Buddhism-Created for reform?

[smoothtbs]

I have been pondering this thought for some time. Religious studies scholars sometimes think of Buddhism as having begun as a reform movement within Hinduism. As Paden implies, reform movements sometimes begin as responses to crises within the older religious tradition. Considering the Hinduism of the time at which the Buddha lived, what might have been some of the crises which precipitated the foundation of Buddhism? The only one I can think of is the caste system of Hinduism and the violence within this at the time. Any other thoughts? Thanks

 

[samabudhi]

Perhaps that the Brahmin religion had no solution to the issue of sentient beings suffering. This is the Buddha's goal, to end suffering.

 

[wil]

Following an ecumenical service I drove our priests/speakers from Hinduism and Buddhism back to their respective temples. As the first was about 30 minutes away and the other another 15 it made for an interesting ride..

The Hindu assured me that Buddhists are Hindus that followed Buddha, that in India there was virtually no difference. The Buddhist sat in the front and by his face quite disagreed...he made comments, always friendly, always quitely disagreeing but was not able to turn around as his face may have given away his true feelings that he kept out of his voice.

 

[iBrian]

Hey, nice to see you back, samabudhi.

And welcome to CR, smoothtbs.

 

[samabudhi]

Good to be back Brain.

Hi Wil

Your post doesn't really have any supporting argument, except to disagree, but you're no doubt under the impression that Buddhists are quite a reserved lot. The silence of the Buddha is not a lack of opinion, it is actually quite profound.

Suppose I asked you whether the hairs on a turtoise were bristly or smooth. To answer yes or no would be to validate my question, which is quite preposterous. A turtoise has no hairs, so it'd complicate things a lot less if you just didn't answer the question.
Similarly, the definition of "Hindu" or "Buddhist" is really so trivial a matter, and though there is a clear difference, answering it would be submitting to the fact that it is important.

These are just labels, which can be helpful or divisive, depending on the circumstances. Perhaps the Buddhist thought it was best not to engage in an argument about religious conventions, but rather save his breath for something that actually matters.

 

[Silverbackman]

Perhaps that the Brahmin religion had no solution to the issue of sentient beings suffering. This is the Buddha's goal, to end suffering.

No no you got it a bit wrong. There is liberation in Hindu religions, this is called moksha. However, in Buddhism when you reach Nirvana and freed from the cycles of life and death, you just disappear from existance. In Hinduism you your soul (atman) returns to the Brahman, which ends suffering as Nirvana does.

However I like the moksha liberation more than nirvana liberation because you get to actually continue on living instead of just ceasing to exist. IMO I would rather want to be reborn even if life is not perfect than to just cease to exist. But when join the Brahman you will recieve a high like no other and your life will continue, just through the eyes of God .

 

[samabudhi]

Namo Silverbackman

The initial question was about why Buddhism came into being. The religion at the time was that of the Brahmins, which consisted of supplicating deities and fire liturgies etc, and had little to do with personal salvation, as is found in the yogic schools. The idea of a single God, Brahma/Prajapati, in the Upanishads, was only just appearing, so Hinduism then was quite different to what we know of it today.

Buddha took up yogic asceticism without much success, upon which he developed the middle way....

However, in Buddhism when you reach Nirvana and freed from the cycles of life and death, you just disappear from existance.

...which is beyond extremes of what exists and what doesn't exist.

However I like the moksha liberation more than nirvana liberation because you get to actually continue on living instead of just ceasing to exist.

The Mahayana Buddhist aspires to be a Bodhisattva, a sentient being who forgoes his own ultimate enlightenment for the benefit of others. Such beings are reborn skillfully to help others attain the same freedom.

 

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

(...Well off topic...)

Silverbackman,

I think you misunderstand Buddhism a little. It could be said that an enlightened being ceases to exist, but it would be more accurate to say that to be enlightened is to realise that you never existed at all, at least, not in the way you thought you did.

Of course, if the choice were between samsara and nothingness then I too would choose to continue in samsara, but this is not the choice. It is very difficult to explain and I seem to be doing a fairly poor job, but the liberation from samsara means perfection and eternal bliss. I think words are useless to explain it, but I hope Im at least partially getting the idea across.

Meanwhile, back on topic....

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


as the subject is difting a bit...

is it even worthwhile to mention that Nirvana/Nibbana is not the final destination for Buddha Dharma adherents?

or is that simply more cause for confusion at this point?



metta,

~v

 

[Agnideva]

Namaste all,

I know this is way off topic, but since others have touched on these issues anyway ...

I understand that nirvana is not the final "goal" of Buddha Dharma, but rather one may consider Buddhahood as the "goal." Am I correct in saying this? If so, then is Buddhahood the "goal" because a large number of beings can be enlightened by a Buddha? Could Bodhisattvahood be also considered a "goal" then, since Bodhisattvas forgo enlightenment for the sake of sentient beings?

Another question I have is regarding nirvana. What happens after a Buddha enters mahaparinirvana? Is it a state (or statelessness) of neither being nor non-being? Or is it that mahaparinirvana is beyond description?

If these issues have been previously discussed, please direct me to the appropriate thread. Thanks.

Om Shanti,
A.

 

[samabudhi]

Another question I have is regarding nirvana. What happens after a Buddha enters mahaparinirvana? Is it a state (or statelessness) of neither being nor non-being? Or is it that mahaparinirvana is beyond description?

The traditional approach would be silence. Buddha was not interested in discussing the ultimate, since, as you say, it is beyond all conceptualization. It's like the sky to a dragon-fly nymph, whose present abode is in water. There is no way for the nymph to relate to what you're saying. Any attempt to understand the sky would simply result in misapprehensions, and not help the nymph at all in maturing. Buddha's teachings are a path which you follow and develop stage by stage.

Prajnaparamita and later Madhamika metaphysics grew out of a need to refute false notions which hampered sentient beings progress along the path. They make no attempt to describe what is indescribable.
Of course, because the whole point of the path is to lead one to the ultimate, consessions have to be made. With Madhamika consistently disproving people's false views, there are two directions people can go. They can either climb the ladder and take on higher views, or they can fall further into ignorance. If someone told me nothing really existed, I'd be a bit resistant to the idea, no doubt. But if they gave me an alternative, and I experienced it and found it more pallatable, then I would take it. You must understand that people don't just believe something because it's true, they believe what makes them happy, since that is the ultimate driving force behind every sentient being - to avoid suffering and be happy. Madhamika can get quite dry and few have the intellectual acumen, time, and energy to consummately grasp the fundamental notion it puts forward - that of the emptiness of all conditioned phenomena.

hectic stuff

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Agnideva,

thank you for the post.

Samabudhis' post is spot on. i would like to expand on it a bit, if i'm able.

Namaste all,

I understand that nirvana is not the final "goal" of Buddha Dharma, but rather one may consider Buddhahood as the "goal." Am I correct in saying this?

well.. yes and no generally speaking, as Samabudhi explained, the final destination of the path is indescribable and Buddha Shakyamuni refused to speculate upon it.

often this is related in a parable of ours which goes something like this:

only when you, yourself, drink the water will you know if it is warm or cool.

so.. this destination, if you will, is an experiential state which defies description since we cannot get our minds "around" the subject to "grasp" it.

we can speak of these things through allegory, metaphor and similie only due to mutal concensus about the meaning of the terms. without this concensus, communication would be very difficult in this matter.

If so, then is Buddhahood the "goal" because a large number of beings can be enlightened by a Buddha?

remember, in our path, beings Awaken themselves, Buddhas do not do it for them. Buddhas are, for the purposes of this discussion, guides along the path.. illuminating the pitfalls and dangerous areas for us, but we, alone, are the ones walking the path.

having said that, the ultimate aim of Buddhist practice, to use such a term, is the ending of dukkha. it can get a bit technical... you know how the Dharma traditions can be another way of forumlating the same sort of view is to say that the aim of Buddhist practice is, in fact, to become a Buddha. so, the question would..i think, naturally turn to what a Buddha is.

this is an interesting question, from several points of view, i think.

Buddha Shakyamuni was asked, rather directly, about what sort of being he was. he was asked if he was a god, he said "no". asked if he was a human, he again said "no". "well," they said, "what are you?" "Awake".

from this, we can conclude several things, depending on our understanding of the rest of the Buddhadharma. one of the things, though, which is rather independent of any particular study of Buddhism which stands out, in my view, is the negation of standard descriptive modes of being and leaving the remainder unanalyzed and unfettered by discurisve intellect.

Could Bodhisattvahood be also considered a "goal" then, since Bodhisattvas forgo enlightenment for the sake of sentient beings?

to a certain extent, yes. however, it would probably be a more apt analogy to think of this state of being as a "way station" or a "rest stop" along the journey, as the idea of "goal" seems to connote a discrete thing which complete once attained.

Another question I have is regarding nirvana. What happens after a Buddha enters mahaparinirvana? Is it a state (or statelessness) of neither being nor non-being? Or is it that mahaparinirvana is beyond description?

i think that this sort of question is going to be difficult to answer, mainly since the Buddha used two sorts of methods to describe what Nirvana was like. he used a postive description and a negative one, depending on which sort of beings he was talking to. for all intents and purposes, Nirvana, is the ceasing of the discursive intellect and the arising of primordial Wisdom and Compassion in a total non-dual paradigm, a sense of awareness aware of awareness.

in many descriptions, Buddha explains that the passions are like a fire in our mind, our minds are on fire with our passions and fetters and, in this sort of description, Nirvana is described as the extinguishing of the fires of the mind.

however, these descriptions are merely verbal placeholders of an experiential state of being wherein such descriptions have no place to attach.

i suspect that only a Buddha would be able to explain it fully... and even if that were the case, we, not being Buddhas just quite yet, may not have the ability to fully grasp what is being communicated to us. so, for all intents and purposes, that may mean that Nirvana, per se, is something which our descriptions and explanations of only outline, not describe.

of course, there are a variety of views to be found within the Buddhist tradition on subjects just like this. as such, our views here may not match views which other Buddhists have

metta,

~v

 

[Agnideva]

Namaste Samabudhi and Vajra,

Thank you so much for your detailed and descriptive answers to my questions. They were most enlightening.

Any attempt to understand the sky would simply result in misapprehensions, and not help the nymph at all in maturing.

So Nirvana is, as I expected, beyond description and beyond any conceptualization until enlightenment. We may make analogies and metaphors for purposes of communication, but Nirvana can never be grasped until "experiencing" it. Could Nirvana be described as the only experience that is a non-experience?

I have come across two terms: nirvana and mahaparinirvana. Mahaparinirvana I have seen used only in context of the Buddha. Is there any technical difference between these two terms?

remember, in our path, beings Awaken themselves, Buddhas do not do it for them.

Yes, most certainly . Atta deepo bhava.

to a certain extent, yes. however, it would probably be a more apt analogy to think of this state of being as a "way station" or a "rest stop" along the journey, as the idea of "goal" seems to connote a discrete thing which complete once attained.

Yes, I understand. Becoming a Bodhisattva is sort of a "rest stop" along the journey to becoming a Buddha, and Buddhahood cannot really be described as a "goal" as such. Where does an Arhat fall into this scheme?

of course, there are a variety of views to be found within the Buddhist tradition on subjects just like this. as such, our views here may not match views which other Buddhists have

This is very much true of all dharma traditions , where a variety of views on certain issues are accepted as part of the process of our understanding.

Thanks for the responses.

OM Shanti,
Agnideva.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste,


the Arhant is, for all intents and purposes, the "goal" of Hinyana Buddhism in much the same manner as the Bodhisattva is the "goal" of Mahayana Buddhism.

depending on which Vehicle a being is practicing, these sorts of things are subject to some discussion, naturally

in terms of, let us say, intentional difference, the main difference between the Arhant and the Bodhisattva is the motivation to Awaken. generally speaking, it is said that the Arhant chooses to Awaken to resolve their own dukkha whereas a Bodhisattva chooses to Awaken to help other beings resolve their dukkha.

i should like to say, however, that within the Mahayana it is both understood and taught that beings which are able to generate the Bodhisattva Vow, like Rdwillia, have, in fact, progressed through the Arhant phase in a previous arising. thus, it is a mistaken view to think that an Arhant is being denigrated by the Mahayana position, in my opinion. it is my view that, when a more complete understanding of the various Vehicles and so forth is gained, a rather structured sort of practice system emerges which, depending on ones aptitude, takes myraid forms.

of course.. this is simply my view and, to be honest, my understanding of these sorts of things is rather limited.

metta,

~v

 

[samabudhi]

I have come across two terms: nirvana and mahaparinirvana. Mahaparinirvana I have seen used only in context of the Buddha. Is there any technical difference between these two terms?

As far as I understand it, the Shakyamuni's attaining Nirvana was the top of the hill. That was the turning point when it all clicked into place. But what was already arisen, his body, speech, and mind, had yet to cease. He still ate, wept, slept etc. When he died, his aggregrates didn't die, they entered parinirvana. Bodhisattvas would reincarnate in the next life, but the Buddha completely left. He is the "Tathagata", or thus gone.

"Maha" is a prefix used often to glorify, but it doesn't add any extra meaning. Technically it means "great".

 

[Agnideva]

Thank you Samabudhi and Vajra. Your responses clear up things for me a whole lot.

Regards,
Agnideva.