Buddha kept silent about God

[1try80deny]

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.

Yeah. Thats the trouble with circles. It has no beginning and no end. The big bang simply being a point on that circle. So you are right to say that there was no creation but you are ignoring how there was a creation (without creating). Its simply a point in existence on this cirlce that repeats over and over. No god was needed to create something that already existed, but my point is that there was a conscious decision maker that chose to question self and start the procession of time out of the timeless, unified, pre-big bang state. God is a word I put in place of the Buddha you awake to that smiles upon you in the land of pure form since I believe that this phenomenon I explained is what people refer to as an experience of talking-with/meeting God that shows up in other traditions. The mechanism which pushes you out of this layer of consciousness back to the world of duality is the questioning of self after you already know. So, to deny the god I speak of is to deny the Buddha of the mind. This Buddha you awake to wouldn't exactly be the same conscious decision maker I'm talking about in this "creation" explanation since the responsible party would be spat back into duality with the big bang event while the Buddha remains. Simply a being that is alive today trying to right his wrong and return himself, others, and existence back into the state of nirvana/Buddhahood or what I refer to as a pre-big bang state. This is the only way I would justify an argument for some being like the Buddha (the man), Jesus, or Muhammed to be an incarnation of god. If you saw this the way I did you would see that the mechanics line up really well.

[Apech]

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

 

 

This makes no sense to me. There is no mention Brahman because he didn't teach it ... isn't it that simple?

[RongzomFan]

but my point is that there was a conscious decision maker that chose to question self and start the procession of time out of the timeless, unified, pre-big bang state.

 

How did you reach that conclusion?

 

Again, the Big Bang is a budding off another universe. Or is from the remnants of the last universe.

 

Thus there is an infinite regression of cause and effect, with no beginning.

 

Thats the relative truth.

 

The absolute truth is everything is illusory, like a mirage.

Edited February 20, 2013 by alwayson

[Wayfarer]

Hi everyone,

 

The whole of Buddhism is trying to point you to God; this was what Buddha was Awake to and what we in general are ignorant of and therefore suffer because of. The God that Jesus spoke of is not different than the Suchness/Buddha-Nature Buddha spoke of. All of his teachings are about this - to try and help us Realise. Every teaching is the same teaching. If you do not understand no-self then you misunderstand the Four Noble Truths, if you think you know Impermanence but can't quite grasp Emptiness then I'm afraid you don't know Impermanence...to understand one, is to know them all.

 

What Buddha Awakened to while glancing up at Venus was the Presence of What Is, the Established, the Uncreated. This triggered the realisation that both himself and the world outside of him were in fact a single Presence, a Sameness. Jesus noticed the same Presence while being baptised and called it God. All these names, Tao, Yahhew, Allah, God, Buddha-Nature, Christ - they are a single thing and it is everywhere. It is nameless because what names it is the same thing - it is itself regarding itself - there is only it and because of that it does not exist.

 

When you look at a tree and then a cloud you see the difference but an Awakened person views their Sameness. This is what is meant by Right View - to see what is in front of your face that you are missing. Buddhism, Taoism, Catholicism, Christianity, the Israelites, Hinduism, Islam all tell you the same thing - that this is noticed through Stillness and Silence for that is our true-presence - Be Still and Know God. We are already IT, we cannot not be IT, only we haven't realised that.

 

The person that is typing this response is the same as the you that reads it. There is no inter-connectedness, there is nothing running intrinsically through us all - we are not a 'we'. To trigger awakening we can either notice the stillness (ie the presence around us, even in things that move) to find the same thing inside of us (why we meditate) is actually outside of us too (why Zen masters would say "know the inanimate to know the Self"), we can try to think in non-dualistic terms or we can question and investigate where our 'self' actually is...until we cannot find it - all these are triggers and not Awakening - they are the punchline of a joke which you either get or you don't.

 

This is how there is no object/subject split - how can there be if what we considered to be other is SELF?

 

Many blessings,

 

Heath

[stefos]

This makes no sense to me. There is no mention Brahman because he didn't teach it ... isn't it that simple?

 

No, There is no mention of Brahman because the PALI texts were written down 400yrs after the Buddha died.

 

You seem to have the bias that the Pali texts are the definitive "word of the Buddha" while all other ancient Buddhist sects/schools also had a Nikaya & Vinaya code too besides the Theras.

 

About 150-200 years after Shakyamuni died, you had confusion and sectarianism called the "24 schools period" and after

that you have Ashoka giving pre-eminence to one particular "shade" of Buddhism over others. After that you had the Mahasamghika breaking away which eventually gave rise to the Mahayana.

 

THAT is why you don't read about Brahman.....Pali editors bias, at least for the Pali texts anyway.

Not only that we have no records of what ANY other ancient pre-Theravada sect held to...........Speculation only speculation.

 

Could you please address my questions & hypothesis?

I don't know why they were side stepped.

 

Thank you,

Stefos

[stefos]

Hi everyone,

 

The whole of Buddhism is trying to point you to God; this was what Buddha was Awake to and what we in general are ignorant of and therefore suffer because of. The God that Jesus spoke of is not different than the Suchness/Buddha-Nature Buddha spoke of. All of his teachings are about this - to try and help us Realise. Every teaching is the same teaching. If you do not understand no-self then you misunderstand the Four Noble Truths, if you think you know Impermanence but can't quite grasp Emptiness then I'm afraid you don't know Impermanence...to understand one, is to know them all.

 

What Buddha Awakened to while glancing up at Venus was the Presence of What Is, the Established, the Uncreated. This triggered the realisation that both himself and the world outside of him were in fact a single Presence, a Sameness. Jesus noticed the same Presence while being baptised and called it God. All these names, Tao, Yahhew, Allah, God, Buddha-Nature, Christ - they are a single thing and it is everywhere. It is nameless because what names it is the same thing - it is itself regarding itself - there is only it and because of that it does not exist.

 

When you look at a tree and then a cloud you see the difference but an Awakened person views their Sameness. This is what is meant by Right View - to see what is in front of your face that you are missing. Buddhism, Taoism, Catholicism, Christianity, the Israelites, Hinduism, Islam all tell you the same thing - that this is noticed through Stillness and Silence for that is our true-presence - Be Still and Know God. We are already IT, we cannot not be IT, only we haven't realised that.

 

The person that is typing this response is the same as the you that reads it. There is no inter-connectedness, there is nothing running intrinsically through us all - we are not a 'we'. To trigger awakening we can either notice the stillness (ie the presence around us, even in things that move) to find the same thing inside of us (why we meditate) is actually outside of us too (why Zen masters would say "know the inanimate to know the Self"), we can try to think in non-dualistic terms or we can question and investigate where our 'self' actually is...until we cannot find it - all these are triggers and not Awakening - they are the punchline of a joke which you either get or you don't.

 

This is how there is no object/subject split - how can there be if what we considered to be other is SELF?

 

Many blessings,

 

Heath

 

I would say this:

 

Buddhism, Pali text style & Dzogchen

Christianity (If you read the New Testament carefully, it says "your spirit has become one with His spirit, making you children of God" By the way, How does one "separate" spirits? You don't!

Advaita Vedanta

 

All the above 3 point to one thing: Non-Duality being the ultimate state

Explicit in Non-duality is transcending the "me" or relative reality or "personality."

When viewed from this angle, things look different.

 

What concerns me for any & everyone is this rhetorical question "Are you living it or not?"

 

Stefos

Edited February 20, 2013 by stefos

[RongzomFan]

After that you had the Mahasamghika breaking away which eventually gave rise to the Mahayana.

 

 

Woah. Back up. Mahasamghika means "greater community".

 

A bunch of old dudes (Sthaviravāda) broke away from the Mahasamghika, because they wanted to change the vinaya.

 

 

A Concise History of Buddhism by Andrew Skilton 2004. p. 49, 64

Edited February 20, 2013 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

Hi everyone,

 

The whole of Buddhism is trying to point you to God; this was what Buddha was Awake to and what we in general are ignorant of and therefore suffer because of. The God that Jesus spoke of is not different than the Suchness/Buddha-Nature Buddha spoke of. All of his teachings are about this - to try and help us Realise. Every teaching is the same teaching. If you do not understand no-self then you misunderstand the Four Noble Truths, if you think you know Impermanence but can't quite grasp Emptiness then I'm afraid you don't know Impermanence...to understand one, is to know them all.

 

What Buddha Awakened to while glancing up at Venus was the Presence of What Is, the Established, the Uncreated. This triggered the realisation that both himself and the world outside of him were in fact a single Presence, a Sameness. Jesus noticed the same Presence while being baptised and called it God. All these names, Tao, Yahhew, Allah, God, Buddha-Nature, Christ - they are a single thing and it is everywhere. It is nameless because what names it is the same thing - it is itself regarding itself - there is only it and because of that it does not exist.

 

When you look at a tree and then a cloud you see the difference but an Awakened person views their Sameness. This is what is meant by Right View - to see what is in front of your face that you are missing. Buddhism, Taoism, Catholicism, Christianity, the Israelites, Hinduism, Islam all tell you the same thing - that this is noticed through Stillness and Silence for that is our true-presence - Be Still and Know God. We are already IT, we cannot not be IT, only we haven't realised that.

 

The person that is typing this response is the same as the you that reads it. There is no inter-connectedness, there is nothing running intrinsically through us all - we are not a 'we'. To trigger awakening we can either notice the stillness (ie the presence around us, even in things that move) to find the same thing inside of us (why we meditate) is actually outside of us too (why Zen masters would say "know the inanimate to know the Self"), we can try to think in non-dualistic terms or we can question and investigate where our 'self' actually is...until we cannot find it - all these are triggers and not Awakening - they are the punchline of a joke which you either get or you don't.

 

This is how there is no object/subject split - how can there be if what we considered to be other is SELF?

 

Many blessings,

 

Heath

 

 

This is just neoAdvaita drivel. Yahweh and Allah are hungry ghosts.

Edited February 21, 2013 by alwayson

[Green Tiger]

The God that can be called God, is not God.

[RongzomFan]

An uncaused principle cannot interact with a dependently originated universe that runs on cause and effect.

[Wayfarer]

The God that can be called God, is not God.

 

Yes, because there is nothing beyond it that can name it. By being the only thing to exist it is nothing for there is nothing other than itself to notice. When we Awaken it is simply because the self realises Self and here one can become as trapped in thoughts of Self/God as much as one was caught in thoughts of self. To realise both self and Self are not as it is must first come from awakening to there being no-self.

 

When we see cause and effect it is because we are unaware of what IS. For there to be One, what causes and what is affected? A cause and effect can only arise when there is more than one thing. So an Awakened person might view a tree and see Sameness and should that tree be hit by lightning and burn to a cinder, he or she would only see Sameness - nothing having changed. In such a state we see the world with equanimity for our eyes do not fall on something other than what IS. Nothing is impermanent/permanent and nothing is not-impermanent/not-permanent. These are just ideas and not the Experience.

[Wayfarer]

This is just neoAdvaita dribble. Yahweh and Allah are hungry ghosts.

 

Hungry ghost maybe - and what it ends up eating is itself lol

[stefos]

 

Woah. Back up. Mahasamghika means "greater community".

 

A bunch of old dudes (Sthaviravāda) broke away from the Mahasamghika, because they wanted to change the vinaya.

 

 

A Concise History of Buddhism by Andrew Skilton 2004. p. 49, 64

Ooops! My mistake....

 

How about addressing the rest of the post?

You side stepped that also.

 

Ancient Buddhism is NOT understood well at all, nor is it being expressed hardly at all.

Every modern school has no humility in stating this except for the Tibetans & some Theravadan teachers...I've never heard anyone else make this statement of "That is what Shakyamuni taught not what we teach."

 

No wonder every "Buddhist" says THIS teaching that I have is Buddhadharma.......Suuurrrree it is!

 

Stefos

Edited February 21, 2013 by stefos

[stefos]

Yes, because there is nothing beyond it that can name it. By being the only thing to exist it is nothing for there is nothing other than itself to notice. When we Awaken it is simply because the self realises Self and here one can become as trapped in thoughts of Self/God as much as one was caught in thoughts of self. To realise both self and Self are not as it is must first come from awakening to there being no-self.

 

When we see cause and effect it is because we are unaware of what IS. For there to be One, what causes and what is affected? A cause and effect can only arise when there is more than one thing. So an Awakened person might view a tree and see Sameness and should that tree be hit by lightning and burn to a cinder, he or she would only see Sameness - nothing having changed. In such a state we see the world with equanimity for our eyes do not fall on something other than what IS. Nothing is impermanent/permanent and nothing is not-impermanent/not-permanent. These are just ideas and not the Experience.

Hi Wayfarer,

 

This particular Buddhist forum reflects one thing:

 

That dogmatism exists in "Buddhist" circles that is not backed by ancient texts, history & critical thinking but by people who don't want to research a thing about what happened after the Buddha died.

 

There are no earlier complete Buddhist texts than the Pali, written 400 years after the Buddha dies and I hear people say, left & right, not on this sub-forum necessarily:

"These Pali texts are Buddha's original teachings."

 

Even in Theravada circles, there is disagreement about what the Buddha taught and there exist different schools that teach differently about the "how to's" of meditation and such.....What a mess! Jumbalaya!

 

The clinch about current Buddhist philosophy:

 

There is no substratum in which the modern Buddhist can logically operate.

What Shakyamuni taught, nobody today knows! That's that for that. They can come close though.

 

Buddhist philosophy as expounded by most schools today talk about momentariness of EVERYTHING.

Shankara said essentially "If all is flux/momentary, then what is memory?"

He continued to say "If all is momentary, then there aren't even any skhandas" which of course the Pali texts state exist.

 

See, the issue is that the Pali Abhidharma/Abhidhamma is a Theravada expounding/interpretation as are the other schools interpretations.

 

Later Buddhists understood this loophole of "momentariness" and created the Alaya-vijnana concept which is nothing but a lift of Brahman.....there is only a slight difference, everything else is the same.

 

Research but Beware of all Buddhist sects.

Stefos

Edited February 21, 2013 by stefos

[RongzomFan]

How about addressing the rest of the post?

You side stepped that also.

 

 

 

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.

[stefos]

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.

I will just say that different scholars vary in this interpretation.

Suffice to say that the Buddhas prior teachers point to something.

That something is debatable, not something that I'm interested in.

 

Many scholars understand the teaching Brahaman was known during Shakyamuni's life and that

the "atman/atta" was misinterpreted during Shakyamuni's lifetime as well!

Investigate this matter & repost.

 

Again, the Pali texts are not the most ancient account of what Shakyamuni Buddha said.

In all likelihood, the most ancient accounts will never be gotten due to them not being written down.

 

Any "Buddhist" sects today must clearly define what Shakyamuni Buddha taught or else,

it's all up for grabs....Speculations from Buddhists and hard dogmatic stances.

 

This is why I'm leery of all Buddhist sects in existence today.

 

Stefos

Edited February 21, 2013 by stefos

[RongzomFan]

I will just say that different scholars vary in this interpretation.

 

 

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

Edited February 21, 2013 by alwayson

[Wayfarer]

Hi Wayfarer,

 

This particular Buddhist forum reflects one thing:

 

That dogmatism exists in "Buddhist" circles that is not backed by ancient texts, history & critical thinking but by people who don't want to research a thing about what happened after the Buddha died.

 

There are no earlier complete Buddhist texts than the Pali, written 400 years after the Buddha dies and I hear people say, left & right, not on this sub-forum necessarily:

"These Pali texts are Buddha's original teachings."

 

Even in Theravada circles, there is disagreement about what the Buddha taught and there exist different schools that teach differently about the "how to's" of meditation and such.....What a mess! Jumbalaya!

 

The clinch about current Buddhist philosophy:

 

There is no substratum in which the modern Buddhist can logically operate.

What Shakyamuni taught, nobody today knows! That's that for that. They can come close though.

 

Buddhist philosophy as expounded by most schools today talk about momentariness of EVERYTHING.

Shankara said essentially "If all is flux/momentary, then what is memory?"

He continued to say "If all is momentary, then there aren't even any skhandas" which of course the Pali texts state exist.

 

See, the issue is that the Pali Abhidharma/Abhidhamma is a Theravada expounding/interpretation as are the other schools interpretations.

 

Later Buddhists understood this loophole of "momentariness" and created the Alaya-vijnana concept which is nothing but a lift of Brahman.....there is only a slight difference, everything else is the same.

 

Research but Beware of all Buddhist sects.

Stefos

Regarding the skandhas...the Heart Sutra for example says the skandhas are IT, not something other than IT and to me this was written or noted by someone who had Realised - that is the important factor; not someone trying to work out a point when they haven't Realised.

 

There is lots of confusion in Buddhist texts as there are with all religions. Strange thing is, we already know the answers for we are IT. If we listen from our centre and not our head then we hear the Wisdom of all things. Some might say that is rubbish - why don't people try for themselves? It is there, there is nowhere else it can be.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Wayfarer

[1try80deny]

How did you reach that conclusion?

 

Again, the Big Bang is a budding off another universe. Or is from the remnants of the last universe.

 

Thus there is an infinite regression of cause and effect, with no beginning.

 

Thats the relative truth.

 

The absolute truth is everything is illusory, like a mirage.

Sure. Everything but Tai Chi, atleast in my belief on the matter. To your first point, thats what I'm saying. The Big Bang is the remnants of the last universe; the effect of the cause from a previous universe being destroyed in some cosmic event or brought together in a singularity of enlightment. I never meant to say there was a beginning if you payed attention to my circle metaphor. Of course scientists would simply place the cause for this event to the simple momentum from the last universe because they have little comprehension of consciousness. It is only a beginning in that pre-bigbang is a spaceless space where existence and non-existence meet up and the big bang is where they depart. Your ultimately right though, that there is no beginning but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm completely wrong (in a way). Its the classic Buddhist mistake we're making like a zen master saying there is no buddha or enlightenment is instant, where as Mahayana might say there is a Buddha and enlightenment happens in steps. Both of each argument is true its just that Zen tends to focus on what is ultimately true while the other learns much from the illusory interconnectivity and fluidity of layers paying attention to progress on the way. It was investigation in the middle layer where I now feel comfortable tackling the concept of the Buddha that you have been ignoring. There is much hope in the future of Buddhism in the realization that competing ideologies don't necessarily have to contradict and can Co-exist depending on interpretation, values, individual position in consciousness, resonance to personal experience, layer of focus, and relevance to the question at hand. Its the nature of water that I value most and I hope to demonstrate this at the end of this post.

 

"Polarity arises from the Taoist veiw of the cosmological origins of the universe: Before existence was an idea --- an Absolute. The Chinese call it T' ai Chi, the supreme Ultimate. The absolute, in a sudden and tremendous desire to know itself, divided itself from nonexistence in a cataclysmic event resulting in endless cause and effect --- an event that neatly parrallels the so-called big Bang Theory. Instantly, space was formed and time began, and two charged states came into being, yin (negative) yang (positive). As a result were at first undifferentiated, seperated and regrouped into physical reality that became our universe."- R.L. Wing

 

From my experience, we have the conscious ability to remain in this supreme ultimate or in some lower level of consciousness as well as the power to return to samsara and the world of duality by questioning self after knowing. The mechanics was something I experienced and my later happening upon this rare Tao of Power book (quote above) to legitimze my interpretation is the reason for this conclusion of a conscious catalyst rather than external circumstances of scienctific explanation being the catalyst. My point doesn't hinge on the idea of creation but rather (besides other veiws on ultimate consciousness) hinging on the idea that the universe (or the second place I put the word "god") had the choice to remain in a pre-big bang state for etnernity. On the other hand "eternity" might(?) mean nothing in a place beyond time so we could again both be right where the concious "absolute" experiences its Tai Chi awareness but inevitably makes the mistake of questioning self which in a timeless state (if you catch the relativity drift I'm getting at) times up perfectly with the big bang event that was (or was not) caused by external scientific circumstances appearing to itself that "it" caused the event. Who knows. Maybe both causes are true. Only one way to find out but to experience, in which case if my later compromising point is right, it would be illusory upon the mistake. What wouldn't be illusory, however, is that awareness before the mistake to get back to my first point of the post. Oyy vey! circles... 8 O can't live without them and can't live without them

Edited February 21, 2013 by 1try80deny

[1try80deny]

The funny difference is that you may be annoyed at the unimportance of these circles I'm running in thought where as I feel like I just climbed a mountain of understanding. I appreciate the engagement none the less. Nothing feels better than to come up on the fly with the way in which my personal ideology may or may not be illusory. I hope I was able to help you pin point a newly realized or of your own stances and investigations into the nature of existence.

[Jetsun]

Regarding the skandhas...the Heart Sutra for example says the skandhas are IT, not something other than IT and to me this was written or noted by someone who had Realised - that is the important factor; not someone trying to work out a point when they haven't Realised.

 

There is lots of confusion in Buddhist texts as there are with all religions. Strange thing is, we already know the answers for we are IT. If we listen from our centre and not our head then we hear the Wisdom of all things. Some might say that is rubbish - why don't people try for themselves? It is there, there is nowhere else it can be.

There are two forms of Buddhist Sutras: the relative and the ultimate, the relative are meant for the people they were spoken to and the ultimate for everyone. Because of the nature of relative advice the relative Sutras can contradict each other and still be completely true, so most of the confusion comes in Buddhism when people confuse the relative for the ultimate.

[Birch]

There are two forms of Buddhist Sutras: the relative and the ultimate, the relative are meant for the people they were spoken to and the ultimate for everyone. Because of the nature of relative advice the relative Sutras can contradict each other and still be completely true, so most of the confusion comes in Buddhism when people confuse the relative for the ultimate.

 

I've understood (er, I think) this is what happens. It's why I find the idea of hereticism strange. As far as I know, every single monotheism has done something to punish those with realizations (were the latter 'stupid' enough to share them).

 

Sometimes I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros is messing with itself.

[RongzomFan]

enlightenment happens in steps.

 

 

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

 

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

Edited February 21, 2013 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

There are two forms of Buddhist Sutras: the relative and the ultimate, the relative are meant for the people they were spoken to and the ultimate for everyone. Because of the nature of relative advice the relative Sutras can contradict each other and still be completely true, so most of the confusion comes in Buddhism when people confuse the relative for the ultimate.

 

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

Edited February 21, 2013 by alwayson

[Venerable Tam Luc Do]

Greetings! I am new here but have been a Buddhist for a quarter century and a priest for twelve years. The earliest Buddhist suttas (the Tipitaka or Three Baskets, also called the Pali Canon) present Gautama as admitting the existence of gods (Hindu deities) and also occasionally poking fun at them. Nirvana/Nibbana is the Supreme Reality in Buddhism, not a god, gods, God, or Gods. No deity is the Source because the universe is uncreated and eternal. I know many people were attracted to Buddhism via the writings of D.T. Suzuki. Unfortunately for the Dharma/Dhamma in North America, Suzuki turned Buddhism into a search for God so that Occidentals could better relate! Buddhism is not a search for God. Buddhism is essentially about karma/kamma and the relief of suffering. If you wish to understand the basic core of Buddhism I highly recommend a classic titled What The Buddha Taught by the late Buddhist scholar-monk Walpola Rahula. Most schools of Buddhist thought would agree with the entirety of the book: http://www.amazon.com/What-Buddha-Taught-Expanded-Dhammapada/dp/0802130313/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1361485223&sr=1-1&keywords=walpola+rahula

BuddhaNet is also a good starting place. http://www.buddhanet.net/

Namaste,
Venerable Tam Luc Do