I don’t claim to have much of an understanding of Zen Buddhism, and I think that maybe this isn’t supposed to have an outright meaning. Maybe you’re just supposed to think about it until it means something to you, but maybe not.
Any ideas on the origin, the meaning, etc? Why would you kill Buddha?
Any help would be appreciated.
Lucky Charms
I believe the general idea is that the Buddha is not a god, only an enlightened human, and should not be revered as a god. (Or, that we are all gods but the Buddha figured it out first.) I don’t think they mean that one should literally kill the Buddha but rather they are trying to impress upon us that it is not the messenger but the message that is important.
“We’re on the road and we’re gunnin’ for the Buddha
We know his name and he mustn’t get away…” ~Shriekback
I think this also has to do with the fact that if you meet Buddha on the road, it’s not the real Buddha. Buddha is gone; he had his last life and when that ended, he got off the wheel of reincarnation and ceased to be. That’s the ultimate prize in Buddhism; you reincarnate and reincarnate and reincarnate until you finally become enlightened and then you go back to the nothingness that spawned you. Buddha achieved this, so he’s gone and he ain’t coming back.
Hence the saying. If you meet the Buddha on the road, it’s a false Buddha. Problem is, that doesn’t explain why you’re supposed to kill him (instead of just not listening to him or something). I think we need an actual Buddhist in here…
(cornflakes draws his sword…) Well, xcheopis pretty much nailed that one…*
Based on what little I know about Buddhism, enlightenment is more an awareness or awakening (or an awareness of awakening?) than an acceptance of belief. Whether you decide to follow or are asked to follow, your path can not be handed to you. If you come across the answer in your spiritual wanderings, reject it. Any apparent shortcut to enlightenment is more likely a source of spiritual stagnation. Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche speaks of “spiritual materialism”; it’s much the same concept.
(Is it possible to talk about this stuff without sounding like you’re talking to David Carradine?)
*
My understanding of the phrase is that nobody is really truly enlightened. PARTICULARLY those who claim to know everything and be perfect.
So if you meet some dumbass who claims to have all the answers, he’s a deluded fool and best ignored. Or, better yet, sent back into the reincarnation wheel so his hubris can bring him back as, say, a frog. ;]
-Ben
As a practicing buddhist for about the last 20 years (and not one of those fake Zens, which is considered real buddhism by many sects) I must admonish people not to read too much into this saying. It is just another “koan” which does not have any literal meaning, it is just a method to break one’s attachment to conventional modes of thought.
The real question is, coming from another Buddhist here, is “Why is Buddha on the road?”
BTW, Math Geek, you are off on this one. Buddha has come back, and (one of) his reincarnations is the Dalai Lama. To acheive Nirvana, one must become enlightened. But also along the same note, all who reach Nirvana come back because they want to help everyone else reach it.
red_dragon60: maybe this is a point where modern Buddhism disagrees with Buddhism as it was originally practiced in India (I’ve certainly never studied Buddhism as it’s practiced today).
Then again, since I’m working from the memory of a textbook that’s three time zones away from me right now maybe I’m just wrong
I always figured that you must kill Buddha because, since he has been dead for so long, if you meet him on the road he must be RE-ANIMATED EVIL UNDEAD! Like a Buddha vampire or some such. And you always must kill the re-animated undead. It’s in the rules.
Mu.
I’m afraid you are off on this one, Red Dragon, as you are confusing the concepts of “Buddha” (“awakened one”) and “bodhisattva” (“enlightening being,” one who has forsworn Nirvana to lead all sentient beings to enlightenment). Buddhas by definition do not reincarnate. Boddhisattvas, however, do. Tibetan Buddhists believe the Dalai Lama to be the reincarnation of the mythical Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva (Tibetan “chenreznig”).
UnuMondo
Particlewill, I think you’re well on your way to enlightenment.
Oops, must remember to preview. That should have read “which is NOT considered real buddhism by many sects…”
One aspect of this koan that I was told is that it represents your attachment to the idea of acheiving enlightenment.
and when you’re done pondering that, contemplate the Buddha nature of your dog…
[WAG]
If you think you have found enlightment, think again.
[/WAG]
Perhaps it is because, as he/she has reached enlightenment, killing him/her would free his/her soul from the mortal coil and allow it to reach Nirvana. You’d be doing him/her a favor, assuming enlightenment has truly been achieved.
-b
But what if a bodhisattva messes up in his reincarnation? Must he restart his journey again? Is it possible to attain Nirvana and lose it and begin your quest anew?
–Tim
Hmmm…first off, I’m trying to find the origin of this statement, but not having much luck. I tried plugging the phrase directly into a search engine, but all I got was references to a specific book with that title, and a few discussion pages that refer to the phrase as a zen koan. This is kind of weird, though, since koans are usually expressed in the form of a riddle without an answer (Cecil has a classic column on this, by the way).
Here’s a quote from the Koan Study Pages :
I suppose you could argue that the question in this case is, “What do you do if you meet the Buddha on the road?” and the counter-intuitive answer is, “Kill him!” although that’s not usually the way the statement is phrased.
Assuming for a moment that the whole “Buddha on the road” thang isn’t some kind of New Age reworking of an old koan, then, I can at least give you my best guess. As I understand it, Zen is an outgrowth of Mahayana Buddhism, which in its turn is to Theravada (and other old schools, like “the Discriminators” and the “Sarvastivadans” [sp?]) what Protestantism is to Catholicism – something of a Reformation, in other words. It was a movement within Buddhism that came as a reaction to the corruption, idol-worshipping, and textual fundamentalism that had begun to develop within Buddhist practice. There are old ink drawings of monks burning ancient buddhist texts and laughing maniacally, for example, that were all a part of this revival. (By the way, the only old school still extant today is Theravada, and they survived by adopting a great deal of Mahayana practices and ethics and so forth.)
So I’m guessing here that the koan is related to that in some way. It’s a warning not to get bogged down in old teachings, old images of the Buddha, or even in becoming to “attached” to Buddhism itself (attachment being the big no-no).
I have an aquaintence who spent several years in Theravada monastery in Sri Lanka. He was respected as a gifted meditator, but for some reason he got it into his head one day that he had met the Buddha on the Road and Killed Him, which he duly reported to his masters.
Ever since then he was given the name, “Monk With the Wrong Views,” because of his Zen-like betrayal.
As to the question of what the Buddha was doing on the road in the first place – I think he was try to hitch a ride down to the nearest 7-11 to buy a six-pack.
For whatever it’s worth, my interpretation of that has been along these lines:
You should be looking for the Buddha within yourself, so if you think you have found it somewhere other than within yourself, what you’ve found is something deceptive. Kill it so you can get on with your own enlightenment.
Homer wonders:
*Well, there’s good news, and there’s bad news.
The good news is that as soon as you enter the Sangha (specifically, the circle of monks), you become a “stream-winner” – meaning, essentially, your own personal enlightment is guaranteed (this is according to Theravada). It might take you a few hundred lifetimes after that to actually make it to Nirvana, but at least you’re on your way.
But that’s only if you’re Theravadan, I fear.
If you’re Tibetan, you have other problems to deal with – specifically, your “pungala” (if I remember correctly), that synergetic entwinement of sensory inputs that creates the illusion of your own individuality, leading the less enlightened to believe in the existence of an immortal soul. Anyway, the risk is that as soon as you die, yer pungala will unravel, leaving the various bits of your consciousness to reincarnate as god knows what. So if your Tibetan, the secret truth is that your chances of reincarnating as a human being again after this life are exceedingly small.
Anyway, to answer your question, no, you can’t mess up after you acheive Nirvana and be forced to start over again. After acheiving Nirvana, you no longer exist. Your pungala is extinguished, forever, and you have permenently escaped the suffering of the Wheel of Kharma.
Boddhisattvas haven’t acheived Nirvana, however; they’ve come right to the edge and then pulled back, in order to return to the rest of us out of compassion, and help us along. That’s why Avalokita is often pictured as having a thousand arms.
I would guess that technically, since they haven’t actually acheived enlightenment, Boddhisattvas are still subject to Kharmic law and in risk of travelling down the chain of being again, but they are quite transcendent creatures and so the chances of that happening are pretty small.
Damn, you’re right. Thanks. And welcome to the boards!