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.
That the Buddha was omniscient is a belief, however you choose to take it. I would consider the term "omniscience" as being inaccurate and misleading. Not only was the Buddha not omniscient in the sense that we usually use that term, but he was imperfect; he knew this, and he expounded this. The experiences, the teachings, and even the Buddha himself are all selfless phenomena. When we speak of a Buddha to come, Metteyya in Theravada and Maitreya in Mahayana, this is of the state of phenomena that may be expected, but not guaranteed, given that the conditions have not as yet been perfect for the awakening of all humankind.
The Buddha was to the ancients as Einstein would have been to the layperson (and actually still is for most of us lol). There was much that he did not teach, because it was unnecessary. His understanding of the Dhamma was the important thing, and he taught it to the best of his ability. That is his karma, and it's a part of why we are here right now.
As a cancer survivor I could only speak for my own experience. At first when I was DIAGNOSED I was very upset and indignant - how could this happen to me? What did I do to deserve this etc. I was young (just 21) and very wrapped up in my own little world.
But as I came to the realisation that ANYONE can get cancer and I wasn't so special that way, I decided to fight it. So when I underwent all my treatment and therapy and suffered the side effects, it just made me more determined to BEAT it. What was the point of all that if I was just going to die anyway?
So while the pain was very real and there were days when I was sick and tired of being sick and tired, I always kept the end goal in mind and thought that it would get better and wasn't forever.
And it did and it wasn't.
That was 13 years ago
Of course, I can't speak for other cancer sufferers, but that's just my 0.02
Respectfully,
Raven
ETA - Fede I'm very sorry to hear about your friend Please delete this post if it's inappropriate.
It doesn't seem like he was enlightened. He was merely answering venerable Sariputt's questions. If he was enlightened then the other two monks probably had no reason to give him advice on not-self don't you think?
That's true, even then he appears to be highly realised and that didn't stopped his suicide.
Also why did the Buddha characterise his act as faultless?
That's true, even then he appears to be highly realised and that didn't stopped his suicide.
Which is why I think that conceptual realization of not-self is not necessarily Nibbana. It might be a temporary "taste of nibbana". But subtle defilement may still be present which surfaces when the conditions are right.
Also why did the Buddha characterise his act as faultless?
I don't know. I'm confused about this sutta My guess is because he did not commit suicide with craving or with the faulty idea of a favorable future rebirth? What do you think?
Also why did the Buddha characterise his act as faultless?
Recently, a man I knew died of pancreatic cancer. His body's life force (jiva) was so strong, he was being administered around five times the normal dose of morphein. Such was the pain.
Which is why I think that conceptual realization of not-self is not necessarily Nibbana. It might be a temporary "taste of nibbana". But subtle defilement may still be present which surfaces when the conditions are right.
I don't know. I'm confused about this sutta My guess is because he did not commit suicide with craving or with the faulty idea of a favorable future rebirth? What do you think?
He died without any greed, hatred or delusion and was enlightened. This was confirmed by the Buddha though the other monks didn't recognise it.
Recently, a man I knew died of pancreatic cancer. His body's life force (jiva) was so strong, he was being administered around five times the normal dose of morphein. Such was the pain.
Pancreatic cancer is a nasty thing to have. Fortunately with morphine and the like nowadays suicide, assisted or otherwise, is always an unskillful.
Omniscience in the nature quality of all living beings becos it is free from all illness of mind and form. Buddha's words in sutra could only show the right path of antidote towards the proper way of life - what you put in your mouth and mind to achieve a fulfilling presence or cesssation of suffering. However, the antidote is up to individual aptitude.
This book attested to the facts on the two same branches of (mind) & (form) approaches to a blissful lifestyle.
You are what you eat and mindfulness (Extract from the book - "So for both prevention and cure, the logical route is to change what you put in your mouth), and many others amazing data.
http://www.patrickholford.com/index.php/shop/bookdetail/262/
Why drugs are bad medicine and which foods work better.
Thousands of people suffer adverse reactions to prescription drugs each year:
Drugs for arthritis can cause heart problems
Drugs for depression can cause suicide
Drugs for insomnia can be addictive
Drugs for cholesterol can cause heart failure
In Food is Better Medicine Than Drugs, nutrition expert Patrick Holford and award-winning medical journalist Jerome Burne expose the truth about prescription drugs, and why we swallow what the drug industry tells us. They explain why the right combination of foods, supplements and simple lifestyle changes offers long-term, drug-free solutions with immediate benefits to your health.
Find out about the harm these medicines can do:
Statins
Pain-killers
Steroids
Bronchodilators
Drugs for diabetes
HRT
Blood pressure drugs
Discover which foods and supplements can help you to:
Prevent and reverse diabetes
Stop PMS and menopausal problems
Solve your child's learning problems
Beat depression
Beat insomnia
Reduce pain
Alleviate asthma and eczema
Avoid heart disease
Prevent memory loss
'Patrick Holford is one of the world's leading authorities on new approaches to health and nutrition.' Daily Mail
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]'He who excludes the Abhidhamma (from the Buddha-Word) damages the Conqueror's Wheel of Dhamma (jina-cakkam paharam deti). He excludes thereby the Omniscience of the Tathagata and impoverishes the grounds of the Master's Knowledge of Self-confidence' (vesarajja-nana to which Omniscience belongs);"
"[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Even to non-Buddhists who do not regard the Buddha as an omniscient Enlightened One, but recognize him as a great and profound thinker it should appear improbable that the Buddha would have remained unaware of the philosophical and psychological implications of his teachings,"[/FONT]
Cessation of Suffering Can't Happen In Your Life. to have a body is to suffer. Birth, aging, illness, and death are all afflictions of the body that are unavoidable as long as one has a physical body.
With the handout you read coming from a zen school and knowing that zen teachings like to play with words, one could say that the above is true.:)
Because in order for it to be "your" life there must also be a "you". In order for it to be "my" life there must be a "me". But when suffering ceases, you and me and mine and yours disappear. So it is no longer your life or my life, it is just life.
The same could be said about the body. In order to "have" a body there must be one who has it. The word "have" and its counterparts, connotates possession. But in order for something to be possessed, there must be one who does the possessing. But when enlightenment occurs and suffering ceases, the thing that does the possessing disappears. So technically, the enlightened being can't "have" anything! Which would include having a life and having a body. So the above could be true depending on how you look at it.
"'He who excludes the Abhidhamma (from the Buddha-Word) damages the Conqueror's Wheel of Dhamma (jina-cakkam paharam deti). He excludes thereby the Omniscience of the Tathagata and impoverishes the grounds of the Master's Knowledge of Self-confidence' (vesarajja-nana to which Omniscience belongs);"
"Even to non-Buddhists who do not regard the Buddha as an omniscient Enlightened One, but recognize him as a great and profound thinker it should appear improbable that the Buddha would have remained unaware of the philosophical and psychological implications of his teachings,"
I was reading a Sutra (a handout I got from a Zen lecture) called "The Essense of Mahayana Practice" by Bodhidharma (with annotations.) In one of the annotations, it said "to have a body is to suffer. Birth, aging, illness, and death are all afflictions of the body that are unavoidable as long as one has a physical body."
And this is all true. Who would deny this? How can we even think we can end all suffering? Perhaps the Four Noble Truths are there to minimize suffering? Or cessation can happen, but not while we're alive?
Let's hear your thoughts.
.
Without Suffering there is no cessation of suffering. They are two sides of the same coin, you cannot have one without the other.
Suffering gives birth to cessation of suffering.
For myself, almost without exception all meaningful personal growth has come out of adversity.
Since we are referencing pop music in this thread...see Alanis Morrisette's "Thank you"
Nirvana is a state of Omniscience (Supreme Enlightenment).
Omniscience is Supreme Enlightenment, Lord Buddha is Omniscience
Nirvana is Enlightenment, Arahant means Enlightenment
I imagine Omniscience to be being able to observe and understand the Universe and the nature of reality itself from all angles as well as possessing infinite knowledge.
true
However, existence is ultimately Empty and thougtlessness is being free from all delusions.
free from delusion does not mean thoughtlessness
after the enlightenment/the experience of 'the existence is ultimately empty' does not mean the enlightened beings are in thoughtlessness state
but
there are thoughts and feelings until they (enlightened beings) die (pari-nirvana)
thoughts and feelings are common to enlightened beings and unenlightened beings
the difference is enlightened beings do not create new thoughts upon the present thoughts and feelings
while unenlightened beings creates new thoughts upon the present thoughts and feelings because they are ignorant and cling to the present thoughts and feelings thinking they are my, mine and I
For me, Nirvana is a state of Omniscience (Supreme Enlightenment). I imagine Omniscience to be being able to observe and understand the Universe and the nature of reality itself from all angles as well as possessing infinite knowledge.
For anyone that's interested, you can find my thoughts on the Buddha's omniscience here.
It is a disharmonious state of mind. That is all. The procession of events will hopefully lead to awakening for more individuals. In time you will come to understand that even suffering is an illusion.
Pancreatic cancer is a nasty thing to have. Fortunately with morphine and the like nowadays suicide, assisted or otherwise, is always an unskillful.
Why?
Because the Buddha said so
Seriously, think about it. If one plans to kill someone there needs to be lots of preparation. There are laws to consider and the consequences on the family and society. The whole can of worms are opened including mental fitness of the patient, inducement to suicide by interested parties etc. There is bound to be mental imprints on the one carrying out the act no matter the intention.
The First Precept shows that the taking of any human life is the gravest offence a Buddhist can commit. Further the third parajika (an offence meriting disrobing for life) is clearly against suicide, abetting suicide and commending death by suicide and the principle of ahimsa (non-injury) is clearly shattered by any act of violence, including suicide.
Here is a traditional Buddhist view:
Professor Bhikkhu Dhammavihari, Director of the International Buddhist Research and Information Center in Sri Lanka, concludes his study of euthanasia and Buddhism as follows:
Here alone the patient claims full responsibility for the termination of his life. It is equally well ascertained that the patient does it with a full awareness of what he is doing. As far as basic Buddhist teachings of the Theravada are concerned this has to be viewed as an error of judgement. This is certainly in violation of the pledge by every Buddhist to abstain from destruction of life. For lay persons it remains at the level of an ethical injunction, no more than a precept, without any legal implications or punishments involved. But it is at the same time a socio-ethical wrong-doing of the highest order. ...
From the Buddhist point of view, one would here question the correctness of the patient's decision [for euthanasia]. It is to be remembered that except in the case of the liberated ones, i.e. those in Nibbana who are not destined to be born again, death begets life anew for everyone. Death does not terminate life, or more precisely the life process. Hence it cannot terminate pain and unhappiness. They are linked up with new life wherever it begins. Suicide or destruction of life being viewed as an evil act in itself, such a termination of life to terminate pain and suffering at this end would entail payment for it hereafter with interest compounded to it.
Hence a sufferer's desire to terminate pain in this life through suicide has to be unequivocally declared an error of judgement. As for the desire to relieve the burden on others, it would as much be a serious error of judgement. Such sympathy would be no more than misguided charity. Suicide would show itself up as an attempt to cheat pain in life, forgetting the possibility of its recurrence in a life after. Attempts to dodge threatening instances of shame and insults, to erase off memories of defeat and frustration, seem to drive both men and women, young and old, to extremely lamentable acts of suicide. ..
All other attempts, under the dignified name of euthanasia, to terminate human life by persons other than the patient himself, on (i.) compassionate grounds of pain relieving , (ii.) bringing about dignified dying for those abandoned as terminally ill, or (iii.) clearing spots of social eyesore by ridding society of its 'unwanted members' who are judged 'not fit to live' would be clear reflections of egoistic high-handedness, both individual and collective, justified in the name of sympathetic and humane considerations as well as veiled notions of social grooming. The possible unethical turns on these blind alleys are bound to be invariably unavoidable.
Comments
When Buddha attained omniscience, wasn't that because he reached Nirvana?
.
The Buddha was to the ancients as Einstein would have been to the layperson (and actually still is for most of us lol). There was much that he did not teach, because it was unnecessary. His understanding of the Dhamma was the important thing, and he taught it to the best of his ability. That is his karma, and it's a part of why we are here right now.
As a cancer survivor I could only speak for my own experience. At first when I was DIAGNOSED I was very upset and indignant - how could this happen to me? What did I do to deserve this etc. I was young (just 21) and very wrapped up in my own little world.
But as I came to the realisation that ANYONE can get cancer and I wasn't so special that way, I decided to fight it. So when I underwent all my treatment and therapy and suffered the side effects, it just made me more determined to BEAT it. What was the point of all that if I was just going to die anyway?
So while the pain was very real and there were days when I was sick and tired of being sick and tired, I always kept the end goal in mind and thought that it would get better and wasn't forever.
And it did and it wasn't.
That was 13 years ago
Of course, I can't speak for other cancer sufferers, but that's just my 0.02
Respectfully,
Raven
ETA - Fede I'm very sorry to hear about your friend
That's true, even then he appears to be highly realised and that didn't stopped his suicide.
Also why did the Buddha characterise his act as faultless?
Which is why I think that conceptual realization of not-self is not necessarily Nibbana. It might be a temporary "taste of nibbana". But subtle defilement may still be present which surfaces when the conditions are right.
I don't know. I'm confused about this sutta
He died without any greed, hatred or delusion and was enlightened. This was confirmed by the Buddha though the other monks didn't recognise it.
Pancreatic cancer is a nasty thing to have. Fortunately with morphine and the like nowadays suicide, assisted or otherwise, is always an unskillful.
This book attested to the facts on the two same branches of (mind) & (form) approaches to a blissful lifestyle.
You are what you eat and mindfulness (Extract from the book - "So for both prevention and cure, the logical route is to change what you put in your mouth), and many others amazing data.
http://www.patrickholford.com/index.php/shop/bookdetail/262/
Why drugs are bad medicine and which foods work better.
Thousands of people suffer adverse reactions to prescription drugs each year:
Drugs for arthritis can cause heart problems
Drugs for depression can cause suicide
Drugs for insomnia can be addictive
Drugs for cholesterol can cause heart failure
In Food is Better Medicine Than Drugs, nutrition expert Patrick Holford and award-winning medical journalist Jerome Burne expose the truth about prescription drugs, and why we swallow what the drug industry tells us. They explain why the right combination of foods, supplements and simple lifestyle changes offers long-term, drug-free solutions with immediate benefits to your health.
Find out about the harm these medicines can do:
Statins
Pain-killers
Steroids
Bronchodilators
Drugs for diabetes
HRT
Blood pressure drugs
Discover which foods and supplements can help you to:
Prevent and reverse diabetes
Stop PMS and menopausal problems
Solve your child's learning problems
Beat depression
Beat insomnia
Reduce pain
Alleviate asthma and eczema
Avoid heart disease
Prevent memory loss
'Patrick Holford is one of the world's leading authorities on new approaches to health and nutrition.' Daily Mail
Possibly. Would any of you mind explaining this to me pls?
Here:
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]'He who excludes the Abhidhamma (from the Buddha-Word) damages the Conqueror's Wheel of Dhamma (jina-cakkam paharam deti). He excludes thereby the Omniscience of the Tathagata and impoverishes the grounds of the Master's Knowledge of Self-confidence' (vesarajja-nana to which Omniscience belongs);"
"[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Even to non-Buddhists who do not regard the Buddha as an omniscient Enlightened One, but recognize him as a great and profound thinker it should appear improbable that the Buddha would have remained unaware of the philosophical and psychological implications of his teachings,"[/FONT]
http://www.buddhanet.net/abhidh09.htm
.
With the handout you read coming from a zen school and knowing that zen teachings like to play with words, one could say that the above is true.:)
Because in order for it to be "your" life there must also be a "you". In order for it to be "my" life there must be a "me". But when suffering ceases, you and me and mine and yours disappear. So it is no longer your life or my life, it is just life.
The same could be said about the body. In order to "have" a body there must be one who has it. The word "have" and its counterparts, connotates possession. But in order for something to be possessed, there must be one who does the possessing. But when enlightenment occurs and suffering ceases, the thing that does the possessing disappears. So technically, the enlightened being can't "have" anything! Which would include having a life and having a body.
I am far from an expert but I think the Ahibdharma contains many things not contained elsewhere...
No, I dont think so.
Without Suffering there is no cessation of suffering. They are two sides of the same coin, you cannot have one without the other.
Suffering gives birth to cessation of suffering.
For myself, almost without exception all meaningful personal growth has come out of adversity.
Since we are referencing pop music in this thread...see Alanis Morrisette's "Thank you"
Omniscience is Supreme Enlightenment, Lord Buddha is Omniscience
Nirvana is Enlightenment, Arahant means Enlightenment
true
free from delusion does not mean thoughtlessness
after the enlightenment/the experience of 'the existence is ultimately empty' does not mean the enlightened beings are in thoughtlessness state
but
there are thoughts and feelings until they (enlightened beings) die (pari-nirvana)
thoughts and feelings are common to enlightened beings and unenlightened beings
the difference is enlightened beings do not create new thoughts upon the present thoughts and feelings
while unenlightened beings creates new thoughts upon the present thoughts and feelings because they are ignorant and cling to the present thoughts and feelings thinking they are my, mine and I
For anyone that's interested, you can find my thoughts on the Buddha's omniscience here.
Yay; I was tired of being the only one.
Homer-Buddha. Interesting.
Because you have morphine to lull you to sleep
you are far from the only one.
Because the Buddha said so
Seriously, think about it. If one plans to kill someone there needs to be lots of preparation. There are laws to consider and the consequences on the family and society. The whole can of worms are opened including mental fitness of the patient, inducement to suicide by interested parties etc. There is bound to be mental imprints on the one carrying out the act no matter the intention.
The First Precept shows that the taking of any human life is the gravest offence a Buddhist can commit. Further the third parajika (an offence meriting disrobing for life) is clearly against suicide, abetting suicide and commending death by suicide and the principle of ahimsa (non-injury) is clearly shattered by any act of violence, including suicide.
Here is a traditional Buddhist view:
I am glad. I'm not fond of Catho-buddhism.