Heaven and Nirvana/ Comparative Religion

[Nick the Pilot]

JM, you said,

"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."

--> Just to let you know, this is an important difference between Mahayana Buddhism and Theravada Buddhism regarding the title "Buddha". In Theravada, there is only one Buddha, the office which Gautama held. However, in Mahayana, anyone who is at the level of Gautama or higher is called a Buddha, so (in Mahayana) there are potentially millions of Buddhas.

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by 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.

How can one that never existed in reality in the first place be annihilated?

JM

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

JM, you said,

"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."

--> Just to let you know, this is an important difference between Mahayana Buddhism and Theravada Buddhism regarding the title "Buddha". In Theravada, there is only one Buddha, the office which Gautama held. However, in Mahayana, anyone who is at the level of Gautama or higher is called a Buddha, so (in Mahayana) there are potentially millions of Buddhas.

Most sects of Christianity are not must different than the Theravada tradition in that there is only One Christ so to speak of which office Jesus held. However, it seems to me, since we are all connected, it makes no difference whether one says there is one or many as all are One in Christ and all are One in Buddha. When the soul is stripped, which is a delusion anyway, it is my view that only One remains and what you call that cannot be described without error in words or a concept. Just a view to consider.

Love in Christ,
JM

[Nick the Pilot]

JM, you asked,

"How can one that never existed in reality in the first place be annihilated?"

--> I suppose you are referring to the Buddhist (and Theosophical) idea that nothing in this universe actually exists. Thinking along those lines, I can only ask: Since neither you nor your question exists, if I were to answer your question, my answer would not exist.

Right?

"...it makes no difference whether one says there is one or many as all are One in Christ and all are One in Buddha."

--> If one defines Christ as the anthropomorphized Jesus, I would say there is a big difference.

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

JM, you asked,

"How can one that never existed in reality in the first place be annihilated?"

--> I suppose you are referring to the Buddhist (and Theosophical) idea that nothing in this universe actually exists. Thinking along those lines, I can only ask: Since neither you nor your question exists, if I were to answer your question, my answer would not exist.


Right?

Yes I was speaking in that context. And yes, that is correct, what need does he who is temporal and is phenomena have for such an answer. It is meaningless. Life is its own meaning.

"...it makes no difference whether one says there is one or many as all are One in Christ and all are One in Buddha."

--> If one defines Christ as the anthropomorphized Jesus, I would say there is a big difference.

Yes, if one defines that way there certainly would be.

JM

[Ahanu]

do you suppose that you could show me in the Suttas where this is stated?
No, I do not have the buddhist text. I have simply read up on him from multiple sources. Gautama, the Buddhist I am speaking of, had faith. He had faith, or believed, in the unseen, or how else would he have attained enlightment? If he did not have faith that it was possible, then he would not have acquired this reality that you speak of.

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.

Thanks for the correction. So Nirvana is a place, right? I am agreeing with Andrew that Nirvana is the same as the Kingdom of God.

I am pulling ideas from Thich Nhat Hanh. For he said: "The Gospels speak of the Kingdom of God as a mustard seed planted in the soil of consciousness. The original mind, according to Buddhism, is always shining. Afflictions such as craving, anger, fear, doubt, and forgetfulness are what block the light. . .When the Buddha spoke of salvation or emancipation, he used the word parayana, 'the other shore.' The other shore represents the realm of no-birth, no-death, and no suffering."

In other words,

Reality as it is

Nirvana

. . .The Kingdom of God

Is this an accurate description?

did you know that Buddha is actually a title and not someones name?
Yeah, anyone who has awakened becomes a Buddha.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by cavalier

Though I would be interested in views on this, what I really want to ask is, can heaven be equated with nirvana?

Ha ha! Cop out answer: depends on your “definition” of the terms. I imagine in their “narrowest” sense (souls, creator deity, judgment stuff and other shore, ending the cycle of rebirth stuff – as per the Pali canon) then no. But if you take the terms in a “broader” sense then one may be able to see that they are pointing towards something similar. “To make hell paradise, we only need to change the mind on which it is based…With your deluded mind, you make hell for yourself. With your true mind, you make paradise.” – Thich Nhat Hanh.

Of course, in Buddhist cosmology you’ve also got gods in heavenly abodes, but I think that might be one complication too many!

Some more question following on from that. Is it a worthwhile pursuit to look for connections between different religions, to seek out things that would seem to support the notion that they all have the same source?

Seems like a worthwhile pursuit to me. I’m sure there are connections. As to them being from the same source, well that’s the Big Question I suppose. Answers on a (very small?) postcard…

Would it be better to simply follow one religion?

Maybe that depends on the person. To pick up on Vaj’s analogy of learning a musical instrument; I’m glad Jimi Hendrix stuck to the guitar but I’m equally glad Omar Faruk Tekbilek learnt to play several instruments.

Is ecumenism a viable religion in its own right

Seems to be; as Vaj says, isn’t that Unitarianism? And as Joseph intimates, ultimately the perception of Us and Non-Us is not helpful.

s.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste JosephM,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by JosephM

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,"

i'm sorry.. i'm not aware of this Sutta.

In my view this would indicate to me that the Buddha's faith rested in the unconditioned which TBB has indicated as something.

interesting take on it.

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.

yet the Buddha stated that one could have evidence of Nibbana in this very arising.

It seems to me, in a larger context as a Christian I might even as 'a concept' consider what Buddha experienced as 'God'.

really?

how.. unusual. generally speaking, beings of the Semetic traditions posit that their deity is sentient. then again, this forum has certainly let me discover some rather unusual views within traditions that i had previously studied.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Just to let you know, this is an important difference between Mahayana Buddhism and Theravada Buddhism regarding the title "Buddha". In Theravada, there is only one Buddha, the office which Gautama held. However, in Mahayana, anyone who is at the level of Gautama or higher is called a Buddha, so (in Mahayana) there are potentially millions of Buddhas.

did you know that the Buddha Shakyamuni makes reference to the previous Buddhas that he followed when he was just a Bodhisattva?

DN 32: Atanatiya Sutta

AN 5.180: Gavesin Sutta

it isn't correct to say that the Theraveda school denies that other Buddhas have arisen in this world system, it is correct to say, however, that only the most recent Buddha, Shakyamuni, is the one which Turned the Wheel of Dharma in this epoc.

metta,

~v

[Nick the Pilot]

Vaj,

You are correct that Theravada recognizes a succession of Buddhas. However, as I see it, Theravada only recognizes one Buddha at a time. Am I correct?

Specifically, in Theravada, a person (besides Gautama) who achieves Enligtenment and enters Nirvana is not a Buddha, correct? (I believe the word Arhat/Arahant is used for such a person?)

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Thabrownbaptist,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Thabrownbaptist

No, I do not have the buddhist text. I have simply read up on him from multiple sources.

i would always recommend reading the Suttas for yourself.

Gautama, the Buddhist I am speaking of, had faith. He had faith, or believed, in the unseen, or how else would he have attained enlightment?

well.. he explains exactly how it happens in the Suttas:

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two... five, ten... fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion: 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus I remembered my manifold past lives in their modes & details.

"This was the first knowledge I attained in the first watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose — as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain.

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away & reappearance of beings. I saw — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, & mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech & mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.

"This was the second knowledge I attained in the second watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose — as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain.
"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. I discerned, as it had come to be, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.' My heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, was released from the fermentation of sensuality, released from the fermentation of becoming, released from the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there was the knowledge, 'Released.' I discerned that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

"This was the third knowledge I attained in the third watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose — as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain."

MN 36: Maha-Saccaka Sutta

Thanks for the correction. So Nirvana is a place, right? I am agreeing with Andrew that Nirvana is the same as the Kingdom of God.

it would be more accurate to say that Nibbana/Nirvana is a state of being or a state of mind.. there is no place that one goes to realize Nibbana/Nirvana it is to be experienced by the Wise in this current arising.

did you know that Buddha is actually a title and not someones name?
Yeah, anyone who has awakened becomes a Buddha.

acutally, that is not correct. many beings Awaken but few of them become Buddhas. a Buddha is a special being within the rubric of Buddhism has is responsible for Turning the Wheel of Dharma whereas an Arhant, Bodhisattva and Paccekabuddha (Solitary Realizer), though having Crossed Over the flood, lack the requisit paramis to teach others the Way.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Vaj,

You are correct that Theravada recognizes a succession of Buddhas. However, as I see it, Theravada only recognizes one Buddha at a time. Am I correct?

only one Buddha arises within a world system at a given time, though any pariticular world system may have many, many Buddhas that arise there. in our particular world system, we've been quite fortunate that there have been several Buddhas which have arisen the most recent being Shakyamuni.

Specifically, in Theravada, a person (besides Gautama) who achieves Enligtenment and enters Nirvana is not a Buddha, correct? (I believe the word Arhat/Arahant is used for such a person?)

arhant is one, Bodhisattva is another and Paccekabuddha is yet another. each of these beings are equally released from the bonds of becoming yet they are not Buddhas.

metta,

~v

[Nick the Pilot]

"arhant is one, Bodhisattva is another and Paccekabuddha is yet another. each of these beings are equally released from the bonds of becoming yet they are not Buddhas."

--> Does Theravada add Sabhogakaya and Dharmakaya to that list (and leave Nirmanakaya off the list)?

[Francis king]

I can smell the cabbage now... mm...

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"arhant is one, Bodhisattva is another and Paccekabuddha is yet another. each of these beings are equally released from the bonds of becoming yet they are not Buddhas."

--> Does Theravada add Sabhogakaya and Dharmakaya to that list (and leave Nirmanakaya off the list)?

Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

the formulation of the Three Kayas or Three Bodies is, to my understanding, put forth in this manner only in the Mahayana and Vajrayana schools. that said, the Abidharma does make mention of these subjects but does so through a different means.

in Vajrayana schools of the Tibetan tradition, there is even a 4th Kaya, the Svabhavikakaya which is transliterated as "of an essential or essential".

here's a good link to this subject from a particular school of Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism:

The 3 Kayas

metta,

~v