"Luminous mind" was Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by Cittasanto »

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

maybe a split topic is in order?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Cafael Dust
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by Cafael Dust »

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.
User avatar
pink_trike
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
Contact:

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by pink_trike »

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.
Cafael Dust
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by Cafael Dust »

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.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by Cittasanto »

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?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by tiltbillings »

Cafael Dust wrote:
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.
"I begin to lose track." So I noticed. Basically, you are giving us a make-it-up-as-you-go-along sort of thing. If it works for you, fine.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Cafael Dust
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by Cafael Dust »

Now that was underhand, but good marksmanship.

I'm not making it up as I go along. My definitions may not be yours but I do read stuff. I'm also basing a lot on what I experience - I mean I have the luxury of being able to say to myself 'yeah, I know what you're talking about' when I read spiritual texts. And yes, about the odder things like Chi and different bodies and so on too. That doesn't really help with arguments though, which can be a bit frustrating; experience is not 'proof'. Hopefully I'll become more eloquent later on :tongue: .

My point about context is that words don't just get defined by other words and opinions of words in some vast hypertext reaching all through time and space. They sometimes refer to real things too.
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?

Post by Cafael Dust »

Oh all right, Manapa, a state free of sin. Talk about splitting hairs.
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?

Post by Cafael Dust »

Ok, here you go, this says it better than prose, as well as I can say it at any rate. I'm off to bed now, but this has been fun, so merry Christmas and I'll see you all later.

no-doctrine

I tell you to think of onion skins furling
or rainforests like faces. I tell you the heads of pins
swarm with angels, and we are everything
that is neither metal nor Elohim. I tell you the jewel of the dance
is a pearl that everyone is running on
and one must not slip.

You ask what is life’s substance, its shape? I say
quicksilver or sand, labyrinth or symphony.
This tapestry tangles smooth, weaves past anew
as present glances by. Storm and eye
or not I and form no new words please

for what we cannot describe;
such words labour breath into barbed wire.

I cannot hear myself,
I will not listen, I do not desire to grasp the philosopher’s stone
or the unifying theory of hearts.

I must take these words to the river;
the water will make them its own.
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: "Luminous, monks, is the mind."

Post by Cittasanto »

here are some thoughts on context had a look at my thesasaurus and thing the order is interesting and relevant in my interpretation atleast, although the order is going to be accidental.
we have to get what we mean across but at the same time this needs to be understood by others, or glaiket ken.

setting, where we are when using words
background, what it is referring to
circumstances, what we are replying to
milieu, what the words mean to us
situation, who we are with
environment what the words mean to others
framework, how the wording is put
perspective, our experiance or viewpoint
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by tiltbillings »

Cafael Dust wrote:I'm not making it up as I go along.
Okay, not making it up, but conflating things based upon what?
My definitions may not be yours but I do read stuff. I'm also basing a lot on what I experience -
I have read a lot and experienced a lot over the last 60+ years. An appeal to experience does not necessarily carry much weight.

When you state: Buddha nature = Quakers' inner light, I know what Tsongkapa mean by tathagatagarbha and I know what Tiantai means by Buddha-nature and what Dogen means by Buddha-nature, also I know how Quaker writings talk about the inner light, but I have no idea as to what you mean by these terms, and if what you mean has no relationship to how these terms are traditionally used by the traditions that developed them, it would be hard to say your questionable equation has any meaning.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Cafael Dust
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by Cafael Dust »

Well, Tiltbillings, one reason I mention Quakers is that on a philosophy forum I participated in debates with a practicing Quaker and found that we agreed on every point of spirituality, though our vocabulary was different. For this reason, a great number of Quakers practice meditation.

http://apprising.org/2008/08/25/contemp ... e-quakers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Check out this article for a rather nasty attack on Quakers for being too much like Buddhists.
In silence [meditation] which is active, the Inner Light [supposedly God] begins to grow ¬ a tiny spark. For the flame to be kindled and to grow, subtle argument and the clamor of our emotions must be stilled. It is by an attention full of love that we enable the Inner Light to blaze and illuminate our dwelling and to make of our whole being a source from which this Light may shine out.
Quote taken from a Quaker website itself quoted in the article linked to above.

So for Christians they're too Buddhist, for Buddhists they're too Christian.

P.S. all arguments aside, the guy who writes this article is as mad as a hatter.
Not twice, not three times, not once,
the wheel is turning.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by tiltbillings »

Cafael Dust wrote:Well, Tiltbillings, one reason I mention Quakers ...
Okay; however, that does not, as I pointed out, supply a justifaction for your equation: Buddha nature = Quakers' inner light. Who knows what you mean by either Buddha-nature or inner light, and if what you mean is not connected to how the traditions, for whom these terms are central, understand and use the terms, your claim carries no weight. Also, Buddha-nature, for the most part, carries no weight for the Theravada.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi All,
there are three forms of conciet
better than
worse than
same as.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Fede
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: The Heart of this "Green & Pleasant Land"...
Contact:

Re: Question Regarding God and Agnosticism?

Post by Fede »

aren't we getting a bit off-topic here?

Just a question, because I'm losing all sense of the thread, which was in essence, (eventually) a question on the compatibility and possibility of continuing to practice Buddhism whilst courting a person of Islamic faith....

The answer's no.
Simple.
"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/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Locked