Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Santi253 wrote:

David N. Snyder wrote: True, but Mun is more of an outlier, not a typical, mainstream theravada view.

This is something I don't know a whole lot about. Does the typical Theravada Buddhist, in traditionally Theravadin countries, believe that the Buddha remains present in the world?

Coëmgenu wrote: If such a thing is believed by some, then Buddha remaining in the world being a belief that is similarly believed is open game how I see it.

The Buddha is equated with the Dhamma:
... and the Buddha comforts him, "Enough, Vakkali. Why do you want to see this filthy body? Whoever sees the Dhamma sees me; whoever sees me sees the Dhamma."[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trikaya#Origins

Santi253 wrote:Does the typical Theravada Buddhist, in traditionally Theravadin countries, believe that the Buddha remains present in the world?

Coëmgenu wrote:

Santi253 wrote: This is something I don't know a whole lot about. Does the typical Theravada Buddhist, in traditionally Theravadin countries, believe that the Buddha remains present in the world?

One might be persuaded to look at it this way: when my partner asked his Thai Buddhist hairdresser about reincarnation, he talked about the soul flying out of one body and into a fetus in a womb somewhere else. Very literal. This is what would be called a "folksy" dhamma-understanding around here, as loaded a term as that is.

If such a thing is believed by some, then Buddha remaining in the world being a belief that is similarly believed is open game how I see it.

Zom wrote:

The Blessed One would never say that on the dissolution of the body the saint who has lost all depravity is annihilated,
perishes, and does not exist after death.

Yes, because they are all there in nibbana, drinking beer and having fun

Santi253 wrote:

Coëmgenu wrote: If such a thing is believed by some, then Buddha remaining in the world being a belief that is similarly believed is open game how I see it.

What I believe is, after the Buddha's parinirvana, it's the Dharmakaya, the Dharma-body of all buddhas, which remains active in the world:

The Buddha is equated with the Dhamma:
... and the Buddha comforts him, "Enough, Vakkali. Why do you want to see this filthy body? Whoever sees the Dhamma sees me; whoever sees me sees the Dhamma."[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trikaya#Origins

When the Lotus Sutra refers to the Eternal Buddha, and says that all other buddhas are manifestations of him, I believe that's referring to the Dharmakaya.

David N. Snyder wrote:Open game for shooting that view down?

cappuccino wrote:

Santi253 wrote:Does the typical Theravada Buddhist, in traditionally Theravadin countries, believe that the Buddha remains present in the world?

Buddha is no longer visible to gods or men.

Santi253 wrote:Theravadins

Santi253 wrote:Theravadins

The Buddha was often asked this question of the state of a Tathagata, here meaning a Buddha or Arahat, after death: could it be said that he ‘is’ (eternalism), that he ‘is not’ (annihilationism), that he ‘both is and is not’, or that he ‘neither is nor is not’?

These were part of a small set of ‘undetermined questions’ which the Buddha set aside without answering (S.IV.373–400). One reason for this was that he saw speculating over them as a time-wasting diversion from spiritual practice.

When one monk told him that he would leave the Sangha unless he was given answers to these questions, the Buddha gave a simile to show how foolish he was: if a man was shot by a poisoned arrow but refused to let a doctor cure him until he knew everything about who shot the arrow, and what the arrow was made of, such a man would soon die (M.I.426–31; BW.230–3; SB.168–72).

The Buddha then said that he had clearly explained dukkha (suffering, dissatisfaction) and the way beyond it, but that asking the undetermined questions was not connected with, nor conducive to, Nirvana. This accords with his saying that he taught only what was both true and spiritually useful (M.I.395).

Besides these practical considerations, the Buddha also clearly saw the undetermined questions as having a misconception built into them. Like the innocent man who was asked ‘have you stopped beating your wife?’, he could not rightly reply either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to them.
http://buddhist-world.com/four-realitie ... g/nirvana/

Santi253 wrote:If Nirvana is the Ultimate Truth, there can be nothing after it

cappuccino wrote:

Santi253 wrote:If Nirvana is the Ultimate Truth, there can be nothing after it

parinibbāna is after it, not annihilation

People often ask: What is there after Nirvana? This question cannot arise,
because Nirvana is the Ultimate Truth. If it is Ultimate, there can be nothing after it.
If there is anything after Nirvana, then that will be the Ultimate Truth and not
Nirvana.

A monk named Radha put this question to the Buddha in a different form:
'For what purpose (or end) is Nirvana?' This question presupposes something after
Nirvana, when it postulates some purpose or end for it. So the Buddha answered: 'O
Radha, this question could not catch its limit (i.e., it is beside the point). One lives the
holy life with Nirvana as its final plunge (into the Absolute Truth), as its goal, as its
ultimate end.'
https://sites.google.com/site/whatbuddh ... /chapter-4

Santi253 wrote:Yes, but what is parinirvana? Who or what exists in it?

cappuccino wrote:

Santi253 wrote:Yes, but what is parinirvana? Who or what exists in it?

We're already selfless so how do you exist? If you're not who nor what.

Well… you may not be this or that, but this and that is still present.