Buddha kept silent about God

[stefos]

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:

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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."

 

O.K. Here's the bottom line:

 

The Buddha posited the ONLY reality: a metaphysical one called Nibbana/Nirvana.

Everything else really HAS been demolished by his teaching, per se.

 

You have to look at the Udana when the Buddha defines Nibbana/Nirvana as "the unborn, undying, uncreated, unbecoming, etc."

I haven't heard you define Nibbana at all, please start qualifying Nibbana.

 

You can argue against the teachings of Brahman = Atman

You can argue for Nibbana = Anatman

But you better darn well make sure that you KNOW what the Buddha actually taught.

THAT, my friend, you don't know.

 

Furthermore I don't care about Rahula, period.

 

Regarding this statement:

"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."

 

It's obvious to me that you are a die hard modern "Buddhist" and have not heard 1 word of what I've shared with you over & over again. The scholarship exists which discusses pre-Buddhist Brahman & atman and the history of these 2 words. How do YOU know what the Buddha taught against when he said "anatman?" Do you? No because you weren't physically present to hear his exact words about exactly what he meant about what atman meant to him.

 

David Loy however IS right on this issue as he differentiates between the teachings of the Theras, which is a disjointed hodgepodge of meditation techniques, Abhidharma and other things versus what Shakyamuni Buddha actually stated.

 

Theravada is NOT Shakyamuni Buddha's original message, neither is Mahayana or Vajrayana.

Only Dzogchen says "Nibbana is the nature of the mind which is nondual and luminous and non created."

 

And this is exactly what Advaita vedanta today now states.....period. No difference.

 

There you go!

Stefos

Edited February 13, 2013 by stefos

[stefos]

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

 

Oh there was a reason for the Buddha to teach.

 

The problem is that after he died since things weren't tightly recorded, nonsense came in which led to the

questioning of actual Buddhadharma and then the subsequent screwup called "the 24 schools period" and then

the pushing of particular "Buddhist" sects over others by Ashoka, etc. etc.

 

Read all about the syncretism in "Buddhist history".........

 

Shakyamuni Buddha taught with 1 aim, not 12 different aims, with 1 corpus or body of teachings.

His teachings became corrupted and the current Theravada state that they have the "original teachings"

which is untrue.

 

Mahayana is Mahayana.....Vajrayana is Vajrayana........Mahamudra is Mahamudra.....Dzogchen is Dzogchen

 

If they lead to ACTUAL Nibbana/Nirvana, awesome....If not, toss them into the trash.

The salient issue is: what IS "actual" Nibbana/Nirvana? Who defines it? Is it fixed or dynamic?

 

Stefos

Edited February 13, 2013 by stefos

[RongzomFan]

Mahayana is Mahayana.....Vajrayana is Vajrayana........Mahamudra is Mahamudra.....Dzogchen is Dzogchen

 

If they lead to ACTUAL Nibbana/Nirvana, awesome....If not, toss them into the trash.

 

They lead to Buddhahood, not nirvana.

[RongzomFan]

Theravada is NOT Shakyamuni Buddha's original message, neither is Mahayana or Vajrayana.

 

Vajrayana was founded by the Mahasiddhas, not Shakyamuni Buddha. So your point there is not relevant.

 

Mahayana arose as a reaction against crypto-realism in Abhidharma, so yes it is the epitome of Shakyamuni's teaching.

[stefos]

They lead to Buddhahood, not nirvana.

 

Look, Nirvana is the goal.

 

What do you mean by stating "Buddhahood?"

 

The Buddha spoke of Shunya or emptiness not nothingness and most definitely not about annihilation.

THIS was the "state" of the Buddha = empty not nothing

 

You aren't making sense alwayson.....

Stefos

[stefos]

Vajrayana was founded by the Mahasiddhas, not Shakyamuni Buddha. So your point there is not relevant.

 

Mahayana arose as a reaction against crypto-realism in Abhidharma, so yes it is the epitome of Shakyamuni's teaching.

 

My point of contention is "What did Shakyamuni actually teach?"

 

The Mahasiddhas were saying "We ARE teaching Dharma in particular the Tillakkhana or "3 marks""

 

Did they teach Shakyamuni's Buddhadharma? I don't know.

Stefos

[RongzomFan]

Look, Nirvana is the goal.

 

 

Look, Buddhahood is the goal in Mahayana and Vajrayana.

[RongzomFan]

My point of contention is "What did Shakyamuni actually teach?"

 

The Mahasiddhas were saying "We ARE teaching Dharma in particular the Tillakkhana or "3 marks""

 

Did they teach Shakyamuni's Buddhadharma? I don't know.

Stefos

 

 

Vajrayana was founded by the Mahasiddhas, not Shakyamuni Buddha.

 

So saying that Vajrayana is not "Shakyamuni Buddha's original message", is not shocking.

 

Of course Vajrayana is the essence of Shakyamuni's teaching, since it is based on Madhyamaka from Indian times.

Edited February 13, 2013 by alwayson

[stefos]

Vajrayana was founded by the Mahasiddhas, not Shakyamuni Buddha.

 

So saying that Vajrayana is not "Shakyamuni Buddha's original message", is not shocking.

 

Of course Vajrayana is the essence of Shakyamuni's teaching, since it is based on Madhyamaka from Indian times.

 

How do you know that Madhyamaka WAS the Buddha's original teaching?

 

You do not know therefore in saying that the Mahasiddhas taught from Madhyamaka is correct.

 

2 different things: Shakyamuni Buddha's teaching & Later Madhyamaka....the 2 are NOT the same.

 

Take Dzogchen for example: Dzogchen is not based on Madhyamaka!

 

Stefos

[RongzomFan]

Take Dzogchen for example: Dzogchen is not based on Madhyamaka!

 

Stefos

 

 

True, but I don't consider Dzogchen to be part of Vajrayana.

[RongzomFan]

You do not know therefore in saying that the Mahasiddhas taught from Madhyamaka is correct....Shakyamuni Buddha's teaching.....

 

The teachings of the Mahasiddhas (who are Buddhas in their own right) are considered superior to Shakyamuni's teaching.

 

Shakyamuni purposely taught a lower path.

Edited February 13, 2013 by alwayson

[stefos]

True, but I don't consider Dzogchen to be part of Vajrayana.

 

O.K.....what DO you consider Dzogchen to be?

 

Dzogchen avoided the visualization of Vajrayana and the mental juxtaposiitoning of "Self vs. Other" of Mahayana thought. It can be said to be a pure form of Sutric teaching....much better than Mahayana & Vajrayana combined although the Mahayana & Vajrayana DO have important points. The "points" made by Vajrayana & Mahayana however are found in the Pali Suttas already.

 

I consider Dzogchen to be THE superior mode of teaching due to effort being applied with "naked awareness" rather than with complex visualizations aka Vajrayana style which involves using time to gain leverage.

 

It takes time to "make" a visualization and then transfer your being "into" that being...kind of silly.

Why not examine yourself instead? Why do I need to be the 1000 armed Avalokiteshvara? I don't.

 

It takes no "time" to be nakedly aware hence Dzogchen IS the highest vehicle and is probably what Shakyamuni taught when I read the Suttas in Pali.

 

The teachings of the Mahasiddhas (who are Buddhas in their own right) are considered superior to Shakyamuni's teaching.

 

Shakyamuni purposely taught a lower path.

Your Vajrayana bias is now fully shown....Where did you learn that statement you made?

In a Gelugpa school? hmmmmm....Shakyamuni didn't teach "Hinayana" and Theravada isn't Hinayana either. Hinayana is a dead school that was related to the teachings of the Theras but different as the pudgalavadins were.

 

Shakyamuni taught the right path which dealt with "bare attention" or as we say in Dzogchen "naked awareness", it's his disciples and their disciples disciples that bastardized the whole thing!

 

Read how the early schisms occurred in the History of Buddhism: In particular the 3rd & 4th.....and then see which brand of "Buddhism" Ashoka bolstered and then see what happened during the "24 schools period."

 

Do yourself a favor: Do the research, Post a synopsis afterwards

Stefos

Edited February 13, 2013 by stefos

[RongzomFan]

Read how the early schisms occurred in the History of Buddhism: In particular the 3rd & 4th.....and then see which brand of "Buddhism" Ashoka bolstered and then see what happened during the "24 schools period."

 

Do yourself a favor: Do the research, Post a synopsis afterwards

Stefos

 

 

But I don't care what Shakyamuni taught in the first place.

[RongzomFan]

Your Vajrayana bias is now fully shown

 

Of course I have a Vajrayana bias. Just like all the Indian masters at Nalanda, Vikramsila, Odantapuri etc.

[RongzomFan]

Shakyamuni taught the right path which dealt with "bare attention" or as we say in Dzogchen "naked awareness", it's his disciples and their disciples disciples that bastardized the whole thing!

 

Shakyamuni taught nothing like Dzoghchen. If you think he did, you don't understand Dzogchen.

 

Dzogchen isn't "naked awareness."

 

"Naked awareness" or kadag is only 1 out of 3 wisdoms of rigpa.

[stefos]

But I don't care what Shakyamuni taught in the first place.

 

I seriously doubt you have any historical knowledge about Buddhism or Shakyamuni then.

 

If you don't care OR know what Shakyamuni actually taught, how can you even begin to make statements about

so-called "Buddhism" or "Buddhist thought?"

 

Go back to the Pali suttas and start there and look into the Vinaya my friend.

 

If I don't see that you quote historical sources and the Pali suttas, our discussion is over unfortuneatlly.

 

I have no desire to debate but only to discuss....and this discussion could become a debate REAL soon.

 

Shakyamuni taught nothing like Dzoghchen. If you think he did, you don't understand Dzogchen.

 

Dzogchen isn't "naked awareness."

 

"Naked awareness" or kadag is only 1 out of 3 wisdoms of rigpa.

 

Shakyamuni ABSOLUTELY taught what Dzogchen teaches!

Dzogchen is a word from Oddiyana....not Sanskrit.

 

Where is the Dzogchen found in the suttas? All throughout the suttas especially in Udana..."uncreated, unborn, undying, unbecoming" That covers the rest of the qualities of Rigpa, right?

THIS is the nature of the mind...Notice NOT "the mind" as the Buddha didn't worship the Chitta or Manas or Vijnana.

 

For example of how people twisted the Buddha's teachings:

Anapanasati....People think this means "I watch the breath and therefore the breath becomes the locus" Wrong! It's not the breath but awareness that is the focal point......Big difference!

Go to the Theras and tell them this....You'll be asked to leave the Wat or what have you.

 

Stefos

Edited February 13, 2013 by stefos

[RongzomFan]

Shakyamuni ABSOLUTELY taught what Dzogchen teaches!

Stefos

 

 

Thats hilariously wrong. Where are the rainbow bodies? Give me a break.

[RongzomFan]

If you don't care OR know what Shakyamuni actually taught, how can you even begin to make statements about

so-called "Buddhism" or "Buddhist thought?"

 

Because Buddhism is not just the teaching of Shakyamuni. It includes the teachings of the Mahasiddhas as well.

[RongzomFan]

If I don't see that you quote historical sources and the Pali suttas, our discussion is over unfortuneatlly.

 

If I don't see that you quote historical sources and the tantras, our discussion is over unfortunately.

Edited February 13, 2013 by alwayson

[1try80deny]

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

Sure whatever he thought that the term God was implying. What about the Buddha? Did the Buddha deny the Buddha? Way to pick apart a closing antoginzer to get someone to engage rather than attempt to chew the heart of the point I'm trying to make. Did you even read my post?

 

Take a few deep breathes alwaysontheATTACK and try again.

Edited February 13, 2013 by 1try80deny

[1try80deny]

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

 

Good points. I stand corrected on my follow up antagonizer except for the whole facilities and encouragement in this way: I said facilitate (not facilities) as in he didn't want to discouarge individual spiritual inquiry. To say that the Buddha did not take any consideration into making sure he didn't discourage individual spiritual inquiry is an ignorant position. (but then again you might not be saying that) Just like you are assuming that I am ignoring the fact that the Buddha didn't leave some good directions on how to go about such individual inquiry and ways to avoid pointless methods of questioning. Ask questions. That is something most important in Buddhism and to the Buddha. Try to argue that fact.

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.

 

The post # is 86 on pg 6. I would respond more but I'm afraid you'll just pick apart this rather than WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT in the below post. Please respond to post #86 if you wish to engage a person somewhere in between this dicotomous stance you are taking of either the Buddha or not the Buddha. Sure there was no one like the Buddha but not all of us base our learning from books. My learning comes from within with the help from my comfortability with reading the Tao Te Ching to make sense of experience. My attempt to share it with you in a way meaningful to Buddhism on the otherhand does require some books like a man who never really knew too much about the subject until a clearly lit moment allowed him to make sense of a repressed memory launching him into an investigation of putting truth into words. Please please please read. Again #86. Look at the form and the essence behind the words rather than picking a couple points to run off on while ignoring the entirety of my stance. Again. Why is everyone ignoring the Buddha of the mind?

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]

The teachings of the Mahasiddhas (who are Buddhas in their own right) are considered superior to Shakyamuni's teaching.

 

Shakyamuni purposely taught a lower path.

 

Tulku Urgyen would not high-5 you on this one, Always.

[RongzomFan]

Sure whatever he thought that the term God was implying.

 

 

Buddha defined God as the Creator, just like most people do. And he denied there was a Creator.

[Simple_Jack]

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.

Taking into account what the Buddha said in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta: "Therefore, Ānanda, dwell making yourselves your island (support), making yourselves, not anyone else, your refuge; making the Dhamma your island (support), the Dhamma your refuge, nothing else your refuge."

 

He may have originally wanted to leave behind a community that modeled itself off of democratic egalitarianism. In either case, he still left behind a community of monks, many of whom were realized arhats. If we take the account of the 1st council (that was held a year after Buddhas death,) as factual: Then we have 500 realized disciples, who came together in the 1st council, to lay down the tenets of what Shakyamuni Buddha taught for future generations.

[Simple_Jack]

O.K. Here's the bottom line:

 

The Buddha posited the ONLY reality: a metaphysical one called Nibbana/Nirvana.

Everything else really HAS been demolished by his teaching, per se.

 

You have to look at the Udana when the Buddha defines Nibbana/Nirvana as "the unborn, undying, uncreated, unbecoming, etc."

I haven't heard you define Nibbana at all, please start qualifying Nibbana.

 

You can argue against the teachings of Brahman = Atman

You can argue for Nibbana = Anatman

But you better darn well make sure that you KNOW what the Buddha actually taught.

THAT, my friend, you don't know.

 

Furthermore I don't care about Rahula, period.

 

Regarding this statement:

"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."

 

It's obvious to me that you are a die hard modern "Buddhist" and have not heard 1 word of what I've shared with you over & over again. The scholarship exists which discusses pre-Buddhist Brahman & atman and the history of these 2 words. How do YOU know what the Buddha taught against when he said "anatman?" Do you? No because you weren't physically present to hear his exact words about exactly what he meant about what atman meant to him.

 

David Loy however IS right on this issue as he differentiates between the teachings of the Theras, which is a disjointed hodgepodge of meditation techniques, Abhidharma and other things versus what Shakyamuni Buddha actually stated.

 

Theravada is NOT Shakyamuni Buddha's original message, neither is Mahayana or Vajrayana.

Only Dzogchen says "Nibbana is the nature of the mind which is nondual and luminous and non created."

 

And this is exactly what Advaita vedanta today now states.....period. No difference.

 

There you go!

Stefos

Hey, you're free to interpret things in any way you want. It's your path and your practice, not mine.....GLHF!