After Awakening (Enlightened), The Buddha Was Reluctant To Teach?

[rockyysdt]

I understand that after reaching Enlightenment, the Buddha was reluctant to teach what he had learned/experienced.

At first the Buddha was reluctant to tell other people about what he had discovered. He felt they would not understand. He was persuaded, however, that there were some 'with but a little dust in their eyes' who might benefit from being told. He therefore went to Isipatana where he delivered his first sermon in a deer park. Thus began a forty-five year teaching career.

Is Enlightenment the crossing from the Physical to the Metaphysical, and if so, once achieving such power and knowledge, how could the Buddha have been reticent to pass on his knowledge given that his coming was the only way others could Awaken?

Or, is Awakening, freedom from attachment to Greed Aversion & Delusion?

Is continuous practice of the eightfold path a way of elevating mankinds human experience to its pinnacle?

Are the relms real places, or are they human psycholigical states meant as a way of teaching?

Why was the Buddha reluctant to teach?

I know of followers who have spent decades practicing in Forest locations.

One came out after close to 20 years of practice, and within a short time, now presents with a nervous demeanour, stutters, is forgetful and encumbered with many negative mannerisms.

This is suggestive that there is a need for continual practice, no matter how far one has progressed.

Edited September 21, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Several]

True, didn't the Buddha continue practice all his life?

Perhaps he felt the attainment of Nibbana was just too hard, too razor thin. The Pacceka Buddhas can't teach others. He wouldn't talk about Nibbana itself, only the path to it.

[rockyysdt]

True, didn't the Buddha continue practice all his life?

Perhaps he felt the attainment of Nibbana was just too hard, too razor thin. The Pacceka Buddhas can't teach others. He wouldn't talk about Nibbana itself, only the path to it.

Some believe that Nibbana is a place or destination.

They contend if re birth ceases one has to go somewhere (where is the Buddha now?).

Others translate the Sanskrit/Pali word as a verb or doing word.

If it's a doing word then to be in Nibbana you must continue to do (practice).

If it's a doing word, how can one continue to do, when "this fathom long carcass ceases".

lf one escapes re birth through enlightenment, again how can one continue to do if they are not re born?

Edited September 21, 2012 by rockyysdt

[huli]

True, didn't the Buddha continue practice all his life?

Perhaps he felt the attainment of Nibbana was just too hard, too razor thin. The Pacceka Buddhas can't teach others. He wouldn't talk about Nibbana itself, only the path to it.

Some believe that Nibbana is a place or destination.

They contend if re birth ceases one has to go somewhere (where is the Buddha now?).

Others translate the Sanskrit/Pali word as a verb or doing word.

If it's a doing word then to be in Nibbana you must continue to do (practice).

If it's a doing word, how can one continue to do, when "this fathom long carcass ceases".

lf one escapes re birth through enlightenment, again how can one continue to do if they are not re born?

I seriously doubt that Nirvana is either a place somewhere, or a never-ending practice.

[Several]

I would have thought that if Nibbana was a location or realm then it would have been mentioned as a Loka. I've never considered it that way before.

Perhaps continuing practice was simply a preferble mode of action. So much practice to reach Nibbana must make it second nature to engage in. Other activities involve samsaric elements? Or as an example to the Monks? Not so much necessary as worthwhile.

[fabianfred]

The dhamma which buddhas teach...... and only Buddhas...is very profound and not something a mere worldling could conceive for themselves...which is why Buddhas are needed to help beings know about the existence of Nibbana and how to reach it.

Non-self........ dependant origination.....the Four Foundations of Mindfulness....... rebirth...... karma are all deep profound ideas, especially the first three.

This is why buddhas always get this feeling that beings would not be able to understand these profound dhammas and become disinclined to teach.

They are then beseeched, three times, by the great brahma, to teach....and then accept.

This is why buddhism does not prosthletize....monks are only allowed to teach dhamma after it has been requested, they are invited to teach. We do not set-up a soap-box and start trying to convert others.

Those who spend years meditating can still fall astray. This is because most of them are practicing Samatha and even if they reach the Jhanas does not mean they have left the state of worldling and reached ariya status.

Jhanas are Lokiya and if practice stops they can become lost .

Vipassana and the attainment of Ariya states is Lokuttra which cannot be lost.

Once you reach stream-entry there is no going back.

Read the book i recommended about the life of the Nun...she studied under three Arahants....Mun, Sao and Maha Boowa...but her practice had gone off track because she was stuck in the jhanas and the visions and abilities they gave her.

[IMA_FARANG]

First of all, what I'm going to say is my personal opinion only, don't take me as an expert.

Secondly, I make no claims about being Awakened or Enlightened, do I?

So, therefore, how do you know I'm just not another muttering old fool?

Think of a world class professional golfer...one who makes his or her living by winning golf tournaments.

Now, does that person still practice their golf game daily?

Of course they do, they must maintain their peak sharpness, their "edge".

So why then do you suppose the Buddha did not also have to practice daily to maintain his peak...his "edge"... also?

Awakening or Enlightenment...whatever that is...required the Buddha to be at his "peak" just like that professional golfer every day.

Same need, same requirement for "practice".

But to the other question...Why was the Buddha reluctant to "teach".

Frankly, because teaching is a very difficult and emotionally wearing process for the teacher.

It would have been easier for the Buddha just to find some nice quiet place to spend the rest of his time sitting quietly with perhaps a few chosen friends away from the rest of the world after his awakening.

Then no one would remember him....just some old forgotten man that passed away in some temple somewhe.

But of course, he didn't do that.

If he had done that, or if he could have done that....then he would not be the Buddha.

There is a story...I'll have to tell it from memory, as I don't remember where exactly i heard it, that goes something like this.

Two monks are travelling. They come to a small stream. On a rock in the stream is a Scorpion trapped by the water, unable to get off that rock.

One of monks tries to get that Scorpion of that rock to save the Scorpion's life.

But blinded by it's fear of the rushing water, each time the monk tries to help it, that Scorpion tries to strike at the monk who wants to save it.

The other monk gets exasperated with the first monk.

"Don't you see", he asked, "that the Scoprion will always try to string you? Don't you understand that trying to attack you is the Scorpion's nature? So why are you trying to help it?"

"Because", said the first monk, "helping that Scorpion is MY nature"

Shame on you Shakamundi

For setting the precedent of leaving home.

Could you not find it there,

in the face of your beautiful wife

or in your childs laughter?

Could you not find it there

so you had to leave home (simply) to find it elsewhere?

Judyth Collin

The Layman's Lament

From What Book, 1998, p. 52

Edited by Gary Gach

Edited September 22, 2012 by IMA_FARANG

[fabianfred]

The Buddhas....and other Arahants who have reached the goal...could sit back and await their final death.

But the Buddha recommended to them to continue practice for peace of mind.

They have already reached the point where they are disenchanted with ordinary worldy pleasures and they can still suffer the pains of past karma so retreat into meditation is best.

They do not NEED to practice to keep on edge...there is no falling back for them.

If I were to reach stream-entry there would be no need for me to practice further, but having glimpses of Nibbana I would not be inclined to be lazy and would seek the final goal.

[rockyysdt]

The Buddhas....and other Arahants who have reached the goal...could sit back and await their final death.

But the Buddha recommended to them to continue practice for peace of mind.

They have already reached the point where they are disenchanted with ordinary worldy pleasures and they can still suffer the pains of past karma so retreat into meditation is best.

They do not NEED to practice to keep on edge...there is no falling back for them.

If I were to reach stream-entry there would be no need for me to practice further, but having glimpses of Nibbana I would not be inclined to be lazy and would seek the final goal.

Hi Fred.

Isn't this interpretation only one of the possibilities of what the Buddha was teaching?

Isn't another possibility that Nibanna is something we perform rather than a place we go to?

In this possibility when we stop performing practice we go back to samsara (we are samsara ing - verb), or when we die we can no longer practice (same)?

Who do we know who has first hand experience of Nibanna and has told us/described it as something beyond this world?

By the way I'm reading the book you described.

I'm into the first section which is encouraging and very useful in terms of practice.

Does it go into the metaphysical in the later sections?

Edited September 23, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Several]

Maybe there is only here and now. It being Nibbana or Samsara is dependant on our perception of it. We 'fall back' to a Samsaric position if Nibbana is not quite attained, and vice versa. Otherwise we are saying Samsara exerts more influence. Neither is an actual location.

[rockyysdt]

Maybe there is only here and now. It being Nibbana or Samsara is dependant on our perception of it. We 'fall back' to a Samsaric position if Nibbana is not quite attained, and vice versa. Otherwise we are saying Samsara exerts more influence. Neither is an actual location.

Yes.

Some followers of the Buddha believe that the Buddha had found a way to escape Samsara, into a metaphysical (beyond our world) Nibbhana.

Other followers firmly believe that Nibbhana is the state we achieve from practice (doing) in this world.

The first group teach that once Nibbhana has been established, after the death of this life one is released to a Metaphysical Nibbhana.

The other group maintain that practice is an on going thing and the depth, regularity and level of proficiency one achives with their practice will reduce ones Samsaric being and increase ones Nibbhanic state.

They maintain that it is in this life, and, anything beyond it (another world) is associated with ego.

Without first hand experience, or without a convincing display from someone who knows, I like to keep an open mind to both, for risk of unhealthy attachment to either.

The reason why I posted the OP was that if Nibbhana involved a metaphysical (other world) then I was surprised that the Buddha would hold back on the teaching.

I haven't heard a good reason yet, for the Buddhas stance.

The Buddha taught compassion.

Knowing the endless suffering in this world, If he had access to another world he would surely waste no time helping others through.

Edited September 23, 2012 by rockyysdt

[sabaijai]

The Buddhas....and other Arahants who have reached the goal...could sit back and await their final death.

But the Buddha recommended to them to continue practice for peace of mind.

They have already reached the point where they are disenchanted with ordinary worldy pleasures and they can still suffer the pains of past karma so retreat into meditation is best.

They do not NEED to practice to keep on edge...there is no falling back for them.

If I were to reach stream-entry there would be no need for me to practice further, but having glimpses of Nibbana I would not be inclined to be lazy and would seek the final goal.

Hi Fred.

Isn't this interpretation only one of the possibilities of what the Buddha was teaching?

Isn't another possibility that Nibanna is something we perform rather than a place we go to?

In this possibility when we stop performing practice we go back to samsara (we are samsara ing - verb), or when we die we can no longer practice (same)?

I don't see that fabianfred is suggesting that nibbana is a place.

Nibbana is a state that is neither created nor destroyed, but from which there is no return.

"Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising." -- MN 72

[fabianfred]

Why the Buddha 'Hesitated' to Teach:

http://www.google.co...60IaCK5Bceir81g

Edited September 23, 2012 by camerata
Added title of link document

[rockyysdt]

The Buddhas....and other Arahants who have reached the goal...could sit back and await their final death.

But the Buddha recommended to them to continue practice for peace of mind.

They have already reached the point where they are disenchanted with ordinary worldy pleasures and they can still suffer the pains of past karma so retreat into meditation is best.

They do not NEED to practice to keep on edge...there is no falling back for them.

If I were to reach stream-entry there would be no need for me to practice further, but having glimpses of Nibbana I would not be inclined to be lazy and would seek the final goal.

Hi Fred.

Isn't this interpretation only one of the possibilities of what the Buddha was teaching?

Isn't another possibility that Nibanna is something we perform rather than a place we go to?

In this possibility when we stop performing practice we go back to samsara (we are samsara ing - verb), or when we die we can no longer practice (same)?

I don't see that fabianfred is suggesting that nibbana is a place.

Nibbana is a state that is neither created nor destroyed, but from which there is no return.

"Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising." -- MN 72

Thanks for this link SJ.

I've saved it for future reference.

Many of the answers are in metaphor.

Instead of providing an answer they raise more questions.

From inconstancy, its branches and leaves would wear away, its bark would wear away, its sapwood would wear away, so that on a later occasion — divested of branches, leaves, bark, & sapwood — it would stand as pure heartwood.

I concede that matters metaphysical can never be answered by those in the physical.

[rockyysdt]

http://www.google.co...60IaCK5Bceir81g

Many thanks Fred.

An interesting work.

I'll need time to digest it but will read it with interest.

The Three Teachings, by the way, is a very worthwhile read.

[Several]

Talk of Nibbana as a location sounds like the Christian idea of heaven. Conditions of entrance may vary, Buddhism includes then goes beyond morality, but it sounds like a cop-out. Buddha would not talk about Nibbana so it does become difficult to see the target we aim for. He speaks of the journey without describing the destination. Metaphysical aspects are no different to other perceptions or sensations, desire, anger or confusion etc arising therefrom. None of the six senses achieve the aim. Clinging to any one of them through desire or aversion will halt our progress at that point. To teach this path to liberation would be a massive conundrum. Its no surprise that he paused at the foot of that mountain. He enlightens himself then begins to enlighten all sentient beings. The scale of it is mind blowing.

[rockyysdt]

He speaks of the journey without describing the destination.

I'm still wading through he documents SJ & Fred referred to, although much of the Buddhas works seem to equally support "moment to moment re birth in this life only" and "re birth into many futures lives".

To me the "journey" being more important than the "destination" is suggestive of "this life only".

To me it suggests that living (journey) our lives free from greed aversion and delusion is the goal.

As you say "Nibbana as a location sounds like the Christian idea of heaven".

Destination is a place one travels to.

As there is no place this seems to further support the "journey".

Metaphysical aspects are no different to other perceptions or sensations, desire, anger or confusion etc arising therefrom. None of the six senses achieve the aim.

I'm not sure what you mean about the Metaphysical aspects Sev.

Do you mean that we can become attached (greed) to the idea of a reward at the end (Nibhanna ) or that we can become attached (aversion) to the idea of re birth with future suffering (vipaka as a result of kharma)?

Edited September 24, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Several]

Meaning that any form 'o perception causes some form 'o desire/aversion. Whether I see or smell cake (mundane) or saw in a dream that breakfast would include cake (metaphysical), I drool and say; "mmmm, caaake." Lust, desire and anger at any foolish enough to interfere with my cake. Bad kamma due to bakery products.

[Several]

So I'm postulating that attraction to or aversion from anything is identical in effect. Too much desire to aquire or be rid of something creates many ideas and feelings towards a thing. Equanimity is the way. (I would go on but its chant o'clock.)

[linuxuser010101]

People tend to want to nail you to something, set you on fire or throw rocks at you when you tell them the truth.

[Several]

Yeah. Look what happened to that carpenter. Nasty.

[rockyysdt]

Why the Buddha 'Hesitated' to Teach:

http://www.google.co...60IaCK5Bceir81g

Thanks Fred.

Reading through this document revealed a number of things.

It suggests that the Buddha Gotama was initially on a personal quest.

He was emotionally traumatized by the suffering and death he saw outside the palace walls.

He sought awakening as an escape from illness, ageing, decay, suffering, and death.

It was also said that once awakened, whether he taught or not made no difference to his attainment.

He had already escaped the cycle of re birth and suffering.

What the document says is that the Buddha needed to be asked.

Brahma asked three times.

Although he initially thought that his Dharma would be very difficult to teach, after having been asked, he surveyed the world with his Buddha Eye and realized some had a little dust in their eyes, progressively to those with a lot of dust and realized his teaching would be worthwhile.

This formulated the style to which Buddhism is taught.

There is another important point regarding the Buddha’s hesitance to teach. In the Mah Parinibbna Sutta (D 16), when nanda fails to invite him to extend his life-span to continue

teaching, he renounces the life-formation and passes into final nirvana. In other words, when invited, the Buddha teaches; when he sees his work is done, he takes his leave. This gentle unobtrusive

spirit of compassion and wisdom is at the heart of Buddhist mission, where one should not (and cannot) force the truth upon another, but like nourishing food, it can only be gently and

wisely offered to others, but they must themselves partake of it.

Does this suggest that "Awakening" did not bring omnipotence, otherwise the Buddha would have automatically known these things?

If he was "Awakened" why would the Buddha have to think things over before eliciting his compassion to those who are yet to escape a never ending cycle of suffering?

Unless one had the knowledge or understanding that the true Dharma had been discovered, how would one know to ask?

If the Buddha had prepared himself for eaons for his return, why would he not automatically embark in teaching?

Edited October 28, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

I like this quote:

The first kind of lotus––drowned in the dark and murky waters––represents those with much dust in their eyes, with dull faculties, with bad qualities, difficult to teach, not seeing blame and fear in the next world.

For such beings, there is little hope, at least for the time being, of bringing them out of the darkness of their ignorance and delusion.

They are like the poor field that would be cultivated only after the better ones have been cultivated.

Edited October 28, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

Perhaps some of us may fall in this group:

Then there is the second, in-between, group (the lotuses bobbing up and down on the water surface), hesitating between the true and the false, wavering between good and evil.

They would either be saved or be lost, depending on whether or not they hear the Dharma.

This is the moderate field waiting for cultivation by the wise farmer.

[rockyysdt]

Most importantly, he was asked to teach, and after consideration, proclaimed his role as teacher.

Satisfied with his stay at Uruvel, the Buddha sets out for Benares to look for the five monks.

Between Buddha,gaya and Gaya, the Buddha meets the naked ascetic, Upaka, who, struck by

the Buddha’s radiant personality, utters,

“Serene are your senses, friend! Clear and bright is your complexion. Under

whom have you gone forth? Who is your teacher? Whose doctrine do you profess?”

[buddha:]

All have I overcome, all do I know,

From all am I detached, all have I renounced,

Through the stopping of craving, I am freed,

Having understood all by myself, whom shall I call teacher?

No teacher have I,

An equal to me there is none.

In all the world, with its gods, there is no rival to me.

Indeed, an arhat am I in this world.

An unsurpassed Teacher am I.

Alone am I the All-awakened One,

Quenched, whose fires are all extinguished.

I'm going to Kasi to set the Wheel of Truth in motion.

In this blind world, I shall beat the Drum of Deathlessness!

“Then, friend, you admit that you are a Conqueror of the Infinite (ananta,jina)?”66

Upaka asks.

The Conquerors like me are those whose impurities have been destroyed.

All the evil things I have conquered.

Therefore, Upaka, am I called Conqueror!

“It may be so, friend,” Upaka wryly remarks and shaking his head [in lukewarm

approval or ambivalence],turns into a path and leaves.

(V 1:8; M 1:171; J 1:81; DhA 4:71 f; cf Miln 235; UA 54; Kvu 289; Mvst 3:326)

Edited October 28, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Jawnie]

The Buddhas and most other masters have usually said the enlightened state can't be described or defined so we should probably stop trying too, also. The Buddha did not need to practice because he had attained the deathless, wishless state of original Buddha nature where all experience is pure and there are no defilements, separate beings, real appearances, etc. To say that the Buddha needed to continue to practice misses the essential point that practice is only for those who have not yet regained the original Buddha nature.

It is as the Buddha said, namely, that he thought what he attained was too subtle and difficult for beings to understand. As it says, this was the reason for his hesitation at the beginning.

[rockyysdt]

It is as the Buddha said, namely, that he thought what he attained was too subtle and difficult for beings to understand. As it says, this was the reason for his hesitation at the beginning.

Does this make "Awakening" a state not omnipotent?

A state, as powerful and wondorous as it is, non the less at a level when one who has attained it still needs time to think about it?

We are talking about something which is said to be Permanent & Unconditioned.

The only way for beings to escape Samsara.

Edited October 28, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Jawnie]

Rockyysd: don't really understand your questions. The enlightened mind is complete, uncompounded, and can not be touched. Nothing needs to be added to it or taken away. It is beyond all compounded entities or approaches to it. Omnipotence?

[rockyysdt]

Rockyysd: don't really understand your questions. The enlightened mind is complete, uncompounded, and can not be touched. Nothing needs to be added to it or taken away. It is beyond all compounded entities or approaches to it. Omnipotence?

Unlimited, all knowing, supreme, infinite in power.

A state which is permanent and unconditioned.

In terms of hesitation towards teaching, why would such a mind need time to decide whether to be compassionate enough to teach the Dharma?

Why did the Buddha have to think about it?

Doesn't what appears to be the need for a thinking process to take place indicate a state (Awakening), as powerful as it is, not as omnipotent as many of us believe, but rather the pinnacle of the state the human can aspire to?

Edited October 28, 2012 by rockyysdt

[huli]

Rockyysd: don't really understand your questions. The enlightened mind is complete, uncompounded, and can not be touched. Nothing needs to be added to it or taken away. It is beyond all compounded entities or approaches to it. Omnipotence?

Unlimited, all knowing, supreme, infinite in power.

A state which is permanent and unconditioned.

In terms of hesitation towards teaching, why would such a mind need time to decide whether to be compassionate enough to teach the Dharma?

Why did the Buddha have to think about it?

Doesn't what appears to be the need for a thinking process to take place indicate a state (Awakening), as powerful as it is, not as omnipotent as many of us believe, but rather the pinnacle of the state the human can aspire to?

Buddha was not all-knowing, he did not teach plate techtonics, or that the earth revolves around the sun, for example.

The hesitation Buddha had in considering whether to teach or not had to do with if it would be effective. It was not described as whether or not to be compassionate.

Buddha was not beyond thought. Thought has it's place. I imagine that Buddha gave a lot of thought to what he did and the characteristics of the people around him. Granted he was not consumed by though as most of us are (haha ThaiVisa posters!)