Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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 actually made Prince Siddhartha become Buddha/Enlightened??

zenmystezenmyste Veteran
edited October 2013 in Philosophy
Buddhism is primarily based around the 4 noble truths and 8 fold path;

But was that basically it?? that made him buddha??

Was it just the case that the 4 noble truths and 8 fold path was something that people back then had never understood until Siddhartha taught it, making him the new awakened Teacher of their time - hence becoming the Buddha???

Also, Another question;
So what is the major difference between "Buddha" and YOU!!



«1

Comments

  • lobsterlobster Crusty Veteran
    Dharma is what the Buddha taught of what he knew, not all he knew, just the priorities.

    As for the differences . . . I believe the Buddha has more in common with Mary Poppins
    I have more in common with Crusty the Clown . . .

    [Mary Poppins measures herself with her tape measure and reads what it says]. Mary Poppins: As I expected. "Mary Poppins, practically perfect in every way.".

    . . . and now back to the real world . . .
    anatamanBunks
  • zenmystezenmyste Veteran
    edited October 2013
    lobster said:

    Dharma is what the Buddha taught of what he knew, not all he knew, just the priorities.

    As for the differences . . . I believe the Buddha has more in common with Mary Poppins
    I have more in common with Crusty the Clown . . .

    [Mary Poppins measures herself with her tape measure and reads what it says]. Mary Poppins: As I expected. "Mary Poppins, practically perfect in every way.".

    . . . and now back to the real world . . .

    Brilliant answer and i completely agree!

    Now lets say a child asked the question?

    what exactly made buddha enlightend and what is the difference between "buddha" and everyone else

    How would you explain it simply??
  • My question is, is there really an answer to that?
    Chaz
  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran
    zenmyste said:

    Buddhism is primarily based around the 4 noble truths and 8 fold path;

    But was that basically it?? that made him buddha??

    That's a great question.

    As I see it, the Buddha realized the 4NT as he was Enlightened. The 8FP came a bit later, but wasn't necessarily part and parcel to his path to Enlightenment. I don't think we can say he took the 8FP, but it's a certainty that after he became enlightened, he embodied that path. He had Right View, etc.

    It has give me pause to consider just what the 8FP means to me as a practitioner and what I should do about it. If we we take Refuge in the Buddha as an example of Enlightened Being and he didn't take the 8FP to enlightenment then what are we really supposed to be doing about it. Is it a process of enlightenment of a product of it?

    I don't know but choose to take the latter.
    Was it just the case that the 4 noble truths and 8 fold path was something that people back then had never understood until Siddhartha taught it, making him the new awakened Teacher of their time - hence becoming the Buddha???
    For a Buddha to arise, the Dharma of the previous Buddha must have been forgotten. Following that, it wasn't a matter of people not understanding the 4NT the 8FP and everything else of the Dharma. By the Buddha's time it had been completely forgotten.
    So what is the major difference between "Buddha" and YOU!!
    If you follow the teachings of the 2nd and 3rd Turnings there is NO difference, except in realization. You have Buddha Nature I have Buddha Nature, and as much as it pains me, even Lobster has Buddha Nature ;-)



    lobsteranataman
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Chaz said:

    ...

    For a Buddha to arise, the Dharma of the previous Buddha must have been forgotten. ...


    Please cite your historical evidence for this.

  • zenmystezenmyste Veteran
    edited October 2013
    I would have thought that 'if' its true that the previous dharmas went missing and forgotten about, that would only have been because there wouldnt have been any way to 'store' or write it down etc.. And eventually it died out..
    But these days with all the technology i cant see buddhism (or anything else for that matter) ever getting lost or forgotten about! Even if one day nobody took an interest in buddhism, you would still be able to get info on it. Because the tech would be so amazing that they will have 'every' bit of history for EVER now!!!

    But then your saying that means no more buddhas will arise, just because we now live in a time where the teachings wont ever get lost??

    Not sure i can believe that but each to their own...

    And also, how could the 8 fold path become 'after' the 4 noble truths when the 4th truth 'is' the 8 fold path, isnt it?

    So they should come hand in hand! ?
  • howhow Veteran Veteran
    IMO
    The 4NT and 8FP is enlightenment. The rest of the Buddha Dharma is just different facets of this jewel.

    Caring about the Buddha's enlightenment is just taking time and attention away from your own enlightenment, your own manifestation of the 4NT & 8FP.
    Categorizing the Buddha as separate from you or vise-versa just contributes to ones own sense of separation and heads away from the path to sufferings cessation.

  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited October 2013
    zenmyste said:

    Buddhism is primarily based around the 4 noble truths and 8 fold path;

    But was that basically it?? that made him buddha??

    Was it just the case that the 4 noble truths and 8 fold path was something that people back then had never understood until Siddhartha taught it, making him the new awakened Teacher of their time - hence becoming the Buddha???

    Also, Another question;
    So what is the major difference between "Buddha" and YOU!!



    One perspective is that the combination of the cessation of craving (tahna) and ignorance (avijja) — the roots of the defilements (kilesas) of greed, hatred, and delusion and the fermentations (asavas) of sensuality, becoming, and ignorance (AN 10.60, MN 9, etc.) — and the rediscovery of the path leading to that cessation (SN 12.65) which made the Buddha the Buddha (buddho = awake).

    As for the difference between the Buddha and myself, I'd say it's the nonexistence of craving in the former and the overabundance of craving in the latter.

    The way I see it, craving (tahna, literally 'thirst') is a very subtle but powerful aspect of our psychology that's directly tied to suffering. It's there, latent in the mind, waiting to exert its influence through mental fabrications by directing or at the very least encouraging the mind to feed upon sensory experiences via the five clinging-aggregates in an unhealthy way (e.g., see SN 12.52).

    In this, I think it's distinct from biological wants or needs. When we're hungry, for example, our mind has a tendency to attach itself to the desire for food and create an identity around it, which can then create suffering in a number of ways, e.g., if we don't get what we want; if it doesn't live up to our expectations that we create around the attainment of our goal; if, in our greed, we eat too much and feel sick and lament our physical discomfort; etc.

    Craving, then, isn't simply our desire to or for X; it's the beginning of a mental chain of events that turns our desires for things into the potential for suffering. That's one way of looking at it, at any rate.

    The Buddha, or any other awakened individual for that matter, is free of/freed from this psychological phenomenon, whereas someone like myself isn't.
    lobsterVastmind
  • genkakugenkaku Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
    "Buddha" means awake.

    Not "awake" as distinct from anything else -- sleep, for example -- just awake.
    lobster
  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran
    vinlyn said:

    Chaz said:

    ...

    For a Buddha to arise, the Dharma of the previous Buddha must have been forgotten. ...


    Please cite your historical evidence for this.

    Don't you believe me?

    That's fine. You don't have to believe me.
  • I listened to a talk a while ago and Rob Burbea said that the Buddha attained enlightenment while contemplating dependent origination. And specifically the link between how consciousness is formed by name & form and then how name & form is dependent upon consciousness. It was that instant that the Buddha recognized specifically how consciousness was a dependent arising and thus making the whole Atman, Hindu argument of Self irrelevant.

    What he realized was that the basic structure of reality was luminous clarity bundled into confusion of a subjective entity relating to an objective world. Through his development of concentration he investigated and found interdependence/shunyata.

    The major difference between a Buddha and myself is rather simple. A Buddha is one who has total omniscience and total freedom from both emotional and intellectual afflictions. My ego has quite the strong hold on my life, regardless of what non dual jargon is said by this body/mind.
    Chazrobotlobsteranataman
  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran
    Chaz said:

    vinlyn said:

    Chaz said:

    ...

    For a Buddha to arise, the Dharma of the previous Buddha must have been forgotten. ...


    Please cite your historical evidence for this.

    Don't you believe me?

    That's fine. You don't have to believe me.
    Afterthought:

    It's gleaned from readings here and there in what is mostly Mahayana literature. It's tradition that the next Buddha, Maitreya, won't manifest until after Shakyamuni's Dharma is forgotten and this is how the Buddha arising thing works.

    When we talk about a Buddha here, I mean a Buddha who turns the Wheel of Dharma.

    But like I said, you don't have to believe that, or me. Do what the Buddha taught the Kalamas - figure it out for yourself.
  • Chaz said:

    Chaz said:

    vinlyn said:

    Chaz said:

    ...

    For a Buddha to arise, the Dharma of the previous Buddha must have been forgotten. ...


    Please cite your historical evidence for this.

    Don't you believe me?

    That's fine. You don't have to believe me.
    Afterthought:

    It's gleaned from readings here and there in what is mostly Mahayana literature. It's tradition that the next Buddha, Maitreya, won't manifest until after Shakyamuni's Dharma is forgotten and this is how the Buddha arising thing works.

    When we talk about a Buddha here, I mean a Buddha who turns the Wheel of Dharma.

    But like I said, you don't have to believe that, or me. Do what the Buddha taught the Kalamas - figure it out for yourself.


    Of course it can't be proved. There is no historical evidence for it because it hasn't happened yet.
    It's a religious belief. Like Jesus returning to reign over his kingdom.
    It has a kind of appeal I suppose. Not so much for me.
  • lobsterlobster Crusty Veteran
    zenmyste said:



    Now lets say a child asked the question?

    what exactly made buddha enlightend and what is the difference between "buddha" and everyone else

    How would you explain it simply??

    The Buddha is like you [point to child] and me [point to self]
    only better . . .
    (Prepare to answer child about being better so she can grow up to be a Buddha)
  • matthewmartinmatthewmartin Amateur Bodhisattva Suburbs of Mt Meru Veteran
    edited October 2013
    zenmyste said:

    Buddhism is primarily based around the 4 noble truths and 8 fold path; But was that basically it?? that made him buddha??

    I imagine he was sitting under that tree mulling over the basically Hindu way of seeing the main problem of life (how to reunite your mind and soul with Brahma by ascetic scrubbing) and he got a flash of insight... and the thought, damn, I was so *wrong*-- there isn't anything that stays the same over time in space, not even any part of me, so why be adverse to it? why want it? And he was wrong about being so perfectionist with the self-starvation. So he saw the path to peace and to being at peace with the world he was in. [Me speaking now-- I think the implications of this insight are huge, the insight itself, on its own, without any action taken on it, is minor.]

    What made the Buddha a Buddha after that was he'd observed how students of other teachers tore each other to pieces for not remembering what the teacher had said. So the Buddha made sure Ananda and the other disciples did bulk memorization (hence the 4 of this and 8 of that and so on). And the Buddha got corporate and state sponsors- Pasenandi, Bimbisara and eventually Ashoka. This was when stable states had just appeared. (City states had appeared earlier in India, but collapsed, taking any possible Buddhas with them)

    The other Buddhas kept their thoughts to themselves, didn't get disciples to do bulk memorization and didn't get stable government handouts.

    And for the non-historical Buddha(s), in many, many later Sutras, there are references to other Buddhas, past, present, future, and in sci-fi like parallel dimensions.
    zenmyste said:


    Was it just the case that the 4 noble truths and 8 fold path was something that people back then had never understood until Siddhartha taught it, making him the new awakened Teacher of their time - hence becoming the Buddha???

    This was the first time in mankind's history that people could dedicate large chunks of their time to speculating about why there is anything, why we are unhappy and so on. The Buddha appears to have gone to Taxila university, in a time when schools and universities were very much a new idea. The Buddha and his contemporaries were trying to come up with explanations that went beyond just entertaining stories (myths).
    zenmyste said:


    So what is the major difference between "Buddha" and YOU!!

    The historical Buddha was in a world where a wandering, begging, teacher of philosophy was a respectable thing to do. I think in my community that's called soliciting, vagrancy and panhandling and would result in jail time in short order. The Buddha did it because it was the only (the few?) ways to find enough free time to think big thoughts. I have some leisure time and everything has been summarized in cliff notes format.

    Bibliography
    I'm drawing on "Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist", which I recommend for everyone, even if you aren't a materialist because it has such a great personal story of the Buddha's life, very different from the most common one. And it is a light read, not turgid like Buddhism Without Beliefs.
    JeffreyCinorjer
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    edited October 2013
    Chaz said:

    vinlyn said:

    Chaz said:

    ...

    For a Buddha to arise, the Dharma of the previous Buddha must have been forgotten. ...


    Please cite your historical evidence for this.

    Don't you believe me?

    That's fine. You don't have to believe me.
    In general I thought it was a good post. But on this forum we often discuss how scientific a religion Buddhism is. So, for that one statement in your post, I'd like the evidence.

    Look, there's historical evidence for Siddhartha/Buddha. But no historical evidence for any Buddha before that.
  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran
    edited October 2013
    vinlyn said:

    Chaz said:

    vinlyn said:

    Chaz said:

    ...

    For a Buddha to arise, the Dharma of the previous Buddha must have been forgotten. ...


    Please cite your historical evidence for this.

    Don't you believe me?

    That's fine. You don't have to believe me.
    In general I thought it was a good post. But on this forum we often discuss how scientific a religion Buddhism is. So, for that one statement in your post, I'd like the evidence.
    Then be scientific ..... go find some.
    Look, there's historical evidence for Siddhartha/Buddha.
    Scant at best.
    But no historical evidence for any Buddha before that
    But the Buddha spoke of them. He's recorded as foretelling who among his disciples would be the next Buddha, Maitreya.

    I don't really care about how "scientific" Buddhism is. I don't need a lab rat in a white coat telling me what to believe. I don't need proof outside of my own experience. Histories are written by those who can gain the most from it. Science is for money and not understanding. Time and Space is an illusion.

    Lobster is not a ........ errrrr......... Lobster. I guess.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    There can be no scientific or historical evidence for Buddhas pre-Siddhartha, because they would be pre-historic. One person saying it was so does not constitute acceptable evidence by any legitimate historian or scientist, nor does a prediction make the future so. In fact, that prediction is irrelevant since it will affect none of us is this lifetime.

    It's perfectly okay to have faith in such teachings, as long as one recognizes it as faith.

    The only thing that really stands in Buddhism are the teaching we can each test. They affect our practice.
  • I can't believe Buddha was a one-off. It defies logic and panders to idolatrous fetishes.

    It is likely he was prodigious, but not unique. I don't believe Buddhism is the only path to enlightenment. Members of other religions may well have achieved enlightenment and remained anonymous. It really doesn't matter what we call it, so long as we get there.
    lobsterVastmindHamsakaCinorjer
  • how said:

    IMO
    The 4NT and 8FP is enlightenment. The rest of the Buddha Dharma is just different facets of this jewel.

    So let me see if i understand correctly; prince siddhartha sat under a tree and vowed to meditate until he found the cure/enlightenment etc...

    And what he found was the 4 noble truths and 8 fold path???

    Is that correct??
  • The dharma awakened the Buddha.
    zenmyste
  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran
    vinlyn said:

    There can be no scientific or historical evidence for Buddhas pre-Siddhartha, because they would be pre-historic. One person saying it was so does not constitute acceptable evidence by any legitimate historian or scientist, nor does a prediction make the future so. In fact, that prediction is irrelevant since it will affect none of us is this lifetime.

    Well, it can ..... and it does. Practice can reveal the truth. Of any of it. Not just what science and history can support.
    It's perfectly okay to have faith in such teachings, as long as one recognizes it as faith.
    Really ...... so you're a legitimate judge of what is ok and what isn't?:lol:

    How nice! :lol:
    The only thing that really stands in Buddhism are the teaching we can each test. They affect our practice.
    Practice = test. And everything can affect our practice.
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    edited October 2013
    What actually made Prince Siddhartha become Buddha/Enlightened??
    Transcendental dependent origination comes to mind. :)http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html
    "And what is the supporting condition for suffering? 'Birth' should be the reply.
    "And what is the supporting condition for faith? 'Suffering' should be the reply.
    "And what is the supporting condition for joy? 'Faith' should be the reply.
    "And what is the supporting condition for rapture? 'Joy' should be the reply.
    "And what is the supporting condition for tranquillity? 'Rapture' should be the reply.
    "And what is the supporting condition for happiness? 'Tranquillity' should be the reply.
    "And what is the supporting condition for concentration? 'Happiness' should be the reply.
    This is where it gets interesting IMO. :)
    "And what is the supporting condition for the knowledge and vision of things as they really are? 'Concentration' should be the reply.
    "And what is the supporting condition for disenchantment? 'The knowledge and vision of things as they really are' should be the reply.
    "And what is the supporting condition for dispassion? 'Disenchantment' should be the reply.
    "And what is the supporting condition for emancipation? 'Dispassion' should be the reply.
    ChazJeffrey
  • Sabre said:

    The dharma awakened the Buddha.

    Ahhh, right, yeh i think i understand now! Thanks!
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Chaz said:

    ...

    It's perfectly okay to have faith in such teachings, as long as one recognizes it as faith.
    Really ...... so you're a legitimate judge of what is ok and what isn't?:lol:

    How nice! :lol:

    ...

    When I say it's okay to have faith in teachings...you argue.

    If I said it's not okay to have faith in teachings...you'd argue.

  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran
    vinlyn said:


    When I say it's okay to have faith in teachings...you argue.

    If I said it's not okay to have faith in teachings...you'd argue.

    Nah .....

    I was taking issue with and poking a little fun at what I percieved to be your permission to think the way I want to.

    Specifically the part where you say that it's ok, so long as I meet certain conditions.

    That, my friend, is hilarious!

  • zenmyste said:

    Sabre said:

    The dharma awakened the Buddha.

    Ahhh, right, yeh i think i understand now! Thanks!
    "He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."



    :thumbsup:
    Chaz
  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    edited October 2013
    From what I've gathered, Sidhartha left his life of abundance when he realized it was built on the suffering of others which caused his disillusionment.

    He followed many different yogis for a while but they didn't have what he was looking for. He had abundance and it was no good and so he practiced self denial but that was no good either. In a nihilistic state of mind he decided to sit under the famous tree and either figure it all out or rot away.

    However, it isn't all just black and white and the unexpected happened. An altruistic act of kindness. A maiden tending nearby fields happened upon Sidhartha as he was surely close to death and fed him some rice. This act humbled Sidhartha and challenged his views. She had nothing to gain from this and yet she came back the same time every day to feed him some more. It never fully filled his belly but it was enough to sustain him and bring him back to health. Compassion, that was it, but why?

    As he sat there he found the middle way between all extremes and woke up to our true nature. His visions and insights into suffering and the cessation of suffering were made into his dharma. The first people he came upon were ones he practiced self denial with and they saw he was healthy again and scoffed at him but he just smiled and radiated such a feeling that they listened to what he had to say. Then they followed him as Buddha after he told them about the four noble truths.

    Many of us have our moments of mindfulness and awakening but when Buddha awoke in Sid, he lived in an awakened state and taught the dharma in numerous ways for about fifty years before that particular vessel went kaput.
    ChazEvenThird
  • Isn't knowledge of what the Buddha is unknowable? The range of even a non-Budha in jhana is said to be unknowable.
    Chaz
  • A Buddha realizes or understands the nature of mind. A non-Buddha does not realize that.
    Chazzenmystecvalue
  • lobsterlobster Crusty Veteran
    zenmyste said:


    So let me see if i understand correctly; prince siddhartha sat under a tree and vowed to meditate until he found the cure/enlightenment etc...

    And what he found was the 4 noble truths and 8 fold path???

    Is that correct??

    No.
    Not really in even the most hard line Theravadin schools.
    The Buddha awakened and decided to espouse an aspect of the awakening that was the most direct route to awakening, this was the dharma. The dharma codification came from the oral remembering of the Arahats around the Buddha. So the dharma historically is more to do with their perception of the teaching.
    That is the tradition.

    The dharma is an expedient or skilful means. In other circumstances, times and schools the importance of other components are stressed. People, needs and the way to the dharma may be direct, circulatory or largely by passed.

    For example, people these days examine the teachings, try the methods, adopt the teaching that works for them. Sometimes this becomes more focussed and intense, as do the results . . .
    poptarthowanatamanCinorjer
  • SabreSabre Veteran
    edited October 2013
    Sabre said:

    The dharma awakened the Buddha.

    To explain a bit more: The Dharma already existed before the Buddha and will continue to exist forever, because Dharma is just what is. Dharma is nature as it is, not as we perceive it. Then the Buddha came to being and he was enlightened by the Dharma. So you see, he had no choice in the matter.
    cvalueEvenThirdanataman
  • Sabre said:

    Sabre said:

    The dharma awakened the Buddha.

    To explain a bit more: The Dharma already existed before the Buddha and will continue to exist forever, because Dharma is just what is. Dharma is nature as it is, not as we perceive it. Then the Buddha came to being and he was enlightened by the Dharma. So you see, he had no choice in the matter.
    Yes, it completely makes sense now. Its like that last little bit of the puzzle has been put together for me!

    Thanks to you for explaining it pure and simple! :)
    SabreEvenThirdanataman
  • vinlyn said:

    Okay, who's pretending to be Lobster by using his avatar...but not his obtuse writing?

    I know! I'm feeling very disoriented, now....

    :eek2:
  • zenmyste said:

    Sabre said:

    Sabre said:

    The dharma awakened the Buddha.

    To explain a bit more: The Dharma already existed before the Buddha and will continue to exist forever, because Dharma is just what is. Dharma is nature as it is, not as we perceive it. Then the Buddha came to being and he was enlightened by the Dharma. So you see, he had no choice in the matter.
    Yes, it completely makes sense now. Its like that last little bit of the puzzle has been put together for me!

    Thanks to you for explaining it pure and simple! :)
    Happy to be of some help. I think you can extrapolate on what that means on how we should approach enlightenment ourselves. :)
  • MaryAnne said:

    vinlyn said:

    Okay, who's pretending to be Lobster by using his avatar...but not his obtuse writing?

    I know! I'm feeling very disoriented, now....

    :eek2:
    That is the lobster they get over at Freesangha. I prefer that version too.
  • By cod I like both! :thumbsup:
    Vastmindcvalue
  • lobsterlobster Crusty Veteran
    To explain a bit more: The Dharma already existed before the Buddha and will continue to exist forever, because Dharma is just what is. Dharma is nature as it is, not as we perceive it. Then the Buddha came to being and he was enlightened by the Dharma. So you see, he had no choice in the matter.
    Enlightenment does not exist as an expression but through expression. Just as the Truth is not expressible. What the Buddha realized can not be said. The Dharma in Buddhism is the skilful means, expressed by a man, from an awakened mans perceptive being. The Maitreya will not express only the Shakyamuni dharma, nor will it unfold in the same manner. Traditionally the Buddha realised he could not explain or transmit what he knew. He did his best and this is the Dharma he reluctantly choose to adopt as the most but not exclusive means.
    No awake Christians? No awake Sufis? All Rabbis snoozing? Every shaman unrealized? No Buddha dharma for those awakening paths? Perhaps . . .
    *You can't handle the truth!*
    Col. Jessep (Jack Nicholson) 'A Few Good Men'

    poptartcvalueChaz
  • Dharma is not only skillful means or teachings. The word Dharma is also used to point to higher reality, the nature of things as they are.
  • howhow Veteran Veteran
    @Sabre
    Not sure what u mean?
    Are those two not the same thing?
  • SabreSabre Veteran
    edited October 2013
    @how
    The word Dharma can mean many things in the ancient language. The Buddha used the word to point to his teachings as in "This is my dharma" but also as a reference to the reality of how things are. Or in the language you could even use the word to just point to "things" in general, like "All things (dharma) are without a self" is a famous example of this.

    See also:
    Of all Buddhist terminology, the word Dhamma commands the widest, most comprehensive meaning. There is nothing that does not come within the purview of this word. In fact, all things, animate or inanimate, all phenomena, those that can be seen or felt and those beyond our empirical perception, all conditioned and unconditioned states, can be included in the term Dhamma. However, Dhamma as one of the Three Gems is that which is represented by the teachings of the Buddha.

    The late Venerable Buddhadasa, one of the most influential thinkers and Dhamma exponents in contemporary Thailand, explains the meaning of the term by a fourfold definition. According to this, Dhamma means (a) the state of nature as it is, (b) the laws of nature, (c) the duties that must be performed in accordance with the laws of nature, and (d) the results that are derived from the fulfillment of such duties. This definition, he claims, represents the true and complete picture of Dhamma, and is inclusive of all things which the term refers to.

    http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/getting4.htm
    lobster
  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    Jeffrey said:

    Isn't knowledge of what the Buddha is unknowable?

    Knowledge must be known or it is speculation.

    If it is unknowable then awakening happens without understanding... That doesn't seem right somehow.

  • ourself said:

    Jeffrey said:

    Isn't knowledge of what the Buddha is unknowable?

    Knowledge must be known or it is speculation.

    If it is unknowable then awakening happens without understanding... That doesn't seem right somehow.

    Agreed I didn't mean that a Buddha wouldn't know. I just meant the rest of us.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    ourself said:

    Jeffrey said:

    Isn't knowledge of what the Buddha is unknowable?

    Knowledge must be known or it is speculation.

    If it is unknowable then awakening happens without understanding... That doesn't seem right somehow.

    Thank you, @Ourself!

    One of the problems I see in all religions -- including Buddhism -- is that part of the faith seems to almost always center around the leader (whether historical or present-day) having some secret knowledge that no lay person, or even ordained person, is quite able to understand. And, the exalted leader -- exalted to a large extent because -- even he finds it impossible to explain that secret knowledge to a lay person.

  • lobsterlobster Crusty Veteran
    According to this, Dhamma means (a) the state of nature as it is, (b) the laws of nature, (c) the duties that must be performed in accordance with the laws of nature, and (d) the results that are derived from the fulfillment of such duties.
    According to this excellent definition of Dhamma, I have never seen it stated so well, it would be absolutely true to say the Dhamma enlightened the Buddha.

    The Buddha realised nature as it is
    the laws of nature
    how to work with reality
    the way to awakening.

    There is a huge difference between this definition and the rigid almost legal language often used to define Dhamma.

    So when I previously said no, I clearly meant yes. Must have been a limited Dhamma know.
    Sabre
  • bookwormbookworm U.S.A. Veteran
    When Siddhartha was a young man that ventured outside of his palace and discovered old age, sickness, death, and the last thing he saw was an ascetic which gave him hope, that started it all really, that led a chain of events that ultimately led to his awakening.
  • misecmisc1misecmisc1 I am a Hindu India Veteran
    edited October 2013
    i think if i remember correctly, i was reading a web-page which had a pdf file, which had the complete commentary on Heart Sutra by i think a chinese monk(i do not remember correctly this thing whose commentary it was). in that commentary, it said that while the buddha was sitting under that tree, at midnight, he saw a star (i think some pole star or some other star) which was far distant in the sky from him - then he realized that everything is in his own mind or everything is a projection of his mind and he awoke.
  • misecmisc1misecmisc1 I am a Hindu India Veteran
    edited October 2013
    vinlyn said:

    ourself said:

    Jeffrey said:

    Isn't knowledge of what the Buddha is unknowable?

    Knowledge must be known or it is speculation.

    If it is unknowable then awakening happens without understanding... That doesn't seem right somehow.

    Thank you, @Ourself!

    One of the problems I see in all religions -- including Buddhism -- is that part of the faith seems to almost always center around the leader (whether historical or present-day) having some secret knowledge that no lay person, or even ordained person, is quite able to understand. And, the exalted leader -- exalted to a large extent because -- even he finds it impossible to explain that secret knowledge to a lay person.

    as i see spirituality, any spiritual path needs faith to progress - ok, buddhism has many things which can be tested to find out if it is true, agreed - but still the complete path cannot be travelled without faith as faith is one of the seven factors for awakening. faith is needed to know there is something like awakening happening, when its causal conditions are met - without faith, how do we know if there is something like deathless or unborn or unconditioned?

    as far as that knowledge is concerned which is known by Buddha and not to laymen, i think there is such kind of knowledge - i think even Buddha's teachings say there is a higher kind of knowledge, which is accessible only after attaining deep concentration stages - which leads to supernatural powers - these things though not really helpful, but these things as per Buddha's teachings at least these things exist conventionally.
    Jeffrey
  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    edited October 2013
    vinlyn said:

    ourself said:

    Jeffrey said:

    Isn't knowledge of what the Buddha is unknowable?

    Knowledge must be known or it is speculation.

    If it is unknowable then awakening happens without understanding... That doesn't seem right somehow.

    Thank you, @Ourself!

    One of the problems I see in all religions -- including Buddhism -- is that part of the faith seems to almost always center around the leader (whether historical or present-day) having some secret knowledge that no lay person, or even ordained person, is quite able to understand. And, the exalted leader -- exalted to a large extent because -- even he finds it impossible to explain that secret knowledge to a lay person.

    I agree. It's like a catch-22... We can't understand unless we are there but we can't get there until we understand. However, Buddha only awakens within an ordained person or even a lay person. Otherwise, Sidhartha would not have been born.

    One problem is we can't explain the unconceptable without using concepts and another is a blessing in disguise... All the good teachers point to within the student. That's why I believe Jesus was awakened to our true nature but think Paul was a fraud. The teacher can not understand for the student... The student must understand for themself but the truth is there to see.

    That's why (I think) Buddha said not to have faith in the truth of the dharma but to use it to see the truth. He didn't offer us the truth but he did offer us the dharma.

    vinlyn said:

    ourself said:

    Jeffrey said:

    Isn't knowledge of what the Buddha is unknowable?

    Knowledge must be known or it is speculation.

    If it is unknowable then awakening happens without understanding... That doesn't seem right somehow.

    Thank you, @Ourself!

    One of the problems I see in all religions -- including Buddhism -- is that part of the faith seems to almost always center around the leader (whether historical or present-day) having some secret knowledge that no lay person, or even ordained person, is quite able to understand. And, the exalted leader -- exalted to a large extent because -- even he finds it impossible to explain that secret knowledge to a lay person.

    as i see spirituality, any spiritual path needs faith to progress - ok, buddhism has many things which can be tested to find out if it is true, agreed - but still the complete path cannot be travelled without faith as faith is one of the seven factors for awakening. faith is needed to know there is something like awakening happening, when its causal conditions are met - without faith, how do we know if there is something like deathless or unborn or unconditioned?

    as far as that knowledge is concerned which is known by Buddha and not to laymen, i think there is such kind of knowledge - i think even Buddha's teachings say there is a higher kind of knowledge, which is accessible only after attaining deep concentration stages - which leads to supernatural powers - these things though not really helpful, but these things as per Buddha's teachings at least these things exist conventionally.
    I can't have faith in supernatural powers because if things happen, they happen naturally. This, to me, is putting up a wall between Buddha and the rest of us... Putting the Buddha on such a high pedestal that it cannot be reached.

    Faith is something I can only put on things that I can perceive. Like our ability to foster a more compassionate society or even wake up from our delusion of seperateness.

    Chaz
Sign In or Register to comment.