What Gautam Buddha originally teaches?
-
What Gautam Buddha originally teaches? Very little is known about Gautam Buddha, but in fact a lot of modern buddhism dogma and stories are made up by his followers. Everything that we heard about the biography of Gautam Buddha is hear-say through ancient scriptures which were written after details related to him were passed by generations orally. It is stated that Gautama Siddartha was a North Indian Prince who lived between 563 and 479 BC and later on came to be known as Buddha or Enlightened One. It is stated that Queen Maya died seven days after giving birth to Gautama and Prince Siddhartha is said to have gone to Trayastrimsa Heaven and stayed there for three months to preach supreme knowledge to his mother. Astrologers had stated that Prince Siddhartha would become a great sage on growing up if he came to know of the sufferings of mankind and in order to prevent this from happening his father King Suddhodana tried to prevent access of the outside world to Prince Siddartha and offered him all the worldly pleasures so that he could turn out to be a worthwhile king but its stated that nothing can change destiny but a visit to the kingdom changed all where he saw the sufferings of mankind and he left his kingdom to go on to become an ascetic. Lord Buddha tried self mortification for six years but failed and traveled to Gaya and sat under a fig tree to gain enlightenment. Here he achieved what he wanted and became Buddha, a person who was released from consciousness of suffering. Gautam Buddha, like Jesus, is a great teacher of good and compassionate. Both actually did not form a dogma, neither did they claim to be enlightened or being God at all. They both formed their idea of good under the background they are in. The ultimaum that they concluded is that good is right way, they did not claim they grasp the universe of the truths. It is their followers being superstitous and fabulous made up the dogma, fables and tales, and made them to be God, and made their religions authoritative of the truths they say. And so said the dogmas of the religions, that are not originally taught by Buddha or Jesus. Gautam Buddha was so shock when he first saw the sufferings of the people. He could never ever imagine this before, because it truly was so very pleasurable in his palace. He had a wife and a son. He was so shock that he could not accept it, that he abandoned his family and his responsiblity as a prince to find the truth to relieve his turmoil. He seeked out the Hindu religion and followed many teachers and practice mediatations to achieve nirvana. But however when each stage of mediatation level of peace he reached, he still found it not satisfied and very lacking. And thus went to seek other teachers and went thru several stages of mediatations. And he practised strict ascetism no food under mediation. In the end, although he gained greater peace for each stage, he found them to be lacking and peace is never eternal in fact. Finally under fig tree, he changed his thinking. He asked for food and he partaked food while mediatation, although a lot of practitioners scorned at him for doing so. Then he realised that modernation is the way, not the strict ascetism. What the modernation is the middle way. Then he realised what stupidity he was to abandon what he had to do. And there is no true enlightenment just by mediating all day long with strict ascetism. So he stopped the self mortifictation practise, instead he returned back and practised compassion to the people. He knew that man needs to understand his situation and therefore think postively in each situation to move forward. He now saw the social injustice caused by indian caste system, and he seeked to remove it. The end of sufferings is when one practise compassion above all and by practising compassion, we achieve towards stage of nirvana. He taught that we should rely on ourselves, not on scriptures, not on your caste, not on your riches, not on others, or not even on your inward nature. We achieve nirvana by what we do, not how good our inward nature is. Although he still accepted Hindu scriptures teaching on rebirth and karma as truth, he no longer emphasize them and use them as the excuse for sufferings. People loved Gautam Buddha. He was a good great prince, who did everything for the people. But he was never a god or he thought himself to be enlightened or not. After he died, people made up dogmas from worshipping him to holy respecting him above gods. As basically Buddha did not teach any dogma, as compared to Hinduism with strong dogmas and scriptures backing. There is a gradual decline of Buddhism. In 13th century, Buddhism is completely vanished from land of its birth. What remains is at Tibet and those who brought out Buddhism out of India reinvented Buddhism in their country like China. Many say buddhism disappearance from India is the greatest supreme irony that good religion fails, but it is not. It is expected. So choose now you want to be Idol worshippers or Buddha-nature followers, alternatively Churchtainity or True Christianity. If Buddha will come alive today, he will be pai-se and say plz dooon't carve the whole earth planet to be my buddha head lah.
-
HE originally told you to find out the truth yourself the right way and not to be blinded by illusions of outer reality and even your own thoughts....
-
There is no right way or wrong way. Any way that can condition a person to be good is a good way. And Buddha way is to rely on oneself and only compassionate can free oneself and others from sufferings to achieve true nirvana, this is what he believes. All things are impermanent, and there is no absolute truth, this is also what he concluded.
-
isn't it obvious TS is a clone ???/
i guess it's Googoomuck in disguise............
anyway............the Buddha provided the 2 best proofs that all religions are man-made........
1) no physical reality............proven by science on the sub-atomic level.............don't forget that places like heaven and hell are made up by people becoz they think there's a physical reality.......
2) no soul or self............the most important point of all since all religions are based on existence of soul or self.......
-
The irony is this: the forum is entitled ""eternal hope"" - how can it ever be reconciled when that which is eternal is timelessnes; beyond the self and beyond the comprehension of self-conscious ones! Hope is futurizing and it is psychological in nature and is there a need to elaborate further?
Budda was good, Christ was good, Krishna was good - they were ''awakened'' ones though it was later articulated in different ways after their passing on. They were sharing spiritual experiences and cajoling the followers or ...? to awake to the predicament of sleep-walking! This is unlearning and being free.
Buddhism, Christianity and Hinduism and .... is religion and when it is organized it excludes others or another. Is not one alrealdy alienating oneself? It excludes, it divides. This is learning being unfree.
It is so very easy to cite texts, cite history and it amounts to nothing when it is being regurgitated or expounded. It is mere knowledge - religiousness is an individual expereince and it takes more than simply going to a chruch, temple or ... and assume that one is being religious.
-
There is no absolute truth vs absolute truth. By saying there is no absolute truth means u are already making an absolute statement. Now THAT is something you cant reconcile on.
And as for Eternal Hope, I dont see whe Hope cant be Eternal. Too much Star Trek ? Are u a Vulcan ?
While I applaud you guys for your efforts, why not leave us to our religion and you guys can create your own forums.And "awaken" those that want to be "awakened".
When we are all dead and dust, and when the earth disolves like snow and the sun forbears to shine, we shall know the Truth or perhaps to you guys, there is no Truth at all. =)
It's Christmas Eve and its Friday, maybe you guys should go take a bath, change your clothes go out socialise and appreciate what mother nature has to offer.
Merry Christmas .
-
there is but one absolute truth...
-
Originally posted by Fcukpap:
there is but one absolute truth...
The Absolute Truth in this one = Drunkeness. In our quest to find happiness, one can find it at the end of the bottle. Dont believe me ? Finish it.. and u will find it.
-
drink dun drive...
MERRY X'MAS!
-
Why drink and drive... when you can smoke and fly..
lol.
kk really gotta go. hahaa! Laters
-
Originally posted by TrueReppuzan:
What Gautam Buddha originally teaches?
Very little is known about Gautam Buddha, but in fact a lot of modern buddhism dogma and stories are made up by his followers. Everything that we heard about the biography of Gautam Buddha is hear-say through ancient scriptures which were written after details related to him were passed by generations orally. It is stated that Gautama Siddartha was a North Indian Prince who lived between 563 and 479 BC and later on came to be known as Buddha or Enlightened One. It is stated that Queen Maya died seven days after giving birth to Gautama and Prince Siddhartha is said to have gone to Trayastrimsa Heaven and stayed there for three months to preach supreme knowledge to his mother. Astrologers had stated that Prince Siddhartha would become a great sage on growing up if he came to know of the sufferings of mankind and in order to prevent this from happening his father King Suddhodana tried to prevent access of the outside world to Prince Siddartha and offered him all the worldly pleasures so that he could turn out to be a worthwhile king but its stated that nothing can change destiny but a visit to the kingdom changed all where he saw the sufferings of mankind and he left his kingdom to go on to become an ascetic. Lord Buddha tried self mortification for six years but failed and traveled to Gaya and sat under a fig tree to gain enlightenment. Here he achieved what he wanted and became Buddha, a person who was released from consciousness of suffering.
Gautam Buddha, like Jesus, is a great teacher of good and compassionate. Both actually did not form a dogma, neither did they claim to be enlightened or being God at all. They both formed their idea of good under the background they are in. The ultimaum that they concluded is that good is right way, they did not claim they grasp the universe of the truths. It is their followers being superstitous and fabulous made up the dogma, fables and tales, and made them to be God, and made their religions authoritative of the truths they say. And so said the dogmas of the religions, that are not originally taught by Buddha or Jesus.
Gautam Buddha was so shock when he first saw the sufferings of the people. He could never ever imagine this before, because it truly was so very pleasurable in his palace. He had a wife and a son. He was so shock that he could not accept it, that he abandoned his family and his responsiblity as a prince to find the truth to relieve his turmoil. He seeked out the Hindu religion and followed many teachers and practice mediatations to achieve nirvana. But however when each stage of mediatation level of peace he reached, he still found it not satisfied and very lacking. And thus went to seek other teachers and went thru several stages of mediatations. And he practised strict ascetism no food under mediation. In the end, although he gained greater peace for each stage, he found them to be lacking and peace is never eternal in fact. Finally under fig tree, he changed his thinking. He asked for food and he partaked food while mediatation, although a lot of practitioners scorned at him for doing so. Then he realised that modernation is the way, not the strict ascetism. What the modernation is the middle way. Then he realised what stupidity he was to abandon what he had to do. And there is no true enlightenment just by mediating all day long with strict ascetism. So he stopped the self mortifictation practise, instead he returned back and practised compassion to the people. He knew that man needs to understand his situation and therefore think postively in each situation to move forward. He now saw the social injustice caused by indian caste system, and he seeked to remove it. The end of sufferings is when one practise compassion above all and by practising compassion, we achieve towards stage of nirvana. He taught that we should rely on ourselves, not on scriptures, not on your caste, not on your riches, not on others, or not even on your inward nature. We achieve nirvana by what we do, not how good our inward nature is. Although he still accepted Hindu scriptures teaching on rebirth and karma as truth, he no longer emphasize them and use them as the excuse for sufferings.
People loved Gautam Buddha. He was a good great prince, who did everything for the people. But he was never a god or he thought himself to be enlightened or not. After he died, people made up dogmas from worshipping him to holy respecting him above gods. As basically Buddha did not teach any dogma, as compared to Hinduism with strong dogmas and scriptures backing. There is a gradual decline of Buddhism. In 13th century, Buddhism is completely vanished from land of its birth. What remains is at Tibet and those who brought out Buddhism out of India reinvented Buddhism in their country like China. Many say buddhism disappearance from India is the greatest supreme irony that good religion fails, but it is not. It is expected.
So choose now you want to be Idol worshippers or Buddha-nature followers,
alternatively Churchtainity or True Christianity. If Buddha will come alive today, he will be pai-se and say plz dooon’t carve the whole earth planet to be my buddha head lah.Your post contains some truths and some misunderstandings.
Here are a few points:
1) The first paragraph is accurate. Second paragraph onwards there are errors. For example, you said Buddha did not claim to be enlightened, which is false. The Buddha had on *many* occasions claim complete awakening. However, he does not claim to be God, because in Buddhism there is no God (creator).
And I quote from Buddha regarding his awakening:
"Monks, the Tathagata (Thus Come One/Buddha) — the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one, who from disenchantment with form, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for form) is released — is termed 'rightly self-awakened.'"
2) Both Buddha and Jesus teach compassion, however, compassion is not the main thing the Buddha taught. As dharma teacher Loppon Namdrol points out:
Whoever is attached to a result for this life, is not a Dharma person.
The purpose of Dharma is liberation, not feeling better in this life. The purpose of Dharma is not the cultivation of mundane compassion, and so on.
The purpose of Dharma is to control afflictions, then overcome them, and finally, to attain a state of total omniscience and freedom.3) Likewise, just being good is not the main purpose of Buddha's teachings. Buddha's teachings aim to end suffering, and even though 'being good, avoiding evil' is part of the path, that by itself does not lead to enlightenment or the end of suffering/nirvana. It only leads to good karma and rebirth in heaven, which are temporary.
4) You rightly pointed out that Buddha sought the end of suffering and first seeked the instructions of teachers who taught him how to enter meditative absorptions (jhanas), in particular the 7th and 8th formless jhanic state (the jhana of nothingness and the jhana of neither perception nor non-perception). Such high meditative states of absorption however did not bring the insight that leads to the end of suffering. It does not lead to enlightenment. You are also right that ascetism and bodily mortification does not lead to enlightenment, and moderation (a.k.a. 'the middle way') is what leads to enlightenment.
That said, what happened immediately after he renounced those ascetic practices is not 'So he stopped the self mortifictation practise, instead he returned back and practised compassion to the people.'
Practicing mundane compassion alone will not lead to enlightenment. What leads to enlightenment is insight practice, the contemplation into the nature of dharmas, the nature of anicca (impermanence), dukkha (unsatisfactoriness), and anatta (non-self) - the three dharma seals, as well as the contemplation into the truth of Dependent Origination. Through contemplating Dependent Origination, the Buddha attained the final release.
At first, he did not want to teach because he thought nobody will understand him. However after the request by brahma sahampati to spread the dharma, he followed thus and taught the dharma to sentient beings.
5) You are right about the fact the Buddha rejected the caste system. However, compassion isn't the cause of insight - however compassion is a skillful mental quality, and furthermore if you do not wish to stop at the level of personal liberation (arhantship) and wishes to further your practice into Buddhahood, then the aspiration to practice the Bodhisattva path which includes generation of great compassion (the compassion to lead other sentient beings to liberation), is important. However compassion alone does not lead to wisdom, and compassion without wisdom only leads to rebirth in higher samsaric realms.
6) Regarding 'We achieve nirvana by what we do, not how good our inward nature is.', no, Nirvana is achieved not by moral deeds, but by contemplating the nature of reality (as described above). In other words, do vipassana meditation (in contrast to samatha meditation which leads to concentrative absorptions but not insight - such practices does not in itself lead to enlightenment but may serve as a stable foundation for insight practice)... if that is what you mean by 'what we do' then I agree. Simply being moral alone does not lead to liberation - lots of people are morally upright and religion is not the sole arbiter of morality, as I always say: morality is not the monopoly of religions, religion cannot claim to be the authority of morality. Morality is something even non-religious people should know.
-
Eternal is beyond the the mind, hope is the expereince of the mind. Eternal is that which is everchanging and an existential herenow phenomenon. One has to be present to the ''present'' and the ''presence'' and ''flow'' with what is. Hope is that of futurizing and how one be herenow aka being eternal and yet hoping?
Having said that many seem to overlook this - when one dislikes a Buddhism (t) or a Christian (Christianity) or ... one is already blocked n blocking understanding or as espoused here erroneously assumed that it is a discussion, one is already prejudiced and bigoted. Why do I say that - cos one can label a bottle, a packet of cigarettes - it is a finished product, a dead thing. Are human beings dead things? If I were to say that someone is being stupid it is not the same as me labelling another as stupid. In the latter, i have negated the other, I have reduced another to a thing.
Understanding has ceased to happen. So this hypocritical stance that one is discussing is humbug. What is real is one is merely defending one''' s beleifs aka what what has acquired as knowledge and made it into a part of oneself. Hence, this stance of blindly accepting and fearful and defensive when one is being questioned or one is thrown into the existential ''chaos'' (cos human mind cannot accept uncertainty, hence the word chaos) of uncertainty. The fear is that the one's sense of self is threathened. It is a psychological ''prop''. Also, one is fearful of finding out that one has been prgrammed, one has been conditioned and what happens if it turns out to be true!
What is true (not truth) transcends Buddhism, Christianity or ... . human mind defined and hence the predicament. When one defines, one confines oneself.
-
to lazy too read
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Your post contains some truths and some misunderstandings.
Here are a few points:
1) The first paragraph is accurate. Second paragraph onwards there are errors. For example, you said Buddha did not claim to be enlightened, which is false. The Buddha had on *many* occasions claim complete awakening. However, he does not claim to be God, because in Buddhism there is no God (creator).
And I quote from Buddha regarding his awakening:
"Monks, the Tathagata (Thus Come One/Buddha) — the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one, who from disenchantment with form, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for form) is released — is termed 'rightly self-awakened.'"
2) Both Buddha and Jesus teach compassion, however, compassion is not the main thing the Buddha taught. As dharma teacher Loppon Namdrol points out:
Whoever is attached to a result for this life, is not a Dharma person.
The purpose of Dharma is liberation, not feeling better in this life. The purpose of Dharma is not the cultivation of mundane compassion, and so on.
The purpose of Dharma is to control afflictions, then overcome them, and finally, to attain a state of total omniscience and freedom.3) Likewise, just being good is not the main purpose of Buddha's teachings. Buddha's teachings aim to end suffering, and even though 'being good, avoiding evil' is part of the path, that by itself does not lead to enlightenment or the end of suffering/nirvana. It only leads to good karma and rebirth in heaven, which are temporary.
4) You rightly pointed out that Buddha sought the end of suffering and first seeked the instructions of teachers who taught him how to enter meditative absorptions (jhanas), in particular the 7th and 8th formless jhanic state (the jhana of nothingness and the jhana of neither perception nor non-perception). Such high meditative states of absorption however did not bring the insight that leads to the end of suffering. It does not lead to enlightenment. You are also right that ascetism and bodily mortification does not lead to enlightenment, and moderation (a.k.a. 'the middle way') is what leads to enlightenment.
That said, what happened immediately after he renounced those ascetic practices is not 'So he stopped the self mortifictation practise, instead he returned back and practised compassion to the people.'
Practicing mundane compassion alone will not lead to enlightenment. What leads to enlightenment is insight practice, the contemplation into the nature of dharmas, the nature of anicca (impermanence), dukkha (unsatisfactoriness), and anatta (non-self) - the three dharma seals, as well as the contemplation into the truth of Dependent Origination. Through contemplating Dependent Origination, the Buddha attained the final release.
At first, he did not want to teach because he thought nobody will understand him. However after the request by brahma sahampati to spread the dharma, he followed thus and taught the dharma to sentient beings.
5) You are right about the fact the Buddha rejected the caste system. However, compassion isn't the cause of insight - however compassion is a skillful mental quality, and furthermore if you do not wish to stop at the level of personal liberation (arhantship) and wishes to further your practice into Buddhahood, then the aspiration to practice the Bodhisattva path which includes generation of great compassion (the compassion to lead other sentient beings to liberation), is important. However compassion alone does not lead to wisdom, and compassion without wisdom only leads to rebirth in higher samsaric realms.
6) Regarding 'We achieve nirvana by what we do, not how good our inward nature is.', no, Nirvana is achieved not by moral deeds, but by contemplating the nature of reality (as described above). In other words, do vipassana meditation (in contrast to samatha meditation which leads to concentrative absorptions but not insight - such practices does not in itself lead to enlightenment but may serve as a stable foundation for insight practice)... if that is what you mean by 'what we do' then I agree. Simply being moral alone does not lead to liberation - lots of people are morally upright and morality is not the sole province of religion, as I always say: morality is not the monopoly of religions, religion cannot claim to be the authority of morality. Morality is something even non-religious people should know.
agree .agree
-
Originally posted by As romanista2001:
isn't it obvious TS is a clone ???/
i guess it's Googoomuck in disguise............
anyway............the Buddha provided the 2 best proofs that all religions are man-made........
1) no physical reality............proven by science on the sub-atomic level.............don't forget that places like heaven and hell are made up by people becoz they think there's a physical reality.......
2) no soul or self............the most important point of all since all religions are based on existence of soul or self.......
besides no soul, liberation can be attained by oneself and not thru external source like god.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Why drink and drive... when you can smoke and fly..
lol.
kk really gotta go. hahaa! Laters
muhahaha it is StarTrek 3001... lol... everyone has ultimate dogma truths to everything lah... Jesus will be angry with you, when you smoke and fly and drink ultimate vodka.. You better watch out or He is going to ignore you when you come home. -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Your post contains some truths and some misunderstandings.
Here are a few points:
1) The first paragraph is accurate. Second paragraph onwards there are errors. For example, you said Buddha did not claim to be enlightened, which is false. The Buddha had on *many* occasions claim complete awakening. However, he does not claim to be God, because in Buddhism there is no God (creator).
And I quote from Buddha regarding his awakening:
"Monks, the Tathagata (Thus Come One/Buddha) — the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one, who from disenchantment with form, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for form) is released — is termed 'rightly self-awakened.'"
2) Both Buddha and Jesus teach compassion, however, compassion is not the main thing the Buddha taught. As dharma teacher Loppon Namdrol points out:
Whoever is attached to a result for this life, is not a Dharma person.
The purpose of Dharma is liberation, not feeling better in this life. The purpose of Dharma is not the cultivation of mundane compassion, and so on.
The purpose of Dharma is to control afflictions, then overcome them, and finally, to attain a state of total omniscience and freedom.3) Likewise, just being good is not the main purpose of Buddha's teachings. Buddha's teachings aim to end suffering, and even though 'being good, avoiding evil' is part of the path, that by itself does not lead to enlightenment or the end of suffering/nirvana. It only leads to good karma and rebirth in heaven, which are temporary.
4) You rightly pointed out that Buddha sought the end of suffering and first seeked the instructions of teachers who taught him how to enter meditative absorptions (jhanas), in particular the 7th and 8th formless jhanic state (the jhana of nothingness and the jhana of neither perception nor non-perception). Such high meditative states of absorption however did not bring the insight that leads to the end of suffering. It does not lead to enlightenment. You are also right that ascetism and bodily mortification does not lead to enlightenment, and moderation (a.k.a. 'the middle way') is what leads to enlightenment.
That said, what happened immediately after he renounced those ascetic practices is not 'So he stopped the self mortifictation practise, instead he returned back and practised compassion to the people.'
Practicing mundane compassion alone will not lead to enlightenment. What leads to enlightenment is insight practice, the contemplation into the nature of dharmas, the nature of anicca (impermanence), dukkha (unsatisfactoriness), and anatta (non-self) - the three dharma seals, as well as the contemplation into the truth of Dependent Origination. Through contemplating Dependent Origination, the Buddha attained the final release.
At first, he did not want to teach because he thought nobody will understand him. However after the request by brahma sahampati to spread the dharma, he followed thus and taught the dharma to sentient beings.
5) You are right about the fact the Buddha rejected the caste system. However, compassion isn't the cause of insight - however compassion is a skillful mental quality, and furthermore if you do not wish to stop at the level of personal liberation (arhantship) and wishes to further your practice into Buddhahood, then the aspiration to practice the Bodhisattva path which includes generation of great compassion (the compassion to lead other sentient beings to liberation), is important. However compassion alone does not lead to wisdom, and compassion without wisdom only leads to rebirth in higher samsaric realms.
6) Regarding 'We achieve nirvana by what we do, not how good our inward nature is.', no, Nirvana is achieved not by moral deeds, but by contemplating the nature of reality (as described above). In other words, do vipassana meditation (in contrast to samatha meditation which leads to concentrative absorptions but not insight - such practices does not in itself lead to enlightenment but may serve as a stable foundation for insight practice)... if that is what you mean by 'what we do' then I agree. Simply being moral alone does not lead to liberation - lots of people are morally upright and religion is not the sole arbiter of morality, as I always say: morality is not the monopoly of religions, religion cannot claim to be the authority of morality. Morality is something even non-religious people should know.
Thank you, it is very good clarification.
However that is the dogma of modern buddhism. Speaking of anicca (impermanence), dukkha (unsatisfactoriness), and anatta (non-self) as well as the Dependent Origination, they are correct. As you have said, contemplating the true nature of reality is the key in liberation. If this is so, then Buddha won't want not to teach these things to people in first place. But it is after persuasion by brahma sahampati, then he became more awakened to teach others on dharma reality.. lol..
You also mentioned practising vipassana meditation while samatha meditation may serve as a stable foundation for insight practice. Buddha has been practising vipassana meditation, but he found it lacking in the end. Practising vispassana meditation is useful but must be careful. But again based on fixation and changing of your self reality on what you think is insight, your meditation will be shaped.
Great teachers all realise one thing - they don't have the ultimate truth about the universe. One can say that there must be a First Cause, and another can say that there is no need to consider first cause, but just causes & effects. Both are inadequant. The ultimaum that they concluded is that good is right way, they did not claim they grasp the universe of the truths.
-
Originally posted by TrueReppuzan:
Thank you, it is very good clarification.
However that is the dogma of modern buddhism. Speaking of anicca (impermanence), dukkha (unsatisfactoriness), and anatta (non-self) as well as the Dependent Origination, they are correct. As you have said, contemplating the true nature of reality is the key in liberation. If this is so, then Buddha won't want not to teach these things to people in first place. But it is after persuasion by brahma sahampati, then he became more awakened to teach others on dharma reality.. lol..
You also mentioned practising vipassana meditation while samatha meditation may serve as a stable foundation for insight practice. Buddha has been practising vipassana meditation, but he found it lacking in the end. Practising vispassana meditation is useful but must be careful. But again based on fixation and changing of your self reality on what you think is insight, your meditation will be shaped.
Great teachers all realise one thing - they don't have the ultimate truth about the universe. One can say that there must be a First Cause, and another can say that there is no need to consider first cause, but just causes & effects. Both are inadequant. The ultimaum that they concluded is that good is right way, they did not claim they grasp the universe of the truths.
Regarding 'If this is so, then Buddha won't want not to teach these things to people in first place. But it is after persuasion by brahma sahampati, then he became more awakened to teach others on dharma reality.. lol..'
Dependent Origination is taught in the very first discourse ever by Buddha which is on the four noble truths after being convinced by Brahma Sahampati to teach. Before that he never taught anything. Four noble truths exhibits the truth of dependent origination.
The second discourse he taught after the 4 noble truths is on how to contemplate the truth of Anatta.
You also mentioned practising vipassana meditation while samatha meditation may serve as a stable foundation for insight practice. Buddha has been practising vipassana meditation, but he found it lacking in the end. Practising vispassana meditation is useful but must be careful. But again based on fixation and changing of your self reality on what you think is insight, your meditation will be shaped.
You got it mixed up. It is samatha meditation that he found lacking - through samatha (one pointedness concentration practice), he achieved formless jhanas but not liberation.
Vipassana meditation (insight meditation) is what leads to liberation - by contemplating the nature of reality.
Also, insight meditation has nothing to do with 'fixation and changing your self reality'. It has all to do with observing the 3 dharma seals in moment to moment sensate reality. This means having bare awareness of our moment to moment sensate reality (what we feel, see, hear, etc) and observe the truth of reality exhibiting in every moment of arising.
This article explains the practice well: Chapter 13 ...(Mindfulness - Sati)
Great teachers all realise one thing - they don't have the ultimate truth about the universe. One can say that there must be a First Cause, and another can say that there is no need to consider first cause, but just causes & effects. Both are inadequant. The ultimaum that they concluded is that good is right way, they did not claim they grasp the universe of the truths.
No, this is false. Buddha has completely awakened to the truth of dependent origination. Also, 'good is the right way' is not the ultimatum in Buddhism - as I said, Buddhism is about realising the nature of reality which leads to liberation from afflictions and sufferings.
Being good is not enough. Being good leads you to higher realms or heaven, but even that is temporary. Non-Buddhists, non-religious people are also good - but they can never attain Nirvana. Vipassana (insight meditation) is perculiar to Buddhism.
-
Merry Christmas to all Christians at EH!
-
Originally posted by Linkinpark3466:
to lazy too read
then why the heck are you here for ???!!!
i hope you're too lazy to breathe too !
are you Googoomuck ?.................LOL
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
besides no soul, liberation can be attained by oneself and not thru external source like god.
there isalways an external something for Christians to rely on............
people to die for you...........people to forgive your sins............an external heaven............external god.........
heck..........makes you wonder why even need to be a Christian in the 1st place...........
-
Originally posted by Asromanista2001:
there isalways an external something for Christians to rely on............
people to die for you...........people to forgive your sins............an external heaven............external god.........
heck..........makes you wonder why even need to be a Christian in the 1st place...........
actually can try and test whether that is true or not?
if you are hungry, can ask someone to eat on your behalf to allay your hunger?
how about asking someone to study on your behalf to take the exam?
it is akin, like asking the genie for 3 wishes. in reality that is wishful thinking
-
who is Gautam Buddha? is it the Buddha after Maitreya?
I have never heard of Gautam Buddha before
-
“.. after being convinced by Brahma Sahampati to teach. Before that he never taught anything.”
First of all, you have avoided my question that if his insights to sufferings and the manner of meditation by insight are essential to salvation and nirvana achieving, why he did not want to teach them after he achieved his final enlightment. Becos people don't understand him?? For all the glorious goal to find the truths of suffering, he refused the very thing that he finally discovered. And he needs someone to say hey hey, pls teach your enlightment to others. Something is not correct here.
It is the same as when Jesus crying papa mama to God to take away the cruxification, we still can think Jesus is God who came to die for our sins. For a mother who sees his child in burning house, she will rush into the fiery house to save his child without thinking. Now we have Jesus, Son of God , who is God, scare to die on the cross for mankind sins.
The old Upanishads largely consider Brahman (masculine gender, Brahm� in the nominative case, henceforth "Brahm�") to be a personal god, and Brahman (neuter gender, Brahma in the nominative case, henceforth "Brahman") to be the impersonal world principle. They do not strictly distinguish between the two, however. The old Upanishads ascribe these characteristics to Brahm�: first, he has light and luster as his marks; second, he is invisible; third, he is unknowable, and it is impossible to know his nature; fourth, he is omniscient. The old Upanishads ascribe these characteristics to Brahman as well. In the Buddhist texts, there are many Brahm�s. There they form a class of superhuman beings, and rebirth into the realm of Brahm�s is possible by pursuing Buddhist practices. In the early texts, the Buddha gives arguments to refute the existence of a creator.
In the P�li scriptures, the neuter Brahman does not appear (though the word brahma is standardly used in compound words to mean "best", or "supreme"), however ideas are mentioned as held by various Brahmins in connection with Brahm� that match exactly with the concept of Brahman in the Upanishads. Brahmins who appear in the Tevijja-suttanta of the Digha Nikaya regard "union with Brahm�" as liberation, and earnestly seek it. In that text, Brahmins of the time are reported to assert: "Truly every Brahmin versed in the three Vedas has said thus: 'We shall expound the path for the sake of union with that which we do not know and do not see. This is the correct path. This path is the truth, and leads to liberation. If one practices it, he shall be able to enter into association with Brahm�." The early Upanishads frequently expound "association with Brahm�", and "that which we do not know and do not see" matches exactly with the early Upanishadic Brahman.
In the earliest Upanishad, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, the Absolute, which came to be referred to as Brahman, is referred to as "the imperishable".The P�li scriptures present a "pernicious view" that is set up as an absolute principle corresponding to Brahman: "O Bhikkhus! At that time Baka, the Brahm�, produced the following pernicious view: 'It is permanent. It is eternal. It is always existent. It is independent existence. It has the dharma of non-perishing. Truly it is not born, does not become old, does not die, does not disappear, and is not born again. Furthermore, no liberation superior to it exists elsewhere." The principle expounded here corresponds to the concept of Brahman laid out in the Upanishads. According to this text the Buddha criticized this notion: "Truly the Baka Brahm� is covered with unwisdom."
Brahman is one of the most important concepts in Hinduism, signifying ultimate reality. Brahman is absolute, eternal, ineffable, and impersonal. Literally, the terms means "the ever growing". It is also identified with atman, and so is frequently referred to as Brahman-Atman - the soul of the entire universe. Frequently all Hindu gods are assimilated into Brahman-Atman and regarded simply as personal manifestations of an impersonal force. Brahma-ism is somewhat contradictory to what Buddha has realised, that are annica, dukkha, annata and dependent origination.
Although Brahma Sahampati knew Buddha enlightment on dharma realities are somewhat different from other main-stream experiences, it does not negate the fact that this is also the manifestation of the true nature of realities, that the ultimate reality of Brahman is not easy to grasp. Therefore he asks Buddha to teach as he had learnt them.
Buddha never label his truths into 4 noble truths / etc, but it is the modern buddhistm that defined and developed his teachings as such.
-
“It is samatha meditation that he found lacking - through samatha (one pointedness concentration practice), he achieved formless jhanas but not liberation. Vipassana meditation (insight meditation) is what leads to liberation - by contemplating the nature of reality. Also, insight meditation has nothing to do with 'fixation and changing your self reality'. It has all to do with observing the 3 dharma seals in moment to moment sensate reality. This means having bare awareness of our moment to moment sensate reality (what we feel, see, hear, etc) and observe the truth of reality exhibiting in every moment of arising.”
a)Buddhism Meditation (Samatha, Jhana, Vipassana)
b)Tibetan Buddhism Meditation (Samatha)
c)Hindu Meditation (Dhyana, Yama, Niyama, Asana, Pranayama, Pratyahara, Dharana, Samadhi)
​​You are right that Vispassna is contributed by Buddhism to meditative science. In a way, yes, Buddha did not practise initially Vispassna. But in order to gain greater enlightment at each stage, insight is always needed. So it is not mere form of tranquil meditation, or what you say pointless concentration practise. There is always insight plus tranquil meditation.
Almost any book on early Buddhist meditation will tell you that the Buddha taught two types of meditation: samatha and vipassana. Samatha, which means tranquillity, is said to be a method fostering strong states of mental absorption, called jhana. Vipassana -- literally "clear-seeing," but more often translated as insight meditation -- is said to be a method using a modicum of tranquillity to foster moment-to-moment mindfulness of the inconstancy of events as they are directly experienced in the present. This mindfulness creates a sense of dispassion toward all events, thus leading the mind to release from suffering. These two methods are quite separate, we're told, and of the two, vipassana is the distinctive Buddhist contribution to meditative science. Other systems of practice pre-dating the Buddha also taught samatha, but the Buddha was the first to discover and teach vipassana. Although some Buddhist meditators may practice samatha meditation before turning to vipassana, samatha practice is not really necessary for the pursuit of Awakening. As a meditative tool, the vipassana method is sufficient for attaining the goal. Or so we're told.
But if you look directly at the Pali discourses -- the earliest extant sources for our knowledge of the Buddha's teachings -- you'll find that although they do use the word samatha to mean tranquillity, and vipassana to mean clear-seeing, they otherwise confirm none of the received wisdom about these terms. Only rarely do they make use of the word vipassana -- a sharp contrast to their frequent use of the word jhana. When they depict the Buddha telling his disciples to go meditate, they never quote him as saying "go do vipassana," but always "go do jhana." And they never equate the word vipassana with any mindfulness techniques. In the few instances where they do mention vipassana, they almost always pair it with samatha -- not as two alternative methods, but as two qualities of mind that a person may "gain" or "be endowed with," and that should be developed together.
There are two distinct types of meditation: one leads to insight and the other to the development of jhana or concentration through tranquillity. If you develop insight deeply enough, you will eventually come to tranquillity. And if you develop tranquillity deeply enough, you will eventually come to insight. The end is the same, but the way of getting there is different.