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.
Buddha: Perfect or a Genius ?
As a new student to Buddhism this question intrigues me. From my understanding Buddha reached the ultimate truth through hard work, discipline and logic. When it is said that he reached a perfect state, is that hyperbole or truly perfection? I think we would all agree that no matter how much hard work, discipline and logic we use we can never be perfect. If Buddha is just a man, how is it possible he achieved the impossible? Can a man, a human being, be without flaws?
Is it accepted among any Buddhists that Buddha was not perfect, just better? That Nirvana is an idealization and that he was a lot closer than any man but not entirely there? What one would categorize as a genius, leagues above others, breaking new ground but still a human being nonetheless.
On a side note: Are there any modern people, who in the last 50 years, "attained" nirvana ?
Is it accepted among any Buddhists that Buddha was not perfect, just better? That Nirvana is an idealization and that he was a lot closer than any man but not entirely there? What one would categorize as a genius, leagues above others, breaking new ground but still a human being nonetheless.
On a side note: Are there any modern people, who in the last 50 years, "attained" nirvana ?
0
Comments
...altough we have (in Buddhism) the paramitas/perfections.
one wakes up to what is.
one is already perfection, they just believe otherwise (conditioning).
anything other than reality as it is, is an idealization of the mind.
it doesn't take a genius to become enlightened. nor is logic necessary. i would assert the path of logic is the hardest path. just ask nagarjuna. he laid down a shit ton of philosophy, which basically made it a point to dismiss philosophy.
lol
I think it a good idea to have a look at the word perfect, and see what that first implies.
I got the following from an on-line dictionary, "AskOxford": As you will see, there are different definitions of the word 'perfect'.
I think the different definitions under 1 and 2 pretty much cover it.
(I like number 4, although it it's talking about grammatical definition, rather than an acquired skill...But hey - it fits anyway!
There is nothing here to denote that the effort to be perfect is inhuman.
Some musicians achieve perfection in their tasks. Sports people, when everything goes absolutely right, are said to be "in the zone". This is their way of stating that they are "as good as it's possible to be".
So I think The Buddha achieved perfection. But it didn't make him a god.
It just made him a hard act to follow.
isnt it amazing how hard it is to convey ideas and thoughts in words? Ive noticed every discussion always gets bogged down in trying to explain words. The world really needs to develop a new language where words are not so ambiguous.
I dont know how many ppl will agree with this, but to me, to be human is to err. Human flaw is just part of existence. What I meant by perfection, is perfection in all things at all time. So when I take the premise that it is an innate nature of human beings to have flaws and make mistakes and extrapolate to the Buddha. It seems like either he is perfect (at everything and at all times) and not human, or flawed and human.
Also, do you think you can you reach nirvana and fall back ? (pls guys I know there is no exact way to say "reach" "attain" nirvana).
and i reiterate, are there any modern day ppl who have reached nirvana that we know about ?
perfection means the tendencies towards greed hatred & delusion extinguished forever in his mind
the mind that reaches final nirvana cannot fall back (but the lower levels of enlightenment can fall back into delusion but never lose the basic realisation)
it is difficult to explain the mind of a Buddha but a Buddha's mind is free from craving & self-view
example, there are many things we do not have craving for, such as the drug heroin. why? because we have seen with insight the danger, harm & undesirability of those things
or there are many things we do not regard as "ourself", like a tree. therefore, when something bad happens to those things, say like a dog urinating on a tree, our mind is unconcerned
it is not really possible to imagine what a Buddha has seen
that is why the difference between an ordinary person & an enlightened person is so far, so wide
insight is something that must arise from meditation practise
if and when it first occurs, the mind will be like in a state of (peaceful) shock
although the buddha was perfect, we should not use that the measure "ourself"
best to simply regard the buddha as a spiritual/consciousness "freak" or "genius"
all the best
however, it is best to practise meditation, if we have the inclination
a single taste of peace in meditation can reveal to us what is possible
kind regards
Because it's not just language, it's conditioning and cultural differences that form a demarcation line.
So even if you were to find a word that sums everything up universally, you'd still have those who would argue that white is black..... If you'll pardon me saying - you're judging this from your own flawed perspective.
Only an imperfect human being (and I count myself in this, honestly, I do) cannot give credence to absolute perfection in something - or someone - else.
Did you know that the Taj Mahal is built precisely 3 degrees off the perpendicular, because the architects and builders all agreed that only God can create perfection...?
But the whole structure is exactly 3 degrees off the perpendicular. And it's perfectly 3 degrees off the perpendicular, everywhere. And so - they kinda shot themselves in the foot.
But it's a building, a solid composite of different elements and materials. And it needs constant care and some restoration....
The Buddha was a human. He couldn't cheat death, he didn't die in perfect health and he died an old man.
His body - was Imperfect.
Furthermore, there were other things he couldn't do:
He could not transform the negative kamma of another, into Positive Kamma, and he couldn't eradicate past negative Kamma for anyone.
So in this sense, he was "Imperfect".
But his teachings - and the root teachings of every single Sutta in existence - come back to these: The 4 Noble Truths and the Eightfold path - these, are perfect.
The ideology that he presented to us - is perfect.
Hence, the name 'Noble' because they're infallible, flawless and indisputable.
It takes a pretty perfect mind to cut through the delusion of Immortality and permanence to see that.... Can you un-learn what you have learnt by heart?
Can you turn back time and eliminate your experiences completely?
Can you be a boy again?
"Those who know, don't tell, and those who tell, don't know"
We may believe some have, but unless they demonstrate themselves as being perfect, we have no way of really knowing.
I believe some have reached a level of Profound Illumination but I'd be hard-put to declare them enlightened.
However, everybody who comes into contact with HHDL, seems to believe he is a simply extraordinary person, and that his serene and joyful attitude is undeniable.
I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone talk about the Pope in such terms, but I could be wrong.....
when the consciousness mind directly contacts or "touches" mental disturbance & emotion (stress), the stress will dissolve, as if touched by acid
ordinary human life is "samsara", that is, cycling around in craving, appeasement of craving, reinforcement of craving. this "samsara" is intention, action, result, just circling around. boredom > seeking > craving > pleasure > tiredness > agitation > boredom > craving > seeking > entertainment > hangover > rest > re-energerising > seeking > craving > amusement > etc
but the mind destined to enlightenment is in the stream of flowing acid
it is solely established in consciousness rather than spinning around in the pleasure/craving samsara
being established in consciousness, it is just dissolving whatever inner stress & emotion that arises
it becomes like a run-away train, like a fire than never goes out
the mind just gets brighter & brigher, dissolving every obstacle in its path
for the stream-enterer, there is so much momentum
Was the Buddha perfect? Depends on your interpretation of the word.
Lets just say the Buddha rose above all human imperfections.
I myself can only give an opinion. Although, for the reasons Fed and others point out, the Buddha was human and therefore not perfect, he may have been some sort of genius. He had a profound experience of the nature of human life, which many may have, but was able to explain it in a way that has lasted 2500 years and helped a lot of other people see much the same thing.
Adding to that, it may well be beneficial to examine the origin of the word: This again from the AskOxford dictionary (might as well be consistent):
Origin:
Middle English: from Old French perfet, from Latin perfectus 'completed', from the verb perficere, from per- 'through, completely' + facere 'do'
And this, from here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perfect
1250–1300; < Latin perfectus, past participle of perficere to finish, bring to completion ( per- per- + -fec-, combining form of facere to do1 + -tus past participle suffix); replacing Middle English parfit < Old French < Latin as above.
so in fact, the word 'perfect' means to bring something to completion; to accomplish something to its end, to finish what you've started.
I think that actually fits extremely well.
Again, no hint or insinuation of having to be super-human, or anything other than the ordinary, although I do take on board Sabre's assertion that the guy must have been some kind of special.
He had insight, perspicacity, a desire to succeed and tenacity. He was determined, focussed and single-Minded. he was a real trier, and was prepared to go to extremes to find an answer to his question.
it took him a while, but he persevered, and he gained what he had been seeking.
I'm not sure, however, that genius is necessary for these qualities to manifest.
If we fall short of this, it's not because we're not geniuses. It's because we obviously can't want it as much as he did.
I find your questions are very pertinent and I know I have definitely thought a lot about these issues - without ever really resolving them. But I feel this thread has added some good thoughts to the discussion.
Also, as for modern people attaining nirvana, I'm not sure, but when I read Eckhart Tolle's "The Power Of Now", and look more into his talks and such, I get the feeling he has attained enlightenment. Of course, I'm not him, and it's just a feeling I get and a postulation.
I think maybe enlightened people don't go around saying they're enlightened. But with him, I feel like he has come to a profound understanding of the perfection of everything, not just of himself, or of other enlightened things/beings.... but of everything. All through the dissolution of the illusion of 'me'. I would recommend this book, perhaps it can shed some light on your question. Also, I don't think you need to be "Buddhist" to reach enlightenment. It's just the clearest way in the dark, with thousands of years of meditation and directions laid out for us.
A Buddha is a wo(man) par excellence, or in other words, a real human being.
As to the goal of nibbana, ultimate cessation and peace, yes there are many who have reached it before and will still to come
Best wishes,
Abu
Dhamma Dhatu,
Ive read before that mindfulness was like acid, dissolving all illusions we hold on to. I believe this is a valuable analogy that one should always be aware of. But I am still at a very early stages of the cultivation of mindfulness. Thought i have become VERY mindful of the fact of my lack of mindfulness. Also the cycle of samsara the way you put it really resonates with me, Indulging/Repressing only reinforces the subject of indulgence/repression. Im seeing samsara almost like a hamster wheel, we feel like we are moving to somewhere/something but in reality we are in the same place.
Frederica,
I agree that there couldnt be a language that would satisfy our needs. Seems like before we write we need to attach a list of definitions. It is amazing though how when we write something it seems so clear and obvious yet tons of people will misinterpret your point.
Yes I am judging on the concept that we all make mistakes. That it is human to make mistakes and that we should even embrace that part of ourselves. Something like the human condition. I am just skeptical of extremes. Of ideas of perfection, ultimate, and truths. I feel like because we are humans and we make mistakes we can only get closer to perfection and ultimate truths, never attain them. It is curious that there arnt any(?) Buddhists that claim enlightenment. Even if it takes lifetimes, somebody in our lifetime should be getting there...
Maybe part of being enlightened is knowing you can never be enlightened....
Happy Mondays,
Thanks for the info, Ive heard of him before and when I have more time I will look into it.
(something like that
Doesn't mean you shouldn't meditate of course
This is a nice discussion on this question.
Edit: sorry if I'm a bit off topic.
good article. I think the question of a Omniscient Buddha is a much easier and obvious one. Him being a human being directly implies he cannot be omniscient. He would have to be beyond human for that.
Why I think the perfection question is better because I think there is a consensus that no matter how hard you try you can never be perfect. Without flaws at everytime.
You can throw free throws and get the 1st, 2nd, 3rd....so far you are perfect in getting in free throws but as time goes by you lose this perfection. You can even quantify this, if you attempt 5000 throws you will miss one, or whatever the record is. So we can get close to perfection (someone who can make say 1000 free throws but we dont consider him perfect, just better). So can we reach a state of true perfection, where no flaws are present. Or do we just get closer to that state?
Lets simplify...let just say, for argument sake, attaining Nirvana is to live completely in the moment with no thoughts of I and judgment. Should we think of Buddha as someone who was always in that state 100% of the time, never slips up. Or was he there 80% whereas the norm is 20%. So he is just way closer than most of us to an ideal rather than truly achieving this ideal. (Note: Dont think too much about the concepts, im using them mainly to illustrate my question).
Putting it all together, If the norm is 5 consecutive baskets from free throws, was the Buddha someone who never missed? or someone who could get in 100 consecutive baskets?
Point taken. Attributes such as omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence are usually attributed to gods and deities of different religions, rather than humans. But often, people also attach attributes like this to the Buddha. Regarding this, I think @Jason makes a sobering conclusion in his blog: