Teachings Of Buddha

[jmdf103]

are the teachings of buddha the absolute be all and end all needed to attain enlightenment? has there been any additions in the following 2500 years or so. Is it like islam for example in which the prophecies of mohammad were the last and final word.

from someone interested to learn about buddhism

[hookedondhamma]

Hi there. I'm going to respond to the latter part of your message (it's wonderful that you're interested in Buddhism!) and suggest you go check out accesstoinsight online. There's alot of great information on there. You could also check out the Dhamma Wheel forum (quite a bit of interesting debate on there, possibly some springing your original question). There are also some great Dhamma talks by the late Aajahn Paññāvaḍḍho from Wat Pa Ban Taad on youtube.

Edited April 3, 2012 by hookedondhamma

[camerata]

Yes, there have been additions to the original words of the Buddha since not long after his death. There have been various commentaries that attempt to explain or distill his teachings. Then there was the whole Mahayana school of Buddhism, of which Tibetan is a major part, with its own sutras, commentaries and treatises. Mahayana kept developing until the various Zen sects in Japan. Lately, we have the so-called "Western Buddhism." The various sects all believe they can gain some kind of enlightenment using the teachings they follow.

[jmdf103]

so if there were additions to what buddha preached that have become accepted, then can i conclude that buddha's teachings were not perfect?

Edited April 4, 2012 by jmdf103

[camerata]

Not really. The initial proposition of Mahayana, for example, was that the Buddha had hidden teachings that weren't accessible until long after his death. The Mahayana sutras are purported to be the words of the Buddha. Since what is recorded of the Buddha's teaching isn't always easy to understand, various masters have "interpreted" it for later audiences. So, rather than being imperfect, the idea was that the original teachings (i.e. what is recorded in the Pali Canon) were either incomplete or too difficult.

Theravada Buddhism, the tradition followed in Thailand, sticks to the Pali Canon and commentaries.

[Brucenkhamen]

so if there were additions to what buddha preached that have become accepted, then can i conclude that buddha's teachings were not perfect?

No, I think instead you can conclude that the teachings that are most likely attributable to the Buddha himself are too elegant and simple for the religious establishment to understand so they add more complexxity to puff themselves up and also make the teachings less accessible to normal folk.

I think it's best to look at the main messages in the oldest texts (the Nikayas) as the foundation and consider the usefulness of later texts, or doctrinal shifts, or teaching styles in relation to this.

[fabianfred]

Once somebody asked the Buddha is one could attain to Nibbana by following the teachings of other teachers.

He replied...'yes..... as long as their teachings include the Four Noble Triths and the Eightfold Path...'

which only his do.....

We are only able to attain to Nibbana by the practice of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness........ something only taught by Buddhas since it is too profound for ordinary beings (not Boddhisattas) to realise by themselves.

anything added to the Buddhas teaching are in way of further explanation....not necessary addition.

A Buddha's Dhamma is perfect....but we are not.... and if we have insufficient perfections and good karma then we cannot understand them..... not yet spiritually ready....

[rockyysdt]

A Buddha's Dhamma is perfect....but we are not.... and if we have insufficient perfections and good karma then we cannot understand them..... not yet spiritually ready....

Yes.

The only imperfections would be as a result of our misinterpretations of it.

[rockyysdt]

Rather than purely belief based religions think of Buddhism as a practice which includes a series of practices (8 fold path), with which one can improve ones life here and now.

The beauty of practicing,as distinct from belief, is that one can achieve life altering experiences, both subtle and profound whilst living.

In purely belief based religions such as the one you mention, one must die to learn if it was true or a myth.

There are caveats.

Progress can only come from regular practice (not knowledge alone).

Wisdom:

1. Right View
   
2. Right intention
   

Ethical conduct:

3. Right Speech.

4. Right Conduct.

5. Right livelihood.

Mental development.

6. Right Effort.

7. Right Mindfulness.

8. Right Concentration.

I personally believe one of the greatest obstacles comes from our inability to maintain new practices due to our deep seated and entrenched conditioning.

If we are lucky enough to have the drive to learn about this path, our initial enthusiasm may fall away due to countless temptations and obstacles thrown in our way, with their immediate but short lived trappings (greed, aversion & delusion).

Edited April 6, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

so if there were additions to what buddha preached that have become accepted, then can i conclude that buddha's teachings were not perfect?

I forgot to mention.

The Buddha didn't record his teachings.

He taught and his word was carried phonetically by various Monks.

If there is an issue with the Buddhas teachings, then it is due to interpretation, both from the lineage of original Monks, the language used, and the interpretations.

Some of the Buddhas teachings is debatable.

If the Buddha was with us today, his word and explanations would be beyond dispute.

It depends what you are looking for.

In terms of practice you can't go wrong.

In terms of whether it's all over when you die or whether you will recycle into many lives for eternity or until you become enlightened, this is not only debatable, but unimportant.

[Xangsamhua]

Once somebody asked the Buddha is one could attain to Nibbana by following the teachings of other teachers.

He replied...'yes..... as long as their teachings include the Four Noble Triths and the Eightfold Path...'

which only his do.....

Xangsamhua says: I think the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path are not exclusive to the Buddha. In essence they are found in Stoicism and in Advaita Brahmanism, and probably to Christian monasticism and Sufiism. However, they may be put forward differently in these and other schools of thought, not so much as a way to overcome suffering, but to attain peace of mind, equanimity, balance, rationality and, possibly, joy.

A Buddha's Dhamma is perfect....but we are not.... and if we have insufficient perfections and good karma then we cannot understand them..... not yet spiritually ready....

Xangsamhua says: How can we say the Buddha's Dhamma is perfect? Do we stand above all perfections and near-perfections and therefore have the ability to judge which is perfect and which is not? Are we godlike in our vision of the pinnacle of perfectibility, and what approaches, what falls short, and what attains it? I'm sure there are many people in the world who would claim perfection for their particular religious teachings, but to do so, albeit an act of faith, is nevertheless simply a sectarian assertion.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[huli]

Once somebody asked the Buddha is one could attain to Nibbana by following the teachings of other teachers.

He replied...'yes..... as long as their teachings include the Four Noble Triths and the Eightfold Path...'

which only his do.....

Xangsamhua says: I think the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path are not exclusive to the Buddha. In essence they are found in Stoicism and in Advaita Brahmanism, and probably to Christian monasticism and Sufiism. However, they may be put forward differently in these and other schools of thought, not so much as a way to overcome suffering, but to attain peace of mind, equanimity, balance, rationality and, possibly, joy.

A Buddha's Dhamma is perfect....but we are not.... and if we have insufficient perfections and good karma then we cannot understand them..... not yet spiritually ready....

Xangsamhua says: How can we say the Buddha's Dhamma is perfect? Do we stand above all perfections and near-perfections and therefore have the ability to judge which is perfect and which is not? Are we godlike in our vision of the pinnacle of perfectibility, and what approaches, what falls short, and what attains it? I'm sure there are many people in the world who would claim perfection for their particular religious teachings, but to do so, albeit an act of faith, is nevertheless simply a sectarian assertion.

It is not uncommonly asserted that, seen from the mountaintop, so to speak, there is a universal thread in all religions. I believe this was also asserted by the Dali Lama, who holds near universal respect, and is way smarter than me, that's for sure. However, I think this is an over-simplification, and does a disservice to Buddhism, which is actually unique. While it may be true that monastic cults sometimes form in any religion, and with some similarity to Buddhist mind-culture, that is not enough to equate other religions with Buddhism.

Regarding the concept of faith, the bulk of the other religions need a lifelong faith in their revelations to sustain them. Faith is only necessary in Buddhism at the outset. After practicing and learning for a while, the Noble Truths, and other teachings well known to the members here pull one along as insight sharpens. Buddhism does not depend on faith to the degree of the other popular religions, and I believe this is self-evident.

The uniqueness of Buddhism among religions, and the lack of emphasis on faith in Buddhism are often discussed, and observed.

With all due respect to Xangsamhua.

[Xangsamhua]

It is not uncommonly asserted that, seen from the mountaintop, so to speak, there is a universal thread in all religions. I believe this was also asserted by the Dali Lama, who holds near universal respect, and is way smarter than me, that's for sure. However, I think this is an over-simplification, and does a disservice to Buddhism, which is actually unique. While it may be true that monastic cults sometimes form in any religion, and with some similarity to Buddhist mind-culture, that is not enough to equate other religions with Buddhism.

Regarding the concept of faith, the bulk of the other religions need a lifelong faith in their revelations to sustain them. Faith is only necessary in Buddhism at the outset. After practicing and learning for a while, the Noble Truths, and other teachings well known to the members here pull one along as insight sharpens. Buddhism does not depend on faith to the degree of the other popular religions, and I believe this is self-evident.

The uniqueness of Buddhism among religions, and the lack of emphasis on faith in Buddhism are often discussed, and observed.

With all due respect to Xangsamhua.

Thanks Huli.

I agree that Buddhism as an expression of a body of teachings is unique. There's nobody quite like the Buddha, despite some similarities between his teaching and practice with those of, e.g. Mahavira, his Jain contemporary. But I'm suggesting that teachings such as those expressed in the Four Noble truths and the Eightfold Path are found outside Buddhism as well. After all, to attest that attachment to and craving for transient things brings about disappointment and dissatisfaction, and may lead to behaviours that do no one any good at all, is not a particularly profound insight. If that's all the Buddha came to tell us, his dharma would never have stood out above the teachings of the many other ascetics in ancient India. The Buddha went further, of course, prescribing a path known as the Eightfold, and developed his teachings as a practical and realistic response to the fundamental human condition, i.e. impermanence. This proved fruitful and satisfying for many, especially when married to pre-Buddhist notions of Karma and rebirth, but the recommended eight strategies for overcoming greed, anger and delusion are, I think, not exclusive to the Buddha. The Stoics, for example, based their philosophy and practice on the need to avoid unrealizable attachments and goals, and to be satisfied with what one has and what one can realistically manage and control (i.e. one's own attitudes, responses, self-discipline, etc.).

What is really distinctive in the Buddha's teaching, it seems to me, is his rejection of any form of permanence, except Nibbana/Nirvana, and yet he taught this without defending it. When asked about eternity, infinity, life after death, the self, etc., the Buddha remained silent. But these are quintessentially religious and philosophical questions. The Buddha's silence encourages the view that Buddhism is not a religion so much as a set of practices, but an assertion that there is no essence to anything and a refusal to engage in discussion on the implications or questions arising from such a claim, suggests a faith-based assertion and one that requires faith to accept.

In his response to the monk, Malunkyaputta, the Buddha does not so much defend as reiterate his rejection of any essence or underpinning reality, asserting in contrast a Kantian, representational view of reality based on the senses, with no "you" or anything else to be the ground from which the senses derive. This radical reductionism is the distinguishing feature of Buddhism. It certainly runs counter to theism, deism or any philosophy/religion that accepts a "ground of being" in which all instances of being have their source and their end. It is a massive claim, which makes phenomena fundamental while denying them any foundation. All is contingent, process and relational - all accidents; no substance. This avoids the ad infinitum conundrum of a creator God, but in denying anything beyond dependent origination, it is still a faith-claim, one that denies actual origination.

[ericsamadhi]

IMHO...enlightenment is freely available from someone who has it. This was Buddha's way. This died when he died. The religions started after enlightenment stopped, but they preserved this principle of transmission in the doctrines, but empty in reality, such as in Vajrayana, Mahayana, chan and zen.

[ericsamadhi]

Buddha's teachings end at the 4th jhana, dhyana, and his 5th samadhi, ending involuntary incarnation, but IMHO this is just the start of a greater path. So yes there are states of progress beyond what is known in Buddhist writings. My best

[rockyysdt]

Buddha's teachings end at the 4th jhana, dhyana, and his 5th samadhi, ending involuntary incarnation, but IMHO this is just the start of a greater path. So yes there are states of progress beyond what is known in Buddhist writings. My best

This would fit into the concept of infinity but is also very theoretical.

NB: It's been said that enlightenment is a 18th or 19th century word or expression.

The Buddha taught "Awakening".

[ericsamadhi]

Rocky...it is only theoretical if you are not doing it. Once you do it you know.

Enlightenmemt-Awakening are the same reality, but people may argue over theories. From my experience Awakening is when you have the power and light to dissolve the bondage of mind-world. A low level description would be that the soul gets enough light that the prison of mind-body thoughts disappear in that light leading to higher states of bliss.

[rockyysdt]

Rocky...it is only theoretical if you are not doing it. Once you do it you know.

Isn't it theory until you achieve it, rather than do it?

Wouldn't that mean that to most it is theoretical?

Have you achieved enlightenment?

Enlightenmemt-Awakening are the same reality, but people may argue over theories. From my experience Awakening is when you have the power and light to dissolve the bondage of mind-world. A low level description would be that the soul gets enough light that the prison of mind-body thoughts disappear in that light leading to higher states of bliss.

It sounds like you are well down the path of practice.

I'm just a beginner.

Until my experience kicks in I'm subject to theory and teachings.

A crossroad I'm at is whether the Buddha actually taught either:

• re birth to multiple lives for countless years until awakening takes place, or
  
• 
  
• whether his speech was metaphorical and re birth was meant to be a moment to moment thing, and that once awakening takes place, one becomes free of greed, aversion and delusion, but once death takes place there is nothing more for without body there is no mind and without mind a body cannot function, and that there is nothing inside to become enlightened.
  

This is where the difference between Awakening (the expression the Buddha used), differs from Enlightenment.

Awakening suggests freedom from the shackles of ignorance (greed, aversion and delusion), whilst enlightenment suggests making it through to another dimension.

Doesn't your example go beyond what the Buddha taught, as he indicated that a soul does not exist as there is nothing inside, other than body with conditioned mind.

Edited April 7, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

A low level description would be that the soul gets enough light that the prison of mind-body thoughts disappear in that light leading to higher states of bliss.

Thus have I heard:

The end of the world can never be reached by walking.

However, without having reached the world’s end

There is no release from suffering.

I declare that it is in this fathom long carcass,

with its perceptions and thoughts,

that there is the world,

the origin of the world,

the cessation of the world,

and the path leading to the cessation of the world.

[huli]

It is not uncommonly asserted that, seen from the mountaintop, so to speak, there is a universal thread in all religions. I believe this was also asserted by the Dali Lama, who holds near universal respect, and is way smarter than me, that's for sure. However, I think this is an over-simplification, and does a disservice to Buddhism, which is actually unique. While it may be true that monastic cults sometimes form in any religion, and with some similarity to Buddhist mind-culture, that is not enough to equate other religions with Buddhism.

Regarding the concept of faith, the bulk of the other religions need a lifelong faith in their revelations to sustain them. Faith is only necessary in Buddhism at the outset. After practicing and learning for a while, the Noble Truths, and other teachings well known to the members here pull one along as insight sharpens. Buddhism does not depend on faith to the degree of the other popular religions, and I believe this is self-evident.

The uniqueness of Buddhism among religions, and the lack of emphasis on faith in Buddhism are often discussed, and observed.

With all due respect to Xangsamhua.

Thanks Huli.

I agree that Buddhism as an expression of a body of teachings is unique. There's nobody quite like the Buddha, despite some similarities between his teaching and practice with those of, e.g. Mahavira, his Jain contemporary. But I'm suggesting that teachings such as those expressed in the Four Noble truths and the Eightfold Path are found outside Buddhism as well. After all, to attest that attachment to and craving for transient things brings about disappointment and dissatisfaction, and may lead to behaviours that do no one any good at all, is not a particularly profound insight. If that's all the Buddha came to tell us, his dharma would never have stood out above the teachings of the many other ascetics in ancient India. The Buddha went further, of course, prescribing a path known as the Eightfold, and developed his teachings as a practical and realistic response to the fundamental human condition, i.e. impermanence. This proved fruitful and satisfying for many, especially when married to pre-Buddhist notions of Karma and rebirth, but the recommended eight strategies for overcoming greed, anger and delusion are, I think, not exclusive to the Buddha. The Stoics, for example, based their philosophy and practice on the need to avoid unrealizable attachments and goals, and to be satisfied with what one has and what one can realistically manage and control (i.e. one's own attitudes, responses, self-discipline, etc.).

What is really distinctive in the Buddha's teaching, it seems to me, is his rejection of any form of permanence, except Nibbana/Nirvana, and yet he taught this without defending it. When asked about eternity, infinity, life after death, the self, etc., the Buddha remained silent. But these are quintessentially religious and philosophical questions. The Buddha's silence encourages the view that Buddhism is not a religion so much as a set of practices, but an assertion that there is no essence to anything and a refusal to engage in discussion on the implications or questions arising from such a claim, suggests a faith-based assertion and one that requires faith to accept.

In his response to the monk, Malunkyaputta, the Buddha does not so much defend as reiterate his rejection of any essence or underpinning reality, asserting in contrast a Kantian, representational view of reality based on the senses, with no "you" or anything else to be the ground from which the senses derive. This radical reductionism is the distinguishing feature of Buddhism. It certainly runs counter to theism, deism or any philosophy/religion that accepts a "ground of being" in which all instances of being have their source and their end. It is a massive claim, which makes phenomena fundamental while denying them any foundation. All is contingent, process and relational - all accidents; no substance. This avoids the ad infinitum conundrum of a creator God, but in denying anything beyond dependent origination, it is still a faith-claim, one that denies actual origination.

Thank you Xangsamhua for such a substantial and interesting reply to my previous comments. It really gave me pause to consider your points. I believe you have carefully rebutted the contentions I made about Buddhism being unique, and not based largely on faith. If I may, I would like to briefly respond, in the spirit of lively discussion on this Buddhist Forum.

As you say, I too am convinced that there are elements of the 8-Fold Path in other religions, in my view, especially the three factors on Ethical Conduct. However, I don't think the three factors of the Concentration Division are included in the philosophy of the Stoics, for example. The definition of delusion in Buddhism is not shared with other religions either, as far as I know. The meditative path laid out in detail leading to specific insights is surely unique. The overarching comprehensiveness of Buddha's teaching, in my mind, makes it far superior to the fragments present in other religions.

The Buddha did not discuss certain philosophical or religious questions, and gave his reason, saying, I believe, that the answers were not useful to his basic concern of overcoming suffering. I don't see how it requires faith to accept this answer. It is a real answer. Likewise, he explained his views on "radical reductionism", to use your term, via the 5 aggregates, which can each be seen directly to be impermanent. This is not a faith-based assertion or belief. And again, just because Buddha did not teach beyond Dependent Origination, how does this imply a need for Buddhists to have faith in a denial of origination? The issue just does not come up. Buddha either explained his reasoning, or was silent, neither of which require faith, in my humble opinion.

[bankei]

Posted 2012-04-03 14:24:37

are the teachings of buddha the absolute be all and end all needed to attain enlightenment? has there been any additions in the following 2500 years or so. Is it like islam for example in which the prophecies of mohammad were the last and final word.

from someone interested to learn about buddhism

There have been additions since before the Buddha died. Plenty of additions and deletions since too.

One problem with claiming a 'final word' is which scripture to use. The Pali canon of the Theravada is neither the oldest nor the most accurate, but is often though of as such. There are older versions in other languages but these canons may not be complete.

Bankei

[Xangsamhua]

Thank you Xangsamhua for such a substantial and interesting reply to my previous comments. It really gave me pause to consider your points. I believe you have carefully rebutted the contentions I made about Buddhism being unique, and not based largely on faith. If I may, I would like to briefly respond, in the spirit of lively discussion on this Buddhist Forum.

As you say, I too am convinced that there are elements of the 8-Fold Path in other religions, in my view, especially the three factors on Ethical Conduct. However, I don't think the three factors of the Concentration Division are included in the philosophy of the Stoics, for example. The definition of delusion in Buddhism is not shared with other religions either, as far as I know. The meditative path laid out in detail leading to specific insights is surely unique. The overarching comprehensiveness of Buddha's teaching, in my mind, makes it far superior to the fragments present in other religions.

The Buddha did not discuss certain philosophical or religious questions, and gave his reason, saying, I believe, that the answers were not useful to his basic concern of overcoming suffering. I don't see how it requires faith to accept this answer. It is a real answer. Likewise, he explained his views on "radical reductionism", to use your term, via the 5 aggregates, which can each be seen directly to be impermanent. This is not a faith-based assertion or belief. And again, just because Buddha did not teach beyond Dependent Origination, how does this imply a need for Buddhists to have faith in a denial of origination? The issue just does not come up. Buddha either explained his reasoning, or was silent, neither of which require faith, in my humble opinion.

Thanks again Huli.

Lots to think about and explore further.

I need to research more, but certainly agree that samadhi and meditation practice is much more highly developed in Buddhism than it was in Stoicism, which taught mindfulness, but not samadhi in any formal sense. I think meditation for the Stoics was more about reflection based on wisdom and the daily practice of negative visualization.

However, samadhi is by no means exclusively Buddhist, but is found in other Indian traditions as well. And some schools of Buddhism don't practice sitting meditation much, or if they do, they don't follow the methods that are taught in, say, the Burmese, Tibetan or Thai schools.

I have no problem with the Buddha avoiding metaphysical discussions. Going only as far as phenomena does not answer the ultimate questions, but it does mean our discourse and practice stays within the physical realm. But it seems the Buddha went further. Like our current crop of militant atheists, the Buddha actively preached against the possibility of a metaphysical ground of being, and in a sense that is a faith-based perspective. It's also perhaps unnecessary in an age where we don't have to define ourselves against a Brahmin hegemony; after all, what difference does it make to one's practice if one believes in non-dual reality in which one is a manifestation of universal reality? This goes beyond anatta and anicca and the aggregates, but doesn't in any way diminish the validity of the four noble truths, eightfold path, four foundations of mindfulness, or the practical importance of the Triple Gem.

Still, I might be wrong (it wouldn't be the first time). The value of thinking and talking about these things is that it opens up for us areas that need to be investigated. Your response has made me think again, look things up, and shift my position a bit.

[huli]

Hi again Xangsamhua,

I have to thank you for prodding me to investigate Stoicism. It seems to be a really cool Western philosophy that sure did share many of the same views that Buddha taught. It makes me wonder what the Stoics would have come up with had they been born into the Hindu culture as Buddha was. Stoicism certainly does espouse mental culture and transformation as the basis for right living, just like Buddhism. I wonder if someone hasn't written a paper comparing the two in detail. I think that would be very interesting.

I bemoan the fact that multiple schools of Buddhism have evolved, and many of them seem to have changed what Buddha taught. Examples abound. One example you mention is that some don't even practice sitting meditation. Come on you guys, Buddha gave explicit instructions for that, described the path in detail, and included it in the 8 Fold Path. Can these other "traditions" be still considered Buddhist? Does a word like "Buddhist" still have a definition and meaning?

If I may, I would express surprise to read that you interpret Buddha's discourse and practice to be limited to the physical realm. Knowing something of your mental prowess, is that a typo? It strikes me that virtually all of Buddha's teaching was in the mental realm. At any rate, the statement is preliminary to your comparison of Buddha with militant atheists, and further, that he actively preached against a metaphysical ground of being. I could swear that Buddha's position was that he didn't teach about metaphysical stuff because it was not conductive to his core mission, teaching the Noble Truths. As far as I know, he specifically did not teach: trust me, there is no metaphysical ground of being (which would require faith). If you have any examples that he did, I would be very interested in hearing them if you have time.

Thanks again for turning me onto Stoicism, and also for the dialogue. I'm sure I have a lot to learn.

[Xangsamhua]

If I may, I would express surprise to read that you interpret Buddha's discourse and practice to be limited to the physical realm. Knowing something of your mental prowess, is that a typo? It strikes me that virtually all of Buddha's teaching was in the mental realm.

Sorry, I meant to contrast the "physical" realm with the "metaphysical"; that is the realm of observable, definable phenomena with the speculative, non-observable (except by hypothesized "effects") realm of noumena, the metaphysical realm.

I'm not sure where the mind and mental activity sit in all this. Buddhists often speak of the mind as a category of being and action in its own right. Otherwise it could be an epiphenomenon, a secondary characteristic of phenomena, in which case mental events are not so much aggregates as meta-aggregates that enable one to perceive, engage in mental events and experience consciousness. But the aggregates as taught by the Buddha conflate the actions of the mind with physical actions and events.

There's also another thread in this forum, I think, that discusses the view of the mind as simply the product of neurophysical properties and actions of the brain. And then there's the view proposed in the late 40s by Gilbert Ryle that there is no such thing as "mind"; it's a category mistake. This seems to me to be a logical implication of the Buddha's reductionist philosophy, but not one he taught, having fused physical and mental aggregates in the skandhas.

Another possibility is to ground all perceived phenomena in all-encompassing Mind, or Consciousness, so phenomena are in fact a manifestation of Mind (Jakusho Kwong, the Zen master, speaks of "Big Mind"). Zen people seem to talk this way, at least in my view, and so I think does Yogacara and Dzogchen. Advaita Vedanta, which draws on Brahman teaching, certainly does.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[lungmi]

Rocky...it is only theoretical if you are not doing it. Once you do it you know.

Enlightenmemt-Awakening are the same reality, but people may argue over theories. From my experience Awakening is when you have the power and light to dissolve the bondage of mind-world. A low level description would be that the soul gets enough light that the prison of mind-body thoughts disappear in that light leading to higher states of bliss.

As semiologist I can clear: Enligthenment has a christian connotation. "God enlightened me". "Awakening" is the correct Pali translation.

[fabianfred]

A low level description would be that the soul gets enough light that the prison of mind-body thoughts disappear in that light leading to higher states of bliss.

Thus have I heard:

The end of the world can never be reached by walking.

However, without having reached the world’s end

There is no release from suffering.

I declare that it is in this fathom long carcass,

with its perceptions and thoughts,

that there is the world,

the origin of the world,

the cessation of the world,

and the path leading to the cessation of the world.

ericsamadhi's quote....and name....implies concentration meditation which brings bliss, but the Buddha warned that that was not the end of the road and could be a distraction from the real path...vipassana...to Nibbana.

IMHO only the Buddhas dhamma contains the profound teachings of Dependant Origination and the Four Foundations of Mindfulness...

By saying that all was within this fathom long body, the Buddha meant that....we have the chance to reach Nibbana...by ourselves...as long as we do the correct practice...since nobody else can do the work for us. The Four Foundations of Mindfulness (Vipassana) is practiced within our own body and mind by being in each moment....simply acknowleging whatever thoughts or feelings or sensations or movements are going on.....but not getting attached to then or led astray by them.

The Way to nibbana is here...right here...right now....every moment we are present and aware.

[ericsamadhi]

"

ericsamadhi's quote....and name....implies concentration meditation which brings bliss, but the Buddha warned that that was not the end of the road and could be a distraction from the real path...vipassana...to Nibbana.

"

Sorry, maybe the name is unfortunate. I abandoned concentration meditation long ago, as it does not bring bliss or happiness. Nor in my experience does the teacher we call Buddha have anything to do with the Theravada religious belief system. According to wikipedia that religion started in around 1200 by a Sro Lankin king and the beliefs are based on Buddhagosha's 650 AD(approx) book Path to Purity. Buddhagosha admits himself that his book, and thus the ideas presented are written to gain merit and are not a path anywhere. He concludes that gaining merit in this way, he hopes to be reborn with the next Buddha and be enlightened by that Buddha. In my experience Theravada beliefs are as far from Buddha as the Roman Catholic's beiefs are from Jesus. Thus in my thinking there are strong parallels in their religious history. An early king or emporer starting a state religion, then one thousand years later a new religion appears claiming to be "Christianity" or "Buddhism" but with their own new set of rules. Both have fervent believers who live on beliefs and faith. They study, memorize the lines, and the Bliss is the pride and arrogance of repeating the lines as if they know! - Repeating a bunch of ideas they read about as if they did it and know it to be true ! That is business sales, not a search for truth...and not the truth of their experience...

My Best, Eric

[ericsamadhi]

Posted 2012-04-03 14:24:37

are the teachings of buddha the absolute be all and end all needed to attain enlightenment? has there been any additions in the following 2500 years or so. Is it like islam for example in which the prophecies of mohammad were the last and final word.

from someone interested to learn about buddhism

There have been additions since before the Buddha died. Plenty of additions and deletions since too.

One problem with claiming a 'final word' is which scripture to use. The Pali canon of the Theravada is neither the oldest nor the most accurate, but is often though of as such. There are older versions in other languages but these canons may not be complete.

Bankei

Wow! I can very mich agree. In my readin and commentarirs on the suttas, they appear to be written by business minded monks. Mara seems to be the author, and then you get a one or two line analogy, and you know that thru the nonsense long ago their was a great man talking to me thru time. Budhhas messages are in the analogies and the rest is Mara trying to destroy the truth.

My Best, Eric

[Xangsamhua]

Looks like you've got it all figured out, Eric.

A couple of erratic posts in the wee hours and the whole Theravada tradition, together with Western Catholicism, lies in ruins.

[rockyysdt]

A low level description would be that the soul gets enough light that the prison of mind-body thoughts disappear in that light leading to higher states of bliss.

Thus have I heard:

The end of the world can never be reached by walking.

However, without having reached the world’s end

There is no release from suffering.

I declare that it is in this fathom long carcass,

with its perceptions and thoughts,

that there is the world,

the origin of the world,

the cessation of the world,

and the path leading to the cessation of the world.

ericsamadhi's quote....and name....implies concentration meditation which brings bliss, but the Buddha warned that that was not the end of the road and could be a distraction from the real path...vipassana...to Nibbana.

IMHO only the Buddhas dhamma contains the profound teachings of Dependant Origination and the Four Foundations of Mindfulness...

By saying that all was within this fathom long body, the Buddha meant that....we have the chance to reach Nibbana...by ourselves...as long as we do the correct practice...since nobody else can do the work for us. The Four Foundations of Mindfulness (Vipassana) is practiced within our own body and mind by being in each moment....simply acknowleging whatever thoughts or feelings or sensations or movements are going on.....but not getting attached to then or led astray by them.

The Way to nibbana is here...right here...right now....every moment we are present and aware.

That's the problem Fred.

When adopting a stance or belief we must interpret.

When I read it, l see that for each of us, the world can only exist whilst our body remains intact/alive.

The Buddha clearly states within us is the beginning and end of the world.

He also tells us of the path.

My understanding is that we don't arrive at Nibanna as it is a state, not a noun.

A state of awakening, free from delusion, aversion & greed.

That this state can only be maintained whilst we maintain practice.