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.
What is Buddha?
zenff
Veteran
This is what I wrote this morning. It's not rocket science and I must have said something very similar before too.
It is in "Buddhism for Beginners" but at the same time it's the most "Advanced Idea" that I can think off too :rolleyes:
It's on the website I want to start/revive.
http://www.zenforfree.nl/texts-2/
It is in "Buddhism for Beginners" but at the same time it's the most "Advanced Idea" that I can think off too :rolleyes:
It's on the website I want to start/revive.
http://www.zenforfree.nl/texts-2/
Intellectual questions about Buddha; the doctrine of the three bodies; or about Buddha-nature are futile.
Not adding words concepts and preferences: that is Buddha.
We all live in this world though, where we must communicate and where we rely very much on common sense and where we operate within the various frames of reference of the situations that we’re in.
That’s practical. But at the other hand we reinforce our mutual clinging to conditioned patterns of thinking and feeling and behaving. We expect people to play by the rules of the game, and in doing so we take part in creating apparent absolute truths.
When this is all we do, we are like people who are in a cult. We live in isolation with people who think just like us. And guess what; we know for certain that we are right.
Buddha is this one friend we have who is not part of our cult. Fortunately he is not part of the rival cult either; he is no member of any cult at all. He doesn’t nourish our delusional ideas and he doesn’t replace them with other ones. He is our lifeline to sanity.
Now saying “he” when I talk about Buddha is already creating problems. Can a woman be Buddha? Is Buddha a man or is he a God or even a bit more than that? Is Buddha dead or alive?
Forget about all that nonsense.
The thing to do is to use this lifeline instead of analyzing it. And the lifeline is the practice of "mindfulness" or "deep silence". It is the practice of not adding words concepts and preferences to what is pure and perfect already, right here and now.
When we use the lifeline we become the lifeline. When we find sanity we radiate sanity. When we found the wisdom of “the friend outside the cult” we become “the friend outside the cult” to others.
3
Comments
Ideally speaking, this process should begin by taking us one step back but two steps forward (and hopefully not the other way round!). One should understand all Buddhist doctrines possess only a provisional character--they should function as helpful methods for learning the skill of dropping attachments.
We have to take care not to insist too much on what *I* say the "correct" practice. We can only possess our own limited perspective and experience. In terms of "sound speech," one can parrot any Buddhist doctrine, but if said unskillfully (at a moment when the other has not been prepared for that doctrine), can we consider that "sound"? We become another blind man insisting on MY experience of the elephant at the expense of anyone else's experience. If so, what progress have we really made?
But we too easily end up acquiring Buddhist doctrines as information about the world instead. This includes emptiness, which one should real-ize, rather than turn to as a true description of reality. One either puts the doctrine of emptiness to use or does not--beyond that, metaphysics only leads one astray and perhaps we should learn to greet it with the Buddha's "noble silence" instead, or "don't-know mind," or some kind of "metaphysical aphasia."
Personally, I wonder if the using the words "truth" and "true" in Buddhist discourse (in the common sense) simply make practice more confusing-- I think these words often help perpetuate even more concept-grasping. It reduces Buddhism to a truth one should believe in rather than developing a skill(s) all which lead to non-attachment. One simply replaces one "truth" with another "truth" and so one's behavior doesn't change. THAT Buddha needs killing!
Thanks @riverflow for your beautiful additional thoughts.
Your answers are too short. They move the question rather than answering it.
What is “awake”? What is “sleeping”? A Buddha isn’t a Buddha at nights when he sleeps?
You don’t have to take the question seriously; if you’re not interested that’s perfectly fine.
But there is a bit more to it than substituting one word by another word.
on ultimate reality level - what is Buddha - this question does not arise, because this question cannot be asked on ultimate reality level.
on conventional reality level - what is Buddha - means a question what is meant by the word Buddha - so the answer is - since buddhi in Sanskrit means brain or intelligence or knowing, so buddha means one who knows or one who is awake as he sees things as 'just they are' without adding anything extra to it - so siddhartha was called Buddha, meaning the one who is awake or knows or sees things as just they are. awake from the sleep of ignorance due to wisdom removing ignorance. but on ultimate reality level, it is just emptiness, so neither there is samsara, nor there is nirvana, neither there is ignorance, nor removal of ignorance, neither there is wisdom, nor attainment of wisdom.
Okay, that sounds much better, to me anyways...
It came to mind to describe it like a rope. Just because the rope is not "ultimately" anything but a continuity of a strand does not mean that knots do not exist. To say "it is just a rope" seems to come from suppression. The rope has knots, and through various practice disciplines they untangle. Concepts like ignorance and wisdom do not describe the nature of the rope, but they do help us release the grasping that forces the knots. Buddha is the rope, and without knots, there is no condition for grasping. Without grasping, there are no conditions to create new knots.
Said differently, we don't abandon the raft until the other side of the river.
With warmth,
Matt
I have an idea of what other people think buddha is.. But i personally dont know. Ive realized everyone has their own opinions in life.. (And thats all there ever will be opinions
(Because nobody knows the ultimate truth! Nobody knows nor will we ever know what or who buddha is or was or even if he was real and really attained enlightenment (what is enlightenment?)
(Again, Everyone has different opinions on it)
Its finally hit me in life that, all I know is I know nothing ~socrates~ (perhaps THE most enlightened person to ever walk the planet! (Because he knew that he knew nothing)
Any glance along the bookshelves marked "Buddhism" will make it apparent that there are serious appreciations of questions such as the one you posed. The intellect and the information it gathers can be quite a good inspiration. But inspiration does not answer questions in a way that does not pose more questions, which leads, in many cases, to the creation not so much of honest understanding as of more bookshelves.
The alternative to an illustrious library, whether within or without, is found in experience ... or perhaps in the practice that grounds experience. The word "Buddha" means "awake" ... a word substitution common enough along the bookshelves of "Buddhism." But "awake" is not awake any more than "Buddha" is Buddha. Perhaps the word "alive" is a good example: No one can adequately describe or elucidate or dissect or control or really own what it is to be alive. But I doubt if there's much question in anyone's mind that they are, in fact, alive. Like pornography as described in the Supreme Court, "I may not know what it is, but I know it when I see it."
Buddha can mean books and statues and flights of devoted fancy. But more important is the coming to terms with what never could be escaped in the first place. No one can capture "awake" or quantify "Buddha," but this doesn't mean there cannot be a peaceful understanding of what none of us could escape in the first place. Saying I am alive or you are alive is a bit silly/redundant since, for the moment, we would have to be alive in order to make the statement.
And the same is true for "awake" or "Buddha."
Inspiration is all well and good. But isn't experience more sensible ... not to mention more fun?
But when we try to communicate what our practice really is about; I think that’s a good practical answer. That is close to a traditional Buddhist reply “ehipassiko” or, “come and see for yourself”.
We can spend ages trying to explain what this is all about. But the bottom line will still be something like “Now just practice and see what happens”.
But when we try to communicate what our practice really is about; I think that’s a good practical answer. That is close to a traditional Buddhist reply “ehipassiko” or, “come and see for yourself”.
We can spend ages trying to explain what this is all about. But the bottom line will still be something like “Now just practice and see what happens”.
That sounds like a good approach to me, although not for Supreme Courts maybe whose job it is to draw clear lines between what is legally permissible and legally impermissible.
But when we try to communicate what our practice really is about; I think that’s a good practical answer. That is close to a traditional Buddhist reply “ehipassiko” or, “come and see for yourself”.
We can spend ages trying to explain what this is all about. But the bottom line will still be something like “Now just practice and see what happens”.
Precisely..so what is to be gained by discussing what has to be seen for oneself ?
My question comes from genuine puzzlement. scratch head smilie.