What did the Buddah actually achieve?

I do as long as they are alive.
Lost a few along the way already.
Pretty painful.

With love
Eelco

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by satorimind

I've pondered this one many times. What exactly was the Enlightenment that the Buddha achieved under the Bodhi tree 2,500 years ago.

The obvious answer is the ending of suffering. But didn't the Buddha still have a bad back after Enlightenment?

My guess he ended suffering, not pain. We all have pain; it is part of life. Suffering is what we add to pain, create on top of it.

I think it is this that the Buddha ended.

Anyone else got any ideas?

I think he saw into the true nature of this world. Ergo, dependent origination. Part of that is slightly esoteric, although I don't think that is the emphasis, nor should it be, in Buddhism.

I guess that Buddha also realized Nibbana - the actual cessation of dukkha, which is not just acceptance of pain (yes, there is pain), but the cessation of the dhammas associated with ego identity and human suffering.

I think the Buddha also achieved a great inner silence and peace - which is a hallmark of Nibbana - and also was born to a great compassion for the world - which is why he dedicated the rest of his life in service, to teach others of the truths he learnt through his Buddhist path.

This is what I believe the Buddha realized.

( I find the Heart Sutra, and Diamond Sutra actual reflections of the Buddha's deeper realizations )

BT

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

Just sharing.
Suffering is part of living

Hi BlueSky

Thanks for your thoughts. It's an interesting reflection - and I agree with you, if the Buddha taught that we should not love or have deeply meaningful relationships, it probably would also not appeal to me. I don't personally see Buddhism as saying that.

BT

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by catsquotl

"Sensing a feeling of pleasure, he senses it disjoined from it. Sensing a feeling of pain, he senses it disjoined from it. Sensing a feeling of neither-pleasure-nor-pain, he senses it disjoined from it. This is called a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones disjoined from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is disjoined, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

Sallatha Sutta

WIth Love
Eelco

That's a nice sutra. Thank you for pointing it out, catsquotl, I've never seen this one before. I would say this also extends to thoughts, body, consciousness etc. This is the penetration of the Four Noble Truths that sky123 posted about above (I believe).

BT

[Gem]

Originally Posted by satorimind

I've pondered this one many times. What exactly was the Enlightenment that the Buddha achieved under the Bodhi tree 2,500 years ago.

The obvious answer is the ending of suffering. But didn't the Buddha still have a bad back after Enlightenment?

My guess he ended suffering, not pain. We all have pain; it is part of life. Suffering is what we add to pain, create on top of it.

I think it is this that the Buddha ended.

Anyone else got any ideas?

In Buddhist philosophy, pain is regarded as dukkha, but 'dukkha' isn't directly translatable into common English. It's just 'suffering' is close enough. There is also text regarding suffering as 'added on', but it is included in 'dependent arisings' which 'originate' (for want of a better word) from ignorance, as BlueSky already said.

The teaching says basically that craving is the root of suffering, and from feeling craving arises, but the deeper philosophy addresses it in a more multidimensional way.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

Personally if this truth he is said to have learned is at odds with the world, with living life and with relationships, I prefer suffering.
I mean if enlightenment means no me, no children, no mate as far as relating to one another then it's not something anyone would normally want.
If a loved one dies, we suffer. What state of mind or being would one desire to eliminate that kind of suffering?
This was my resulting understanding of what Buddhism has to offer and I consciously chose not to persue it.
I prefer to love and suffer if need be if that is the price of loving.
I'm not looking to be convinced otherwise. Just sharing.
Suffering is part of living

The Buddhist religion tries to accommodate what are referred to as 'householders' so it doesn't preclude anything that you mention. Not that I suggest any sort of conversion to any sort of religion - quite the contrary.

Originally Posted by Gem

In Buddhist philosophy, pain is regarded as dukkha, but 'dukkha' isn't directly translatable into common English. It's just 'suffering' is close enough. There is also text regarding suffering as 'added on', but it is included in 'dependent arisings' which 'originate' (for want of a better word) from ignorance, as BlueSky already said.

The teaching says basically that craving is the root of suffering, and from feeling craving arises, but the deeper philosophy addresses it in a more multidimensional way.

Yes it is..
Dhukka means a broken axle
It makes for a bumpy ride..

With Love
Eelco.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

Hi BlueSky

Thanks for your thoughts. It's an interesting reflection - and I agree with you, if the Buddha taught that we should not love or have deeply meaningful relationships, it probably would also not appeal to me. I don't personally see Buddhism as saying that.

BT

Thanks BT, I appreciate your words and I am glad to hear that you feel the same way.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Gem

The Buddhist religion tries to accommodate what are referred to as 'householders' so it doesn't preclude anything that you mention. Not that I suggest any sort of conversion to any sort of religion - quite the contrary.

Thanks Gem. In my studies I concluded that his mention of householders was in the context of living like a monk in your home with your family.
Buddhism to me sets the bar in reference to relationships to be such that my grandson or wife or daughters or even my dog should come across as not being individuals or special and let's face it if "I" was to disappear then so would "you".
Who would possibly want to be in such a state and for what purpose other than some selfish goal or attainment.
My nature is selfless in that I would give anything for anybody but to lose sense of my individuality at the expense of losing sense of yours is just not something I could imagine or want.
In all honesty I have a powerful brain and an open heart and mind and this is what Buddhism is pointing to...no me....no you....and I just don't want that.
I hope I'm wrong in my accesment but if it was otherwise, I feel that I would know and so would everyone else.

How deeply would you want to dive into what The Buddha thought, how it is often misunderstood and what he is actually saying?

First of all I'd be the last to convert anyone to accept anything.
That said he does say somethings for house holders. As a father of 6 living with my lovely wife 2 dogs and a cat. If I felt that I couldn't love them to become free from suffering I would never consider myself a buddhist.

I don't think he says you will disappear. Only that by piercing the veils of ignorance you will discover there is no you there. Do you see the subtle difference? Disappearing is not something that happens when you become enlightened. It is discovered that you were never there in the first place.

That does not mean you will die, although most theravadan believe that after attaining arahatship you should ordain or you will die within 7 days..
I somehow doubt that given the fact many people claim to be arahants and are married or in relationships.

In the text's you'll find that by seeing things as they are an opportunity arises for the so called 10 fetters to fall away.

The commentary mentions that views, doubt, attachment to rites and rituals, jealousy and greed are thrown off at the first stage of Awakening (sotāpatti); gross sensual lust and anger by the second stage (sakadāgāmitā) and even subtle forms of the same by the third stage (anāgāmitā); and conceit, lust for existence and ignorance by the fourth and final stage (arahatta).

That is what happens from some perspectives..No more and no less.
All the other teachings in a sense are there to make that realization easier, but not necessary. In my understanding and study so far I have never read that a house holder should live like a monk.
In fact I have read.That it is better to re-marry than burn with lust.(I'll have to search for the sutta though)
Giving all the fetters a healthy(less unwholesome) way to express instead of dying trying to fight them..

With Love
Eelco