Soul and Buddhism

Well, that's only an interpretation, many would disagree with this.

Yet even if this is his real view, this doesn't change anything. When someone says: I am Buddha, does it clarify anything to others? How can they know what means to be buddha?

Having heard that, they will only ascribe to the teacher some supreme state and worship him, as if he is superior to them, that is found spiritual authority, which is exactly what they did with all buddhas, christs, mohammeds...

Well, look: do I understand thee aright, that spiritual practice like meditation is necessary for attainment happiness, that is inner peace, that is freedom of desire. If yes, I suppose I've shown that this practice, any practice, is dependant on material conditions, and therefore for some people, like those paralysed, or Negroes in Africa, that have never heard of it, or me, who is living very far from those teachers, or for sentenced to death, it is impossible to be happy.

I think that seeing that buddhists or even earlier Brahmins in India made up the doctrine of reincarnation, which is very hipocritical, it actually says: "That's not nothing that thy life is so bad and miserable, believe us that sometime after death, if thou art fidel to us, thou wilt attain what thou wilt". And this deceit make people sacrifice their lives, real lives and and ability of being really happy for the sake of these cunning fictions!

Hi,

Quick question. I have seen Buddha referenced many times. When Buddhists reference Buddha, is it implicit and acknowledged that it is an opinion of what Buddha said (e.g. something that has been translated and filtered down through the ages via oral and written transmission), or do Buddhists believe that was is taken as Buddha's teachings are absolutely fact and are recognized universally by all Buddhists?

Thanks.

Rich

This is what he spent forty years trying to explain. It's all there in the sutras.
It's a risk, yes.

I can never quite see how you reach your conclusions. I agree that staying alive to seek happiness depends on material conditions. How does the rest of your idea follow from this?

Clearly this is what you have come to believe. Now all you need to do is develop an argument. I think its best to accept the doctrine as a whole, then examine whether it is systematic and consistent with the known facts, and then make a judgement, in that order.

Shall we agree to differ?

If it is another Buddha or Arhant then they would know exactly what the Buddha said and meant.

That is why they include miracles which are aimed at establishing new belief.

Why, then, to give any name which is meaningless to others? Is it not better just to speak truth of the world?

Surely, there is difference. To be alive I need some food, shelter etc., and I need to be happy just because I am alive (were I dead, there would be no one to be happy:)). Now, I ask again if I am alive and I stay in those cinditions I have described in my previous post, is the happiness closed to me (in this life!,

I used to like this doctrine of reincarnation until I studied the history of India and its caste system, the part of forming of which was that teaching. So don't think I am rationalising my belief.

Will they know all what said and meant man Siddhartha Gautama?

How will they know they are in that state, in which he was?

Those sutras were written surely not by Siddhartha himself, nor by other "buddhas" and "arhats" and they reflect the view of their authors and not of the Buddha, who had never written anything. That is why they include miracles which are aimed at establishing new belief.

Name one! You will find there are no accounts of miracles in the Pali cannon nor in the Mahayana sutras. Challenge you to prove me wrong.

Happiness would be closed to nobody. Full stop.

The Buddha didn't like the caste system much either. Not sure what bearing it has on reincarnation though.

Who cares who wrote them? I don't. What matters is whether they are true or false, bring us insight etc.
That's the purpose of the practice, to find out what he meant. The idea is to become a Buddha.
One cannot be fully enlightened and not know it. Although, perhaps in a certain sense one can. This is outside my competence.

Most people know that Buddha means 'Awake One' or 'Enlightened One'. It is an honorific, and not too difficult to understand the gist of the intended meaning.

When I started to research mysticism I had the same question. Why, if the doctrine is true, can't people just come straight out and say what it is, without the ambiguous, opaque and paradoxical language. I now know there is no other option. Mysticism uses a language of contradictory complementarity because of the dual-aspect nature of reality. It's nobody's fault that this is difficult to explain.

If thou meetest the Buddha, kill the Buddha,

Thus any established practice is not necessary for it.

How dost thou understand the saying: "If thou meetest the Buddha, kill the Buddha, if thou meetest a patriarch, kill the patriarch"?

Folk traditions are not canonical. Of course people worship images of Buddha in temples, with incense, and pray for the deliverance of their ancestors. This is human nature. None of it is essential to the meaning of the teaching, in my view.

My understanding of this is to prevent institutionalising the practise, creating images or idols and believing in them, none of which is helpful or germane to the real teaching.

Can't follow your logic here. How do you figure this out?

I found this thread to be very informative and well debated. What may have been lacking is definitions. One doubt raises many doubts.
The quest should be to relieve oneself from doubts. And Lo, what do you get?

The problem with that thread was that we were discussing things on different levels. Some people here are believed to possess mystical power and super-consciousness, therefore any discussion between me, pardon me, I am mere mortal, and them was impossible from its very beginning. They just have another logic, another method which doesn't give place to discourse.
"Believe us or be cursed".

But it is nevertheless the case that he founded a spiritual movement, with rules, goals, practises, observance, teachings, and so on, which persists to this day. Is it not?