Poll

Is the Nature of the Buddha human?

Yes
1 (25%)
No
3 (75%)

Total Members Voted: 4

Author Topic: Some questions about the Nature of the Buddhas  (Read 2332 times)

Offline karmatryk

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: Some questions about the Nature of the Buddhas
« Reply #15 on: September 07, 2013, 07:47:29 am »
Please, read what is being said. If emptiness was inherent it would not depend of form to be empty of it- show me how  emptiness arises without form.

Offline karmatryk

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: Some questions about the Nature of the Buddhas
« Reply #16 on: September 07, 2013, 07:58:47 am »
oops sorry "it" being any inherent existence

Offline namumahaparinirvanasvaha

  • Member
  • Posts: 769
    • View Profile
Re: Some questions about the Nature of the Buddhas
« Reply #17 on: September 07, 2013, 08:09:56 am »
Please, read what is being said. If emptiness was inherent it would not depend of form to be empty of it- show me how  emptiness arises without form.


look up the 12 links of dependent origination FORM arises from Ignorance as a matter of fact all of dependently originated objects are rooted and are produced from Ignorance.

now Enlightenment is unarisen it isn't dependent upon anything for its existence.as you can see from these quotes Enlightenment is Inherently existent and its existence is not dependent upon any thing else.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.irel.html
Thus have I heard. At one time the Lord was staying near Savatthi in the Jeta Wood at Anathapindika's monastery. On that occasion the Lord was instructing... the bhikkhus with a Dhamma talk connected with Nibbana, and those bhikkhus... were intent on listening to Dhamma.

Then, on realizing its significance, the Lord uttered on that occasion this inspired utterance:

There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned.

http://palicanon.org/index.php/sutta-pitaka/majjhima-nikaya/713-mn108-gopakamoggalla-na-sutta-with-gopaka-moggalla-na
 For the Blessed One was the arouser of the unarisen path, the producer of the unproduced path, the declarer of the undeclared path; he was the knower of the path, the finder of the path, the one skilled in the path. But his disciples now abide following that path and become possessed of it afterwards.”

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.than.html
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:

There is, monks, an unborn[1] — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.[2]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.028-049.than.html#iti-043
This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is thus discerned."


The born, become, produced,
made, fabricated, impermanent,
composed of aging & death,
a nest of illnesses, perishing,
come from nourishment
and the guide [that is craving] —
   is unfit for delight.

The escape from that
is
calm, permanent,
beyond inference,
unborn, unproduced,
the sorrowless, stainless state,
the cessation of stressful qualities,
the stilling of fabrications,
      bliss.

again after reading all of this ask yourself what is Enlightenment dependent upon for its existence????
the answer is nothing Enlightenment is not produced from something else, it is not dependent upon something else in fact it is unborn and Inherently exists without any cause or conditions.
now don't take my word for it....................but its up to you to explain how something that is unborn and unproduced and not created is dependent upon something else for its existence (hence the contradiction)

Peace and Love Brother. (or sister)

Offline former monk john

  • Member
  • Posts: 977
  • My teacher and I in 1995
    • View Profile
Re: Some questions about the Nature of the Buddhas
« Reply #18 on: September 07, 2013, 08:27:11 am »
You could say the same thing about Love, love has no existence in and of itself, because its not a thing, not impermanent, Enlightenment the same way, its not a thing, its a state of mind, and as a state of mind it can be far from permanent, in any one  given mind. Its kind of like saying a Rock has no self, how could a rock have a self, its a rock. First you need to define what kind of word enlightenment is, and compare it to other words of the same type, for instance "enlightenment has no self" makes no more sense than "a rock has no self"
to me, the signs of a successful practice are happiness and a cessation of suffering, buddhism often gives me this; not all the answers.

Offline karmatryk

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: Some questions about the Nature of the Buddhas
« Reply #19 on: September 07, 2013, 09:34:03 am »
Dear Namomuhaparanirvanashbaha,

Apparently we're talking about two different subjects....

In the matter of emptiness, part of the problem is trying to encapsulate the inconceivable in a working language in which nuance may very from person to person. To elucidate and hopefully make myself a bit clearer, when I think of "inherency" I think of absolute, independent, immutable, quintessential, irreducible, final. If emptiness was not empty of even the inherency of unborn, undying, causeless and the like, then emptiness would be one thing and form would be another, as clearly form is caused, compounded, transforms and ceases. Form exists, simply not in the sense of an absolute "thing"; if it did not have a valid mode of existence then what difference would it make what happens here? What value altruism, what value the striving for the cessation of suffering? Indeed what value Buddha, Buddhahood? And in terms of  your question, what to be enlightened of? We cannot make the case that the emptiness of being is more real than interdependently being, simply that the ultimate nature of the emptiness of inherent being dispels us of the illusions we have imputed on that interdependent being.

Offline NepalianBuddhist

  • Member
  • Posts: 703
    • View Profile
Re: Some questions about the Nature of the Buddhas
« Reply #20 on: September 07, 2013, 10:26:22 am »
a) Is the nature of a Buddha human? ..

Is Buddhahood limited to the human species?


I don't know. Its in the realm of thought.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2013, 10:29:34 am by Wesley1982 »

Offline namumahaparinirvanasvaha

  • Member
  • Posts: 769
    • View Profile
Re: Some questions about the Nature of the Buddhas
« Reply #21 on: September 07, 2013, 07:05:47 pm »
Dear Namomuhaparanirvanashbaha,

Apparently we're talking about two different subjects....

In the matter of emptiness, part of the problem is trying to encapsulate the inconceivable in a working language in which nuance may very from person to person. To elucidate and hopefully make myself a bit clearer, when I think of "inherency" I think of absolute, independent, immutable, quintessential, irreducible, final. If emptiness was not empty of even the inherency of unborn, undying, causeless and the like, then emptiness would be one thing and form would be another, as clearly form is caused, compounded, transforms and ceases. Form exists, simply not in the sense of an absolute "thing"; if it did not have a valid mode of existence then what difference would it make what happens here? What value altruism, what value the striving for the cessation of suffering? Indeed what value Buddha, Buddhahood? And in terms of  your question, what to be enlightened of? We cannot make the case that the emptiness of being is more real than interdependently being, simply that the ultimate nature of the emptiness of inherent being dispels us of the illusions we have imputed on that interdependent being.

The OP (original poster) asked about the Nature of the Buddha and further clarified that he was talking about the Buddha Nature.

The Nature of the Buddha is Inherently existent this is refered to as the ultimate or absolute.

So I take it that the Emptiness you are refering too is called realitive Emptiness and is in relation to Samsaric beings who dependently exist and not the actual Nature of the Buddha.

The OP is asking for the Nature of the Buddha not the nature of all dependently existent samsaric beings.

So to clarify and not get into further misunderstanding would you post on the actual Nature of the Buddha and source it to the sutras/suttas/tantras.


Offline francis

  • Member
  • Posts: 1454
    • View Profile
Re: Some questions about the Nature of the Buddhas
« Reply #22 on: September 08, 2013, 12:33:31 am »
The Buddha was human being, admittedly an very enlightened human being. He achieved his awakening and enlightenment while meditating under the Bo tree.  Fortunately, he decided to teach other human beings the path to awakening and enlightenment.  His awakening is described as the as Four Noble Truths and his path is the Noble Eightfold Path.
"Enlightenment, for a wave in the ocean, is the moment the wave realises it is water." - Thich Nhat Hanh

Offline karmatryk

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: Some questions about the Nature of the Buddhas
« Reply #23 on: September 08, 2013, 05:19:40 am »
Dear Namumahaparinirvanasvaha,

In simplicity to clarify, the question was asked 'is the Buddha human?" several question as to what the Buddha would do. I answered based on the understanding that the world of form is an expression of Buddha nature. Even in our interdependent originations and the appearance of dichotomy it is valid that the all existence is contain within a drop of dew, so to say we are the embodiment of existence, the body of Buddha, is not simply a metaphor but a truth that we are all trying to work through our obscurations to aspire to not just as an intellectual treatise but as our experience . The nature of the question made me feel that the relationship between of the world and Buddha nature needed to be clarified.

As to emptiness I really think that in essence we're on the same page it's simply that words get in the way; in my way trying to avoid the error of empty nature being construed as some qualitative and quantitative substratum, a "thing" if you will, that somehow stands independently and is the basis of the origination of the existence of form-it is not. Where an object exists the emptiness of its inherent existence exists; where there is an absence of inherent existence there is  an object absent of it. Neither are the cause of one another, neither are independent of each other, simply the presence of one supports the presence of the other. And yes, you are correct: ultimately Buddha nature transcends them both, is inconceivable so nothing can be said about it.

Offline karmatryk

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: Some questions about the Nature of the Buddhas
« Reply #24 on: September 08, 2013, 05:24:17 am »
Sorry one final thing: you'd asked about enlightenment...my entire entrusting is predicated on that being true, including my entrusting itself

Offline NepalianBuddhist

  • Member
  • Posts: 703
    • View Profile
Re: Some questions about the Nature of the Buddhas
« Reply #25 on: September 08, 2013, 03:19:50 pm »
How do you explain that bright brown/golden liquid substance?...
« Last Edit: September 08, 2013, 03:27:12 pm by Wesley1982 »

Offline namumahaparinirvanasvaha

  • Member
  • Posts: 769
    • View Profile
Re: Some questions about the Nature of the Buddhas
« Reply #26 on: September 08, 2013, 10:10:56 pm »
Is the Nature of the Buddha Human?
According to the Buddha he was not a human being or any being that is apart of the 5 transmigations.

Dona Sutta

On one occasion the Blessed One was traveling along the road between Ukkattha and Setabya, and Dona the brahman was also traveling along the road between Ukkattha and Setabya. Dona the brahman saw, in the Blessed One's footprints, wheels with 1,000 spokes, together with rims and hubs, complete in all their features. On seeing them, the thought occurred to him, "How amazing! How astounding! These are not the footprints of a human being!" Then the Blessed One, leaving the road, went to sit at the root of a certain tree —his legs crossed, his body erect, with mindfulness established to the fore. Then Dona, following the Blessed One's footprints, saw him sitting at the root of the tree: confident, inspiring confidence, his senses calmed, his mind calmed, having attained the utmost control & tranquility, tamed, guarded, his senses restrained, a naga.[1]


On seeing him, he went to him and said, "Master, are you a deva?"[2] "No, brahman, I am not a deva." "Are you a gandhabba?" "No..." "... a yakkha?" "No..." "... a human being?" "No, brahman, I am not a human being."


 "When asked, 'Are you a deva?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a deva.' When asked, 'Are you a gandhabba?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a gandhabba.' When asked, 'Are you a yakkha?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a yakkha.' When asked, 'Are you a human being?' you answer,


'No, brahman, I am not a human being.'

Then what sort of being are you?" "Brahman, the fermentations by which —if they were not abandoned —I would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. The fermentations by which —if they were not abandoned —I would be a gandhabba... a yakkha... a human being: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. "Just like a red, blue, or white lotus —born in the water, grown in the water, rising up above the water —stands unsmeared by the water, in the same way I —born in the world, grown in the world, having overcome the world —live unsmeared by the world. Remember me, brahman, as 'awakened.' "The fermentations by which I would go to a deva-state, or become a gandhabba in the sky, or go to a yakkha-state & human-state: Those have been destroyed by me, ruined, th

Offline francis

  • Member
  • Posts: 1454
    • View Profile
Re: Some questions about the Nature of the Buddhas
« Reply #27 on: September 09, 2013, 01:41:49 am »
Is the Nature of the Buddha Human?
According to the Buddha he was not a human being or any being that is apart of the 5 transmigations.

Dona Sutta

On one occasion the Blessed One was traveling along the road between Ukkattha and Setabya, and Dona the brahman was also traveling along the road between Ukkattha and Setabya. Dona the brahman saw, in the Blessed One's footprints, wheels with 1,000 spokes, together with rims and hubs, complete in all their features. On seeing them, the thought occurred to him, "How amazing! How astounding! These are not the footprints of a human being!" Then the Blessed One, leaving the road, went to sit at the root of a certain tree —his legs crossed, his body erect, with mindfulness established to the fore. Then Dona, following the Blessed One's footprints, saw him sitting at the root of the tree: confident, inspiring confidence, his senses calmed, his mind calmed, having attained the utmost control & tranquility, tamed, guarded, his senses restrained, a naga.[1]


On seeing him, he went to him and said, "Master, are you a deva?"[2] "No, brahman, I am not a deva." "Are you a gandhabba?" "No..." "... a yakkha?" "No..." "... a human being?" "No, brahman, I am not a human being."


 "When asked, 'Are you a deva?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a deva.' When asked, 'Are you a gandhabba?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a gandhabba.' When asked, 'Are you a yakkha?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a yakkha.' When asked, 'Are you a human being?' you answer,


'No, brahman, I am not a human being.'

Then what sort of being are you?" "Brahman, the fermentations by which —if they were not abandoned —I would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. The fermentations by which —if they were not abandoned —I would be a gandhabba... a yakkha... a human being: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. "Just like a red, blue, or white lotus —born in the water, grown in the water, rising up above the water —stands unsmeared by the water, in the same way I —born in the world, grown in the world, having overcome the world —live unsmeared by the world. Remember me, brahman, as 'awakened.' "The fermentations by which I would go to a deva-state, or become a gandhabba in the sky, or go to a yakkha-state & human-state: Those have been destroyed by me, ruined, th

See Note 2.

…. The Buddha's refusal to identify himself as a human being relates to a point made throughout the Canon, that an awakened person cannot be defined in any way at all. On this point, see MN 72, SN 22.85, SN 22.86, and the article, "A Verb for Nirvana." Because a mind with clinging is "located" by its clinging, an awakened person takes no place in any world: this is why he/she is unsmeared by the world (loka), like the lotus unsmeared by water.

"Enlightenment, for a wave in the ocean, is the moment the wave realises it is water." - Thich Nhat Hanh

Offline namumahaparinirvanasvaha

  • Member
  • Posts: 769
    • View Profile
Re: Some questions about the Nature of the Buddhas
« Reply #28 on: September 09, 2013, 01:53:15 am »
Thats right Not a Human being.

Offline karmatryk

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: Some questions about the Nature of the Buddhas
« Reply #29 on: September 09, 2013, 05:02:19 am »
In relationship with the ultimate truth, no; in relationship with the conventional truth, yes, both understanding valid within their context; also depends on who was being addressed and why that particular answer was needed as with a lot of Buddha's teachings in the application of the appropriate cure...I also realize that this is a matter of controversy between schools, as to  the acceptance or denial of the human face of Lord Buddha and probably will only be an extension of that long-term controversy discussed here. A lot of us feel the canons represented the first turning of the dharma wheel but later turnings illuminated both the understanding and import of the teachings, but unfortunately for me to bolster why I say what I say would require an in-depth analysis  of Nagarjuna's seventy stanzas and perhaps more helpful Fa tsang's more positive analysis, added to the fact that the only reason for doing so would to be engage in a contest of wills.

And Wesley, that liquid might be dark ale lager but just to be safe have your kid brother taste it first

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal