Heaven and Nirvana/ Comparative Religion

[cavalier]

I have heard people question whether God and Buddha nature can be equated. Some say no, and others say it depends on what your view of God is. Though I would be interested in views on this, what I really want to ask is, can heaven be equated with nirvana?

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? Would it be better to simply follow one religion? Is ecumenism a viable religion in its own right?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Cavalier, you said,

"I have heard people question whether God and Buddha nature can be equated."
​

--> I am not a monotheist, so I do not equate God with Buddha-nature.

"...can heaven be equated with nirvana?"
​

--> I believe in both Heaven and Nirvana. I see no conflict between the two, and both ideas fit into my belief system nicely.

"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?"
​

--> I believe all religions DID come from a single source. So, yes, it is a worthwhile pursuit.

"Would it be better to simply follow one religion?"
​

--> No. Find the commonality between all religions.

"Is ecumenism a viable religion in its own right?"
​

--> It is not a religion, per se. I say that I belong to no one religion, but I belong to all religions.

 

[JosephM]

I have heard people question whether God and Buddha nature can be equated. Some say no, and others say it depends on what your view of God is. Though I would be interested in views on this, what I really want to ask is, can heaven be equated with nirvana?

Yes it can but not all will agree.

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?

It would seem to me to be very effective in helping to eliminate the 'we' and 'them', 'believers' and 'non believers' syndrome that seeks to divide rather than unite people.

Would it be better to simply follow one religion?

Perhaps for some. Others may be to a point where it serves no practical purpose to stay with one.

Is ecumenism a viable religion in its own right?

Can't say but the principle purpose is commendable in my view.

Love and Peace,
JM

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Cavalier,

thank you for the post.

I have heard people question whether God and Buddha nature can be equated. Some say no, and others say it depends on what your view of God is.

i don't see how any being could equate the two unless they held an invalide understanding of the latter and a strange view of the former.

buddha nature isn't a discrete thing, it is, simply a phrase used to denote the idea that each sentient being in the multiverse has the potential to Awaken and put and end to the cycle.

doesn't sound like any description of a deity that i've ever heard, let alone a creator one.

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

i would say no, not in the least. generally speaking, beings that believe in a heaven believe that there is some aspect of their being which persists, in a substantial way, after the death of the physical form. it is this thing, oft termed a "soul" which goes to heaven.

in Buddha Dharma there is no aspect of being which continues after the ceasing of the physical form, no "soul" to speak of. consequently, Nibbana/Nirvana cannot be a destination or place it is, instead, a state of realization which occurs whilst the physical form is present.

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?

do they all have to have the same source to be useful to a being? i would suggest that this is not so. i would suggest that the search for commonalities should not lead us to miss the uniqueness of each tradition.

Would it be better to simply follow one religion?

i'll offer a saying from the Cherokee people:

"If you chase two rabbits you will lose them both."

in the Buddha Dharma, at any rate, it is advised that a person be single minded in their pursuit.. a bit different than our modern multi-tasking approach, but there it is.

Is ecumenism a viable religion in its own right?

doesn't seem like it to me but i'm all stick in the mud about that sorta thing, it seems.

metta,

~v

 

[wil]

Namaste Cav,


I view the Buddha Nature more similar with Christ Consciousness, or Krishna Consciousness, ie access to oneness, your higher self, G!d.

I enjoy seeing similarities and similar origins for the various religions. I would think that most that believe in a Supreme Being, a Creator, also believe that the other religions also stemmed from visions of this creator...often it is just that the others got it wrong or misinterpreted...

I find quite comfort in honoring other religions and beliefs. And quite in tune with my belief of a loving forgiving creator.

 

[Paladin]

Gee Cav, just gotta ask, whats up with the new avatar?

 

[cavalier]

--> I am not a monotheist, so I do not equate God with Buddha-nature.

Would you explain that a little for me.

I say that I belong to no one religion, but I belong to all religions.

I like that.

 

[cavalier]

buddha nature isn't a discrete thing, it is, simply a phrase used to denote the idea that each sentient being in the multiverse has the potential to Awaken and put and end to the cycle.

Maybe this is just a lack of understanding on my part, but couldn't that be what God is?

i'll offer a saying from the Cherokee people:

"If you chase two rabbits you will lose them both."

Exactly, that's what concerns me, but then I think to myself that maybe the reality is that there aren't two rabbits, or at least not for me. That's why I wonder whether multifaith is, or could be, a viable faith in itself.

 

[cavalier]

Thanks also to JosephM and wil for your replies and opinions.

Gee Cav, just gotta ask, whats up with the new avatar?

Don't know whether this guy ever made it to the States, his name is Uri Geller. Using the power of his mind, or so he claims, he is able to bend spoons, restart once broken watches, and perhaps some other things as well. Due to the fact that he is simultaneously amazing and absurd, I love the guy.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Cavalier,

thank you for the post.

Maybe this is just a lack of understanding on my part, but couldn't that be what God is?

i cannot say what your conception of a creator deity is, however, most traditions which posit a creator deity do not liken said deity to sentient beings potential.. they typically view this creator deity as seperate and somewhat different than the stuff of reality, a being in some sense which has intelligence and awareness.

Exactly, that's what concerns me, but then I think to myself that maybe the reality is that there aren't two rabbits, or at least not for me. That's why I wonder whether multifaith is, or could be, a viable faith in itself.

have you ever learned to play an instrument? presuming that you have not, would you think it would be easier to become skilled if you practiced with one instrument or with more than one? how about if those instruments are not related, like wind and strings, for instance?

the Buddhas point in saying that once one comes to a decision they should embark upon their journey in a purposeful way is to address the fact that we, as humans, will always have our periods of fidelity.. or, perhaps, attentiveness to our practice, and our periods where our practice slacks. there is frequent use of the metaphor of a master and an apprentice in the Buddhist praxis and that is the manner in which it was generally taught.

that said, every being is different and has varying capacities and the instructions given to some are not the instructions given to all.

there is a tendency in beings that come from an authoritarian monotheistic tradition to presume that a teaching of the Buddhas is applicable to all Buddhists, at all times. this is not so and, in fact, forms a great deal of the misunderstanding regarding the Buddha Dharma that i often encounter, or so it seems to me.

the unitarian/universalists seem to do well with a mulitfaith approach and there are several modern traditions that seem to be syncrestic blends of various traditions so i suppose it simply comes down to determining if that is the path that will get you to the Other Shore.

good luck in your search!

metta,

~v

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Cavalier, we discussed,

"I am not a monotheist, so I do not equate God with Buddha-nature. --> Would you explain that a little for me."​

--> Boy, this brings up a number of different topics. What is God? What is Buddha-nature? How does a non-monotheist view all of this? I am not sure which topic you are most interested in.

I have decided to look at the there-is-no-Almighty-God aspect of this discussion as it relates to the "non-immutability" of Buddha-nature.

One of the attributes that Almighty God cannot have is something called immutability. (Mutability means the ability to change, and immutablilty means not-changing.)

I believe in something called the Absolute, which is different than Almighty God. Almighty God listens to people, He feels emotion, He becomes aware of worship sent to Him. All of this leads to the fact that Almighty God is not immutable. God changes as a result of all of these things happening.

These things cannot happen to the Absolute. Immutability is a key aspect of the Absolute. It cannot be said the Absolute is in one state one moment, and a different state the next. The argument of immutability is one reason why I reject the idea of a changeable (and non-immutable) Almighty God.

Buddha-nature, on the other hand, is very mutable or changeable. All of us (even the highest of deities) are constantly changing (according to my belief system.) The very nature of Buddha-nature is change.

 

[cavalier]

Hey Nick, thanks for the reply.

I get what you're saying about Amighty God, and about the Absolute, you explain very well.
Just the last part that I have a question about. Perhaps this reveals a naive understanding but doesn't constancy of the change carry an immutability of its own?
It seems I have another question, what is the function of the Absolute? What does it do?

 

[Thomas]

Hi all —

Nick — If one's thinking of 'Almighty God' is the God of the Abrahamic Traditions, then there is more to the understanding of the Divine Nature that you may be unaware of.

The idea of The Absolute is contained within apophatic theology, the via negativa as it is known. Invariably attributed to Dionysius the pseudoAreopagite, although properly founded in Scripture as well as early Liturgies and Tradition (the Hymn of Colossians, for example).

Certainly a reading of The Divine Names should prove enlightening on that account!

+++

In Traditional (by which I mean Catholic and Orthodox) theology the Absolute is not that which contains all, but that which transcends all — hence the 'beyond-being' of the Fathers, which puts the Father beyond all determination, the arche anarchos (Principle without Principle) of the Christian theological lexicon — the Son then is Arche or Logos (Principle), hence the Son is all the Father is, yet the Father is greater than the Son.

Thus the Father transcends all qualitative determinations (and herein lies something which is perhaps the topic of another discussion); the title 'Father' does not determine a nature, but a relation, and thus one can use the term 'Father' as a synonym of The Absolute in respect of the relation of The Absolute to the created order, because 'Father' does not limit or define The Absolute ad intra.

The anthropomorphic language of Scripture signifies not so much the aspects of the Father as aspects of apprehension of the Father, in respect of the human person, in his or her spiritual journey (individually or collectively) ... they signify how man sees God, not how God is.

The Absolute, by virtue of its transcendance, is Infinite and Perfect, and which is reflected in the existence of things by their very contingence, their finitude and their diversity. Without the Absolute, there is no existence — and because of the Absolute, in Christian terms things do not ex-ist but sub-sist — the aspect of absoluteness of a thing, its esse or 'is-ness' is what distinguishes it from non-existence before all other consideration ... compared to 'empty' space, each grain of sand is a miraculous proof of God because it exists, as a grain of sand is a subsequent determination of how it exists (cf William Blake, Auguries of Innocence).

The Absolute, intrinsically comprises Infinitude, and it is this Infinitude that radiates — the Philosophers called this 'The Great Chain of Being' whereas in Christianity Divine Plenitude is preferred by virtue of its inclusion of the concept of Immanence.

Only a definition of the Absolute as such can be absolute, and every explanatory description belongs to the relativite and the contingent because it differentiates, but it is not for that reason incorrect, but rather not all-inclusive, being replaceable by another term ... thus God is One, but has many names, as the Divine Litanies testify, not to polytheism but to the Absolute nature of God.

+++

Exemplars of the via negativa, include the Cappadocian Fathers (4th century) notably in the statement that they believe in God, but they do not believe that God exists.

God is beyond the limits of human understanding, and for this reason gnosis in its Christian context does not refer to knowledge, or any operation of the intellective faculty, and this was why the Church refuted the sects which claimed 'secret knowledge' that set them apart from the common stock as practicing elitism and self-aggrandisement.

Gnosis in the direct experience of love (in Western Christianity) or the Energies (in Eastern Christianity), of God.

Other notables are Clement of Alexandria, St Gregory of Nyssa, St John Chrysostom, St Basil the Great ... St John of Damascus employed it when he wrote that the via positiva statements about God reveal "not the nature, but the things around the nature." It continues to be prominent in Eastern Christianity, from Gregory Palamas to Vladimir Lossky.

In the West we have St Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure, Catherine of Siena, Meister Eckhart, perhaps the prince of the apophatic vision, St. John of the Cross, Johann Scotus Eriugena, and such works as The Ascent of Mount Carmel, The Cloud of Unknowing to name but a few...

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

It is precisely this love, Thomas, which certain secret societies have been exemplifying, and embodying, since ever the world began! That love lies on the Further Shore of our being, as it were - altogether beyond the human intellect.

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!

So God's gift of (the seed of) MIND, once stimulated - as long taught in the East - by one Order of the Dhyanis (or `Angels,' Kumaras) ... helps God to accomplish His goal, and us, ours. God seeks the completion of His PLAN for Spiritual, as well as material evolution ... and neither can be fulfilled (at least microcosmically) without MAN.

Remember, since we tend to forget that our Latin is based in this case on Sanskrit, that MAN and MIND come from the same root word - as even our scientists have been able to string together with the epithet, `homo sapiens.' And at what point did homo become sapient? That is certainly open for debate!

But whether we prefer the Eastern teachings which go into complicated detail regarding the various Hierarchies all responsible for our material, intellectual and Spiritual evolutions (truly three distinct, yet interrelated and interdependent tracks of development) ... 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!

I just think it's important to point out that you are making a straw man, Thomas, of the Gnostic, Theosophical or non-Christian esoteric teachings which emphasize that BEYOND mind, is the Intuition ... the source of Christian Love/Charity, or Buddhist Compassion. And you are keen to point out that there is a distinction, yes.

In the teachings which mean the most to me, these are described as kind of like the two wings of a bird, and thus the 2nd Ray is called the Ray of Love-Wisdom. The Buddha embodied the Wisdom aspect of the 2nd Ray greater than any human being had before him, and the Christ embodied the Love aspect in the same way. But each was a man whose own normal mode of awareness already abided in the Christian Heaven, as well as the Buddhist Nirvana.

Perhaps it is no intentional sacrilege for us to split hairs and fancy the Buddha unwelcome or not at home in God's Kingdom, or to ponder what Christ might make of all this Nirvana business. Yet that's about what it amounts to. If we are just intellectualizing, then sure, we can talk about this stuff till the cows come home. But it'd be a lot more useful to us if we talked to someone who's had an actual samadhi/satori experience ... or perhaps to folks who've had OOBE/NDE experiences.

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 ... simply because it will sound like disrespect. But if at once a man could be shown that all his gods and `absolutes' - the grandest conceptions of deity he has ever had, are just that ... THEN Whom, or what, would he (want to) worship? What of the Buddhas, even Adi Buddha, if Adi, it turns out, really wasn't the first?

Perhaps it's cheating to say that, the cycle is Eternal, a never-ending Spiral without beginning or end ... yet that such an image is an obvious tool, just a visualization, to explain that God is Undying, yet that He creates the Cosmos anew, with every breath, only to "destroy" it immediately afterward, with His inbreath.

Siva, the Destroyer, is the HIGHEST aspect of the Hindu Trimurti, remember ... NOT Brahma. And Nirvana, in the East, is understood essentially as CESSATION, which caused it to be misunderstood by the Western mind as NO-action, when in fact it means something more like cessation of all that impedes the working out of the Higher Will, the Will of God. Buddha, of course, served God just as Christ did ... what a Joy it might be to finally let out a sigh of relief, one day, in acceptance that -

- God actually DOES have things a BIT better under control than `we almighty, all-important, yet utterly egotistical and often self-serving creatures' tend to believe!

Yes, we say one thing. But our actions prove that we believe another. Or don't know what to believe!

The forces of ignorance, misunderstanding, cruelty and worse already have help enough in our world ... yet something I came to understand when I was in my twenties is that there IS a Plan. Sometimes, I wonder just how tiny of a little fraction of that Plan I might actually understand, but the rest of the time, I haven't a shadow of a doubt that things are exactly as they need to be - and while this doesn't excuse our wrong actions, words & thoughts, it certainly helps to explain why things are as they are. And NO ONE gets scapegoated!

I also believe that every Great Teacher from 18 million years ago up to Krishna, Buddha, Christ, Mohammad, the Theosophical messengers, and plenty of prophets & messengers since, has emerged from a Divine Center ... more or less aware of being sent by God. Such a Center is more or less identical with Heaven, or Nirvana, but only insomuch as we equate these with a place, knowing intuitively that in fact, they represent states of Being, and/or Aspects of the Divine Consciousness.

Ecumenism, dialogue between the followers of all religions, would make a lot more sense, imho, if an increasing majority of intelligent, enlightened, thoughtful, considerate and committed Workers in the field (of religion, especially) would begin with the radical idea that YES, there IS an underlying, integrating, synthesizing SYSTEM - a PLAN, in short - which God is following, and with which we as thinking, caring human beings can ASSIST IN.

The attitude that God will hand it all to us on a silver platter, or that we're not worthy to receive God's gifts ... just as the mentality that alone, isolated and only the inner recesses of one's being can we attain to Buddhahood/enlightenment/Nirvana ... both of these attitudes, are nothing but blinders on the horse.

The worst that can happen, if we labor, lovingly, to find a common ground and to achieve harmony between, within and amongst the world's religions, is that the fruits of our labor will be precisely this harmony. To expect this to proceed without tension, without conflict on every level - mental, emotional and physical - is unreasonable. But to abandon the effort, or deem it unworthy because, we're all (too) different ... says more, to me, about our faith in God - than our faith in man.

Mankind has shortcomings, this we know. We are far, far from enlightened, as a race. But as Jacob's vision of the Ladder leading to Heaven indicates, increasing enlightenment is our intended future. WE choose, within certain limits, how fast or how slowly we will go, and how painful the journey is along the way. There is Justice, yet our choices affect those around us on many levels, and because of this interrelationship between all beings, the Buddhas, the Christs, the Lords of Compassion, and the Masters of the Wisdom, urge us to play our small part in literally manifesting Heaven on Earth.

I have lived with people who do just that, and have met several dozen in my life, some of them great teachers, but all humble servants ... each one living proof, to me, that there is a loving God, and that each of us is in God's heart, just as God also lives, within the hearts of All.

Thanks for weathering my post ...

Love and Light,

~andrew

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste andrew,

thank you for the post.

What of the Buddhas, even Adi Buddha, if Adi, it turns out, really wasn't the first?

the term "adi" is a Sanskrit term which means "primordial" not first though primordial can certainly connote that sense. 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. the Suttas plainly state that the Buddha Shakyamuni was not the first Buddha to arise nor was he the last.

Buddha, of course, served God just as Christ did

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

just as the mentality that alone, isolated and only the inner recesses of one's being can we attain to Buddhahood/enlightenment/Nirvana ...

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.

metta,

~v

 

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew —

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.

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.

... 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.

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.

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

 

[taijasi]

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[taijasi]

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!)

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?

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).

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.

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.

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

 

[taijasi]

feel free to disregard if desired.

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