kool.
There is more than one Buddah is there not? Gautama Budda and Sidhartha Buddah are the two that come to mind easily. (It’s been many a year since I read the Bagavagita (sp). Can you explain why there is more than one, and what the different Buddahs teach?
Hi, aenea,
I can answer that. There’s only one Buddha. He’s referred to by a few different names, however: Sakayamuni ("from the tribe of the Sakyas) is his “tribal” name. His father was the king of the Sakayas, and the Buddha was born to be their prince. His family name is Gautama (or Gotama in Pali), hence “Gautama Buddha”; and his own real name, before he achieved enlightenment, was Siddhartha.
On the other hand, your question has a deeper metaphysical significance that I hesitate to touch upon (although I will). Sometimes in the Mahayana tradition monks pray to “all the Buddhas” and so forth, meaning all who have achieved enlightenment. Stream-winners, who practice the eight-fold path, will all eventually acheive that status and thus become “Buddhas.” Some branches of the faith claim that the Buddha manifests every so often; the next manifestion will be called “Maiyatria” (spelling very approximate), and is usually depicted as fat bald dude with a big grin and a bunch of kids crawling all over him. In his right hand he holds a bag (as a monk once explained to me, “Empty bag – contains everything.” Zen humor. Go figure.)
In addition, at the deepest level (which I don’t even pretend to understand), all of us are the Buddha. So in one sense, technically, there are lots of Buddhas, only they’re all only one Buddha, since the apprehension of difference between things is only an illusion created by sense experience…
By the way, I’ve heard a rumor that a monk in Burma has actually achieved enlightenment. They’re all Theravadans over there, however, and tend to be pretty tight-lipped about these things.
Finally, all Buddhas teach only one thing, because, according to the Buddha, there is only one truth. “Becoming a Buddha” is merely another way of saying that the person in question has fully understood and accepted that truth.
Damn, how embarressing. Correct that first misspelling above from “Sakayamuni” to “Sakyamuni.” The correct clan name is “Sakya,” not “Sakaya”.
Sorry about that.
Paradoxically, part of getting better is realizing there’s no such thing as better. And trying to be something can get in the way of just being. Obviously words and thought fail at some point. That’s why there’s a tradition of learning through direct experience rather than intellectual understanding.
A lot of teachers will try to remove the emphasis from self-improvement, since (especially in the West) we tend to be obsessed with getting “better” and somehow think we’ll earn some sort of reward (enlightenment?) that way. Instead they’ll try and reframe the quest as one of relaxing into what one already is rather than trying to be something. “Relaxing” is probably not quite right either, since this can require intense effort…trying not to try…oh heck, words fail me
Here’s a question for ya bucko.
Ok. As we all know enlightment must come from within. hence all problems also come from within. How do you feel about blaming child abuse on the child? Personally, that is my major problem with Buddhism.
First off, hiya, oldscratch !! I’ve been reading your posts in other threads (concerning socialism) and they’ve been…er, well, most “enlightening.” And thanks for the link to Marx on the Web. Shame the thread died out, I had lots of questions…
However, I think you’re a bit off on this child abuse thing. I don’t really know where you got that from. Nobody in their right mind would blame a child for being abused by a parent, as far as know, not even a – “gasp” – Buddhist. Remember, one of the central messages in Buddhism is compassion.
On the other hand, the suffering that such a child experiences as a result of being abused is his or her own responsiblity. I think Buddha might say something like that. This is an inescapeable fact of life, because nobody else can deal with that suffering or take it away. The child or the adult he/she becomes is trapped with it and must find some way to overcome it on his/her own. That’s a very unpleasant truth, but then again, another of the central messages of Buddhism is honesty.
In a nutshell, you could say that Buddhism (like all religions) expresses an existential dilemma and then provides for its solution. In this case, the dilemma is suffering (such as is experienced by your child). The solution is, of course, escape from suffering, ie, Nirvana, achieved by diligently following the eight-fold path. Blame is actually irrelevant here (probably), because regardless of who’s to blame, you still have suffering and the job of allieviating it, which really is the central focus of Buddhism.
Wow everyone, nice turnout! Great questions!
I am trying to view things from other perspectives, let people live the way they want to, and become a mindful person.
Oldscratch- The child is not responsible in this case. The child is not being punished for bad karma. The abuser is racking up very bad karma here., and will probably come back as a newt. Svinlesha hit it right on the head there. You must remember that one of the Four Truths is that there is always suffering. The child is suffering, through no fault of his/her own. The child must find a way to get rid of that suffering, else s/he will become the very thing they dread.
Anyone heard any good Koans lately?
so why is it happening to the child?
Here’s a question pertaining to karma. If it takes a sufficient positive amount of karma to be reincarnated into a human being, then it would stand to reason that our world would be tantamount to paradise, as its inhabitants would be in the moral and spiritual elite. How then are we so obviously capable of atrocities and hate and harmfulness (bad karma) that are clearly contrary to the eightfold path?
The obvious answer is that humanity is cursed, but is this consistent with Buddhist belief?
joshu once asked nansen, “what is the way?” Nansen answered, “ordinary mind is the way.” “then should we direct ourselves toward it or not?” asked joshu. "if you direct yourself toward it, you go away from it.’ answered nansen. Joshu continued, “if we do not try, how can we know that it is the way?” nansen replied, “the way does not belong to knowing or not-knowing. knowing is illusion; not-knowing is blankness. if you really attain to the way of no-doubt, it is like the great void, so vast and boundless. how, then, can there be right and wrong in the tao?” at these words, joshu was suddenly enlightened.
mumon’s poem
hundreds of flowers in spring, the moon in autumn,
a cool breeze in summer, and snow in winter;
if there is no vain cloud in your mind
for you it is a good season.
(from the mumonkan, translated by sumiko kudo)
longhair75, (who loves zen poetry)
oldscratch, it’s happening to the child for various reasons. If you’re looking for the Buddhist perspective on Karma, Karma is not singular to just this life, but all previous lives, and lives of our ancestors, so this is Karma for the child. In this life, the child will/or must learn to overcome this suffering by understanding it first. This does not make it ok that the child is suffering, but it is the honest answer of a Buddhist.
Svinlesha, welcome aboard. 
lastgasp, someone else might like to answer this as well I’m sure. Your perception on Karma is very flawed. There really is no definite good or bad Karma, just Karma. The bad things done will make more bad things, the good things will make more good things. Simple logic for understanding Karma. Do good, and it will continue good, do bad, and it will continue bad. There is nothing about curses in Buddhism. According to Buddhism, this world is a world of suffering, and full of suffering. The eightfold path is the way to the cessation of suffering, but before we can truly follow the eightfold path, we must understand what that suffering is, then understand that we need to end that suffering, then understand why we need to end that suffering. The four noble truths come first in this respect, and as part of the five precepts, if we can understand the noble truths, then we can rightly follow the eightfold path.
longhair75, very nice. Don’t make right, don’t make wrong. Take away all opposites. You already know. Just this. This is the way. Words are bad.
red_dragon60, this thread is getting more hits then Tricycles website and boards. 
Hey I didn’t say it was ok for the child to be suffering. I understand that. In fact, that’s one of the things I respect about Buddhism, you guys are consistent. However, it is the souls fault/choice/whatever to be in the body of that abused child. It is a challenge, a way to build up spiritual brownie points, but again it comes back to the fact that you are basicly justifying it.
Ummm, I don’t suppose you could tell us where you got this impression of the Dharma, could you? I’d really be interested in knowing your sources. I don’t mean this at all to be facetious. As with all other major religions/philosophies, there have developed offshoots and interpretations of the core teachings that don’t seem too consistent with the original intent. There are, for instance, Buddhist sects that pray to dead spiritual leaders as though they were saints to whom one could pray for intercession. There has even been religious warfare and murder between different Buddhist sects. All of which seems quite obviously to contradict the central teachings.
I guess I’m trying to say that you may have received an impression of Buddhism that is valid, in the sense that it may have been given you by a bona fide, active, Buddhist person or teacher, but nevertheless, it may contradict the core teachings. So maybe knowing more about how you came to this understanding could help clear the air.
As to your question:
The quote above seems to imply you think that somehow we choose to suffer. It’s already been said that it’s not so much a choice, but just a fact that things happen that cause suffering. You also asked “why is this happening to the child”, and I take that to mean you are either looking for the mechanism by which, or already believe that, Buddhism justifies child abuse.
I don’t believe there’s anything in the core teachings that “justifies” suffering in the sense you mean (it IS justified in the sense that sometimes we need to be disciplined or experience suffering to learn, but I can’t see how child abuse teaches a useful lesson, so I don’t think that that applies here. More rambling on that later.)
It seems to me that a more orthodox Buddhist reading of child abuse would be that it is a violent act perpetrated on an innocent subject. If there is a blame, it most definitely lies with the perpetrator of the violence, who has clearly done wrong - this sort of violence is simply not justifiable. I would go so far as to say that any reading of the Dharma that attempts to either justify the action of the perpetrator, or claim that the recipient “deserved” it, is a perversion of the core Dharma.
Of course, that still leaves the question of how to deal with the scars that violence leaves behind. As has been stated before, the Buddhist approach is generally to deal with oneself irrespective of the other parties involved. So it would still be the victim’s responsibility to work through the aftermath.
More detailed rambling, in case that didn’t get it:
There IS a concept of “right action” which sometimes justifies actions which are in some sense “violent” (there is, for instance, the story of the teacher who cuts his student’s finger off). But these actions are justified by the fact that A) there is an implicit relationship between the actor and the recipient where the action might be allowed (in this example, there is a student-teacher relationship, and one could argue that the student has bound himself to allow the teacher to use “any means necessary” to help achieve understanding) and B) the action serves to communicate a lesson that is vital, and which perhaps cannot be communicated in an easier way.
Now, this justification revolves around the idea that some vital lesson is being communicated. It seems to me that you might have concluded that Buddhism therefore allows for any violence, so long as a lesson is intended. But I think that oversimplifies. I don’t think that one can expect a child to get any sort of useful “lesson” out of abuse, and furthermore, if the point of the violence is purportedly discipline (often used as an excuse) there are better ways to discipline a child.
In sum I just can’t see how child abuse is justified.
On another note, there is also a lot of talk about Karma being a system of racking up points for salvation, and reincarnation as reward or punishment, but I think that this again represents an oversimplification. (Though there are certainly sects who abide by the whole brownie-points scheme). I’m more with soulsling’s thinking…
im interested in learning about buddhism and possibly one day practicing it. where do i start? is there a book i should begin with? did you know the beastie boys are buddhist?
I can not say it any better than the Masters:
rottenbrain138, There are lots of books you can read to learn more about Buddhism and the different practices. There are also lots of good websites. My favorite is Buddhanet. The site will help you find locations as well if you choose to practice or study some. Tricycle is pretty helpful in finding locations, and they have a buddhist message board where your’e better off asking questions if you are seriously interested. Most centers or temples have a day for introduction for beginners.
I’ve always liked this:
Before one studies Zen, the mountains are merely mountains and the clouds are merely clouds.
When one studies Zen, the mountains are no longer mountains, the clouds are no longer clouds.
When one achieves mastery of Zen, the mountains are again mountains, and the clouds are again clouds.
I think I’ll take the easy way. Since I think the mountains are mountains and the clouds are clouds I claim I am a Zen master.
thanks a lot!
Evenin’, all.
First off, thanks Soulsling. You’re only the second person to welcome me to SMDB, and I was beginning to think nobody loved me anymore. Or maybe I wear the wrong deoderant?
Secondly, I was just about to answer rottenbrain’s question, but you beat me to it, so never mind.
Thirdly, it looks like we’ve got us a debate about karma going on here. That’s a sticky topic and I’m really not an expert, but here’s my 2 cents anyway.
However much I appreciate your compliment about buddhistic consistency, oldscratch, as a one-time practitioner I don’t know if I fully agree with you. I sensed that you were trying to make the point that bad actions(karma) lead to bad results with your first post; thus, one could argue that a man who in a former life beat his children might, for example, be reincarnated as child who is then beaten – and therefore, the blame for being beaten would appear to lie with the child, who is merely reaping the fruits of his previous bad actions. I assumed that’s what you were trying to get at, and so I carefully tried to sidestep the issue. (Although truth to tell, it really is more a philisophical question than one pertaining to the essence of Buddhism, which centers on practice.)
Finally, ren, you probably know more about this subject than I do, so I’ll direct this question towards you (but anyone else who likes, please feel free to jump in). Karmic Law, as I’ve come to understand the concept, implies a basic moral structure to the universe. It’s like the law of cause and effect, but it takes into account our moral actions, and categorizes them as “good” or “bad”. What we receive in our next “experience”, be it in the next second or in our next rebirth, is thus conditioned by what has gone before. Buddha claims that bad actions follow us like our own shadow; and while arguably this doesn’t imply anything with regard to what we may or may not deserve, it does kinda lay the “blame” for suffering squarely at the feet of the sufferer. Even worse, it would appear to imply that people who have good fortune in life are reaping the benefits of their good actions, and that seems patently untrue to me. I don’t have any sources or such to back this up by the way, I’m simply presenting it as my (quite possibly misstaken) understanding of Karmic Law.
Taken from that angle, I understand oldscratch’s question a little better. It’s always seemed to me to be a problem with the idea of Karma. So what say ye, fellow Buddhists? Where have I gone wrong in my reasoning?