Happy new year! Bahai summer school? Do tell...
That's a literal perspective. Is it not possible to have the Teachings available....
I don't have that worldview since originality and sacredness is different from application and understanding the teachings based on your own practice rather than interpretations of someone else's. The Buddha even said question him for the validity of the teaching because he is not the one that says it is true. He focused on instructions for monk and laymen so
they know it is true. The disciples kept asking him questions and looking to The Buddha for answers. He dodges the questions and continuously and repeatedly focus on the role of the person following the teaching rather than the person giving it.
Why does originality and sacredness mean a lot to you over application and practice of what you read and experience?
It is correct that Buddha grew up in a Hindu culture. I don't believe we can assume He believed all Hindu beliefs including polytheism as they were likely amongst some of the Hindu beliefs and practices He rejected.
He did. He used to be Hindu. The reason he denounce Hinduism wasn't because he just "turned atheist." He denounced it because the practices did not lead to enlightenment. "God" wasn't important because his concern was how people were enlightened; and, following gods was an obstruction of that path.
Rejection of his formal beliefs doesn't mean he stopped believing them. You can't "stop" belief in something you
know is true. You can stop following it, but if it's a fact, you can't change that.
He's not an atheist. A lot of people take up Buddhism because it sounds like an atheist religion. Some traditions see it that way other traditions like Tibetan, we notice, does not.
Are you making an assumption here? From an essay you asked me to look at:
1. Sidhartha was an ordinary man and prince. He saw the suffering of others and went among them to help them from their suffering. In during so, he found out the nature of life is that suffering is from our birth (because we die when we are born), life, sickness (via age), and death.
2. He became an arrant. His role:
Thus the Buddha is distinguished from the arahant disciples, not by some categorical difference in their respective attainments, but by his role: he is the first one in this historical epoch to attain liberation, and he serves as the incomparable guide in making known the way to liberation...
Arahant and The Buddha
Similarly: When we take the historical-realistic perspective, the Buddha became an arahant. However, though being an arahant, he was what we might call "an arahant with differences"; he was, moreover not simply an arahant with a few incidental differences, but an arahant whose differences eventually elevated him to a distinct level, the Bhagavā, a world teacher, one who towered above all the other arahants.
In Pure Land, and I'm learning Tibetan, they seem to make The Buddha more mystical. In Theravada (according to accesstoinsight Pali Suttas), that is not so. Neither or wrong in itself. However, tying it to the god of abraham is a
huge stretch.
When we take the historical-realistic perspective, the Buddha became an arahant. However, though being an arahant, he was what we might call "an arahant with differences"; he was, moreover not simply an arahant with a few incidental differences, but an arahant whose differences eventually elevated him to a distinct level, the Bhagavā, a world teacher, one who towered above all the other arahants...
I usually phrase it as
1. Siddhartha Gautama (Prince and ordinary man)
2. Arahant (One who is enlightened/realization to the nature of life)
3. Bodhisattva (One who helps others to become enlightened)
4. The Buddha (One who found liberation through his realization-above-and therefore bypass suffering and rebirth; he died.
As for mystics, there is a lot. Mostly in the Arahant and Buddha phrase in most traditions I looked up. The Buddha to one tradition is an ordinary man with whom we look to his enlightened mind. Other traditions see The Buddha (his form) as someone who can bless and do things other people cannot do. Neither or right or wrong. We just have different source of reference. I don't know about Pure Land. Kadampa Tibetan (Gulung) is pretty interesting.
Clearly there are different ways to view the Buddha as some Mahayana Buddhists do.
Yes. Accesstoinsight, the source I've used, don't have a lot of mystics as Mahayana's do and their sutras. I love mystics but god of abraham is a huge stretch than visualizing myself as Vajrasattva from an Indian tradition that traveled to Tibet and mixed with folk belief in that area to which some Americans here took up in more modern traditions such as Kadampa and Nichiren (I'm sure there are more).
Inspiration from a Source that transcends the human is the best way to view the Buddha IMHO.
Siddhartha is inspired by a Source?
I don't know about Pure Land (PL) but the Pali doesn't teach that. At least so far I read from all the resource I marked, scribbled, and studied at home.
It accounts for the profound influence over 2,500 years for so many.
The writings are much more than the sayings of a wise man or sage.
In my personal opinion and experience I see The Buddha as a Teacher. Someone with whom I follow his written example (not his-he passed away). Therefore, what I read, I follow the examples of his disciples because they are the ones who met The Buddha and is said to wrote most of the suttas. As for the sutras, a lot of commentary is linked to the interpretation of the sutras. Others haven't been translated in English.
The Buddha predicted His Teachings would spread throughout the entire earth and asked His disciples to teach with this goal in mind. Such a prediction and instruction would be grandiose if from a human source alone but consistent with Divine Inspiration.
Sounds like a Jesus view, no?
Jesus spread his teachings throughout different continents around him (In Acts, I believe). Whatever mystics we put to him, The Buddha, and other people are from humans and their means to connect with the sages and "great beings."
If not, what happened between 2400 years and now did we lost our zazz for being great beings?
A Theist perspective makes sense from a comparative religion perspective. (eg the other great religions were inspired or founded by Theists, not atheists)
I'd look at it from a polytheist perspective. I was reading somethings about Samadhi and it kinda mirrored the
words you used about enlightenment, source, etc. It means becoming whole with everything. Very rough translation. I think most religions have this. We clouded it in mystics and culture. Psychologically, we get this feeling when we feel we are awakened to what life is "really about." Can't think of the right word at the moment.
Some of the quotes I have shared suggest a Godly, not human realisation.
Enlightenment means realization. He had a "light bulb" in his head when he found out the nature of life. When he realized this nature, he decided after long pondering to teach others the suttas he says "is to profound for others in delusions will understand."
Godly? Not a deity. Though Tibetans seem to deify a lot. Tantric tradition
not a universal truth for Buddhism as a whole.
Definitions for Brahma, whether within Hindu or Buddhist traditions are readily available with research.
I wanted to know your personal definition from a Bahai theist view. Vinayaka has said a lot that Brahma and Brahman are experiences not things you can look up online.
How would you personally define Brahman apart from Hindu resources?
According to Maitreya Buddha (Baha'i) theology The Buddha as a Manifestations of God is human like us but also reflects or manifests Divine. In this respect they have at least a dual station.
To me, that's like bypassing The Buddha for his disciple when they are all enlightened beings in their own rights and same knowledge. Universality is not a theistic.
Interestingly Buddhists have grappled with the nature of Buddha in much the same way as Christians have considered the nature of Christ.
I can see the comparison. Unlike Christians, to Buddhists it's "no big deal." Personal realization not a political one.
Through the eightfold noble path, training the mind is but one aspect, for the purpose of achieving Nirvana and transforming the world both inner and outer.
As suggested through previous quotes, attaining the pure land and becoming a bodhisattva is impossible without the Buddha's Teaching.
The Buddha's teachings are not written. They are life itself. He didn't create compassion, suffering, enlightenment, and perfect realization of different truths.
It's not a sacred-text religion.
Bodhisattvas hear about the Buddha Amitābha and call him to mind again and again in this land. Because of this calling to mind, they see the Buddha Amitābha...
It speaks for one tradition not Buddhism as a whole. The reason I say Buddhism is not a sacred-text book is because of its culture not because of various traditions. You can't separate the two. One Bahai post months ago mentioned that there is a universal source and colors, rays, etc are secondary to the source. It's not like that in Buddhism.
That is a useful way of seeing gods as opposed to God. Christians talk about false gods and idols though, so I would see similarities.
To christians, Buddhism and Hinduism, at that, would be total idolism. Only Bahai, so far I know, connect beliefs that are completely opposed to each other. Just saying'
The great being is Buddha the perfect Manifestation of the unknowable essence some would call God IMHO. I do not worship the physical characteristics such as big ear lobes, but try to emulate the spiritual ones.
That's why what you're saying doe snot make sense. The robes, rituals, and so forth
are the spiritual part of one's faith. Once you separate it, it's no longer Buddhism. Maybe Nichiren SGI, you can get away with it.
I'm really enjoying this conversation Carlita, and hope its good for you, and not too frustrating. I will have minimal internet access over the next 4 days as I'll be attending a Baha'i summer school.
Enjoy yourself.