GENIUS FORUMS

My textbook states that one of the differences between East and West is that Buddhism's emphasis is on the individual who is to avoid evil and cultivate good to facilitate personal enlightenment.

The subject matter is Buddhist ethics.

To me, it seems that Buddhism does not focus on the self but the way of life. If they do not recognize the self, then how can one focus on the self to gain wisdom and enlightenment? I can see how one focuses there in coming to realize what it is that they are doing or not doing that continually causes suffering, but once you break free from that cycle...there is no more self, but the way.

So, is the author speaking about pre-enlightenment? It seems once you are enlightened, you should really never go back...you become the way and the way becomes you. Not having studied much Buddhism, I may not understand very well.

Egoists concentrate soley on the self. Situation ethicists concentrate on whomever is involved. But the Buddhists seem to transcend both to achieve something that seems to make all people whole, but the semantics is throwing me a loop.

To me, it seems that Buddhism does not focus on the self but the way of life. If they do not recognize the self, then how can one focus on the self to gain wisdom and enlightenment?

There's a difference between a Buddha and a Buddhist. A Buddha has realized there's no self, and a Buddhist strives as a self for that realization.

I look at it as creating ourselves by walking the path, that path chosen through 'education' (school, life, experiences...).

So, ego is thy self right?

I find religion those that, takes us through loops (around in circles) and science and studies give us new direction.

Edit...nevermind.

sschaula wrote:There's a difference between a Buddha and a Buddhist. A Buddha has realized there's no self, and a Buddhist strives as a self for that realization.

Why do they distinguish being Buddha, one who has not had teaching but reached realization, while if you have had teaching and reached realization you are an arahant? And when you refer to a Buddhist, are you stating they are neither of the two.

After reading what you wrote, what I wrote:

But the Buddhists seem to transcend both to achieve something that seems to make all people whole,

sounded like I forgot something, so...let me rephrase, keeping in mind what you said...

It seems you infer that realization must be acheived before one becomes a Buddha (and arahant?) but prior to that, the Buddhist still has some sort of self, sees himself as an individual with flaws etc....

So, once you become a Buddha, then when making ethical decisions they come from wisdom and morality without consideration of one's self or others, because a Buddha has transcended from being mortal to become moral and wise, in and of itself?

Why do they distinguish being Buddha, one who has not had teaching but reached realization, while if you have had teaching and reached realization you are an arahant?

Because it's a religion, and they want to keep confusion down. If a whole bunch of monks are claiming themselves to be Buddhas, then there will be a whole bunch of teachings which will probably contradict eachother and make the original teachings unclear. So they call the original teacher, the Buddha.

The Buddha wasn't the first teacher. He sought enlightenment when others in India were already talking about it, making it clear there were others who had become Buddhas already. So this is really a branch of a more universal idealogical system.

So the name is really just to distinguish who we're talking about. It should be noted that the Buddha himself was an arahant.

Someone who finds liberation on their own, as far as I know, isn't referred to as a Buddha.

And when you refer to a Buddhist, are you stating they are neither of the two.

Well, a Buddhist can become enlightened then be called a Buddha (although it would be confusing) or an arahant. Keep in mind that arahant only means "worthy one" and refers to someone who is living their last life in the round of rebirths. By some it could mean that the person is worthy of receiving enlightenment, because they're so disciplined...but that they aren't yet enlightened. For others (like myself) it means that the person is perfectly enlightened.

Kind of confusing. Not that this stuff really matters when considering the actual teachings.

After reading what you wrote, what I wrote:

Quote:
But the Buddhists seem to transcend both to achieve something that seems to make all people whole,

sounded like I forgot something, so...let me rephrase, keeping in mind what you said...

It seems you infer that realization must be acheived before one becomes a Buddha (and arahant?) but prior to that, the Buddhist still has some sort of self, sees himself as an individual with flaws etc....

So, once you become a Buddha, then when making ethical decisions they come from wisdom and morality without consideration of one's self or others, because a Buddha has transcended from being mortal to become moral and wise, in and of itself?

When you become a Buddha, your decisions are made the same as anyone else's except they aren't clouded by a bunch of crap. The ego is one piece of crap which clouds most people's normal decisions, making ethical decisions usually quite unethical. The Buddha doesn't become anything that he isn't already, like wise, immortal, moral, etc.