Whats the difference?

vajradhara · Nov 17, 2006

Namaste K2G,

thank you for the post.

Karma2Grace said:
Even Hindus don't believe a distinct creator from creation, czach8 where are you?

and how is that relevant to my post? you realize that Sanatana Dharma and Buddha Dharma are not the same tradition, correct?

metta,

~v

czach8 · Nov 17, 2006

vajradhara said:
Namaste czach,

thank you for the post.

whilst this seems to be correct it actually is not.

(pasted from another post i've done on this topic)

Many modern commentators think that the reason the Buddha taught as he did was due to a lack of understanding of monotheism. they often have the, incorrect view, that the Sanatana Dharma is a polytheistic tradition when in actuality it is not. it is, in fact, monotheistic with a very interesting permutation. Muller has termed this "Henotheism" which means, essentially, that there is one God but that aspects of this being are manifest and given their own due, like Mercy, and Compassion et al.

the term "creator god" is rendered as issara-nimmana-vada Pali and it is this which we are discussing. a belief in a Creator deity is classified as a "wong view" of a morally destructive kind since they deny the consequences of karma and presume certain other wrong views, such as the existence of Atman and so forth.

the Buddha Shakyamuni explained the lack of a Creator Deity in many ways..along with the idea that Nibbana/Nirvana is not permenent either. these are both examples of "clinging to views" which directly impedes ones progress along the path.

here is a Sutta where the Buddha repudiates the prevailing Samhkya philosophical tradition of the time..

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....001.than.html

in the Digha Nikaya (the Long Discourses) 24 it is said like this:

"There are some ascetics and brahmins who declare as their doctrine
that all things began with the creation by a god, or Brahma."

And this god is characterized so:

"That Worshipful Brahma, the Great God, the Omnipotent, the
Omniscient, the Organizer, the Protection, the Creator, the Most
Perfect Ruler, the Designer and Orderer, the Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be, He by Whom we were created, He is permanent, Constant,
Eternal, Unchanging, and He will remain so for ever and ever."

"There is none other God but Thee, the Almighty, the Most Exalted,
the All-Powerful, the All-Wise".

*The notion of creator is rejected in terms of the Buddha in satirically retelling the creation story of the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad. This not "a discreet silence about the First Cause," it is not indifference. Though the Buddha's particular rejection is not a philosophical argument against a creator god, per se, it is rather a religious statement that is consistent with the underlying ontology of becoming that characterizes what the Buddha taught. What is clear, in the broader context, is that this rejection is not tied to a particular god-notion, but addresses the notion of a "single supernatural Being" from which "all things began," given that such a notion is invariably grounded in a radically different ontological basis than what the Buddha presents.

(*indebted to Bruce Burrill)

metta,

~v

Hello brother. I do understand where you are coming from. I have read extensively on Bhuddism, and I do have to admit that Buddha has made vague statements about the spritual world. The Way of life he introduced emphasized many things such as awareness, precepts, mindfulness, etc. However, he taught his followers to be deeply righteous and not chase after doctrines. God is righteous and living in that righteousness is the same as worshipping God.

Let me ask you these questions.

Before Buddha was born, the parents were told by sages that their son would be a great spiritual teacher one day. My question is where did these sages get such revelations? Revelation can only come from the divine, right?

Also, considering that Buddhism places more accentuation on goodness and meditation, is it possible for a person to follow both Buddhism and Christianity?

Peace brother.

Karma2Grace · Nov 17, 2006

vajradhara said:
Namaste K2G,

thank you for the post.

and how is that relevant to my post? you realize that Sanatana Dharma and Buddha Dharma are not the same tradition, correct?

metta,

~v

Sorry Metta, I didn't make it clear. It is czach8 claim that creator and creation are two diffrent entities in Hinduism, I believe it is not...

czach8 · Nov 17, 2006

Karma2Grace said:
Sorry Metta, I didn't make it clear. It is czach8 claim that creator and creation are two diffrent entities in Hinduism, I believe it is not...

Well Vajradhara attested to the fact that Hindus do believe in the Creator. Remember what he said. He said, "There are some ascetics and brahmins who declare as their doctrine that all things began with the creation by a god, or Brahma."

You quickly believed him when he said that Buddhists do not have a Creator God, but now you refuse to believe him when he says Hindus believe in the Creator (Bhrama, Yahweh). Whatever bro.

God bless.

ummuIsa · Nov 18, 2006

vedickings said:
What the differences in the ideas about the nature of God in the world religions?

Im not talking about God's teachings, but God's existnce.

I would love to hear ya all.

Well according to different sects of Islaam you might get slightly different understandings of Allaah's nature but for the most part we believe that Allaah is the Creator and that He is absolutely One and also unique. Humans share some of the same attributes as Him as Him but the quality is not the same. For ex. We both share life but His is without beginning or end, we both share hearing, sight & knowledge yet of course His is perfect and ours is limited, etc.

Jane_the_Bane · Nov 18, 2006

For the record: "metta" is a greeting, not a name, and means something along the lines of "loving kindness".

czach8 · Nov 18, 2006

Jane_the_Bane said:
For the record: "metta" is a greeting, not a name, and means something along the lines of "loving kindness".

Your hilarious. Real funny, he he hmmm.

Jane_the_Bane · Nov 18, 2006

Even more importantly, I'm right.

But of course it's funny when people start to refer to others by confusing the greeting phrases at the end of the post with their name. Maybe I should change my screen name to "Blessings" or "Yours Truly".

Tariki · Nov 19, 2006

vedickings said:
What the differences in the ideas about the nature of God in the world religions?

Im not talking about God's teachings, but God's existnce.

I would love to hear ya all.

I have often pondered upon two different ideas concerning Divinity. The first, normally associated with the "west"................."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".(The Bible) The second, normally associated with the "east"................"Thou art formless. Your only form is our knowledge of you". (The Hindu scripture, The Vedas)
A Buddhist (Theravada) teacher, Nyanaponika Thera has compared the opening words of the Bible quoted above with the opening words of the Buddhist text, the Dhammapada........."Mind precedes things, dominates them, creates them". Nyanaponika says:- "These momentous words are the quiet and uncontending, but unshakeable reply of the Buddha to that biblical belief. Here the roads of these two religions part: the one leads far away into the an imaginary Beyond, the other leads straight home, into man's very heart"

Personally I'm not so sure of Nyanaponika's conclusion, at least as some sort of definitive judgement.

God as "other", God as "self".............

vajradhara · Nov 20, 2006

Namaste czach,

thank you for the post.

czach8 said:
Hello brother. I do understand where you are coming from. I have read extensively on Bhuddism, and I do have to admit that Buddha has made vague statements about the spritual world.

then i would encourge you to continue your studies as the Buddha Dharma treats these things very succiently.

The Way of life he introduced emphasized many things such as awareness, precepts, mindfulness, etc. However, he taught his followers to be deeply righteous and not chase after doctrines.

you will not find a Sutta which advocates that Buddhists be righetous. that is a foreign concept which doesn't have a place here.

Before Buddha was born, the parents were told by sages that their son would be a great spiritual teacher one day. My question is where did these sages get such revelations? Revelation can only come from the divine, right?

in your belief system, i imagine so. nevertheless, you do realize that within the auspices of the Dharma traditions, there is a difference in the term deity, god and God, correct? as such, there are many devine beings yet, none of them, despite their own delusion, are the Creator God.

the Buddhist response is that these sages have attaned to the 1st or 2nd Jhana and have access to information which seems almost magical or, if your mind is so inclinded, as a gift from a god.

Also, considering that Buddhism places more accentuation on goodness and meditation, is it possible for a person to follow both Buddhism and Christianity?

Peace brother.

this is a question that comes up fairly often as the ethical and moral teachings of both traditions have a great degree of overlap.

it is in their core doctrines where they are different and, ultimately, one cannot be both. what point is there in being a Christian if you do not have a soul? what value is there in adherening to the 4 precepts if you have a Savior and are not held accountable for your actions?

metta,

~v

vajradhara · Nov 20, 2006

Namaste K2G,

thank you for the post.

Karma2Grace said:
Sorry Metta, I didn't make it clear. It is czach8 claim that creator and creation are two diffrent entities in Hinduism, I believe it is not...

as Jane pointed out.. Metta is a Pali term which means "with Loving Kindness" and it is the closing of my posts as this is what i wish to all that read my words.

you can call me Vaj, Vajra or "hey you"

the Sanatana Dharma has several different schools, it is not a monolithic entity.. as such, there are several views to be found depending on the school and the areas of their emphasis. some teach a monism that does not distinguish creator from creation and others teach a view which has them seperate.. for conceptual purposes.

nevertheless... Sanatana Dharma is not Buddha Dharma

metta,

~v

Karma2Grace · Nov 20, 2006

vajradhara said:
the Sanatana Dharma has several different schools, it is not a monolithic entity.. as such, there are several views to be found depending on the school and the areas of their emphasis. some teach a monism that does not distinguish creator from creation and others teach a view which has them seperate.. for conceptual purposes.

nevertheless... Sanatana Dharma is not Buddha Dharma

metta,

~v

I guess both of them cannot be true

vajradhara · Nov 20, 2006

Karma2Grace said:
I guess both of them cannot be true

only in a bivalent universe, K2G. we, however, live in a multivalent universe and, as such, both can be correct.

that is, however, somewhat besides the point of the OP, from what i can gather.

metta,

~v

czach8 · Nov 24, 2006

vajradhara said:
you will not find a Sutta which advocates that Buddhists be righetous. that is a foreign concept which doesn't have a place here.

What about the Noble 8-fold path: Right View, Right Intention, right speech, right action, right livlihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration

vajradhara said:
in your belief system, i imagine so. nevertheless, you do realize that within the auspices of the Dharma traditions, there is a difference in the term deity, god and God, correct? as such, there are many devine beings yet, none of them, despite their own delusion, are the Creator God.

the Buddhist response is that these sages have attaned to the 1st or 2nd Jhana and have access to information which seems almost magical or, if your mind is so inclinded, as a gift from a god.

I don't understand brother. Can you explain the direct channel of where these revelations are traveling from?

vajradhara said:
this is a question that comes up fairly often as the ethical and moral teachings of both traditions have a great degree of overlap.

it is in their core doctrines where they are different and, ultimately, one cannot be both. what point is there in being a Christian if you do not have a soul? what value is there in adherening to the 4 precepts if you have a Savior and are not held accountable for your actions

Well did Buddha ever deny the self? When people asked him if there was a self, he would simply ignore their questions because the fact remains that people chase after dharmas, and then leave another. Is this true?

Peace bro.

vajradhara · Nov 26, 2006

Namaste czach,

thank you for the post.

czach8 said:
What about the Noble 8-fold path: Right View, Right Intention, right speech, right action, right livlihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration

this is a transliteration of the Sanskrit term "Samyak" which doesn't mean "right" or righteous, it has the connotations of a practice which is without lack and of the perfection of these things, the term literally means "Perfection"... this term, however, has certain connotations in English which are not appropriate to the Buddha Dharma.

I don't understand brother. Can you explain the direct channel of where these revelations are traveling from?

i'm not sure that i understand what you are asking. if you are asking if i can tell you which deity may be communicating with you, then the answer is no.

Well did Buddha ever deny the self?

it depends the Buddhist world is not one of such black and white extremes.. it is the Middle Way, between all such dualities.

When people asked him if there was a self, he would simply ignore their questions because the fact remains that people chase after dharmas, and then leave another. Is this true?

yes, this is true.

it is also true that the Buddha explicity rejected the idea of an eternally existing self or soul which exists in some manner independent of its causes and conditions.

when the Buddha gave a teaching, he was able to see using the Buddha Eye which means, essentially, that the teachings were given to a specific sort of being based on their current level of understanding, practice and religious view.

to know if a teaching is applicable to us, we need to understand the audience that the teaching was given to and determine if we are that audience.

in the oft used metaphor of a river and ferry.. the Dharma is the ferry which is used to take one to the Other Shore.. we leave the Ferry at the shore once we arrive but we have to use it to cross the river. this is why is it said that the highest view in Buddhism is "no view". not everyone can instantly leap upon a 100' pole and turn Creation!

metta,

~v

czach8 · Nov 27, 2006

vajradhara said:
Namaste czach,

thank you for the post.

this is a transliteration of the Sanskrit term "Samyak" which doesn't mean "right" or righteous, it has the connotations of a practice which is without lack and of the perfection of these things, the term literally means "Perfection"... this term, however, has certain connotations in English which are not appropriate to the Buddha Dharma.

Well according to Christianity, one who maintains righteousness is actually maintaining perfection. If one does not follow the precepts(stealing, lying, murdering, adultery, intoxication, etc) of the Buddha, then is that person being unrighteous.

vajradhara said:
i'm not sure that i understand what you are asking. if you are asking if i can tell you which deity may be communicating with you, then the answer is no.

Then where did it come from?

vajradhara said:
it depends the Buddhist world is not one of such black and white extremes.. it is the Middle Way, between all such dualities.

I completely agree, but the dualities(hot/cold, happy/sad, love/hate, right/wrong) still exist. How come?

vajradhara said:
yes, this is true.

it is also true that the Buddha explicity rejected the idea of an eternally existing self or soul which exists in some manner independent of its causes and conditions.

If that is the case, then what kind of state are we in after liberation from birth and death. I only ask because before his death, buddha was asked by a disciple if Mogallana and other dead bkikkus had attained liberation. However, buddha refused to answer such a question. Why?

vajradhara said:
when the Buddha gave a teaching, he was able to see using the Buddha Eye which means, essentially, that the teachings were given to a specific sort of being based on their current level of understanding, practice and religious view.

Can you elaborate? Is the Buddha eye the same as the third eye? Many Hindus claim buddha is an avatar of Vishnu, and the reason why Buddha did not claim himself as God was because he was teaching to an atheistic class. I have read a lot about Buddhism, but I have not seen such evidence of this. Why are Hindus saying these things? In addition, if buddha is an avatar of Vishnu, then how come Hindus do not propagate Buddhism to others?

vajradhara said:
to know if a teaching is applicable to us, we need to understand the audience that the teaching was given to and determine if we are that audience.

in the oft used metaphor of a river and ferry.. the Dharma is the ferry which is used to take one to the Other Shore.. we leave the Ferry at the shore once we arrive but we have to use it to cross the river. this is why is it said that the highest view in Buddhism is "no view". not everyone can instantly leap upon a 100' pole and turn Creation!

True. The world would be much different if we simply let go of all views and live a neutral and simple life.

Metta

vajradhara · Nov 28, 2006

Namaste czach,

thank you for the post.

czach8 said:
Well according to Christianity, one who maintains righteousness is actually maintaining perfection. If one does not follow the precepts(stealing, lying, murdering, adultery, intoxication, etc) of the Buddha, then is that person being unrighteous.

not in the Buddhist model one simply being a human of lesser or greater capacity to adhere to the Precepts.

Then where did it come from?

what is "it" that you are referring to?

I completely agree, but the dualities(hot/cold, happy/sad, love/hate, right/wrong) still exist. How come?

it is the nature of the discursive intellect to think in dualities, to determine the nature of something by comparing it to the nature of something else. it exists in the way we speak and in the manner in which our minds habitually think.

If that is the case, then what kind of state are we in after liberation from birth and death. I only ask because before his death, buddha was asked by a disciple if Mogallana and other dead bkikkus had attained liberation. However, buddha refused to answer such a question. Why?

because the question is based and asked with the assumption that there is a self or soul, some aspect of being by which a Buddha can be identified. this is not so and, as such, the question is simply unfounded and, by and large, such teachings were indicative of the Second Turning of the Wheel.

Can you elaborate? Is the Buddha eye the same as the third eye?

No. the so-called third eye is a chakra point, a Buddha Eye is different than this.

Many Hindus claim buddha is an avatar of Vishnu, and the reason why Buddha did not claim himself as God was because he was teaching to an atheistic class. I have read a lot about Buddhism, but I have not seen such evidence of this. Why are Hindus saying these things?

you would have to ask them for their reasons for this. in my opinion, such a view demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Buddhist view.

In addition, if buddha is an avatar of Vishnu, then how come Hindus do not propagate Buddhism to others?

i cannot answer this question except to say that in the Sanatana Dharma the view is that there are many paths to Brahma, each being chooses which is best for themselves.

metta,

~v

czach8 · Nov 30, 2006

vajradhara said:
Namaste czach,

thank you for the post.

Thank you too.

vajradhara said:
not in the Buddhist model one simply being a human of lesser or greater capacity to adhere to the Precepts.

vajradhara said:
Well it is quite obvious anyone who does not follow the precepts will be a human lesser in capacity. In Christianity, one who does not follow these precepts is considered lesser in righteousness.

So basically one should combine the dualities as one whole and therefore not segregae the two opposites?

vajradhara said:
what is "it" that you are referring to?

These sages were given a revelation about the Buddha before his birth. In addition, buddha's mother had a dream where she saw an elephant symbolizing her born to be son. My question is where did these revelations come from. If it did not come from a deity, then fine. If it came about because of some spiritual force or second or third spiritual powers, then where did these forces or powers come from?

vajradhara said:
it is the nature of the discursive intellect to think in dualities, to determine the nature of something by comparing it to the nature of something else. it exists in the way we speak and in the manner in which our minds habitually think.

So is this a bad thing? If it is how should we eliminate this?

vajradhara said:
because the question is based and asked with the assumption that there is a self or soul, some aspect of being by which a Buddha can be identified. this is not so and, as such, the question is simply unfounded and, by and large, such teachings were indicative of the Second Turning of the Wheel.

Can you elaborate on the second turning of the wheel?

vajradhara said:
No. the so-called third eye is a chakra point, a Buddha Eye is different than this.

Can you then elaborate a little more on the Buddha eye.

vajradhara said:
you would have to ask them for their reasons for this. in my opinion, such a view demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Buddhist view.

Yes, I agree.

vajradhara said:
i cannot answer this question except to say that in the Sanatana Dharma the view is that there are many paths to Brahma, each being chooses which is best for themselves.

Yes I agree. Thank you.

MoonlessNight · Nov 30, 2006

Buddhism does not, Wicca does not, Hinduism (I believe) does not.

I can't speak for Wicca, but you are painting with a rather broad brush here. I don't see how you can do that with eithr Buddhism or Hinduism, because they are both very diverse traditions. Certainly there have been many conversions by Buddhists, and there have been many historical Hindu movements that have denied the truth of all other religions. There have been even been movements that have said things like even if you are Hindu but don't accept Vishnu as the supreme deity, you're still wrong.

Khaliyl · Nov 30, 2006

vedickings said:
What the differences in the ideas about the nature of God in the world religions?

Im not talking about God's teachings, but God's existnce.

I would love to hear ya all.

His / Her Existence -- I Say This Because Without Useing Bible / Qur'aan One Can't Prove His / Her Existence

Whats the difference?

Diamond Thunderbolt of Indestructable Wisdom

czach8

Guest

Well-Known Member

czach8

Guest

Active Member

Gaia's godchild

czach8

Guest

Gaia's godchild

Tariki

Guest

Diamond Thunderbolt of Indestructable Wisdom

Diamond Thunderbolt of Indestructable Wisdom

Well-Known Member

Diamond Thunderbolt of Indestructable Wisdom

czach8

Guest

Diamond Thunderbolt of Indestructable Wisdom

czach8

Guest

Diamond Thunderbolt of Indestructable Wisdom

czach8

Guest

Fides et Ratio

Khaliyl

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency