If the Buddha discovered....

[Snoopy]

Hi,

I'm not sure what you mean by "the medium"; but presumably the answer is "yes" because dependent origination and the three seals refer to all conditioned phenomena. As so "how" they are stated; the third seal (dukkha) is the first of the four noble truths. The fourth noble truth is the eightfold path; said to be the path to enlightenment, to nibbana, the deathless, escape from samsara. That's what it says on the tin, anyhow.

Snoopy.

 

[moseslmpg]

What do you mean by conditioned existence? Is there unconditiond existence?

By medium, I mean the "stream" down which everything flows. The thing in which everything is forever changing is not changing, or else things within it would cease to change for a time. Of course, if the Buddha meant that even the nature of things to be always changing also changed, thus making something unchanging, then I give up.

The second part, how he stated it, relates to what jiii said. The Buddha was concerned with enlightenment right? So I was saying that it is possible that his statements about the Brahman or whatever were not meant to be thought of as absolute truths but were not important either way with respect to enlightenment (except in the case of clinging leading to dukkha, of course). That is, he stated things from a pragmatic point of view, so people would get results but not necessarily so he could teach people the absolute truth. I'm not calling him a liar per se, just putting forth the idea that it could be one of those noble lies. I apologize if I offended anyone though.

 

[Snoopy]

What do you mean by conditioned existence? Is there unconditioned existence?

I think it is meant that all existence is conditional, at least in samsara.

By medium, I mean the "stream" down which everything flows. The thing in which everything is forever changing is not changing, or else things within it would cease to change for a time. Of course, if the Buddha meant that even the nature of things to be always changing also changed, thus making something unchanging, then I give up.

I am not aware that the Buddha referred to a stream as you say it. I can only reiterate that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent and constantly changing. But don't give up!

The second part, how he stated it, relates to what jiii said. The Buddha was concerned with enlightenment right? So I was saying that it is possible that his statements about the Brahman

(the Buddha rejected the notion of the Brahman I believe)

or whatever were not meant to be thought of as absolute truths but were not important either way with respect to enlightenment (except in the case of clinging leading to dukkha, of course). That is, he stated things from a pragmatic point of view, so people would get results but not necessarily so he could teach people the absolute truth. I'm not calling him a liar per se, just putting forth the idea that it could be one of those noble lies (noble lies?!). I apologize if I offended anyone though.

The Buddha taught relative (pragmatic) and absolute truth and altered his teachings depending on who he was talking to. However, I think the truths as he called them were meant to be just that, truths. He also wanted each individual to assess them for themselves.

Snoopy.

 

[jiii]

The second part, how he stated it, relates to what jiii said. The Buddha was concerned with enlightenment right? So I was saying that it is possible that his statements about the Brahman or whatever were not meant to be thought of as absolute truths but were not important either way with respect to enlightenment (except in the case of clinging leading to dukkha, of course). That is, he stated things from a pragmatic point of view, so people would get results but not necessarily so he could teach people the absolute truth. I'm not calling him a liar per se, just putting forth the idea that it could be one of those noble lies. I apologize if I offended anyone though.

I don't know if you are apologizing to me, but there were certainly no harsh feelings whatsoever. It's all good, moseslmpg .

Anyhow, I don't think the Buddha ever discoursed upon Brahman. He neither rejected or accepted Brahman. As you say, he was unconcerned with Brahman. He took no stance on that issue, really.

As Snoopy mentioned, the Buddha taught both relative and absolute truth, categorically speaking. But really, he was not concerned with distinguishing between the two. There was not really any specific absolute truth that the Buddha sought to teach people. Certain things that he said might be interpreted as absolute or relative statements of truth, but if there was any singular truth to the Buddha's teachings, it was that truth could not be transmitted, only realized. Thus, the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism, for instance, aren't to be interpreted as absolute truths. They are more like propositions put forth for a person to examine for themselves...pointers toward that to which the Buddha sought to guide others.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

interesting conversation..

the topic of what it is that experiences rebirth it taken up in the Abidharma section of the canon and is dealt with in a very extensive manner. though we do need to make a linguistic distinction between rebirth and reincarnation as the latter implies an aspect of being that is unchanging and continues to incarnate from arising to arising; this is a Sanatana Dharma view. There are several Suttas from the Doctrine section that also deal with what it is that continues from arising to arising and how it is that karma from one arising effects another. just as a point of interest, karma persists for 7 rebirths after which point it is spent. Of course, we are continually generating new karma so it is pretty much endless for the bulk of beings at this present time.

several of the Pali canon Suttas talk directly about the varous deities and gods that inhabit the higher planes and, in point of fact, there are several discourses where the Buddha Shakyamuni explicitly talks about MahaBrahma and the various deities that all view themselves as "the ground of being". in one of the more famous ones, one of Brahmas Avatars comes to the Buddha to ask him to bring the Dharma to the Gods so that they, too, can become Liberated.

one of the more difficult issues in discussion is that beings are, necessairly, in different places upon their spiritual journey and, as such, those beings require a different sort of teaching than a being that is just starting their journey. since the Buddha Dharma contains a structured, progressive teaching motif it can be confusing for someone that is further along to explain "what it means" to someone that is just starting.

as Tariki mention, the real fundamental issue that is needing to be resolved is the "I-making", which is a form of eternalism and the "No-making" which is a form of nihilism. the consumate view, in the Buddhist doctrine, is "No View".

this is related in a very pithy simlie from the Ch'an tradition:

When you first practice Zen, mountains are mountains.
After some attainment, mountains are no longer mountains.
Once you have reached the Other Shore, mountains are mountains.

in many ways the teachings that the Buddhas have left behind are like bits of tile used to knock on the door. Once the door is opened we can leave the bits of title behind. Though we find those bits of tile pretty darned useful for knocking

metta,

~v

 

[moseslmpg]

What do you mean by conditioned existence? Is there unconditioned existence?

I think it is meant that all existence is conditional, at least in samsara.

By medium, I mean the "stream" down which everything flows. The thing in which everything is forever changing is not changing, or else things within it would cease to change for a time. Of course, if the Buddha meant that even the nature of things to be always changing also changed, thus making something unchanging, then I give up.

I am not aware that the Buddha referred to a stream as you say it. I can only reiterate that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent and constantly changing. But don't give up!

The second part, how he stated it, relates to what jiii said. The Buddha was concerned with enlightenment right? So I was saying that it is possible that his statements about the Brahman

(the Buddha rejected the notion of the Brahman I believe)

Here is the stream thing, I guess the Buddha didn't actually say it though. It's from Wikipedia:
"The Buddha emphasized that the atman is like a mountain stream, which flows fast and is forever changing. There is no being (sat), there is only becoming (bhava) in it. The arising (uppaada), disappearance (vyaya) and changing of what exists (a~n~natatha) are the three signs of compounded things. The belief in a permanent self (atman) not only negates the activities of moral life but also falls in a form of grasping, a hindrance to spiritual liberation"

See, I understand that the atman is not permanent, being the individual self and all, but the stream is permanently changing. What I'm trying to find out is if the stream equates to anything in this analogy. I want to know if there is the notion of an Absolute principle which changes within itself, but is permanent in its being, like The All or the Not. I guess it would be called unconditional existence.

As for the Brahman thing, I know he rejected it but I have no idea what to call what I'm trying to find out about.

I don't know if you are apologizing to me, but there were certainly no harsh feelings whatsoever. It's all good, moseslmpg .

Anyhow, I don't think the Buddha ever discoursed upon Brahman. He neither rejected or accepted Brahman. As you say, he was unconcerned with Brahman. He took no stance on that issue, really.

Well, I was apologizing to anyone that may have had an attachment to the Buddha as a person. Of course, I'm sure that most of you here do not being that desire leads to dukkha and if you meet Buddha on the road you should kill him, etc. I just wanted to cover all my bases though, in case someone thought I was questioning the Buddha's moral character.

If he never discussed the Brahman, neither rejecting it nor accepting it, then I am fine. I am just trying to find out if he did make a final judgement on the subject, and what were the possible reasons and implications for this. The Wikipedia article makes it seem like he was pretty sure about this on some occasions.


Hey Vajradhara, where does it say that karma persists for only 7 rebirths? Is it a pretty well-agree upon thing? Also, what would happen when you had no karma, because it was my understanding that good karma was good, of course I suppose any kind of karma keeps you inside of samsara right?

 

[jiii]

If he never discussed the Brahman, neither rejecting it nor accepting it, then I am fine. I am just trying to find out if he did make a final judgement on the subject, and what were the possible reasons and implications for this. The Wikipedia article makes it seem like he was pretty sure about this on some occasions.

Alright, I read through the Wikipedia article. So, I will clarify.

Frankly, the article says much about the Buddha and Brahman, but what it doesn't really say is that the Buddha outright rejected Brahman. Now, admittedly, I wasn't familiar with the particular writings mentioned where the Buddha spoke about Brahman, though I'm not really surprised. My point here, however, referred to your last post's specific inquiry, really.

I am just trying to find out if he did make a final judgement on the subject...

You will find that he did not. It would seem that you are asking, roughly," Is it an essential Buddhist belief that Brahman was to be rejected?" Absolutely not, in the sense there was no reason to affirm or deny Brahman...no need to decide. The Buddha's 'doctrine', if we can loosely call it so, did not include affirmations or rejections of Gods, even though it did speak of Gods. Buddhism does not formally accept or reject the existence of Gods, but it had no problem speaking about them (and did so VERY, VERY often).

Now, if the Buddha was asked about Brahman by someone, that's a different story. Consider this short excerpt from the Lotus Sutra: "Good sons! Whenever living beings came to me, I beheld with a Buddha's eyes all of the faculties, keen or dull, of their faith, and so forth; I explained to them, in stage after stage, according to their capacity and degree of salvation, my different names and the length of my lives, and moreover plainly stated that I must enter Nirvana." The Buddha was not concerned with beliefs of various faiths, only whether or not the man standing plainly before him making an inquiry has attained Nirvana. If he had not, then the Buddha would speak on communion with Brahman as being confused as a final state. If the Hindu that he met with had attained Nirvana, however, he would not bother in the least bit to ramble on and on about the relative incompleteness of Brahman communion.

The Buddha talked very much about beliefs that were brought to him by inquiry, but ultimately, little or none of these beliefs were actually part of some kind of Buddhist 'doctrine'. He was merely answering questions, sometimes using the terms of questioners to make his answer as clear as possible, in accordance with their capacity. If they had to hear about Brahman because they would've rejected completely an answer that avoided Brahman, then he talked about Brahman. But, you will not find in Buddhism a uniform opinion concerning affirmation or rejection of Brahman that permeated all various sects and eras of Buddhist thought.

I hope I've been able to clear up my original post a little bit, moseslmpg.

 

[moseslmpg]

OK thanks, jiii. That clears up a lot of things for me. Buddhism is sort of like the user's manual to achieving enlightenment I suppose, in that it doesn't bore you with extraneous details. I guess the closest it comes to a realm of unconditional existence is Nirvana (from a totally irrelevant intellectual point of view, of course ).

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Jiii,

thank you for the post.

Alright, I read through the Wikipedia article. So, I will clarify.

Frankly, the article says much about the Buddha and Brahman, but what it doesn't really say is that the Buddha outright rejected Brahman. Now, admittedly, I wasn't familiar with the particular writings mentioned where the Buddha spoke about Brahman, though I'm not really surprised. My point here, however, referred to your last post's specific inquiry, really.

I am just trying to find out if he did make a final judgement on the subject...

You will find that he did not.

actually, whilst that seems to be correct it actually is not. You sort of cover this later in your post. it really depends upon the being that is putting the question to the Buddha regarding this topic. if the being were of inferior capacity, the Buddha simply replied with "noble silence." if the being were of middling capacity, the Buddha rejected the views of eternalism and nihilism and affirmed the idea of karma and vipaka, for those of greater capacity, the Buddha taught that there was no "ultimate ground of being", no creator deity and no beginning discernable.

let me further add that the Buddhas rejection of a creator deity is not strictly a religious objecton. it is also a philosophical objection as the notion of a creator deity is antithical to the world view of becomming which characterize the four Buddhist philosophical schools.

The Buddha's 'doctrine', if we can loosely call it so, did not include affirmations or rejections of Gods, even though it did speak of Gods. Buddhism does not formally accept or reject the existence of Gods, but it had no problem speaking about them (and did so VERY, VERY often).

the Suttas relate that the tradition is called "The Doctrine and Discipline" by the Buddha so it very much has a core doctrine which is upheld as being correct.

the Tipitaka affirms the existence of deities and devas yet it denies the existence of a Creator Deity. the English language word "gods" or "god" connote beings which are not really the same, generally speaking, as the sorts of deities which are talked about. in any event, the Suttas relate the Buddha Shakyamuni being the teacher of men and gods/devas and several of them relate the Buddha ascending to the heavenly states to teach the Dharma to the gods.

in terms of ones day to day practice, however, such considerations are not really relevant.

metta,

~v

 

[jiii]

actually, whilst that seems to be correct it actually is not. You sort of cover this later in your post. it really depends upon the being that is putting the question to the Buddha regarding this topic. if the being were of inferior capacity, the Buddha simply replied with "noble silence." if the being were of middling capacity, the Buddha rejected the views of eternalism and nihilism and affirmed the idea of karma and vipaka, for those of greater capacity, the Buddha taught that there was no "ultimate ground of being", no creator deity and no beginning discernable.

Well, okay...what I was trying to put forth was mostly that, although the Buddha didn't go out of his way to avoid speaking about gods, such things were not a dogmatic belief...and as such, not 'final', really. One Buddhist might be very familiar with a large system of deities, but the next Buddhist might rarely mention them, even know little of them...both could, hypothetically speaking, attain Nirvana no different from the other. Vadradhara, correct me if I'm wrong here. Take the "Pure Land Sect"...although Amitaba is decidedly the most notable character of this type of Buddhism, followers still aren't really expected to 'believe' that Amitaba is actually a non-incarnate Buddha...that is, that he actually exists (or does not exist, or arises, or does not arise, or that he is future, past, or present...and on and on). They can, and it's all good, but they don't really have to, at all, to follow the "Pure Land" way.

I've found that in Buddhism, from text to text, it seems that many different beliefs are accepted or rejected. But I cannot find many instances when these particular beliefs are strictly upheld as being so. Despite the thousands of 'beliefs' that Buddha speaks of throughout the texts of various sects and eras of Buddhism, I have still found that Watts was correct when he said that," Ultimately, ideas are quite incidental to Buddhism." Though, I realize that this tricky to explain in juxtaposition to the deity-filled texts of Buddhism. I also think that it is this underpinning of pointing at something beyond ideas that universally links so many varied Buddhist schools of thought or practice. I simply think that if someone were to come to the Buddha particularly hung up on Brahman for one reason or another, it wouldn't at all be unlikely that the Buddha might tell that person, in so many words, that the issue is moot so far as attaining Nirvana.

the Suttas relate that the tradition is called "The Doctrine and Discipline" by the Buddha so it very much has a core doctrine which is upheld as being correct.

the Tipitaka affirms the existence of deities and devas yet it denies the existence of a Creator Deity. the English language word "gods" or "god" connote beings which are not really the same, generally speaking, as the sorts of deities which are talked about. in any event, the Suttas relate the Buddha Shakyamuni being the teacher of men and gods/devas and several of them relate the Buddha ascending to the heavenly states to teach the Dharma to the gods.

I am certainly aware of Buddhism's "Wheel of Becoming", for instance, which involves both gods (devas), demons (asuras), and ghosts (pretas). I assume that most that practice Buddhism are familiar with this...however, I hardly think that a formal acceptance or denial of these entities was in any way core to Buddhist practice. Perhaps it was part of Buddhist belief, but Buddhist belief has always been known to be something that, at best, points at the "truth"...and, because of this, there is nothing really final about it in the same sense that, say, it is a pretty fundamental and necessary belief and 'final' belief of Christianity that Jesus was the Son of God. Again, correct me if I am wrong here, Vad.

in terms of ones day to day practice, however, such considerations are not really relevant.

Indeed. I would furthermore posit that, by and large, one's day to day practice is that which is emphasized to the utmost over almost everything else, and certainly before any formal 'acceptance', or otherwise, of the many deities that Buddhism describes or seems to deny.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste jiii,

thank you for the post.

Well, okay...what I was trying to put forth was mostly that, although the Buddha didn't go out of his way to avoid speaking about gods, such things were not a dogmatic belief...and as such, not 'final', really.

you are correct, he didn't avoid the subject of deities at all. they are frequently mentioned in the suttas and have, in some cases, been directly responsible for some humans Awakening.

you are also correct that it was not a dogmatic belief, it was more of a statement of fact. the Suttas relate several instances where the deities and devas made themselves manifest and visible to earth beings, especially during some of the specific instances which we refer to as the First, Second and Third Turning of the Wheel of Dharma.

One Buddhist might be very familiar with a large system of deities, but the next Buddhist might rarely mention them, even know little of them...both could, hypothetically speaking, attain Nirvana no different from the other.

that is correct. ones views regarding deities is inconsequential with regards to the attainment of Nibbana/Nirvana or of Annuttara Samyak Sambodhi.

Vadradhara, correct me if I'm wrong here. Take the "Pure Land Sect"...although Amitaba is decidedly the most notable character of this type of Buddhism, followers still aren't really expected to 'believe' that Amitaba is actually a non-incarnate Buddha...that is, that he actually exists (or does not exist, or arises, or does not arise, or that he is future, past, or present...and on and on). They can, and it's all good, but they don't really have to, at all, to follow the "Pure Land" way.

i am not a Pure Land adherent though Takiri is, i believe.

in any event.. the question, itself, is the real problem since it is presuming the existence of some sort of "i" or "being" which could be identified as Amitahba. the Buddha Shakyamuni answered this question with the famous simile of the fire that has gone out.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html

I've found that in Buddhism, from text to text, it seems that many different beliefs are accepted or rejected. But I cannot find many instances when these particular beliefs are strictly upheld as being so.

the monastic orders, of all Three Vehicles have a set of texts which establish the correct discipline for the monks and nuns. these doctrines do not have anything to do with deities with the exception of certain Vajrayana texts but this more in the context of Tantra.

Despite the thousands of 'beliefs' that Buddha speaks of throughout the texts of various sects and eras of Buddhism, I have still found that Watts was correct when he said that," Ultimately, ideas are quite incidental to Buddhism." Though, I realize that this tricky to explain in juxtaposition to the deity-filled texts of Buddhism.

the ideas are, however, how things are communicated to other human beings. without which there would be no Liberation possible. the pitfall, as it is mentioned in the Suttas, is to become trapped by the Buddhist ideas in the same way that one was trapped in the non-Buddhist ideas, you've just changed one set for the other.

nevertheless, one can still enter the Stream and attain the fruit of a Foe Destroyer whilst being trapped in the Buddhist ideas, to attain Liberation requires putting down even these ideas.

I also think that it is this underpinning of pointing at something beyond ideas that universally links so many varied Buddhist schools of thought or practice. I simply think that if someone were to come to the Buddha particularly hung up on Brahman for one reason or another, it wouldn't at all be unlikely that the Buddha might tell that person, in so many words, that the issue is moot so far as attaining Nirvana.

indeed, Upaya is the term. the Buddha would see through the Dharma Eye and know precisely what was needed to be said to the individual to cause them to seek the religious life.

I am certainly aware of Buddhism's "Wheel of Becoming", for instance, which involves both gods (devas), demons (asuras), and ghosts (pretas). I assume that most that practice Buddhism are familiar with this...however, I hardly think that a formal acceptance or denial of these entities was in any way core to Buddhist practice.

many Suttas make it quite clear that the Buddha Shakyamuni was talking about a literal rebirth in to these various states of woe, as they are called. the belief in a literal rebirth is, however, one of the teachings that one cannot verify until a certain level of spiritual development has been attained. according to the Suttas, when a being can attain the 1st Jhanna they can recall all the previous arisings in detail and depth and they will see the clear working of karma over the vast time scales involved.

as regards practice, it really depends on the school and the Vehicle that you are practicing as they each have a style which is suited for those sorts of beings. there is a wide array and diversity in the Buddhist practice lineages as there should be, in my view.

Perhaps it was part of Buddhist belief, but Buddhist belief has always been known to be something that, at best, points at the "truth"...and, because of this, there is nothing really final about it in the same sense that, say, it is a pretty fundamental and necessary belief and 'final' belief of Christianity that Jesus was the Son of God. Again, correct me if I am wrong here, Vad.

i would have to say that this summation is incorrect. there are, indeed, "core values" if you will, that one must accept to be able to practice the Dharma in any meaningful sense. these doctrines are called the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path and we can get into these in more detail if you'd like. with regards to the laiety, there are 5 Precepts which must be upheld whereas the monastics have anywhere from 220-250, depending on Vehicle and school and so forth.

the 5 Precepts are sort of like the Jewish and Christian traditions 10 Commandments in that they are pithy guides for ethical and moral conduct.

Indeed. I would furthermore posit that, by and large, one's day to day practice is that which is emphasized to the utmost over almost everything else, and certainly before any formal 'acceptance', or otherwise, of the many deities that Buddhism describes or seems to deny.

ones day to day practice may involve these very deities the many practice lineages of Buddha Dharma have many different ways of working with beings and, especially in the Tantric schools, the use of deity practice is quite prevelant.

the Zen and Ch'an schools of practice, by contrast, focus much of their attention on the practice of, as their name says, "ch'an" or "zen". this is a form of breathing meditation which Buddha Shakyamuni extolled as the "one practice which completes all 18."

in the end, it is a matter of personal aptitude and the typical measures needed to ensure a dedicated practice of the methods for Liberation. as the Suttas relate "the Ocean is of one taste."

metta,

~v

 

[jiii]

Thanks for the reply, Vad. I feel like I'm not really expressing well what I mean in many of these cases, but your reply covered everything which I wondered about.

Though, in a sense, I still maintain that Buddhist belief is not really belief in a normal sense. There has not been just one Buddhist writer over the centuries that has shown that all belief in the Buddha's doctrine is of little or no value, and that Nirvana is none of the things they have been ever told it was by anyone, including the Buddha himself. Yet, they still did not break the precepts, and did not show the least trace of relaxing their striving for Nirvana.

And, too, in many instances, it has been said that to become 'awakened', one must let go even of Buddhism. Those that did become awakened most certainly let go of even Buddhism, yet they continued practicing Buddhism wihtout a thought.

By the last two examples, all I mean to say is that it is no undisclosed secret that the highest level of attainment is no reliance on ideas of right or wrong, preconceptions, crystallized values, patterns of conditioned conduct...no reliance on Nirvana, itself. No reliance on Four Noble Truths to show one the way, no reliance on the behavior tenets of the Eightfold Path, no need to involve one's self with them. Those that reached this level of attainment, though, would never break the precepts, and might talk at length about the eightfold path, and the four noble truths. The beliefs themselves had their time, their place...but enlightenment could not occur with attachment to these as a rule, in the same sense that you can't make one moral by imposing laws upon them. At a certain point, the individual to look within and discover the fountain where these ideas originally emerged from. When he did that, he talk about the precepts, the four noble truths, the eigthtfold path, all day long, concisely, appropriately, and revealingly...but he didn't need to believe them...it was simply all he could do.

I feel like I'm not expressing myself to well here. I'm also kind of scratching my head, thinking," How did Brahman and Buddhism get to this?" LOL. :-D

 

[Snoopy]

Maybe: it's the moon, not the finger pointing at it?

Snoopy.

 

[moseslmpg]

OK, I have a question then:

If the Buddha answered questions according to the capacity of his audience, then what makes his judgement on the absence of a creator deity/entity so final? If there are other deities I don't see any reason why there is not some creator deity, or at least a psychological construct that can be likened to a creator analogous to the Demiurge of Gnosticism.

Also, what was so special about Buddha that made him the first Buddha? Surely someone else in history decided to meditate on the nature of suffering before him. Or was he just our Buddha, with others manifesting on different planes at different times?

 

[jiii]

If the Buddha answered questions according to the capacity of his audience, then what makes his judgement on the absence of a creator deity/entity so final?

In my understanding, and within the line of reasoning I have posted earlier, I don't think that there is anything particularly final about his judgement on the absence of a creator. The Buddha sometimes rejected that view, indeed, but strictly speaking, his views on a creator god, however they may have been expressed, were of no particular inherent value to the Buddha's doctrine. Determining whether or not there was a creator god was a moot point in most circumstances, and had nothing to do with Nirvana or practice, really. Only in the case of 'skillful means' (upaya, as Vadrajhara mentioned) did his comments on such things hold any particular value, because with his 'Buddha eyes' (it's vague, I know) he saw that so-and-so answer would bring his listener closer to the middle path. Such comments are profound indeed, but one would be mistaken to make assumptions about the Buddha's beliefs based upon this.

The problem with this being translated to a Western understanding of Buddhism is perhaps because in so many Western societies there are two basic options: belief in God, or denial of God. There is no room for the 'middle path' in such a categorical outlook. This was never the case with the Buddha, but he is often understood that way as a result of contact with Western culture. And, hey, it's not just Westerners...I'm sure that such an interpretation rubs off on just about every culture, but Western culture particularly.

Also, what was so special about Buddha that made him the first Buddha? Surely someone else in history decided to meditate on the nature of suffering before him. Or was he just our Buddha, with others manifesting on different planes at different times?

Well, to be blunt, he was the first being to attain Nirvana and point the way for sentient beings. Of course, this really just moves your question from, "What was so special about the Buddha?" to "What was so special about nirvana?" I think not so needlessly. What was so special about the Buddha was that he pointed the way to Nirvana.

It is very likely that many people meditated on the nature of suffering previous to the Buddha, and perhaps people attained Nirvana prior to that, but they apparently either didn't know, or hadn't the slightest clue how to point to it.

There are some schools of Buddhism that express a view in which he was, in fact, the first human being ever to attain Nirvana...that's that. That's definitely the standard viewpoint, and it's a very accurate one. However, as Buddhism developed, this idea was sometimes subject to change. In one text, in particular, the Buddha is portrayed describing himself to a massive gathering of boddhisatvas and devas. He suggests, in so many words, that he has 'always been' the Buddha, that his Buddhahood was never limited by something like human measurements of time. It is my opinion that this instance was created to illuminate that aspect to Nirvana that is sometimes left unexamined, which is that, generally speaking, Nirvana was not something the Buddha really 'possessed', as it was transcendance of the possessing self. When he says that he has always been the Buddha, he is expressing that Nirvana isn't something he 'got', but something that he realized. He had always been the Buddha, really. And yet, 'always been' is too much loose language, because the Buddha was keen to see that there was no permanent or seperate self which exists over time, that there was no 'then' in which to have 'always been'. There was just the Buddha, here and now. And yet, still, all was change, nothing was not arising and passing away. Even the Buddha, even every idea about Nirvana. The Buddha saw this, and was enlightened...that's why he was the Buddha, and that's also why he was always the Buddha.

Neither answer is incorrect...but both paint only a certain side of the picture.

 

[moseslmpg]

Well, to be blunt, he was the first being to attain Nirvana and point the way for sentient beings. Of course, this really just moves your question from, "What was so special about the Buddha?" to "What was so special about nirvana?" I think not so needlessly. What was so special about the Buddha was that he pointed the way to Nirvana.

It is very likely that many people meditated on the nature of suffering previous to the Buddha, and perhaps people attained Nirvana prior to that, but they apparently either didn't know, or hadn't the slightest clue how to point to it.

There are some schools of Buddhism that express a view in which he was, in fact, the first human being ever to attain Nirvana...that's that. That's definitely the standard viewpoint, and it's a very accurate one. However, as Buddhism developed, this idea was sometimes subject to change. In one text, in particular, the Buddha is portrayed describing himself to a massive gathering of boddhisatvas and devas. He suggests, in so many words, that he has 'always been' the Buddha, that his Buddhahood was never limited by something like human measurements of time. It is my opinion that this instance was created to illuminate that aspect to Nirvana that is sometimes left unexamined, which is that, generally speaking, Nirvana was not something the Buddha really 'possessed', as it was transcendance of the possessing self. When he says that he has always been the Buddha, he is expressing that Nirvana isn't something he 'got', but something that he realized. He had always been the Buddha, really. And yet, 'always been' is too much loose language, because the Buddha was keen to see that there was no permanent or seperate self which exists over time, that there was no 'then' in which to have 'always been'. There was just the Buddha, here and now. And yet, still, all was change, nothing was not arising and passing away. Even the Buddha, even every idea about Nirvana. The Buddha saw this, and was enlightened...that's why he was the Buddha, and that's also why he was always the Buddha.

Neither answer is incorrect...but both paint only a certain side of the picture.

OK, I can understand the first part, seeing as it is more plausible in separating him from others. The second part, however, doesn't make much sense to me. I suppose it doesn't have to though, it would just make me feel more comfortable.

I don't see why things can not always have been, seeing as there has always been the constant changing of everything. What's the point of saying nothing exists all the time though? It just seems to get in the way of talking about things. Since nothing exists and we are likewise the nothing that does not exist, then in comparison to everything else, we exist. I mean, obviously the self does exist in come capacity, even if it is relative, so there's no reason to always point out that it doesn't exist.

 

[moseslmpg]

A sort of OT question: The Buddha never said that his way was the right way did he? I was just reading some stuff on that BuddhaNet website and that's sort of the way I feel it was presented. They were justifying Buddhist beliefs because they are supported by scientific "facts."

Also, slightly more OT, I keep finding more stuff saying that Nirvana is permanent because it exists outside of time and space. What the deal with that? This is really frustrating to me.

 

[Snoopy]

Also, what was so special about Buddha that made him the first Buddha? Surely someone else in history decided to meditate on the nature of suffering before him. Or was he just our Buddha, with others manifesting on different planes at different times?

Hi,

It is said that Shakyamuni Buddha (the one you are probably refering to) was not the first Buddha, simply the most recent one in an endless series of manifestations of perfectly enlightened beings. This idea of Shakyamuni being a fulfilment of a primordial archetype is expressed in the term Tathagata (one who has come thus and also one who has gone thus).
So there is truth in what you say!

Snoopy.

 

[Snoopy]

What's the point of saying nothing exists all the time though? It just seems to get in the way of talking about things. Since nothing exists and we are likewise the nothing that does not exist, then in comparison to everything else, we exist. I mean, obviously the self does exist in come capacity, even if it is relative, so there's no reason to always point out that it doesn't exist.

Hi,

For me (ha ha ha!), the notion of no-self means there is no unchanging, fixed thing which exists independent of everything else. All the time, moment by moment, "I" am changing both physically and psychologically. The Buddha taught that the illusion of a self/permanence in the way I have tried to express it, is core to why we feel disatisfaction; we expect ongoing stability, grasp and cling and reject, and when the universe (including our own body/mind) fails to comply with our expectations we are upset by this. Rather, we consist of a bundle of things that are forever changing.

Snoopy.

 

[Snoopy]

A sort of OT question: The Buddha never said that his way was the right way did he? I was just reading some stuff on that BuddhaNet website and that's sort of the way I feel it was presented. They were justifying Buddhist beliefs because they are supported by scientific "facts."

Hmmm, more unhelpful replies possibly! "Right" is a, er, un-Buddhist kind of term, indicative of judgments and other stuff. The Buddha declared he had discovered the path to liberation. It is up to others to investigate the teaching and determine what they make of it. Buddhism (the dharma) is meant to be "rational" and therefore "scientific" I suppose. Scientific research has leant support to changes in the brain as a result of meditation, but what this means for the dharma is another matter. I don't suppose physical science lends support to Buddhist cosmology though? I know the Dalai Lama has said that where the dharma is in conflict with scientific finding then the dharma needs to be re-evaluated.

Also, slightly more OT, I keep finding more stuff saying that Nirvana is permanent because it exists outside of time and space. What the deal with that? This is really frustrating to me

Errrrrrrrr! All conditioned phenomena are impermanent. Nirvana is "beyond" this. If you search you will find lots of descriptions of what nirvana is and isn't. I prefer to think of it as ineffable! (Call that a cop out if you will).

Don't get frustrated! In the end, the dharma is not something to accumulate until your brain if full of every book on it written. There is not the time in your life and it's not necessary. If you find value in it then it is meant to be a guide to living, not a reference work, or encyclopedia. I'm new to this site but have already ready a lot of interesting stuff on it. Of all the stuff I've read posted by Vajradhara (hope you don't mind me paraphrasing you here, if you do, slap my wrist) what struck me the most was when he (?) described Buddhism as a call to personal resonsibility. The buck stops with me. End of.

Snoopy.