I now believe in god, and invite you to prove me wrong… ;)

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Z,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by _Z_

Any thoughts on the absolute and nature of nirvana ~ the ‘place’ gladly accepted. I know in your system its just a state of mind [stateless one] but surely Buddhist of other systems conceive of it in some manner.

thanks

well... nirvana isn't a something or a place it is, indeed, a mental state.. a state of consciousness so to speak. the Buddha describes Nibbana/nirvana (your choice.. pali/sanskrit) in both positive and negative ways.. i.e. nirvana is true bliss and worthwhile working to attain and nirvana is the complete cessation, the blowing out of the flame. there are two salient points to bear in mind, in my estimation, regarding the Buddhist exposition of this idea. the first is that this state of consciousness is something that every being can attain for themselves in the here and now, it is not something that occurs post mortem. secondly, nibbana is not the end of the practice.. it is not the 'goal' so to speak, of the Buddhadharma. the goal of the Buddhadharma is to Awaken and attain Liberation.. nirvana is a way station, if you will, along a long journey and the Buddha, in his compassion, has recommend that we set our sights here so that we are not discouraged at the length of the trip.

as for the absolute.. well... hmm. the Buddhadharma teaches a concept called The Two Truths. there is a relative and an absolute truth but we don't have an "absolute" as a ground of being kind of concept. you can find, however, a large amount of material that uses absolutist langauge and even makes claims like primordial and absolute beings and Buddhas and all the rest. this is most a result of transliteration considerations and, unfortunately, can lead some beings down some erroneous paths.

i would offer this.. the Buddhist view regarding the arising of reality and the objects therein.. i.e. the universe and all it's stuff is a concept called Interdependent Co-Arising and can be summed up as "this is because that is and that is because this is." now.. in truth, the Buddhist cosmology does indicate that this universe had a beginning event which was inherited from the previous universe and so forth.. a continuous cycle of universes arising, expanding and ceasing to arise with no ultimate beginning to be found.

metta,

~v

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

the Buddhadharma teaches a concept called The Two Truths. there is a relative and an absolute truth but we don't have an "absolute" as a ground of being kind of concept. you can find, however, a large amount of material that uses absolutist langauge and even makes claims like primordial and absolute beings and Buddhas and all the rest. this is most a result of transliteration considerations and, unfortunately, can lead some beings down some erroneous paths.

Vaj, is the two truths notion prevalent or found as explicitly this in the Theravada (rather than as two erroneous extremes of view)? It seems to have been most brought to the fore in the Mahayana, through Nāgārjuna? It is also a concept that may lead one into the heresy of duality, is it not?!

s.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Snoopy,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Vaj, is the two truths notion prevalent or found as explicitly this in the Theravada (rather than as two erroneous extremes of view)? It seems to have been most brought to the fore in the Mahayana, through Nāgārjuna? It is also a concept that may lead one into the heresy of duality, is it not?!

s.

suffice it to say that, in my view, the Three Yanas are integral aspects of eachother addressing different aspects of beings in a generalized manner. as the Theravedan school is one of 18 original schools of Buddhadharma yet is the only extant representation of that Yana, we have their teachings to study.

it is my considered view that the more explicate teachings of the Mahayana are all to be found in the Hinyana.

the idea of the Two Truths is one which is hard to grasp if one has a bivalent view regarding reality. the Buddhist ontological view is one which is called multivalent, essentially the difference between the maths A or B / A AND B. the idea of the Two Truths is, essentially, two sides of the same coin; reality or Suchness. the relative side of Suchness is the side which we can apprehend and the absolute side of Suchness is the side which we cannot grasp.. cannot get our minds around, as the saying goes.

of course the term is used in various manners depending on the context of it's usage. you may find this link interesting:
Two truths doctrine

metta,

~v

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

suffice it to say that, in my view, the Three Yanas are integral aspects of eachother addressing different aspects of beings in a generalized manner.

Indeed. And I think what suits one does not always suit another.

it is my considered view that the more explicate teachings of the Mahayana are all to be found in the Hinyana.

I should have thought so yes, being grounded on the same analysis of reality.

the idea of the Two Truths is one which is hard to grasp if one has a bivalent view regarding reality. the Buddhist ontological view is one which is called multivalent, essentially the difference between the maths A or B / A AND B. the idea of the Two Truths is, essentially, two sides of the same coin; reality or Suchness. the relative side of Suchness is the side which we can apprehend and the absolute side of Suchness is the side which we cannot grasp.. cannot get our minds around, as the saying goes.

Not two? Difficult stuff, this ontology

Chants - Sandokai: Harmony of Difference and Sameness

you may find this link interesting:
Two truths doctrine

Thanks. This Wiki gets everywhere!

s.

[bhaktajan]

God, the transcendant persona, who, in his own personal right, is known to be unlimitedly full in 6-Opulences [whence: Bhagavan, sanskrit] ---all Wealth, all Strength, all Beauty, all Intelligence, all Fame and, most interestingly, all renunciation ---yet, outside his own persona, whilst expanding His own potency to created the manifest material-cosmos, God exists in three features, as preceivable by us Human-Beings (if we cared to see it):

God exists in three features:
1 The Void
2 The life/being-force in each individual speck of matter or energy.
3 God, the transcendant persona

aka,
1 Brahman
2 Param-atma
3 Bhagavan

[TripleGem]

Originally Posted by _Z_

Now onto the aspect of self; the mind is not an aggregate of the senses, it is a metaphysical entity fed by the instrumentation of the human form. where we may say that the ultimate nature is nirvana, we then have to describe its space and nature, then whenever we do so we come across the same thing as trying to describe either the inner most self or god.
　
[/FONT]

The problem with trying describe nirvana's space and nature is that we have to use the realm of mind and matter to do so. Nirvana is a state [I]beyond[I] mind and matter. It's a state where mind stops and hence matter isn't perceived by mind anymore. That's why nirvana is indescribable; a state beyond mind and matter can't use mind and matter to describe it.

[Ben Masada]

Originally Posted by _Z_

I now believe in 'god', and invite you to prove me wrong…

Hi people, I have been rethinking my entire philosophy, and so as to compare, I invite you all, atheists, Buddhists and religionists to challenge or compare my new understanding…

In order to understand ‘the reality map’ completely, the first thing to do is to see reality as a ‘oneness’, if we attempt to define it in any manner of a plurality then that will always be contained within a greater oneness, hence oneness is prime and fundamental. A oneness composes necessarily everything we know to exist but in an undifferentiated form, so everything we are is within it in some manner ~ even infinity.

From the oneness we have to get from there to ‘universe’, as the universe doesn’t expand through infinite time, then it is manifest in some manner, something has to make it and that something ultimately has to be the fundamental nature of reality.

The point most people miss is that the creation has to be reasoned and logical or it would be a nonsense, rule; being infinite {unlimited}, God cannot perform imperfect actions {imperfection denotes a limit}, thus can only create what logically works. The universe is the creation, and we have to live with it, learn it and overcome our obstacles or not ~ as ‘we choose’. if anyone can suggest how to make a universe that doesn’t have all the properties of physics and metaphysics that this universe has, then please emancipate us from our ignorance.

We can blame the creator all we like, but you cant have evolution of life without the fundamentals of physics and biology. You may blame god for cancer, but cancer is resultant of some manner of degradation where cells take on their own life - so to say, just as they do in the origins of biology.
Essentially what I am saying here is that science is the study of gods creation, there is only one way to make this universe and it is pointless to say god doesn’t exist simply because universes have entropy and depredating factors.

Now onto the aspect of self; the mind is not an aggregate of the senses, it is a metaphysical entity fed by the instrumentation of the human form. where we may say that the ultimate nature is nirvana, we then have to describe its space and nature, then whenever we do so we come across the same thing as trying to describe either the inner most self or god.

…still not a christian though lols ~ the way I see it, is we are all the children of divinity, and people who profess to speak for god can only be making subjective interpretations of what god means [that doesn’t make them liars]. So philosophy is still my favourite approach to understanding divinity. I do think jesus was a great liberator, but maybe there is an inherent flaw in christian thinking…

Briefly I see Christianity as originally a force for some good, where for example in Greece you had the masses put down as going to Hades when they die [- good way to control them] and only hero’s can pop in out of there and then get to Elysium.

Then in western Europe you had he celts, iberians and germans all whom to some degree followed a roughly similar faith; druidry, now imagine preist + judge, in my mind that can only equal oppression [also consider sex and death rituals and human sacrifice that went on untul the norse finally converted]. Maybe I misinterpret some of that but that’s not the point here…

You can imagine the rest, and sure they all had more salient features, but generally I think we can see Christianity originally as a great liberator, lifting the weight of centuries, millennia even, of oppression of the people. However within Christianity lies the seeds of its own demise Imho e.g. those early Christians tore down the library at Alexandria persecuted and killed a female philosopher as a witch [cant remember her name] and destroyed centuries of great learning.

So on the one hand they gave light and release to the ordinary people, later opposing money lending etc, and giving rise to peoples revolts and liberalism even anarchism. Then with the other hand, they plunged us into a kind of literate darkness as far as they could.

Some Christians even view intelligence as immoral somehow, so in short, what I am asking is, do the scriptures give us any potential for change? Is there any need for oppression and anti universal education & intelligence, or can there be a new Christianity that recognises truth and only seeks to change things by that ~ rather than oppression?

Just a quick introduction to my current thoughts, happy Easter!
　
　

I don't even dream or dare to prove you wrong. I am not a fool. Myself, I do believe in God, albeit on the basis of the concept of probability. By using this method, I am free of King David's charges of fools in Psalm 14:1 on those who deny God's existence on knowledge that they don't have.
Ben

[DNAJ82]

I am a KNOWER that the Bible is the absolute truth and live a predestined life with perfectly timed events that have many times lined up with scripture beyond any 'chance'. In the beginning was the word, thus everything is language.

This being so, I believe in a God who I have no part of if I am to refuse to let him wash my feet, put himself lower than my adoration would have it be, and see he died for me.

I aint going to any church and hate the way people see the Bible due to the way it is portrayed by people who claim to be so deep in the word and filled with God given righteousness. . .oh, Jesus hated that too and got killed, as was predestined, at the hands of such people for his 'blasphemy'.

If you have a good heart, you have a good God, and he doesnt lose ANY of his sheep.
If the prodigal son died away from the father, it would not have changed his unconditional love.

Just thought i'd share this so you can see some logical reasons to not let 'christians' detract you from the gospel or interpret it for you.