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.
I have some silly questions about the nature of Buddha!
Hello,
I have just picked up a copy of "The teaching of the buddha" and I'm finding it really interesting. I am just a bit confused about something, please forgive my ignorance! I thought I should ask for some clarification.
Buddha was a man who achieved enlightenment and taught others how to do it too. But Buddha is also a god-figure; "Buddha's body in this aspect fills every corner of the universe; it exists forever, regardless of whether people believe in Him or doubt His existence."
I am confused! Is the Buddha a man who became symbolic of this wonderful path to enlightenment, or is he a deity? Or both?
Thank you in advance :-)
I have just picked up a copy of "The teaching of the buddha" and I'm finding it really interesting. I am just a bit confused about something, please forgive my ignorance! I thought I should ask for some clarification.
Buddha was a man who achieved enlightenment and taught others how to do it too. But Buddha is also a god-figure; "Buddha's body in this aspect fills every corner of the universe; it exists forever, regardless of whether people believe in Him or doubt His existence."
I am confused! Is the Buddha a man who became symbolic of this wonderful path to enlightenment, or is he a deity? Or both?
Thank you in advance :-)
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Firstly, no question is silly. It admits your lack of knowledge and seeks answers.
The historical Buddha Shakyamuni Gautama was an Indian Prince - a man.
He taught a path to awaken to reality and end self-made suffering. (Suffering is mainly made in our minds by the way we deal with life).
He refused to discuss "cosmic imponderables" such as "is the universe infinite or finite?", or "does a Buddha exist after death or not?".
He was a very human, human. Some schools of Buddhism have made the error of turning him into a God - and Hinduism has incorporated him into their pantheism as a god too - as they have the man called Christ.
Buddha was just another human being, no different to you or I, in potential for becoming awakened. Anyone who makes him into a God is denying their own ability to become fully awakened in this lifetime - out of ignorance, greed or fear, the very things his teachings overcome.
Warmly,
In the Dhamma
Matthew
Welcome to the forum! It is good to see someone else from Perth!
Actually, the Buddha was once asked whether he was a "deva" (a god) or a "human being" and he answered no in both instances. (see Dona Sutta)
The unenlightened Bodhisatta (Buddha-to-be) was indeed a human being. No ordinary being though, he had cultivated the Parami's (perfections) for many lifetimes prior to his final lifetime as Prince Siddhartha. It was only when he had re-discovered (I say re-discover, because there have been Buddhas before him and will be future Buddhas too...) the Four Noble Truths that he became known as "The Buddha".
All Buddhas are Arahants, but not all Arahants are Buddhas. The difference between a Buddha and an Arahant who is not a Buddha is that a Buddha is the one who finds the forgotten Four Noble Truths whereas an Arahant who is not a Buddha first hears the Dhamma from another being before practicing the Noble Eightfold Path.
With Metta,
Guy
Guy,
To finish the story he did answer the question: "Then what are you?".... His reply was, "I am awake", which is the meaning of "Buddha" - 'awakened one'.
When he said no to "are you a man?", he was really saying that the word "man" does not truly refflect what any man is: we are not a reflection of the symbol, the symbol is a reflection of us, and a poor one at best as language has limits.
I would counter your assertion that the Buddha was no ordinary human being. The arguments you propose to suggest it are a matter of belief if examined carefully - and the Buddha warned strongly against relying on belief, relying on the scripture, priests - or relying on anything which you can not experientially and personally vouch for.
Warmly,
In the Dhamma,
Matthew
While what you say is true, it is not the reason why the Buddha categorically denied being a "human being". The reason why he said what he said (as explained in the Sutta) is because he has cut off the fetters which lead to birth as a human being. We are not yet Arahants or Non-Returners, therefore we could be regarded as "human beings" since the fetters associated with human birth are not yet cut off.
I am familiar with the Kalama Sutta. The advice the Buddha gives in the Kalama Sutta seems to be targeted towards moral decisions (knowing whether certain acts lead to harm or not) and has no relevence to this discussion.
As far as historical facts about the Buddha go, I am inclined to place my faith in historians. As far as discussion of Paramis goes, and whether or not the Buddha actually did practice the perfections or not prior to his enlightenment - for me, it is an educated guess that it is the case. You are right though that I do not know this is the case for sure, but it certainly seems plausible to me. Conversly, it also isn't correct to assert that he did not spend many lifetimes perfecting the Paramis.
With Metta,
Guy
This is a very thoughtful questions ... and the answer to it sets the whole tone of your approach to Buddhism.
Yes, Buddha was just a man. Yes, some schools make him into a god ... I follow Tibetan Buddhism and in practice it appears as if Buddha is made into a god. Yet my teacher (a monk) repeatedly tells us that Buddha-nature is our own true nature, and the enlightenment of Buddha represents what we too can realize ... so when we pay reverence to Buddha we are to remember that is it to this state of enlightenment (in him, in ourselves, in all) that we pay reverence.
The Buddha was a man who lived and died just like you and me. But to many people including myself, he is more than just an ordinary man because he was self- awakened to the four noble truths and taught it to the other worldings so that they can also follow his teachings and be free from suffering in this lifetime.
An examination of the textual evidence suggests that some later traditions attempted to transform the Buddha into a transcendent being, and eventually, an emanation of the supramundane Buddha. This process can be traced, beginning with such works as the Mahavastu, and continuing on through works such as the Lalitavistara and the Saddharmapundarikasutra.
A similar scenario occurred in Theravada, which was relatively conservative in this transformation, and the Buddha was attributed with qualities that he himself rejected or, at the very least, were exaggerated (e.g., omniscience).
Jason,
That seems to happen in most religions - as the message of the founder gets lost along the way.
Warmly,
In the Dhamma,
Matthew
Is it really so far fetched that someone who has purified their minds to the highest degree could develop psychic powers?
What do you think those other leaves might be that the Buddha was talking about in the Simsapa Sutta? (Not that it's relevant to our own quest for enlightenment
With Metta,
Guy
for example http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/A%20-%20Tibetan%20Buddhism/Authors/Kenpo%20Palden%20Sherab%20Rinpoche/The%20Three%20Kayas/The%20Three%20Kayas.htm
Buddha is not just a man who brought us the dharma. That is just nirmanakaya. The reason is because enlightenment extends to the concept of truth. And so buddha is also the dharmakaya which is truth in all directions. The dharmakaya might very well be emptiness itself and it is said to radiate in all directions with no differentiation. So no high beings and low beings. Finally all beings can be classified into a relationship to the buddha (or truth).
I never said it was far-fetched or impossible, but I do think a lot of it was exaggerated, especially with regard to his supposed omniscience.
I have always had an aversion to worshipping a god figure or deity. But if I look at the passages I'm reading as referring to a concept, it makes sense to me. When I read my book and it refers to the Buddha as a deity, I will interpret that concept as being symbolic of the buddha-nature and perfect enlightenment that is available to all of us.
Understanding it in that way will make my study much more meaningful to me.
Thanks!
As someone who is new to Buddhism, you should be aware that "Buddha-Nature" is not actually the taught in the Suttas. Therefore, "Buddha-Nature" is unlikely (in my opinion) to be part of the Buddha's teaching. "Buddha-Nature" came later on from the Mahayana schools, but, to me, it seems like an unnecessary extra teaching. Some may argue that it is skilful means to say that the mind is naturally pure. I am more inclined to think that the mind is not naturally pure nor naturally impure. Instead, the mind is naturally conditioned - i.e. it is pure or impure depending on how it is conditioned.
With Metta,
Guy
A Buddha is an Awaken being, but the common mortals ( human ) and the gods ( deva/deities ) are still the unawaken being ( blind by their innate illusion on the ultimate reality, trapped inside their own created cycles of Samsara )
That's why the Buddha is known as the teacher for both human and gods
Ok. Not part of the Theravada.
Hmmm Ok ....opinion
pure ..condition? Ok. But the notion of "Buddha Mind" is not about that.
Vehicular confusion.
when you ask what is the 'nature of a Buddha' , we understand it as what you mean for the word 'Buddha', as replied above the Buddha means the awaken one to the nature of our ultimate reality.
'Buddha-nature' one the other hand - refers to the innate noble quality of potential all living beings possessed , the profound potential that one day they could also awaken to the nature of the ultimate reality themselve , and attain the same highest life state known as Buddhahood like the historical Buddha
The original vow of the historical Buddha is to awaken all living beings and lead them out from their continue cyclic suffering of birth and death ( samsara , which they created due to their illusions in their mind , poisoned by craving and ignorance )
If you think that you do not processed ' Buddha-nature' or the potential to be awakened in the future - it would be fruitless to follow the path of Buddha Dharma , isn't it ?
in the later age, inorder to teach the audient better, some buddhist schools separate the Buddha 3 bodies , and teach them separately
This link with some Buddhism basics might be useful to you.
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/index.htm
Kind wishes,
D
.
A conditioned mind by definition is impure. How can a mind be conditioned to be pure? Our minds must break free from the conditioning.
.
To break free from the conditioning, aren't we further conditioning the mind? Teaching ourselves how to meditate, learning how to look beyond pain, using mental tools to avoid sticky social situations... isn't that all conditioning too?
It's like re-learning how to cope with things, right? Because we can't just erase everything we've learned and start fresh with a clean slate... it has to be systematically modified, doesn't it?
pure mind = seven enlightenment factors
impure mind = five hindrances
Eternality is your nature existence akin to TV screen showing media show having many phenomena in it. Once you off it, the TV screen still exist and is eternal:).
The 6th Patriarch Hui Neng
In orthodox Buddhism the distinction between the 'Sudden' School and the 'Gradual' School does not really exist; the only difference is that by nature some men are quick-witted, while others are dull in understanding. Those who are enlightened realize the truth in a sudden, while those who are under delusion have to train themselves gradually. But such a difference will disappear when we know our own mind and realize our own nature.
In our system of meditation, we neither dwell upon the mind (in contradistinction to the Essence of Mind) nor upon purity. Nor do we approve of non-activity. As to dwelling upon the mind, the mind is primarily delusive; and when we realize that it is only a phantasm there is no need to dwell on it. As to dwelling upon purity, our nature is intrinsically pure; and so far as we get rid of all delusive 'idea' there will be nothing but purity in our nature, for it is the delusive idea that obscures Tathata (Suchness). If wedirect our mind to dwell upon purity we are only creating another delusion, the delusion of purity. Since delusion has no abiding place, it is delusive to dwell upon it. Purity has neither shape nor form; but some people go so far as to invent the 'Form of Purity',and treat it as a problem for solution. Holding such an opinion, these people are purity-ridden, and their Essence of Mind is thereby obscured.
:cool:
No.
That first assertion knocks you out of the "quick-witted" group eh?
One awaken to the true nature of Samsara - one resided in the state of Nirvana .
No? Why not? I thought it was a valid analogy.
Is not Ultimate Reality eternal, despite it being ultimately Empty? Reality itself is eternal, but the forms are all impermanent. I'm pretty sure that's what is meant by the rejection of eternalism. There is no beginning or end of time in Buddhism. It's a never ending cycle. However, all that arises eventually perishes.
.
A monk asked Master Daizui:
"When the great kalpa fire flares up, will it [the Ultimate, the Unconditioned, Emptiness] perish or not perish?"
"Yes, it will perish."
"Will it be gone with the other?"
"Yes, it will be gone with the other."
This is where language ends, and practice picks up. It is better to follow this statement by GuyC ...
"When I said pure and impure I meant...
pure mind = seven enlightenment factors
impure mind = five hindrances"
........than believe in an eternal nature. Negate this idea, then drop the negation (dont get stuck in the idea of its absence), and move on.
Let say a little 2 years old kid who see a big dog for the first time. He has no idea what it is or how to react.
Mom grab the baby in panic and freak out:"DON'T YOU EVER APPROACH A BIG DOG LIKE THIS AGAIN!!! HE COULD HAVE EAT YOU!!"
The baby just learned to be afraid of big dogs.
Next time the baby see a big dog, he will automatically and immediately react with fear. He will have butterflies in his belly and he's mind will be filled with fearful thoughts.
This is a conditioning.
Let's say as another example, every times Richard Herman read a sectarian post in this forum, automatically and immediately his mind is filled with thoughts such as "oh this is so childish, why on earth do they keep doing this etc.." and immediately he has a sensation of disgust in his belly.
(just playing Richard Herman)
With Buddhism, you learn to stop reacting blindly to things, so you de-condition your mind.
Hope this shed some light on your question.
Cue the hissy fit.......
Well!! I've had enough of this nonsense!! (Huff) Slam!
Your observation is pretty much accurate patbb:o
not true, when there is no single life left in the phenomena universe, then there are no longer any existence of the so call phenomena universe.
both mind and the arise phenomena are not separated, there are two but not two ( or oneness / non-duality )
This is what the Buddha teaches, when this riase , that also raise , when this cease , that also cease - interpendence co-arising
This is a good post because it brings a key issue to light.
The idea of an "eternal" truth or reality. Just because the ultimate truth is unconditioned and empty does not mean that it is eternal. The idea of an eternal truth of any kind is an extreme view. The other extreme of course being the view of nothingness. The the point that you bring up is relevant to many of the other debates that we encounter here ie rebirth etc. The ultimate truth or nature is often spoken of as being unborn. It is naturally empty and free from the extremes of eternalism, materialism, and nihilism.
The nature of the Buddha has been debated throughout the entire history of the Buddhist tradition. The nature of buddhahood must also be free from extremes, no godlike eternal deity and also no nothingness. Its up to us to investigate and come to our own understanding of the foundation, path, and results of practice.
Our own Buddhahood or Nirvana is our own responsibility.
This is problematic. So if I get drunk and black-out there is no world because my consciousness is unaware of it?
Not a big mind-only fan.
Dear Irris,
No - not at all, in the end, and if you are doing it right.
One of the many metaphors used by the Buddha to describe awakening or Nirvana or Nibbana ... was "Beyond conditioned existence".
There is some truth in what you say - but this is transitional. You re-condition the mind in the early stages of the path to start the de-conditioning process. Quite soon one can be in fully fledged de-conditioning mode. It all depends on the level of discipline applied to the practice.
Buddhist practice is not about replacing one set of conditioning with another better set. It is about removing or transcending conditioning - such that you see the reality of every moment in it's pristine clarity - and not through whatever tint of glasses your conditioning has given you.
Warm regards,
In the Dhamma,
Matthew
Dear Guy,
Please .. call me Matthew.
Regarding the Kalama Sutta Thanissaro Bhikkhu says the Buddha's words therein have much wider and greater import than only personal moral decisions:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html
Warmly,
In the Dhamma,
Matthew
this is excellent advice indeed.
However there is a strong Shinshu flavour to it. (It is also the Buddhist equivelent of Gideon's Bible, placed in hotel rooms and often taken home by guests. I am very fond of it myself!)
In Jodo Shinshu we have Amida Buddha, or Perfectly Awakened infinite Light and life. Amida has a detailed mythology outlined in the Larger Sukhavati Sutra, However in Shinshu Amida is seen as a symbol of the formless Buddha.
Formless Buddha means "Formless Awakening", or absolute reality, or thusness.
So Shakyamuni Buddha was a man, Amida is a manifestation (literal or metaphorical....whatever you like...doesn't really matter either way) of Thusness.
I would caution against the "God-like" idea though....Amida is in no way the creator, nor a judge, nor someone who does favours if you pray the right way.
To align our mind with the Noble Eightfold Path is indeed another trype of conditioning. However, it is the conditioning which leads to the realization of the unconditioned (Nibbana).
Irris, Some buddhists believe everything is conditioned. They end up with an impermanent and unsatisfactory buddha. Some buddhists believe there is an unconditioned. Though the unconditioned is ungraspable and it is still suffering to try to grasp.
We replace bad habits with good habits by rewarding ourselves (somehow) every time we do a compassionate thing instead of a harmful thing. Even if it becomes "natural" later on, it's because the mind was conditioned to trigger that way. If it weren't for those little reward systems in our brains, we wouldn't do much of anything. Conditioning is just how we work, it's not bad or good. It just is. And Buddhism seems to be a great way to focus logically on how we can make that work for us in positive ways!
i) when you are black out or sleep, you only slow down the top 6 consciousness, but the other 3 consciousness ( mano, alaya, amala ) are still active
even when you are no longer living / death , the alaya and amala are still functioning
ii) when I mean no single life left in the universe, this mean literally no more single life ( no more alaya consciousness , no more any single conditional mind )
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
instead of reacting, you just let things happen.
many conditioning can be helpful, but to simply recondition yourself will not free you from them. You are still a slave of your conditionings.
Eventually tho, the goal is to let go of the ego and all of it's conditionnings, "good" or bad.
take these example:
you walk on a trail in the forest.
There is a fallen tree on your way.
you would not react to this but respond to this. (it would be unlikely that you would have conditionning to such a situation)
You see the fallen tree, perhaps pause and admire the qualities of the tree, and just walk over it to continue your forest walk.
With the same smile on your face and happy feeling you had before encountering the tree.
You would not: as soon as you see the tree on your path, you have a heavy feeling inside of you, you feel terrible physically. Immediately, a torrent of thoughts invade your mind: "why does this always happen to me? I don't deserve this! If only the forest keepers would have done their job, i wouldn't have to go through this! etc etc etc..."
That would be ridiculous don't you think?
One day you are at work and your boss ask you in his office, he is firing you.
reaction: immediate terrible feeling inside. you feel scared and lost. your mind is invaded by thoughts"what am i going to do? oh my god etc... that asshole why does he do this to me?? why oh why??"
You are not in control, your mind simply blindly react to the situation, just like a robot.
If you become free of your conditioning, if this ever happen you do not react. If only because you have long ago realized the absurdity of reacting with negative emotions against reality, because you have seen that there is no point to this, it only creates suffering.
So when your boss tells you that he is firing you, you don't have any particular feeling in your belly, and there are no torrents of thoughts invading your mind.
You keep the same smile and same happy feeling you had 2 minutes before he told you the news, and you take it from there, perhaps pause to admire the qualities of the fallen tree, then walk over it and continue your walk.
Same things go with everything in life.
Sometimes you still have feelings arising in your heart (like a death of someone close to you), but not in most situations, not so overwhelming and you can just observe them without reacting to them.
You get to choose how to respond instead of reacting because of conditionings, like a robot.
And if you get to choose how to respond, why would you ever choose to respond with fear, anger etc... no point. You would only ever choose to respond with love.