[Buddha-l] Re: Meditating Buddha

[Stefan Detrez]

Benito,

On Friday, January 20, 2006, Stefan Detrez wrote:
>
> > First, you suggest that enlightenment is some sort of
> > 'mood'  you  can  plunge  yourself into, which is not
> > exactly  characteristic  of  the  permanent nature of
> > Nirvana.
>
>   Not  at  all,  I say that the Buddha "natural" state
> was deep jhana.
>
> > Second,  an  all-time  meditating Buddha would not be
> > very   socially  active  and,  especially,  not  very
> > succesful in the proselytical sphere.
>
>   I  don't  think  that  the  Buddha was worried about
> being  socially  active.  He  spent most of his time in
> deep  jhana  and  also spent some time teaching. And it
> seems that he was wise enough to do it.


I'm not sure I understand how your 'natural' state - which I understand as
'permanently characteristic' - can be deep jhana and at the same time are
able to teach (and not being in your natural state). Either he is in
permanent deep jhana (again I ask, why would a Buddha have to meditate?),
which would have to be his natural state, as you say,  or he's not. I don't
think you can teach in any of the jhanas. You can ask the question like
this: 'If the Buddha's natural state were deep jhana, why did he preach,
then?'


(snip)




>   For  the  Buddha  and his followers, the goal was to
> stop  the  rebirth  cycle,  this  life  was  a  painful
> consequence  of bad karma, so they didn't feel any need
> of  going  around enjoying the show. Life was a kind of
> purgatory  and  arhats  were happy because knew all was
> over for them.
>
>   Of  course,  Westerners  don't  tend  to  like to be
> remembered  of  this  and  are  trying  to rewrite what
> Buddhism is.


Textually this is true. Yet 'exegetically' the problem remains why a Buddha
has to meditate. And then you can wonder how, if ever, the Dharma was
spread, when there was no actual need to proselytize (notwithstanding the
fact he was convinced by others to do so). Not only that: a Buddha would
have no need to wander about if he for himself knew (or felt) that he was
not going to be reborn. Maybe food or shelter were stimulants not to stay in
one place, and was he to wander the country, just like all the other
ascetics, to get food and shelter. A more bold hypothesis would be that he
went around as a khattiya diplomat trying to calm down rivaling tribes, a
hypothesis I'd love to get deeper into.
Also, the idea of proselytizing is an idea which became subtantial in the
Mahayana. When you read Pali suttas, most of the folks come and visit him
for his reputation and not he visiting other to spread the Dharma.

I don't understand what you mean by Westerners trying to rewrite what
Buddhism is.

Greetings,
Stefan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20060120/df88aaf5/attachment.htm