3bob

Why didn't the Buddha kill Mara? And if he had what would have been the result? Btw, "they" don't just die like many do. Om

"The names change but..." and if you can not see that in 100 years or in the 4,000+ years of the more or less recorded history of mankind then there is nothing more to talk about since you believe you are 100% correct. (oops the 'b' word)

Hi MH, That reply brings to mind for me another idea, namely that of various peoples throughout history wanting a leader to arise and kill all of thier enemies for them so that they will then be at peace; but peace will never come based on such violence for another "enemy" will pop up again sooner or later. Further, if "spiritual" teachers employ violence to end violence they have failed, thus they only succeed when demonstrating good will and peace from their own selves towards others, something which can never be forced on anyone. The choice is ours to accept or reject such examples. The soul of the earth is at peace, or is at Tao (although wounded) - while those that go against Tao can not last.

Why and who was responsible for this to even have a chance to start in the beginning of all things when there was only light and mist? Find and name them for us so they can be given the full blame and be punished for what they did not stop way back when. Then come see me...

A related tangent that some have commented on: In various Buddhist texts I've come across there are titles and terms such as Goddess and goddess, Lord, H.H. or His Holiness, etc.. It seems to me that there is some incongruity about the usage of capital letters with some of these terms and also some incongruity with such terms themselves since they are now or were originally used in religions that Buddhists do not follow? Does anyone know the history behind why Buddhists have seemingly adopted or adapted terms such as these to their way? And are there commonly accepted rules in the usage of capital letters with same? Thanks for any information.

No apology needed CowTao. I feel that many here admire and appreciate your gentleman-ness. Om

The intially used "argument" text was a quoted translation from a well recognized and known source for Buddhist doctrine; granted certain comments of mine or the string title related to it could have been better. Further, and which is not news here is that there has been some intellectual "sparring" as you call it, for instance Xabir (among several others) has been very rational and non-insulting in this string. Hurah. Om

A statement on this site (or string) that directly says or implys that all religions and those who practice them are "insane" is not any kind of rational or intellectual challenge to me Blasto, and imo if you see such as being so then your unasked for advice is further compounded in a bad way. (although in some small way I think you may mean well) Btw, imo your continued projections towards me and the strangely twisted, smarter than thou academic stance could use some introspection towards your own person, I'm not that interested in it frankly. Good luck.

Moderators, I don't need this, how about you?

I take your remark as being way out of context to this string... namely because it has been recognized here by many that the Buddha was not an anti-godder type of reactionary. (as shown by his interactions with and recognition of the particualar god mentioned, and also with other god type of beings that He mentioned in various suttas. The term "Belief religions" is one giant negative generalization in the context you have presented it, for I feel that most Buddhists also have degrees and or forms of faith and belief; for instance in prayers and hopes to the Goddess Quan Yin. Om

Ah, thank you for the detailed reply CowTao! I'll have to take a look at those links when I get off of my graveyard shifts. So far an agnostic type of view makes the best sense to me when it comes to certain parts of Buddhism... and along that line the agnostic like "four-fold negation" spoken by the Buddha points that way to me when it comes to some of these questions that arise or develop. Thus to me certain concepts, even subtle and refined ones do not equal the truth which can not really be nailed down in that way. In the meantime and what is also helpful, pure, simple and revealing are mantras like, "May all beings be happy"

"But isn't that just saying that they no longer fear death because, in their mind, their spiritual essence is as eternal as Tao?" MH. I feel that this sentence of yours is getting close... Then again your earlier sentence of, "We were nothing [no thing] until born and become [no thing] at death." ...sounds like it is missing a key point to me, specifically that until no-thing realizes it is no-thing it is veiled to its own reality and is thus identified with the ups and downs and ins and outs of what is commonly called our lives and deaths. Thus it is not from becoming or not from unbecoming (as in before birth and after death) that determines or returns us to our original truth which btw we never really left, but an unveiling from and or realization beyond both of those states that delivers us to -no-thing -right now-, right where we've always been, yet without rejection or denial of the 10,000. Om

When death dies there is no going back to it, or to life that is tied to it. In my understanding the meaning of the first line is related to that my friend; for "When one is out of life, one is in Death" Thus the ending lines of chapter 50 point to that beyond those states commonly called life and death. Om

That is always new, and always new is always freedom and joy! "The rhinoceros finds no place in him into which to thrust its horn, nor the tiger a place in which to fix its claws, nor the weapon a place to admit its point. And for what reason? Because there is in him no place of death" From Chapter 50 T.T.C.

Hi CowTao, I would like to revisit your lines of thought above and also add some sentences from an earlier post of yours and then ask you about your a point of view on a Buddhist saying or term... "According to many sources, long before the birth of Gotama, the wheels were already set in motion for the people to receive Buddhism, to be introduced by this man called Shakyamuni. Your promulgation of the affirming notion that a god was key is therefore quite debatable" by CT Ok, this all sounds understandable and reasonable, (even if looking from the outside in so to speak) my question to you is that if many Buddhists accept the lines of reasoning above then where or how does the saying, "rightly self awakened one" apply since we have all of these mountains of factors that helped bring about or that were involved with the Shakyamuni Buddha's awakening - when this saying then sounds like it is implying that he did it all by his, "rightly self awakened one" of independent effort? (thus is that saying also "quite debateable"?) Regards, and your gentleman-ship is appreciated, Bob

"I mean seriously, if human enlightenemnt is the point of the whole game, then why leave it to such a chance? Or could it be....that "God" actually doesn't have a human personality with a personal interest in what humans do or do not do to gain enlightenment? And that is why we are left with struggling with cultural dysfunction and personality quirks, on top of our own problems? yeah". TZ Is there anything else we can do but to keep at it in one way or another? Chance? I don't see it that way, to me it's all law and grace, with grace being the deepest and most amazing law.

Hello CowTao, Different forms may be extinguished over time but not so for Buddha Nature... As for significance or lack there-of, is that not adding something extra? Om

Alright MH, and I'm also copying many of my lp 33's to cd before throwing them out

You are one smart cat

I did not bring up or quote the term "Maha Brahma". Btw, in your particular quote I think the Buddha may be palying or using the the "devils advocate" method in apparently putting blame on God or any god for the sufferings in duality... yet the deeper teachings of Buddhism is, "NO BLAME".

Thanks CowTao, An interesting and thought provoking post on your part. The sutta I copied and posted speaks to me as Brahma Sahampati as being a key figure at that particular moment, (Btw, I'm not claiming that that god was Lord Brahma as in Hinduism since I'm quoting a Buddhist sutta :-) but I see your line of reasoning as also being important since who is to say which related or seemingly unrelated event, moment or Being was really the most "key" in the process since so much (and ultimately everything) is all linked together in one way or another. Your post also implys aspects of fate to me, as in sounding like the particular Being of the Shakymuni Buddha was fated to bring out the teachings of Buddhism. (and that is another major subject :-) Along another line I was somewhat surprized to hear you use the term, "Primordial Being" - that is because I seldom hear Buddhists advocating there conceptually, or at least such is my impression? (at this site anyway) My way of thinking has the "Buddha Nature" using the vehicle of the Indian prince to bring out the teachings and or dharmas, thus his particular person is important and key during those moments of his life but still secondary to the Buddha Nature in all beings that is being pointed to by that vehicle.

"Lama Surya Das Question: Is there a God in Buddhism? I read in a book by the pope that Buddhism is atheistic and life-denying. Answer: I read the same thing in the pope's book "Crossing the Threshold of Hope," in a chapter called "Buddha?" But the pontiff should know better, or at least be better informed by his scholar-advisers. Buddhism is neither atheistic nor life-denying. We can witness this in the great surge of socially activist Buddhists in the Western countries today, which includes the widespread movement of so-called "engaged Buddhism" founded in part by the Vietnamese Zen master, poet, and peace activist Thich Nhat Hanh. There is great affirmation and hope in Buddhist teaching, or Buddha-dharma, and great respect and reverence for life in all its forms, human and otherwise. In fact, Buddhism is generally considered to be not atheistic but agnostic, in that, the Buddha himself did not deny the existence of God. The Indian teacher and social reformer teacher called Sakyamuni Buddha is reported to have either kept silent when asked whether God existed, or in other cases to have said that his Noble Eightfold path led to enlightenment and deathless peace, and did not require faith or belief in a divine being or supreme creator*. "Buddhism Without Beliefs," by the former monk and Buddhist scholar Stephen Batchelor, offers a fine argument for the agnostic thinking of basic Buddhism" (*) a big difference stated here compared to what some profess.

Embellishment is nothing new or unique to any type of human activities or goings on, thus I suggest that we do not throw the baby out with the embellishments and then consider ourselves wise in doing so. Om

Wow Blasto, you assume a lot about a lot... good luck. Om

Great information CowTao... Jai Sat Guru