Buddha kept silent about God

[thelerner]

I like to keep God out of my Buddhism. It falls into the area of things I don't, and probably can't know. Whereas the Buddhism I like is the clear experiential outlook and instruction.

[RongzomFan]

Just to clarify.

 

None of the deities or Buddhas in Buddhism are Creators.

 

And non-enlightened deities have a lifespan and get reincarnated.

[林愛偉]

Is that why in the "Journey to the west," King Mara was scared of Sun WuKong because King Mara can still die.

So gods can die and be reborn. Am I getting that right? If I'm right, that explains how the greek gods could still die. That always made me wonder when I studied the greek gods when I was younger.

 

Sun Wukong, having taken refuge, became a Bhikshu, which has 3 meanings, one of which means "Frightener of Mara".

Why? Because before one resolves to attain enlightenment, and leave the defilements of their mind aside, state their resolve and take precepts, the desire realms shake, and since Mara is a Demon king of one of the Desire Heavens, his realm quakes with a fierce vibration. That lets him know he has lost another one to the proper way.

 

Before one resolves to attain enlightenment, the demons don't really care much for you, there is no threat. But once there is a thought, and application to it, to attain enlightenment, the demons come and mess with you, obstruct the mind so one feels frustrated, and fearful to go any further. Those who push further frighten the demons, and when they get some strength in cultivation, and take further steps to push forward, the heavens quake.

 

Thus, Mara was afraid of Sun Wukong. Sun Wukong, before attaining enlightenment, was immortal, and still subject to birth and death, it was that his "death" didn't come, it would have been sooner. Immortals are said to have a lifespan of 10,000yrs. Thus, they seem immortal. If they push forward in cultivation and don't claim that they reached the ultimate, they will find their state is not permanent, and be able to go further to actual deathless-ness.

 

Gods also can lose their position over time, if they don't go further in cultivation, and or maintain their blessings.

Edited February 3, 2013 by 林愛偉

[Simple_Jack]

So, WHO represents the Buddha's actual thought today? I would say the closest are the Theravada, Dzogchen/Mahamudra and Ch'an. All of these traditions contain the kernel of the Buddha's teaching which is 5 skhandas, Samsara, and getting out of Samsara = Nirvana/Nibbana.

Hey, don't forget about the Chinese Agamas! Anyway's here's what I dug up from DW:

 

 

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=4767

 

...Many of the early Chinese scriptures were imported from Central Asia, not India, where the Sarvāstivāda school, not any school using the Pali canon, was flourishing. Early Chinese Buddhism is actually based on Central Asian Buddhism....The Chinese translations were not translated from Pali. They were probably translated from numerous languages including Sanskrit, Gandhari and Tocharian.....There was also no "original canon" from which all other canons sprung. The teachings were transmitted orally and then multiple traditions some many years after the Buddha's death set down to writing them. Pali is just one such language in which they were written. The oldest physical surviving Buddhist manuscripts we have today are written Gandhari from northern India....It's pretty standard Nikāya era language. For example, see the Pāli Paṭisambhidāmagga Suññatākathā, where each of the twelve sensory spheres (āyatanā) are said to be "empty of a self or that which belongs to a self or of what is permanent and everlasting and eternal and not subject to change."...Doctrinally, all of the early texts are very similar. The only major differences are in word choice and how the basic pericopes are strung together to form larger units, and then how these larger units of sūtras are arranged into Āgamas/Nikāyas. Check out Four Gāndhārī Saṃyuktāgama Sūtras (and the other publications in this series) for a detailed comparison of issues regarding Indic, Chinese, and Tibetan languages, Āgama arrangement, etc....The Chinese Agamas reveal the multiplicity of early Buddhist canons, in my opinion. The four Agamas were translated by different translators and seem to come from differing sects in India (Dharmaguptaka, Sarvastivada, etc). It pretty much shatters the monolithic scriptural tradition idea that we tend to have just looking at the Pali. I have found it interesting to compare the Chinese to the Pali. Sometimes, the Sutras are very similar, almost identical. Sometimes they are the same in doctrinal content, but differ quite a bit in style (the Chinese perhaps has more gathas, and so forth). And sometimes, they are significantly different. But, usually, they line up fairly well. There are definitely cases in which my impression is that the Chinese version is "better" than the Pali -- that is, more coherent, lacking strange insertions, etc. And sometimes, the opposite is true. It's very much a case by case situation. One interesting thing that jumps out right away is that while the four Agamas have basically the same names as the Nikayas (Digha = Dirgha, Majjhima = Madhyama, etc) the actual collections of sutras are "jumbled". The Madhyama has a large number of Sutras found in the Anguttara Nikaya, and so forth. So, I would assume these are different traditions from the time of compilation on. On the other hand, the (apparently Dharmaguptaka) Dirgha Agama is pretty close to the Digha Nikaya. But, there, again, it has a large cosmological Sutra attached that is missing from the Nikayas!

Edited February 3, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[Birch]

林愛偉 that sounds like the Buddha 'teaching' emanations are also 'technically' gods as well. Certainly, for as long as people worship them. I'm confused as I often am because each entry into Buddhism seems to contradict the others. I'm sure I will be chided as a 'dualist'.

 

What does Taoism have to say about the hierarchies of 'emanations' (for want of a better word)?

[林愛偉]

林愛偉 that sounds like the Buddha 'teaching' emanations are also 'technically' gods as well. Certainly, for as long as people worship them. I'm confused as I often am because each entry into Buddhism seems to contradict the others. I'm sure I will be chided as a 'dualist'. What does Taoism have to say about the hierarchies of 'emanations' (for want of a better word)?

 

 

Good observation, yet, the Buddha only spoke on their god states, and what constitutes one attaining the merit and virtue to be reborn in the heavenly realms, and even be reborn as a god.

Whether they exist because we think them, or not, is irrelevant. What is, is out there regardless of our awareness or belief, and truthfully, gods don't need our blessings and worship to survive.

 

What the whole worship gods thing in other traditions was simply the passing of merit to the gods so they can maintain their state. If the gods didn't do the work of maintaining their state themselves, then they relied on people to pass it to them. If the people didn't, and the gods wouldn't maintain on their own, as with all states, their state would undergo decay, and they would die from the god realms and simply be reborn again somewhere else. There is a timespan for every rebirth.

 

as for Daoist cultivation, there are immortals, and there are gods in the heavenly realms, demons in the demon realms, even heavenly demons. They are not openly spoken about because to do so would be to have to go deeper into it, and teachers would be necessary. Same in Buddhist cultivation. Worrying about other realms outside of humans, requires more guidance and a teacher who "knows". Its usually safer that way :-) Also, old western translators of Daoist texts most likely didn't even believe in any thing outside of humans, animals and fish, and either left the other worldly things out, and or just disregarded them. Some did keep to it, but its not as in depth in explanation as Buddhist education as brought it. And the reason is because Buddhism, this time around, showed up in India first, thus a culture understanding, somewhat more so, in "other worldly things".

[Birch]

"What is, is out there regardless of our awareness or belief..."

 

Interesting, definitely.

[林愛偉]

Ahh is that why the god of Judeo-Christian god and Allah have maintained their state for so long? I was thinking about that about he stayed as a god for so long.

 

Of course, the Bible has deeper meanings to it (hint Kabbalah). Plus a whole ton of the Bible is originally from Egyptians. The history of the Jews is quite hard to really find the true history of them as a lot of it make fictitious claims.(If I'm wrong about that or that there is something you could add to that. Please do ) but it's quite obvious that the people of these religion worship one of the gods and miss the true teachings of the bible. But that seems to be their karma. I used to be very tense about this but I realized that it was their choice that put them into that type of worship. So I just laugh and move on with my cultivation.

 

I find your comments to be inspiring man. You definitely study a good deal don't you. Haha you'll probably say that you have a whole bunch to learn.

 

 

Actually, Gods who are still cultivating the way will maintain their states on their own. And because they cultivate the way, and have some wisdom, they do appear to various peoples in a way which those peoples can relate, teaching expedients based on their karmic conditions/capacities. They do that in order to teach them how to get to their heaven, because that is all those peoples can do, and then once they are there, they get a big smack of reality, and are taught deeper stuff...based on their capacities at that point as well.

 

Like Shakra Indra, appearing as Allah, appearing as the Jade Emperor, appearing as "God" of Judeo-Christian, Catholic belief. Even Amitabha Buddha appeared as Agni, the god of fire to those in the past who worshiped fire. Then once they were at a certain level, he dropped the expedient, and taught direct methods.

 

On this planet, in this realm, the term "Buddhist", "Daoist", "Hindu", etc are just expedient phrases to get people to cultivate the way...in any "WAY" that fits according to the main principles, and to the cultures of the various living beings here.

 

Its all a facade until the capacity to see past the facade becomes mature. Then, its as though one says "HOLY CRAP! That's what is was..." hahaha

 

I meditate and contemplate The Shurangama Sutra and Mantra, Dharani Sutra and Great Compassion Mantra and what it entails. I have learned that regardless of what I may come to realize, its still equivalent to a grain of dust, even smaller. Truthfully, I may remember a lot of things I read and write down in my journals, (my memory sucks too :-P) but I have realized that there is a hell of a lot that one can only realize with proper practice and proper practice...lol

 

You said it mr., I really have a lot more to learn... I'm no Arhat of the fourth stage, no Bodhisaattva, no Buddha. lol I'm an ant...easily squashed, miniscule in the big picture of ....things.

[林愛偉]

Oh that makes sense. So even though the God showed up as the creator to those of Christianity, Islam, and Judiasm. He only did that to teach them. I see now. That's why he showed anger to those who broke "his" laws when in fact, those laws were actually building up merit and virtue for the people. But the only thing I see nowadays is that they aren't really taught how to pray. They're taught to just believe, read the bible, and do good deeds. that's about it. They may pray a little but that's it. So I shouldn't even worry about them because they will cultivate towards enlightenment either way or not. Haha I used to think these people were caught in chains. Thanks for your insight!

 

 

Over time, people became greedy: for power, lust, control, you name it. People can change anything they get their hands on in order to make others fall in line with their own wishes. Thus demons of all kinds latching on to a human and giving them powers, or even insight to show off to others, so they can get people to believe in them. It builds up their retinue and power. But once the demon is satisfied, and bored, it moves on leaving the person "on the side of the road" and that person with no power and insight gets taken by the law (of society), put in jail, and because of his "crazy, twisted" wisdom falls to the hells of his own mind and afflictions. hahaha not fun...lol

[Birch]

Ha, a 'fun' question would be to ask what certain people would do with Jesus or Mohamed (PBUM) if they showed up today?

 

[林愛偉]

Ha, a 'fun' question would be to ask what certain people would do with Jesus or Mohamed (PBUM) if they showed up today?

 

 

probably call them nutcases, and we would have re-runs of "One flew over the Cuckoo's Nest" hahaha

 

The capacity of the times now, is for those with true insight at the capacity of Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, etc, should be quiet, and teach according to how people can accept them. Perhaps being born and leaving the home life, in any tradition, and teaching through those means, perhaps showing up as presidents, or politicians, or teachers, or babies, or prostitutes, or drug dealers, or druggies, or alcoholics, or smokers, or... You get the point.

 

They do, but its just so sublime and so "below" the radar, that it almost seems normal. Then, when it gets deeper, usually things become more clear as to who is who and what one is doing .

Edited February 4, 2013 by 林愛偉

[stefos]

Hi everyone,

 

Look, the Pali texts posit the Buddha speaking of Brahma and devas but not Brahman, which is neuter!

No where in the Pali texts is Brahman even found. Again, this is the situation in the Pali texts written 300 years after the Buddha's death and after the tumultuous "24 schools" period.

 

In the Buddha's day, Brahman was understood AND the Pali nikayas make no mention of this fact which was known in the vedas.

 

As a matter of fact, earliest Buddhism found in the Pali Nikayas shows a Vedic worldview of the Panchatattvas/Pachtattwas:

Earth, Wind, Water, Fire, Akash....

 

Also, the Buddha's 2 pre-enlightenment teachers taught along Vedic lines not non-Vedic lines...

 

Research this and post.

Stefos

[stefos]

I would agree that the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras and Madhyamaka are the distilled essence of Shakyamuni's teachings.

 

Mahayana arose in reaction to the crypto-realism of Abhidharma.

AHHH! We agree on something! Very Good.

 

Now, THE salient issue is: If Pali text Buddhism isn't pure Buddhist thought but redactionistic and only A view amongst many, then in truth NO ONE knows what the Buddha actually FULLY taught.

 

THAT sir, is the point of my statements......That is why I don't "buy" into Buddhism of today.

 

I practice Dzogchen & was initiated into Guru Yoga by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche and find that that reflects a same vein of teaching as the Nikayas but without the Theravadic Abhidharmic stuff which is the Theras later add on.

 

Be at peace,

Stefos

[林愛偉]

The Tripitaka is of the Pali Cannon, speaking in terms of the Theravadan Tradition. The Buddha spoke expedients according to the capacity of those he taught. In the beginning of his turning the dharma wheel, it was one method, and in time he brought other methods of practice, with differing information due to the level of practice he was prepared to teach.

 

Its quite unfortunate that there was a sectioning of Buddhist teaching. Simply because it all makes sense, and it all speaks to and according to the cultivator. I find benefit from the Buddha's earlier teachings as well as from his later teachings, and there is no contradiction. From one level of practice, to another within this school of Buddhism, the teachings are endless.

[RongzomFan]

Ha, a 'fun' question would be to ask what certain people would do with Jesus or Mohamed (PBUM) if they showed up today?

 

 

Like zombies?

 

For me, Columbia PhD in Ancient History Richard Carrier convinced me that Jesus never existed.

 

 

And this video convinced me that Mohammed never existed:

 

[RongzomFan]

Now, THE salient issue is: If Pali text Buddhism isn't pure Buddhist thought but redactionistic and only A view amongst many, then in truth NO ONE knows what the Buddha actually FULLY taught.

 

THAT sir, is the point of my statements......That is why I don't "buy" into Buddhism of today.

 

 

This is non-logical since Buddhism is based on the teachings of many Buddhas such as the Mahasiddhas, Dzogchen tertons etc. Not just Shakyamuni Gautama Buddha.

[RongzomFan]

I practice Dzogchen & was initiated into Guru Yoga by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche and find that that reflects a same vein of teaching as the Nikayas but without the Theravadic Abhidharmic stuff which is the Theras later add on.

 

Be at peace,

Stefos

 

Dzogchen is not similar to the the Nikayas. Its totally different.

[林愛偉]

Like zombies?

 

For me, Columbia PhD in Ancient History Richard Carrier convinced me that Jesus never existed.

 

 

And this video convinced me that Mohammed never existed:

 

 

Zombies...hahaha you know, they are not like what we see in the movies..

[stefos]

This is non-logical since Buddhism is based on the teachings of many Buddhas such as the Mahasiddhas, Dzogchen tertons etc. Not just Shakyamuni Gautama Buddha.

 

No, it is not non-logical. Early Buddhist thought & the Mahasiddhas are at odds at one another.

Not the same. The Mahasiddhas were influenced by a Mahayana & Tantric viewpoint

 

Dzogchen is not similar to the the Nikayas. Its totally different.

 

Yes, you're right. Dzogchen reflects the earliest Buddhist "gist", I believe, Ch'an does also.

However it would be incorrect to say that these 2 traditions reflect what Shakyamuni Buddha taught.

 

There is no logical way of proving what Buddha Shakyamuni actually FULLY taught....no way.

The Pali nikayas are the oldest & most complete texts we have, written 350 yrs after the Buddha died.

 

Stefos

[RongzomFan]

Are you saying the teachings of the Mahasiddhas are not Buddhism?

 

Are you saying the Mahasiddhas are not Buddhas?

Edited February 5, 2013 by alwayson

[Simple_Jack]

There is no logical way of proving what Buddha Shakyamuni actually FULLY taught....no way.

 

Not with deluded cognition, but through liberating insight. Which is developed by reading/hearing, reflecting and meditating on the teachings.

 

The Pali nikayas are the oldest & most complete texts we have, written 350 yrs after the Buddha died.

 

There was a period where the teachings were handed down orally, after Buddha's death. Are you saying that since Buddha's death, everyone up till now: Have been and are continuing to practice and expound a deluded or distorted doctrine?

 

That it has only been revealed until now, that Buddha was actually expounding on Brahman the whole time? This is completely illogical.

 

I believe, Ch'an does also.

 

Ch'an is based off the Tripitaka.

[stefos]

Are you saying the teachings of the Mahasiddhas are not Buddhism?

 

Are you saying the Mahasiddhas are not Buddhas?

 

What I'm saying is this:

 

What the Mahasiddhas taught aligns with Tantric thought not the Pali Nikayas.

 

Not with deluded cognition, but through liberating insight. Which is developed by reading/hearing, reflecting and meditating on the teachings.

 

 

There was a period where the teachings were handed down orally, after Buddha's death. Are you saying that since Buddha's death, everyone up till now: Have been and are continuing to practice and expound a deluded or distorted doctrine?

 

That it has only been revealed until now, that Buddha was actually expounding on Brahman the whole time? This is completely illogical.

 

 

Ch'an is based off the Tripitaka.

 

Ch'an is based off the Sarvastivada sect.

 

The most ancient Buddhist set of Nikayas we have is from the Theras.

The Tibetan & Chinese tripitaka are newer!

 

The Pali texts have the Buddha stating that Brahma is just a finite "god."

In contrast, the neuter Brahman is never mentioned in the Pali Texts.

The Pali texts were written (from various sources) early to late 1st century b.c.

 

In absense of proof disproving the Buddha taught against Brahman,

I say the Buddha did in fact teach the "neti, neti" way, which is used in jnana yog.

Nibbana only being the "blowing out/snuffing out" of conditioned consciousness and NOT the unconditioned consciousness which is Nibbana, per the Buddha's definition in the Pali Nikayas.

 

The Pali nikayas themselves borrowed from the vedic worldview and the cosmology of the vedas can be found

within them. In vedic thought, Brahman is the penultimate.

 

Nibbana is always described in a via negativa way never in a via positiva way:

Ex. The Buddha says "Monks if there were not this unborn, undying, unbecoming, uncreated, etc. etc. I would have told you so."

Notice the Buddha's supposed words here and in the rest of the Nikaya corpus: Buddha explained what was by saying what "it" wasn't.

 

Also, scholars agree that the term "atman" had different meanings in the time of the Buddha also.

 

So, when I say "We don't know Shakyamuni Buddha's full line of thought" we can see why.

 

Lastly, consider and please explain how we 2250 years after the "24 schools" period have THE definitive "word of the Buddha?".........We don't have his verbatim words written down while living, we only have the Pali Nikayas written 350 approx. years after the Buddha's death.

 

Stefos

P.S. I don't deny the chakras, nadis, various koshas, etc. only that modern Buddhism is not, en total, the "word of the Buddha."

Edited February 6, 2013 by stefos

[RongzomFan]

What I'm saying is this:

What the Mahasiddhas taught aligns with Tantric thought not the Pali Nikayas.

 

Are you saying the Mahasiddhas are not Buddhas?

 

By the way, Vajrayana is based on Madhyamaka since India.

 

 

P.S. I don't deny the chakras, nadis, various koshas, etc. only that modern Buddhism is not, en total, the "word of the Buddha."

 

Noone is claiming that Buddhism is "the word of the Buddha". Buddhism is the word of the Mahasiddhas too.

Edited February 6, 2013 by alwayson

[Simple_Jack]

Ch'an is based off the Sarvastivada sect.

 

The most ancient Buddhist set of Nikayas we have is from the Theras.

The Tibetan & Chinese tripitaka are newer!

 

The Pali texts have the Buddha stating that Brahma is just a finite "god."

In contrast, the neuter Brahman is never mentioned in the Pali Texts.

The Pali texts were written (from various sources) early to late 1st century b.c.

The story goes that Bodhidharma gave Huike the Lankavatara Sutra as a symbol of transmission after he helped him to reach his great awakening. This was passed down to each successive Patriarch's, until Hongren (5th patriarch) recited stanzas from the Diamond Sutra to Hui-neng. From then on the Diamond Sutra became the definitive sutra of the Ch'an school.

 

Did you read my post on pg.2? Many of the Chinese Agamas were from Central Asia. These scriptures were not based off of Pali, but several different languages which included Gandhari (which the oldest sutras come from.) There wasn't a single corpus from which all sutras came from, but a collection which different schools put to writing after a period of being passed on orally. The Chinese Agamas are nearly identical to the contents of the Pali cannon, despite not stemming from the same translations (I've seen this mentioned more than once, by people who can read/translate Classical Chinese.)

 

 

In absense of proof disproving the Buddha taught against Brahman,

I say the Buddha did in fact teach the "neti, neti" way, which is used in jnana yog.

Nibbana only being the "blowing out/snuffing out" of conditioned consciousness and NOT the unconditioned consciousness which is Nibbana, per the Buddha's definition in the Pali Nikayas.

 

The Pali nikayas themselves borrowed from the vedic worldview and the cosmology of the vedas can be found

within them. In vedic thought, Brahman is the penultimate.

"Neti, neti," is an affirming negation, to discover the Self, which is unseparated from Brahman. This has no place in the anatman teachings of Buddhism. Nibbana in Theravada, is described as the cessation of ignorance, aggression and craving. Clearly, these are your own interpolations.

 

Yes, Buddha borrowed a lot from Vedic Culture, because he was a Vedic Indian. He didn't set out to usurp nor subvert Vedic culture. Instead, he repurposed many of these concepts to fit with his teachings. The cosmology of Buddhism is completely different from the essentially top-down Monist cosmology of Advaita (due to Buddha teaching dependent origination.) This also differs from the other eternalist atmavada schools of Samkhya and Jainism, even though they don't posit a creator God either.

 

 

Nibbana is always described in a via negativa way never in a via positiva way:

Ex. The Buddha says "Monks if there were not this unborn, undying, unbecoming, uncreated, etc. etc. I would have told you so."

Notice the Buddha's supposed words here and in the rest of the Nikaya corpus: Buddha explained what was by saying what "it" wasn't.

 

Also, scholars agree that the term "atman" had different meanings in the time of the Buddha also.

 

So, when I say "We don't know Shakyamuni Buddha's full line of thought" we can see why.

 

Lastly, consider and please explain how we 2250 years after the "24 schools" period have THE definitive "word of the Buddha?"

 

Via Negativa, is just another way another way of affirming some "thing," via negation. This is still based off of realist views, which are predicated upon imputations of "it is" and "it is not." Nibbana, is the "undying, unborn, unbecoming, unconditioned," because the 12-fold chain of dependent origination ceases due to the cessation of ignorance, craving, aggression.

 

Yes, "atman," was expressed differently between the different sects. Buddha covers every eternalist and nihilist view in the Brahmajala Sutta. This does not mean that Buddhism taught an atman or held views of partial eternalism. There are also translations out there where atta was wrongly and deliberately used by certain translators. This is covered in Wapola Rahula's "What The Buddha Taught."

 

The different sub-scools that split after the 2nd council, didn't differ so radically that they were completely divorced from what we have today. Some of those sub-schools died out, while some of the other teachings were carried on and merged to create today's Hinayana and Mahayana.

[Cheshire Cat]

EDIT

Edited February 6, 2013 by DAO rain TAO