Heaven and Nirvana/ Comparative Religion

[cavalier]

I have heard people question whether God and Buddha nature can be equated. Some say no, and others say it depends on what your view of God is. Though I would be interested in views on this, what I really want to ask is, can heaven be equated with nirvana?

Some more question following on from that. Is it a worthwhile pursuit to look for connections between different religions, to seek out things that would seem to support the notion that they all have the same source? Would it be better to simply follow one religion? Is ecumenism a viable religion in its own right?

[Nick the Pilot]

Cavalier, you said,

"I have heard people question whether God and Buddha nature can be equated."

--> I am not a monotheist, so I do not equate God with Buddha-nature.

"...can heaven be equated with nirvana?"

--> I believe in both Heaven and Nirvana. I see no conflict between the two, and both ideas fit into my belief system nicely.

"Is it a worthwhile pursuit to look for connections between different religions, to seek out things that would seem to support the notion that they all have the same source?"

--> I believe all religions DID come from a single source. So, yes, it is a worthwhile pursuit.

"Would it be better to simply follow one religion?"

--> No. Find the commonality between all religions.

"Is ecumenism a viable religion in its own right?"

--> It is not a religion, per se. I say that I belong to no one religion, but I belong to all religions.

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by cavalier

I have heard people question whether God and Buddha nature can be equated. Some say no, and others say it depends on what your view of God is. Though I would be interested in views on this, what I really want to ask is, can heaven be equated with nirvana?

Yes it can but not all will agree.

Some more question following on from that. Is it a worthwhile pursuit to look for connections between different religions, to seek out things that would seem to support the notion that they all have the same source?

It would seem to me to be very effective in helping to eliminate the 'we' and 'them', 'believers' and 'non believers' syndrome that seeks to divide rather than unite people.

Would it be better to simply follow one religion?

Perhaps for some. Others may be to a point where it serves no practical purpose to stay with one.

Is ecumenism a viable religion in its own right?

Can't say but the principle purpose is commendable in my view.

Love and Peace,
JM

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Cavalier,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by cavalier

I have heard people question whether God and Buddha nature can be equated. Some say no, and others say it depends on what your view of God is.

i don't see how any being could equate the two unless they held an invalide understanding of the latter and a strange view of the former.

buddha nature isn't a discrete thing, it is, simply a phrase used to denote the idea that each sentient being in the multiverse has the potential to Awaken and put and end to the cycle.

doesn't sound like any description of a deity that i've ever heard, let alone a creator one.

Though I would be interested in views on this, what I really want to ask is, can heaven be equated with nirvana?

i would say no, not in the least. generally speaking, beings that believe in a heaven believe that there is some aspect of their being which persists, in a substantial way, after the death of the physical form. it is this thing, oft termed a "soul" which goes to heaven.

in Buddha Dharma there is no aspect of being which continues after the ceasing of the physical form, no "soul" to speak of. consequently, Nibbana/Nirvana cannot be a destination or place it is, instead, a state of realization which occurs whilst the physical form is present.

Some more question following on from that. Is it a worthwhile pursuit to look for connections between different religions, to seek out things that would seem to support the notion that they all have the same source?

do they all have to have the same source to be useful to a being? i would suggest that this is not so. i would suggest that the search for commonalities should not lead us to miss the uniqueness of each tradition.

Would it be better to simply follow one religion?

i'll offer a saying from the Cherokee people:

"If you chase two rabbits you will lose them both."

in the Buddha Dharma, at any rate, it is advised that a person be single minded in their pursuit.. a bit different than our modern multi-tasking approach, but there it is.

Is ecumenism a viable religion in its own right?

doesn't seem like it to me but i'm all stick in the mud about that sorta thing, it seems.

metta,

~v

[wil]

Namaste Cav,


I view the Buddha Nature more similar with Christ Consciousness, or Krishna Consciousness, ie access to oneness, your higher self, G!d.

I enjoy seeing similarities and similar origins for the various religions. I would think that most that believe in a Supreme Being, a Creator, also believe that the other religions also stemmed from visions of this creator...often it is just that the others got it wrong or misinterpreted...

I find quite comfort in honoring other religions and beliefs. And quite in tune with my belief of a loving forgiving creator.

[Paladin]

Gee Cav, just gotta ask, whats up with the new avatar?

[cavalier]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> I am not a monotheist, so I do not equate God with Buddha-nature.

Would you explain that a little for me.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

I say that I belong to no one religion, but I belong to all religions.

I like that.

[cavalier]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

buddha nature isn't a discrete thing, it is, simply a phrase used to denote the idea that each sentient being in the multiverse has the potential to Awaken and put and end to the cycle.

Maybe this is just a lack of understanding on my part, but couldn't that be what God is?

Originally Posted by V

i'll offer a saying from the Cherokee people:

"If you chase two rabbits you will lose them both."

Exactly, that's what concerns me, but then I think to myself that maybe the reality is that there aren't two rabbits, or at least not for me. That's why I wonder whether multifaith is, or could be, a viable faith in itself.

[cavalier]

Thanks also to JosephM and wil for your replies and opinions.

Originally Posted by Paladin

Gee Cav, just gotta ask, whats up with the new avatar?

Don't know whether this guy ever made it to the States, his name is Uri Geller. Using the power of his mind, or so he claims, he is able to bend spoons, restart once broken watches, and perhaps some other things as well. Due to the fact that he is simultaneously amazing and absurd, I love the guy.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Cavalier,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by cavalier

Maybe this is just a lack of understanding on my part, but couldn't that be what God is?

i cannot say what your conception of a creator deity is, however, most traditions which posit a creator deity do not liken said deity to sentient beings potential.. they typically view this creator deity as seperate and somewhat different than the stuff of reality, a being in some sense which has intelligence and awareness.

Exactly, that's what concerns me, but then I think to myself that maybe the reality is that there aren't two rabbits, or at least not for me. That's why I wonder whether multifaith is, or could be, a viable faith in itself.

have you ever learned to play an instrument? presuming that you have not, would you think it would be easier to become skilled if you practiced with one instrument or with more than one? how about if those instruments are not related, like wind and strings, for instance?

the Buddhas point in saying that once one comes to a decision they should embark upon their journey in a purposeful way is to address the fact that we, as humans, will always have our periods of fidelity.. or, perhaps, attentiveness to our practice, and our periods where our practice slacks. there is frequent use of the metaphor of a master and an apprentice in the Buddhist praxis and that is the manner in which it was generally taught.

that said, every being is different and has varying capacities and the instructions given to some are not the instructions given to all.

there is a tendency in beings that come from an authoritarian monotheistic tradition to presume that a teaching of the Buddhas is applicable to all Buddhists, at all times. this is not so and, in fact, forms a great deal of the misunderstanding regarding the Buddha Dharma that i often encounter, or so it seems to me.

the unitarian/universalists seem to do well with a mulitfaith approach and there are several modern traditions that seem to be syncrestic blends of various traditions so i suppose it simply comes down to determining if that is the path that will get you to the Other Shore.

good luck in your search!

metta,

~v

[Nick the Pilot]

Cavalier, we discussed,

"I am not a monotheist, so I do not equate God with Buddha-nature. --> Would you explain that a little for me."

--> Boy, this brings up a number of different topics. What is God? What is Buddha-nature? How does a non-monotheist view all of this? I am not sure which topic you are most interested in.

I have decided to look at the there-is-no-Almighty-God aspect of this discussion as it relates to the "non-immutability" of Buddha-nature.

One of the attributes that Almighty God cannot have is something called immutability. (Mutability means the ability to change, and immutablilty means not-changing.)

I believe in something called the Absolute, which is different than Almighty God. Almighty God listens to people, He feels emotion, He becomes aware of worship sent to Him. All of this leads to the fact that Almighty God is not immutable. God changes as a result of all of these things happening.

These things cannot happen to the Absolute. Immutability is a key aspect of the Absolute. It cannot be said the Absolute is in one state one moment, and a different state the next. The argument of immutability is one reason why I reject the idea of a changeable (and non-immutable) Almighty God.

Buddha-nature, on the other hand, is very mutable or changeable. All of us (even the highest of deities) are constantly changing (according to my belief system.) The very nature of Buddha-nature is change.

[cavalier]

Hey Nick, thanks for the reply.

I get what you're saying about Amighty God, and about the Absolute, you explain very well.
Just the last part that I have a question about. Perhaps this reveals a naive understanding but doesn't constancy of the change carry an immutability of its own?
It seems I have another question, what is the function of the Absolute? What does it do?

[Thomas]

Hi all —

Nick — If one's thinking of 'Almighty God' is the God of the Abrahamic Traditions, then there is more to the understanding of the Divine Nature that you may be unaware of.

The idea of The Absolute is contained within apophatic theology, the via negativa as it is known. Invariably attributed to Dionysius the pseudoAreopagite, although properly founded in Scripture as well as early Liturgies and Tradition (the Hymn of Colossians, for example).

Certainly a reading of The Divine Names should prove enlightening on that account!

+++

In Traditional (by which I mean Catholic and Orthodox) theology the Absolute is not that which contains all, but that which transcends all — hence the 'beyond-being' of the Fathers, which puts the Father beyond all determination, the arche anarchos (Principle without Principle) of the Christian theological lexicon — the Son then is Arche or Logos (Principle), hence the Son is all the Father is, yet the Father is greater than the Son.

Thus the Father transcends all qualitative determinations (and herein lies something which is perhaps the topic of another discussion); the title 'Father' does not determine a nature, but a relation, and thus one can use the term 'Father' as a synonym of The Absolute in respect of the relation of The Absolute to the created order, because 'Father' does not limit or define The Absolute ad intra.

The anthropomorphic language of Scripture signifies not so much the aspects of the Father as aspects of apprehension of the Father, in respect of the human person, in his or her spiritual journey (individually or collectively) ... they signify how man sees God, not how God is.

The Absolute, by virtue of its transcendance, is Infinite and Perfect, and which is reflected in the existence of things by their very contingence, their finitude and their diversity. Without the Absolute, there is no existence — and because of the Absolute, in Christian terms things do not ex-ist but sub-sist — the aspect of absoluteness of a thing, its esse or 'is-ness' is what distinguishes it from non-existence before all other consideration ... compared to 'empty' space, each grain of sand is a miraculous proof of God because it exists, as a grain of sand is a subsequent determination of how it exists (cf William Blake, Auguries of Innocence).

The Absolute, intrinsically comprises Infinitude, and it is this Infinitude that radiates — the Philosophers called this 'The Great Chain of Being' whereas in Christianity Divine Plenitude is preferred by virtue of its inclusion of the concept of Immanence.

Only a definition of the Absolute as such can be absolute, and every explanatory description belongs to the relativite and the contingent because it differentiates, but it is not for that reason incorrect, but rather not all-inclusive, being replaceable by another term ... thus God is One, but has many names, as the Divine Litanies testify, not to polytheism but to the Absolute nature of God.

+++

Exemplars of the via negativa, include the Cappadocian Fathers (4th century) notably in the statement that they believe in God, but they do not believe that God exists.

God is beyond the limits of human understanding, and for this reason gnosis in its Christian context does not refer to knowledge, or any operation of the intellective faculty, and this was why the Church refuted the sects which claimed 'secret knowledge' that set them apart from the common stock as practicing elitism and self-aggrandisement.

Gnosis in the direct experience of love (in Western Christianity) or the Energies (in Eastern Christianity), of God.

Other notables are Clement of Alexandria, St Gregory of Nyssa, St John Chrysostom, St Basil the Great ... St John of Damascus employed it when he wrote that the via positiva statements about God reveal "not the nature, but the things around the nature." It continues to be prominent in Eastern Christianity, from Gregory Palamas to Vladimir Lossky.

In the West we have St Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure, Catherine of Siena, Meister Eckhart, perhaps the prince of the apophatic vision, St. John of the Cross, Johann Scotus Eriugena, and such works as The Ascent of Mount Carmel, The Cloud of Unknowing to name but a few...

Thomas

[AndrewX]

It is precisely this love, Thomas, which certain secret societies have been exemplifying, and embodying, since ever the world began! That love lies on the Further Shore of our being, as it were - altogether beyond the human intellect.

This Gnosis, it is understood (well, one hopes), cannot be of any use to us, however, unless we give it a life and an expression in the outer world ... and for that, we do need intellect!

So God's gift of (the seed of) MIND, once stimulated - as long taught in the East - by one Order of the Dhyanis (or `Angels,' Kumaras) ... helps God to accomplish His goal, and us, ours. God seeks the completion of His PLAN for Spiritual, as well as material evolution ... and neither can be fulfilled (at least microcosmically) without MAN.

Remember, since we tend to forget that our Latin is based in this case on Sanskrit, that MAN and MIND come from the same root word - as even our scientists have been able to string together with the epithet, `homo sapiens.' And at what point did homo become sapient? That is certainly open for debate!

But whether we prefer the Eastern teachings which go into complicated detail regarding the various Hierarchies all responsible for our material, intellectual and Spiritual evolutions (truly three distinct, yet interrelated and interdependent tracks of development) ... or a Western model which reduces it all to "And God created man (!)" ... surely there is room for a mutually enriching view and understanding of the Creator(s) - no matter what our faith!

I just think it's important to point out that you are making a straw man, Thomas, of the Gnostic, Theosophical or non-Christian esoteric teachings which emphasize that BEYOND mind, is the Intuition ... the source of Christian Love/Charity, or Buddhist Compassion. And you are keen to point out that there is a distinction, yes.

In the teachings which mean the most to me, these are described as kind of like the two wings of a bird, and thus the 2nd Ray is called the Ray of Love-Wisdom. The Buddha embodied the Wisdom aspect of the 2nd Ray greater than any human being had before him, and the Christ embodied the Love aspect in the same way. But each was a man whose own normal mode of awareness already abided in the Christian Heaven, as well as the Buddhist Nirvana.

Perhaps it is no intentional sacrilege for us to split hairs and fancy the Buddha unwelcome or not at home in God's Kingdom, or to ponder what Christ might make of all this Nirvana business. Yet that's about what it amounts to. If we are just intellectualizing, then sure, we can talk about this stuff till the cows come home. But it'd be a lot more useful to us if we talked to someone who's had an actual samadhi/satori experience ... or perhaps to folks who've had OOBE/NDE experiences.

I have refrained from copying/pasting what HPB had to say on this nonsense of dragging the Absolute down into the mud, and deifying even the lowest of the creative powers ... simply because it will sound like disrespect. But if at once a man could be shown that all his gods and `absolutes' - the grandest conceptions of deity he has ever had, are just that ... THEN Whom, or what, would he (want to) worship? What of the Buddhas, even Adi Buddha, if Adi, it turns out, really wasn't the first?

Perhaps it's cheating to say that, the cycle is Eternal, a never-ending Spiral without beginning or end ... yet that such an image is an obvious tool, just a visualization, to explain that God is Undying, yet that He creates the Cosmos anew, with every breath, only to "destroy" it immediately afterward, with His inbreath.

Siva, the Destroyer, is the HIGHEST aspect of the Hindu Trimurti, remember ... NOT Brahma. And Nirvana, in the East, is understood essentially as CESSATION, which caused it to be misunderstood by the Western mind as NO-action, when in fact it means something more like cessation of all that impedes the working out of the Higher Will, the Will of God. Buddha, of course, served God just as Christ did ... what a Joy it might be to finally let out a sigh of relief, one day, in acceptance that -

- God actually DOES have things a BIT better under control than `we almighty, all-important, yet utterly egotistical and often self-serving creatures' tend to believe!

Yes, we say one thing. But our actions prove that we believe another. Or don't know what to believe!

The forces of ignorance, misunderstanding, cruelty and worse already have help enough in our world ... yet something I came to understand when I was in my twenties is that there IS a Plan. Sometimes, I wonder just how tiny of a little fraction of that Plan I might actually understand, but the rest of the time, I haven't a shadow of a doubt that things are exactly as they need to be - and while this doesn't excuse our wrong actions, words & thoughts, it certainly helps to explain why things are as they are. And NO ONE gets scapegoated!

I also believe that every Great Teacher from 18 million years ago up to Krishna, Buddha, Christ, Mohammad, the Theosophical messengers, and plenty of prophets & messengers since, has emerged from a Divine Center ... more or less aware of being sent by God. Such a Center is more or less identical with Heaven, or Nirvana, but only insomuch as we equate these with a place, knowing intuitively that in fact, they represent states of Being, and/or Aspects of the Divine Consciousness.

Ecumenism, dialogue between the followers of all religions, would make a lot more sense, imho, if an increasing majority of intelligent, enlightened, thoughtful, considerate and committed Workers in the field (of religion, especially) would begin with the radical idea that YES, there IS an underlying, integrating, synthesizing SYSTEM - a PLAN, in short - which God is following, and with which we as thinking, caring human beings can ASSIST IN.

The attitude that God will hand it all to us on a silver platter, or that we're not worthy to receive God's gifts ... just as the mentality that alone, isolated and only the inner recesses of one's being can we attain to Buddhahood/enlightenment/Nirvana ... both of these attitudes, are nothing but blinders on the horse.

The worst that can happen, if we labor, lovingly, to find a common ground and to achieve harmony between, within and amongst the world's religions, is that the fruits of our labor will be precisely this harmony. To expect this to proceed without tension, without conflict on every level - mental, emotional and physical - is unreasonable. But to abandon the effort, or deem it unworthy because, we're all (too) different ... says more, to me, about our faith in God - than our faith in man.

Mankind has shortcomings, this we know. We are far, far from enlightened, as a race. But as Jacob's vision of the Ladder leading to Heaven indicates, increasing enlightenment is our intended future. WE choose, within certain limits, how fast or how slowly we will go, and how painful the journey is along the way. There is Justice, yet our choices affect those around us on many levels, and because of this interrelationship between all beings, the Buddhas, the Christs, the Lords of Compassion, and the Masters of the Wisdom, urge us to play our small part in literally manifesting Heaven on Earth.

I have lived with people who do just that, and have met several dozen in my life, some of them great teachers, but all humble servants ... each one living proof, to me, that there is a loving God, and that each of us is in God's heart, just as God also lives, within the hearts of All.

Thanks for weathering my post ...

Love and Light,

~andrew

[Vajradhara]

Namaste andrew,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

What of the Buddhas, even Adi Buddha, if Adi, it turns out, really wasn't the first?

the term "adi" is a Sanskrit term which means "primordial" not first though primordial can certainly connote that sense. there are several Adi Buddhas which all arose at the same instant, this is detailed in a few Suttas and in the Abidharma section of the canon. the Suttas plainly state that the Buddha Shakyamuni was not the first Buddha to arise nor was he the last.

Buddha, of course, served God just as Christ did

if you could show me some evidence from any Sutta or Sutra that this is so, i'd be quite pleased to see it.

just as the mentality that alone, isolated and only the inner recesses of one's being can we attain to Buddhahood/enlightenment/Nirvana ...

perhaps it would be of some value to read the Suttas on these matters rather than guessing at them. the Doctrine and Discipline is not something that one can guess at and arrive at a valid cognition of the teachings, which the Suttas make quite clear.

metta,

~v