Heaven and Nirvana/ Comparative Religion

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew —

Originally Posted by AndrewX

This Gnosis, it is understood (well, one hopes), cannot be of any use to us, however, unless we give it a life and an expression in the outer world ... and for that, we do need intellect!

I would say the gnosis of Christianity is other than that — Love speaks a universal language of its own.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

God seeks the completion of His PLAN for Spiritual, as well as material evolution ... and neither can be fulfilled (at least microcosmically) without MAN.

Well in discussing the Absolute, I think we're at cross purposes here ... in our theology we do not attribute such terms as 'completion', 'evolution' or 'fulfillment' to the Absolute, and certainly not any order of dependency upon the contingent ... and I think diverging into temporal matters will carry us too far from the point.

What God wills, will be, and in a certain sense, already is — God transcends the temporal orders.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

... or a Western model which reduces it all to "And God created man (!)" ... surely there is room for a mutually enriching view and understanding of the Creator(s) - no matter what our faith!

Whoops! I nearly spluttered my coffee all over the keyboard! If it's complexity you want, I can give you a list of names ...

Sometimes it would seem you and Nick have been very poorly served in your understanding of Christianity — or Catholicism specifically — especially when it comes to Patristics, which is a shame. Your breadth of knowledge of Eastern terms is vast, if somewhat heterodox, whilst your knowledge of Christianity seems nowhere near as informed.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

I just think it's important to point out that you are making a straw man, Thomas ... And you are keen to point out that there is a distinction, yes.

I responded to this thread because Nick made a straw man of Christian (if indeed Christianity was implied) doctrine of God. He is free to define 'God' in any way he likes, but if he's implying God as traditionally understood, then he's missing a significant part of the doctrine. I just thought I'd fill in some of the gaps.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

I have refrained from copying/pasting what HPB had to say on this nonsense of dragging the Absolute down into the mud, and deifying even the lowest of the creative powers

I wonder why you would feel inclined to do so?

Thomas

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

the Suttas plainly state that the Buddha Shakyamuni was not the first Buddha to arise nor was he the last.

I know, Vaj, just pointing out that Whomever was the "first" Buddha of the present world-cycle (or Cosmic cycle), was also not the first. WHICH prior cycle shall we say was the "first?"

Only if we accept that time itself, as we know it, is one of the containers of the Cosmos, can we speak in terms of archetypes, or a cosmic `pattern' (for lack of a better word), in which a `First Buddha' (or primordial emanation) emerges from the Hiranyagarbha.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

if you could show me some evidence from any Sutta or Sutra that this is so, i'd be quite pleased to see it.

Sorry, Vaj, I can't do that ... nor am I interested in scripture-picking, no matter whose (or which) scripture that may happen to be. I do quote sometimes because I believe a given passage may support my point(s). Other times, I go from my own findings, my own meditations, my own experience, my own belief(s). And this, I suppose, is one of those times.

You are certainly not asked to believe or accept something that doesn't make sense to you. But let's just leave it at that, okay? I'm not here to convince you of anything. Either it interests you, and you are genuinely concerned in how it was/is that I have come to believe and accept something as true ... OR you merely wish for me to bring something to the table so that you may brush it aside (in which case it will not matter what evidence I present, since your mind is already made up!) ...

If you genuinely wish to know WHY I believe that the Lord Buddha served `G-d,' and the SAME `God' as did Christ, then just ask me, "Andrew, WHY do you believe that? What evidence, or findings, have led YOU to that conclusion?" I don't hear you asking. I hear you saying, "I don't believe this at all. Show me a sutra so I can correct YOUR mistake." And Vaj, in my book, it is not a mistake at all. Accept that first, so that we are on even ground, and then invite me to discuss points of intersection and divergence (between our two belief systems) over tea ... or coffee.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

perhaps it would be of some value to read the Suttas on these matters rather than guessing at them. the Doctrine and Discipline is not something that one can guess at and arrive at a valid cognition of the teachings, which the Suttas make quite clear.

I disagree, Vaj, with an important caveat.

Sure, we can't guess at what lies beyond intellect, or at what true understanding might be like ... if we have not yet attained to such, ourselves. But what the Buddha taught was that we can attain to true understanding, genuine gnosis, or as some put it, Illumination & Insight (something like a foretaste of the greater Enlightenment, the attainment of the Buddhas).

For any of us to say, "I have attained such" would be quite silly, but I'll tell ya what, I won't call you a liar (or a fraud), or regard you as anything less than an earnest practitioner of the Dharma (and a student of the Wisdom, which is the same thing in my book) ... if you will extend me the same courtesy. Please do not look down your nose at me and say, "If you would bother to read the Sutras, you might know what you're talking about."

Indeed, I have read some of the Sutras, in years past, and I'm sure I will enjoy it again, when I get back to that (higher) turn of the spiral. Right now, I'm "in between," so to speak ... and thus I feel comfortable drawing from my own Alaya-vijnana. Nor do I mean to be presumptuous in saying this; I just assert, according to WHATEVER the faith or belief system of the other person(s) in the conversation, that these Spiritual Principles pertain to myself, as to every other human being - and that they are accessible (just as they hold the potential, and guarantee, of our Salvation and/or Enlightenment).

To wit:

Alaya-vijnana (Sanskrit) [from alaya abode, dwelling from a-li to settle upon, come close to + vijnana discernment, knowledge from vi-jna to distinguish, know, understand} Abode of discriminative knowledge; the cognizing or discerning faculty, the mental power of making distinctions, hence the higher reasoning. When used mystically as "a receptacle or treasury of knowledge or wisdom," it corresponds very closely to the Vedantic vijnanamaya-kosa, the "thought-made sheath" of the human constitution, the higher manas or reincarnating ego [vide another current thread here at C-R].

In Mahayana Buddhism, alaya-vijnana has acquired a somewhat larger and higher significance: alaya (an abode, in the sense of focus of activity), the prepositional prefix a (meaning position or limitation) with the verb li (to dissolve) signifies solution or coalescence in unity. Used much as the term human monad is in theosophy, equivalent to the higher manas or even buddhi-manas, it therefore signifies the focus or interior organ of consciousness into which is collected at the end of each incarnation the aroma of the higher experiences during that lifetime, thus forming a kind of treasury.
-- (from Purucker's Encyclopedic Theosophical Glossary)

Namaskar ... Love & Light,
~Andrew

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Andrew,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

I know, Vaj, just pointing out that Whomever was the "first" Buddha of the present world-cycle (or Cosmic cycle), was also not the first. WHICH prior cycle shall we say was the "first?"

hmm... Andrew, Buddha Dharma does not posit a first of anything.. we believe that time is cyclic and that no beginning of it can be found. though this isn't the forum for an exposition of Buddhist metaphysics, Buddhas are not "whomevers".

the Buddha lists several of the previous Buddhas and tells us who the next one will be as well. i've posted that on this forum somewhere before, but i could put it here to help the conversation flow.

Sorry, Vaj, I can't do that ... nor am I interested in scripture-picking, no matter whose (or which) scripture that may happen to be. I do quote sometimes because I believe a given passage may support my point(s). Other times, I go from my own findings, my own meditations, my own experience, my own belief(s). And this, I suppose, is one of those times.

and that is certainly fine for you to do so.

it seems somewhat unusual to me to make claims about anothers religion without being able to support those claims from within said paradigm.

Either it interests you, and you are genuinely concerned in how it was/is that I have come to believe and accept something as true ... OR you merely wish for me to bring something to the table so that you may brush it aside (in which case it will not matter what evidence I present, since your mind is already made up!) ...

i would not have asked the question if i was not interested in the answer. i'm not sure how you engage in dialog with others, but my questions to others are ones which i'd be interested to know the answer to. everyone has other things to be doing and we don't need to bother with questions we are not interested in.

If you genuinely wish to know WHY I believe that the Lord Buddha served `G-d,' and the SAME `God' as did Christ, then just ask me, "Andrew, WHY do you believe that? What evidence, or findings, have led YOU to that conclusion?" I don't hear you asking. I hear you saying, "I don't believe this at all. Show me a sutra so I can correct YOUR mistake." And Vaj, in my book, it is not a mistake at all. Accept that first, so that we are on even ground, and then invite me to discuss points of intersection and divergence (between our two belief systems) over tea ... or coffee.

perhaps you would be so kind as to let me form my own views prior to you providing them for me and then reacting, yes?

i did ask you for evidence, specifically, if you had any Sutta evidence to support your claim. that is a more than reasonable request of you since they are claims of my religion.

I disagree, Vaj, with an important caveat.

Sure, we can't guess at what lies beyond intellect, or at what true understanding might be like ... if we have not yet attained to such, ourselves. But what the Buddha taught was that we can attain to true understanding, genuine gnosis, or as some put it, Illumination & Insight (something like a foretaste of the greater Enlightenment, the attainment of the Buddhas).

i am wondering why you would disagree that reading the Suttas is something that would not be benefical in determing what they say. such a point of view is quite unusual to me.

there would be no Buddha Dharma if other beings could not attain the same Liberation as a Buddha which is, of course, made clear in the Suttas.

For any of us to say, "I have attained such" would be quite silly, but I'll tell ya what, I won't call you a liar (or a fraud), or regard you as anything less than an earnest practitioner of the Dharma (and a student of the Wisdom, which is the same thing in my book) ... if you will extend me the same courtesy.

the only claim i make for myself is that i have no attainment and am a very poor Buddhist.

i'm unclear why you are reacting in such a personal manner to my disagreements with your contentions about my religion. i did not call you a liar nor anything else, i asked for you to provide Sutta evidence to support your claim about my religion. nothing more and nothing less. please do not imagine or try to guess at my motives, it does a disservice to us both.

Please do not look down your nose at me and say, "If you would bother to read the Sutras, you might know what you're talking about."

you perceive insult where none was intended.

Indeed, I have read some of the Sutras, in years past,

i would certainly like to ask you about them, which ones you read and so forth but given the odd nature of your responses to my queries thus far i'm not sure this would be a productive line of discussion.

I just assert, according to WHATEVER the faith or belief system of the other person(s) in the conversation, that these Spiritual Principles pertain to myself, as to every other human being - and that they are accessible (just as they hold the potential, and guarantee, of our Salvation and/or Enlightenment).

would you say that Salvation and Awakening are the same?

In Mahayana Buddhism, alaya-vijnana has acquired a somewhat larger and higher significance: alaya (an abode, in the sense of focus of activity), the prepositional prefix a (meaning position or limitation) with the verb li (to dissolve) signifies solution or coalescence in unity. Used much as the term human monad is in theosophy, equivalent to the higher manas or even buddhi-manas, it therefore signifies the focus or interior organ of consciousness into which is collected at the end of each incarnation the aroma of the higher experiences during that lifetime, thus forming a kind of treasury.

-- (from Purucker's Encyclopedic Theosophical Glossary)

do you think that you can provide a Buddhist source that confirms this non-Buddhist explanation?

i see no reason to accept a non Buddhist source, especially one as fraught with misudnerstanding of Buddha Dharma as the Theosophical Society, as any sort of authority on Buddha Dharma.

you are right, of course, you do not have to convince me of anything regarding your tradition however insofaras it concerns the Buddha Dharma i shall happily ask for Buddhist sources and feel no qualms in doing so.

feel free to disregard if desired.

metta,

~v

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I would say the gnosis of Christianity is other than that — Love speaks a universal language of its own.

Then we will disagree. As the gnosis to which I refer pertains to the SOUL and not to the personality, the former must rely upon the latter for its vehicle, or upadhi ... in the outer world. And while the SOUL certainly can and does lead a life of its own, within the Inner worlds (of which we, the personality, know almost nothing) ... it would be a mistake to say that the Spiritual (or Solar) Will is worked out despite our earthly presence, rather than through it, or using it.

In other words, the Kingdom of Heaven will express itself on Earth through Humanity, else not at all (per our tiny little, insignificant planet). So we probably just have a difference of belief here ... no big deal.

I have plenty of reason to believe, I might add, that our Free Will does matter, and that although Jagganatha will not be held up by an ant that dares not to literally clear the way for its Lord, nevertheless this Lord is a Loving, Intelligent Being - seeking cooperation and Intelligent response from Humanity. The forms may be (and are being) broken, yet this is only so that the Life within may be Liberated, which in the current cycle means the freeing of our Consciousness to serve on a higher turn of the proverbial spiral.

You will never convince me that MIND - the very GIFT of the same LOVING GOD Who has sent countless other prophets, teachers, saviors and guides - is a superfluity, or an unnecessary appendage to the LOVE which must guide it. If the word `mind' has become a dirty word for you, Thomas, then I'm plenty ready to explore that ... if you are.

Nirvana, or Heaven, may mean the extinction (or taming) of the monkey mind - the uncontrolled, even deadly dangerous aspect of Manas (the unredeemed portion of the SOUL in incarnation, as in: "The mind is the great slayer of the Real"). But Nick and I are on the same page with the understanding that even in Highest Heaven/Nirvana, both Mind (Higher Manas) and Love-Wisdom (Buddhi) are brought into harmony with Spiritual Will (Atma), that we may be of even greater Service to the Lord our God (no anthropomorphism intended!)

Originally Posted by Thomas

Well in discussing the Absolute, I think we're at cross purposes here ... in our theology we do not attribute such terms as 'completion', 'evolution' or 'fulfillment' to the Absolute, and certainly not any order of dependency upon the contingent ... and I think diverging into temporal matters will carry us too far from the point.

I do not believe I am qualified to speak of the Absolute. If you believe you are thus qualified, please let me know upon what Ground(s).

If the Absolute is, by definition, the `Ultimate GROUND' of Being (think ... THINK -> the proverbial soil whence ALL, as well as ALL LIFE, has sprung), then how is it exactly that you, or any of us, is able to speak from this ground?

And if we cannot do thus, then is not even your identification of `God the Father' from Christian theology with `The Absolute' ... purely arbitrary?

Originally Posted by Thomas

What God wills, will be, and in a certain sense, already is — God transcends the temporal orders.

Once again, we're not talking about the Absolute here ... because we can't! Rather, this is one of the manifest ASPECTS (or `Hierarchies') of said Absolute.

As above, so below. Just as our own Soul cannot ACT in the world without the personality, its periodical vehicle, so too GOD (conceived ANY way you like) cannot ACT, except via a conditioned, limiting vehicle ... also periodical, temporal, and so on.

God can be `the Absolute,' if you insist, in which case - COSMOS Itself is the living, breathing FORM (does not YOUR body live, and breathe?) of said Deity. Or, if you wish to emphasize that God is manifest, and known, experienced, in God's Creation, then sure, the First Emanation (Adi Buddha, or MahaPurusha, Paramatman, Brahman) will STILL NEED to be understood via said Entity's VEHICLE (of which esotericists understand there to be many!).

I do not deny that God is a Singular, Synthetic Being (from our point of view) ... as the Gayatri says, "From Whom all things proceed, To Whom all things return" ...

... it's just that you can't have your cake and eat it too!

Thomas, you are trying to say, GOD IS THE ABSOLUTE, GOD IS THE FATHER, GOD IS THE SON ... and if pressed, GOD IS THE HOLY SPIRIT.

That's fine, but that's pure Christian theology of the Roman Catholic variety. And I don't think it's compatible with a system which can acknowledge God's Omnipresence and Omnipotence, but is also interested in discussing just how the various ASPECTS of Deity show up throughout the various levels of Creation (inasmuch as we can understand them) ... including in our Human constitution (again, vide the thread on ego vs. SOUL).

Originally Posted by Thomas

Sometimes it would seem you and Nick have been very poorly served in your understanding of Christianity — or Catholicism specifically — especially when it comes to Patristics, which is a shame. Your breadth of knowledge of Eastern terms is vast, if somewhat heterodox, whilst your knowledge of Christianity seems nowhere near as informed.

Yes, but Thomas, I can say the same about you ... and your lack of familiarity with, certainly understanding of, Eastern philosophy!

Shall we accentuate the points of difference, is that our game again? I know this, you don't know that?

What Nick and I will say, over and over and over, is that EVERYONE is equally capable, having the SAME Divine potential, of knowing EVERYTHING. And further, in time, we eventually SHALL.

When we break this down into particulars, it turns out that every human being has a slightly different approach to the Divine. Yet most of us can agree that there is ONE Divine, garnering in the proverbial harvest of said Deity's original sowing ... just as we ourselves do likewise, individually, day in & day out, life after life.

Some of us, like Vaj, will react strongly - almost violently - to the assertion that, "Buddha worshipped God, in thought, word and deed." It just runs foreign to what Westernized Buddhism (from the 19th Century onward) has presented as the Buddha's own Teaching. And we can ultimately credit the original followers of Shakyamuni, His very own bhikkhus, for grasping at straws, as it were, and bequeathing to us such notions as anatman ... as opposed to the doctrine of the Monad, or an Eternal Spirit in man.

But I can only bang my head against the wall, if Vaj cries foul, and tells me "I know not whereof I speak," because ... I have not "read the sutras," or "explored sufficiently the Buddha's Dharma."

Nevermind why I believe what I believe, and why I find that the Buddhist (or Christian) Scriptures support it 100%, imho. The assumption, and assertion, either subtle or direct, amounts to: "I am right, I know what I'm talking about. You are partially right, at best, but you do not actually understand. Go back (or forward), and investigate, THEN you will understand."

Is this not the exact same thing I'm saying?

Sure it is. Because this is what I've found. And perhaps one day, I will stand corrected. But I just don't have the inclination to try to convince you, Thomas, or you, Vajradhara, of something you do not wish to believe. I assure you, I do not wish to swallow, whole hog, the cherished doctrines or dogmas of your belief systems ... any more than you wish to swallow mine!

You see? It's just not worth it. I am answering the question of the original post by saying, Yes, I think Heaven and Nirvana, ultimately - ARE the same. And I'm going further by saying that I think Christ and Buddha serve the same Divine PURPOSE, according to the same Intelligently, Lovingly formulated PLAN.

A Christian/Catholic interpretation might be that "both teachers served the same God," while the Buddhist perhaps prefers to say, "Christ, like Buddha, had attained the Bodhisattva stage - or greater, and can be said to have `entered Nirvana.'"

But if that doesn't "work," then all I can really do is shrug my shoulders.

Originally Posted by Thomas

I responded to this thread because Nick made a straw man of Christian (if indeed Christianity was implied) doctrine of God. He is free to define 'God' in any way he likes, but if he's implying God as traditionally understood, then he's missing a significant part of the doctrine. I just thought I'd fill in some of the gaps.

Like I said, Thomas, you are the one saying, "God is the Absolute," then going on to equate God with each Aspect of the Trinity. I dont feel that this is an invalid understanding, just that it's extremely confusing ...

For example, if we say the word `god,' one person immediately conjures up images of tiny, sub-atomic particles, another pictures the grandeur of the proverbials heavens (SPACE, with beautiful nebulae and galaxies), while yet a third imagines a quiet spot in nature, rich with flora and perhaps fauna.

Others of us have become conditioned into trying to picture an image, a face, a being like humanity itself ... even possibly a literal MAN, be that Jesus or Krishna, Mohammad or Baha'ullah.

How wonderful, and beautiful, that we have come so far, and that we can recognize the Divine in each of these settings, or beings, or areas of our experience! How unfortunate, and sad, that any one of us should dare to tell another, "You do not know God," or say that another person's experience does not equate with our own!

Yet every day, people die over this, while Ecumenism proceeds, and the Spirit of God works `miracles' in our world ... and on every other.

Originally Posted by Thomas

I wonder why you would feel inclined to do so?

Because, Thomas, to me, the assertion that God is a petty being, bound to our human whims & fancies ... even tyrannical, wrathful, and vengeant - is one of the greatest blasphemies that I could imagine! It is the reverse of the Greatest Commandment of all, to love the Lord our God with all our heart and all our mind.

Tell me, for a small child to become brutish, bullying his peers and torturing bugs & small animals ... does this make his sin any less, just because he does not yet understand the nature of his cruelty, and the importance of comraderie and loving compassion?

Perhaps we will discipline the child, and do our best to help him to understand, and grow up into a mature, responsible, considerate adult ... who will be accountable for his actions, and also less inclined to harm any of God's creatures (even the least).

Any system which makes of God a mockery ... is such a child, and we, Humanity, have given birth to it. Thus we, Humanity, have the responsibility to rear the child into a mature adult. I may not have flesh & blood children of my own, yet the ethers are brimming with our thought-creations ... children, of a sort, belonging to all of us. I believe we have explored this at C-R on other threads ... and of course, every such thread, is just such a `child.'

Every Faith, every Tradition, every philosophy, religion or belief system ... is an `artificial,' or egregore. And every one of us is a magician - unconsciously and unwittingly practicing gray, or black magic, at least part of the time, yet also working hard to learn and practice White Magic, in whatever form we have come to know it.

I've helped make a mess, as have we all. I just want to help clean it up. In this case, I would just rather introduce the brutish child to his peers, even if one or two are similarly brutish ... than keep all the children separate. As they learn to play together, they will grow together, and if we are careful, even the most reckless or difficult of them can be taught to cooperate in something greater than themselves.

If you envision Heaven, or Nirvana, as a giant classroom, or even a grand cathedral, then that is good. But if, in this cathedral-classroom, you also picture each child as cordoned off in his own little study carrel, instead of working together, in a circle, for the common good, then I think that's a bit sad.

Focus groups, is kind of how I think of it. Each group may have a leader, of sorts, who also contributes, though each member must learn to lead, in turn. Each group has a topic, perhaps a particular problem, or lesson, that is being learned ... with reference to the Greater Whole (the Greatest Good). And once the breakout sessions have run their course, the entire classroom returns to its assembled format - a Circle - and perhaps the leaders share the results of what has just transpired. All are free to discuss, in a process which builds, and builds, and builds.

When religions catch up with this model, already stepped down for us and waiting for Humanity to more fully embody ... then much of the bloodshed, violence and world conflict will cease. People in one nation will accept those of other nations as Brothers, and it will be understood - innately and earnestly - that to pray to God in one name, is no different than to pray to God in another (or to meditate on the paramitas).

Sorry about the soapbox; I just thought it might help to go to the heart of matters, for a change.

Love and Light,

~andrew

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

feel free to disregard if desired.

How big of you to extend such a courtesy ...

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew —

Wide-ranging as ever, but I prefer to limit my responses to the primary point under discussion, the Absolute as understood in the Christian tradition.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

As the gnosis to which I refer pertains to the SOUL and not to the personality

Christian gnosis pertains to knowing (rather than a knowledge) of the Absolute as such. The outward expression or manifestation of this interiority is necessarily contingent, determined to some degree by the nature of the individual, as no two saints or sages do or say precisely the same thing — they are themselves.

Such a gnosis is not the result of any human operation or activity — it cannot be generated or caused — rather it is a gift, a grace or charism mediated by the Holy Spirit. A 'knowing' conveys the idea, but it is an imprecise term.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

In other words, the Kingdom of Heaven will express itself on Earth through Humanity ...

Indeed it will, however in our tradition we say 'God's will be done', and affirm that God is not dependent upon humanity to achieve His will — the Absolute as absolute suffers no dependency — so it's more a question, from our perspective, of 'invitation' or rather vocation. It's whether we choose to respond to the call or not.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

You will never convince me that MIND ... is a superfluity

Nor would I want to — if you know anything of Christian doctrine (especially Catholic & Orthodox) you will know freedom of will is paramount.

Descartes famously said "I think, therefore I am" which renders the person subsequent to thought ... from our perspective we would say "I am therefore I think", which posits the being of a thing prior to its activities — this is a reflection of the Absolute in the finite.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

or an unnecessary appendage to the LOVE which must guide it. If the word `mind' has become a dirty word for you, Thomas, then I'm plenty ready to explore that ... if you are.

For us, 'mind' signifies the intellective faculty of a being — Love signifies the will of the being ... "God is Love" as Scripture says, so in that sense, the mind exists because God wills it ... because God wants man to knowingly and willingly partake in the Divine.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

I do not believe I am qualified to speak of the Absolute. If you believe you are thus qualified, please let me know upon what Ground(s).

Revelation in the Christian tradition.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

If the Absolute is, by definition, the `Ultimate GROUND' of Being (think ... THINK -> the proverbial soil whence ALL, as well as ALL LIFE, has sprung), then how is it exactly that you, or any of us, is able to speak from this ground?

In our tradition The Absolute transcends even that.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

And if we cannot do thus, then is not even your identification of `God the Father' from Christian theology with `The Absolute' ... purely arbitrary?

But we can, so no, it's not.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

As above, so below. Just as our own Soul cannot ACT in the world without the personality, its periodical vehicle, so too GOD (conceived ANY way you like) cannot ACT, except via a conditioned, limiting vehicle ... also periodical, temporal, and so on.

I think you'll find that's an anthropomorphism ... what God can and cannot do is not determined by what man can and cannot do.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

God can be `the Absolute,' if you insist, in which case - COSMOS Itself is the living, breathing FORM (does not YOUR body live, and breathe?) of said Deity...

That would render the Absolute (God) subject to contingency (Cosmos). In our tradition God is above cosmology and contingency.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

I do not deny that God is a Singular, Synthetic Being (from our point of view) ...

From our point of view God is 'Simple' and 'One' — synthetic speaks of composition, from the Greek syntithenai 'to put together' — thus again, not God nor The Absolute as we understand it.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Thomas, you are trying to say, GOD IS THE ABSOLUTE, GOD IS THE FATHER, GOD IS THE SON ... and if pressed, GOD IS THE HOLY SPIRIT.

I am saying that, and I don't need to be pressed!

Originally Posted by AndrewX

That's fine, but that's pure Christian theology of the Roman Catholic variety.

Well you couldn't be more wrong. I am sorry Andrew, but that shows a depth of ignorance with regard to Christian doctrine — what of the Greek East, for a start?

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Yes, but Thomas, I can say the same about you ... and your lack of familiarity with, certainly understanding of, Eastern philosophy!

Not quite. I don't pretend to an understanding of Eastern philosophy, nor do I inform others about the meaning of their own tradition ... I just try and correct errors about the understanding of mine.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Like I said, Thomas, you are the one saying, "God is the Absolute," then going on to equate God with each Aspect of the Trinity. I dont feel that this is an invalid understanding, just that it's extremely confusing ...

It is a profound mystery, and unless you have the basics in place, you're bound to get into a mess. That's why it's best to stick to tradition ... without it, one is literally 'all at sea'.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Because, Thomas, to me, the assertion that God is a petty being, bound to our human whims & fancies ... even tyrannical, wrathful, and vengeant - is one of the greatest blasphemies that I could imagine! It is the reverse of the Greatest Commandment of all, to love the Lord our God with all our heart and all our mind.

If that is your understanding, then it is evident from this and much of the above, that you have been very poorly informed with regard to Christian doctrine.

I'll leave it here Andrew ...

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Cavalier, you asked,

"Perhaps this reveals a naive understanding but doesn't constancy of the change carry an immutability of its own?"

--> No. Consistency of change, by it own nature, makes it mutable. Immutability means not changing.

"It seems I have another question, what is the function of the Absolute? What does it do?"

--> We know very little about the Absolute. It has no function. It does not "do" anything. This is a complicated subject, so we can start a new thread on this topic, if you are interested.

[Nick the Pilot]

Vaj, you said,

"...there are several Adi Buddhas which all arose at the same instant, this is detailed in a few Suttas and in the Abidharma section of the canon."

--> I would like to see that list of simultaneous Adi Buddhas. Please feel free to share it.

"...we believe that time is cyclic and that no beginning of it can be found."

--> I am glad to hear that, as it agrees with Theosophy.

"in Buddha Dharma there is no aspect of being which continues after the ceasing of the physical form, no "soul" to speak of."

--> This is a key difference between Buddhism and Theosophy. Theosophy teaches of a "soul" or object which travels from incarnation to incarnation, while Buddhism does not. It is this specific teaching which caused me to stop calling myself a Buddhist after many years.

"...though this isn't the forum for an exposition of Buddhist metaphysics...."

--> I would love to hear your exposition of Buddhist metaphysics. Perhaps a new thread would be a good place?

"...especially one as fraught with misudnerstanding of Buddha Dharma as the Theosophical Society...."

--> I was not aware of such misunderstandings. Feel free to give examples.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Andrew,

please allow me to comment on this post.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Some of us, like Vaj, will react strongly - almost violently - to the assertion that, "Buddha worshipped God, in thought, word and deed."

i think you've taken this way too personally.

if you can provide any evidence from the Suttas to support your assertion, i'd be pleased to read it. if you cannot, i shall simply conclude that this is a tenet of your religion without any foundation in the Buddha Dharma.

It just runs foreign to what Westernized Buddhism (from the 19th Century onward) has presented as the Buddha's own Teaching.

then it should be easy enough to find a Sutta, any Sutta, which supports your contention.

But I can only bang my head against the wall, if Vaj cries foul, and tells me "I know not whereof I speak," because ... I have not "read the sutras," or "explored sufficiently the Buddha's Dharma."

would you not make the same assertion if i proceeded to proclaim what your religion teaches and had misunderstood and presented a teaching which was not in accord with the tenets of the paradigm?

Sure it is. Because this is what I've found. And perhaps one day, I will stand corrected. But I just don't have the inclination to try to convince you, Thomas, or you, Vajradhara, of something you do not wish to believe. I assure you, I do not wish to swallow, whole hog, the cherished doctrines or dogmas of your belief systems ... any more than you wish to swallow mine!

then again, we are not claiming support from your religious paradigm to support our own. were we doing so, i would certainly expect a follower of said tradition to question my understanding and knowledge of what i'm saying if it flies in the face of the tradition.

i am thoroughly confused by the tone and tenor of your responses. it is as if my rejection of your religious teachings about my tradition are personally offensive to you.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> I would like to see that list of simultaneous Adi Buddhas. Please feel free to share it.

do you happen to have a copy of the Abidharma section of the Tipitaka to review? if not, i would be happy to link you to some Sutras which elucidate this process.

i've not really found a full translation of the Abidharma online... you don't happen to read Pali by any chance?

This is a key difference between Buddhism and Theosophy. Theosophy teaches of a "soul" or object which travels from incarnation to incarnation, while Buddhism does not. It is this specific teaching which caused me to stop calling myself a Buddhist after many years.

indeed, that is a very significant difference between the traditions. that said, and i hope i'm not being misunderstood in this discussion, there are a great many commonalities betwixt the two traditions.

i suppose i'm of the view that the garden of human spirituality looks better to me when it has lots of different flowers

I would love to hear your exposition of Buddhist metaphysics. Perhaps a new thread would be a good place?

you may find this thread of interest:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...ising-528.html

and this one may be of some interest as well:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...ruths-540.html

and, perhaps this one:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...posts-259.html

and, lastly:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...sophy-719.html

I was not aware of such misunderstandings. Feel free to give examples.

the Theosophical explanation of Karma is not correct from the Buddha Dharma point of view, for instance. in this exposition of Karma:
Theosophy : Karma by Annie Besant : AnandGholap.net

the author exhibits a perfect example of the misunderstanding. from a Sutta point of view, what Theosophy is describing as karma is called Vipaka, the fruit or ripening of ones karma.

Karma is, in the Buddhist sense, quite simple:
"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."
— AN 6.63



metta,

~v

[Nick the Pilot]

Vaj, you said,

"do you happen to have a copy of the Abidharma section of the Tipitaka to review? if not, i would be happy to link you to some Sutras which elucidate this process."

--> Actually, I was hoping such a discussion could happen within this thread. That way, everyone here can benefit more directly from your paraphrasing of ideas and providing quotes from other sources. Theosophy has its idea of what Adi-Buddha is, and I will be curious to read your Buddhist version.

"you don't happen to read Pali by any chance?"

--> Sadly, no. My Japanese lessons take up any time I have for foreign languages.

"...there are a great many commonalities betwixt the two traditions."

--> I agree. The one religion most similar to Theosophy is Buddhism.

"the Theosophical explanation of Karma is not correct from the Buddha Dharma point of view...."

--> I do not think Theosophy is concerned with how correct it is when compared with Buddhism. As I have learned from this thread, clearly the Theosophical and Buddhist definitions of karma are different. Neither philosophy should demand the other look at it "correctly".

"Theosophy is describing as karma is called Vipaka, the fruit or ripening of ones karma."

--> Here is another quote I found from the same webpage.

"...the Pali word kamma (Sanskrit: karma) designates in Buddhist philosophy only rebirth-producing or rebirth-influencing wholesome or unwholesome action, i.e. volition (cetana) manifested by body, speech, or mind. In no way, however, does kamma ever signify the result of action (kamma-vipaka), as the Theosophists and many Western Buddhists wish this term to be understood."

Fundamentals of Buddhism

I need to make one more point. Theosophy has its own "authorative literature," and does not refer to other religious writings (for example, Buddhist sutras) as it main source of teachings. We do refer to Buddhist writings (a lot), but it is more in a way of comparative studies, to show how the two philosophies agree and disagree.

We can now see how Buddhism and Theosophy have a different definition of karma. As this is neither a Theosophical nor Buddhist thread, this will work out nicely.

[Ahanu]

This is going to be an interesting thread. . .

The Buddha did not believe in God, but he had faith in something. In this life full of death he had faith in that which is deathless. He used positive and negative phrases to describe Nirvana, in which is the exact manner that Christ described the Kingdom of God. After the Buddha dies, why is it that "the end to the cycle" occurs, if nirvana is not a place? Since the Buddha does not have a soul, which I did not know, what happened to the Buddha?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Thabrownbaptist,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Thabrownbaptist

The Buddha did not believe in God, but he had faith in something.

intersting point of view.

do you suppose that you could show me in the Suttas where this is stated?

In this life full of death he had faith in that which is deathless.

perhaps we have a different understanding of the term "faith". in my vernacular it would not be an accurate term to use to describe the experience of the deathless state.

After the Buddha dies, why is it that "the end to the cycle" occurs, if nirvana is not a place?

the end of the cycle occurs for a Buddha when they become a Buddha not upon dissolution of the physical form. Samsara is the place where Nirvana is... Samsara is the reality that we experience around us, further, the Suttas make quite clear that this is not a post mortem sort of experience but one which is realized in this very arising.

Since the Buddha does not have a soul, which I did not know, what happened to the Buddha?

did you know that Buddha is actually a title and not someones name?

metta,

~v

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Thabrownbaptist,

thank you for the post.

intersting point of view.

do you suppose that you could show me in the Suttas where this is stated?
(snip)
metta,

~v

Namaste Vajradhara,

In the Pali Cannon summation it indicates that the essence of teachings of the Buddha state....

"Absolute changeless permanent reality, the unconditioned, itself alone is,"

In my view this would indicate to me that the Buddha's faith rested in the unconditioned which TBB has indicated as something. Of course the word Faith I use here, I use from the context of Hebrews 11:1 as defined in Christianity. It is more a 'knowing' than believing as it is having the evidence of the unseen. It seems to me, in a larger context as a Christian I might even as 'a concept' consider what Buddha experienced as 'God'.

I understand that Buddha is a title. The same goes for Christ. However most use the word to indicate a particular person by mutual agreement, however, personally I do not see it that way.

Love in Christ,
JM

[Nick the Pilot]

"Since the Buddha does not have a soul, which I did not know, what happened to the Buddha?"

--> I believe the Buddhist answer is he just stopped existing.

"Absolute changeless permanent reality, the unconditioned, itself alone is,"

--> This statement seems to indicate Nirvana is not annihilation. Perhaps Vaj et. all can let us know if there is a Buddhist difference between post-mortem Nirvana and annihilation.