How did Buddha achieve enlightenment? Why can't we replicate it?
>>39260250he became one with the universeaccepted he had a universal body on a logical levelthe truth of all spirituality.
>>39260250What are you talking about? . Everybody literally can become Buddha according to Buddhism teaching. But you need to accumulated massive good karma from previous lifes. Also have strong wishes to become next Buddha. I guess most people who born with massive good karma choose to embrace happiness of mundane. Because they can't resist theirs ego. More over why you want to be Buddha? You just need to get Arahat enlighten level to enter Nirvana
>>39260258>>39260258No, Buddha does not approve of this view.>"Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality, then the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity' — Isn't it utterly & completely a fool's teaching?">"What else could it be, lord? It's utterly & completely a fool's teaching."https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html
>>39260258>>39260403This is hinduism tho lmao…
>>39260609that sounds like Buddha was saying 'that is exactly what will happen' and the 'monks' could not 'fathom' it...>>39260620based
>>39260250You can replicate it by following what he did
>>39260633Buddha:>Isn't this a stupid idea?Anon:>Sounds like Buddha thought the idea was 100% correct??????
>>39260689but it didn't even mention Buddha, I just told you how it looked 'as is'if it's Buddha speaking then he's talking about the same shit regardless...>Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality, then the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self.THAT is 'his' point.>After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity' — Isn't it utterly & completely a fool's teaching?THIS is referencing nonsense like 'ego' living in heaven forever.the 'fools' teaching.
>>39260250Most because they don't even know about IT.
>>39260689For clarification, if you read the link, "This cosmos is the self" is listed as one among several views of self that the Buddha considered to be wrong view. The Buddha himself wasn't generally especially cryptic, unlike some later Buddhist traditions.
>>39260250>replicate enlightenmentyour way of thinking prevents you from achieving enlightenment.classical western thinking>"gain" the thing>"acquire" enlightenmentyou are more like part of the eternal, spaceless timeless, there is nothing to grab with your greedy capitalist fingers.
>>39260250Easy answer: He didn't.Next?
>>39260403I thought in Theravada 99,9999% of people can at most become Arahats, but never Buddhas?
>>39260250The hard part is achieving perfect detachment and freedom from craving. For example the craving for sex, that alone is gonna filter 98% of the population.
>>39260250>How Buddha fasted for 49 days.Jesus fasted for 40 days.Mohammed fasted for 30 days.All achieved enlightenment and then founded a new religious movement.
>>39260609>>39260703The idea of "no self" is the 1 thing that has always seriously put me off from studying Buddhism.And I don't just say that out of fear, I say it because I don't think it reflects what I've come to understand about existence.However, I have to wonder if it's just a semantics issue.Do you think the Buddha would have agreed with the following statements?:That there is a "true self" but it simply cannot be seen through any statement of "I am that" nor is it correct to claim "I am not that" to the point where one thinks they must then be everything (i.e. his statement about being the cosmos itself as a foolish teaching). But rather just that a "true self" is completely beyond all conceptions that can be understood IN this reality, either through positive or negative assertions?Or do you really think he's just saying you have no self at all, end of story, so just be happy digging ditches and flipping burgers and living a pointless existence because you have no self anyway so who cares lol?Because it's this latter view that I just cannot accept. I don't care how "wise" it sounds, something inside me knows it's wrong.
>>39260250>Why can't we replicate itLots of people have. Buddha was famous for being one of the earliest to let people know such a thing was possible.
Also is it true Nichiren buddhism is "abrahamic" ie; they believe Ati-Buddha is a sentient omni-god and Nichiren was himself in person and actuality, ati-buddha?or does SGI\ Shoshu, etc, regard nichiren as second-fiddle to shakyamuni? >do vajrayanas from tibet consider Rinpoche greater (or lower) than shakyamuni?
>>39261602In the same Sutta above where the Buddha rejects the view that the self can be identified with the universe, he also rejects the view that there is no self.>I have a self... I have no self... It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self... or... This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.And in another Sutta the Buddha says that, after death, he can't be described as existing, not existing, both existing and not existing, or neither existing nor not existing.https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.001.than.htmlSo I think possibly you are correct in suggesting>a "true self" is completely beyond all conceptions that can be understood IN this reality, either through positive or negative assertionsThough I suspect that the Buddha would prefer to reject that as well. Part of the issue is that the Buddha understands identifying with something or explicitly not identifying with something as an activity, and he sees any attempt to identify with something, even if it's just a concept, as an obstacle to fully letting go.
>>39261760Fully letting go of views of self is something that only happens toward the conclusion of the path though, as I understand it. To begin with, one is supposed to cultivate a "skillful" sense of self that leads to positive rebirth and which will only eventually be capable of giving way to reveal the unconditioned indescribable whatever-it-is that lies below/beyond it.See: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/selvesnotself.pdf
>>39261760Sometimes I wish they spoke a little more plainly.In my experience giving too perfect of an answer can actually lead to misunderstandings. Sometimes it's better to give a less perfect answer if it helps someone get over a small obstacle that's preventing them from understanding the more perfect answer.Like even if he has some reasons for saying it's technically not a self or a no-self, I wish he would have just said something like "trust me bro, it's exactly what you want when you think you want a 'self', it's just not technically a 'self', don't overthink it".Or something like that.
>>39261834I think I agree with you, but you also have to consider that there were at least a few centuries between when the Buddha died and when his teachings were first written down. That's why the writing style of the Buddhist scriptures is so repetitive, which you'll notice quickly if you look into them. It's to encourage easy memorization when spoken. Supposing the Buddha knew that was going to happen, then there's a highly liklihood that if the Buddha had made concessions or simpliifed his answers at times, then his preferred more nuanced but also more confusing proper answers might not have survived long enough to really stay with people and get written down.(Assuming that we have is indeed what he actually said, and I think the fact that certain aspects of it are especially confusing is actually a point in favor of that rather than against it.)
>>39260250Do you really think spending 20 minutes a day meditating is enough when the rest of your life is spent on your cushy ass, consooming media? You have to dedicate your entire life, and even then you have to remember that historical figures get their accomplishments embellished.
>>39261602>But rather just that a "true self" is completely beyond all conceptions that can be understood IN this reality, either through positive or negative assertions?if it's beyond any realm of life then it's kinda useless...and the goal of buddhism is to end suffering. It turns out ending suffering doesn't require an atman. The observation that everybody can make is that there is no atman found in any realm of life and nirvana is not atman too, so and this exhausts everything there is in the universe.Now you can entertain the hypothesis that there's still somewhere some atman. if there is an atman somewhere it's not in the realms of life, it's not nirvana, it's even beyond those stuff and since the goal of any buddhist is to end suffering and this happen with parinirvana, they can't give a shit about some atman even further away than nirvana. No matter what happens in nirvana, there's no suffering in it, and thus the buddhist achieved their goal, they are happy and dont care about any else that might happen (and whatever happens does not contain any suffering whatsoever by definition of nirvana)
>>39262059>if it's beyond any realm of life then it's kinda useless...Not necessarily. If you identify with a character in a video game, and ponder your existence within the game, the real you (outside the game) can't be understood by any statement that you "are X" or "are not X", where X=anything that's inside the game.It may be true to say that you aren't things in the game, but it still won't tell you what you are. Especially if you think the limits of the game are the limits of reality, because then thinking you're not anything in the game will give you a misunderstanding of what you are.Your true nature outside the game would simply be something which is utterly undefinable by anything inside the game.So in a sense you're actually right that it IS useless... Knowledge of yourself outside the game is useless to the game. Useless and unknowable.But because you are NOT actually inside the game, it's not useless to the real you which is outside. Although it may seem useless if you forget that you exist outside the game.
>>39260250>Did Buddha achieve enlightenmentThe term "Buddha" is synonymous with "Christ" and literally means "enlightened one".So yes, Siddartha Gautama achieved enlightenment>Why can't we replicated it?Many people do.And you're clearly not ready for it yet.
>>39262160>And you're clearly not ready for it yet.One can only speak for themself.
>>39260403>You just need to get Arahat enlighten level to enter NirvanaThis implies that Aharat is a "lower level" but how do you reach different levels when you "ended" the cycle? You didnt end it, if youre still in one?? So waht the fuck r u talking abt
>>39260250>Why can't we replicate it?The light is very peculiar, the longer it goes, the more radiant it becomes, but if your attention is drawn by it, it's gone again.To hold the light, treat it as dust.Easier said than done.
>>39262722The goal of Buddhism is to end all suffering forever. By enter Nirvana which free you from Samsara. Don't try to explain what is Nirvana by words it's impossible. There are no upper or lower levels etc. And only who archived Arahat level who can enter it. It's not easy as you think. For Most Buddhist give up and only live with doing good karma instead aim for become Arahat. Me too
He was a reincarnation of God. He can’t be topped.
>>39260936Because it's very hard or i say it's almost impossible to be Arahat. No need to talk about become next Buddha. In my knowledge only a few person in all Buddhist around the world who can become Arahat. Plus it's state of mind . How van we tell really who is and who is not Arahat monks? All we can do is observed their behaviour and words. Basic Buddhism narrative explained the previous lifes of Sithratha Gothama of how he became Buddha. He met the previous Buddha and swear to become next Buddha . Then after accumulate massive good karma pass countless born and dead in Samsara he finally became Buddha as we know today . All people can become Buddha? Yes . But did they have skills enough? That's different story.
- I want ࿖ and ࿕.
>>39260936A Buddha is an arahat, but an arahat is not necessarily a Buddha. In Theravada, many people have become arahats. A Buddha is a person who, upon achieving enlightenment in a world without the dharma, expounds the dharma and establishes it in the world. In the Theravada view, as far as I am aware, there won't be another Buddha until the Buddhism beginning with Siddhartha Gautama dies out, whereupon Mettaya (Maitreya) Bodhisatta will reestablish the Dharma as the next Buddha. That's as much as I know about Theravada, as I am a Mahayana Buddhist. If any Theranons have corrections, please let me know.>>39261661Do not trust a word from SGI. Only one lineage of Nichiren Shoshu views Nichiren Daishonin as Adibuddha. The others just view him as a bodhisattva.
>>39261563Jesus didnt fund the church.The church is corrupt. Build for adquiring political power.They used to burn people on crosses ffs
>>39262139It's useless for all intent and purposes. You can't influence it and it doesnt influence. That's in general, and for ending suffering in particular this atman is factually irrelevant.
>>39260936>people can at most become Arahats, but never Buddhas?you are what you are and achieving such a role is something you realize. You just forgot, and it's not a thing to deal with while incarnated. Ultimately it's not about the title or what you are but what you do. Even if you were it what would you do with it?
He left his annoying wife and kids had a beer and sat under a tree until he died finally experiencing blissWe unfortunately cannot follow
Now on that occasion the wanderers of other persuasions had come together in a gathering and were sitting, discussing many kinds of bestial topics, making a great noise and racket. They saw Anāthapiṇḍika the householder coming from afar, and on seeing him, hushed one another: “Be quiet, good sirs. Don’t make any noise. Here comes Anāthapiṇḍika the householder, a disciple of the contemplative Gotama. He is one of those disciples of the contemplative Gotama, clad in white, who lives in Sāvatthī. These people are fond of quietude, trained in quietude, and speak in praise of quietude. Maybe, if he perceives our group as quiet, he will consider it worth his while to come our way.” So the wanderers fell silent.Then Anāthapiṇḍika the householder went to where the wanderers of other persuasions were staying. On arrival he greeted them courteously. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the wanderers said to him, “Tell us, householder, what views the contemplative Gotama has.”“Venerable sirs, I don’t know entirely what views the Blessed One has.”“Well, well. So you don’t know entirely what views the contemplative Gotama has. Then tell us what views the monks have.”“I don’t even know entirely what views the monks have.”“So you don’t know entirely what views the contemplative Gotama has or even that the monks have. Then tell us what views you have.”“It wouldn’t be difficult for me to expound to you what views I have. But please let the venerable ones expound each in line with his position, and then it won’t be difficult for me to expound to you what views I have.”When this had been said, one of the wanderers said to Anāthapiṇḍika the householder, “The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have.”
>>39266744Another wanderer said to Anāthapiṇḍika, “The cosmos is not eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have.”Another wanderer said, “The cosmos is finite…”…“The cosmos is infinite…”…“The soul & the body are the same…”…“The soul is one thing and the body another…”…“After death a Tathāgata exists…”…“After death a Tathāgata does not exist…”…“After death a Tathāgata both does & does not exist…”…“After death a Tathāgata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have.”When this had been said, Anāthapiṇḍika the householder said to the wanderers, “As for the venerable one who says, ‘The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have,” his view arises from his own inappropriate attention or in dependence on the words of another. Now this view has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated. Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated: That is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. This venerable one thus adheres to that very stress, submits himself to that very stress.” [Similarly for the other positions.]When this had been said, the wanderers said to Anāthapiṇḍika the householder, “We have each & every one expounded to you in line with our own positions. Now tell us what views you have.”“Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated: That is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. This is the sort of view I have.”“So, householder, whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated: That is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. You thus adhere to that very stress, submit yourself to that very stress.”
>>39266746“Venerable sirs, whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated: That is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. Having seen this well with right discernment as it has come to be, I also discern the higher escape from it as it has come to be.”When this was said, the wanderers fell silent, abashed, sitting with their shoulders drooping, their heads down, brooding, at a loss for words. Anāthapiṇḍika the householder, perceiving that the wanderers were silent, abashed… at a loss for words, got up & went to the Blessed One. On arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he told the Blessed One the entirety of his conversation with the wanderers.(The Blessed One said:) “Well done, householder. Well done. That is how you should periodically & righteously refute those foolish men.” Then he instructed, urged, roused, and encouraged Anāthapiṇḍika the householder with a talk on Dhamma. When Anāthapiṇḍika the householder had been instructed, urged, roused and encouraged by the Blessed One with a talk on Dhamma, he got up from his seat and, having bowed down to the Blessed One, left, keeping the Blessed One on his right side. Not long afterward, the Blessed One addressed the monks: “Monks, even a monk who has long penetrated the Dhamma in this Dhamma & Vinaya would do well, periodically & righteously, to refute the wanderers of other persuasions in just the way Anāthapiṇḍika the householder has done.”
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.058.than.htmlThe Blessed One said, "Monks, if those who have gone forth in other sects ask you, 'In what are all phenomena rooted? What is their coming into play? What is their origination? What is their meeting place? What is their presiding state? What is their governing principle? What is their surpassing state? What is their heartwood? Where do they gain a footing? What is their final end?': On being asked this by those who have gone forth in other sects, this is how you should answer them:"'All phenomena are rooted in desire.[1]"'All phenomena come into play through attention."'All phenomena have contact as their origination."'All phenomena have feeling as their meeting place."'All phenomena have concentration as their presiding state."'All phenomena have mindfulness as their governing principle."'All phenomena have discernment as their surpassing state."'All phenomena have release as their heartwood."'All phenomena gain their footing in the deathless."'All phenomena have Unbinding as their final end.'"On being asked this by those who have gone forth in other sects, this is how you should answer."Note
>>39266759Notes1. According to the Commentary to AN 8.83 (which covers the first eight of the ten questions given here), "all phenomena" (sabbe dhamma) here means the five aggregates. These are rooted in desire, it says, because the desire to act (and thus create kamma) is what underlies their existence. The Commentary's interpretation here seems to be an expansion on MN 109, in which the five clinging-aggregates are said to be rooted in desire, an assertion echoed in SN 42.11, which states that suffering & stress are rooted in desire. Here, all the aggregates — whether affected by clinging or not — are said to be rooted in desire. The Commentary goes on to say that the statement, "All phenomena are rooted in desire," deals exclusively with worldly phenomena, whereas the remaining statements about all phenomena cover both worldly and transcendent phenomena. There seems less reason to follow the Commentary's first assertion here, in that the noble eightfold path, when brought to maturity, counts as transcendent, and it is obviously rooted in a skillful form of desire. As for the transcendent in its ultimate form, the phrase "all phenomena" as used in this sutta does not cover Unbinding, as Unbinding is not rooted in anything and, as the final statement indicates, it constitutes the final end of all phenomena. Thus this sutta would seem to belong to the group of suttas that would not classify Unbinding as a phenomenon. (On this question, see the note to AN 3.134.)
One thing's for sure, you won't attain what you want to attain with those limiting beliefs.
>>39260250He didn't. He was deluded. Also, I wouldn't trust any teaching that was only preserved orally for at least 400 years.
>>39260250There are always a trickle of people like in the mountains of china studying tibetan rainbow body stuff ascending into a higher plane of existence. Obviously they are not going to advertise, so tourists don't come and ruin it.Basically, you have to isolate yourself from the world and practice meditating and thinking in terms of love and compassion, work with your spirit guides for 10 years straight.
Four factors of stream-entry: associating with true persons, listening to the true teaching, rational application of mind, and practicing in line with the teaching.Four factors of a stream-enterer: A noble disciple has experiential confidence in the Buddha: ‘That Blessed One is perfected, a fully awakened Buddha, accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide for those who wish to train, teacher of gods and humans, awakened, blessed.’ They have experiential confidence in the teaching: ‘The teaching is well explained by the Buddha—apparent in the present life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves.’ They have experiential confidence in the Saṅgha: ‘The Saṅgha of the Buddha’s disciples is practicing the way that’s good, sincere, systematic, and proper. It consists of the four pairs, the eight individuals. This is the Saṅgha of the Buddha’s disciples that is worthy of offerings dedicated to the gods, worthy of hospitality, worthy of a religious donation, worthy of greeting with joined palms, and is the supreme field of merit for the world.’ And a noble disciple’s ethical conduct is loved by the noble ones, unbroken, impeccable, spotless, and unmarred, liberating, praised by sensible people, not mistaken, and leading to immersion.Four fruits of the ascetic life: stream-entry, once-return, non-return, and perfection.
>>39261602As another anon pointed out, Buddha denies both self (to the extent that he denies anything we have experienced or would consider to be self in any way) and no-self. When I was still a Buddhist (early this year, having been one for 7 years) I STILL would see people arguing over this, ie. the difference between "not self" (what Buddha used when referring to anything we would consider self) and "no self". I'm sure there's still bickering over interpretation and translation to this day.For me, this was one of the many things that led me out of Buddhism, possibly the first crack in the armor. If the goal of the path is described as not being anything knowable to us, to the extent that the only "reasonable" interpretation is to see it as total annihilation (in that it is described as not being anything we would consider to be life, existence, consciousness or perception) then is it really wise to trust Buddha and follow him? One thing you'll notice among Buddhists is that they often have non-scriptural views on what Nirvana is. They read into it some kind of idea of persistence of self or a "true" self such as the one you're thinking about. I think it would be incredibly difficult to find a Buddhist who actually believed in Nirvana as described (or not described, you could say) by Buddha. The most honest and well-studied ones will just say something along the lines of "we can't know" and I have to then question why they are following a religion which can't describe its ultimate goal in any positive way whatsoever. Buddhism advocates for its own truth via human reasoning, but then tells you that you can't understand its end goal by that same human reasoning.
>>39260250>How did Buddha achieve enlightenment?The Dhammapada, Suttas/Sutras, and Tibetan teachings extensively cover this (:>Why can't we replicate it?He spent the rest of his life teaching you to replicate it!
>>39260936Arhats have realized Bodhi. The Buddha realized Bodhi. Arhats generally awaken under the teaching of a Buddha.A 'Buddha', or a Samyaksambuddha is the first one to awaken in a cycle who has the capacity, power, and influence to teach that awakening and establish a doctrine in a world.'Lone Buddhas', or 'Pratyekabuddhas' awaken outside of these cycles and don't end up teaching, but awaken to the same bodhi.Mahayana greatly elaborates upon this and draws some differences.
>MFW niggas don't know about H.H. Buddha Dorje Chang III from Pasadena
