Why do Buddhists always revert back to siddhartha gautama?

[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

[Spiny Norman]

This may result in clinging to the personality of the Buddha as an authority figure...

It may also result in clinging to the personality of a contempary teacher as an authority figure.

[Aloka]

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.

Yes, what you have said makes sense to me, Holdan.

From your link, the Buddha said :

"He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."

[santa100]

Holdan wrote: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

If we look at SN 6.2 again:

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

If ALL the Buddhas revere the true Dhamma, then the true Dhamma is not a personal subjective philosophy of a single individual human being (the Buddha). Matter of fact, the Buddha intended to remove the "clinging" of Ven. Vikkali when He started the famous paragraph with:

Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma

without the highlighted part, then yes, there would be reason to suspect that the Buddha suggested his disciples to worship His physical body! But no, whoever sees the Buddha, sees the "Dhamma-body", the embodiment of a man who thru his own effort put a complete end to suffering and attain the ultimate noble goal. That's the true Dhamma right there. That's the intended meaning of "seeing me one sees the Dhamma"..

[nibbuti]

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?

Yet all arahants experience the same realisation, all walked the same path and all are equal to the Buddha, except he got
There on his own and they got their by his instruction.

I think you answered your own question, clw_uk.

In my case, most groups or meditation centers are lay or ethnic. So comparing to the sources is a natural thing to do for me.

Regards

[Ceisiwr]

The Buddha is perfectly enlightened. Nobody knows more than the Buddha. Modern teachers IMO, I'm not sure many of them are even they're sotapatti let alone arahants, and even if there are a few arahants out there - The Buddha still had a much better understanding than they do.

For me Buddha is that which awakens to the present moment, not some guy who died 2500 ago


So faith in the Buddha is faith in the present moment and true refuge is found in the present moment, not a bunch of aggregates that died 2500 years ago

. Ajahn Chah would refer to that Awareness,
that knowing nature of mind, as Buddha.

“This is the true Buddha,The One Who Knows [Poo Roo in Thai].” The customary way of talking
about Awareness for both Ajahn Chah and other masters of the forest
tradition would be to use the term Buddha in this way—the aware,
awake quality of our own mind.This is the Buddha.He would say things
like,

“The Buddha who passed into Parinibbana 2,500 years ago is not
the Buddha who is a refuge.” (He also liked to shock people; they would
think they had a heretic in front of them.)

“How can that Buddha be a
refuge? He is gone. Gone...really gone.That’s no refuge.A refuge is a safe
place. So how can this great being who lived 2,500 years ago provide
safety? When you think about him, it makes you feel good? But this
feeling on its own is not so secure....A refuge is a safe
place. So how can this great being who lived 2,500 years ago provide
safety? When you think about him, it makes you feel good? But this
feeling on its own is not so secure....”

A pleasant sentiment, an inspiring
feeling is easily disturbed.When there is a resting in that Knowing, then
nothing can touch the heart—this makes that Buddha, that Buddha
Nature a refuge. It is invulnerable.What happens to the body, emotions,
and perceptions is secondary because there is that Knowing.That Knowing is beyond the reach of the phenomenal world, so that is the true
refuge”

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/upl ... -Heart.pdf