How to become a perfect buddha

Left side created for WikiHow (15.4.2007)

Introduction The name ‘Buddha’ is derived from the nominalization of the past perfect participle (1) of the Sanskrit root verb ‘budh’, meaning: be awake or wakeful, regain consciousness; become aware of or acquainted with; notice, give heed to; possibly, perceive, understand learn, know, and so on. In short, if you’re awake, i.e. not asleep, in a coma or dead, you are a buddha. (2) If you are fully or perfectly (hence absolutely) (3) awake or conscious, then you are a full or perfect buddha, whereby the content, range and degree of your wakefulness or consciousness is not determined. For instance, Gautama Siddartha didn’t just claim to be a Buddha, He claimed to be the Perfect Buddha (4) (Pali: samma-sambudho), i.e. of suffering. 2500 years of hindsight and tinkering with the content of His ‘perfect’ awakening/consciousness of suffering has shown that His grasp of the fundamental function of suffering was pretty basic, indeed incomplete, indeed merely a highly personalised elaboration of the recently emerged (i.e. with the metaphysical speculation of the Upanishads) fashion of melancholy (in fact, self-indulgent Weltschmerz) and the means of its elimination (i.e. as in Samkhya Yoga), invented by wealthy, hence leisured cattle farmers and soldiers.(5)	1. Founders of religions love to replace their personal names with nominalised function, i.e. a past perfect (!) participle. That’s because the personalised function, rather than the person of the religious founder, can be universalised prior to being divinised. It was far easier to divinise the Buddha (i.e. the abstract notion of the function of awakening as universal process) rather than Siddartha Gautama, the wealthy dropout turned mendicant wanderer (i.e. sramana=striver). St Paul did for Christianity what Gautama did for Buddhism. He nominalised the Greek term chrestos, meaning ‘anointed’, to become Christ (and which is deliberately left un-translated in English Bibles). Divinising Christ (i.e. the anointed, i.e. the universal function of anointment) was a lot easier than divinising the Jewish rabbi Jesus, the more so Paul had, apparently, no personal knowledge of the Jesus or of the details of his life. 2. Since being awake (i.e. and which results from serial rather than 1-to 1 contact/connection, hence operates as analogue function) is highly active, it follows that a buddha cannot, when being a buddha, be in Nirvana at the same time. To reach Nirvana, a buddha has to come to absolute rest, and when he is either in a coma or dead. According to the generally accepted knowledge of Gautama’s time, when in dreamless sleep the sleeper attains the Atman (Pali: atta). 3. Absoluteness comes in two versions, namely the relative (i.e. locally absolute) and the absolute (non-localised absolute). Gautama obviously could not claim to be more than relatively (absolute) awakened in that he claimed full awakening only in relation to suffering. Questions that led beyond his particular area of expertise he met with stony silence or the rebuke, “Don’t ask or your head will fall off!”^1 3.1 … Gautama disclosed his wisdom on the ‘Need to know’ basis. That’s why he refused to answer 12 of the most important question about the fundamental nature of existence. He also stated, ‘Sariputta an Moggalana are awakened, but not like me!’ Probably the most serious deficiency in his understanding of (hence awakening to) suffering and the release therefrom was his uncritical acceptance of the wild speculation about the atman, rebirth (and samsara) and karma found in the Upanishads. His unwillingness to produce a clean definition of atta and nirvana may have been good for future business, but suggest the deviousness common to psychological manipulators. 4. Gautama’s claim to be a perfect Buddha (i.e. perfectly awakened in relation to suffering) was both true and false. As holder of the state of the art of knowing suffering he was perfect (i.e. complete) in relation to those with less knowledge and, perhaps, in relation to his time. Hindsight has shown that his understanding of suffering was both superficial and incomplete and constructed upon a set of dubious premises emerging from the wild speculation of the Upanishads (see: 3.1) 5. The Upanishads, from which Gautama got most of his knowledge, emerged in the village rather than in urban spaces (where, later on, the Buddha preached his sermons). The creators of the Upanishads appear to have been wealthy cattle farmers. The questions appear to have been put by Kashtryas, (i.e. members of the military caste (like Gautama).
Step 1 Wake up, i.e. become conscious (of a particular focus or all foci, e.g. a knower of the known (2)). You are now a buddha, albeit imperfect.(3)	1. Obviously waking up (i.e. extending the range of inner or outer perception/vision) a bit helps survival 2. @ perfect (i.e. 100%) concentration, hence when all capacity that might allow relative processing has been used up, the knower and the known are experienced as (i.e. appear to merge ‘as 1’. That’s because only the known is being processed and a backdrop, i.e. an ‘other’ does not exist. Clever Yogis early figured out this neat little trick. 3. To be a buddha means simply to be awakened, the degree of awakening not being specified. In short, being half awakened means being a half buddha, wholly awakened means being a whole, hence perfect buddha.
Step 2 Increase you wakefulness to your limit (1), thereby making your wakefulness relatively perfect, i.e. done, complete whole and so on.(2) You are now a relatively perfect (i.e. complete) Buddha (i.e. absolutely (i.e. perfectly) wakeful in relation to your particular focus or all foci). (3)	1. The limit is arbitrary, both as to shape (i.e. field content) and extension. 2. Once you’ve reached your limit, i.e. once all processing capacity is used up, the limit is experienced as perfect (i.e. complete and whole). 3. Since the limit you have set yourself is arbitrary, it is relative. However, since your limit actually limits you wholly, the limit is (self-) experienced as absolute when you reach it. It’s this simple trick (i.e. ‘set an achievable limit and then achieve it wholly’) that is used by Yogis and Buddhist bhikkus to create the illusion, albeit experienced by them as real, of the experience of the absolute. That a relative absolute is not absolute, merely self-absolute, was fully explained by Gödel.
Step 3 Expand your wakefulness limit (i.e. your consciousness bandwidth) to infinity (1) thus eliminating all limits. When your wakefulness happens without limit it has become absolutely perfect, done, full, complete and so on. You are now an absolutely Perfect Buddha (i.e. in relation to a particular focus or all foci).	1. The infinity is hard to think but easy to imagine. Imagining (i.e. faking) infinity and then make it self-real, i.e. via 100% concentration, is relatively easy to do. Yogis and the mystically intoxicated spiritual do it all the time. The self-affect of experiencing the absolute (i.e. perfection) is absolutely real, even if the absolute (i.e. the goal achieved @100%) itself is a fake.
Tips & Tricks Proceed very slowly and discretely to gain a clear and rational grasp of the steps.(1) Read the well-hidden small print of the foundational Buddhist sutras very slowly to uncover the glitches. Keep your wits about you.(2)	1. To grasp the relevance and significance of the 3 steps, they need to be read very slowly. If the coin does not drop immediately, sleep on it. 2. Caveat emptor
Warnings Be wary of ‘Awakening’ (i.e. Buddhist) cult officials who get their kicks from, or make a living at passing off archaic know-how and praxis as cure-all. (1) The stated purpose of Buddhist awakeing and praxis, Hinayana, Mahayana and Tantrayana, is to shut down the urge to (i.e. the desire for) life, i.e. of the one you’ve got and any future ones you might get. (2) Becoming a perfect Buddha, i.e. becoming totally aware of everything in your field (or all fields) of consciousness, i.e. from start-up (i.e. birth) to shut down (i.e. death), is a mixed blessing.(3) There are some things you really don’t want to know, that is, if you want to live out your life in happiness.	1. It is vital to read the foundational sutras of Buddhism without the help and guidance of a Buddhist cult official, bhikku or lama. Read what is actually there. Then carefully consider what you’ve read and decide whether or not the text makes internal sense with regard to modern science, logic, your personal life experience and so on. 2. The Upanishads invented a new fashion, i.e. a new way of dropping out, and with a new rationale to match (to wit, revert to the Atman=Brahman). The new ‘superior’ man was the sramana, i.e. the do-it-yourself world (and re-birth-re-death) renouncer. Prior to the era of the Upanishads, the Brahmanas (i.e. the Brahmin priests) had performed the sacrificial and magic rites. Now a new route, hence a new freedom had been opened up for the disgruntled and melancholic of the leisured farming or military class. The stated goal of Gautama, several hundred years later, was to end (the mundane) life once and for all (re-births, better, re-deaths). In short, Gautama proposed, with Mahavira et al, that the purpose of life, i.e. the life of the noble homeless one, was to end life (since the melancholic (possibly midlife-crisis victim) experienced life only as sorrowful). Whether or not life is per se sorrowful (or, as the Upanishads state, “This world is completely overtaken by death, completely in the power of death”, “This world is food for death …” and “ … this world is nothing but forms of death”, hence to be ended) is for you to decide. 3. Before embarking on the career of becoming a perfect Buddha, it might be useful to work out the cost benefit relationship, i.e. to decide if the bird in hand (i.e. your life with its ups and downs, though an awesome miracle if you stand back and observe it) is of greater profit to you than the mythical birds in the bush of the other-life (in Gautama’s dispensation, meaning: the bliss (maybe?) of atta).