[anconueys]

Hello friends,
This is only my second post, after joining the group last week. First of all, thank you very much for the warm welcome.

Was Buddha a Saviour? If not what is the reason of following him? is a common question asked by followers of other faiths. I found this explanation recently and I would like to open it for the discussion.

When Lord Buddha was residing in Savasthi, a young man regularly visited Buddha, but he couldn’t put the teaching in to practice. One day he asked a question as follows.

He said he had been coming to listen to Buddha for many years, he observed that some devotees already liberated (attained Nibbana), some attained various levels of spiritual development in their minds and some of them like himself couldn’t attain anything. People come to Buddha because Buddha was fully enlighten, wise and compassionate. The man asked “why do not use your powers to liberate others, especially who couldn’t attain any spiritual development”

Then Buddha asked the young man from which city he came from. He said he is from Rajagaha (name of a city in India), but he had been living in Savasthi (name of a city in India) for log time. The Buddha then questioned if he was familiar with the road between Savasthi and Rajagaha. Youth replied that he knew it very well and he could go blindfold. Then Buddha asked if others who don’t know the road asked, if he would help them when they did. The young man said, many had asked the question, having nothing to hide, he had given the detailed direction. Then Buddha asked ‘to whom you give detailed direction, do they all reach Rajagaha’? Man said ‘Not all of them, it was only the people who have the effort to travel the entire path who reach Rajagaha’

Then Buddha explained, situation was same with Buddha and his followers. “Because I have nothing to hide I explain the path in detail. They listen to me carefully but do not walk the path all along. At most love and compassion I can show you the path to liberation. I cannot carry any one on my shoulders, No body can. Each step you take brings you closer to your destination. But, remember you have to take the effort. He who has taken hundred steps is a hundred steps closer to the goal. The compassionate Buddhas show you the path. You have to exert yourself and walk the path”

In my opinion, this is a complete and profound explanation to the above question. No body is going to ‘save’ or ‘purify’ us. We, as human beings are responsible for all our actions and we will have to face the consequences. Lord Buddha is only a teacher and he has already explained the path in detail. Walking along the path is solely our responsibility. We should exert our effort to walk at least one foot step within this life time. Otherwise there is not point of becoming a Buddhist.
Your views are highly appreciated.

With metta.
Jayam.
Sources: www.buddhanet.net

[viagra_generic]

Siddhartha Gautama realized why we (our minds) suffer so greatly, rose above this difficulty himself, and then taught others how to do the same. The only way he could be considered a savior is in that he showed us how to save ourselves. Nothing is gained by merely believing in the Buddha; only by following his method, the Noble Eightfold Path, to end suffering.

Namaste

[Edwardthe_third]

Hi Jayam,

Yes, we have to practice the Dhamma to overcome dukkha for ourselves. The Buddha spoke of himself not as a saviour, but as a doctor, with the Dhamma as the medicine.

.
This was said by the Blessed One, said by the arahant, so I have heard: "I am a brahman, responsive to requests, open-handed, bearing my last body, an unsurpassed doctor & surgeon. You are my children, my sons, born from my mouth, born of the Dhamma, created by the Dhamma, heirs to the Dhamma, not heirs in material things."

iti 100
and

AN 3.22 Gilana Sutta : Sick People

There are these three types of sick people to be found existing in the world. Which three?

"There is the case of the sick person who — regardless of whether he does or does not receive amenable food, regardless of whether he does or does not receive amenable medicine, regardless of whether he does or does not receive proper nursing — will not recover from that illness. There is the case of the sick person who — regardless of whether he does or does not receive amenable food, regardless of whether he does or does not receive amenable medicine, regardless of whether he does or does not receive proper nursing — will recover from that illness. There is the case of the sick person who will recover from that illness if he receives amenable food, amenable medicine, & proper nursing, but not if he doesn't.

"Now, it is because of the sick person who will recover from that illness if he receives amenable food, amenable medicine, & proper nursing — but not if he doesn't — that food for the sick has been allowed, medicine for the sick has been allowed, nursing for the sick has been allowed. And it is because there is this sort of sick person that the other sorts of sick persons are to be nursed as well [on the chance that they may actually turn out to need and benefit from such nursing].

"These are the three types of sick people to be found existing in the world.

"In the same way, these three types of people, like the three types of sick people, are to be found existing in the world. Which three?

"There is the case of the person who — regardless of whether he does or doesn't get to see the Tathagata, regardless of whether he does or doesn't get to hear the Dhamma & Discipline proclaimed by the Tathagatha — will not alight on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities.

There is the case of the person who — regardless of whether he does or doesn't get to see the Tathagata, regardless of whether he does or doesn't get to hear the Dhamma & Discipline proclaimed by the Tathagatha — will alight on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities.

There is the case of the person who will alight on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities if he gets to see the Tathagata and gets to hear the Dhamma & Discipline proclaimed by the Tathagatha, but not if he doesn't.

continued here...http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....022.than.html

[Barbshowers]

We can also see that Ajahn Chah compared the Buddha not to a saviour, but to a doctor and the Dhamma as medicine here:



"Another way to look at it is to compare practice to a bottle of medicine a doctor leaves for his patient. On the bottle is written detailed instructions on how to take the medicine, but no matter how many hundred times the patient reads the directions, he is bound to die if that is all he does. He will gain no benefit from the medicine. And before he dies he may complain bitterly that the doctor wasn't any good, that the medicine didn't cure him! He will think that the doctor was a fake or that the medicine was worthless, yet he has only spent his time examining the bottle and reading the instructions. He hasn't followed the advice of the doctor and taken the medicine.

However, if the patient actually follows the doctor's advice and takes the medicine regularly as prescribed, he will recover. And if he is very ill, it will be necessary to take a lot of medicine, whereas if he is only mildly ill, only a little medicine will be needed to finally cure him. The fact that we must use a lot of medicine is a result of the severity of our illness. It's only natural and you can see it for yourself with careful consideration.

Doctors prescribe medicine to eliminate disease from the body. The teachings of the Buddha are prescribed to cure disease of the mind, to bring it back to its natural healthy state. So the Buddha can be considered to be a doctor who prescribes cures for the ills of the mind. He is, in fact, the greatest doctor in the world.

Mental ills are found in each one of us without exception. When you see these mental ills, does it not make sense to look to the Dhamma as support, as medicine to cure your ills? Traveling the path of the Buddha-Dhamma is not done with the body. You must travel with the mind to reach the benefits."


from 'Fragments of a Teaching', page 2

http://www.amaravati.org/abmnew/inde...rticle/368/P1/

[Mjyzpzph]

No body is going to ‘save’ or ‘purify’ us.

Hi Jayam,
A good post. Followers of other faiths are taught that salvation is their only means, therefore they cannot comprehend that there could be another way.
Buddha gave us the teachings we need but he can't breathe for us - can't observe our breath for us.
namaste
Kris

[dxpfmP0l]

Jayam,
What a great post, thank you very much. I think a lot of people have trouble with this. Probably a condition of growing up in places where savior religions are prevalent. Many don't realize their own awesome power, and will attribute everything to their god, including their own successes ("I couldn't have done this without Jesus" is a common phrase). What you posted is exactly what interested me most about Buddhism- it is non-hierarchical, and does not ask you to give your power away or attribute it to anything other than your own effort.
-RT

[Quick$bux]

Yes, we have to practice the Dhamma to overcome dukkha for ourselves. The Buddha spoke of himself not as a saviour, but as a doctor, with the Dhamma as the medicine.

That's it. A saviour, to be so, is needed of hopeless people incapable of doing things by themselves. To be so, he or she needs believers. I think this is not the case for the Buddha. The way of the Buddha is about understanding and the practice of that understanding and then to discern about. We have to test by ourself each one of the teachings. There is no other way. Also there is no such thing to be saved about. But just to understand Dukkha, its origin and the way to cease it. Christians are to be saved. Not the once that practice the teachings of the historical Buddha.

[strmini]

Hello Friends!
I really appreciate all your views. This is one of my favorite disclosures of Lord Buddha. Each and every time I read it I get inspired and feel lot of faith on Lord Buddha. It is truly magnificent the way Lord Buddha has explained the matter using simple examples.

"Another way to look at it is to compare practice to a bottle of medicine a doctor leaves for his patient. On the bottle is written detailed instructions on how to take the medicine, but no matter how many hundred times the patient reads the directions, he is bound to die if that is all he does. He will gain no benefit from the medicine. And before he dies he may complain bitterly that the doctor wasn't any good, that the medicine didn't cure him! He will think that the doctor was a fake or that the medicine was worthless, yet he has only spent his time examining the bottle and reading the instructions. He hasn't followed the advice of the doctor and taken the medicine.

However, if the patient actually follows the doctor's advice and takes the medicine regularly as prescribed, he will recover. And if he is very ill, it will be necessary to take a lot of medicine, whereas if he is only mildly ill, only a little medicine will be needed to finally cure him. The fact that we must use a lot of medicine is a result of the severity of our illness. It's only natural and you can see it for yourself with careful consideration.

Doctors prescribe medicine to eliminate disease from the body. The teachings of the Buddha are prescribed to cure disease of the mind, to bring it back to its natural healthy state. So the Buddha can be considered to be a doctor who prescribes cures for the ills of the mind. He is, in fact, the greatest doctor in the world.

Mental ills are found in each one of us without exception. When you see these mental ills, does it not make sense to look to the Dhamma as support, as medicine to cure your ills? Traveling the path of the Buddha-Dhamma is not done with the body. You must travel with the mind to reach the benefits."


from 'Fragments of a Teaching', page 2

http://www.amaravati.org/abmnew/inde...rticle/368/P1/

Thank you very much for mentioning this. I have read the book of Ven Ajhan Cha’s ‘The tree in a forest’. All the stories and examples given there are incredibly amazing. Ven Ajhan Cha is a True Maha Sangha of our era.

Red Thread, Thank you very much for the kind appreciation..

Kaarine Alejandra ,Cloud, Srivijaya I agree with all your views. Metta to all.
Jayam

[blackjackblax]

Kaarine Alejandra ,Cloud, Srivijaya I agree with all your views. Metta to all.
Jayam

You are wellcome Jayam,

[VXHLrsO1]

I'd like to add that I personally see Buddha as a bit more than a doctor (although there's nothing wrong with the analogy). His teachings are unique in the world. For me he is a liberator, one who turns our face towards freedom. His teachings are the only refuge for one who seeks liberation.

In the suttas, Mara tells him that there is no realm, no place which is beyond his reach and it can certainly seem that this is true. How long would a person need to search in order to find the true teachings of the Buddha? What obstructions and diversions does a person have to see through in order to get even close to them? And how many times are we not quite ready for the Buddha's teachings, even when we have them to hand?

For me personally, I find all religions and philosophies to be Mara's bait. They are like a last appeal to 'us' not to take that extra step and to remain within a 'comfort zone' which can be comprehend and accepted by others around us. And who doesn't want that?

Buddha found that there was an escape beyond. He opened that door for us.

namaste

[Gedominew]

For me personally, I find all religions and philosophies to be Mara's bait. They are like a last appeal to 'us' not to take that extra step and to remain within a 'comfort zone' which can be comprehend and accepted by others around us. And who doesn't want that?

Yes, although I consider religion as a kind of [psychological?] need it has to be considered the "confort zone" aspect of this. Religions give us things that maybe we can't elaborate by ourselves like meanings or to overcome other needed things like rites and the [biological] urgency sense of belonging.

[fil_nurser]

The Buddha was a saviour only in the sense that people could become liberated through him. He was not a saviour in the sense that he could 'wave a magic wand' and make someone liberated; they had to do it through their own efforts, following his teachings.

[Hsmrcahr]

The Buddha was a saviour only in the sense that people could become liberated through him.

Yes Snowmelt, I know what you mean here and I agree, but it could be better to say that people become liberated through the practice of the teachings he leave in the Pali Canon. To say "through him" can be understood, in a mind accustomed to religious thought and, much more for people that have had some Jewish/Christian background, as the same kind of saviour or redeemer that Jews/Christians/Muslims/etc, believe about their "saviours" they were told they were.

IMO to tell people that the Buddha was "just" an awakened human being that left the teachings experienced by himself which lead to freedom from an ignorant mind seems to be very challenging. People loves magic, mystery, occultism, secret doctrines, hidden meanings, religious experiences, exotic rituals, spells, powerfull amulets, supranormal visions, saints, gods and goddesses, a universe that protects them and worries about them, a god that do not play with dice and, of course, saviours and redeemers.

[StivRichardOff]

While I was writing my previous post, I remembered, "Who sees me, sees the Dhamma. Who sees the Dhamma, sees me (i.e., to reach liberation through the Buddha is precisely the same as to reach it through the Dhamma, or, for me, the Canon)." But, you are right, Kaarine, it is better to make clear precisely what one means. Re your second para: "my" Buddhism is a skeleton of liberating concepts that deliberately carries as little extra flesh as possible. I prefer it that way, not the least because I have never found myself able to give credence to the various concepts you have listed.

[nushentelve]

I have never found myself able to give credence to the various concepts you have listed.

Neither me. To give credit to those listed above is like hearing the alarm clock [the Pali Canon] and not wanting to wake up.

[CaseyFan]

Neither me. To give credit to those listed above is like hearing the alarm clock [the Pali Canon] and not wanting to wake up.

Precisely. The way people usually approach a subject of great interest may be to investigate every colourful manifestation of it; to fill their lives with it. I see this as a means of distracting oneself; like going to the pub or a concert in order to forget about the world. To me, this is the wrong approach to Buddhism. It is as the Buddha said: when you are impaled on a poisoned arrow, why would you want to know who extraneous details about the arrow, the poison, the shooter, when the only important thing is to pull it out?

[fissasste]

I see this as a means of distracting oneself;

True Snowmelt... the Buddha told:

The Blessed One said, "'Contemplative, contemplatives': That is how people perceive you. And when asked, 'What are you?' you claim that 'We are contemplatives.'

MN39 and this goes against of any form of distraction or mental escapism.