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.
Gautama Buddha and 27 predecessors
kavee
Explorer
What’s your thoughts in the time-span between the first and the last Buddha’s as in ancient Buddhist scripts (Sutta Piṭaka >Khuddaka Nikāya>Buddhavamsa) ? There are new claims that early human consciousness dated back to 75,000 years in African plateau. Another shed of light is on Multiverse (not universe) idea. Or else, it simply scattered across the time and space which physicist yet to unravel? Or is it simply, there are better things to discuss than poking into the incomprehensible for average Joe? (That's nor sarcasm or joke. Ancient scripts says Buddha has stopped Mugalan Thero who lost his routes while trying to find and end of the universe, stating that is pointless)
0
Comments
We have a smattering of scientific evidence for Gotama. With the Easter Bunny I got Easter eggs. With Santa I got gifts. With the Tooth Fairy I got quarters. With the earlier Buddhas I got not one shred of evidence they existed...only dogma.
@vinlyn
Can you point me to the scientific evidence to Goutama Buddha? Books and scripts won't count as you already ruled'em out as Dogma!
The avatamsaka says that the tip of a hair has an infinite number of Buddhas surrounded by there circle of Bodhisattvas. That section of the avatamsaka is a wishful prayer trying to value the three jewels and create karma to go into a world with the dharma in the next birth. It is the last section of the avatamsaka sutra.
Rather than recount a long thread, go back and check this one out @kavee: http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/18092/historical-evidence-for-gautama-buddha
But even with this, the evidence is, as I said, merely a "smattering" of circumstantial evidence.
But, as someone in the other thread said, does it matter whether he existed or not? Someone or several someones wrote the Pali canons, etc. Is what is in those written documents wise? If the answer yes, then they are worth considering and -- to one degree or another -- incorporating into one's life. If they are not wise, even if Gotama Buddha did exist, they are not worth considering or incorporating into one's life.
And if there were 29,417 previous Buddhas, we have no evidence of what they said at all. So there is nothing to consider.
And, BTW, I agree with your critique of my post. It all becomes sort of a circular argument.
@Jeffrey
Avatamsaka sutra comes in Mahayana tradition. There are a lot of superficial, divine, heroic and mundane context there. The very sense of Buddha has a different meaning in either traditions...
Better things to discuss than angels or Boddhisattvas dancing on hair or pins.
@vivian
In fact it does matter and it does help, but not to the Buddhists but to Scientists. Science goes after leads, and most of the time science picks leads from ancient text, religion and folk tales to unwind the mystery behind, and comes up with models which brings us cell-phones, GPS and what not.
Sorry @kavee. I didn't realize that you wanted to limit the discussion to the Theravada.
@Jeffrey
Not my slightest intention Jeffery! I specifically selected the 28 Buddha scenario since that is more comprehensive than the cloud of Buddhas in Mahayana tradition. Mahayana tradition is towards mundane and Theravada is for super-mundane. There is lot of day to day kick there but I personally believe the essence for self-realization is with Theravada teachings (that's a different topic altogether).
@kavee, I am curious how you came to the conclusion that mahayana is mundane whereas theravada is supra-mundane. Also that dichotomy exists mainly in the theravada. I haven't heard talk of mundane/supramundane in my studies in the mahayana. In the mahayana they say some teachings are provisional and some definitive. Mostly they say that the basic mindfulness of the hinayana is provisional and the teachings on prajna paramita or shunyata are definitive.
Also, this: http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/20582/is-there-any-historical-evidence-that-buddha-existed-out-of-pali-canon
@Jeffrey
You opened up a broad discussion. There are fundamental differences both traditions starting from the words we used to misinterpret most of the time. Example, prajna paramita in Theravada is only one of 10 Paramita's (perfection) which a Bodhisattva should satisfy prior to enlightenment. These Paramitha's were satisfied in different lives or reincarnations. Enlightenment is not necessarily Shunyata, but to end the suffering by ending the cycle of birth and there after.
Not necessarily a scientific finding quoted there either. Hey, that's not the point anyway.
Honestly, I don't think much about it as it doesn't really affect my practice, and there's no way to definitively know or prove the traditional accounts are true. It could be true that there were mutliple Buddhas over countless eons, multiverses, or what have you. But it could also be true that early Buddhists wanted to add more historical validity to their spiritual tradition and took a page from the Jains and their 24 tirthankara (or vice versa).
I suppose that depends on your conception of what is and isn't scientific. While I'd agree that there's little in the way of conclusive proof of the Buddha's existence, I'd say that things like archaeology and textual analysis can be scientific, and that positive conclusions about the Buddha's existence and the authenticity of various texts can be reached from such research.
Quite possible. In fact if we start to see one fish, the whole pile starts to smell. There is an interesting story. Buddha's teachings were kept by heart by the arhat monks (not the commodity kind) and kept this for ages until it was written on leaves in Sri Lanka. Either we have to accept the by-heart capabilities of the Arhat monks (who were enlightened) or start to disprove them, is just a choice one can take.
The most positive proof for Buddha's existence comes through self-realization. This means mediation. Commodity meditation can give us peace of mind, stress relief and relaxation, while vipassana path can take you further. I yet to see buddha myself, even though I have no doubt on his existence which kind of a faith we grew up with.
I don't think it's as cut and dry as that. The oral transmission of sacred knowledge and texts were common during that time in India (as they were in many other cultures throughout history), and the method of oral transmission itself can be quite reliable. That doesn't mean, of course, that things can't be added, edited, or removed; but I don't think the fact that the teachings were originally transmitted orally means that they're all bogus or that we can weed out some of the additions and edits through the comparison of various early texts from multiple sources and traditions.
Sure, and I agree that the most positive proof for Buddha's existence comes through self-realization; but that's not scientific. While there's some overlap between them, I think there are two primary kinds of proofs: pragmatic (i.e., putting into practice) and scientific. When it comes to the Buddha's teachings, I'd say that the former is the most important and worth investigating; but I don't think the latter should be ignored, either (e.g., textual analysis, utilizing brain scans on meditators to see the physiological effetcs of meditation, etc).
We have to believe the Arhat monks (enlightened) had a pure mind which can keep the knowledge unspoiled (after all we all try to purify our mind through mediation, so having a faith on the result is not too much of a scientific disaster). More over, there were council meetings and verification process (Sangayana) happen few times prior to being written down. On the other-hand, unless we have become enlighten ourselves, it will become a joke for us to add or remove just because we do not understand something. I have to stress the fact that I am only referring to Thripitaka, and not the rest of the Buddhist documents.
Hm, I don't think one has to be enlightened or have a pure mind to remember something. I remember lots of things and I'm very far from having a pure mind. In addition, when multiple people are charged with committing something to memory, that in and of itself helps the knowledge being passed on the remain relatively unspoiled, particularly when there are periodic meetings to compare recitations.
As for the rest, I agree that we shouldn't necessarily add or remove things just because we don't understand or like them; but I also think that it's not a terrible idea to set things aside that don't seem right to us or be critical of things that appear inconsistent and/or later additions.
Most of Einstein, Niels Bohr, Schrodinger etc came up with mental pictures/thought experiments and kind of self realization without real scientific experiments. Some of these theories still waiting on the table to be tested and proved (which is difficult with current technology and understanding). Nevertheless, these ideas and mental models does proves correct in explaining day to day events (despite lack of testing capability) and have physical use for them. Example the scanning electron microscope can only be explained on the principle that an electron can exist at either side of a boundary at the same time, which is not a testable theory even today. This does not make it less scientific, does it?
?
In fact, it is beyond gross information preservation. It is to keep every phrase in mind as it is. Thripitaka, as it is known today, has three volumes, over 50 chpaters and I am not sure how long a one chapter is? I do not think you will be furious if I say you do not have that capability.....
Kalvin, who is Vivian?
I'm not sure I understand what the overall point of this discussion or thread is, but no, I can't memorize the entire Tipitika. That said, there are those who can, and the traditional accounts state that groups of monks were charged with memorizing certain portions of the canon, not the entire volume.
No, that just proves that someone or several someones said or wrote some wise things. Coulda been Harvey.
Now, your other posts in this thread talk about science. Now, suddenly, you want to bring in faith. Nothing wrong with science. Nothing wrong with faith. But don't confuse the two.
Which proves I am not enlightened, see made a mistake
And you aint either. Who is Kalvin ?
Oy! :banghead:
There is no science without faith, but faith can exist without science. Anybody (like me) have many faith's of their own. Faith != religion (faith is not equal to religion). I have a faith that I was born in certain hospital, even though I have never seen records of it except my birth certificate says so and my parents says so. So I am believing on it, even though it is not scientific. This aint confusion for me, do you
Okay for you. But as a person with multiple degrees in the sciences, I am very touchy about mixing faith and science. Each is great, but like oil and water they don't really mix.
Exactly, the point of this thread has gone haywire
Nevertheless I still thinks the discussion is constructive, at-least I am learning different point of views.
Good work on your multiple degrees in sciences. I guess you are being emotional thinking faith = religion. Faith, when taken as the raw word is the complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Einstein had a faith that light made out of particles, and photons are the constituent of light. And also nothing in the universe can travel faster than light. All his theories were based on that, and special theory of relativity came out as a result. I found the supporting maths, way after his theory was conceived in his head, and didn't give it up until he found the mathematical proof. That is Faith as we know it.
According to what I have read, Buddha spoke about many world cycles. Some people interpret the big bang as the beginning of the present world cycle.
From a scientific pov, what was there before the big bang? Nothing ?
Again, Buddha’s explanation is there no beginning. Ie beginingless and endless.
It is a little like the question , how big is the universe? The answer is nobody knows.
What we can measure and observe could well be just a tiny fraction of the total, if there is a total, maybe it is infinite. Interesting musings for a Wednesday evening. Hope I dont go mad for speculating. Lol.
No, I am very clear about the difference between faith and religion, even though they are usually intertwined.
Interesting. I am quite intrigued with the fact that Buddha retrieved his second best pupil from getting lost in search of the universe. According to the text, the pupil was the best having supernatural ability next to Buddha himself. To me, this is an indication that linear travel in universe is just an illusion. Niels Bohr says "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature". Probably that's what the whole shabang is. We see the world to our inconvenience, not necessarily the way it is.
In ancient Indian Brahman teachings, their highest achievement is to become Brahma themselves. Quite harmoniously, in Buddhist teachings (Theravada), it says Brahma is a world where only consciousness exists, without a body. As a side note Buddha has told this is a trap and do not go there. To me, this may be an insight to the total existence as a whole. How can we explain the color red to a born blind? any color for that matter. Its an illusion or mental constitution of reality.
Science is a work-in-progress. What we know now is unimaginable 100 yrs ago.
What will scientists discover in the next 100 years? What will the next einstein or Stephen hawkings discover?
50 years ago people didn’t believe that meditation was anything more than navel-gazing and fantasy, now with fMRI we can see what is going on in seasoned meditators’ brain.
I think I shd write a letter to my future grandchildren and ask them these questions to be answered 100 years from now.
Yes sorry too broad. I was just wondering what you meant by mundane and supra-mundane and I pointed out that it was a distinction internal to theravada, but that I had never seen that dichotomy in the mahayana. In the mahayana cessation of suffering isn't the whole path because a large part of the path is to develop that which is necessary to liberate beings which is why shunyata is a goal, I guess. When shunyata is realized we see the fundamental flaw with our concepts that had before limited us. And then the limitless Buddha qualities of the heart radiate as they are freed by letting go of ego.
I am in grade 1, when it comes to Mahayana teachings. So best to consider I do not know anything about Mahayana. Nevertheless, two terms mundane and super-mundane is common in Theravada Tradition, so its obvious for me to identify the mahayana practice is more towards mundane. As an example, sunyata is a state of meditation, where any theravadic mediator experience. Anapanasathi (control of breath) takes you to sunyata, if practiced correctly. This state is just the first step towards more higher goals in meditation. In this sense, the highest spiritual achievement of Mahayana is considered the first stepping stone on more elaborated and profound Vidarshana meditation which leads to ultimate enlightenment.
In mahayana shunyata is the nature of the mind. So it is there whether you realize it or not! It is there at every realization. I am also in grade one of mahayana, or grade two if we are being generous, myself so I cannot clear the matter. My goal is to be a hearer and study and meditate every day. Every day I hear new teachings and most go in one ear and out the other. My practice is influenced by my teacher (of course) but here I also like to learn how all Buddhists think and to share my view.
Ok there is no point for a discussion since we are so 'partisan' not to mention derail the thread.
I just wanted to know what mundane and supra-mundane meant and how the mahayana is characterized as mundane. In particular since you are in grade one mahayana I would say it would be hard to put yourself in a position to posit that mahayana is mundane?
Sorry I derailed your thread. The new discoveries in science are exciting! Carry on and remain calm!
@Jeffrey
As I mentioned earlier, having fundamental differences in linguistics between two traditions, a discussion will only confuse everybody involved. Mundane, super-mundane and sunyata (among many other words) has distinctive meanings in theravada, and its quite different in Mahayana. May be I forgotten the fact that the forum is exposed to all flavors of Buddhist views, thus was not cautious about the words I choose in the discussion. Sorry if that confuses you.
As you are in the meditation already, and willing to "explore", I just suggest that try a theravada meditation for a week or two, so you will realize if there is any difference. A word of caution though, the meditation has now become a grocery item, and you would easily find one than a Thai-massage center. Choose wisely.
@kavee, Can you elaborate more on 'grocery item'? it is hard for me to see the meaning.
And yeah there are all different traditions from nichiren to zen to theravada and more. It is always good to attract the people or relieve confusion.
Do you know if this book Mindfulness in Plain English
http://www.amazon.com/Mindfulness-Plain-English-Anniversary-Edition/dp/0861719069/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404361237&sr=8-1&keywords=mindfulness+in+plain
teaches the meditation that you practice? I have that book.
Author is a very famous monk in Sri Lanka. No I haven't read it, but I will try as time permits. Try Mindfullness Bliss and Beyond from Ajahn Brahm (South Australia). He is a nuclear physicist(PhD) became a monk, and gone into Thai Tradition in Meditation. This book is by far the best describes Theravada meditation http://www.amazon.com/Mindfulness-Bliss-Beyond-Meditators-Handbook/dp/0861712757
I mean to say its meditation practice centers are in abundance now, where its hard to identify what's fake and what not.
Mr Cushion is on a secret undercover mission to uncover these fake practice centers. Be afraid you sham Buddhists . . . :buck: .
I ordered it. I will report back on the meditation.
Excuse me..but what exactly is this thread about..can some do a wee precis for me ?
I think it's about whether or not there were multiple Buddhas before Gotama.