are 'atheists' taking over buddhism?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Nick,

all beings, according to the Buddha Dharma, can experience Nibbana with remainder whilst in this physical form.

i am curious, however...why do you think George Arundales experience is an experience of Nibbana especially as he seems to tie it to some sort of God feeings?

have you read the Buddhas words on this topic?

metta,

~v

[Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine]

bump for tech. difficulties.

*a cute fluffybutt (aka :kitty: ) bumps the thread with his sleek body*

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

[Nick the Pilot]

Vajradhara,You asked,

"i am curious why the prevailing view is that the Buddha Dharma does not contain teachings regarding deities or God...."

--> Buddhism often de-emphasizes what happened billions of years ago, and what will happen billions of years from now, and only deals with what is happening right here, right now. Because the here and now is so emphasized, the other realms, deities, etc., end up being de-emphasized (and that is what attracts a lot of westerners to Buddhism). I am not sure the prevailing view is that Buddhism does not contain teachings regarding deities. I think most westerners get interested in Buddhism because they wish to escape from Christianity, and the last thing they want to hear about is a pantheon of deities. I am sure the prevailing view is that Buddhism does not contain teachings regarding God. Buddhism is widely perceived as not being a monotheistic religion.

"...since a cursory exploration of the Suttas reveals quite the opposite."

--> Are you saying the sutta point to teachings of a monotheistic God?

"...in point of fact one of the other titles of a Buddha is "Teacher of Gods and Men" which would seem to be rather self evident that there are teachings regarding deities."

--> Buddhism definitely teaches about deities. I just feel many people want to de-emphasize deities in their personal belief systems. Many people very much like the idea of only concentrating on the here and now.

"...the Buddha refutes the idea of a Creator God in no uncertain terms, in my opinion."

--> This is certainly the prevailing view of Buddhism in the west.

"...i think that we are still trying to recover from the disservice that Theosophy did to the Buddha Dharma when it tried to bring it to the West as the religion of "enlightenment"...."

--> I thought Buddhism was a religion of enlightenment.

"...and as a completely rationalistic religious paradigm."

--> Theosophy tries to show Buddhism as a religion of rationality, but Buddhism definitely has other aspects.

"...it has led to a strange view that some of the Suttas which deal with metaphysical subjects, such as rebirth, are not "true" Buddhist teachings..."

--> I do not agree. Please share some examples. Millions of Buddhists do not believe in physical rebirth, but I do not think we can blame Theosophy for that. In contrast, Theosophy teaches the idea of physical rebirth in a most vociferous way.

Also, thanks to Theosophy, most westerners think Buddhism teaches reincarnation, and are shocked to find out it does not (I sure was). Most westerners have no idea of the difference between reincarnation and rebirth, a key Buddhist distinction.

"... sort of a later addition which can lead one to some unusual views regarding the Dharma."

--> Again, feel free to share some examples.

"... that should not be understood, however, to mean that beings that have never encountered it or improperly understood the teachings are barred from Liberation, in my view."

--> Do you think the discussion here leads to such a conclusion?

"...all beings, according to the Buddha Dharma, can experience Nibbana with remainder whilst in this physical form."

--> I agree. It does beg the question, however, of what the conditions will be when we finally leave the phsycial world behind forever. This is what Arundale was trying to describe, and his description makes sense to me. Does it make sense to you?

"...i am curious, however...why do you think George Arundales experience is an experience of Nibbana especially as he seems to tie it to some sort of God feelings?"

--> Arundale was part of a group of Theosophists who were very much into Jesus, an Almighty God, etc., etc. Because of this, his writings are very much colored with Christian terminology. When I read his works, I just ignore all the Jesus terminology. When all of the Jesus terminology is set aside, Arundale's writings are quite good. His book is the only book I know that describes conditions within Nirvana, so I like to quote from it.

"have you read the Buddhas words on this topic?"

--> Do you mean Buddha's descriptions of Nirvana?

[Francis king]

see, to me this is the problem- we think nirvana is some transcendental experience, when in truth that transcendental experience would be realising sunyata instead... or so I would think

and yes, there are plenty of sutras which talk about Buddha being in the company of, say, Brahma, and Indra, yet Buddha himself never mentioned such things, and nor did he advise ppl to pray in any kind of sense either

or so I have heard...

[MindFreak666]

I agree that alot of people nowadays distort buddhism and disregard things the Buddha taught, according to their own personal beliefs. I've met buddhists who don't believe in psychic powers, but the Buddha displayed them and talked about them very often. He did say that they are not the point of the spiritual life but very real none the less. And there are many examples of this, people distorting buddhism according to their own beliefs, seperate from buddhism.
But regardless of all this, the Buddha said that the Dharma exists whether theres a tathagata in the world or not.
We are all bound for our own awakening, some people are just closer than others, and for those who are farther away, it is harder for them to grasp the meaning of some of the scriptures. Plus alot of people get there ideas of buddhism from other people rather than the scriptures themselves.

Also, about Buddha being a teacher of gods and men. All the ancient civilizations described the gods as being very real, they have appearance and they interact in a very human-like way. In the suttas, Buddha talks to them often, as if they were people. The appear too many times in the suttas to ignore.
Many people, including yours truly, believe that extraterrestrials used to be among us and that they were the "gods" of the past. Far from perfect but more technically advanced. If this sounds far fetched, keep in mind there are pictures of UFOs inside the pyramids, and drawn on cave walls.
I think alot of confusion also comes from the fact that in the suttas, many things that were common back then, and common knowledge, are myth now and so people do not understand, or make their own conclusions about these things. But these aren't the point of buddhism, and alot of people get tied up in those things rather than the main point of buddhism, studying and training, and developing the mind, leading to "awakening". I prefer to use awakening rather than enlightenment because enlightenment for whatever reason seems to confuse some people, even though they are refering to the same thing. Remember that Buddha means one who is awake and the actually experience of waking up he called "bodhi". Not many people ever refer to this word, its always Nibbana, but bodhi is the actual experience. Nibbana is what is after.

[Nick the Pilot]

Mind,

Forgive me for using Mahayana spellings like Nirvana instead of Nibbana.

Do you you see Enlightenment and Nirvana as the same thing? (I do not.)

Hey, Vajradhara, do you see a difference between Enlightenment and Nirvana?

[MindFreak666]

hi Nick, No I dont believe they are the same. As I said enlightenment, or awakening, is the initial experience and nirvana is the state that one is in after the experience.

[Nick the Pilot]

Mind,

Is there a Theravdan equivalent for a Bodhisattva, a person who achieves Enlightenment, yet forsakes Nirvana in order to stay here in the physical world and help people?

[MindFreak666]

Well in the theravadan scriptures, the word bodhisattva is used quite often to describe someone who is on the path, searching for "bodhi". It does not talk about putting off final nibbana to help others but because not everyone will put off nibbana to help others perhaps the teachings in the pali canon are just meant for getting everyone to reach "awakening" without worrying what they will do after. Im not that familiar with the Mahayana scriptures you'll have to excuse me.

[Nick the Pilot]

Mind,

Oh, OK. A Bodhisattva in Mahayana is just like I said, a person who forsakes Nirvana in order to stay here in the physical world and help people. It is a key teaching in Mahayana. It is common in some traditions within Mahayana for members to take what is called the Bodhisattva Vow.

As long as there is suffering
As long as there are sentient beings in the 6 realms
May I never attain Enlightenment
And never cross over into Nirvana

By the way, they seem to view Enlightenment as just the first moment of awakening, and Nirvana as a continuing state thereafter, just as you do.

It has been said the Bodhisattva Vow is one of the key differences between Theravada and Mahayana.

[MindFreak666]

Yes I am familiar with the vows, and some of the basic differences between the two, I just havent studied the scriptures as much as I have the theravadan scriptures.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> Buddhism often de-emphasizes what happened billions of years ago, and what will happen billions of years from now, and only deals with what is happening right here, right now. Because the here and now is so emphasized, the other realms, deities, etc., end up being de-emphasized (and that is what attracts a lot of westerners to Buddhism). I am not sure the prevailing view is that Buddhism does not contain teachings regarding deities. I think most westerners get interested in Buddhism because they wish to escape from Christianity, and the last thing they want to hear about is a pantheon of deities. I am sure the prevailing view is that Buddhism does not contain teachings regarding God. Buddhism is widely perceived as not being a monotheistic religion.

which is good since Buddha Dharma is not monotheistic. there are other options there.. polytheism and henotheism to name a few and given the lucidity of the other teachings one would tend to think that if Buddha Shakyamuni were intent on teaching the worship of beings, he would have done so.

however, it would be strange to simply leave the subject of a Creator Deity out of the discussion as that was the culture millieu into which he arose. more tellingly, however, is that his critiques of the myth of a Creator God are philosophical rejections directed to the philosophical Vedanta traditions that had arisen at that time.

Are you saying the sutta point to teachings of a monotheistic God?

i'm saying that the Suttas are not silent about this subject in the manner in which is it oft portrayed.

Buddhism definitely teaches about deities. I just feel many people want to de-emphasize deities in their personal belief systems. Many people very much like the idea of only concentrating on the here and now.

within the cultural millieu in which Buddha Shakyamuni arose, deities were part of everyday life.. not some far in the future afterlife state.. deities were involved with humans, to varying degrees, on an daily basis so i think that the view that deities are only in the afterlife is an artifact from non-Buddhist philosophical traditions.

"...the Buddha refutes the idea of a Creator God in no uncertain terms, in my opinion."

--> This is certainly the prevailing view of Buddhism in the west.

i'm unaware of a single Buddhist text which supports the idea of a single Creator Deity from which all things issue forth.

--> I thought Buddhism was a religion of enlightenment.

not even a little bit. in point of fact, you will never find the term "enlightenment" in the Buddhist Tipitaka as it simply isn't present.

in any event, when Buddhism was introduced to the West it was during the period of Western history called "The Enlightenment" period which placed an emphasis on scientific rationality. in order to make it more palatable to the rationalistic beings of that time, the word 'enlightenment' got stuck to it and there it is.

interestingly, the term Enlightenment has two distinct meanings in English:

Enlightenment (or brightening) broadly means the acquisition of new wisdom or understanding enabling clarity of perception. However, the English word covers two concepts which can be quite distinct: religious or spiritual enlightenment (German: Erleuchtung) and secular or intellectual enlightenment (German: Aufklärung). This can cause confusion, since those who claim intellectual enlightenment often reject spiritual concepts altogether.

Enlightenment (concept - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I do not agree. Please share some examples. Millions of Buddhists do not believe in physical rebirth, but I do not think we can blame Theosophy for that. In contrast, Theosophy teaches the idea of physical rebirth in a most vociferous way.

what do you not agree with? that there are teachings which beings do not accept as "authentic" teachings of the Buddha because they deal with topics such as rebirth? If so, i would point you to a book called "Buddhsim without Beliefs" and several other popular books written by Western rationalist Buddhists.

Buddha Dharma does *not* teach physical rebirth.

Also, thanks to Theosophy, most westerners think Buddhism teaches reincarnation, and are shocked to find out it does not (I sure was). Most westerners have no idea of the difference between reincarnation and rebirth, a key Buddhist distinction.

oh i quite agree there.

--> Again, feel free to share some examples.

that rebirth isn't a correct teaching, for instance. that karma means 'you reap what you so' and so forth.

I agree. It does beg the question, however, of what the conditions will be when we finally leave the phsycial world behind forever. This is what Arundale was trying to describe, and his description makes sense to me. Does it make sense to you?

not in the least.

Do you mean Buddha's descriptions of Nirvana?

yes.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Francis,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Francis king

see, to me this is the problem- we think nirvana is some transcendental experience, when in truth that transcendental experience would be realising sunyata instead... or so I would think

indeed.

and yes, there are plenty of sutras which talk about Buddha being in the company of, say, Brahma, and Indra, yet Buddha himself never mentioned such things, and nor did he advise ppl to pray in any kind of sense either

or so I have heard...

no value in worshipping or praying to beings that are in, essentially, the same condition as we.

as for not mentioning such things, there are several Suttas which relate the Buddhas views regarding deities and his interaction with them, here's an excerpt from the DN 11, the Kevatta Sutta:

"Once, Kevatta, this train of thought arose in the awareness of a certain monk in this very community of monks: 'Where do these four great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease without remainder?'


Then he attained to such a state of concentration that the way leading to the gods appeared in his centered mind. So he approached the gods of the retinue of the Four Great Kings and, on arrival, asked them, 'Friends, where do these four great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease without remainder?'

"When this was said, the gods of the retinue of the Four Great Kings said to the monk, 'We also don't know where the four great elements... cease without remainder. But there are the Four Great Kings who are higher and more sublime than we. They should know where the four great elements... cease without remainder.'

"So the monk approached the Four Great Kings and, on arrival, asked them, 'Friends, where do these four great elements... cease without remainder?'
"When this was said, the Four Great Kings said to the monk, 'We also don't know where the four great elements... cease without remainder. But there are the gods of the Thirty-three who are higher and more sublime than we. They should know...'

"So the monk approached the gods of the Thirty-three and, on arrival, asked them, 'Friends, where do these four great elements... cease without remainder?'

"When this was said, the gods of the Thirty-three said to the monk, 'We also don't know where the four great elements... cease without remainder. But there is Sakka, the ruler of the gods, who is higher and more sublime than we. He should know... '

"So the monk approached Sakka, the ruler of the gods, and, on arrival, asked him, 'Friend, where do these four great elements... cease without remainder?'
"When this was said, Sakka, the ruler of the gods, said to the monk, 'I also don't know where the four great elements... cease without remainder. But there are the Yama gods who are higher and more sublime than I. They should know...'

which concludes with:

"Then — just as a strong man might extend his flexed arm or flex his extended arm — the monk disappeared from the Brahma world and immediately appeared in front of me. Having bowed down to me, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to me, 'Lord, where do these four great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease without remainder?'

....

"'Your question should not be phrased in this way: Where do these four great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease without remainder? Instead, it should be phrased like this:
Where do water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing?
Where are long & short,
coarse & fine,
fair & foul,
name & form
brought to an end?
"'And the answer to that is:
Consciousness without feature, without end,
luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing.
Here long & short
coarse & fine
fair & foul
name & form
are all brought to an end.
With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness
each is here brought to an end.'"

DN 11: Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Hey, Vajradhara, do you see a difference between Enlightenment and Nirvana?

yes. one is the equillivent experience of arriving whilst the other is the equillivent experience of dwelling.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Mind,

Is there a Theravdan equivalent for a Bodhisattva, a person who achieves Enlightenment, yet forsakes Nirvana in order to stay here in the physical world and help people?

the Theavedan tradition contains the teachings of the Bodhisattva and there is no equillivent of this being. in the Theravedan Suttas, Buddha Shakyamuni describes his past arising as a Bodhisattva.

metta,

~v