A Thought On The Buddha

[Michael]

I don't know about anybody else, but when I consider the Buddha I really only see the enlightened aspect, the object of desire :lol:

This evening I was sharing a thought with a little image of the laughing Buddha which I have on my desk, I said, 'It's all very well you being smug'.

Then I realised that the Buddha had to go through how many lives, how much joy,how much suffering?

Would I be incorrect to think that he could only lead us out of suffering to the degree which he has suffered? There's something very Christian in the thought, indeed they are a perfect mirror - the cross of wood and the cross of life

[Thomas Knierim]

Michael: This evening I was sharing a thought with a little image of the laughing Buddha which I have on my desk, I said, 'It's all very well you being smug'.

The fat laughing guy is actually not the Buddha. When talking about the Buddha we usually mean the historical Siddharta Gautama, i.e. the Shakyamuni Buddha. But the fat laughing guy's name is Budai and he is a Chinese 10th century monk. Budai is often seen as an incarnation of the future Buddha Maytrea, a bodhisattva, or "Buddha in wait". This makes the question whether the fat laughing guy is a Buddha somewhat difficult to answer. In any case, he is culturally Chinese. His appearance is quite different from the Burmese, Laotian, or Thai images of the Shakyamuni Buddha. This for example is a classical Sukhothai style Buddha:

http://www.distinctivelythai.com/catalog/pics/dth/sculpture/dscn7563.detail.jpg

(The antiquities expert will see it's a repro)

Michael: Would I be incorrect to think that he could only lead us out of suffering to the degree which he has suffered?

No, that's not what Buddhists think. The dharma teaching is impersonal. It has nothing to do with the personal suffering of the Buddha, or suffering experienced in previous lifetimes of the Buddha. It is a universal formula that applies to suffering in any form. Furthermore, Buddhists believe that while there are many different Buddhas (I think the Pali canon alone mentions more than a dozen), the dharma is unique. It is always the same.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

So you are enlightened psyche?

[scameter]

I never claimed I want to be "enlightened".

[scameter]

Do you like Evanescence?

[Taeguk]

This makes the question whether the fat laughing guy is a Buddha somewhat difficult to answer.

Depends on who you talk to. As I'm sure you're well aware, Chinese "Folk" Religion is a fairly complex amalgamation of beliefs, so different people relate to Budai in different ways. There's a modern syncretic movement in Taiwan and China called I Kuan Tao, which has an article (http://www.taoism.net/living/1999/199907.htm) about Budai on their website (http://www.taoism.net/enter.htm). It seems to me they identify him more with certain Taoist virtues than they do with Buddhism (but there's a fair amount of overlap between Ch'an Buddhism and Taoism anyway).

the knowing/enlightment is intutive

I think this is key :)

It is one thing to intellectually "know" that all is emptiness, that there is no self, that bodhi is already within you, etc. It's not too hard to learn these doctrines, but these doctrines are not the Dharma; the way that becomes a way is not the Immortal Way.

There is nothing to teach, but most people cannot simply return to stillness from repeating this (for one thing, the repeating of this and excessive pondering over it is not the primal awareness). The old Zen adage about mountains and rivers is especially apt; on the surface, nothing has changed (because there is nothing to change), yet the "journey" makes all the difference if it awakens...

Do you like Evanescence?

I prefer Nightwish B)

[scameter]

I like the song Imaginary personally.

I prefer Nightwish

And I prefer System of a Down.

[Michael]

The fat laughing guy is actually not the Buddha.

I didn't think so. I was looking upon it as a representation of Buddhist values.

Sometimes I think the devil is in the details :lol:

No, that's not what Buddhists think. The dharma teaching is impersonal. It has nothing to do with the personal suffering of the Buddha, or suffering experienced in previous lifetimes of the Buddha. It is a universal formula that applies to suffering in any form.

That answers my question. Thank you.

[Michael]

I was really just looking at the the Laughing Buddha as a material symbol, a reminder of the ineffable and wondering about the paths that lead there.

We can touch the hem of the ineffable when we contemplate any of the mystical writers from any religion, or any image from any religion (finding our way to the ineffable can be more difficult in some cases that others, and we often have to overcome cultural ignorance to understand the significance of what we are contemplating).

There are countless paths, the contemplation of a grain of sand, a flower, an animal, the smile of a child or even the pain we cause ourselves. These things are of themselves and not of any denomination or any philosophical set or sub-set.

What have all these got in common? The heart of the beholder.

There is too much
to comprehend,
too much to believe exclusively.

I would say I love
the arhcitecture
or irises,
but then the fragrance of sweetpea
sends my mind to ecstasy.

[vicente]

I never claimed I want to be "enlightened".

Why not? Is not the denial of your light what veils the light you are from being understood? The denial of ecstasy?

Buddhic consciousness is not about being empty, it is about understanding that emptiness is form, and form is emptiness. Non-duality is neither empty nor form.

There can never be a union of duality’s opposites (emptiness and form). From light’s (Vajra's) point of view, such a pondering as a unity between the dual (emptiness and form) and non-dual are preposterous. The physical body is an impermanent vehicle which non-dual consciousness can use, or not use, depending on one’s level of fragmentation from the higher densities.

How does one understand that emptiness is form, and form is emptiness?

In the Kalama sutra Shakyamuni Buddha said, "Do not accept anything by mere tradition... Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures... Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions.” Buddha taught irreligion.

Vicente

[scameter]

I simply care nothing about it. I do, however, wish that I didn't have desire at all, including desire for or not for enlightenment. Now that would be blissful ignorance.

[vicente]

I do, however, wish that I didn't have desire at all

Buddhism, at least Vajrayana Buddhism, is not about having no desire, but a non-attachment to things of impermanent desires. In fact, desire is important. The desire for health, wealth and wisdom for example, when in conjunction to serve in the liberation of all sentient beings, is the path to enlightenment.

Negative, veiling, obscuring pathways to enlightenment include religious desire (all religions are sets of beliefs). Religious beliefs promote phoniness. Wei Wu Wei said, "There is no humility, only degrees of pride." To deny desire is a phoniness that maintains religions beliefs.

It is phoney to have a denial of desire for your light. Neither, religion, denial, worldly success, nor self-imposed asceticism leads to awakening. What does lead to enlightenment is this: understanding that what you put out is what you get back. If you're putting out a denial of your enlightenment, than you will be denied enlightenment.

Shakyamuni Buddha realized enlightenment by understanding that suffering is a consequence of the desire for things to be other than they are,...not from a desire to flow abundantly with things as they are.

The Abrahamic religions teach humanity to be inferior, to deny, to embrace the status of sinner,...Vajrayana Buddhism instructs humanity to let go of those beliefs and be the light you are.

Vicente

[Ryker]

It is phoney to have a denial of desire for your light. Neither, religion, denial, worldly success, nor self-imposed asceticism leads to awakening. What does lead to enlightenment is this: understanding that what you put out is what you get back. If you're putting out a denial of your enlightenment, than you will be denied enlightenment.But if this light exists in all, what is there to desire?

If "evil" merely obscures the "good", then if one ceases desire of the "evil" then surely all that is left is the unobscured "good". Right? :think:

[vicente]

But if this light exists in all, what is there to desire?


Whatever you want! Padmasambhava, Tilopa, Amitayus, etc., desired the vidyadhara of longevity, among other things. The important thing to understand is that a desire through the awareness of the light you are, is void of fear and hope. As long as there is fear or hope, desire is not in harmony with the light that you are. As long as there is hope, there will be fear, and visa verse.

All fear and hope rises from ignorance. Ignorant desires manifest suffering. However, your birthright is for ecstasy, not suffering or struggle or being buried in the mud.

Saraha said, “Just because a diamond is in the mud doesn’t mean it has lost its luster.”

Vicente

[scameter]

The Abrahamic religions teach humanity to be inferior, to deny, to embrace the status of sinner,...Vajrayana Buddhism instructs humanity to let go of those beliefs and be the light you are.

That's because Buddhism is better.