SuttaCentral
According to ebt right . Title given to a Teacher or founder . Buddha Awakening is the same with his arahant disciples . The teacher became enlightened through his own efforts whereas disciples through learning .
However , it seems that the Buddha were more of much better in every sense either in common knowledge , attaining jhāna , giving speech , psychic power or supra mundane knowledge . Etc etc .
Everyone becomes awakened by their own efforts. A Buddha rediscovers the method and teaches to others. Learning is just part of the job, the essential part is to apply the method in order to transform ourselves by eliminating the DADs.
Sorry , I meant Buddha found out the path by himself and show the way to his disciples .
I am afraid we are going off topic here but anyway… They get stuck as they end up collecting practices and not going deep into them.
Back in my days of Tibetan Buddhism I learned from ordained lamas of Kagyupa school that only a handful of them would develop those practices to their core purpose of letting the mind “drop” / merge into those colour disks. For that to occur isolation and sometimes absolute darkness are required (I remember every now and then a lama would disappear into an isolated cell for days).
I speculate that but falling into the deep absorption aimed by such kasina-like practice allows for powerful insight to occur as one returns from it. That insight in turn probably fuels further in the context of the usual Tibetan Buddhist principles one’s aspirations towards buddhahood (bodhicitta).
Why don’t we start a topic to explore what EBTs have to say about visualisation, i.e. kasinas?
I think we shouldn’t also exclude the possibility that some Buddhist in the survey feel there is a stigma attached to not believing in God, in the US. Desire to please the surveyor is a known bias which can skew results. Some of them may genuinely believe in God as well - a ‘safe bet’ strategy for the afterlife.
with metta
Using words like ‘force’ inevitably leads us down the rabbithole. What is called ‘force’ (i.e.) in physics can effectively be described mathematically as a field, so the use of the word ‘force’ can in some be described as sloppy terminology that can only be appropriate in contexts not requiring high linguistic precision. In fact, in many cases it is much more preferrable to use the term ‘interaction’ instead of ‘force’ since it doesn’t have any semi-magical, semi-sci-fi connotations. Okay, it would now seem logical to try to understand what field actually is. Here’s where the problems start. Whereas the mathematical definition of both classical fields and modern quantum fields are very well defined and proved to be extremely successful in predicting observable phenomena, an ontological explanation of what the heck a quantum field and/or material particles are supposed to be does not exist. There are certain attempts to give such an explanation, however they all face significant problems (I personally laughed a bit when I realized that the dispositional trope ontology is pretty close to the Abhidhammic tradition). One of the most fashionable ontological paradigms amongst the modern physicists is the so-called ontic structural realism, whose crude statement could be described as ‘there are no things, only structure is real’ (it is way more complicated than that, but whatever). All in all, the ontology and conceptual interpretation of the theoretical entities used in the modern physics is probably the weakest area of the modern science (if the ontology can be said to be science)
Therefore, if we describe God, kamma, or Dhamma in terms of impersonal forces, this description barely makes any sense. To be more precise, it doesn’t make any sense at all. First, what the heck is a personal force? Second, if we mean the word ‘force’ non-scientifically, we have to give it a definition, and this is where difficiulties start as it turns out we operate with such broad non-scientifical concepts on a purely intuitive basis, i.e. most of the time we ourselves have no idea what they are supposed to mean except for having some undefinable ephemeral feeling of having understood something, frequently derived from the connotations of the term used. Third, if we do use or intend to use these terms scientifically (and many Western Buddhists, myself included, do really thinks that kamma and Dhamma or at least kamma could ultimately be described in the language of science), then we have to describe them as interactions or fields, and describing God as an interaction or Dhamma as a field is as weird as it gets. If we describe them as laws or principles that can be described with equations or boiled down to a handful of concise statements, it works better with Dhamma and kamma (disregarding the discussion about the ontological status of statements, laws and principles), but if we apply it to God, it turns out that Richard Dawkins is one of the most God-fearing and God-loving people on Earth, which again is odd. The connotations of the word God we find in the societies dominated by the Abrahamic religions (I cannot speak for the Hinduism) are such that God is almost always conceived as a personal being, with the substance-person relation reversed and the devine person being the primary source of the devine substance, so to say. To say that God is impersonal is like saying that snow is not cold or the white colour is not white. If someone says that one believes in God as an impersonal spirit an is a Christian, it means this person is not very famliar with the religious tradition they identify themselves as part of. I guess most of the time they consider themselves to be Christian out of tradition and are non-religious for most practical intents and purposes.
Dhammakaya is not God in the Abrahamic sense, God in the Abrahamic sense is not Dhammakaya, neither can he be an impersonal force or anything impersonal. Equating these two things is a rather dangerous and easily abusable terminological game.
That’s a good question. Please let me explain.
I don’t claim that the historical Shakyamuni Buddha is present in the world today as a disembodied spirit.
As the Buddha taught, Nirvana is beyond the duality of existence or non-existence, and it’s an unanswerable question, to unenlightened beings such as ourselves, what happens to the Tathagata after death.
Having said that, I do believe that the Dharmakaya, which is the Dharma-body of all Buddhas, is continually present in the world and always has been.
The Dharmakaya is not a personal being, but it is boundless wisdom and compassion, and the ultimate source of Enlightenment itself.
The Dharmakaya is more than simply a Mahayana concept:
The Meaning of “Dhammakaya” in Pali Buddhism
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ibk1952/51/1/51_1_480/_pdf
Just like the Mahayana, the Theravada holds the Bodhisattva in the highest position. The Commentary on the Jataka, in the tradition of the Mahavihara at Anuradhapura, provides a precise example: In the dim past, many incalculable aeons ago, Gotama the Buddha, during his career as Bodhisattva, was an ascetic named Sumedha. At that time there was a Buddha called Dipankara whom he met and at whose feet he had the capacity to realise Nirvana as a disciple (Sravaka). But Sumedha renounced it and resolved, out of great compassion for the world, to become a Buddha like Dipankara to save others. Then Dipankara Buddha declared and predicted that this great ascetic would one day become a Buddha and offered eight handfuls of flowers to Sumedha. Likewise, Dipankara Buddha’s disciples who were with him and who were themselves Arahants offered flowers to the Bodhisattva. This story of Sumedha distinctly shows the position a Bodhisattva occupies in the Theravada.
Although the Theravada holds that anybody can be a Bodhisattva, it does not stipulate or insist that all must be Bodhisattva which is considered not practical. The decision is left to the individual whether to take the Path of the Sravaka or of the Pratyekabuddha or of the Samyaksambuddha. But it is always clearly explained that the state of a Samyaksambuddha is superior and that the other two are inferior. Yet they are not disregarded.
Bodhisattva in Buddhism
I didn’t write the Pew Research Forum’s survey. I’ve just been trying to clear up any possible misconceptions caused by it. I’m sorry for any possible confusion.
Let’s have a Nikaya-based discussion of this claim. You’re going to have to demonstrate that the Mahayana concept you agree with is in any way related to the concept in the Nikayas. Then, you’re going to have to tell me why you’re ossifying this idea, instead of reading it as metaphorical… 
Also, the link you’ve given is borked, so you’ll need to try again. (This dharmakaya business is obviously the “universal spirit” you’ve been going on about, right?)
I’m sorry. I just fixed the link in my post. Here it is:
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ibk1952/51/1/51_1_480/_pdf
I didn’t write the Pew Research Forum’s survey. I’ve just been trying to clear up any possible misconceptions caused by it. I’m sorry for any possible confusion.
“Universal spirit” is their wording, not mine. The survey asked if you believe in God or a universal spirit, which are two different things. According to the same survey, only 29% of American Buddhists believe in a personal god.
It would be helpful if you went back to the beginning of this thread, instead of making someone repeat the same things over and over again. Thank you.
As a Mahayana Buddhist, I believe the celestial buddhas and bodhisattvas are symbolic expressions of the one Dharmakaya.
The Dharma body of the Buddha is one with everything. This is the highest level of truth. Though there are many Buddhas, at this level all Buddhas are the same. The Dharma body is not a “body” in the sense that it is a fixed existence like the reward body or manifested body, for it pervades all of the universe.
The Dharma body is the ultimate truth of all things. It is awakening itself, the supreme reality, the cosmic consciousness that subsumes and includes everything in the universe. The Dharma body is completely pure. It is the union of reason and wisdom. It is omnipresent. To attain awakening and the Dharma body is the ultimate goal of all Buddhist practice…
The characteristics of the Dharma body are the same as the characteristics of all phenomena. All things in the universe are interconnected. The Dharma body resides in each and every one of them and yet it is not the same as any of them. The Dharma body exists in all times and places without being defined or contained by any of them.
The Dharma body is the same as the intrinsic, pure Buddha nature that resides in all things everywhere. The deluded self can find peace when it understands that it inherently possesses Buddha nature, that this nature pervades all things. Our wish to find what is real and permanent can only be resolved by attaining the Dharma body.
Hsingyun.org
Excuse me for asking, and please believe that I don’t intend my question in a disparaging way, but I could never understand why bother with the symbolic expressions of the ultimate truth instead of focussing on the important thing itself. In other words, why do we need the Amitabha Buddha if he is essentially no different from the cross or icon in a Christian church or the Dhamma wheel in the Theravada tradition? Why not dispense of him as an intermediary symbolic expression? Sure, a religious tradition needs symbols, so why not use a single universal symbol for Dharmakaya?
Please pardon the frankness of my perception or perhaps my ignorance, but this doesn’t sound like any teaching the Buddha gave in any of the suttas that I have ever read. I would even go as far as saying that it seems to go in the opposite direction, particularly when it says that a self finds peace when it understands that it inherently possesses Buddha nature.
That’s a very good question. The Buddha devised various forms of skillful means to reach the limited understanding of unenlightened beings such as ourselves:
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/30.8-Upaya-Skillful-means.-piya.pdf
The Buddha also distinguished between relative truth and ultimate truth, and sometimes used relative truths to help us realize the ultimate truth:
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/2.6b_Neyyattha_Nitattha_S_a2.3.5-6_piya.pdf
Please keep in mind that the two above articles are from a Theravada website.
By taking on the name and form of Amida Buddha, the otherwise inaccessible, inexplicable and formless reality of Dharma-body is made accessible to unenlightened beings such as ourselves. This is one reason why Pure Land Buddhism is the largest sect of Buddhism in East Asia.
Here is an article explaining the significance of Amida Buddha as a religious symbol, based on the philosophy of Paul Tillich:
According to Paul Tillich, there is a clear distinction between symbols and signs even though both have the function of pointing beyond themselves to something else. He defines symbols in the following way.
(1) Signs do not participate in the reality of that to which they point, while symbols do. Therefore, signs can be replaced for reasons of convenience, while symbols cannot.
(2) The symbol participates in that to which it points. For example, a national flag carries with it the entire history, dignity and power of the nation. The same can be said about the Christian Cross and the Buddhist Dharmawheel.
(3) The symbol opens up levels of reality which otherwise are closed for us. For example, according to Tillich, a picture and a poem reveal elements of reality which cannot be approached scientifically.
(4) The symbol not only opens up dimensions and elements of reality which otherswise would remain unapproachable but also unlocks dimensions and elements of our soul which correspond to the dimensions and elements of reality.Tillich further says that there are within us dimension of which we cannot become aware except through symbols, as melodies and rhythms in music. (Refer to Paul Tillich, Dymamics of Faith, published by Harper & Row, 1957, pp. 42-43)…
Based on this thesis presented by Tillich, let us examine Amida Buddha and the Name, Namo Amida Butsu. First of all, both Amida and the Name evolved through hundreds of years of contemplation and reflection by a great number of Buddhist thinkers. Thus, Amida and the Name cannot be replaced by the names of any other Buddhas in Jodo Shinshu temples.
Concerning this subject, Shinran’s Jinen Honi-sho (A Discourse on the Natural Working of the Supreme Buddha) says as follows:The essential meaning of “jinen” is to cause one to be so. Amida Buddha’s Vow–not the calculative thought of us practicers–causes us to entrust ourselves to the Vow and recite Namo Amida Butsu, with the design to have us attain birth in the Pure Land. Therefore, “jinen” surpasses the practicers’ calculation about good and evil. Thus I have heard (from Master Honen). The essence of the Vow is to turn sentient beings into Supreme Buddha. The Supreme Buddha is without form, and being without form, is called “jinen.” The Buddha who has appeared with form is not called Supreme Nirvana. In order to let it be known that the Supreme Buddha has no form, the Buddha has expressly took the form of Amida Buddha. Thus I have heard. Amida Buddha is the means by which we are made to know the reality of “jinen.” (translated by Arai)_
This passage makes it clear that the formless Supreme Buddha (Dharma-body) has taken the form of Amida Buddha to guide us to the Pure Land to ultimately make us Supreme Buddha. Shinran’s statement about Amida Buddha beautifully agrees with Tillich’s fourfold definition of “symbol."
Firstly, Amida Buddha as a word points to something else (Supreme Buddha, or Nirvana) and cannot be replaced by anything else.
Secondly, Amida Buddha is closely connected with what it points to, that is, Supreme Buddha.
Thirdly, Amida Buddha opens up higher levels of reality, that is, Supreme Nirvana, which is otherwise unapproachable for us.
Fourthly, "Amida Buddha” unlocks dimensions and elements of our soul which correspond to the dimensions and elements of reality, which is Supreme Nirvana.
In short, Amida Buddha has appeared within the realm of our cognition to guide us to the realm of enlightenment, which is beyond our cognition. It is just a word, just a name, but has profound functions for us. Through the working of Amida Buddha, or rather the Name Namo Amida Butsu, the realm of Supreme Buddha and Supreme Nirvana are opened up before us and we are caused to be so.
Echo of the Dharma - A Shin Buddhist Viewpoint 一浄土真宗信者の声: Amida Buddha as a Religious Symbol
According to Mahayana Buddhism, Dharmakaya and Nirvana are different aspects of the same Ultimate Truth or Ultimate Reality.
In reciting the name of Amida Buddha, who is Dharma-body itself, we are made to experience the world of the Buddha’s enlightenment in the midst of our everyday, mundane world.
The Meaning of “Dhammakaya” in Pali Buddhism
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ibk1952/51/1/51_1_480/_pdf
According to Wayman, the idea of the tathagatagarbha (Buddha-nature) is grounded on sayings by the Buddha that there is an innately pure luminous mind[21] (prabhasvara citta[22]), “which is only adventitiously covered over by defilements (agantukaklesa)”[22] This luminous mind is being mentioned in the Anguttara Nikaya:[23] “Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements.”[24][note 10]
The Mahāsāṃghika coupled this idea of the luminous mind with the idea of the mulavijnana, the substratum consciousness that serves as the basis consciousness.[21]
Buddha-nature - Wikipedia
If asked respectfully and in an irenic fashion, I am more than happy to answer questions. The various sects and schools of Buddhism, including Theravada, are different ways of seeing the same Ultimate Truth, like the Buddha’s parable of the blind men and the elephant.
As a Mahayana Buddhist, I believe the Mahayana scriptures made explicit certain concepts that were already at least implicit in the Pali suttas. The Mahayanists just happened to take on a different interpretation of the Nikayas/Agamas than the Theravadins did, and, for various historical reasons, developed a new set of scriptures based on this interpretation.
Please keep in mind that I am a very non-dogmatic about Pure Land Buddhism, and that I’ve taken harsh criticism by certain Pure Land Buddhists because of it, though I will not name names.
My understanding of Amida Buddha is defined in pretty much the same way that Bhikkhu Bodhi defines the Dhamma:
The cosmic principle of truth, lawfulness, and virtue discovered, fathomed, and taught by the Buddha; the Buddha’s teaching as an expression of that principle; the teaching that leads to enlightenment and liberation.
In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon - Bodhi - Google Books
Amida is the cosmic principle of the Dharma personified, in order to be more relatable for daily life, especially for lay people:
Pure Land Buddhism has often been incorrectly described as a theistic version of Buddhism, with Amida Buddha in the role of a god leading us to “salvation” expressed as birth in the Pure Land. Shinran’s understanding, however, was that Amida Buddha was not a mythical Buddha who promised salvation to anyone who repeated his name, but rather, a symbol for the Dharma itself.
Shin Buddhism is a teaching which brings about a true understanding of the life of suffering the Buddha described and the ignorance which creates it. It is a path of Buddhism that shows awakening is available to all beings. It is a path for those who are struggling to survive, who do not have the opportunities to live in monasteries and devote their lives to study and training, who cannot, through their own powers polish their lives and climb the ladder towards enlightenment.
http://www.higashihonganji.or.jp/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/MON_vol.1_s.pdf
The above doctrinal statement is from the Higashi Hongaji, one of the largest Pure Land Buddhist organizations in Japan:
The Pure Land, rather than a theistic heaven, is the realm of Nirvana. This is why Shinran called rebirth into the Pure Land “the birth that is non-birth,” just as the Buddha defined Nirvana as “the unborn.”
Amida Buddha is one of the Buddha of ten directions and dimensions .
Of course , this is a belief . Whether exist or not is a different matter . Many things being believe is unproveable , that’s why you need faith .
There is nothing wrong to believe in any belief system that don’t harm your self and others .
If anyone want to prove anything of the belief system is unnecessary .
Thank you .
The name Amida means “boundless light.” This is because, archetypally, Amida is the originally pure or luminous nature of the mind, before it became tainted with the Three Poisons of passion, aversion, and delusion:
This luminous mind is also referred to as Buddha-nature, which is every being’s innate potential for enlightenment. In reciting the name, Namu-Amida-Butsu, we are calling forth the primally radiant nature of our mind:
“Luminous, monks, is the mind.[1] And it is defiled by incoming defilements.” {I,v,9}
“Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements.” {I,v,10}
“Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn’t discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind.” {I,vi,1}
“Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind.”
Pabhassara Sutta: Luminous
If Amida is an external being to whom I beg for enlightenment, then I’m in a state of helplessness. Instead, I recite the Nembutsu to realize Amida as our True Self.
I told my wife last night that the scariest thing about Buddhism is its teaching that there is no god to help solve our problems, and therefore no value to petitionary prayer. My wife then said she’s an atheist anyway, so it doesn’t affect her one way or another.
This doesn’t mean, however, that Buddhism doesn’t provide a sense of ultimate meaning and purpose to life.
All Buddhist schools, regardless of their terminology used, teach that all beings have the potential for enlightenment, no matter how many lifetimes it takes. All Buddhist schools, no matter the terminology used, also teach about the transcendent reality of Nirvana.