What makes Buddhism different?

[Vajrahridaya]

I'll probably catch some flack for this... but hey!!

 

One reason within it's philosophy descriptive of reality is...

 

We as Buddhists don't make real something eternal that stands on it's own, so we don't see the cosmos the same way as monism (one-ism) does. Which is why we don't consider a monist ideation of the liberated state as actually signifying "liberation." We see that a monist is still binding to a concept, a vast ego... an identity even if beyond concept or words, is still a limitation to the liberated experience of a Buddha. We see that even the liberated state is relative, though everlasting due to the everlasting realization of inter-dependent-co-emergence. We don't see any state of consciousness or realization as being one with a source of absolutely everything. We see the liberated consciousness as just the source of our own experience, even though we ourselves are also relative to everything else. The subtle difference is a difference to be considered, because it actually leads to an entirely different realization and thus cannot be equated with a monist (one-ist) view of the cosmos at all which we consider a bound view and not equal to the liberated view.

 

Also... there is the concept of the creative matrix in Buddhism and this matrix is without limit and is infinite. But it's not an eternal self standing infinite. It's an infinitude of mutually dependent finites... or "infinite finites" that persist eternally without beginning or end and without a source due to mutual, interpersonal causation you could say.

 

It's not that a Buddhist does not directly experience a unifying field of perception beyond being a perceiver that is perceiving... but, the Buddhist does not equate this even subconsciously, deep within the experiential platform of consciousness, with a source of all being. It's merely a non-substantial unity of interconnectivity, not a vast and infinite oneness that is the subject of all objects. That would not be considered liberation from the perspective of a Buddha. That would merely be a very subtle, but delusional identification with an experience that originates dependent upon seeing through phenomena, where the consciousness expands past perceived limitations. Even this consciousness that experiences this sense of connection with everything, beyond everything is also considered a phenomena and is empty of inherent, independent reality. Yet persists for as long as the realization persists, which for a Buddha is without beginning nor end.

 

This subtle difference is an important difference that makes Buddhism transcendent of monism, or "there is only" one-ism.

 

Take care and have a wonderful night/day!!

 

p.s. Because of this, it is a philosophy that see's through itself completely without remainder. Thus a Buddha is considered a "thus gone one" or a Tathagata.

 

Samantabhadra and Samantabhadri: A symbol in Dzogchen which depicts in physical form the union of wisdom and method or realization and phenomena.

Edited September 21, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Stigweard]

 

I thought we had agreed that Taoists don't "reify" Tao over in this thread:

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?showto...hl=of+buddhists

 

So now Taoists are "monists" in your view yes? It is funny that only through the separation caused by descriptions and labeling are you able to establish "differences". In your incessant desire to establish your path as superior you are driven to perpetuate the separations that we Taoists say need to be reconciled and resolved in order to achieve True Nature.

 

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I thought we had agreed that Taoists don't "reify" Tao over in this thread:

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?showto...hl=of+buddhists

 

So now Taoists are "monists" in your view yes? It is funny that only through the separation caused by descriptions and labeling are you able to establish "differences". In your incessant desire to establish your path as superior you are driven to perpetuate the separations that we Taoists say need to be reconciled and resolved in order to achieve True Nature.

 

 

It doesn't matter what you say Stigweard... because,

 

Reify means to consider real.

 

So yes, Taoists do in fact reify "True Nature" as "The Tao".

 

I will quote from one of your scriptures to prove that point.

 

Daodejing 道德经: The book does not specifically define what the Tao is, as a matter of principle. Fundamentally, Tao is undefinable, unlimited, and unnamable.

There was something undefined and complete, existing before Heaven and Earth. How still it was, how formless, standing alone and undergoing no change, reaching everywhere with no danger of being exhausted. It may be regarded as the mother of all things. Truthfully it has no name, but I call it Tao (TTC, chapter 25)

However, there are characteristics of Tao that are commonly noted and used to describe its functioning, particularly as guidelines for practicing De.

Tao is undifferentiated

All distinctions are actually relative comparisons bound together by their mutual reference. Thus (chapter 2) there is no such thing as 'long' except by comparison to 'short' and vice-versa; there is no such thing as 'being' except by comparison to 'non-being'. Because Tao itself has no shape or size, all comparisons fall within it, so there can never be 'real' differences. Often this is used to suggest a neutral, giving attitude - see TTC chapter 49.

 

道可道，非常道。 (Tao (way or path) can be said, not usual way)

"The Way that can be described is not the true Way."

名可名，非常名。 (names can be named, not usual names)

"The Name that can be named is not the constant Name."

 

It doesn't matter how non-conceptual you make the experiential reference that the concept Tao is pointing to. It's still considered a homogeneous platform for all reality. Thus is a monist view of cosmos. As is defined in the bolded printing above.

 

Thus Buddhist realization or the realization of a Buddha is thus, transcendent of Taoist Cosmology. On a level that transcends concepts.

 

The difference is so subtle, not even non-concepts "the Tao" can go there.

 

Take care!!

 

Remember not to take anything personally.

[DalTheJigsaw123]

Let's get a few threads on Tao now!: Too many Buddhism threads!

Edited September 21, 2009 by LeonBasin

[ngtest]

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Note that these different beliefs are high stage mistakes, not at all easy to empty the formations skanda which is previous from consciousness.

 

Indeed! It's not that these paths are not "good" paths leading to higher planes of existence and a long refuge from suffering and disease, even for eons. Yet, they are not permanent realizations if the Bodhi of the Buddhas is not realized. This is a very specific realization that is very subtle and deep, it's neither complex nor simple. But is dependently originated and empty of inherent existence.

 

I appreciate your contribution ngtest.

[ngtest]

I appreciate your contribution ngtest.

 

Thanks Vajrahridaya, your contribution is great too.

[markern]

It doesn't matter what you say Stigweard... because,

 

Reify means to consider real.

 

So yes, Taoists do in fact reify "True Nature" as "The Tao".

 

I will quote from one of your scriptures to prove that point.

 

Daodejing 道德经: The book does not specifically define what the Tao is, as a matter of principle. Fundamentally, Tao is undefinable, unlimited, and unnamable.

There was something undefined and complete, existing before Heaven and Earth. How still it was, how formless, standing alone and undergoing no change, reaching everywhere with no danger of being exhausted. It may be regarded as the mother of all things. Truthfully it has no name, but I call it Tao (TTC, chapter 25)

However, there are characteristics of Tao that are commonly noted and used to describe its functioning, particularly as guidelines for practicing De.

Tao is undifferentiated

All distinctions are actually relative comparisons bound together by their mutual reference. Thus (chapter 2) there is no such thing as 'long' except by comparison to 'short' and vice-versa; there is no such thing as 'being' except by comparison to 'non-being'. Because Tao itself has no shape or size, all comparisons fall within it, so there can never be 'real' differences. Often this is used to suggest a neutral, giving attitude - see TTC chapter 49.

 

道可道，非常道。 (Tao (way or path) can be said, not usual way)

"The Way that can be described is not the true Way."

名可名，非常名。 (names can be named, not usual names)

"The Name that can be named is not the constant Name."

 

It doesn't matter how non-conceptual you make the experiential reference that the concept Tao is pointing to. It's still considered a homogeneous platform for all reality. Thus is a monist view of cosmos. As is defined in the bolded printing above.

 

Thus Buddhist realization or the realization of a Buddha is thus, transcendent of Taoist Cosmology. On a level that transcends concepts.

 

The difference is so subtle, not even non-concepts "the Tao" can go there.

 

Take care!!

 

Remember not to take anything personally.

 

As normaly you run into the problem that if budhist that have the budhist realization can accept a description by a tradition such as taoism or vedanta as valid for their own experience (despite possibly prefering the budhist wording) then that proves that there is nothing inherent in the buddhist realization that makes such a use of words impossibly. Since there are in fact lots of such buddhists, several on dharmaovergorund for example, you have a simple proof that there is no actual difference between the realizations.

[Marblehead]

Would anyone like to hear my opinions again?

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

As normaly you run into the problem that if budhist that have the budhist realization can accept a description by a tradition such as taoism or vedanta as valid for their own experience (despite possibly prefering the budhist wording) then that proves that there is nothing inherent in the buddhist realization that makes such a use of words impossibly. Since there are in fact lots of such buddhists, several on dharmaovergorund for example, you have a simple proof that there is no actual difference between the realizations.

 

There are plenty of Buddhists that don't understand the nuances of Buddhist realization. Also, there are certain stages of realization where one can equate the word form expressions of such realization with other paths. But when it comes down to it, Buddhism is the only path with infinite regress as a premise and non-substantial interconnectivity as a realization.

 

All other paths posit a beginning and a supreme source that is either intelligent on it's own, self caused or without cause that all things spring from and that all things return to at the end of the cosmic eon or universal expansion and contraction or that all things are one substance with, even if said to be beyond concept or being and non-being.

 

So... The conclusion and thus realization is indeed different.

 

p.s. it's not so much the experience which differs which is concept free, but the experiential interpretation of the experience changes with Buddha Bodhi realization making for a more "grounded" and "integrated" experience of the experience. Not to mention the entire cosmology shifts to beginningless without a primal ego or identity of any sort.

Edited September 21, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Lucky7Strikes]

It doesn't matter what you say Stigweard... because,

 

Reify means to consider real.

 

So yes, Taoists do in fact reify "True Nature" as "The Tao".

 

I will quote from one of your scriptures to prove that point.

 

Daodejing 道德经: The book does not specifically define what the Tao is, as a matter of principle. Fundamentally, Tao is undefinable, unlimited, and unnamable.

There was something undefined and complete, existing before Heaven and Earth. How still it was, how formless, standing alone and undergoing no change, reaching everywhere with no danger of being exhausted. It may be regarded as the mother of all things. Truthfully it has no name, but I call it Tao (TTC, chapter 25)

However, there are characteristics of Tao that are commonly noted and used to describe its functioning, particularly as guidelines for practicing De.

Tao is undifferentiated

All distinctions are actually relative comparisons bound together by their mutual reference. Thus (chapter 2) there is no such thing as 'long' except by comparison to 'short' and vice-versa; there is no such thing as 'being' except by comparison to 'non-being'. Because Tao itself has no shape or size, all comparisons fall within it, so there can never be 'real' differences. Often this is used to suggest a neutral, giving attitude - see TTC chapter 49.

 

道可道，非常道。 (Tao (way or path) can be said, not usual way)

"The Way that can be described is not the true Way."

名可名，非常名。 (names can be named, not usual names)

"The Name that can be named is not the constant Name."

 

It doesn't matter how non-conceptual you make the experiential reference that the concept Tao is pointing to. It's still considered a homogeneous platform for all reality. Thus is a monist view of cosmos. As is defined in the bolded printing above.

 

Thus Buddhist realization or the realization of a Buddha is thus, transcendent of Taoist Cosmology. On a level that transcends concepts.

 

The difference is so subtle, not even non-concepts "the Tao" can go there.

 

Take care!!

 

Remember not to take anything personally.

 

Real....

 

There will always be something real as long as it is posited to be. If the Tao is real, so is the Buddha.

 

The Tao Te Ching is not a scripture that defines what the Tao is. In the context of language, the term "Tao" is used to mean "Road," "Way," and "Path." It is not a religious term and there is generally no perfect embodiment of the Tao. The word itself penetrated into anything spiritual and practical. It is even used to note the "Way" of the Buddha.

 

You have to understand the various meanings Chinese texts and the characters carry in order to truly understand what the ancients meant when they wrote phrases like "before Heaven and Earth," or "mother of all things." To simply read the Tao Te Ching without knowledge of Chinese culture and history is not enough to understand what Taoism is. It is a vast study of people who searched for something beyond the confines of the material world whether it be through literature, art, meditation, religion, immortality, etc. Consequently, there is no "Truth" in Taoism, only similarities in terminology. All in all, a constant evolution of human experience.

 

So as for Buddhism...ahem...the "Tao of Emptiness" seems sufficient. .

Edited September 21, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Marblehead]

So... The conclusion and thus realization is indeed different.

 

Okay. I can deal with that and accept it as a generalized statement. But no 'one' is 'better' except from an individual point of view.

 

Happy Trails!

[markern]

There are plenty of Buddhists that don't understand the nuances of Buddhist realization.

 

But we are talking about people who have a clear realization of no-self. Daniel Ingram, Jack Kornfield etc. The only meaningful way to settle this would probably be to bring the most highly realized Buddhist masters together with people from other traditions that have reached the end point of that tradition and have them feel each others energy and check each other out. As impossible to describe most enlightened beings find the enlightened state to be I find the cocksure Buddhist attitude questionable and probably more based in sociological reasons such as maintaining a distinction towards other religions.

 

Bernadette Roberts got to the no-self state without trying to get there. She thought she was at the end. Contrary to what Xabir said last time around she did not get there because of faith in the Buddhas teaching or any meaningful knowledge about Buddhism at all. I checked. She got there completely accidentally. Thusness seems to agree on her no-self state which is probably why he has an interview of her on his blog so lets leave that part of it out. What now becomes interesting is two things. Firstly. Since she got there on a slump would not a lot of other people who practice in say taosim or yoga get there on a slump as well? Tolle got whatever level of realization he has (not sure what kind of realisation) on a complete slump just lying in bed being very depressed. These things happen ALL the time. I have read several descriptions of enlightenment by people who had no clue about Buddhist teachings and did not meditate and that seem to describe a no-self rather then a self (not that I think that necessarily means there is an actual difference). My own teacher says that the most realized teacher he has ever met is a woman that lives here in Oslo. I am not sure she ever meditated but at least what made her get where she was was a spiritual crisis nothing else and certainly not RIGHT VIEW in the Buddhist sense. My teacher was a monk for 4 years studying with the dalai lama (a bit) and two of the most senior Dzogchen teachers in the Tibetan tradition. He thinks her realisation surpass theirs and being the most sensible person I have ever met I can well imagine him being right about that. So if we can establish that proper Buddhist realisations happen fairly often without meaningful, if any, knowledge of the Buddhas teaching, and certainly without right view, and often sometimes without meditation, then that certainly means that practitioners of other traditions quite often HAS to slump into the no-self state. If that is the case and the no-self state could not by any means be described as a self or as the Tao etc. then there would regularly be people within these traditions breaking out and disagreeing with the philosophy of a self or the tao. However, there is not. This must then mean that despite realisations of no-self they find descriptions of the self or the tao to work just fine.

 

Secondly. Bernadette Roberts has realised the no-self however, she still believes in GOD. Not in a physical god but still in the christian god in the mystical sense. Sicne the no.self state is supposed to rule out any belief in any sort of conception of god then we have an inconsistency. Either she is not in a no-self state because she holds an incompatible belief or the belief is not incompatible. Thusness who seems to be extremely clear about the Buddhist no-self being different from the advaitic self seems to approve of her no-self and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could argue she has just realised the advaita self the way she describes her experience as going from that exact state over to a no-self and how she talks about it etc.. So for Buddhists she represents a huge dilemma. I of course believe that her "Buddhist" realisation is compatible with her view of god and that you are being completely anal about the use of words for experiences and states that are not cut out to be described in words at all. If they were easy to describe in words people would get enlightened and think "oh, exactly as what I read about" while the reality is that everyone thinks it is completely different from what they thought and utterly impossible to describe.

 

Thats it for me in this debate I just don`t have the patience for another endless Buddhism is best discussion. Enjoy yourself.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

So as for Buddhism...ahem...the "Tao of Emptiness" seems sufficient. .

 

Sure, as a wording...

 

But, if Taoist realization as a whole, not talking about special individuals which exist anywhere at anytime, but as a spiritual tradition as a whole, if the realization were the same, so the cosmology would also be the same. I have not found that to be so.

[markern]

Sure, as a wording...

 

But, if Taoist realization as a whole, not talking about special individuals which exist anywhere at anytime, but as a spiritual tradition as a whole, if the realization were the same, so the cosmology would also be the same. I have not found that to be so.

 

Budhist cosmology You got the basic planets, the moon an sun completly out of whack. This is undermines the authority of the budhist tradition in describing any other realms and such as well becasue the planets can be felt energeticly, why taosim placed them quite well I think ( but I don`t realy know much about it, they might also have been of in some regards). Why would I have any faith in budhisms teachings on the heavenly realms or the various hell relms etc. when you can`t get the easy ones right And what does that say about the all knowing tibetan budhists.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Sure, as a wording...

 

But, if Taoist realization as a whole, not talking about special individuals which exist anywhere at anytime, but as a spiritual tradition as a whole, if the realization were the same, so the cosmology would also be the same. I have not found that to be so.

 

There is no cemented Taoist cosmology. The most specific it gets is that there is 1, then 2, then 3, then everything. But this really doesn't say much does it.

 

There is no Taoist realization.

 

They're all just bunch of Bums playing with fire.

 

Buddhism is just another piece that comes under it. And this is precisely what makes Taoism great.

Edited September 21, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

But we are talking about people who have a clear realization of no-self. Daniel Ingram, Jack Kornfield etc. The only meaningful way to settle this would probably be to bring the most highly realized Buddhist masters together with people from other traditions that have reached the end point of that tradition and have them feel each others energy and check each other out. As impossible to describe most enlightened beings find the enlightened state to be I find the cocksure Buddhist attitude questionable and probably more based in sociological reasons such as maintaining a distinction towards other religions.

 

The difference in interpreting what happens with an enlightened being and how the cosmos works reveals differences in interpreting non-conceptual realization.

 

 

Firstly. Since she got there on a slump would not a lot of other people who practice in say taosim or yoga get there on a slump as well?

 

Sure, but that's a freak accident, like a 2 legged man being born in a tribe of one legged people due to past life karmas.

 

If that is the case and the no-self state could not by any means be described as a self or as the Tao etc. then there would regularly be people within these traditions breaking out and disagreeing with the philosophy of a self or the tao. However, there is not. This must then mean that despite realisations of no-self they find descriptions of the self or the tao to work just fine.

 

If that state of realization will last beyond crunch time, during the end of the cosmic eon where all believer's in monist realization are re-absorbed into the recycling, or the non-conceptual ground that is the recycling machine, then that person has a Buddhist realization, sees infinite regress, non-substantial interdependence and has achieved the goal of the contemplative and is a Buddha. It doesn't matter how they teach for beings that need crutches along the way.

 

It's just that Buddhism is the clearest expression of what the enlightened state actually is and what it means to be enlightened, as well as what happens to the cosmos and how it ticks.

 

Individuals have propensity that is a result from previous lives. As the Buddha said, his Bodhisattvas would manifest in other spiritual traditions to influence beings. All spiritual traditions especially on a very mystical level are influenced by Buddhism. As when the Buddhas tradition was at it's hight, it was spread quite far around the world. You can see this hand of influence in every tradition.

 

Secondly. Bernadette Roberts has realised the no-self however, she still believes in GOD. Not in a physical god but still in the christian god in the mystical sense. Since the no.self state is supposed to rule out any belief in any sort of conception of god then we have an inconsistency. Either she is not in a no-self state because she holds an incompatible belief or the belief is not incompatible.

 

Yes, either she is saying, "I have no self and only God has Self" or, "There is no-self and the cosmos is without primal cause, but beings need this teaching in order to evolve, so I will play this game without attachment for the benefit of these beings in need."

 

Otherwise, yes... they are incompatible realizations. As one leads to re-absorption at the end of the cosmic eon and future recycling in the next cosmic expression and the other as in Buddhist, does not.

 

Thusness who seems to be extremely clear about the Buddhist no-self being different from the advaitic self seems to approve of her no-self and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could argue she has just realised the advaita self the way she describes her experience as going from that exact state over to a no-self and how she talks about it etc.. So for Buddhists she represents a huge dilemma.

 

Not for me, if she's seeing dependent origination on a beginningless and endless scale without static substance, then her realization is true, if not, then it's one of those no-self is the Self paradoxes that Monist philosophy does to the interpretation of experience.

 

I of course believe that her "Buddhist" realisation is compatible with her view of god and that you are being completely anal about the use of words for experiences and states that are not cut out to be described in words at all.

 

The idea of there is a God to all this is not compatible as a validating concept, but as a metaphor, I still say, "God Bless". But, in my being I interpret "God" as meaning, "we" as the co-creative endless matrix of interconnected sentient beings that make up the cosmos. That the "bless" just be that persons manifestation of "good" karmas as in may he or she experience the fruit of beneficial intentions quickly and experience the diminishing of his or her non-beneficial karmas.

 

 

If they were easy to describe in words people would get enlightened and think "oh, exactly as what I read about" while the reality is that everyone thinks it is completely different from what they thought and utterly impossible to describe.

 

It's not easy, because one can read about it and understand it to a certain degree intellectually, but to experience it through deep uprooting of the ego type of methodology that is Buddhisms core, is different.

 

Thats it for me in this debate I just don`t have the patience for another endless Buddhism is best discussion. Enjoy yourself.

 

Thank you!

 

 

There is no cemented Taoist cosmology. The most specific it gets is that there is 1, then 2, then 3, then everything. But this really doesn't say much does it.

 

There is no Taoist realization.

 

They're all just bunch of Bums playing with fire.

 

Buddhism is just another piece that comes under it. And this is precisely what makes Taoism great.

 

I don't think so... that is saying a lot. If there is one at the beginning, then comes 2... etc.

 

The realization is different. Buddhism is not a piece that comes under it. As the Buddha said, during his time on Earth, there was no other with the same realization. Which is why he is considered a wheel turning Buddha that starts the wheel of the Dharma going because it had died and was non-existent at the time of such a Buddhas coming to the Earth.

[Encephalon]

As a self-described Buddhist who also practices Taoist energy arts (nei kung), I just want to point out that Buddhism is not a monolithic voice.

 

monolithic- characterized by massiveness, total uniformity, rigidity, invulnerability, etc.: a monolithic society.

 

We are represented by a mulitplicity of views, practices, lineages. I would suggest that we all keep this in mind when indulging in our beloved conversations. I would also suggest that we try to stick to Taoism in this forum. I have brought up Buddhism on more than one occasion, but hopefully, in a way that is pertinent to Taoism.

 

The two cannot be completely separated; their connections are vastly greater than their differences. But whatya say we cool our Buddhist jets for a while?

[Vajrahridaya]

As a self-described Buddhist who also practices Taoist energy arts (nei kung), I just want to point out that Buddhism is not a monolithic voice.

 

The philosophy can be integrated with any technique or method, action or thought, but not any over-all interpretation of the cosmos.

 

The two cannot be completely separated; their connections are vastly greater than their differences. But whatya say we cool our Buddhist jets for a while?

 

Whatever everyone wants to do. I was just sharing something I wrote for someone for anyone who it might have benefited.

 

p.s. I'm going to go post it in E-Sangha.

Edited September 21, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[林愛偉]

Taken from "Buddhism A to Z" compiled by ROn Epstein published by the Buddhist Text Translation Society:

http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/BuddhistDict/BDC.html

 

---Cosmology

The Buddha proclaimed that on the highest level of understanding the entire cosmos is pure Mind. On the ordinary level of understanding he painted a picture of a cosmos filled with countless world-systems (see entry) with countless planets filled with living beings of every sort. Our particular world-system is neither unique nor central in any way. Other world systems also have their Buddhas, who also teach the path to enlightenment.

 

The Flower Adornment Sutra describes the universe as consisting of an infinitely large lotus-flower in which our world occupies the thirteenth tier. The lotus is suspended on various oceans of primal mind-energy forces called Great Elements.

 

Our World System: the Saha World

 

Our particular world-system, as is the case with all world systems, can be described in both 'horizontal' and 'vertical' directions. The 'horizontal' refers to its layout in space, while the 'vertical' dimension refers to the levels of consciousness of the various types of beings who inhabit it.

 

The center of our world is Mount Sumeru, which is surrounded by four great 'continents'. Earth is located in the southern continent, named Jambudvipa. The continents are surrounded by seas and rings of iron mountains.

 

 

Within the Saha world are Six Paths of Rebirth (see entry), that is, six different types of living beings, each with its own distinctive kind of karma. The Beings are generally categorized according to which of the Three Worlds (see entry) they abide in. The Three Worlds are the world of desire, the world of form, and the formless world. The characteristics of some of these beings are described in the entries for gods, ghosts, asura, Six Desire Heavens, Four Dhyanas, Four Formless Realms---

[ralis]

Taken from "Buddhism A to Z" compiled by ROn Epstein published by the Buddhist Text Translation Society:

http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/BuddhistDict/BDC.html

 

---Cosmology

The Buddha proclaimed that on the highest level of understanding the entire cosmos is pure Mind. On the ordinary level of understanding he painted a picture of a cosmos filled with countless world-systems (see entry) with countless planets filled with living beings of every sort. Our particular world-system is neither unique nor central in any way. Other world systems also have their Buddhas, who also teach the path to enlightenment.

 

The Flower Adornment Sutra describes the universe as consisting of an infinitely large lotus-flower in which our world occupies the thirteenth tier. The lotus is suspended on various oceans of primal mind-energy forces called Great Elements.

 

Our World System: the Saha World

 

Our particular world-system, as is the case with all world systems, can be described in both 'horizontal' and 'vertical' directions. The 'horizontal' refers to its layout in space, while the 'vertical' dimension refers to the levels of consciousness of the various types of beings who inhabit it.

 

The center of our world is Mount Sumeru, which is surrounded by four great 'continents'. Earth is located in the southern continent, named Jambudvipa. The continents are surrounded by seas and rings of iron mountains.

 

 

Within the Saha world are Six Paths of Rebirth (see entry), that is, six different types of living beings, each with its own distinctive kind of karma. The Beings are generally categorized according to which of the Three Worlds (see entry) they abide in. The Three Worlds are the world of desire, the world of form, and the formless world. The characteristics of some of these beings are described in the entries for gods, ghosts, asura, Six Desire Heavens, Four Dhyanas, Four Formless Realms---

 

 

Mount Sumeru and Jambudvipa? Are you referring to some mythological fantasy?

 

ralis

[ngtest]

There is a nice article in here: http://www.meditationexpert.com/zen-buddhi...t_Buddhism.html

 

It says why Buddhism is so special really. A good excerpt which shows why Mahayana Buddhism is different from Hinduism:

 

"The key thing, however, is prajna wisdom. You see the Hindu sages could reach the various dhyana. Their highest attainment, however, was to identify with Brahman, a code word that meant pure consciousness. They identified this with their highest self, or atman.

 

Buddhism goes beyond pure consciousness. It cultivates one step further: pure prajna wisdom that sees consciousness. Buddha specifically warned not to identify the alaya base of consciousness as a self, but Hinduism is built upon this. That's why he was the Buddha -- the first to go beyond it in a long time and teach this. The foundation of this wisdom is the void, or emptiness. What it is no one knows. What Brahman is is sat-ananda-bliss. A Hindu says "I am Brahman, I am Shiva." By cultivating to the alaya consciousness, that's what they can attain. But they don't know how to overturn the alaya and its basis to achieve true spiritual realization."

[xabir2005]

Edited September 21, 2009 by xabir2005

[Eviander]

I think it is one of the only religions or schools of thought that claims to be in existence in multiple "world systems" or galaxies and solar systems. At least in my knowledge that is.

[xabir2005]

Edited September 21, 2009 by xabir2005