All Prophets are Buddhas or How We Decide Who is Enlightened!

[Aaron]

In another thread the idea came up that in the Buddhist view all people who are enlightened are Buddhas. In other words you could say that Jesus was a Buddha and Lao Tzu was a Buddha, and perhaps Socrates was as well. The issue with many people is that this is very much an ethnocentric approach that seems to place Buddhism as the ultimate truth and any other religion as a watered down version at best. Perhaps this view is true, but I think that it is still worth examining the idea that all enlightened people have had the same core experiences and that's what I wanted to really discuss in this thread.

 

So we have started many threads on the idea of what enlightenment really is and what I've come to understand is that the definition of enlightenment is relative, in other words the definition varies depending on who you ask. What I think we can all agree on is that the term enlightenment is meant to refer to someone who has had a transcendental experience.

 

My question is this, if all prophets are Buddha, then how can they come to their conclusions by following paths that radically differ from Buddha's? It seems to me that if the statement, "all prophets are Buddhas" is true, then Buddhism alone isn't the sole answer to easing suffering or understanding the nature of the universe, but rather the elements that allow one to become enlightened really rely less on ideology and more on personal experience. If this is true, then the phrase "Hold nothing holy" takes on an entirely different meaning. In essence it is not the thought and ideas that transform someone, but rather the actual experience.

 

I could go on about this, but I think I've said my peace and what I'd like to hear now is what other people feel about this. I look forward to your opinions. Behave as you wish, compassion is not required nor am I going to advocate it. You are who you are, so be who you are.

 

Aaron

Edited July 4, 2011 by Twinner

[Vajrahridaya]

In another thread the idea came up that in the Buddhist view all people who are enlightened are Buddhas. In other words you could say that Jesus was a Buddha and Lao Tzu was a Buddha, and perhaps Socrates was as well.

 

Speaking to no one specifically.

 

The above would be a complete misunderstanding of my statement, if that's it's reference. To know what a Buddha is, or what it is to truly be awake, it's best to go straight to the Muni (Gotama), who was very clear and nuanced within his explanations as recorded in the Pali and Sanskrit, and other language texts. Other teachers are very metaphorical and not so clear, even though, through the Buddhas clear explanations, they do become clear through subjective influence based upon this pre-requisite.

 

To cling to ones, "chosen tradition" whether it be "universalism" or by whatever name... is ones own choice. There is wisdom everywhere, as everything has the potential to be seen as a teacher of wisdom. But, relatively speaking? Who, of the single fire starters was so very clear, is recorded to have said the most on so many levels, and who very clearly influenced everyone else?

 

Anyway... attachments to this idea or that run deep.

 

If some sort of defense mechanism arises due to this, even for a moment, that's fine. But, not all paths lead to Buddhahood, and Buddhahood is not defined by some "enlightened" experience. Nagarjuna is probably the best go to for middle way answers to this question as far as logicians go. But, why beat a dead horse here in Taobums? Everyone has their process, including you (whoever you may be). Just, what best helps you get over yourself, right now?

Edited July 4, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Gerard]

What I think we can all agree on is that the term enlightenment is meant to refer to someone who has had a transcendental experience.

 

I agree with that but to me it is still incomplete. This is what I would add:

 

And lives accordingly to his transcendental experience; that is the experience permeates all aspects of his life.

 

As opposed to this:

 

http://www.strippingthegurus.com/stgsamplechapters/rama.asp

 

Otherwise it looks as if they had some sort of temporary tripping experience but still unable to clear out samskaras and move on.

 

About personalities, well focus on yourself and don't worry about the rest or you will create another mental conditioning which will hinder your practice.

[C T]

I have no hang-ups if you (anyone) wish to label the Buddha a Christ or a Lao Tzu. After all, these are all respectful terms used in the acknowledgement of these sublime Teachers' transcendent qualities which we hope to emulate.

 

In the Suttas, the Buddha generally addressed every person, without reservation, as a son or daughter of noble family... so why not attempt to cultivate a similar equanimous view with regards to our thinking? After all, spiritual cultivation is about developing an expansive spirit.

Edited July 4, 2011 by CowTao

[Birch]

In another thread the idea came up that in the Buddhist view all people who are enlightened are Buddhas. In other words you could say that Jesus was a Buddha and Lao Tzu was a Buddha, and perhaps Socrates was as well. The issue with many people is that this is very much an ethnocentric approach that seems to place Buddhism as the ultimate truth and any other religion as a watered down version at best. Perhaps this view is true, but I think that it is still worth examining the idea that all enlightened people have had the same core experiences and that's what I wanted to really discuss in this thread.

 

So we have started many threads on the idea of what enlightenment really is and what I've come to understand is that the definition of enlightenment is relative, in other words the definition varies depending on who you ask. What I think we can all agree on is that the term enlightenment is meant to refer to someone who has had a transcendental experience.

 

My question is this, if all prophets are Buddha, then how can they come to their conclusions by following paths that radically differ from Buddha's? It seems to me that if the statement, "all prophets are Buddhas" is true, then Buddhism alone isn't the sole answer to easing suffering or understanding the nature of the universe, but rather the elements that allow one to become enlightened really rely less on ideology and more on personal experience. If this is true, then the phrase "Hold nothing holy" takes on an entirely different meaning. In essence it is not the thought and ideas that transform someone, but rather the actual experience.

 

I could go on about this, but I think I've said my peace and what I'd like to hear now is what other people feel about this. I look forward to your opinions. Behave as you wish, compassion is not required nor am I going to advocate it. You are who you are, so be who you are.

 

Aaron

 

I tend to see 'isms' as suggested techniques/technology/mapmaking to get closer to understanding but at some point, the experience 'does itself' IMO/IME. What some 'isms' actually seem to do is lead people OFF the path. I mentioned this elsewhere and I still don't know why this would be desirable or to whom it would be desirable. You'd think that any given church would be overjoyed to count realized/enlightened people amongst their number, right?

 

Still, while one is still dealing with conditioning/BS/pain/delusion, it does seem to me to make sense to have 'fixes' for the body/mind/spirit but once you're done with whatever raft you've been on, well, you're done with the raft :-) The rest seems to me to be more practical stuff, like what to eat :-)

[Wynn]

Why do you guys parrot the old dead masters so much? You'll never Understand their pointers through your intellectual mind. Only no-mind, followed by direct experience, will reveal the Truth. Truth, by the way, that is everywhere, right in front of you, but hidden, because you can't stop thinking long enough to see it.

 

Recognize that that "spiritual dude or dudette" you think you are is nothing more than another ego apparition.

[Aaron]

I agree with that but to me it is still incomplete. This is what I would add:

 

And lives accordingly to his transcendental experience; that is the experience permeates all aspects of his life.

 

As opposed to this:

 

http://www.strippingthegurus.com/stgsamplechapters/rama.asp

 

Otherwise it looks as if they had some sort of temporary tripping experience but still unable to clear out samskaras and move on.

 

About personalities, well focus on yourself and don't worry about the rest or you will create another mental conditioning which will hinder your practice.

 

I agree with you Gerard, well said. And I also think we should focus on ourselves, but I don't think it's necessarily wrong to discuss things with others or bring up ideas, how else are we supposed to learn and get a fuller understanding of our own experience? I do get your point though, which is I think, don't worry *so much* about the rest...

 

Happy Fourth,

 

Aaron

Edited July 5, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

Why do you guys parrot the old dead masters so much? You'll never Understand their pointers through your intellectual mind. Only no-mind, followed by direct experience, will reveal the Truth. Truth, by the way, that is everywhere, right in front of you, but hidden, because you can't stop thinking long enough to see it.

 

Recognize that that "spiritual dude or dudette" you think you are is nothing more than another ego apparition.

 

 

Hello Wynn,

 

Well said, but I think Bodhidharma actually said what you've said first, so perhaps you should think of some other way to express your point, rather than rely on the words of an old dead master?

 

My point really is that there is nothing original. Even if you think what you're thinking is original, it isn't. So lets just be content to admit that some of these old dead masters actually had something worthwhile to offer us, rather than berate others for lacking originality, since really, originality is a fantasy.

 

Aaron

Edited July 5, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

I have no hang-ups if you (anyone) wish to label the Buddha a Christ or a Lao Tzu. After all, these are all respectful terms used in the acknowledgement of these sublime Teachers' transcendent qualities which we hope to emulate.

 

In the Suttas, the Buddha generally addressed every person, without reservation, as a son or daughter of noble family... so why not attempt to cultivate a similar equanimous view with regards to our thinking? After all, spiritual cultivation is about developing an expansive spirit.

 

Amen to that. To quote an ancient sage, "Free your mind and the rest will follow."

 

Aaron

Edited July 5, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

Speaking to no one specifically.

 

The above would be a complete misunderstanding of my statement, if that's it's reference. To know what a Buddha is, or what it is to truly be awake, it's best to go straight to the Muni (Gotama), who was very clear and nuanced within his explanations as recorded in the Pali and Sanskrit, and other language texts. Other teachers are very metaphorical and not so clear, even though, through the Buddhas clear explanations, they do become clear through subjective influence based upon this pre-requisite.

 

To cling to ones, "chosen tradition" whether it be "universalism" or by whatever name... is ones own choice. There is wisdom everywhere, as everything has the potential to be seen as a teacher of wisdom. But, relatively speaking? Who, of the single fire starters was so very clear, is recorded to have said the most on so many levels, and who very clearly influenced everyone else?

 

Anyway... attachments to this idea or that run deep.

 

If some sort of defense mechanism arises due to this, even for a moment, that's fine. But, not all paths lead to Buddhahood, and Buddhahood is not defined by some "enlightened" experience. Nagarjuna is probably the best go to for middle way answers to this question as far as logicians go. But, why beat a dead horse here in Taobums? Everyone has their process, including you (whoever you may be). Just, what best helps you get over yourself, right now?

 

 

I guess my point is that Buddhahood isn't exclusive to Buddhism, that all paths have the potential to lead someone to enlightenment, because the experience of enlightenment, in the end, transcends words and thoughts and instead is founded upon the fundamentals of experience. I think that trying to single one person out as being the most, or clearest, or best is silly, because there really is no way to compare them, at least without actually knowing these people and even then it's all based on our judgement, which can be flawed.

 

I think that we should also remember that there isn't any more evidence to support the existence of Buddha as a real person, than there is Christ or Lao Tzu. In fact of the ancient prophets, Zoroaster and Mohammed are perhaps the most credible, in regards to there actually being texts that existed during the time that they lived that refers to them. This tells me that I should always take whatever these prophets are said to have said with a grain of salt, not dismissing what they say, but also realizing that it very well could have been attributed to them in order to add credence.

 

I'm not saying this to argue or disparage Buddha, Lao Tzu, or Christ, but rather to point out that faith plays a large part in one's practice, especially when it comes to religion. Again, my point is that people can become enlightened regardless of religious belief and if this is true then it seems to me to be evidence that enlightenment does not reside within the words of prophets, but within the hearts of men.

 

Aaron

Edited July 5, 2011 by Twinner

[mYTHmAKER]

I guess my point is that Buddhahood isn't exclusive to Buddhism, that all paths have the potential to lead someone to enlightenment, because the experience of enlightenment, in the end, transcends words and thoughts and instead is founded upon the fundamentals of experience. I think that trying to single one person out as being the most, or clearest, or best is silly, because there really is no way to compare them, at least without actually knowing these people and even then it's all based on our judgement, which can be flawed.

 

I think that we should also remember that there isn't any more evidence to support the existence of Buddha as a real person, than there is Christ or Lao Tzu. In fact of the ancient prophets, Zoroaster and Mohammed are perhaps the most credible, in regards to there actually being texts that existed during the time that they lived that refers to them. This tells me that I should always take whatever these prophets are said to have said with a grain of salt, not dismissing what they say, but also realizing that it very well could have been attributed to them in order to add credence.

 

I'm not saying this to argue or disparage Buddha, Lao Tzu, or Christ, but rather to point out that faith plays a large part in one's practice, especially when it comes to religion. Again, my point is that people can become enlightened regardless of religious belief and if this is true then it seems to me to be evidence that enlightenment does not reside within the words of prophets, but within the hearts of men.

 

Aaron

 

Hey Aaron you're on a roll :)

[Vajrahridaya]

I guess my point is that Buddhahood isn't exclusive to Buddhism, that all paths have the potential to lead someone to enlightenment, because ..... enlightenment does not reside within the words of prophets, but within the hearts of men.

 

Aaron

 

Yes, this is true, but... upon clarity, there is a difference between a high minded person, with great love and purity of conduct, and a Buddha, even though a Buddha would have that as well. It depends on what you want, just some virtue and happiness in this lifetime, and a long life in a heavenly abode after, or true liberation from unconscious recycling (Samsara)? Samsara is a concept, which historically speaking, finds it's most clear description through the avenue of the Buddhadharma.

 

Many who are considered "enlightened" in other traditions, even Saints, are not necessarily Buddhas. Buddhahood is not merely defined by a great sense of virtue and humanitarian state of mind, even though that is a big part of it. Anyway... everyone has their capacity. Whatever evolves that person the best, right now, is the best for that person, right now.

 

But, the truth is in the details, which reflect the fruit of a particular mystics level of realization, as there are levels, practically speaking and relatively speaking. Though lets say, St. Francis of Assisi, a very great, great being indeed, I don't feel reached as deeply a state of insight into the nature of things as Padmasambhava, and didn't leave nearly as profound of a teaching. But, he did leave great inspirations and was himself a great inspiration of humanitarianism. He plays his positive role in the advancement of human decency. But, I don't think you can put him in the same bowl as Padmasambhava and say it's the same "enlightenment." It's not... Though you can mix them up and have a nice flavored stew that will only be very healthy upon digestion.

I'd like to say now for the record that I've studied both of these examples with great fervor and can quote from both extensively.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

How many posts have been argued over during the last two years as to the superior nature of Buddhism? Thousands! This incessant Buddhist preaching is absurd.

[Wynn]

Hello Wynn,

 

Well said, but I think Bodhidharma actually said what you've said first, so perhaps you should think of some other way to express your point, rather than rely on the words of an old dead master?

 

My point really is that there is nothing original. Even if you think what you're thinking is original, it isn't. So lets just be content to admit that some of these old dead masters actually had something worthwhile to offer us, rather than berate others for lacking originality, since really, originality is a fantasy.

 

Aaron

 

 

Hello Aaron

 

Every moment is fresh and new, never seen before. Creation is on-going. Yet the present is always similar to the past. But not identical.

 

"

My point really is that there is nothing original."

 

Truth absolutely is original. Everlasting, un-moving.

 

 

The Truth is always there, right in front of you. The exact same Truths that Buddha (and others) saw, you can see. Why did they see them, and you can't?

 

An active mind is incapable of knowing Truth. Period. Most people refuse to acknowledge that, and they will never truly "progress" spiritually until they do. Read all the Buddha/Lao Tzu/etc books you care to, but as long as you are using your intellect to translate their words, you're just floundering around.

[Aaron]

Hello Aaron

 

Every moment is fresh and new, never seen before. Creation is on-going. Yet the present is always similar to the past. But not identical.

 

"

My point really is that there is nothing original."

 

Truth absolutely is original. Everlasting, un-moving.

 

 

The Truth is always there, right in front of you. The exact same Truths that Buddha (and others) saw, you can see. Why did they see them, and you can't?

 

An active mind is incapable of knowing Truth. Period. Most people refuse to acknowledge that, and they will never truly "progress" spiritually until they do. Read all the Buddha/Lao Tzu/etc books you care to, but as long as you are using your intellect to translate their words, you're just floundering around.

 

Hello Wynn,

 

Hmm... you seem to be mistaken about a few things. First truth only exists within an active mind, in no-mind there is no truth, there is nothing but what is. The paradox that exists is that one cannot experience no-mind, without first experiencing mind. One must be able to think to not think, otherwise there is no thought to begin with, nor no-thought, because the very existence of no-thought depends on the existence of thought.

 

I thank you for granting me permission to read whatever I care to, it was very compassionate of you. Also, you might be interested in learning that the only way one can express one's practice to another is by communicating with them, that requires language and hence the need for words. If you can find another way, then please share, perhaps you're alluding to telepathy or some kind of mental communication that transcends the use of words or thought? If so could you please tell us... oh wait it transcends words and thought so I suppose you can't. Oh well. (Yes, that was sarcasm.)

 

Aaron

 

 

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

Yes, this is true, but... upon clarity, there is a difference between a high minded person, with great love and purity of conduct, and a Buddha, even though a Buddha would have that as well. It depends on what you want, just some virtue and happiness in this lifetime, and a long life in a heavenly abode after, or true liberation from unconscious recycling (Samsara)? Samsara is a concept, which historically speaking, finds it's most clear description through the avenue of the Buddhadharma.

 

Many who are considered "enlightened" in other traditions, even Saints, are not necessarily Buddhas. Buddhahood is not merely defined by a great sense of virtue and humanitarian state of mind, even though that is a big part of it. Anyway... everyone has their capacity. Whatever evolves that person the best, right now, is the best for that person, right now.

 

But, the truth is in the details, which reflect the fruit of a particular mystics level of realization, as there are levels, practically speaking and relatively speaking. Though lets say, St. Francis of Assisi, a very great, great being indeed, I don't feel reached as deeply a state of insight into the nature of things as Padmasambhava, and didn't leave nearly as profound of a teaching. But, he did leave great inspirations and was himself a great inspiration of humanitarianism. He plays his positive role in the advancement of human decency. But, I don't think you can put him in the same bowl as Padmasambhava and say it's the same "enlightenment." It's not... Though you can mix them up and have a nice flavored stew that will only be very healthy upon digestion.

I'd like to say now for the record that I've studied both of these examples with great fervor and can quote from both extensively.

 

Hell Vaj,

 

I'm glad you'v studied the examples, perhaps once you actually understand them you can share that understanding with us? As far as not being Buddhas, are you the arbiter of Buddhahood? Is the Dali Lama? I'm trying to figure out who chooses, since in my own mind only a Buddha would actually know they were a Buddha. So perhaps no one can say, "he is a buddha" or "she is not a Buddha" except for that very person? And because that person is human there is a chance they may be mistaken.

 

I know you'll come along and tell me the exact method for determining who is a Buddha, whether it is by an astrological reading, a birthmark, the aura, or whatever else, and all I can say is it doesn't matter, because in the end it is merely an observation and because it is an observation, it can be in error.

 

So this is what I propose, rather than debate about which religion is more enlightened than which, or whose saints are better and more wise, perhaps we should just admit that anything we decide can and may be wrong.

 

The other observation Vaj, is that you are undoubtedly, in my mind, attached to Buddhism. When someone asked the Dali Lama what the best religion was, he said, "The one that gets you closer to God". But you've answered over and over that it is Buddhism. I'd think about that.

 

Aaron

Edited July 5, 2011 by Twinner

[Vajrahridaya]

Hell Vaj,

 

I'm glad you'v studied the examples, perhaps once you actually understand them you can share that understanding with us? As far as not being Buddhas, are you the arbiter of Buddhahood? Is the Dali Lama? I'm trying to figure out who chooses, since in my own mind only a Buddha would actually know they were a Buddha. So perhaps no one can say, "he is a buddha" or "she is not a Buddha" except for that very person? And because that person is human there is a chance they may be mistaken.

 

It becomes clear when one has both scholarship and experience in the Buddhadharma. The Buddha was very clear about what constitutes a Buddha, as well as what they teach, he actually delineated a description out of compassion for us sentient beings. Now, Bodhisattvas on the other hand... that is also a very respectable degree of realization and they can populate any number of traditions for the sake of sentient beings. But, even to be a Bodhisattva one must have realization of emptiness, and most traditions do not have that in their main texts, but some mystics of theistic traditions seem to go that far, including some Christian, and Sufi Mystics, but that doesn't make them a Buddha, but a Bodhisattva. Being a Buddha is very specific and it's very rare, far more rare than being a Bodhisattva, even a high level Bodhisattva.

 

It's clear you haven't studied or practiced much Buddhism though, so it's fine that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to what it is to be a Buddha as far as how it's defined in Buddhism. So, your statements concerning this is somewhat null and void, simply based upon ignorance. Just like I wouldn't know much of what it is to be a Taoist Immortal, though I've learned a bit from being on here. I do not pretend to know enough to talk about what it is to be a Taoist Immortal.

 

No biggie.

 

The other observation Vaj, is that you are undoubtedly, in my mind, attached to Buddhism. When someone asked the Dali Lama what the best religion was, he said, "The one that gets you closer to God". But you've answered over and over that it is Buddhism. I'd think about that.

 

 

The Dalai Lama is a political figure and will be politically correct during public or to be publicized interviews. As the vast majority of people who hear of him or know of him will not sit down and actually study his teachings. But, if you took the time to read some of his more nuanced writings, he obviously considers Buddhism superior, as the Buddha himself did, and the Dalai Lama quotes from many historical Buddhas along those lines. The Dalai Lama is right though, Buddhism obviously is something that you have to be ready for, and if you're not ready for it, whatever brings you closer to your concept of goodness is the best for that particular individual. Basically this is what he thinks of the God concept, as I've read plenty of what the Dalai Lama actually thinks about Theism when he's not being politically correct.

 

He has stated that Brahma (Creator God) paths, lead to higher rebirth, higher capacity, and higher states of goodness, but not complete Buddhahood though they can lead to the capacity to understand Buddhadharma eventually. This is quoted from what the Buddha stated and what other Buddhas have said since Shakyamuni. So, either they are wrong, as you'd like to think they are, or they are right. I took a time out from my universalist theistic ideas some years ago and gave it a chance, I saw directly what the Buddha was talking about and conceded to his arguments, that indeed, most paths are limited in how high they can take you. This was very humbling.

 

I may be attached to Buddhism, which I'm very happy to be so. But, you are attached to your "God" concept, which I know you are happy to be so at this time.

 

So, whatever. I think you're view is wrong, and you think mine is wrong. Que sera, sera. Just continue evolving bro!! I promise I'll do the same.

 

One thing about being a Buddha though, is that a Buddha is not merely "human"... this is just the appearance due to karmic influence. A Buddha has internally transcended such limitations by transcending body consciousness and this transcendence can appear before a ready disciple, otherwise a Buddha will just appear as limited and bound as everyone else due to karmic influence. Of course, Hindu's and other mystics can do this as well, but they generally don't get past the God concept, which again, can be a very deep one indeed.

 

What I've seen plenty of people do, who think they are enlightened or whatever, is limit great beings by the limits of their own limited level of mystical experience, saying, "Oh, it's not possible because I haven't experienced it" and they may not say this consciously, but this limitation does have a tendency to limit a persons perception of possibility.

 

Tell me, what is a human Aaron? Is your perception of being a human the same as another? Anyway... have a great day.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

The incessant narrative as to the superiority of Buddhism or any belief system is that the arguments are only based on semantics. Semantic arguments are not absolute descriptions of phenomena but only are approximations of phenomena. Therefor, using primitive linguistic skills, no one ever has been able to accurately describe or quantify phenomena.

[Vajrahridaya]

Anyway... no, I don't think All Prophets are Buddhas. All prophets are inspiring! Maybe enlightened to a certain degree! But, Buddhas? No.

[ralis]

So, your statements concerning this is somewhat null and void, simply based upon ignorance.

 

 

Your use of the above that downright condemns others as adhering to ignorant belief systems is an insult. I suppose, you are not ignorant?

 

You seem to have a lot of time on your hands these days. No job yet?

Edited July 5, 2011 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Therefor, using primitive linguistic skills, no one ever has been able to accurately describe or quantify phenomena.

 

That's why there are also symbols like yantras, there are also yogic techniques and visualizations that help a person internally transcend conceptual boundaries. When these boundaries have been transcended to one degree or another, one may read the words of a Buddha as limited though they may appear due to being merely "primitive linguistic" symbols. The inner experience of them, which they are pointing to will not be limited by the appearance of the symbol.

[Wynn]

Hello Wynn,

 

Hmm... you seem to be mistaken about a few things. First truth only exists within an active mind, in no-mind there is no truth, there is nothing but what is. The paradox that exists is that one cannot experience no-mind, without first experiencing mind. One must be able to think to not think, otherwise there is no thought to begin with, nor no-thought, because the very existence of no-thought depends on the existence of thought.

 

I thank you for granting me permission to read whatever I care to, it was very compassionate of you. Also, you might be interested in learning that the only way one can express one's practice to another is by communicating with them, that requires language and hence the need for words. If you can find another way, then please share, perhaps you're alluding to telepathy or some kind of mental communication that transcends the use of words or thought? If so could you please tell us... oh wait it transcends words and thought so I suppose you can't. Oh well. (Yes, that was sarcasm.)

 

Aaron

 

 

 

Aaron

 

Hi Aaron

 

Please excuse my tone, and lack of grace, its mostly a semantics thing.

 

I'm fairly certain I'm not confused, as you say, but I'm not particularly interested in hubris either, and I realize I'm straying into that.

 

When I used to "think all the time", I made very little progress. I read countless books, and used my mind to "figure things out". Those "figurings" never seemed quite right however.

 

Then I stopped thinking. Not all the time, obviously, but quite a bit; maybe 50% of the time (impossible to put a number on it). I have found that during the absence of thought, you can not venture out of the present moment, the this-ness. Then, some things become apparent; obvious. And everything that needs doing, still gets done, just without the mental commentary.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but to me, this is the only Way.

 

 

Take Care

Dan

Edited July 5, 2011 by Wynn

[Aaron]

It becomes clear when one has both scholarship and experience in the Buddhadharma. The Buddha was very clear about what constitutes a Buddha, as well as what they teach, he actually delineated a description out of compassion for us sentient beings. Now, Bodhisattvas on the other hand... that is also a very respectable degree of realization and they can populate any number of traditions for the sake of sentient beings. But, even to be a Bodhisattva one must have realization of emptiness, and most traditions do not have that in their main texts, but some mystics of theistic traditions seem to go that far, including some Christian, and Sufi Mystics, but that doesn't make them a Buddha, but a Bodhisattva. Being a Buddha is very specific and it's very rare, far more rare than being a Bodhisattva, even a high level Bodhisattva.

 

It's clear you haven't studied or practiced much Buddhism though, so it's fine that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to what it is to be a Buddha as far as how it's defined in Buddhism. So, your statements concerning this is somewhat null and void, simply based upon ignorance. Just like I wouldn't know much of what it is to be a Taoist Immortal, though I've learned a bit from being on here. I do not pretend to know enough to talk about what it is to be a Taoist Immortal.

 

No biggie.

 

 

 

 

The Dalai Lama is a political figure and will be politically correct during public or to be publicized interviews. As the vast majority of people who hear of him or know of him will not sit down and actually study his teachings. But, if you took the time to read some of his more nuanced writings, he obviously considers Buddhism superior, as the Buddha himself did, and the Dalai Lama quotes from many historical Buddhas along those lines. The Dalai Lama is right though, Buddhism obviously is something that you have to be ready for, and if you're not ready for it, whatever brings you closer to your concept of goodness is the best for that particular individual. Basically this is what he thinks of the God concept, as I've read plenty of what the Dalai Lama actually thinks about Theism when he's not being politically correct.

 

He has stated that Brahma (Creator God) paths, lead to higher rebirth, higher capacity, and higher states of goodness, but not complete Buddhahood though they can lead to the capacity to understand Buddhadharma eventually. This is quoted from what the Buddha stated and what other Buddhas have said since Shakyamuni. So, either they are wrong, as you'd like to think they are, or they are right. I took a time out from my universalist theistic ideas some years ago and gave it a chance, I saw directly what the Buddha was talking about and conceded to his arguments, that indeed, most paths are limited in how high they can take you. This was very humbling.

 

I may be attached to Buddhism, which I'm very happy to be so. But, you are attached to your "God" concept, which I know you are happy to be so at this time.

 

So, whatever. I think you're view is wrong, and you think mine is wrong. Que sera, sera. Just continue evolving bro!! I promise I'll do the same.

 

One thing about being a Buddha though, is that a Buddha is not merely "human"... this is just the appearance due to karmic influence. A Buddha has internally transcended such limitations by transcending body consciousness and this transcendence can appear before a ready disciple, otherwise a Buddha will just appear as limited and bound as everyone else due to karmic influence. Of course, Hindu's and other mystics can do this as well, but they generally don't get past the God concept, which again, can be a very deep one indeed.

 

What I've seen plenty of people do, who think they are enlightened or whatever, is limit great beings by the limits of their own limited level of mystical experience, saying, "Oh, it's not possible because I haven't experienced it" and they may not say this consciously, but this limitation does have a tendency to limit a persons perception of possibility.

 

Tell me, what is a human Aaron? Is your perception of being a human the same as another? Anyway... have a great day.

 

Hello Vaj,

 

A couple things you are wrong about... first my attachment to "God". I really don't believe in God per se, I believe in a universal state of being, which is very different. I call it God because it's easier than trying to describe it as such. Second, I don't discount experiences because I haven't experienced them, that would be ignorant. What I say is that I don't necessarily believe it to be true unless someone provides me with proof. Third I would consider myself a Buddhist more than a Taoist, at least a Zen Buddhist, so believing that I dislike Buddhism is silly, rather I dislike absolutes.

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that you may have a misleading understanding of detachment. Detachment does not mean that you have no affection or feelings for something, but rather that you understand the impermanent nature of that thing and are not dependent upon it. Hence the Buddha can enjoy baseball or see the inherent beauty in a flower (or the ugliness of a pile of crap) and still be detached.

 

As far as Buddhism goes, I don't hold anything in Buddhism to be holy or sacred, it's just text and words, nothing more. I have read many sutras and take them with a grain of salt. Do I believe in Hells and Heavens and that mankind has lived for millions of years? No, but only because I believe that science has adequately explained why these things aren't so. Do I believe in Dependent Origination, yes and no. I believe in a common origin of all things and that all things are intimately connected, but I don't think DO necessarily is the end all meet all on the topic.

 

See what I do in my own practice is examine something before I agree with it. You can tell me Babe Ruth was the best baseball player that ever lived, but I don't necessarily believe that, I'll only agree that statistically he appears to be, the reason why is that I don't know if he was or wasn't. In the same way you can tell me that there is a specific way of determining who is a Buddha and I won't believe it necessarily, because I understand that Buddha was a man and as a man was fallible.

 

This notion that prophets were perfect is crazy to me. No man is more or less perfect than any other, so why is it okay to doubt Joe Schmoe or even a professor of religion, but not Buddha (or Jesus, Lao Tzu, and Zoroaster)?

 

Blind faith is the one aspect of religion that causes the most harm. Whether it's faith in the soul and the inherent purity or impurity of it, or the belief in the divinity of words set down on pages, one must examine things for what they actually are, rather than accept them to be facts merely because someone has told them that they are. For me, this means that Buddha may not have been a Buddha at all, he may have just been a very good con-man. I don't know either way, but what I do know is that when I sit in meditation I begin to get closer to where I need to be. I can sit and be content. For me that sometimes is enough.

 

Aaron

Edited July 5, 2011 by Twinner

[Vajrahridaya]

Do I believe in Hells and Heavens and that mankind has lived for millions of years? No, but only because I believe that science has adequately explained why these things aren't so.

 

Pre-script: By the way, sorry for the assumptions, but I wouldn't call you Zen, though I might call you Zen curious, LOL.

 

Science has explained away other dimensions of existence? Really? Where!?

 

I don't have blind faith either Twinner, I also need proof. I believe in other dimensions of existence, both lower vibration and higher vibration based upon direct experiencing through intense yogic discipline. I also don't limit human perception to the 5 senses, based upon experience in yogic perception.

 

Anyway... take care!

 

I think my view on this subject has been summed up already.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

For me, this means that Buddha may not have been a Buddha at all, he may have just been a very good con-man.

 

Just go deeper than the first couple of Jhanas in meditation is all.

 

I don't know either way, but what I do know is that when I sit in meditation I begin to get closer to where I need to be. I can sit and be content. For me that sometimes is enough.

 

Aaron

 

That wasn't enough for me and it wasn't enough for the Buddha either. Live more intensely, study yourself more intensely!! Meditate with more focus, or more letting go, contentment in the first couple of jhanas can be a trap! Well... if you wish to know the truth of things that is.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Vajrahridaya