Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Buddha was not a thinker per se, he was someone who discovered the human condition and the solution to the human condition of suffering by experiential realization.
As for One God - Buddhism does not suscribe to the idea of a creator God, we teach interdependent origination, causes and conditions to every arising.
I beg to differ on this: ”Buddha was not a thinker per se, he was someone who discovered the human condition and the solution to the human condition of suffering by experiential realization.”
In order to posit, postulate, contemplate, to seek knowledge or understanding, one has to use one’s mind. What go inside (conjures in) one’s mind are thoughts – therefore one is a thinker per se (apart from dreamer). Just as I write, I have to think. The sentences I construct do not come from experiential realization. If so, every sentence must be from a prior experience I can relate to.
Buddha did not discover human conditions. Those conditions already existed – birth, ageing, sickness and death. He must have experienced this before he became homeless. He was married and had a son (birth), his parents aged, family members must have fallen sick and I can’t tell who died. These are not mysteries, I knew this when I was a child! The only difference between Buddha and me is that Buddha was overtaken by those ‘sights’ and wanted to find the root cause. For me, as a kid I was too busy playing marbles and when I was 29yrs, I was more interested in 5Cs than to solve social problems!
Siddhartha had to leave the palace to seek answer from gurus, ascetics, Brahmin priests, Jain priests, etc. He couldn’t find a satisfaction answer from all these teachers and also from extreme ascetic practice such as self-mortification which he thought was able to help. Fed up, he left the group, in isolation and in deep meditation; he came up with the Noble Truths.
The 'Four Noble Truths' is the classic methodology for solving a problem:
Step 1: identify the problem situation
Step 2: determine the cause(s) of the problem
Step 3: state the desired outcome, end-result - the goal
Step 4: generate (brainstorm) solutions
The 1st NT may be derived either from experience or observation or both. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th NTs cannot be from experience. Experience means some prior encounters, past incidents, have undergone something, undertook some tasks, or conducted some experiments before. The 2nd NT is analysis (of the problem). The 3rd NT is stating (the goal) and the 4th is generating (the solutions).
Experiential realization means realising something from past experience. I cannot say that the 4th NT (the Eightfold Path) was derived from his experience as a prince or as an ascetic.
The key question to determine whether the 4NTs came from the mind or from experiential realization is: how long did Siddhartha sat under the bodhi tree?
Originally posted by Kosen pang:
Im not saying there is God . I believe when we die nothing is left but energy . energy cannot vanish . it can only transform in to other sort of energy but it will never disappear . it could be in the ethereal and enter the womb when someone is pregnant and become a new energy in that womb or it could be other sort of energy but it never disappear . it merely transform . and it does not carry a brain so energy does not recoqnize and is itself not self-conscious . which is to say it is just energy not a living thing .According to you Buddha does not 'subscribe' to the idea of god and he teaches reincarnation and cause&effects(Karma).
From what I know Buddha never deny God . at that time when he start teaching, India was already worshipping Brahmana/Brahma for ages . he merely perfected the way .
Buddha was not a thinker per se, he was someone who discovered the human condition and the solution to the human condition of suffering by experiential realization.
Someone who realized or saw a flaw in the system and proceeded to formulate a solution (in this case meditate) . Definetely sounds like a thinker . now I do not doubt his philosophy . it is good like the rest of the philosophy in this world . but it is wrong for man to make buddhism into a religion .
1) The Buddhist view is that consciousness, due to power of karmic conditions, continue to arise and take birth in samsara. Consciousness is substanceless, and arise due to requisite causes and conditions (such as karma, etc). It is not that an inanimate, non-sentient substance passes from one body to another... that is not the Buddhist view.
2) Buddha did not deny the existence of a celestial being called Maha Brahma, but he denied that he was the creator:
As for the existence of God, of the Creator of heaven and earth, this is the concept central to religion as we know it in the West. Was the Buddha an atheist or an agnostic in relation to the existence of a Supreme Being or God? ...
In the Suutras there is found a Buddhist account of Genesis. [This account appears in several sources both in the Mahayana and the Theravada Canons.] In reply to questions from His disciples, the Buddha explained that the humanity found on this planet earth once inhabited another planetary system. Ages ago when the sun of that world went nova and the planet was destroyed in the ensuing solar eruptions, the bulk of its inhabitants, as the result of their arduously practicing the Dharma for ten thousand years, were reborn on one of the higher planes of the Form World or Ruupedhaatu, a plane of existence known as Aabhaasvara or “clear light.” Here they enjoyed inconceivable bliss and felicity for countless aeons. Then, when their great store of past karma came onto maturity, our own solar system and planet earth began to evolve and some among their numbers were reborn on the lower planes of the Ruupadhaatu in the vicinity of the nascent earth. This plane of existence where they found themselves reborn is known as Brahmaaloka. The first of these beings to reawaken and be reborn, upon seeing the solar system evolving below him, exclaimed in his delight, “I am the Creator!” In this way, he came to believe that he was the actual creator of the universe which he saw about him, for he did not remember from whence he came and was born without any parents. But in actuality the manifestation of this universe was due to the collective karma of all in that company and his own individual manifestation, which was a case of apparitional birth, was due to his own great stock of meritorious karma coming into maturation at that time because the requisite secondary conditions were present.
( Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness, translated by John Myrdhin Reynolds, Snow Lion, Ithaca, NY, 2000, pages 97-99.)
124. ... [I]f Creation were dependent upon conditions, the complete collection of those causal circumstances would be the cause, and not Ishvara [Note: Ishvara was a common name for God in ancient India, similar to Yahweh.] If the complete conditions were assembled, Ishvara would be powerless not to create; and if they were absent, there would be no creation.
The Dalai Lama’s Comment:
If creation and destruction are dependent upon a collection of causal conditions, the totality of those conditions would be the cause, and not a God who is independent of and uninfluenced by events. If the causal conditions were assembled, Ishvara would be powerless not to create the resultant phenomena; and if they were not assembled, those phenomena would not be produced.
( Transcendent Wisdom, the Dalai Lama, translated by B. Alan Wallace, Snow Lion, Ithaca, New York, 1998, page 93.)
3) The reason why I said Buddhism is not philosophy is this (and note that I do not, therefore assert that Buddhism is a religion):
Lets say... you have an illness. A method is proven to work to heal/remove the illness. You go to that doctor, you take the medicine, consume according to instructions, and your illness is cured.
This is like Buddhism. The four noble truths isn't just some thoughts... it's actually what the Buddha realized and observed through his own experience, the problem that plagues mankind (suffering), its cause, and its remedy.
Philosophy is just one small component of Buddhism... just like philosophy (?) is not the main component of medicine, or science, or chemistry. For example, medicine has its own purpose, and the 'philosophy of medicine' if such things exist is not the main purpose of medicine which is to treat illnesses - people didn't invent medicine to make a philosophy out of it.
Just like you can't say medicine, biology, physics, chemistry, art, maths, began as a philosophy. It's what people observe, tested, experienced, and then applied...
Therefore see Buddhism as having a very specific purpose - to teach sentient beings their own condition and the remedy to their condition.
One main reason why Buddhism is not a philosophy in its essence, is because the truth of Buddhism does not derive from conceptual inference, but direct experience.
Let me ask you: medicine and biology is not a philosophy, do you say it is a religion? If you say medicine is philosophy, you're missing the point of medicine. If you say medicine is religion, you're missing the point of medicine. That is not the purpose.
Of course medicine and biology is neither a philosophy or a religion. They have very specific purposes, they treat specific conditions and help humanity in their ways.
Buddhism is such a thing... it is neither philosophy nor religion, it has a specific purpose which is to teach us the human condition and the way to end the human condition of suffering.
duplicate
Originally posted by I No Stupid:I beg to differ on this: ”Buddha was not a thinker per se, he was someone who discovered the human condition and the solution to the human condition of suffering by experiential realization.”
In order to posit, postulate, contemplate, to seek knowledge or understanding, one has to use one’s mind. What go inside (conjures in) one’s mind are thoughts – therefore one is a thinker per se (part from dreamer). Just as I write, I have to think. The sentences I construct do not come from experiential realization. If so, every sentence must be from a prior experience I can relate to.
Buddha did not discover human conditions. Those conditions already existed – birth, ageing, sickness and death. He must have experienced this before he became homeless. He was married and had a son (birth), his parents aged, family members must have fallen sick and I can’t tell who died. These are not mysteries, I knew this when I was a child! The only difference between Buddha and me is that Buddha was overtaken by those ‘sights’ and wanted to find the root cause. For me, as a kid I was too busy playing marbles and when I was 29yrs, I was more interested in 5Cs than to solve social problems!
Siddhartha had to leave the palace to seek answer from gurus, ascetics, Brahmin priests, Jain priests, etc. He couldn’t find a satisfaction answer from all these teachers and also from extreme ascetic practice such as self-mortification which he thought was able to help. Fed up, he left the group, in isolation and in deep meditation; he came up with the Noble Truths.
The 'Four Noble Truths' is the classic methodology for solving a problem;
Step 1: identify the problem situation
Step 2: determine the cause(s) of the problem
Step 3: state the desired outcome, end-result - the goal
Step 4: generate (brainstorm) solutions
The 1st NT may be derived either from experience or observation or both. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th NTs cannot be from experience. Experience means some prior encounters, past incidents, have undergone something, undertook some tasks, or conducted some experiments before. The 2nd NT is analysis (of the problem). The 3rd NT is stating (the goal) and the 4th is generating (the solutions).
Experiential realization means realising something from past experience. I cannot say that the 4th NT (the Eightfold Path) was derived from his experience as a prince or as an ascetic.
The key question to determine whether the 4NTs came from the mind or from experiential realization is: how long did Siddhartha sat under the bodhi tree?
In order to posit, postulate, contemplate, to seek knowledge or understanding, one has to use one’s mind. What go inside (conjures in) one’s mind are thoughts – therefore one is a thinker per se (part from dreamer). Just as I write, I have to think. The sentences I construct do not come from experiential realization. If so, every sentence must be from a prior experience I can relate to.
Your sentences do not come from experiential realization, but Buddha's is.
The 1st NT may be derived either from experience or observation or both. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th NTs cannot be from experience. Experience means some prior encounters, past incidents, have undergone something, undertook some tasks, or conducted some experiments before. The 2nd NT is analysis (of the problem). The 3rd NT is stating (the goal) and the 4th is generating (the solutions).
Nope. 1st NT is by experience, 2nd NT (cause of suffering: craving, clinging, ignorance) is also by observation of one's experience, 3rd NT (end of suffering) is also obviously his experience (he is already awakened and liberated!), 4th NT - the path to awakening, obviously is his experience - he already awakened, and he is simply trying to express how he attained his awakening! i.e. what path he followed
So obviously the 4NTs are entirely from his experience.
It has nothing to do with theorizing, brainstorming, or whatever... If it were so, it would be useless because it is simply an unproven theory.
Buddha simply spoke entirely from his experience and awakening.
Experiential realization means realising something from past experience. I cannot say that the 4th NT (the Eightfold Path) was derived from his experience as a prince or as an ascetic.
He had discovered the path by his own self, otherwise he would not have awakened, as he stated clearly that there is no way one can be awakened without following the 8 fold paths - obviously this applies to himself.
According to the early Buddhist texts,[36] after realizing that meditative jhana was the right path to awakening, but that extreme asceticism didn't work, Gautama discovered what Buddhists call the Middle Way[36]—a path of moderation away from the extremes of self-indulgence and self-mortification.[36] In a famous incident, after becoming starved and weakened, he is said to have accepted milk and rice pudding from a village girl named Sujata.[37] Such was his emaciated appearance that she wrongly believed him to be a spirit that had granted her a wish.[37]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha
The key question to determine whether the 4NTs came from the mind or from experiential realization is: how long did Siddhartha sat under the bodhi tree?
How long Siddhartha sat under the Bodhi tree (49 days) is not a matter - there are students who attained liberation and experiential realization faster than him. On many accords, his students attained experiential awakening and liberation simply by hearing his discourse! (Such as Bahiya) Such students are of immensely deep capacity. Obviously, Buddha is still the 'highest capacity' since he discovered perfect awakening of his own accord without any other person's pointers and guidance.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:1) The Buddhist view is that consciousness, due to power of karmic conditions, continue to arise and take birth in samsara. Consciousness is substanceless, and arise due to requisite causes and conditions (such as karma, etc). It is not that an inanimate, non-sentient substance passes from one body to another... that is not the Buddhist view.
2) Buddha did not deny the existence of a celestial being called Maha Brahma, but he denied that he was the creator:
- http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/dharmajim/DharmaView.html
John Reynolds, among western scholars I am familiar with, has written with clarity on this issue:
The principle here, derived from the core insight of Interdependent Transformation, is that all things appear from a causal base. This understanding is extended to the existence of entire universes or world systems. The Dalai Lama makes this same point in his commentary on Shantideva’s Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life, the Ninth Chapter on Wisdom. Verse 124 speaks directly to this discussion:
3) The reason why I said Buddhism is not philosophy is this (and note that I do not, therefore assert that Buddhism is a religion):
- a) The Perfect One is free from any theory, for the Perfect One has understood what the body is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what feeling is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what perception is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what the mental formations are, and how they arise, and pass away. He has understood what consciousness is, and how it arises, and passes away.
Therefore, I say, the Perfect One has won complete deliverance through the extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection, and getting rid of all opinions and conjectures, of all inclination to the vainglory of I and mine.
- Majjhima Nikaya, 72- b)
Lets say... you have an illness. A method is proven to work to heal/remove the illness. You go to that doctor, you take the medicine, consume according to instructions, and your illness is cured.
This is like Buddhism. The four noble truths isn't just some thoughts... it's actually what the Buddha realized and observed through his own experience, the problem that plagues mankind (suffering), its cause, and its remedy.
Philosophy is just one small component of Buddhism... just like philosophy (?) is not the main component of medicine, or science, or chemistry. For example, medicine has its own purpose, and the 'philosophy of medicine' if such things exist is not the main purpose of medicine which is to treat illnesses - people didn't invent medicine to make a philosophy out of it.
Just like you can't say medicine, biology, physics, chemistry, art, maths, began as a philosophy. It's what people observe, tested, experienced, and then applied...
Therefore see Buddhism as having a very specific purpose - to teach sentient beings their own condition and the remedy to their condition.
One main reason why Buddhism is not a philosophy in its essence, is because the truth of Buddhism does not derive from conceptual inference, but direct experience.
- .....
Let me ask you: medicine and biology is not a philosophy, do you say it is a religion? If you say medicine is philosophy, you're missing the point of medicine. If you say medicine is religion, you're missing the point of medicine. That is not the purpose.
Of course medicine and biology is neither a philosophy or a religion. They have very specific purposes, they treat specific conditions and help humanity in their ways.
Buddhism is such a thing... it is neither philosophy nor religion, it has a specific purpose which is to teach us the human condition and the way to end the human condition of suffering.
I shall comment on just these two in order to be focused:
“The Perfect One is free from any theory …. “
Don’t take just one word “theory” and then link it to philosophy. I would consider the whole context which is to say that the Buddha does not hypothesise. Anyway, everyone seems to think that philosophy is theory – that is the real problem!!! Philosophy is love for wisdom.
One main reason why Buddhism is not a philosophy in its essence, is because the truth of Buddhism does not derive from conceptual inference, but direct experience.
Truth is not necessarily derived from experience. Truth can be ascertained by experiment. Also, hypothesis (which is used in statistics) can help establish truth. In court cases, witness swore to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. Yet, lawyers will tear the truth or establish the truth by vigorous and robust cross-examinations.
I No Stupid: Truth is not necessarily derived from experience. Truth can be ascertained by experiment. Also, hypothesis (which is used in statistics) can help establish truth. In court cases, witness swore to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. Yet, lawyers will tear the truth or establish the truth by vigorous and robust cross-examinations.
Granted... truth doesn't always have to be arrived at by experience, and can be inferred and arrived at by hypothesis as well. But in this case, the point that's being made by AEN is that the historical Buddha (Shakyamuni) did indeed arrive at the 4 Noble Truths by personal and direct experience.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:In order to posit, postulate, contemplate, to seek knowledge or understanding, one has to use one’s mind. What go inside (conjures in) one’s mind are thoughts – therefore one is a thinker per se (part from dreamer). Just as I write, I have to think. The sentences I construct do not come from experiential realization. If so, every sentence must be from a prior experience I can relate to.
Your sentences do not come from experiential realization, but Buddha's is.
- a) The Perfect One is free from any theory, for the Perfect One has understood what the body is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what feeling is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what perception is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what the mental formations are, and how they arise, and pass away. He has understood what consciousness is, and how it arises, and passes away.
Therefore, I say, the Perfect One has won complete deliverance through the extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection, and getting rid of all opinions and conjectures, of all inclination to the vainglory of I and mine.
- Majjhima Nikaya, 72
The 1st NT may be derived either from experience or observation or both. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th NTs cannot be from experience. Experience means some prior encounters, past incidents, have undergone something, undertook some tasks, or conducted some experiments before. The 2nd NT is analysis (of the problem). The 3rd NT is stating (the goal) and the 4th is generating (the solutions).
Nope. 1st NT is by experience, 2nd NT (cause of suffering: craving, clinging, ignorance) is also by observation of one's experience, 3rd NT (end of suffering) is also obviously his experience (he is already awakened and liberated!), 4th NT - the path to awakening, obviously is his experience - he already awakened, and he is simply trying to express how he attained his awakening! i.e. what path he followed
So obviously the 4NTs are entirely from his experience.
It has nothing to do with theorizing, brainstorming, or whatever... If it were so, it would be useless because it is simply an unproven theory.
Buddha simply spoke entirely from his experience and awakening.
Experiential realization means realising something from past experience. I cannot say that the 4th NT (the Eightfold Path) was derived from his experience as a prince or as an ascetic.
He had discovered the path by his own self, otherwise he would not have awakened, as he stated clearly that there is no way one can be awakened without following the 8 fold paths - obviously this applies to himself.
According to the early Buddhist texts,[36] after realizing that meditative jhana was the right path to awakening, but that extreme asceticism didn't work, Gautama discovered what Buddhists call the Middle Way[36]—a path of moderation away from the extremes of self-indulgence and self-mortification.[36] In a famous incident, after becoming starved and weakened, he is said to have accepted milk and rice pudding from a village girl named Sujata.[37] Such was his emaciated appearance that she wrongly believed him to be a spirit that had granted her a wish.[37]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha
The key question to determine whether the 4NTs came from the mind or from experiential realization is: how long did Siddhartha sat under the bodhi tree?
How long Siddhartha sat under the Bodhi tree (49 days) is not a matter - there are students who attained liberation and experiential realization faster than him. On many accords, his students attained experiential awakening and liberation simply by hearing his discourse! (Such as Bahiya) Such students are of immensely deep capacity. Obviously, Buddha is still the 'highest capacity' since he discovered perfect awakening of his own accord without any other person's pointers and guidance.
I draw one conclusion here to simplify and not because I cannot answer you. You are already very fixated with 'theory' and 'experiential realization'.
Also, it is absolutely delusional to say that 2nd, 3rd and 4th NTs come from experiential realization. And I have debunked your assertion. You will not accept it and I do not think you would and it is just as well for you to keep to your ‘theory’ that 2nd, 3rd and 4th NTs are derived from experiential realization.
My last question is significant because if one had the experience, it wouldn’t take 49 days to come up with the 4NTs. To be fair to the Buddha, I would give him time to formulate the 2nd & 4th NT. Look at the steps I showed you buy you deliberately ignored them.
Your comment about other students is irrelevant.
Originally posted by realization:I No Stupid: Truth is not necessarily derived from experience. Truth can be ascertained by experiment. Also, hypothesis (which is used in statistics) can help establish truth. In court cases, witness swore to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. Yet, lawyers will tear the truth or establish the truth by vigorous and robust cross-examinations.
Granted... truth doesn't always have to be arrived at by experience, and can be inferred and arrived at by hypothesis as well. But in this case, the point that's being made by AEN is that the historical Buddha (Shakyamuni) did indeed arrive at the 4 Noble Truths by personal and direct experience.
Well, I see his points and I am differing.
Originally posted by I No Stupid:Well, I see his points and I am differing.
Yes, I see that you are begging to differ on that point.
OK then, two questions from me for now?
1. Why is it "absolutely delusional to say that 2nd, 3rd and 4th NTs come from experiential realization"?
2. If you met a person right now who claims to have found his/her way out of the human condition of suffering - claiming to be just as free as the Buddha was after enlightenment - would you believe your eyes/ears?
I shall irrefutably prove to you that Buddha has never used logical inference at all:
1) "Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.'"
2) "This Dhamma that I have discovered is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful and sublime, not within the sphere of reasoning, subtle, to be experienced by the wise. But this generation [pajâ] delights in adhesion [âlaya], takes delight in adhesion, rejoices in adhesion. For such a generation this state [thânam] is hard to see, that is, specific conditionality, dependent origination. And this state too is hard to see, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation and Nibbana.”
3) The Buddha said 'Four Noble Truths' - not 'Four Noble Problem Solving Analysis' - which means, the Truth of Suffering, The Truth of the Cause of Suffering, The Truth of the End of Suffering, The Truth of the Path towards the End of Suffering.
Implying that, the Buddha discovered these truths for himself directly and experientially. In other words, he KNEW all these from experience already - otherwise how can he state them as truths?
Furthermore, since the Buddha was already for quite some time enlightened and liberated when he taught the four noble truths and not prior, he obviously does not need to brainstorm some 'new problem solving ideas' as obviously, he just needed to speak from experience, what worked for him, what led to his enlightenment. If it was not what he experienced or what worked for him, it would be useless and inappropriate.
Since he is already liberated at that time, why does he need to 'infer' that there is an end to suffering? He is already freed from suffering, why would he need to infer or logically think of a goal? He already experienced it, therefore he states that the end of suffering is a Truth.
Since he is already liberated from suffering and enlightened, he must obviously know what is the cause of suffering as well, he must have experienced how suffering arise, he must certainly have discovered what was absent which resulted in the end of suffering (i.e. delusion). All these must be very clear to an awakened person by experience, otherwise how can he be called 'perfectly awakened'?
And as I explained earlier, 4th NT was entirely by his own experience and observation of what is the necessary conditions for awakening.
4) You said: "if one had the experience, it wouldn’t take 49 days to come up with the 4NTs."
And my reply is "Huh? Who said he took 49 days to come up with the 4NTs"?
I said, he took 49 days to attain enlightenment under the Bodhi tree. In other words, he attained true realization and experience 49 days after sitting under the Bodhi tree.
I did not say he had an experience, after which he took 49 days to come up with the 4 NTs. Obviously once he attained enlightenment, he already gained knowledge of the four noble truths simultaneously with his enlightenment, otherwise it would not be called enlightenment!
lastly you should read this:
http://anupassi.blogspot.com/2011/03/vipassana-and-where-to-find-it-in.html
In our normal day to day life we usually try to understand things by
thinking about them, by applying logic and reasoning, by making
inference, by deducing, etc. All these involve the power of the
intellect. In this way we derive knowledge, understanding, and even
wisdom. But vipassan� wisdom does not arise in this way. How then does
it arise? It arises simply through the process of
deep observation. But when we say deep observation one must not think
that this observation involves thinking or pondering about the object
being observed. For normally when we observe something we tend to also
think and ponder about it. But for vipassan� wisdom to arise this
observation must be a pure process of observation freed from all kinds
of intellectual thought activities. One simply open up the mind with
mindfulness and be aware of the object of observation as it really is
without adding anything (imputing any subjective values) to the object
or subtracting anything from it. One simply receives and watch the
object as it is, as it appears to the observing mind.
Originally posted by realization:Yes, I see that you are begging to differ on that point.
OK then, two questions from me for now?
1. Why is it "absolutely delusional to say that 2nd, 3rd and 4th NTs come from experiential realization"?
2. If you met a person right now who claims to have found his/her way out of the human condition of suffering - claiming to be just as free as the Buddha was after enlightenment - would you believe your eyes/ears?
Answer to (1): Have you read my post of 23 July 2:00AM? There are four steps in a problem-solving methodology. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th NTs correspond to Step 2, 3, and 4. Do you think that those steps MUST come about from experience only? Note, I am not saying that they cannot come from experience. But to assert that they MUST is delusional (i.e. mistaken notion).
Answer to (2): Many sages, gurus, philosophers have been trying to solve social ills or what irks this world or why life sucks. If someone comes up with something similar to the Buddha, there could be either a coincidence or plagiarism. In fact, some western spiritual gurus hijacked Buddha’s teachings and claimed to be their own ideas or modified or interpreted them differently.
Any claim will have to be ascertained and verified. I do not believe blindly or by faith. I start from the position of a sceptic and work towards a believer.
Originally posted by I No Stupid:Answer to (1): Have you read my post of 23 July 2:00AM? There are four steps in a problem-solving methodology. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th NTs correspond to Step 2, 3, and 4. Do you think that those steps MUST come about from experience only? Note, I am not saying that they cannot come from experience. But to assert that they MUST is delusional (i.e. mistaken notion).
Answer to (2): Many sages, gurus, philosophers have been trying to solve social ills or what irks this world or why life sucks. If someone comes up with something similar to the Buddha, there could be either a coincidence or plagiarism. In fact, some western spiritual gurus hijacked Buddha’s teachings and claimed to be their own ideas or modified or interpreted them differently.
Any claim will have to be ascertained and verified. I do not believe blindly or by faith. I start from the position of a sceptic and work towards a believer.
(1) For mundane problems, it doesn't need to. I am however stating that, it is very very obvious that Buddha's teachings came entirely from his experience, which I have explained.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I shall irrefutably prove to you that Buddha has never used logical inference at all:
1) "Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.'"
2) "This Dhamma that I have discovered is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful and sublime, not within the sphere of reasoning, subtle, to be experienced by the wise. But this generation [pajâ] delights in adhesion [âlaya], takes delight in adhesion, rejoices in adhesion. For such a generation this state [thânam] is hard to see, that is, specific conditionality, dependent origination. And this state too is hard to see, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation and Nibbana.”
3) The Buddha said 'Four Noble Truths' - not 'Four Noble Problem Solving Analysis' - which means, the Truth of Suffering, The Truth of the Cause of Suffering, The Truth of the End of Suffering, The Truth of the Path towards the End of Suffering.
Implying that, the Buddha discovered these truths for himself directly and experientially. In other words, he KNEW all these from experience already - otherwise how can he state them as truths?
Furthermore, since the Buddha was already for quite some time enlightened and liberated when he taught the four noble truths and not prior, he obviously does not need to brainstorm some 'new problem solving ideas' as obviously, he just needed to speak from experience, what worked for him, what led to his enlightenment. If it was not what he experienced or what worked for him, it would be useless and inappropriate.
Since he is already liberated at that time, why does he need to 'infer' that there is an end to suffering? He is already freed from suffering, why would he need to infer or logically think of a goal? He already experienced it, therefore he states that the end of suffering is a Truth.
Since he is already liberated from suffering and enlightened, he must obviously know what is the cause of suffering as well, he must have experienced how suffering arise, he must certainly have discovered what was absent which resulted in the end of suffering (i.e. delusion). All these must be very clear to an awakened person by experience, otherwise how can he be called 'perfectly awakened'?
And as I explained earlier, 4th NT was entirely by his own experience and observation of what is the necessary conditions for awakening.
4) You said: "if one had the experience, it wouldn’t take 49 days to come up with the 4NTs."
And my reply is "Huh? Who said he took 49 days to come up with the 4NTs"?
I said, he took 49 days to attain enlightenment under the Bodhi tree. In other words, he attained true realization and experience 49 days after sitting under the Bodhi tree.
I did not say he had an experience, after which he took 49 days to come up with the 4 NTs. Obviously once he attained enlightenment, he already gained knowledge of the four noble truths simultaneously with his enlightenment, otherwise it would not be called enlightenment!
lastly you should read this:
http://anupassi.blogspot.com/2011/03/vipassana-and-where-to-find-it-in.html
In our normal day to day life we usually try to understand things by thinking about them, by applying logic and reasoning, by making inference, by deducing, etc. All these involve the power of the intellect. In this way we derive knowledge, understanding, and even wisdom. But vipassan� wisdom does not arise in this way. How then does it arise? It arises simply through the process of deep observation. But when we say deep observation one must not think that this observation involves thinking or pondering about the object being observed. For normally when we observe something we tend to also think and ponder about it. But for vipassan� wisdom to arise this observation must be a pure process of observation freed from all kinds of intellectual thought activities. One simply open up the mind with mindfulness and be aware of the object of observation as it really is without adding anything (imputing any subjective values) to the object or subtracting anything from it. One simply receives and watch the object as it is, as it appears to the observing mind.
I have to cut to the chaste and come to the point. If the 'Four Noble Truths' is not to solve a problem (of suffering), then what it is for?
I am aware of the Kalama Sutta but I don't it see it exactly the way you interpreted it in so far as my contention that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th NT need not come from experiential realization.
Your answer to what I posed: "The key question to determine whether the 4NTs came from the mind or from experiential realization is: how long did Siddhartha sat under the bodhi tree? " was 49 days.
Originally posted by I No Stupid:I have to cut to the chaste and come to the point. If the 'Four Noble Truths' is not to solve a problem (of suffering), then what it is for?
I am aware of the Kalama Sutta but I don't it see it exactly the way you interpreted it in so far as my contention that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th NT need not come from experiential realization.
Your answer to what I posed: "The key question to determine whether the 4NTs came from the mind or from experiential realization is: how long did Siddhartha sat under the bodhi tree? " was 49 days.
Four Noble Truth solves the problem of suffering, but it did not came from logical analysis.
I said Siddhartha sat under the Bodhi tree for 49 days before attaining enlightenment... I did not say he attained enlightenment and afterwards took 49 days to figure out the 4 noble truths. All the while during the 49 days he was not thinking or intellectualizing: he was practicing anapanasati and entering deep states of meditation absorption.
And by the way why does 49 days matter? Some people knew 4 noble truths intellectually but took many years of practice before attaining enlightenment, whereas some got it in an instant, what are you trying to prove?
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:(1) For mundane problems, it doesn't need to. I am however stating that, it is very very obvious that Buddha's teachings came entirely from his experience, which I have explained.
I can accept that some of his teachings came from experience but not 'entirely' as you claimed. There were situations in which the Buddha had to answer questions where it was clear that he had no prior incident to recall or rely on. Out of his wisdom, he gave advice or admonition (accordingly).
Going by experiential realization: in order to tackle incident X, I must have been in a similar situation as incident X or expose to it. However, it is possible to solve incident Y using experience in incident X, by extension, logic, inference, extroplation, common-sense, wisdom.
One good example is the Vinaya rules which were made as and when a situation arise. If experential realization was available, the Buddha would have made all the rules at once.
@I No Stupid: You initially said in a post above that "The key question to determine whether the 4NTs came from the mind or from experiential realization is: how long did Siddhartha sat under the bodhi tree?"
Why would the length of time Siddharta sat under the bodhi tree have any bearing on whether or not the 4NTs were derived by postulation or experiential realization?
Siddharta left the palace at the age of 29 and attained enlightenment at the age of 35. Why do you not factor in the years of misadventures in his practice as being also important for him to arrive at final enlightenment? The 49 days under the bodhi tree represented a concerted effort by him to arrive at the Truth; but had it not been for the meanderings taken in years prior, could he for example have known about the need for moderation away from ascetism?
Using a mundane example, I got my college degree not by my studying for that one grand exam at the end of Final Year. The path leading to my graduation really started right from the first day of Primary One.... maybe even from earlier than that. I sorta remember my Mum teaching me to read while I was in kindergarten....
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Four Noble Truth solves the problem of suffering, but it did not came from logical analysis.
I said Siddhartha sat under the Bodhi tree for 49 days before attaining enlightenment... I did not say he attained enlightenment and afterwards took 49 days to figure out the 4 noble truths. All the while during the 49 days he was not thinking or intellectualizing: he was practicing anapanasati and entering deep states of meditation absorption.
And by the way why does 49 days matter? Some people knew 4 noble truths but intellectually took many years of practice before attaining enlightenment, whereas some got it in an instant, what are you trying to prove?
To simplify, let's take the 4th NT - the Eightfold Path. If this Path is formulated by experiential realization, then the Buddha would have to take years to accumulate experience first before he sat under the bodhi tree.
Perhaps, it would be better to rephrase my question: how long did Siddhartha took to come up with the ‘Noble Truth’ after he abandoned the 5 companions?
Originally posted by realization:@I No Stupid: You initially said in a post above that "The key question to determine whether the 4NTs came from the mind or from experiential realization is: how long did Siddhartha sat under the bodhi tree?"
Why would the length of time Siddharta sat under the bodhi tree have any bearing on whether or not the 4NTs were derived by postulation or experiential realization?
Siddharta left the palace at the age of 29 and attained enlightenment at the age of 35. Why do you not factor in the years of misadventures in his practice as being also important for him to arrive at final enlightenment? The 49 days under the bodhi tree represented a concerted effort by him to arrive at the Truth; but had it not been for the meanderings taken in years prior, could he for example have known about the need for moderation away from ascetism?
Using a mundane example, I got my college degree not by my studying for that one grand exam at the end of Final Year. The path leading to my graduation really started right from the first day of Primary One.... maybe even from earlier than that. I sorta remember my Mum teaching me to read while I was in kindergarten....
Let's include the years Buddha was bumbling around. He learned a lot directly as well as indirectly. He was seeking answer to why life sucks and he didn't get a satisfactory answer from those around him. That's why he decided to go alone and use his OWN MIND and not that of others!
If the 6 yrs of bumbling around were the experience he needed to formulate the ‘Noble Truth’ without a single thought input, he would have done it in one day!
Originally posted by I No Stupid:To simplify, let's take the 4th NT - the Eightfold Path. If this Path is formulated by experiential realization, then the Buddha would have to take years to accumulate experience first before he sat under the bodhi tree.
Perhaps, it would be better to rephrase my question: how long did Siddhartha took to come up with the ‘Noble Truth’ after he abandoned the 5 companions?
Buddha, after remembering and experiencing the first jhana, and finding that meditative absorption to be the way to insight, he abandoned the 5 companions and sat under the bodhi trees for 49 days. In short: 49 days, after he abandoned the 5 companions. And he did not 'come up' with 4NT: he realized it in his own experience.
Like I said, your assumption is wrong.
To attain experiential realization, a long time is not required. Bahiya got it immediately! Many others got it immediately. Some took weeks. Some took months. Some took years. Buddha happened to take 7 weeks.
First of all, do you understand that the attainment of enlightenment in Buddhism is not an intellectual realization but an experiential realization? Secondly, don't you know that Buddha attained enlightenment after 49 days? So what are you even refuting?
Here's what Buddha said in the Mahasatipatthana regarding experiential realization:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html
"Now, if anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven years, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance — non-return.
"Let alone seven years. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for six years... five... four... three... two years... one year... seven months... six months... five... four... three... two months... one month... half a month, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance — non-return.
"Let alone half a month. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven days, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance — non-return.
"'This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding — in other words, the four frames of reference.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said."
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed One's words.
And here's what Steven Norquist says:
http://www.spiritualteachers.org/norquist_article.htm
Basically any practice that can shock you into seeing what is really going on is acceptable. But understand, you want to know what's really going on, to feel it, to contact reality. It shouldn’t take long, a few years at most, less for some. If a practice or a teacher tells you it will take 10 or 20 years, find a new practice or teacher. Remember you are your own salvation, ultimately it is you who will wake you up. Any method that can shock you into seeing what is really going on is acceptable but the perspective shift must occur.
Just as I can tell you, the direct path contemplation such as self-inquiry and anatta contemplation does indeed lead to realization in a matter of few years. (less than 2 years for me)
If someone tells you that you need to sit in caves for decades to gain enlightenment, don't listen to that person, don't follow that person. A lot of unenlightened people are spreading misinfo about enlightenment nowadays.
Hmm OK, so can I sum it up in this way?
Had the Buddha been able to meet teachers who already knew the 4 Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, it really would have been as is said in the Mahasatipatthana.
7 days, or if more... then 7 years to reach experiential knowing of Anatta.
As it was, the Buddha needed to make sense of all the existing teachings and methods of the time; and so he spent some time "bumbling around" figuring out what works vs what doesn't work.
OK to put it this way?
"hahaha, finally the empty head decided to fill it with more MUD-dle and convinced himself I am not able to answer. Wow, he is full of himself, not half-empty.
So I see you have pickle-pick a cherry and make a spirit - cherry brandy."
See ad hominems and poisoning the well... thats typical of I No Stupid.
"From a long list, you highlighted ‘spiritual practice’ only. Spiritual practice means putting into practise spiritual values such as charity, forgiveness, etc. Didn’t I say for the next 45yrs he taught the ‘Truth’ then he developed the precepts, .... , etc. That development came after he formulated the Noble Truths. The ‘Noble Truths’ was the beginning of Buddhism (Buddha’s teachings) and the rationale leading to his search for the ‘Truth’ was why there is birth, ageing, sickness and death. In other words he was trying to find why life sucks and a way out of life sucks! That is PHILOSOPHY."
Ad nauseum and half truths. There are more of the spiritual practices he was teaching...
"I have to correct a serious misconception – spiritual practice alone does not lead to Enlightenment."
Premature assumption leading to implication. No one have said other wise
"Next you said “Buddhism is not a theory”. I didn’t say it is a theory! I said Buddhism began as a philosophy. The problem is ‘almost’ every Buddhist (you are one of them) seems to think that philosophy is all theory. Hence, that is why they do not consider Buddhism a philosophy. If you have read many Buddhist literatures whether written by scholars or monks, Buddha’s thoughts/doctrines have been referred to as Buddhist philosophy many times. In my post I said that theory without practice is of little use, it is like knowledge without application. And I said that even if we place emphasis on practice, it does not disqualify the fact that Buddhism began as a philosophy."
You did compare Buddhism to theory, to medicine, to philosopy. So no point making half bake concepts as truth to back what your idea of Buddhism is. Is Buddhism to you a kind of theory or in part a philosophy? If so, you have a long way to go senpai. Those thoughts/ doctrines are only part of Buddhism, doesn't mean if they are catogerized as philosophy, so does Buddhism. According to your logic, the philosophy of Jesus (I was ninja'd by Kosen) are thoughts/ doctrines, thus Christianity is a philosophy? So where is the "fact" that Buddhism began as a philosophy, when its not Buddhism when its a philosophy and its not a philosophy when its Buddhism?
"So now it dawn on me that your point is: “It doesn't matter what definitions philosophy or religion are. Its meaningless to subject Buddhism to any or any meaning to the categories.“ In this case, since it is meaningless, will your argument or disagreement with my statement be meaningful? In other words, all your posts were meaningless."
I'm attempting to show other users the kind of outrageous claims people can make based on half truth using you as example. You totally miss the point and attempt another ad hominem.
"You said: “What prompts me to respond to you is your expressions of bias to your own definition of "religions" ….“, and I submit you were mistaken. I have not defined religion or religions at all or in any way, mine or others! If I had, could you extract and quote?"
Precisely why I post so. You have not attempted defining those and started to make ridonkulous claims as the truth. Standard definitions were offered, you were like "oh! but they are wrong! Buddhism is not applicable..."Same thing about philosophy, its not applicable to Buddhism as a whole.
"If the 6 yrs of bumbling around were the experience he needed to formulate the ‘Noble Truth’ without a single thought input, he would have done it in one day!"
Elaborate. Point being?
Yup.
He only took 49 days after he remembered his jhanas, left his companions and set out on this path. You should not count 6 years... you should count 49 days.
By the way, Buddha's path of entering through jhanas is not the only path... some start with insight before going into jhanas. Buddha's path is to start with jhanas and shamatha and proceed into insight. His path is gradual, and it is a wonder he only took 49 days (and attained all kinds of knowledges through this path), obviously because this is not the first life he has been doing this. Usually you need a lot of retreat time and a few years of practice for gradual path to show its results. Whereas some people like Bahiya took the direct path realized immediately. Anyway, I digress.
The Maha Brahma never once proclaimed that he is the creator .
So I dont think there is a need for Buddha to deny him any point .
By the way . the Maha Brahma is just someone who appear in Buddha's dream when he was meditating and fasting . and a hungry stomach or thinking too much can really lead to hallucination and other undesired symptoms . imaginary friends for instance .
And if there is no force that control this universe where did it came from in the first place ? who arrange that only when SG saw the 4 signs of born, old, sick , death and he will start to find the way ? there must be a force that control and arranged this to some extend .
That force need not be a living thing .
There is no special force to control this universe. Things appear due to causes and condition, and dissipate due to causes and conditions. There is no agency behind things.
From your post, I don't think you know anything about Maha Brahma, so don't assume.
Please read this:
2. 'Now there comes a time, monks, when, sooner or later, after the lapse of a long period, this world-system passes away. And when this happens beings have mostly been reborn in the World-of-Radiance, and there they dwell made of mind, feeding on joy, radiating light from themselves, traversing the air, continuing in glory; and they remain there for a long period of time.
3. Now there comes also a time, monks, when, sooner or later, this world-system begins to re-evolve. When this happens an empty Palace of Brahma appears. And some being or other, either because his span of years has passed or his merit is exhausted, falls from that World-of-Radiance, and comes to life in the Palace of Brahma. And there also he lives made of mind, feeding on joy, radiating light from himself, traversing the air, continuing in glory; and thus does he remain for a long period of time.
4. 'Then there arises in him, from his dwelling there so long alone, a dissatisfaction and a longing: "O! if only other beings might come to join me in this place!" And just then, either because their span of years had passed or their merit was exhausted, other beings fall from the World-of-Radiance, and appear in the Palace of Brahma as companions to him, and in all respects are like him. [18]
5. 'On this, monks, the one who was first reborn thinks thus to himself: "I am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Supreme One, the Mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief of all, appointing to each his place, the Ancient of days the Father of all that is and is to be [154]. 'These other beings are of my creation. And why is that so? A while ago I thought, 'If only they might come!' And upon my mental aspiration, behold these beings came."
'And those beings themselves, too, think thus: "This must be Brahma,, the Great Brahma, the Supreme, the Mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief of all, appointing to each his place, the Ancient of days, the Father of all that is and is to be. And we must have been created by him. And why? Because we see that he who was here first and we came afterwards."
6. 'Because of this, monks, the one who first came into existence there is of longer life, and more glorious, and more powerful than those who appeared after him. And it might well be, monks, that some being on his falling from that state, should come to this world. And having come to this world he might go forth from the household life into the homeless state. And having thus become a recluse he, by reason of ardour of exertion of application of earnestness of careful thought, reaches such a state of concentration that, rapt in heart, he calls to mind his last dwelling-place, but not the previous ones. He says to himself: "That illustrious Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Supreme One, the Mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief of all, appointing to each his place, the Ancient of days, the Father of all that is and is to be, he by whom we were created, he is steadfast immutable eternal, of a nature that knows no change, and he will remain so forever and ever. But we who were created by him have come to this world as being impermanent, mutable, limited in duration of life.
I still think Buddhism is just a teaching and should not be made into religion in the first place .
You know . all these debates about maha brahma, sutta and all . we're missing the point here . THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION DEBATE . how could any of them be if in the first place they are not even religion ?? ask Dalai Lama himself and he will tell you that Buddhism is not a religion but rather a teaching to live life and to percept it in specific way .
Human used to live in another planet and then it went nova and human are spiritually reborn in a new world where they live for aeons and when their karma caught up with them they are reborn to earth and all . those are merely thots ! thinker thinks . some thinker went on to experiement and to prove and they are called scientists . some just think and conclude and proclaim that he is the all-righteous and all-knowing being.
to be honest I dont read all those long comments you made .