God and Buddhadharma, opposite or not?

[hellas1]

Hi all,

This is a comparative religious thread. Let me immediately establish this, between God & Buddhadharma.

As many of you know, I'm a Christian. However, I have been initiated into Dzogchen practice which is a part of the Tibetan Vajrayana tradition. This does NOT mean I'm a Buddhist in the "conventional" sense!

Without further ado:
Inherent in any "belief system" if you will is a framework of how "it" gets done: Attainment of Nirvana, Oneness with God, etc.

It is my persuasion that God (The real and Ultimate God) is inferred in Buddhadharma while not explicitly stated.
I'm also persuaded that Buddhadharma is "in" God as well.

What do I mean about this second statement?: God being truth and love emanates no lie & no evil.
When we examine Buddhadharma we see truthfulness to the extreme and love to the extreme also, emanating from THAT state.

In essence, We see that the Boddhisattva "idea/state" which is the same as Buddhahood is being SELFLESS.
God, when reading the bible in I Corinthians 13, is Love and that love is described as being SELFLESS.

My inference therefore is that the "God" of Buddhadharma is Brahman (Personal/Impersonal/Immanent/Transcendant).
What Brahman was considered BEFORE the strangeness attached to Him/IT, matches what the bible says.
It also can be seen that Brahman, at an early time period, was NOT associated with the thousands of "Hindu" gods commonly taught today.
In India, NO temple is made to Brahman! Interesting.........

The God of the bible has the exact same qualities of Brahman. Furthermore for Christians, NO image is made as God's image was never recorded!

Comments?
hellas1

[royfang]

Did you confuse Hinduism with Buddhism?

In Hinduism:
Brahman is the Absolute Reality or universal substrate It is said to be eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and ultimately indescribable in human language.

And there is also Brahma, the Hindu god (deva) of creation.

[Genius of the Restoration]

I'm lost too. Are you referring to Brahman as it is conventionally known in Hinduism?

It also can be seen that Brahman, at an early time period, was NOT associated with the thousands of "Hindu" gods commonly taught today... In India, NO temple is made to Brahman!

To me this suggests that you're referring to Brahma who later operated in the Trimurti. Can you clarify this?

[Denny Crane!]

I'd rather address the subject conceptually than in reference to sources or scripture as that is far more relevant I'd say. What I'm asking is, in this topic of God and buddhist dharma what is most useful. Examining concepts or examining translations?

[hellas1]

Hi all,

No, I mean Brahman, not Brahma (As in part of the Trimurti.)

Brahma IS mentioned in the Nikayas as well as Brahmin (the caste of priests) but Brahman is not.

In the Buddha's day, the meaning of Brahman was vastly varying and was a confused subject.

Buddha practices Yog. Yog or Yoga's aim is Union with Brahman.

Modern Scholars have argued that not only did the Buddha NOT deny a self but that he also affirmed by inference that Brahman was a reality also.

Ultimately what I'm saying is:
The Buddha denied the mistaken NOTION of Brahman as he did the NOTION of Atman!
He used the "via negativa" mode of logic to come to an understanding of what IS by negating what it IS, is not.

Make sense?
Comments.....

hellasamsaranibbana1

@Denny Crane,

Actually sir BOTH subjects are important!

Why?

Without a clear understanding of what the Nikayas actually mean from Pali to English, room for LARGE amounts of doctrinal, if you will, error are open.

We've got to understand what the Buddha meant by his terminology and THEN construct the proper foundation for the rest of his teachings.

Not to mention that the Nikayas also directly refer to yogic practices, mantras and subtle energy called prana: (See the Majjhima Nikaya regarding the Buddha stopping the in/out breaths out of the mouth, the inhalation/exhalation process, the closing of the eyes and the stopping up of the ears. THIS is a yogic practice and there is no objective proof in the Nikayas that the Buddha stopped yogic practice, only yogic extremes."

hellasamsaranibbana1

[royfang]

The funny thing is this supposedly "God" in Buddhism doesn't talk to humans, whereas the so called "Christian" God did.

Jokes aside. In the Rig Veda, Brahman gives rise to the primordial being Hiranyagarbha that is equated with the creator God Brahmā.

Hiranyagarbha: is the source of the creation of the Universe or the manifested cosmos in Indian philosophy

Rig Veda: is an ancient Indian sacred collection of Vedic Sanskrit hymns. It is counted among the four canonical sacred texts of Hinduism known as the Vedas.

I don't sure about your interpretation but it doesn't fit the description of your God.
Did your God give rise to another being that is the source of creation?

The thing is like Christianity which have different branches and different interpretations, Buddhism and Hinduism also have different branches and different interpretations.

[hellas1]

@Royfang,

What I'm simply saying is this:

We don't have an exact knowledge about what the Original teachings of the Buddha were, as they were largely passed by word of mouth from person to person in the Sangha.

About 200-300 years after the Buddha died, Schisms occurred in the Sangha regarding what to believe.

God is part of that "what to believe" aspect.

My point is that I believe circumstancial & inferential evidence exists within the Pali Nikayas that the Buddha DID believe that a self existed and that Brahman is/was actually real and attainable, in other words that Nibbana=Brahman, not Nibbana= Hiranyagharba.

Remember, the Pali Nikayas are the Theravada viewpoint of what the Buddha said and did.
There's the Tibetan "Tripitaka" called the Tangyur and the Kangyur which contain the words of the Buddha, as well as the Chinese "Tripitaka" too.


Regarding the Vedas and Brahman (Please read closely, as I've restated this about 20+ times):

The understanding of what Brahman is/was in the time of the Buddha was VERY, VERY distorted!
The Vedas were NOT universally accepted in India and the fact is, is that some are older than others which also causes one to question which understanding(s) of Brahman was/were "in vogue" during the Buddha's life.

hellasamsaranibbana1

[royfang]

@Royfang,
Regarding the Vedas and Brahman (Please read closely, as I've restated this about 20+ times):

The understanding of what Brahman is/was in the time of the Buddha was VERY, VERY distorted!
The Vedas were NOT universally accepted in India and the fact is, is that some are older than others which also causes one to question which understanding(s) of Brahman was/were "in vogue" during the Buddha's life.

hellasamsaranibbana1

And what is the universally accepted concept of Brahman today? I need the answer before I can continue.

@Elphir,
Furthermore, God is not a human creation. Your Agnostic/Atheistic bias shows friend.
hellas1

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, friend.

[Denny Crane!]

@Denny Crane,

Actually sir BOTH subjects are important!

Why?

Without a clear understanding of what the Nikayas actually mean from Pali to English, room for LARGE amounts of doctrinal, if you will, error are open.

We've got to understand what the Buddha meant by his terminology and THEN construct the proper foundation for the rest of his teachings.

Not to mention that the Nikayas also directly refer to yogic practices, mantras and subtle energy called prana: (See the Majjhima Nikaya regarding the Buddha stopping the in/out breaths out of the mouth, the inhalation/exhalation process, the closing of the eyes and the stopping up of the ears. THIS is a yogic practice and there is no objective proof in the Nikayas that the Buddha stopped yogic practice, only yogic extremes."

hellasamsaranibbana1

The only thing that is important is the result. Buddha isn't Jesus, his words aren't supposed to be dogma or scripture.

[Hax]

I don't think the historical Buddha ever said that this world was created by something, just merely another level of samsara.

Wondering about this is quite frankly pointless. God is a human creation; the Buddha is not.

[hellas1]

@Elphir,

The point of this thread is regarding God or Brahman being part of Buddhism when the Buddha taught it.

What proof do you have that the Buddha denied Brahman? You won't find it in the Nikayas!
Historically, scholars have debated this point.
Have you read any scholarship along these lines at all?

As I said earlier, the Pali Nikayas are not the only supposed historical source of the Buddha's supposed words.
Furthermore, God is not a human creation. Your Agnostic/Atheistic bias shows friend.

hellas1

[Celsius]

Hi all,

This is a comparative religious thread. Let me immediately establish this, between God & Buddhadharma.

As many of you know, I'm a Christian. However, I have been initiated into Dzogchen practice which is a part of the Tibetan Vajrayana tradition. This does NOT mean I'm a Buddhist in the "conventional" sense!

Without further ado:
Inherent in any "belief system" if you will is a framework of how "it" gets done: Attainment of Nirvana, Oneness with God, etc.

It is my persuasion that God (The real and Ultimate God) is inferred in Buddhadharma while not explicitly stated.
I'm also persuaded that Buddhadharma is "in" God as well.

What do I mean about this second statement?: God being truth and love emanates no lie & no evil.
When we examine Buddhadharma we see truthfulness to the extreme and love to the extreme also, emanating from THAT state.

In essence, We see that the Boddhisattva "idea/state" which is the same as Buddhahood is being SELFLESS.
God, when reading the bible in I Corinthians 13, is Love and that love is described as being SELFLESS.

My inference therefore is that the "God" of Buddhadharma is Brahman (Personal/Impersonal/Immanent/Transcendant).
What Brahman was considered BEFORE the strangeness attached to Him/IT, matches what the bible says.
It also can be seen that Brahman, at an early time period, was NOT associated with the thousands of "Hindu" gods commonly taught today.
In India, NO temple is made to Brahman! Interesting.........

The God of the bible has the exact same qualities of Brahman. Furthermore for Christians, NO image is made as God's image was never recorded!

Comments?
hellas1

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[Ummon]

An empty vessel requires filling. If you exclude any real filling, and you exclude any real vessel, what is empty, what is full?

[hellas1]

@Celsius,

Please, tell me where I go astray with scholarship to back what you say.

I said at my initial post this is a COMPARATIVE RELIGIOUS thread.
I also believe in reverse engineering modern "Buddhism" to reach a point IF possible to what the Buddha originally taught friend.

@Denny Crane,

I believe you're wrong sir.

The Buddha said to Ananda or the whole Sangha of his day that:

"After I die, The/My teachings (Dharma) will guide you" and in that context he said "Be a light to yourselves."

If modern "Buddhists" don't know what the Original teachings were, HOW do they know what result is the REAL result? Right?

[Denny Crane!]

After I die, The/My teachings (Dharma) will guide you" and in that context he said "Be a light to yourselves."

Yes they are a ''guide'' but being a light unto yourself means testing propositions, debate accepting the knowledge of your peers. This is why in the tibetan monastic teaching heated emotional intense debate is actually part of the teachings because if there is something in there that is wrong or doesn't make sense then it behooves us to find out.

At the moment we have no idea if what we read of the original buddhas teachings are even real or what he said. That is why the vague allusion to some kind of scientific method or philosophical discourse that is encouraged in buddhist practice is such a good idea. I'm not saying they aren't important but I am saying that they aren't the ultimate truths, the be all and end all.

Buddhas words are not like the bible is to christians. I'd view them more as socrates was to western philosophy.

[hellas1]

@Denny Crane,

I beg to differ:

IF the Buddha's words weren't written down with accuracy then NO Buddhist group/sect can say they know anything regarding Buddhadharma for sure.


Furthermore, According to Theravada monks, the Pali Nikayas and Abhidharma ARE the words of the Buddha, accurately memorized by Ananda and then written down hundreds of years later. Of course, in India memorization techniques and memorizing PERIOD were considered the primary way of transmitting teachings before writing came and even now the oral tradition still goes on.

Comments?
hellasamsaranibbana1

[Denny Crane!]

I inherently distrust oral traditions. I know that seems rather abrupt but it is 12-00 at night and I'm determined to have some kind of sleep tonight.

[hellas1]

@Denny Crane,

I understand what you're saying.

IF however, we eliminate Oral tradition & Written word we are left with nothing but FABRICATIONS of our imagination or at best Archetypical "Buddhas" that can be "formulated" based on the Tripitaka or other texts.

The Theravada tradition & ALL Buddhist traditions say that there are basic fundamentals that are understood to be authentic. Those "basic fundamentals" are the Nikayas, at least. Whether or not the Abhidharma is part of the Original teachings of the Buddha is debatable but is given that position by ALL (insofar as I know) Buddhist schools today. The same statement can be made of the Mahayana "scriptures" and Mahamudra/Dzogchen vein as well.

hellasamsaranibbana1

[Denny Crane!]

I don't say eliminate the belief in the oral tradition but assume the words are a guide and not a gospel truth since they aren't reliable enough to be anything but that, and even if we were sure that they were it still wouldn't mean they should be treated as gospel.

Hellas is it possible you are focusing to much on tying buddhism to a higher power, to seeking validation in some external truth and greater purpose. That if you can prove or convince that the words are so true and that your interpretation is so right that you will understand a path to communion with God. I have been a bit militantly atheistic in the past and I don't want you to take this that way but more of a question about where your quest for answers is going. It seems like you are going all external right now, anything external is only ever going to be a guide and the answers you want are inside yourself. The guidance of buddhism will help you get there but intellectual understanding is really limiting if given to much importance, it is actually potentially harmful/worthless if not combined with tutored meditative practice and understanding and application of the concepts. Practice is a lot more important than learning, I actually think there are physical changes wrought in the practice of meditation that are prerequisites to creating the state of mind necessary, physical that strongly affect the mental.

I mentioned in another thread about NLP I found the pursuit of intellectual knowledge about the subject far easier than the application, and so it is with Buddhism. I find the understanding of the mind between the two very interesting btw.

Bit rambling this one, do with it as you will

[hellas1]

@Denny Crane,

There remains a LOT of work to do concerning meditative states, synaptical behavior, brain functions before-during-after "meditation" sessions, per se.

I have been initiated into Dzogchen by Namkhai Norbu.

The ONLY reason why I was, was because only Dzogchen meditation talks about "Naked Awareness" which is the same thing as "Choiceless Awareness" that J. Krishnamurti discussed and asked people to do.

BTW, I do practice "Naked/Choiceless Awareness" as it IS a practice, Denny Crane.
Dzogchen is not a "sit down and close your eyes" meditation only as it is supposed to be done while walking, sitting, coming, and going and even in sleep via Dream Yoga practice.

It involves viewing the mind and external world with a passive, non-attached awareness which does not judge but only pays attention to what is happening and is not superimposing something on to a person, place, thing that isn't really, actually there! Naked Awareness allows a person to free up energy (emotional, thought, etc.) and place it were it should be: Here & Now.


MY point regarding God and the Buddha is: Were they originally at odds or not?

I believe that they are NOT, rather what happened after the Buddha's death was a warping and twisting of his Original teachings, which inevitably point one to a transcendental reality which to me IS God, not merely a "mindstream" entering a fixed place called "Enlightenment."

The mindstream doctrine is intimately connected with Mahayana (i.e. the mindstream purifies into the state called Nirvana.) For example:

Dzogchen says that the mind is already "pure, clear, radiant, and openness."
Vipassana says the mind is not.
Mahamudra says the mind is.

The Theravada school promulgates the attaining of Nibbana, as do the Mahayana and Vajrayana BUT Theravadins do not say that our "mindstream" attains to Nibbana when pressed regarding the issue of a self that is not associated with the 5 skhandas and that is not a "fixed, unchanging" thing. I really do not know what Theravadins actually believe attains Nibbana.

Current understanding is that the "ANatman" teaching is not a refutation of a self but rather what that self is NOT, via negative in other words.

Finally, the Pali texts make no mention of Brahman but do mention Brahma and devas, etc.
My question is WHY? Is it bias? Is it that the Buddha DID teach that a self actually exists but is not the 5 skhandas?

Having studied Theosophy, Anthroposophy and scholarly expository articles regarding Buddhism and it's Anatman/Nirvana doctrine and Theravadin articles along these lines, I believe that the Buddha did believe in God.

Hmm..

Comments,
hellasamsaranibbana1