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.
Previous Buddhas?
Hi
This post is not about previous Buddhas in the sense of previous births but rather the idea that the Noble Eightfold path was redicivered by the Buddha.
Consider this passage from the Nagara Sutta, before hand the buddha talks about finding a lost path in the jungle:
I agree this can be read in the literal rebirth sense but I think it is fair to say it could also be read as meaning literally what it says: former awakened ones followed the Eightfold path in former times (and it has since been lost)
That's kinda interesting I think. Imagine if we managed to decipher the Indus valley script and the Eightfold path was mentioned there!
Positive comments welcome!:)
Mat
This post is not about previous Buddhas in the sense of previous births but rather the idea that the Noble Eightfold path was redicivered by the Buddha.
Consider this passage from the Nagara Sutta, before hand the buddha talks about finding a lost path in the jungle:
"In the same way I saw an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. And what is that ancient path, that ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That is the ancient path, the ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times.
I agree this can be read in the literal rebirth sense but I think it is fair to say it could also be read as meaning literally what it says: former awakened ones followed the Eightfold path in former times (and it has since been lost)
That's kinda interesting I think. Imagine if we managed to decipher the Indus valley script and the Eightfold path was mentioned there!
Positive comments welcome!:)
Mat
0
Comments
science has guesses about population growth over time and archeology confirms this
for a buddha to arise requires causes & conditions
it was not a chance co-incidence the buddha in india, lao tse in china & heraclitis in greece arose at basically the same time in history teaching similar things
in my opinion, there must be a sufficient degree of social, material, sensual & philosophical development for buddhas to arise
the buddha-to-be must experience unsatisfactoriness in respect to the heights of materiality & sensuality & must have a philosophical & spiritual foundation to move up the highest level
for example, it would be difficult for a buddha to arise in a subsistance society, were the whole of society is concerned with merely feeding themselves
a contrary example is christian belief
christian belief is jesus came spontaneously, without any causes & conditions, and taught teachings that were extremely novel
the buddha arose because meditation was strongly established in india
the buddha mastered these meditations, saw they were unsatisfactory and went to the next step
but even today many buddhists, especially the mahayanists & zennies, still consider as enlightenement the meditations the buddha rejected
the next step is subtle but for us, the buddha can make it obvious
One question that perplexes me:)
How come in the suttas there so little reference to meditation before enlightenment? (It is there in the eightfold path of course, but I refer to the actual practice of leaning for years to mediate and then meditating towards enlightenment)
Well wishes
Mat
What is meditation to you, Mat? What is the purpose? What is the difference between "learning for years to meditate" and "meditating towards enlightenment"?
The suttas are full of reference to meditations, whether it be the Buddha teaching anapanasati, monks and nuns practicing it, or how the Buddha attained Nibbana through meditation. Each reference to the 4NTs, the 8FP, to mindfulness, the jhanas, to direct-knowing, etc. are examples as well.
My point was not concerned with what meditation is, rather that it doesn't seem to play as an important part in the suttas as it does in modern day Buddhism.
I am not here to argue, if you can illuminate my question that would be great, otherwise lets avoid the inevitable ruck, please:)
mat
I also answered your question. The suttas are full of references, in the forms I mentioned, to the importance of meditation on the path to Nibbana.
Edit - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/index.html - just click on each of the Nikayas, search "medit" and you'll see how many direct references to meditation there are. That's not even taking into consideration references in other suttas to the 4NTs, 8FP, the jhanas, etc.
Just being preventaive, we both know you and I can have long prolongued clashes in the chats:) yawn
So regarding your answer, i don't get it.
Can you pate here a passage from the tripitaka in which someone has to pass through the stages of meditation before being enlightened. There are many places where people get enlightened without this epic mediation practcie:)
Peace at ya!:)
mat
Before I was a Buddhist I spent an afternoon talking with a Monk in Sri Lanka. It was a very wonderful experience to me. He painted this picture of the path into meditation that sounded so esoteric and hard and long. he couldn't answer who had completed it who was alive today. Mediation, as he painted it, was an epic individual journey. I think for Many buddhists this is the case.
But when I started reading about Buddhism it struck me that this epic lifelong path of meditation wasn't really represented in the texts and commentaries. this is one of the many roots of my scepticism about the Buddhism as we have it today.
As said many times elsewhere, in the suttas enlightenment is abundant and much easier than the life of epic mediation that we have today.
What do you think about this dichotomy?
Thanks
mat
You miss my point! And I am not interested in the specific critisim of one school over the other! lets avoid Dogma please!
My point is in the early extant scriptures meditation doesn't seem to have the role it does in Buddhist traditions today.
mat
MN 118 Anapanasati Sutta : Mindfulness of Breathing
Excerpt : "Now how is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing developed & pursued so as to be of great fruit, of great benefit?
There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. "
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html
.
That is not "Buddhism as we have it today." That's Buddhism as one Sri Lankan monk you chatted with on a sunny afternoon views it.
When I and many others here, including DDhatu, talk of meditation, we're not talking about anything mystical or esoteric where you must stick 108 incense sticks up your ass and chant mantras for 100 billion hours and do so in seclusion in a cave in the Himalayas until you croak and are reborn as someone who actually has a chance in hell of reaching Nibbana. The suttas do not describe meditation in any such way. They do, however, describe it, and its importance to the path to Nibbana.
"If you do not meditate [in this case I believe the translation is from jhana if I recall], how will you gain insight?
And if you have no insight, how will you concentrate?
But if you concentrate with insight,
You will come near Nirvana." [Dhammapada: verse 372]
Jhana and bhavana are often what is translated as "meditation." Meditation is Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration (which IS jhana). In regards to sati, jhana, and bhavana, please see these references to the suttas which explain what meditation actually is: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part3.html#passage-150 ; http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part3.html#part3-e
As you can see, references to meditation as the Buddha taught it are abundant in the suttas. It is not intellectual understanding, theorizing, concepts, etc. nor is it mysticism and magick. Knowing that all things are anatta/anicca/dukkha is useless from a Buddhist perspective, when we still cling to the illusion that they are not, and this is where actual practice (meditation) comes into play. So long as there is clinging to that illusion, we have not attained Nibbana.
Yes, there is talk of people awakening after an especially enlightening dhamma talk by the Buddha. There's also talk of lotus flowers practically shooting outta the baby Buddha's arse. Is the path to Nibbana unattainable in this lifetime? No. Is it a lifelong journey? That depends on each individual.
Please dont misrepresent me, I said that started my doubts, even before I started studing Buddhism.
If it is a fact I personally have reason to believe is not certain then its dogma, whether talking about god or washing powder.
I think if you come to a point that cannot be explained or that relies on metaphpore then its is mystical as opposed to tehortical. that doesnt mean its wrong, but its mystical.
That is my point exactly:) Is meditation tarining the mind or is it a mystcial practice. Some think one thing some another. To fight either side is dogma.
Dogma: I personally find it is fundamental to my understanding of dhrama. That not may be your dharma but its simply arrogant to tell me my near decade long understanding in this way is useless.
Seriously though you toss around "Dogma" alot Mat.
Actually, there are alot of references to meditation in the suttas before enlightenment.
MN 26, MN 36, MN 75 are three references.
hey, dogma is endemic here:) we have all been guilty of it. Surely it is Buddhist to admit that. And when we are dogmatic it makes conflict because one person is tellin g the other person how they should think. That is no buddhism i want part of:)
As for Sri Lanka, I would say that although the Sangas are very politicised and in places supporting of violence (I have had many arguments with Sri Lankan Buddhists about this) to say that its degenerate is, you guessed it, dogmatic:)
As said, it dont seem like then like it is now:)
And no I havent looked those up yet:)
The suttas focus on right view rather than sitting crossed legged.
If the mind can abandon self-view, this in itself is the core of practise.
Sitting crossed legged is not really necessary.
Frogs can sit crossed legged but cannot gain enlightenment.
Richard! Please! LOL take the bitter pill, of course you are dogmatic. Everytime we tell someone how they should believe we are being dogmatic. This is a new revelation to me, Such actions can only negitavise, do you not see it?
Much metta
mat
so we agree on that:)
Do you agree that where they do use them they do not depict the meditation path as lifelong and so very hard, as we are told today?
Do you agree that the buddha tells us the hardest part of dharma, namely understanding Dependent Origination?
We agree:)
Do you agree that right view (both aspects) has a significant philosophical and scientific component? (It isn't all meditation)
mat
There is a whole lotta confusion between dogma and delusion.:cool:
In the scriptures we are told the Buddha meets a certain disciple, than gives a few words of instruction, usually very simple words, or very few. The so called disciple, for our astonishment, becomes enlightened! :^0 But why? How? We read the same words but nothing happens!!! :^0 You might agree with the Buddha, but nothing clicks, you certainly don't get enlightened? Why? Oh why?
You might say the monk was prepared, likely to have meditated for years before. There's another fact to be taken into consideration: The Buddha's presence. It wasn't so much what the Buddha said, it was what the Buddha himself was which produced the impression. Sometimes he didn't say anything at all, like when he held up a flower and Mahakashyapa got enlightened. :^0
Sidharta influenced people as much by what he did and what he was, as by what he said. In fact, in Simsapa Sutta:
So what is Buddhism? Just the scripture? Or would it involve what the Buddha was too? A part of disciples thought it was what he thought: 4NT N8P and so on. Another part of disciples thought what the Buddha was played a big role too in what defined Buddhism.
The second group was also paying attention to the qualities the Buddha showed. Once the Buddha found an elderly monk being neglected, lying in his own filth, and washed him and made him comfortable. (Compassion)
From Kisagotami and the mustard seed story you get the impression of his skillful means, she learned that the dead are many but the living are few, death takes all and many have grieved.
His fearlessness was remembered when Devadatta tried to take his life, after getting mad with the fact that the Buddha said he would not leave him the Sangha (which he refused to do even to Sariputta) and he refused protection from his monks.
And so on...So I think that is my point. You have to consider his ability as teacher and his example as a human being. (this also has to do with the origin of the Bodhisattva Ideal). I know you have a big interest on the Dharma as scriptural knowledge, but I think the Buddha can't be left out of Buddhism. (Ohhh, that sounded good
so many scoops of ice cream and toppings in fact that it goes mile high into the buddha-earth air, piling and piling higher for every crook and star and rat and tarpit and blackhole to see, into infinity- buddha shakyamuni himself being only one part of the collectivity of the whole of the human universal race, himself an now outdated meditation master- our enlightenment includes all beings, and sid's getting old, if ever twas a place to get old in.
In return, I can ask where do you derive your ignorance and false accusations?
MN 26 states the Buddha-To-Be rejected the spheres of infinite consciousness, infinite space, nothingness and non-perception as Nibbana.
But these states of non-conceptuality are what the Mahayana regards as Nirvana.
I am simply speaking what is stated in the suttas and pointing out the evolution that lead to Buddhahood.
I have already said, the above states are concentration. I would not discuss them if I did not understand their character. Zen instructs concentration and Vajrayana instructs god worship. But if you are refering to non-duality, that is concentration or Hindu advaita.
Householder. I would say it is you who do not have any idea what you are talking about.
:buck:
:eek:
concentration is not enlightenment
not really...ice-cream used for a different purpose
.
did not prince siddhartha step onto the path only once he saw the suffering of the sick and the dying? as i said i don't quite remember all of why i said what and what i was exactly thinking at the time, but i think i answered this in the above paragraph, though i may have been talking nonsense too. you cannot have enlightenment without developing or holding concentration, so i would say that it is, the whole not being any greater than its parts.
Folks, stop telling other people they are wrong:)
Cant we just get along?
And talk about Dharma.
Meh
Nice sense of humour.
I was trying to point out what was there before the Buddha.
Before the Buddha, the states of unified consciousness had already been mastered.
:smilec:
Its embarrassing.
Be nice:)
Through many different cultures, languages and the passing of time, many different forms have emerged, many different practices, meditation techniques, and sources of inspirational literature.
I do not agree that meditation now is much different than meditation was "then". We read the Anapanasati Sutta and it is the same training of breath meditation that I've received from teachers. It is the same thing we find in Ajahn Chah's books too. There are many great Buddhist teachers who have explored and developed new and unique ways of helping specific individuals "connect" to this very same practice (e.g., Insight meditation), and I think that is really wonderful. Vajrayana has a long tradition of carefully matching teachers with students. We are all the same, and yet we are all unique.
The Buddha himself pointed out that in every eon of time, Buddhas have always emerged. Yes, he is the one Tatagatha that we all point to...the very same one who has "gone beyond" as documented in history. This does not mean that wisdom was any different before the Buddha than after the Buddha. He was the one who brought these noble truths and eightfold practice to light for us to follow!
The beauty of the dhamma teachings from my personal experience and perspective, is that it is up to each of us individually to explore and discover what this all means. The Buddha meant for the dhamma to be an open system. Yes, there are monastic rules, but they were the Buddha's means for settling interpersonal arguments and figuring out a way to run a community in harmony. This was the reason that women were excluded. It had NOTHING to do with dhamma...it was about the Buddha's realization that humans are an ignorant bunch of fools. The 1000s of nit-picky rubrics in the Vinaya are not the dhamma itself! They are rules for monastic renunciation. That lifestyle is not feasible for most human beings, so the dhamma continues to unfold like a flower in new and amazing ways. I for one find people who are dogmatic about one school or format or vehicle of Buddhism over another as reflecting an ironic hypocrisy. I use a Theravada as a framework in general, but augment it with tremendous wisdom I find from great teachers in all of the traditions. I have been criticized by some (especially Tibetan traditionalists) who argue that you must stick with one channel only, or else you place yourself at "great risk." I tell them "You are absolutely right! I am rigidly following an eclectic path of dhamma, and I refuse to deviate from it for one moment!"
I am sorry to read you feel embarrassed. My mind certainly does not feel embassarred.
Recently, on a certain Zen website, a thread was started by the Zennies about quotes from the Theravada Suttas. Here, the members chose quotes they regarded to have an affinity with Zen. The excerpt they regarded the closest to the Zen experience of enlightenment was the following from MN 62: This is not enlightenment. This is an aspect and form of concentration. The Buddha here is teaching sense control. This kind of meditation, dwelling with a mind like space, was already mastered prior to the Buddha.
I have a different interpretation. Couldn't this also refer to not apprehending the sign and the particulars that is usually talked about in right effort?
Do you not see that arguing this is a bit like arguing who is taller, Hansel or Grettle?
Any claims to doctrinal/lineage authenticity in Buddhism are demonstrably bogus.
Doubt everything, be your own light, etc.
Mat
I'm not embarrassed but you certainly should be.
Another Buddha that existed before Buddha was the peaceful monk who inspired Buddha to become a Buddha