Namu Butsu wrote:You are right and no offense is taken. I admire the buddhist around me. That is why I am contemplating taking it as a path. But I am trying to be patient. I have already went to a theravada temple, Zen, and Tibetan center. Though I am taking my time. I have also went to two Hindu temples. I want to make sure my path is the path for me. But I do understand. I just wanted to see I guess if the description of Ultimate Reality and God Realization was the same.
Sanghamitta wrote:I dont know if you ( or Christopher::: ) has actually spent much time with live Buddhists who practice, despite your name Namu Butsu And I am certainly not trying to offend, but I think if you do you will find them very uninterested in views and opinions...
Namu Butsu wrote:Namaste,
I didnt want this to turn into a debate. I just wanted to see if people understood the hindu concept which it still seems like they dont.
Sogyal Rinpoche and he said. . . .
But buddhist dont believe in the concept of God, because in many ways no matter how good theconcepts of God does not do justice to the absolute, all the concepts of God does not describe the nature of god.
Shantideva said the Absolute is beyond the mind.
Since God is beyond mind it is beyond concepts, it means empty, free open like the sky
Its not empty like a empty cup of tea, not like this you know what im saying It means free limitless, open, uncompouded, uncreated."
This is what the Hindus are saying. This also goes along with one of the Gathas that Thich Nhat Hanh was taught in his monastery in which you recite as you bathe. You recite "Unborn, Indestructable, beyond time and space, The transmitter and received are one in the Dharmadhatu" This is talking of the nature of reality and also how we are one with all that is because the Transmitter as Thich Nhat hanh explains that the Transmitter is the parents and the received are the offspring. They are one and the same. Anyways the Hindus talk about God as being Unborn Indestructable, beyond time and Space. He is one with us.
christopher::: wrote:Thank you all for your posts and responses. I had an excellent meditation this morning, very empty, very clear. I recognize that i am a bit intolerant with what i perceive to be the intolerant views of others. Unfortunately that creates a catch 22 situation where my own mind becomes intolerant and doesn't stop spinning...!
The Buddha's Dhamma is medicine for our minds, superior to anything else i've come across. I just tend to view other spiritual paths and ideas as medicine as well, something beneficial for NonBuddhists who do not know of the dhamma.
christopher::: wrote:They also teach that its very helpful to have some kind of faith in a Higher Power, though how this is viewed is up to the individual. It's my personal opinion that this kind of faith, path and community provides a refuge of sorts, and is indeed very helpful to many people.
"The one who has conquered himself is a far greater hero than he who has defeated a thousand times a thousand men."
christopher::: wrote:i am a bit intolerant with what i perceive to be the intolerant views of others.
Maybe this time around, Christopher, you might take some time and carefully address this msg in some detail.christopher::: wrote:Should Buddhists be tolerant and respectful of other religions? I say yes, for myself, but also recognize that to tolerate intolerance may also be important.
Of course one should be tolerant, but there are also limitations, and there are contexts. Right now in Wisconsin there is a trial going on were a man is being prosecuted for the death of his 11 yr old daughter who died from diabetes. Rather than seek medical help, he and his wife prayed for her. How far and in what way does tolerance extend?
Of theist Makkhali Gosala, the Buddha stated it would have better that he never been born because his religious beliefs were for the detriment of all humankind, in that Makkhali Gosala denied the efficacy of moral action (AN I.33). Is that intolerant of the Buddha, Christopher?
Is the Buddha intolerant when he says:
"If the pleasure and pain that beings feel are caused the creative act of
a Supreme God [Issara-nimmana-hetu], then the Niganthas [Jains] surely
must have been created by an evil Supreme God." MN II 222
How about here, is the Buddha intolerant:
"Again, monks, I [the Buddha] approached those ascetic and brahmins and said to them: 'Is it true, as they say, that you venerable ones teach and hold the view that whatever a person experiences...all that is caused by God's creation?' When they affirmed it, I said to them: 'If that is so, venerable sirs, then it is due to God's creation that people kill, steal ...[and otherwise act badly]. But those who have recourse to God's creation as the decisive factor, will lack the impulse and the effort doing this or not doing that. Since for them, really and truly, no (motive) obtains that this or that ought to be done or not be done...."' AN 3.61?
Are the suttas intolerant when we find them saying that God/Brahma state:
"God truthfully answers [the questions of the Buddha] in succession: 'Good sir, those views I previously held are not mine; I see the radiance the world of God as passing; how could I say that I am permanent and eternal?'" MN II 222? I am sure there are those theists who find this very offensive.
'As far as the suns and moons extend their courses and the regions of the sky shine in splendour, there is a thousandfold world system. In each single one of these there are a thousand suns, moons, Meru Mountains, four times a thousand continents and oceans, a thousand heavens of all stages of the realm of sense pleasure, a thousand Brahma worlds. As far as a thousandfold world system reaches in other words, the universe], the Great God is the highest being. But even the Great God is subject to coming-to-be and ceasing-to-be.' AN X 29?
And then there is this:
In Digha Nikaya 24 where the Buddha states:
"There are some ascetics and brahmins who declare as their doctrine that all things began with the creation by God, or Brahma."
And this singular god is characterized so:
"That Worshipful God, the Great God, the Omnipotent, the Omniscient, the Organizer, the Protection, the Creator, the Most Perfect Ruler, the Designer and Orderer, the Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be, He by Whom we were created, He is permanent, Constant, Eternal, Unchanging, and He will remain so for ever and ever."
which is a nice characterization of the brahmanical notion of the creator God one finds in the early Brahmanical and Ishvara literature, and it seems to fit for most every other creator God notion that has come down the pike.
The Buddha goes on in this discourse, using mythic language, to give a biting satirical re-telling of the creation myth of the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad making it quite clear that God is not quite what the absolute entity it imagines itself to be. It is not the creator, and we can see in this discourse by the Buddha and in other related ones that the idea of a single, absolute cause for the multiplicity of things, an infallible source of revealed knowledge that was different in kind from ordinary human knowledge, an unconditioned being that participates in any way in (even only as a witness to) the changes of human experience, and any kind of being that can interfere with the natural consequences of karma is rejected by the Buddha.
So, what is tolerance and what is intolerance? You really need to define tolerance here.
christopher::: wrote:In other words, that we take the instructions the Buddha gave and actually come to live by those instructions. In other words, practice trumps views, dharma practice (aka, how we think and live and behave) is most essential and views are important mostly in how they assist us in that way.
chicka-Dee wrote:When I went on retreat, I had the opportunity to speak privately and one-on-one with the ordained Buddhist nun who led the retreat. This is just what she told me. It's not just about sitting on a cushion, it's about our whole lives. What we do off the cushion is just as important. Applying what we learn is critical! Applying it to our everyday situations and happenings. It's like a wet behind the ears brand new college grad, fresh out of school with all sorts of book smarts who doesn't have an ounce of work experience. Who finds out in their first week on the job, that they've learned as much, or more, than they ever learned in the books! We can't just go around memorizing a bunch of text and teachings.. that'll get us nowhere if we don't try to apply what we've learned.
chicka-Dee wrote:And I should mention that it was a reeeaally good friend of mine who first taught me this.. he said something like, 'you can't find it by just reading books! you gotta learn through your own experience'.
Svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo,
The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One,
Sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko,
to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting all to come & see,
Opanayiko paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhīti.
leading inward, to be seen by the wise for themselves.
mikenz66 wrote:That much is clear enough. The much more difficult problem is what conditions and teachings are required to be able to see the Dhamma for oneself...
christopher::: wrote:What do I think of these quotes? First thing that popped out was that the Buddha seems to be presented in those pasages as one who did affirm the existence of God, which is kind of interesting.
Second is that we are hearing mythic stories that have come down across time, over 2,000 years. So i approach passages of this sort with hesitation. Did Buddha really say these things, did he talk with Brahman, with devas? Did he truly have powers of omniscience, meaning that he knew everything when it came to metaphysics, to mysteries such as the existance or nonexistance of Gods, or the origins of our Universe?
For me what is most important are not the metaphysical teachings of the Buddha,
but rather what he said about the nature of suffering, the path to become free from suffering. What he taught about how our minds work, that is the core dhamma that interests me.
Metaphysical explanations and views attributed to the Buddha I tend to put in a category marked "spiritual hypotheses"... I try to be respectful of such views, but am a bit skeptical about their authenticity.
I like the approach Thomas Jefferson took, with the New Testament. He copied out passages that he felt represented the true voice of Jesus and ignored the rest.
tiltbillings wrote:I like the approach Thomas Jefferson took, with the New Testament. He copied out passages that he felt represented the true voice of Jesus and ignored the rest.
Eisegesis, based upon what? Your own emotional predilections? Is that a reliable basis?
Since I'm not nearly enlightened enough to make such distinctions about the voice of Buddha, I tend to be skeptical (that he actually said these things) yet uncritical.
chicka-Dee wrote:And I should mention that it was a reeeaally good friend of mine who first taught me this.. he said something like, 'you can't find it by just reading books! you gotta learn through your own experience'. Pretty smart friend, I'd say! We're so lucky when we find friends like this.
chicka-Dee wrote:mikenz66 wrote:That much is clear enough. The much more difficult problem is what conditions and teachings are required to be able to see the Dhamma for oneself...
I mean this most sincerely, and it's not meant to be a smart-ass comment:
And it takes much courage, dedication, and perserverence. At least this is what I've heard. But really, it's up to each of us to find for ourselves. Within ourselves. That's all I really know.
I'm skeptical when i read certain things, that the Buddha actually said them. Such skepticism arises, and its not usually based on emotion.
But i also recognize that i'm not nearly enlightened enough to make such distinctions, so i try (not always successfully) to be as open-minded and uncritical as possible.
This is one reason, probably, that I have been most attracted to Zen Buddhism. If you read the writings of Seng Tsan, Shunryu Suzuki and others its emphasized frequently to keep an open mind and not become attached to views, even when those views are presented in Buddhist texts as "truths"...