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.
Was the Buddha truly human?
Simonthepilgrim
Veteran
In the thread on anatta, Fofoo referred to HHDL's book on Buudha Nature. It is not one that I have read but I turned to Thrangu Rinpoche's book of the same name (1988. Rangjung Yeshe Publications, Kathmandu). It is a commentary on the Uttara Tantra Shastra and has provided me with much matter for reflection over the years. In writing of the ninth way of describing Buddha Nature, changelessness, he says:
I don't recall having seen any debate on this subject here. Does it make any difference if the ascetic Gotama was "feigning" old age, sickness and death? I know that it would make a big difference to me.
I must have missed this when I read it before. How could I have done? It is so important and has such similarities to equivalent debate within the Christian family. Rivers of blood flowed because of the "iota subscript": was Jesus truly human or similar to a human being?Just as bodhisattvas feign birth, old age, sickness, and death in order to benefit sentient beings, the fully enlightened Buddha also manifested such events in his life on earth. However, he did not really undergo these things; they were merely the display of his compassion.
I don't recall having seen any debate on this subject here. Does it make any difference if the ascetic Gotama was "feigning" old age, sickness and death? I know that it would make a big difference to me.
0
Comments
"Feigning" would make a difference to me. I would be less troubled by the proposition that the awakened Gotama "accepted" but was in some sense "untouched by" these things.
Martin.
The Buddha himself discarded all notions, ideas or suggestions that he was ever anything other than a simple Human Being.
As a human being, you can no more feign such occurrences in your life, any more than you can avoid them altogether. But to experience them with full acceptance and 'rise above' them, is something feasibly attainable.
I think.
In the wonderful Lawrence of Arabia, Peter O'Toole, as Lawrence, extinguishes a match with his fingers. When a fellow-officer tries it, burning himself, he asks Lawrence what the trick is. The answer? "Of course it hurts. The trick is not to mind."
Nothing, to my mind, so exemplifies the immense value of Dharma practice as those extraordinary people who experience the same pain - and worse - as you or I, yet seem 'not to mind'. We have extraordinary stories of ordinary monks and nuns thanking their torturers in Tibet, or a good man forgiving his executioners. What makes them matter for reflection within my meditations on the Third Noble Truth is that they are flesh, blood and khandas just like everyone else. It's so comforting to know that one does not have to 'feign' anything.
Perhaps it is the translation but I think I detect lurking 'god-making'.
Some think that the Buddha was a kind of Übermensch, Einstein,Heiseberg and allother geniuies combined. That`s a rather modern conception imo, (that ironically smells pretty much divine)the Buddha was a religious man, he visited heavens and Gods, he even was called the master of them since he showed everyone the supremacy of death and that nothing will last forever.
Who is afraid of becoming divine?
In my readings of Buddhism I have come across some scholars who have argued for this. Such arguments become all the more convincing the more we 'humanize' the Buddha, abstracting away the truly supramundane aspects of his being which are mentioned throughout the canon. A salient example of his supramundane nature strikes us when read about his birth to Queen Mayadevi in the Acchariyabbhuta-dhamma Sutta of the Mijjhima-Nikaya.
Nothing in this Sutta could lead anyone to conclude that his birth was in anyway mundane. One can just as easily conclude that all of this is allegorical. And they might be right. But allegory doesn't sit will with our old Puritan habit of iconoclasm which has a tendency, if left unchecked, to throw out everything except the human feeling of sin, or alternatively, bad conscience.
It is amazing to read popular Hindu works and see how Swamis interpret them. Most often they treat them in an allegorical way. In fact, poets who conceived these works such as Valmiki had the intention of allegorizing spiritual principles. In the example of Valmiki, it is said that Brahma appeared before him the minute he composed the first verse and blessed him. Brahma then encouraged Valmiki to write the story of Rama (Mara or death spelled backwards) in a poetic manner. So, as a result we have the Ramayana. This is not unlike what happened to the Buddha after his own enlightenment when Brahma also appeared to him, only in the case of the Buddha implored his to exercise compassion and teach the many. But this is not to say that the Buddha, himself, would not have allegorized some of his teaching or a major part of them.
Love ya'all,
Bobby
I would have to say that it is really only a debate among certain Mahayanists who view the Buddha as an emanation rather than as an actual person. In a sense, some Buddhists view the Buddha as an aspect or emanation of an already enlightened being, and the human we knew as the Buddha Shakyamuni was basically an illusion created for the sake of teaching deluded sentient beings such as ourselves.
The reason that this debate is not found within Theravada Buddhism is because this idea is simply not found anywhere within the Pali Canon; therefore, most Theravadins merely disregard such ideas altogether. This does open up an entirely new debate about what truly exists, and this debate goes far beyond the Buddha's human existence in that some will argue that we, in reality, do not exist either.
Regards,
Jason
I emphasize that the Mahasanghika school is as old as the Sthavira so that any claim suggesting that the Pali canon trumps the Mahavastu can be safely laid to rest.
For anyone new to Buddhism, who may have not read The Mahavastu or E. Lamotte's History of Indian Buddhism I have tried to present the bigger picture of Buddhism for their benefit.
Love ya'll
Bobby
From what I understand — which is admittedly not all that much — the Mahavastu is apparently the only complete Mahasanghika text in Sanskrit, and it has been attributed to a sub-sect of the Mahasanghika called Lokottaravada. It is thought to have been a relatively late canonical work primarily dealing with the Buddha's life.
To me, while it has certain parallels with the several suttas in the Pali Canon, it takes on the appearance of being a sectarian addition promoting their view that the Buddha was a transcendent and superhuman figure—again, holding the same idea that some Mahayanists have that his physical manifestation was mere appearance. An interesting side note is that the Lokottaravadins, seemingly in the spirit of this idea that the Buddha was larger than life, were the ones credited with building the world's largest standing Buddha statues in Afghanistan, which were eventually destroyed by the Taliban in 2001.
Nevertheless, nobody has suggested that the Pali Canon trumps anything, so such statements are curious to me. All that was mentioned was that this idea about the Buddha as an aspect or emanation of an already enlightened being was simply not found; and consequently, that is why there is no such debate among Theravadins.
Curiously,
Jason
Siddartha/Buddha - I've often wondered about this character as well. I sometime wonder if he was a charlatan or much, much more. Other times I wonder if his "enlightenment" was truly an enlightenment ... and epiphany. No more, no less. But...
Unfortunately as time went on and people began to revere his teachings more and more - and some people found there was a certain status to be gained by inflating the buddha's enlightenment into something much, much greater - they could also increase their own standings within their peer group or society.
I've often wondered if the Buddha's enlightenment was just a way of understanding the teachings of the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. Truly, if one looks at these teachings - they are very simple, very difficult and very all encompassing of dealing with and helping the human condition.
Are we blowing "enlightenment" (or have we blown it) into something that is no longer achievable because of all the might and mysticism we've instilled within it?
Is enlightenment truly nothing more than bringing our desires and wants into control and helping our fellow man? If not helping, then at least letting our fellow man continue on in peace ?
Once you've recognized this - now you simply have to do something about it?
I'm sure I haven't made an ounce of sense.
-bf
Precisely my point , ZMG, thank you. And welcome back. Hope you stay around a bit.
Brief, succinct and to the point.
But very, very missed.
Hya ZM.
Nice to have you back.
Some other more concrete example would be the Matreiya tale as told by the Buddha. Well, why would the future Buddha decide in the future to perhaps become one? Does he have a choice, or is it written somewhere in the law of the Dharma? Will he be considered human when he is reborn - or will he just be "suffering" for the sake of it - is it the same as the case of the Gautama Buddha himself? It seems to me that such questions are kinda quirky, though, and I'd be interested in any answers, too.
Loved Lawrence of Arabia. He was quite an interesting character. Still a mystery after all these years...
Palzang
His life was his last and he knew that. Whether he was fully "at the wheel" at birth (apparently he chose his last birth) or only after sitting under the bodhi tree, is debateable.
This supposedly "supernatural" feat is not the same thing as divinity. It was his victory over mara and escape from samsara.
If you read many stories about Indian yogis, you will know that the ability to control body functions - including cessation of all signs of life - are well documented. So in Buddha's time, this was not unusual.
If you accept his enlightment and nirvana, then its not a stretch to accept this ultimate Detachment .
I do. This doesn't seem far-fecthed at all, but neither does it make him a god.
::
Agreed!
::
What!?!?!
Chhhack!?!?
Djuh!?!?!
WTF!?!?!!?
He's back!
-bf
However, there is no evidence in the canon that the Buddha is a being since he doesn't identify with the five khandhas.
Love ya'll,
Bobby
How about we leave it with that & get back to practice?
_/\_
metta
Regards
_/\_
metta
Palzang
Due take care & try not pondering imponderables too long, though.
_/\_
metta
Actually, what interests me more is if angels can travel from point A to B without crossing anything inbetween.
not1not2: np at all
http://www.galleryone.com/images/christensen/figurines/christensen_-_how_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin_figurine.JPG
Love ya'll,
Bobby
That is an interesting question, but according to the New York Time, the answer is 10 to the 25th power angels can fit on the head of a pin; although, I have also read that since angels are not spatial, there is an infinite number that could occupy any one point in space.
Sincerely,
Jason
What if the pin was non-spatial?
_/\_
metta
Any reasonable theologian can give you the real answer to this one:
As many as want to.
I'm shocked you wouldn't know that! :orange:
Palzang
Palzang
Actually Simon is correct - since angels seemingly claim to be made up of photons, which form part of the particle-wave duality.
Rather, if you are looking for an angel, there's one winged Fede over us all, watching our posts carefully, eh?
The Vajrayana interpretation of the Buddha is that he was a nirmanakaya emanation of Vajradhara, who attained complete and total Buddhahood eons in the past.
This emanation was born as a human being who displayed the 12 acts of a Buddha on this earth for the benefit of beings.
Just because a person is a nirmanakaya emanation does not mean they are somehow non-human or not an actual person.
The Buddha most certainly was an actual person, some traditions just interpret his appearance and activity in this world as being the activity of supreme Buddhahood that transcends a single individual.