Is Buddhism a complete path?

[Maddie]

17 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

Seriously?

 

Why do you seem so surprised? lol 

[Apech]

7 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

Why do you seem so surprised? lol 

i’m a very boring cat once I get going.

[Maddie]

Just now, Apech said:

i’m a very boring cat once I get going.

 

Well I don't think so, and yes I would like to hear what you actually think and why you think it.

[Apotheose]

On 12/02/2024 at 3:35 PM, Neirong said:

Have you seen or can you show a single living Buddhist practitioner who has reached enlightenment? (a photo will do)
 

I am not criticizing, but I have not seen anyone so far, and we know that many millions practice and follow those teachings worldwide.
 

I think a working (complete) path/tradition should be able to produce at least one enlightened being out of tens of millions of practitioners.

..

Edited April 8 by Apotheose

[stirling]

Here is one well-known teachers take:

 

Quote

A German film crew once asked Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche to say something that would
be heard by people all over the world. Here is his response:

 

First I would like to tell you that an enlightened essence is present in everyone. It is present in every state, both samsara and nirvana, and in all sentient beings; there is no exception. Experience your buddha nature, make it your constant practice, and you will reach enlightenment. In my lifetime I have known many, many people who attained such an enlightened state, both male and female. Awakening to enlightenment is not an ancient fable. It is not mythology. It actually does happen. Bring the oral instructions into your own practical experience and enlightenment is indeed possible; it is not just a fairy tale.

 

To realize our buddha nature, we need the support of three principles. First is the precious Buddha, the primal teacher who showed the enlightened essence to others. Next is the precious dharma, the teachings on how to train in experiencing the enlightened essence. Lastly, there is the precious sangha, the people who uphold and spread the teachings. Additionally, there are three roots: there is the guru, the root of blessings; the yidam, the root of accomplishment; and the dakini, the root of activities. They possess all- knowing wakefulness, all-embracing compassion, the activity of deeds for the benefit of beings, and the capacity to protect and save others.
Sometimes we may have doubts and hesitation when relating to the Buddha’s teachings, but do not leave it with that. It is very important to validate what is trustworthy and what is not. My teachers mentioned four kinds of validation. First are the words of a perfectly enlightened being, such as the Buddha, whose statements are never unwise. Then there are the teachings by the great masters of the lineage, passed from one to the other until today. Third are the instructions we receive from our own personal teacher. Finally, to decide with certainty, we need the validation of our own intelligence. Do not leave anything to blind faith or conventional belief. Examine for yourself what is really the truth.

What is the reason for the misery and pain every living being undergoes What is the cause of samsara’s delusion It is nothing other than lacking the experience of our enlightened essence. We ignore what is primordiallyvpresent within us: our buddha nature. Instead, immersed in confusedvemotions, we chase illusory aims that endlessly result in more deluded experience. That’s called samsara. We have already done that for countless lifetimes, life after life, death following rebirth. Unless you now take this opportunity, while you are still a human being, to realize what is fully possible, you will continue in the future in the same deluded way.Please understand that the buddha nature is present within everyone.Nobody lacks this potential, not even a single person in this world. Unless you learn how to bring it into your personal experience, train in that and realize it, you remain deluded. Delusion never disappears by itself. Spinning around on the rim of samsara’s vicious wheel, on the twelve links of dependent origination, you will continue life after life. We all die, are reborn, and die again, countless times.But, in this present life, you can learn to experience your enlightened essence, and if you do that, you can, before passing away, attain the perfectly and fully awakened state of a buddha. The method to transform this human body into rainbow light at the moment of death is only through recognizing and realizing our buddha nature; there is no other possible way. The instruction for how to do that is still available. Place your trust in the three jewels: the precious Buddha, dharma and sangha. Receive this teaching from someone who holds an unbroken lineage; this lineage is still intact. Otherwise, everyone dies; there is no exception. In the past, everyone who lived in this world died. Right now everyone alive will die. Everyone born int he future will also die. Everything in the world changes; nothing remains the same, nothing is permanent, nothing lasts. If you want to be successful, if you really want to take care of yourself recognize your enlightened essence. - Extracted with permission from Rangjung Yeshe Publications, from
Repeating the Words of the Buddha, by Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche

 

His picture.

 

 

 

For what it is worth, it is my experience that it is entirely possible to realize the true nature of reality and be free of suffering. Almost anywhere there is a decent sized Buddhist center there is realization walking its halls, and speaking the dharma. 

 

Enlightenment, is realizing that all appearances have "emptiness" (sunyata) as their core reality and that "self" is a delusion caused by a mistaken perspective. You don't have to be a buddhist for this to be realized. Sufis, Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, and more realize the same thing. 

 

There are no "complete" paths. A path is merely a collection of pointers that one hopes will cause the perspective shift of seeing things as they are. Buddhism just has a lot of (successful) history, structure, and variety. As Apech suggests (two answers), enlightenment is realizing that there has never been anyone to enlighten. No practice has ever precipitated enlightenment - a practice merely makes you "accident prone". 

 

Quote

“Gaining enlightenment is an accident. Spiritual practice simply makes us accident-prone.” – Shuryu Suzuki Roshi

 

 

Edited February 13 by stirling
Photo added.

[idiot_stimpy]

14 hours ago, Maddie said:

 

This is one of the things I've considered as well.

 

My opinion is I am not sure. I can only be sure if I experience it for myself, otherwise I am relying on faith alone. 

[snowymountains]

1 minute ago, idiot_stimpy said:

 

My opinion is I am not sure. I can only be sure if I experience it for myself, otherwise I am relying on faith alone. 

 

And that tbh is the only approach, accept what you have validated and acknowledge the rest rely on faith - to be tested in due time.

 

What to do then if you validate or observe a couple of things necessary for spiritual progress are missing from the roadmap ? and the roadmap after all is a special case aka is incomplete, or even some of its goals are a false premise.

 

Imo keep practicing but and expand horizons.

[Bindi]

Buddhism is not a complete path IMO because it negates the mundane mind as Self (correctly) but it fails to comprehend the True Self beyond the mundane mind. 

[snowymountains]

9 hours ago, stirling said:

Enlightenment, is realizing that all appearances have "emptiness" (sunyata) as their core reality and that "self" is a delusion caused by a mistaken perspective. You don't have to be a buddhist for this to be realized. Sufis, Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, and more realize the same thing. 

 

That is a view, if the view however happens to be a wrong one, then taking it at face value may be a blocker, among other things for spiritual progress itself.

 

Jung used to say "Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will rule your life and you will call it Fate.”

 

the part of this comment on fate, or karma if you prefer, part is spot on. 

Without acceptance of rebirth and karma, the khandhas are no longer empty ( of self ) and instead of attributing talent to efforts in past lives, it becomes part of self.

 

Whatever is ignored still rules us, from our unconscious, ignoring it wont make it go away, to the contrary. This is independently of whether we assign a religious origin to it, including non theistic origins, and call it empty of self.

Edited February 13 by snowymountains

[old3bob]

Taoism or the Great Tao recognizes (and "gives birth" in a manner of speaking) thus does not negate The One, The Two, The three and the Ten thousand...Btw. I'd say that the Buddhist saying about the, "four-fold negation" ends up negating negation, (suggest having some happiness in there somewhere folks ; -)

[Maddie]

1 hour ago, Bindi said:

Buddhism is not a complete path IMO because it negates the mundane mind as Self (correctly) but it fails to comprehend the True Self beyond the mundane mind. 

 

What evidence do you have for this true self beyond the mundane mind?

[Maddie]

1 hour ago, old3bob said:

Taoism or the Great Tao recognizes (and "gives birth" in a manner of speaking) thus does not negate The One, The Two, The three and the Ten thousand...Btw. I'd say that the Buddhist saying about the, "four-fold negation" ends up negating negation, (suggest having some happiness in there somewhere folks ; -)

 

Sorry I'm not trying to be rude but I don't understand what you're talking about.

[doc benway]

19 hours ago, Maddie said:

Recent discussions have brought some interesting points for consideration to light. Namely being is Buddhism a complete system for ending suffering permanently aka "enlightenment" all by itself or is it dated and lacking things? 

 

When replying don't just state your opinion, but state the reason that you think so one way or the other.  

 

I don't think this is a complete question.

Each of us defines our unique path in life based on our qualities, characteristics, and choices we make along the way.

So if we ask whether something is a complete system for enlightenment, it is essential to ask 'for whom?'

Clearly there have been individuals in history who have followed a Buddhist system (of which there are many) to fruition and others for whom Buddhism was not effective. We would also need to ask, which aspects of Buddhism did that individual employ throughout their life and which did they discard? Were any other views and practices employed in any fashion at any point, other influences? To separate ourselves from the system may allow us to indulge our curiosity but the answer we come up with, IMO, is an artificial construct that does not exist in reality. 

 

[snowymountains]

29 minutes ago, steve said:

Each of us defines our unique path in life based on our qualities, characteristics, and choices we make along the way.

So if we ask whether something is a complete system for enlightenment, it is essential to ask 'for whom?'

 

And this is exactly the point 👍

 

Eg Buddhism largely ignores talent/creativity.

 

Assuming the Buddha's talent was to create philosophical systems, he didn't suppress his talents during his path.

He lived his talents instead, so he didn't pay attention to this factor.

After all it wasn't manifesting downsides *in his case*.

 

Now if someone else's talent is eg music but consciously they consider the associated "mental formations" as being "empty of self", and live according to a manual, the unfulfilled potential is more likely to make them miserable, not enlightened.

 

There are glaring gaps in Buddhism, not just the above.

 

Someone who wants, both consciously and unconsciously, to live a monastic life and their talents are manifesting in that monastic life, it can of course work.

 

A different person in a different environment though may need something else, as the gaps in the Buddhist path are likely to manifest.

For that person the Buddhist path will never work if followed as a complete manual.

[Apech]

20 hours ago, Maddie said:

Recent discussions have brought some interesting points for consideration to light. Namely being is Buddhism a complete system for ending suffering permanently aka "enlightenment" all by itself or is it dated and lacking things? 

 

When replying don't just state your opinion, but state the reason that you think so one way or the other.  

 

Complete means literally 'full' and a 'system' is an arrangement of parts to make a whole.  A complete system would be a like a once and for all method for enlightenment, like a kind of mega-manual which contained all the answers.  This in itself is I think a) impossible and b ) undesirable.

 

In fact I don't think Buddhism (or any other genuine path such as Daoism and so on) is a system at all.  Even though people spend their best efforts to make it so.  Fundamentally you can't capture the absolute in a finite (or set of finitudes).  

 

I once saw a documentary about a Zen sect which held that if you could walk a particular (literal) path wearing a very large and heavy hat - it was a very long walk which few had attempted - without assistance then you would achieve Buddhahood.  The documentary showed one young chap attempt this - and he more or less succeeded - and at the end was declared a living Buddha.  This is a kind of rudimentary example of believing in a defined method, step by step, for enlightenment.  It is tosh of course but is the kind of thing people like to believe.  Its the same kind of thing as when you see people prostrating their way long distances to distant temples - these are exercises which someone might undertake (and all to the good quite often) but they have no automatic result.  Buddhism is a bit prone to this kind of thing - repeat this mantra a million times and hey presto.  No it doesn't work.  I'm not saying that there are no benefits in anything like this but simply a system or method is only a kind of training to help develop confidence. And that the goal itself is beyond the conceptual framing of any system.

 

Buddhism or buddhadharma is not static.  This can be easily seen by looking at how it moved from culture to culture and through time adapting to circumstances but without loosing it's essence as dharma.  People like to claim it became contaminated through this process but that is not true.  Although it is fair to say in this Kali Yuga there is a continual tendency for entropy to cause things to break down.  Very often in Buddhist history there was a need for a great master to put things straight where corrupt practices and beliefs had intervened.  But people mistake adaptability for contamination.

 

In Buddhism you take refuge in the three jewels.  Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.  The most important of these is the Buddha.  And in this case it is the Buddha's enlightenment itself in which you are taking refuge.  So the highest appeal, if you like, is to the realisation that the Buddha had - that which made him the Buddha.  This realisation is beyond concept and even personality.  In a way you are taking refuge in the truth that perfect liberation and perfect wisdom is real, for all sentient beings.  This is not temporarily true or subject to change or updating.  From the earliest times people paid homage to this fact, through various forms of practice such as the circumambulation of stupas and so on.  The Buddha's realisation was complete and does not require updating because it will remain true no matter what we discover through neuroscience or whatever.

 

 

 

 

[old3bob]

3 hours ago, Maddie said:

 

Sorry I'm not trying to be rude but I don't understand what you're talking about.

 

that's ok, and if you haven't read the TTC and tried to understand its pointers  then what I might and try to echo of it  is of very little import in comparison to its great wisdom.

 

Btw the only proof you will get and can only really count on for that beyond the five senses is by what is inside you, thus not through second hand proofs derived by the five senses which you have asked for several times.

[old3bob]

38 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Complete means literally 'full' and a 'system' is an arrangement of parts to make a whole.  A complete system would be a like a once and for all method for enlightenment, like a kind of mega-manual which contained all the answers.  This in itself is I think a) impossible and b ) undesirable.

 

In fact I don't think Buddhism (or any other genuine path such as Daoism and so on) is a system at all.  Even though people spend their best efforts to make it so.  Fundamentally you can't capture the absolute in a finite (or set of finitudes).  

 

I once saw a documentary about a Zen sect which held that if you could walk a particular (literal) path wearing a very large and heavy hat - it was a very long walk which few had attempted - without assistance then you would achieve Buddhahood.  The documentary showed one young chap attempt this - and he more or less succeeded - and at the end was declared a living Buddha.  This is a kind of rudimentary example of believing in a defined method, step by step, for enlightenment.  It is tosh of course but is the kind of thing people like to believe.  Its the same kind of thing as when you see people prostrating their way long distances to distant temples - these are exercises which someone might undertake (and all to the good quite often) but they have no automatic result.  Buddhism is a bit prone to this kind of thing - repeat this mantra a million times and hey presto.  No it doesn't work.  I'm not saying that there are no benefits in anything like this but simply a system or method is only a kind of training to help develop confidence. And that the goal itself is beyond the conceptual framing of any system.

 

Buddhism or buddhadharma is not static.  This can be easily seen by looking at how it moved from culture to culture and through time adapting to circumstances but without loosing it's essence as dharma.  People like to claim it became contaminated through this process but that is not true.  Although it is fair to say in this Kali Yuga there is a continual tendency for entropy to cause things to break down.  Very often in Buddhist history there was a need for a great master to put things straight where corrupt practices and beliefs had intervened.  But people mistake adaptability for contamination.

 

In Buddhism you take refuge in the three jewels.  Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.  The most important of these is the Buddha.  And in this case it is the Buddha's enlightenment itself in which you are taking refuge.  So the highest appeal, if you like, is to the realisation that the Buddha had - that which made him the Buddha.  This realisation is beyond concept and even personality.  In a way you are taking refuge in the truth that perfect liberation and perfect wisdom is real, for all sentient beings.  This is not temporarily true or subject to change or updating.  From the earliest times people paid homage to this fact, through various forms of practice such as the circumambulation of stupas and so on.  The Buddha's realisation was complete and does not require updating because it will remain true no matter what we discover through neuroscience or whatever.

 

 

 

I'd say that any and all true paths can lead one to the threshold but we must walk through it and pay the price...

[Keith108]

-content removed from double post_

Edited February 13 by Keith108

[Keith108]

This thread tho...sheesh. 

 

The Four Noble Truths are in the beginning, the middle, and in the end a complete path, in that they address dukkha and the end of dukkha. All the various paths/yanas of the Buddhism end up there. The timeframe and practices may be different, but they all lead to the complete cessation of dukkha. 

 

Now, Buddhism is an incomplete path, in that it doesn't tell us how to fix a car, are what to eat to maintain a healthy body. Etc., etc.

 

Maybe the question should have been: "From a non-practitioner or academic pov, is Buddhism a complete path?" 

 

That the thread has generated these kinds of responses isn't surprising. This isn't a Buddhist forum. But, there is a clear difference between responses from people who haven taken refuge in Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, and those who kind of dabble in Buddhism (not that there is anything wrong with that!)

 

_/|\_

 

 

 

[Keith108]

-content removed from triple post-  (it's snowing like crazy here, and I didn't think it was sending the response in. Mods please delete this and the other double post. Thanks!)

 

Edited February 13 by Keith108

[old3bob]

"sheesh" Keith, I don't think there are many here looking for that,  you could always go somewhere else to find what you are attached to? 

[Keith108]

1 minute ago, old3bob said:

"sheesh" Keith, I don't think there are many here looking for that,  you could always go somewhere else to find what you are attached to? 

No attachments. Dharmawheel is good for Buddhist arguments.

 

No offense intended. Just hate seeing the practice dragged this way.

 

🙏

Keith

[snowymountains]

21 minutes ago, Keith108 said:

Now, Buddhism is an incomplete path, in that it doesn't tell us how to fix a car, are what to eat to maintain a healthy body. Etc., etc.

 

Maybe the question should have been: "From a non-practitioner or academic pov, is Buddhism a complete path?" 

 

That the thread has generated these kinds of responses isn't surprising. This isn't a Buddhist forum. But, there is a clear difference between responses from people who haven taken refuge in Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, and those who kind of dabble in Buddhism (not that there is anything wrong with that!)

 

It's incomplete spiritually too, that's the main point raised.

[Keith108]

30 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

It's incomplete spiritually too, that's the main point raised.

 

_/|\_

 

I will take my ball and go home now.  

[snowymountains]

Just now, Keith108 said:

 

_/|\_

 

I will take my ball and go home now.  

 

As you wish but making self-referential points from a dogma to argue in favor of a dogma is the same as citing the bible to evaluate catholicism.

 

Divergences may then labeled a scholary approach and supporters have not receive the communion recently ( or must have not taken refuge in the Buddhist dogma )

 

The dogma cannot be the only reference though when it's the dogma itself that's examined critically.