• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How are these Great Beings explained?

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
There is only one possible way by which the everlasting nature of man, his Buddha-nature, that can not be disturbed by worldly desires or destroyed by death, can be realized, and that is by the Buddha and the Buddha's noble teaching.


http://www.e4thai.com/e4e/images/pdf/theteachingofbuddha.pdf
p75 (verse 6 under Buddha nature)

In summary we need the Manifestation of God for our age, Which Buddha represented for peoples of the Indian subcontinent as Christ did for the Jews. Ironically both peoples rejected their Great Teacher but their Teachings were established abroad.

Thanks Adrian. I was looking for a copy I could read offline. And I like the simple way this author writes.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Dear Friends,

Whatever calendar you practice, our western calendar year is about to come to an end so I wish everyone at RF and on this thread a Happy and Prosperous New Year 2018.

Live long and prosper!
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I think we both love to be challenged and to challenge. It is a good natured and insightful discussion we are engaging in, so long may that continue.

During the Buddha's time, there was a moral decline of the peoples at that time. The Dharma as taught and practiced amidst the Buddha's peoples had been lost and obscured amidst metaphysical concerns. The practical aspect of faith had become dimmed and righteousness had declined. That's why Buddha brought this teaching, to focus and train the mind on the basic teachings of right living through the eightfold noble path, having id

A lot of it was, I guess a opposition of Hinduism and practices The Buddha used to practice. He found the escotic practices did not bring enlightenment so since Hinduism has a lot of mytaphysics, he steared away to a more mental approach to enlightenment denying god's role (not his existence) in enlightenment.

As for decline, compassion and suffering wont decline. I see a lot of mix in Buddhist schools as I mentioned my little experience. Its embedded rightfully in culture based on where it spread. To find the "authentic" teachings is beside the point. If that be the case throw out All the sutras.

I posted a sutta verse a couple times months ago about what The Buddha taught in brief about the suttas decline. He says that the physical suttas will decline and monastics wil loose their practice. The Dharma will not. Also Mayahana mostly has multiple buddhas and boddhisattvas (probably sen that in Tibetan temple?) Where as Theravada has Maitreya as next buddha. Weid that you have both in your worldview. The two schools have different practices and focus in regards to enlightenment.

Why are you more stuck on authenticity compared to practice and your faith not anothers?

Christianity like Buddhism, is a very practical religion, and Christ's apostles taught both actions and faith were necessary for salvation as did Buddha and one without the other was insufficient.

Pure Land has this. I dont care for how some books translate it. Cattering to western audienced.

Christ who spoke in parables often using metaphor and allegory to teach as the Buddha did. The use of as seeds and weeds is a good example of this as evidenced by the parable of the sower.

Same approach. Different goals. :)

Both beautiful but of course Ima Buddha fan.
 
Last edited:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
You have a rich history there.

Interesting, but when we start posting to each other, we both have much to say and we seem to create ever enlarging epistles to one another. I find it quite difficult to keep up with your posts as there is so much there. Its all quality stuff too, so I want to respond, there just isn't enough time to respond to it all. It's just an observation.

Sorry abut that.

My bad. I forgot that most African-American are staunch protestants. I heard that often churches are not so mixed and African-Americans and those of European descent, often do their own thing. How come your mother wasn't like other women of her generation if you don't mind me asking?

My mother was raised in Iran. She came over about 12 and moved around via military. Her mother was a devout christian (and further back). Her mother had a lot of cultural superstitious practices that today a christian would call demonic. Her stepfather was born and raised in Louisana down south and picked up a lot of Haitan practices. She had a mix during childhood. When she moved out, she devorced christianity and brought us up with no religious background (no time for it really).

You are certainly not typical in any way, which is a good thing. Its great that you had the experience of Catholicism. It sounds like you compartmentalise to some extent where your Catholicism and Buddhism are two very different parts of who you are. My natural tendency is to integrate and have a universalist view. We all read the reality of our own lives and find approaches that work best. What you do works for you, as what I do works for me.

Yeah. I get confused if I integrate it. I cant see The Buddha as the Eucharist likewise I dont see Jesus hanging out with Siddhartha when he/jesus didnt want to hang out with his own people because he felt they broke his father's laws.

Thank you for that. You have posted me a link with that particular nun of few months back. She's an interesting character. She has some valuable insights but of course is a staunch atheist.

Yeah. Didnt know that until videos later. She has a real bias over theistic beliefs and politics. Feminism is a hot topic for her as well as Bush senior.

I listen to American Buddhist because I can understand them (not a thick accent like the Dali Lama), they have insight on American culture, and I dont see authenticity over a persons personal practice.

Exactly. I am much more aligned with Amida Buddhism than some other schools, and the publication by BDK totally resonates with my Baha'i belief

Its always best to go with what you resonate with. I rather read the Pali suttas. I havent been to a theravada temple but it seems Im in between both bodhisattva ideals and self enlightenment.

That's another really helpful link thank you. Of course I am neither Theravada nor Mahayana. I am a follower of the Meitreya Buddha. As such I seek the truth and the Eternal Dharma

You're closer to Mahayana in thought (given the theistic view and metaphysics). Maitreya seems the only thing you have in common with Theravada. Only talking of theology.
 
Last edited:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
@adrian009

Here is a snipplet of finding enlightenment in ourselves (we follow The Buddha's example and recieve direct knowledge from The Dharma) rather than The Buddha. Also, The Dharma existed before The Buddha's enlightenment:

It is a gain for us, my friend, a great gain for us, that we have such a companion in the holy life. So the Dhamma I declare I have entered & dwell in, having realized it for myself through direct knowledge, is the Dhamma you declare you have entered & dwell in, having realized it for yourself through direct knowledge.

And the Dhamma you declare you have entered & dwell in, having realized it for yourself through direct knowledge, is the Dhamma I declare I have entered & dwell in, having realized it for myself through direct knowledge. The Dhamma I know is the Dhamma you know; the Dhamma you know is the Dhamma I know. As I am, so are you; as you are, so am I. Come friend, let us now lead this community together.'

"In this way did Alara Kalama, my teacher, place me, his pupil, on the same level with himself and pay me great honor. But the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma leads not to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to Awakening, nor to Unbinding, but only to reappearance in the dimension of nothingness.' So, dissatisfied with that Dhamma, I left.
Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search
 
Last edited:

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
@adrian009

Here is a snipplet of finding enlightenment in ourselves (we follow The Buddha's example and recieve direct knowledge from The Dharma) rather than The Buddha. Also, The Dharma existed before The Buddha's enlightenment:

It is a gain for us, my friend, a great gain for us, that we have such a companion in the holy life. So the Dhamma I declare I have entered & dwell in, having realized it for myself through direct knowledge, is the Dhamma you declare you have entered & dwell in, having realized it for yourself through direct knowledge.

And the Dhamma you declare you have entered & dwell in, having realized it for yourself through direct knowledge, is the Dhamma I declare I have entered & dwell in, having realized it for myself through direct knowledge. The Dhamma I know is the Dhamma you know; the Dhamma you know is the Dhamma I know. As I am, so are you; as you are, so am I. Come friend, let us now lead this community together.'

"In this way did Alara Kalama, my teacher, place me, his pupil, on the same level with himself and pay me great honor. But the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma leads not to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to Awakening, nor to Unbinding, but only to reappearance in the dimension of nothingness.' So, dissatisfied with that Dhamma, I left.
Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search

I agree that the Dharma existed before the Buddha's enlightenment, because the Dharma has always existed. Sometimes the Dharma is made clear as with the Buddha's exalted Teachings, and at other times it appears as if it never existed at all.

The Buddha through this story is teaching us that to attain to this exalted station that has been difficult to reach, and then not to share with others, is to live in a state of emptiness. That is why we must teach what we have learnt. We breath in as we learn, and we exhale as we teach to others.


1. As already explained, people always yield to their worldly passions, repeating sin after sin, and carry burdens of intolerable acts, unable of their own wisdom or of their own strength to break these habits of greed and indulgence. If they are unable to overcome and remove worldly passions, how can they expect to realize their true nature of Buddhahood?


Buddha, who thoroughly understood human nature, had great sympathy for men and made a vow that He would do everything possible, even at the cost of great hardship to Himself, to relieve them of their fears and sufferings. To effect this relief He manifested himself as a Bodhisattva in the immemorable past and made the following ten vows:


(a) "Thought I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until everyone in my land is certain of entering Buddhahood and gaining Enlightenment."


(b) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until my affirming light reaches all over the world."


(c) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until my life endures through the ages and saves innumerable numbers of people."


(d) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until all the Buddhas in the ten directions unite in praising my name."


(e) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until people with sincere faith endeavor to be reborn in my land by repeating my name in sincere faith ten times and actually do succeed in this rebirth."


(f) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until people everywhere determine to attain Enlightenment, practice virtues, sincerely wish to be born in my land; thus, I shall appear at the moment of their death with a great company of Bodhisattvas to welcome them into my Pure Land."


(g) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never by complete until people everywhere, hearing my name, think of my land and wish to be born there and, to that end, sincerely plant seeds of virtue, and are thus able to accomplish all to their hearts' desire."



(h) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until all those who are born in my Pure Land are certain to attain Buddhahood, so that they may lead many others to Enlightenment and to the practice of great compassion."

(i) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until people all over the world are influenced by my spirit of loving compassion that will purify their minds and bodies and lift them above the things of the world."


(j) "Thought I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until people everywhere, hearing my name, learn right ideas about life and death, and gain that perfect wisdom that will keep their minds pure and tranquil in the midst of the world's greed and suffering."


"Thus I make these vows; may I not attain Buddhahood until they are fulfilled. May I become the source of unlimited Light, freeing and radiating the treasures of my wisdom and virtue, enlightening all lands and emancipating all suffering people."


http://www.e4thai.com/e4e/images/pdf/theteachingofbuddha.pdf
p102 -104
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I agree that the Dharma existed before the Buddha's enlightenment, because the Dharma has always existed. Sometimes the Dharma is made clear as with the Buddha's exalted Teachings, and at other times it appears as if it never existed at all.

The Buddha through this story is teaching us that to attain to this exalted station that has been difficult to reach, and then not to share with others, is to live in a state of emptiness. That is why we must teach what we have learnt. We breath in as we learn, and we exhale as we teach to others.


1. As already explained, people always yield to their worldly passions, repeating sin after sin, and carry burdens of intolerable acts, unable of their own wisdom or of their own strength to break these habits of greed and indulgence. If they are unable to overcome and remove worldly passions, how can they expect to realize their true nature of Buddhahood?


Buddha, who thoroughly understood human nature, had great sympathy for men and made a vow that He would do everything possible, even at the cost of great hardship to Himself, to relieve them of their fears and sufferings. To effect this relief He manifested himself as a Bodhisattva in the immemorable past and made the following ten vows:


(a) "Thought I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until everyone in my land is certain of entering Buddhahood and gaining Enlightenment."


(b) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until my affirming light reaches all over the world."


(c) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until my life endures through the ages and saves innumerable numbers of people."


(d) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until all the Buddhas in the ten directions unite in praising my name."


(e) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until people with sincere faith endeavor to be reborn in my land by repeating my name in sincere faith ten times and actually do succeed in this rebirth."


(f) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until people everywhere determine to attain Enlightenment, practice virtues, sincerely wish to be born in my land; thus, I shall appear at the moment of their death with a great company of Bodhisattvas to welcome them into my Pure Land."


(g) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never by complete until people everywhere, hearing my name, think of my land and wish to be born there and, to that end, sincerely plant seeds of virtue, and are thus able to accomplish all to their hearts' desire."



(h) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until all those who are born in my Pure Land are certain to attain Buddhahood, so that they may lead many others to Enlightenment and to the practice of great compassion."

(i) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until people all over the world are influenced by my spirit of loving compassion that will purify their minds and bodies and lift them above the things of the world."


(j) "Thought I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until people everywhere, hearing my name, learn right ideas about life and death, and gain that perfect wisdom that will keep their minds pure and tranquil in the midst of the world's greed and suffering."


"Thus I make these vows; may I not attain Buddhahood until they are fulfilled. May I become the source of unlimited Light, freeing and radiating the treasures of my wisdom and virtue, enlightening all lands and emancipating all suffering people."


http://www.e4thai.com/e4e/images/pdf/theteachingofbuddha.pdf
p102 -104

Wonderful :)

Regards Tony
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I agree that the Dharma existed before the Buddha's enlightenment, because the Dharma has always existed. Sometimes the Dharma is made clear as with the Buddha's exalted Teachings, and at other times it appears as if it never existed at all.

The Buddha through this story is teaching us that to attain to this exalted station that has been difficult to reach, and then not to share with others, is to live in a state of emptiness. That is why we must teach what we have learnt. We breath in as we learn, and we exhale as we teach to others.


1. As already explained, people always yield to their worldly passions, repeating sin after sin, and carry burdens of intolerable acts, unable of their own wisdom or of their own strength to break these habits of greed and indulgence. If they are unable to overcome and remove worldly passions, how can they expect to realize their true nature of Buddhahood?


Buddha, who thoroughly understood human nature, had great sympathy for men and made a vow that He would do everything possible, even at the cost of great hardship to Himself, to relieve them of their fears and sufferings. To effect this relief He manifested himself as a Bodhisattva in the immemorable past and made the following ten vows:


(a) "Thought I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until everyone in my land is certain of entering Buddhahood and gaining Enlightenment."


(b) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until my affirming light reaches all over the world."


(c) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until my life endures through the ages and saves innumerable numbers of people."


(d) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until all the Buddhas in the ten directions unite in praising my name."


(e) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until people with sincere faith endeavor to be reborn in my land by repeating my name in sincere faith ten times and actually do succeed in this rebirth."


(f) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until people everywhere determine to attain Enlightenment, practice virtues, sincerely wish to be born in my land; thus, I shall appear at the moment of their death with a great company of Bodhisattvas to welcome them into my Pure Land."


(g) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never by complete until people everywhere, hearing my name, think of my land and wish to be born there and, to that end, sincerely plant seeds of virtue, and are thus able to accomplish all to their hearts' desire."



(h) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until all those who are born in my Pure Land are certain to attain Buddhahood, so that they may lead many others to Enlightenment and to the practice of great compassion."

(i) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until people all over the world are influenced by my spirit of loving compassion that will purify their minds and bodies and lift them above the things of the world."


(j) "Thought I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until people everywhere, hearing my name, learn right ideas about life and death, and gain that perfect wisdom that will keep their minds pure and tranquil in the midst of the world's greed and suffering."


"Thus I make these vows; may I not attain Buddhahood until they are fulfilled. May I become the source of unlimited Light, freeing and radiating the treasures of my wisdom and virtue, enlightening all lands and emancipating all suffering people."


http://www.e4thai.com/e4e/images/pdf/theteachingofbuddha.pdf
p102 -104

Interesting. Pure land is remarkably different (a good difference) than the Pali interpretation of boddhisattva.

From this essay (both your post and this good reads) Arahants, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas, the author explains that theravada teachings and mahayana in the

Theravada Buddhism
A Chronology

Below on the link on the page above.

The language of the Theravada canonical texts is Pali (lit., "text"), which is based on a dialect of Middle Indo-Aryan that was probably spoken in central India during the Buddha's time.[7] Ven. Ananda, the Buddha's cousin and close personal attendant, committed the Buddha's sermons (suttas) to memory and thus became a living repository of these teachings.[8] Shortly after the Buddha's death (ca. 480 BCE), five hundred of the most senior monks — including Ananda — convened to recite and verify all the sermons they had heard during the Buddha's forty-five year teaching career.[9]Most of these sermons therefore begin with the disclaimer, "Evam me sutam" — "Thus have I heard."


I noticed in Buddhist circles on and offline there is talk about "authentic" teachings. How do you view that in light you see some physical books as sacred where I do not?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Interesting. Pure land is remarkably different (a good difference) than the Pali interpretation of boddhisattva.

From this essay (both your post and this good reads) Arahants, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas, the author explains that theravada teachings and mahayana in the

Theravada Buddhism
A Chronology

Below on the link on the page above.

The language of the Theravada canonical texts is Pali (lit., "text"), which is based on a dialect of Middle Indo-Aryan that was probably spoken in central India during the Buddha's time.[7] Ven. Ananda, the Buddha's cousin and close personal attendant, committed the Buddha's sermons (suttas) to memory and thus became a living repository of these teachings.[8] Shortly after the Buddha's death (ca. 480 BCE), five hundred of the most senior monks — including Ananda — convened to recite and verify all the sermons they had heard during the Buddha's forty-five year teaching career.[9]Most of these sermons therefore begin with the disclaimer, "Evam me sutam" — "Thus have I heard."


I noticed in Buddhist circles on and offline there is talk about "authentic" teachings. How do you view that in light you see some physical books as sacred where I do not?

That's a really interesting paper by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi that explores some key concepts of the Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists.

Perhaps the word most applicable for many Buddhists would be the authenticity of particular Buddhist texts rather than sacred.

I like the word sacred and would consider any text that authentically and faithfully reflects the spirit as well as the content of Buddha's Teaching as sacred. Of course the real issue in considering sacredness is whether or not Buddha was a Theist and His Teachings reflected that Theism. If He was simply an ordinary man who through His own efforts, unaided by any Divine Power, achieved nirvana then the word sacred doesn't fit so well, and authentic is better. As I am a Theist, I consider Buddha's Teachings Divinely Inspired and so the writings that best reflect His Teachings are Sacred.

The problem for Buddhists, as I see it, is that they are needing to have this discussion in the first place, and human knowledge and wisdom has superseded the Divine. That to me, is one of the signs, that the Dharma is obscured (even lost) and one of the purposes of the Teachings of the Maitreya Buddha is to restore the Dharma.


Beneath the sala trees at Kusinagara, in his last words to his disciples, the Buddha said:


"Make of yourself a light. Rely upon yourself: do not depend upon anyone else. Make my teachings your light. Rely upon them: do not depend upon any other teaching. Consider your body: Think of its impurity. Knowing that both its pain and its delight are alike causes of suffering, how can you indulge in its desires? Consider your 'self'; think of its transiency; how can you fall into delusion about it and cherish pride and selfishness, knowing that they must all end in inevitable suffering? Consider all substances; can you find among them any enduring 'self'? Are they not all aggregates that sooner or later will break apart and be scattered? Do not be confused by the universality of suffering, but follow my teaching, even after my death, and you will be rid of pain. Do this and you will indeed be my disciples."


2. "My disciples, the teachings that I have given you are never to be forgotten or abandoned. They are always to be treasured, they are to be thought about, they are to be practiced. If you follow these teachings you will always be happy.


http://www.e4thai.com/e4e/images/pdf/theteachingofbuddha.pdf
p 10 - 11

How can we follow the Buddha's Teachings when we no longer have certainty about what He taught and indeed have lost faith that we need His Teachings at all?
 
Last edited:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
@adrian009

I was at the temple reading our prayer book and it reminded me of what you said about The Buddha, as a person, blessing people. We externalized The Buddha and buddhas in visualization. While doing this, The buddha (our enlightened mind) blesses us. Our minds bestow blessings upon ourselves.

It's a Tibetan Tantric practice that's not shared by all traditions. Also, the Jewels are: Enlightenment, Instructions, and Community. The sacred part is how we see them mentally, through mental transformation. Not external but internal.
 
Last edited:

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Perhaps, because its an indefensible belief?
Things seem to be slowing up here. I asked why no Christians show up here to stand up for their belief that Jesus rose physically from the dead. They don't seem to care.

But, for you to say it's "indefensible", is an odd thing to say about a belief of a majority of Christians. If you care, please read the chapter on the resurrection in Josh McDowell's book "Evidence that Demands a Verdict". It's their best defense.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Some pictures from the temple. Bodhisattvas and gods. The photo is of the founder of the tradition. They give reverence to the founder as well.
 

Attachments

  • 20171209_162113.jpg
    20171209_162113.jpg
    635.3 KB · Views: 0
  • 20171209_162025.jpg
    20171209_162025.jpg
    928.1 KB · Views: 0

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Hmm.
Perhaps the word most applicable for many Buddhists would be the authenticity of particular Buddhist texts rather than sacred.

Yes. Buddhist lineages are arguing till this day who has the authentic teachings. I think the Tibetans have scholar debates for this purpose among others. Tibetan Debates

I like the word sacred and would consider any text that authentically and faithfully reflects the spirit as well as the content of Buddha's Teaching as sacred. Of course the real issue in considering sacredness is whether or not Buddha was a Theist and His Teachings reflected that Theism. If He was simply an ordinary man who through His own efforts, unaided by any Divine Power, achieved nirvana then the word sacred doesn't fit so well, and authentic is better. As I am a Theist, I consider Buddha's Teachings Divinely Inspired and so the writings that bes

1. I think sacred is more for divinity. Authenticity refers to originality.

2. The dharma, the physical writings decay, The Dharma does not.

3. The Buddha was a Hindu and polytheist. The issue was not god's existence (Brahma) but that gods did not bring one to enlightenment. Zen and Tibetan Buddhist say gods, devas, demons, etc are obstructions to enlightenment.

4. Siddhartha was an ordinary man. He and as The Buddha was subject to birth, age, sickness, and death (as quoted).

5. The abrahamic god does not grow sick and die.

a. Let me ask. Is Siddhartha Gautama himself inspired by god? Who is he to you?​

6. Siddhartha had a human realization not a godly one.

b. Define Brahma?​

The problem for Buddhists, as I see it, is that they are needing to have this discussion in the first place, and human knowledge and wisdom has superseded the Divine. That to me, is one of the signs, that the Dharma is obscured (even lost) and one of the purposes of the Teachings of the Maitreya Buddha is to restore the Dharma.

7. Sidhartha like all humans have issues. The point of The Dharma was to address human issues. We test the validity of The Dharma by testing the person who gave it.

How can we follow the Buddha's Teachings when we no longer have certainty about what He taught and indeed have lost faith that we need His Teachings at

8. The Dharma: Instructions to train one's mind

9. Most cultures (western included) feel you have to go through ceremonies and practices to train. Unless you don't have a mind :confused: you can (not cant, sorry) be enlightened.

c. Which tradition of Tibetan are you familiar with?​

10. "Buddhists tend to look upon gods in a different way than Westerners. Tibetan gods, one religious scholar wrote, represent "mental states evoked in meditation and ritual, a means of training the mind toward a more accurate appreciation of the human condition." ~Source

11. Tibetan Buddhism (TB) is mixed with folk religion. In our tradition, bodhisattvas are deities. We become the deities. In doing so, we become their mind. As a result, we become The Buddha's mind and The Buddha's goal. Buddha meaning enlightened mind not Siddhartha.

12. I think you're referring to Siddhartha as a great being. Siddhartha is referred to as the historical Buddha. When we refer to The Buddha, we are talking of his enlightenment not the person. (Reference the person to talk of his mind)

d. Is the great being to you Siddhartha?​
 
Last edited:

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Letter
To His aunt, when still so young in years, the Child Bahá'u'lláh wrote this remarkable and most literate letter:-

"He is the Well-Beloved! God willing you are abiding restfully beneath the canopy of Divine mercy, and the tabernacle of His bounty. Although to outward seeming, I am little and cannot write, yet because this Illiterate One is clinging to the Divine Lote tree, He can read without knowledge and write without being taught. And this fact is clear and evident in the spiritual realm to those endowed with insight. Those who are outside have been, and still are, unaware of this mystery."

As a very young child he was aware of who he was.

Regards Tony

This letter is quoted by Mirza Tarazullah Samandari in a book called Nafahat'ul Qods. I don't think the book is translated to English though.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Things seem to be slowing up here. I asked why no Christians show up here to stand up for their belief that Jesus rose physically from the dead. They don't seem to care.

But, for you to say it's "indefensible", is an odd thing to say about a belief of a majority of Christians. If you care, please read the chapter on the resurrection in Josh McDowell's book "Evidence that Demands a Verdict". It's their best defense.


John 6:63 KJV
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

1 Corinthians 15:35 KJV
But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with
what body do they come?

1 Corinthians 15:44 KJV
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Christ had a natural body and a spiritual body. His natural body died and His spiritual body was raised. A very simple truth which the superstitiously inclined have formed into a myth.

The whole reason a physical resurrection has been pushed for so long is that it wins converts and keeps them and appeals to the ego. How often do we hear Christians saying Christ is unique and superior to all other religions because He physically resurrected? We hear more about this nowadays than about Jesus teachings of love.

Today, science and a reasoning mind can refute it easily but in those days of superstition it was very easy to construct such myths.

The church being opposed to science and reason expectedly formulated a superstitious view of things like this and Adam and Eve and other such stories which were meant to teach us a moral lesson and not literal events.

Whatever is stated in the Bible about Christ’s Resurrection can easily be interpreted as a dream and a vision like on Mount Tabor where the disciplines had a ‘vision’ of Moses, Elijah and God.

So too, for any reasonable mind, these things recorded in the Gospels if we look at it with reason and science were visions and dreams nothing more. But those who want to weave superstitious myths around Christ in order to claim superiority will continue to do so for egotistical reasons.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Do you know the source of the English translation above?

David,

The Translation posted was by David Merrick, available on His website, there is no official translation available. Also a note from where the story was originally sourced from said;

"The story is from a book called “The Beloved of the World” Mahbub-i-Alam, published by NSA of Canada, 1992, p.182, Baha’u’llah was 6 or 7 years old. He had written this to one of His relatives and it is uncertain if it was to an aunt. Article written by Abu’l-Qasim Afnan. The reference for the letter is given as “Nafahatu’l-Quds, written in the handwriting of Tarazullah Samandari.

Regards Tony
 
Last edited:

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
1. I think sacred is more for divinity. Authenticity refers to originality.

Agreed.

2. The dharma, the physical writings decay, The Dharma does not.

That's a literal perspective. Is it not possible to have the Teachings available in part but fundamentally misunderstand them? Then consider when entire nations misunderstand the Buddha's Teachings and what might be the signs of a failure to adhere to the truth? Consider the plight of Buddhist nations such as Cambodia and Japan. Despite the exalted Teachings of Buddha they have followed the false gods (false ideologies).

3. The Buddha was a Hindu and polytheist. The issue was not god's existence (Brahma) but that gods did not bring one to enlightenment. Zen and Tibetan Buddhist say gods, devas, demons, etc are obstructions to enlightenment.

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.

4. Siddhartha was an ordinary man. He and as The Buddha was subject to birth, age, sickness, and death (as quoted).

Are you making an assumption here? From an essay you asked me to look at:

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. These differences opened the door, so to speak, to the "cosmic-metaphysical perspective" on the Buddha as a way to understand what accounted for these differences. Once this door was opened up, the Buddha was viewed as the one who brought to consummation the long bodhisattva career extending over countless eons, in which he sacrificed himself in various ways, many times, for the good of others: this is the cosmic aspect of that perspective. Again, he was viewed as the one who arrived at ultimate truth, the Tathāgata who has come from Suchness (tathā + āgata) and gone to Suchness (tathā + gata), and yet who abides nowhere: this is the metaphysical aspect of that perspective. This cosmic-metaphysical perspective then became characteristic of the Mahāyāna.

Arahants, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas

Clearly there are different ways to view the Buddha as some Mahayana Buddhists do.

5. The abrahamic god does not grow sick and die.

a. Let me ask. Is Siddhartha Gautama himself inspired by god? Who is he to you?

Inspiration from a Source that transcends the human is the best way to view the Buddha IMHO.

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.

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.

A Theist perspective makes sense from a comparative religion perspective. (eg the other great religions were inspired or founded by Theists, not atheists)

6. Siddhartha had a human realization not a godly one.

b. Define Brahma?

Some of the quotes I have shared suggest a Godly, not human realisation.

Definitions for Brahma, whether within Hindu or Buddhist traditions are readily available with research.

Brahma - Wikipedia

Brahma (/ˈbrəhmɑː/; Sanskrit: ब्रह्मा, IAST: Brahmā) is a creator god in Hinduism. He has four faces. Brahma is also known as Svayambhu (self-born), Vāgīśa (Lord of Speech), and the creator of the four Vedas, one from each of his mouths.

Brahma is sometimes identified with the
Vedic god Prajapati, as well as linked to Kama and Hiranyagarbha (the cosmic egg). He is more prominently mentioned in the post-Vedic Hindu epics and the mythologies in the Puranas. In the epics, he is conflated with Purusha. Although, Brahma is part of the "Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva" in Trimurti, ancient Hindu scriptures mention multiple trinities of gods or goddesses which do not include Brahma.

Brahmā (Buddhism) - Wikipedia

Brahmā is a leading god (deva) and heavenly king in Buddhism. He was adopted from other Indian religions such as Hinduism that considered him a protector of teachings (dharmapala), and he is never depicted in early Buddhist texts as a creator god.[4] In Buddhist tradition, it was the deity Brahma who appeared before the Buddha and urged him to teach, once the Buddha attained enlightenment but was unsure if he should teach his insights to anyone.[3]

Brahma is a part of the
Buddhist cosmology, and lords over the heavenly realm of rebirth called the Brahmaloka – the most sought after realm for afterlife and reincarnation in Buddhist traditions. Brahma is generally represented in Buddhist culture as a god with four faces and four arms, and variants of him are found in both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhist cultures.

7. Sidhartha like all humans have issues. The point of The Dharma was to address human issues. We test the validity of The Dharma by testing the person who gave it.

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.

Interestingly Buddhists have grappled with the nature of Buddha in much the same way as Christians have considered the nature of Christ.

What is the Trikaya in Buddhism?

Maitreya - Wikipedia

8. The Dharma: Instructions to train one's mind

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.

9. Most cultures (western included) feel you have to go through ceremonies and practices to train. Unless you don't have a mind :confused: you can (not cant, sorry) be enlightened.

c. Which tradition of Tibetan are you familiar with?

As suggested through previous quotes, attaining the pure land and becoming a bodhisattva is impossible without the Buddha's Teaching.

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. Having seen him they ask him what dharmas it takes to be born in the realm of the Buddha Amitābha. Then the Buddha Amitābha says to these bodhisattvas: "If you wish to come and be born in my realm, you must always call me to mind again and again, you must always keep this thought in mind without letting up, and thus you will succeed in coming to be born in my realm.

Pure Land Buddhism - Wikipedia

The Tibetan school I have had a minimal amount of exposure to:

Dhargyey Buddhist Centre

10. "Buddhists tend to look upon gods in a different way than Westerners. Tibetan gods, one religious scholar wrote, represent "mental states evoked in meditation and ritual, a means of training the mind toward a more accurate appreciation of the human condition." ~Source

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.

11. Tibetan Buddhism (TB) is mixed with folk religion. In our tradition, bodhisattvas are deities. We become the deities. In doing so, we become their mind. As a result, we become The Buddha's mind and The Buddha's goal. Buddha meaning enlightened mind not Siddhartha.

That's reasonable.

12. I think you're referring to Siddhartha as a great being. Siddhartha is referred to as the historical Buddha. When we refer to The Buddha, we are talking of his enlightenment not the person. (Reference the person to talk of his mind)

d. Is the great being to you Siddhartha?

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.

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.

Hope the New Year is an excellent one for you and all participants on this thread. :)
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Things seem to be slowing up here. I asked why no Christians show up here to stand up for their belief that Jesus rose physically from the dead. They don't seem to care.

But, for you to say it's "indefensible", is an odd thing to say about a belief of a majority of Christians. If you care, please read the chapter on the resurrection in Josh McDowell's book "Evidence that Demands a Verdict". It's their best defense.

Beliefs in the earth as the centre of the universe, literal creation of the universe in six days, the literal events of Adam and Eve, the literal great flood and Noah's ark, and the literal resurrection are all allegorical stories or myths with profound spiritual meaning. Their literal truth can easily be refuted with sufficient biblical and scientific knowledge. It is true that pages and pages can be written in defence of such beliefs, but that doesn't make them any more plausible.

Do you have a link to the chapter of the book you would like me to read?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
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. :confused:

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'

That's reasonable.

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.
 
Top