Are all forms of Buddhism Monistic?

"The universe is the Self"

If we see this concept in light of the description of the world of the senses being illusory, then what we have here is a view that all is illusion.

Problem: how can there be Dharma or Buddha nature when all is illusion?
Compare the Acintita Sutta to the Four Seals of the Dharma and the Four Sublime States. The four things listed in the Acintita Sutta lead to madness and vexation within the mind, whereas the Four Sublime States don't. The Four Seals of the Dharma help to explain this. It then suggests that it isn't necessarily a matter of wrong view as much as it is a matter of looking in the wrong places...
 
Please forgive, for I'm a total noob when it comes to Buddhism. I've heard that some Buddhists (Zen?) use the phrase "If you see the Buddha, kill him", and that it means that you haven't realised that you are the Buddha, because all is one (monism). Is this right?

You'll have to forgive me for revisiting the OP, as I've been gone for the past week, and this thread seems to be spiraling down the usual path of competing sutra interpretations.

... it means that you haven't realised that you are the Buddha, because all is one (monism). Is this right?

No. This is not right.

"Killing the Buddha" means to kill the idea of what a Buddha is, to kill the mistaken concept that the Buddha is a certain kind of person who acts in certain kinds of ways, who thinks certain kinds of thoughts.

"Killing the Buddha" is one of the most beautiful aspects of Buddhist philosophy. It is an exhortation to achieve enlightenment, not by following any past sage, or reading any sacred text, or intoning a chant, or practicing an arcane ritual, but by realizing it for yourself in your own way right now!

"Killing the Buddha" means that you are perfectly capable of achieving the same enlightenment that the Buddha experienced. You have all the tools, all the power. You are in fact, the only one responsible for it; no God, no savior, no Bible, no church... just you.
 
"Killing the Buddha" means that you are perfectly capable of achieving the same enlightenment that the Buddha experienced. You have all the tools, all the power. You are in fact, the only one responsible for it; no God, no savior, no Bible, no church... just you.
Just you and eternal dharma....
Now when we add the word Sanatana to dharma, it expands the meaning and purpose. Sanatana means eternal. So Sanatana-dharma can mean the ancient path that has existed from time immemorial. It is the eternal path which has been given to humanity and comes from beyond the material dimension. Thus, Sanatana-dharma is the inter-dimensional path of progress for all living beings.
Sanatana-Dharma
 
You'll have to forgive me for revisiting the OP, as I've been gone for the past week, and this thread seems to be spiraling down the usual path of competing sutra interpretations.



No. This is not right.

"Killing the Buddha" means to kill the idea of what a Buddha is, to kill the mistaken concept that the Buddha is a certain kind of person who acts in certain kinds of ways, who thinks certain kinds of thoughts.

"Killing the Buddha" is one of the most beautiful aspects of Buddhist philosophy. It is an exhortation to achieve enlightenment, not by following any past sage, or reading any sacred text, or intoning a chant, or practicing an arcane ritual, but by realizing it for yourself in your own way right now!

"Killing the Buddha" means that you are perfectly capable of achieving the same enlightenment that the Buddha experienced. You have all the tools, all the power. You are in fact, the only one responsible for it; no God, no savior, no Bible, no church... just you.
Or rather, you do not attach to anything, Buddha included. earl
 
Just you and eternal dharma....
Now when we add the word Sanatana to dharma, it expands the meaning and purpose. Sanatana means eternal. So Sanatana-dharma can mean the ancient path that has existed from time immemorial. It is the eternal path which has been given to humanity and comes from beyond the material dimension. Thus, Sanatana-dharma is the inter-dimensional path of progress for all living beings.
Sanatana-Dharma

Now don't go confusing Matt with Hinduism!

s.
 
Compare the Acintita Sutta to the Four Seals of the Dharma and the Four Sublime States. The four things listed in the Acintita Sutta lead to madness and vexation within the mind, whereas the Four Sublime States don't. The Four Seals of the Dharma help to explain this. It then suggests that it isn't necessarily a matter of wrong view as much as it is a matter of looking in the wrong places...
This is a choice article: Four Sublime States.

Thank you for that.
 
But not Sanatana Dharma I understand.
Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From your source: "Hinduism is often referred to as Sanātana Dharma, a Sanskrit phrase meaning 'the eternal law,' by its adherents." The term "Hindu" is misleading (that's another story). But yes, sometimes the term "Sanatana Dharma" is used to designate the religion. At other times, it is used to describe a set of religious concepts.

Some observers would argue that Buddhism is just one aspect of an increasingly diversified Sanatana Dharma. The Jain and Sihk religions being two additional strands of the same basic root concepts. Buddhism was more widespread (geographically) and made its way all the way to China and Japan.

Although some Buddhist teachings are clearly attempts to set it apart from the old Hindu culture, the spread of Buddhism did not supercede Hinduism, nor was it an attempt to make Hinduism obsolete. It seems Hindu-Buddhist culture was actually the norm in some parts of the world for hundreds of years. (Similarly, early Christians were Jews first and Jesus evidently saw himself as a Jew who was trying to refine/extend the existing Judaic religion, not introduce something new that would supercede it.)

Regarding Buddhism, one might argue that it's not really a doctrine at all, but rather a set of practices. So to compare Buddhism and Hinduism as though they are different religions can be tricky.

Anyway, here's an interesting taker on it:
Buddhist scholar, Mr. Jing-Wuou-Yang gave a speech at Nanjing Nor mal University in China, entitled “Buddhism is neither a Religion nor a Philosophy, but the Essential for our modern time.” He says, “Buddhism is a most virtuous and perfect education based on Sanatana Traditions of India.
Source: Buddhism: Education of Sanatan dharma (Part I & II)

In the article it is suggested that to speak in terms if the so-called "Buddhist period" in India's history is misleading because there was never any real operational distinction between Buddhism and Hinduism. Even so-called "Buddhist deities" are hard to distinguish from what was described in the old Indian religion.

What we Westerners think of as Buddhism today is a mixture of Chinese and Japanese folk religions plus a select set of "Hindu" concepts and practices.
 
Do you take the name Netti-Netti because you like to "neither this, nor that" or because you are a Hindu?

s.
 
gautama himself just generally talked about the 3 dharma seals or marks of existence: Suffering, impermanence, and no-self. Just saw this joke & thought it was cute: Dukkha, annicca, and anatta go into a bar. Dukkha says "life sucks." annicca says "it won't last." anatta says "are you talking to me?":p earl

:d:d..............
 
To me it indicates a positive attitude to informational exchanges. It was also a pun on internet identity formation. (Netti-Netti versus Neti-Neti).
My understanding of Sanskrit is approximately that of an infant. Is the word pun "This one (he, she, or it) is the (inter)net, that one (he, she, or it) is the (inter)net?"
 
In the article it is suggested that to speak in terms if the so-called "Buddhist period" in India's history is misleading because there was never any real operational distinction between Buddhism and Hinduism. Even so-called "Buddhist deities" are hard to distinguish from what was described in the old Indian religion.
What we Westerners think of as Buddhism today is a mixture of Chinese and Japanese folk religions plus a select set of "Hindu" concepts and practices.

In the past I have come across two seemingly contradictory Hindu takes on Buddhism. On the one hand it has been asserted that it is in some way a sub-sect that falls under the umbrella term of Hinduism and on the other hand I have seen it dismissed as a mish mash not really worthy of serious consideration. I don't think it can be both.

s.
 
In the past I have come across two seemingly contradictory Hindu takes on Buddhism. On the one hand it has been asserted that it is in some way a sub-sect that falls under the umbrella term of Hinduism and on the other hand I have seen it dismissed as a mish mash not really worthy of serious consideration. I don't think it can be both.

s.
If I recall, some of the Buddhas discourses appear to be dialogues with Brahmanic ideas. So I suppose one could say that Buddhism is at the very least derivative - i.e., a new take on existing religion. I'm sure books have been devoted to the subject.

I had an interesting conversation with a professor who specializes in Eastern religions who said it ultimately doesn't really matter where all these ideas came from. On the one hand I can see that it's kind of an idle academic interest. On the other hand, I prefer to see religion in its rawest form, if for no other reason that things can get weirded out by new translations. Chinese linguistic idioms can be pretty strange, for example.
 
Back
Top