Buddha: "There is no centre" (tradition, contradiction, disciples)

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Buddha was dying. The day he was going to die, lots of people, disciples, sannyasins, reunited, and they were sad; they were crying and moaning. So Buddha asked: <<¿Why are you crying?>>
Someone said: <<Because soon, you will not be here.>>
Buddha laughed and said: <<But I have not been for more than forty years. I died the day I reached enlightment. There has not been a centre for forty years. So cry no more, do not be sad. Nobody is dying now. ¡I am no more! But there has to be the word “I” even to point the fact that I am no more.>>

[Engyo]

A nice illustration of anatta.

[eudaimonia]

Originally Posted by Wisdom_Seeker

Buddha was dying. The day he was going to die, lots of people, disciples, sannyasins, reunited, and they were sad; they were crying and moaning. So Buddha asked: <<¿Why are you crying?>>

Someone said: <<Because soon, you will not be here.>>
Buddha laughed and said: <<But I have not been for more than forty years. I died the day I reached enlightment. There has not been a centre for forty years. So cry no more, do not be sad. Nobody is dying now. ¡I am no more! But there has to be the word “I” even to point the fact that I am no more.>>

So why isn't this entirely convincing? A corpse will remain. A life process will have ceased. It seems that some sort of death is imminent.

One can philosophize about the non-permanence of self-hood, but still it seems that some sort of radical change will soon take place.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by eudaimonia

One can philosophize about the non-permanence of self-hood, but still it seems that some sort of radical change will soon take place.

But the point of the Buddha's laughter is that that change will not occur to the something that does not exist.

My problem with that is that something that does not exist cannot be defined. I hear people saying it doesn't exist, and then they turn around and in the next breath define it.

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Originally Posted by Willamena

But the point of the Buddha's laughter is that that change will not occur to the something that does not exist.

My problem with that is that something that does not exist cannot be defined. I hear people saying it doesn't exist, and then they turn around and in the next breath define it.

The thing is, he was not saying he did not exist. What Buddha was saying is that "there is no centre" of his being. He already was One with nature, One with God.
Our centre is, esoterically speaking, our Solar Plexus chakra (Manipura); it is where our life energy (bioelectricity) is emanated from, the centre of the individual self. Interestingly, this chakra is associated with the fire element; which is that of transformation. This chakra is located near the liver, and its function in the ethereal body is similar to that of the liver in the physical body.
It transforms lower states of energy (for instance: anger) into higher states of energy (for instance: compassion).
In our constant internal struggle (“who we are” Vs “who we want to be”) or (“sinner” Vs “saint”); we are wasting energy from the centre. If we manage to control this struggle, we start accumulating energy in our centre, and there is a time (like when water boils at 100 degrees) when the accumulation of energy explodes, and the centre is no more… You become one with God, no longer separated from it.
You think you are the center, but in reality, there is no center.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Wisdom_Seeker

The thing is, he was not saying he did not exist. What Buddha was saying is that "there is no centre" of his being. He already was One with nature, One with God.
Our centre is, esoterically speaking, our Solar Plexus chakra (Manipura); it is where our life energy (bioelectricity) is emanated from, the centre of the individual self. Interestingly, this chakra is associated with the fire element; which is that of transformation. This chakra is located near the liver, and its function in the ethereal body is similar to that of the liver in the physical body.
It transforms lower states of energy (for instance: anger) into higher states of energy (for instance: compassion).
In our constant internal struggle (“who we are” Vs “who we want to be”) or (“sinner” Vs “saint”); we are wasting energy from the centre. If we manage to control this struggle, we start accumulating energy in our centre, and there is a time (like when water boils at 100 degrees) when the accumulation of energy explodes, and the centre is no more… You become one with God, no longer separated from it.
You think you are the center, but in reality, there is no center.

There, it was done again: You say that there is "no centre of his being" and then proceed to explain the centre of his being. Do you see?

No worries. My complaint is not with misunderstanding or misinterpreting the "no centre"; it's with the contradition in the language used, or rather mis-used. I'm really beginning to enjoy Zen, though, as in its apparent contradiction of idea I see in it a circular language that makes more sense than to attempt linear explanations.

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Originally Posted by Willamena

There, it was done again: You say that there is "no centre of his being" and then proceed to explain the centre of his being. Do you see?

No worries. My complaint is not with misunderstanding or misinterpreting the "no centre"; it's with the contradition in the language used, or rather mis-used. I'm really beginning to enjoy Zen, though, as in its apparent contradiction of idea I see in it a circular language that makes more sense than to attempt linear explanations.

Hehe, you´re right, but I´m explaining the centre of our being, not his. We don´t have a centre, but then we create a false centre, Buddha and Christ got rid of it, they became the cosmos. So in the beggining, Buddha had a centre, yes, but then, after enlightment, there was no centre.