3bob

well, unless a certain "fundamentalist" who has doubts about the earth being around 10,000 years old happens to ask me for help in debunking that idea then I will leave them be in their belief - just as I would hope they would leave me be in mine. (thus a form of, or variation on the golden rule)

Jane, "...When I finally did get a 'power' (of sorts) it was like nothing I ever imagined or aspired to. People don't think of the ability to be content and happy or still your thoughts as a 'power'" SFJane Wonderful, and none of us need to prove such a virtue that stands on its own, do we? Also, unless someone specifically asks someone for help with debunking as you call it, what motive or what business is it of ours to get involved? (other than living along the lines of the "golden rule" that also stands on its own) What can be gained can be lost, and what can be lost can also be re-gained - but that which can never be gained or lost because it stands on its own inherently is the true power. Om

does Tao rest in only one pole, or does it rest everywhere? Aum

The Buddhist teaching below also has correlations to the teachings of yama in Hinduism: RIGHT SPEECH (Samma Vacha) "This contains four aspects. (a.) Abstinence from false speech, that is, from lying - instead making an effort to speak truthfully. (b.) Abstinence from slanderous speech, statements intended to divide or create enmity between people. Instead the follower of the path should always speak words which promote friendship and harmony between people. (c.) Absinence from harsh speech, from speech which is angry and bitter, which cuts into the hearts of others. Instead one's speech should always be soft, gentle and affectionate. (d.) Abstinence from idle chatter, from gossip. Instead one should speak words which are meaningful, significant and purposeful. The above show the tremendous power locked up in the faculty of speech. The tongue may be a very small organ compared to the body. But this little organ can do immense good or immense harm depending on how it is used. Of course, what we really have to master is not the tongue but the mind which makes use of the tongue." briefly: "Yama, yoga consists of 5 things that a yogi should not do if he wants to get anywhere with his yoga. 1. Don't hurt anyone (includes thoughts and words as well as physical actions) 2. Don't lie for personal gain (also includes thoughts)" Om

hmm, did you click on the wrong post Dwai, I'm not very involved in the heated debates, I'm more into correlations. 3bob

I dare to say (as in over-reaching?) that the "Buddha" many speak of is really described (as best as possible) in the following verse beyond just the limits of time, place and even the historic names given: (thus the particular times, places, names and forms are not really the main point of importance or as is sometimes heard in the Zen school: "miss the mark". "There is monks, an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated. If there were not that unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born - become - made - fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, emancipation from the born - become - made - fabricated is discerned." (Nibbana Sutta, Ud 8.3) Further, my interpretation of this verse is, (that) - this realizes this - and at that point and in doing so even the great raft of Buddhism has to be set down by the bank. (so to speak) Om

I see some correlations between the Buddhist commentary below and the text that follows from the Isa Upanishad; how about you? "...Nagarjuna's fourfold negation of nirvana and the Tathagata does not lead to nihilism, but rather to awakening. Emptiness, as employed in The Stanzas, is neither a metaphysics nor a nihilism. Nagarjuna sees it as identical with dependent arising itself. "We state that whatever is dependent arising, that is emptiness. That is dependent upon convention. That itself is the middle path." This verse of The Stanzas also links emptiness with the Buddha's middle path. In this respect, emptiness is Nagarjuna's restatement of the Buddha's practical religious wisdom regarding metaphysics and nihilism. In the Buddhist tradition, wisdom (prajna) has to do with the reorientation of subjectivity which leads to a release from attachments. Wisdom releases the person from obsession. More positively stated, the aim of wisdom is to liberate one for relating to the world in freedom. Herein lies the scholarly consensus regarding emptiness in The Stanzas. Emptiness should not be understood metaphysically. Neither should it be mistaken as a form of nihilism. Emptiness, in The Stanzas, is equivalent to the Buddhist wisdom of nonattachment..." What follows is in part from the Isa Upanishad: 9. "Into blind darkness enter those who follow ignorance; into even greater darkness go those who follow knowledge. It is distinct, they say, from knowledge. It is distinct, they say, from ignorance. So have we heard from the wise who explained it to us. Knowledge and ignorance, whoever knows the two together with ignorance passes over death, with knowledge attains immortality. Into blind darkness enter those who follow non-becoming; into greater darkness enter those who follow becoming. It is distinct, they say, from becoming. It is distinct, they say, from non-becoming. So have we heard from the wise who explained it to us. Becoming and destruction, whoever knows the two together with destruction passes over death, with becoming attains immortality." This also sounds like a wise, and non-obsessive middle type way to me. Om

Skillful means abound While the mind goes 'round and 'round Self and No Self are just like two, dualistic view If they dont help you to unskew, what good do they do? wonderful lines... gracious

Some good points above.... another problem of sorts: how many of us here agree on what the word "mind" means besides or including terms related to it like original, big, egotistical, monkey, aggregate, sub-conscious, super-conscious, pure, divine, etc., etc.. As for myself "mind" and all of its aspects are ultimately meant to be servant to Spirit otherwise complications never end. For Spirit has no doubt, and no doubt is happy, and happy smiles like a great Buddha or like a True guru smiles. Om

Actually, and perhaps you should cite something that holds some weight... I'm no expert but here is some additional information below: "Shakya (Sanskrit:Śākya, Devanagari: शाक्य and Pāli:Sākya) was an ancient janapada in the 1st millennium BCE.[1] In Buddhist texts, the Śākyas are mentioned as a Kshatriya clan of Gotama gotra". ("The most famous Śākya was Shakyamuni Buddha") "The Janapadas are the major realms or kingdoms of Vedic (Iron Age) India, by the 6th century BC evolving into the sixteen classical Mahajanapadas .

I suggest you consult with some devout Buddhists who have studied a great deal more than I have. I have shared with you some of the the very basic information and accounts handed down through the Buddhist lineages/sects, doctrines and also histories but you keep coming up with who knows what?? Indian "Tribals" I've heard of are normally related groups who worship and or have beliefs in spirit Beings such as tree spirits, animal spirits, elemental spirits, ancestor spirits, etc.. (along with various herbal, magic and shamanistic type practices)

hmm, the thread title includes, "and I have proof", ...which to me is soundly refuted by the insight of the Buddhist teaching of the "four-fold negation". Om

What are you talking about...? Some of the slightly recorded, or slightly recorded document wise speak of ancient tribals who worshiped Kundalini in the form of a snake carved on stones that have been found at very ancient and also documented sites in India. Another example are the Indian tribals who worship tree spirits - and they are still in India to this day. I've never heard of Buddhist like "tribals" existing before the founder of Buddhism existed, after which his teachings started to permutate into various sects, some of which then had (or still have) mixtures of certain ancient and or shamanistic ways blended into those forms of Buddhism. Om

An excellent depiction from the Buddhist view CowTao, Here is Hindu depiction of Siva as non-dual. Note that the scepters are almost identical.

You can find brief information related to the following from Wikipedia, many other sources including Buddhist doctrine also mention material along these lines. "Kshatriya (Hindi: क्षत्रिय, kṣatriya from Sanskrit: क्षत्र, kṣatra) or Kashtriya meaning warrior is one of the four varnas (social orders) in Hinduism. शर्म ब्राहमणस्य वर्म क्षत्रियस्य गुप्तेती वैश्यस्य Prasar grhaysutras). It traditionally constituted the military and ruling order of the Vedic-Hindu social system outlined by the Vedas and the Laws of Manu. Kshatriyas used to hold the top rank in the ancient Indian society: Rama, Krishna, Siddhartha Gautama, all of the Tirthankaras of Jainism from Parsvanatha to Mahavira were kshatriyas." Om

Yes, there are several self-perpetuating type threads on this topic... lol And that's funny, you say that Hinduism and Vedanta are somehow contradictory... and that I'm also taking key Buddhist texts out of context when such are actually of the key context and meaning, imo and experience anyway. You are welcome to your opinions but they are not the only ones out there. Om

There are many forms of "Hinduism", of which form you are speaking of I'm not sure? anyway in Buddhist scripture forms of Hinduism are mentioned in the historical account of the life of the founder of Buddhism, as him being a member of same in his younger years - so that should answer your question from the perspective of widely accepted Buddhist doctrine and history. As for Sanatana Dharma (or the eternal dharma) as handed down from the subtle heavenly realms to mankind as "Hinduism", I don't believe it's age has ever been nailed down exactly although there is doctrine related to such which bring up periods that obviously predate the birth of the once "Hindu" prince who became the historic Buddha. Om

Is that a trick question? If one takes the historic person of Buddha as the founder of Buddhism then the question answers itself, if not then we enter into vast speculation... Om is extremely old, far older than the universes of form, and it also very young, much less than a nanosecond in age. Om

Historic Buddha verified and recognized Her with honor. Om

Pretty much agreed with that CowTao, although I'd add that in any of the dualistic worlds or realms there will be exchanges and or "wars" of the dualistic manifestations of the various energies and Beings therein. Thus the greatest weapon so to speak is the truth of non-dualism which can not be overcome by the lesser weapons or truths of Beings identified with the realms of dualism. Om

there is no illusion... as if illusion was really real; but there is samsara correctly understood, there is no separate self, as if a separate self was really real; but there is unchanging Buddha Nature that correctly understands samsara. Om

Hello Xabir2005, My blue text responses to your post which is in black text: "To me I believe he is refering to the Mahayana definition of Enlightenment with the capital E - which is equivalent to Buddhahood, like Shakyamuni Buddha". Ok I have however no doubts he has attained at least enlightenment (no caps) in the sense of having entered the bhumi stages and considered an Arya, a Bodhisattva. Yes, many Buddhist scriptures actually referred to retinues of thousands of enlightened arhats at the Buddha's assembly. Ok, and seems very possible. And just because you graduated from a university doesn't mean you cannot recognise your professors and lecturers and treat them as your teacher and pay gratitude and respect to them. True. And of course there are lots of Buddhist teachers who became enlightened and are teaching others. They are no longer just 'students on the path'. But I don't think they will be arrogant enough to disregard the Buddha as having been their original teacher. In fact it is a natural result that having become enlightened, they are even more grateful for the Buddha's teachings for seeing the subtle wisdom and teachings the Buddha imparted out of compassion to sentient beings. Agreed. The Buddha however, in that life time (however he had learnt from many Buddhas in his past lives), did not have a teacher, Not agreed, and such is refuted by Buddhist scripture. Namely that his "Hindu" teachers helped and taught him to attain the "liberations" that led right up to the point of the, "beyond the beyond". and only the category of Buddhas and Pratyekabuddhas do not have teachers because they have cultivated for a very very long time and the time was just ripe for their awakening and they did not have to rely on one. Arhats belonging to the Sravaka (hearer) category learnt from teachers within their lifetime, practiced, and then as a result gained liberation. Ok Of course it wouldn't. That is just your presumption. Given that there are countless universes in the Buddhist world views, there would be currently countless enlightened persons throughout the universe(s). But does the number mean anything? Not really. Just because there are a lot of enlightened people doesn't necessarily lead to 'mystic force' or whatever. Such things doesn't exist. Not agreed. And shows lack of understanding of the pure life-force. (which can and does manifest as a compassionate Buddha. Each person has their own individual karma. What do you expect enlightened beings to do? Do you think having enlightened beings means no more natural disasters etc? The world will still roll on, evil people will still be evil (if they have no intentions to change their ways), disasters still happen, etc. Wars will still happen because that is the karma of people - the Buddha tried to stop the Sakyans from engaging in war but he let go of his attempts at the end because he knew the past life karmas involved (involving a group of villagers hunting fish) and that nothing could be done. Partially agreed in some cases, although a Buddha as in the big "E" can and does influence change through fulfillment of dharmas. (look around) For example your friend can become enlightened and yet you can remain as evil as before and then become reborn in hell, for example. The Buddha couldn't stop his cousin who is a member of his sangha from being reborn in avici hell for his evil deeds of trying to hurt the Buddha and cause schism in his sangha. Being related or close to an enlightened person doesn't help. Similarly having thousands of enlightened persons doesn't matter, they may create a positive influence (but it is still limited considering that there are millions/billions of people in the world), but they cannot force a person to become enlightened - it's the individual that matters. Nobody can force another person to become enlightened. That has to come by himself, his own willingness and practice. Having thousands of enlightened beings cannot help in that regard. Agreed that no one can force another, but help does increase possibilities This is just some new agey assumptions. I do not believe in them. Why do you think that having a percentage of enlightened humans = a new heaven and a new earth on a collective level? Not agreed, for the exact time and space where dharmas are being fulfilled and lived up to is not the same exact time and space where dharmas are not being fulfilled. Thus the greater the force of one the less the force of the other. For instance: the force of "Mara" could not overcome the force of the Buddha in the exact same space and time nor in the very subtle realms beyond space and time as we know it, thus He overcame Mara in both local time and space and also in the most subtle realms beyond space and time as we know it; after which many Beings then came under his help and influence... so if we multiply the numbers of Beings such as His, then the help and influence is also multiplied. Lets say if we manage to get 1% of our population enlightened, but does that mean the 99% will as a result become definitely enlightened too? I highly doubt so. I'm not privy to the numbers and odds, and anyway in us taking care of the small things then the so called big things will also be taken care of. A new heaven and a new earth is only for that particular individual. The same world we live in can still be hell for another. It is how each of us lives. Awakening is individual and up to the individual. Partly agreed, although you are speaking of perspective. Also when speaking of individual rafts and group rafts... some debate is possible along those lines. And unfortunately it will still be, even if a percentage of our population becomes enlightened. Realms are accessible with attunement to the vibrations or frequency of such realms... the earth realm presently has both the highest and lowest of frequency of Beings accessing here; other realms do not have such a broad range and thus are not accessible by so many various Beings. Om

"I am not sure what you mean by true power". SFJane Well, I meant along the lines of the source and foundation of power as alluded to in this partial quote from the upanishads: " 1. To him who sees, perceives, and understands this, the spirit (prana) springs from the Self, hope springs from the Self, memory springs from the Self; so do ether, fire, water, appearance and disappearance, food, power, understanding, reflection, consideration, will, Mind, speech, names, sacred hymns, and sacrifices--aye, all this springs from the Self. 2. There is this verse, "He who sees this, does not see death, nor illness, nor pain; he who sees this, sees everything, and obtains everything everywhere". Om