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch and thoughts. Science is attempting to extend our abilities through tools such as microscopes, telescopes etc. There is nothing beyond our senses, as you alluded to. Science cannot give the answer as it is similar to "travelling" to reach the complete understanding of the cosmos. I suspect neutrinos, God particles, scientific theory etc will never end.
"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos." Rohitassa Sutta
While science does not have, and will not have, the answer to everything that man ever questions, science continually marches beyond what each generation ever thought science could accomplish.
Well, here's a good topic. There does tend to be a belief that Buddhism is more scientific than other religions, but that only holds true for the basic theory, more or less. As soon as you look at Buddhism as it's practiced around Asia, suddenly it's not very scientific at all. Tibetan Buddhism has a lot of folk beliefs mixed in, as do other forms of Buddhism, so, on the whole, not too scientific. Westerners cherry-pick the parts of Buddhism they want to adhere to, so they can kind of squeeze it into a more or less scientific model. But as soon as anyone brings up the Buddha's teachings on the 32 realms of existence, the hells, and so forth, well there goes "scientific" out the window.
You could start a thread on, "How Scientific Is Buddhism, Really?"
Dakini, I appreciate your response here. It seems realistic.
You see, I have no problem with any religion, including Buddhism, being based on "faith", as long as individuals can recognize the difference between "faith" and "realism".
I think that's why, despite all my time spent in Thailand where it is truly practiced as a religion, that -- as I read more and more in this forum -- that I am looking at it more and more as a philosophy.
No it's not necessarily practiced as a religion.
If you want to see its practice depths, you can refer to the Thai Forest tradition. They practiced the religion - which in Buddhist terms -- is the practice, not the superstition, rituals etc.
As to some of @Daikini 's points, a sceptic will never believe there is more to what can be materialistically seen, tasted, touched, heard and smelt because that realm is in consciousness but many people who practice, will no longer doubt what is so 'normal' and (seemingly) extraordinary.
Westerners cherry-pick the parts of Buddhism they want to adhere to, so they can kind of squeeze it into a more or less scientific model.
Cherry-pick? Is that what the Buddha did when he eliminated a bunch of beliefs that were prevalent at the time?
Your argument above suggests that one is the true Buddhism and the other isn't - because it's apparently not the whole story - like saying protestants are not a valid faith, because they lack saints.... I can only hope that in years to come secular Buddhism will be accepted as is, and not just seen as a minor spin off created by/for those who cannot stomach the hoopla and mystery gods (like myself).
I also don't see what adhering to the 4/8 and precepts has to do with science as part of Buddhism. All that talk is so intellectual, and as off putting as the blind belief in gods and such.
Re the valid points that @Vinlyn made.... A video I posted in another thread by Werner Herzog describes in great detail the lengths some Tibetan Buddhist go to to accommodate their superstitions. It left me quite baffled, to say the least.... and it is definitely not the Buddhism I can identify with -- (very) far from it!
I think Daikini is just pointing out that some people do cherry pick. There's nothing wrong with cherry picking if you are practicing by the way, so I don't understand the defensive. However, to reach conclusions may be yet premature
By definition, Gautama Buddha is the Buddha of our age. That is he rediscovered the workings/Law of Dharma and then set out to teach this to the rest of us.
Well, here's a good topic. There does tend to be a belief that Buddhism is more scientific than other religions, but that only holds true for the basic theory, more or less. As soon as you look at Buddhism as it's practiced around Asia, suddenly it's not very scientific at all. Tibetan Buddhism has a lot of folk beliefs mixed in, as do other forms of Buddhism, so, on the whole, not too scientific. Westerners cherry-pick the parts of Buddhism they want to adhere to, so they can kind of squeeze it into a more or less scientific model. But as soon as anyone brings up the Buddha's teachings on the 32 realms of existence, the hells, and so forth, well there goes "scientific" out the window.
You could start a thread on, "How Scientific Is Buddhism, Really?"
Dakini, I appreciate your response here. It seems realistic.
You see, I have no problem with any religion, including Buddhism, being based on "faith", as long as individuals can recognize the difference between "faith" and "realism".
I think that's why, despite all my time spent in Thailand where it is truly practiced as a religion, that -- as I read more and more in this forum -- that I am looking at it more and more as a philosophy.
No it's not necessarily practiced as a religion.
If you want to see its practice depths, you can refer to the Thai Forest tradition. They practiced the religion - which in Buddhist terms -- is the practice, not the superstition, rituals etc.
As to some of @Daikini 's points, a sceptic will never believe there is more to what can be materialistically seen, tasted, touched, heard and smelt because that realm is in consciousness but many people who practice, will no longer doubt what is so 'normal' and (seemingly) extraordinary.
I've been to Thai forest "temples" and saw superstition there, as well. In fact, the more rural the temple, the more likely I was to see an increase in animism mixed into the Buddhism.
@Floating_Abu, how do you think the world of the senses was created? The TB answer is karma I believe.. And thus there may be beings we are unaware of and phenomena we are unaware of. All created by karma. What creates the content of your dreams? That too is sensory information, but it is not composed of matter. Is a pureland composed of matter?
There is nothing beyond our senses, as you alluded to.
Dependent origination
Dependent on ignorance are habitual formations; dependent on habitual (kamma-) formations is consciousness; dependent on consciousness are name-and-form (mentality-corporeality); dependent on name-and-form are the six sense-bases; dependent on the six sensebases is contact; dependent on contact is feeling; dependent on feeling is desire; dependent on desire is grasping; dependent on grasping is becoming; dependent on becoming is birth; dependent on birth is old age, sickness and death, sorrow, grief, lamentation, pain and despair. Through the entire ceasing of this ignorance habitual formations cease; through the ceasing of habitual formations consciousness ceases; through the ceasing of consciousness name-and form-cease; through the ceasing of name- and-form the six sense bases cease; through the ceasing of the six sense bases contact ceases; through the ceasing of contact feeling ceases; through the ceasing of feeling desire ceases; through the ceasing of desire grasping ceases; through the ceasing of grasping becoming ceases; through the ceasing of becoming birth ceases; through the ceasing of birth old age, sickness and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair come to cease. Thus is the ceasing of this whole mass of suffering.
I've been to Thai forest "temples" and saw superstition there, as well. In fact, the more rural the temple, the more likely I was to see an increase in animism mixed into the Buddhism.
If you have not been able to distill what is practice, and what is ritual, then I am sorry for you, @vinlyn. In the long course of his wilderness training, Ajaan Mun learned that — contrary to Reform and Customary beliefs — the path to nirvana was not closed. The true Dhamma was to be found not in old customs or texts but in the well-trained heart and mind. The texts were pointers for training, nothing more or less. The rules of the Vinaya, instead of simply being external customs, played an important role in physical and mental survival. As for the Dhamma texts, practice was not just a matter of confirming what they said. Reading and thinking about the texts could not give an adequate understanding of what they meant — and did not count as showing them true respect. True respect for the texts meant taking them as a challenge: putting their teachings seriously to the test to see if, in fact, they are true. In the course of testing the teachings, the mind would come to many unexpected realizations that were not contained in the texts. These in turn had to be put to the test as well, so that one learned gradually by trial and error to the point of an actual noble attainment. Only then, Ajaan Mun would say, did one understand the Dhamma.
This attitude toward the Dhamma parallels what ancient cultures called "warrior knowledge" — the knowledge that comes from developing skills in difficult situations — as opposed to the "scribe knowledge" that people sitting in relative security and ease can write down in words. Of course, warriors need to use words in their training, but they view a text as authoritative only if its teachings are borne out in practice. The Canon itself encourages this attitude when it quotes the Buddha as teaching his aunt, "As for the teachings of which you may know, 'These teachings lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to divesting, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may definitely hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'"
Thus the ultimate authority in judging a teaching is not whether the teaching can be found in a text. It lies in each person's relentless honesty in putting the Dhamma to the test and carefully monitoring the results.
@Floating_Abu, how do you think the world of the senses was created? The TB answer is karma I believe.. And thus there may be beings we are unaware of and phenomena we are unaware of. All created by karma. What creates the content of your dreams? That too is sensory information, but it is not composed of matter. Is a pureland composed of matter?
We are consciousness, and dependent origination points us to the link, the chain of causation so to speak. The knowing of this must, in my opinion, transcend the six senses for it is above and beyond that. Keeping in mind that people use different words in different ways sometimes, I would say all causation, all cause and effect ie this world that we live in and witness, is itself the workings of karma. This is why we are all bound in some way so to the karma of the collective, and why I believe individual practices cannot help but benefit these causal links and kammic debts we have. For people whom practice, they cannot help (they cannot help) but delinquish the bonds of greed, hatred and delusion i.e. they cannot help but be happier and more peaceful/useful characters in their lives. The bonds of suffering in the eyes of Dharma are also the chains of freedom, so they need to be followed carefully. As to what we are not aware of...there is great possibility but I do not know much about that. I have met people who do but as my own style is to trust that when I am supposed to know, then I too will learn of that if it is necessary through first hand insight. I have however witnessed enough...differences...to not disbelieve and this comes from a pretty straight up corporate (skeptical!) background. I believe the Dharma graces people whom grace it also. As to pureland etc. .... I do not know but if you would ask me to guess, I would say consciousness has a million fold possibilities! Endless...therein is our playground of life. I don't care much for pure land or that because I believe our focus is our lives and world here, and that is plenty to keep me busy.
Comments
Forgive me but you sound like you have learnt this intellectually and now apply it as fact.
Just a few points
a. We do not construct an idea of a self because of the body and mind. It is the vision of ignorance and delusion that is not penetrated which is why the idea of a separate, permanent, enduring self arises and is lived via. For the Awakened, there is no such thing as the body and mind being the reason for delusion/ignorance anymore.
b. You say that in seeing just the seen. This is as per the Buddha's instructions to Bahiya and is easily repeated. However, withe eyes closed, is there istill sight? If you say no, prepare to be whacked.
c. There is no who? So who speaks?
Anyway it is enough. Thankyou again for your detailed explanation, I appreciate your effort.
Namaste,
Abu"
I feel that right view is important. And even having an intellectual view can be helpful in turning the mind towards an experiential finding. When conditions are right words are used and when there are other conditions other methods are taught. It is all dependent on what individuals need. Some need to have a firm intellectual basis and some don't, again dependents upon conditions. Whatever we type and speak about on a forum is intellectual strictly on the basis that another individual interprets the words. This is even the case even if it is a direct poetic expression.
Ignorance is always believing in what we deem as knowledge. It imho isn't not knowing. So we have knowledge of the body and mind because of our ignorance (dualistic vision). I agree with you, but the language I used was based on my own practice. What we usually consider self or I is the body or mind or a collection of the two. Thus it is extremely practical to deconstruct the experience of body and mind.
All actions of body, speech and mind arise due to causes and conditions. They require no subject, who, etc. They arise where they are and then gone.
So even these words are not owned by anyone though we can conventionally say that Taiyaki wrote them.
I will reflect on what you say and come back to you, old friend
_/\_
There is an aspect of Buddhism that I think many Westerners are not fond of; I'm talking about the faith-based aspect. Faith in the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha) - people don't take these vows for nothing. As a Buddhist teacher/"master" (I don't like that word) is part of the sangha, one should put some degree of faith into their guidance/teaching. If one does not trust one of the more attained/practiced members of the sangha, then what?
I'm not saying blindly follow anything a teacher says. But I am saying that there is a need to just forget about if they're Enlightened or not and listen to any wisdom that may help you on your own path.
Hell, you should probably listen for wisdom from anyone.
Also, I think you expect too much from these teachers. Brad Warner talks a lot about Buddhists who just want someone to come around and say "I AM ENLIGHTENED! LISTEN TO EVERYTHING I SAY AND FOLLOW ME," and are dissatisfied if a teacher is more or less a normal dude who wears a robe and shaves his head.
To an extent, knowing and practicing Buddhism in a monastic setting for many years is knowing about the self (or lack thereof).
Finally, I don't think the point of having a Buddhist teacher is to get them to tell you all the nitty gritty secrets about Buddhism/life/self/no-self/etc. They're just guides. Their experience is going to be different from your experience.
My view: till our minds are conditioned, which leads to our continuation of Samsara, till then - this understanding of anicca, dukkha, anatta can arise only after we start to think about the phenomena which occurred.
Let us take your example of drinking a coffee - till you drank that coffee, your conditioned mind will say - there is 'you' experiencing the taste of coffee and enjoying the coffee - but then if you think about it from ultimate truth perspective - then you will see anicca, dukkha, anatta in you drinking the coffee - first 'you' does not exist, as the body and mind are not you, so there is no 'you' anywhere - then come to coffee - how was coffee formed - because someone prepared the coffee - like 'you' do not exist, the person who prepared coffee does not exist. The coffee beans are themselves conditioned as they were the output of a seed growing into a plant producing coffee beans. Seed growing into a plant is conditioned as for growing of a seed, the condition is seed, earth, moisture and light should be there and so on it goes.
That is why i think direct experience is what matters, as it shall generate insight, which shall lead to gradual removal of conditioning of the conditioned mind.
But i think to have the theoretical understanding (till the direct experience is realized) shall be at least somewhat helpful - as it may lead us to realize that all conditioned things are anicca, dukkha and anatta, though theoretically - which may lead to arising of dispassion towards sense-objects - which then leads us to go inwards to directly experience the things as 'just they are'.
the path towards realising it makes it all interesting.
enlightenment aint that much of a big deal.
we're all enlightened - after Nirvana is realized.
the path towards realising it makes it all interesting - but needs too much heedfulness, ardency and alertness to travel through it to reach its goal of realization of Nirvana. :banghead:
enlightenment aint that much of a big deal - after you have realized Nirvana. :aol:
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=union+of+method+and+wisdom+Tibetan+Buddhism&oq=union+of+method+and+wisdom+Tibetan+Buddhism&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_l=hp.3...950.7840.0.8092.43.41.0.0.0.0.277.6305.0j34j7.41.0.gsihc.1.0.0.eV0K-iKrlJw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=cead00475814b856&biw=1200&bih=575
The path of buddhism is compassion. Just as the HHDL says 'my religion is kindness'.. That is the method. The wisdom is unified with that and is central to ALL tibetan sects. I believe Om Ma Ne Pad Me Hum is codified this. The jewel of the mind is found within our compassionate action in samsara. Bodhisattva path.
The only "buddhists" who could ever claim that they are personally enlightened would be those who have devoted themselves to the sravaka path and have uprooted the coarse and fine hinderances, thus achieving liberation from the nutriment of ignorance and breaking the chain of dependent origination of suffering.
These type of practitioners, in this day and age, without the pressence of a living Buddha or the existence of a sangha comprised of enlightened arhats, are few few few and far between. I would go even so far as to say ... none exist is this world. It has been over 2 millenia since the life of the Buddha, and in that time the teachings, without a doubt, have been altered, forgotten, and lost.
Not only that, but the sravaka path is extremely difficult without the aid of an enlightened instructor because the teachings are all specific to the person to whom they are given. This is why there are sometimes contradictions in the pali instructions because what works to assist one individual bikkhu may actually hinder a different individual. Without the wisdom and guidance of a living buddha or enlightened arhat, the instruction needed for overcoming the hinderances may never be acquired.
Not to say that there is anything wrong with the sravaka path AT ALL. It is a beautiful pursuit and one that, even today, is worthy of repect and admiration.
However, I tend to feel that in our modern world, the teachings of the mahayana and the boddhisattva path are much more applicable, understandable, relatable, and effective for many more people than the theravada. They focus less upon the monumental task of personal liberation and teach instead to find salvation and "enlightenment" in simple joys and in the perfection of the paramitas. At this time, the world could use more generosity, morality, patience, effort, focus, and wisdom. It could use more love.
how long did it took the Buddha himself to realize enlightenment?
6 years.
6 years of doing concentration meditation, all kind of techniques that didn't help much, some that did.
6 years without much guidance.
so during those years, he developed great concentration skills, being able to navigate the jhanas. at least that is good.
Then figured out how to get the stuff done. A bit of luck in here.
What im trying to say is this, it took him only 6 years.
And he said this is something everyone can do.
with a bit of effort.
Many people got this done after he shared how he did it.
From zero, to all the way.
he was surrounded by them.
For many, it didn't take 20-50 years.
It was getting done in a reasonable amount of time.
Ajahn Chah was saying, after 4-6 years of practicing (with him), you should have experienced enough enlightenment to be able to finish your journey by yourself and teach others. if you did your homework.
There are plenty of people who get the stuff done in reasonable amount of time.
perhaps you do not believe so because you believe it is some kind of amazing thing that make people glow with an some kind of angelical white radiation and you haven't seen anyone like this yet.
if a tradition give this impression, i believe this isn't something to be followed.
I believe if you think it cannot be done, you may be stuck in a pre-conceived idea, that magical thing that happen to some people and that is out of our control.
imo, this is not Buddhism and could be a potentially great hindrance to people owing this idea.
now that is not to say that there aren't some skills that require a lifetime of practice, like tummo, or perfecting the first teaching of morality...
i meant he had no guidance in the dhamma and wisdom...
since none of the teachers he found knew the path to the end of suffering.
The buddha was a boddhisattva before achieving enlightenment and had spent countless lives perfecting the paramitas. It took him six years and he was able to do it by himself because he is Samyaksambuddha. Not every buddha is samyaksambuddha. Such an achievment is extremely difficult and it is why he is called The Exalted One, the teacher of men and gods, the self-perfected one, the Buddha, Tathagata.
but my point was that he was soon surrounded by enlighten people.
The people around him, the people he met coming to him for advices and guidance etc...
all of those people might not have been "THE" one, but they got the work done. in reasonable amount of time.
That's what I was saying in my original post. The sravaka, disciple, path requries the teachings of a living a buddha and the support of a living sangha comprised of enlightened arhats.
When the Buddha was living, he was able to instruct others exactly as they needed to be instructed in order to aid them in achieving liberation as quickly as possible. Because he is no longer walking the earth, people are not blessed with direct instruction from the exalted buddha.
It is my belief that because there is no living buddha at this time, and because the teachings have most likely been altered or lost during the passage of time, that that is why there are so few enlightened arhats in our age (if any). Not to say that people couldn't still achieve enlightenment by way of the sravaka path, but it seems to me to be a very difficult path in our modern world without the evidence and aid of a living samyaksambuddha.
i believe there are many of them.
perhaps even 10's of thousands of stream enterers, non-returners, many many arhats etc...
I don't believe it is that difficult.
I base this on the improvements i witness in the Vipassana community.
for example, some messed up people, barely able to get out of their house, eaten alive by demons, extreme anxiety, very unpleasant people with lots of problems etc... meeting them a few years later being vibrant people, full of life, no more slaves of anything.
many of them i believe to be stream enterers, regardless of weather they know it or not.
From there to arhatship doesn't seem to be unreasonnable task.
things seem to be in line with the time of the Buddha, as far as people description of life improvements goes.
There are many half baked teachers or worse, fakes (knowing or not).
But there are also have been, and are, a lineage of Awakened personages, and those who are genuinely on the Path and with genuine clarity of heart, and it is to those we turn.
If the OP just wanted assurance other than Gautama Buddha could do it, he has plenty of genuine encouragement - past, present, and future.
If he wants a criteria to satisfy him, according to his judgements, he's got another think coming and I am personally not interested in convincing him otherwise.
Best wishes,
Abu
Buddhist conditioning is also another type which "ultimately" also needs to be seen through of.
Happy practicing, for therein is your treasure.
Abu
just clarifying.
Personally, since we both know what you are insinuating
I believe many of your own judgements would be mellowed down if you used the advice you give to many here about the teaching and actually tried some of the teachings or traditions that you are not familiar with on a practice level before judging them.
Best wishes,
Abu
Fear - "I don't want to be duped!" "I dun wanna waste my time on all this bollocks if it's for nothin'"
Reluctance/Reward quotient - "I don't have to follow something that seems rigid when it just seems like plain ol' common sense right?!" "I don't have to invest anything in this right?"
i.e. In other words, I can understand and relate
But certainly, I would not encourage this continuous line of questioning. If you don't practice, then nothing will come out of any question -- or answer. And that's the truth that I believe.
Abu
Yeah, we all need each other.
Thanks,
Abu
I reserve judgement but will say that my sense of what you expressed did not feel right. That does not mean it is not and I wish you well, and may all our paths be so blessed.
Namaste,
Abu
cheers...
still your saying what i'm saying...
Just my 2 cents, that's how I've been thinking about it lately. If that makes sense?
So much for Buddhism being more scientific than the other religions.
There's an ongoing discussion topic in many threads about how scientific Buddhism is compared to other religions. And then we have "rainbow bodies", certain people supposedly being enlightened (with no evidence whatsoever), Therevada monks who have supposedly reached "arat-hood", monks in Thailand whose bodies have not decayed in dozens of years though they were not embalmed (I've personally seen this at least a dozen times), and literally hundreds of temples in Thailand alone that have bones of Buddha's body buried in chedis (again, I've personally visited these temples). And in the latter case, well, Buddha didn't have that many bones, since other bones supposedly are buried in chedis in other countries. And so many other things at various temples that have been certified by the Supreme Sangha of Thailand.
Meanwhile, if the Pope declares a priest or monk or nun to have brought about miracles, we don't believe it. If someone sees a Catholic statue in a church bleed, we laugh at it. If someone sees the likeness of Jesus in a mud puddle, we think they're a bit deranged.
There are the 4 Noble Truths. The Eightfold Path. The Precepts. And so many wise words in the Dhamma.
And then there's all this other "stuff" surrounding real Buddhism that so many people just swallow...and then say how much more scientific Buddhism is than other religions. I thought one principle of Buddhism was that Buddhists make every attempt to see things as they really are. And yet, there's all that stuff. I find it very discouraging that we lend credence to this other "stuff" just because someone says it.
You could start a thread on, "How Scientific Is Buddhism, Really?"
moreover in other Suttas, it is said Buddha told about how people are treated in heaven and hell - so does heaven and hell exist? do Devas or Gods exist in heaven?
it is easy to say that other religions are not scientific and Buddhism is scientific - but is whatever is said in all the Suttas of Tipitaka totally agreeable , or , is it that in Buddhism, we take some selective Suttas and believe in them to be true, and leave few Suttas by not believing in them?
moreover, what is scientific can only be seen/understood through this physical body - but what if there exists something which is beyond this physical realm , like realm of consciousness, which may exist outside the boundary of physical realm and cannot be reached through activities in external world, but can be reached only by going in the inner world. so does claiming a religion to be scientific really leads us to the truth?
You see, I have no problem with any religion, including Buddhism, being based on "faith", as long as individuals can recognize the difference between "faith" and "realism".
I think that's why, despite all my time spent in Thailand where it is truly practiced as a religion, that -- as I read more and more in this forum -- that I am looking at it more and more as a philosophy.
Your argument above suggests that one is the true Buddhism and the other isn't - because it's apparently not the whole story - like saying protestants are not a valid faith, because they lack saints....
I can only hope that in years to come secular Buddhism will be accepted as is, and not just seen as a minor spin off created by/for those who cannot stomach the hoopla and mystery gods (like myself).
I also don't see what adhering to the 4/8 and precepts has to do with science as part of Buddhism. All that talk is so intellectual, and as off putting as the blind belief in gods and such.
Re the valid points that @Vinlyn made.... A video I posted in another thread by Werner Herzog describes in great detail the lengths some Tibetan Buddhist go to to accommodate their superstitions. It left me quite baffled, to say the least.... and it is definitely not the Buddhism I can identify with -- (very) far from it!
By "secular Buddhism", are you referring to Buddhism as a philosophy, rather than a religion?
Thanks!
"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos." Rohitassa Sutta
If you want to see its practice depths, you can refer to the Thai Forest tradition. They practiced the religion - which in Buddhist terms -- is the practice, not the superstition, rituals etc.
As to some of @Daikini 's points, a sceptic will never believe there is more to what can be materialistically seen, tasted, touched, heard and smelt because that realm is in consciousness but many people who practice, will no longer doubt what is so 'normal' and (seemingly) extraordinary.
Best wishes,
Abu
Dependent on ignorance are habitual formations; dependent on habitual (kamma-) formations is consciousness; dependent on consciousness are name-and-form (mentality-corporeality); dependent on name-and-form are the six sense-bases; dependent on the six sensebases is contact; dependent on contact is feeling; dependent on feeling is desire; dependent on desire is grasping; dependent on grasping is becoming; dependent on becoming is birth; dependent on birth is old age, sickness and death, sorrow, grief, lamentation, pain and despair.
Through the entire ceasing of this ignorance habitual formations cease; through the ceasing of habitual formations consciousness ceases; through the ceasing of consciousness name-and form-cease; through the ceasing of name- and-form the six sense bases cease; through the ceasing of the six sense bases contact ceases; through the ceasing of contact feeling ceases; through the ceasing of feeling desire ceases; through the ceasing of desire grasping ceases; through the ceasing of grasping becoming ceases; through the ceasing of becoming birth ceases; through the ceasing of birth old age, sickness and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair come to cease. Thus is the ceasing of this whole mass of suffering.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/index.html
If you have not been able to distill what is practice, and what is ritual, then I am sorry for you, @vinlyn.
In the long course of his wilderness training, Ajaan Mun learned that — contrary to Reform and Customary beliefs — the path to nirvana was not closed. The true Dhamma was to be found not in old customs or texts but in the well-trained heart and mind. The texts were pointers for training, nothing more or less. The rules of the Vinaya, instead of simply being external customs, played an important role in physical and mental survival. As for the Dhamma texts, practice was not just a matter of confirming what they said. Reading and thinking about the texts could not give an adequate understanding of what they meant — and did not count as showing them true respect. True respect for the texts meant taking them as a challenge: putting their teachings seriously to the test to see if, in fact, they are true. In the course of testing the teachings, the mind would come to many unexpected realizations that were not contained in the texts. These in turn had to be put to the test as well, so that one learned gradually by trial and error to the point of an actual noble attainment. Only then, Ajaan Mun would say, did one understand the Dhamma.
This attitude toward the Dhamma parallels what ancient cultures called "warrior knowledge" — the knowledge that comes from developing skills in difficult situations — as opposed to the "scribe knowledge" that people sitting in relative security and ease can write down in words. Of course, warriors need to use words in their training, but they view a text as authoritative only if its teachings are borne out in practice. The Canon itself encourages this attitude when it quotes the Buddha as teaching his aunt, "As for the teachings of which you may know, 'These teachings lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to divesting, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may definitely hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'"
Thus the ultimate authority in judging a teaching is not whether the teaching can be found in a text. It lies in each person's relentless honesty in putting the Dhamma to the test and carefully monitoring the results.
The Customs of the Noble Ones
As to what we are not aware of...there is great possibility but I do not know much about that. I have met people who do but as my own style is to trust that when I am supposed to know, then I too will learn of that if it is necessary through first hand insight. I have however witnessed enough...differences...to not disbelieve and this comes from a pretty straight up corporate (skeptical!) background. I believe the Dharma graces people whom grace it also. As to pureland etc. .... I do not know but if you would ask me to guess, I would say consciousness has a million fold possibilities! Endless...therein is our playground of life. I don't care much for pure land or that because I believe our focus is our lives and world here, and that is plenty to keep me busy.
Namaste,
Abu