Basic buddhist concepts analysed in a Christian website
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
So it seems that in Buddhism everything (as in everything) changes and nothing (as in really nothing) does not change. And the fact of change is = emptiness. Am I correct?
This view is certainly different from Christianity which teaches that only God is immutable, who is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
for us, change is the only constant. yes.as we said 万法皆空---å› æžœä¸�空. the process of change is not empty.
happiness become suffering/unsatisfactoriness , but suffering cannot become happiness. hence suffering is real. process of changing is real. in line with the 3 marks of existence. impermanence. First Noble truth.
even Buddha "suffer" karma of the past.
“ä¸�æ˜§å› æžœ”æ˜¯ä»€ä¹ˆï¼Ÿå¯¹äºŽå› æžœæŠ¥åº”æ¸…æ¸…æ¥šæ¥šã€�明明白白。他说“ä¸�è�½å› æžœ”，就是没有果报，这就错了，这个å—ç”错了，是“ä¸�æ˜§å› æžœ”；就是诸佛è�©è�¨åˆ°ä¸–é—´æ�¥å�—ä¸�å�—果报？å�—果报，虽å�—果他清楚ã€�ä»–æ˜Žäº†ã€‚è¿™ä¸ªæžœæŠ¥æ˜¯ä»€ä¹ˆåŽŸå› ï¼Œæ˜¯å“ªä¸€ä¸–ã€�哪一生ã€�å“ªä¸€åŠ«é€ çš„ï¼Œæ¸…æ¸…æ¥šæ¥šã€�明明白白。虽å�—果报，也ä¸�起心ã€�也ä¸�动念，这是大修行人。ä¸�åƒ�我们，我们å�—苦报ä¸�甘心ã€�ä¸�æƒ…æ„¿ï¼Œæ€¨å¤©å°¤äººï¼Œç½ªä¸ŠåŠ ç½ªã€‚ä»–ä»¬å�—æžœæŠ¥æ— æ‰€è°“ï¼ŒçŸ¥é�“å‰�å› å�Žæžœï¼Œè¿™æ˜¯è·Ÿå‡¡å¤«ä¸�相å�Œçš„地方。（净空法师《佛å¦é—®ç”》）
but also we have the end of suffering in the fouth Noble truth.
The four noble truths are:
- The truth of dukkha (suffering, anxiety, stress)
- The truth of the origin of dukkha
- The truth of the cessation of dukkha
- The truth of the path leading to the cessation of dukkha
immutable? are the æ— ä¸ºæ³• or å…ç§�æ— ä¸º that include Nirvana, and space itself etc.
/\
-
:) go back to basic:
The four noble truths :
- The truth of dukkha (suffering, anxiety, stress)
- The truth of the origin of dukkha
- The truth of the cessation of dukkha
- The truth of the path leading to the cessation of dukkha
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
I understand the possible breeding of ill will.
However, we are within a confine of a Buddhist discussion forum to raise awareness. And also personally refining my views especially if I am holding any false views. Also,neither is there any conscious attempt to denigrate.
The Lord Buddha did not steer away for any debate, we should emulate his compassion.
Another thing to ponder, Mangala Suttanta, discourse on blessings,of which one sentence:”religious discussion at due season, that is the highest blessing.”yep agreed. But Lord Buddha also doesn't force people to believe his teachings. Anyway, there's one sutta i like it... the Cula-Saccaka Sutta
Lord Buddha in debate with a cheap debater
-
Because I see a future Buddha.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Indeed.
-
Love, hate and fears are emotional process of "I", that is why we cannot find them. Similiarly "Self" is the continuous series of processes of the consciousness of the living body, that's why we mistaken it asa independent entity and yet we are unable to locate it!Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. The human being is body/soul/spirit, comprising the material and immaterial aspects. The body is the house whereas the self is the occupant if you like, it is complete and whole in this way. And because the self or "I" is the immaterial aspect it therefore makes little sense to ask where the "I" is located. Just like you cannot locate love, hate, fear, or thoughts.
2. Words are words, we use them to communicate. Truth claims can be true or false. That is what we try to examine as best as we can.
3. See #1 above. Just because we cannot locate an "I" in the body it does not mean there is no "I" or "self" or "me" to speak of. Again the point is that we are not just matter, but spirit/soul too.
4. The Bible does not teach God as a process, much less an all-encompassing or embracing principle. The Bible teaches that God is a Person, a Spirit who created the universe and all that is in it, be it things visible or invisible. God is distinct from His creation, and so should not be identified with the creation, or seen as being part of the creation.
-
Great story, thanks! Self is not easy to debunk, as most people see it as self evident. Nevertheless, one has to investigate and some "soul" searching pun intended to debunk no selfOriginally posted by 2009novice:
yep agreed. But Lord Buddha also doesn't force people to believe his teachings. Anyway, there's one sutta i like it... the Cula-Saccaka Sutta
Lord Buddha in debate with a cheap debater
-
-
Merry Christmas to all Christians!
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Misunderstood you indeed have.
Jesus laid down His life on His own accord. He CHOSE to do His Father's will. In His humanity He obeyed His Father even unto the cross. In John 10:17 Jesus said, "This is why the Father loves me—because I lay down my life, so that I may take it back again. No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again." In His humanity Jesus prayed and asked if the cup of suffering can pass by, and we know that it can. In Matt 26:53 Jesus said at the time of His arrest, "Or do you think that I cannot call on my Father, and that he would send me more than twelve legions of angels right now?" In the same way, in His humanity Jesus experienced the separation between God and man while He was on the cross bearing the sins of the whole world. It was a cry that pointed back to the OT Scripture, it was also to signify that the OT was being fulfilled in Christ, in that the work of atonement is being accomplished.
BTW, God is not an old man.
Jesus said, "No one has greater love than this—that one lays down his life for his friends." Acts of sacrifices are being done all over the world, we know of many who did so in the gun tragedy in the US. The teachers and staff willingly sacrificed themselves for the kids. The kids should not feel righteous (for that was not the purpose of saving their lives) but the kids should feel loved and treasured. Now you asked me, will I lay down my life for you? That depends on the purpose of the sacrifice, wouldn't it? It would be silly to die just because you ask me to!
Hi Bro-in -christ,
In my opinion, to use the Sandy Hook Elementary School is distasteful as a lot of innocent lives were lost on that day . Nonetheless, since you have brought it up as an illustration, I would take the opportunity to help you to see the difference between a blood sacrifice and a national tragedy.
In the Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre, the teachers acted out of a sense of professionalism to protect their charges. They made their commitment to protect the little ones and they do so willingly.
In a blood sacrifice, the victim get sacrificed unwillingly against his free will for the benefit of others. It is without reason and without consent.
Hence , it is imperative for you not to get mixed up between the two.
BTW, Bro-in -Christ, you have not answered my question.
Would you allow yourself to be sacrificed for the benefit of others?
So will it be a "yes" or "no"?
-
Just want to thank everyone who have contributed to this tread. Was very surprised at first when I saw so many posts from different people. Such lively exchanges between a Christian forum member and the Buddhist forum members here have really helped me a lot in clearing up previous doubts and misconceptions.
God bless, BroInChrist, for your patient and polite explanations of basic Christian concepts. You have brought up many relevant questions that I too would have asked during the entire conversation.
Sadhu, Amituofo to all for showing me how to respond to questions from Christians and I hope to continue to do better.
-
Originally posted by kuji-in:
Hi Bro-in -christ,
In my opinion, to use the Sandy Hook Elementary School is distasteful as a lot of innocent lives were lost on that day . Nonetheless, since you have brought it up as an illustration, I would take the opportunity to help you to see the difference between a blood sacrifice and a national tragedy.
In the Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre, the teachers acted out of a sense of professionalism to protect their charges. They made their commitment to protect the little ones and they do so willingly.
In a blood sacrifice, the victim get sacrificed unwillingly against his free will for the benefit of others. It is without reason and without consent.
Hence , it is imperative for you not to get mixed up between the two.
BTW, Bro-in -Christ, you have not answered my question.
Would you allow yourself to be sacrificed for the benefit of others?
So will it be a "yes" or "no"?
1. I don't see how using the school tragedy is distasteful as it was meant to illustrate the self-sacrifice of the teachers for the kids under their care. But frankly I don't see that as an act of professionalism at all. An act of self-sacrifice (dying for others) has IMO nothing to do with being professional which is more of a work ethic. There is nothing in the teaching profession, or any other profession for that matter, that stipulates you have to die for your students or clients or customers or that it is professional to do that, is there?
2. Yes, the teachers died willingly for their students, out of genuine love for them. This is no less than the love that God has for us all. Jesus died WILLINGLY for us and went to the cross, like a lamb led to the slaughter, for God so loved the world...you know the rest of the verse I think. Thus the comparison is apt and hardly distasteful.
3. I believe I did answer the question you posed to me. I said it depends. One doesn't just give up living just because you tell me to. What benefits are you talking about? In any case, whether I do lay down my life or be a coward when the time comes, it will be my call and mine only, not yours or anyone's else. But how is this at all relevant to the prior discussions? It does not call into question the willing atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for the sins of the world.
-
Originally posted by Spnw07:
Just want to thank everyone who have contributed to this tread. Was very surprised at first when I saw so many posts from different people. Such lively exchanges between a Christian forum member and the Buddhist forum members here have really helped me a lot in clearing up previous doubts and misconceptions.
God bless, BroInChrist, for your patient and polite explanations of basic Christian concepts. You have brought up many relevant questions that I too would have asked during the entire conversation.
Sadhu, Amituofo to all for showing me how to respond to questions from Christians and I hope to continue to do better.
You are most welcome. I try to be as helpful as possible. I think there are many Buddhists who have incorrect views of Christianity just as there are many Christians who have incorrect views of Buddhism.
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
Living being strive to live, it is an intrinsic part being alive. Only "I" of a person is capable of being jealous or any other emotions. Anger,selfishness, ignorance, desire, jealousy and pride all bring us misery. Being jealous is only relevant if "I" am alive and make a person unhappy because we crave to possess the object of our desire and wish to own it exclusively. Because "I" is mainly a construct, not found anywhere within the body, we accept it is simply of process of being human.
In the Christian worldview, God created us as humans in His image. It is the result of sin that brings us misery. It is precisely because we are humans and possess personhood that it makes sense, and most natural, to speak of you or I as distinct individuals who possess self. In my view, to try to locate the "self" or the "I" within the human body would fall under one of those "meaningless questions" category.
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
If you wish to say God is a process, a principle that embodies everything within the universe, then it needs neither accepting or not accepting because it, God simply is. No need to press the fact,
as God neither needs our approval or acceptence to exist.The Christian view of God is not a process or a principle, or some nebulous "force" that fills the universe. God is a divine being, a Person. Indeed God neither needs our approval or acceptance to exist. That, however, is not the interesting question. The more interesting question, and one of constant debate and the key subject of philosophy is the question, Does God exist?
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
for us, change is the only constant. yes.as we said 万法皆空---å› æžœä¸�空. the process of change is not empty.
happiness become suffering/unsatisfactoriness , but suffering cannot become happiness. hence suffering is real. process of changing is real. in line with the 3 marks of existence. impermanence. First Noble truth.
even Buddha "suffer" karma of the past.
“ä¸�æ˜§å› æžœ”æ˜¯ä»€ä¹ˆï¼Ÿå¯¹äºŽå› æžœæŠ¥åº”æ¸…æ¸…æ¥šæ¥šã€�明明白白。他说“ä¸�è�½å› æžœ”，就是没有果报，这就错了，这个å—ç”错了，是“ä¸�æ˜§å› æžœ”；就是诸佛è�©è�¨åˆ°ä¸–é—´æ�¥å�—ä¸�å�—果报？å�—果报，虽å�—果他清楚ã€�ä»–æ˜Žäº†ã€‚è¿™ä¸ªæžœæŠ¥æ˜¯ä»€ä¹ˆåŽŸå› ï¼Œæ˜¯å“ªä¸€ä¸–ã€�哪一生ã€�å“ªä¸€åŠ«é€ çš„ï¼Œæ¸…æ¸…æ¥šæ¥šã€�明明白白。虽å�—果报，也ä¸�起心ã€�也ä¸�动念，这是大修行人。ä¸�åƒ�我们，我们å�—苦报ä¸�甘心ã€�ä¸�æƒ…æ„¿ï¼Œæ€¨å¤©å°¤äººï¼Œç½ªä¸ŠåŠ ç½ªã€‚ä»–ä»¬å�—æžœæŠ¥æ— æ‰€è°“ï¼ŒçŸ¥é�“å‰�å› å�Žæžœï¼Œè¿™æ˜¯è·Ÿå‡¡å¤«ä¸�相å�Œçš„地方。（净空法师《佛å¦é—®ç”》）
but also we have the end of suffering in the fouth Noble truth.
The four noble truths are:
- The truth of dukkha (suffering, anxiety, stress)
- The truth of the origin of dukkha
- The truth of the cessation of dukkha
- The truth of the path leading to the cessation of dukkha
immutable? are the æ— ä¸ºæ³• or å…ç§�æ— ä¸º that include Nirvana, and space itself etc.
/\
It is rather oxymoronic to speak of change as the only constant, don't you think?
Anyway, the issue is not that we observe changes around us, the issue is that we explain why something even exists at all. I think our quest for answers to life's questions will not be complete if the question of origins is not pondered upon, or worse if it is just being dismissed as unimportant, meaningless or irrelevant. The question of suffering revolves also around the question of origins. Living things suffer now. But where do living things come from? Where does life come from? Such questions are connected somehow, do you agree?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
It is rather oxymoronic to speak of change as the only constant, don't you think?
Anyway, the issue is not that we observe changes around us, the issue is that we explain why something even exists at all. I think our quest for answers to life's questions will not be complete if the question of origins is not pondered upon, or worse if it is just being dismissed as unimportant, meaningless or irrelevant. The question of suffering revolves also around the question of origins. Living things suffer now. But where do living things come from? Where does life come from? Such questions are connected somehow, do you agree?
same goes the other way around. what come before God? it's like saying what come before 1? ok, zero, than before zero is -1, then -2 etc. to us there's no end. but we say Tao, or cause and effect or Change just is. but it's not a Living entity with emotion, feeling and all.
/\
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
In the Christian worldview, God created us as humans in His image. It is the result of sin that brings us misery. It is precisely because we are humans and possess personhood that it makes sense, and most natural, to speak of you or I as distinct individuals who possess self. In my view, to try to locate the "self" or the "I" within the human body would fall under one of those "meaningless questions" category.
"God created us as humans in His image"meaning god created humans as how he sees(his image) of humans should be? or he created us in accordance to how he himself is? thats prior to the sin created from eating the apples i suppose?
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
same goes the other way around. what come before God? it's like saying what come before 1? ok, zero, than before zero is -1, then -2 etc. to us there's no end. but we say Tao, or cause and effect or Change just is. but it's not a Living entity with emotion, feeling and all.
/\
Asking what comes before God is not a coherent question at all, because God does not exist in time. In fact, time is created by God because time has a beginning. To say change just is, is not explaining anything about the existence of anything. Change is simply what transpires between any two states for the object/subject. But where did the object/subject come from? The issue of existence is distinct from the issue of change. Change is predicated on existence. If there is nothing, then there is no change to speak about.
There is no reality in minus zero if you get what I mean. It is a mathematical abstract term. There is no real thing as a -1. It simply does not exist in reality. If you know, please show me. Sure, we can have a temperature scale that runs in minus degrees but it is simply a mathematical measurement of how cold things are. Even if your bank balance shows minus, it is merely a symbol of debt on your part. The use of minus zero is only mathematical and in abstract terms. You cannot touch or handle -$3000. Either you have no cows or you have more than one cow, you cannot have a minus zero cow or entity.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
"God created us as humans in His image"meaning god created humans as how he sees(his image) of humans should be? or he created us in accordance to how he himself is? thats prior to the sin created from eating the apples i suppose?
When you see yourself in the mirror you see an image of yourself. In the same way, God has created us such that we reflect Him, or aspects of Him, to be more theologically precise. In theological terms in refers to the communicable attibutes of God. Sin only ruins the image of God in mn, but does not remove or obliviate it. And the Bible does not say that it was an apple that Adam ate.
-
to us the concept of Dharmakaya is also unexpainable and not confine by time/space or anything else.
/\
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
to us the concept of Dharmakaya is also unexpainable and not confine by time/space or anything else.
/\
The Christian view of God is that He is the Creator who is infinite. While His infinite being cannot be fathomed or comprehended, He can make Himself known to and by His creation. As a Person, God willed the universe into existence from nothing and created man with rational faculties and the ability to know Him. God created man in His image, thus man has moral faculties. God is not an impersonal force, for an impersonal force has no moral faculties. How does the concept of Dharmakaya make sense of our moral faculties and why we are moral beings?
-
we combine with the transformation-bodies of Dharmakaya. Buddha consist of Dharmakaya, the Truth Body, the Bliss body and the transformation bodies.
by the Venerable Master Hsuan Hua
The general import of this section of text is that basically we are
all Buddhas. Well, then, if we originally were Buddhas, how did we
become ordinary beings? And why haven’t living beings become
Buddhas? Where does the problem lie? Originally we were no
different from a Buddha. But living beings can be transformed from
within the Buddha nature. How are they transformed? The Buddhas
have millions of transformation bodies which come out of their
light and nature. The Buddha-nature is light; but that refers to the
wonderful light of basic enlightenment. Basic enlightenment is the
natural inherent enlightenment of us all, and it is also the Buddha’s
light. And it is from within this light that the beings are transformed.
To illustrate this point, I will use an analogy which is not
totally apt, but which will suffice to make the principle clear. A
transformation body of the Buddha is like a photograph of a person,
except that the photograph has no awareness – it’s inanimate –
where as the Buddha’s photographs are transformations. By transformation
he produces a person whose nature comes from the
Buddha and whose features have a likeness to the Buddha’s.
It’s also like a reflection in a mirror. When we pass by the
mirror there is a reflection; once we’ve gone by it disappears. The
Buddha’s transformation-bodies are like this, too. Basic enlightenment
is like the mirror. Suddenly in the mirror an image appears;
this is likened to the arisal of the first ignorant thought. As soon as
that thought arises, living beings come into existence.
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
The general import of this section of text is that basically we are
all Buddhas. Well, then, if we originally were Buddhas, how did we
become ordinary beings? And why haven’t living beings become
Buddhas? Where does the problem lie? Originally we were no
different from a Buddha. But living beings can be transformed from
within the Buddha nature. How are they transformed? The Buddhas
have millions of transformation bodies which come out of their
light and nature. The Buddha-nature is light; but that refers to the
wonderful light of basic enlightenment. Basic enlightenment is the
natural inherent enlightenment of us all, and it is also the Buddha’s
light. And it is from within this light that the beings are transformed.
To illustrate this point, I will use an analogy which is not
totally apt, but which will suffice to make the principle clear. A
transformation body of the Buddha is like a photograph of a person,
except that the photograph has no awareness – it’s inanimate –
where as the Buddha’s photographs are transformations. By transformation
he produces a person whose nature comes from the
Buddha and whose features have a likeness to the Buddha’s.
It’s also like a reflection in a mirror. When we pass by the
mirror there is a reflection; once we’ve gone by it disappears. The
Buddha’s transformation-bodies are like this, too. Basic enlightenment
is like the mirror. Suddenly in the mirror an image appears;
this is likened to the arisal of the first ignorant thought. As soon as
that thought arises, living beings come into existence.
The teaching or claim is that all living beings are basically buddhas, or enlightened ones. Where did these buddhas come from? But why would these enlightened ones be transformed into un-enlightened ordinary beings? It would seem to also imply that we have always existed for eternity, does it not, but only in different bodies and forms?
-
Thich Nhat Hanh Says...
"Enlightenment, for a wave in the ocean, is the moment the wave realizes it is water."
there's no "transformation" to unenlighten being, as wave is already a part of the ocean. water is the Buddha-nature that both wave and ocean have originally.
Q: You have said that according to Buddhist philosophy there is no Creator, no God of creation, and this may initially put off many people who believe in a divine principle. Can you explain the difference between the Vajrayana Primordial Buddha and a Creator God?
A: I understand the Primordial Buddha, also known as Buddha Samantabhadra, to be the ultimate reality, the realm of the Dharmakaya-- the space of emptiness--where all phenomena, pure and impure, are dissolved. This is the explanation taught by the Sutras and Tantras. However, in the context of your question, the tantric tradition is the only one which explains the Dharmakaya in terms of Inherent clear light, the essential nature of the mind; this would seem imply that all phenomena, samsara and nirvana, arise from this clear and luminous source. Even the New School of Translation came to the conclusion that the "state of rest" of a practitioner of the Great Yoga--Great Yoga implies here the state of the practitioner who has reached a stage in meditation where the most subtle experience of clear light has been realized--that for as long as the practitioner remains in this ultimate sphere he or she remains totally free of any sort of veil obscuring the mind, and is immersed in a state of great bliss.
We can say, therefore, that this ultimate source, clear light, is close to the notion of a Creator, since all phenomena, whether they belong to samsara or nirvana, originate therein. But we must be careful in speaking of this source, we must not be led into error. I do not mean chat there exists somewhere, there, a sort of collective clear light, analogous to the non-Buddhist concept of Brahma as a substratum. We must not be inclined to deify this luminous space. We must understand that when we speak of ultimate or inherent clear light, we are speaking on an individual level.
Likewise, when we speak of karma as the cause of the universe we eliminate the notion of a unique entity called karma existing totally independently. Rather, collective karmic impressions, accumulated individually, are at the origin of the creation of a world. When, in the tantric context, we say that all worlds appear out of clear light, we do not visualize this source as a unique entity, but as the ultimate clear light of each being. We can also, on the basis of its pure essence, understand this clear light to be the Primordial Buddha. All the stages which make up the life of each living being--death, the intermediate state, and rebirth--represent nothing more than the various manifestations of the potential of clear light. It is both the most subtle consciousness and energy. The more clear light loses its subtlety, the more your experiences take shape.
In this way, death and the intermediate state are moments where the gross manifestations emanating from clear light are reabsorbed. At death we return to that original source, and from there a slightly more gross state emerges to form the intermediate state preceding rebirth. At the stage of rebirth, clear light is apparent in a physical incarnation. At death we return to this source. And so on. The ability to recognize subtle clear light, also called the Primordial Buddha, is equivalent to realizing nirvana, whereas ignorance of the nature of clear light leaves us to wander in the different realms of samsaric existence.
This is how I understand the concept of the Primordial Buddha. It would be a grave error to conceive of it as an independent and autonomous existence from beginningless time. If we had to accept the idea of an independent creator, the explanations given in the Pramanavartika, the "Compendium of Valid Knowledge" written by Dharmakirti, and in the ninth chapter of the text by Shantideva, which completely refutes the existence per se of all phenomena, would be negated. This, in turn, would refute the notion of the Primordial Buddha. The Buddhist point of view does not accept the validity of affirmations which do not stand up to logical examination. If a sutra describes the Primordial Buddha as an autonomous entity, we must be able to interpret this assertion without taking it literally. We call this type of sutra an "interpretable" sutra.
Dalai Lama's answer.
ps: we and Buddhas sits at equal level. unlike you all always sit under God. Buddhism is more into democracy already, while u all are still into imperialism.
-
Without the clinging to "Self", we do not require the carriage of eternal soul, much less a belief in God. We need to perpetuate our existence and wishing to continue our existence beyond death. With the belief of Eternal God perhaps we may sleep better knowing there is an afterlife. But since God is not self evidencing, God adherents simply attribute events and occurrence to God and his omnipotence!Originally posted by BroInChrist:
In the Christian worldview, God created us as humans in His image. It is the result of sin that brings us misery. It is precisely because we are humans and possess personhood that it makes sense, and most natural, to speak of you or I as distinct individuals who possess self. In my view, to try to locate the "self" or the "I" within the human body would fall under one of those "meaningless questions" category.