Buddha

[Not A Communist Shill]

All Buddhist traditions hold that a Buddha has completely purified his mind of desire, aversion and ignorance, and that he is no longer bound by Samsara. A Buddha is fully awakened and has realized the ultimate truth, the non-dualistic nature of life, and thus ended (for himself) the suffering which unawakened people experience in life.

Maybe Gilligan's right after all. This is non- , and certainly non-Beta.

But I don't know what to make abou this (there appear to be many schools of thought).

From the Pali Canon emerges the view that Buddha was human, endowed with the greatest psychic powers (Kevatta Sutta). The body and mind (the five khandhas) of a Buddha are impermanent and changing, just like the body and mind of ordinary people. However, a Buddha recognizes the unchanging nature of the Dharma, which is an eternal principle and an unconditioned and timeless phenomenon. This view is common in the Theravada school, and the other early Buddhist schools.

He seems to talk about the infiniteness of time (and the universe), and that the 'ultimate' truth comes from observing this - but as you can't observed the whole of time, you experience during your lifetime to reach nirvana - this sounds like heaven if anything. I find it hard to see ISTp though .

Some schools of Mahayana Buddhism believe that the Buddha is no longer essentially a human being but has become a being of a different order altogether and that, in his ultimate transcendental "body/mind" mode as Dharmakaya, he has eternal and infinite life and is possessed of great and immeasurable qualities. In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra the Buddha declares: "Nirvana is stated to be eternally abiding. The Tathagata [Buddha] is also thus, eternally abiding, without change." This is a particularly important metaphysical and soteriological doctrine in the Lotus Sutra and the Tathagatagarbha sutras. According to the Tathagatagarbha sutras, failure to recognize the Buddha's eternity and - even worse - outright denial of that eternity, is deemed a major obstacle to the attainment of complete awakening (bodhi).

[Gilly]

You're so evasive it hurts. Why did you try to attribute it to Ni in the first place? And how come I provide all the evidence in the world for it being Si, and yet you simply deny it by delivering an ultimatum? Be consistent, Joy: your EP and Ti PoLR are showing through

Meditation is NOT about "focusing on nothing." It's about being more in tune with physical processes (one's body and its interaction with the world around it).

What I meant by "body as an object" is that out of body experiences, while obviously a classically more "intuitive" thing (being out of touch with one's body), end up viewing the body externally, rather than subjectively, making it an obvious product of extroversion. Also, it's the opposite of Si: complete detachment from one's body and physical sensations.

[Joy]

Heh I couldn't figure out why I was having a hard time thinking (besides the percocet of course) and I suddenly realized that I forgot to eat today. I feel much better now...

Okay, the reason I thought of Ni when I thought of meditation is because I practice a form of medition described in The Power of Awareness by Neville... which is like, pure Ni.

Bottom line is that there are many forms of meditation and many philosophies surrounding it. If we're going to attribute "meditation" to functions, Si, Ne, and Ni are all possible, depending on the people and philosophies involved. For some reason I have a hard time picturing "Se meditation".

[Gilly]

Did some research, and am still utterly puzzled as to what you think this "Power of Awareness" stuff has to do with Ni.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Heh I couldn't figure out why I was having a hard time thinking (besides the percocet of course) and I suddenly realized that I forgot to eat today. I feel much better now...

Okay, the reason I thought of Ni when I thought of meditation is because I practice a form of medition described in The Power of Awareness by Neville... which is like, pure Ni.

Bottom line is that there are many forms of meditation and many philosophies surrounding it. If we're going to attribute "meditation" to functions, Si, Ne, and Ni are all possible, depending on the people and philosophies involved. For some reason I have a hard time picturing "Se meditation".

[Joy]

Gilligan... we've talked about this before in PMs... remember?

[Gilly]

Gilligan... we've talked about this before in PMs... remember?

The technique, not the person, dumbass.

[Joy]

"Power of Awareness" is not a technique. Find someone else to try to argue with, I'm done.

[Gilly]

That is both irrelevant to and nonconflicting with my point.

If you don't want to argue, don't.

[Gilly]

Oh, and additionally, the book has nothing to do with Buddhist meditation. Oopsy daisy, Joy!

[ashlesha]

can he be typed? (ive seen jesus typed so i dont see why not)

[krieger]

not to be confused with this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budai

[Nowisthetime]

I don't know but Dalai Lama is LSE (C-subtype)

[mikesilb]

I'm tempted to say either EII or LII. They kinda sound good to me as possibilities for the Buddha's type.

[ashlesha]

interesting. i was thinking ip and that sei was probably the best fit

[mikesilb]

Come to think of it, SEI seems quite plausible too. Definitely V.I.s as one (or at least as portrayed in the statues) at the very least.

[rat1]

the statue looks like truck

[Animal]

I think he was logical and possibly rational... and that's all I've got. I'm leaning toward LSE.

There's the popular image of the Buddha, which is the serene, compassionate, unruffled being. (The reality is that most of the iconography of the Buddha is actually based on the Greek god Apollo; statues and images of the Buddha didn't really emerge for centuries after his death and only then when it came into contact with Greco-Roman culture.)

And then there's the Buddha that comes across when you actually sit down and read some of the early Buddhist texts, who comes across as a bit of a spiritual buzzkill, lol. The Buddha of the early texts is somewhat ornery, prescriptive, and very skilled at bursting people's bubbles. In contrast to the heightened and arcane mysticism that characterizes the Vedas and derivative works of Indian spirituality, the Buddha was more interested in a somewhat prosaic deconstruction of our existential plight. It's very un-romantic (and probably at odds with my own personality). I suspect, I would probably hate the guy if I met him in person, lol. But his philosophy, especially his model of human functioning, was undeniably pretty brilliant, even if his prescriptions of renunciation were sort of extreme.

The ethical teachings on compassion, serenity, nonviolence, etc. are actually not original to him; those are things that were already extant in Indian spirituality at the time, which he integrated into his own philosophy. His handling of the more heart-based topics relies very heavily on other people's ideas; he seems to have had a somewhat clumsy handle on the interpersonal realm. The part of Buddhism that seems to be original to the Buddha is his deconstructionism. If I were to choose the three important texts for understanding the guy, I'd pick:

Satipatthana Sutta: Foundations of Mindfulness (note the deconstruction of the body)
Upanisa Sutta: Transcending Suffering (the teaching of dependent co-arising, also called dependent origination)
Phena Sutta: Foam (deconstruction of the self)

^ They are not easy concepts to begin with, and made even more difficult by the formulaic nature of these ancient texts (they were very repetitive due to being transmitted orally for a few centuries), but you can see the tendency to pull everything apart into all its component parts, which seems to be indicative of .

[strangeling]

interesting. i was thinking ip and that sei was probably the best fit

Why? And/or how so?

[ashlesha]

Why? And/or how so?

it was sorta a casual/"ok that makes sense" conclusion based on a chatbox conversation (hopefully @labster and @Ath don't mind me posting it)
but after seeing @Animal's post -- he obviously knows what he's talking about.

ok - scratch the chatbox conversation because i tried copying the archive into notepad and then copying it here and it didn't work. but i salvaged this nugget. which ath can't delete now. haha. ha. ha.

Ath: btw I can definitely see Buddha as SEI. SEIs are good natured and spread the love and all that. DA-cog has that mysticism and propheticness and insight. Buddha would partner perfectly with Shang Tsung..

lol @Shang Tsung

[krieger]

when i suggested isfp i didn't put much thought into it and was partially confused by the equation of Budai with Saddharta Guatama; i get more of an INTj ish vibe from a quick glance at SG's wiki page due to his focus on personal discipline, the pursuit of virtue and the categorization of abstract substances like this:

Some of the fundamentals of the teachings attributed to Gautama Buddha are:
The Four Noble Truths: that suffering is an ingrained part of existence; that the origin of suffering is craving for sensuality, acquisition of identity, and annihilation; that suffering can be ended; and that following the Noble Eightfold Path is the means to accomplish this;
The Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration;
Dependent origination: the mind creates suffering as a natural product of a complex process;
Rejection of the infallibility of accepted scripture: Teachings should not be accepted unless they are borne out by our experience and are praised by the wise. See the Kalama Sutta for details;
Anicca (Sanskrit: anitya): That all things that come to be have an end;
Dukkha (Sanskrit: duḥkha): That nothing which comes to be is ultimately satisfying;
Anattā (Sanskrit: anātman): That nothing in the realm of experience can really be said to be "I" or "mine";
Nibbāna (Sanskrit: Nirvāna): It is possible for sentient beings to realize a dimension of awareness which is totally unconstructed and peaceful, and end all suffering due to the mind's interaction with the conditioned world.

[Absurd]

Anicca (Sanskrit: anitya): That all things that come to be have an end;

Smart Buddha.

Bible (1 Peter 4:7): Because everything will soon come to an end, be sensible and clear-headed, so you can pray.

i get more of an INTj ish vibe from a quick glance at SG's wiki page due to his focus on personal discipline, the pursuit of virtue and the categorization of abstract substances like this:

Sergei Ganin is INTj, too.

[Creepy-male]

Actually I think buddha is hard to type because the ideal is too far from the typical person -- but the backstory of buddha as far as I know is ripe with the concept of withdraw and asceticism (sp?) so that seems like it would be associated to e4,e5,e9. I can see SEI in terms of how Si works.... internalized sensory fields of perception.

Art like this is fairly revealing of how I visualize

[mikesilb]

Art like this is fairly revealing of how I visualize

I love Alex Grey's art! Always incredibly mind-blowing!

[strangeling]

it was sorta a casual/"ok that makes sense" conclusion based on a chatbox conversation (hopefully @labster and @Ath don't mind me posting it)
but after seeing @Animal's post -- he obviously knows what he's talking about.

ok - scratch the chatbox conversation because i tried copying the archive into notepad and then copying it here and it didn't work. but i salvaged this nugget. which ath can't delete now. haha. ha. ha.

Ath: btw I can definitely see Buddha as SEI. SEIs are good natured and spread the love and all that. DA-cog has that mysticism and propheticness and insight. Buddha would partner perfectly with Shang Tsung..

lol @Shang Tsung

Alright. I liked the idea of The Middle Way that he had. I wouldn't rule out ILI either that abstract an understanding of the world. His religion is very intuitive; a lot of the ideas can't be explicitly taught.

[consentingadult]

can he be typed? (ive seen jesus typed so i dont see why not)

Depends on which branch of Buddhism you're adhering to.

[necrosebud]

I think maybe ILI

His “teachings” have probably heavily evolved over… millennia, especially since he himself didn’t write anything down, others did… to take it as face value in representing his persona would not be ideal. His philosophy - and I don’t even know how much/if it’s entirely his own or a product of the context in which he existed bc there’s quite a bit to suggest that while I have been reading the pali cannon etc. to me hints at a careful man not quite so… without intention, simple as he might appear were you to take the words at face value; someone who is intentional, artful in his expression, in his philosophy and so on

[necrosebud]

my guess for ennea is 594, maybe SP/SX

[Sol]

> A dog is not considered a good dog because he is a good barker. A man is not considered a good man because he is a good talker.

If this was said by him indeed and not another fairytale gossip or distortion about the one who lived thousands years ago, then not distinguishing terms of swearing and talking gives a suspicion to problems in T.
Which, though, could be not from Jung type only. Mb it was a moment problem. Or from degeneration process in the brain due to a disorder or other factors.

The lack of data and its hard filtering makes as doubtful to suppose types of people who lived even 100 years ago, or for who we have no nonverbal data on a video.
Typing of such ones is similar to typing of movie personages. More a game, than a use.

We can't even be assured what that "Budha" thought himself compared to what his followers brought to now time and claim as his ideas.
The example of some fresher Christianity where to some Judaism believer was assigned ideas of his equality to God, borning from a bird and approval for worshiping him as to an idol. Then those who claim to be his followers do wars, tortures and social material segregation, despite Jesus clear said to be radically pacifistic and materially altruistic.
Why today Budhism would better fit to initial ideas of the one who claimed as its founder Budha? Religions are irrational approach and this predisposes their hard users to mindless distortions. Besides irrationality itself is common to be higher for people with psychiatry disorders and reduced intelligence, what especially attracts them to religions and which they may distort by own chaotic minds.

[necrosebud]

I am not sure the Buddha said all those things in the OP, since someone whose core philosophy is non-attachment and seems to approach Fi from a normative perspective (2D), to me seems probably unlikely (?) to be advocating for any sort of "love others, yourself" etc. etc. it almost seems to me he may have regarded this chain of thought as... maybe even besides the point, or not on 'a higher level' if you will

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you."

... complete non-attachment

on the other hand I wonder if something like this is more likely, at least in the philosophy it espouses more directly comes from him: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi....001.than.html

(I think I have read this a couple of times and I still don't get it haha; Samkhya apparently claims there is a "self" beyond any conception of it, certainly beyond the ego or "I" and assuming they are talking about something real, it still goes completely over my head bc I wouldn't even know how to 'experience' such a self if it exists; Buddha, although a product of the prevailing philosophies of his time, seems still more practical in his approach)

got the website from someone who already posted it before ^

so suttas like these might be slightly more illuminating wrt his type maybe? Ofc I am not sure what to attribute to him and what not but I guess I naturally assume, given his success in his own time, he must have had some sort of charisma and certain level of intellect to stand out from the likely crowd of philosophers/intellectuals of his time... in some way.

but yes I am speculating...

[InterPrizeWes]

INFJ - bridging and harmoniously mediating and centering with people and consciousness in a serious and psychic way, not so random or boundless or explosive like INTP.

[Chae]

"Should someone do good, let them do it again and again."


i'm going with EII-Fi or ESI at best, buddhism is built on the concept of interpersonal compassion and morality ()

buddha taught from the standpoint of an ethical type, looking at the inner turmoil of people and between them

beta is the quadra with the most dramatism, quarrel and hurt, hence buddha is likely to hail from the complete contrast, pacifist delta:

“The thing that is disliked by me is also disliked by others. Since I dislike this thing, how can I inflict it on someone else?”


LII is going to be the type of the majority of buddhist scribes/thinkers and the idea behind monasteries, then. with lots of -heavy personalities in prominent positions, SLI-Si is a monk incarnate, as is the blissful SEI


buddha's teachings boil down to not harming, exercising sympathy, suppressing impulsive emotions, e.g. anger (ignored , not seeking, which accepts nearly all expression as long as it is logically appropriate)

i think he was suggestive to , then:

“Better than a thousand useless words is one useful word, upon hearing which one attains peace.”


prince siddhartha gautama's biography — living in priviledge and then leaving high status, only much later realizing how pampered and powerful he was as a royal — shows his greatest blind spot, aka zero awareness of hierarchy and the oppressive powers that be, Se-Ti

which is precisely what INFj lacks, unlike your regular ego, such as putin (LSI) who is buddha's almost diametrical opposite if you think of it

in buddhist myth, the demon mara represents buddha's antagonist in such a way, symbolizing an intrusive ego putting up resistance/staging an attack:


"In Buddhism, Mara is the demon who assaulted Gautama Buddha beneath the bodhi tree, using violence, sensory pleasure and mockery in an attempt to prevent the Buddha from attaining enlightenment."

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

prince siddhartha gautama's biography — living in priviledge and then leaving high status, only much later realizing how pampered and powerful he was as a royal — shows his greatest blind spot, aka zero awareness of hierarchy and the oppressive powers that be, Se-Ti

I think that the version of the story I read said that his dad kept him sheltered. If gautama were our contemporary he'd probably be on the forum

[necrosebud]

"Should someone do good, let them do it again and again."


i'm going with EII-Fi or ESI at best, buddhism is built on the concept of interpersonal compassion and morality ()

buddha taught from the standpoint of an ethical type, looking at the inner turmoil of people and between them

beta is the quadra with the most dramatism, quarrel and hurt, hence buddha is likely to hail from the complete contrast, pacifist delta:

“The thing that is disliked by me is also disliked by others. Since I dislike this thing, how can I inflict it on someone else?”


LII is going to be the type of the majority of buddhist scribes/thinkers and the idea behind monasteries, then. with lots of -heavy personalities in prominent positions, SLI-Si is a monk incarnate, as is the blissful SEI


buddha's teachings boil down to not harming, exercising sympathy, suppressing impulsive emotions, e.g. anger (ignored , not seeking, which accepts nearly all expression as long as it is logically appropriate)

i think he was suggestive to , then:

“Better than a thousand useless words is one useful word, upon hearing which one attains peace.”


prince siddhartha gautama's biography — living in priviledge and then leaving high status, only much later realizing how pampered and powerful he was as a royal — shows his greatest blind spot, aka zero awareness of hierarchy and the oppressive powers that be, Se-Ti

which is precisely what INFj lacks, unlike your regular ego, such as putin (LSI) who is buddha's almost diametrical opposite if you think of it

in buddhist myth, the demon mara represents buddha's antagonist in such a way, symbolizing an intrusive ego putting up resistance/staging an attack:


"In Buddhism, Mara is the demon who assaulted Gautama Buddha beneath the bodhi tree, using violence, sensory pleasure and mockery in an attempt to prevent the Buddha from attaining enlightenment."

Just wondering - have you read “sayings of the Buddha” (pali cannon)?
https://www.amazon.com/Sayings-Buddh.../dp/019283925X

in what is is known as Hinduism today, there was already a certain basic metaphysical assumption and ethics that was assumed as it’s backbone a long time ago - Buddha’s approach to ethics seemed to be borrowing, on a very normative (2D) level (it’s really very simplified and ethics don’t seem to form the essence of his teachings). As for eliminating suffering, that’s all of Indian philosophy - and it had been that way possibly a long time before even Buddha was born, continues to this day.

he may have been personally interested maybe because he was suffering himself.

the essence of his teachings actually seems “non-attachment” (letting go of desire or being “bound” to worldly things); mindful contemplation in a way to reach that state - based on what I have read (long sayings) he seems to be using strong Ti, but at the same time is not excessively… he seems to be invested in his teachings in a practical sense; which is why I am leaning either LII or ILI at this point

but yeah I don’t think he was trying to teach ethics; he only ever mentions them so that people get the message they need to behave “well” but it’s very normative (“basic”); to me it occurs as ensuring basic moral functioning so it doesn’t interfere with the goal of enlightenment. He doesn’t seem to philosophize on ethics, does not expound in much depth on it, does not seem to play around with the idea.

[SaveYourself]

My thought is LII.

Post-Enlightenment Buddha represents his perfection as a human so he then is more difficult to type. But I think looking at him pre and post enlightenment gives some clues to typing.

His journey is that he was from a rich noble family and lived a sheltered life with pleasure palaces, which he was content with until he saw the realities of sickness, old age and death. So he was placated with a superficial Si+Fe and then confronted with the limits of that, and wanted to find the true end of suffering I.e. seeking a more substantial Si+Fe. His answer first came in the form of an ascetic holy man who seemed to have found peace by denying the need for physical comfort. Gotama found this temporarily satisfying but again it didn’t go far enough so he denied his need for Si comfort seeking until he became the most renowned ascetic subsisting on only a grain of rice a day.

However, this did nothing for him except make him ill. All the time he was doing this he was trying to understand reality, trying out different schools of thought and dropping them as they proved futile (Ne+Ti). Eventually, he remembers the one time he felt truly complete was not when he was denying his need for Si, nor when he was indulging in it to excess, but when he was seated beneath a tree just in perfect harmony with everything around him (again, si+fe seeking). Note that he doesn’t have this sense of harmony naturally, but is always looking for it, ruling out SEI imo. I interpret this as him seeking SiFe using NeTi methods.

He seeks to recreate this by meditating under a tree and refusing to move until he has found the answer. I like the interpretation above as Mara being his Se PoLR assaulting him with self-doubt, violence, desires etc. After relentless attacks from Mara, what allows Gotama to defeat him is by touching the ground and defending his right to be there, overcoming his PoLR and becoming an immovable object.

What follows is the Buddha being able to “see things as they really are”, which, based on his teachings, is founded in logical categorisation (lots of “if this, then that” sort of statements, as well as lists, categories and logical steps). Even his ethics isn’t based on relating to people on a purely emotional level, but from the wisdom of understanding reality. The ethical precepts aren’t there because they are nice things to do, but because they align your actions with a dharmic understanding of reality.

Finally he becomes Enlightened and self-dualises, finding the peace and understanding he has always been seeking. The last test is his decision to teach, because he initially doesn’t want to spread what he has learned but is asked to by a God. He surveys the world and sees the potential of all living beings to accept his message, and decides to go forward and teach, often adapting his teaching to the person he is speaking to so that they always get the right message for their level of readiness and understanding (fully gaining control over Fe).

[necrosebud]

idk if i get but very interesting

he's not the only person (who seems to have studied buddhism to some degree) to say the Buddha was focused on the practical implications of his teachings; that he did not philosophize for philosophy's sake (something I tend to find interesting initially but not... completely) which seems Te>Ti to me

[on a peaceful hiatus]

IEI

[necrosebud]

puts into perspective how far removed we are from the Buddha... things have changed so much over time

[Sol]

puts into perspective how far removed we are from the Buddha

The more important is how differs what is named today as ideas of "Buddha" from real his thoughts. There exist different interpretations in any long time religion, including for ideas related to "Buddha". While his initial ideas can be only supposed.
The other problem is how useful are today and his real thoughts for the life of people. Not only for something alike symptomatic meds, but in whole and for most important.

Interpretation which I know - the cult of "nothing". Is similar to what would be cult of death or of indifferent passiveness. Would be close to sedative drugs by the result. Useful to keep people in control.

To the problem of how doubtful can be used at now interpretation related to initial ideas and events. There are different branches in Christianity, since 1st centuries of its appearance. In 4th century were chosen 4 official texts among ~50 known. These 4 have several versions on today. These 4 even in "true" variants have inner contradictions and objectively known mistakes.
Today religious practice and ideology based on those 4 texts has contradictions to some their parts and contains evident fairytales (alike Jesus borned not from people).

For Budhism should be the same. As it's common mess for humanitarian ideas.

[necrosebud]

Interpretation which I know - the cult of "nothing". Is similar to what would be cult of death or of indifferent passiveness. Would be close to sedative drugs by the result. Useful to keep people in control.

I am not sure what you mean by the "cult of nothing" - do you mean the non-self? I have not heard about the cult of nothing with regards to the Buddha, but I have heard people who have studied Buddhism, state that there can be a misconception about Buddhism being nihilistic. I primarily refer to the pali cannon stuff wrt "how close is this to the original Buddha" since that is the oldest we still have access to.

I don't really think the abrahamic religions and others are necessarily the same. There might be similarities and I don't know all that much about religions in general. Buddha, especially his more consistent teaching such as non-attachment, doesn't really strike me as someone, or even Buddhism as it was originally intended for that matter, as wanting people to follow for the sake of it, as that would completely counterproductive to their goal of guiding people towards better insight into the self and so on.

The other problem is how useful are today and his real thoughts for the life of people. Not only for something alike symptomatic meds, but in whole and for most important.

Well you can read this I guess: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3679190/

BTW, "mindfulness" encompasses not just meditation but his basic ideas about how to achieve non-attachment; really I wonder if it might be at the core of buddhism.