If the Buddha discovered....

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by moseslmpg

I'm pretty sure karma is not supposed to be thought of as a commodity that can be stored or exhausted.

Karma is action, specifically volitional action and its consequences. It is considered a law, as in e=mc2. The action is "stored" until its consequences manifest themselves, which may be anytime between immediately and after our death / in another life (if we believe in that). When the consequences have played out one could say that it has been "exhausted", although this is not a usual term for it. Other than that, I refer the reader to seattlegal's madness and vexation post!

Snoopy.

[jiii]

Snoopy:

Indeed, I have used the term loosely. Though, either way, I might add...a literal belief in any such thing is still not necessary for a Buddhist.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by moseslmpg

Snoopy, I think that you misinterpreted Buddha. There is a eternal soul principle of some sort, which is most likely permanent from an objective point of view, but ever changing from our subjective points of view. I think it's called the Brahman in Hinduism. Buddhism is very confusing to me on this topic though, so I don't know what to equate the Brahman with.

Hi moseslmpg,
The fundamental concept of all Buddhist philosophy is dependent origination (pratitya samutpada). This basically says that all phenomena (physical and mental) are interconnected in an endless flux of cause and effect. This gives rise to what are called the three marks (or seals) of all conditioned existence. One: Everything is in a constant process of change, nothing is permanent (anicca). Two: Therefore nothing has independent existence in and of itself, independent of other phenonmona; thus there is actually no abiding “self” (anatta). Three: As everything is always changing and nothing is permanent, if we attempt to cling onto an illusion of a permanent self (and world) we experience dissatisfaction and suffering (dukkha).
I know little of Hindu beliefs. At its foundation, Hinduism posits the notion of a single divine reality (the Brahman) and an immortal soul or self (the Atman). The Buddhist analysis rejects both of these ideas and therefore constitutes a fundamental difference between the two, I believe.

Snoopy.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by jiii

Snoopy:

Indeed, I have used the term loosely. Though, either way, I might add...a literal belief in any such thing is still not necessary for a Buddhist.

I agree!

[moseslmpg]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Karma is action, specifically volitional action and its consequences. It is considered a law, as in e=mc2. The action is "stored" until its consequences manifest themselves, which may be anytime between immediately and after our death / in another life (if we believe in that). When the consequences have played out one could say that it has been "exhausted", although this is not a usual term for it. Other than that, I refer the reader to seattlegal's madness and vexation post!

Snoopy.

Well, I meant that you can't run out of karma or give it to someone. So yeah, it is an action not an object or quantity of something.

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Hi moseslmpg,
The fundamental concept of all Buddhist philosophy is dependent origination (pratitya samutpada). This basically says that all phenomena (physical and mental) are interconnected in an endless flux of cause and effect. This gives rise to what are called the three marks (or seals) of all conditioned existence. One: Everything is in a constant process of change, nothing is permanent (anicca). Two: Therefore nothing has independent existence in and of itself, independent of other phenonmona; thus there is actually no abiding “self” (anatta). Three: As everything is always changing and nothing is permanent, if we attempt to cling onto an illusion of a permanent self (and world) we experience dissatisfaction and suffering (dukkha).
I know little of Hindu beliefs. At its foundation, Hinduism posits the notion of a single divine reality (the Brahman) and an immortal soul or self (the Atman). The Buddhist analysis rejects both of these ideas and therefore constitutes a fundamental difference between the two, I believe.

Snoopy.

OK, then what about Nirvana and what about attachement to the fact that nothing is permanent? Nirvana is supposedly outside of samsara with no death, and saying that everything is constantly changing all the time is the same as saying that this happens permanently, i.e. there is never a time when things will not change. I understand that nothing simply is, but always becoming, but does that include the medium in which everything is becoming? Did the Buddha state this as an absolute truth or merely a truth used in the furtherance of development towards enlightenment? I would assume the latter, but I admittedly know little of the subject.

I don't see the problem of having the Brahman permanent and always changing at the same time. It's like the perceived difference within the Not or The All of Qabalah and Hermeticism respectively.

[Snoopy]

Hi,

I'm not sure what you mean by "the medium"; but presumably the answer is "yes" because dependent origination and the three seals refer to all conditioned phenomena. As so "how" they are stated; the third seal (dukkha) is the first of the four noble truths. The fourth noble truth is the eightfold path; said to be the path to enlightenment, to nibbana, the deathless, escape from samsara. That's what it says on the tin, anyhow.

Snoopy.

[moseslmpg]

What do you mean by conditioned existence? Is there unconditiond existence?

By medium, I mean the "stream" down which everything flows. The thing in which everything is forever changing is not changing, or else things within it would cease to change for a time. Of course, if the Buddha meant that even the nature of things to be always changing also changed, thus making something unchanging, then I give up.

The second part, how he stated it, relates to what jiii said. The Buddha was concerned with enlightenment right? So I was saying that it is possible that his statements about the Brahman or whatever were not meant to be thought of as absolute truths but were not important either way with respect to enlightenment (except in the case of clinging leading to dukkha, of course). That is, he stated things from a pragmatic point of view, so people would get results but not necessarily so he could teach people the absolute truth. I'm not calling him a liar per se, just putting forth the idea that it could be one of those noble lies. I apologize if I offended anyone though.

[Snoopy]

What do you mean by conditioned existence? Is there unconditioned existence?

I think it is meant that all existence is conditional, at least in samsara.

By medium, I mean the "stream" down which everything flows. The thing in which everything is forever changing is not changing, or else things within it would cease to change for a time. Of course, if the Buddha meant that even the nature of things to be always changing also changed, thus making something unchanging, then I give up.

I am not aware that the Buddha referred to a stream as you say it. I can only reiterate that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent and constantly changing. But don't give up!

The second part, how he stated it, relates to what jiii said. The Buddha was concerned with enlightenment right? So I was saying that it is possible that his statements about the Brahman

(the Buddha rejected the notion of the Brahman I believe)

or whatever were not meant to be thought of as absolute truths but were not important either way with respect to enlightenment (except in the case of clinging leading to dukkha, of course). That is, he stated things from a pragmatic point of view, so people would get results but not necessarily so he could teach people the absolute truth. I'm not calling him a liar per se, just putting forth the idea that it could be one of those noble lies (noble lies?!). I apologize if I offended anyone though.

The Buddha taught relative (pragmatic) and absolute truth and altered his teachings depending on who he was talking to. However, I think the truths as he called them were meant to be just that, truths. He also wanted each individual to assess them for themselves.

Snoopy.

[jiii]

Originally Posted by moseslmpg

The second part, how he stated it, relates to what jiii said. The Buddha was concerned with enlightenment right? So I was saying that it is possible that his statements about the Brahman or whatever were not meant to be thought of as absolute truths but were not important either way with respect to enlightenment (except in the case of clinging leading to dukkha, of course). That is, he stated things from a pragmatic point of view, so people would get results but not necessarily so he could teach people the absolute truth. I'm not calling him a liar per se, just putting forth the idea that it could be one of those noble lies. I apologize if I offended anyone though.

I don't know if you are apologizing to me, but there were certainly no harsh feelings whatsoever. It's all good, moseslmpg .

Anyhow, I don't think the Buddha ever discoursed upon Brahman. He neither rejected or accepted Brahman. As you say, he was unconcerned with Brahman. He took no stance on that issue, really.

As Snoopy mentioned, the Buddha taught both relative and absolute truth, categorically speaking. But really, he was not concerned with distinguishing between the two. There was not really any specific absolute truth that the Buddha sought to teach people. Certain things that he said might be interpreted as absolute or relative statements of truth, but if there was any singular truth to the Buddha's teachings, it was that truth could not be transmitted, only realized. Thus, the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism, for instance, aren't to be interpreted as absolute truths. They are more like propositions put forth for a person to examine for themselves...pointers toward that to which the Buddha sought to guide others.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

interesting conversation..

the topic of what it is that experiences rebirth it taken up in the Abidharma section of the canon and is dealt with in a very extensive manner. though we do need to make a linguistic distinction between rebirth and reincarnation as the latter implies an aspect of being that is unchanging and continues to incarnate from arising to arising; this is a Sanatana Dharma view. There are several Suttas from the Doctrine section that also deal with what it is that continues from arising to arising and how it is that karma from one arising effects another. just as a point of interest, karma persists for 7 rebirths after which point it is spent. Of course, we are continually generating new karma so it is pretty much endless for the bulk of beings at this present time.

several of the Pali canon Suttas talk directly about the varous deities and gods that inhabit the higher planes and, in point of fact, there are several discourses where the Buddha Shakyamuni explicitly talks about MahaBrahma and the various deities that all view themselves as "the ground of being". in one of the more famous ones, one of Brahmas Avatars comes to the Buddha to ask him to bring the Dharma to the Gods so that they, too, can become Liberated.

one of the more difficult issues in discussion is that beings are, necessairly, in different places upon their spiritual journey and, as such, those beings require a different sort of teaching than a being that is just starting their journey. since the Buddha Dharma contains a structured, progressive teaching motif it can be confusing for someone that is further along to explain "what it means" to someone that is just starting.

as Tariki mention, the real fundamental issue that is needing to be resolved is the "I-making", which is a form of eternalism and the "No-making" which is a form of nihilism. the consumate view, in the Buddhist doctrine, is "No View".

this is related in a very pithy simlie from the Ch'an tradition:

When you first practice Zen, mountains are mountains.
After some attainment, mountains are no longer mountains.
Once you have reached the Other Shore, mountains are mountains.

in many ways the teachings that the Buddhas have left behind are like bits of tile used to knock on the door. Once the door is opened we can leave the bits of title behind. Though we find those bits of tile pretty darned useful for knocking

metta,

~v

[moseslmpg]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

What do you mean by conditioned existence? Is there unconditioned existence?

I think it is meant that all existence is conditional, at least in samsara.

By medium, I mean the "stream" down which everything flows. The thing in which everything is forever changing is not changing, or else things within it would cease to change for a time. Of course, if the Buddha meant that even the nature of things to be always changing also changed, thus making something unchanging, then I give up.

I am not aware that the Buddha referred to a stream as you say it. I can only reiterate that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent and constantly changing. But don't give up!

The second part, how he stated it, relates to what jiii said. The Buddha was concerned with enlightenment right? So I was saying that it is possible that his statements about the Brahman

(the Buddha rejected the notion of the Brahman I believe)

Here is the stream thing, I guess the Buddha didn't actually say it though. It's from Wikipedia:
"The Buddha emphasized that the atman is like a mountain stream, which flows fast and is forever changing. There is no being (sat), there is only becoming (bhava) in it. The arising (uppaada), disappearance (vyaya) and changing of what exists (a~n~natatha) are the three signs of compounded things. The belief in a permanent self (atman) not only negates the activities of moral life but also falls in a form of grasping, a hindrance to spiritual liberation"

See, I understand that the atman is not permanent, being the individual self and all, but the stream is permanently changing. What I'm trying to find out is if the stream equates to anything in this analogy. I want to know if there is the notion of an Absolute principle which changes within itself, but is permanent in its being, like The All or the Not. I guess it would be called unconditional existence.

As for the Brahman thing, I know he rejected it but I have no idea what to call what I'm trying to find out about.

Originally Posted by jiii

I don't know if you are apologizing to me, but there were certainly no harsh feelings whatsoever. It's all good, moseslmpg .

Anyhow, I don't think the Buddha ever discoursed upon Brahman. He neither rejected or accepted Brahman. As you say, he was unconcerned with Brahman. He took no stance on that issue, really.

Well, I was apologizing to anyone that may have had an attachment to the Buddha as a person. Of course, I'm sure that most of you here do not being that desire leads to dukkha and if you meet Buddha on the road you should kill him, etc. I just wanted to cover all my bases though, in case someone thought I was questioning the Buddha's moral character.

If he never discussed the Brahman, neither rejecting it nor accepting it, then I am fine. I am just trying to find out if he did make a final judgement on the subject, and what were the possible reasons and implications for this. The Wikipedia article makes it seem like he was pretty sure about this on some occasions.


Hey Vajradhara, where does it say that karma persists for only 7 rebirths? Is it a pretty well-agree upon thing? Also, what would happen when you had no karma, because it was my understanding that good karma was good, of course I suppose any kind of karma keeps you inside of samsara right?

[jiii]

Originally Posted by moseslmpg

If he never discussed the Brahman, neither rejecting it nor accepting it, then I am fine. I am just trying to find out if he did make a final judgement on the subject, and what were the possible reasons and implications for this. The Wikipedia article makes it seem like he was pretty sure about this on some occasions.

Alright, I read through the Wikipedia article. So, I will clarify.

Frankly, the article says much about the Buddha and Brahman, but what it doesn't really say is that the Buddha outright rejected Brahman. Now, admittedly, I wasn't familiar with the particular writings mentioned where the Buddha spoke about Brahman, though I'm not really surprised. My point here, however, referred to your last post's specific inquiry, really.

I am just trying to find out if he did make a final judgement on the subject...

You will find that he did not. It would seem that you are asking, roughly," Is it an essential Buddhist belief that Brahman was to be rejected?" Absolutely not, in the sense there was no reason to affirm or deny Brahman...no need to decide. The Buddha's 'doctrine', if we can loosely call it so, did not include affirmations or rejections of Gods, even though it did speak of Gods. Buddhism does not formally accept or reject the existence of Gods, but it had no problem speaking about them (and did so VERY, VERY often).

Now, if the Buddha was asked about Brahman by someone, that's a different story. Consider this short excerpt from the Lotus Sutra: "Good sons! Whenever living beings came to me, I beheld with a Buddha's eyes all of the faculties, keen or dull, of their faith, and so forth; I explained to them, in stage after stage, according to their capacity and degree of salvation, my different names and the length of my lives, and moreover plainly stated that I must enter Nirvana." The Buddha was not concerned with beliefs of various faiths, only whether or not the man standing plainly before him making an inquiry has attained Nirvana. If he had not, then the Buddha would speak on communion with Brahman as being confused as a final state. If the Hindu that he met with had attained Nirvana, however, he would not bother in the least bit to ramble on and on about the relative incompleteness of Brahman communion.

The Buddha talked very much about beliefs that were brought to him by inquiry, but ultimately, little or none of these beliefs were actually part of some kind of Buddhist 'doctrine'. He was merely answering questions, sometimes using the terms of questioners to make his answer as clear as possible, in accordance with their capacity. If they had to hear about Brahman because they would've rejected completely an answer that avoided Brahman, then he talked about Brahman. But, you will not find in Buddhism a uniform opinion concerning affirmation or rejection of Brahman that permeated all various sects and eras of Buddhist thought.

I hope I've been able to clear up my original post a little bit, moseslmpg.

[moseslmpg]

OK thanks, jiii. That clears up a lot of things for me. Buddhism is sort of like the user's manual to achieving enlightenment I suppose, in that it doesn't bore you with extraneous details. I guess the closest it comes to a realm of unconditional existence is Nirvana (from a totally irrelevant intellectual point of view, of course ).

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Jiii,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by jiii

Alright, I read through the Wikipedia article. So, I will clarify.

Frankly, the article says much about the Buddha and Brahman, but what it doesn't really say is that the Buddha outright rejected Brahman. Now, admittedly, I wasn't familiar with the particular writings mentioned where the Buddha spoke about Brahman, though I'm not really surprised. My point here, however, referred to your last post's specific inquiry, really.

I am just trying to find out if he did make a final judgement on the subject...

You will find that he did not.

actually, whilst that seems to be correct it actually is not. You sort of cover this later in your post. it really depends upon the being that is putting the question to the Buddha regarding this topic. if the being were of inferior capacity, the Buddha simply replied with "noble silence." if the being were of middling capacity, the Buddha rejected the views of eternalism and nihilism and affirmed the idea of karma and vipaka, for those of greater capacity, the Buddha taught that there was no "ultimate ground of being", no creator deity and no beginning discernable.

let me further add that the Buddhas rejection of a creator deity is not strictly a religious objecton. it is also a philosophical objection as the notion of a creator deity is antithical to the world view of becomming which characterize the four Buddhist philosophical schools.

The Buddha's 'doctrine', if we can loosely call it so, did not include affirmations or rejections of Gods, even though it did speak of Gods. Buddhism does not formally accept or reject the existence of Gods, but it had no problem speaking about them (and did so VERY, VERY often).

the Suttas relate that the tradition is called "The Doctrine and Discipline" by the Buddha so it very much has a core doctrine which is upheld as being correct.

the Tipitaka affirms the existence of deities and devas yet it denies the existence of a Creator Deity. the English language word "gods" or "god" connote beings which are not really the same, generally speaking, as the sorts of deities which are talked about. in any event, the Suttas relate the Buddha Shakyamuni being the teacher of men and gods/devas and several of them relate the Buddha ascending to the heavenly states to teach the Dharma to the gods.

in terms of ones day to day practice, however, such considerations are not really relevant.

metta,

~v

[jiii]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

actually, whilst that seems to be correct it actually is not. You sort of cover this later in your post. it really depends upon the being that is putting the question to the Buddha regarding this topic. if the being were of inferior capacity, the Buddha simply replied with "noble silence." if the being were of middling capacity, the Buddha rejected the views of eternalism and nihilism and affirmed the idea of karma and vipaka, for those of greater capacity, the Buddha taught that there was no "ultimate ground of being", no creator deity and no beginning discernable.

Well, okay...what I was trying to put forth was mostly that, although the Buddha didn't go out of his way to avoid speaking about gods, such things were not a dogmatic belief...and as such, not 'final', really. One Buddhist might be very familiar with a large system of deities, but the next Buddhist might rarely mention them, even know little of them...both could, hypothetically speaking, attain Nirvana no different from the other. Vadradhara, correct me if I'm wrong here. Take the "Pure Land Sect"...although Amitaba is decidedly the most notable character of this type of Buddhism, followers still aren't really expected to 'believe' that Amitaba is actually a non-incarnate Buddha...that is, that he actually exists (or does not exist, or arises, or does not arise, or that he is future, past, or present...and on and on). They can, and it's all good, but they don't really have to, at all, to follow the "Pure Land" way.

I've found that in Buddhism, from text to text, it seems that many different beliefs are accepted or rejected. But I cannot find many instances when these particular beliefs are strictly upheld as being so. Despite the thousands of 'beliefs' that Buddha speaks of throughout the texts of various sects and eras of Buddhism, I have still found that Watts was correct when he said that," Ultimately, ideas are quite incidental to Buddhism." Though, I realize that this tricky to explain in juxtaposition to the deity-filled texts of Buddhism. I also think that it is this underpinning of pointing at something beyond ideas that universally links so many varied Buddhist schools of thought or practice. I simply think that if someone were to come to the Buddha particularly hung up on Brahman for one reason or another, it wouldn't at all be unlikely that the Buddha might tell that person, in so many words, that the issue is moot so far as attaining Nirvana.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

the Suttas relate that the tradition is called "The Doctrine and Discipline" by the Buddha so it very much has a core doctrine which is upheld as being correct.

the Tipitaka affirms the existence of deities and devas yet it denies the existence of a Creator Deity. the English language word "gods" or "god" connote beings which are not really the same, generally speaking, as the sorts of deities which are talked about. in any event, the Suttas relate the Buddha Shakyamuni being the teacher of men and gods/devas and several of them relate the Buddha ascending to the heavenly states to teach the Dharma to the gods.

I am certainly aware of Buddhism's "Wheel of Becoming", for instance, which involves both gods (devas), demons (asuras), and ghosts (pretas). I assume that most that practice Buddhism are familiar with this...however, I hardly think that a formal acceptance or denial of these entities was in any way core to Buddhist practice. Perhaps it was part of Buddhist belief, but Buddhist belief has always been known to be something that, at best, points at the "truth"...and, because of this, there is nothing really final about it in the same sense that, say, it is a pretty fundamental and necessary belief and 'final' belief of Christianity that Jesus was the Son of God. Again, correct me if I am wrong here, Vad.

in terms of ones day to day practice, however, such considerations are not really relevant.

Indeed. I would furthermore posit that, by and large, one's day to day practice is that which is emphasized to the utmost over almost everything else, and certainly before any formal 'acceptance', or otherwise, of the many deities that Buddhism describes or seems to deny.