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.
esteem for the Buddha
genkaku
Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
Most, I imagine, who are interested in Buddhism find Gautama ("the Buddha") an estimable man, a man worth emulating, and sometimes a man worth adoring. He is seen as an example of what a Buddhist might like to become ... or become like ... or something like that. Gautama is honored, revered, esteemed.
But did anyone else ever wonder what Gautama thought of himself? Others may revere Gautama, but does it seem likely that Gautama revered himself? Or Jesus or Mohammad or any other spiritual bright light? Did such objects of reverence and esteem revere and esteem themselves?
It seems highly unlikely to me.
But if they did not revere themselves and if we revere them in an effort to emulate what we revere, how much sense does our own reverence make?
Yes, yes ... I can hear the Jesuit-Buddhists sharpening their slick wits: "We don't revere the man," they say. "We are touched and seek to emulate and actualize what he pointed to." That sounds kool but it sidesteps the question of our own reverence and whatever reverence Gautama may have had.
Just chewing my cud here. Thoughts?
But did anyone else ever wonder what Gautama thought of himself? Others may revere Gautama, but does it seem likely that Gautama revered himself? Or Jesus or Mohammad or any other spiritual bright light? Did such objects of reverence and esteem revere and esteem themselves?
It seems highly unlikely to me.
But if they did not revere themselves and if we revere them in an effort to emulate what we revere, how much sense does our own reverence make?
Yes, yes ... I can hear the Jesuit-Buddhists sharpening their slick wits: "We don't revere the man," they say. "We are touched and seek to emulate and actualize what he pointed to." That sounds kool but it sidesteps the question of our own reverence and whatever reverence Gautama may have had.
Just chewing my cud here. Thoughts?
0
Comments
Likewise Jesus did not hide his light under a bushel. He said ' You have called me teacher and Lord, and you are right to do so, because I am.' John 13.13.
Those pronouncements may not have come from an egoic mindset, but neither are they evidence of a flattened hierachy or backwards projected social levelling no matter how much more comfortable some American sensibilities are with that idea than with the concept that not all are born equal..
I found the "discuss" proclamation to be off putting for some reason. Back to the cushion for me!
I'd say the dharma has a place for teachers inspiring the student in practice... we need all the encouragement we can get!
But then comes a point of diminishing returns when the student's practice deepens, at which point inspiration ceases to function as an important motivator.
From that point, the teacher can become an obstacle. A good teacher will see this, and recognize the student clinging to what has now developed into an unhelpful image.
In order for the crane to make survive, it must eventually fly from the nest to make its own-- important skills that its mother passes on to its offspring.
It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.
We bow to the Buddha when beginners. We bow to the sangha when humbled. We are bowed by the dharma when on the way.
Then one day the Buddha arrives . . . [to be continued]
Did he lose his sense of humor after enlightenment? Didn’t he have one in the first place?
Humor is not mentioned in any list of mental qualities; it isn’t one of the seven factors of enlightenment it isn’t a paramita it isn’t a brahmavihara; nothing.
Our images of the Buddha are our images. When we think he was overly serious and preoccupied with sickness, old age and death; that says something about us, not about him.
When we think he was serene and happy all the time and that he endured his headaches with a smile on his face; that says something about us, not about him.
The only Buddha we know is the one we create in our stories.
Revering the Buddha, killing the Buddha; it’s just the games we play. Our relationship with the Buddha is like the relationship of a child with her doll.
It seems safe to say that we can consider those who spend a lot of time following the teachings at least moving in the same direction. Monks seem to laugh a lot. More than that, who knows? Lots of people seem to take things very serious, as though sober means somber. Its only life after all!
With warmth,
Matt
A: A stream entrant
knock knock
who is there
Buddha
Buddha who
Buddha who knocks on doors
(wot you mean ''not funny' . . . I'm enlightened just so you know! . . . not funny, my non farting ass)
The Buddha replied: When he reached Benares and met the five ascetics whom he had chosen to deliver his first sermon, they all regarded the Buddha as their equal and addressed him by his name Gotama and irreverently with the appellation "my friend". The Buddha sat on the prepared seat and spoke to them as follows: Thus it is clear that the Buddha encouraged others to treat him with reverence. It was definitely not out of an egoistic mindset as others have pointed out, but I believe it is out of compassion because not showing respect/reverence to someone who is worthy of respect/reverence is considered to be an act of negative karma as declared in the Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta: In the Mangala Sutta, the Buddha said reverence is one of the "greatest blessings": The Sutta's commentary as edited by Bhikkhu Khantipalo explains the importance of reverence/respectfulness as follows: Reverence for the Buddha can also be seen as a useful meditative skill in accordance with the Mahanama Sutta: The Buddha's leading disciples were also often depicted in the Pali Canon as showing great reverence. For example, Nyanaponika Thera says that:
In the Mahayana Tradition, under the ten great vows of Bodhisattva Samantabhadra found in the Avatamsaka Sutra, the first vow is to worship and respect all Buddhas, while the second vow is to praise the Buddhas. These two vows are elaborated as follows:
I admire Mohamed Ali. For a while there he was the best at what he did. As was Sampras, and then Federer. In a different spheres I am in awe of Shakespeare and Purcell, Mozart and Schubert, Dickens and John Lennon, Jane Austen and Cate Blanchett, Captain Beefheart and Charles Mingus, Charlie Parker and Mitsuko Uchida, Gareth Bale and Ella Fitzgerald...
All these are great exemplars of their various callings.
I don't want to reduce them.
I dont want to level them or explain them away or be envious of them..I rejoice in them.
I ' rejoice in their merits ' as the Buddhists say.
Just so with the Buddha, just so with all who have attained.
From a Dzogchen pov what we wake up to is the natural state. We ' wake down'.
But even from that pov I rejoice in those who have done that in a way that has become established ..
How could that be an obstacle to me ? How can I fail to be moved and inspired ?
The idea that the accomplishment of others could be an obstacle is imo based on a misunderstanding of the nature of individuality. It is to give creedance to the idea of ourselves as a struggling monad. Spiritual frontiersmen. Buddhist Davy Crocketts..instead of part of the greater sangha.
There are some great tennis players around and musicians and thinkers and more.
I’m just not the kind of person who kisses the ground that they walk on and I’m not going to bow to the ground for my Sampras- or my John Lennon-altar or build a temple around their bones when they’re dead.
Neither am I going to pretend that I could have invented the concept of Dependent Origination.
How sad, to think of a heart not stirred by greatness.
How limiting, to suffer from Tall Poppy syndrome.
And what has any of that to do with holding the historical Buddha in high esteem ?
Are you saying that holding him in high esteem is somehow inspired by devils ?
That Buddham Saranam Gacchami recited in front of a Buddharupa portraying Shakyamuni is demonic?
Buddhism knows “bad” (akusala) actions. Not “bad” people.
In the same way there are “good” (kusala) actions not “good” people.
There is no such thing as an inherent fixed quality to a person. There are actions and consequences.
So – in line with this – I imagine that the Buddha would have told people to think about his teachings and to apply them and to refrain from worshipping him personally.
My esteem is for my, his or anyone elses efforts on this path.
I think I kind of understand Bodhidharma's perspective. Here at some points he is speaking at the level of ultimate truth like how Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara spoke in the Heart Sutra. But I think his approach is not yet full blown ultimate truth either.
For example, Bodhidharma says: But in the Heart Sutra, Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara says there is "no mind", there is "no mind-consciousness" and there is "no path" either. So the Heart Sutra provides yet another level of perspective to view the issue.
Personally, I think it would be more practical/useful to express the issue of reverence for the Buddha in the Middle Way format. So we can say that at the level of conventional truth there is a Buddha and we should pay reverence, while in the sense of the ultimate truth there is no Buddha and nothing to worship. So combining both truths we might say, as an expression of the Middle Way, that we should observe the practice of paying homage to the Buddha but that such practice is both reverence and non-reverence.
The Pali Canon addresses the issue entirely within the realm of conventional truth to give some practical advice. So in the Pali Canon, the Buddha distinguished two ways of paying reverence to him. One is material offerings (amisa puja - for example, offering incense, flowers, etc.) and the other is practice offerings (patipatti puja - for example, observing the precepts, practicing meditation, etc.) and the Buddha said that the latter is supreme.
In the Dhammapada Atthakatha, we find the following story of Thera Dhammarama:
In the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, the Buddha also said the following: So in accordance with the above teachings, Theravadan teachers would advice to do both types of puja - material offerings and practice offerings, eg. Bhikkhu Khantipalo says the following:
. . . let's just say our relationship is platonic . . . and mostly cerebral . . . :rocker: