Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Samma-sambuddha

Expand Messages
  • upasaka@aol.com
    Hi, Herman - In a message dated 10/2/01 2:31:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ... ============================ Here s my understanding on this. A person becomes
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, Herman -

      In a message dated 10/2/01 2:31:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
      hhofman@... writes:


      > Hi all,
      >
      > In any explanation of what a samma-sambuddha is, I have only ever
      > seen it stated that such a person is self-realised, or that they
      > become so by their own efforts.
      >
      > And you know what, like most other things, I have no idea what that
      > means :-)
      >
      > How do self-realisation and annatta co-exist?
      >
      > All the best
      >
      >
      > Herman
      >
      ============================
      Here's my understanding on this. A person becomes fully enlightened at
      a time at which the Dhamma is unknown. Moreover, over countless aeons that
      person has mastered the perfections and myriads of skillful means so that he
      (or she - I won't debate that point) is in a position to reintroduce the
      Dhamma to the world as its perfect teacher. Such a person has become a
      Buddha. Now, I understand a Buddha to be "self-enlightened" only in the sense
      that the Dhamma was unknown in his/her lifetime prior to his enlightenment.
      However, this does not imply that a Buddha did not learn Dhamma in a previous
      life. In fact, it is said that the Buddha of the current dispensation *had*
      learned the Dhamma in a previous life, and, thus, his "self-enlightenment" is
      a fact only in a limited sense.
      Now, all the foregoing discussion involves conventional notions. As
      far as the relation between self-realization and anatta, there really is
      none. The notions of 'self-realization' and 'anatta' are conventional and
      ultimate notions, respectively. Being self-realized is a conventional notion.
      It is a mere manner of speaking. No one can enlighten another. This is true.
      It is *conventionally* true. The reality is that there *is* no "one" to
      become enlightened and no "one" to be a giver of enlightenment. The statement
      "No one can enlighten another.", in its conventional meaning, when properly
      understood, is merely a fa'con de parler, which calls for "unpacking" and
      explanation. It is metaphorical. If taken *literally*, which would be the
      incorrect way of understanding it, the statement would be false. That is,
      from the perspective of ultimate truth (paramattha sacca), it is a falsity in
      that there is no self at all.

      With metta,
      Howard


      /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble
      in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a
      phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra)




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Robert Epstein
      ... That is a very good question Herman. I d like to sign on to that one myself. Robert __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!?
      Message 2 of 4 , Oct 2, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        --- hhofman@... wrote:
        > Hi all,
        >
        > In any explanation of what a samma-sambuddha is, I have only ever
        > seen it stated that such a person is self-realised, or that they
        > become so by their own efforts.
        >
        > And you know what, like most other things, I have no idea what that
        > means :-)
        >
        > How do self-realisation and annatta co-exist?
        >
        > All the best
        >
        >
        > Herman

        That is a very good question Herman. I'd like to sign on to that one myself.

        Robert


        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
        http://phone.yahoo.com
      • Sarah
        Hi Howard, I ve really appreciated some of your responses recently, including this very neat summary to Herman and your other responses to him and others as
        Message 3 of 4 , Oct 2, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Howard,

          I've really appreciated some of your responses recently, including this very
          neat summary to Herman and your other responses to him and others as well.

          I think it's clear in the Tipitaka that all Buddhas are male, but someone like
          Rob K is much better on these details than I am.

          I've also greatly appreciated your correspondence with Jon on effort and
          intention and your careful consideration as always. Please continue to
          'challenge' him before he jets off to India.....;-))

          Sarah

          --- upasaka@... wrote
          > ============================
          > Here's my understanding on this. A person becomes fully enlightened at
          >
          > a time at which the Dhamma is unknown. Moreover, over countless aeons that
          > person has mastered the perfections and myriads of skillful means so that he
          > (or she - I won't debate that point) is in a position to reintroduce the
          > Dhamma to the world as its perfect teacher. Such a person has become a
          > Buddha. Now, I understand a Buddha to be "self-enlightened" only in the sense
          >
          > that the Dhamma was unknown in his/her lifetime prior to his enlightenment.
          > However, this does not imply that a Buddha did not learn Dhamma in a previous
          >
          > life. In fact, it is said that the Buddha of the current dispensation *had*
          > learned the Dhamma in a previous life, and, thus, his "self-enlightenment" is
          >
          > a fact only in a limited sense.
          > Now, all the foregoing discussion involves conventional notions. As
          > far as the relation between self-realization and anatta, there really is
          > none. The notions of 'self-realization' and 'anatta' are conventional and
          > ultimate notions, respectively. Being self-realized is a conventional notion.
          >
          > It is a mere manner of speaking. No one can enlighten another. This is true.
          > It is *conventionally* true. The reality is that there *is* no "one" to
          > become enlightened and no "one" to be a giver of enlightenment. The statement
          >
          > "No one can enlighten another.", in its conventional meaning, when properly
          > understood, is merely a fa'con de parler, which calls for "unpacking" and
          > explanation. It is metaphorical. If taken *literally*, which would be the
          > incorrect way of understanding it, the statement would be false. That is,
          > from the perspective of ultimate truth (paramattha sacca), it is a falsity in
          >
          > that there is no self at all.
          >
          > With metta,
          > Howard
          >
          >
          > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble
          > in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a
          > phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra)
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >

          _______________________________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Get your free @... address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.