Buddhist response to the Pope

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,



In the book Crossing the Threshold of Hope byPope John Paul II, there are several references to Buddhist teachings or terminology that are obviously based on misunderstandings. Below I will quote those passages from that book, with key points underlined and page numbers cited in square brackets, and provide brief comments. In this way, I hope the misunderstandings will be resolved and proper understanding reached.



1. It must be clear for those who accept Revelation, and in particular the Gospel, that it is better to exist than not to exist. And because of this, in the realm of the Gospel, there is no space for any nirvana, apathy, or resignation. [p. 21]



Comment: Nirvana is complete freedom from suffering and the causes of suffering, and hence, it is beyond the realms of transmigration in the cycle of life-and-death. Look at the life of Sakyamuni Buddha! After he attained Enlightenment he did not become apathetic to or resign from the world of suffering, instead he devoted the rest of his life to teaching people from all walks of life how to obtain ultimate liberation from suffering. To associate nirvana with apathy and resignation is obviously a mistake. God is beyond the suffering in the world, but that kind of transcendental state does not justify labeling apathy or resignation to His existence. If the supreme transcendence of God is understandable, so should the possibility of nirvana without apathy or resignation be.



2. Agnosticism is not atheism; more specifically it is not a systematic atheism, as was Marxist atheism and, in a different context, the atheism of the Enlightenment. [p. 39]



3. Buddhism is in large measure an "atheistic" system. [p. 86]



Comment: Buddhism may be classified as atheistic only in the sense that, due to the absence of a proper referent of a self, it is impossible to justify the identification of a Creator. In fact, the ultimate Buddhist question is not about the existence or nonexistence of the Creator, rather it is asking, how could anyone make a proper reference to any absolute independent identity? In the Buddhist Sutras there are many conventional references to heavenly beings; therefore, if the subject of atheism is not limited to the God but to gods, Buddhism cannot be considered atheistic.



4. Less still is He similar to Buddha, with his denial of all that is created. Buddha is right when he does not see the possibility of human salvation in creation, but he is wrong when, for that reason, he denies that creation has any value for humanity. [p. 43]



Comment: The Buddhist teachings aim at resolving problems at the onset of formation of problems, while the Christian approach is within a given context prescribed by the revelations. Consequently, the Buddhist teachings emphasize the artificial nature of conceptual distinctions and how to attain freedom from such prejudices, while the Christian teachings center around infusing faith in and the defending of fundamental tenets. From the Christian point of view, Buddhist teachings have been brought down to the question of creation and its value, even though in fact Buddhist teachings are focusing around direct experience of reality beyond and before the concept of creation. To say that Buddha was for or against creation is simply missing the point of Buddha's teachings.



5. The various schools of Buddhism recognize the radical inadequacy of this malleable world and teach a way by which men, with devout and trusting hearts, can become capable either of reaching a state of perfect liberation, or of attaining, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. (Nostra Aetate 2) [p. 80]

Comment: The state of perfect liberation is supreme illumination in the sense that all ignorance and consequent sorrows have been eradicated and therefore can no longer cast any shadow of suffering. The Buddhist teachings are abundant with philosophical analyses and dialogues, and in the records of Chan school there are many anecdotes denouncing Buddhas, Sutras and all established formality; in contrast, it is the Christian teachings that require more devout and trusting heart of their followers.

6. Buddha? (Title of a chapter) [p. 84]

Comment: A question mark indicates lack of understanding or doubt. Lack of understanding may be remedied by careful study with an open mind, while doubt may be removed only through understanding the teachings and putting them to practice. Buddha teaches selfless and compassionate service through the activities of his life; did he not set a paradigm of universal love as taught by Jesus?

7. Nevertheless, it needs to be said right away that the doctrines of salvation in Buddhism and Christianity are opposed. [p. 85]

Comment: I have shown earlier that Buddhism and Christianity may share a generalized scheme of salvation. Their differences do not lie in opposing doctrines but in the fundamental approach to providing remedies for human suffering. When Buddhist teachings are thoroughly understood there is no substance to the artificial boundary of subject/object distinction; how could there be any opposition in that state of unity?

8. Nevertheless, both the Buddhist tradition and the methods deriving from it have an almost exclusively negative soteriology. [p. 85]

9. ...a purely negative "enlightenment." [p. 87]

Comment: In the teachings of earlier Buddhism, emphasis was more on the path of purification; nevertheless, the teaching on compassion was conveyed through examples set by the Buddha and his main disciples who travelled far and wide to spread the teachings to people of all kinds. In the teachings of later Buddhism, Mahayana and Tantra, compassion is always emphasized as the foremost element of the quest for Enlightenment. There is nothing negative in these teachings. As to teachings that point out the sorrows of worldly lives, the Bible is no less an abundant reservoir; hence, this kind of teaching is certainly not considered negative by the Pope. The remaining question is: what is negative in Buddhism? When Buddhism is thoroughly understood, the teachings are not assertions about but merely indicators toward the ultimate reality. As indicators the teachings can only be neutral but not negative or positive, and their pedagogical functions are at the discretion of a teacher based on spiritual experiences.

10. The "enlightenment" experienced by Buddha comes down to the conviction that the world is bad, that it is the source of evil and of suffering for man. To liberate oneself from this evil, one must free oneself from this world, necessitating a break with the ties that join us to external reality--ties existing in our human nature, in our psyche, in our bodies. The more we are liberated from these ties, the more we become indifferent to what is in the world, and the more we are freed from suffering, from the evil that has its source in the world. [pp. 85-86]

11. ...we liberate ourselves only through detachment from the world, which is bad. The fullness of such a detachment is not union with God, but what is called nirvana, a state of perfect indifference with regard to the world. To save oneself means, above all, to free oneself from evil by becoming indifferent to the world, which is the source of evil. This is the culmination of the spiritual process. [p. 86]

Comment: Buddha never taught that the world is bad, that it is the source of evil and of suffering. Rather, it is the fundamental ignorance of a sense of self that is taught to be the source of all sorrows and suffering. In Buddhism it is taught that the world is pure when the mind is pure. All the teachings in Buddhism pointing out the sorrows and impermanence of worldly existence can easily be found in the Bible. To free oneself from the dominance of self, a temporary retreat from the world may be helpful for spiritual development; nevertheless, such retreats are not in themselves the ultimate goal. When one is free from conceptual and emotional self-centeredness, one experiences limitless-oneness with all there is. Consequently, one spontaneously devotes one's life to the service of all for their well-being. Freedom from attachment does not result in indifference to the world, but self-centeredness does. In fact, freedom from attachment is the real opening to the world as it is. Compassion for and selfless service to all sentient beings is a key ingredient in Buddhist teachings; how could such teachings lead to indifference to the world?

12. Carmelite mysticism begins at the point where the reflections of Buddha end, together with his instructions for the spiritual life. [p. 87]

Comment: Buddha's teachings point to the ultimate reality without creating limitations by the wordings. Any ending of Buddha's teachings exists only in the eyes of the beholder.

The comments offered above are succinct and may not be readily understood by people who are not familiar with the profound philosophical teachings of Buddhism. Nevertheless, they serve to outline the key points where misunderstanding has occurred and hopefully shed light on the real features of Buddhist teachings. May misunderstanding be removed and understanding increase.

http://www.yogichen.org/efiles/liberate.html

[lunamoth]

Dear Vaj,

Thank you for this interesting piece.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

1. It must be clear for those who accept Revelation, and in particular the Gospel, that it is better to exist than not to exist. And because of this, in the realm of the Gospel, there is no space for any nirvana, apathy, or resignation. [p. 21]

Comment: ...To associate nirvana with apathy and resignation is obviously a mistake. God is beyond the suffering in the world, but that kind of transcendental state does not justify labeling apathy or resignation to His existence. If the supreme transcendence of God is understandable, so should the possibility of nirvana without apathy or resignation be.

I wonder if part of the misunderstanding is because nirvana is sometimes thought of as annihilation. From my limited reading I think that nirvana is not annihilation, but honestly the difference is so subtle that I have a hard time grasping what it is. But the idea of what part of the human consciousness remains after the ego is gone is something I grapple with in Christianity too. From the perspective that nirvana is nothingness, interpretted as annihilation, then one would not experience hope, which would lead to apathy or resignation. The supreme transcendence of God is something that is NOT understandable. Is nirvana understandable?

5. The various schools of Buddhism recognize the radical inadequacy of this malleable world and teach a way by which men, with devout and trusting hearts, can become capable either of reaching a state of perfect liberation, or of attaining, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. (Nostra Aetate 2) [p. 80]

Comment: The state of perfect liberation is supreme illumination in the sense that all ignorance and consequent sorrows have been eradicated and therefore can no longer cast any shadow of suffering. The Buddhist teachings are abundant with philosophical analyses and dialogues, and in the records of Chan school there are many anecdotes denouncing Buddhas, Sutras and all established formality; in contrast, it is the Christian teachings that require more devout and trusting heart of their followers.

Out of context it's hard to discern the problem here. A 'devout and trusting heart' does not necessarily mean that one is trusting in God or the tenets of a particular religion. And I'm not sure that a distinction between perfect liberation and supreme illumination was the main point of that sentence. I think the main criticism of Buddhism in that sentence is that enlightenment is attained by human effort (works).

Buddha teaches selfless and compassionate service through the activities of his life; did he not set a paradigm of universal love as taught by Jesus?

To my understanding, yes.

7. Nevertheless, it needs to be said right away that the doctrines of salvation in Buddhism and Christianity are opposed. [p. 85]

Comment: I have shown earlier that Buddhism and Christianity may share a generalized scheme of salvation. Their differences do not lie in opposing doctrines but in the fundamental approach to providing remedies for human suffering. When Buddhist teachings are thoroughly understood there is no substance to the artificial boundary of subject/object distinction; how could there be any opposition in that state of unity?

I would be interested to hear the Buddhist definition of salvation. Also, can you give the link to what you have shown earlier?

8. Nevertheless, both the Buddhist tradition and the methods deriving from it have an almost exclusively negative soteriology. [p. 85]

9. ...a purely negative "enlightenment." [p. 87]

Comment: In the teachings of earlier Buddhism, emphasis was more on the path of purification; nevertheless, the teaching on compassion was conveyed through examples set by the Buddha and his main disciples who travelled far and wide to spread the teachings to people of all kinds. In the teachings of later Buddhism, Mahayana and Tantra, compassion is always emphasized as the foremost element of the quest for Enlightenment. There is nothing negative in these teachings. As to teachings that point out the sorrows of worldly lives, the Bible is no less an abundant reservoir; hence, this kind of teaching is certainly not considered negative by the Pope. The remaining question is: what is negative in Buddhism? When Buddhism is thoroughly understood, the teachings are not assertions about but merely indicators toward the ultimate reality. As indicators the teachings can only be neutral but not negative or positive, and their pedagogical functions are at the discretion of a teacher based on spiritual experiences.

I have heard it said, from a Christian perspective, that Buddhism is not concerned with making the world a better place, but only in dealing with the suffering that is inherent in the world. Thus, this does seem kind of negative, as opposed to believing that we should try to alleviate suffering however possible (as opposed to just trying to not cause further suffering, which I admit is itself pretty unavoidable). Because I like to try to find harmony between religions I would like very much to understand the Buddhist counter to this argument.

10. The "enlightenment" experienced by Buddha comes down to the conviction that the world is bad, that it is the source of evil and of suffering for man. To liberate oneself from this evil, one must free oneself from this world, necessitating a break with the ties that join us to external reality--ties existing in our human nature, in our psyche, in our bodies. The more we are liberated from these ties, the more we become indifferent to what is in the world, and the more we are freed from suffering, from the evil that has its source in the world. [pp. 85-86]

11. ...we liberate ourselves only through detachment from the world, which is bad. The fullness of such a detachment is not union with God, but what is called nirvana, a state of perfect indifference with regard to the world. To save oneself means, above all, to free oneself from evil by becoming indifferent to the world, which is the source of evil. This is the culmination of the spiritual process. [p. 86]

Comment: Buddha never taught that the world is bad, that it is the source of evil and of suffering. Rather, it is the fundamental ignorance of a sense of self that is taught to be the source of all sorrows and suffering. In Buddhism it is taught that the world is pure when the mind is pure. All the teachings in Buddhism pointing out the sorrows and impermanence of worldly existence can easily be found in the Bible. To free oneself from the dominance of self, a temporary retreat from the world may be helpful for spiritual development; nevertheless, such retreats are not in themselves the ultimate goal. When one is free from conceptual and emotional self-centeredness, one experiences limitless-oneness with all there is. Consequently, one spontaneously devotes one's life to the service of all for their well-being. Freedom from attachment does not result in indifference to the world, but self-centeredness does. In fact, freedom from attachment is the real opening to the world as it is. Compassion for and selfless service to all sentient beings is a key ingredient in Buddhist teachings; how could such teachings lead to indifference to the world?

I think that the Pope's comments do show a misunderstanding of Buddhism, and seem to ignore Christian mysticism as well. And again I think that the main criticism is the apparent focus on one's own efforts in the Buddhist path, rather than trust in God. I see very strong similarities between the teachings of Christ and Buddha, and I see us (humans) getting hung up on the differences, which I usually think of as distractions, and this keeps us from understanding and loving each other as much as Christ and Buddha wanted us to.

lunamoth

[Sacredstar]

Thank you for sharing....

"Buddhist teachings or terminology that are obviously based on misunderstandings."

My view is that there is no misunderstanding from Rome they have a purpose which they are doing their best to fufil negatively.

Comment: To associate nirvana with apathy and resignation is obviously a mistake. God is beyond the suffering in the world, but that kind of transcendental state does not justify labeling apathy or resignation to His existence.

Agreed

Comment: A question mark indicates lack of understanding or doubt. Lack of understanding may be remedied by careful study with an open mind, while doubt may be removed only through understanding the teachings and putting them to practice.

One can practice forever in my view, it is integration of teachings that is more important because then one becomes and acts upon.

Comment:
Buddha teaches selfless and compassionate service through the activities of his life; did he not set a paradigm of universal love as taught by Jesus?

Well there was a big discussion on this recently and a majority of people decided that it was a selfish act of Siddartha to leave his wife and family to satisfy himself. Like people today that leave partners and children for self satisfaction.

Comment: I have shown earlier that Buddhism and Christianity may share a generalized scheme of salvation. Their differences do not lie in opposing doctrines but in the fundamental approach to providing remedies for human suffering.

Agreed and I would add that when people truly understand the real teachings of the mystical Jesus and self mastery of the individual, it is only the terms used that differientate them.

9. ...a purely negative "enlightenment." [p. 87]

Rome have some serious issues and sounds like they are sitting in fear.

Comment: In the teachings of earlier Buddhism, emphasis was more on the path of purification; nevertheless, the teaching on compassion was conveyed through examples set by the Buddha and his main disciples who travelled far and wide to spread the teachings to people of all kinds. In the teachings of later Buddhism, Mahayana and Tantra, compassion is always emphasized as the foremost element of the quest for Enlightenment. There is nothing negative in these teachings. As to teachings that point out the sorrows of worldly lives, the Bible is no less an abundant reservoir; hence, this kind of teaching is certainly not considered negative by the Pope.

Agreed

Comment: In Buddhism it is taught that the world is pure when the mind is pure. All the teachings in Buddhism pointing out the sorrows and impermanence of worldly existence can easily be found in the Bible. To free oneself from the dominance of self, a temporary retreat from the world may be helpful for spiritual development; nevertheless, such retreats are not in themselves the ultimate goal. When one is free from conceptual and emotional self-centeredness, one experiences limitless-oneness with all there is. Consequently, one spontaneously devotes one's life to the service of all for their well-being. Freedom from attachment does not result in indifference to the world, but self-centeredness does. In fact, freedom from attachment is the real opening to the world as it is. Compassion for and selfless service to all sentient beings is a key ingredient in Buddhist teachings.

Totally agree

"May misunderstanding be removed and understanding increase.:

May peace BE with Rome and all people on earth.

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar

[Sacredstar]

Dear Lunamoth,

"Enlightenment cannot be achieved through desire or aspiration. For one has to surrender one's own desires to achieve it."

I view this as the major difference the bible speaks of desire and Buddha teaches us that desire is the cause of pain and suffering and I agree with this based upon the evidence of experience.

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar

[Vajradhara]

Namaste lunamoth,

thank you for the post

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I wonder if part of the misunderstanding is because nirvana is sometimes thought of as annihilation. From my limited reading I think that nirvana is not annihilation, but honestly the difference is so subtle that I have a hard time grasping what it is.

it is often portrayed in this way by beings which do not understand the teaching. it really is difficult to express it in English in a concise fashion.. the most clear explanation, in English, that i can give you, is the Empty Set.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EmptySet.html

if you're not familar with Set Theory, you can read about it here:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SetTheory.html

suffice it to say that, rather than annihilation, Nirvana is a state of infinite becomming.

But the idea of what part of the human consciousness remains after the ego is gone is something I grapple with in Christianity too. From the perspective that nirvana is nothingness, interpretted as annihilation, then one would not experience hope, which would lead to apathy or resignation. The supreme transcendence of God is something that is NOT understandable. Is nirvana understandable?

not really... though we can intellecutally assent to the propsitions, it's not an intellectual exercise... it's a realization... experential knowledge... as my Gnostic Christian friends like to say... it's Gnosis.

I have heard it said, from a Christian perspective, that Buddhism is not concerned with making the world a better place, but only in dealing with the suffering that is inherent in the world. Thus, this does seem kind of negative, as opposed to believing that we should try to alleviate suffering however possible (as opposed to just trying to not cause further suffering, which I admit is itself pretty unavoidable). Because I like to try to find harmony between religions I would like very much to understand the Buddhist counter to this argument.

the counter to this argument is that those Christians that explained Buddhism to you were wrong. is there more to say when the premis is flawed? if your Christian friends are not congnizant of how removing the experience of pain and suffering from the world would make the world a better place, i'm not sure that it can be explained to them.

perhaps, the Bodhisattva Vow could demonstrate our commitment to a "better world" the short version:

However innumerable the sentient beings, I vow to save them all.
However inexhaustible the passions (klesas), I vow to extinguish them all.
However immeasurable the dharmas, I vow to master them all.
However incomparable the truth of the Buddha, I vow to attain it

I think that the Pope's comments do show a misunderstanding of Buddhism, and seem to ignore Christian mysticism as well.

it's my impression that most Catholics ignore the Christian mystics and what they bring to the discussion.

And again I think that the main criticism is the apparent focus on one's own efforts in the Buddhist path, rather than trust in God. I see very strong similarities between the teachings of Christ and Buddha, and I see us (humans) getting hung up on the differences, which I usually think of as distractions, and this keeps us from understanding and loving each other as much as Christ and Buddha wanted us to.

lunamoth

it's quite true that Buddhism and Christanity share alot of common themes, especially in areas of morality and ethics. our metaphysics is really where the difference lies... and, on a day to day, living in the world level... that's really not all that important, in my view.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste SacredStar,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Sacredstar

My view is that there is no misunderstanding from Rome they have a purpose which they are doing their best to fufil negatively.

i see what you're saying... they are purposefully not learning the material correctly.

by the by... to do the qutoing thing it's [ quote = vajradhara ] but take out all the spaces. then, when you're done quoting, you close it like this [/ quote ] without spaces.

Well there was a big discussion on this recently and a majority of people decided that it was a selfish act of Siddartha to leave his wife and family to satisfy himself. Like people today that leave partners and children for self satisfaction.

hmm... do those people realize that both his son and wife joined the Sangha? did they read the Suttas that explained why the Gotama left? i would suppose that they hadn't, or they wouldn't have this view

by the by.. Siddartha is a novel/movie by a fellow named Herman Hesse, the historical Buddhas name is Gotama Shakyamuni.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste SacredStar,

thank you for the post.

i realize that you are responding to lunamoth, however, i hope you won't mind if i interject.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

"Enlightenment cannot be achieved through desire or aspiration. For one has to surrender one's own desires to achieve it."

Originally Posted by sacredstar

I view this as the major difference the bible speaks of desire and Buddha teaches us that desire is the cause of pain and suffering and I agree with this based upon the evidence of experience.

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar

the Buddha did not teach that desire is the cause of pain and suffering. far from it, in fact. it would be pretty nonsensical to teach that we must desire to end desire, don't you think

here's a bit of a cut and paste i did for another site that explains this a bit more fully:

a point that i feel should be brought to the fore, at this particular time, is how the word Dhukka/dukkha is transliterated into English, it is my view that the word "suffering" is not sufficient to capture the full meaning of the word, and it is this transliteration that is creating it's own problems.

people seem to have been caught in this manner quite handily.

so... let's talk about dukkha and what it means. the Buddha described it like this:

"Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."

a more contemporary definition is:

Disturbance, irritation, dejection, worry, despair, fear, dread, anguish, anxiety; vulnerability, injury, inability, inferiority; sickness, aging, decay of body and faculties, senility; pain/pleasure; excitement/boredom; deprivation/excess; desire/frustration, suppression; longing/aimlessness; hope/hopelessness; effort, activity, striving/repression; loss, want, insufficiency/satiety; love/lovelessness, friendlessness; dislike, aversion/attraction; parenthood/childlessness; submission/rebellion; decision/indecisiveness, vacillation, uncertainty.

-- Francis Story in Suffering, in Vol. II of The Three Basic Facts of Existence (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1983)

as we can see.. it's a bit difficult to narrowly pick one word and then move forward from there and hope to be anywhere close to the intended understanding of the term.

logically, we move into what gives rise to dukkha. fortunately, that's pretty straight forward as well, what gives rise to dukkha is tanha. tanha is usually transliterated into English as "craving." here's how the Buddha described it:

"There are these three cravings. Which three? Craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming. These are the three cravings."

interested readers that have a desire to learn more, are directed to this site:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index.html

so.. we see that it's not "desire" per se, that are a problem in Buddhist thinking, it's a particular type of desire, transliterated into English as Craving.

Craving is an interesting word in English, it means to have an intense desire for a particular thing. this thing could be material or emotional or spiritual, the point here is that the mind becomes ensnared by our cravings, and this is what gives rise to our experience of dukkha.

[Sacredstar]

Dear Vajradhara

I really feel craving -v- desire is semantics ! Depending on the way one interprets the meaning of desire it means the same as craving. And desire is closely tied to attachment and you have already mentioned detachment on this thread. What causes Dukkha the suffering, of pain via grief, despair and the other core issues on your list ?

Attachment and desire!

Well it is written in books on Buddhism that Gautama's personal name was Siddhartha are you saying that religious dictionaries and other books on Buddhism are mistaken?

Surely Gnosis comes before emptiness which precedes a Nirvana state of being?

Have you read the Dharani Sutra?

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste SacredStar,

thank you for the post.

i realize that you are responding to lunamoth, however, i hope you won't mind if i interject.

Just for the record, that quote was not from me, but from Sacredstar to me. I am interested in knowing the original source of that quote.

Also, thank you for your replies to my other post above.

perhaps, the Bodhisattva Vow could demonstrate our commitment to a "better world" the short version:

However innumerable the sentient beings, I vow to save them all.
However inexhaustible the passions (klesas), I vow to extinguish them all.
However immeasurable the dharmas, I vow to master them all.
However incomparable the truth of the Buddha, I vow to attain it

Excellent! Thank you.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Sacredstar

"Enlightenment cannot be achieved through desire or aspiration. For one has to surrender one's own desires to achieve it."

Dear Sacredstar, could you please give the reference for this quote?

Cheers,
lunamoth

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Sacredstar,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Sacredstar

Dear Vajradhara

I really feel craving -v- desire is semantics !

perhaps this is so, in English. this is not the case, however, in Sanskrit. and therein lies one of the problems, in my view.

Depending on the way one interprets the meaning of desire it means the same as craving.

this seems to be true in English, i'll grant you.

And desire is closely tied to attachment and you have already mentioned detachment on this thread. What causes Dukkha the suffering, of pain via grief, despair and the other core issues on your list ?

Attachment and desire!

not desire, though, at least in the Sanskrit. perhaps English simply doesn't talk about these things in the way that we do... the language isn't structured in such a fashion as to properly elucidate the full flavors of the Sanskrit terms.

this is why i include the Sanskrit terms... so that the interested reader can research these terms and gain a more proper cognition of their meaning.

Well it is written in books on Buddhism that Gautama's personal name was Siddhartha are you saying that religious dictionaries and other books on Buddhism are mistaken?

book on Buddhism are not Buddhist Suttas/Sutras. there are lots of books on Buddhism, who can say what they all protray? perhaps i should point out that the historical existence of Gotama is fairly irrelevant to Buddha Dharma?

Have you read the Dharani Sutra?

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar

yes, i've read it. its part of the Mahayana Sutras.

[Sacredstar]

Dear Lunamoth

It was a divine source.

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar

[Sacredstar]

Dear Vajradhara

Quote:
"not desire, though, at least in the Sanskrit. perhaps English simply doesn't talk about these things in the way that we do... the language isn't structured in such a fashion as to properly elucidate the full flavors of the Sanskrit terms."

Well I felt you explained it brilliantly above.

So in your view what is the causes of Dukkha/suffering, of pain via grief, despair and the other core issues on your list ?

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar

[Vajradhara]

Namatse Sacredstar,

thank you for the post and the kind words

Originally Posted by Sacredstar

So in your view what is the causes of Dukkha/suffering, of pain via grief, despair and the other core issues on your list ?

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar

what gives rise to dukkha is tanha. tanha is usually transliterated into English as "craving." here's how the Buddha described it:

"There are these three cravings. Which three? Craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming. These are the three cravings."

interested readers that have a desire to learn more, are directed to this site:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index.html

so.. we see that it's not "desire" per se, that are a problem in Buddhist thinking, it's a particular type of desire, transliterated into English as Craving.

Craving is an interesting word in English, it means to have an intense desire for a particular thing. this thing could be material or emotional or spiritual, the point here is that the mind becomes ensnared by our cravings, and this is what gives rise to our experience of dukkha.

now... i should probably say that this explanation is only appropos from the relative view, which is one of the Two Views in Buddhism. from the Absolute side, none of this really applies in this way since there is no "you" that gives rise to Tanha

[Sacredstar]

Dear Vajradhara

I was looking for the Jesus Sutra's but this thread came up and I feel worthy of bringing to the fore once again.

"How to attain freedom from such prejudices"

"Buddhist teachings are focusing around direct experience of reality beyond and before the concept of creation."

"The various schools of Buddhism recognize the radical inadequacy of this malleable world and teach a way by which men, with devout and trusting hearts, can become capable either of reaching a state of perfect liberation, or of attaining, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. (Nostra Aetate 2)"

"Comment: The state of perfect liberation is supreme illumination in the sense that all ignorance and consequent sorrows have been eradicated and therefore can no longer cast any shadow of suffering."

This is exactly what I have been taught by GOD and his messengers although the methods of acheiving this may be different I feel the outcomes are the same.

Blessings in abundance

kim xx