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??
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?
...
I like the way you wrote that paragraph. As I have often suggested, there's nothing wrong with faith, provided one realizes it's faith and not fact. In fact, to an extent, I'd say faith can be a very positive force.
The root of Dharma is DHR which means that which holds. I believe Gautama saw the suffering and he had Bodhicitta at that moment. Growing and learning is a long path of perfection. The Buddha made that journey. He once side he had exhausted a lot of grasping. That is part of self perfection and I think self perfectionfor the benefit of enlightenment and the rest is the perfection stage. Enlightenment is not some complete and perfect condition. When you are enlightened you are enlightened. That condition changes as we grow and stumble. He learned and realized truths and here we are. mtgby
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???
Lot's of these ideas were floating around at the time, it was a real melting pot. It seems the Buddha spent a long time exploring contemporary ideas and spiritual practices, then decided to do his own thing. Finally he sat under a tree, determined to stay there until he gained enlightenment. So the answer to your question is perhaps: "determination".
1
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
Driving to work yesterday I was thinking about this thread.
So, you have a healthy, grown man (Gotama), who was obviously brilliant, likely a genius in terms of modern IQ. He also had the best education offered to young males of the time, and one more special thing; a vastly introspective temperament. Not everyone is introspective; it's a kind of personality or tendency. In the US, most people are considered extraverted versus introverted, for instance.
He begins 'to question life' as we all do. In his culture, men who pursued such sincere questions left their families and livelihoods and lived in the forests and mountains in bands of wanderers.
Gotama spent six years as a wandering ascetic. Now this is where I really trip out.
I know none of us alive today have the slightest clue of the EXPERIENCE of being an ascetic. Intellectually, we know they were either naked 24/7/365 or had a scrap covering their groin; they deliberately starved themselves, to death sometimes I'm sure, denied themselves even the most subtle physical comforts. They would stand in one position, a very uncomfortable one mind you, for weeks until they collapsed. They denied themselves every last molecule of physical relief and believe me, they were Nazis in their self honesty.
So imagine the EXPERIENCE of the ancient ascetic. We have plenty of illustration of them in the suttas. I can't. But imagine the sheer force of their focus and attention, their 'mindfulness'. They developed such concentration they could probably discern molecules from each other, psychologically. Our modern minds are lazy, stimulation is arm's reach away, we avoid silence, etc etc amen. We can barely survive the day without a TV show or chatting on the NewBuddhist forum or playing Candy Cruncher on our smartphone.
Enter Gotama; sincere, educated, healthy (enough to survive six damn LONG years as an ascetic, and you know he took it to the limits!) and with the six years of inconceivable focus and concentration and self-denial and he STILL intuited he was missing something vital.
Sitting under the bodhi tree until that 'something vital' clicked into place was just the last leg of a journey that started long long long before.
If you took Al Gore at 27, sent him out into the mountains to become a sincere ascetic for 6 years and plopped him in front of a bodhi (or US equivalent) tree until he "got it", well um, my mind just went blank. Coffee! And a cigarette! Yeah! Oops, I quit five years ago. Ahem. My feet are cold.
That is how Gotama became the Buddha, in my estimation, for what it's worth I'm damn glad he did, too.
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.
I think the dharma has been forgotten. I know Maitreya is not supposed to come until about 5000 years after the last one went, but as @ five bells appeared to point out in another thread the human race appears to be about to die out in the next few generations. Buddhism has become so obfuscated that I believe we need Maitreya to appear now and put us all on the right path. Now how do you find him or her? Maitreya sounds like a girls name to me - I looked it up, it could be a boy or girls name and it's pronounced My Tree ah
My Tree ha! Where are you?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
The whole prediction of when Maitreya ia supposed to arise sounds way too superstitious and even hokey to me. Like the second coming of Jesus.
I don't believe Buddha could see the future nor do I believe in psychic powers. I think if Maitreya makes an appearance it will be a mind set and not a single being. If Buddha predicted it then I would guess he saw the cycle playing out as more and more of us awaken to our true nature.
The whole prediction of when Maitreya ia supposed to arise sounds way too superstitious and even hokey to me. Like the second coming of Jesus.
I don't believe Buddha could see the future nor do I believe in psychic powers. I think if Maitreya makes an appearance it will be a mind set and not a single being. If Buddha predicted it then I would guess he saw the cycle playing out as more and more of us awaken to our true nature.
Couldn't agree more @ourself - now lets start peddling (on) that cycle!
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.
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.
We need perhaps to unpack the meaning of 'faith ' in the context of Buddhadharma. Faith is a poor translation of ' Sraddha ' ( Sanskrit ) or 'Saddha ' Pali, and its meaning differs from the usual interpretation of ' faith ' in modern languages. In Buddhadharma sraddha implies a willingness to suspend disbelief until such time that direct perception of the truth happens...It is to put certain concepts on one side for the time being and to adopt those practices which lead to direct perception. So it does not refer to things that are not provable through simple logic and accepting them uncritically . Rather sraddha is an attitude, a mindset , that says ' I will put this to the test until such time that practice reveals its truth or otherwise by direct perception.'
Really, asking what, exactly, makes the Buddha or anyone a Buddha is at the heart of Western Buddhism. To most of the world through history, it's a nonsense question, because he's the Buddha, and that's all there is to it.
Really, asking what, exactly, makes the Buddha or anyone a Buddha is at the heart of Western Buddhism.
Actaually I find that other things are at the heart of western Buddhism and the question of what makes a Buddha a Buddha isn't really a question at all.
Really, asking what, exactly, makes the Buddha or anyone a Buddha is at the heart of Western Buddhism.
Actaually I find that other things are at the heart of western Buddhism and the question of what makes a Buddha a Buddha isn't really a question at all.
And isn't that the wonderful thing about Western Buddhism?
The whole prediction of when Maitreya ia supposed to arise sounds way too superstitious and even hokey to me. Like the second coming of Jesus.
I don't believe Buddha could see the future nor do I believe in psychic powers. I think if Maitreya makes an appearance it will be a mind set and not a single being. If Buddha predicted it then I would guess he saw the cycle playing out as more and more of us awaken to our true nature.
I have also made that connection about the waiting for the second coming of Christ and Maitreya..
The Buddha said that there have been many buddhas before him and will be many buddhas after. Buddhas come again after EONS, not 3000 years. Anyone waiting for Maitreya has many more lifetimes to go. Also... why would you want to wait for another Buddha? what the last Buddha taught is still here, It may of changed over 3000 years due to cultural and time influences, but it's still remembered and practiced, not forgotten.
Just for reference, some of these ideas and predictions are relatively late elaborations or exaggerations of things mentioned in the Suttas. The only reference to Mettayya in the Pali Canon that I'm aware of, for example, is in DN 26, where the Buddha uses a pretty dramatic narrative to illustrate the power of skillful action. Much like DN 27, however, where the Buddha tells a story about the beginning of life on this world to two brahmins which, in the end, is used to illustrate how the way to liberation is beyond caste and lineage, I'm not sure how literally it's meant to be taken. It should also be noted that the Anagatavamsa, which talks about the coming of Metteyya and is the source of the 5,000 year prediction, is a relatively late text and isn't canonical. The Gandhavamsa ascribes authorship to the elder Kassapa, the author of the Mohavicchedani (12th -13th century CE).
Enlightenment is not the result of something - not the result of practice, precepts, etc. But without practice, precepts etc., there is no enlightenment. If you open the window, you can enjoy the cool breeze, but the cool breeze isn't the direct result of an opened window. Still, the two go hand in hand.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
The whole prediction of when Maitreya ia supposed to arise sounds way too superstitious and even hokey to me. Like the second coming of Jesus.
I don't believe Buddha could see the future nor do I believe in psychic powers. I think if Maitreya makes an appearance it will be a mind set and not a single being. If Buddha predicted it then I would guess he saw the cycle playing out as more and more of us awaken to our true nature.
I have also made that connection about the waiting for the second coming of Christ and Maitreya..
The Buddha said that there have been many buddhas before him and will be many buddhas after. Buddhas come again after EONS, not 3000 years. Anyone waiting for Maitreya has many more lifetimes to go. Also... why would you want to wait for another Buddha? what the last Buddha taught is still here, It may of changed over 3000 years due to cultural and time influences, but it's still remembered and practiced, not forgotten.
I would still wager Maitreya is a mind set to happen when the majority awakens and see no point in believing in past or future Buddhas aside from the historical one who's nature is alive and well in all of us right here and right now.
How long is an eon? As far as we can tell, humans have only been around for a hundred thousand years or so. Plus with the way information is now shared and stored the chances of the dharma being forgotten seems unlikely unless mankind is forgotten along with it.
Well I doubt if anyone here will be around to collect but I will have a wager that the proportion of awakened people will be the same in ten years, a hundred years and a thousand years. i.e. A tiny few. That comes with the human territory.
How long is an eon? As far as we can tell, humans have only been around for a hundred thousand years or so. Plus with the way information is now shared and stored the chances of the dharma being forgotten seems unlikely unless mankind is forgotten along with it.
Kalpa is a Sanskrit word (कल्प kalpa) meaning an aeon, or a relatively long period of time (by human calculation) in Hindu and Buddhist cosmology. The concept is first mentioned in the Mahabharata. The definition of a kalpa equalling 4.32 billion years is found in the Puranas (specifically Vishnu Purana and Bhagavata Purana).
Buddha had not spoken about the exact length of the Maha-kalpa in number of years. However, he had given several astounding analogies to understand it.
1. Imagine a huge empty cube at the beginning of a kalpa, approximately 16 miles in each side. Once every 100 years, you insert a tiny mustard seed into the cube. According to the Buddha, the huge cube will be filled even before the kalpa ends.
2. Imagine a gigantic rocky mountain at the beginning of kalpa, approximately 16 x 16 x 16 miles (dwarfing Mt. Everest). You take a small piece of silk and wipe the mountain once every 100 years. According to the Buddha, the mountain will be completely depleted even before the kalpa ends.
In one situation, some monks wanted to know how many kalpas had died so far. The Buddha gave the analogy:
1. If you count the total number of sand particles at the depths of the Ganges river, from where it begins to where it ends at the sea, even that number will be less than the number of passed kalpas.[2]
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
How long is an eon? As far as we can tell, humans have only been around for a hundred thousand years or so. Plus with the way information is now shared and stored the chances of the dharma being forgotten seems unlikely unless mankind is forgotten along with it.
Kalpa is a Sanskrit word (कल्प kalpa) meaning an aeon, or a relatively long period of time (by human calculation) in Hindu and Buddhist cosmology. The concept is first mentioned in the Mahabharata. The definition of a kalpa equalling 4.32 billion years is found in the Puranas (specifically Vishnu Purana and Bhagavata Purana).
Buddha had not spoken about the exact length of the Maha-kalpa in number of years. However, he had given several astounding analogies to understand it.
1. Imagine a huge empty cube at the beginning of a kalpa, approximately 16 miles in each side. Once every 100 years, you insert a tiny mustard seed into the cube. According to the Buddha, the huge cube will be filled even before the kalpa ends.
2. Imagine a gigantic rocky mountain at the beginning of kalpa, approximately 16 x 16 x 16 miles (dwarfing Mt. Everest). You take a small piece of silk and wipe the mountain once every 100 years. According to the Buddha, the mountain will be completely depleted even before the kalpa ends.
In one situation, some monks wanted to know how many kalpas had died so far. The Buddha gave the analogy:
1. If you count the total number of sand particles at the depths of the Ganges river, from where it begins to where it ends at the sea, even that number will be less than the number of passed kalpas.[2]
Yeah... It sounds to me like he was saying it will only happen once this time around. He didn't know that what we call the known universe (that which is the expansion of the one big bang that we know of) was 14 billion years old already.
It furthers my belief that Buddha wasn't concerned about other Buddhas but only the fruition of our Buddha nature.
That could lead to a more awakened mind set where us and "them" is strictly for preferential reasons and the line between mankind and nature, outer and inner, self and other is simply a tool of convenience.
It could be that we are Maitreya.
Who is it that wakes up? The reason he doesn't tell us is because it is he who wakes in us. In this context of course "he" is just a handy word.
Yeah... It sounds to me like he was saying it will only happen once this time around. He didn't know that what we call the known universe (that which is the expansion of the one big bang that we know of) was 14 billion years old already.
It furthers my belief that Buddha wasn't concerned about other Buddhas but only the fruition of Buddha nature.
with the new theories in astrophysics that talk about infinite amount of universes in a multiverse, and the buddha talking about "humans" in all the "world systems"... got to make you wonder no?
If rebirth is a truth of the universe(s) and there are how many types of sentient beings across these universes, who knows what we may of been in the past.
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???
think a bit more about Dependent Origination (paticca samuppada)
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 Siddharthataught 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!!
It is said that Buddhism principles are universal that's why it is not accepted that before Siddhartha it was unknown. Perhaps it is also said that many Buddha were present and lived before Siddhartha.
There were other enlightened tirthakars from Jainism religion. Mahavira was contemporary of Siddhartha Buddha. Mahavira was also enlightened and senior to Buddha but from last 24th tirthkar of Jainism.
Similar way Buddhist also claim that there were 22 Buddha existed before him and you can search list of them online and maitreya is still to come.
Many times i felt many of us learn things own way but may learn at old age when we have no time to make things right therefore it is easy to follow Buddhism since young age but sometime i think we don't able to live life as per own route and may mislead without proper reasoning..
@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!!
There is no fundamental difference between a Buddha and you, they have just awoken to their original nature.
As far as what liberated him, it depends on the tradition insofar as how much detail will be given. Dzogchen would say he was in the base-of-all state where the second and third marigpa was absent but the first marigpa was there (that of the unawareness of the true condition of the Base; and unawareness of Rigpa), he raised already extremely high energy-volume, which broke him out of the state, the the more energy-volume relates to the panoramification of awareness, such a high-energy volume and so panoramification compelled him out of the base-of-all state into the presence of the true condition of the Base, which is Rigpa, which stuck, and so nirvana.
The base-of-all is easy mistaken for enlightenment, and breaking this state is what some of the Dzogchen practices are partially designed to do, to increase the energy-volume so much, to the degree of having extreme and so extremely compelling visions (thogal practice) force one out of the base-of-all, showing its faults, and if one has sufficient skill in trecko which leads to the spontaneous self-liberation of all tension, then the energy-volume continues to rise in proportion to the intensity and tension. This feedback loop of the energy-volume builds on itself until it permanently breaks tension, and then the entire mass of existential lack, unpleasantness, dissatisfaction, suffering, never comes back, it CAN'T come back.
It is like how if a fire formed everytime there is tension, usually we go out of our way to run away from the fire or try to put it out, while this method goes out of its way to stroke the fire until the whole mass is on fire, eventually the tension/fire is so great, it consumes everything and burns itself out, there is thus nothing flammable left. This is by far more effective, as before when we put out fired or run away from them, the flammable stuff grows back and/or sustains for long periods of time, but at levels that allow the return or prospering of flammable material to continue indefinitely.
Remember how the armies of mara approached shakyamuni before he became enlightened? Well Dzogchen sort of views this as less symbolic in the specific sense that there were indeed intense and sometimes wrathful, seducing visions etc (tension manifests in all of them, just differently, this occurs in thogal practice). So instead of being merely metaphors for having mere feelings of misery or lust, he experienced the thogal/bardo trance and also had visual manifestations of them, which can increase the energy-volume to its maximum (something which is extremely difficult, likely impossible for most, without the visual manifestations).
This all sound very knowledgable, scientific and academic and dare I say it evangelical@atiyana; it is almost like you are saying becoming a buddha is like being a supernova. That smacks of attachment to the concept of buddhahood and spiritual enlightenment. That is why the great Masters tell you to kill the buddha.
In my meditation this morning, my mind became still. And 'I' was present, 'I' was sitting doing the meditation in a room, aware of this and that and dissolving into it slowly as my mind settled, but I was also aware of the timelessness, emptiness, form and luminosity of my MIND (RIGPA), because it was there also, as it appeared in my dimensionless field of awareness. It was silent and peaceful (and above all there was no dukkha), and I certainly didn't feel the need to have to explode into billions of twinkly fairy lights - because what more did I desire, than that freedom which is what I seek. I didn't need anything and gave some metta and love to the world I was in.
Then the phone rang, and I had to attend to the things arising in my mind, that needed tending - feeding the dog, calling my wife writing a letter and seeing what insights were being had on NB...
The buddha is supposed to have had the realisation that the dharma is so subtle, that he would find it difficult to teach, and nearly didn't, because he realised that it was not what people actually wanted (it was there to be had already); however, he understood that people desire form, consciousness and perception, because you can experience them. True emptiness, that gives rise to this, has nothing more to offer than what is given, and that is already given. It even gives rise to the ignorance necessary to perpetuate the desire for all these things.
Power up your buddha to shine with a golden light; however, only you are going to witness it, hopefully it will not be a disappointment.
For your info I am on a path of no path that bears no fruit... Except for what... is... now.
LA LA LA LA LA
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I don't think realizing the 4NTs awakened the Buddha within Sidhartha... I think finding the center between all extremes did. I also don't think he did it alone but had the help of a bodhisattva bearing a plate of rice. She brought him back from the edge of death and showed him the futility of nhilism and the need for compassion.
The Noble truths and the Eightfold path were a result of his awakening but not the other way around.
@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???
What made him a Buddha? A sudden change of perception.
The Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path are not just "basically it." Try putting it all into practice every day of your life and you'll see it's no little thing. You have enough to entertain you for a lifetime.
And if his message resonates with people still today, no wonder people in his age saw in him "the new awakened Teacher of their time."
Try to place his teaching within the framework of the religion of his time and you'll be able to see how novel his belief system was.
@anataman said:
This all sound very knowledgable, scientific and academic and dare I say it evangelical atiyana; it is almost like you are saying becoming a buddha is like being a supernova. That smacks of attachment to the concept of buddhahood and spiritual enlightenment. That is why the great Masters tell you to kill the buddha.
In my meditation this morning, my mind became still. And 'I' was present, 'I' was sitting doing the meditation in a room, aware of this and that and dissolving into it slowly as my mind settled, but I was also aware of the timelessness, emptiness, form and luminosity of my MIND (RIGPA), because it was there also, as it appeared in my dimensionless field of awareness. It was silent and peaceful (and above all there was no dukkha), and I certainly didn't feel the need to have to explode into billions of twinkly fairy lights - because what more did I desire, than that freedom which is what I seek. I didn't need anything and gave some metta and love to the world I was in.
Then the phone rang, and I had to attend to the things arising in my mind, that needed tending - feeding the dog, calling my wife writing a letter and seeing what insights were being had on NB...
The buddha is supposed to have had the realisation that the dharma is so subtle, that he would find it difficult to teach, and nearly didn't, because he realised that it was not what people actually wanted (it was there to be had already); however, he understood that people desire form, consciousness and perception, because you can experience them. True emptiness, that gives rise to this, has nothing more to offer than what is given, and that is already given. It even gives rise to the ignorance necessary to perpetuate the desire for all these things.
Power up your buddha to shine with a golden light; however, only you are going to witness it, hopefully it will not be a disappointment.
For your info I am on a path of no path that bears no fruit... Except for what... is... now.
Nice unjustified claims there friend, my relaying the atiyogatantrayana (which teaches no-one going no-where yet retains the description I gave, which I have learned from both ChNN and one of his closest students) description of Buddhahood is somehow attachment to the concept of buddhahood and spiritual enlightenment? How? How can you justify this claim? A great many Buddhist masters throughout the ages have spoken in very technical terms, you seem to think that by virtue of anything technical, it is attachment, tell that to Nagarjuna. Maybe you are mistaking phenomenological description with something other than.
By "great masters" you mean Zen masters. Zen has fundamental issues, it is incapable of distinguishing between the base-of-all and buddhamind, in that the base-of-all entails a single taste, appears transpersonal in the Buddhist sense, it appears non-dual, and it lacks the process by which the sense-data continuum is partitioned into perceptual objects (percepts), and thus is also a total relaxation. Jigme Lingpa said the base-of-all would be commonly mistaken for enlightenment in our age. Part of that is exactly because people lack the technical know-how to distinguish between them. Secondly, Zen qua fruit and qua path tends to have a partiality towards emptiness, which entails a subtle directionality and fragmentation that isn't found in the total bliss of our original nature. Third of all, zen seems to misunderstand the energy-volume and conceive of it in dualistic terms, despite it being a non-dual phenomena, additionally it lacks the methods to directly raise it, instead only raising it passively.
You calling your mind rigpa seems to misunderstand that aside from flawed translations, the traditions that speak of rigpa separate mind and awareness. Rigpa is awareness and not mind. With that said, how did you first gain your direct glimpsing into Rigpa, how did you attain your direct introduction, because if you didn't get an authentic glimpse, then you are not talking about Rigpa (especially if you are calling it mind and are unaware of the huge differences and warnings concerning mistaking the two).
Your discussion of fairy lights is exactly indicative of your intent on misrepresenting the discussion. The base-of-all also feels free, and unless you practice all 4 thogal visions, then it is very likely you are mistaking the "freedom" of the base-of-all for that of actual Rigpa.
I didn't need anything and gave some metta and love to the world I was in.
Sounds like duality persisted in the state you speak of. Buddhas don't send metta and they don't perceive that there are any sentient beings to save, only the unenlightened take their actions as such. "Giving" entails a mental subject acting on some sort of object, which isn't found in Rigpa.
Stating that the Buddha's realization was beyond words, descriptions, and thoughts, amounts to a truism in the context of this discussion and strays from the discussion if anything.
Power up your buddha to shine with a golden light; however, only you are going to witness it, hopefully it will not be a disappointment.
Golden lights? HA! Thanks though, I spent 6 years in retreat practicing tantrayana and I personally glimpsed the total pleasure giving rise to an authentic glimpse of Rigpa, sense then I have been practicing Dzogchen, and I gotta say, I am skeptical we are talking about the same Rigpa.
For your info I am on a path of no path that bears no fruit... Except for what... is... now.
I didn't ask, but thanks for sharing I suppose. Again what you are saying is a truism and if anything is semantic. If it bears absolutely no fruit, where fruit is something beyond the cause-effect distinction, then you are claiming Buddha qualities are intrinsic, rather than a manifestation of the potentiality of the true condition of the Base, which is what the Dzogchen teachings teach. I think Tsongkapa would criticize you for lacking a valid cognition.
I am not yet buddha. I caught my glimpse at Rigpa. I know the distinction between Rigpa and sem mind however. And you are not listening...
Also I was merely parodying your description of buddhahood as an explosion of twinkly fairy lights, to see what your reaction was.
I validate my own cognition not you, or Tsongkapa
And well done for spending all that time alone, you need some more time it seems as there is a lot of off-loading you seem to be doing. You come across as arrogant and conceited. I have no doubt regarding your knowledge, but I have doubts about you.
I do not choose you as my master. But I'm happy to learn from your mistakes.
I also validate my own cognition not you or Tsongkapa. My path does not fruit, it is the fruit, but you haven't got to that place yet. And who says I can't do metta during meditation - you? I'm doing it now, and I've been doing it forever.
... :shake: ...
I don't know the difference between Rigpa and mind - pa - do I really need to stare at myself for 6 years killing my ego, only to enshrine it in a golden tower of knowledge hiding the True Wisdom which is accessible - NO!
This is why we kill the buddha my precious... Otherwise we end up in infinite regression, and become arrogant and conceited...
Do I need to go and look at all that stuff that was quoted?
No my precious, it just gives you lofty ideas of you being greater than you are my precious; and you don't need that do you? You can if you want I give you permission to do what you want?
No you are right. I'm happy and content with the little wisdom I have.
That's great, perhaps you'd like to sit with me later.
Of course, but I've got to go and pick up the laundry and walk the dog; hey perhaps you could come with me.
I'd love to, thanks for the invitation, my precious.
My pleasure
Mettha
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Woah... @anataman...calm yourself... or you give great lie to this:
No you are right. I'm happy and content with the little wisdom I have.
Because if you are honest, you're anything but.
And to round on the person who pushes your buttons for doing so - like an angry wounded dog does to someone trying to feed it - is an unskillful move.
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??
The buddha was a doctor. He gave us the diagnosis (suffering / dis-ease)then gave us the cure (8FP).
We just need to decide if we're willing to swallow the pill.
That's how I explained it to an eight year old. I think he understood.
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
And who could argue with that....?
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
The difference between Buddha and everyone else...
When I wish I knew, within that wishing lies the obstacle.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Comments
mtgby
So the answer to your question is perhaps: "determination".
So, you have a healthy, grown man (Gotama), who was obviously brilliant, likely a genius in terms of modern IQ. He also had the best education offered to young males of the time, and one more special thing; a vastly introspective temperament. Not everyone is introspective; it's a kind of personality or tendency. In the US, most people are considered extraverted versus introverted, for instance.
He begins 'to question life' as we all do. In his culture, men who pursued such sincere questions left their families and livelihoods and lived in the forests and mountains in bands of wanderers.
Gotama spent six years as a wandering ascetic. Now this is where I really trip out.
I know none of us alive today have the slightest clue of the EXPERIENCE of being an ascetic. Intellectually, we know they were either naked 24/7/365 or had a scrap covering their groin; they deliberately starved themselves, to death sometimes I'm sure, denied themselves even the most subtle physical comforts. They would stand in one position, a very uncomfortable one mind you, for weeks until they collapsed. They denied themselves every last molecule of physical relief and believe me, they were Nazis in their self honesty.
So imagine the EXPERIENCE of the ancient ascetic. We have plenty of illustration of them in the suttas. I can't. But imagine the sheer force of their focus and attention, their 'mindfulness'. They developed such concentration they could probably discern molecules from each other, psychologically. Our modern minds are lazy, stimulation is arm's reach away, we avoid silence, etc etc amen. We can barely survive the day without a TV show or chatting on the NewBuddhist forum or playing Candy Cruncher on our smartphone.
Enter Gotama; sincere, educated, healthy (enough to survive six damn LONG years as an ascetic, and you know he took it to the limits!) and with the six years of inconceivable focus and concentration and self-denial and he STILL intuited he was missing something vital.
Sitting under the bodhi tree until that 'something vital' clicked into place was just the last leg of a journey that started long long long before.
If you took Al Gore at 27, sent him out into the mountains to become a sincere ascetic for 6 years and plopped him in front of a bodhi (or US equivalent) tree until he "got it", well um, my mind just went blank. Coffee! And a cigarette! Yeah! Oops, I quit five years ago. Ahem. My feet are cold.
That is how Gotama became the Buddha, in my estimation, for what it's worth
Gassho
My Tree ha! Where are you?
I don't believe Buddha could see the future nor do I believe in psychic powers. I think if Maitreya makes an appearance it will be a mind set and not a single being. If Buddha predicted it then I would guess he saw the cycle playing out as more and more of us awaken to our true nature.
Faith is a poor translation of ' Sraddha ' ( Sanskrit ) or 'Saddha ' Pali, and its meaning differs from the usual interpretation of ' faith ' in modern languages.
In Buddhadharma sraddha implies a willingness to suspend disbelief until such time that direct perception of the truth happens...It is to put certain concepts on one side for the time being and to adopt those practices which lead to direct perception.
So it does not refer to things that are not provable through simple logic and accepting them uncritically . Rather sraddha is an attitude, a mindset , that says ' I will put this to the test until such time that practice reveals its truth or otherwise by direct perception.'
The Buddha said that there have been many buddhas before him and will be many buddhas after. Buddhas come again after EONS, not 3000 years. Anyone waiting for Maitreya has many more lifetimes to go. Also... why would you want to wait for another Buddha? what the last Buddha taught is still here, It may of changed over 3000 years due to cultural and time influences, but it's still remembered and practiced, not forgotten.
How long is an eon? As far as we can tell, humans have only been around for a hundred thousand years or so. Plus with the way information is now shared and stored the chances of the dharma being forgotten seems unlikely unless mankind is forgotten along with it.
i.e. A tiny few.
That comes with the human territory.
Kalpa is a Sanskrit word (कल्प kalpa) meaning an aeon, or a relatively long period of time (by human calculation) in Hindu and Buddhist cosmology. The concept is first mentioned in the Mahabharata. The definition of a kalpa equalling 4.32 billion years is found in the Puranas (specifically Vishnu Purana and Bhagavata Purana).
Buddha had not spoken about the exact length of the Maha-kalpa in number of years. However, he had given several astounding analogies to understand it.
1. Imagine a huge empty cube at the beginning of a kalpa, approximately 16 miles in each side. Once every 100 years, you insert a tiny mustard seed into the cube. According to the Buddha, the huge cube will be filled even before the kalpa ends.
2. Imagine a gigantic rocky mountain at the beginning of kalpa, approximately 16 x 16 x 16 miles (dwarfing Mt. Everest). You take a small piece of silk and wipe the mountain once every 100 years. According to the Buddha, the mountain will be completely depleted even before the kalpa ends.
In one situation, some monks wanted to know how many kalpas had died so far. The Buddha gave the analogy:
1. If you count the total number of sand particles at the depths of the Ganges river, from where it begins to where it ends at the sea, even that number will be less than the number of passed kalpas.[2]
1. Imagine a huge empty cube at the beginning of a kalpa, approximately 16 miles in each side. Once every 100 years, you insert a tiny mustard seed into the cube. According to the Buddha, the huge cube will be filled even before the kalpa ends.
2. Imagine a gigantic rocky mountain at the beginning of kalpa, approximately 16 x 16 x 16 miles (dwarfing Mt. Everest). You take a small piece of silk and wipe the mountain once every 100 years. According to the Buddha, the mountain will be completely depleted even before the kalpa ends.
In one situation, some monks wanted to know how many kalpas had died so far. The Buddha gave the analogy:
1. If you count the total number of sand particles at the depths of the Ganges river, from where it begins to where it ends at the sea, even that number will be less than the number of passed kalpas.[2]
Yeah... It sounds to me like he was saying it will only happen once this time around. He didn't know that what we call the known universe (that which is the expansion of the one big bang that we know of) was 14 billion years old already.
It furthers my belief that Buddha wasn't concerned about other Buddhas but only the fruition of our Buddha nature.
That could lead to a more awakened mind set where us and "them" is strictly for preferential reasons and the line between mankind and nature, outer and inner, self and other is simply a tool of convenience.
It could be that we are Maitreya.
Who is it that wakes up? The reason he doesn't tell us is because it is he who wakes in us. In this context of course "he" is just a handy word.
Hey, it's possible.
If rebirth is a truth of the universe(s) and there are how many types of sentient beings across these universes, who knows what we may of been in the past.
There were other enlightened tirthakars from Jainism religion. Mahavira was contemporary of Siddhartha Buddha. Mahavira was also enlightened and senior to Buddha but from last 24th tirthkar of Jainism.
Similar way Buddhist also claim that there were 22 Buddha existed before him and you can search list of them online and maitreya is still to come.
Many times i felt many of us learn things own way but may learn at old age when we have no time to make things right therefore it is easy to follow Buddhism since young age but sometime i think we don't able to live life as per own route and may mislead without proper reasoning..
There is no fundamental difference between a Buddha and you, they have just awoken to their original nature.
As far as what liberated him, it depends on the tradition insofar as how much detail will be given. Dzogchen would say he was in the base-of-all state where the second and third marigpa was absent but the first marigpa was there (that of the unawareness of the true condition of the Base; and unawareness of Rigpa), he raised already extremely high energy-volume, which broke him out of the state, the the more energy-volume relates to the panoramification of awareness, such a high-energy volume and so panoramification compelled him out of the base-of-all state into the presence of the true condition of the Base, which is Rigpa, which stuck, and so nirvana.
And right now Maitreya is re-charging his or her batteries to power up soon...
...
The base-of-all is easy mistaken for enlightenment, and breaking this state is what some of the Dzogchen practices are partially designed to do, to increase the energy-volume so much, to the degree of having extreme and so extremely compelling visions (thogal practice) force one out of the base-of-all, showing its faults, and if one has sufficient skill in trecko which leads to the spontaneous self-liberation of all tension, then the energy-volume continues to rise in proportion to the intensity and tension. This feedback loop of the energy-volume builds on itself until it permanently breaks tension, and then the entire mass of existential lack, unpleasantness, dissatisfaction, suffering, never comes back, it CAN'T come back.
It is like how if a fire formed everytime there is tension, usually we go out of our way to run away from the fire or try to put it out, while this method goes out of its way to stroke the fire until the whole mass is on fire, eventually the tension/fire is so great, it consumes everything and burns itself out, there is thus nothing flammable left. This is by far more effective, as before when we put out fired or run away from them, the flammable stuff grows back and/or sustains for long periods of time, but at levels that allow the return or prospering of flammable material to continue indefinitely.
Remember how the armies of mara approached shakyamuni before he became enlightened? Well Dzogchen sort of views this as less symbolic in the specific sense that there were indeed intense and sometimes wrathful, seducing visions etc (tension manifests in all of them, just differently, this occurs in thogal practice). So instead of being merely metaphors for having mere feelings of misery or lust, he experienced the thogal/bardo trance and also had visual manifestations of them, which can increase the energy-volume to its maximum (something which is extremely difficult, likely impossible for most, without the visual manifestations).
This all sound very knowledgable, scientific and academic and dare I say it evangelical @atiyana; it is almost like you are saying becoming a buddha is like being a supernova. That smacks of attachment to the concept of buddhahood and spiritual enlightenment. That is why the great Masters tell you to kill the buddha.
In my meditation this morning, my mind became still. And 'I' was present, 'I' was sitting doing the meditation in a room, aware of this and that and dissolving into it slowly as my mind settled, but I was also aware of the timelessness, emptiness, form and luminosity of my MIND (RIGPA), because it was there also, as it appeared in my dimensionless field of awareness. It was silent and peaceful (and above all there was no dukkha), and I certainly didn't feel the need to have to explode into billions of twinkly fairy lights - because what more did I desire, than that freedom which is what I seek. I didn't need anything and gave some metta and love to the world I was in.
Then the phone rang, and I had to attend to the things arising in my mind, that needed tending - feeding the dog, calling my wife writing a letter and seeing what insights were being had on NB...
The buddha is supposed to have had the realisation that the dharma is so subtle, that he would find it difficult to teach, and nearly didn't, because he realised that it was not what people actually wanted (it was there to be had already); however, he understood that people desire form, consciousness and perception, because you can experience them. True emptiness, that gives rise to this, has nothing more to offer than what is given, and that is already given. It even gives rise to the ignorance necessary to perpetuate the desire for all these things.
Power up your buddha to shine with a golden light; however, only you are going to witness it, hopefully it will not be a disappointment.
For your info I am on a path of no path that bears no fruit... Except for what... is... now.
LA LA LA LA LA
I don't think realizing the 4NTs awakened the Buddha within Sidhartha... I think finding the center between all extremes did. I also don't think he did it alone but had the help of a bodhisattva bearing a plate of rice. She brought him back from the edge of death and showed him the futility of nhilism and the need for compassion.
The Noble truths and the Eightfold path were a result of his awakening but not the other way around.
jmho
Neither do I, @ourself but it focuses ones focus
What made him a Buddha? A sudden change of perception.
The Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path are not just "basically it." Try putting it all into practice every day of your life and you'll see it's no little thing. You have enough to entertain you for a lifetime.
And if his message resonates with people still today, no wonder people in his age saw in him "the new awakened Teacher of their time."
Try to place his teaching within the framework of the religion of his time and you'll be able to see how novel his belief system was.
Nice unjustified claims there friend, my relaying the atiyogatantrayana (which teaches no-one going no-where yet retains the description I gave, which I have learned from both ChNN and one of his closest students) description of Buddhahood is somehow attachment to the concept of buddhahood and spiritual enlightenment? How? How can you justify this claim? A great many Buddhist masters throughout the ages have spoken in very technical terms, you seem to think that by virtue of anything technical, it is attachment, tell that to Nagarjuna. Maybe you are mistaking phenomenological description with something other than.
By "great masters" you mean Zen masters. Zen has fundamental issues, it is incapable of distinguishing between the base-of-all and buddhamind, in that the base-of-all entails a single taste, appears transpersonal in the Buddhist sense, it appears non-dual, and it lacks the process by which the sense-data continuum is partitioned into perceptual objects (percepts), and thus is also a total relaxation. Jigme Lingpa said the base-of-all would be commonly mistaken for enlightenment in our age. Part of that is exactly because people lack the technical know-how to distinguish between them. Secondly, Zen qua fruit and qua path tends to have a partiality towards emptiness, which entails a subtle directionality and fragmentation that isn't found in the total bliss of our original nature. Third of all, zen seems to misunderstand the energy-volume and conceive of it in dualistic terms, despite it being a non-dual phenomena, additionally it lacks the methods to directly raise it, instead only raising it passively.
You calling your mind rigpa seems to misunderstand that aside from flawed translations, the traditions that speak of rigpa separate mind and awareness. Rigpa is awareness and not mind. With that said, how did you first gain your direct glimpsing into Rigpa, how did you attain your direct introduction, because if you didn't get an authentic glimpse, then you are not talking about Rigpa (especially if you are calling it mind and are unaware of the huge differences and warnings concerning mistaking the two).
Your discussion of fairy lights is exactly indicative of your intent on misrepresenting the discussion. The base-of-all also feels free, and unless you practice all 4 thogal visions, then it is very likely you are mistaking the "freedom" of the base-of-all for that of actual Rigpa.
Sounds like duality persisted in the state you speak of. Buddhas don't send metta and they don't perceive that there are any sentient beings to save, only the unenlightened take their actions as such. "Giving" entails a mental subject acting on some sort of object, which isn't found in Rigpa.
Stating that the Buddha's realization was beyond words, descriptions, and thoughts, amounts to a truism in the context of this discussion and strays from the discussion if anything.
Golden lights? HA! Thanks though, I spent 6 years in retreat practicing tantrayana and I personally glimpsed the total pleasure giving rise to an authentic glimpse of Rigpa, sense then I have been practicing Dzogchen, and I gotta say, I am skeptical we are talking about the same Rigpa.
I didn't ask, but thanks for sharing I suppose. Again what you are saying is a truism and if anything is semantic. If it bears absolutely no fruit, where fruit is something beyond the cause-effect distinction, then you are claiming Buddha qualities are intrinsic, rather than a manifestation of the potentiality of the true condition of the Base, which is what the Dzogchen teachings teach. I think Tsongkapa would criticize you for lacking a valid cognition.
Thank you for your qualifications.
I am not yet buddha. I caught my glimpse at Rigpa. I know the distinction between Rigpa and sem mind however. And you are not listening...
Also I was merely parodying your description of buddhahood as an explosion of twinkly fairy lights, to see what your reaction was.
I validate my own cognition not you, or Tsongkapa
And well done for spending all that time alone, you need some more time it seems as there is a lot of off-loading you seem to be doing. You come across as arrogant and conceited. I have no doubt regarding your knowledge, but I have doubts about you.
I do not choose you as my master. But I'm happy to learn from your mistakes.
I also validate my own cognition not you or Tsongkapa. My path does not fruit, it is the fruit, but you haven't got to that place yet. And who says I can't do metta during meditation - you? I'm doing it now, and I've been doing it forever.
... :shake: ...
I don't know the difference between Rigpa and mind - pa - do I really need to stare at myself for 6 years killing my ego, only to enshrine it in a golden tower of knowledge hiding the True Wisdom which is accessible - NO!
This is why we kill the buddha my precious... Otherwise we end up in infinite regression, and become arrogant and conceited...
Do I need to go and look at all that stuff that was quoted?
No my precious, it just gives you lofty ideas of you being greater than you are my precious; and you don't need that do you? You can if you want I give you permission to do what you want?
No you are right. I'm happy and content with the little wisdom I have.
That's great, perhaps you'd like to sit with me later.
Of course, but I've got to go and pick up the laundry and walk the dog; hey perhaps you could come with me.
I'd love to, thanks for the invitation, my precious.
My pleasure
Mettha
Woah... @anataman...calm yourself... or you give great lie to this:
Because if you are honest, you're anything but.
And to round on the person who pushes your buttons for doing so - like an angry wounded dog does to someone trying to feed it - is an unskillful move.
I know - I've apologised
We just need to decide if we're willing to swallow the pill.
That's how I explained it to an eight year old. I think he understood.
My rigpa is bigger than your rigpa.
And who could argue with that....?
The difference between Buddha and everyone else...
When I wish I knew, within that wishing lies the obstacle.
And yet - there is no obstacle....
No it is not, and you all know it. No more apologies!
The greatest ridicule is myself, and I know it...
And so I await tomorrow's 'dawn chorus'...
(
I like this greatest obstacle @federica, and as laid out and with due respect to you and everyone else on this forum, there is no obstacle....
So throw away the lock and keep the key to what imprisons us.... I like that metaphor
once bitten
said
once ridiculed
led
once understood
fed
once ........
...
See you all in the morning - sweet dreams
btw - no sarcasm or bad attitude intended - from the heart; not sure why I have to clarify that; but on this medium, better safe than sorry
I was told it's not the size that counts...
Oooh, Matron....!
I knew my husband was lying...