Thank Buddha

I must say i enjoyed the read. i really did. thank you ! and have a good day man

 

Gooood post...

Karma flys. My vajra verse in return:


'Don't be concerned about the appearances of this reality.
Don't purify, accept or reject them.
Leave them alone and rest in natural awareness.
Don't wonder, "What about existence? What about non-existence? What about in between?
Left alone, mind settles in its own place and reveals the essence of Mind.'





MelT

 

+rep for linking to this. He had some amazing ideas.

 

'During his lifetime, Buddha specifically refused to answer certain questions known as avyākṛta (Pāli: avyākata, "unexplained"). These are (1) Whether the world is eternal or not; (2) Whether the world is infinite or not; (3) Whether the body and the self are one and the same or not; (4) Whether the tathāgata exists after death, or not, or both does and does not, or neither does nor does not. In the Culla-Māluṅkyovāda-sutta, the Buddha, using an analogy of being shot by a poisoned arrow and asking about its origin and construction, indicated to Māluṅkyāputta that such speculative questions are ultimately unprofitable. [4]
In another occasion, the Buddha, without giving specific elaboration, stated that minor Vinaya rules can be amended by the Saṅgha. He further diverged from ancient Brahmin tradition by allowing monks and nuns not just to preach in the language of the area they happened to be in, but to recite the Dharma in the local language as well.
Soon after the parinirvāṇa (Pāli: parinibbāna, "complete extinguishment") of the Buddha, the first Buddhist council was held. As with any ancient Indian tradition, transmission of teaching was done orally. The primary purpose of the assembly was to collectively recite the teaching to ensure that no errors occur in oral transmission. In the first council, Ānanda, the Buddha's personal attendant was called upon to recite the discourses (sūtras, Pāli suttas) of the Buddha. Upāli, another disciple, recited the monastic rules (Vinaya). ' - wikipedia

Idk, lost in translation? perhaps...I mean maybe what we know now about the Buddha and his teachings are not what once was?....

 

Good post Chronic

How do you mean that exactly?

If you mean that it's changed since its origin I'd have to agree. It's been adapted by many different cultures and taken on all kinds of different structures and rituals. Some people would swear that only the Therevada or Mahayana vehicles contain the original teachings and that subsequent developments such as Vajrayana and Mahamudra aren't true buddhism. But in fact on the whole all of them still contain the same original teachings and beliefs, only the outer shell of practise (it tends to be more ritualistic in many modern traditions) has changed.

The 4 Unanswerables are interesting, in that people assume they mean that Buddha was incapable of answering them, but as your post shows, he refused to answer because the reality that buddhists believe in makes those questions irrelevant and not of any concern if you're trying to reach enlightenment.

MelT

 

These ones interested me the most...

I've been focusing very much on this connection, but I've done a poor job of convincing myself either way, right now there is no answer. Perhaps if Buddha can find freedom in not knowing the answer, then I can too.. But at the same time, the question is too intriguing not to ponder.

The beginners mind has not yet been easy to attain. Thanks for posting this.

 

Hi Azimuthal.

What I was trying to say, badly, in my posting was that although they're called 'unanswerables' the Buddha did know the answers, it's just that the subjects themselves are irrelevant in terms of the Path.

It sounds like you've got some experience of Buddhism? If so, put personal 'self' in the context of Sunyata and you'll understand why they have no real meaning.

Hope this helps.

MelT

 

I should also say that in some ways Buddhism was a kick against the Hindu religious structures at the time as much as anything else. Hinduism is a fine, fine, faith, but very fond of dividing things into levels, structures and barriers where others may say there are none. As it's theistic, Buddha was trying to show that knowing about/believing in a soul, etc, is not necessary to reach Nirvana, as Hinduism proposed.


MelT

 

Didn't know that at all! It does make a lot of sense to me, one of the main things that has drawn me towards buddhism is the rather freeform nature of it. Contrasted with the monotheistic western religions that I've had the most exposure too, the difference in thinking is very refreshing. I don't think I have realized this until right now, thanks for your help

Still a buddhism noob, I'm not really up on the nomenclature yet, slowly working on that though.