Buddha kept silent about God

[RongzomFan]

Why do you have a taoist symbol in your picture? Kind of weird for a Buddhist priest.

[3bob]

I don't normally bug people in the Buddhist forum and they don'y normally bug me in the Vedanta forum which is agreeable...

this time though I will say that according to Buddhist doctrine a "god" type being visited the historic buddha soon after his "beyond the beyond" realization and helped him remove his doubts abouts teaching same to the "world". (seems somewhat strange that an enlightened one would have such doubts and also need help from a god to make said decision?) (btw, considering how many various types of recognitions and remeberences there are to various Beings in Buddhism is there one for that god who choose to appear at the right time to suggest the right thing to Buddha which ended up helping countless Beings?)

[1try80deny]

For neoAdvaitins, enlightenment is recognizing unfabricated freshness vs the conceptualizing mind.

 

In Vajrayana, thats just step 1, with actual enlightenment being Buddhahood.

How a-boot the rest of the post? Whats your stance on the framework of form I was speaking of in relation to such an event (big bang)? I finally chisseled it down to something that doesn't contradict your stance. Do you agree that Tai Chi/Nirvana would be the only non illusory state in this context and/or outside this context? Edited February 22, 2013 by 1try80deny

[stefos]

 

I'll go with the majority opinion.

 

 

By the way, the earliest surviving manuscripts for the Vedas is medieval 11th century.

 

So your Vedas are much later than the Pali Canon.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=GW5Gx0HSXKUC&pg=PA184&dq=Vedas+first+written+down&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6XTcT5TuBKGJ6gGd6ODDCw&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Vedas%20first%20written%20down&f=false

How do you know this?

 

Furthermore, Buddha's teachings if one examines the Pali texts have Upanishadic roots!

 

I mentioned "vedic"...it means one thing to me...O.K. forgive the sloppiness.

 

Alexander Wynne tells me that the Buddha learned from Upanishadic teachers not Jains!

 

Wynne's work is ground breaking and utilizes etymology & philology........The other authors don't do this insofar as I know.

 

Stefos

The Indian masters, such as Atisa, Kamalaśīla etc., viewed Madhyamaka as definitive.

And?

 

Garab Dorje, Sri Simha, Manjushrimitra, Padmasambhava, Vimalamitra and Vairotsana don't!

 

Here we go round the mulberry bush!!!

 

Please readdress what Shakyamuni Buddha actually taught FIRST before asserting what later traditions taught.

If you don't do this, How can you prove if it's Buddhadharma?

 

Stefos

[RongzomFan]

Garab Dorje, Sri Simha, Manjushrimitra, Padmasambhava, Vimalamitra and Vairotsana

 

These are literary characters / wisdom manifestations of Buddhist tertons, not historical figures.

 

All Buddhist tertons upheld Madhyamaka. For Longchenpa and Jigme Lingpa, Madhyamaka is intellectual, while Dzogchen is based on personal experience.

Edited February 22, 2013 by alwayson

[konchog uma]

Please readdress what Shakyamuni Buddha actually taught FIRST before asserting what later traditions taught.

If you don't do this, How can you prove if it's Buddhadharma?

 

Stefos

 

what are your sources for what Shakyamuni actually taught?

[Apech]

what are your sources for what Shakyamuni actually taught?

 

I know that wasn't addressed to me but my understanding is that what is and is not dharma is defined by the four seals:

 

1. compounded phenomena are impermanent

2. phenomena contaminated by 'self' are suffering

3. phenomena are empty

4. nirvana is perfect peace

 

... if this is taught it is dharma ... if it is not then it's not ...

[9th]

I know that wasn't addressed to me but my understanding is that what is and is not dharma is defined by the four seals:

 

1. compounded phenomena are impermanent

2. phenomena contaminated by 'self' are suffering

3. phenomena are empty

4. nirvana is perfect peace

 

... if this is taught it is dharma ... if it is not then it's not ...

 

 

Your understanding is incorrect.

 

Dharma means "law". It is extremely similar to the concept of Tao, and it has been used in various ways just as that term is. It refers to the supreme order, the ultimate way of things, the cosmic workings and so forth as well as their extrapolation to the individual and social level.

 

The dogmatic ideologies of "one true teaching" and so forth have nothing to do with it. Such perspectives are a hindrance, to be sure, often fatally so. This kind of fundamentalist mindset is a human problem, not necessarily a cultural one.

 

 

 

Dharma listen (help·info) (Sanskrit: धर्म dhárma, Pali: धम्म dhamma; lit. that which upholds, supports or maintains the regulatory order of the universe^[1]) means Law or Natural Law and is a concept of central importance in Indian philosophy and religion. As well as referring to Law in the universal or abstract sense dharma designates those behaviours considered necessary for the maintenance of the natural order of things.^[2] Therefore dharma may encompass ideas such as duty,^[3] vocation, religion and all behaviour considered appropriate, correct or morally upright. The idea of dharma as duty or propriety derives from an idea found in India's ancient legal and religious texts that there is a divinely instituted natural order of things (rta) and justice, social harmony and human happiness require that human beings discern and live in a manner appropriate to the requirements of that order. The guidelines and rules regarding what was condsidered appropriate behaviours for human beings accumulated in a body of literature called Dharmasastra.^[4] In these texts civil law is inextricably linked to religion. The sastras include instructions on the correct way to perform religious rites and rituals as well as the way to lead a morally pure life. Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism as bodies of teaching on the way to achieve salvation (moksha) all have the idea of dharma at their core particularly in that sense in which it pertains to the law regarding the purification and moral transformation of human beings. Though differing in some particulars all concur that the goal of human life is moksha or nirvana in which the ultimate nature of dharma (as cosmic law) is apprehended experientially.

Edited February 22, 2013 by 9th

[Apech]

Your understanding is incorrect.

 

Dharma means "law". It is extremely similar to the concept of Tao, and it has been used in various ways just as that term is. It refers to the supreme order, the ultimate way of things, the cosmic workings and so forth as well as their extrapolation to the individual and social level.

 

The dogmatic ideologies of "one true teaching" and so forth have nothing to do with it. Such perspectives are a hindrance, to be sure, often fatally so. This kind of fundamentalist mindset is a human problem, not necessarily a cultural one.

 

 

Oh well ... since you posted I have checked several websites and reference books and they all agree with me ...

 

heres one example .... http://seanrobsville.blogspot.pt/2009/11/four-seals-of-dharma.html

 

I think you will find it is generally accepted that the four seals distinguish genuine Buddhist teachings from others.

[9th]

Oh well ... since you posted I have checked several websites and reference books and they all agree with me ...

 

heres one example .... http://seanrobsville.blogspot.pt/2009/11/four-seals-of-dharma.html

 

I think you will find it is generally accepted that the four seals distinguish genuine Buddhist teachings from others.

 

 

 

There is a difference between "Dharma" and "genuine Buddhist teachings".

 

A sense of self-righteousness will most likely prevent someone from seeing this clearly.

 

But good luck anyway.

Edited February 22, 2013 by 9th

[RongzomFan]

Buddhadharma for me means taught by Buddhas. So this includes various Mahasiddhas and tertons. Not just Shakyamuni.

[Apech]

There is a difference between "Dharma" and "genuine Buddhist teachings".

 

Your sense of self-righteousness will most likely prevent you from seeing this clearly.

 

But good luck anyway.

 

sense of self righteousness? I was just checking what I thought was true and found it was true.

[9th]

Exactly

[Apech]

Exactly

 

exactly what?

[9th]

There isnt anything more to be said.

[Apech]

There isnt anything more to be said.

 

OK ..... nice edit.

[stefos]

what are your sources for what Shakyamuni actually taught?

Well....Good question!

 

What ARE the sources...not MY sources?

 

Overarching every other statement made on this post and overall:

We have to deeply research ancient Buddhist history to discern what exactly happened:

At the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th "Buddhist councils"

During the "24 schools" period

Understand which sect Ashoka supported, promulgated and why

Find out what caused the Great schism between the ancestors of the modern Mahayana and Theravada.

 

First:

Understanding the Buddha's immediate spiritual climate during his life is paramount:

Which spiritual groups were around and what role did they play in the Buddha's geographical area is important

What the terms Brahman and more important "Atta/Atman" meant to the Buddha or the

popular culture of his day meant is key to unlocking this "No-self" or "Not-self" issue

 

Then we properly have a foundation in which to then examine the following:

 

First, I would examine the Pali nikaya texts, their commentaries, the Pali Vinaya (Theravada) & the Vimuttimagga.

Second, I would examine the Abhidhamma of the Theras as well.

 

These, I believe, make for an excellent way of discerning what the Buddha taught.

 

All the above being said, I do not believe that we can today exactly pinpoint ALL of what Buddha Shakyamuni taught. Why? We have no recorded verbatim talks the Buddha gave from his own or immediate post mortem time period.

 

All other subsequent schools or teachings MUST be viewed under the above terms or else we risk the chance of

calling every modern sect, syncretistic teaching/cult that mentions the Buddha,

Examples of syncretistic quasi Buddhists cults being "Friends of the Western Buddhist order" or "Pure Land Buddhism,"

as true Buddhist teaching.

 

Stefos

Edited February 23, 2013 by stefos

[RongzomFan]

These, I believe, make for an excellent way of discerning what the Buddha taught.

 

 

Studying Nagarjuna and Candrakirti is the excellent way of discerning what the Buddha taught.

[konchog uma]

have you ever played the game where you pass a secret around a circle by whispering it, and by the time it gets back to the person who started it, its something completely different?

 

the 300 years between Shakyamuni and the Pali texts are like that.

 

I am with alwayson: Nagarjuna was, according to prophesy by Shakyamuni himself, the first person in 400 years to understand what was being illuminated. The reality of reality is non-conceptual, so nobodies words could possibly have it right. It is free of the four extremes. It is only apprehendable by direct experience, free of conceptual designation and mental imputation of any kind.

 

If the theravadans or any of the 24 schools had apprehended that, then Nagarjuna wouldn't be the first to understand the Buddha. So it seems that they didn't. Since they misunderstood the Buddha, and were lost in attempts to conceptualize the teachings that they couldn't understand, I don't really take them as completely authoritative.

 

I think we can have the general gist of what Shakyamuni taught, but to me personally, there is no authoritative text or teaching that is the Buddha's words. It is all subject to the interpretation of unawakened beings.

 

just my 2c

[9th]

[Tibetan_Ice]

have you ever played the game where you pass a secret around a circle by whispering it, and by the time it gets back to the person who started it, its something completely different?

 

the 300 years between Shakyamuni and the Pali texts are like that.

 

I am with alwayson: Nagarjuna was, according to prophesy by Shakyamuni himself, the first person in 400 years to understand what was being illuminated. The reality of reality is non-conceptual, so nobodies words could possibly have it right. It is free of the four extremes. It is only apprehendable by direct experience, free of conceptual designation and mental imputation of any kind.

 

If the theravadans or any of the 24 schools had apprehended that, then Nagarjuna wouldn't be the first to understand the Buddha. So it seems that they didn't. Since they misunderstood the Buddha, and were lost in attempts to conceptualize the teachings that they couldn't understand, I don't really take them as completely authoritative.

 

I think we can have the general gist of what Shakyamuni taught, but to me personally, there is no authoritative text or teaching that is the Buddha's words. It is all subject to the interpretation of unawakened beings.

 

just my 2c

 

Hi Konchog

As you have said, if "there is no authoritative text or teaching that is the Buddha's words" then how can believe your other statement that "Nagarjuna was, according to prophesy by Shakyamuni himself, the first person in 400 years to understand what was being illuminated."

 

If there is no text or teaching that is the Buddha's words, then how can you put credence into the statement that Shakyamuni actually prophesied anything?

 

Your logic is flawed.

 

Now I am not taking sides on these matters for I have no opinion either way. I rely on practices to show me their effectiveness; I do not rely on deteriorated historical accounts written by pandits in order to grant credibility and worthiness of practice.

 

And are you also saying that nobody in the "theravadans or any of the 24 schools" was enlightened in the 400 years following Buddha's arrival? Nobody?

 

And then your statements that "The reality of reality is non-conceptual, so nobodies words could possibly have it right. It is free of the four extremes. It is only apprehendable by direct experience, free of conceptual designation and mental imputation of any kind."

 

Are you saying that illumination is incapable of being taught? If so, then how could anyone teach it, let alone write it down to teach it to others? And then, why would the inability of the conceptual mind to realize illumination in any way prevent the methods of arriving at that conclusion from being taught? How many people can understand the reaction of the atoms in an atomic blast, yet, if they follow the instructions still accomplish a nuclear big bang?

 

Some things to think about..

 

TI

[konchog uma]

my logic might be flawed, but its still taught that the buddha prophesied that. Whether he did or not doesn't depend on my logic being ironclad.

 

and as far as the truth goes, no i don't think it can be taught. finger, moon... you can encourage people to practice meditation, nondual awareness, etc, but you can't illuminate the truth in words, writing, etc.

 

imho

[stefos]

@Tibetan Ice & Konchog uma,

 

Look folks...please don't bring this discussion to the level of arguement.

 

A number of years ago, due to meditation, I had a small, very small, breakthrough into clairvoyant visage.

I mentioned it in the occult section of this site.

Now, THAT particular level of clairvoyance has never occurred again to me but since I saw what I saw,

I cannot turn back to my old ways of thinking about this world.

 

Why do I interject this way?

When we say "enlightenment," we need to qualify it.

 

Now, Clairvoyance, Clairaudience, etc. are Siddhis gained by practice on one level or another.

They are not "Enlightenment" as such and can pose as threats to enlightenment.

However, ANY legitimate path to enlightenment says "Hey, these things happen when one gets more aware, etc."

 

I say the above not that I'm THE guru or something! LOL....I'm no one...really.

 

Before anyone makes any assertion to "Enlightenment" that word must be qualified and there must be proof that

a particular said person, i.e. Nagarjuna for example, really exihibited the fruit of enlightenment and not just glibly say

"Nagarjuna was the prophesied one." THAT kind of statement is nonsense...X, Y, Z prophesied and THAT is the person!

No, we have to understand that EVERY modern Buddhist school has its own philosophical outlook on the Dharma & how it defines "Enlightenment."

 

If anything, I've seen more enlighted Advaita Vedantists like Sri Ramana Maharshi, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, etc. than so-called "Buddhist" teachers. In Dzogchen, some people attain the Rainbow Body, however this is not enlightenment I don't believe.

I've only heard of enlightened Buddhist masters from the Tibetan traditions too...nothing from Chan, Zen, T'ien Tai, etc.

by the way. I would venture to say that the Tibetan Tantrics understood energy and what to do with it and that Dzogchen is quite akin to Advaita Vedanta per se.

 

Does this make sense?

Define enlightenment first before making dogmatic declarations.

 

Stefos

 

BTW, Have either of you studied the work of Rudolf Steiner? He was an Arahat or Boddhisatta, per se, but he taught about the Christ.

 

Check him out. Pick up or interlibrary loan his book "How to know higher worlds" as he mentions Buddhism. Very interesting man indeed. No bad word or bad event was ever mentioned of him in his life. He spoke about many occult things openly and had subsequent death threats to prove it and Hitler had him marked for death actually but Dr. Steiner died before Hitler could do anything!

Take care

Edited February 26, 2013 by stefos

[konchog uma]

@Tibetan Ice & Konchog uma,

 

Look folks...please don't bring this discussion to the level of arguement.

 

TI and i are both grown ups. Thank you for your concern, but its okay to disagree. Nobody was calling names or throwing a tantrum, and I don't think we need your moderation.

[Tibetan_Ice]

@Tibetan Ice & Konchog uma,

 

Look folks...please don't bring this discussion to the level of arguement.

 

A number of years ago, due to meditation, I had a small, very small, breakthrough into clairvoyant visage.

I mentioned it in the occult section of this site.

Now, THAT particular level of clairvoyance has never occurred again to me but since I saw what I saw,

I cannot turn back to my old ways of thinking about this world.

Hi Stefos

Well hopefully this isn't an argument..

 

Konchog believes that you can't "illuminate the truth in words, writing.." Perhaps scholars or pandits can't..

 

I say you can.

 

If an enlightened being writes words down, there is a characteristic vibratory signature that can be dectected. But you have to be resonating at the same level or at least a high enough level in order to detect it. Have you ever heard the expression, it takes someone with heart to recognize someone else with heart?

 

Heck, you don't even have to write it down in words. Just look at the footprints left in rock by Marpa.. Isn't that capturing the truth right there?

 

http://www.kagyu.org/kagyulineage/lineage/kag05.php

As Marpa was making his bows, he left a footprint in the rock that is still visible.

 

But, I was going to ask you. Where exactly did you write about your clairvoyant vision in the Occult section?

 

TI