Buddha kept silent about God

[stefos]

Actually, alwayson is spot on when he says the goal of Mahayana is buddhahood and not nirvana. This is the gist of the differences in goals between Hinayana and Mahayana:

 

I hope you understand that Samantabhadra represents the realization of Dzogchen and is not a form of "Buddhist monism."

Regarding Mahayana:

 

I have always understood Mahayana to be a Dharmic vehicle and not some "divider" between Buddha & Nibbana!

 

Mahayana never saw themselves, insofar as I know, to be a "less than Nibbana" path.

 

How do you or anyone separate "Buddhahood" not Arahatship from Nibbana/Nirvana?

One could say, in a Pali sense, Solitary Buddha and even Paranibbana but not "Buddhahood vs. Nibbana" because that streches the credulity of Mahayana. It sounds like you've culled your info. from Tibetan works which "substandardize" Mahayana, in a sense. I don't agree.

 

That separation doesn't make sense to me....Nor is it reflective of a Dhammic vehicle sir.

 

Regardng Dzogchen:

Yes, Samantabhadra is our "nature of mind" or NIbbana. It is not monism....however:

 

When the personality is gone & lust, craving and hatred are gone....Who/What says so?

 

Do you see what I mean? How do "you" qualify Nibbana? This is the point I've been discussing since the beginning.

 

The human mind wants to neatly "package" everything while everything isn't so nicely packaged in reality and according to

Shakyamuni Buddha especially NOT Nibbana although the Pali texts have him qualifying it, in one sense (See my prior posts)

 

E MA HO! indeed

Stefos

Edited February 17, 2013 by stefos

[RongzomFan]

Mahayana never saw themselves, insofar as I know, to be a "less than Nibbana" path.

 

How do you or anyone separate "Buddhahood" not Arahatship from Nibbana/Nirvana?

 

 

Its a more than nibbana. Arhats are aroused from nibbana, and urged by the Buddhas to take up the Bodhisattva path.

 

It sounds like you've culled your info. from Tibetan works which "substandardize" Mahayana, in a sense. I don't agree.

 

Have you not read the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras, Madhyamaka, and Tathagatagarbha Sutras? These are basic Indian texts. All these texts talk about Buddhahood as the goal.

[Simple_Jack]

I have always understood Mahayana to be a Dharmic vehicle and not some "divider" between Buddha & Nibbana!

 

Mahayana never saw themselves, insofar as I know, to be a "less than Nibbana" path.

 

It sounds like you've culled your info. from Tibetan works which "substandardize" Mahayana, in a sense. I don't agree.

In Mahayana both samsara and nirvana are unestablished, hence they are inseparable. The goal in Mahayana is buddhahood, which is not established in the extremes of samsara nor nirvana. This is standard Mahayana of both the '2nd' and '3rd turning,' whether it's from China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, etc.

 

....Nor is it reflective of a Dhammic vehicle sir.

Why because you say so? Please, don't try to push your biases onto me sir.

 

 

When the personality is gone & lust, craving and hatred are gone....Who/What says so?

 

Do you see what I mean? How do "you" qualify Nibbana? This is the point I've been discussing since the beginning.

Not with deluded cognition, but through liberating insight. Which is gained when one hears/reads, reflects on and meditates on the meaning of the teachings. The basis of which are the 4 noble truths and 8-fold noble path.

[Simple_Jack]

Its a more than nibbana. Arhats are aroused from nibbana, and urged by the Buddhas to take up the Bodhisattva path.

 

Have you not read the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras, Madhyamaka, and Tathagatagarbha Sutras? These are basic Indian texts. All these texts talk about Buddhahood as the goal.

Exactly. The part about the arhats, has been described as if 'taking a very long vacation' from cyclical existence. It's pretty much standard for Mahayana, to describe those arhats as eventually reentering cyclical existence after their merit of attaining that state exhausts itself (which is described as lasting '84,000' eons, representing a very, very long time.)

 

Though, arhats supposedly regress to the state of a never returner and not to the state of ordinary sentient beings.

[stefos]

In Mahayana both samsara and nirvana are unestablished, hence they are inseparable. The goal in Mahayana is buddhahood, which is not established in the extremes of samsara nor nirvana. This is standard Mahayana of both the '2nd' and '3rd turning,' whether it's from China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, etc.

Not with deluded cognition, but through liberating insight. Which is gained when one hears/reads, reflects on and meditates on the meaning of the teachings. The basis of which are the 4 noble truths and 8-fold noble path.

Addressing your statements:

 

I'm not a "Mahayanist"....never was. I've studied the Pali texts, some Visuddhimagga and now the Vimuttimagga.

I've also received Guru yoga empowerment from CNNR along with other empowerments.

 

Shakyamuni never said Samsara/Nibbana same coin, 2 different sides. This is why I reject this "2 truths system."

 

The Pali texts never posit this nor did any ancient sect. Dzogchen does not posit this either.

 

Ultimately, the Mahayana IS a Dharmic vehicle and Nirvana is it's end goal.

 

Their is no difference between a Buddha and HIS state: Nibbana in this life, Parinibbana at death. Period.

 

This is my understanding & the Mahayana reflects this also.

 

"Not with deluded cognition, but through liberating insight. Which is gained when one hears/reads, reflects on and meditates on the meaning of the teachings. The basis of which are the 4 noble truths and 8-fold noble path."

 

The Pali texts say this, Mahayana says this too. So, I have nothing more to say as I'm correct.

 

Thanks & Good day sir,

Stefos

[PrimordialLotus]

Buddha was not silent about the topic of God. In fact he plainly stated that the "Creator" was merely a deluded sentient being. Google "Mahabrahma".

 

Just googled it. I can see I am going to like this website.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Addressing your statements:

 

I'm not a "Mahayanist"....never was. I've studied the Pali texts, some Visuddhimagga and now the Vimuttimagga.

I've also received Guru yoga empowerment from CNNR along with other empowerments.

 

Shakyamuni never said Samsara/Nibbana same coin, 2 different sides. This is why I reject this "2 truths system."

 

The Pali texts never posit this nor did any ancient sect. Dzogchen does not posit this either.

 

Ultimately, the Mahayana IS a Dharmic vehicle and Nirvana is it's end goal.

 

Their is no difference between a Buddha and HIS state: Nibbana in this life, Parinibbana at death. Period.

 

This is my understanding & the Mahayana reflects this also.

 

"Not with deluded cognition, but through liberating insight. Which is gained when one hears/reads, reflects on and meditates on the meaning of the teachings. The basis of which are the 4 noble truths and 8-fold noble path."

 

The Pali texts say this, Mahayana says this too. So, I have nothing more to say as I'm correct.

 

Thanks & Good day sir,

Stefos

Hi Stefos,

 

I'm trying to understand your statement: " Dzogchen does not posit this either."

 

Lately I've been reading that samsara and nirvana are the "one taste" in the many Dzogchen/Mahamudra texts..

 

- The equal taste may be interpreted in several ways: One sees the three embodiments of the dharmakaya, sambhogakaya, and nirmanakaya as being of one taste, or one nature. Another interpretation relates to the spirit of awakening, in which one regards others equally, with no sense of some beings as more dear than others. Finally there is the one taste of samsara and nirvana. The contemplation that dwells in the innate reality, natural purity, is perfected in the absolute space of primordial wisdom. That is Dzogchen, the Great Perfection; that is the Great Seal, Mahamudra. -

Karma Chagme. Naked Awareness: Practical Instructions On The Union Of Mahamudra And Dzogchen (Kindle Locations 1943-1946). Kindle Edition.

 

...

 

- "Great single-pointedness" is the state of samadhi that arises due to investigating the nature of awareness, rigpa. The "one taste appearing in numerous ways" is a specific realization which is also called the "realization of the sole bindu." What is this one taste that appears in numerous ways? It is the single nature of all of samsara and nirvana. It is seeing all phenomena simultaneously as being of one taste and one nature.

Karma Chagme. Naked Awareness: Practical Instructions On The Union Of Mahamudra And Dzogchen (Kindle Locations 741-744). Kindle Edition.

 

...

 

Closely related to this realization is seeing the sole bindu, which is the fundamental unity of the whole of samsara and nirvana, seeing for yourself the one taste of reality of samsara and nirvana. To elaborate further: The three embodiments, namely the dharmakaya, sambhogakaya, and the nirmanakaya, correspond to the essence, the nature, and the all-pervading compassion of awareness. The sambhogakaya emerges as a creative display of the dharrnakaya, and the nirmanakaya is a creative display of the sambhogakaya. This relates to the assertion that if one recognizes the nature of one thought, this sheds light on the nature of all ideation. For instance, if it's raining and you decide to test one drop of water to see for yourself if rain is wet, that one test gives you insight into the nature of the other drops of water. By knowing the nature of one thought, you know the nature of all thoughts.

Karma Chagme. Naked Awareness: Practical Instructions On The Union Of Mahamudra And Dzogchen (Kindle Locations 1844-1849). Kindle Edition.

 

 

From C N Norbu:

Impure vision is based on the five aggregates' which form the individual, and the five passions which are their functions.' Pure vision is the manifestation of the pure or essential aspect of the five aggregates and the five passions in the

dimension of the five Buddhas of the Sambhogakaya and their corresponding wisdoms.' In both cases, however, the principle of the manifestation is the same: they arise from the potentiality of our primordial state. This is why the five branches of the two sections of the vajra are linked to the sphere in the centre. Samsara and nirvana are nothing other than the dualistic aspect of one single essence manifesting through energy. This energy itself is in fact inseparable from the manifestation, as is symbolized by the vajra form of the bell's handle.

Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. Dzogchen: The Self-Perfected State (p. 43). Kindle Edition.

 

In his teaching on bardo, Trungpa Rinpoche provides the following additional clarification. The alaya or basic ground is the origin of samsara and nirvana, and underlies both the ordinary phenomenal world and the three bodies of an enlightened buddha. Since the basic ground is more fundamental than either samsara or nirvana, it does not incline toward either, yet it has within it the living, creative energy of dharma, manifesting as wisdom and compassion.4

Ray, Reginald A. (2012-12-18). Secret of the Vajra World: The Tantric Buddhism of Tibet (Kindle Locations 5068-5071). Shambhala. Kindle Edition.

 

 

Thus from the perspective of the ultimate level of reality it is said that not the smallest particle of anything in samsara or nirvana has even the slightest trace of true existence. However, elsewhere Milarepa said, Eh-ma! Yet if there are no living beings, how then Can the buddhas of the three times come into being? Without a cause, there can be no effect. From the perspective of conventional reality, All things in samsara and nirvana, Which the Buddha has accepted as conventionally valid, All existents, things, appearances, non-existents, All these functional realities, are inseparably Of one taste with the quintessential nature of emptiness. There is no self-awareness, and no other-awareness. All share in the vastness of yuganaddha, the great union. The

Tsong-Kha-Pa. The Six Yogas Of Naropa: Tsongkhapa's Commentary Entitled A Book Of Three Inspirations: A Treatise On The Stages Of Training In The Profound Path Of Naro's Six Dharmas (Kindle Locations 1567-1572). Kindle Edition.

 

 

Stefos, what then would the "One Taste" be if not both sides of the same coin?

 

TI

[stefos]

@Tibetan Ice,

 

In Dzogchen, the nature of the mind is the goal, per se.

That nature is beyond duality. Samsara/Nibbana can be viewed as a duality....of course.

 

The point I'm making is: Nibbana is the goal not Buddhahood vs. Nibbana....Simple.

 

Nowhere in the Pali texts or in Dzogchen texts does it say: "Embrace the duality of Samsara/Nibbana"

It merely says in Dzogchen texts "One Taste"....You have to be very careful in making a statement like that. Contextualize it in the view of the goal: "To abide in the primodial nature of Samantabhadra"

 

The Pali texts do not explicitly mention the "2 truths" as posited by certain Tibetan schools...that's a fact.

The Tibetan schools themselves do not agree with another philosophically either when it comes to the "2 truths" system...consider the Jonangpa's and other Tibetan schools that many never heard of!

Ultimately however the Pali & Tibetan teaching of "2 truths" can be reconciled BUT one has to understand the vantage point of each and not say "Shakyamuni taught this! He REALLY did!"

Shakyamuni didn't explicitly teach the "2 truths system" of Nagarjuna.....nope.

 

Rather what is stated is, in Dzogchen, "The nature of the mind which is non-dual, luminous & clear."

This is what the Buddha Shakyamuni stated also, at least it's put in his mouth, in the Pali texts.

 

Same thing: Nibbana is the goal and forget about Samsara.....go to the "other shore" not "get some of the One Taste"

 

Does this make sense?

WHY is no one actually perceiving what I'm saying?

I care about Nibbana which the Buddha Shakyamuni used Neti,Neti to qualify & in 2 places used via positiva statements to qualify (See prior posts)

 

Finally, Dzogchen borrows from Mahayana but doesn't say "This is it".......no

Dzogchen says, paraphrazingly of course, "Look, we understand various vehicles exist, cool, however they are NOT where it's at Ultimately.....THIS is." Therefore Dzogchen uses the various "yanas" Hina, Maha, & "yoga's" like Anu & Maha, AS INSTRUCTIONAL TOOLS to finally say:

"This is your real nature....Voila!"

 

Stefos

Edited February 19, 2013 by stefos

[RongzomFan]

This is hilarious, because Dzogchen doesn't end in nibbana either.

[RongzomFan]

WHY is no one actually perceiving what I'm saying?

 

Because you repeatedly claim over many pages that the goal of Mahayana is not Buddhahood.

 

 

Have you heard of Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya?

 

Have you heard of the 10 Bhumis?

 

Have you heard of the Bodhisattva motivation?

 

Have you heard of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras, Madhyamaka, and Tathagatagarbha Sutras? These are basic Indian texts. All these texts talk about Buddhahood as the goal.

Edited February 19, 2013 by alwayson

[Simple_Jack]

Addressing your statements:

 

I'm not a "Mahayanist"....never was. I've studied the Pali texts, some Visuddhimagga and now the Vimuttimagga.

I've also received Guru yoga empowerment from CNNR along with other empowerments.

 

Shakyamuni never said Samsara/Nibbana same coin, 2 different sides. This is why I reject this "2 truths system."

 

The Pali texts never posit this nor did any ancient sect. Dzogchen does not posit this either.

 

Ultimately, the Mahayana IS a Dharmic vehicle and Nirvana is it's end goal.

 

Their is no difference between a Buddha and HIS state: Nibbana in this life, Parinibbana at death. Period.

 

This is my understanding & the Mahayana reflects this also.

 

"Not with deluded cognition, but through liberating insight. Which is gained when one hears/reads, reflects on and meditates on the meaning of the teachings. The basis of which are the 4 noble truths and 8-fold noble path."

 

The Pali texts say this, Mahayana says this too. So, I have nothing more to say as I'm correct.

 

Thanks & Good day sir,

Stefos

Please, don't try to force your obsessions & biases onto me sir.

 

In any case, I don't ascribe to the limitations of the Pali canon as the final authority on Buddhism. Parroting what Malcolm once said: "The state of Dzogchen is Buddhahood. Whoever practices Dzogchen is trying to integrate with that state. A Dzogchen without Buddhism is not possible, since Dzogchen represents the goal of all paths, whether non-Buddhist or Buddhist. That goal is buddahood or full awakening.....The function of Dzogchen, Mahāmudra, Perfection of Wisdom is to transcend limitations, not to stay bound in them."

 

End of thread.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[1try80deny]

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

I'm quite bummed you didn't even look into my point on the third body of the Buddha, the buddha of the mind, that which we awake to. I guess I should get use to being surrounded by people who base there inner education primarily on scripture outside themselves along with an ignoration from a lack of value and interest in ideas that originate here. If anyone wants to cut through all this red tape and get an interesting perspective on "god" and lack thereof in buddhist thought the post is #86 pg6. People are still choosing to ignore despite my attempt to draw some attention. God is a word which I interchange with the Buddha, not a word from some predescribed condition or theory on some beings involvment with an existence that we have little understanding of. My definition of God starts from that experience at the core of existence and also where it does and should end. Much like a point I will make next, to describe the world, consciousness, and their interaction one must understand how it is that they came to be from an inner understanding outward. From the seed to the plant.

 

From my understanding of that particular space and time or lack thereof (#86), your right, God was not needed to create each part of the whole. Creation rather was able to happen without anything ever needed to be created like a seed which only needed a conscious push to get the momentum going of events that allowed for the Big Bang to take place. The flower stem, pedestals, bud, and pollen didn't need to be created individually but rather the ingredients for all that it was to be was already in that seed. Its the same mechanics which pushes you out of that space of the Land of Pure Form and the formless world beyond down into a world of duality. The moment you question self after knowing that you know that you know, you instantly leave that non-dual space of light at the hinge of consciousness and the history of existence. God, in a way, was a conscioussness that made a necessary mistake. A heavily burdened soul balanced in glory and shame with the choice to sacrafice self, create time and all that would come next in a dual state or to remain content in the womb of existence. This form is parrallel to the taoist story of creation from Tai Chi (the supreme ultimate) into a world of duality. A story which also convenitently enough parrallels the Big Bang theory. Pretend that everyone did reach enlightenment. This is what could potentially happen to start the cycle of time all over again after we make that completed journey into being Tai Chi. This is my definition of what God was in relation to creation but my definition of what god is is stated in post #86... similar to the difference between the Buddha and the Buddha if you are comprehending the wholeness of the picture I'm trying to paint.

Edited February 19, 2013 by 1try80deny

[RongzomFan]

God is a word which I interchange with the Buddha

 

Except none of the Buddhas or deities are Creators.

[RongzomFan]

Creation rather was able to happen without anything

 

 

What creation?

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/26462-being-a-realist-buddhist-definition-is-not-good/

[RongzomFan]

"Nagarjuna taught , "bereft of beginning, middle, and end," meaning that the world is free from creation, duration, and destruction."
-Candrakirti

[1try80deny]

Except none of the Buddhas or deities are Creators.

I don't believe in deities or Buddhas. Just a Buddha and the Buddha. The soul participant and the ultimate mind; seperate yet unified. Your trying too hard alwayson. Take your time. Ask questions if you don't understand the theme and wholeness of my message beneath the words. Empty your head of what God is along with all predetermmined and common definitons other people use. I'm an individual trying to understand my individual experience not one trying to prove others' experiences and attempted theories to make sense. Not a single question on my first post #86, really buddy?

What creation?

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/26462-being-a-realist-buddhist-definition-is-not-good/

The Big Bang of course. From Tai Chi to a world of Dualism. Spread out in time yet still existing in singularity, indestingushed and undivided. The way things can be seperate yet one. The curious, elsuive, and some times frustrating nature of existence.

"Nagarjuna taught , "bereft of beginning, middle, and end," meaning that the world is free from creation, duration, and destruction."

-Candrakirti

and thank you for bringing this point up to help the understanding of mechanics in Buddhist thought... for this is thought to how we will get back to Tai Chi/nirvana not thought on how it came to this but where we can potentially go. Symmetry! The conlusion of thought to understand that it is whole after understanding how it interacts and interconnects in its noncontradicting seperateness. This is similar theme you are making the mistake of over and over again picking one part of my post to contradict and make a stance on instead of understanding the fluidity, interconnectedness, and entriety of the nature of existence I am TRYING to capture. Edited February 19, 2013 by 1try80deny

[Apech]

back to the topic of the thread....

 

I am very hesitant to voice this but as i am fairly sure of it, and don't care what people who argue for argument's sake have to say about it, i am going to

 

I thought that brahma approached him shortly after his enlightenment and supplicated him to teach his realization to people. I have heard from numerous sources that he felt that his insight was too difficult to convey or accept and was going to keep to himself for the rest of his life. Then he was approached by god who asked him to teach. This isn't silence about god, it is acknowledging the presence and even the authority (or at least the wisdom) of it.

 

can anyone comment (without starting a fight lol)? thanks

 

My understanding is that Buddha did not deny the existence of gods but viewed them as not being a source of refuge in that worship of them would not lead to liberation. I understand this to be because the consciousness of a god is tainted by pride and thus although they may have great powers for long periods of time, they do not see things as they really are which is the essence of enlightenment.

 

I also think that the Lord Buddha woud refute the idea that it is possible to posit the idea of God = Absolute since if a being was the absolute i.e. infinite ... it would have no possible relation to the finite. The possibility of relation of finite to infinite lies in non-dualism which was to a certain extent 'hidden' in the Buddhas original teachings but became the core them of Mahayana through Nagarjuna and others. In fact the Hinayana concept of Nirvana retains a kind of duality in that there is samsara to escape from and nirvana to go to ...

[RongzomFan]

The Big Bang of course.

 

 

The new thing in science is that the Big Bang has previous causes, for example budding off another universe.

 

So science is also realizing that there is no beginning.

[RongzomFan]

The soul participant and the ultimate mind; seperate yet unified.

 

The Big Bang of course. From Tai Chi to a world of Dualism. Spread out in time yet still existing in singularity, indestingushed and undivided. The way things can be seperate yet one.

 

This is monism. Like in Kashmir Saivism. But that is still realism (buddhist definition).

Edited February 19, 2013 by alwayson

[konchog uma]

My understanding is that Buddha did not deny the existence of gods but viewed them as not being a source of refuge in that worship of them would not lead to liberation. I understand this to be because the consciousness of a god is tainted by pride and thus although they may have great powers for long periods of time, they do not see things as they really are which is the essence of enlightenment.

 

I also think that the Lord Buddha woud refute the idea that it is possible to posit the idea of God = Absolute since if a being was the absolute i.e. infinite ... it would have no possible relation to the finite. The possibility of relation of finite to infinite lies in non-dualism which was to a certain extent 'hidden' in the Buddhas original teachings but became the core them of Mahayana through Nagarjuna and others. In fact the Hinayana concept of Nirvana retains a kind of duality in that there is samsara to escape from and nirvana to go to ...

 

thats my understanding too

 

thanks

[Apech]

thats my understanding too

 

thanks

 

 

Two people who agree about something ... a TBs Buddhist first I think

[konchog uma]

are we even allowed to do that?

[Apech]

are we even allowed to do that?

 

 

I'm not sure

[stefos]

My understanding is that Buddha did not deny the existence of gods but viewed them as not being a source of refuge in that worship of them would not lead to liberation. I understand this to be because the consciousness of a god is tainted by pride and thus although they may have great powers for long periods of time, they do not see things as they really are which is the essence of enlightenment.

 

I also think that the Lord Buddha woud refute the idea that it is possible to posit the idea of God = Absolute since if a being was the absolute i.e. infinite ... it would have no possible relation to the finite. The possibility of relation of finite to infinite lies in non-dualism which was to a certain extent 'hidden' in the Buddhas original teachings but became the core them of Mahayana through Nagarjuna and others. In fact the Hinayana concept of Nirvana retains a kind of duality in that there is samsara to escape from and nirvana to go to ...

 

This is the deal:

 

The Pali texts consistently mentioned Brahma only...No Shiva or Vishnu....Why?

The neuter Brahman isn't mentioned at all. Why? Brahman was well known during this time period as was the atman, albeit there WERE different ways that people expressed the understanding of atman.

The above questions are answered here: Pali redactors with a particular bias put their own spin on it, is the answer....The Buddha didn't live in a bubble, he knew what was going on around him.

 

The Pali texts place a good deal of the Buddha's teaching from Upanishadic sources and even the cosmology is based on an vedic view (I.E. Mahatattvas, etc. etc.)

 

We must start with the Pali texts and work backwards first historically & then forwards historically and not like some posit: A virtual make-up-"Buddhism"-as you go bunch of non-sense. Buddhists don't have enough gumption to question why they believe what they believe, instead it's "Venerable X, Y, Z says.....",

"Bodhidharma says.....", "Nagarjuna says...." , "Naropa says.....", "Garab Dorje says.....".......Look find out if this is true in YOUR experience!

 

Furthermore, the Pali reflects the most ancient complete form of Buddhism that we presently have.

It would make logical sense to view it and understand that in Buddhist history MUCH confusion has taken place with every single sect sprouting out claiming to be Buddhadharma! Tell me it isn't so....

Not to AGAIN mention that after the Buddha died, a "24 schools period" happened along with the schism which occured that ultimately gave rise to the Mahayana.

 

I see this train of rigid bias being replicated over & over again in my own experiences with so-called "Buddhists."

 

The issue is either the Buddha didn't teach about Brahman or he did.

If he didn't, there is a reason.

If he did, there is a reason.

 

I believe that he did in fact teach Brahman but not in the terminology of the day due to the confusion that swirled around the word "Brahman" and the word "atman or atta."

 

Otherwise, this is needless "Buddhist" speculation.

 

Stefos

Edited February 20, 2013 by stefos

[RongzomFan]

The Pali texts place a good deal of the Buddha's teaching from Upanishadic sources and even the cosmology is based on an vedic view (I.E. Mahatattvas, etc. etc.)

 

Its Sramana sources, not Upanishadic/Vedic.

 

The whole point of the original definition of the "middle way" was a way apart from the extreme asceticism of Sramana.

 

Do you recall Buddha starved himself?

 

Buddhism is a sibling religion of Jainism. Jainism is the closest religion to Sramana.

Edited February 20, 2013 by alwayson