Was the Buddha a Buddha, or . . .

[Spinoza]

... did he simply imagine himself to be a Buddha?

This is a question that was once put to me.  I offer it here for your consideration.

[Tsongkhapafan]

If he imagined it, he would be deluded and the teachings he gave would be impure and lead to suffering.

Because his teachings work and lead to greater and greater happiness, I therefore conclude that he was enlightened.

He also explained in the Jataka Mala about his previous lives, so if he wasn't realized he would have been lying about those.  Since Buddha taught moral discipline practice as the basis of all realizations, including telling the truth, he would be hypocritical and would have contradicted his own teachings.

Such qualities would not make Buddha on object of refuge or a Spiritual Teacher worth following.

We can also look at the praises to Buddha written by great Indian and Tibetan Buddhist masters who were themselves realized through following his teachings.  If you have faith, these also show that Buddha was a genuine Master and enlightened being.

[Anders Honore]

Well, to answer that we would need to know on account of what he called himself a Buddha. The title he used most often was 'tathagata', the thus come/thus gone one. But not long after his awakening, he encountered a brahmin who asked if he was a god or a man. To which he said:

The outflows [asavas] whereby would be
A deva-birth or airy sprite,
Gandharva, or whereby myself
Would reach the state of yakkhahood, [these are all different higher states of being than human - a]
Or to birth in a human womb--
Those outflows now by myself
Are slain, extinguished and rooted out.

"As a lotus, fair and lovely
By the water is not soiled,
By the world am I not soiled:
Therefore, brahmin, am I awake [buddha].

[overmyhead]

Seeing as you are on a Buddhist forum, your responses here will be stereotyped.   

There was not this concept of "a Buddha" during the time of The Buddha.  There was only The Buddha.  Whatever The Buddha was - that is what The Buddha was.  (I can't know this for sure, but it makes sense.)

If The Buddha was anything different, then that is what The Buddha would be.  If The Buddha was any different, then that is what would be refered to as "a Buddha".

The Buddha was whatever he was, he understood whatever he understood, and he saw whatever he saw.  If The Buddha was not what is commonly conceived of as a Buddha, then it is our conception of a Buddha which is flawed, not the Buddha's conception of himself.

Until one has understood whatever the Buddha understood, and seen whatever the Buddha saw, then it is impossible to know what is meant by "a Buddha".  Therefore, for the typical person, The Buddha is not a Buddha.  Whatever that is.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

If he imagined it, he would be deluded and the teachings he gave would be impure and lead to suffering.

Because his teachings work and lead to greater and greater happiness, I therefore conclude that he was enlightened.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up (for all intents and purposes).

Metta,
Retro.

[Caz]

If he imagined it, he would be deluded and the teachings he gave would be impure and lead to suffering.

Because his teachings work and lead to greater and greater happiness, I therefore conclude that he was enlightened.

He also explained in the Jataka Mala about his previous lives, so if he wasn't realized he would have been lying about those.  Since Buddha taught moral discipline practice as the basis of all realizations, including telling the truth, he would be hypocritical and would have contradicted his own teachings.

Such qualities would not make Buddha on object of refuge or a Spiritual Teacher worth following.

We can also look at the praises to Buddha written by great Indian and Tibetan Buddhist masters who were themselves realized through following his teachings.  If you have faith, these also show that Buddha was a genuine Master and enlightened being.

That would have been my response as well although probley not as graciously put. 

[Arya-Shraman]

was Buddha a Buddha?

1.Who knows?
2.Who wants to know?
3.If there is way to know this?
4. If I say yes .How to know If I am imagining that or not . If I answer no How to know If I am imagining that or not.


The nature of question is redundant(as it leads to infinitely many other questions of exact same nature) and is thus unaswerable without sounding circumlocutory.

[Arya-Shraman]

If he imagined it, he would be deluded and the teachings he gave would be impure and lead to suffering.

Because his teachings work and lead to greater and greater happiness, I therefore conclude that he was enlightened.

This is again a personal conclusion.As the premise 'Because his teachings work and lead to greater and greater happiness' is of subjective nature.

 But is also very practical approach that most of the practioners will take rather than expecting a concrete answer.

[santamonicacj]

... did he simply imagine himself to be a Buddha?

There are two possibilities:
1) Yes, he was a Buddha
2) No, he was not a Buddha

You've got to come to your own opinion however you want to do so. That's up to the individual. However if one entertains the question I suggest it be done with an open enough mind to not simply dismiss the first possibility, and its implications, without 'proof'.

[Monkey Mind]

Buddha wins my vote because he did not claim to be a God, the son of God, or a messenger of God. That immediately makes him more useful to my own struggles with dukkha than any of the other prophets, Messiahs, or manifestations of Divine.

Many others have followed Buddha's instructions and achieved enlightenment (or Bodhisattva awakening), and their reports of that experience have been pretty consistent to what the Buddha predicted. Proof is in the pudding, as they say.

My own life has improved following the Buddha's instructions. Not just a little, but significantly improved.
 
Oh, and that business about converting Angula Mali into a good, moral citizen... That's pretty cool.

Oh, and the business about shooting fire from his head and water from his legs... Well, he had my devotion with the 4 noble truths, the miracle stuff is just fun to read about.

[santamonicacj]

But is also very practical approach that most of the practioners will take rather than expecting a concrete answer.

As a hypothetical question, suppose someone attained full Buddhahood in today's world. What kind of 'concrete answer' would you expect of them?

[LastLegend]

... did he simply imagine himself to be a Buddha?

This is a question that was once put to me.  I offer it here for your consideration.

Then follow his teachings would not show any good results right. But this is not the case.

[katersy]

Seeing as you are on a Buddhist forum, your responses here will be stereotyped.   

There was not this concept of "a Buddha" during the time of The Buddha.  There was only The Buddha.  Whatever The Buddha was - that is what The Buddha was.  (I can't know this for sure, but it makes sense.)

If The Buddha was anything different, then that is what The Buddha would be.  If The Buddha was any different, then that is what would be refered to as "a Buddha".

The Buddha was whatever he was, he understood whatever he understood, and he saw whatever he saw.  If The Buddha was not what is commonly conceived of as a Buddha, then it is our conception of a Buddha which is flawed, not the Buddha's conception of himself.

Until one has understood whatever the Buddha understood, and seen whatever the Buddha saw, then it is impossible to know what is meant by "a Buddha".  Therefore, for the typical person, The Buddha is not a Buddha.  Whatever that is.

I enjoyed reading that! 

[incognito]

There was not this concept of "a Buddha" during the time of The Buddha.  There was only The Buddha.  Whatever The Buddha was - that is what The Buddha was.  (I can't know this for sure, but it makes sense.)

I suspect that there are many Jainists who would disagree with this, especially considering the existence of  the 24 tirthankaras prior to institutionalized Buddhism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Jainism


Also, "The Twenty-four Buddhas of Jainism" by Eloise Hart might be worth a read:

http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/world/asia/reljain1.htm

[santamonicacj]

My teacher was a Buddha, and he got that way from following Sakyamuni's instructions!