"There is, O monks, an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. Were there not, O monks, this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed. Since, O monks, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, therefore is there an escape from the born, originated, created, formed. What is dependant, that also moves; what is independent does not move" (Udana 8:3).
This talks about emptiness not god and Brahma. It talks about there is nothing to attached to. Changing
and not changing. It's a common sense (well to me) statement that says everything is in constant flux. That fact isn't god related just the laws of life. Also, I learned something about dependent origination. Everything exists because they depend on each other. One doesn't need god to know this?
Nagarjuna, the founder of the Madhyamika school of Buddhism, argues from this passage that without the acceptance of an Ultimate Reality (Paramartha) there can be no deliverance (nirvana) (Madhyamika Karikas, cited in Murti 235).
Ultimate Reality is not god. It's a state of being
of the mind. Without that, there is no rebirth. So, yes, I agree with him. Bahai and Buddhist definition of Ultimate Reality are different. I wouldn't use ultimate to describe it since deliverance (another abrahamic word) is neither ultimate or not ultimate. Free or not Free. It's a state of mind and being not a goal or destination. Soto Zen says you are enlightened when you sit
"Know, Vasettha, that (from time to time) a Tathagata is born into the world, a fully Enlightened One, blessed and worthy, abounding in wisdom and goodness, happy, with knowledge of the world, unsurpassed as a guide to erring mortals, a teacher of gods and men, a Blessed Buddha. He, by himself, thoroughly understands, and sees, as it were, face to face this universe--the world below with all its spirits, and the worlds above, of Mara and of Brahma--and all creatures, Samanas and Brahmins, gods and men, and he makes this knowledge known to others. The truth doth he proclaim both in its letter and in its spirit, lovely in its origin, lovely in its progress, lovely in its consummation: the higher life doth he make known, in all its purity and in all its perfectness" (DN 13:1:44; tr. Davids, Suttas 186-7).
Doth??? Can you give me a sutta link to that because it sounds like its from Bahaullah.
What you're reading is how The disciples see him. It's third-person rather than first. I'd have to read it because that doth threw me off.
This was Buddha's response when asked about the way to attain a state of union with Brahma.
So the Manifestations of God could be like Tathagatas that are the intermediaries between the highest reality and this world. They are thoroughly familiar with the highest reality and can show us the path to that world.
That's the first mistake. Huge one. He doesn't find union with Brahma. If anything, he finds union in Brahman. He uses Hindu words because that was his native religion. When he found Brahma is not the way to Enlightenment and that understanding of life
and death is, Brahma no longer fit the equation. Vinakaya would have to tell you more about Brahman. The Buddha talks about Brahman but like ultimate reality, I think ya'll getting the definitions off.
OOhh my gosh, no. No. No. No. Only
Tathāgata:
Literally, "one who has truly gone
(tatha-gata)" or "one who has become authentic
"(tatha-agata)," an epithet used in ancient India for a person who has attained the highest spiritual goal. In Buddhism, it usually denotes the Buddha, although occasionally it also denotes any of his arahant disciples.
Tathagata refers specifically to The Buddha and those in Buddhism who achieve enlightenment. It's an honorific title.
I wouldn't call Bahaullah the Tathagata because he did not end rebirth especially saying he is from god who is eternal and The Buddha taught
we die.
What are your thoughts about Buddha's words? What are some of His words that would suggest contradictory meanings or support my belief?
Two things: Two different definitions of the same word and using ideas you learn from your wife to apply it to all of Buddhism.
It reminds me of what
@Vinayaka was talking about. Some Hindu sects (forgot the name) are more universalist than others. Some are more open to belief in gods others, probably a few, gods aren't a high point in the belief.
Nichiren Buddhism doesn't give reverence to The buddha at all. All other temples I went to do.
I disagree heavily that The Buddha believes
in god. Only because that's the reason he left hindu to begin with. He didn't agree with their teachings. Brahma and Brahman is two of many in the center of them.