3bob

agreed.

Steve, To me your previous prose alludes to Self-realization, but to you probably to no-self since you are declaring Buddhism to be what you follow - thus we have two very different takes on the same lines which is not that common of a thing to happen between two countering schools...

Fair enough, and my op question was a type of mixture (so to say) but based on an apparent (or perhaps even actual?) mixture coming from a Buddhist sutta.

I may get your drift...? then again there are the stories about various Zen students reading or hearing certain koans or suttas and then having sudden master level realization beyond what it sounds like you are calling lower level or first stage. Has someone taught you these attempts at mixing Hinduism and Buddhism? It's not something I would try, as in making major correlations as if certain teachings were the same or very similar! Thus I think it better to understand Buddhism from a Buddhist perspective and Hinduism from a Hindu perspective even though they have some common ground in certain areas. Om

that is a pretty good possible guess and also question about the possible down side of sectarian problems both rolled into one (.) (?)

Thanks for the good attempt at explaining from your understanding Jeff! In Shaivite religion I believe its major schools go with the saying of, "Jiva is Siva" thus not the saying of, "one becomes nothing in God/Shiva " which has or can have all sorts of problematic connotations or meanings! Also clear mind is not equated with enlightenment in most (or any?) forms of Hinduism, although a clear and quiet mind is very important on the way to Self-realization. I suggest you read the *Isa upanishad about being and non-being (and other upanishads) as a review for the Vedas. (which the Buddha obviously rejected per his doctrine) * link to Isa upanishad: http://www.sankaracharya.org/isa_upanishad.php

ok, it is my problem but it's also your problem if you mean one thing and it sounds like you are saying the opposite by almost any standard of measure for the meanings of the words and sentences that you used. (?) I love those koans but your words were not really in koan form if that is what you mean?

Hi Jeff, Cessation is not a common description or concept of enlightenment as far as I've come across in Hinduism! In fact what is common is the opposite of that, namely an immortal soul attaining Sivaloka or Brahmaloka, etc... In fact I don't remember ever hearing that term used in Hinduism for enlightenment (or moksha), although merger is a term that some schools use which could be called a sort of cessation. I don't know all the terms and meanings for different types of Buddhas but the meaning I've been using throughout this thread is in relation to the historic Buddha. Nor am I familiar with the terms "realization of the soul" being found in the Bible although something like that could be found in mystical Christianity which can range all over the map from a-z. "A Buddha maintain "cohesion" to help all sentient beings, that is the purpose of the bodhisattva vow" That sounds good to me but why do you think the historic Buddha would need prompting to do such? And why is reincarnation in Buddhism not pointing that out instead of saying absolute things like there is no soul?

oh but you did, hehe

Steve, No offense but you are now saying something very different from: "I am here, I have been here, I will be here... I am being here Be" I don't have a universal translator on so the prose above strongly points to eternal-ism to me, no matter how you dice it. (and especially if you compare it with standard Buddhist four-fold negation) Anyhow, your dialogue is kind and people orientated which I appreciate. (namely in what I take as Right Speech )

Agreed, although the first word of "worrying" has some off-key connotations, which I think could be improved with something like, "Being grounded about oneself". (even if I sound kind of like a know-it-all a-hole for interjecting that )

Jeff, Mixing Shaivite or Kashmir Hinduism and Buddhism is a no no for Shaivite or Kashmir Sat Gurus and Buddhist Lama's, but we can do that here if we are not bound by vows to any particular school, is that what you are saying in effect by doing so? I would tend to not say or do that myself as a student who surely leans towards Hinduism although I don't mind some comparative study of Buddhism. Also I don't get your analogy with Jesus since the temptation was pre-surrender, not post? Thus your bite to me doesn't put any teeth into why the Buddha needed various promptings post enlightenment. Thanks also for the discussion, Bob

Jeff, The description in mainline Buddhism that talks about reincarnation is not reincarnation of a particular soul/being, is it? Also I'd say the world cycles in principle are the same they (may) only appear different, regardless of ultimate emptiness or multiple bubbles concepts. No takers yet for: "I honestly don't know why the Buddha would be in such serious self-doubt about continuing his teaching after post enlightenment nor do I know why He would need prompting from a great God to overcome that doubt and carry on per his original aim?" Nor has anyone said, "I don't know why the Buddha would need prompting from Ananda to remain for a world cycle to further help beings as he had been doing, and to do so as asked from others who may have needed it besides Ananda, who apparently didn't feel that need at the time of said event?

any body with a little bit of brains can spin out some profound sounding stuff after they have co-opted various materials from various sources and then to top that off even start to believe and declare they are profound.

I feel that was an understatement by Rainbowvein.

any enlightened being is a walking, talking, radiating mantra on all levels and of all true dharmas.

good point MH.

holy shit, I'd say that putting yourself down like that in relation to all this stuff is nuts! I'd suggest lightening up and standing on your own two feet, not on some twisted jargon from some twisted person that you keep repeating like a broken record.

Steve, That may your interpretation which happens to be along the lines of how I see things but it is not of the four-fold negation from Buddhism, and it also alludes to eternal-ism which I'm kind of surprised that some of our Buddhist brothers are not refuting? Anyway, and so far I don't feel that I've gotten honest, straight forward answers (although Jeff tried in a round about way) to the text I submitted to this sub-forum. For instance no one has given what I would describe as a reasonable answer such as, "I honestly don't know why the Buddha would be in such serious self-doubt about continuing his teaching after post enlightenment nor do I know why He would need prompting from a great God to overcome that doubt and carry on per his original aim?" Nor has anyone said, "I don't know why the Buddha would need prompting from Ananda to remain for a world cycle to further help beings as he had been doing, and to do so as asked from others who may have needed it besides Ananda, who apparently didn't feel that need at the time of said event? Not to mention when the Buddha declares it was possible for Him to remain for a world cycle as a particular being... along with my pondering as to the use of terms like soul or mind to apply for that particular beings form (or some other term) remains hanging. Granted, this is from my pov but I see no stretch in making it in relation to what I believe many others would also see.... btw, such results (so far) are often par for course on this website where many of us act like such "experts". (me included)

don't put me down for it either

Hello Jeff, I get your following concep quoted belowt: "...It goes more to the whether one wants to be a particular character in the "video game" or rather become one with the game itself and be able to upgrade the game or create an entire new video game (as described in the Lotus sutra)." (space) To which I'd say if the essence of Dharma is already finished and complete the game only appears to change... But again and from my earlier post: "my take from some sources of Buddhism is that is no there continuation of a particular being [or video character as you put it] (along with no reincarnation or maintaining of a particualr being or soul if you will) and [or but] in this case or in this sutta the particular being of the historic Buddha is talking about remaining and maintaining himself and not just as a sort of transmission for a world cycle." edit: straightened out my text a little

Or Lord Brahma? (although this sutta has another name which I don't know much about)

do you not see a contradiction to that in regards to this sutta, namely that the Buddha said such did not happen in that He did not remain as a particular being although he could have?

why did the Buddha start this line of teaching in this sutta if it is just speculation and not fact to Him?

that's nice Steve but is it not counter to Buddhism and no self?