Path to Buddhahood

[tiltbillings]

. . .

Question asked, eliciting what I expected. Dhammapala circa 5th cent CE, commenting centuries later on a post-death of the Buddha text. The references supplied (thank you for that) are really quite late. Quite simply, this is stuff the Buddha did not teach.

tiltbillings wrote:
And we should not take "history" at all seriously?

Who's version of history?

Any version of history that carefully looks facts, evidence and such and evaluates it in terms of context, immediate and broad.

Since the Buddha clearly equated bodhi with nibbana, I see no reason not to, as well.

Can you please provide a reference?

Bhikkhus, the seven factors of awakening, when developed and cultivated, lead to utter revulsion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to bodhi, to nibbana. SN v 82

Because, friend, this is beneficial, relevant to the fundamentals of the holy life, and leads to revulsion, dispassion, to cessation [nirodha], to peace, to direct knowledge[abi~n~ aa], to sambodhi, to nibbana. Therefore the Blessed one has declared it. SN ii 223

A monk who is thus possesses the fifteen factors including entusiasm is capapable of beaking out, capable of sambodhi, capable of attaining the supreme security from bondage [these last four words are used for nibbana]. MN i 104

The Tathagata has awkened to the middle way, which gives rise to vision, which gives rise to knowledge, which leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to sambodhi, to nibbana. And what is the middle way awakened to by the tathagata .... It is the Noble Eightfold Path.... SN iv 330-1

There friends, greed is an evil, anger is an evil. To dispel greed and anger, there is the middle path which conduces to wisdom, knowledge, sambodhi, and nibbana. It is this same noble eightfold path such as right view, right thoughts, right speech, right actions, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. Friends, this is the middle path which conduces to wisdom, knowledge, sambodhi, and nibbana. MN i 15

[whynotme]

Dear Whynotme,

First, so in your opinion, theoretically, his disciples can achieve everything the Buddha achieve including omiscience.. if they work hard enough?
Second, no matter what the answer of the first question, why did very few of his pupils attain any significant part of it. They lacked hard work, will, intention, interest or merit?

As Ñāṇa quoted in this thread: "The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it." ( AN 4.77 )

I won't go into conjectures here.
I don't understand why a disciple would try to achieve everything the Buddha achieved over the course of so many lives.
There's a certain smell of superiority in the aspiration to become necessarily the best.
IMHO, Nibbana solves any questions of superiority. If possible, one should cease the rebirth, and attain at least the Stream-entry in this life.
If not, one can aspire for Nibbana in the future - but there's no guarantee without the Stream-entry.

Imagine for a moment a flock of birds caught in the net. It would be the strongest and cleverest bird who would find a way out. Other birds should just follow the way.

Thank you, I agree that Nibbana solves everything relates to superiority.

Regards

[Ñāṇa]

Question asked, eliciting what I expected. Dhammapala circa 5th cent CE, commenting centuries later on a post-death of the Buddha text. The references supplied (thank you for that) are really quite late.

You asked for Theravāda texts and that's what I offered.

Quite simply, this is stuff the Buddha did not teach.

It's based on passages narrated by the Buddha in the Pāli Nikāyas. For example, the Buddhavaṃsa:

While I was lying on the earth it was thus in my mind: If I so wished I could burn up my defilements today.

What is the use while I (remain) unknown of realizing dhamma here? Having reached omniscience, I will become a Buddha in the world with the devas.

What is the use of my crossing over alone, being a man aware of my strength? Having reached omniscience, I will cause the world together with the devas to cross over.

By this act of merit of mine towards the supreme among men I will reach omniscience, I will cause many people to cross over.

And the Buddhāpadāna:

To the supreme enlightenment of the best of the Buddhas, to leaders of the world together with their Orders, I bowed down paying homage with joined hands.

In the Buddha-realm, as many as are there the numerous jewels, both in the heaven above and on the earth below, I brought all to my mind.

There on a silvery ground, I built a palace, many storied, jeweled, raised high to the sky,

Having ornamented pillars, well executed, well divided and arranged, costly, a mass of gold, decorated with arched gateways and canopies.

And so on.

And we should not take "history" at all seriously?

Who's version of history?

Any version of history that carefully looks facts, evidence and such and evaluates it in terms of context, immediate and broad.

According to whom? The Pāli Nikāyas offer a fair bit of history relating to past buddhas, previous lives of the present Buddha, etc.

Since the Buddha clearly equated bodhi with nibbana, I see no reason not to, as well.

Can you please provide a reference?

Friends, this is the middle path which conduces to wisdom, knowledge, sambodhi, and nibbana. MN i 15

These passages are good examples illustrating that the suttas are not comprehensive, systematic presentations.

[santa100]

Tiltbillings wrote:
"In an interesting way you make my point. "Siddhattha" is a name not found in the suttas that I have yet to see (and I have looked), but it is clearly in the later hagiographic literature as are a number of the aspects of the "Buddha's story" that we assume are fact.
Something you might find interesting: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/jeffrey2.htm"

No, I didn't make your point. Thank you for the informative link though. Nevertheless, the fact is clear that without the path of practice that you so rejected, there would be no 28th Samma-Sambuddha, and you would not be here to "evaluate" Him and His capabilities..

[tiltbillings]

Tiltbillings wrote:
"In an interesting way you make my point. "Siddhattha" is a name not found in the suttas that I have yet to see (and I have looked), but it is clearly in the later hagiographic literature as are a number of the aspects of the "Buddha's story" that we assume are fact.
Something you might find interesting: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/jeffrey2.htm"

No, I didn't make your point.

Of course you did.

Thank you for the informative link though. Nevertheless, the fact is clear that without the path of practice that you so rejected, there would be no 28th Samma-Sambuddha, and you would not be here to "evaluate" Him and His capabilities..

The path of practice you are inaccurately telling me that I rejected is a construct later than the suttas, and it clearly not taught by the Buddha. It is not anything I need to reject or accept.

[santa100]

Of course I didn't. The fact that our Buddha is the 28th Samma-Sambuddha is enough to prove there's a supreme path which honestly, doesn't need your approval..

[tiltbillings]

Question asked, eliciting what I expected. Dhammapala circa 5th cent CE, commenting centuries later on a post-death of the Buddha text. The references supplied (thank you for that) are really quite late.

You asked for Theravāda texts and that's what I offered.

5th cent CE.

Quite simply, this is stuff the Buddha did not teach.

It's based on passages narrated by the Buddha in the Pāli Nikāyas. For example, the Buddhavaṃsa . . . And so on.

Based upon passage narrated by the Buddha? Maybe, but not that you have shown.

According to whom? The Pāli Nikāyas offer a fair bit of history relating to past buddhas, previous lives of the present Buddha, etc.

Mythic history, something of which most religions have a great deal.

These passages are good examples illustrating that the suttas are not comprehensive, systematic presentations.

The passages quoted look quite clear.

[tiltbillings]

Of course I didn't.

Show us in the suttas where the name Siddhattha is used. The name comes out of a period after the death of the Buddha when the Buddhists were trying to fill the blanks, as it were, concerning the life and nature of the Buddha.

The fact that our Buddha is the 28th Samma-Sambuddha is enough to prove there's a supreme path which honestly, doesn't need your approval..

Did I say anything about approval? Nope. Since the Buddha did not teach a "supreme path," whose "supreme path?" The Theravadins? The Sarvastivadins? The Mahasanghikas? The Mahayana variations?

[santa100]

Tiltbillings wrote:
"Did I say anything about approval? Nope. Since the Buddha did not teach a "supreme path," whose "supreme path?" The Theravadins? The Sarvastivadins? The Mahasanghikas? The Mahayana variations?"

Why would I waste my time to show you anything? You've consistently denied the doctrine of everything single school out there, Mahayana, Vajrayana, and even Theravada..

[tiltbillings]

Tiltbillings wrote:
"Did I say anything about approval? Nope. Since the Buddha did not teach a "supreme path," whose "supreme path?" The Theravadins? The Sarvastivadins? The Mahasanghikas? The Mahayana variations?"

Why would I waste my time to show you anything? You've consistently denied the doctrine of everything single school out there, Mahayana, Vajrayana, and even Theravada..

You are dodging the question. I have not denied anything. I understand and accept that the various schools have various bodhisatta doctrines, which are not necessarily compatible with each other. In following the Buddha's teachings, I do not need to believe in or work with any of those various bodhisatta doctrine. That other people do, and that other people find them of value in their practice, is a good thing, but they are not a necessity for everyone to either practice or to believe in.

[santa100]

Tiltbillings wrote:
"You are dodging the question. I have not denied anything. I understand and accept that the various schools have various bodhisatta doctrines, which are not necessarily compatible with each other. In following the Buddha's teachings, I do not need to believe in or work with any of those various bodhisatta doctrine. That other people do, and that other people find them of value in their practice, is a good thing, but they are not a necessity for everyone to either practice or to believe in"

I am not dodging the question. You know exactly who I refer to. Actually, you are the one who has been dodging my question about the Buddha's omniscience when you mockingly asked if the Buddha was able to count the number of species in the world. And my question is very clear: "Are you absolutely certain that He is incapable of doing something like that?" Now, you said: "That other people do, and that other people find them of value in their practice, is a good thing, but they are not a necessity for everyone to either practice or to believe in", this is exactly my point in all my posts and the readers here can be my witnesses. It has not been your point until your very last post, you had been consistently brushing aside the bodhisatta path..

[tiltbillings]

Tiltbillings wrote:
"You are dodging the question. I have not denied anything. I understand and accept that the various schools have various bodhisatta doctrines, which are not necessarily compatible with each other. In following the Buddha's teachings, I do not need to believe in or work with any of those various bodhisatta doctrine. That other people do, and that other people find them of value in their practice, is a good thing, but they are not a necessity for everyone to either practice or to believe in"

I am not dodging the question. You know exactly who I refer to. Actually, you are the one who has been dodging my question about the Buddha's omniscience when you mockingly asked if the Buddha was able to count the number of species in the world.

The question is was legitmate as a way of getting at what meant by the idea of omniscience. No mockery was intended.

And my question is very clear: "Are you absolutely certain that He is incapable of doing something like that?"

And with that I would go with Dharmakirti. The important thing is: Rather, inquire into his knowledge of that which is to be practised by us.

Now, you said: "That other people do, and that other people find them of value in their practice, is a good thing, but they are not a necessity for everyone to either practice or to believe in", this is exactly my point in all my posts and the readers here can be my witnesses. It has not been your point until your very last post, you had been consistently brushing aside the bodhisatta path..

That was a personal response to your unnecessary personal accusations. The bottom line is that the Buddha did not teach a bodhisatta doctrine. The bodhisatta doctrines are something that developed after the death of the Buddha.

[santa100]

Tiltbillings wrote:
"That was a personal response to your unnecessary personal accusations. The bottom line is that the Buddha did not teach a bodhisatta doctrine. The bodhisatta doctrines are something that developed after the death of the Buddha"

If it seems like personal accusations then I apologize because it's never been my intention. My style has always been to tackle the idea and response, not the person. Ok, with that said, my bottom line is also simple, the bodhisatta path exists, and the lineage of Buddhas have been practicing it to bring the benefit of the Dhamma to a great multitude of sentient beings, for crying out loud, there is a great man practicing it up there right now in the Tusita heaven, and His name is Metteyya..

[tiltbillings]

Tiltbillings wrote:
"That was a personal response to your unnecessary personal accusations. The bottom line is that the Buddha did not teach a bodhisatta doctrine. The bodhisatta doctrines are something that developed after the death of the Buddha"

If it seems like personal accusations then I apologize because it's never been my intention.

No problem.

My style has always been to tackle the idea and response, not the person. Ok, with that said, my bottom line is also simple, the bodhisatta path exists, and the lineage of Buddhas have been practicing it to bring the benefit of the Dhamma to a great multitude of sentient beings, for crying out loud, there is a great man practicing it up there right now in the Tusita heaven, and His name is Metteyya..

Okay.

[santa100]

Cool..

[Ñāṇa]

Mythic history, something of which most religions have a great deal.

More Western secular assumptions.... Now you're not even willing to take the suttas seriously on their own terms.

In following the Buddha's teachings, I do not need to believe in or work with any of those various bodhisatta doctrine.

And this thread pertains to the bodhisatta path.

The important thing is: Rather, inquire into his knowledge of that which is to be practised by us.

Again, this thread pertains to the practice of the perfections in order to attain unsurpassable perfect awakening (anuttarāsammāsambodhi).

[Modus.Ponens]

Hello Nana

It's hard to believe that I'm reading the Nana who wrote "The jhanas acording to the pali Nikayas". I don't say this as a provocation, just as an unwanted disapointment.

[tiltbillings]

Mythic history, something of which most religions have a great deal.

More Western secular assumptions.... Now you're not even willing to take the suttas seriously on their own terms.

I prefer my Dhamma sandiṭṭhiko (self evident; immediately apparent; visible here and now by one's direct experience), akāliko (timeless, immediate), ehipassiko (can be seen for one's self) and opanayiko, (leading to liberation). Does not believing in mythic histories that are not sandiṭṭhiko, akāliko, ehipassiko, and opanayiko undermine the core teachings of the Buddha? Not that anyone has shown. And why does Buddhism get to favor its mythic histories over other religions mythic histories? While mythic histories have their place and may function to be inspiring, they are not necessary --that anyone has shown --for liberation.

The important thing is: Rather, inquire into his knowledge of that which is to be practised by us.

Again, this thread pertains to the practice of the perfections in order to attain unsurpassable perfect awakening (anuttarāsammāsambodhi).

It started out that way, but it was worth a mention that the liberation the Buddha attained is no different from that attained by the arahants. I would have left it that, except you seemed to want to contest that, at length.

[tiltbillings]

Thank you for your reply. Let me go directly to my argument.

And just because sambodhi is listed sequentially next to nibbana, do not mean the two are equivalent. Frequently in the sutta, a list is provided to show a progressive refinement rather than equivalence. For example, the sutta you quoted:

Bhikkhus, the seven factors of awakening, when developed and cultivated, lead to utter revulsion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to bodhi, to nibbana. SN v 82

Because, friend, this is beneficial, relevant to the fundamentals of the holy life, and leads to revulsion, dispassion, to cessation [nirodha], to peace, to direct knowledge[abi~n~ aa], to sambodhi, to nibbana. Therefore the Blessed one has declared it. SN ii 223

The lists above show a progressive advancement of wisdom from revulsion to nibbana. Otherwise one can say revulsion is equivalent to nibbana, which is really odd.

My intepretation is as the word is defined: sambodhi is the highest enlightment and nibbana is cessation of dukkha. Sambodhi refers to the bursting of iqnorance and nibbanna refers to the end of suffering. There is fine difference between the two. While nibanna is unconditoned, sambodhi requires (thus conditioned by) the maturing of bojjhanga (the 7 factor of awakening). Thus sambodhi is not equivalent to nibanna.

The revulsion business is interesting, given the differences between the two texts, but cessation (nirodha) certainly seems to be a term indicating nibbana and it comes befor sambodhi. Also, I am taking (sam)bodhi as meaning complete insight into the Four Ennobling Truths. Here is a fuller look at my argument: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 4&#p149864 If you have not, take a look, please and if you wish we can continue this in a new thread. It is worth a careful, considered discussion and it promises to be interesting.

[Ñāṇa]

Mythic history, something of which most religions have a great deal.

More Western secular assumptions.... Now you're not even willing to take the suttas seriously on their own terms.

I prefer my Dhamma sandiṭṭhiko (self evident; immediately apparent; visible here and now by one's direct experience), akāliko (timeless, immediate), ehipassiko (can be seen for one's self) and opanayiko, (leading to liberation). Does not believing in mythic histories that are not sandiṭṭhiko, akāliko, ehipassiko, and opanayiko undermine the core teachings of the Buddha? Not that anyone has shown. And why does Buddhism get to favor its mythic histories over other religions mythic histories? While mythic histories have their place and may function to be inspiring, they are not necessary --that anyone has shown --for liberation.

Your secular prejudices are obvious.