Buddha kept silent about God

[RongzomFan]

Hajime Nakamura, Trevor Leggett. A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy, Part 2. Reprint by Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 2004 page 284-6

 

"As was pointed out in detail in the section titled Interpretation, many particular Buddhist terms or uniquely Buddhist modes of expression may be found in it."

 

"From the fact that many Buddhist terms are found in its explanation, it is clear that this view was established under the influence of the Mahayana Buddhist concept of Void."

 

"Although Buddhistic influence can be seen in the Maitri-Upanishad, the particular terms and modes of expression of Mahayana Buddhism do not yet appear, whereas the influence of the Mahayana concept of Void can clearly be recognized in the Mandukya-Upanisad."

 

"Although Mahayana Buddhism strongly influenced this Upanisad, neither the mode of exposition of the Madhyamika school nor the characteristic terminology of the Vijnanavada school appears."

[Simple_Jack]

Regarding Dzogchen:

Thanks for your concern. I actually have a lot of books by Guru Norbu.

 

I refrain from speaking because the teachings are meant for those initiated not open discussion here.

Of course, general things can be spoken of. I just prefer not to go into huge debates....it's called burnout.

 

Regarding Nibbana:

"Quote:"

— Ud 8.1

"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."

 

The Pali suttas DO contain a metaphysical framework. This is obvious, as you know.

 

The pinnacle of this framework is Nibbana/Nirvana.

 

The Buddha said that Nibbana is where "conditioned consciousness ceased to be/is non-existent."

(This is found in the Suttas, unfortuneately I don't remember where but it is there if you search.)

 

So, Brahman as taught by Sri Ramana Maharshi & Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj is the same as what the Buddha states, supposedly, here.

 

That's all I'm ultimately saying.

Stefos

Hey, you're free to interpret things in whatever way you want.

[Simple_Jack]

The Buddha said that Nibbana is where "conditioned consciousness ceased to be/is non-existent."

(This is found in the Suttas, unfortuneately I don't remember where but it is there if you search.)

Just to make sure, I did a search on accesstoinsight and google: Nothing came up with that phrase.

 

I posted these suttas in another thread, where Buddha clearly defines what the Middle Way is:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.090.than.html

...But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "non-existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one.

"'By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on "my self." He has no uncertainty or doubt that, when there is arising, only stress is arising; and that when there is passing away, stress is passing away. In this, one's knowledge is independent of others. It is to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

"'"Everything exists": That is one extreme. "Everything doesn't exist": That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. . From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"'Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.'

 

 

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.than.html

"What do you think, Anuradha: Is form constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, lord."

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

"Stressful, lord."

"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"Is feeling constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, lord."...

"Is perception constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, lord."...

"Are fabrications constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, lord."...

"Is consciousness constant or inconstant?

"Inconstant, lord."

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

"Stressful, lord."

"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?"

"No, lord."

"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

"No, lord."

"Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."

[Simple_Jack]

So, I initially thought that it would make sense that Gautama was raised a Vedic Indian, being that he was born in the kshatriya caste (according to the Pali cannon.)

Forgot to add that in Pali cannon, Suddhodana wasn't a king, but a nobleman of the Gotama clan (possibly a regional governor in Sakiya.)

[1try80deny]

Through my understanding of it, God is represented in Buddhism when you look at the definiton of the Buddha. The Buddha being the man himself, the teachings (dharma), and that which we awake to. That which we awake to is that we are all the the Buddha. To explore the concept a little more one can look at the form of thought that comes up time and time again in the stories of peoples' near death experiences. It is said that the Buddha smiles upon us in our time of death and relieves us of our suffering. Christian beliefs reflect this as it is believed one meets their maker after death.

 

Some Buddhist schools believe that there are thirty two levels of consciousness. The categorization of the layers go as following: the world of five sense, the world of pure form, the formless world (infinite space, infinite consciousness, nothingness, neither consciousness nor unconciousness) and finally the world/realm. To explore the god concept and lack thereof, one must look to the world of pure form. In this layer, one is only able to see, hear, and think. Like in a dream, you are not able to see yourself as if you were simply a central point from which the world is percieved. I don't know whether this is at the uppermost layer of pure form before crossing into the next, but regardless, one sees the "Buddha".

 

The German philosopher Max Weber, says that God is man's need for a father figure. I agree but would respond to Weber that, if one is in need of a motherly figure or a friend, the buddha becomes just that. Your mother, your father, your closest friend, someone you look up to or your relatives; whoever you need comfort from in that space of pure light or whoever you wish to comfort. Many will still be caught up in some wrong doing or another form of unworthiness of self. Through the accute understanding of the bad situations we are put into or born, innocence in ignorance, and forgiveness from the Buddha and the persons "he" becomes, one finds solace in the feeling of being forgiven/worthy. The buddha comforts you by becoming that figure in your life (sight) that you trust to help ground you and build trust. The Buddha comforts you with words through that familiar voice (sound), and basically the Buddha's prescence "who" also uses non-verbal communication/understanding (thought). God, in a way, is a comforting medium between jumping into the scary thought of being all alone at the end of it. So you see, God/Buddha is a reflection of your own self mimicking and reacting to your own thoughts and needs producing the image that you create.

 

There are two ways of practice in Buddhism. Devotionalism (similar to Christianity) where the Buddha is prayed to and the focus of your devotion, and the second where the goal is to become the Buddha. There is a direct correlation between the process of ones suffering lessening as the need for comfort through familiar faces and voices calms into contentment as one learns of the true nature of oneself. Through the help of your own inner ability to come to the truth on your own along with the confirmation of thought by the Buddha before you (the same thing), the visuals and sounds subside and you can move on to a higher/inner level of consciousness through realizing the truth of one's self being that you are the Buddha.

 

This is why Buddhists are fine with saying that there is and isn't a god, and the reason for why there is a diversity of answers to that question depending on who you talk to and where you are at in your own consciousness. Many Buddhist scholars (with an absence of holding them above) would say no, there is no God. I personally agree that this is ultimately true since the Buddha's prescence is in a middle layer of consciousness (world of pure form) both beneath the ultimate destination and above the world of the five senses we are so use to. For the sake of diversity with the help of an understanding of the layer concept, I think that the answer varies throughout the process of the raising of ones consciousness. I hold this belief of both God and no god because I believe what you hold only gets in the way of fulfilling this process of moving on in consciousness to the formless world nearer to nirvana/Tai Chi.

[C T]

In Buddhism, the fundamental advice from Shakyamuni is to salvage oneself with the aid of the Noble 8fold Path. In that, there is no mention of grace from God (gods). Each individual is fully endowed with the responsibility of accounting for their own thoughts and actions.

 

The need to ponder/philosophize on the unnecessaries are hence eradicated from the root. Having received this advice, people still want to proceed into the subject. Why? Because it seems to be an intelligent distraction. This, the Buddha said, leads nowhere. Thereupon, he chose silence instead.

[RongzomFan]

In Buddhism, the fundamental advice from Shakyamuni is to salvage oneself with the aid of the Noble 8fold Path.

 

 

Is it?

[C T]

Is it?

Find out yourself.

[RongzomFan]

yeah its not

[Cheshire Cat]

I believe that the original and most fundamental problem that the Buddha tried to solve is... suffering.

All speculations about reincarnations, vajra-body, infinite wisdom, etc... were later addition (maybe made by the Buddha himself, who knows?).

 

To summarize:

No salvation. We have a problem, buddhism offers a path to solve it.

Simple.

[C T]

I believe that the original and most fundamental problem that the Buddha tried to solve is... suffering.

All speculations about reincarnations, vajra-body, infinite wisdom, etc... were later addition (maybe made by the Buddha himself, who knows?).

 

To summarize:

No salvation. We have a problem, buddhism offers a path to solve it.

Simple.

Spot on!

 

As Lin said, expedient means abound!! With the right view, everything can be used wisely, as 'means'. Then setbacks will no longer be seen as such, and one can unknot the mind-body continuum with greater and greater ease, until the whole river of dualistic outflows finally meet the sea, and suddenly realize it was never ever separated in the first place!

[stefos]

@SimpleJack,

 

Here you go....Quoting David Loy (http://www.scribd.com/doc/116964830/Loy-David-Are-Nirvana-and-Moksha-the-Same)

"In the Brahmanimantanika Sutra (Majjhima-Nikaya), the Buddha says:

Do not think that this [nirvana] is an empty or void state. There is this consciousness, without distinguishing mark, infinite and shining everywhere (Vinnanam anidassanam anantam sabbato-pabham); itis untouched by the material elements and not subject to any power.

 

The passage reappears in the Kevaddha Sutra (Digha Nikaya I. 213) with the addition:

"Here it is that conditioned consciousness ceases to be."

 

This distinction between conditioned consciousness and an infinite consciousness, shining everywhere, is inconsistent with the usual Theravada view that all consciousness is the result of conditions and does not arise without those conditions; but it accords very well with the Vedantic position, as we shall see. Elsewhere in the same Brahmanimantanika Sutra the Buddha criticized the idea of an omnipotent Brahma (God), but he never said anythingabout the impersonal Brahman of Advaita"

There you go!

Stefos

P.S. I don't interpret things willy nilly!

Edited February 12, 2013 by stefos

[RongzomFan]

the Buddha criticized the idea of an omnipotent Brahma (God), but he never said anythingabout the impersonal Brahman of Advaita

 

 

Advaita Vedanta comes about in the middle ages when Gaudapada rips off Madhyamaka.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=sx12hxoFVqwC&pg=PA88&dq=The+Method+of+Early+Advaita+Ved%C4%81nta+It+is+not+a+matter+for+dispute+whether&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wr8ZUZ7iGceR0QGHuID4Cw&ved=0CDMQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Method%20of%20Early%20Advaita%20Ved%C4%81nta%20It%20is%20not%20a%20matter%20for%20dispute%20whether&f=false

Edited February 12, 2013 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

P.S. I don't interpret things willy nilly!

 

 

Yes you do. You should rely only on the interpretations of Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti.

[RongzomFan]

Quoting David Loy

 

 

Zen teachers are not authorities on anything. Zen people are incredibly stupid.

[林愛偉]

Zen teachers are not authorities on anything. Zen people are incredibly stupid.

 

hahaha Its quite unfortunate that many "modern" Chan people have no clue. Yet on the other hand, there are truly intelligent Chan cultivators out there. Depends on if the books that are mostly present are written by so called Chan people who had a course in college, and or read from other people who "think" they got "it".

 

There are a few people to reference, and some sutras: Master Ou Yi, master jing Kong, Master Xuan Hua, Master Xu Yun, Master Heng Shi. There are more in China at Da Bei Si (Great Compassion Temple) in hei Long Jiang China, Nan Hua Monastery in Shaoguang Guangdong.

 

Heck, even Shakyamnuni Buddha's Shurangama Sutra speaks all about Chan (Dhyana).

 

Then there is Master Hui Neng (6th patriarch's Platform Sutra), Diamond Sutra, Heart Sutra, Amitabha Sutra, Great Compassion Dharani Sutra, just to name a few for reference.

 

But still, there are mainly commercialized info in "modern" books about it that just make me go

Edited February 12, 2013 by 林愛偉

[Simple_Jack]

 

@SimpleJack,

 

Here you go....Quoting David Loy (http://www.scribd.com/doc/116964830/Loy-David-Are-Nirvana-and-Moksha-the-Same)

"In the Brahmanimantanika Sutra (Majjhima-Nikaya), the Buddha says:

Do not think that this [nirvana] is an empty or void state. There is this consciousness, without distinguishing mark, infinite and shining everywhere (Vinnanam anidassanam anantam sabbato-pabham); itis untouched by the material elements and not subject to any power.

 

The passage reappears in the Kevaddha Sutra (Digha Nikaya I. 213) with the addition:

"Here it is that conditioned consciousness ceases to be."

 

This distinction between conditioned consciousness and an infinite consciousness, shining everywhere, is inconsistent with the usual Theravada view that all consciousness is the result of conditions and does not arise without those conditions; but it accords very well with the Vedantic position, as we shall see. Elsewhere in the same Brahmanimantanika Sutra the Buddha criticized the idea of an omnipotent Brahma (God), but he never said anythingabout the impersonal Brahman of Advaita"

There you go!

Stefos

P.S. I don't interpret things willy nilly!

Haha, not surprising you would quote someone like David Loy in order to support your position. Quoting him is like quoting the abomination that is 'Dark Zen' or that Zen/Neo-Advaitan crossover Adyashanti....No credibility whatsoever when it comes to Buddhism. The above is the type of people from the West that Wapola Rahula criticized in his book.

 

In order to understand both these suttas, we have to see it's relation to what Buddha says in the Pabhassara Sutta and Sabba Sutta:

 

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an01/an01.049.than.html

"Luminous, monks, is the mind.[1] And it is defiled by incoming defilements." {I,v,9}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." {I,v,10}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind." {I,vi,1}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind." {I,vi,2}

 

From the notes:...A more reasonable approach to understanding the statement can be derived from taking it in context: the luminous mind is the mind that the meditator is trying to develop. To perceive its luminosity means understanding that defilements such as greed, aversion, or delusion are not intrinsic to its nature...

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

 

 

So with the above suttas, we can have a better understanding of the notes to the "Brahmanimantanika Sutta":

 

 

 

• 6.
• What is not experienced through the earthness of earth (and so on through the list of categories up through the allness of the all) is nibbana, or unbinding. It is described in these terms because it is directly known, without intermediary of any sort.
• 7.
• These statements can be read in two ways. The first way is to regard them in light of the standard definition of self-identity view (see, for instance, MN 44, MN 109, and SN 22.1) in which one defines self either as identical with an aggregate, as possessing an aggregate, as being contained in an aggregate, or as containing an aggregate within it. The second way is to regard the statements in light of the parallel passage from MN 1, in which one engages in metaphysical speculation as to whether one's being is identical with something, lies within something, or comes from something. For more on this topic, see the introduction to the Mulapariyaya Sutta (MN 1).
• 8.
• "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This is termed the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his assertion, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why is that? Because it lies beyond range." (SN 35.23). For more on this topic, see The Mind Like Fire Unbound, Chapter 1.
• 9.
• Consciousness without surface (viññanam anidassanam): This term appears to be related to the following image from SN 12.64:

  "Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?"

  "On the western wall, lord."

  "And if there is no western wall, where does it land?"

  "On the ground, lord."

  "And if there is no ground, where does it land?"

  "On the water, lord."

  "And if there is no water, where does it land?"

  "It does not land, lord."

  "In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food ... contact ... intellectual intention ... consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or grow. Where consciousness does not land or grow, name-&-form does not alight. Where name-&-form does not alight, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair."

  In other words, normal sensory consciousness is experienced because it has a "surface" against which it lands: the sense organs and their objects, which constitute the "all." For instance, we experience visual consciousness because of the eye and forms of which we are conscious. Consciousness without surface, however, is directly known, without intermediary, free from any dependence on conditions at all.

  This consciousness thus differs from the consciousness factor in dependent co-arising, which is defined in terms of the six sense media. Lying outside of time and space, it would also not come under the consciousness-aggregate, which covers all consciousness near and far; past, present, and future. And, as SN 35.23 notes, the word "all" in the Buddha's teaching covers only the six sense media, which is another reason for not including this consciousness under the aggregates. However, the fact that it is outside of time and space — in a dimension where there is no here, there, or in between (Ud I.10), no coming, no going, or staying (Ud VIII.1) — means that it cannot be described as permanent or omnipresent, terms that have meaning only within space and time.

  Some have objected to the equation of this consciousness with nibbana, on the grounds that nibbana is no where else in the Canon described as a form of consciousness. Thus they have proposed that consciousness without surface be regarded as an arahant's consciousness of nibbana in meditative experience, and not nibbana itself. This argument, however, contains two flaws: (1) The term viññanam anidassanam also occurs in DN 11, where it is described as where name & form are brought to an end: surely a synonym for nibbana. (2) If nibbana is an object of mental consciousness (as a dhamma), it would come under the all, as an object of the intellect. There are passages in the Canon (such as AN 9.36) that describe meditators experiencing nibbana as a dhamma, but these passages seem to indicate that this description applies up through the level of non-returning. Other passages, however, describe nibbana as the ending of all dhammas. For instance, Sn V.6 quotes the Buddha as calling the attainment of the goal the transcending of all dhammas. Sn IV.6 and Sn IV.10 state that the arahant has transcended dispassion, said to be the highest dhamma. Thus, for the arahant, nibbana is not an object of consciousness. Instead it is directly known without mediation. Because consciousness without feature is directly known without mediation, there seems good reason to equate the two.

 

So, we can conclude that "consciousness without feature," in these suttas is not pointing to a consciousness that is beyond the 'All,' that Buddha describes; but a citta/mind that is no longer stained by defilements; no longer clinging to the conceit of "I AM. No longer subjected to the cycle of becoming, since the roots of ignorance, aggression, craving having been cut off: No longer having any support for the conditions of arising. This is what is meant by "consciousness without feature."

[Simple_Jack]

So, we can conclude that "consciousness without feature," in these suttas is not pointing to a consciousness that is beyond the 'All,' that Buddha describes; but a citta/mind that is no longer stained by defilements; no longer clinging to the conceit of "I AM. No longer subjected to the cycle of becoming, since the roots of ignorance, aggression, craving having been cut off: No longer having any support for the conditions of arising. This is what is meant by "consciousness without feature."

Again, here's two other suttas that are related to the above:

 

 

Pahanaya Sutta: To Be Abandoned

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.024.than.html

"Monks, I will teach you the All as a phenomenon to be abandoned. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "And which All is a phenomenon to be abandoned? The eye is to be abandoned. [1] Forms are to be abandoned. Consciousness at the eye is to be abandoned. Contact at the eye is to be abandoned. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is to be abandoned.

"The ear is to be abandoned. Sounds are to be abandoned...

"The nose is to be abandoned. Aromas are to be abandoned...

"The tongue is to be abandoned. Flavors are to be abandoned...

"The body is to be abandoned. Tactile sensations are to be abandoned...

"The intellect is to be abandoned. Ideas are to be abandoned. Consciousness at the intellect is to be abandoned. Contact at the intellect is to be abandoned. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is to be abandoned.

"This is called the All as a phenomenon to be abandoned."

Note

• 1.
• To abandon the eye, etc., here means to abandon passion and desire for these things.

 

 

Kotthita Sutta: To Kotthita

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.174.than.html

Then Ven. Maha Kotthita went to Ven. Sariputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sariputta, "With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?"

[sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend."

[Maha Kotthita:] "With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media, is it the case that there is not anything else?"

[sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend."

[Maha Kotthita:] "...is it the case that there both is & is not anything else?"

[sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend."

[Maha Kotthita:] "...is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?"

[sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend."

[Maha Kotthita:] "Being asked if, with the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media, there is anything else, you say, 'Don't say that, my friend.' Being asked if ... there is not anything else ... there both is & is not anything else ... there neither is nor is not anything else, you say, 'Don't say that, my friend.' Now, how is the meaning of your words to be understood?"

[sariputta:] "The statement, 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?' objectifies non-objectification.[1] The statement, '... is it the case that there is not anything else ... is it the case that there both is & is not anything else ... is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectifies non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes. However far objectification goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of objectification.

 

I just wondering: Are you "Karma Dorje" from Dharmawheel? I'm just curious, because recently that poster has also quoted David Loy in order to support his Advaitan interpolation of Buddhist teachings.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[1try80deny]

Through my understanding of it, God is represented in Buddhism when you look at the definiton of the Buddha. The Buddha being the man himself, the teachings (dharma), and that which we awake to. That which we awake to is that we are all the the Buddha. To explore the concept a little more one can look at the form of thought that comes up time and time again in the stories of peoples' near death experiences. It is said that the Buddha smiles upon us in our time of death and relieves us of our suffering. Christian beliefs reflect this as it is believed one meets their maker after death.

 

Some Buddhist schools believe that there are thirty two levels of consciousness. The categorization of the layers go as following: the world of five sense, the world of pure form, the formless world (infinite space, infinite consciousness, nothingness, neither consciousness nor unconciousness) and finally the world/realm. To explore the god concept and lack thereof, one must look to the world of pure form. In this layer, one is only able to see, hear, and think. Like in a dream, you are not able to see yourself as if you were simply a central point from which the world is percieved. I don't know whether this is at the uppermost layer of pure form before crossing into the next, but regardless, one sees the "Buddha".

 

The German philosopher Max Weber, says that God is man's need for a father figure. I agree but would respond to Weber that, if one is in need of a motherly figure or a friend, the buddha becomes just that. Your mother, your father, your closest friend, someone you look up to or your relatives; whoever you need comfort from in that space of pure light or whoever you wish to comfort. Many will still be caught up in some wrong doing or another form of unworthiness of self. Through the accute understanding of the bad situations we are put into or born, innocence in ignorance, and forgiveness from the Buddha and the persons "he" becomes, one finds solace in the feeling of being forgiven/worthy. The buddha comforts you by becoming that figure in your life (sight) that you trust to help ground you and build trust. The Buddha comforts you with words through that familiar voice (sound), and basically the Buddha's prescence "who" also uses non-verbal communication/understanding (thought). God, in a way, is a comforting medium between jumping into the scary thought of being all alone at the end of it. So you see, God/Buddha is a reflection of your own self mimicking and reacting to your own thoughts and needs producing the image that you create.

 

There are two ways of practice in Buddhism. Devotionalism (similar to Christianity) where the Buddha is prayed to and the focus of your devotion, and the second where the goal is to become the Buddha. There is a direct correlation between the process of ones suffering lessening as the need for comfort through familiar faces and voices calms into contentment as one learns of the true nature of oneself. Through the help of your own inner ability to come to the truth on your own along with the confirmation of thought by the Buddha before you (the same thing), the visuals and sounds subside and you can move on to a higher/inner level of consciousness through realizing the truth of one's self being that you are the Buddha.

 

This is why Buddhists are fine with saying that there is and isn't a god, and the reason for why there is a diversity of answers to that question depending on who you talk to and where you are at in your own consciousness. Many Buddhist scholars (with an absence of holding them above) would say no, there is no God. I personally agree that this is ultimately true since the Buddha's prescence is in a middle layer of consciousness (world of pure form) both beneath the ultimate destination and above the world of the five senses we are so use to. For the sake of diversity with the help of an understanding of the layer concept, I think that the answer varies throughout the process of the raising of ones consciousness. I hold this belief of both God and no god because I believe what you hold only gets in the way of fulfilling this process of moving on in consciousness to the formless world nearer to nirvana/Tai Chi.

I would appreciate it if someone took a gander at the point I'm trying to make and do a cross comparison with the texts you are quoting. You could argue all day about who said what and what that means in context to "God" or you could examine the crux of the issue based in the attempt to make sense of a rare human experience that I wish to share through what has resonated with me through my education in Buddhist thought. While the Buddha may have been reasonably silent about such things, I don't have the responsibility of starting a religion where it is important to facilitate and encourage individual inquiry and diversity. When trying to pin point what the Buddha thought, many highly underthink what it was like to be the Buddha and to have this sort of responsibility. Why has no one mentioned the third body of the Buddha which is what we awake to; which is what he awoke to?

[RongzomFan]

While the Buddha may have been reasonably silent about such things

 

 

Buddha wasn't silent at all about God. He denied God all the time. Google Mahabrahma.

[Cheshire Cat]

While the Buddha may have been reasonably silent about such things, I don't have the responsibility of starting a religion where it is important to facilitate and encourage individual inquiry and diversity. When trying to pin point what the Buddha thought, many highly underthink what it was like to be the Buddha and to have this sort of responsibility. Why has no one mentioned the third body of the Buddha which is what we awake to; which is what he awoke to?

 

It is generally believed that the Buddha didn't create any religions, nor had the idea of creating new religions.

He just purely taught the methods that he learned and developed to help people in their quest for fundamental nature.

He hadn't the purpose of convincing people to abandon their families and join monastic life... those people were naturally present and naturally inclined to this thing.

No need for facilities and encouragement, imho.

 

Later, people put together various Dharma discourses to establish a solid tradition, since apparently there was none who could take the place of the Buddha. He left a terrible hole... no lineage of gurus.. nothing... people were desperate.

I don't know if other sects ever established lineages of teachings at that time... maybe this is a thing born with tantra.

 

One Buddha teaches two Buddhas... two Buddhas teach 5 Buddhas... 5 Buddha teach 9 Buddhas...and today we should be an enlightened planet

[RongzomFan]

He left a terrible hole... no lineage of gurus.. nothing... people were desperate.

 

He left behind a community of monks. What more do you want?

[Cheshire Cat]

He left behind a community of monks. What more do you want?

 

There was none like the Buddha. Only people who transmitted what they've learned.

 

The same difference exists between learning from a book and learning from a live teacher.

[RongzomFan]

There was none like the Buddha. Only people who transmitted what they've learned.

 

The same difference exists between learning from a book and learning from a live teacher.

 

If you are correct, then there was no point to Buddha teaching at all.

[Cheshire Cat]

You cannot make a golden ball out of a wooden block...

as none could learn to build a bridge from an actor.

 

From a Buddha, one can learn buddhahood.

From the dharma, one can learn dharmahood.

 

But sometimes, a wise person can use the dharma to build his own path.

Hence, the external (dharma) reveals the internal (Buddha), in my opinion.

 

This idea is strong in tantra in which initiations are the essential.