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.
If there is something devoid of divinity, then what? Sell divinity, buy Buddhahood? Are Buddhas Holy? Hope not. Would they believe in any separate or independent origination . . . ?
In Thailand, although Prince Siddhartha Gautama is considered to be a human being, he is also regarded as a very special human being because to become enlightened as a Teaching Buddha requires more sacrifices and much higher degree of development of the ten perfections (ie. Generosity, Virtue, Renunciation, Wisdom, Effort, Endurance, Truthfulness, Determination, Loving-kindness and Equamity) than if one were to become enlightened as an ordinary arahant. That's why it takes so much longer time for someone to become a Teaching Buddha (which is someone who discovers the Dhamma on his/her own without being taught by anyone and goes on to establish the teachings of the Dhamma) as compared to an arahant (which is one who becomes enlightened through being taught as a disciple of the Buddha at a time when the teachings are already established).
Thais believe that in order for him to become the Buddha, he was required to develop the ten perfections over a period of at least four "incalculable aeons". The length of such period of time is said by the Buddha to be longer than the time it would take for a man to totally wear away a mountain of solid granite whose size is about 7 miles high and wide by stroking it once every hundred years with a silk cloth. According to H.E. Dzogchen Khenpo Choga Rinpoche, "for three [incalculable] aeons Buddha Sakyamuni was occupied with nothing other than cultivating the motivation of bodhicitta and practicing the six transcendental perfections. This practice alone led him to the attainment of perfect enlightenment." So it seems the difference between Theravada and Mahayana is that according to the former, one has to develop the ten perfections for at least four incalculable aeons to become a Teaching Buddha whereas according to the latter one develops six perfections for three incalculable aeons.
Therefore, in Thailand, the Buddha is very much respected for having spent such an unimaginably long time to develop the perfections which required him to make many many sacrifices. Thais have heard many stories of the Buddha's past lives where he sacrificed his limbs, eyes, flesh and even his own life to benefit others and even animals. For example, there is the famous story how he once saw that a tigress was lurking to kill and eat her own cubs out of hunger. Moved by compassion he sacrificed his life and offered his body as food for the tigress in order to save the cubs. Apart from this instance, there are many other lifetimes in which the Buddha sacrificed his life or a body part or a highly valued possession. These stories of the Buddha's past lives are found in both the Theravada and Mahayana tradition. Thai monks would often include such stories into their sermons and these are invariably treated as true accounts. Therefore, Thais do not see these as fables but take them to be true accounts of the Buddha's past lives.
For Thais, another aspect about the Buddha which makes him special is the various supranormal powers and knowledges that we believe he possesses. This includes the knowledge of his own past lives, the knowledge of other being's past lives and future rebirth, ability to travel through the air, ability to walk on water, ability to read minds, power to create the four elements at will and the ability to hear sounds both far and near (divine ear), etc.
Again, I find it odd the word "just" being used in such a way that suggests that being human is somehow demeaning or bad-- or the need for Shakyamuni to quite literally be something "more than," which suggests the same. I'm not even really sure what "more than human" really means. Super-double-extra-special? Not so "special" that he didn't die from food poisoning...
Come on now, let's not pretend that you didn't understand what I meant. What about Jesus Christ. He was a human being when he was here on earth, but at the same time he was certainly more than human, wasn't he? I read in another thread that you were once a Christian. Surely you didn't believe that he was just "a dude with sharp insight" or accounts that his being the Savior of Man and the Son of God while at the same time being a human being who ate and slept like the rest of his were "just fairly tales."
if he was solely a human being why was he able to walk on water, cast out demons, and raise the dead? Surely you can't do those things? Well, the Buddha also cast out demons, displayed super-human feats of strength, and other examples of miracle powers. That is, if you believe the Tipitaka at all.
What are we to make of arahants, bodhisattvas, and 10th level bhummis? Also, you mentioned Vietnamese Zen. Well, I have heard Thich Nhat Hanh speak of praying to our "inner Buddha" and HH The Dalai Lama speak of praying to Buddha. Would you pray to someone who was solely a human being? I realize that they probably said these things as a nod to Westerners, but I also believe that when Buddhist leaders speak of the Buddha as only a human being and nothing more it also just a nod to Westerners. Plus, it makes for a more inspiring story if the Buddha was not born the Buddha but was a human being like us.
And I didn't mean just a human being in the sense of a having a negative connotation. It was just a question of semantics and later I changed it to solely a human being when I realized that the previous could sound objectionable.
Come on now, let's not pretend that you didn't understand what I meant. What about Jesus Christ. He was a human being when he was here on earth, but at the same time he was certainly more than human, wasn't he? I read in another thread that you were once a Christian. Surely you didn't believe at the time accounts that he was just "a dude with sharp insight" or that his being the Savior of Man and the Son of God while at the same time being a human being who ate and slept like the rest of his were "just fairly tales."
When I was a fundamentalist I believed those things. In my later years as a Christian I did not however. This was not a problem for me.
When I read Aesop's Fables, the important thing is what the stories point toward. Believing that foxes, hares, tortoises, crows and lions talk and act like humans is to miss the point of the stories. Likewise the stories told of Jesus or Shakyamuni. A fantastical story doesn't have to be factually true in order to be great or to be insightful.
Well, whatever works for you but obviously you could still believe those things and still have Christ in your heart. One doesn't rule out the other. The same applies to the Buddha.
True, but one doesn't depend on the other either. Even if the Buddha were a total fiction, it still wouldn't negate the Buddhadharma.
But it could negate enlightenment...
Have you ever met anyone who has attained full enlightenment??
If the answer is no (which it probably is) then the only reason people are practising buddhism is because they really believe that a man did achieve enlightenment, and then he was kind enough to teach us all.... (So in that case it is a 'faith and believe system)
If it came out that buddha was conpletely fiction , then how would we know that the buddhadharma leads to enlightenment???
The answer is 'we dont know' We only 'hope' it leads to enlightenment, and even then, where is the prove that practising buddhism leads to enlightenment?
Has anybody here got any scientific prove that following the buddhist path leads to such 'liberation' ??
I would suggest not all Thais are ignorant. Some surely have gnosis of the dharma? I hope some may even have transcended beliefs . . .
Thais are very cool, calm and collected yes, and i have visited thailand many many times, its my favourite place ever, but i still havent seen any scientific 'prove' that buddhadharma leads to liberation!
@Zenmyste. In a sense it is better to go with science. However if you take refuge in science you are taking refuge in conditional things. By taking refuge in mind training that is the best of situations because you will always have your mind. By mind I mean the thought properties rather than content. The openness to keep an open mind and expand horizons. The clarity, the vividness and the ability to receive a message from the world. And finally the sensitivity or the feeling you get and the sense of balance.
By studying the mind you are unlocking a power that will always be there. By studying science you might have the tour guide get you to the right place but without mind training you might not enjoy your vacation.
1
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
The Buddhadharma is like theoretical physics, it makes sense and stands up to reason but hasn't been tested. Sitting in meditation and engaging in the deep parts of looking into the mind is like experimental physics, we put the theories into practice to test their validity. Science currently has no way to detect or measure an individual's subjective internal experience so we're left with the self reporting of others who have walked the path and claimed to have reached some level of enlightenment. The Buddhist teachings also has methods to help us peer review who may be legit and who is just blowing smoke.
The Buddha did not consider himself as a human being.
"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
Tsk, tsk, you think it unkind to someone who is ignoring ignorance? Supernatural Buddhas, fish that are suns of cod and other dramatic dharmas, lead to temporary ignorance. They may be skilful means . . Thais may need a cultural shake up occasionally. Sometimes Westerners need putting out of their arrogant ignorance too . . . Consider it a Buddhist service . . . The practice of dharma in Thailand leads to gnosis, this pervades the culture.
Has anybody here got any scientific prove that following the buddhist path leads to such 'liberation' ??
Yeah, sure, oneself is the best experimental reaction in this case
But it's not something that one can show another, like a gem that is shown in one's palm. I guess that is why the Buddha just did the best he could: he taught and he tried to live by example.
Buddha was a special human being. and he is arguably the greatest teacher of all. most of us will never become a buddha. but some of us will be able to free ourself from suffering. and most of us have the chance to do it having encountered buddha's teachings.
I agree. He was born with a level of compassion most of us can hardly imagine. But he wasn't unique in that.
His being born with such prodigious insight is what inclines me to believe in rebirth, because reaching such a level of awareness and compassion must take several lifetimes of suffering. If achieving enlightenment were a totally random accident of birth then practising would make no difference and there would be no point in it.
Poptart many people would say that Bishop Tutu was born with a huge level of compassion. Others might say that Mother Teresa was so born. Both of these people would deny that Rebirth had anything to do with it. We must be careful of saying that we understand others better than they understand themselves.
The Buddhadharma is like theoretical physics, it makes sense and stands up to reason but hasn't been tested. .
Wha...
I assume you mean that you haven't tested it yet. To say it has not been tested is to say that Buddhist practice is a load of rubbish and a thousand sages were making up their teachings. Of course it's been tested. I'll bet there are many people here who have tested it to the point of strong conviction, even if not all the way to the end.
Theoretical physics is a likely story and it can never be more. It is theoretical.
If there is something devoid of divinity, then what? Sell divinity, buy Buddhahood? Are Buddhas Holy? Hope not. Would they believe in any separate or independent origination . . . ?
Soon we'll have to set up a Bletchley Park operation to decode your messages @lobster. I could completely agree or compeletely disagree with this, depending on how I read it. Perhaps that's the idea.
...because reaching such a level of awareness and compassion must take several lifetimes of suffering....
Maybe.
MAYBE.
There's no need to shout, I heard you the first time.
Actually, in this case I wasn't shouting. It was more the concept of a little "maybe", and then rethinking it and trying to say that's a very big "maybe".
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
The Buddhadharma is like theoretical physics, it makes sense and stands up to reason but hasn't been tested. .
Wha...
I assume you mean that you haven't tested it yet. To say it has not been tested is to say that Buddhist practice is a load of rubbish and a thousand sages were making up their teachings. Of course it's been tested. I'll bet there are many people here who have tested it to the point of strong conviction, even if not all the way to the end.
Theoretical physics is a likely story and it can never be more. It is theoretical.
Theoretical physics often leads to experimental physics which was my next sentence, that testing the teachings is like doing the practices, so I didn't say it hasn't been tested. In fact the majority of my post was about the testing of it.
I would suggest not all Thais are ignorant. Some surely have gnosis of the dharma? I hope some may even have transcended beliefs . . .
Yes, it would have been more proper to say "Most Thais believe..." as it's true that not all Thais hold those beliefs.
Personally, I've never felt the need to really question and investigate whether the stories of the Buddha's past lives are factual accounts and whether the fact that he is said to possess supernormal powers and knowledges is true or not. I suppose I don't yet feel that believing such things as true is detrimental to my practice nor does it seem to cause harm to any one in any way.
However, when it comes to other issues such as defilements, meditation techniques or virtuous conduct, those are the kind of things I feel I need to contemplate deeply about and to rely less on faith and more on understanding reached through my own discernment and experience.
I think it's worth mentioning though that during the early years of my practice when I had little understanding of the Buddha's teachings, semi-blind faith in the Buddha was the primary motivator for me to strictly adhere to the precepts and practice meditation. As the years passed, I gained a better understanding of the teachings through contemplation and meditation while the fruits of the practice also became more apparent. This led to a deeper sense of trust and confidence in the Buddha and his teachings than I ever had before. Having said that, I am of course glad that in the beginning I was able to depend on semi-blind faith even though such faith was not based on knowledge and understanding because that was at least what helped me to stay on course otherwise I would've since long ago returned to living a life of heedlessness and blind pursuit for sense pleasures.
It's funny we speak of Buddha like we can even know or touch on what he was as a person. Isn't this conversation just revolving around subjective ideas? Even if his life is detailed in the suttas or some other writings, they simply can't point to any objective reality of what the Buddha is or was. Without the experience him, knowing him, what can we really say?
"Ever had an idea that wasn't subjective?" An idea or concept, no. Concepts and ideas by their very nature are subjective. One can argue our thoughts have really nothing to do with reality The closest thing I can approach that is not subjective, because it can't be grasped, held onto or put into a concept is Now. The closest I can approach objective reality is perception prior to concepts and speech. In so far as bringing up the subjective nature of this conversation, was buddha enlightened or not, god versus no god, what's better coke or pepsi? Really what is the point in discussing something that has no end? These ideas exist in the belief realm, predicated on the fact no one knows or will know.
"Ever had an idea that wasn't subjective?" An idea or concept, no. Concepts and ideas by their very nature are subjective. One can argue our thoughts have really nothing to do with reality The closest thing I can approach that is not subjective, because it can't be grasped, held onto or put into a concept is Now. The closest I can approach objective reality is perception prior to concepts and speech. In so far as bringing up the subjective nature of this conversation, was buddha enlightened or not, god versus no god, what's better coke or pepsi? Really what is the point in discussing something that has no end? These ideas exist in the belief realm, predicated on the fact no one knows or will know.
In general, I think you have a good point. But there can be a purpose in discussing things that have no end...sometimes people do begin to see a different point of view, or even change their mind completely. I've modified my view of karma quite a bit since being on this board, as just one example.
But yes, almost everything is subjective to some degree.
I've modified my view of karma quite a bit since being on this board, as just one example.
Me too. Being a Buddha, sooner rather than later, means having to start as a human, right here, right now. Just like all the dough nuts, armchair Arahats, devoted ascetics, suffering souls and soulless sufferers, sincere followers, token tulku kachoos, lowly mysoginists and other deranged and exalted wannabes, advanced stream entrants and beyond . . . We are the Buddha base. Human. The realm from which Buddhas arise. Yeah Baby! Inspire us! :wave:
The Buddhadharma is like theoretical physics, it makes sense and stands up to reason but hasn't been tested. .
Wha...
I assume you mean that you haven't tested it yet. To say it has not been tested is to say that Buddhist practice is a load of rubbish and a thousand sages were making up their teachings. Of course it's been tested. I'll bet there are many people here who have tested it to the point of strong conviction, even if not all the way to the end.
Theoretical physics is a likely story and it can never be more. It is theoretical.
Theoretical physics often leads to experimental physics which was my next sentence, that testing the teachings is like doing the practices, so I didn't say it hasn't been tested. In fact the majority of my post was about the testing of it.
For me the Buddha was a human being and was not a human being. Just as he says, and just as says we all are. It would depend on whether we are speaking coventionally or ultimately.
Comments
Sell divinity, buy Buddhahood? Are Buddhas Holy?
Hope not. Would they believe in any separate or independent origination . . . ?
Thais believe that in order for him to become the Buddha, he was required to develop the ten perfections over a period of at least four "incalculable aeons". The length of such period of time is said by the Buddha to be longer than the time it would take for a man to totally wear away a mountain of solid granite whose size is about 7 miles high and wide by stroking it once every hundred years with a silk cloth. According to H.E. Dzogchen Khenpo Choga Rinpoche, "for three [incalculable] aeons Buddha Sakyamuni was occupied with nothing other than cultivating the motivation of bodhicitta and practicing the six transcendental perfections. This practice alone led him to the attainment of perfect enlightenment." So it seems the difference between Theravada and Mahayana is that according to the former, one has to develop the ten perfections for at least four incalculable aeons to become a Teaching Buddha whereas according to the latter one develops six perfections for three incalculable aeons.
Therefore, in Thailand, the Buddha is very much respected for having spent such an unimaginably long time to develop the perfections which required him to make many many sacrifices. Thais have heard many stories of the Buddha's past lives where he sacrificed his limbs, eyes, flesh and even his own life to benefit others and even animals. For example, there is the famous story how he once saw that a tigress was lurking to kill and eat her own cubs out of hunger. Moved by compassion he sacrificed his life and offered his body as food for the tigress in order to save the cubs. Apart from this instance, there are many other lifetimes in which the Buddha sacrificed his life or a body part or a highly valued possession. These stories of the Buddha's past lives are found in both the Theravada and Mahayana tradition. Thai monks would often include such stories into their sermons and these are invariably treated as true accounts. Therefore, Thais do not see these as fables but take them to be true accounts of the Buddha's past lives.
For Thais, another aspect about the Buddha which makes him special is the various supranormal powers and knowledges that we believe he possesses. This includes the knowledge of his own past lives, the knowledge of other being's past lives and future rebirth, ability to travel through the air, ability to walk on water, ability to read minds, power to create the four elements at will and the ability to hear sounds both far and near (divine ear), etc.
if he was solely a human being why was he able to walk on water, cast out demons, and raise the dead? Surely you can't do those things? Well, the Buddha also cast out demons, displayed super-human feats of strength, and other examples of miracle powers. That is, if you believe the Tipitaka at all.
What are we to make of arahants, bodhisattvas, and 10th level bhummis? Also, you mentioned Vietnamese Zen. Well, I have heard Thich Nhat Hanh speak of praying to our "inner Buddha" and HH The Dalai Lama speak of praying to Buddha. Would you pray to someone who was solely a human being? I realize that they probably said these things as a nod to Westerners, but I also believe that when Buddhist leaders speak of the Buddha as only a human being and nothing more it also just a nod to Westerners. Plus, it makes for a more inspiring story if the Buddha was not born the Buddha but was a human being like us.
And I didn't mean just a human being in the sense of a having a negative connotation. It was just a question of semantics and later I changed it to solely a human being when I realized that the previous could sound objectionable.
When I read Aesop's Fables, the important thing is what the stories point toward. Believing that foxes, hares, tortoises, crows and lions talk and act like humans is to miss the point of the stories. Likewise the stories told of Jesus or Shakyamuni. A fantastical story doesn't have to be factually true in order to be great or to be insightful.
~ Meister Eckhart
I think the same could be said for the Buddha.
Have you ever met anyone who has attained full enlightenment??
If the answer is no (which it probably is) then the only reason people are practising buddhism is because they really believe that a man did achieve enlightenment, and then he was kind enough to teach us all.... (So in that case it is a 'faith and believe system)
If it came out that buddha was conpletely fiction , then how would we know that the buddhadharma leads to enlightenment???
The answer is 'we dont know'
We only 'hope' it leads to enlightenment, and even then, where is the prove that practising buddhism leads to enlightenment?
Has anybody here got any scientific prove that following the buddhist path leads to such 'liberation' ??
So Like i said; "has anyone here got scientific prove that buddhadharma DOES lead to liberation, peace, happiness (whatever you wanna call it)
Or realistically, is it about faith? (Like all the rest of them)
Thais are very cool, calm and collected yes, and i have visited thailand many many times, its my favourite place ever, but i still havent seen any scientific 'prove' that buddhadharma leads to liberation!
By studying the mind you are unlocking a power that will always be there. By studying science you might have the tour guide get you to the right place but without mind training you might not enjoy your vacation.
This thread is really getting out of hand.
The practice of dharma in Thailand leads to gnosis, this pervades the culture.
I am a terrible and ignorant Thai . .
http://www.thaiworldview.com/society/day4.htm
Buddha rules
But it's not something that one can show another, like a gem that is shown in one's palm. I guess that is why the Buddha just did the best he could: he taught and he tried to live by example.
Best wishes,
Abu
and he is arguably the greatest teacher of all.
most of us will never become a buddha.
but some of us will be able to free ourself
from suffering.
and most of us have the chance to do it having
encountered buddha's teachings.
Respect and peace and 'no doughnuts' for the yanks . . .
His being born with such prodigious insight is what inclines me to believe in rebirth, because reaching such a level of awareness and compassion must take several lifetimes of suffering. If achieving enlightenment were a totally random accident of birth then practising would make no difference and there would be no point in it.
Both of these people would deny that Rebirth had anything to do with it.
We must be careful of saying that we understand others better than they understand themselves.
_/\_
I assume you mean that you haven't tested it yet. To say it has not been tested is to say that Buddhist practice is a load of rubbish and a thousand sages were making up their teachings. Of course it's been tested. I'll bet there are many people here who have tested it to the point of strong conviction, even if not all the way to the end.
Theoretical physics is a likely story and it can never be more. It is theoretical.
He is just like Us.
Take care.
MAYBE.
Yes, it would have been more proper to say "Most Thais believe..." as it's true that not all Thais hold those beliefs.
Personally, I've never felt the need to really question and investigate whether the stories of the Buddha's past lives are factual accounts and whether the fact that he is said to possess supernormal powers and knowledges is true or not. I suppose I don't yet feel that believing such things as true is detrimental to my practice nor does it seem to cause harm to any one in any way.
However, when it comes to other issues such as defilements, meditation techniques or virtuous conduct, those are the kind of things I feel I need to contemplate deeply about and to rely less on faith and more on understanding reached through my own discernment and experience.
I think it's worth mentioning though that during the early years of my practice when I had little understanding of the Buddha's teachings, semi-blind faith in the Buddha was the primary motivator for me to strictly adhere to the precepts and practice meditation. As the years passed, I gained a better understanding of the teachings through contemplation and meditation while the fruits of the practice also became more apparent. This led to a deeper sense of trust and confidence in the Buddha and his teachings than I ever had before. Having said that, I am of course glad that in the beginning I was able to depend on semi-blind faith even though such faith was not based on knowledge and understanding because that was at least what helped me to stay on course otherwise I would've since long ago returned to living a life of heedlessness and blind pursuit for sense pleasures.
But there is a tendency for Buddhists to put the goal beyond themselves by over-stating Buddha's divinity and under-estimating his humanity.
It can be a subtle form of cowardice.
With Metta.
Ever had an idea that wasn't subjective?
An idea or concept, no. Concepts and ideas by their very nature are subjective. One can argue our thoughts have really nothing to do with reality
The closest thing I can approach that is not subjective, because it can't be grasped, held onto or put into a concept is Now.
The closest I can approach objective reality is perception prior to concepts and speech.
In so far as bringing up the subjective nature of this conversation, was buddha enlightened or not, god versus no god, what's better coke or pepsi? Really what is the point in discussing something that has no end? These ideas exist in the belief realm, predicated on the fact no one knows or will know.
But yes, almost everything is subjective to some degree.
Being a Buddha, sooner rather than later, means having to start as a human, right here, right now. Just like all the dough nuts, armchair Arahats, devoted ascetics, suffering souls and soulless sufferers, sincere followers, token tulku kachoos, lowly mysoginists and other deranged and exalted wannabes, advanced stream entrants and beyond . . .
We are the Buddha base. Human. The realm from which Buddhas arise. Yeah Baby! Inspire us!
:wave:
For me the Buddha was a human being and was not a human being. Just as he says, and just as says we all are. It would depend on whether we are speaking coventionally or ultimately.