Is a buddha basically god?

[Tao99]

if you believe there is something worse then that then you have truly exposed yourself as a beginner as many here will see.

[Aetherous]

It just totally dumbs down the forum, and wastes a lot of time.

 

Last time I'll say it...

[Tao99]

No...if you state that I'm a bad person and don't like me because of it Tao99 that is ok. You would not be banned for it. You are just stating your truth. If I hurt from it then yes...there is a button inside me that is there...it's being pressed.

 

You have every right and reason to defend your character from defamation of character, as its the most spiritual thing you have. Its not your fault, and really you have a duty to yourself to stand up, if you think its valuable. Its getting your panties in a bunch over DO and those who don't believe that is button strange.

[Vajrahridaya]

Last time I'll say it...

 

I would indeed like to speak the Buddhist side of things without people getting bent out of shape.

 

My issue with ralis is between me and ralis. Other peoples personal vendettas against me are very strange though. Especially since ralis didn't really react like other people are reacting for him.

 

I have a history seeing what gambling does, and that probably clouded my judgment of him, especially since he spouted it a few times to me directly. So, that's probably my personal hot button. Eh?

 

But Tao99 really... LOL!! Your funny... pretty over the top actually. Almost a bit worse than Songs of Distant Earth and his constant following me around and throwing sarcastic remarks whenever he can.

 

Last time I'll say it...

 

Yes, your right Scotty.

 

Thank you for your kind words too.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

I would indeed like to speak the Buddhist side of things without people getting bent out of shape.

 

My issue with ralis is between me and ralis. Other peoples personal vendettas against me are very strange though. Especially since ralis didn't really react like other people are reacting for him.

 

I have a history seeing what gambling does, and that probably clouded my judgment of him, especially since he spouted it a few times to me directly. So, that's probably my personal hot button. Eh?

 

But Tao99 really... LOL!! Your funny... pretty over the top actually. Almost a bit worse than Songs of Distant Earth and his constant following me around and throwing sarcastic remarks whenever he can.

 

 

Ha! You should be flattered...hey, Vajra..your shoe's untied......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Made ya look!

 

 

 

 

But seriously, somebody's gotta keep ya honest. And it's TheSongsofdistantEarth. Plus, I only use sarcasm sometimes, which you yourself do. Otherwise, I use humor, or call you on some of the B.S. you sometimes let loose with...

Hey, Good Times....

[Tao99]

Its your vendettas which beget vendettas. If you speak such character assignation to ralis because he disagrees with you then you will do it to any member here. I'm a zen adept; I don't get angry. After the whackings and screaming shouts of my master you think this trivial crap moves me? please.

 

Here is what I'm saying to you V. If you think we here I going to be like quiet sheep while you defame people's character, and call them ignorant, deluded, projecting, ego-driven, unliberated, you've got another thing coming.

 

PS your ego leads you to the conclusion that I follow you around. I don't follow you around. I try reading the Taoist Difference and other threads and there you are spouting the above like your the buddha pope.'

 

Truth is - it's you who are here following us Taoists around silly.

[Vajrahridaya]

Otherwise, I use humor, or call you on some of the B.S. you sometimes let loose with...

Hey, Good Times....

 

Only towards you am I sarcastic... otherwise I'm just sometimes facetious.

 

But... one man's B.S. is another mans truth. So... to me... much of what you believe in, having to do with what you think is logical and limiting it to 5 sense detectable reality, is a bunch of B.S. But, that's your truth!

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Only towards you am I sarcastic... otherwise I'm just sometimes facetious.

 

But... one man's B.S. is another mans truth. So... to me... much of what you believe in, having to do with what you think is logical and limiting it to 5 sense detectable reality, is a bunch of B.S. But, that's your truth!

 

 

Dude, you have no idea what my reality is like...none. There you go again, making assumptions about people.

Edited October 4, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Vajrahridaya]

he will acquire the ability to test the veracity of his thoughts in an environment more challenging than an online forum, such as, a classroom... with students... and professors...

 

Sounds like your conditioned by the system.

 

Oh well.

 

Metaphysical debates have been going on in Eastern classrooms for millenniums. Buddha even had a few. He disagreed with Vedantin metaphysical conclusions and said so and he disagreed with Jain metaphysical conclusions and said so.

 

 

 

Dude, you have no idea what my reality is like...none. There you go again, making assumptions about people.

Alright, who's older, you or me?

 

Me

 

Because I remember being sentient for longer.

 

I don't care much about physical age. Except as one get's physically older I hear it's harder to make a paradigm shift in perception.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

ego.

[Vajrahridaya]

ego.

 

Yes, it's the ego that recycles and part of the process to freeing oneself of the ego is seeing how endlessly it recycles... I mean seeing directly.

 

You take care Mr. Songs...

 

 

I mean he could be a complete dick and offend all the Buddhists and all of the Christians on the board by saying offensive things about their teachers, but he didn't.

 

LOL! No, I don't think I did!! But maybe I should!!?? Kidding...

 

Thank you for speaking kindly. It makes me blush a bit. I'm not used to that here.

 

I'm using it as as fodder for my practice though. Praise and blame, it's all the same. While working on myself of course.

[Gerard]

No God. Just someone with good karma and lots of hard work and determination. You are a Buddha too, just need to shed off the "garbage" called mind.

[ralis]

Anybody who learns spiritual techniques to further his no-limit gambling carrier is a fraud.

 

ralis admitted to this. This is why I don't like him as a personality.

 

Your projections Tao99 are really none of my concern though. I'll let you have them.

 

 

"The Art of War" is about creating strategies that one can apply to any endeavor. As far as your problem with gambling goes I suggest you work it out yourself. Or with your father.

 

The fraud comment is way over the line and I would appreciate civility in future discussions.

 

 

ralis

[Zhuo Ming-Dao]

Just wondering, is a buddha basically god? Not what people think god is, but if you escape the dissolution and recreation of the universe, but yet are still existent as something limitless and without intention... is that not natural god?

 

Just out of curiosity, could we discuss this very difficult and interesting question?

 

Marblehead gave a solid, if slightly materialistic, answer and explanation. Vajrahridaya provided a literal, traditional Vajrayana interpretation. Both of these answers have great merit. I would also like to see the interpretations of other schools of thought. And maybe I am asking too much, but I would also like to see a discussion and debate of the ideas rather than the people who presented the ideas.

 

To support Marblehead's original proposition, the Buddha refused (in the Pali Cannon) to talk about parinirvana. Given that the mechanism that caused people to reincarnate was extinguished upon reaching nirvana, and that there was no self, and that the skandas would no longer have anything to hold them together, it is perfectly logical to assume that the Buddha ceased to exist after his physical body died.

 

However, I tend to fall on the more optimistic side. Since the Buddha (or any enlightened one) lost the sense of an independent, eternal self, and Realized the interdependent nature of reality, I think that he simply became that interconnectedness. In other words, he became Indra's Net, and his true self/buddha nature continues to reverberate through the timeless interconnections from the beginning of time to the end of time.

 

Perhaps this is just a more philosophical way for presenting Vajrahridaya's more mythological perspective. I also admit that my interpretation is based on reading and extrapolation rather than personal experience (I have never traveled to such high astral realms, and even if I did I would still probably suspect that my mind was interpreting a grander experience through more familiar symbolism and mythology.)

 

Does anyone else have a take on it?

 

- Oh, and by Buddhism's own religious definition of the word god, we know that enlightenment is something that the Hindu gods (and presumably gods of other traditions) have not yet achieved. A Buddha is therefore something more than a god (or less than a god - thank you durkhrod chogori). If you mean the word "god" in a more anthropological sense, then we need to specify that a little so that we are all working from the same perspective.

Edited October 4, 2009 by Zhuo Ming-Dao

[Vajrahridaya]

However, I tend to fall on the more optimistic side. Since the Buddha (or any enlightened one) lost the sense of an independent, eternal self, and Realized the interdependent nature of reality, I think that he simply became that interconnectedness. In other words, he became Indra's Net, and his true self/buddha nature continues to reverberate through the timeless interconnections from the beginning of time to the end of time.

 

 

 

Well, that would seem so. But, he accumulated an endless positive reservoir from which to manifest from by flipping his ignorance into wisdom. So he manifests the opposite of the sense of lacks that keep an individual self together and instead manifests a body of offering through the Mahayana interpretation. As the Mahayana is mostly preached from his afterlife to very high level practitioners. But, not all of it. Plenty of it is from while he was alive.

 

He also... according to the Pali left out of the 4th Jhana which is equal to the refined form realm in the higher dimensions while having realized the empty nature of all realms of experience so has realized the dharmakaya beyond proliferation. According to the 31 planes of existence of the Pali Suttas interpretation of what realms the different Jhanas are equal to, he would still be teaching the gods and influencing theists from higher realms.

 

Take care.

Edited October 4, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

my gods some of you people need to start watching Lost or some other show to get your drama fix

 

battlestar galactica is really good... srsly. check it out.

[Vajrahridaya]

my gods some of you people need to start watching Lost or some other show to get your drama fix

 

battlestar galactica is really good... srsly. check it out.

 

Actually he's right... BSG is awesome!! So is Lost though... but not as awesome... But... I'm a Sci Fi looooover!

[Sunya]

as for the argument about Buddha existing or not after enlightenment -- check out this article by the DL

 

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archi...at_is_self.html

 

my opinion is that the Theravada only speaks of the gross level of mind which has to do with identity and form. so you could say that the Buddha ceased existing after death.. but according to Mahayana there are deeper levels of mind that the Pali Suttas do not speak of, and the subtlest nature of mind does continue after enlightenment; this subtlest nature is pure and empty and does not depend on ignorance for its existence.

 

whether the Buddha was God or not depends on your definition of God. since the traditional meaning of God is ultimate creator and supreme being then no Buddha is not God. but if you mean that God is an eternal being that has infinite compassion, wisdom, and can manifest any form whatsoever, then yea... i'd say Buddha is God, but not THE God, just one of infinite # of Gods, he merely realized his own nature, which is inherent to all beings

 

Actually he's right... BSG is awesome!! So is Lost though... but not as awesome... But... I'm a Sci Fi looooover!

 

haha i got my room mate into BSG so re-watching it with him. frakkin cylons!

[Old Man Contradiction]

By the word god, I was meaning basically any meaning of the word besides that of an individual entity. Not a god, or the God. But universal god...

 

I was wandering if perhaps Buddha became part of the impulse of compassion, creation, beauty, awe, all of these things, I wonder if he, and other buddhas, became one with this impulse that is inherent in nature and the universe. the Inspiration and Insight at the Center of the Cosmos.

 

Or do you believe that ultimately enlightened, he is still a conscious entity that is making choices in the universe? Or is everything that he does just complete spontaneity and rule of nature?

Edited October 4, 2009 by Old Man Contradiction

[Sunya]

this Vaj attack is really polluting the forum. Let's practice some mindfulness and accept his answers as what they are... just words. And yes, i agree with SereneBlue that any pain felt by words, is your pain and your pain alone.

 

By the word god, I was meaning basically any meaning of the word besides that of an individual entity. Not a god, or the God. But universal god...

 

I was wandering if perhaps Buddha became part of the impulse of compassion, creation, beauty, awe, all of these things, I wonder if he, and other buddhas, became one with this impulse that is inherent in nature and the universe. the Inspiration and Insight at the Center of the Cosmos.

 

Hi OMC,

 

I understand what you mean, and its an interesting question. I can only tell you what the Buddhist view is of this.. there is no such thing as 'Universal God' in Buddhism. nor is there anything that is Universal Compassion or Universal Beauty of Awe or any of those things. What you speak of do exist in nature, that cannot be questioned, but only on an individual level. Each being is driven towards compassion because it is more in-line with the metaphysical truth of reality, that we are all interdependent and acting selfishly is painful to everyone. but there does not exist a Universal compassion. Each being is driven to see beauty in everything but this beauty does not exist anywhere as a universal. this Impulse that you speak of that is inherent in nature is a concept that does not exist in any Buddhist teachings. nor is there anything close to a 'center of the Cosmos'. according to Buddhist masters there is no center of the cosmos nor is there no source to reality; to think otherwise is to live in fantasy.

 

the Buddha did not become part of anything, he merely realized what already is. he merely opened his eyes. he didn't 'become' anything because the enlightened state is not manufactured or created.

 

 

 

Or do you believe that ultimately enlightened, he is still a conscious entity that is making choices in the universe? Or is everything that he does just complete spontaneity and rule of nature?

 

conscious and unconscious are relative, aren't they? if you never slept and never died.. would you still be 'conscious' ? the awakened being simply is. but yes the buddha is an individual being but his actions are completely spontaneous...not as a rule of nature but because of his compassion and will. 'nature' is not a thing or grand machine that we are all cogs of.. at least not in the Buddhist sense. nature is just an idea; a concept, that cannot be found if you look for it.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

1. I was wandering if perhaps Buddha became part of the impulse of compassion, creation, beauty, awe, all of these things, I wonder if he, and other buddhas, became one with this impulse that is inherent in nature and the universe. the Inspiration and Insight at the Center of the Cosmos.

 

2. Or do you believe that ultimately enlightened, he is still a conscious entity that is making choices in the universe? Or is everything that he does just complete spontaneity and rule of nature?

 

Ah... now your getting deep. Point one is defined by the concept of Tathagatagarbha.

 

Point two is defined by the 3 kayas. Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya.

 

You can look those up, even Wiki them.

 

Good questions though. I hope these answers help you in your research!

 

 

nor is there no source to reality; to think otherwise is to live in fantasy.

 

Very good overall answer Michaelz!

 

But here... you mean... also instead of "nor"... right? As in, there is no primal source to reality, no first cause?

[Encephalon]

The honorable thing for me to do at this point is to concede my ignorance of VJs lineage and training. I still hafta argue about the importance clear speech, but having no direct experience with his training I cannot declare that what he has accomplished is not legitimate.

 

I should also concede the uncharity of my words. I probably wouldn't take back much of my sentiment, but I haven't acquired the ability to commune in here without getting my ego involved. I have a long way to go.

 

Having just finished an academic project on connectedness and interdependency, I am all the more the hypocrite because I have written forcefully that kindness and generosity are essential qualities if one is to realize ones connectedness and participate consciously in an ecological, interdependent reality. I would like to believe that an ecological education can go a long way toward a philosophical experience of connectedness, and that Taoist internal energy work can deepen that experience into a truly visceral and somatic experience.

 

So far, my energy work has been exploding, and some bad is coming out with the good. Sorry.

I'm working on it.

[Vajrahridaya]

So far, my energy work has been exploding, and some bad is coming out with the good. Sorry.

I'm working on it.

 

Ooo, that's a process we go through to the end, i.e. enlightenment. See, Vajrayana also has internal energy work practices.

 

I understand this experience experientialy at least. Sometimes I would be crying out of intense bliss and realization of interdependence beyond concept, having epiphanies and visions while sitting or walking or talking and then... all of a sudden, feel an oncoming of tension from seemingly no-where; anger, extreme energy like I'm on coffee, or fatigue, like no other... as if my body was a ton of bricks for no reason. These are called Kriyas in the Shaiva Tantra tradition. Just the dispelling of latent karmic traces from the central channel.

Edited October 4, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Capital]

Hmm, the following is my opinion on the matter.

 

There 'is' not a creator, because 'is' is a form of 'to be' and... that's really already too far.

 

Once something 'is', it has already been created, and that means it is as illusory and waning as everything else.

 

Even stars and solar systems and galaxies come to an end. The universe will, I feel, and then it will perhaps be created again.

 

Do not take me too seriously. They say one only speaks who understands little.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I was wondering if perhaps Buddha became part of the impulse of compassion, creation, beauty, awe, all of these things, I wonder if he, and other buddhas, became one with this impulse that is inherent in nature and the universe. the Inspiration and Insight at the Center of the Cosmos.

 

I'll say a little more here now... just because all of a sudden I remembered your questions while doing something else and had these thoughts to embellish on what Michaelz said.

 

It's true that according to Buddhism, there is no inherent nature. But, what Tathagatagarbha means, is that there is a nature inherent in realizing dependent origination or non-inherent nature. Not that dependent origination has any nature other than the flow of impermanence and causation. The Tathagatagarbha is considered the womb of enlightened activity and is universal as interconnection and impermanence is permanent and universal. This all Buddhas realize since beginningless time. What they realize is dependent origination, inter-connectivity and thus resulting in dharma activity for the benefit of all beings, since we are all connected. Not one, but connected. So, the nature of enlightenment is compassion, altruism, infinite loving kindness, wisdom, etc. All the positive qualities that you can think a conscious being can have is what Tathagatagarbha means as a womb resultant specifically of realizing inter-connection and non-abiding nature. It's figurative really, as in, it's the absolute nature of realization, but realization has no absolute nature other than just a sentient being seeing how what is, does it's is'ness.

 

 

p.s. Please ask me any questions about this as in words, I know it seems paradoxical, but it really isn't.