Heaven and Nirvana/ Comparative Religion

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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'.

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.

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]

Re: -----====(@_@)====-----

Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

--> 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/forum/interdependent-co-arising-528.html

and this one may be of some interest as well:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/the-two-truths-540.html

and, perhaps this one:

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

and, lastly:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/buddhist-philosophy-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.

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]

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.

 

[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]

Re: -----====(^_^)====-----

"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]

Re: -----====(^_^)====-----

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]

Re: -----====(^_^)====-----

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]

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.

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]

Re: -----====(^_^)====-----

Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

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?)