ok i gotta ask/when did Buddha first attain enlightenment

[Rael]

It was brought up in the dedication of merit thread....

this is another topic.

did the Buddha first attain Buddhahood under the bodhi tree?

or in the infinite past....

discuss please.

[plwk]

did the Buddha first attain Buddhahood under the bodhi tree?

If one accepts the Agamas/Suttas, yes, 2600yrs ago...

or in the infinite past....

If one accepts the Lotus Sutra, yes, and the above is merely a manifestation of an expedient...

[Rael]

so other than the lotus sutra....it is accepted he did really just attain enlightenment under the Bodhi tree...
So then the Lotus sutra is a Tibetan thing as well then....for the Tulku did in fact say that the Buddha;s life was all planned out and everything was like an act for learning....because he had attained Buddhahood in the really infinite infinite past....


wow....live and learn eh...

seriously ...the fact if He did only attain enlightenment in this life...really freaks me out....lol.

[Tatsuo]

Not only the Lotus Sutra speaks about the attainment of Buddhahood kalpas ago by Shakyamuni. The Lotus Sutra together with the Mahaparinirvana Sutra are considered to be the last teachings of the Buddha according to a classification by Zhiyi, which is widely accepted in East Asian Buddhism (the Lotus Sutra is not really important in Tibet, Nepal, Mongolia etc.). According to that classification, which was based on the statements in the Sutras about the time they were taught, the Lotus Sutra was taught by the Buddha in the last eight years before his parinirvana. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra also speaks about the attainment of Buddhahood by Shakyamuni in the (almost) infinite past:
"People say that I first [as Siddhartha] attained Buddhahood. But since innumerable kalpas past, I had done what needed to be done and I only accorded with the way of the world. That is why I, in this Jambudvipa, displayed renunciation and attainment of Buddhahood." (Chapter 7)
The Golden Light Sutra also talks about the lifespan of the Buddha being inconceivable long, but doesn't go further into detail (Chapter 2), and I am sure, that there are more Sutras with similar passages.

[Anders]

I guess there are three schools of thought on this, depending on what scriptures are held as definitive.

Early Buddhist sutras (agamas/pali canon): The Bodhisattva who was to become Shakyamuni Buddha had never had any taste of awakening prior to sitting under the bodhi tree. he got it all in one go.

Non-lotus mahayana: The bodhisattva who was to become Shakyamuni had been an aryan Bodhisattva for at least three asamkhya kalpas, so would have been awakened for a very very long time. And probably spent a fair amount of time on the same level as the likes of Avalokiteshvara, Manjushri, Maitreya and Samantabhadra. He did not attain final Buddhahood until he sit under the bodhi tree however.

Lotus sutra: He became a Buddha countless kalpas ago.

Either way, whether it was this lifetime or not, he attained it at some point and there was a point in time where he was a sentient being like you and me. I think the main point of the lotus sutra here is really that Buddhas do not pass into cessation like the arhats after Parinirvana, not to establish a calendar of Shakyamuni's bodhisattva career.

[Astus]

Anders said it well, this teaching of eternal buddhas is about affirming the presence of them within people's lives. It's also possible to see the Lotus Sutra as an apology for Sakyamuni. That's because first there was the concept that there are other buddhas still alive in other realms and they can be reached, then some thought about making Sakyamuni a central figure again, thus the idea of the act of Siddhartha. Or, another way to look at it, the story is just an expression of the teaching of buddha-nature and is not about any kind of historical issue. Indeed, the full concept of the trikaya includes all the different versions.

[Rael]

i feel another thread coming on with an apology from about my bogus comment made in another thread towards my feelings about the Lotus sutra.

but i would like to say The lotus sutra was never taught during the last 8 years of the Buddhas life...
thats a belief.... I believe there is proof of such ...

It's very important to separate the myth from the truth.....for me and people like me anyway....

if you believe that the Buddha attained Buddhahood in the infinite kalpa upon kalpa times infinity times kalpa upon kalpa due to a thing that was kept by little snake people....welll.....i don't think so....although my Irish Grandmother would be pleased for every now and then stuff happened in her house that was down to the "little people"....


I really believed that the lotus sutra was taught for the last years of the Buddha's life and was shocked into a gestalt like fog(lol i know it's supposed to make you lucid) when i found it it was imposable to say such a thing....

[Rael]

I guess there are three schools of thought on this, depending on what scriptures are held as definitive.

Early Buddhist sutras (agamas/pali canon): The Bodhisattva who was to become Shakyamuni Buddha had never had any taste of awakening prior to sitting under the bodhi tree. he got it all in one go.

Non-lotus mahayana: The bodhisattva who was to become Shakyamuni had been an aryan Bodhisattva for at least three asamkhya kalpas, so would have been awakened for a very very long time. And probably spent a fair amount of time on the same level as the likes of Avalokiteshvara, Manjushri, Maitreya and Samantabhadra. He did not attain final Buddhahood until he sit under the bodhi tree however.

Lotus sutra: He became a Buddha countless kalpas ago.

Either way, whether it was this lifetime or not, he attained it at some point and there was a point in time where he was a sentient being like you and me. I think the main point of the lotus sutra here is really that Buddhas do not pass into cessation like the arhats after Parinirvana, not to establish a calendar of Shakyamuni's bodhisattva career.

Are these beings mentioned in theravadian scripture?

Avalokiteshvara, Manjushri, Maitreya and Samantabhadra.

or are they Mahayana...

[Rael]

Not only the Lotus Sutra speaks about the attainment of Buddhahood kalpas ago by Shakyamuni. The Lotus Sutra together with the Mahaparinirvana Sutra are considered to be the last teachings of the Buddha according to a classification by Zhiyi, which is widely accepted in East Asian Buddhism (the Lotus Sutra is not really important in Tibet, Nepal, Mongolia etc.). According to that classification, which was based on the statements in the Sutras about the time they were taught, the Lotus Sutra was taught by the Buddha in the last eight years before his parinirvana. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra also speaks about the attainment of Buddhahood by Shakyamuni in the (almost) infinite past:
"People say that I first [as Siddhartha] attained Buddhahood. But since innumerable kalpas past, I had done what needed to be done and I only accorded with the way of the world. That is why I, in this Jambudvipa, displayed renunciation and attainment of Buddhahood." (Chapter 7)
The Golden Light Sutra also talks about the lifespan of the Buddha being inconceivable long, but doesn't go further into detail (Chapter 2), and I am sure, that there are more Sutras with similar passages.

how can there be such a variance of times and when in these three sutras mentioned if they are to be a Buddha's teaching.

It turns the Buddha into somewhat of a flake as to His own enlightenment.....

and when it happened and why and such.....

if you study these sutras you find they are like different...different in views of when and why and how and what happens...


a really really really confused rael...it's like i inhaled the aerosol......

[Blue Garuda]

I was prodding on the 'merit' thread, but my own belief is that Buddha is eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent.

Wel, OK, maybe not the last one!! LOL

How about a version of a Christian hymn:

''Immortal, invisible, Buddha only wise,
In light inaccessible hid from our eyes,
Most blessèd, most glorious, the Ancient of Days,
Almighty, victorious, Thy great Name we praise.''

I reckon that fits nicely.

[Astus]

Rael,

It is two different things to ask about the different views on the life and nature of Shakyamuni and starting to dismiss Mahayana sutras on whatever basis. It is all right if you don't accept the Lotus Sutra but it's a confusing thing to first ask a question about the content then say you don't care about the whole thing. Perhaps you should tidy things up for yourself to see what you actually want.

[Blue Garuda]

It turns the Buddha into somewhat of a flake as to His own enlightenment.....

and when it happened and why and such.....

if you study these sutras you find they are like different...different in views of when and why and how and what happens...


a really really really confused rael...it's like i inhaled the aerosol......

'Exit to the daylight and keep the spraygun hid'.

Buddha was not a'flake' and the other commentators are not likely to be so.

One aspect they all share is that the Buddha was enlightened and showed a path for us to follow.

As the book says: 'Don't sweat the small stuff.'

[plwk]

Are these beings mentioned in theravadian scripture?

Avalokiteshvara, Manjushri, Maitreya and Samantabhadra.

or are they Mahayana...

Nope they are not found in the Pali Canon except for Maitreya, also known as Metteya, the future Buddha as found in Cakkavattisihanada Sutta .The rest are mentioned in the Mahayana texts...

how can there be such a variance of times and when in these three sutras mentioned if they are to be a Buddha's teaching.
if you study these sutras you find they are like different...different in views of when and why and how and what happens...

Here's a reflection from the late Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche a great Gelugpa lineage master, in his 'The Preliminaries: Day 3: The Greatness of Dharma

'Realizing that all the Teachings are without contradiction' means that one person should understand them as practices in order to be enlightened.
'To be without contradiction' means 'to be harmonious'. The Mahayana, Hinayana, Vinaya and Tantras etc. seem to contradict each other from a literal point of view but they are all nothing but the main practice to take us to Enlightenment or a branch of its attainment. They are therefore without contradiction.
Suppose you have come down with a high fever. Initially your doctor will forbid you meat, alcohol and so on. He tells you 'These could prove fatal for you if you do not give them up'. But later, when the fever has passed its crisis and there is now an excess of wind humor, the doctor will instruct you to take meat, alcohol etc. Now only one person is being told these things and there is only one person saying them. The two statements - the earlier one forbidding the meat and alcohol and the later one allowing them - seem to be inconsistent but this is not so. Both of them were meant to cure the one patient.

You may similarly feel, 'The Hinayana, Mahayana, the Sutras, Tantras etc were tailored for particular disciples, so all of these Teachings are not mandatory in the one person's practice in order to become enlightened'. Again this is not so. The one speaker was telling the one person about the practices to Enlightenment.
When that person was at the level of small and medium scopes, the Buddha first explained the Hinayana Basket of Teachings. That person was to meditate on things like impermanence and suffering. After some improvement, the person was now at the level of the great scope, so the Mahayana Basket was explained. He now received explainations into Bodhicitta, the Six Perfections and so on. And when the person became a suitable vessel for the Tantras, the Buddha explained the Vajrayana: the Two Stages (of the Highest Yoga Tantras) and the Tantric practices.
All these practices are harmonious for a person such as yourself to follow in order to be Enlightened. Hence any of the Victorious One's Scriptures belong to either the Mainstream of the Path or one of its branches, not one of the Scriptures is superfluous in a person's practice leading to Enlightenment.

The main concern of a Bodhisattva is to work for the sake of sentient beings.
Thus a Bodhisattva must teach the Three Paths that will lead the three types of disciples {the sravaka, pratyekabuddha and bodhisattva) to their particular form of liberation but unless Bodhisattvas know these paths themselves, they cannot teach them to others.
Dharmakirti says in his 'Commentary on Valid Cognition', 'The means to these ends are obscure, it is difficult to explain them.'
The way leading to an understanding of the Paths belonging to the Three Vehicles is something Bodhisattvas should develop in their mind streams in order to be sure of the different routes to benefit others.

It says in a Sutra:
'O Subhuti, the Bodhisattvas develop in all the Paths, be it the path of the Sravaka, the path of the Pratyekabuddha or the path of the Bodhisattva.
They understand all the Paths.'

The Sutra Weaving Everything Together says:
"Manjusri, the obscurations that result from the karma of abandoning the holy Dharma are subtle.
Manjusri, one abandons the Dharma when one considers some of the Tathagata's scriptures to be good, some to be bad.
Whoever abandons the Dharma also disparages the Tathagata as a result, he also speaks badly of the Sangha.
One abandons the Dharma when one claims 'this scripture is correct' and 'this one is incorrect'.
One abandons the Dharma by claiming 'this was taught for Bodhisattvas' or 'this was taught for Sravakas'.
One abandons the Dharma by claiming 'this was taught for Pratyekabuddhas'.
One abandons the Dharma by claiming 'this is not one of the things a Bodhisattva should train in'

Great Tsongkhapa had this to say:
'They have studied much yet are poor in Dharma
Blame it on their not taking the Scriptures as instructions'"

i feel another thread coming on with an apology from about my bogus comment made in another thread towards my feelings about the Lotus sutra.
but i would like to say The lotus sutra was never taught during the last 8 years of the Buddhas life...
thats a belief.... I believe there is proof of such ...
It's very important to separate the myth from the truth.....for me and people like me anyway....
if you believe that the Buddha attained Buddhahood in the infinite kalpa upon kalpa times infinity times kalpa upon kalpa due to a thing that was kept by little snake people....welll.....i don't think so....although my Irish Grandmother would be pleased for every now and then stuff happened in her house that was down to the "little people"....

Here's some ideas...

http://sites.google.com/site/santifm10/ ... ancessutra
Four Reliances Sutra:
[Vaidya, P.L., ed Buddhist Sanskrit Texts-No.17 Darbhanga : The Mithila Institute, 1961./ Dharmasangraha - Online Digital Sanskrit Canon (see stanza 53).]

“Four reliances: that is,
reliance on the Dhamma not (merely) reliance on the person;
reliance on the meaning not (merely) reliance on the phrasing;
reliance on the suttas whose meaning is already drawn out not (merely) reliance on those suttas whose meaning is to be drawn out (interpreted);
reliance on extraordinary-knowledge* not (merely) reliance on (intellectual) discrimination.”

Commentary on the above: here

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .vaji.html
And there the Blessed One addressed the Bhikkhus, saying:
"Now, Bhikkhus, I shall make known to you the Four Great References. Listen and pay heed to my words."
And those Bhikkhus answered, saying: "So be it, Lord."

Then the Blessed One said:
"In this fashion, Bhikkhus, a Bhikkhu might speak: 'Face to face with the Blessed One, brethren, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or:
'In an abode of such and such a name lives a community with elders and a chief. Face to face with that community, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or:
'In an abode of such and such a name live several Bhikkhus who are elders, who are learned, who have accomplished their course, who are preservers of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with those elders, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or:
'In an abode of such and such a name lives a single Bhikkhu who is an elder, who is learned, who has accomplished his course, who is a preserver of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with that elder, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation.'

"In such a case, Bhikkhus, the declaration of such a Bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn.
Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline.

If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus:
'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that Bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.'
In that way, Bhikkhus, you should reject it.
But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus:
'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that Bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.'
And in that way, Bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference.

These, Bhikkhus, are the Four Great References for you to preserve."

[Rael]

I read that book and a few more....more than a few....

I understand His point...it just doesn't sit with me anymore, and i don't know why....

i'm going to take meself over to the sister site fo rawhile...maybe a year or two and see what i learn....

always been a mahayana practitioner ...time for me to see the other side of the mountain....

thanks for all your kindness....

will keep in touch....

i think i registered over there and will register as Rael for i forget what and who i was an what email addy....i prolly never posted....anyway...

but i want to become a serious student of the theravada....and Rael might be known over there and people will see where i am coming from....


did Kyabe je Rinpoche realize that the lotus sutra was not taught for the last 8 years of His life...Nichiren really took the thing for gopsel truth......

i have a theory...but it could sound so insulting and bordering meglomania that i won't tell you ....unless you all promise to take it without any hidden agenda....

i loathe the agenda deal...i try to be an open book and honest...i think some here have not taken me that way .....

sigh.....



wish me luck.....

[Rael]

Rael,

It is two different things to ask about the different views on the life and nature of Shakyamuni and starting to dismiss Mahayana sutras on whatever basis. It is all right if you don't accept the Lotus Sutra but it's a confusing thing to first ask a question about the content then say you don't care about the whole thing. Perhaps you should tidy things up for yourself to see what you actually want.

could you explain how you came to this...i would like to tidy youre concept of me

It is all right if you don't accept the Lotus Sutra but it's a confusing thing to first ask a question about the content then say you don't care about the whole thing.

i care

[Astus]

Rael,

What I meant is that first you asked about the content of the Lotus Sutra and then exclaimed how the Lotus Sutra is an unreliable fabrication of later generations and thus you can't accept it. So I thought, if you don't accept the whole thing why bother about details. But I can very well be wrong.

[Blue Garuda]

I read that book and a few more....more than a few....

I understand His point...it just doesn't sit with me anymore, and i don't know why....

i'm going to take meself over to the sister site fo rawhile...maybe a year or two and see what i learn....

always been a mahayana practitioner ...time for me to see the other side of the mountain....

thanks for all your kindness....

will keep in touch....

i think i registered over there and will register as Rael for i forget what and who i was an what email addy....i prolly never posted....anyway...

but i want to become a serious student of the theravada....and Rael might be known over there and people will see where i am coming from....


did Kyabe je Rinpoche realize that the lotus sutra was not taught for the last 8 years of His life...Nichiren really took the thing for gopsel truth......

i have a theory...but it could sound so insulting and bordering meglomania that i won't tell you ....unless you all promise to take it without any hidden agenda....

i loathe the agenda deal...i try to be an open book and honest...i think some here have not taken me that way .....

sigh.....



wish me luck.....

Good luck.

It's fine to change your mind and it can be a very uncomfortable process, but your approach here is to post what you are thinking as your mind moves along. This can be frustrating for others as they see your opinion change, seemingly to opposites, in the space of a couple of posts.

Perhaps you are right and a better approach may be to gather together a set of teachings, examine them slowly and meditate on them carefully. If you post to enquire and examine rather than (superficially) posting your every thought, then your mind may settle and you may feel comfortable with what you choose as your firm base for practice.

[Anders]

i feel another thread coming on with an apology from about my bogus comment made in another thread towards my feelings about the Lotus sutra.

but i would like to say The lotus sutra was never taught during the last 8 years of the Buddhas life...
thats a belief.... I believe there is proof of such ...

It's very important to separate the myth from the truth.....for me and people like me anyway....

if you believe that the Buddha attained Buddhahood in the infinite kalpa upon kalpa times infinity times kalpa upon kalpa due to a thing that was kept by little snake people....welll.....i don't think so....although my Irish Grandmother would be pleased for every now and then stuff happened in her house that was down to the "little people"....


I really believed that the lotus sutra was taught for the last years of the Buddha's life and was shocked into a gestalt like fog(lol i know it's supposed to make you lucid) when i found it it was imposable to say such a thing....

If historical accuracy is a definitive criteria for you, you are probably better off going Theravada. The Mahayana sutras were most likely not spoken by the historical Buddha.

The reason to be a Mahayanist is that one considers them more profound and holds this profundity to be more definitive. That is to say, though the Mahayana sutras were not necessarily spoken by Shakyamuni Buddha back in India 2500+ years ago, one nevertheless accepts that they were composed by a Buddha.

For example, the prajnaparamita sutra says on this:

Śāriputra thereupon conceived the thought: “[Shall] Subhūti teach through his own power, or by empowerment by the Buddha’s spiritual might?”

Subhūti knew the thought conceived in Śāriputra’s mind, and he spoke to Śāriputra, saying: “Whatever the Buddha’s disciples may venture to teach, all is [through] the Buddha’s power. For what reason? That dharma taught by the Buddha, they have trained in it, they are able to realize the nature of dharma. Having realized [it] they proclaim and teach [it], and none of it is contrary to the nature of dharma, by way of the power of the nature of dharma.”

Even in most pre-mahayana schools, buddhavacana ["word of the buddha"] was not traditionally understood as 'the literal word of the historical buddha' but rather as 'that which is well spoken and accords with dependent origination'. The Therigatha collection, along with the words of the Buddha's disciples are all considered buddhavacana in the Theravada tradition for example. In the Sarvastivada the abidharma was considered buddhavacana even though it was attributed to later authors.

The Mahayana sutras derive their authority from its composers being empowered by Buddha knowledge. Don't believe they were? ok, no biggie. But at the end of the day, there is no a priori reason to assume that the historical buddha was more or less enlightened than the composers of the Mahayana sutras. You judge either by their profoundity and until you're a Buddha yourself, it's basically a subjective call on whether that profundity has merit or not.

It's better to consider the settings of the Mahayana sutras as re-enactments for a special purpose. This is also why traditional Mahayana hermeneutics pay more attention to details like the audience, the place and environment taught in and so forth. In the earlier sutras, these are just as likely to be mere historical happenstance, whereas in Mahayana sutras, they typically have a teaching purpose embedded.

[Rael]

Rael,

What I meant is that first you asked about the content of the Lotus Sutra and then exclaimed how the Lotus Sutra is an unreliable fabrication of later generations and thus you can't accept it. So I thought, if you don't accept the whole thing why bother about details. But I can very well be wrong.

i grapple with the acceptance of.....thats obvious....i'm just trying to be honest and reaching out....i think i said i know i can ste0p ontoes and mabye annoy people....

there is no agenda....

i appreciate your posts though for it helps to really clarify.....


you people are smarter than me...i know my place in life.....

the Mahayana has afforded me experiences...
I don't fear ridiculing it.....i never understood why anyone would think there is some wrathful retribution from the Buddha...some sects profess this.....

there is those rambling thoughts again.....

sorry if it annoys some.....maybe i'm just a great big Drama queen....lol

[Rael]

Good luck.

It's fine to change your mind and it can be a very uncomfortable process, but your approach here is to post what you are thinking as your mind moves along. This can be frustrating for others as they see your opinion change, seemingly to opposites, in the space of a couple of posts.

Perhaps you are right and a better approach may be to gather together a set of teachings, examine them slowly and meditate on them carefully. If you post to enquire and examine rather than (superficially) posting your every thought, then your mind may settle and you may feel comfortable with what you choose as your firm base for practice.

thanks....

you have a keen sense ...hence my you people are smarter than me....post in the last one....


but me posting my thoughts i don't consider superficial....it's important for me to understand what i'm going through...

if i did not do what i have done ....i would not have had the last three incredibly lucid posts from you three towards my crossroads and confusion.......