« He's in the jailhouse now | Main | They don't understand emptiness »

September 24, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

David Ashton: In the context of the Pali canon, an arahant and a buddha are the same. Technically speaking, "buddha" is not the name of a person but one who has fully awakened to the absolute. In Mahayana, one who has bodhicitta is a Buddha, but not fully developed.

When one first arouses Bodhicitta, one already obtains complete and utter enlightenment. - Avatamsaka sutra

I could be mistaken, but this post seems to be begging the question. I would like to know your definition of a 'Buddha'. I presume it's not simply 'all persons who know what the self is not.'

I would be interested to know if you consider any living 'Buddhist' teachers or writers to be 'Buddhas', and if so, who.

You seem to be saying that everyone on earth who is not a Buddha is an 'ordinary being' with the traits you describe.

From what I think I understand you to be saying, it would seem that only Buddhas can speak authoritatively from personal knowledge, not relying on scriptures, while ordinary beings must rely on what they are told or what they have read.

Zennist: Blind faith is only a problem if you bet on the wrong horse. But we bet on the right horse, so we win.

Imagine if you stepped out of the Matrix and went back inside to talk to the inhabitants.

You meet various kinds of inhabitants. You would try to tell them that they inhabit a virtual reality, but some would just laugh you off, some would become angry!

Others would require gnosis, first-hand experience. So you would have to show them "holes" in the Matrix, whereby they could directly perceive the workings of the Matrix.

And then you'd meet the person of faith. They just reply: "I believe you. It's a crazy story, but I choose to believe you. It's a gut feeling I have." -

Advent Child: This kind of faith seems to fall into "faith in blind belief" that was in an earlier blog, The meaning of faith, http://goo.gl/IpKo7

Sean Robsville: Right now I am sketching out a blog that will begin with Star Trek's neutral zone. I envision this neutral zone separating two distinct modes of apprehension. One is first-person which is introspective-based; the other is third-person which comprises the natural and physical sciences. If science enters the neutral zone, this is an act of war against Buddhism (I think it has already happened).

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo