So then one could say that Buddha was naturally driven to create the religious sect of Buddhism. If that is a flaw it indicates a much more serious problem which is the modelling of behavior based on 'just another guy' A wise man, and from what I can tell good man, but still, basing so much time and attention to his settings?Dan Rowden wrote:But, more importantly, purpose does not automatically mean ego and attachment are involved because purpose is a hard-wired element of what our consciousness is. One is simply not egotistically attached to whatever one's purpose may be (any more than a tree is). "Purpose" here is more or less a euphemism for "nature" - one naturally does what one is.
Was it inevitable? I mean, it appears that way from our side, because we can see that it was the result, but would someone living at that time have seen it as an inevitable, or even possible event?So, he could have been more proactive in stopping what was the inevitable creation of the group think and ritualisation of his teachings without that being in any way contradictory and indicative of being "attached".
What I take from this: an assumption that he didn't have a full understanding of the future, or the consequences of his actions? - am I close?That he didn't just means he wasn't perfect. In fact, that he didn't was the actual contradiction but that's a subtle point which we can deal with if you wish..
I agree with that up to a point, in the same way I would agree that Jesus was not a Xian. However, Sid did encourage the development of the Sangha and as far as I'm concerned that was a mistake. Would the natural religious impulse in humans have meant the Sangha and the religious face of Buddhism would have developed anyway? I think the answer to that is obviously yes, but my point stands.kowtaaia wrote:The Buddha didn't create Buddhism. He wasn't even a Buddhist! :) He was just a guy that talked about truth.
Siddhartha didn't so much create the sect of Buddhism as encouraged its eventual creation through the Sangha. It was obviously his karma to do that. It's hard to really say how bad a flaw it was in his thinking because it's impossible to really know the detail of the events. Basically, the degree to which he encouraged the development of a "communal" sense in things is the degree to which the flaw manifested in him. But in the end that's more an issue of how imperfect he was as an individual; it doesn't say anything about the quality of his teachings per se.Dan: But, more importantly, purpose does not automatically mean ego and attachment are involved because purpose is a hard-wired element of what our consciousness is. One is simply not egotistically attached to whatever one's purpose may be (any more than a tree is). "Purpose" here is more or less a euphemism for "nature" - one naturally does what one is.
Rory: So then one could say that Buddha was naturally driven to create the religious sect of Buddhism. If that is a flaw it indicates a much more serious problem which is the modelling of behavior based on 'just another guy' A wise man, and from what I can tell good man, but still, basing so much time and attention to his settings?
Yes, someone with his insight should have been able to predict it because of his understanding of human psychology. In some ways what the Buddha did was a breaking away from the superstition and religiosity of the "Hinduism" (to use a generic but ultimately false term) of the time. So, yeah, there wasn't really any excuse for him to have not seen it coming other than the existence of residual bad mental habits. But again, that's a matter of how imperfect he was as an individual; I don't think it matter to us as individuals except wherein we can learn from the mistakes of others. It's very hard to know exactly how much to fault Siddhartha here, just as it is with Jesus. It's difficult to imagine a non-diluted version of his teachings being as popular as history says they were. Certainly his teaching of reincarnation was watered down and reworked back to the literalism of the religion he freed himself from. So, it's hard to say what the truth is regarding this. In the end, if flawed he was, then so be it. I don't think it matters all that much.Dan: So, he could have been more proactive in stopping what was the inevitable creation of the group think and ritualisation of his teachings without that being in any way contradictory and indicative of being "attached".
Rory: Was it inevitable? I mean, it appears that way from our side, because we can see that it was the result, but would someone living at that time have seen it as an inevitable, or even possible event?
Well, I should have answered this yesterday; I don't actually remember what my point was. I've out-subtled myself.Dan: That he didn't just means he wasn't perfect. In fact, that he didn't was the actual contradiction but that's a subtle point which we can deal with if you wish..
Rory:What I take from this: an assumption that he didn't have a full understanding of the future, or the consequences of his actions? - am I close?
His imperfection doesn't undermine the quality of his teachings. It only speaks to the way in which they were spread. the content and lexicon of Buddhism is very high quality.I'm curious though, if you agree that Buddha himself was not perfect, why spend such considerable time on him?
It's not really a Buddhist term. It pre-dates Buddhism. It's a Vedantic term. This snippet from Wiki might help:And, why define your philosophy as 'enlightenment' - a Buddhist term?
Enlightenment (or illumination) broadly means "the acquisition of new wisdom or understanding". However, the English word covers two concepts which can be quite distinct: religious or spiritual enlightenment (German Erleuchtung) and secular or intellectual enlightenment (German Aufklärung). This can cause confusion, since those who claim intellectual enlightenment often reject spiritual concepts altogether.
In religious use, enlightenment is most closely associated with South and East Asian religious experience, being used to translate words such as (in Buddhism) Bodhi or satori, or (in Hinduism) moksha. The concept does also have parallels in the Abrahamic religions (in the Kabbalah tradition in Judaism, in Christian mysticism, and in the Sufi tradition of Islam).
In secular use, the concept refers mainly to the European intellectual movement known as the Age of Enlightenment.
Jiddu was greatly responsible for the creation of his following. Getting involved with the Theosophy movement pretty much guaranteed it. It's one of the reasons U.G followed him around and gave him crap. I can mostly but no entirely agree with the point you're making. "Buddhism" was already being created through the Sangha in Siddhartha's life time, but, as I said to Rory, I'm not sure it really matters all that much so I'm not interested in labouring the point unless you see a reason to do so...kowtaaia wrote:The fact is that "Buddhism" arose after Sids death and he no more created Buddhism than Jiddu Krishnamurti created "Krishnamurti-ism". :)
Dan Rowden wrote: Well, I was being somewhat kind when I said he was "passive" in the development of the Sangha - and by virtue thereof, the religious face of Buddhism. He was actually disturbingly active in it. But, more importantly, purpose does not automatically mean ego and attachment are involved because purpose is a hard-wired element of what our consciousness is. One is simply not egotistically attached to whatever one's purpose may be (any more than a tree is). "Purpose" here is more or less a euphemism for "nature" - one naturally does what one is. So, he could have been more proactive in stopping what was the inevitable creation of the group think and ritualisation of his teachings without that being in any way contradictory and indicative of being "attached". That he didn't just means he wasn't perfect. In fact, that he didn't was the actual contradiction but that's a subtle point which we can deal with if you wish..
Maybe if I take a stab at what this, perhaps that might jog your memory a bit.Dan: That he didn't just means he wasn't perfect. In fact, that he didn't was the actual contradiction but that's a subtle point which we can deal with if you wish..
Rory:What I take from this: an assumption that he didn't have a full understanding of the future, or the consequences of his actions? - am I close?
Dan: Well, I should have answered this yesterday; I don't actually remember what my point was. I've out-subtled myself.
http://www.adyashanti.org/kowtaaia wrote:Whoever that is.Dan Rowden wrote:Yeah, but then so does someone like Adyashanti. Doesn't seem to achieve much :)
I think the thing is to know what "followers" look for in teachings and do one's best not to give it to them. Obviously you'll never stop it completely because of the way people are but you can minimise the damage.The alternative is to say nothing.
His karma? Is that to say determinism?Dan Rowden wrote: Siddhartha didn't so much create the sect of Buddhism as encouraged its eventual creation through the Sangha. It was obviously his karma to do that.
So, teachings on perfection from an imperfect person? How does that work as legitimate?But in the end that's more an issue of how imperfect he was as an individual; it doesn't say anything about the quality of his teachings per se.
When you say rational enlightenment, are you talking about intellectual, or something different?Enlightenment (or illumination) broadly means "the acquisition of new wisdom or understanding". However, the English word covers two concepts which can be quite distinct: religious or spiritual enlightenment (German Erleuchtung) and secular or intellectual enlightenment (German Aufklärung). This can cause confusion, since those who claim intellectual enlightenment often reject spiritual concepts altogether.
More or less. It just means that's what he was.Rory wrote:His karma? Is that to say determinism?Dan Rowden wrote: Siddhartha didn't so much create the sect of Buddhism as encouraged its eventual creation through the Sangha. It was obviously his karma to do that.
Easily. I can talk about perfection without being perfect. I simply have to know what it means. Being enlightened, the Buddha was in a position to do so.So, teachings on perfection from an imperfect person? How does that work as legitimate?But in the end that's more an issue of how imperfect he was as an individual; it doesn't say anything about the quality of his teachings per se.
I am a man of the infinite.I'm curious - do you consider yourself to be buddhist, or something entirely new/different?
I'm talking about the understanding that the path is one that involves the application of reason and without that one is not on the path at all.When you say rational enlightenment, are you talking about intellectual, or something different?Enlightenment (or illumination) broadly means "the acquisition of new wisdom or understanding". However, the English word covers two concepts which can be quite distinct: religious or spiritual enlightenment (German Erleuchtung) and secular or intellectual enlightenment (German Aufklärung). This can cause confusion, since those who claim intellectual enlightenment often reject spiritual concepts altogether.
So enlightenment isn't perfection?Dan Rowden wrote:No, it doesn't work like that. Perfection just means being able to maintain the enlightened state on a permanent basis. There's no extra or unknown step involved. It's like being at the top of a stair case and you fart and slip down a stair or two. Perfection is just not farting any more.
[And, no, I have no idea why I used farting as the thing that causes the slippage]
