"Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

"Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Postby Cafael Dust » Sat Dec 26, 2009 1:41 pm

There is no personal God in Islam, Christianity, Judaism or Hinduism. To extrapolate one through exegesis is a misreading, to argue against the above religions because they have a personal God is a straw man argument.

Islamic theology makes a distinction between the attributes of God and the divine essence.[16]
Furthermore, it is one of the fundamentals in Islam that God exists without a place and has no resemblance to his creations. For instance, God is not a body and there is nothing like him. In the Quran it says what mean "Nothing is like him in anyway,"


From Wikipedia

In Buddhism, I would say that the Abrahamic concept of dwelling with God is equivalent to Nibbana. Meditation is a prayer of silence. The fruit of the tree of knowledge is life in a mind led existence of distinctions and preferences. In all the religions there are people who practice more mythological and less practical versions, Buddhism included. Buddhism simply seems to have less of this, partly because it arose and has flourished in more analytical cultures; ancient India was a place where religious debate was perhaps encouraged more than in the desert tribes of the near east.
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.
Cafael Dust
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:06 pm

Cafael Dust wrote:
In Buddhism, I would say that the Abrahamic concept of dwelling with God is equivalent to Nibbana.

What could that possibly mean without having to contort one to fit the other?
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19409
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Postby Fede » Sat Dec 26, 2009 4:18 pm

Ok, laying everything aside for a moment, you are experiencing an emotional attachment which is creating suffering.
Why?
because you are of the opinion that the only way you can be with this woman is to agree to believe in a God, and more importantly, adhere to the Moslem faith, without compromising your Buddhist roots.

Sorry chum.
you can't have it both ways.

If you progress with your attachment to this girl, and cement your relationship, her family will not only expect and demand you convert to Islam, but that you cease practising or even thinking about Buddhism.
They will also expect you to adopt Islam as your sole religion, and that will mean devoting yourself to Allah.
It's all very well, Chownah, stating that 'Buddhist', Muslim', or even 'Jew', Christian', 'Hindu' or Sikh' are mere labels.
You know that, I know that.
Most people following these religions see it as part of their identity, and to Moslems, it's the only identity to have, because everything else makes you a heathen and an infidel.

Your question really should be:
"Should I pursue this relationship, knowing it will mean an end to my Buddhist calling, if it progresses to a serious relationship?"
because I suspect that this is really what you're asking.

And only you can answer that one, ravi2.....
"Samsara: The human condition's heartbreaking inability to sustain contentment." Elizabeth Gilbert, 'Eat, Pray, Love'.

Simplify: 17 into 1 WILL go: Mindfulness!

Quieta movere magna merces videbatur. (Sallust, c.86-c.35 BC)
Translation: Just to stir things up seemed a good reward in itself. ;)

I am sooooo happy - How on earth could I be otherwise?! :D


http://www.armchairadvice.co.uk/relationships/forum/
User avatar
Fede
 
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: The Heart of this "Green & Pleasant Land"...

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Postby Cafael Dust » Sat Dec 26, 2009 4:31 pm

Buddha nature = Quakers' inner light

Holy spirit = mana = qi = prana = orgone

Sin = karma

'Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do' = 'they are ignorant of their self nature'

Loving kindness = agape

Devil = Mara

Wu Wei = mindfulness

I could go on for days.

To me there's no contortion. Religions weren't just made up, there really is nibbana and people through time have written about it in different ways. To not see this you have to be trying, on some level, to avoid doing so, IMHO, because to me, it's the opposite of what you say about contorting definitions. It seems to me that one has to really work hard at nit-picking and contorting to come away with the conclusion that religions are different.

Often I've heard Buddhists explain why Buddhism isn't any other religion by using contrasts that are much finer and more peripheral than the differences between one Buddhist sect and another, but these gaps will be wedged and split using mind-led rhetoric, because the Buddhist in question wants to believe he or she has a garden of the greenest possible grass. I would suggest that we stop contrasting our gardens with those of others - just sit on the lawn, under that Bodhi tree, and distinctions will evaporate.

That said, the one thing Buddhism has that the others ('cept Taoism, of course. And Hinduism. And Jain. And the Sikhs. And some of those Greek fellows. Suffis? Just those ones though. Probably) don't is meditation, which for me is following the breath. Edit: apologies, of course Christians have the 'Prayer of Silence'.

The Zen Teachings of Huang Po gives a detailed description of the one mind, which can be argued is the essence of a God.
The Master said to me: All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists
This Mind, which is without beginning, is unborn and indestructible.
It is not green nor yellow, and has neither form nor appearance.
It does not belong to the categories of things which exist or do not exist, nor can it be tought of in terms of new or old.
It is neither long nor short, big nor small, for it transcends all limits, measures, names, traces, and comparisons.
It is that which you see before you — begin to reason about it and you at once fall into error.
It is like the boundless void which cannot be fathomed or measured.
The One Mind alone is the Buddha, and there is no distinction between the Buddha and the sentient things, but that sentient beings are attached to forms and so seek externally for Buddhahood.
By their very seeking they lose it, for that is using the Buddha to seek for the Buddha and using mind to grasp Mind.
Even though they do their utmost for a full eon, they will not be able to attain to it.
They do not know that, if they put a stop to conceptual thought and forget their anxiety, the Buddha will appear before them, for this Mind is the Buddha and the Buddha is all living beings.
It is not the less for being manifested in ordinary beings, nor is it greater for being manifested in the Buddhas.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Bud ... on_of_mind

This view has been developed further in Hasidic and anti-nomian circles, however. Kabbalah teaches that in order to create the physical universe, God "withdrew" His light, and created the universe within the space from which "He" contracted ("Tzimtzum"). It is taught in the Zohar that God, at the beginning of creation, shattered the כלים ("kaylim" or "vessels") of the ספירות ("sephiroth") scattering their fragments throughout the universe. (Controversial physicist-theologian Gerald Schroeder makes a correlation between this view and Big Bang theory in Genesis & The Big Bang.) The sephiroth — represented by the so-called עץ חיים ("Etz Hayim" or "Tree of Life") — are different vessels embodying various emanations of God's being. God shattered the vessels to hide His unity, allowing creation to seem separate.
With this in mind, the Kabbalist Isaac Luria, explained that all creation contained ניצוץ ("nitzutz" or "holy sparks") — the remnants and shards of the sephiroth/kaylim which God had shattered — and offered a theological purpose known as תיקון עולם ("Tikkun Olam" or "rectifying the world") which states that humanity's duty is to recognize the holy sparks inherent in all creation and to elevate them by performing מצוות ("mitzvot"), otherwise regarded as the fulfilment of Biblical obligations. Ultimately, this will reveal God's unity once again, but this time through our efforts. This work to perfect the world is the ultimate good that God bestows on mankind. This view gave rise to the concept of panentheism in Judaism: The notion that God is inherent in all things, and is corroborated by the Jewish principle בצלם אלוהים ("b'tzelem Elohim" or "in the image of God"), inferring that all humanity is created with God inherent. The concept derives from Genesis 9:6 (serving as a Biblical proof-text for the position), "For in the image of God He made man." Thus, suggested Luria, by doing mitzvoth directed towards our fellow human being, we recognize the nitzutz within them, and thus sanctify and elevate their inherent Godliness.
This notion is exemplified rather well by a Jewish nursery school song
Hashem is here, Hashem is there, Hashem is truly everywhere. Up, up, down, down, right, left, and all around. Here, there, and everywhere, is where He can be found.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalisti ... ion_of_God

One of master Gasan's monks visited the university in Tokyo. When he returned, he asked the master if he had ever read the Christian Bible. “No,” Gasan replied, “please read some of it to me.”


The monk opened the Bible to the Sermon on the Mount in St. Matthew, and began reading. After reading Christ's words about the lilies in the field, he paused. Master Gasan was silent for a long time. “Yes,” he finally said, “whoever uttered these words is an enlightened being. What you have read to me is the essence of everything I have been trying to teach you here!”


Consider the lilies of the field,
how they grow;
They toil not, neither do they spin;
And yet I say unto you,
that even Solomon in all his glory
was not arrayed like one of these.


http://www.heartlandsangha.org/lilies.html
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.
Cafael Dust
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Postby Cittasanto » Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:15 pm

hi Cafael Dust & Fede
Sorry Cadael but what there is relevant to the Theravada? or Islam? and most of that list misrepresents the actual meanings and use of the term.

Fede :goodpost:
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5743
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Postby Cafael Dust » Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:16 pm

I can go on with elements of Islam and Theravada if you like. If you're going to say that the terms don't refer to the same phenomena you have to explain how they differ, not just assert that they differ.

Also, while I'm sure you can find written definitions that explain doctrinally the existence of some hair's breadth distance between, say Buddha Nature, Enlightened being and Inner Light, I reserve the right to continue perceiving that in terms of real experience, people using different landmarks have passed along the same roads.
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.
Cafael Dust
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Postby cooran » Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:34 pm

What has Comparative Religions to do with the General Theravada discussion forum?
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
cooran
 
Posts: 7530
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Postby Cittasanto » Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:17 pm

hi Cafael & Chris

Chris wrote:What has Comparative Religions to do with the General Theravada discussion forum?


I have no Idea!

Cafael Dust wrote:I can go on with elements of Islam and Theravada if you like. If you're going to say that the terms don't refer to the same phenomena you have to explain how they differ, not just assert that they differ.

ok, but not very relevant to this thread which is why I asked what the relevance to Theravada and Islam is and no more earlier.
Buddha nature = internally hidden immortal potency or element within the purest depths of the mindstream, present in all sentient beings, for awakening and becoming a Buddha.
Quakers' inner light = generally refers to God's presence within a person, and to a direct personal experience of God, although it is difficult to define as it has individual meaning to each quaker.
neither term is related to Theravada or Islam.

Holy spirit = mana = qi = prana = orgone - the holy spirit is not a life force.

Sin = karma - kamma is intentional action which can refer to any of the four types of actions, so not comparable.

'Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do' = this is actually refering to Kamma more than the line you use
'they are ignorant of their self nature' - Anatta no-self/not-self this is also why buddha nature is not accepted in Theravada.

Loving kindness = agape - agape isn't a muslim word and isn't neccesarily a christian word or carrying any meaning other than love although it has been used as such.

Devil = Mara - mara isn't the devil! the two are distinctly different in both the myths and what the word mean, mara being the lord of death something not attributed to the devil.

Wu Wei = without action
mindfulness = recollection of ones duties
both literally defined/translated. and besides that Wu Wei is a taoist concept, also taken on by Chan, a Mahayana form of Buddhism.

Also, while I'm sure you can find written definitions that explain doctrinally the existence of some hair's breadth distance between, say Buddha Nature, Enlightened being and Inner Light, I reserve the right to continue perceiving that in terms of real experience, people using different landmarks have passed along the same roads.

I am actually talking about the relevance here in this thread! started by a Theravadan Buddhist, in the Modern Theravada Discussion sub-forum in regard to converting to Islam from Theravada Buddhism and if it would compromise the practice/practicing of Theravada, be acceptable to all concerned etc.
You may say that Islam in this sub-forum is out of place then! but no it isn't in this context as it is about converting to Islam but still practising Theravadan Buddhism in some way.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5743
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Postby Cafael Dust » Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:17 pm

Manapa:

I disagree with your definitions, especially:

mindfulness = recollection of ones duties , which is entirely incorrect in my view.

but I do seem to have a habit of digressing from a thread's purpose, so I'll cease and desist.

I guess I'd say to the thread's author that sometimes people want you to identify with x or y for various reasons, one of which is romantic love. If you want to do so in order to marry someone, to fit into their world, well, I'd say it's a question of how much you need to do so, and what you feel is right action.

But I will say that labels in Buddhism are as insignificant as dust on the wind. That's fundamental to Buddhism, and in that I'm a fundamentalist. Calling oneself a Muslim cannot prevent one from practicing Buddhism, and a Muslim can be enlightened as easily as anyone else.

To answer your second post, yes, I think you can practice both religions honestly, but our words here won't make that possible; you have to understand for yourself the truth behind the forms.
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.
Cafael Dust
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Postby Ben » Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:48 pm

Hi Cafael Dust,

Cafael Dust wrote:a Muslim can be enlightened as easily as anyone else.


No they can't. Not unless they are released from personality view (belief in a soul) and belief in a creator god. That is not to say a Muslim cannot practice sila, samadhi and panna and be eventually released from these forms of wrong view.
kind regards

Ben
"One cannot step twice into the same river, nor can one grasp any mortal substance in a stable condition, but it scatters and again gathers; it forms and dissolves, and approaches and departs."

- Hereclitus


Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR
Buddhist Life Stories of Australia

e: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com
User avatar
Ben
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16074
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Land of the sleeping gods

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Postby Cafael Dust » Sun Dec 27, 2009 1:12 am

Ah, but you're assuming that a Muslim interprets his religion in a way that causes him to believe in souls and a creator God. For instance, I believe in the soul and in God, but that's because I recognise them as correlates of experience; therefore I suppose I don't really believe, but know.

As to how I define these things in a Buddhist sense: the soul is nibbana. Nibbana is dwelling in God's presence.

Essentially, there is nothing but nibbana, only beginningless ignorance, not itself an element, not itself real, keeps us in samsara. Don't ask me to speculate on the beginnings of ignorance (something I've spent fruitless hours wondering about in the past): the Buddha himself explained:

"Suppose a man is struck by a poisoned arrow and the doctor wishes to take out the arrow immediately. Suppose the man does not want the arrow removed until he knows who shot it, his age, his parents, and why he shot it. What would happen? If he were to wait until all these questions have been answered, the man might die first."

(from the Arrow Sutra)

p.s. Jihad is the practice of ending ignorance. I think the Muslim faith contains much that is beautiful, by the way, though like other faiths, not everyone who practices it is the best example of said beauty. As-Salāmu `Alaykum :smile: .
Last edited by Cafael Dust on Sun Dec 27, 2009 1:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.
Cafael Dust
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Dec 27, 2009 1:16 am

Cafael Dust wrote:Buddha nature = Quakers' inner light

Holy spirit = mana = qi = prana = orgone

Sin = karma

'Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do' = 'they are ignorant of their self nature'

Loving kindness = agape

Devil = Mara

Wu Wei = mindfulness

I could go on for days.

To me there's no contortion.

You are taking all sorts of things out of context.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19409
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Postby Cafael Dust » Sun Dec 27, 2009 1:26 am

I correlate what I read with my own experience. That's all. I experienced Buddhist ideas before I read the sutras, and they described what I experienced and helped me on the path, but I didn't start with them, I started by living. We all experience Buddhist concepts in our lives, and I can describe them in the language of other religions, of psychology, poetry, I can describe them in metaphor, with pictures, autumn leaves falling, waves rising and embracing ocean. They're right here, not 'somewhere else', not in some metaphysical place.

But when the mind is still there are no definitions. Is it raining outside?

Another monk asked, "In the Pure Consciousness school they say that when you reach the eighth level you can take away ignorance. But the Tiendai school says you can't get rid of ignorance until you become Buddha."

Zen Master Seung Sahn said, "In the Heart Sutra it says the five skandas are empty. Do you understand that? What is the eighth consciousness?"

"Buddha said when the eighth level is reached that is the Bodhisattva level..."

"Buddha speech is all lies. The sixth patriarch said, 'Originally nothing.' Do you have something? Please show me."

"Two different schools pointing at two different things. How should I apply this teaching to my practice?"

"So, I say to you, when Buddha died he said, 'My whole life I never spoke one word.' That is a very important point. All sutra teaching is like children's cookies and toys. Do you like cookies? Then reading sutras is no problem."

"There is a monk from Singapore who came here and preached about two schools. This monk said we must use Buddha's speech to be our guideline."

"I don't like Buddha's speech. I like your true speech." (laughter)

The monk started to speak, then became confused, turned red and then smiled.

Zen Master Seung Sahn said, "That's OK. Enough. More questions?"

A monk asked, "Does the Pure Land exist or not?"

Zen Master Seung Sahn said, "Outside, it is raining."


http://www.kwanumzen.org/primarypoint/v ... ining.html
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.
Cafael Dust
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Postby Cafael Dust » Sun Dec 27, 2009 1:41 am

Jesus showed us something so very important when he criticised the Pharisees. Buddha showed us too, when he admonished the Brahmins. The new testament explains:

Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency [is] of God; who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 2 Cor. 3:6.


Think about that when next time you set doctrine upon doctrine as if words could ever tesselate together and become perfect. Nibbana is life, it's the spirit of the law, not the letter.
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.
Cafael Dust
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Dec 27, 2009 1:45 am

Cafael Dust wrote:I correlate what I read with my own experience.

So do I; however, I see a lot of Mahayana stuff here, but little to no Theravada, and, again, I see nothing convincing in your claims.

I can describe them in the language of other religions,
And in the process, taking things out of context. If that speaks to you, fine.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19409
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Postby Cittasanto » Sun Dec 27, 2009 1:47 am

Whare does the buddha talk about the soul in such a way or say heaven is nibbana?

maybe a split topic is in order?
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5743
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Postby Cafael Dust » Sun Dec 27, 2009 2:22 am

You're doing it again! The most important thing in this thread seems to be making distinctions.

Manapa:

Whare does the buddha talk about the soul in such a way or say heaven is nibbana?


The Buddha regarded soul-speculation as useless and illusory. He once said, 'Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and self-existing entities. Their heart still clings to Self. They are anxious about heaven and they seek the pleasure of Self in heaven. Thus they cannot see the bliss of righteousness and the immortality of truth.' Selfish ideas appear in man's mind due to his conception of Self and craving for existence.

Anatta: The Teaching of No-Soul

The Buddha countered all soul-theory and soul-speculation with His Anatta doctrine. Anatta is translated under various labels: No-soul, No-self, egolessness, and soullessness.

To understand the Anatta doctrine, one must understand that the eternal soul theory _ 'I have a soul' _ and the material theory _ 'I have no soul' _are both obstacles to self-realization or salvation. They arise from the misconception 'I AM'. Hence, to understand the Anatta doctrine, one must not cling to any opinion or views on soul-theory; rather, one must try to see things objectively as they are and without any mental projections.

http://www.purifymind.com/EternalSoul.htm

As to heaven, yes, you can say that in most religions heaven is a place with angels and harps etc etc etc, but that's just imagery. It's also defined more fundamentally as a place free of sin.

"Nibbāna" is a Pāli word that means "blowing out" — that is, blowing out the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana

Tiltbillings:

Out of context... who owns the context? Monks, priests, poets, scholars, governments, foundations, laity... there are so many claims on context I begin to lose track.
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.
Cafael Dust
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Postby pink_trike » Sun Dec 27, 2009 2:31 am

Cafael Dust wrote:But I will say that labels in Buddhism are as insignificant as dust on the wind. That's fundamental to Buddhism, and in that I'm a fundamentalist. Calling oneself a Muslim cannot prevent one from practicing Buddhism, and a Muslim can be enlightened as easily as anyone else.

I'm sure the above likely rattled some cages and caused passions to flare for some here, but I (mostly) agree. Buddhism didn't invent "enlightenment" and doesn't have a copyright on it - the path to enlightenment is Open Source code, though its important for many Buddhists to believe that only Buddhism has access to that code - for various egocentric reasons. There's something very attractive and very sticky about believing that one's own practice and view is really truly "the only, only way...therefore, we must be pretty special to have found this golden needle in a mountainous haystack - because what are the odds of finding the only, only way? Its interesting to me that only believers in the golden needle approach believe the golden needle is the only way...a bit of a closed loop. "Its the only way, because...I believe its the only way, and other believers believe its the only way, and there's old writings by believers that say its the only way, therefore it is the only way". So there. Its an odd, archaic logic pattern found among a small group of believers in all religions - a leftover from when each path stewed in their own cup of tea isolated from the rest of the world. Of course, if one has drawn such narrow cherishing lines within one's own practice and view, then the likelihood of understanding other complex and subtle paths deep enough to realize their "enlightenment" potential would be pretty slim - which creates another closed, belief-based logic loop. If one doesn't recognize the elements of one's own "golden needle" path as ultimately empty conceptual devises designed solely to provoke clarity then these conceptual tools become blinders that binds the mind to "this, not that" beliefs - which dissolves the effectiveness of the conceptual devises like a pile of sugar in the rain.

I once, a very long time ago, asked one of my traditional (Eastern) teachers if enlightenment was limited to Buddhists. He had a good laugh and said "NO!".

Imo, although Muslims (and other paths) can en-light-en, they can't as "easily" en-light-en as those that practice the Dharma. The practices and the core teachings (after giving the teachings a rousing weedwacking) are a very direct, no-nonsense, no froth path that enables us to effectively and efficiently refine our perceptions so that we can wake up to the nature of the phenomenal world - which is all "enlightenment" is. Many paths reveal the phenomenal world, but the Dharma is the lollapalooza of them all.
Last edited by pink_trike on Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:06 am, edited 3 times in total.
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
User avatar
pink_trike
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Postby Cafael Dust » Sun Dec 27, 2009 2:40 am

Good post, Jechbi.

It's all about love (great film that).

I like your post too, Pink Trike.

I read The Pali Canon because it's well written and helpful.

I have however considered the matter like this:

Buddhists are especially ignorant to need such a well written, concise, essentially idiot proof guide to enlightenment. Taoists manage to get enlightened from reading a poem. They're clearly not the idiots we are :tongue: .

Now I'm not saying that's necessarily the case, but I actually use it as an exercise in my practice, whenever I start getting big headed about being a Buddhist.
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.
Cafael Dust
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Postby Cittasanto » Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:02 am

Hi Cafael
quoting what someone else says about anatta isn't an answer and doesn't answer the question! where does the Buddha talk about the soul in such a way?

Nibbana is not a place it is not described as heaven and the heavens are described.

and the context, I hope a black cat crosses your path can be taken in two different ways as a blessing or a curse depending on the local tradition, say it in the wrong context and you could end up lynch mobbed. say rat here you could end up with two black eyes, or a dead arm/leg or not, depending on who you say it to and the area they are from, spill salt in a kitchen and you could get literally thrown out head first depending on the chef, but do it in a home and it is doubtful to happen. this is a theravada forum with people from all over the world visiting who wont necessarily understand your context, the forms of expressions in china and japan wont necessarily be understood in the same manner in another asian country let alone the west in a forum of a tradition which doesn't use such expressions to that extent! or is the finger loosing the staring competition yet?
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5743
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Next

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests