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.
Was the Buddha truly enlightened?
Bodhivaka
Veteran
This question is primarily aimed at Secular Buddhists who reject or are otherwise skeptical of Buddhism's metaphysical claims.
Assuming Buddhist scripture can be trusted to accurately convey the original teachings of the Buddha, can the title of "perfectly enlightened one" rightly be given to someone who taught the existence of things like karma, rebirth, psychic powers, miracles, mythical beings and supernatural realms?
The bare fundamentals of Buddhism (the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, the Three Marks of Existence, Dependent Origination, the Five Precepts, etc.) all seem quite rational, practical and appealing to me; however, when I consider the more superstitious teachings of the Buddha, particularly his alleged journeys to mythical realms and his conversations with the supernatural inhabitants thereof, I can't help but assume he was either delusional or dishonest.
Of course, I could simply be wrong and all of these "superstitious" metaphysical teachings could be true. In any case, I suppose whether or not the Tathagata's supernatural convictions are true is ultimately irrelevant to the practicality of his philosophy.
What do all of you think? Do the metaphysical teachings of Buddhism cause you to doubt the Dharma or the Buddha at all? Do you believe one can rightly be called a Buddhist" while simultaneously rejecting the metaphysical aspects of the religion?
Assuming Buddhist scripture can be trusted to accurately convey the original teachings of the Buddha, can the title of "perfectly enlightened one" rightly be given to someone who taught the existence of things like karma, rebirth, psychic powers, miracles, mythical beings and supernatural realms?
The bare fundamentals of Buddhism (the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, the Three Marks of Existence, Dependent Origination, the Five Precepts, etc.) all seem quite rational, practical and appealing to me; however, when I consider the more superstitious teachings of the Buddha, particularly his alleged journeys to mythical realms and his conversations with the supernatural inhabitants thereof, I can't help but assume he was either delusional or dishonest.
Of course, I could simply be wrong and all of these "superstitious" metaphysical teachings could be true. In any case, I suppose whether or not the Tathagata's supernatural convictions are true is ultimately irrelevant to the practicality of his philosophy.
What do all of you think? Do the metaphysical teachings of Buddhism cause you to doubt the Dharma or the Buddha at all? Do you believe one can rightly be called a Buddhist" while simultaneously rejecting the metaphysical aspects of the religion?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
It makes me think that, like the Christian Bible, analogies were used a lot to illustrate points and are not meant to be taken literally.
Why not? One is constantly accepting and rejecting (impliedly or expressly), even if unaware or unaware of every possible consequence - a step toward one direction is a step away from all other directions.
In essence he's saying that remaining agnostic about such things is perfectly logical and scientifically valid view.
Everyone begins any endeavor by believing one thing or another. But then -- as in Gautama's invitation to "find out for yourself" -- they proceed to find out in experience/practice what up until then has been a matter of belief and hope.
So if you think the oooooeeeeeoooo/metaphysical stuff in Buddhism is over the top, if you find it either "delusional" or "dishonest," well, that still leaves you with The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path as an adequate point of departure for finding out whether Buddhism has anything to offer or not.
Saying or believing nice things about Buddhism is about the same as saying or believing nasty things about it ... neither can hold a candle to your own experience and effort.
Why would we assume that? And no, saying the sutras are obviously written to be statements of religious doctrine rather than historical fact doesn't mean the Buddha's words aren't in there. It just means what you read is history translated and transformed through the beliefs and agendas of the monks that wrote about it.
You might also consider that was the language, understanding or convention of the times, historians/reporters.
Is there sufficient dharma for those not interested in being taught by water dragons as the 'second Buddha' was?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna
You bet my ignorance and yours and that of every empty hell realm dweller there is . . . :clap:
I guess that I would consider myself more a secular Buddhist than a religious Buddhist.
Considering that Buddhist scriptures were written several hundred years after Buddha's passing, I take them with a few grains of salt. Not a huge block of salt, but more than just a grain of salt. In fact, I apply the same principle toward Buddhist scriptures that I do toward the Christian bible -- take away the magic, and accept the wisdom of what I'll refer to as the life lessons. As to karma, I try to balance a certain degree of it seems logical and what I consider to be a rather universal cop-out that religions use that it's beyond our understanding (to me saying that certain things are imponderable is not that much different than saying God works in mysterious ways (maybe that's the science background in me). As to rebirth -- my mind remains open to it. Same for psychic powers and miracles. As to mythical beings and supernatural realms, why would I just accept them when so many here that, like me, are former Christians who rejected Christian realms and mythical beings? I'm somewhat open-minded.
I think you hit it on the head when you said, "I suppose whether or not the Tathagata's supernatural convictions are true is ultimately irrelevant to the practicality of his philosophy". Was Buddha delusional or dishonest? Since we don't really know what he actually said, I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. A lot of the magic sounds like what people of most religions do...adding to the basic teachings.
As to, "Do you believe one can rightly be called a Buddhist while simultaneously rejecting the metaphysical aspects of the religion?" Yes, from the perspective that it's nobody's damned business what I consider myself in terms of religion. Some people condemn cherry picking. I condemn gullibility. If there is room under the big tent for Theravada, Mahāyāna, Vajrayāna, "Conservative Buddhism", "East Asian Buddhism", "Eastern Buddhism", "Esoteric Buddhism", "Hīnayāna" Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, "Lamaism", "Mainstream Buddhism", "Mantrayāna", Tendai school, "Newar Buddhism", "Nikāya Buddhism", "Non-Mahāyāna" Buddhism, "Northern Buddhism", "Secret Mantra", "Sectarian Buddhism", "Southeast Asian Buddhism", "Southern Buddhism", "Śravakayāna" Buddhism, "Tantrayāna" or "Tantric Buddhism", the Japanese Shingon school, the Korean milgyo tradition, Sthaviravāda, Pudgalavāda, Sarvāstivāda, Vibhajyavāda, Mahīśāsaka, Dharmaguptaka, Kāśyapīya, Vatsīputrīya, Saṃmitīya, Dharmottarīya, Bhadrayānīya, Sannāgarika, Mūlasarvāstivāda, Sautrāntika, Mahāsāṃghika, Ekavyahārikas, Lokottaravāda, Golulika, Bahuśrutīya, Prajñaptivāda, Cetiyavāda, Caitika, Apara Śaila, Uttara Śaila, Sarvāstivādin, Haimavata, Vatsīputrīya, Dharmottara, Bhadrayānīya, Sammitiya, Channagirika, Mahīśāsaka, Dharmaguptaka, Kāśyapīya, and Sautrāntika, then there's also room for secular Buddhism. And BTW, yes, I realize that some of the terms listed are synonymous with each other.
I think that @charirama makes a valid point that, "like the Christian Bible, analogies were used a lot to illustrate points and are not meant to be taken literally".
Cinorjer's post also shows a great deal of common sense.
Reamaining open-minded also means that one's sense of reality is ever-changing. The Christianity and Buddhism that I believe in today is different than what I believed 5 years ago, 10 years ago, etc., and I realize that what I believe in the future will also believe. Which is why my general viewpoint is what I found in the preface of the first Buddhist book I ever picked up -- as you read this book, accept what you can and realize that in the future you may come to accept even more (highly paraphrased). I just accept wisdom where I find it...but I find a great deal of it within Buddhism.
I'm not exactly sure but I don't think Buddha believed in gods as many gurus did... Reading between the lines it's as if he is saying that gods have no power over the awakened and even when he faced Mara I believe he was in an altered state of mind. This isn't to say the gods do not exist exactly. Just that they only have whatever power we give them.
Also Buddha believed it is all perfectly ordinary so that doesn't leave a lot of room for the supernatural from my perspective. For all we know, he could be talking about past or future lives on other planets, landscapes that don't really exist except for in our dreams or different viewpoints from right here. This world can be heaven or it can be hell... I've seen people in hell right here.
Hungry ghosts are just trying to keep up with the jonesers... Hell, it's the American dream! I think Buddha knew his teachings would get jumbled around... That's why he said to trust our inner guide over any doctrine even if it goes against something we think he himself said.
If a teaching doesn't expand on the fundamentals I try to find the analogy. I can't convince myself to believe something that doesn't ring true. I can suspend my disbelief for a movie if I have to, but that's it.
That's just me though. Some will agree and some won't but that's just the nature of being unique.
Buddhism & Evolution
Bhante Punnaji
The process of evolution stops? Unlikely, unless the universe ends. Evolution is a universal fact and not simply confined to humanity. Not having read anything else of Bhante Punnaji's work, I cannot comment on any other anthropocentrism but this statement must be qualified and, indeed, be marked as entirely speculative. There is no evidence, nor, I assert, no statement by the Historical Buddha, to back up such a claim. Rather, we see him continuing, after his experience under the tree, as fully human up to and including a fully human death. Nor is there any statement that the Enlightened become 'gods' or 'God'. All that is offered is the ending of dukkha.
As to whether the Buddha Shakyamuni was truly enlightened, the question is, surely, irrelevant. Is X or Y enlightened? Who can say and does it matter? What matters is whether I am struggling along the Path because I have come to the conclusion that it is the best Path for me. To do so with eyes fixed on some goal that I cannot see is to risk tripping over the many obstacles just under my feet.
What matters is the path leads to eventual ending or lessening of dukkha which can be directly experienced by oneself.
Of course, I acknowledge that I may be missing something in my deep suspicion of cults of personality; the result, I suppose, of my own heritage and history.
So if the Buddha wasn't enlightened then there is no enlightenment, no cessation of suffering and what we call Buddhism is reduced to mere another self-help program.
Consider the Triple Jewel:
The Dharma exists, whether it is taught, recognised or apprehended in any way by individuals. It is not contingent.
The Buddha: when and if you take refuge, are you really doing so in an historical human being? Surely not! The Buddha here is the uncreated, the ideal of Buddhahood, beyond human history, the real Tathagata.
The Sangha of Refuge is also the ideal Sangha rather than a collection of monks, nuns and (in modern Western eyes) lay followers.
I still have to be convinced that it is necessary for a teacher of the Dharma themselves to be 'enlightened' beyond some degree of understanding of what they are teaching.
And what is so wrong with a self-help programme if it enables us to abandon self and end dukkha?
But The Buddha's enlightenment, or the belief in it, is vitally important in the matter of refuge. There are two types of refuge - provisional and ultimate. provisional refuge, the refuge we all take, is in the historical Buddha. It depends entirely on the Buddha's enlightenment and the other two jewels rest on the first. None of us here are far enough along to experience ultimate refuge, so it's pointless to consider in this context.
Do you know of a self-help system that engenders letting go of our sense of self and end suffering?
Personally, I disagree with your view of refuge, at least as it seems you are describing it. I don't believe that we take refuge with a dead man. I believe we take refuge in his wisdom...and that goes on whether he is alive or not.
But you don't have to agree with it, regardless of whose view it is.
And it's not a question of the Buddha's understanding of enlightenment. It's about enlightenment.
Was the Buddha truly enlightened?
That's hard for me to be the judge of that.
You dredged up a year-old thread just to say that?
Quite.... :rolleyes: .