Why do Buddhists always revert back to siddhartha gautama?

[BlackBird]

The alternative is to see that there was a Buddha who was fully enlightened, the incomparable teacher of gods and mankind, the leader of men to be tamed. The awakened one and exalted one.

That doesn't have to be an alternative.

Oh but it does, given that that these are qualities the Buddha categorically possessed and was clear in stating that he possessed, this is a view put forth by the Sutta pitaka, a view put forth by the Buddha himself and his immediate followers, not by me.

As for where the traditional view is held? All three of those nations mentioned. In my experience it is the view held by the vast majority of Buddhists worldwide, although I must admit I have only real life experience with Singhalese in Sri Lanka, and the Thai & Burmese dana offerers at the Monastery in Stokes Valley, Wellington. Buddhist discussion forums on the internet are the exception, not the rule when it comes to a census of views on what the Buddha taught.

And by the way - It's perfectly fine for you to disagree with these points made above - But given it's simple disagreement and there is not 'meat' to your disagreement, there is nothing much in the way to respond to, except to say that the views represented by your disagreements have no factual basis.

I'm still not seeing how my post was a straw man argument, and you have repeatedly ignored my encouragement to detail exactly how it is so, which strongly suggests you are unable to do so. Are you ready to rescind your unwarranted accusation?

metta
Jack

[Nyana]

I was trying to get at two related points:
(1) Buddhism does not completely align with the Western concept of religion nor with the Western concepts of science or philosophy but sits somewhere between the three.
(2) The typical test of truth in (Western) religion is, "Does this accord with our inerrant sacred text?" whereas the typical test in (Western) science is, "Does this accord with already-established knowledge and, if not, can it be proven by experiment?" That is, the religious approach prioritises authority and a static body of knowledge but the scientific approach prioritises testable, repeatable experience and the increase of knowledge from one generation to the next. (Western) philosophy generally aligns with the scientific model.

What of Buddhism? Buddhism-as-typical-religion is, as I said, Blackbird's approach; Buddhism-as-science is the "secular Buddhist" approach; but I feel that neither of these extremes matches the Tipitaka's own truth test, which I might summarise as "trust me but test what I say", particularly well.

Does that make more sense?

Yes, it makes sense. I think that "religion" and "philosophy" can be rather slippery terms in a global, pluralistic world. And both are sometimes treated with scorn in some secular circles. This can include creating inaccurate caricatures and then attacking these caricatures as representative of all religion and/or all philosophy. I'm not suggesting that you're doing this, but it's worthwhile mentioning it in order to discuss what these terms encompass.

Personally, I don't think religion, philosophy, and science are necessarily opposed to one another, although (and in part because) the aims and disciplinary approaches of each may differ depending on context. Specifically with respect to Buddhism, Buddhist sources claim that the Buddha directly realized the kinds of knowledge needed to (i) attain liberation from saṃsāra, and (ii) skillfully teach others how to attain this liberation. Modern science doesn't assert these same goals, and doesn't possess the epistemic tools that could either verify or refute these Buddhist knowledge claims.

[Mr Man]

The alternative is to see that there was a Buddha who was fully enlightened, the incomparable teacher of gods and mankind, the leader of men to be tamed. The awakened one and exalted one.

That doesn't have to be an alternative.

Oh but it does, given that that these are qualities the Buddha categorically possessed and was clear in stating that he possessed, this is a view put forth by the Sutta pitaka, a view put forth by the Buddha himself and his immediate followers, not by me.

What I meant by "That doesn't have to be an alternative" is that appreciation these qualities of the Buddha can be shared. The epithets of the Buddha can have as much value to me as they do to you.

I'm still not seeing how my post was a straw man argument, and you have repeatedly ignored my encouragement to detail exactly how it is so, which strongly suggests you are unable to do so. Are you ready to rescind your unwarranted accusation?

Why I perceived your post as a straw man was because of your introduction that ideas that did not concur with your own were secularist. The implication that other peoples views were being influence by that heresy which is "Secular Buddhism".

[oceanfloor]

And yes, it is Buddhism-as-religion. If you've read the suttas it's hard to get the impression the Buddha wanted it any other way. If you want to be secular, and mix and match religious ideas that's fine, it's your life, but don't call mine unhealthy, because the Buddha would speak in praise of it. He was quite categorically in favour of saddha.

What is Saddha?

faith, confidence.

A Buddhist is said to have faith if "he believes in the Perfect One's (the Buddha's) Enlightenment" (M 53; A.V, 2)

Congratulations BlackBird, not many Buddhists have such firm confidence in the Buddha Dhamma as firm as yours. If you're currently not a stream-entry, you will be in this very lifetime, I'm optimistic on it.

metta,

[Gaoxing]

How much faith did the Buddha have in the Suttas?

[oceanfloor]

How much faith did the Buddha have in the Suttas?

Which one comes first, the Buddha or the Suttas?

[Anagarika]

Why do Buddhists always revert back to siddhartha gautama?

There are many who call themselves Buddhists who do not revert (or refer) back to Gautama. There are many that practice some forms they call Buddhism, which seem to have largely forgotten the Dhamma, and forgotten the precepts and the Vinaya for the ordained. There was the later development of the Bodhisattva ordination platform which dispensed with the Vinaya, but even these old monks in China and Japan still looked in part to the Agamas for their Dharma.

Today, we have these hybrid forms of practice that seem to, as one ancient put it, "wipe their ***es" with the suttas.

I sometimes wonder whether they can still be called Buddhists, at all.

So, this is why some revert back to Gautama Buddha. In need of medicine to free us from samsara, he wrote the recipe for the cure. All others can be just snake oil.

[Kusala]

Why do Buddhists, at least on internet discussion forums, always revert back to the first Arahant in india (siddhartha gautama) instead of referring to modern day arahants?

IMO we can take the core teachings from siddhartha and gain better elaborations from modern ajahans (such as Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Sumedho and Ajhan Buddhadasa) since they communicate via our modern languages and use our modern terms and concepts

After all there was never only one "person" enlightened


Thoughts?

An excerpt from The Customs of the Noble Ones:

"Throughout its history, Buddhism has worked as a civilizing force. Its teachings on karma, for instance - the principle that all intentional actions have consequences - have taught morality and compassion to many societies. But on a deeper level, Buddhism has always straddled the line between civilization and wilderness. The Buddha himself gained Awakening in a forest, gave his first sermon in a forest, and passed away in a forest.

The qualities of mind he needed in order to survive physically and mentally as he went, unarmed, into the wilds, were key to his discovery of the Dhamma. They included resilience, resolve, and alertness; self-honesty and circumspection; steadfastness in the face of loneliness; courage and ingenuity in the face of external dangers; compassion and respect for the other inhabitants of the forest. These qualities formed the 'home culture' of the Dhamma.

Periodically, as Buddhism spread and adapted to different societies, some practitioners felt that the original message of the Dhamma had become diluted. So they returned to the wilderness in order to revive its home culture..."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... stoms.html

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

How much faith did the Buddha have in the Suttas?

He had enough faith in the Dhamma to give the teachings that formed the basis of the suttas.

In fact, even once he was the Buddha he still paid homage to the Dhamma, because it is good to venerate.

As far as I'm concerned, that answers your riddle without a shadow of doubt.

Metta,
Retro.

[Holdan]

He had enough faith in the Dhamma to give the teachings that formed the basis of the suttas.

In fact, even once he was the Buddha he still paid homage to the Dhamma, because it is good to venerate.

Yes. But he did narcissistically not pay homage to what 'he' taught, i.e., Dhamma as 'The Teachings". Instead, he paid homage the pre-existent inherent natural realities (dhamma niyama) that he awaked to.

What if I were to dwell in dependence on this very Dhamma to which I have fully awakened, honoring and respecting it?

Garava Sutta: Reverence

[santa100]

Holdan wrote:Yes. But he did narcissistically not pay homage to what 'he' taught, i.e., Dhamma as 'The Teachings". Instead, he paid homage the pre-existent inherent natural realities (dhamma niyama) that he awaked to.

Uh...not quite sure what you meant because that dhamma niyama was what He directly awakened to AND taught it to others:

The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All phenomena are not-self ~~ AN 3.134 ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html ) ~~

And not only one Buddha reveres the Dhamma, all past and future Buddhas did and will also:

Past Buddhas,
future Buddhas,
& he who is the Buddha now,
removing the sorrow of many —

all have dwelt,
will dwell, he dwells,
revering the true Dhamma.
This, for Buddhas, is a natural law.

Therefore one who desires his own good,
aspiring for greatness,
should respect the true Dhamma,
recollecting the Buddhas' Teaching ~~ SN 6.2 ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html ) ~~

[Gaoxing]

Greetings,

How much faith did the Buddha have in the Suttas?

He had enough faith in the Dhamma to give the teachings that formed the basis of the suttas.

In fact, even once he was the Buddha he still paid homage to the Dhamma, because it is good to venerate.

As far as I'm concerned, that answers your riddle without a shadow of doubt.

Metta,
Retro.

In fact the riddle is not solved in light of this thread. To continue and add to some other inputs one could ask how much the Buddha had faith in himself and what is this called faith?

Let's see 1) You agree that the Suttas did not even exist in the time of the Buddha, but the Damma always did and always will 2) The Buddha exalted the Damma above himself and paid homage to it, 3) It's not sure what faith is. 4) What is the true Damma?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Gaoxing,

Sounds like needless doubt and wordplay to me... apologies if I do not indulge.

Metta,
Retro.

[Holdan]

Uh...not quite sure what you meant because that dhamma niyama was what He directly awakened to AND taught it to others...

Yes. But it is possible to regard the Dhamma as a personal subjective philosophy of an individual human being (the Buddha) rather than a description of universal reality. This may result in clinging to the personality of the Buddha as an authority figure, just as say Christians cling to the authority of Jesus or Muslims cling to the authority of Mohamed or as Vikkali clung to Buddha. Therefore, the Dhamma becomes "what Buddha said" rather than what is real.

[SarathW]

§ 116. Mahānāma, to the Buddha: There may be the case where a Dhamma disagreement arises, with the Blessed One on one side and the Community of monks on the other. I would be on the same side as the Blessed One. May the Blessed One remember this as my confidence in him.

There may be the case where a Dhamma disagreement arises, with the Blessed One on one side and the Community of monks & the Community of nuns on the other. I would be on the same side as the Blessed One. May the Blessed One remember this as my confidence in him...

There may be the case where a Dhamma disagreement arises, with the Blessed One on one side and the Community of monks & the Community of nuns & the male lay followers & the female lay followers & the world with its devas, māras, brahmās, its generations with their contemplatives & brahmans, their royalty & common folk on the other. I would be on the same side as the Blessed One. May the Blessed One remember this as my confidence in him.

The Buddha [turning to Mahānāma's companion, Godha]: Now Godha, what do you have to say about Mahānāma when he speaks in such a way?

Godha: I have nothing to say about Mahānāma when he speaks in such a way, except that he is admirable & skillful.
— SN 55.23
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... part3.html