gary
Senior Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by gary on Mar 3, 2013 2:41:57 GMT 1
Can I ever fully understand what I am?
If I can, how?
If not, why?
To a Buddhist, does it matter? If not, why not?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rudy on Mar 3, 2013 14:08:38 GMT 1
Many short but big questions! To try and answer them briefly first: 1. Yes, a Buddha fully understands everything, and we can all become Buddhas 2. Study, reflection and meditation. Follow the Bodhisattva path and become a Buddha for the sake of helping all sentient beings. 3. Not applicable  4. Obviously, Buddhists believe that the methods taught by Buddhism are effective in conquering all suffering and problems. The Buddha himself showed it is possible, and so did many great masters in the past. Of course the answer to your question matters, otherwise practicing Buddhism to become a Buddha would be fairly meaningless. On the other hand, there is one step lower one can aim for, and that is to become an Arhat: to liberate ourselves from problems and suffering - the aim of the Theravada tradition. One would be extremely wise as an Arhat, but not omniscient, so perhaps understanding 99.9% of what one is.... |
|
gary
Senior Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by gary on Mar 3, 2013 15:49:19 GMT 1
So is it fair to say omniscience is a quality of enlightenment? I always had the idea that a full understanding of emptiness was the same as omniscience, but then again a full understanding of emptiness is pretty much what I see enlightenment as too  Is vipassana meditation alone able to bring about enlightenment? That's pretty much all I do, and although I feel like I have a slightly better understanding of "how things are," I am definitely not enlightened haha! What methods did the Buddha use? |
|
|
|
Post by Rudy on Mar 3, 2013 21:34:52 GMT 1
Depends on what you call enlightenment. It is important to distiguish Buddhahood or full enlightenment - the goal of the Mahayana traditions in Buddhism from Arhatship (also called enlightenment) - the goal of the Theravada (Hinayana) tradition. Simply said, an Arhat is someone who has directly realized emptiness (which is a lot more then just understanding it), and who can combine it with single-pointed concentration (shamatha). A Buddha goes one step further, and basically eradicates all obstacles to omniscience from the mind. This actually requires a huge amount of positive karma and determination which can only be collected by the motivation to help all sentient beings. The methods of the Theravada tradition are directed at achieving Arhatship. Vipassana is directed at achieving the wisdom of selfiessness. As you can see from above requirements to become an Arhat, one also need to practice shamatha or single-pointed concentration as well. To become a Buddha, one needs the same, but also the motivation to help all sentient beings, which implies practicing the 6 perfections: generosity, ethic, patience, joyous effort, concentration (shamatha) and wisdom (of emptiness). According to the Tibetan tradition, one ultimately needs an aspect of tantra at least as one of the very last steps to Buddhahood, but that's a pretty complicated subject. However, no need to worry, becoming a Buddha does not happen overnight, and we all need to start somewhere. Vipassana meditation is certainly a very important practice, but it's not the whole picture; otherwise the Buddha would never have taught all the other techniques! What the Buddha practiced? Obviously what is needed to become a Buddha  |
|
gary
Senior Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by gary on Mar 3, 2013 22:19:31 GMT 1
Thanks for that little refresher Rudy.
I kinda 'forgot about' Buddhism this past few months, especially with this site being down and the fact that I joined another extremely unwelcoming and almost nasty Buddhist forum, so I gave it a miss for a while.
My curiosity about 'how things really are' never let up though, and I joined a few other philosophy-type forums. Again a lot of nastiness and intolerance!
But I keep finding myself drawn back to Buddhism. My constant curiosity about 'how things really are' confuses me at times too though.
As much as it intrigues me, sometimes I wonder is it a bit of a distraction from what Buddhism would say is actually important.
Does that make sense?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rudy on Mar 4, 2013 22:21:55 GMT 1
It does make sense, but actually the opposite is true I would think. The questions like 'what am I' and 'what is real' are the most important questions leading to research and discover emptiness - the door out of suffering. Very few questions are more important in Buddhism! |
|
tamara
Senior Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by tamara on Mar 5, 2013 3:29:43 GMT 1
Hello..... ```Can I ever fully understand what I am?``` On a relative level....never. The relative cannot grasp the ultimate. On an ultimate level: Yes, no problem. As soon as the obscurations are gone and the many veils have disappeared. ;D ``If I can, how?``` ```What methods did the Buddha use?``` There are myriads of methods presented by the Buddha. We only understand what we are ready for. But..., the big `but`….., it is good to familiarize oneself with the stuff we do not understand because in this way `the seeds are planted in the mind-stream`. Vipassana (I do not know what Vipassana means for you) ?.... great. Next step ? ...perhaps listen to Dzongsar R. www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqRyAnyFNsA Rudy: ```According to the Tibetan tradition, one ultimately needs an aspect of tantra at least as one of the very last steps to Buddhahood, but that's a pretty complicated subject``` `A bit complicated` and I would say the aspects of tantra speed up the things enormously. And yet, taking it slowly, very slowly is the key. The key to what ? To shed a few more veils. ``What am I, what is this everything, why and how does this and this happen``…, these are the basic questions which Buddha answered. In another words; What does `there is no eye, no nose, no ear` (Heart Sutra) actually and really mean  This is what we have to come to understand. Not only intellectually but with direct perception, means we have to become one with this understanding, have to have it implicitly all the time and so forth. Tamara |
|
|
|
Post by Brian on Apr 10, 2013 5:04:36 GMT 1
"What am I ?"
"I" is a delusion. It's whatever your ego is telling you.
You are everything, and everything is you. ;D
|
|
shaun
Full Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by shaun on Apr 10, 2013 8:54:10 GMT 1
"What am I ?""I" is a delusion. It's whatever your ego is telling you. You are everything, and everything is you. ;D I'd have to agree with this statement. (No pun intended) We are all just spokes in the wheel of a much bigger life/samsara. |
|
|
|
Post by Ed Fadde on Apr 13, 2013 5:57:15 GMT 1
This is marvelous to read this topic's replies; like a symposium. My reply is that I was just telling a friend on e-mail the other day that since I began a meditation practice of couple of years ago, it often seems that "I" is something else from "Ed". This expression is, of course, replete in numerous, perhaps most Buddhist literature and essays on the Buddha's teachings. However, what I think I was trying to get across to my friend is that when I meditate regularly, this concept moves from the conceptual only, and into the reality of what "Ed" deals with everyday. When mediation goes lapse, then "I" becomes "Ed", and vice-versa, again; and then the suffering starts. Thanks for this topic. Ed
|
|
brian
Senior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by brian on Apr 13, 2013 7:11:22 GMT 1
I have two friends named Ed. One comes to meditation classes once in a while and the other I work with. One I would consider "spiritual" and the other I would consider "brass". Yet they have the same name and I think no differently of them. I enjoy each one of their company samely yet differently. I make no distinction. They are the same person to me. Everyone else is the same to me so I am the same to everyone else. All is actually one because it is one underneath and above the threshold of cognizance. I hate myself usually because I know that I am the cause for my own suffering. I am my own worst enemy BY FAR. So why do I cling to this? I am so conditioned and sterotypical. I am a product....of environment and consumerism and genetics.
|
|
