Where is the Buddha?

[Jainarayan]

This is a genuine question, not trolling or being facetious, so please don't jump on me.

The Buddha achieved nirvana, yes? My understanding of nirvana is peace, bliss, no rebirth. Yet does the Buddha not say that he will return? Moreover, if achieving nirvana severs ties to this world, how is that the Buddha can interact with us, if he does at all? That is, if the Buddha is gone, to coin a phrase, is it only superstition that makes people pray to him, and even to other buddhas. Is there any point in invoking them through mantras, e.g. Medicine Buddha mantra?

Maybe I should know the answers, but it escapes me right now.

 

[von bek]

This is a genuine question, not trolling or being facetious, so please don't jump on me.

The Buddha achieved nirvana, yes? My understanding of nirvana is peace, bliss, no rebirth. Yet does the Buddha not say that he will return? Moreover, if achieving nirvana severs ties to this world, how is that the Buddha can interact with us, if he does at all? That is, if the Buddha is gone, to coin a phrase, is it only superstition that makes people pray to him, and even to other buddhas. Is there any point in invoking them through mantras, e.g. Medicine Buddha mantra?

Maybe I should know the answers, but it escapes me right now.

Nirvana does not equal non-existence. Furthermore, the Buddha achieved Nirvana first, then began teaching. Nirvana does mean a cessation of rebirth, this cessation though does not preclude interaction with the realm of birth and death. Only now, the interaction is done with an awakened mind, permanently free of the poisons. In the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha reveals that his reward body dwells and teaches in a Pure Land. The body of Gautama may have broken up into the four elements, but the Buddha remains.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Buddha is a sort of Platonic form or specific mindset. There is no one Buddha, merely people who attained Buddhahood.

 

[psychoslice]

The Buddha is always with us, its not a person who was born many years ago, its our higher Consciousness, its beyond the mind body organism.

 

[Jainarayan]

Nirvana does not equal non-existence. Furthermore, the Buddha achieved Nirvana first, then began teaching. Nirvana does mean a cessation of rebirth, this cessation though does not preclude interaction with the realm of birth and death. Only now, the interaction is done with an awakened mind, permanently free of the poisons. In the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha reveals that his reward body dwells and teaches in a Pure Land. The body of Gautama may have broken up into the four elements, but the Buddha remains.

Ok, now I see. It's the understanding of what nirvana is and is not. Similarly in Hinduism one can achieve moksha while still embodied. The common misconception is that nirvana is a void.

 

[Jainarayan]

Buddha is a sort of Platonic form or specific mindset. There is no one Buddha, merely people who attained Buddhahood.

True, there are, were and will be many buddhas. I was thinking specifically of Shakyamuni.

 

[von bek]

The common misconception is that nirvana is a void.

Buddha teaches the Middle Way. He rejects both eternalism and nihilism. This also ties into why I feel that belief in rebirth is necessary in Buddhism. When the Buddha talks about past and future lives, he is NOT indulging the cultural beliefs of his audience.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This is a genuine question, not trolling or being facetious, so please don't jump on me.

The Buddha achieved nirvana, yes? My understanding of nirvana is peace, bliss, no rebirth. Yet does the Buddha not say that he will return? Moreover, if achieving nirvana severs ties to this world, how is that the Buddha can interact with us, if he does at all? That is, if the Buddha is gone, to coin a phrase, is it only superstition that makes people pray to him, and even to other buddhas. Is there any point in invoking them through mantras, e.g. Medicine Buddha mantra?

Maybe I should know the answers, but it escapes me right now.

There's a lot of particular religious type fluff that's been integrated into Buddhism going around by which some folks are keen on taking as "gospel". The talk about nirvana, "prophecy" concerning Buddha's return, things that are routed in as you point out as superstition are exactly that.

Nirvana is not readily described, although qualities such as peace, bliss, and no rebirth are certainly inclusive. It's like attempting to describe the borderless nature of Tao or a form of universalism using contextual terms alone. Dosent really stop some folks from trying. *grin*

Buddhist invocation and prayers tends to be a reflection of Buddha nature of whomever is praying, and of the object of such invocation and prayer. It's technically a prayer to ones self without distinction made between the one praying, and the object of prayer.

 

[DreadFish]

Like has been mentioned "The" Buddha is not one person but the awakened nature. In zen, we are taught that when we prostrate to the Buddha, we are not prostrating to an enlightened guy outside of us who teaches, we are prostrating to our own Buddha-Nature. Kinda like "the Kingdom of God is within you" thing.

As far as the historical Buddha, I couldn't say, but I am reminded of a statement said by him in the Pali suttas where he says that a Tathagata cannot be apprehended, there is nothing about which it can be said "this is him".

 

[Jainarayan]

Thanks guys. I'm glad I did ask because this all makes a lot of sense.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Dharmakaya and non-dualism pretty much sums it up for me.

 

[crossfire]

This is a genuine question, not trolling or being facetious, so please don't jump on me.

The Buddha achieved nirvana, yes? My understanding of nirvana is peace, bliss, no rebirth. Yet does the Buddha not say that he will return? Moreover, if achieving nirvana severs ties to this world, how is that the Buddha can interact with us, if he does at all? That is, if the Buddha is gone, to coin a phrase, is it only superstition that makes people pray to him, and even to other buddhas. Is there any point in invoking them through mantras, e.g. Medicine Buddha mantra?

Maybe I should know the answers, but it escapes me right now.

Untraceable.

Water Snake Simile:

"And when the devas, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, search for the monk whose mind is thus released, they cannot find that 'The consciousness of the one truly gone (tathagata) [11] is dependent on this.' Why is that? The one truly gone is untraceable even in the here & now. [12]​

 

[Ablaze]

Pari-Nirvāṇa is the ending of rebirth. For the Buddha, there is no further birth upon reaching Nirvāṇa. This life is his last.

The Tathāgata is ungraspable. Its literal meaning is "thus-gone." The question of "thus-gone-where," however, is irrelevant, as the Tathāgata is untraceable and cannot be identified with any of the aggregates, nor with anything above and beyond them.

Upon realizing Nirvāṇa, the Buddha understood:

Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

Adittapariyaya Sutta (SN 35.28)

In terms of prayer, those who understand the practice as taught by the Buddha see it as a form of respect and even an opportunity to practice meditative absorption. Some people, grasping to the view of eternalism, pray to the Buddha for wealth, fortune, and material gain. However, those who are sincere in their prayer utilize it as a tool for looking inward, a form of meditation not to be exploited for selfish ends.

 

[Jainarayan]

However, those who are sincere in their prayer utilize it as a tool for looking inward, a form of meditation not to be exploited for selfish ends.

That makes sense. :yes:

 

[punkdbass]

Pari-Nirvāṇa is the ending of rebirth. For the Buddha, there is no further birth upon reaching Nirvāṇa. This life is his last.

The Tathāgata is ungraspable. Its literal meaning is "thus-gone." The question of "thus-gone-where," however, is irrelevant, as the Tathāgata is untraceable and cannot be identified with any of the aggregates, nor with anything above and beyond them.

Upon realizing Nirvāṇa, the Buddha understood:



In terms of prayer, those who understand the practice as taught by the Buddha see it as a form of respect and even an opportunity to practice meditative absorption. Some people, grasping to the view of eternalism, pray to the Buddha for wealth, fortune, and material gain. However, those who are sincere in their prayer utilize it as a tool for looking inward, a form of meditation not to be exploited for selfish ends.

Does Buddhism have any analogous concept to the idea in Hinduism that a fully liberated Being can voluntarily choose to be "reborn" to help alleviate suffering of others? And if not, how is "this life is his last" not akin to complete annihilation at death?

 

[Ablaze]

Does Buddhism have any analogous concept to the idea in Hinduism that a fully liberated Being can voluntarily choose to be "reborn" to help alleviate suffering of others? And if not, how is "this life is his last" not akin to complete annihilation at death?

There are the Bodhisattva vows and the Bodhisattva ideal, to delay one's liberation for the sake of others. However, that would make it such that the Bodhisattva is not fully liberated, instead opting to remain in Saṃsāra to help alleviate the suffering of others.

"This life is his last" does not mean anything is annihilated. If you're stuck on the concept of a soul or self that survives or perishes, it will appear to be annihilationism. Try moving past that concept.

The Buddha taught that ucchedavada, or annihilationism, applies to the mistaken theory that there is something to be annihilated. However, as there is no permanent self in the first place, but instead impersonal causes and conditions arising and passing away, cycling and recycling through space and time, there is no thing to be annihilated.

"This life is his last" simply and unambiguously means there is no further rebirth.

 

[punkdbass]

There are the Bodhisattva vows and the Bodhisattva ideal, to delay one's liberation for the sake of others. However, that would make it such that the Bodhisattva is not fully liberated, instead opting to remain in Saṃsāra to help alleviate the suffering of others.

"This life is his last" does not mean anything is annihilated. If you're stuck on the concept of a soul or self that survives or perishes, it will appear to be annihilationism. Try moving past that concept.

The Buddha taught that ucchedavada, or annihilationism, applies to the mistaken theory that there is something to be annihilated. However, as there is no permanent self in the first place, but instead impersonal causes and conditions arising and passing away, cycling and recycling through space and time, there is no thing to be annihilated.

"This life is his last" simply and unambiguously means there is no further rebirth.

Interesting explanation. And yeah, right after I posted that I realized the obvious answer that there is no "thing" to be annihilated, I was just being stubborn when I posted that ha.

But anyways, if I understand you correctly, many Buddhists take a formal vow to continue in the realm of samsara until all beings are liberated? And only then will said Buddhist be able to achieve the "ideal Buddhisattva? (complete nirvana)" I wonder what exactly it is that keeps them in the realm of samsara.. perhaps it's their very desire to end the suffering of all other beings?

 

[Ablaze]

Hopefully this discourse can help clarify the matter, in terms of what the Buddha taught about existence/non-existence after death:

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Now then, Master Gotama, is the cosmos eternal?"

"That has not been declared by me, Vaccha: 'The cosmos is eternal.'"

"Well then, Master Gotama, is the cosmos not eternal?"

"Vaccha, that too has not been declared by me: 'The cosmos is not eternal.'"

"Then is the cosmos finite?"... "Is the cosmos infinite?"... "Is the body the same as the soul?"... "Is the body one thing, and the soul another?"... "Does the Tathagata exist after death?"... "Does the Tathagata not exist after death?"... "Does the Tathagata both exist and not exist after death?"... "Does the Tathagata neither exist nor not exist after death?"

"Vaccha, that too has not been declared by me: 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death."

Vacchagotta Sutta (SN 44.8)

Here, the Buddha begins by rejecting the 10 views (diṭṭhi) outlined above, understood collectively as "Avyakata" meaning unfathomable, undeclared, unexpounded, unanswerable. These views inevitabley make one's head spin in obsessive thinking, detracting from mindfulness by distracting us from our immediate experience. Being swept away by these metaphysical speculations is something the Buddha warns against.

Continued:

Now, Master Gotama, what is the cause, what is the reason why — when wanderers of other sects are asked in this way, they answer that 'The cosmos is eternal' or 'The cosmos is not eternal' or 'The cosmos is finite' or 'The cosmos is infinite' or 'The body is the same as the soul' or 'The body is one thing and the soul another' or 'The Tathagata exists after death' or 'The Tathagata does not exist after death' or 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death" or 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death,' yet when Master Gotama is asked in this way, he does not answer that 'The cosmos is eternal' or 'The cosmos is not eternal' or 'The cosmos is finite' or 'The cosmos is infinite' or 'The body is the same as the soul' or 'The body is one thing and the soul another' or 'The Tathagata exists after death' or 'The Tathagata does not exist after death' or 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death" or 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

"Vaccha, the members of other sects assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"They assume feeling to be the self...

"They assume perception to be the self...

"They assume fabrications to be the self...

"They assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. That is why, when asked in this way, they answer that 'The cosmos is eternal'... or that 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.'

Vacchagotta Sutta (SN 44.8)

Here, the Buddha explains that is is because of the theory of an enduring self (ātman) that people speculate on these matters. When selflessness, or anattā is fully understood, then these speculations naturally dissipate. However, as long as one is convinced of the reality of a permanent self, such speculations will remain to cloud the mind with confusion/delusion.

Next:

"But the Tathagata, worthy and rightly self-awakened, does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He does not assume feeling to be the self...

"He does not assume perception to be the self...

"He does not assume fabrications to be the self...

"He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. That is why, when asked in this way, he does not answer that 'The cosmos is eternal'... or that 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.'"

Vacchagotta Sutta (SN 44.8)

Here, the Buddha finally explains why he does not teach any of the 10 views from the beginning of the discourse, namely because he does not assume any of the aggregates (form, feeling, perception, fabrications, or consciousness) to be the self. The logic is quite straightforward. Rebirth ends when identifying with and clinging to the aggregates ends.

 

[Ablaze]

But anyways, if I understand you correctly, many Buddhists take a formal vow to continue in the realm of samsara until all beings are liberated? And only then will said Buddhist be able to achieve the "ideal Buddhisattva? (complete nirvana)" I wonder what exactly it is that keeps them in the realm of samsara.. perhaps it's their very desire to end the suffering of all other beings?

Committed Mahāyāna practitioners may choose to take the Bodhisattva Vows. These vows (based on the translation I've heard most often in the sanghas I've attended) are:

1. Sentient beings are numberless, I vow to serve them.
2. Desires are inexhaustible, I vow to understand them.
3. The Dharmas are boundless, I vow to practice them.
4. The Buddha way is unsurpassable, I vow to embody it.

The Bodhisattva Ideal is the path off of which Mahāyāna is modeled. It is a path of selfless service and unconditional compassion, putting others before oneself.

Complete liberation is Pari-Nirvāṇa, literally "final extinction" (of desire, not in a annihilationist sense).

 

[punkdbass]

These views inevitabley make one's head spin in obsessive thinking, detracting from mindfulness by distracting us from our immediate experience. Being swept away by these metaphysical speculations is something the Buddha warns against.

I know all too well the truth of this statement.. I've been going in obsessive circles in the world of metaphysics for quite some time now and I want out, I'm sick of it.

Anyhow, the references you gave make a lot of sense to me.. although deep down I feel like I still have the desire to find Buddha giving at least some sort of positive definition for Self or Buddha-Nature (when I say positive, I don't mean "optimistic", I mean having substantial meaning rather than just negation). Are there any scriptural references you can think of where the Buddha gives "positive" definition to Buddha-Nature? Perhaps the "positive" meaning he would ascribe to Buddha-Nature would be: impermanence, constant flux, and interconnectedness.

Committed Mahāyāna practitioners may choose to take the Bodhisattva Vows. These vows (based on the translation I've heard most often in the sanghas I've attended) are:

1. Sentient beings are numberless, I vow to serve them.
2. Desires are inexhaustible, I vow to understand them.
3. The Dharmas are boundless, I vow to practice them.
4. The Buddha way is unsurpassable, I vow to embody it.

The Bodhisattva Ideal is the path off of which Mahāyāna is modeled. It is a path of selfless service and unconditional compassion, putting others before oneself.

Complete liberation is Pari-Nirvāṇa, literally "final extinction" (of desire, not in a annihilationist sense).

Interesting, so how exactly does undertaking these vows prevent Pari-Nirvana? Is it because one still has the desire to serve others and to alleviate suffering? Is that what keeps them stuck in samsara?